G en. 17] 17

CO M M UNI TY CO LLEGES

H I ST ORI C P RE SE RVAT I ON

– C OMMUNI T Y C OLLEGE P ROJ E CT S UB J E CT T O S TATE , B UT N OT L OCA L , H IST O R IC P RE SE RVAT I ON R E GUL AT I ON

Febr uar y27, 2002

C l yde “ R ocky” So rrel l

, Esquir e G ener alC ouns el Mont gom er y C ol l ege
Y ou have a sk ed forouropi ni on w het hert he M ar y l and H i s t or i cal T rustort he M ont gom er yC ount yH i s t or i c Pr es er vat i on C o m m iss io n h a s ju risd ictio n o v e r tw o c a p ital p rojec ts p ro p o se d to be cons t r uct ed byM ont gom er yC ol l ege ( t he “Col l ege ” ) o n St a t e l and adj ace ntt o i t s T akoma Par k campus. Y ou i ncl uded w i t h y ourl et t er a mem or andum anal y zi ng t hi s i s s ue, i n w hi ch y ou concl uded t hatt he M ary l and H i st ori c a l T rustw ou l d h ave jur i sdi ct i on ov er these p roje c ts

. W e have r evi ew ed t he mat t erand agr ee w i t h y ourconcl us i ons t hatt he pr oj ect s ar e s ubj ectt o t he consul t at i ve pr oces s of t he M ary land H ist o ri ca l T rust an d that they are n o t su b ject t o the w o rk p e rm it p ro c e ss a d m in iste re d b y th e M o n tg o m e ry C o u n ty H is to ric Pr es er vat i on C om m i s s i on.

I
Backg r ound

A

. T h e P ro jec ts

T he Takom a P ar k campus of t he C ol l ege i s cur r ent l ys epar at ed bya r i ght

- of- w ay , w hi ch cont ai ns r ai l r oad and subw ayt r acks , fr om the J es up B l ai rPar k ( t he “Park”) , a publ i c park es t abl i s hed byt he S tat e o f M ary land in the ea rl y 1 9 3 0 ' s p u rsua n t to a d ev ise o f th e p ark pr oper ty to the S ta t e i n t he w i l l of V i ol etB l ai rJ ani n. I n 1933, t he St at e ac cept ed t he park pr oper t y , t ogethe rw i t h t he t er m s and condi t i ons of t he devi s e, and author i zed the M ar y l and- N at i onal C api t al Par k and P l anni ng C om m i s s i on ( “M N C PPC ”) t o pr ovi de for t he perpetual m ai nt enanc e of the pr oper t y as “a par k open t o t he1 8 [8 7 O p

. A tt ’y

We h avebe e n a dv ise d th at Jes up B la ir Park is theon ly

prop e rt y 1 manag ed by

the MNCPP C that is held i n the name of the State, as opposed to a county

or the MNCPPC i tself.

We u nd e rs tand that t he Co lle g e is c ur re ntly wo rkingwi th 2 consultants to assess the elig ibility of the Blair Mansion for listi ngon the Natio na l Re g ist e r o f H ist oric Pla c e s. Th e ob lig atio n o f a Statea g e nc y

to consult with the Maryland Historical Trust reg ardinga ca pital project depe nd s o n whe the r a

po te nti a lly

a ff e c te d p ro pe rt

y is “ lis te d in

or e lig ibl e for the Maryland Reg ister of Historic Properties.” Annotated Co d e of Mary land , Art ic le83 B , § 5- 61 7. Th e Mary land Re g ist e r o f H ist oric Pr op e rt ie s inc lud e s “a ll pr op e rt ie s liste d in or d e te rm ine d .

.. to b e e lig ibl e for listing in the N ational Reg ister of Historic Plac es.” Id. , §5-615(b)

. publ i c, ” and t o t ake pos s es s i on of, m anage , and contr ol t he park. C h a p te r 5 0 5 , L a w s o f

M a ryla n d 1 9 3 3 , now codi f i ed at A nnot at ed C ode of M ar y l and, A r t i cl e 28, §5- 10 6

. T h e Par k cont ai ns an 1 hi s tori c r es i dence , know n as t he B l ai rM ans i on, w hi ch has been in c lu d e d b yM o n tg o m e ryC o u n tyin it s M a ste r P lan f o r H isto ric Pr es er vat i on. 2

A ppare n tl yb ec au se th e C o ll ege’ s curr entT akoma Par k campus l acks r oom for ne w bui l di ngs , C ol l ege e xpans i on pl ans have pr opos ed l i m i t ed us e of the Jesu p B l ai rPar k. T he M N C PPC has appr oved a pr opos al under w hi ch t he M N C PPC w oul d l eas e t o t he C o lleg e , fo r a n o m in a l su m , su f f icie n t ac r e a g e w ith in th e P a rk to h o ld a c u lt u ra l ar ts c e n ter (to b e n a m e d th e “ V io let B lair J a n in C ul t ur al A r t s C ent er ”) and a pedes t r i an br i dge t hat w oul d al l ow for pas s age ove rt he r ai l r oad and s ubw ay t r acks bet w een the exi s t i ng T akoma Par k campus and t hat C ent er and t he Par k. Som e i nt er es t ed ci t i zen gr oups have a l l ege d tha tcons t r uct i on of t he pr oj ect s i n t he Par k w oul d r es ul ti n t he des t r uct i on of l arg e num ber s of anc i ent tre e s, a n a ss e t o f

th e P a rk p r o p e rtyh ig h lyv a lu e d b yV io let B lair J a n in , a n d in s ig n if

ic a n t a d v e rs e im p a c ts to th e B la ir M a n s io n

. B

. State and C ount

y R egulatory Schem es f ort he P r es er vati on of H is tor i c Str uct ure s

In a sm u c h a s t h e C o lle g e c a p ital p rojec ts p o se a t lea st a pot ent i al t hr eat t o t he B l ai rM ans i on and i t s envi r onm ent al s et t i ng, t he ques t i on has ar i s en w het hert he pr oj ect s ar e s ubj ectt o r evi ew or a p p ro v a l u n d e r S ta te a n d C o u n ty h is to ri c p re s e rv a tio n la w s

.G en. 17] 19

A r t i c l e 8 3 B of

t h e Ann o t a t e d Cod e o f M a r y l a n d , § § 5

- 617 t hroug h 5 -619, est abli shes a schem e un der w hich “Stat e un i t s” m ust
c o n sul t w i t h the M ary l and H i st ori cal T rust i n conn ect i on w ith
c e rta in c a p ital p rojec ts. F o r p u rp o se s o f th e sta tu te, a “ S tate u n it” is defined b roadl yas fol l ow s:

(1 ) “ S tate u n it” m e a n s a u n it o f th e S tate g o v e rn m e n t. ( 2) E xcept as pr ovi ded i n p ara g rap h ( 3) of thi s subsect i on , “S t at e un i t ” i ncludes: ( i ) a uni ti n a pr i nci pal depar t m entof th e E x e c u tiv e B ra n c h o f th e S tate go vernm e n t; and ( i i ) th e g o v e rn in g b o d y o f a sin g le
c o u n t y o rm u l t i c o u n t y d i s t r i c to ra u t h o r i t y. ( 3) “St at e uni t ” does noti ncl ude: ( i ) t he b o a r d o f

r e v i e w of

a pr i nci pal d e p a rtm e n t; ( i i ) t he gover ni ng bod y o f a l ocal gover nm ent ; or ( i i i ) a u n it that a l ocal gover nm ent creat es.
A r t i cl e 83B , §5- 601( x) ( i ncorpor at i ng byr efe r ence A nnot at ed C ode of M ar y l and, S t at e G over nm entA r t i cl e, §11- 101( i ) )

. I n addi t i on, c o n su ltatio n w ith th e M a ry lan d H isto ric a l T ru st i s re q u ire d “ p rio r to appr oval of t he us e of the pr ocee ds of St at e gene r al obl i gat i on bonds b yth e B o a rd o f

P u b lic W o rk s .” A rt ic le 8 3 B , § 5 -6 1 7 (a ).

T h e G e n e ra l A ss e m b lyh a s a lso a u th o riz e d lo c a l g o v e rn m e n ts t o enac thi s t or i c pr es er vat i on l aw s

. W i t h i n t he M ar y l andW a s h in g to n R e g io n a l D is tr ic t, A n n o ta te d C o d e o f M a r yla n d , A rticle2 0 [8 7 O p

. A tt ’y

The Ge neral Assembly o ri gi nally deleg ated a

uthority to local 3 g overnme nts to enac t historic prese rvation l aws in the g eneral statewide zoning ena

bling a ct. SeeChapter 874, L aws of Ma ryland, 1963, now c od ifi e d in Annotated Code of Mary land, Article 6 6 B, § 8.01 et seq

. In 1975, the L eg islature recodified that authority , for c harte r counties other than Montg omery

and PrinceGeorg e’s Counties, in the Express Powers Act and , for Montgomery and P rince Georg e’s Count ies, in the Reg ional District Act. Chapter 70, L aws of Ma ryland 1975, enacting

Article 25A , §5(B B) ; Chapter 892, L aws of Ma ryland 1975, enacting Article 66D , §8- 101(c) , now codified as Article 28, §8- 101(c) . A year l at er, theGene ral As s emb ly

amende d Article 25A , §5(B B) to clarify that char ter c ounties had the same power s to enac t histor i c p rese rvation laws a s non-cha rter counties had under

Article 66B . Chapter 477, L aws of Ma ryland 1976. Materia ls in the leg islative file for Cha pter 477, submitted by

the Attorney Gen er al’s Of

ficeand the Department of State Planning , state that the purpose of

the 1975 and 1976 bil ls was to transfe r the a uthorization for hist oric p re se rv atio n la

ws from Art ic le66 B , whic h d oe s n ot g e ne rally
a pp ly to c ha rt e r c ounti e s, and to cl ari fy that this autho ri ty is i n a dditi on

to oth e r p lann ingand

zon inga uth ority in c hart er pr ov isi on s o r l oc a l la ws

. State me nt a

nd Expl anatio n on Ho us e B ill 11 51 (1 97 6) ; L e tte r of Vl a dim ir Wahbe, Secr etar

y of State Planning , to J oseph E. Owe ns, Chairman, House Judiciary

Commi ttee (F ebrua

ry 18, 1976).

Yo ur qu e sti on a pp e ars to a ssume that a proje c t may besu bje c t to 4 revie w by either a local historic pre servation commissi on or the Mar yland Historical Trust, but not both. Howeve r, nothing in the pertinent statutes or ordinanc es mandates that a proje ct subject to local historic pre servation revie w would be automatically exempt from S tate re view, or vic e ver sa. Be causewe conclude that the C olleg e projects are subject t o revie w under one sche me but not th e other, we ne ed not addr ess the question whe ther (continued...) 2 8 , § 8 -10 1 (c) au tho ri ze s the M o n tg o m e ryan d P ri n ce G eo rge ’s D i st ri ct C ou ncil s t o en act his t ori c preser vati on regul at i on s. 3 I m pl ement i ng t hi s aut hor i t y , t he M ont gom er y C ount y C ode s et s out
a sc h e m e , ad m in iste r e d b yth e M o n tg o m e ryC o u n tyH isto ric P re se rv a tio n C o m m iss io n , u n d e r w h ich a n h isto ric a re a w o rk p e rm it
m us t be obt ai ned forw or k on publ i c orpr i vat e pr oper t ycont ai ni ng a n h isto ric re so u rc e d e sig n a ted in th e M a ste r P lan f o r H isto ric P rese rva ti o n

. M o n tgo m eryC o u n ty C o d e, C h ap ter 24 A , § § 2 4 A -1 th ro u g h 2 4 A -1 3

. Y o u h av e a sk ed fo r o u r o p inion o n w h ich o f th ese reg u lat o ry sch em es a p p li es to the c ap it al p rojec ts aff ec ti n g the J esu p B lai r P ark and B l ai r M ans i on. I n t he m emora ndum acc om pany ing y o ur 4G en. 17] 21

(...continued) 4 bo th s c he me s mi ght a

pp ly in o the r c irc ums tanc e s.
You havenot asked, and we do not a ddress, the que stion whether 5 jurisdiction of the Montgome ry County H is to ricPre s er

v a ti o n Co mmission over projects aff

ectinghistoric resources might ext end to a project of a local public entity

. See An na po lisv . A nn eArun de l Co un ty , 271 Md. 265, 316 A.2d 807 (1974). N or do weaddre ss the question whethe r ca pital projec ts sponsored by

the MNC P P C wo u l dbe subjec t to the State and County historic prese rvation sche mes. re q u e st, y o u c o n c lu d e d th a t th e C o lleg e is a S tate , rath e r th a n a lo c a l,
a g e n c ya n d th a t it s c a p ital p rojec ts a re th e re f o re su b jec t to th e S tate h isto ric p re se rv a tio n sc h e m e e m b o d ie d in A rticle 8 3 B o f th e S tate C ode, and nott o t he l ocal s cheme s etfor t h i n C hapt er24A of t he C ount yC ode. 5

II

A n a ly sis

A

. Marylan d Histori cal Tru st P rocess

I n ourvi ew , beca us e t he C ol l ege’ s pr oj ect s i nvol ve t he us e of St at e bond pr ocee ds , t heyw ou ld be s ubj ectt o t he M ar y l and H i s t or i ca l T rust co n su lt ati o n p roc ess e v en if t h ey w ere n o t spo n sor ed bya “St at e uni t

. ” I f t he C ol l ege i s a “St at e uni t, ” then it w o ul d be
r equi r ed t o compl yw i t h t he H i s t or i cal T r us t pr oces s for t hatr eas on a s w e ll.

B

. L oca l

H istori c P reser vation P rocess
1

. A p p li ca ti o n o f L o c a l H is to r ic P r e s e r v a ti o n S c h e m e s to St at e E nt i t i es

T he gene r al r ul e i s t hatt he St at e i s nots ubj ectt o l ocal zoni ng l aw s unl es s t he G ener al A s s embl yhas cl ear l yi ndi cat ed i t s i nt ent i on th a t th e S ta te b e b o u n d

. See 85 O pi ni ons of

t he At t or ney G ener al 114, 116- 17 ( 2000) B as ed on t hat r ul e and a r evi ew of hi s t or i c ar ea zoni ng enabl i ng l egi s l at i on, A t t or ney G ener al B ur ch conc l uded t hat S tate p rojec ts d id n o t h a v e to o b tain th e a p p ro v a l o f a lo c a l h isto ric pr es er vat i on comm i s s i on. 58 O pi ni ons of

t he At t or ney G ener al512 (19 7 3 ).2 2 [8 7 O p

. A tt ’y

In M ontg ome ry

County , the Go ve rn or

a pp oints m e mbe rs from a 6 lis t de ve lop e d b y

a no min atin gc omm itt ee of Mo ntg ome ry

Cou nty residents a

ppointed by

the County

Council, the County Ex ecutive, and the school’s alumni association; a student member is appointed without involvement of the Senate. ED §16-411. A y e a r af ter th a t o p in io n w a s issu e d , the C o u rt o f A p p e a ls h e ld t hatA nne A r undel C ount y w as r equi r ed t o obt ai n a per m i t fr om t he A n n a p o lis H isto ric P re se rv a tio n C o m m is sio n b e f o re th e c o u n ty
c o u ld ra z e a c h u rc h o n c o u n ty lan d w ith in th e A n n a p o li s h is to ric d i s tr ic t. C ity o

f A n n a p o lis v . A n n e A ru n d e l C o u n ty , 2 2 1 M d. 268, 316 A

. 2d 807 ( 1974)

. H ow ever , nei t heri n t hat cas e nor i n anyot her
c a se h a s th e C o u rt h e ld th a t th e S tate is s u b jec t to lo c a l h isto ric p re se rv a tio n law s. M o re o v e r, th e C o u rtof A p p e a ls h a s s u b se q u e n tly aff i r m ed t he gene r al r ul e t hatt he St at e i s notbound byl ocal zoni ng law s “u n less the G en era l A ssem b lyclea rl y in d icates a co n tr ary i nt ent

. ” P an A m er i can H eal t h O r ganiz at i on v. Mont

gom er y C ount y, 3 3 8 M d . 2 1 4 , 2 2 6 , 6 5 7 A .2 d 1 1 6 3 (1 9 9 5 ).

2. W het her C om m uni t y C ol l eges are St at e E nt i t i es
C o m m u n ityc o lleg e s a re lo c a lly o rie n ted a n d , to so m e e x ten t, l ocal l yfunded e nt i t i es t hatar e cr eate d bySt at e l aw

. A s s uch, t hey h av e c h ara cterist ics o f b o th S tat e a n d loca l a g e n cies. W h ethe r a comm uni t ycol l ege i s t r eat ed as a St at e orl ocal ent i t ydepends on t he par t i cularcont exti n w hi ch t he ques t i on ar i s es

. T hus , even though
a lo c a l g o v e rn m e n t is re sp o n sib le f o r f u n d in g a n a g e n c y , the c o u rts hav e held t hat the u nit c a n be a S t at e agen cyfor vari ou s purposes. R u c k e r v. H

a r fo r dC o u n ty , 316 M d. 275, 283- 85, 558 A

. 2d 399 ( 1 9 8 9 ) (q ues t i on of w het heragenc yi s St at e orl ocal depends on w het hercr eat i on and u lt im at e contr ol of age ncyl i es w i t h St at e or loca l go v ern m en t)

. T h e g o v e rn a n c e o f

a c o m m u n ityc o lleg e is co n tro lled b yS tate l aw

. T he St at e Educat i on A r t i cl e ( “ED ”) cr eat es a boar d of t r us t ees i n eac h count yt hathas one orm or e comm uni t ycol l eges

. E D §16- 101( a)

. T he mem ber s of t he boar d ar e appoi nt ed byt he G over nor w i t h t he advi ce a nd cons entof t he Senat e. E D §16- 101(c) ; §16- 411. T he boar d oper at es s ubj ectto the author i t yof t he M ar y l and 6 H i gher E ducat i on C om m i s s i on ( “M H E C ”) , a St at e age ncy

. E D §16- 1 0 3

. A comm uni t ycol l ege i s al s o t r eat ed as a local agenc yfor
c e rt a in p u rp o s e s . U n d e r th e L o c a l G o v e rn m e n t T o rt C la im s A c t, aG en. 17] 23

Th at la w w a s late r re vis e d an d ha s b e e n s uc c e e de d b y thePub lic 7 Ethics L a w , Ann o tated Code of Ma

ryland, State Gover

nment Article, §15- 101 et seq. Th e StateEthic s Co mmi ssi on , whic h is no w c ha rg e d w ith construingthat law in advisory opinions, has cons istently treated community

colleg es as St ate a g encie s for purpose s of the fina ncial disclosure a

nd seconda

ry employ ment provisions of the Public Ethics L aw. See State Ethics Commi ssion Opinions 96-03, 92- 6, 81-10, 80-21, 80-9, c om pile d in COMAR 19A. comm uni t ycol l ege i s cons i der ed a “l ocal gover nm ent

. ” A nnot at ed C ode of M ar y l and, C our t s & J udi ci al Pr ocee di ng s A r t i cl e, §5- 301( c) ( 9)

. A nd a comm u n i t ycol l ege i s gover ned byl ocal govern m ent i nves t m entgui del i nes

. A nnot at ed C ode of M ar y l and, A rt ic le 9 5 , § 2 2 F (a )( 6 )( ii)

. A comm uni t y col l ege i s funded bybot h t he countyand t he S ta te , a c c o rd in g to v a r i o u s s ta tu to ry f o rm u la s . E D § 1 6 -3 0 5 . A col l ege budge tm us tbe pr epar ed i n acc or dance w i t h count yfi s cal pr ocedur es and appr oved byt he countygover ni ng body

. E D §16- 3 0 1 (d )-(e ); see a lso E D §16- 304 ( aut hor i zi ng count ygover ni ng b o d ies to a p p ro p ria te f u n d s to e sta b lish a n d o p e ra te c o m m u n ity col l eges )

. C om m uni ty col l ege budge t s ar e t hus s ubj ectt o a l ocal gover nm ent ’ s “s pendi ng aff or dabi l i t y ” pr oces s

. 79 O pi ni ons of

t he A t t or ney G ener al34 ( 19 9 4 ). E ach c om m uni t ycol l ege i s t o be audi t ed annua l l yfor compl i ance w i t h M H E C gui del i nes as t o fi s cal and oper at i ng pr ocedur es

. E D §16- 315. W hi l e t he audi t m ay be per for m ed byt he Legi s l at i ve A udi t or , i tm ay al s o be per for m ed by a l ocal gover nm entaudi t orw i t h t he concur r ence of t he Legi s l at i ve A u d ito r. E D § 1 6 -3 1 5 (d ),( f ).

In a 1 9 7 3 o p in io n , A tto rn e yG e n e ra l B u rc h re v iew e d th e S tate l aw gover ni ng comm uni t y col l eges , w hi ch w as s ubs t ant i al l ys i m i l ar t o t he curr entpr ovi s i ons of t he Educat i on Ar t i cl e, and conc l uded t hat M o n tg o m e ryC o lleg e tru ste e s w e re lo c a l, rath e r th a n S tate , o f f icia ls forpurpos es of t he St at e l aw t hatt hen r equi r ed fi nanci al di s cl os ur es bycer t ai n publ i c off

i ci al s

. 58 O

pi ni on s o

f the A t t or ney G ener al 7 343, 365- 67 ( 1973)

. T hatconcl us i on r es t ed on t he l ocal natur e of t he col l ege a nd t he fa ctt hat , al t hough t he boar d of t r us t ees w as ap p o inted b ythe G o v ern o r, the b o ard ex erc ised it s p o w ers s ubs t ant i al l yfr ee f

r om St at e contr ol and s ubj ect t o t he fi s cal cont r ol
o f th e c o u n ty.
Shor t l yt her eaf

t er , how ever , t he C our tof A ppeal s concl uded t hata comm uni t ycol l ege i s a St at e age ncyforpurpos es of s over ei gn2 4 [8 7 O p

. A tt ’y

im m u n ity. B o a rdo

f T ru ste e s v . Jo h n K . R u

ff , I nc. , 2 7 8 M d. 580, 5 8 6 -8 7 , 3 6 6 A .2 d 3 6 0 (1 9 7 6 ); C har l es E

. B r ohaw n & B r os

. , I nc. v. B oar d of Trus t ees , 269 M d. 164, 304 A

. 2d 819 ( 1973)

. I n R u ff , t he C our tbas ed i t s hol di ng on t he S t at e i nt er es t i n publ i c educ at i on, t he hi s t or yof the creat i on of comm uni t ycol l eges byt he St at e, t he pow er s confe r r ed on t he boar ds of t r us t ees under publ i c gene r al l a w s , e xt e ns i ve St a t e fu nd i ng of t he s c ho ol s , a nd ot he rfa ct ors. Si m i l ar l y , t he C our t has hel d t hat beca us e a comm uni t y col l ege w as

“ c re a ted a n d c o n tro lled b yth e S tate ,” it w a s n o t b o u n d b yc o u n ty char t erpr ovi s i ons r egul at i ng t he r ece i pt and di s bur s ement of funds b yc o u n ty ag e n c ie s

. P r i nce G eor ge’s C ount

y v. B oar d of

Trus t ees , 2 7 1 M d . 2 1 , 2 7 , 3 1 3 A .2 d 6 7 8 (1 9 7 4 ).

T h e ra tio n a le o f

th o se c a se s le d A tto r n e yG e n e ra l S a c h s to concl ude t hata comm uni t ycol l ege i s a St at e age ncy for purpos es of t he St at e l aw t hatr equi r es agenc i es t o obt ai n t he appr oval of t he B oar d o f Pu b l i c W o r k s b e f o r e d i s p o s i n g o f a g e n c y p r o p e r t y

. 64 O pi ni ons of

t he At t or ney G ener al66 ( 1979)

. In rea chi ng t hat concl us i on, t he A t t or ney G ener al caut i oned: “A det er m i nat i on t hat a par t i cul ar ent i t y , es peci al l yone w i t h t r appi ngs of bot h a St at e and a l ocal agenc y , i s a St at e age ncyforcer t ai n purpos es d o es not
n e c e ss a rilyre q u ire th e c o n c lu sio n th a t itis a S tate a g e n c yf o r a ll p u rpo ses. R at her , w het hera par t i cul aragenc yi s a St at e orl ocal agen cy d epends upon the cont extw i t hi n w hi ch t he par t i cul ar ques t i on ar i s es

. ” Id . a t 7 0 n .1

. See a l so 62 O pi ni ons of

t he At t or ney G ener al743, 749 n. 3 ( 1977) ( not i ng t hata comm uni t ycol l ege may b e a S tat e a g en cy fo r som e p u rpo ses an d a co u n ty ag en cy fo r oth ers).

W e ar e aw ar e of no c as e l aw orot heraut hor i t yt hataddr es s es w het hera com m uni t y col l ege i s a St at e age ncyforpurpos es of l ocal hi s t or i c pr es erva ti on r egul at i on. H ow ever , s ever al as pect s of t he C ol l ege pr oj ect s aboutw hi ch y ou i nqui r e and of t he l aw gover ni ng M o n tg o m e ry C o lleg e su g g e st th a t th e se p rojec ts are S tat e p rojec ts
e x e m p t f ro m lo c a l h isto ric p re se rv a tio n re g u latio n . W ith re sp e c t to
re a l p ro p e rtyu se d b yM o n tg o m e ryC o ll e g e , the G e n e ra l A ss e m b ly has ves t ed l ocal offi ci al s w i t h aut hor i t yovers i t e s el ect i on. E D §16- 4 1 3 . W h ile th a t sta tu te d o e s n o t m a k e re f e re n c e to h isto ric preser vat i on r egul at i on orot herzoni ng r egul at i ons , i tdoes s peci fy th a t an ysite re c o m m e n d e d a n d a p p ro v e d f o r th e C o lleg e “ [ c ]o m p ly wi t h S t a t e r e g u l a t i o n s a n d

. . . [ c ] o n f o r m as f aras pr act i cal

w i t h t he lan d u se p lan s o f

th e c o u n ty .” E D § 1 6 -4 1 3 (a )(3 )(ii)-(iii) (e m p h a sis adde d )

. Th e l i mi t a t i o n o f l o c a l a u t h o r i t y t o s i t e s e l e c t i o n , t he
m andat e t hat t he si t e com pl yw i t h St at e r egul at i ons , and t he qual i fi ed
r efe r ence t o l ocal r egul at i on s ugges tt hatt he L eg i s l atur e di d not
con t em plat e t hat the C oll ege w ou l d b e full ysubjectt o local l and useG en. 17] 25

r egul at i on. M or eover , t hes e pr oj ect s ar e l ocat ed on St at e l and and, beca us e t heyar e par t i al l yfunded w i t h St at e bond pr ocee ds , are al r eadys ubj ectt o t he St at e hist or i c pr es er vat i on pr oces s

. I n our vi ew , t he pr oj ect s ar e exe m ptfr om l ocal hi s t or i c pr es er vat i on r egul at i on.

III

C oncl usi on

I n ouropi ni on, t he C ol l ege pr oj ect s ar e s ubj ectt o t he
c o n su ltativ e p ro c e ss o f th e M a ry lan d H isto ric a l T ru st u n d e r A rticle 83B and ar e nots ubj ectt o t he w ork p erm itpr oces s undert he M o nt gom er yC ount yC ode, admi ni s t er ed byt he M ont gom ery C ount yH i s t or i c Pr es er vat i on C om m i s s i on. W hi l e t he C ol l ege ne ed
n o t o b tain a w o rk p e rm it fro m th e M o n tg o m e ryC o u n tyH isto ric P re se rv a tio n C o m m iss io n , itm a yf in d it d e s ir a b le to v o lu n tar ily
so licit th e v iew s o f

th a t ag e n c ya n d o th e r in ter e ste d g ro u p s in
con necti on w i t h these or s i m i l ar pr oject s.
J. Jo sep h C u rran , Jr. A t t or ney G ener al

Ju d ith A . A rm o ld A s sista n t A tt o rn ey G eneral

R o b e rt N . M c D o n a ld C h ief C o u n se l, O pi ni ons and A dvi ce