Ellen M. Elbert, et al. v. Charles County Planning Commission, Nos. 1753 & 1754, 

September Term 2022. Opinion by Storm, J.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCEDURE – NATURE, REQUISITES, AND 

FINDINGS IN GENERAL

Administrative agency’s decisions must be accompanied by well-reasoned and articulated 

administrative findings so that the parties and any reviewing court may determine the 

reasons for the agency’s action.

ZONING AND PLANNING – FINDINGS REQUIRED 

Meaningful articulation of findings of fact and conclusions are necessary to allow a 

reviewing court to determine the basis of the agency’s action; otherwise, the agency’s 

decision may be deemed arbitrary. 
Circuit Court for Charles County 

Case Nos.: C-08-CV-20-000505 

 C-08-CV-20-000507 

REPORTED

IN THE APPELLATE COURT 

OF MARYLAND 

Nos. 1753 & 1754 

September Term, 2022 

ELLEN M. ELBERT, ET AL. 

v. 

CHARLES COUNTY 

PLANNING COMMISSION 

Wells, C.J., 

Nazarian, 

Storm, Harry C. 

 (Specially Assigned), 

JJ. 

Opinion by Storm, J. 

Filed: November 29, 2023 
Introduction 

In 1974, this Court commented that “[t]he [Supreme Court of Maryland]1 in recent 

years has shown increasing impatience with the failure of administrative boards, whether 

or not required by statute, to accompany their decisions by specific findings of fact.” Gough 

v. Board of Zoning Appeals for Calvert County, Maryland, 21 Md. App. 697, 702 (1974).2

In the case before us, the Charles County Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) 

approved two related site development plans (each referenced by the prefix “SDP”) to 

develop a distribution center and associated parking. The primary question for our 

determination is whether adequate factual findings accompanied these dual SDP approvals. 

In other words, were the bases for the approvals sufficiently articulated? 

Background 

The site development plans at issue were filed by Kaz Development, LLC 

(“Applicant”).3 SDP 20-0008 related to 65 Industrial Park Drive, Waldorf, Maryland4 and 

1

 At the November 8, 2022 general election, the voters of Maryland ratified a 

constitutional amendment changing the name of the Court of Appeals of Maryland to the 

Supreme Court of Maryland. The name change took effect on December 14, 2022. See also

Md. R. 1-101.1(a). 

2

 See also Turner v. Hammond, 270 Md. 41 (1973); Valenzia v. Zoning Board of 

Howard County, 270 Md. 478 (1973); Hooper v. Mayor and City Council of Gaithersburg, 

270 Md. 628 (1974); Baker v. Board of Trustees, 269 Md. 740, 747 (1973); Adams v. Board 

of Trustees, 215 Md. 188, 195 (1957). 

3

 The Applicant was operating on behalf of Amazon, LLC. 

4

 This application involves a 9.0-acre site on which there is an existing office 

building. The application sought approval to reconfigure the property to become a vehicle 

storage lot for a distribution warehouse. 
2

SDP 20-0033 related to the adjacent property at 9 Jay Gould Court.

5 Both properties are 

located in the Planned Unit Development (“PUD”) zone for Smallwood Village in Charles 

County. As such, development is governed by both the Charles County Code of Ordinances 

and Resolutions (“County Code”) and the Revised and Restated Docket 90 Order (the 

“Docket 90 Order”) adopted by the Charles County Commissioners. 

To develop property within the Smallwood Village PUD, as provided in the Docket 

90 Order, a site development plan must comport with the Smallwood Village Master Plan. 

Accordingly, site development plans within the Smallwood Village PUD are reviewed by 

the Smallwood Village Planning & Design Review Board (the “PDRB”). In this case, by 

letter dated January 14, 2020, the Smallwood Village PDRB granted its approval of the 

proposed uses. As relevant here, the PDRB approval letter simply stated: 

Kaz Development LLC is approved to operate a 24-hour 

distribution center and offsite employee parking/vehicle 

storage lot for the distribution operations at these three 

locations – 65 Industrial Park Drive, 9 Jay Gould Court and 1 

Carnegie Court, Waldorf, MD in the St. Charles Business Park. 

The uses are consistent with 7.01.120, 7.01.210 and 7.02.100 

of the Use Table for St. Charles. 65 Industrial Park Drive shall 

be posted as ”Private Property Parking for Authorized Vehicles 

Only” or ingress/egress controlled.

As part of the overall development approval process in Charles County, site 

development plans are also reviewed by the Charles County Department of Planning and 

Growth Management (“DPGM”). Here, DPMG issued staff reports for both SDP 20-0008 

5 This application relates to a 10.4-acre parcel on which there is an existing 

industrial building. The application sought approval to renovate the existing building into 

a distribution warehouse. 
3

and 20-0033 (“Staff Reports”). The Staff Reports recommended approval of both 

applications. Those approval recommendations were then forwarded to the Planning 

Commission, which held separate hearings on the applications.

At a public meeting held on June 22, 2020, the Planning Commission considered 

SDP 20-0008. The Planning Commission heard from DPMG staff member Kirby Blass, 

and from Ken Crouse, an engineer for the Applicant.

6 Mr. Blass described the project

related to this site as the “proposed Waldorf Distribution Center parking lot, which is 

located at 65 Industrial Drive, [to be used] for the construction of a vehicle storage lot, 

which will contain 551 parking spaces.” In response to questions raised at the hearing by 

Planning Commission members about storm water management and how the parking on 

the site was to “operate in tandem with the other properties,” Mr. Crouse provided an 

explanation that was apparently satisfactory. After hearing that “staff recommend[ed] 

approval of the SDP as presented, with the three proposed conditions that are specified on 

page seven of the Staff Report,” the Planning Commission Chairman asked, “what’s now, 

the pleasure of the Board, then?” The response was a motion to “approve the [SDP] with 

the three conditions contained in the staff report to us.” The motion was seconded, and 

without further discussion was approved on a voice vote. 

The Planning Commission did not issue a written decision with regard to SDP 20-

0008; rather, its decision was memorialized in Minutes of the meeting as follows: 

Staff presented an overview of the Site Development Plan. After 

the staff presentation, the Planning Commission asked several 

questions. Next the Applicant and its representatives answered

6 No one from the public appeared at this meeting.
4

additional questions. A MOTION was made by Mr. Viohl to 

approve the Site Development Plan with the findings and 

recommendations included in the Staff Report, which was 

SECONDED by Mr. Barnes. The vote was unanimous, and the 

MOTION passed. 

(Emphasis in original.) 

The Minutes from the June 22, 2020 meeting were approved at the Planning 

Commission’s next monthly meeting on July 20, 2020. At the same July meeting, which 

was attended by citizens owning property nearby, the Planning Commission also 

considered SDP 20-0033, related to the 9 Jay Gould Court property. With regard to SDP 

20-0033, testimony was offered by several witnesses, including DPMG staff members

Blass and Ben Yeckley. Lawrence Green (a traffic expert retained by the citizens) and 

Craig Casangent (a representative of the Applicant) also provided testimony.

7 Mr. Green 

spoke about the differences he perceived between the proposed use and the use category 

under which the project was to be approved. He also addressed the traffic impact of the 

project. Mr. Casangent disagreed with Mr. Green’s characterization of the proposed use 

and explained how, in his view, the proposed use was in fact the same as that formerly in 

existence at the site.8

7 The Planning Commission also heard from G. Macy Nelson, Esq., counsel for the 

citizens, who described what he viewed as shortcomings in the review process and how the 

proposed use was inconsistent with the use described in the Zoning Ordinance. 

8 Mr. Casangent also addressed concerns that had been expressed in written 

comments to the Planning Commission from the Humane Society, an adjoining property 

owner. 
5

Following the testimony, members of the Planning Commission engaged in a 

discussion about the nature of the proposed project and its impact on the area. One 

Commission member, Ms. Sherard, commented:

But this is a busy business, and I think we just don’t have 

enough information to say that we can make an informed 

decision saying that what we’re presented with tonight is not 

going to be an adverse impact on APF [adequate public 

facilities]. So I think that earlier in this conversation there was 

some discussion or requests maybe by Mr. Yeckley [staff 

member] to talk with his colleagues, and I agree that maybe we 

need to have a little bit more information so that this can be the 

best vote that we can provide for this project tonight and 

welcome them into the community as they should be 

welcomed.

Planning Commission Chairperson Magoon replied: “Ms. Sherrard, I would agree with 

you.”

Further discussion transpired, with Vice-Chairperson Murray stating, among other 

things:

So, I can’t see under Docket 90 where we could require a road 

study or traffic study. I believe the Staff Report was correct by 

not doing it according to Docket 90. I don’t see where it would 

have been required. I don’t see where we can hold this up over 

traffic because it’s not required.

To that, Chairperson Magoon replied, in part:

Well, frankly, I was also impressed with the fact that they do 

the staggered delivery and schedules. You know, I think they 

addressed traffic pretty well. ... I was impressed with the fact 

that they were addressing traffic that way and the sound wall 

being a 20-foot barrier. I think they’re trying to be a good 

neighbor right off the bat and agreeing to help with the Humane 

Society. So those are just my thoughts on it. I think I let 

everybody else go first. I hope I did. 
6

Ms. Sherard responded: 

You did. I don’t think we’re talking about good neighbor/bad 

neighbor. I’m just talking about information that we did not 

have. We learned a lot tonight in this meeting that was left out

of the Staff report. Had we known what we know now, maybe 

there would be a different attitude toward how we go forward 

in addressing the traffic. Yes, we did learn about staggered 

times that the employees will be coming and going from work. 

But we didn’t know that before. We didn’t have that 

information.

Further discussion ensued regarding the questions that had been raised at the hearing

and Chairperson Magoon recognized that “we have more information than we started 

with.” Another speaker, unidentified in the transcript but apparently a Planning 

Commission member, asked the question “[t]o what degree is it appropriate to reflect this 

– the results of this conversation in motions or other approvals that might come out of this 

permit process?” Planning Commission member Mr. Barnes then stated: 

Well, I was going to say that I do agree that more information 

has come out than we had coming into this, but I think we have 

gotten information that was appropriate to answering the 

questions of Staff -- of, you know, the Board and in our quest 

to try and protect the people here as well as, hopefully, you 

know, put planning into place that allows for economic engines 

to come into the county. So I think that – at least I am satisfied 

that I’ve gotten enough information in this to put a motion on 

the floor. So I would like to make a motion that the Planning 

Commission approve the site development plan entitled St. 

Charles Industrial Park Waldorf Distribution Center SDP 

200033. This motion shall include the findings that the site 

development plan will not adversely affect the adequacy of 

public facilities served in the area, the project or other 

development, and that the Planning Commission adopt the 

findings and the recommendation within the Staff Report 

presented today, 7/20/2020. 
7

The motion was seconded, whereupon further discussion ensued, including about 

the legality of proceeding. Ultimately, a vote was taken and the motion passed 

unanimously. No written decision was issued regarding SDP 20-0033. Rather, the Planning 

Commission’s action was again simply memorialized in Minutes that were approved at the 

Planning Commission’s meeting on August 31, 2020. Those Minutes state in relevant part:

Staff presented an overview of the Site Development Plan. 

After the staff presentation...[n]ext, the Planning Commission 

asked and staff addressed several questions. A MOTION was 

made by Mr. Barnes to approve the Site Development Plan 

with the findings and recommendations included in the Staff 

Report, which was SECONDED by Mr. Wedding. After 

further discussion, a vote was taken. The vote was unanimous, 

and the MOTION passed. 

(Emphasis in original.)

Appellants,9 citizens who claim to be aggrieved by the Planning Commission’s

decisions, sought judicial review in the Circuit Court for Charles County. The circuit court 

affirmed the Planning Commission’s decisions, after which Appellants noted timely 

appeals to this court.

10 In these consolidated appeals, Appellants present two issues for our 

review, which we rephrase as follows: 

1. Did the Planning Commission sufficiently articulate the bases for its decisions?

9

 Appellants include Ellen M. Elbert, Paul J. Elbert, II, Ellen M. Elbert Trustee for 

the Ellen M. Elbert Revocable Trust, Paul J. Elbert, II, Trustee for the Paul J. Elbert, II,

Revocable Trust, Elbert’s Enterprises, LLC, Lawrence S. Lathrop, Jr., Christi K. Lathrop, 

and Tybee Properties, LLC (collectively, “Citizen-Petitioners”).

10 The appeals in the Circuit Court (C-08-CV-20-000505 and C-08-CV-20-000507) 

have been consolidated into a single appeal before this Court.
8 

2. Are the proposed uses permitted under the Charles County Code of Ordinances 

and Resolutions? 

Because we answer “no” to the first question, we need not, and do not, address the second 

question. 

Standard of Review 

“When reviewing a decision of an administrative agency, [this court] will ‘look 

through’ the circuit court’s decision and ‘evaluate the decision of the agency.’” Hayden v. 

Maryland Dep’t of Nat. Res., 242 Md. App. 505, 520 (2019) (citing Kor-Ko, Ltd. v. 

Maryland Dep’t of the Env’t, 451 Md. 401, 409 (2017)). The agency’s decision is reviewed 

in the light most favorable to it, and the agency’s decision is deemed prima facie correct 

and presumed valid. Critical Area Comm’n for Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays v. 

Moreland, LLC, 418 Md. 111, 123 (2011). “In general, ‘[a] court’s role is limited to 

determining if there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the agency’s 

findings and conclusions, and to determine if the administrative decision is premised upon 

an erroneous conclusion of law.’” Catonsville Nursing Home, Inc. v. Loveman, 349 Md. 

560, 568 (1998) (emphasis supplied) (citing United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. People’s Counsel,

336 Md. 569, 577 (1994)). 

Administrative decisions, however, must not be “arbitrary, capricious, or 

unreasonable” – there must be “substantial evidence from which the board could have 

reasonably found as it did.” Baker v. Bd. of Trs. of Emps. Ret. Sys. of City of Balt., 269 Md. 

740, 744 (1973). In that regard, “[a] reviewing court ‘may not uphold the agency order 

unless it is sustainable on the agency’s findings and for the reasons stated by the agency.’” 
9 

McDonell v. Harford Cnty. Housing Agency, 462 Md. 586, 620 (2019) (emphasis supplied) 

(citing United Parcel Svc., 336 Md. at 577 (1994)). “Where the agency’s factual findings 

are inadequate, the necessary facts may not be supplied by the parties, and neither we nor 

the circuit court will scour the record in search of evidence to support the agency’s 

conclusions.” Relay Improvement Assoc. v. Sycamore Realty Co., Inc., 105 Md. App. 

701,714 (1995). As described in Mortimer v. Howard Research and Development Corp., 

83 Md. App. 432, 442 (1990): 

A reviewing court may not, however, uphold an agency’s 

decision if a record of the facts on which the agency acted or a 

statement of reasons for its action is lacking. Without this 

reasoned analysis, a reviewing court cannot determine the basis 

of the agency’s action. If the agency fails to meet this 

requirement, the agency’s decision may be deemed arbitrary. 

In such an instance, the case should be remanded for the 

purpose of having the deficiency supplied. 

(Citations omitted.) 

Discussion 

 As described above, the Planning Commission did not issue a written decision with 

a “reasoned analysis” with regard to either site development plan. Rather, it memorialized 

its action approving the SDP in each instance through Meeting Minutes. Those Minutes, 

however, simply confirm that “a MOTION was made ... to approve the Site Development 

Plan with the findings and recommendations included in the Staff Report...” There was no 

recitation of the findings made by Staff or quotations from the Staff Report. Instead, there 

was simply the blithe reference to the Staff Report’s “findings and recommendations.” 
10

There was no separate finding, analysis or conclusion articulated by the Planning 

Commission.

This case is unlike Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. 

Greater Baden-Aquasco Citizens Assoc., 412 Md. 73 (2009). In Greater Baden, the 

Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed the decision of this Court but commented that its 

decision was 

more narrow than that expressed in the opinion of our brethren 

on the intermediate appellate court. We do not subscribe to the 

view that the Planning Board did not engage otherwise in 

meaningful fact-finding because its Resolution approving the 

Preliminary Plan was a ‘rote repetition’ of the Technical Staff 

Report. It is not unreasonable for the Planning Board to rely on 

a Staff Report as the Planning Board did in this case if the Staff 

Report is thorough, well-conceived, and contains adequate 

findings of fact. 

Id. at 110. 

Earlier in its Greater Baden opinion, the Supreme Court noted that 

the Planning Board did not simply incorporate by reference the 

Technical Staff Report. It included large portions of the report 

in the Resolution and added additional findings of fact and 

conclusions. The Board’s adoption of a substantial portion of a 

Staff Report does not give rise, in and of its mere adoption, to 

an adverse inference that the Board abdicated its task to 

exercise independent judgment. The omission in the findings 

of a required consideration is the focus of our analysis here.

Id. at 82 n.9.11

11 In Greater Baden, the referenced omission related to a failure to consider the 

“General Plan‘s numeric residential growth objective in the Rural Tier in determining 

whether the Preliminary Plan conformed to the Master Plan.” Id. at 110. 
11 

In contrast, the Planning Commission in this case did simply incorporate by 

reference the Staff Report. Significantly, it made no “additional findings of fact and 

conclusions” separate from that report, notwithstanding that in the case of SDP 20-0033 

additional information and evidence was presented at the July 20, 2020 Planning 

Commission hearing and indeed one member commented about how “[w]e learned a lot 

tonight in this meeting that was left out of the Staff report.”12

Moreover, as related to the significant issue of compliance with the Docket 90 

requirements, the Staff Reports upon which the Planning Commission relied (some of 

which differed from testimony at the hearing on SDP 20-0033), simply incorporate the 

findings of the Smallwood Village PDRB, as contained in the one-page approval letter. 

That letter concludes, without analysis or explanation, that the proposed use is “consistent 

with” the County Use Table. The Staff Report references the PDRB letter and states that 

the site plans “received final approval from the PDRB.”13 Here again, there is no analysis, 

explanation or basis given for the conclusion reached. The Planning Commission could not 

satisfy its articulation obligations by the simple expedient of referencing a Staff Report that 

was itself inadequate given its incorporation of a PDRB letter that was devoid of analysis. 

See Colao v. County Council of Prince George’s County, 109 Md. App. 431, 458-62 

(1986). 

12 Another member commented about what Docket 90 did or did not require, and yet 

another member commented that “[h]ad we known what we know now, maybe there would 

be a different attitude toward....addressing traffic.” 

13 All PUD zones require compliance with Docket 90. See Code of Charles County, 

Maryland § 297-93. 
12 

In Bucktail v. County Council of Talbot County, 352 Md. 530, 552 (1999), a case 

involving the review of an agency decision, the Supreme Court stated that “[l]ogically, the 

next step in our analysis [after determining the standard of review] would be to determine 

if the facts found by the Council are supported by substantial evidence. The difficulty here, 

however, is that the Council’s ‘findings’ are insufficient to permit judicial review.”14 The 

same is true here. “Courts require specific findings and well-articulated conclusions 

because citizens are entitled to something more than [a] boilerplate resolution.” Colao, 109 

Md. App. at 453. The Meeting Minutes here fall woefully short of that directive. 

Conclusion 

Because the Planning Commission failed to articulate adequately the basis for its 

decisions, the judgments of the circuit court will be reversed. The cases will be remanded 

to that court with directions to vacate the decisions of the Planning Commission and to 

14 Later in its the Bucktail decision, the Court quoted R.M. Anderson, American Law 

of Zoning, §16.41 at 242 (1968) as follows: 

Given express findings, the court can determine whether the 

findings are supported by substantial evidence, and whether the 

findings warrant the decision of the board. If no findings are 

made, and if the court elects not to remand, its clumsy 

alternative is to read the record, speculate upon the portions 

which probably were believed by the board, guess at the 

conclusions drawn from credited portions, construct a basis for 

a decision, and try to determine whether a decision thus arrived 

at should be sustained. In the process, the court is required to 

do much that is assigned to the board, and the latter becomes a 

relatively inefficient instrument for the construction of a 

record. 

(Emphasis in original.) 
13

remand these cases to the Planning Commission for further proceedings consistent with 

this Opinion. 

THE JUDGMENTS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT 

FOR CHARLES COUNTY ARE REVERSED AND 

THE CASES ARE REMANDED TO THAT 

COURT WITH DIRECTION TO VACATE THE 

DECISIONS OF THE CHARLES COUNTY 

PLANNING COMMISSION AND REMAND THE 

CASES TO THE CHARLES COUNTY 

PLANNING COMMISSION FOR FURTHER 

PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS 

OPINION. COSTS TO BE PAID BY APPELLEE.