Opinion ID: 2368151
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Planning Commission Proceedings

Text: Grasslands opposed the subdivision in a series of hearings before the Commission. In a hearing on April 13, 2006, after which the Commission granted its final approval, Grasslands challenged the proposed subdivision, principally through the oral and written testimony of Dr. Eileen McLellan, a consultant with a background in environmental science and policy. Dr. McLellan asserted that the proposed subdivision was incompatible with (1) Maryland Code (1957, 2003 Repl.Vol.), Article 66B, Sections 1.01 and 11.01, [3] (2) specific policies in the Queen Anne's County Comprehensive Plan, and (3) provisions in Title 18 of the Queen Anne's County Code (QACC). Both Dr. McLellan and Grasslands's counsel argued that Frizz-King's use of the County's noncontiguous development (NCD) program, was incompatible with the County's Comprehensive Plan policy to keep rural lands rural and preserve agricultural lands, because the agricultural parcel proposed for subdivision is not located in an area designated for growth. [4] Dr. McLellan also argued the subdivision was incompatible because, inter alia, (1) the subdivision's planned architecture, use of cul-de-sacs, and landscaping did not employ an appropriate rural design and (2) that the subdivision could be redesigned to incorporate Low Impact Design practices rather than rely upon engineered stormwater structures. Dr. McLellan explained that a design which locates homes adjacent to the existing tree linerather than placed in the middle of an open fieldwould contribute to preserving the rural character of the area. Frizz-King's counsel disputed Dr. McLellan's contention that the area surrounding the subdivision is predominately rural. He noted that the proposed subdivision was immediately adjacent to the 900 lot Chester Harbor subdivision, that the adjacent Grasslands Plantation also contained a thirty-two lot subdivision, and that there were other subdivisions and the town of Chestertown in the immediate vicinity. He added, moreover, that the proposed subdivision was in the immediate vicinity of substantial commercial development, including the three largest car dealerships in the area. The Commission approved the proposed subdivision without making any findings of fact. At the close of the hearing, Jeffrey Thompson, Frizz-King's counsel, explained the need for the Commission to make findings and the Commission's legal counsel echoed these concerns: Without the findings, Mr. Thompson is correct, ... [the case] will be sent back to you because it's not clear from the record what findings that you've made or haven't made. Mr. Thompson prepared and submitted into the record proposed findings of fact. The Commission declined to make findings, however, resolving that it could grant final approval on the planning and zoning staff's recommendation: BOARD MEMBER: Staff has reviewed all these things. Staff recommends, they see nothing that would prohibit us from granting a final approval. I'd like to make a motion that we grant final approval, final subdivision approval to [Frizz-King] to create 49 cluster lots, one open space lot, public roadways as outlined on the application ... with the following conditions: All required bonds and sureties and inspection fees be submitted, a maintenance inspection agreement be provided to the Public Works, all required legal documents be signed and recorded, all required signatures be obtained, and this is taking into consideration the recent submissions of [Grassland's counsel] and Mr. Thompson. The Commission then approved the motion.