Opinion ID: 2307456
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Protection Program

Text: To understand fully the legal underpinnings of this case, a brief explanation of the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Protection Program (Critical Area Program) is in order. The Critical Area Program is codified in Maryland Code (1974, 1990 Repl.Vol., 1998 Cum.Supp.), sections 8-1801 to 8-1816 of the Natural Resources Article. Respondent is the Chairman of the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission (Commission), an arm of the Department of Natural Resources with authority to enforce the Critical Area Program. Title 27 of the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) consists of the Commission's regulations. It is important to understand the interrelationship between the State-imposed, but locally enforced, critical area prohibitions and local zoning requirements generally. Section 8-1802 of the Natural Resources Article provides: (a) Definitions. ... .... (11)(i) Project approval means the approval of development ... in the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area by the appropriate local approval authority. (ii) Project approval includes: .... 3. Issuance of variances, special exceptions, and conditional use permits.... Section 8-1808(a)(1) requires local governments to have primary responsibility for development of programs to regulate land use in the critical area, subject to review and approval by the Commission. The program, [a]t a minimum, must include [z]oning ordinances or regulations. § 8-1808(c). Pursuant to these provisions, the Commission oversees the local governments in the adoption of zoning regulations for the critical area, including variance provisions acceptable to the Commission. [2] Once local critical area programs are adopted and approved, the programs can, depending upon their language, impose additional or different limitations. In the ordinance at issue here, Anne Arundel County has established different criteria for variances in the critical area. [3] See Anne Arundel County Code (1996), Art. 3, § 2-107(b) (hereinafter County Code). Finally, section 8-1812 confers full standing to the Chairman of the Commission to intervene in any administrative or judicial proceeding arising out of local project approval in the critical area, subject to withdrawal if thirteen members of the Commission oppose the intervention within thirty-five days. See North v. St. Mary's County, 99 Md.App. 502, 508, 638 A.2d 1175, 1178 (noting that section 8-1812 confers unrestricted standing upon the Commission to appeal any administrative or judicial decision impacting the Critical Area Program), cert. denied sub nom. Enoch v. North, 336 Md. 224, 647 A.2d 444 (1994). Also crucial to this case is the buffer the Commission requires local jurisdictions to create. See COMAR 27.01.09.01.C.(1). A buffer is defined in COMAR 27.01.09.01.A as an existing, naturally vegetated area, or an area established in vegetation and managed to protect aquatic, wetlands, shoreline, and terrestrial environments from man-made disturbances. The buffer must extend at least 100 feet from any tidal waterway, wetland, or tributary of the Chesapeake Bay, but localities must expand the buffer to include contiguous, sensitive areas, such as steep slopes... whose development or disturbance may impact streams, wetlands, or other aquatic environments. COMAR 27.01.09.01.C.(1) & (7). County Code, Article 28, section 1A-104(a)(1) states: If there are contiguous slopes of 15% or greater, the buffer shall be expanded ... to the top of the slope ... and shall include all land within 50 feet of the top of the bank of steep slopes. Within that buffer, the Commission bans any new development of all impervious surfaces that are not water-dependent, which includes concrete swimming pools. [4] COMAR 27.01.09.01.C.(2). The only way to build any impervious structure like petitioners' swimming pool is to apply and qualify for a variance under local zoning ordinances.