Opinion ID: 2368151
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Board of Appeals Proceedings

Text: Grasslands appealed the Commission's decision to the Board, listing eleven grounds. Grasslands alleged, inter alia, that the County's NCD program did not comply with Article 66B, the subdivision approval did not comply with the County's Comprehensive Plan and the `Title 18' zoning ordinance[,] the Commission failed to make written specific findings of fact and conclusions of law[,] and the subdivision's open space areas are not in conformance with the applicable standards of the Queen Anne's County Title 18. Frizz-King filed a Motion to Compel Specific Grounds for Appeal, contending that Grasslands's contentions are so broadly framed as to deny [Frizz-King] the basic due process right to be apprised of the issues on appeal and to enable it to adequately prepare to present evidence and argument. Grasslands countered with a Motion for Summary Judgment in which it contended that there are no relevant facts in disputethe Planning Commission failed to make the necessary findings required by law. It argued that even with these proceedings being de novo with respect to the issues raised, [Grasslands] cannot assert the Planning Commissioner's errors in their entirety without knowing what the Planning Commission did and why. The Board declined to accept Grasslands's summary judgment motion on the ground that it was not part of the Board's procedures. It then reviewed the eleven grounds and found that four were alleged with insufficient clarity, including the allegation that [t]he subdivision approval does not comply with [the] Queen Anne's County Comprehensive Plan and the `Title 18' zoning ordinance. According to the Board, Grasslands needed to specify how the grant of the subdivision does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan or Title 18 in order for the parties to prepare intelligently. In a supplemental notice of appeal, Grasslands alleged: The Planning Commission improperly failed to consider whether the Highlands development complies with the Comprehensive Plan in violation of Title 18. § 18:1-4 defines the purpose of Title 18 and how it to be interpreted and administered: The purpose of Title 18 is to implement the Comprehensive Plan ... Likewise, § 18:1-161 of Title 18 requires that A subdivision layout shall conform to the Comprehensive Plan. Again, the use of the word shall is mandatory. At the time of the submission of the Highlands development to the Planning Commission, it was the developer's burden of proof to establish that the development is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan because it presented no relevant evidence or testimony. The Board held a hearing on the merits on October 26, 2006. Grasslands's counsel questioned whether the burden of proof should rest on Grasslands, as opposed to Frizz-King, in an appeal from a Commission decision. He then argued that the Commission was required to make findings. Dr. McLellan, again, testified on behalf of Grasslands. When Dr. McLellan attempted to offer her opinion and two exhibits stating that the Highlands did not conform to the County's Comprehensive Plan, Frizz-King's counsel objected on the ground that Grasslands had failed to disclose in advance of the hearing the subdivision's specific incompatibility with the Comprehensive Plan. The Board sustained Frizz-King's objection concerning one of Dr. McLellan's exhibits, and with respect to the other, only allowed her to testify about the general goal of a comprehensive plan without reference to specific application of the Comprehensive Plan[.] Dr. McLellan proceeded to testify, in general fashion, that the County's NCD program is incompatible with the County's Comprehensive Plan. With the exception of one item, [5] the Board denied Grasslands's appeal because it [did] not believe that [Grasslands] ... met its burden of proof. The Board found, inter alia, that (1) [t]he County's [NCD] program is not inconsistent with Article 66B[;] (2) [a]lthough they might be helpful, the ... Commission does not have to make findings of fact and conclusions of law[;] (3) there is no evidence to suggest that the subdivision's open space areas are not in conformance with applicable standards of ... Title 18[;] and (4) the subdivision complies with the County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. According to the Board, the Commission was not required to make findings of fact and conclusions of law since appeals from the ... Commission go to the Board as de novo appeals instead of to the circuit court on the record. The Board observed that under QACC Section 18:1-120, the Board is empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the ... Commission. The Board did not specifically address whether the subdivision approval was in compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan.