Opinion ID: 2368151
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Court Proceedings And New County Legislation

Text: Grasslands filed a Petition for Judicial Review in the Circuit Court for Queen Anne's County and that court affirmed the Board's decision on June 22, 2007. Grasslands noticed an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals (CSA) on July 13, 2007. Just prior to oral argument in the CSA, the County enacted two ordinances pertinent to this appeal: the Development Consistency with the Queen Anne's County Comprehensive Plan Act (Ordinance No. 07-42, effective on February 23, 2008, hereinafter Conformity Ordinance) and the Emergency Service Protection Act (Ordinance No. 06-103, effective March 29, 2008, hereinafter Emergency Service Ordinance). [6] The Conformity Ordinance added the following code section: All development shall conform to the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission or Planning Director may not approve a site plan under Article XXV or a subdivision under Article XXVI unless it finds that the development conforms to the visions, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. QACC § 18:1-138.1. The ordinance was enacted for the stated purpose of requiring that every site plan and subdivision proposed in Queen Anne's County conform to the visions, objectives and policies of the Queen Anne's County Comprehensive Plan[.] The Emergency Service Ordinance added the following subpart, indicated in italics, to the Objectives section of the article addressing subdivisions: The Planning Director and Planning Commission shall encourage designs that not only meet the minimum subdivision requirements but also result in the most beneficial use of land by:    K. Providing for public safety through compliance with the State Fire Code and with any applicable County or municipal Fire Codes. QACC § 18:1-159 (emphasis added). The ordinance also added the following language, indicated in italics, to one of the requirements for site plan approval: B. Requirements for approval. The Planning Commission may not approve any site plan unless it determines that the site plan:    (7) Will not adversely affect the public welfare, and will provide for public safety through compliance with the State Fire Code and with any applicable County or municipal Fire Codes. QACC § 18:1-153 (emphasis added). The ordinance's purpose clause provides as follows: FOR THE PURPOSE of authorizing the Queen Anne's County Planning Commission to consider and analyze the effect of residential and commercial development on the effective and timely delivery of emergency services.    AND WHEREAS, in connection with the approval of new residential and commercial development, the Queen Anne's County Planning Commission should consider the impact of such development on the provision of emergency services and should be authorized to require, through developer exactions, restrictive covenants and other means, that any negative effects of new development on the provision of emergency services be offset and mitigated to the extent necessary[.] The CSA, in an unreported opinion, affirmed the Circuit Court on July 9, 2008. Among a number of rulings, it held that the Commission was not required to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. The CSA determined that the Board gave each of Grasslands's allegations explicit consideration. It also held that the Board did not improperly place on Grasslands the burden of proof. As discussed in footnote five, the CSA rejected Grasslands argument that the 2007 Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance should be retrospectively applied, but did not address whether the Conformity Ordinance or the Emergency Service Ordinance required the case to be reversed or remanded for administrative review. We issued a writ of certiorari to consider Grasslands's following three questions, which we have reordered: I. Did the CSA err by sustaining the Circuit Court ratification of the Board of Appeals's improper allocation of the burden of proof upon the appellant (as protestant to a subdivision application) instead of upon developer appellee, as required by law? II. Did the CSA err in affirming the decisions of the Circuit Court and the Board of Appeals in light of its failure to consider intervening legislation enacted by the Queen Anne's County commissioners that elevated the Queen Anne's County Comprehensive Plan by mandates of compliance to the level of a regulatory device? III. Did the CSA err by failing to remand the Highlands subdivision matter in light of the enactment of applicable local legislation prior to its decision?