Opinion ID: 2648794
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: McQueen's Proposed Development

Text: McQueen, an owner of a large tract of land in the County, initiated plans to develop his property as a cluster subdivision. In early May 2008, McQueen and his engineer met informally with Pamela Thompson (Thompson), the Deputy County Administrator and Interim Director of Planning, to review the requirements for such use of McQueen's property. McQueen's attorney subsequently submitted an application letter to Thompson describing in general terms McQueen's proposed development of approximately 250 clustered residential dwellings, and request[ing] a formal meeting as required under CLO Ordinance § 90-332.16(A). McQueen, his engineer, and attorney, then met with Thompson on May 23, 2008. McQueen presented Thompson with a document consisting of a combined resource map and draft of a preliminary plat of McQueen's proposed development, and the four of them reviewed it that day. It was only after the May 23rd meeting, McQueen's engineer confirmed, that we put together a formal 332.16(B): notation on the plat of all conservation and open space areas; deed restrictions and covenants that would apply to private streets, public services, open space, and cluster subdivision lots; and the location of the building lots to be conveyed. 3 submittal of the preliminary plat for the [C]ounty, which, he acknowledged, was filed on July 1. He further indicated that the draft of the preliminary plat could have changed between May 23rd and July 1. After the May 23rd meeting, McQueen expected to receive an approval letter within days from Thompson. When that did not occur, McQueen filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination whether he was entitled to develop his property by right or only pursuant to a special exception. Shortly thereafter, McQueen nonsuited the action upon receiving a compliance letter from Thompson around June 19th.