Court Opinion

ID: 9710388
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:08:42.844879+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:56.464936
License: Public Domain

KARWACKI, Judge,
Dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The Board of Appeals considered the evidence in this case and inferences properly drawn therefrom, and after applying the applicable definitions of the Baltimore County Zoning *679Regulations concluded that the appellee’s snake breeding and raising facility did not meet the definition of a “farm” permitted in the R.C. 4 zone. The Board’s resolution of this issue, dependent to some degree upon its expertise in applying Baltimore County Zoning Regulations, is entitled to deference. As the Court of Appeals explained in Board of Physician v. Banks, 354 Md. 59, 67-69, 729 A.2d 376 (1999):
A Court’s role in reviewing an administrative agency adjudicatory decision is narrow. (Citations omitted). It is limited to determining if there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the agency’s finding and conclusions, and to determine if the administrative decision is premised upon an erroneous conclusion of law. [.Citations omitted.]
In applying the substantial evidence test, a reviewing court decides whether a reasoning mind reasonably could have reached the factual conclusion the agency reached. [Citations omitted.] A reviewing court should defer to the agency’s fact finding and drawing of inferences if they are supported by the record. [Citations omitted.] A reviewing court must review the agency’s decision in the light most favorable to it; ... The agency’s decision is prima facie correct and presumed valid, and ... it is the agency’s province to resolve conflicting evidence and to draw inferences from that evidence [Citations omitted] ... (Final agency decisions “are prima facie correct and carry with them the presumption of validity.”)
Despite some unfortunate language that has crept into a few of our opinions (fn.l), a court’s task on review is not to “substitute its judgment for the expertise of those persons who constitute the administrative agency.” [Citations omitted], Even with regard to some legal issues, a degree of deference should often be accorded the position of the administrative agency. Thus, an administrative agency’s interpretation and application of the statute which the agency administers should ordinarily be given considerable weight by reviewing courts. [Citations omitted.] (The interpretation of a statute by those officials charged *680with administering the statute is ... entitled to weight.) [Emphasis added.] Furthermore, the expertise of the agency in its own field should be respected. [Citations omitted.]
I would reverse the judgment below with instruction to affirm the decision of the Board of Appeals.