Court Opinion

ID: 9643213
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:22:18.18291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:58.328120
License: Public Domain

ELDRIDGE, Judge,
dissenting:
As a matter of public policy, the majority’s construction of the Open Meetings Act is preferable to and more rational than the construction of the statute by Baltimore County and the Court of Special Appeals. Unfortunately, however, the majority’s construction is not supported by the unambiguous lan-
*151guage of the statute, by its legislative history, or by the numerous opinions of this Court which have drawn a sharp distinction between “planning” and “zoning.” The approval or disapproval of a development plan is simply not a “zoning matter.” For these reasons, thoroughly discussed in Judge Hollander’s excellent opinion for the Court of Special Appeals, Baltimore County v. Wesley Chapel, 110 Md.App. 585, 678 A.2d 100 (1996), I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals.