The planning commission approved Cox’s preliminary subdivision plan that contained 20 single-family detached residential lots on 118.30 acres. The approval was challenged by the Greater Baden-Aquasco Citizens Association and eight individual area residents who contended that the Commission was required to consider if and how the proposed subdivision complied with the numeric residential growth objective of the Approved Countywide General Plan. The growth objective in the Plan for the area in question was to capture “less than 1 percent of the [c]ounty’s dwelling unit growth by the year 2025.” In explaining the basis of the approval, the Resolution made no mention of the General Plan’s Growth Objective.
The Commission acknowledged that the applicable subdivision regulations required it to, before approving preliminary subdivision plan: “determine broadly … that [the application] conforms to the applicable Master Plan.” The Commission noted that the applicable Master Plan did not specify a percentage objective or goal for countywide residential growth within the applicable area. The Commission acknowledged that the Master Plan required consistency with the General Plan, which contained the Growth Objective. However, the Commission argued that it was not required to determine whether proposed subdivisions complied with the Growth Objective because the General Plan’s Growth Objective was “irrelevant” to the subdivision review process. The Growth Objective, it said, was “a long-term objective designed to measure whether the [c]ounty is meeting its goals, policies, and objectives…” and was intended to be used for the monitoring of growth activity. The Commission also argued that growth should be controlled through mechanisms such as conservation and easements–not the subdivision process.
The Maryland Court of Appeals held that where the local subdivision regulations require that a determination be made at the time of approval of a preliminary subdivision plan application proposing dwelling units that it conforms to the applicable master plan (and the master plan states that it is in accordance with the general plan), the planning Board must consider the numeric residential growth objective stated in the applicable plan when acting on the application. The court explained that, “[i]n the context of subdivision matters … the recommendations of a master plan may be binding to the extent there is a statute, regulation, or ordinance requiring that a proposed subdivision conform to the master plan.” Accordingly, the court said that a preliminary subdivision plan that failed to conform with the master plan “must be rejected.”Although the county’s regulations did not specifically require conformance to the General Plan, the Court said that the purpose of the Regulations was to “guide development according to the General Plan ….” Further, the Regulations did require subdivision plats “to conform” to the area Master Plan. Also, the area Master Plan stated that it was “generally in accordance with the General Plan.” This, said the court, meant that the Master Plan had to be “consistent and compatible” with the General Plan. To the extent it was not, the General Plan prevailed, said the court.
Maryland-Nat. Capital Park and Planning Com’n v Greater Baden-Aquasco Citizens Ass’n, 2009 WL 4959376 (MD 12/23/2009).
The opinion can be accessed at: http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2009/19a09.pdf
