Archers Glen v. Garner
| Citation | 933 A.2d 405,176 Md. App. 292 |
| Decision Date | 06 July 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 1281, September Term, 2006.,1281, September Term, 2006. |
| Parties | ARCHERS GLEN PARTNERS, INC., et al. v. Betty GARNER, et al. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
This case requires an analysis of the relationship between land use planning documents and subdivision regulations in Prince George's County.
Archers Glen Partners, Inc. ("the developer") submitted a preliminary subdivision plan to the Prince George's County Planning Board of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission ("the Planning Board") for approval.1 The Planning Board approved the preliminary subdivision plan, and after a prior appeal to this Court, which resulted in a remand, it affirmed its prior approval. Several citizens filed a petition for judicial review of the Planning Board's re-approval in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. The circuit court remanded the matter to the Planning Board for further proceedings. The developer and the Planning Board appealed to this Court (collectively "appellants"). We shall reverse the judgment, thereby affirming the Planning Board's decision.
On September 24, 2002, Washington Management and Development Company, Inc, the predecessor of the developer, filed an application for approval of a preliminary subdivision plan for a subdivision, known as Archers Glen, to consist of 47 lots. The developer proposed to retain an existing dwelling and to build 46 new single family dwellings. The property involved consisted of 236.45 acres, and was located near Baden-Westwood Road and Bald Eagle School Road, in the southeastern quarter of the County. The property was zoned 0-S (open space). At all relevant times, single family detached dwellings were a permitted use within that zone, with a density of 0.2 dwelling units per acre.2
The Planning Board's staff approved the developer's application and presented it to the Planning Board. On February 20, 2003, the Planning Board conducted an evidentiary hearing and, by resolution dated March 27, 2003, approved the preliminary subdivision plan, with nine conditions. Among other things, the Planning Board found that the developer's application was consistent with the land use provisions in the applicable plans, the County's General Plan and Master Plan, discussed below.
Several citizens filed a petition for judicial review in circuit court.3 After the circuit court affirmed the Planning Board, the citizens appealed to this Court. In an unreported opinion, Garner v. Prince George's County Planning Bd. of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Comm'n, No. 2715, Sept. Term 2003, 160 Md.App. 714, 718 (filed January 18, 2005), we vacated the circuit court's judgment and remanded the case with instructions to remand to the Planning Board for further proceedings. We explained that with respect to the Planning Board's finding that the application was consistent with the applicable Plans, the Planning Board had failed to "articulate its decision with adequate specificity."
On June 23, 2005, after remand, the Planning Board held a hearing. By amended resolution dated September 29, 2005, the Planning Board again approved the preliminary subdivision plan.
Several citizens, appellees herein,4 again petitioned for judicial review in circuit court. The circuit court, by opinion and order dated June 2, 2006, remanded the matter to the Planning Board for further "consideration and findings."
Land use plans
Prince George's County has adopted four countywide general plans: one in 1964; another in 1982; an interim general plan known as the Biennial Growth Policy Plan ("Biennial Plan"), adopted by the County Council sitting as the District Council ("District Council"), in October, 2000; and the final general plan, adopted by the District Council in July, 2002 ("the General Plan"). The latter two Plans are relevant to this appeal.
As part of its continuing effort to better regulate growth, recognizing that the 1982 general plan was no longer adequate, and to implement a "smart growth" program, the District Council, by resolution approved on July 28, 1998, created "Commission 2000," "a broad-based advisory panel." The Commission's charge was to "recommend a comprehensive growth management plan for Prince George's County and a strategy to achieve it." The Commission's work resulted in the Biennial Plan, adopted in 2000.
Of significance here is that the Biennial Plan established three development tiers: Developed, Developing, and Rural. As the names imply, the Developed Tier included areas that were largely developed. The Developing Tier included areas where most new development would occur. The Rural Tier included agricultural, open space, and low-density housing areas, where little development would occur. The property in question is located in the Rural Tier.
The growth objectives were stated as follows: "Capture at least 33 percent of the County's dwelling unit growth over the next 20 years within the Developed Tier; ... Capture up to 66 percent of the County's dwelling unit growth over the next 20 years within the Developing Tier;" and "Slow dwelling unit growth within the Rural Tier to 0.75 percent of total Countywide dwelling unit growth over the next 20 years." The District Council described the Biennial Plan as an interim plan (as is indicated by its name, "Biennial"), and included in the primary tasks for implementation the development of a new General Plan by 2002. As noted above, that was accomplished.
The General Plan is divided into five parts: (1) an overview; (2) the development pattern, which includes the growth tiers; (3) infrastructure elements, providing policy guidance for environmental protection, transportation, and public facilities; (4) economic development, housing, and community character elements; and (5) implementation actions to "bring about the vision established by this General Plan."
The General Plan embraces and, "in some instances, modifies the goals, policies, and strategies of the [Biennial Plan]." The General Plan adopted the growth tier structure. One of the stated objectives for the Rural Tier, slightly different from the Biennial Plan, is to "capture [less than 1%] of the county's dwelling unit growth by 2025."
The stated "goals" for the Rural Tier are to "[1] to preserve environmentally sensitive features [2] retain sustainable agricultural land [3] allow large-lot estate residences [4] limit nonagricultural land uses [5] protect landowners' equity in their land [and 6] maintain the integrity of a rural transportation system."
The stated "policies" for the Rural Tier are to "[1] retain or enhance environmentally sensitive features and agricultural resources [2] design future development to retain and enhance rural character [3] provide for a Rural Tier transportation system that helps protect open space, rural character, and environmental features and resources [and 4] public funds should not encourage further development in the Rural Tier."
It would consume an inordinate amount of space to fully describe the "strategies" to implement the "policies." They include revising tax regulations, purchasing development rights, developing programs supporting agriculture, identifying appropriate locations for future large-lot estate development through future master plans, and minimal funding of capital improvements.
Under "Implementation," the General Plan states:
The General Plan will only be effective to the extent that its goals and policies are implemented. Plan implementation will involve making choices concerning future development patterns, while taking into consideration the cost of providing needed infrastructure and protecting the environment. The fundamental challenge in making these critical choices for the county's future lies in deciding how to improve our county responsibly without being wasteful. This General Plan, which applies Smart Growth principles countywide, offers a range of policy choices for controlling sprawl and ensuring cost-effective use of public resources to maintain a high and sustainable quality of life. Implementation of this plan should be guided by the need to achieve the county's top growth policies. To do this, the county will need to regularly review, and where necessary, reorient, the way it implements and refines this General Plan, through the Biennial Policy updates, master and functional planning, and by regulatory revision. The four essential components of implementation include: intergovernmental cooperation and public participation[;] future planning activity[;] regulatory revisions[; and] Biennial Growth Policy updates.
According to the resolution by the District Council approving the General Plan, the General Plan amended the then current master plans "with respect to countywide goals, objectives, policies, and strategies...."
From time to time, the District Council has adopted master plans. Master plans address specific areas, as distinguished from being countywide, and, in part, make land use and policy recommendations at a more detailed level than a general plan. The property in question lies within the Subregion VI Study Area Master Plan, approved September, 1993, implemented through a sectional map amendment, approved May, 1994 ("Master Plan").
The Master Plan's stated "goal" is to "preserve the rural character of its area." The Plan contains fifteen objectives. Again, quoting at great length is not warranted, but the objectives include encouraging...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Cnty. Council of Prince George's Cnty. v. Zimmer Dev. Co.
- United States v. Parker
- Barrie School v. Patch
-
Johnson v. State
...“[A] reported decision [of the Court of Special Appeals] constitutes binding precedent....” Archers Glen Partners, Inc. v. Garner, 176 Md.App. 292, 325, 933 A.2d 405 (2007), aff'd, 405 Md. 43, 949 A.2d 639 (2008).6 In Dishman, the Court of Appeals “note[d], without deciding, that the facts ......