Calvary Temple of Balt., Inc. v. Anne Arundel Cnty., 1574
| Decision Date | 28 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 1574,1574 |
| Parties | CALVARY TEMPLE OF BALTIMORE, INC., ET AL. v. ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND, ET AL. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County
Case Nos. C-02-CV-19-000170 and C-03-CV-19-000167
UNREPORTED
Opinion by Leahy, J.
*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.
Appellee Lumenary Memory Care at St. Stephens Church, LLC ("Lumenary") applied for a special exception and two variances in 2017 in order to construct an assisted living facility for individuals suffering from memory-related illnesses in a Residential Low-Density Zoning District ("RLD"). At the public hearing conducted on Lumenary's application, Pastor James F. LaRock, Sr. ("Pastor LaRock"), representing both himself and his employer, Calvary Temple of Baltimore, Inc. ("Calvary") (collectively, "Appellants"), voiced his opposition to the facility. On September 29, 2017, the Administrative Hearing Officer ("AHO") filed a memorandum granting the special exception and variances requested by Lumenary.
In response to the AHO's decision, Pastor LaRock and several others filed a timely Notice of Appeal (the "Notice") to the Anne Arundel County Board of Appeals (the "Board") on October 26, 2017. The Notice claimed that Lumenary's proposed project would alter the essential character of the neighborhood and be detrimental to the public welfare. Notably, Calvary was not included on the Notice.
In February 2018, the Board held hearings on Lumenary's motion to dismiss. At the hearings, Lumenary argued that the protestants lacked standing to bring the appeal. Pastor LaRock claimed to represent both himself and Calvary, despite the omission of Calvary's name from the Notice. The Board agreed with Lumenary and refused to allow Pastor LaRock to amend the Notice to include Calvary because the Anne Arundel County Code (the "AA Code") requires that an appeal be taken within 30 days from the AHO's decision. Pastor LaRock, however, was granted individual administrative standing to file the appeal, along with the other protestants.
The Board then proceeded to hold hearings on the merits of the appeal over four days between April 3 and August 1, 2018. In its "Memorandum of Opinion" dated December 17, 2018, the Board agreed with the AHO's decision and unanimously granted, subject to two conditions, Lumenary's request for a special exception and variances.
On January 15, 2019, Pastor LaRock, Calvary, and four others petitioned for judicial review of the Board's decision, including its decision to deny Calvary standing, in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. Lumenary filed a cross-petition and motion to dismiss challenging the standing of all protestants. Lumenary argued, among other things, that the Board erred by granting Pastor LaRock standing because, as an employee of Calvary rather than a property owner, Pastor LaRock was not "aggrieved" by the decision of the AHO.
Following a hearing on September 9, 2019, the circuit court announced its ruling granting Lumenary's cross-petition. The court found that the Board erred in granting Pastor LaRock standing because he did not own the parsonage, and therefore, he was not prima facie aggrieved by the decision of the AHO, and he had not offered sufficient evidence to show how he was specially aggrieved. The court also found that the Board did not act arbitrarily, illegally or capriciously when it denied standing to Calvary and the other two remaining petitioners.1 The court memorialized its judgment in an opinion and order signed on September 25, 2019 and entered on October 1, 2019.
Appellants note this timely appeal and present three questions for our review, which we have consolidated as follows:2
We hold that the Board did not commit reversible error in denying administrative standing to Calvary because substantial evidence supported its determination that Calvary did not appeal the AHO's decision according to the AA Code and the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Anne Arundel County Board of Appeals (the "AA Board Rules"). We also hold that the Board's decision to grant standing to Pastor LaRock was supported by substantial evidence and not legally erroneous. Although Pastor LaRock is not prima facieaggrieved by the decision of the AHO, we agree with the Board that he is specially aggrieved by the decision because he possesses a significant, long-term interest in the Calvary property and lives in close proximity to the site of Lumenary's project. Accordingly, the circuit court erred in reversing the Board's decision and denying standing to Pastor LaRock.
Lumenary is a collection of five partners wishing to construct an assisted living facility along "the northeast side of St. Stephens Church Road, northwest of Brandy Farms Lane" in Millersville, Maryland. Lumenary aims to provide "specialized services to individuals suffering from memory-related illnesses," including "personalized health care management; assistance with bathing, dressing, grooming, and medications; nursing care; meals and snacks; activities and entertainment; housekeeping; laundry and transportation." The subject property consists of approximately 8.709 acres, is undeveloped and is on a historic road ("the Property").3 In 2017, Lumenary applied for a special exception to construct an assisted living facility in the RLD zone, along with an area variance to permit the facility on a lot under 10 acres, and a time variance of an additional 18 months to obtain a building permit under the applicable AA Code provisions.
On September 12, 2017, the requisite public hearing on Lumenary's application washeld before the Office of Administrative Hearings.4 Pastor LaRock, Senior Pastor for Calvary, was present at the hearing and testified in opposition to Lumenary's application.5
Calvary owns the land at 933 St. Stephens Church Road, "which is virtually across the street from [the Property]."6 Pastor LaRock testified that he lives at 933 St. Stephens Church Road and opposed the application, explaining that he "treasure[s] his peace and quiet and believe[s] that the facility would alter the character of the neighborhood."
Pastor LaRock claimed to represent both himself and his employer, Calvary. When asked whether Lumenary's application was discussed at the church, Pastor LaRock responded that they did not conduct "an official business meeting" regarding the application, but added that "if that were appropriate," they "certainly could [have such a meeting]."
In regard to the area variance, the AHO decided that The AHO also determined that the second variance for an extension of time would be granted because "[i]t is well known that a project of this complexity can take far longer than 18 months to move through the permitting stage." The AHO then addressed AA Code § 18-11-104 governing the requirements for such a facility in the RLD zone, and concluded that Lumenary's application for special exception should be granted because it complied with all requirements, with the exception of the 10-acre lot requirement, for which a variance would be granted.
Pastor LaRock and eight other individuals timely filed a Notice of Appeal7 to the Board, stamped as received on October 26, 2017.8 The Notice stated that the listed partiestook "exception to the judgment that has been made whereby a variance . . . and special exception . . . to the Anne Arundel County Code have been granted." They alleged that the grant of the variances and special exception would "alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which [the Property] is located, substantially impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property and be detrimental to the public welfare[.]"
In response to the Notice, on November 13, 2017, Lumenary moved to dismiss the appeal.9 It argued that the parties listed on the Notice "lack[ed] standing to maintain this appeal under [AA] County Code . . . § 18-16-402." Specifically, Lumenary alleged that "[Pastor] LaRock, James LaRock Jr. and Henry Powell are not 'aggrieved' by the decision of the AHO . . . and, as such, they [] do not have standing to maintain an appeal under the [AA] Code." It also pointed out that, although Calvary is the owner of the land on which Pastor LaRock lives, "Calvary Temple is not listed on the Notice of Appeal and is thus not a party to the proceeding before the Board."
Several months later, the parties appeared before the Board on February 15 and February 22, 2018 to address the standing issues raised in the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial