Graul v. Riverwatch, LLC
| Decision Date | 12 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 978,978 |
| Parties | TOM GRAUL, ET AL. v. RIVERWATCH, LLC, ET AL. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Baltimore County
Case No. 03-C-17-007659
UNREPORTED
Meredith,* Leahy, Beachley, JJ.
Opinion by Leahy, J.
*Meredith, Timothy E., J., now retired, participated in the hearing of this case while an active member of the Court, and, after being recalled pursuant to the Constitution, Article IV, Section 3A, he also participated in the decision and the preparation of this opinion.
*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.
In this appeal, which arises out of one of the oldest towns in Baltimore County, we explore one of the newest issues in land use and zoning—statutory vesting. The sprawling procedural history of the underlying case is rooted in the 2015 decision of the Board of Appeals of Baltimore County (the "Board") to approve a special exception to allow the appellees, Riverwatch, LLC and Two Farms, Inc. (collectively, "Royal Farms"), to build a fuel service station, convenience store, and carry-out restaurant in Hereford, Maryland. The Sparks-Glencoe Community Planning Council, Tom Graul, Ken Bullen, Jr., and Ruth Mascari (the "Protestants") and the People's Counsel for Baltimore County (collectively, "Appellants"), petitioned for judicial review of the Board's decision to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. Following a hearing, the court remanded the case to the Board for further proceedings to consider additional evidence.
In the time period between the remand order and the next Board hearing, the Baltimore County Council enacted Bill 56-16, which changed the zoning classification of the subject property. On remand before the Board, Appellants moved to dismiss Royal Farms' petition for a special exception on the basis that the new zoning classification applied and prohibited the fuel service station. The Board denied the motions to dismiss, holding that the former zoning classification applied because Royal Farms had obtained vested development rights by recording a plat in accordance with the provisions of Baltimore County Code ("BCC") § 32-4-264(b)(2) (2009). After holding another hearing to address the issues from the remand order, the Board affirmed its decision to grant thespecial exception to Royal Farms.
Protestants and People's Counsel sought judicial review, and during their second sojourn to the circuit court, challenged both the denial of their motions to dismiss and the Board's decision to grant the special exception. The court affirmed the Board's decisions, prompting the timely appeals by Protestants and People's Counsel to this Court.
We consolidate the two questions presented by Protestants, and five by People's Counsel, into the following two issues:1
In addressing these questions, we examine several predicate issues; such as whether "final" zoning approval, including any necessary special exception approval, is a prerequisite to vesting under BCC § 32-4-264. We hold that the Board did not err in denying the motions to dismiss brought by Appellants on the basis that Royal Farms had vested rights. We further hold that the Board did not err in granting a special exception because the Board's determination that there was a "need" for the products and services offered at Royal Farms was not in error and was supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Hereford is one of two designated rural villages in Baltimore County. Only eleven of Hereford's 104 buildings were built within the last 25 years, and Protestants claim that 42 of its 104 buildings are in the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties.The Hereford Community Plan, adopted by the Baltimore County Council in 1991, states that "[t]he land use goal for Hereford is to provide for limited appropriate commercial growth in a centralized area that does not exceed environmental constraints." According to the Plan, "[c]ommercial services are to be limited to serving the needs of Hereford residents, the agricultural community, as well as tourists."
Riverwatch, LLC, owns roughly 5.88 acres of land at 118 Mount Carmel Road in the Hereford area of Baltimore County (the "Property"). Originally an unimproved cornfield, the Property has been subdivided into a 3.37-acre lot ("Lot 1") and a 2.51-acre lot ("Lot 2"). The Property is situated on the north side of Mt. Carmel Road between York Road to the east and I-83 to the west. It is located within a Tier IV area under the State's Sustainable Growth and Agricultural Preservation Act of 2012, which means that it is not planned for sewerage service and is zoned to prioritize preservation and conservation. To the east of the Property are several cottage-style houses occupied by residents and businesses. Just to the west, on Mount Carmel Road, is the Hereford Shopping Center, which includes a Graul's Market, the Hereford Pharmacy, and an M&T Bank. Other businesses in the vicinity include an Exxon fuel station, other banks, another pharmacy, and a 7-Eleven.
Riverwatch, LLC and Two Farms, Inc.2 proposed to build a fuel station,convenience store, and carryout restaurant site (collectively, the "Project") on Lot 2. The fuel station, as proposed, would consist of a canopy with six dual-sided fuel dispensers to permit up to 12 cars to pump fuel at the same time.
On December 6, 2013, Royal Farms filed a Petition for Zoning Hearing with the Office of Administrative Law for Baltimore County, requesting: (1) a special hearing for approval of illuminated signage; (2) a special exception to allow, as uses in combination, a fuel service station, a convenience store with a sales area larger than 1,500 square feet, and a carry-out restaurant; and (3) a variance to permit a wall-mounted enterprise sign exceeding the permitted size.3 At that time, the Property was zoned B.L.-C.R., a Business Local zone in the Commercial, Rural District. Because the Property is outside of the Urban-Rural Demarcation Line ("URDL"), the fuel service station was permitted only by special exception under section 405.2.B.2 of the Baltimore County Zoning Regulations ("BCZR"). A special exception was also required, under BCZR 405.4, for a carry-out restaurant in combination with a fuel service station and, under BCZR section 405.4.E.1, for the proposed convenience store with a sales area larger than 1,500 square feet.
People's Counsel for Baltimore County filed an Entry of Appearance as an interested party to the petition. A hearing on the petition was held before an administrative law judge ("ALJ") in the Office of Administrative Hearings for Baltimore County on January 27, 2014. Two days later, the ALJ granted all of Royal Farms' requests, subject to certain conditions.4
On February 18, 2014, Royal Farms filed an application under BCC § 32-4-106 with the Development Review Committee ("DRC"), for limited exemptions from the development review process.5 Specifically, Royal Farms filed under § 32-4-106 (b)(8) as "[a] minor development that does not exceed a total of three lots[,]" for an exemption from the requirements for a community input meeting and a Hearing Officer's hearing. With the application, Royal Farms submitted copies of a development plan that showed, among other things, the area of the Project site, applicable setbacks and zoning information, and the heights and dimensions of the proposed structures.
In a letter dated March 19, 2014, the Department of Permits Approvals and Inspections ("PAI") adopted the DRC's recommendations that Royal Farms' Project metthe requirements of a limited exemption under § 32-4-106(b)(8). The letter advised Royal Farms of the documents that they needed to submit to further process the development plan. The letter from PAI constituted a final administrative order and decision.
The Protestants filed timely notices for a de novo appeal to the Board from both the January 29, 2014 ALJ Opinion and Order and the March 19, 2014 PAI approval of the limited exemption. The Board consolidated the appeals and held public hearings on eight days, starting on July 22, 2014 and concluding on March 26, 2015. While the appeals were before the Board, Royal Farms was simultaneously pursuing approval of the development plan by County agencies, including the Department of Environmental Protection and Sustainability ("DEPS").
On October 20, 2015, the Board issued a 67-page Opinion and Order approving the special hearing for illuminated signage; granting the special exception to allow a fuel service station and a convenience store and carry-out restaurant as uses in combination; and granting the limited exemption from the development review process. The Board's decision to grant the special exception was based, in part, on the finding that Royal Farms satisfied its burden of demonstrating a "need" for the Project, as required by BCZR § 259.3.E.
Several weeks after the Board issued its Opinion and Order, on November 13, 2015, PAI issued final approval of Royal Farms' Store #185 Development Plan (the"Development Plan"). On the same day, PAI and DEPS approved the plat for the Project (the "Plat"), and Royal Farms recorded the Plat in the land records of Baltimore County. As the Board noted in a later decision in this case, "[i]t is undisputed that neither the Protestants nor People's Counsel appealed the final approval of the [Development] Plan."
To continue reading
Request your trial