In re Aiton
| Decision Date | 30 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | 1841-2021 |
| Parties | IN THE MATTER OF LAURELL A. AITON, ET AL |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Charles County Case No. C-08-CV-21-000050
Berger, Arthur, Kenney, James A., III (Senior Judge Specially Assigned), JJ.
The[*] Charles County Board of Appeals (the "Board") granted Woodville Pines, LLC, ("Woodville") a "special exception" to use property it owns as an event and conference venue. Several surrounding landowners of the property appealed the Board's decision to the Circuit Court for Charles County, which reversed the Board's grant of the special exception permit. On appeal, Woodville asks: Did the Board correctly rule as a matter of law that the type of use proposed, an event and conference venue, falls within the special use exception of Art. XII, § 297-212(48)(B) of the Charles County Zoning Ordinance? For the reasons that follow, we shall reverse the circuit court's decision and affirm the ruling of the Board.
Woodville owns about 22 acres of real property at 17012 Prince Frederick Road in Waldorf, Maryland (the "Property"). Michael White and his son, George White, are the sole members of Woodville. The Property is an unimproved forested lot with no structures on it and has a zoning classification of Agricultural Conservation ("AC"). The adjoining properties are likewise zoned AC and most have been improved with single-family residences.
In July 2020, Woodville filed a request with the Board for a special exception permit to build a "lodge" on the Property for "milestone" events, "such as weddings, vow renewals, family services, birthdays[,]" and corporate meetings. The main building would be a two-story structure of approximately 6,720 square feet located on five acres of woods in the middle of the Property.
On December 8, 2020, the Board held a virtual public hearing on Woodville's request for the special exception permit. Several adjoining landowners (the "Adjoining Landowners") opposing the request were present at the hearing with their respective attorneys.[1] Also present was an employee with the Charles County Planning Division and an employee from each of the two private engineering firms Woodville had engaged in its development of the Property.
Two provisions of the Charles County Zoning Ordinance ("CCO") were of particular relevance in framing the presentation at the hearing. Article XXV, § 297-415(H) states that the Board "shall grant a special exception" when, by a preponderance of evidence, the proposed use satisfies nine stated criteria.[2] And, more specifically to this use, Article XIII, § 297-212(48) which states:
(Emphasis added.) Provision B. is the focus of this appeal.
At the hearing, Michael White testified about the proposed use of the Property and answered questions from the Board. He testified that the corporate events would occur on the Property Monday through Thursday with less than 50 participants, and that the milestone events would be held on Fridays and Saturdays with up to 300 guests. He testified that, in addition to the main building, 147 parking spaces and a gazebo would be constructed, and that the "lawn area adjacent to the building would be used for brief ceremonies, with at the most, light music played in conjunction with the ceremony." Food and refreshments for the events would be provided by outside vendors. He advised the Board that the facility would be "open for the public at large," in that members of the public could reserve the facility for an event. He testified that the Property was chosen because it could draw from the surrounding larger population outside of Charles County, including other Maryland locations, Northern Virginia, and D.C.
A planner with the Department of Planning and Growth Management (the "Department") testified that the Department recommended approving the special exception request, as it complied with the nine criteria of Article XXV, § 297-415 and the three provisions of Article XIII, § 297-212(48).[3] During the hearing, the Board noted that it had received "a lot" of emails expressing concern about the proposed project. And most of the testimony related to traffic concerns which resulted in a condition in the Board's ultimate order for a traffic study for the proposed use.
After the evidence portion of the hearing had ended, the attorney for the Adjoining Landowners argued, among other things, that the Board should deny the special exception because CCO § 297-212(48)(B) limited the special exception use of the property to "organization members and their guests" whereas Woodville's proposed facility could be used by the general public. Woodville's attorney responded that its proposal had met all the criteria for a special exception and rejected the Adjoining Landowners' interpretation of CCO § 297-212(48)(B). During the Board's deliberations, its attorney noted that the terms in the title were not defined and the question for interpretation was "what does similar uses mean[?]" He was of the opinion that the word "organization" as used in § 297-212(48)(B), was limited to like-organizations listed in the title and did not include "places of assembly that are open to the public" and not "tethered to [an] organization."
The Board unanimously approved Woodville's special exception request with several conditions, including setting the hours of operation from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. In its subsequent written decision and order, the Board specifically addressed the requirements of CCO § 297-212(48)(B), stating that although the proposed use will provide "food, refreshments, and entertainment to the public[,]" this was not in contravention of the ordinance because:
[t]he provision of food, refreshments and entertainment is the concept of this proposal. The opponents argued that food, refreshments, and entertainment may only be provided to members of an organization or club and their guests. While this subsection does permit such activity, this does not exclude members of the public from receiving such services. That is the concept of such places of social assembly.
The Adjoining Landowners appealed to the Circuit Court for Charles County. At a hearing held on September 20, 2021, their attorney argued that the Board had committed "legal error" in its application of provision B. because it limits the special exception use "to club or organization members and their guests" if food or refreshments are provided on the Property. It was their position that food cannot be served to the general public or to who wants to rent the facility under provision B. and that its food and refreshment provision was intended to limit the number of people using the facility.
Woodville's attorney focused on the deference to be given in judicial review to the Board's interpretation of an ordinance that it administers and that the "expertise of an agency in its field should be respected." As to the interpretation of provision B., Woodville's attorney stated:
The Board's attorney, also stressing the standard of review, asked the circuit court to give "considerable weight" to the Board's and the Department's interpretation of the ordinance because they "administer and interpret the zoning regulations" and they both agree that the proposed use is permitted by special exception in the AC zone. As to the language of provision B., he argued that "meeting halls is certainly broad" and "[s]imilar uses is even broader[,]" which, even if seen as an ambiguity, could be interpreted by the Board and the Department as permitting the proposed use. As to the Adjoining Landowners' argument that provision B. was to protect them from uses incompatible with residential homes, the attorney, citing the broad uses provided for in an AC zone,[4] argued it would be a mistake to premise the interpretation of the provision on what is compatible with residential uses. In addition, if the Adjoining Landowners' interpretation of the ordinance language would prevail, it would necessarily apply in other districts where the use was permitted by special exception and which would result in the "very severe practical effect" that lodges or fraternal organizations in an AC zone could not rent their halls for such private events.
After hearing the arguments presented, the circuit court reasoned that provision B. was intended to "narrow" the scale of the use to protect the adjoining property owners. The court reversed the Board's ruling and remanded the case back to the Board with instructions to deny the application, unless Woodville amended its application in a way that was consistent with § 297-212(48)(B) as set...
To continue reading
Request your trial