Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1437 September Term, 1997 (On Motion For Reconsideration) ________________________________

CONCERNED CITIZENS OF GREAT FALLS, MARYLAND, et al.

v.

CONSTELLATION-POTOMAC, L.L.C., et al. ________________________________ Harrell, Hollander, Byrnes, JJ. ________________________________

Opinion by Harrell, J. ________________________________ Filed: August 28, 1998

"Pictures, I think, in this case can be quite complicated."1 This case arises from the 3 December 1996 decision of the Montgomery County Board of Appeals ("Board of Appeals" or "the Board") granting appellee petition for Constellation-Potomac, a special exception L.L.C.'s for the

("Constellation")

construction and operation of a seniors care home for up to ninety residents on property located at the intersection of Falls Road and MacArthur Boulevard in Potomac, Maryland, opposite the main

entrance to Great Falls National Park ("National Park").2

Prior to

issuing its decision, the Board of Appeals conducted eight days of hearings between March and November 1996. Subsequent to the Board of Appeals's decision, on 13 December 1996, the petition's opponents, among them appellants in the

present case, Concerned Citizens of Great Falls, Maryland; Margaret and Robert Dennis; Rosalind Allen; and Carl and Rebecca Locker (collectively referred to as "Concerned Citizens"); filed a written

The then-Chair of the Montgomery County Board of Appeals offered this comment during the course of the 1 October 1996 hearing regarding pictorial exhibits in this case. Both Concerned Citizens and appellees, in their respective appellate briefs, refer to the National Park as the C&O National Historic Park. In both the Board of Appeals decision and the transcripts from the hearings, the park is referred to as Great Falls National Park. For purposes of this opinion, we will refer to the park as "Great Falls National Park" or the "National Park."
2

1

Request for Reconsideration with the Board of Appeals.3

The Board

of Appeals adopted a Resolution to Deny [Appellants'] Motion for Reconsideration on 18 December 1996, effective 31 December 1996. On 2 January 1997, the Concerned Citizens filed a Petition for Judicial Review in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County.

Constellation responded to Concerned Citizen's petition on 16 January 1997. On 11 March 1997, appellee Montgomery County,

Maryland ("the County"), filed a timely Motion to Intervene in this case, which the court granted on 27 March 1997.4 On 30 April 1997, 29 May 1997, and 30 May 1997, Concerned Citizens, Constellation, and the County, respectively, filed

Memoranda of Law, and on 16 June 1997, Concerned Citizens filed a Reply Memorandum. On 26 June 1997 the circuit court held a hearing

in this matter, and delivered an oral ruling from the bench affirming the Board's decision to approve the special exception for the care home. On 16 July 1997, the court filed a written order

memorializing the same and attaching the transcript of the court's 26 June 1997 bench ruling. On 14 August 1997, Concerned Citizens

filed a timely appeal to this Court,5 raising the following issues
3

We list only those opponents to the petition who are before this Court in the present appeal. For purposes of this opinion, unless the County posits an argument that differs substantially from Constellation's argument, we will refer to the two appellees, the County and Constellation, collectively as "Constellation." Our original reported opinion in the instant appeal was filed on 30 June 1998. On or about 27 July 1998, the County filed a 2
5 4

for our consideration, which we have rephrased and reorganized: I. Whether the Board of Appeals violated its own procedural rules or the Montgomery County Zoning Ordinance when it permitted Constellation to revise its application for the special exception on 25 November 1996, the last day of the hearings, but failed to give Concerned Citizens additional time to respond to the revisions and failed to leave the record open for an additional time period following the hearing. Whether the Board of Appeals applied the correct legal standards in making its determination to approve the special exception.

II.

III. Whether the Board of Appeals, before making its determination to approve the special exception, made all the findings of fact required by the Montgomery County Zoning Ordinance. We conclude that the Board of Appeals violated its own procedural

rules and the Montgomery County Zoning Ordinance when it permitted Constellation to submit amendments to its special exception

application and to submit new exhibits on the last day of the hearings. We further conclude that the Board's decision to deny

Concerned Citizens' request for additional time to respond to the amendments and exhibits, and instead to close the record at the conclusion prejudicial. of the hearing, rendered the preceding errors

Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the circuit

court and remand the case to the circuit court with instructions that it return the case to the Board of Appeals for the purpose of

motion for reconsideration seeking certain technical, nonsubstantive revisions. That motion was granted on or about 25 August 1998, the 30 June 1998 opinion was recalled, and this amended opinion filed in response to the County's motion. 3

allowing Concerned Citizens a reasonable opportunity to respond to Constellation's revised petition. Because our conclusion

necessarily demands that the Board of Appeals render a new decision in light of any new evidence presented, we need not reach Issues II. and III. herein, although we will offer, for the parties' consideration, a passing comment regarding a facet of Issue II. FACTS On 11 December 1995, pursuant to section 59-G-2.37 of the Montgomery County Zoning Ordinance ("Zoning Ordinance"),6

Constellation filed a petition for a special exception7 with the Board of Appeals for Montgomery County to construct and operate a care home, known as "The Residence at Great Falls" ("the project" or "the Residence"), for the purpose of providing comprehensive care and support for up to ninety elderly residents.

Constellation's petition was assigned Case No. S-2212. Background Facts: The Original Petition The property at issue is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Falls Road in Potomac, Section 59-G-2.37 of the Zoning Ordinance sets forth the zoning provisions governing nursing homes and domiciliary care homes. See Montgomery County Code, Chapter 59 (Zoning Ordinance),

Download Concerned Citizens of Great Falls v. Constellation-Potomac.pdf

Maryland Law