Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1119 SEPTEMBER TERM, 1997

FALLSTON MEADOWS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC. ET AL. v. THE BOARD OF CHILD CARE OF THE BALTIMORE ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH

Davis, Kenney, Bell, Rosalyn B. (Ret'd, specially assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Kenney, J.

Filed: August 28, 1998

-1-

On March 1, 1996, the Director of Harford County's Department of Planning and Zoning accepted and approved a preliminary

subdivision/site plan submitted by appellee, The Board of Child Care of the Baltimore Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church. On March 25, 1996, appellants, Fallston Meadows Community

Association and its president, Salvatore Glorioso, appealed the decision of the Director of Planning and Zoning to the Harford County Board of Appeals. The case was submitted to a hearing

examiner, and, after two days of hearings, the hearing examiner recommended that the case be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. of Appeals. Appellant filed two appeals in the Circuit Court for Harford County. The first, filed August 19, 1996 and docketed as case This decision was subsequently ratified by the Board

3692-8-42, was a direct appeal from the decision by the Director of Planning and Zoning to approve the site plan submitted by appellees (the "direct appeal"). The second, filed November 8, 1996 and

docketed as case 3742-8-92, sought review of the judgment of the Board of Appeals, ratifying the decision of the hearing examiner (the "appeal of the Board's decision"). Appellees filed a motion

to consolidate the two cases, which was granted on May 19, 1997. Thereafter, on May 28, 1997, the circuit court issued an order affirming the judgment of the Board of Appeals and dismissing the direct appeal as untimely. Appellants noted this appeal, raising

three questions, which we have rephrased:

-3I. Did the circuit court err when it determined that the Board of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to review the final site plan? Did the circuit court err consolidated both appeals? when it

II.

III. Did the circuit court err when it ruled that the direct appeal was not timely filed? On cross-appeal, appellee raises two questions, which we have rephrased: I. Was the appeal of the Director of Planning and Zoning's decision to the Board of Appeals timely filed? Did appellants have standing to appeal the approval of the final site plan?

II.

With regard to appellants' questions I, II, and III, we perceive no error. With regard to appellee's first question, we

agree that appellants' appeal to the Board of Appeals was not timely filed. We will decline to address appellee's second

question, as it was not adequately raised and decided in the court below.1 court. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS In 1991, the Board of Appeals granted appellee special Accordingly, we shall affirm the judgment of the circuit

exception approval to build a juvenile group home facility on

With regard to Mr. Glorioso, the circuit court specifically stated: "His standing has been questioned because of a question as to the title of his residence, but the question has not been pursued by [appellee]."

1

-4property it decision to owned grant in Harford County, special Maryland. exception The Board's was

appellee

approval

challenged by the same appellants as the appellants in the present case, but the decision was affirmed, first, by the circuit court, and then by this Court in an unreported opinion. Appellee obtained original site plan approval in 1993, and, in January 1996, a preliminary subdivision/site plan (the "Plan") was submitted to the Department of Planning and Zoning. On March 1,

1996, the Plan was approved by Mr. Anthony S. McClune, Harford County's Chief of Current Planning, and Ms. Arden Case Holdredge, the Director of Harford County's Planning and Zoning Department. According to the report accompanying their approval, McClune and Holdredge acknowledged that the Plan altered the previously

approved preliminary/site plan "by slightly modifying the building locations, stormwater management facility, and septic reserve

area." In addition, they noted that the Plan reconfigured the septic reserve area and the forest retention area. Their report

indicated, however, that the revisions were "minor in nature" and did "not alter the intent of the original preliminary/site plan." Appellants objected to the approval of the Plan, arguing that the revisions contained therein constituted substantial

modifications to the earlier preliminary/site plan approval and, thus, pursuant to

Download Fallston Meadows v. Board of Child Care.pdf

Maryland Law