Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 156 SEPTEMBER TERM, 2001

DALE LUCAS, Individually, etc. v. PEOPLE'S COUNSEL FOR BALTIMORE COUNTY, ET AL.

Davis, Kenney, Thieme, Raymond G., Jr., (Ret'd, specially assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Kenney, J.

Filed: September 26, 2002

This case involves a petition filed by Edgar Lucas,1 for a special exception pursuant to the Baltimore County Zoning

Regulations ("BCZR")for an airport.

Dale Lucas (the "appellant")

appeals the Circuit Court for Baltimore County's decision affirming a determination by the Baltimore County Board of Appeals (the "Board") that the proposed use did not meet the definition of an airport.2 He presents the following questions for our review:3

Edgar Lucas, the original petitioner, died on January 30, 1999, while the case was before the Baltimore County Board of Appeals (the "Board"). In April 1999, Dale Lucas, Edgar's personal representative, was substituted as the petitioner. Appellees/protestants in this case include: People's Counsel of Baltimore County ("People's Counsel"); the Valley Planning Council c/o Jack Dillon, Executive Director; Deirdre Smith, Brooklandville, Maryland; Douglas Carroll, Lutherville, Maryland, owner of property located two parcels west of Helmore Farm; Susan and Stephan Immelt, Brooklandville, Maryland, owners of two parcels situated west of the Helmore Farm and one parcel, owned by Susan Immelt, individually, which borders the Helmore Farm helicopter landing area; and William Brewster, Brooklandville, Maryland, owner of property south of Helmore Farm and Hillside Road. Appellee People's Counsel for Baltimore County, reformulated and condensed appellant's questions as follows: 1. Whether the [Board's] finding that the proposed use is impermissible is correct, or at least, reasonable and deserving of deference? 2. Whether the [Board's] denial of the special exception in any event was supported by the facts and based on the relevant legal standard? The other appellees presented the questions as follows: 1. Did the Board err either in its interpretation of the Baltimore County Zoning Regulations restrictions on aircraft landing uses or in its application of those restrictions to the facts of this case? 2. Did the Board apply the Schultz v. Pritts test reasonably, and (continued...)
3 2

1

-2I. Whether the Board erred as a matter of law in finding that the proposed use at Helmore Farm is not an "airport." II. Whether the Board erred as a matter of law in ruling that the BCZR definition of "airport" does not include helicopter operations. III. Whether the Board erred as a matter of law by utilizing an incorrect interpretation of the Special Exception Standard. IV. Whether the Board erred as a matter of law by incorrectly analyzing the Special Exception Requirements of BCZR

Download Lucas v. People's Counsel.pdf

Maryland Law