Preview:

HEADNOTE Talbot County v. Town of Oxford, et al No. 1509, September Term, 2006
Talbot County's effort to modify critical areas growth allowances for the towns of Oxford, St. Michaels, and Easton was rejected by the Critical Areas Commission, without whose approval a local government program may not be amended. A preliminary challenge to the Commission's jurisdiction, based on timeliness of the Commission's actions, was rejected. The County failed in its burden to establish that the Commission failed to undertake review of its proposed ordinance within the prescribed 90 period . Followin g a statutorily mandated review, a panel of the Critical Areas Commission recommended denial of the proposed modification because: (1) it would negate at least one previous Commission approval of a local program change and (2) it would create con flicts between the Coun ty program an d several ap proved m unicipal programs, contrary to the Commission's oversight responsibility to insure consistent and uniform implementation. The Circuit Court for Talbot Cou nty denied the County's relief, affirming the Commission's denial. The court agreed with the Commission that the County's proposal would interfere with established program s and that the County had dem onstrated u nwillingne ss to coope rate with the ap pellee tow ns in its propo sal. On a substantial record, a finding that the Commission a cted within appropriate p arameters is not reversible.

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1509 September Term, 2006

TALBOT COUNTY v. TOWN of O XFORD, et al

*Ke nney, Sharer, Woodward, JJ.

Opinion by Sharer, J.

*Ke nney, J. participated in the hearing and conference of this case while an active member of this Court; he participated in the adoption o f this opinion as a retired, spe cially assigned member of this Court. Filed: November 30, 2007

In an effort to alter critical areas growth allocations within Talbot County and the Towns of Easton, Oxford, and St. Michaels, the Talbot County Commissioners enacted County Bill 933. The Department of Natural Resources, Critical Areas Commission for the Chesapeake and Atlan tic Coastal Bays ("the Com mission"), the entity whose a pproval is required to modify critical areas growth allocation, rejected Bill 933, and this litigation ensued. Dissatisfied with the Commission's refusal to approve Bill 933 as a local program amendment to its Critical Area Program, appellant/cross-appellee, Talbot County ("the County"), filed suit in the Circuit Court for Talbot County seeking a declaratory judgment and a writ of m andamu s. The Co unty appeals from the circuit court's denial of its requested relief and raises two issues for our review, which, as slightly rephrased and reordered, are:1 1. Whether the Commission acted within the time prescribed by statute for accepting and proc essing Bill 933. Whether the Commission's refusal to approve Bill 933 was beyond its legal authority and/or otherwise arbitrary and illegal.

2.

1

In its brief, the County asked: 1. Whether the Critical A rea Com mission fa iled to com ply with state statutes reg arding the processing of submissions? Whether the Critical Area Commission's refusal to approve Talbot County Bill 933 was outside its legal authority and o therwise ar bitrary and illegal?

2.

In its cross-appeal, appellee/cross-appellant, the Town of Oxford, "subm its that in addition to the reasons given by the Critical Area Commission, Bill 933 should be voided for addition al reaso ns." For the reas ons tha t follow , we shall affirm the judgment of the circuit court. Since the Town of Oxf ord's cross-a ppeal issue is subsum ed within our decision, we need not deci de it s epar ately. FACTUAL and PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Critical Areas Legislation In 1984, the Maryland G eneral As sembly enacted the "Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Protection Program" (the "Act"), codified in Md. Code Ann., Nat. Res. ("NR")

Download Talbot County v. Oxford.pdf

Maryland Law