In re Red Maple Place Ltd. P'ship

1

IN THE MATTER OF RED MAPLE PLACE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

No. 1317-2022

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

March 14, 2024

UNREPORTED ^[*]

Circuit Court for Baltimore County Case No. C-03-CV-21-002908

Friedman, Zic, Curtin, Yolanda L. (Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION

ZIC J.

This appeal arises from a dispute concerning the development of an affordable housing apartment complex in the East Towson neighborhood, located in Baltimore County, Maryland, by developer Red Maple Place Limited ("Red Maple") appellee. Pursuant to the Baltimore County Code ("BCC"), Red Maple's development plan had to be approved by a Hearing Officer, in this case an administrative law judge ("ALJ"). BCC §§ 32-4-227(a), (e)(2) ("[F]inal action on a Development Plan may not be taken until after a public quasi-judicial hearing before a Hearing Officer[,]" and "[i]f no comments or conditions are received by the Hearing Officer, the Development Plan shall be considered to be in compliance with county regulations."). Following a five-day hearing consisting of testimony from numerous community witnesses and Baltimore County reviewing agencies, the ALJ approved the development plan. Interested East Towson residents, a nearby condominium association, and the Northeast Towson Improvement Association, collectively referred to as "Appellants," appealed the ALJ decision to the Baltimore County Board of Appeals (the "Board"), who reversed. Red Maple then appealed to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, who reversed the Board's decision and affirmed the original ALJ decision approving the development plan. Appellants then filed a timely notice of appeal for judicial review.

The focus on appeal is confined to whether Resolution No. 111-20 subjects the parcel on which the at-issue building is to be situated to only the Design Review Panel ("Review Panel"), or whether it also subjects the parcel to the East Towson Design Standards ("Design Standards"). The Review Panel and Design Standards are two of many manuals covering standards or requirements that may or may not be applicable to any given development project in Baltimore County. We hold, and explain below, that given the plain language of the Resolution, the parcel is subject only to the Review Panel and is not subject to the Design Standards. We therefore affirm the circuit court's decision to reverse the Board's decision and affirm the ALJ's approval of the development plan.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Appellants raise one question on appeal, rephrased as follows:^[1]

Did the circuit court err in concluding that Resolution No. 111-20 expanded only the Review Panel area map to include the subject property, and it did not expand the Design Standards area map to include the subject property?

For the reasons that follow, we answer this question in the negative, and therefore affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

BACKGROUND

In Baltimore County, development plans like the type involved in this appeal are approved by a multi-step review process that culminates in a quasi-judicial hearing before an ALJ, which is itself subject to review by the Board.

Red Maple, owned by Homes for America, has attempted to develop the subject property for an affordable housing apartment complex since 2018. The subject property consists of two adjoining parcels situated in between E. Joppa Road and E Pennsylvania Avenue in East Towson: one parcel (the "Northern Parcel") fronts E. Joppa Road; the other parcel (the "Southern Parcel") sits below the Northern Parcel and fronts E. Pennsylvania Avenue. The development plan proposes a four-story, 56-unit apartment building to be built on the Northern Parcel while the Southern Parcel, which is situated slightly downhill from the Northern Parcel and consists of forest area, natural vegetation, a stream, and wetlands, will remain undeveloped. The Northern Parcel is the subject of this appeal.

The two parcels are near East Towson. The East Towson neighborhood is a historic African American community carrying a rich, meaningful history. The community was founded in the pre-Civil War era by people who were previously enslaved. Many residents living in the East Towson neighborhood today are descendants of those founders. In the words of the ALJ, a major concern of Appellants is the "prior years of intrusions by the County and businesses into the Historic East Towson neighborhood" that have acted to "erase" the neighborhood.^[2] While not the issue on appeal, it is pertinent to note that the ALJ concluded that "the evidence does not support the conclusion that an apartment building in the commercial corridor of E. Joppa Rd., on the Northern Parcel will negatively impact this unique neighborhood."

The Administrative Law Judge's Decision

In Baltimore County, a land developer must apply to develop land. An applicant first submits a concept plan outlining the development, receives County agency comment on the concept, presents the plan at a community input meeting, and then creates a finalized development plan which undergoes detailed review for compliance with various County agencies. BCC §§ 32-4-211-217, 221, 226. In accordance with Article 32, Title 4 of the BCC, the applicant must then present the development proposal at a public hearing under the Office of Administration Hearings ("OAH") before a Hearing Officer, often an ALJ. Red Maple's public hearing was conducted over five days, beginning on November 19, 2020. The BCC § 32-4-229 "mandates that a Hearing Officer grant approval of a development plan which meets all of the development rules, regulations and applicable policies[.]" Pursuant to the BCC, "a Hearing Officer may not deny a development plan which" satisfies those regulations. BCC § 32-4-229 (emphasis added). Approval from a Hearing Officer, here an ALJ, is "just the first step" in the development process, and County agencies continue to review the plans to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Monkton Pres. Ass'n v. Gaylord Brooks Realty Corp., 107 Md.App. 573, 585 (1996).

The ALJ reviewed exhibits, evidence, and testimony from 38 individuals including numerous agency representatives and concerned citizens. The testifying agencies included the Department of Permits, Approvals, and Inspections; Development Plan Review; the Department of Recreation and Parks; the Office of Zoning Review; Environmental Protection and Sustainability; and the Department of Planning. The ALJ then concluded in a 62-page opinion that Red Maple's development plan satisfied all of the agencies' requirements, and therefore approved the plan to build the apartments on the Northern Parcel.

Resolution No. 111-20

Prior to Red Maple's November 19, 2020 public OAH hearing before the ALJ, however, the Baltimore County Council passed Resolution No. 111-20 (the "Resolution") on October 5, 2020. The Resolution "designat[ed] Historic East Towson as a Design Review Area, subject to review by the Design Review Panel." (emphasis added). Resolution No. 111-20. It states, in relevant part:

[T]he Historic East Towson Design Review Area, the boundaries of which are described in the map attached hereto as Exhibit "A," is hereby designated as a design review area for residential and non-residential development pursuant to Bill 100-20; and . . . that the map attached hereto as Exhibit "A" shall in all respects supersede the previously adopted map dated October 12, 2016 and known as the "East Towson Design Review Panel Area[.]"

Resolution No. 111-20 (emphasis added). The Resolution expanded the "Design Review Area" to include, among other properties, the Northern Parcel of the subject property. It accomplished this by amending a map "known as the East Towson Design Review Panel" area map. (In this opinion, as described above, we refer to the "Design Review Panel" as the "Review Panel."^[3]) This new Review Panel map now includes the Northern Parcel. Prior to the Resolution, the Review Panel area map did not include the Northern Parcel.

Review Panel

Pursuant to BCC § 32-4-204(a), the Baltimore County Council may "designate areas of the County in which development plans are subject to review by the [Review Panel,]" much like Resolution No. 111-20. The Review Panel consists of nine professional members who have knowledge of architecture and design, as well as rotating members who are residents of Baltimore County's districts. The Review Panel is intended to be an advisory group, meant to "encourage design excellence" and to assess proposed development plans under specified County Code criteria. BCC § 32-4-203(b)(2). The Review Panel's manual is contained within Baltimore County's Comprehensive Manual of Development Policies ("CMDP"). The CMDP is a "manual that determines particular policies for [residential and commercial] development in Baltimore County."

The Review Panel manual begins on page 193 and contains an associated map on page 204 which designates the areas which must be reviewed by the Review Panel.^[4] The Review Panel manual's map is labeled "East Towson Design Review Panel Area." (In this opinion, as described above, we refer to the "East Towson Design Review Panel Area" as the "Review Panel" manual and/or map.^[5]) The ALJ found that the Review Panel manual and map were published on October 12 2016.^[6] After the Resolution was enacted, the Review Panel reviewed Red Maple's proposed development plan for the Northern Parcel according to the Review Panel guidelines in a meeting held on November 10, 2020. The Review Panel approved the plan with certain conditions. Upon satisfaction of the Review Panel's conditions, the county agencies recommended the development plan for approval. These conclusions were presented to the ALJ at Red Maple's OAH hearing where the ALJ...