Sheahan v. Historic Pres. Comm'n of Annapolis

RICHARD SHEAHAN, et ux. v. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF ANNAPOLIS, et al.

No. 1974

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2015

March 8, 2017

UNREPORTED

Krauser, C.J., Nazarian, Moylan, Charles E., Jr. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

PER CURIAM

*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.

Richard Sheahan and Catherine Sheahan, appellants, noted an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, upholding a decision of the Annapolis Historic Preservation Commission. We affirm.

Appellants own property at 83 Shipwright Street, which is located in the historic district of Annapolis. Appellants opposed an application filed with the City of Annapolis by their neighbor, Mary Treger, seeking approval for plans to build a proposed addition to her home. The Annapolis Historical Preservation Commission, which is vested with authority to approve or deny such applications¹, held five days of hearings on the application, at the conclusion of which the Commission voted, by a margin of 6-1, that the application was in compliance with applicable guidelines set forth in the Annapolis Historic District Design Manual ("Design Manual")² and approved the application.

Appellants sought judicial review of the Commission's decision in the Anne Arundel County circuit court, which affirmed the decision. Appellants then filed an appeal to this Court, in which they claim that the Commission's decision was not supported by substantial evidence and that the Commission applied an incorrect standard in evaluating the impact the proposed addition would have on the subject property and the Annapolis historic district.

At issue is whether the proposed addition was in compliance with Guideline A.3 in the Design Manual, which provides as follows:

All projects which are visible from the water shall respect and reinforce the historic character of the district and shall respect traditional views and visual focal points³. . . . The scale, placement and configuration of new structures, and plantings within these view sheds need to be carefully planned so that new elements do not alter or obscure the character of these historic patterns.

Appellants' position before the Commission was that the proposed addition would obstruct the view of their circa 1890 house in violation of this guideline. In its decision, the Commission concluded that the application complied with Guideline A.3, and explained the basis for its finding as follows:

We concur that 83 Shipwright Street is a structure that contributes to the historic character of the district. But we do not find that the height and width of the [proposed addition] encroaches to a degree that has an adverse effect on the view of 83 Shipwright Street from the water. In fact, much of 83 Shipwright St., including the character defining features (building materials, dormers and roof form) will still be largely visible. We find that the design does respect the historic character of the district. Both parties presented diagrams and photographs showing the view and the proposed addition, created from many angles. We considered all of this evidence in drawing this conclusion.

"A court's role in reviewing an administrative agency adjudicatory decision is narrow, it is limited to determining if there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the agency's findings and conclusions, and to determine if the administrative decision is premised upon an erroneous conclusion of law." Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Weller, 390 Md. 115, 141 (2005) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In doingso, "we [assume] the same posture as the circuit court . . . and limit our review to the agency's decision." McClure v. Montgomery County Planning Bd., 220 Md. App. 369, 379 (2014) (citation omitted).⁴

"With regard to the agency's factual findings, we do not disturb the agency's decision if those findings are supported by substantial evidence." Id. at 380. "Substantial evidence is defined as 'such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'" Id. (citation omitted). The substantial evidence test "is a deferential one, requiring 'restrained and disciplined judicial judgment so as not to interfere with the agency's factual conclusions[.]'" HNS Dev., LLC v. People's Counsel for Baltimore Cty., 200 Md. App. 1, 45 (2011) (citation omitted), aff'd, 425 Md. 436 (2012). Accordingly, an appellate court "should not examine the facts in any case further than to determine whether there was substantial evidence to sustain the order." Accokeek, Mattawoman, Piscataway Creeks Communities Council, Inc. v. Maryland Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 227 Md. App. 265, 283 (citation omitted), aff'd sub nom. 451 Md. 1 (2016).

Where evidence presented by one party conflicts with that of another party, as in the instant case, "it is the agency's province to resolve [the] conflicting evidence and to draw inferences from that evidence." Motor Vehicle Admin. v Weller, 390 Md. at 141 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We give deference "not only to agency factfinding, but to the drawing of inferences from the facts as well." HNS Dev., 200 Md. App. at 45(citation omitted). Finally, "we review the agency's decision in a light most favorable to the agency, since decisions of administrative agencies are prima facie correct, and carry with them the presumption of validity." Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Appellants' first contention is that the evidence presented by Ms. Treger's architect, regarding the impact that the proposed addition would have on the view of 83 Shipwright, was "mathematically incorrect." They further assert that the "majority decision relied" on this "flawed" evidence, and that, therefore, the Commission's finding that the proposed addition complied with Guideline A.3 was not based on substantial evidence.

Preliminarily, we observe that it is not clear from the record to what extent, if any, the Commission relied on the testimony of the architect in reaching the conclusion that the proposed addition would comply with Guideline A.3. Indeed, the Commission's on-the-record deliberations suggest that, while it considered the architect's testimony regarding the degree of visual obstruction of 83 Shipwright from Spa Creek, as well as the conflicting evidence presented by Mr. Sheahan, some of the commission members were not persuaded by either. As stated above, it is within the Commission's province to resolve the conflict in the...