Baltimore County Board of Appeals upholds ALJ and grants extension for Evans Funeral Chapel special exception

The Baltimore County Board of Appeals on deliberation in April 2025 unanimously agreed to uphold an administrative law judge's decision and to grant a petition for an extension of a special‑exception approval for 19A Newport Drive LLC (Evans Funeral Chapel) for property at 11543 Philadelphia Road (Case No. 24-076-SPH).

Board Chair Shron Bernardi opened the deliberation and identified the primary questions: whether the protesters' res judicata argument barred the petition, whether the matter required a de novo hearing, whether the petition was timely, and whether an extension under the Baltimore County Zoning Regulations (BCZR) §502.3 was reasonable.

Bernardi said, “From my analysis, it appeared that all the dates were prior to the May 16 deadline. And so I don't see that there was an issue in the timeliness of the filing of the petition.” The board agreed that the protesters' res judicata argument was procedural in effect and did not collaterally bar the extension request. The panel also concluded it did not need to reopen the prior factual findings and that it would issue its own written order reflecting the board's view.

In discussing the merits, the board reviewed the administrative record, including engineering exhibits and filings. Board member Deborah Dobkin noted documentation from the petitioner's engineering consultant and said the record showed repeated submittals and county comments that supported the petitioner's contention that delays involved agency reviews. "It appears to me that they acted in good faith and tried to move this along as best they could," Dobkin said. Fred Lauer observed that the petitioner had a plaque recorded on the property before a zoning change, which the board viewed as protective of the petitioner's position.

Protesters had argued the petitioner intentionally withheld plans for a crematorium and that allowing an extension would effectively give the petitioner a second chance to obtain approvals. The board reviewed competing testimony in the record and concluded the administrative law judge had properly relied on the testimony and documentary record. The panel said documents in the record, including filings the board identified as petitioner exhibits, put the matter of a crematory in the written record and provided notice.

The board agreed to uphold the ALJ's decision and to grant an extension under BCZR §502.3 for the period allowed by the county regulations (up to five years), finding that the petitioner had proceeded with reasonable diligence given the sequence of agency reviews and resubmittals documented in the record. The board members thanked both parties for their memoranda and preparation and said they would issue a written order adopting the board's deliberation.

The board's public deliberation identified these items in the record: a request by the petitioner for a temporary six‑month extension considered below by an administrative law judge; engineering exhibits from Carroll Engineering referenced as petitioner exhibits; and testimony from the petitioner (identified in the record as Mr. Evans) describing delays. The panel cited a case referenced by protesters (Lipitz v. Hurwitz) as part of the res judicata argument but found the authority did not prevent consideration of the extension under the zoning regulation.

The board did not state a specific date for issuance of its written order during the public deliberation; it said only that the panel would now issue its own order reflecting the agreed decision.