Baltimore County Board of Appeals denies motion for reconsideration in CBA25-017 over alleged missing photos

The Baltimore County Board of Appeals on May 27, 2025, denied a motion for reconsideration filed by William M. Lagna seeking dismissal of case CBA25-017 related to property at 221 Bowleys Quarters Road, concluding the board had before it the same record that supported the hearing officer's decision.

The motion, filed in April 2025, argued that incorrect photographs and files were forwarded to the board and therefore the record reviewed by the board violated provisions of the Baltimore County Code, specifically §3-6-301(b) and §3-6-303(a). Chair Sharron Bernard summarized the petition at the start of the hearing and said the board convened to consider those arguments.

Chair Sharron Bernard said the panel reviewed the record that had been created before the hearing officer and that the petitioner had not provided a clear showing of what was missing. "He states that was in violation of section 3-6-301b of the Baltimore County code and 3-6-303a wherein the board of appeals hearing shall be limited to the record created before the hearing officer," Bernard said in summarizing the motion and the basis for the petition.

Board member Joseph Evans said the record did not support the petitioner's claim. "I don't know what he's talking about. The record actually doesn't establish with satisfaction his claim," Evans said, adding there were no affidavits identifying specific missing materials. Evans also stated that he had reviewed audio and videotape and that what the hearing officer (ALJ Belt) saw remained available on the record presented below.

Board member Michael Stelmack said the petitioner had phoned in to the earlier hearing and "it's possible that he did not see the photographs as they were put up on the screen," but that Stelmack recalled receiving and reviewing the exhibits before the panel hearing. Stelmack said he saw no basis for the claim and described the reconsideration filing as "an abuse of the reconsideration process" if no specific supporting evidence was provided.

The panel referenced the prior proceedings: a hearing before the panel on March 6, 2025, and an order dated March 20, 2025, in which the board affirmed that the hearing officer's findings of fact were supported by competent material and substantial evidence and affirmed a fine of $2,150. The April filing sought dismissal or reconsideration on the ground that the record forwarded to the board was not identical to the hearing officer's record.

After discussion, the three-member panel agreed that the motion for reconsideration should be denied, finding that (1) the petitioner had not identified specific missing items or submitted affidavits documenting the claimed administrative error, and (2) any discrepancy alleged would be harmless because the board reviewed the same exhibits and audiovisual record that the hearing officer had before him. The hearing transcript does not show a roll-call vote; the board members expressed agreement with denial during the session.

The hearing concluded after the members voiced their views and expressed that, based on the record and their review of the exhibits and audiovisual recording, there was no reversible error warranting dismissal or reconsideration.

The panel did not set further proceedings on the record provided in the transcript.