Board of Appeals grants county motion to dismiss Jim Craft Homes permit appeal, says easement question belongs in circuit court

The Baltimore County Board of Appeals granted the county's motion to dismiss an appeal by Jim Craft Homes over a disputed building permit, concluding the board and the county director lack authority to determine whether a private implied easement exists.

Shramp Bernardi, chair of the Baltimore County Board of Appeals, opened deliberations by framing three issues before the panel, including whether the appeal was ripe and whether the director of PAI or the board could rule on the implied-easement question. Bernardi noted the director's letter dated 09/27/2024 requested additional information and said the director believed he lacked authority to decide the easement issue. "If they felt that they had information and and that information was insufficient, that maybe the letter should say ... a reasonable time of 30 days, then they would issue a denial of the permit," Bernardi said.

Board members debated ripeness. William Paul Shaw, a board member, said it was difficult to rule without a definitive denial from the county: "It's a tough process, but it's hard for us to rule without seeing it being denied." Joseph Evans, another board member, said even if the board treated the letter as a denial, neither the director nor the board could make a final determination on an implied easement because doing so would decide a real-property ownership interest. "We we just can't make that decision. This is way beyond our authority, way beyond the director's authority," Evans said.

The panel discussed procedural options, including remanding to the director to add a clear denial sentence or the petitioner pursuing a separate action in circuit court to resolve ownership and easement claims. Evans outlined the court route as the practical remedy: file for a declaratory judgment on the implied easement, serve the interested property owners, obtain a court ruling, and then present that ruling to the director to obtain a permit.

The board said it would grant the county's motion to dismiss on ripeness grounds, and, in the alternative, rule for the county on the merits because the director lacked authority to declare a private easement. The panel agreed that any final resolution that affects other property owners' rights requires participation of those owners and the circuit court's adjudicatory authority. Bernardi said the board would issue a written determination "in order." The deliberation then concluded.

Case background: The matter is Case No. CBA25-007 (Jim Craft Homes, Inc.) concerning property at Armstead Road, Lots E and F, shown on the second revised plat of Cedar Cross Cedar Crest, Baltimore, Maryland 21219. The petition appealed a denial or nonfinal determination of a building permit reflected in a director of PAI letter dated 09/27/2024. The board noted a prior hearing on 03/20/2025 that was held in person. The petitioner argued it had submitted required information and that the director's letter amounted to a denial; the county argued the appeal was not ripe and that resolution of easement ownership is for the circuit court.

The board did not take a recorded roll-call vote in the transcript; panelists stated agreement and the chair announced the outcome and that a written order would follow. The board discussed but did not issue instructions that would decide ownership or alter property rights; it directed that the formal written determination would be issued and identified the circuit court as the appropriate forum for resolving disputed implied-easement claims.

The decision ends the administrative appeal stage unless the petitioner obtains a definitive denial from the director or pursues a declaratory ruling in circuit court and then reapplies for a permit.