Baltimore County Board of Appeals to issue amended decision after appellate remand in Rosebank Avenue case

Baltimore County Board of Appeals members on Dec. 11, 2024, agreed to issue an amended decision on remand after the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland said the boardhad not given a sufficiently reasoned explanation in Case No. 21184SPH about whether an activity at 8209 Rosebank Avenue qualified as a "service garage." The property at issue is owned by Rosebank Avenue Group LLC; adjoining property owners in the appeal are the Maggio family.

The appellate court remanded the matter because it found the boardhad not provided enough factual explanation for its conclusion. In the earlier board opinion the panel concluded there was no service garage at 8209 Rosebank Ave., in part because the board interpreted the zoning regulationdefinition of "service garage" to require some form of remuneration. The boardnoted the zoning definitionlanguage regarding remuneration "was not very artfully written" and said it could not ignore words that the County Council had included in the definition.

The board members distinguished a prior unreported board opinion referenced by the court (CBA 2021, in the matter of Tatiana Proso and Vladimir Besser) on factual grounds. That earlier panel concluded a service garage existed despite an absence of direct evidence of money changing hands; in that case the record included a log and other indicia of activity, including at least one vehicle listed for sale. By contrast, the Rosebank record lacked photographs, logs, or other evidence of exchanges, sales, or barter that would support a finding of remuneration. One member summarized the evidentiary posture: "If there's no evidence, there's no evidence, so there's nothing for us to ... include in detail for writing the opinion." (Member Ivan.)

Board members also emphasized zoning context: the Rosebank property is zoned for industrial uses, while the Maggios' adjoining property is residential. The panel said that a reasonable expectation exists for industrial activity on a parcel zoned for that use and that relocating automotive work from residential lots to properly zoned property is a policy aim the county has sought to achieve. Members additionally said county and state inspections cited in the record did not find activity showing an operating service garage, and the transcript records a response that a red dye seen on the property was used for heating, not vehicle service.

The board did not record a formal roll-call vote on a motion at the end of the deliberation. Members said they were in agreement to prepare an amended decision on remand that more fully explains the factual and legal reasoning for the board's conclusion. The board went off the record after confirming it would issue the amended opinion.

Background: The matter concerns an appeal of a board order that had been appealed to the appellate court and returned to the board for clarification of its findings and legal analysis. The transcript indicates the board's amended decision will be written to expand on its prior reasoning regarding the zoning definition of "service garage" and the evidentiary record in this case.