Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Plan Court Opinion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Circuit court reverses Board of Appeals on FDR Boulevard mapping; county to consider next steps
Summary
County counsel told the Board of Appeals a circuit court reversed the board’s earlier decision on whether a 2006 transportation plan reference to FDR Boulevard was sufficiently definite to be inconsistent with a petitioner’s concept site plan; the court emphasized that a reservation must have a narrow scope and fixed duration.
County legal counsel George Sparling briefed the Board of Appeals on a circuit court opinion issued Sept. 5 that reversed the board’s prior ruling on an FDR Boulevard-related site-plan dispute.
Sparling summarized the court’s holding: because the 2006 transportation plan referenced FDR Boulevard with only a preliminary alignment, the court concluded the plan “as a matter of law could not have been inconsistent with the petitioner’s concept site plan.” The court described the future alignment as “unlimited as to scope and indefinite as to duration,” and said that reserving or restricting private property in anticipation of a future right-of-way requires a more definite location and a fixed period of reservation. The court cited Article 66B, section 6.01, as requiring local legislative bodies to fix the period for which a street location shown on a plat is to be reserved.
Sparling told the board the circuit court reversed the board’s order and remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. He said the court did not decide whether other grounds might exist to deny the petitioner’s concept site plan; the court limited its holding to the inconsistency argument tied to the transportation plan.
Sparling said county attorneys had discussed next steps with the applicant’s counsel and that an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals remained possible; the county had until October to file that appeal. He also warned the board that the remand could raise procedural questions—whether the board should act on the site plan itself or refer it back to the Planning Commission for further proceedings—and that further legal briefing from the parties would likely be needed before the board acts.
The county attorney’s synopsis indicates the court’s opinion could affect how the county reserves right-of-way locations in long-range transportation planning and the level of detail or duration required to use a plan as a basis to restrict private development.
Sparling advised the board he would not discuss private settlement discussions but expected the parties’ attorneys to present legal arguments about the scope of further proceedings when the matter returns to the board.
