Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals denies request to reconsider prior Mesika property ruling
Summary
The Board of Appeals unanimously denied a motion to reconsider an earlier decision on the Mesika property, citing the county attorney’s advice that the subdivision in question predates the zoning ordinance and thus exemption arguments were inapplicable.
The St. Mary's County Board of Appeals on April 9, 2015 denied a request to reconsider a previous ruling concerning the Mesika property. The denial was unanimous (5–0).
Background: The board received a written request for reconsideration of a prior decision on a property identified in hearing materials as the Mesika property. No representative for the request appeared at the April 9 hearing. Board members discussed whether there was any new information that would warrant reopening the case.
Legal basis and board discussion: George Sparling, the county attorney, advised the board that the reconsideration request rested on a legal question: whether a zoning-ordinance provision limiting certain development within subdivisions applied to the lot at issue. Sparling told the board his opinion remained the same as when the case was first heard — that the subdivision predated the adoption of the zoning ordinance and therefore the ordinance’s subdivision limitation did not apply to the lot. He added that the motion for reconsideration cited no legal authority demonstrating his earlier opinion was in error.
Board action: A board member moved to deny the motion for reconsideration and the board voted unanimously to deny it. The board clerk and staff noted that the original decision and the new denial will be reflected in the minutes and order, and that any party wishing to challenge the board’s decision may appeal to the circuit court in the time allowed by statute.
What was not changed: The board did not reopen or rehear the original case, and it did not consider new evidence; members stated no new factual or legal basis had been presented that would change the original ruling.
Next steps: Staff will prepare the minutes and the order reflecting the denial of the motion for reconsideration. Parties retain the right to seek judicial review in circuit court within the applicable statutory period.
