Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board finds zoning officer erred and administratively tolls Lusby Villas site approval while litigation continues
Summary
After extensive testimony and public comment, the Board of Appeals concluded the zoning officer erred by declining to decide whether the three‑year approval period should be tolled, and the board issued an administrative order pausing the Lusby Villas detailed‑site approval (SPR‑142728) until pending litigation is final.
The Calvert County Board of Appeals voted Jan. 20 to find that the county zoning officer erred by declining to render a determination about whether the three‑year detailed‑site approval for Lusby Villas should be tolled during pending litigation, and the board exercised its authority to administratively toll the approval until the litigation is resolved.
Counsel for the applicant, Steven Oberg, said the developer faces a Sept. 18, 2027 expiration of site development approvals while the subdivision plat remains under appellate challenge in state court. "The three‑year approval period should be equitably tolled until such time as the litigation runs out," Oberg told the board, saying the developer would otherwise have to spend substantial sums to continue construction steps that might be invalidated if the circuit court decision is reversed on appeal.
County staff and legal counsel told the board the zoning ordinance contains no express administrative tolling provision and that judicial tolling is typically granted by courts, not by administrative staff. Zoning officer Rachel O’Shea had responded to the applicant that the department could not administratively confirm tolling because the ordinance lacks such a mechanism; she and staff also confirmed the detailed‑site approval presently expires on 09/18/2027.
The board heard sustained public comment opposing the Lusby Villas project and describing local concerns about traffic, sewer capacity, and neighborhood character. After deliberation the board voted that the zoning officer erred by omission in not issuing a determination on the tolling request; the panel then used its authority under section 30‑9(c) of the county zoning ordinance to issue an order and administratively toll the site development plan approval (SPR‑142728) until pending litigation is finally adjudicated.
The board instructed staff to record the tolling action in the case file; staff noted judicial tolling remains a separate remedy developers may seek from the courts.
