Court blocks Shore development

Plans to turn a 275-acre farm near Chestertown into a housing development got a setback this week when Maryland's highest court said Queen Anne's County officials had improperly approved the project. Now residents there may get to find out if their publicly adopted growth plans have any teeth. 

This week's ruling, in Grasslands Plantation Inc. v. Frizz-King Enterprises, is one of the first court cases to come in the wake of the Terrapin Run decision last year, in which the Court of Appeals ruled that local officials need not hew strictly to their growth plans in deciding whether to approve specific developments.  In that case, developers argued their 4,300-home project in eastern Allegany County was "smart growth" because it was compact, but opponents pointed out the homes would be built in a rural area on a scenic highway near a state forest. far from any existing public water or sewer.

This is one of those seemingly dry, bureaucratic issues that ought to matter to anyone who cares about what gets built where in their community.  Every city, county and town in Maryland is required to adopt a "comprehensive" plan meant to guide growth, and the plan is supposed to reflect public input. 

In this case, Queen Anne's County's board of appeals had approved building 51 homes on the farm, over objections from a neighboring landowner, who pointed out it was outside the county's designated growth zone.  As I reported in the blog earlier this year, county voters elected slow-growth officials who subsequently adopted an ordinance requiring that developments "conform" to the county's comprehensive plan.

Now, the Court of Appeals has overturned the county's prior approval of the project and sent it back for re-hearing, citing erors made by the board.  And the high court specifically directed the local board to weigh whether this development conforms to the county's comprehensive plan under the new local law. 

Since this case was argued before the Court of Appeals, the O'Malley administration won legislative approval of a new state law requiring local officials to follow their growth plans in making development decisions.  It's unclear if this will settle the issue - in its Shore development rulilng, the high court specifically avoided commenting on it.

To read the case for yourself, go here.