By Timothy B. Wheeler , Sun reporter|March 12, 2008
In a setback for the state's efforts to manage growth, the Maryland Court of Appeals has upheld Allegany County's approval of a 4,300-home development in a rural area of mountainous Western Maryland.
The state's highest court declared that Maryland law does not require local governments to stick to their master plans or state growth-management policies in making development decisions.
"Why bother to have a plan at all?" asked an exasperated Dru Schmidt-Perkins, executive director of 1000 Friends of Maryland. She and many other environmentalists had hoped the court would overturn the county's approval of the Terrapin Run project, and some vowed to seek legislation to reverse the decision.
But a lawyer for the developer hailed the ruling. "This opinion upholds the tradition of local land-use planning in Maryland," attorney Robert S. Paye said. Allegany needs development because it is economically depressed and losing population, he said.
In its opinion released yesterday, the appeals court narrowly upheld the 2005 decision by the Allegany zoning appeals board to approve Terrapin Run.
PDC Inc. of Columbia proposes to build an "active adult" community on 935 partially wooded acres off Scenic Route 40 near Green Ridge State Forest. Plans include stores, a riding stable and trails.
The appointed citizen board granted the project a "special exception" to the local zoning code. That triggered a lawsuit by opponents, who argued that the equivalent of a small city had no place in a rural area, 30 miles east of Cumberland.
In a 4-3 vote, the appeals court rejected arguments that the county board did not adhere closely enough to the county's master plan.
The court's majority also brushed aside arguments against the project by the O'Malley administration, which contended that a 1992 growth-management law requires localities to conform to seven broad "visions" for growth in Maryland.
That law calls for steering new development to existing population centers, preserving open space and protecting environmentally sensitive lands.
Judge Dale R. Cathell, writing for the majority, said that "the use of the words `conform' and `visions' were never intended by the legislature to impose absolute requirements on local governments in their practices involving their local land use programs."
The three judges in the minority disagreed, arguing that state laws enacted since 1970 have tightened the legal requirements for local governments to follow their plans in deciding whether to approve development proposals.
