Board Of Appeals

Closing arguments were a study in sharply contrasting strategies as the final hour encroaches in the prolonged and sometimes abrasive hearings on the proposed multimillion-dollar luxury tower in downtown Columbia. Attorney Richard B. Talkin, representing the developer, never veered from the sanctity of case law and declaring that the challengers to the luxury skyscraper failed absolutely to meet the standards to permit the case to continue. Counsel for the opponents, E. Alexander Adams, though citing case law as well, made more of an appeal for democracy, pleading for the county's regulatory system not to slam the door in the face of citizens and to extend a full examination of their grievances.

With the new Anne Arundel County Council's recent move to shake up an appeals board that has broad land-use authority, several environmentalists are hopeful that county leaders will take a harder line on protecting the county's extensive shoreline. To the surprise of some environmental activists, the council declined last week to reappoint three members of the seven-member Board of Appeals, bowing to frustration over some of the panel's rulings that allowed for homebuilding in "critical areas" near the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

Responding to concerns about unchecked development along the Chesapeake Bay watershed, 17 Anne Arundel County residents appeared before the County Council on Monday night to interview for spots on the board that hears zoning, permit and license appeals. For environmental groups, the seven-member Board of Appeals has become a target of criticism for approving too many variances to state regulations that protect critical areas near the waterfront. Current board members - six of whom are seeking reappointment to another four-year term - defended their voting records on variance issues, but most of the challengers vowed to enforce the Maryland Critical Area Act more strictly and crack down on leniency.

When the dust settled, there had been extensive skirmishing, a few heated exchanges, an admonition for civility and the questioning of a single witness, but no answer to everyone's question: Can the appeal proceed against the proposed 23-story residential and retail skyscraper in downtown Columbia? For that, people will have to wait for two weeks, perhaps longer. The strategies for both sides are clear. The developer wants the Board of Appeals to declare that the opponents lack legal standing to contest the multimillion-dollar project and end the hearings abruptly.

One of Anne Arundel County's most poorly kept secrets is that the building permits process doesn't get much respect. Some say it's too strict. Some say it's too cumbersome. Some just don't want to bother getting permission before constructing an addition to a home, putting up a barn, paving a driveway, or filling in wetlands. So, they just go ahead and do what they want. If they get caught, they might have to pay a fine. But what's done is done. No one is believed to have flouted the law as audaciously, though, as Daryl Wagner, a developer who bought a small, thickly forested island in the Magothy River, cleared it of vegetation and a modest home, and erected a 2,269-square foot mini-mansion complete with pool and lighthouse - all without any effort to comply with county zoning and environmental regulations.

Anne Arundel County's lawsuit against a builder who constructed an island home in the Magothy River without permits will not be dropped, County Executive John R. Leopold said yesterday, despite a recent ruling by the Board of Appeals to allow the builder to keep his home. Leopold said the matter regarding Daryl C. Wagner "has been a black eye for the county. It's my intent to do everything in my power to ensure that this does not reoccur." Leopold's comments came a day after the seven-member appeals board granted retroactive variances, letting Wagner keep his glistening white home of more than 5,000 square feet on Little Island, near Pasadena.

The Board of Appeals postponed a hearing on a challenge to the county's approval of a 23-story lakeside residential and retail tower in downtown Columbia. The hearing, which was to have been held Tuesday, has been rescheduled for Dec. 5. Attorney E. Alexander Adams, who is representing four county residents, filed the appeal in September. The opponents say the county violated many of its regulations when the Planning Board approved the plan by WCI Communities Inc. to build a $70 million, 275-foot-tall tower overlooking Lake Kittamaqundi.

Even after suffering a resounding defeat in their challenge to the Planning Board's approval of an expansion of Turf Valley, a luxury resort and planned community, opponents vowed their fight is far from over. The Board of Appeals unanimously turned back the multi-pronged attack, saying to do otherwise in the face of the facts would be "arbitrary and capricious." Louis Mangione, vice president of the owner and developer of Turf Valley, Mangione Family Enterprises, praised the board's vote Thursday night.

An already contentious fight escalated this week with a charge that the county's official records of months of hearings on the planned expansion of Turf Valley are incomplete and have been fraudulently altered. Frank Martin, one of two residents who filed an appeal and lawsuit challenging the Planning Board's approval of the expansion, made the allegations Monday after spending almost two hours comparing the original tapes against copies of them and a transcript provided by the county.

Opponents of the planned expansion of Turf Valley dusted off a page from the Watergate scandal by alleging an 80-minute gap in the official record of months of hearings on the luxury development. The 18 missing minutes on White House tapes helped doom President Richard M. Nixon, but the latest charge was dismissed as unproved and inconsequential in a failed effort to discredit and strike a key piece of evidence in the battle over Turf Valley. In the first evening of hearings, devoted exclusively to legal maneuverings, the Board of Appeals unanimously rejected three motions, two by the opponents and one on behalf of the developer.