HNS Development, LLC v. People's Counsel for Baltimore County, 425 Md. 436

Summary

The Maryland Court of Appeals held that Baltimore County's Master Plan is an integrated and binding part of the county's development-regulation scheme. Because the proposed amended development plan conflicted with the Master Plan, that conflict independently supported denial of the plan despite compliance with other development requirements. The court also held that the petitioner's takings argument was waived and that the exaction issue was nonjusticiable or moot.

Holdings

1. Under the Baltimore County Code, the Master Plan is an integrated and binding part of the development regulations. Nonconformity with the Master Plan therefore provides a valid and independent basis for denying an amended development plan, even if the plan satisfies other physical and procedural requirements.
2. HNS's takings argument was waived because its brief failed to state the applicable standard of review and failed to provide supporting legal authority as required by Maryland Rule 8-504(a)(5) and (6).
3. The court declined to decide whether Note 18 was an impermissible exaction because the parties agreed that it was not an exaction, there was no justiciable controversy on that question, and the issue was moot in light of the independent Master Plan conflict.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Baltimore County's Master Plan was an independent and binding development-regulation requirement permitting denial of HNS's amended development plan despite compliance with other development regulations.
2. Whether denial of the amended development plan constituted a taking without just compensation.
3. Whether Note 18 was an impermissible exaction under City of Annapolis v. Waterman.

Disposition

affirmed