59-A-4.128. Report.

   The Planning Board or its technical staff must submit to the Board at least 5 days before the date set for public hearing, a report reviewing any petition for special exception. Upon request of the Board of Appeals, the Planning Board or its  technical staff must also submit a report reviewing and making a recommendation on an application for a variance. The reports must comply with a format and other requirements established by agreement of the Planning Board and the Board of Appeals.The report must be included in the application file and treated as part of the record of the application.  Any report filed under this section does not affect the applicant's burden of proof and persuasion under Section 59-G-1.21(b).

(Legislative History: Ord. No. 8-61, § 1; Ord. No. 9-71, § 2; Ord. No. 12-1, § 1; Ord. No. 12-3, § 1; Ord. No. 13-72, §1; Ord. No. 13-76, §1; Ord. No. 14-47, § 1; Ord. No. 15-21, § 2; Ord. No. 15-23, § 1; Ord. No. 16-20 § 1.)

   Editor’s note—Section 59-A-4.1 is cited and quoted in Purich v. Draper Properties, Inc., 395 Md. 694, 912 A.2d 598 (2006).  Section 59-A-4.11 is cited in Montgomery County v. Rotwein, 169 Md. App. 716, 906 A.2d 959 (2006).  Section 59-A-4.11 is quoted in Grand Bel Manor Condominium v. Gancayco, 167 Md. App. 471, 893 A.2d 1144 (2006).  The above Section is cited in Cowles v. Montgomery County, 123 Md. App. 426, 718 A.2d 678 (1998).  Section 59-A-4.1 [formerly § 111-30] is cited in Cohen v. Willett, 269 Md. 194, 304 A.2d 824 (1973); is discussed in Luxmanor Citizens Association v. Burkhart, 266 Md. 631, 296 A.2d 403 (1972); and is cited in Gruver-Cooley Jade Corporation v. Perlis, 252 Md. 684, 251 A.2d 589 (1969).  Section 59-A-4.1 [formerly §§ 104-22 and 111-30] is quoted in part in Hertelendy v. Montgomery County Board of Appeals, 245 Md. 554, 226 A.2d 672 (1967).  Section 59-A-4.1 [formerly §104-22] is cited in Stacy v. Montgomery County, 239 Md. 189, 210 A.2d 540 (1965); Chevy Chase Village v. Montgomery County Board of Appeals, 249 Md. 334, 239 A.2d 740 (1968); Younkin v. Boltz, 241 Md. 339, 216 A.2d 714 (1966); and Clark v. County Board of Appeals, 235 Md. 320, 201 A.2d 499 (1964).  Section 59-A-4.1 [formerly § 59-4] is cited in Redden v. Montgomery County, 270 Md. 668, 313 A.2d 481 (1974).  Section 59-A-4.1 [formerly § 104-22(d)] is quoted in part and discussed in Montgomery County v. Mossburg, 228 Md. 555, 180 A.2d 851 (1962).  Section 59-A-4.11 is cited and Section 59-A-4.123 is quoted and discussed in Mossburg v. Montgomery County, 329 Md. 494, 620 A.2d 886 (1993), where a supermajority requirement imposed for special exception by § 59-A-4.123 is held invalid as not authorized by the Regional District Act.  Section 59-A-4.123 is quoted in Pierce v. Montgomery County, 116 Md.App. 522, 698 A.2d 1127 (1997).

   See County Attorney Opinion dated 8/27/03 advising the Council of the prohibition against granting a variance for a condition of a special exception.  See County Attorney Opinion dated 4/6/00 indicating that the Board of Appeals should issue an opinion explaining whether a required fact has been proved or not, regardless of the number of votes for the proposal.