You are viewing an archived code
When an application for a special exception is withdrawn, notice must be sent to all parties entitled to notice of the filing of the petition. When a case is withdrawn at least 30 days before the initial hearing, the Board may refund a part of the filing fee as authorized in its rules, and the Board may allow the application to be withdrawn without prejudice to the limitations on refiling specified in Section 59-A-4.126. When a case is withdrawn 30 days or less from the date of the hearing, withdrawal must be with prejudice.
(Legislative History: Ord. No. 8-61, § 4; Ord. No. 11-16, § 1; Ord. No. 12-29, § 1; Ord. No. 12-84, § 2; Ord. No. 13-35, § 1; Ord. No. 13-59, § 1; Ord. No. 13-112, § 1; Ord. No. 14-3, § 1; Ord. No. 14-36, § 1; Ord. No. 14-47, § 1; Ord. No. 14-49, § 1; Ord. No. 16-53, § 1.)
Editor's note— Section 59-A-4.2 is cited in Purich v. Draper Properties, Inc., 395 Md. 694, 912 A.2d 598 (2006). Section 59-A-4.2 is cited and quoted in Montgomery County v. Rotwein, 169 Md. App. 716, 906 A.2d 959 (2006). Section 59-A-4.22(a) was cited in Renzi v. Connelly School of the Holy Child, 2000 WL 1144595 (filed August 14, 2000). Section 59-A-4.22(a)(9) is described and Section 59-A-4.24 is interpreted in Concerned Citizens of Great Falls v. Constellation-Potomac, 122 Md. App. 700, 716 A.2d 353 (1998). The above section is cited in Howard County v. Potomac Electric Power Company, 319 Md. 511, 573 A.2d 821 (1990), wherein both Montgomery County and Howard County required a special exception for installation of the power lines. Although Montgomery County Board of Appeals approved a special exception to PEPCO, Howard County denied the application before it, and the company appealed. The Court of Appeals held that the Public Service Commission Law governing electric companies preempted by implication local regulation of the construction of overhead transmission lines in excess of 69,000 volts. The special exception requirement, therefore, could not be applied to PEPCO for the construction of the overhead transmission lines. Section 59-A-4.2 is cited in a footnote in Potomac Electric Power Company v. Montgomery County, 80 Md.App. 107, 560 A.2d 50 (1989). Section 59-A-4.2 [formerly § 111-31] is cited in Bryniarski v. Montgomery County Board of Appeals, 247 MD. 137, 230 A.2d 289 (1967). Section 59-A-4.2 [formerly § 104-23] is cited in Clark v. County Board of Appeals, 235 Md. 320, 201 A.2d 499 (1964). Section 59-A-4.24 is quoted and interpreted in Columbia Road Citizens’ Association v. Montgomery County, 98 Md.App. 695, 635 A.2d 30 (1994), where the word “must” in the context of obtaining additional recommendations from the Planning Board pursuant to § 59-A-4.48(c) of the Montgomery County Zoning Ordinance was directory and not mandatory. The court concluded that the absence of any consequence or penalty in the statute for failure of the Planning Board to submit the report showed that the legislature did not intend that the Board of Appeals keep its record open indefinitely to await a report that may never arrive. Further, the use of the term “reasonable” for the time to keep the record open suggested that the requirement was not mandatory.