59-A-4.49. Opposing or supporting statements.

Groups or organizations intending to appear in opposition to a petition for special exception or request for variance must file statements at least 10 days prior to the hearing date indicating what such group expects to prove, the names of witnesses, the estimated time for presentation of such group's case and such other materials as are required by Chapter 2A. The statement must be accompanied by copies of documentary evidence and summaries of the testimony of expert witnesses on behalf of the opposition group. Notwithstanding Chapter 2A, nothing herein can preclude the Board from permitting an individual to testify on his own behalf without prior notice either for or against the special exception or variance. No prior filing of an opposition statement is required in cases heard on less than 30 days' notice.

(Legislative History: Ord. No. 8-61, §§ 2, 3; Ord. No. 11-16, § 1; Ord. No. 11-67, § 3; Ord. No. 13-35, §1; Ord. No. 13-112, §1; Ord. No. 14-36, § 1; Ord. No. 14-47, § 1; Ord. No. 14-49, § 1; Ord. No. 15-23, § 1.)

   Editor's note-The above Section is cited in Concerned Citizens of Great Falls v. Constellation-Potomac, 122 Md. App. 700, 716 A.2d 353 (1998).  Section 59-A-4.41(a) is referenced in People’s Counsel for Baltimore v. Prosser Company, Inc., 119 Md.App. 150, 704 A.2d 483 (1998), concerning the provision requiring the Board of Appeals to hold a public hearing and the necessary number of votes for a decision.  In Eger v. Stone, 253 Md. 533, 253 A.2d 372 (1969), the court ruled that hearsay evidence was sufficient evidence upon which to base the granting of a special exception.  Section 59-A-4.4 [formerly § 104-25(a)] is cited in Chevy Chase Village v. Montgomery County Board of Appeals, 249 Md. 334, 239 A.2d 740 (1968).  Section 59-A-4.48(c) is quoted and interpreted in Columbia Road Citizens’ Association v. Montgomery County, 98 Md.App. 695, 635 A.2d 30 (1994), wherein the Court of Special Appeals held that the word "must" in the context of obtaining additional recommendations from the Planning Board pursuant to § 59-A-4.48(c) 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.  Section 59-A-4.48 [formerly § 111-37] is discussed in Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. Montgomery County, 267 Md. 82, 296 A.2d 692 (1972).