Loading...
(a) Subject to the approval of the Council, the Board may adopt rules of procedure to govern its proceedings. The Board’s rules may govern filing fees, the conduct of meetings and hearings, and other procedures necessary to hear and decide cases. This Article and other laws, ordinances, rules and regulations under which the Board exercises authority control in any conflict with any rule adopted by the Board.
(b) The Board, and the Hearing Examiner in cases referred by the Board, must allow each party a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine each witness not called by that party on matters within the scope of that witness' direct testimony.
(c) The Board must decide any matter referred to it only after notice and opportunity for hearing and on the basis of the record before it. However, the Board may decide any matter that the Board referred to a Hearing Examiner solely on the basis of the Hearing Examiner's report and recommendation.
(d) All hearings held by the Board or the Hearing Examiner must be open to the public. (Mont. Co. Code 1965, § 2-91; 1967 L.M.C., ch. 13, § 1; 1976 L.M.C., ch. 44, § 1; 1988 L.M.C., ch. 27, § 1; 1997 L.M.C., ch. 24, § 1; 2001 L.M.C., ch. 30 § 1.)
Editor's note-Section 2-113 [formerly §2-91] is cited in Cohen v. Willett, 269 Md. 194, 304 A.2d 824 (1973). In Town of Somerset v. Montgomery County Board of Appeals, 245 Md. 52, 225 A.2d 294 (1966), it was held that it was a denial of due process for the Board of Appeals to refuse to permit aggrieved parties to cross-examine witnesses at a hearing on the grant of a special exception.
Cross reference-Rules of procedure, app. C.
(a) The Board may, by vote of 3 members, refer any matter pending before it to be heard by a hearing examiner in the Office of Zoning and Administrative Hearings. The Office must conduct the hearing under the Office’s rules of procedure or, if the Office’s rules do not apply to that type of hearing, the Board’s rules of procedure. The hearing examiner must submit a written report and recommendation to the Board.
(b) Within 10 days after transmittal of the hearing examiner's report and recommendation, any person who, or association which, appeared and testified in person or by counsel at the hearing before the examiner may request, in writing, an opportunity to present oral argument to the Board before it issues a decision. Any request for oral argument must explicitly state the issues to be presented at the oral argument. If oral argument is granted, the party who sought the oral argument must be limited to the issues stated in the request and any other issue specified in the order allowing oral argument. The Board may, in its discretion, grant or deny a request for oral argument.
(c) The Board must, after oral argument if argument is allowed:
(1) decide the matter on the basis of the evidence of record and the hearing examiner’s report and recommendation, or
(2) remand the matter to the hearing examiner for clarification or taking additional evidence, as appropriate. (1976, L.M.C., ch. 44, § 1; 2001 L.M.C., ch. 30, § 1.)
(a) If a party in a matter adjudicated by the Board of Appeals is aggrieved by a final decision of the Board in the matter, the party may seek judicial review of the decision in the Circuit Court under the applicable Maryland Rules of Procedure governing judicial review of administrative agency decisions. A party aggrieved by the decision of the Circuit Court may appeal that decision to the Court of Special Appeals.
(b) Unless the court reviewing the Board’s decision orders a stay, the decision remains in effect pending a final decision of the court. (Mont. Co. Code 1965, § 2-92; 1971 L.M.C., ch. 10, § 3; 2011 L.M.C., ch. 17, § 1.)
Editor's note-In Cohen v. Willet, 269 Md. 194, 304 A.2d 824 (1973), it was held that the Circuit Court cannot remand an appeal from the denial of a special exception for additional consideration unless it finds that the action of the Board of Appeals was not in accordance with law. In the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. Montgomery County, Maryland, 267 Md. 82, 296 A.2d 692 (1972), it was held that such Commission had no right under the above section's predecessor to appeal from a decision of the Board of Appeals granting a special exception. In Hertilendy v. Montgomery County Board of Appeals, 245 Md. 554, 226 A.2d 672 (1967), it was held that a landowner who had sent a letter to the Board protesting the granting of a variance, but who had not appeared personally before the Board was an aggrieved person entitled to appeal. In Bayer v. Siskind, 247 Md. 116, 230 A.2d 316 (1967), it was held that the right to appeal on grounds that cross-examination of witnesses was denied in hearings before the Board of Appeals is waived if an objection to being denied cross-examination is not made at the hearing. In Bryniarski v. Montgomery County Board of Appeals, 247 Md. 137, 230 A.2d 289 (1967), it was held that an "owner of property immediately contiguous or in close proximity" to property being
rezoned is an aggrieved party with the right to appear and be heard by the Board of Appeals and appeal the board's decision in the courts. In Baxter v. Montgomery County Board of Appeals, 248 Md. 111, 235 A.2d 536 (1967), it was held that persons who sign a petition in opposition to the grant of a special exception are parties aggrieved for the purpose of an appeal from the grant of a special exception. In Montgomery County Board of Appeals v. Walker, 228 Md. 574, 180 A.2d 865 (1965), it was held that a member of the County Board of Appeals was justified in disqualifying himself from a case where he had vigorously opposed a previous rezoning request made by the same parties and had thereafter continuously been legal counsel for a company owned by one of the applicants. Such case also held that the Board was also a party to an appeal to the courts. Section 2-114 [formerly §2-92] is cited in Town of Somerset v. Montgomery County Board of Appeals, 245 Md. 52, 225 A.2d 294 (1966). Section 2- 114 [formerly §2-83] is quoted in part in Symonds v. Bucklin, 197 F.Supp. 682 (D.Md. 1961).
2011 L.M.C., ch. 17, §§ 2 and 3, state:
Sec. 2. Transition. This Act does not apply to any appeal to the Board of Appeals that was filed before this Act took effect.
Sec. 3. Regulations. Regulations 6-06AM and 7-06AM remain in effect, notwithstanding any amendment to the County Code in Section 1 of this Act, except for any provision of the National Fire Code that authorizes or refers to an appeal to the Board of Appeals.
There may be appointed and assigned to the county board of appeals such employees, and the chief administrative officer shall make available to the board such services and facilities of the county, as are necessary or appropriate for the proper performance of its duties, and the county attorney shall serve as counsel to the board. (Mont. Co. Code 1965, § 2-94; 1969 L.M.C., ch. 34, § 22.)
*Editor's note—See Editor’s note to § 2-119 concerning timetable and transition details of 2003 L.M.C., ch. 20.
Former Article VI, §§ 2-117 — 2-123, relating to public defenders, derived from Ord. No. 6-59 and 1969 L.M.C., ch. 35, §§ 23-25, was repealed by 1986 L.M.C., ch. 37, § 4.
The County Council finds that:
(a) State law requires the County to establish or designate a local management board to ensure the implementation of a local, interagency service delivery system for children, youth, and families.
(b) Under State law, the County may designate a quasi-public, nonprofit corporation that is not an instrumentality of the County to act as the County’s local management board.
(c) Designating a quasi-public, nonprofit corporation as the local management board will best enable the County to implement a local, interagency service delivery system for children, youth, and families. (2003, L.M.C., ch. 20, § 1.)
The primary functions of the local management board are to:
(a) administer state funds for certain children’s services, and plan and coordinate those state- funded services;
(b) participate in community planning for children’s services related to the state-funded programs; and
(c) apply for and administer funds for children’s programs, as provided in Section 2-122. (2003, L.M.C., ch. 20, § 1.)
Loading...