Sec. 2-114. Appeals from decisions.

   (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.

Sec. 2-115. Limitation upon authority.

   Except as provided in section 2-113, nothing herein shall be construed to grant to the county board of appeals authority to adopt or amend any law, ordinance or regulation under which it exercises authority. (Mont. Co. Code 1965, § 2-93.)

Sec. 2-116. Employees, etc.

   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.)

ARTICLE VI. LOCAL MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR CHILDREN, YOUTH, AND FAMILIES.*

   *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.

   Cross reference—Courts, ch. 12.

Sec. 2-117. Declaration of Policy.

   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.)

Sec. 2-118. Purposes; scope and mission.

   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.)

Sec. 2-119. Designation.

   (a)   The County Council may designate, by resolution approved by the County Executive, a nonprofit corporation which complies with all requirements of this Article as the County’s local management board. If the County Executive disapproves the resolution within 10 days after receiving it, the Council may readopt the resolution with at least 6 affirmative votes.

   (b)   Each designation expires 3 years after the resolution is adopted unless the Council extends it by adopting another resolution under this Section.

   (c)   A corporation must comply, through its articles of incorporation and bylaws, with all requirements of this Article to continue as the County’s local management board.

   (d)   In this Chapter, local management board means the corporation that the County has designated to implement a local, interagency service delivery system for children, youth, and families. (2003, L.M.C., ch. 20, § 1.)

   Editor's note—2003 L.M.C., ch. 20, § 2, states: Timetable; transition.

   (a) The first resolution adopted under Section 2-119(a), inserted by Section 1 of this Act, must take effect on July 1, 2004. Any corporation that seeks to be designated as the local management board must submit proposed articles of incorporation and bylaws to the County Executive and County Council for review and comment by May 1, 2004.

   (b) By February 1, 2004, the Director of the Department of Health and Human Services must submit to the Executive and Council a local management board transition plan to address such issues as financial oversight during a transition; modification of service contracts to assure that services to children and families are not disrupted; and transition of affected employees.

   (c) Notwithstanding any inconsistent provision of County Code Section 19A-13, a person employed by the Department of Health and Human Services before July 1, 2004, may be employed by a corporation after it is designated as the local management board, and if so employed may immediately work on any matter that the person significantly participated in as a Department employee.