Appellate Court Remands Planning Board Decision for Specific Findings

By Frank Johnson
Deputy City Attorney, City of Gaithersburg

In a recent decision, the Maryland Appellate Court reversed a Charles County Planning Commission decision approving a site plan, remanding the case back to the Commission for specific findings to support its decision. In Elbert v. Charles County Planning Commission, the Court on November 29, 2023, found that substantial evidence did not support a Commission decision that simply incorporated a staff report by reference “with no further analysis, explanation or basis given for the conclusion reached.” Id. at 7.

The problem was that the Commission apparently had a full discussion on several aspects of the plan, with one commissioner even commenting that they had learned much even beyond what was included in the staff report. Id. at 5. Yet this discussion was not part of the actual decision, which simply incorporated the staff report.

The Court noted the Supreme Court has ruled that incorporating a staff decision does not necessarily “give rise … to an adverse inference that the Board abdicated its task[.]” Id. at 6 (citing Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. Greater Baden-Aquasco Citizens Association, 412 Md. 73, 110 (2009)). Yet here, while the Commission’s record showed members discussed elements of the plan and related approvals, in some cases adding in new information not included in the staff report, the decision to approve was simply made as part of the minutes. Id., at 5. No written decision or resolution was issued, and, despite members discussing the additional information as part of the motion, the motion was only based on approval of the staff report – it did not contain any “additional findings of fact and conclusions’ separate from that report.” Id. at 5.

Clearly, the record of discussion is not sufficient to demonstrate that a commission’s decision is based on substantial evidence. That depends on the decision itself, such that a robust discussion may demonstrate the need to include specific references to additional findings and conclusions – and raise a concern when those discussions are not made part of the decision. Indeed, it seems here that the Commission’s extensive discussion, coupled with the simple motion to approve without any reference to that discussion, only helped to highlight, for the Court, the lack of substantial evidence.