|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PARRIS N. GLENDENING, Governor
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ch. 432
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
exemption plans or buffer management plans; revising the period of time for the
review of certain critical area programs by local jurisdictions; defining a certain
term; removing certain obsolete language; providing for the application of this
Act; and generally relating to the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Protection
Program.
BY repealing and reenacting, without amendments,
Article - Natural Resources
Section 8-1801
Annotated Code of Maryland
(2000 Replacement Volume and 2001 Supplement)
BY repealing and reenacting, with amendments,
Article - Natural Resources
Section 8-1808 and 8-1809(g)
Annotated Code of Maryland
(2000 Replacement Volume and 2001 Supplement)
Preamble
WHEREAS, State lawmakers in 1984 recognized the importance of fostering
more sensitive development activity along the shoreline areas of the Chesapeake Bay
and its tributaries, from the standpoint of protecting and preserving water quality
and natural habitats, with the adoption of the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area
Protection Act; and
WHEREAS, The grandfathering provisions of the enabling Act and its
accompanying Criteria provided certain exemptions for grandfathered properties
from density limits, but the Criteria expressly provided that grandfathered properties
were not exempt from Habitat Protection Area (HPA) or water-dependent facilities
requirements; and
WHEREAS, The Criteria provide that variances to a jurisdiction's local Critical
Area Program may be granted in certain circumstances; and
WHEREAS, Recent decisions by the Maryland Court of Appeals have held that
a variance may be granted if the regulations would deny development on a specific
portion of an applicant's property rather than considering alternative locations
on-site; and
WHEREAS, The Court of Appeals has ruled that a local Board of Appeals, when
determining if denial of a variance would deny an applicant rights commonly enjoyed
by others in the Critical Area, may compare a proposal to nonconforming uses or
development that predated implementation of a local Critical Area Program; and
WHEREAS, The Court of Appeals has ruled that an applicant for a variance
from Critical Area requirements may generally satisfy the variance standards of a
local zoning ordinance, rather than satisfy all of the standards; and
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- 3243 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
