Archers Glen Partners, Inc. v. Garner

EYLER, JAMES R., Judge. This case requires an analysis of the relationship between land use planning documents and subdivision regulations in Prince George’s County. Archers Glen Partners, Inc. (“the developer”) submitted a preliminary subdivision plan to the Prince George’s County Planning Board of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (“the Planning Board”) for approval. 1 The Planning Board approved the preliminary subdivision plan, and after a prior appeal to this Court, which resulted in a remand, it affirmed its prior approval. Several citizens filed a petition for judicial review of the Planning Board’s re-approval in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County.

The circuit court remanded the matter to the Planning Board for further proceedings. The developer and the Planning Board appealed to this Court (collectively “appellants”). We shall reverse the judgment, thereby affirming the Planning Board’s decision. Factual and Procedural Background On September 24, 2002, Washington Management and Development Company, Inc, the predecessor of the developer, filed an application for approval of a preliminary subdivision plan for a subdivision, known as Archers Glen, to consist of 47 lots.

The developer proposed to retain an existing dwelling and to build 46 new single family dwellings. The property involved consisted of 236.45 acres, and was located near Baden-Westwood Road and Bald Eagle School Road, in the southeastern quarter of the County. The property was zoned ²⁹⁶ O-S (open space). At all relevant times, single family detached dwellings were a permitted use within that zone, with a density of 0.2 dwelling units per acre. 2 The Planning Board’s staff approved the developer’s application and presented it to the Planning Board.

On February 20, 2003, the Planning Board conducted an evidentiary hearing and, by resolution dated March 27, 2003, approved the preliminary subdivision plan, with nine conditions. Among other things, the Planning Board found that the developer’s application was consistent with the land use provisions in the applicable plans, the County’s General Plan and Master Plan, discussed below. Several citizens filed a petition for judicial review in circuit court. 3 After the circuit court affirmed the Planning Board, the citizens appealed to this Court. In an unreported opinion, Garner v. Prince George’s County Planning Bd. of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Comm’n, No. 2715, Sept. Term 2003, 160 Md.App. 714 , 718 (filed January 18, 2005), we vacated the circuit court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to remand to the Planning Board for further proceedings.

We explained that, with respect to the Planning Board’s finding that the application was consistent with the applicable Plans, the Planning Board had failed to “articulate its decision with adequate specificity.” On June 23, 2005, after remand, the Planning Board held a hearing. By amended resolution dated September 29, 2005, the ²⁹⁷ Planning Board again approved the preliminary subdivision plan. Several citizens, appellees herein, 4 again petitioned for judicial review in circuit court. The circuit court, by opinion and order dated June 2, 2006, remanded the matter to the Planning Board for further “consideration and findings.” Land use plans Biennial Plan Prince George’s County has adopted four countywide general plans: one in 1964; another in 1982; an interim general plan known as the Biennial Growth Policy Plan (“Biennial Plan”), adopted by the County Council sitting as the District Council (“District Council”), in October, 2000; and the final general plan, adopted by the District Council in July, 2002 (“the General Plan”).

The latter two Plans are relevant to this appeal. As part of its continuing effort to better regulate growth, recognizing that the 1982 general plan was no longer adequate, and to implement a “smart growth” program, the District Council, by resolution approved on July 28, 1998, created “Commission 2000,” “a broad-based advisory panel.” The Commission’s charge was to “recommend a comprehensive growth management plan for Prince George’s County and a strategy to achieve it.” The Commission’s work resulted in the Biennial Plan, adopted in 2000. Of significance here is that the Biennial Plan established three development tiers: Developed, Developing, and Rural. As the names imply, the Developed Tier included areas that were largely developed.

The Developing Tier included areas where most new development would occur. The Rural Tier included agricultural, open space, and low-density housing ²⁹⁸ areas, where little development would occur. The property in question is located in the Rural Tier. The growth objectives were stated as follows: “Capture at least 33 percent of the County’s dwelling unit growth over the next 20 years within the Developed Tier; ...

Capture up to 66 percent of the County’s dwelling unit growth over the next 20 years within the Developing Tier;” and “Slow dwelling unit growth within the Rural Tier to 0.75 percent of total Countywide dwelling unit growth over the next 20 years.” The District Council described the Biennial Plan as an interim plan (as is indicated by its name, “Biennial”), and included in the primary tasks for implementation the development of a new General Plan by 2002. As noted above, that was accomplished. The 2002 General Plan The General Plan is divided into five parts: (1) an overview; (2) the development pattern, which includes the growth tiers; (3) infrastructure elements, providing policy guidance for environmental protection, transportation, and public facilities; (4) economic development, housing, and community character elements; and (5) implementation actions to “bring about the vision established by this General Plan.” The General Plan embraces and, “in some instances, modifies the goals, policies, and strategies of the [Biennial Plan].” The General Plan adopted the growth tier structure. One of the stated objectives for the Rural Tier, slightly different from the Biennial Plan, is to “capture [less than 1%] of the county’s dwelling unit growth by 2025.” The stated “goals” for the Rural Tier are to “[1] to preserve environmentally sensitive features [2] retain sustainable agricultural land [3] allow large-lot estate residences [4] limit nonagricultural land uses [5] protect landowners’ equity in their land [and 6] maintain the integrity of a rural transportation system.” The stated “policies” for the Rural Tier are to “[1] retain or enhance environmentally sensitive features and agricultural ²⁹⁹ resources [2] design future development to retain and enhance rural character [3] provide for a Rural Tier transportation system that helps protect open space, rural character, and environmental features and resources [and 4] public funds should not encourage further development in the Rural Tier.” It would consume an inordinate amount of space to fully describe the “strategies” to implement the “policies.” They include revising tax regulations, purchasing development rights, developing programs supporting agriculture, identifying appropriate locations for future large-lot estate development through future master plans, and minimal funding of capital improvements.

Under “Implementation,” the General Plan states: The General Plan will only be effective to the extent that its goals and policies are implemented. Plan implementation will involve making choices concerning future development patterns, while taking into consideration the cost of providing needed infrastructure and protecting the environment. The fundamental challenge in making these critical choices for the county’s future lies in deciding how to improve our county responsibly without being wasteful. This General Plan, which applies Smart Growth principles countywide, offers a range of policy choices for controlling sprawl and ensuring cost-effective use of public resources to maintain a high and sustainable quality of life.

Implementation of this plan should be guided by the need to achieve the county’s top growth policies. To do this, the county will need to regularly review, and where necessary, reorient, the way it implements and refines this General Plan, through the Biennial Policy updates, master and functional planning, and by regulatory revision. The four essential components of implementation include: intergovernmental cooperation and public participation[;] future planning activity[;] regulatory revisions[; and] Biennial Growth Policy updates. According to the resolution by the District Council approving the General Plan, the General Plan amended the then ³⁰⁰ current master plans “with respect to countywide goals, objectives, policies, and strategies----” Master Plan From time to time, the District Council has adopted master plans.

Master plans address specific areas, as distinguished from being countywide, and, in part, make land use and policy recommendations at a more detailed level than a general plan. The property in question lies within the Subregion VI Study Area Master Plan, approved September, 1993, implemented through a sectional map amendment, approved May, 1994 (“Master Plan”). The Master Plan’s stated “goal” is to “preserve the rural character of its area.” The Plan contains fifteen objectives. Again, quoting at great length is not warranted, but the objectives include encouraging agriculture, open space, and encouraging new development “to be in harmony with the rural character of the area and to foster new forms of development which will preserve a significant part of the rural landscape.” The Master Plan states that it is “in accordance with” the then existing 1982 General Plan, with the exception of certain amendments.

The amendments were specific in nature and included, e.g., reclassification of a community activity center, replacing potential lake sites with flood plains, and adding road interchanges. This Court’s unreported opinion The Planning Board, in its first resolution, stated that the developer’s application was consistent with the land use recommendations in the Master Plan and with guidelines for development in the Rural Tier, as stated in the General Plan. This Court concluded that the statement was not specific enough to permit meaningful judicial review and instructed that the case be remanded to the Planning Board for further proceedings. ³⁰¹ In that opinion, we also commented on the status of the Master Plan and General Plan. After observing that generally, neither type of plan imposes mandatory criteria, we recognized a provision contained in the County’s subdivision regulations, specifically, § 24-121 (a)(5), Prince George’s County Code.

It provides that the subdivision plan shall conform to the area master plan, including maps and text, unless the Planning Board finds that events have occurred to render the relevant plan recommendations no longer appropriate or the District Council has not imposed the recommended zoning. We went on to opine that the General Plan also guided the subdivision of land, despite the absence of any reference to it in § 24-121(a)(5). We concluded the discussion of the effect of the General Plan by stating: The parties apparently did not litigate this issue before the Planning Board, and the Board did not expressly decide the issue in its decision. Because we are vacating the judgment and remanding the case, ultimately, to the Planning Board, and given the fact that the issue was not litigated within the Planning Board, we find it unnecessary, and inappropriate under the circumstances, to definitively resolve how the General Plan should apply under the Subdivision Regulations.

Pursuant to our remand, the parties will have an opportunity to revisit this issue in light of the above comments. Planning Board’s second resolution The Planning Board added the following statements to its earlier decision. Section 24-121(a)(5) of the Subdivision Regulations states: “The plat shall conform to the area master plan, including maps and text, unless the Planning Board finds that events have occurred to render the relevant plan recommendations no longer appropriate or the District Council has not imposed the recommended zoning.” ³⁰² Several elements of the plan, as approved with conditions and as noted in various review referrals, demonstrate conformance to the maps and text of the [M]aster [P]lan and [G]eneral [Pjlan. No rare, threatened or endangered species of plants or animals will be impacted by the development.

No designated scenic or historic roads will be impacted by the development. Of the approximate 124 acres of woodland conservation required, all will be in the form of existing preservation on site. All of the site’s environmentally sensitive area of Patuxent River Primary Management Area (PMA) is conditioned to remain undisturbed. A building restriction line four times that required by the O-S Zone is conditioned upon this property’s relatively narrow road frontage along Bald Eagle School Road for the purpose of retaining the rural character of the view shed.

An additional condition was established for a future Detailed Site Plan (DSP) with review elements to include the design of any entrance feature and the type and extent of streetlights to be considered so that it may help to maintain the rural character. Conservation easements are required over the environmental features to additionally provide for the retention of a quasi-public open space system. The lotting pattern established provides for the implementation of high-end estate housing. The transportation system was found to meet the minimum level of service (LOS) criteria established for the Rural Tier.

The private sector builder will be required to fund a portion of the needed infrastructure in the form of fire and rescue facilities. The private sector builder will be required to contribute towards the implementation of a Class III bikeway. The lot sizes conform to the minimum standards established for the O-S Zone. The overall project density is consistent with the O-S Zone and the land use recommendation.

The ultimate development of the 47 lots created by this subdivision are not in conflict with the hundreds of dwelling units envisioned in the Rural Tier over the next approximate 20 years, given one percent of the County’s residential growth in that time frame. ³⁰³ The 2002 General Plan established seven goals for the Rural Tier. While it is acknowledged that this specific property, with this specific development proposal, will not retain sustainable agricultural land, nor -will it limit non-agricultural uses, it will preserve environmentally sensitive features; it will help to maintain rural character; it will allow for large lot estate residences; it will protect the land owners’ equity in their land; and it will maintain the integrity of the rural transportation system. Circuit court opinion As further discussed below in the Standard of Review section, we review the action of the administrative agency. We perform essentially the same function as that performed by the circuit court.

Nevertheless, we shall summarize the circuit court’s opinion because it is necessary to understand the parties’ contentions. The circuit court concluded that, pursuant to County Code § 24-121(a)(5), the Master Plan is binding with respect to subdivision development and, relying on §§ 24-103(a) 5 and 24-104(a)(2), 6 the Master Plan incorporated the General Plan to the extent that the Master Plan does not reject or amend the General Plan. The court observed that both the Master Plan and General Plan contemplated future development in the area in question and, thus, did not prohibit it. Nevertheless, the court concluded that the Planning Board’s findings, in its second resolution, were insufficient.

The court explained: ³⁰⁴ Specifically, the Planning Board’s Amended Resolution does not contain information relating specifically to projected housing unit growth in Prince George’s County between 2000 and 2025. The Amended Resolution does not contemplate with specificity how many dwelling units have already been approved in the Rural Tier since 2000, when the County Council adopted the Biennial Growth Policy Plan. Finally, the Planning Board erroneously assumes a 1% growth in the number of dwelling units within the Rural Tier over the next 20 years, rather than considering efforts to slow growth to 0.75%. The last statement was based on the court’s conclusion that the General Plan incorporated the objectives of the Biennial Plan, which contained a growth objective of 0.75%.

The court ordered the Planning Board to: make findings on the number of new dwelling units constructed and projected to be constructed between 2000 and 2025 in the whole of Prince George’s County; the number of dwelling units already approved for construction in the Rural Tier of Prince George’s County; and whether the addition of 46 new dwelling units in the rural Tier will cause growth in the Rural Tier since 2000 to exceed 0.75-1.00% of overall projected dwelling unit growth. ■ As we read the circuit court opinion, the court did not conclude that the evidence was legally insufficient. Contentions With that background, we shall describe the contentions of the parties. First, both appellants, the developer and the Planning Board, contend that the Planning Board did not err in concluding that the preliminary subdivision plan conformed 7 to the Master Plan and the General Plan, to the ³⁰⁵ extent applicable. According to appellants, a proposed subdivision does not have to comply with all requirements in either Plan.

Second, they assert that the Master Plan referred only to the 1982 General Plan and did not amend the 2002 General Plan, which was not in existence at the time of adoption of the Master Plan. Similarly, they assert that the General Plan superseded the Biennial Plan. Third, appellants question whether the General Plan is binding but, even if it is, assert that the growth objectives are not applicable because they had to be implemented, and the District Council did not legislatively implement the policies until 2006, when it adopted regulations to protect the planning process in the O-S Zone. Appellants rely on the exceptions contained in § 24-121(a)(5), which provides that a subdivision plan “shall conform to the area master plan ... unless the Planning Board finds that events have occurred to render the relevant plan recommendations no longer appropriate or the District Council has not imposed the recommended zoning.” (emphasis added).

Finally, they assert that the Planning Board’s findings are sufficient and supported by substantial evidence. Appellees contend that: (1) this Court, in its earlier opinion, held that the Master Plan and portions of the General Plan incorporated into the Master Plan are a binding prerequisite to development, and appellants are bound by that decision; (2) there is no substantial evidence that the developer complied with the General Plan’s numeric restriction on residential growth in the Rural Tier; (3) the question whether events have occurred that would permit the Planning Board to waive the numeric restriction (see 24-121 (a)(5)) is not before us because the developer did not seek a waiver, and the Planning Board did not address the issue; (4) waiver would not be appropriate in any event because of the lack of evidence that events have occurred that would permit waiver; (5)the Planning Board has no right to appeal an adverse order; and (6) in the alternative, the Planning Board erred in approving the preliminary subdivision plan despite the fact that the plan did not comply with all provisions in the Master Plan and General Plan. With respect to the last contention, appellees argue that ³⁰⁶ the Master Plan incorporated the General Plan to the extent that it did not amend it, both are binding, and the General Plan incorporated the objectives of the Biennial Plan. Standard of Review As we recently stated in Becker v. Anne Arundel County, 174 Md.App. 114 , 920 A.2d 1118 (2007): Administrative agency decisions are not set aside unless the decision is arbitrary, illegal or capricious.

Mortimer v. Howard, Research & Dev. Corp., 83 Md.App. 432, 441 , 575 A.2d 750 (1990). In determining whether a decision is arbitrary, illegal or capricious, a reviewing court must decide whether the question before the agency was fairly debatable. Id.

An issue is fairly debatable if reasonable minds could have reached a different conclusion on the evidence, and if the conclusion is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Stansbury v. Jones, 372 Md. 172, 182-83 , 812 A.2d 312 (2002); see Howard County v. Dorsey, 45 Md.App. 692, 701 , 416 A.2d 23 (1980) (“The ‘fairly debatable’ test is analogous to the ‘clearly erroneous’ standard commonly applied under [Rule 8-131(e)]. A court must consider all of the evidence before the zoning authority; the decision is ‘fairly debatable’ if it is supported by substantial evidence on the record taken as a whole.”) (other citations omitted); Bd. of County Comm’rs for Cecil County v. Holbrook, 314 Md. 210, 218 , 550 A.2d 664 (1988) (stating that if the issue is fairly debatable, the matter is one for the Board’s judgment and should not be second-guessed by an appellate court.). “In regards to findings of fact, the court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the agency and must accept the agency’s conclusions if they are based on substantial evidence and if reasoning minds could reach the same conclusion based on the record; when reviewing findings of law, however, no such deference is given the agency’s conclusions.” Layton v. Howard County Bd. of Appeals, 171 Md.App. 137, 173-74 , 908 A.2d 724 (2006) (quoting Hayfields, Inc. v. Valleys Planning Council, Inc., 122 Md.App. 616, 629 , 716 A.2d 311 (1998) (other ³⁰⁷ citations omitted)). Substantial evidence has been defined as “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Snowden v. City of Baltimore, 224 Md. 443, 448 , 168 A.2d 390 (1961).

The “resolution of conflicts in the evidence is left to the agency and, where inconsistent inferences may be drawn, the agency is left to draw the inference.” Layton, 171 Md.App. at 174 , 908 A.2d 724 (citing Bulluck v. Pelham Wood Apartments, 283 Md. 505, 513 , 390 A.2d 1119 (1978)). The test for reviewing the inferences drawn is reasonableness, not rightness. Snowden, 224 Md. at 448 , 168 A.2d 390 . On the other hand, a reviewing court may not uphold an agency’s decision if a record of the facts on which the agency acted or a statement of reasons for its action is lacking.

Mortimer, 83 Md.App. at 441 , 575 A.2d 750 (citing Board of County Comm’rs for Prince George’s County v. Ziegler, 244 Md. 224, 229 , 223 A.2d 255 (1966)). Without this reasoned analysis, a reviewing court cannot determine the basis of the agency’s action. Mortimer, 83 Md.App. at 441 , 575 A.2d 750 . If the agency fails to meet this requirement, the agency’s decision may be deemed arbitrary.

Id. (citation omitted). “Findings of fact must be meaningful and cannot simply repeat statutory criteria, broad conclusory statements, or boilerplate resolutions.” Bucktail, LLC v. County Council of Talbot County, 352 Md. 530, 553 , 723 A.2d 440 (1999). Becker, 174 Md.App. 114, 137-139 , 920 A.2d 1118 . Discussion Planning Board’s right to appeal Appellees contend the Planning Board had no right to appeal from a decision that was adverse to it.

Appellees argue that the Planning Board is a State agency, and thus, its right to appeal is governed by the contested case portion of the Administrative Procedure Act, Maryland Code (2004 Repl. Vol.), §§ 10-201 through 10-226 and, specifically, § 10- ³⁰⁸ 222(a)(2) of the State Government Article (“S.G.”). Section 10-222(a)(2) provides that “[a]n agency, including an agency that has delegated a contested case to the Office [of Administrative Hearings], is entitled to judicial review of a decision as provided in this section if the agency was a party before the agency or the Office.” Appellees argue that the Planning Board was not a party in the administrative proceeding, but rather was the administrative body performing a quasi-judicial function and, thus, did not fit within § 10-222(a)(2). The Planning Board contends it had a right to appeal.

It argues that it is a “regional entity” and not a State agency within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act. It further argues that the question of appeal is controlled by Maryland Code (2003 RepLVol.), Article 28, § 7-116(g). In pertinent part, that subsection provides: A final action by the Commission on any application for the subdivision of land within 30 days after the action is taken by the Commission, may be appealed by any person aggrieved by the action, or by any person, municipality, corporation, or association, whether or not incorporated, which has appeared at the hearing in person, by attorney or in writing to the circuit court for the county which may affirm or reverse the action appealed from, or remand it to the Commission for further consideration____ We conclude that the Planning Board is a State agency within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act, and that it had a right to appeal to this Court. The Commission, of which the Planning Board is a part, was created by the General Assembly.

See Prince George’s County v. Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, 269 Md. 202, 206-207 , 306 A.2d 223 (1973). The Commission comes within the definition of agency in S.G. § 10-202(b). Agency means (1) an officer or unit of the State government authorized by law to adjudicate contested cases; or (2) a unit that: (i) is created by general law: ³⁰⁹ (ii) operates in at least 2 counties; and (iii) is authorized by law to adjudicate contested cases. The Commission fits within subsection (2).

Subsection 10-202(d) provides, in part, that a “contested case” is a proceeding before an agency to determine “a right, duty, statutory entitlement, or privilege of a person that is required by statute or constitution to be determined only after an opportunity for an agency hearing.” A hearing was held pursuant to Prince George’s County Code § 24-119. The matter before the Planning Board was a “contested case.” In Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. Anderson, 395 Md. 172 , 909 A.2d 694 (2006), the Court of Appeals stated that the Commission is a State agency under § 10-202(b) with respect to contested cases. 395 Md. at 177, n. 1 , 909 A.2d 694 . The Court also recognized that the Administrative Procedure Act provides agencies with the right to seek judicial review of their decisions. Id. at 192, n. 16 , 909 A.2d 694 .

The Anderson case involved the Commission’s effort to obtain judicial review of a decision by a hearing board under the Law Enforcement Officer’s Bill of Rights (LEOBR), Maryland Code (2003), § 3-101 et seq. of the Public Safety Article, when the board was comprised of officers from the Commission’s Prince George’s County Park Police Department. The situation before us is analogous. The two cases relied on by the Commission for the proposition that the Commission is not a State agency within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act are not on point. In Prince George’s County v. Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, supra, the County and the Commission sought a declaratory judgment to resolve a dispute between them as to their respective functions.

In the other case, Ram Ditta v. Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, 822 F.2d 456 (4th cir.1987), the issue was whether the Commission was an alter ego of the State for purposes of Eleventh Amendment immunity from tort suits, a federal question. The court concluded that it was ³¹⁰ not, while acknowledging that the Court of Appeals had held that the Commission was a State agency and immune from tort suits under the doctrine of State sovereign immunity. See O & B, Inc. v. Maryland-National Park and, Planning Commission, 279 Md. 459 , 369 A.2d 553 (1977). Section 10-222 of the State Government Article addresses the right to seek judicial review of an administrative decision in the appropriate circuit court.

The question in Anderson was whether the Commission had the right to seek judicial review in circuit court. In the case before us, the Planning Board did not seek judicial review in circuit court. Appellees did. The Planning Board was a party in circuit court.

Thus, the Planning Board’s right of appeal to this Court is governed by S.G. § 10-223(b), which provides: (b) Right of appeal — (1) A party who is aggrieved by a final judgment of a circuit court under this subtitle may appeal to the Court of Special Appeals in the manner that law provides for appeal of civil cases. (2) An agency that was a party in the circuit court may appeal under paragraph (1) of this subsection. Pursuant to that section, the Planning Board had a right to appeal to this Court. The Planning Board relies on Article 28, § 7-116(g), but that section does not address the situation before us.

It applies to judicial review of an administrative decision in circuit court. It may be that the Planning Board had a right to appeal to this Court as part of its general powers, granted by Article 28, § 2-110. That section provides that the Commission has the power to sue and be sued and to do all other corporate acts for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of Article 28. We need not decide that question, however, in light of our earlier conclusion. 8 ³¹¹ Role of the Master Plan and General Plan This case, as have several before it, involves the interplay between planning, zoning, and the subdivision process.

The terms planning and zoning are sometimes used interchangeably, but they are not synonymous. Zoning is, whereas planning is a much broader term. Coffey v. Maryland-Nat’l Capital Park and Planning Comm’n, 293 Md. 24 , 27, 441 A.2d 1041 (1982). Zoning is one means by which planning is implemented.

The latter, as is clear from a review of the planning documents involved in this case, encompasses education, public facilities, transportation, environmental protection, and other matters affecting the economic, social, and environmental vitality of the jurisdiction involved. Planning, zoning, and subdivision regulation are all part of land planning and use. Id. Before discussing the role of the Master Plan and General Plan in the subdivision process, we will discuss the relationship between the Biennial Plan, Master Plan, and General Plan.

The Biennial Plan established “goals, priorities and policies,” utilizing “a system of growth tiers, corridors and centers to guide future land use and development.” The District Council characterized it as an interim plan and recognized that various regulations would have to be revised to fully implement the Biennial Plan. The Biennial Plan recognized that a new general plan would have to be developed and that area master plans would have to be updated. The General Plan was approved in 2002. The Plan’s introduction states that it is to “provide guidance for the future growth and development” of the County, “expressed as goals, objectives, policies, and strategies that, taken together, determine the preferred development pattern and the transportation system, public facilities and environmental features needed to accommodate that pattern.” The Plan states that it ³¹² embraces and, in some instances, modifies and supersedes the Biennial Plan.

In its resolution approving the General Plan, the District Council stated that the General Plan would guide future development, implementation, and achievement of plan policies, would supersede the 1982 General Plan, and would “amend current master plans and functional plans with respect to countywide goals, objectives, policies, and strategies____” By virtue of the General Plan’s express language, it superseded the Biennial Plan, to the extent inconsistent with the Biennial Plan. The Biennial Plan was intended to be an interim plan. We conclude that the numeric growth objective in the General Plan, as to the Rural Tier, superseded the numeric objective in the Biennial Plan. To our knowledge, since 2002, a master plan has not been approved for the area in which the subject property is located.

Consequently, the 1993 Master Plan remains in effect, except to the extent inconsistent with the General Plan, i.e., to the extent inconsistent with the “goals, objectives, policies and strategies” contained in the General Plan. Both the Court of Appeals and this Court have considered the role of general planning documents on several occasions. A plan may serve as a mere guide or it may have greater effect. In most cases, planning documents have been referred to as general guides and recommendations advisory and not regulatory, in nature.

See, e.g., Duke Street Ltd. P’ship v. Bd. of County Comm’rs of Calvert County, 112 Md.App. 37, 53 , 684 A.2d 40