Foley v. K. Hovnanian at Kent Island, LLC

BELL, Chief Judge. I. Introduction The Chesapeake Bay is nothing short of magnificent. For decades, fishermen found plentiful supplies of blue crabs, clams and oysters in its waters. Over time, however, the results of increased human activity on, in and near the Bay saw its deterioration and the decrease in the fruits it bore.

In 1984, the Maryland General Assembly responded in part. It enacted the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Protection Program (“the Program”), see Maryland Code (2007 Repl. Vol.) §§ 8-1801 to 8-1817 of the Natural Resources Article, to counteract the increasing levels of deterioration that human activity near the Chesapeake Bay’s waters and habitats was causing. The Program required all local jurisdictions, under the direction of a newly created Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission, to formulate and implement a plan to control development near certain shoreline areas. § 8-18 01(b)(1)-(b)(2).

Queen Anne’s County adopted such a Critical Area Program, the provisions of which were set forth in Queen Anne’s County Code, Environmental Protection Article, Chapter 14. The Queen Anne’s County program divides land within the Critical Area into three development categories: Resource Conservation Area (“RCA”), Limited Development Area (“LDA”) and Intensely Developed Area (“IDA”). Develop ¹³³ ment on land in the RCA is highly restricted; only one dwelling per 20 acres is permitted. Land within the LDA is subject to fewer development restrictions; however, that area only allows impervious surfaces to comprise 15% of the development that occurs in that designated area.

The IDA, the least restrictive development classification, allows most land uses, although it does require strict adherence to performance standards for storm water runoff. In addition, consistent with, and as permitted by, § 8-1808.1(b) 1 of the Natural Resources Article, Queen Anne’s County retained a growth allocation. 2 Section 8-1808.1 (c) permits a local jurisdiction to retain the power to reclassify land designated as RCA into either or both of the less restrictive development categories, IDA or LDA. Nevertheless, before the Queen Anne’s County Commissioners may grant a growth allocation petition, approval from the Critical Area Commission first must be obtained. Q.A.C.C. § 14:1-77(E). 3 ¹³⁴ K. Hovnanian at Kent Island, LLC (“Hovnanian”), the respondent, is the developer of Four Seasons at Kent Island (“Four Seasons”), an “active adult, age restricted” community, located in Queen Anne’s County, Maryland.

The plans for Four Seasons provide for 1,350 dwelling units, an assisted living facility and various community and recreational amenities, to be constructed on approximately 560 acres of land situated within the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area. Hovnanian thus was required to request that the Queen Anne’s County Commissioners exercise their authority to reclassify the retained growth allocation so that more intensive development could occur on certain portions of the proposed site. Article XV, § 14:1-76 4 of the Queen Anne’s County Code (“Q.A.C.C.”), outlines the steps that an applicant seeking a ¹³⁵ growth allocation must follow. In conformance with that provision, Hovnanian submitted a concept plan (the “2000 Growth Allocation Plan”) and a Petition for Growth Allocation to the Queen Anne’s County Commissioners on June 9, 2000.

The 2000 Growth Allocation Plan was a plat that depicted the acreage and location of the land Hovnanian wanted the Commissioners to reclassify from RCA to either LDA or IDA. On June 13, 2000, the County Commissioners forwarded Hovnani ¹³⁶ an’s Petition for Growth Allocation and the 2000 Growth Allocation Plan to the Queen Anne’s County Planning Commission, which conducted a public hearing and recommended that Hovnanian’s Growth Allocation Petition be approved, with several conditions. The County Commissioners accepted that recommendation, granted “conceptual approval” to Hovnanian’s Petition for Growth Allocation and forwarded the Petition to the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission for approval. The Critical Area Commission, following a public hearing and public comment, approved Hovnanian’s Petition and the 2000 Growth Allocation Plan.

The County Commissioners held a public hearing on Hovnanian’s Petition, following which it made “Findings of Fact.” Subsequently, the County Commissioners passed Resolution No. 01-13, proposing to approve Hovnanian’s Growth Allocation Petition, subject to numerous conditions. One of the conditions was that Hovnanian “enter into a legally binding Developers Rights and Responsibilities Agreement with the County.” The County Commissioners then referred their proposed approval, along with the outlined conditions, back to the Critical Area Commission for its review and approval. Hovnanian prepared an Amended Concept/Sketch Plan that incorporated the conditions imposed by Resolution No. 01-13. This Amended Concept/Sketch Plan (the “2001 Growth Allocation Plan”), referencing the conditions, included a revised Growth Allocation Plan that was labeled and referred to as “Sheet 7 of 8.” The County’s Planning Commission and the Critical Area Commission approved Hovnanian’s 2001 Growth Allocation Plan.

Subsequently, with the enactment of Ordinances 01-01 and 01-01A on August 21, 2001, the Queen Anne’s County Commissioners approved Hovnanian’s 2001 Growth Allocation Plan. Together, Ordinances 01-01 and 01-01A granted Hovnanian the Growth Allocation it sought. Ordinance 01-01 provided, in relevant part: ¹³⁷ “FOR THE PURPOSE of utilizing Critical Area Growth Allocation to redesignate 293.25 acres of property near Stevensville, Maryland from Resource Conservation Area (RCA) to Intense Development Area (IDA) and to utilize pre-mapped growth allocation to redesignate 79.55 acres of land from Limited Development Area (LDA) to Intense Development Area (IDA) by amending part of parcels 7, 8 and 11 on Queen Anne’s County Official Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Map No. 49 and Parcels 1, 8, 347 and 532 on Official Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Map No. 57.” Ordinance 01-01 also provided: “BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF QUEEN ANNE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND that Title 14 of the Code of Public Local Laws of Queen Anne’s County (1996 Ed.) be amended by the repeal of Official Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Map Nos. 49 and 57 and the adoption of the attached Map Nos. ¿9 and 57 as the Official Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Map Nos. 49 and 57.” (Emphasis Added). Ordinance 01-01A conditioned approval given by the County Commissioners of the Hovnanian Growth Allocation Petition both on Hovnanian entering into a Developer Rights and Responsibilities Agreement with the County and satisfying the conditions imposed on the project by its earlier conditional approval of Resolution No. 01-13.

Tt is undisputed that, when the Queen Anne’s County Commissioners enacted Ordinances 01-01 and 01-01A on August 21, 2001, no Critical Area Overlay Maps 5 were attached to the ¹³⁸ Ordinances. Instead, several months later, on December 4, 2001, the Queen Anne’s County Commissioners signed Overlay Maps 49 and 57 (the “2001 Overlay Maps”). There were cartographic errors on the 2001 Overlay Maps, however. Therefore, revised Overlay Maps were drafted and submitted to the County Commissioners on October 8, 2002 (the “2002 Overlay Maps”).

After litigation commenced in this case, the Circuit Court for Queen Anne’s County appointed an independent surveyor to evaluate whether the 2002 Overlay Maps accurately depicted Hovnanian’s 2001 Growth Allocation Plan. The surveyor’s report determined that the 2002 Overlay Maps also contained a cartographic error—the maps wrongly classified as in IDA 7.5 acres of property belonging to a third-party, when that property actually was classified RCA—a fact that Hovnanian acknowledged in open court to be correct.

II

Procedural History Kent Island resident Robert W. Foley, along with three other individual plaintiffs and Queen Anne’s Conservation Association, Inc. (the petitioners), filed, in April of 2005 in the Circuit Court for Queen Anne’s County, a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. In that action, they challenged the validity of Ordinances 01-01 and 01-01A. Hovnanian intervened in the litigation as a defendant and filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. After twice amending their complaint, the plaintiffs filed their own Motion for Summary Judgment.

After three hearings on the Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, the Circuit Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and entered Judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. That judgment enjoined Hovnanian from utilizing the County’s award of growth allocation until accurate Critical Area Overlay Maps had been drafted. Hovnanian responded by motioning both to alter or amend the judgment, pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-534, and to modify the injunctions. Hovnanian’s ¹³⁹ Motion to Alter or Amend the Circuit Court’s Judgment argued, as relevant here, that accurate Overlay Maps, delineating where the growth allocation had been awarded, were not a condition precedent to the acts pertinent or necessary to that approval and, therefore, that the Circuit Court erred in declaring otherwise.

In addition, Hovnanian’s Motion to Modify Injunctions sought permission from the Circuit Court to request that the Department of Planning and Zoning extend the time period available for Hovnanian to seek site plan and subdivision approval for Four Seasons. The Circuit Court denied both Motions, whereupon Hovnanian noted an appeal to' the Court of Special Appeals. The plaintiffs filed a cross-appeal. The Court of Special Appeals, in an unreported opinion, reversed the judgment of the Circuit Court, including the injunction, holding that the enactment of Ordinances 01-01 and 01-01A constituted final legislative action granting Hovnanian’s Growth Allocation Petition.

The intermediate appellate court reasoned that the effectiveness of the approval of a Growth Allocation Petition did not depend upon the drafting, and therefore, the existence, of accurate Overlay Maps. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, which this Court granted. Foley v. Hovnanian, 399 Md. 595 , 925 A.2d 634 (2007). One of the central issues in this case is whether, where the ordinances approving a growth allocation petition, enacted by the County Commissioners, reference Critical Area Overlay Maps, the effectiveness of that approval depended on the existence of such maps and on their being filed with the ordinances when the ordinances were enacted. 6 ⁸ We shall ¹⁴⁰ hold, for the reasons that follow, that amended Critical Area Overlay Maps do not have to be in existence when, or filed at the same time that, the ordinances granting the amendments reflected on the maps are enacted.

III

Legal Analysis Ordinances 01-01 and 01-01A memorialized the Queen Anne’s County Commissioners’ approval of Hovnanian’s Growth Allocation Petition. They did so “by the repeal of Official Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Map Nos. 49 and 57 and the adoption of the attached Map Nos. 49 and 57 as the Official Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Map Nos. 49 and 57.” See Queen Anne’s County Ordinances 01-01 and 01-01A (Emphasis Added). The petitioners’ first argument, therefore, is that Ordinances 01-01 and 01-01A are invalid because their text expressly and explicitly provided, and thus required, that revised Overlay Maps would be attached to the ordinances when, in actuality, none were. They assert that, because no Overlay Maps actually were attached to these Ordinances, enactment of these Ordinances by the Queen Anne’s County Commissioners was a nullity.

The petitioners reason that, without the Overlay Maps, the County Commissioners had no way of knowing the impact granting Hovnanian’s Growth Allocation Petition would have or how the boundaries for the various development categories would be affected. They note that Hovnanian’s request for growth allocation did not follow readily identifiable landmarks such as property lines or roadways, making the attachment of the referenced Overlay Maps even more critical, if not essential, to the ability of each of the ¹⁴¹ County Commissioners to understand the consequences of his or her vote. According to the petitioners, the absence of a metes and bounds description of the development boundaries or of text in the Ordinances directing a reader to a specific plat containing that information, made it impossible for the County Commissioners to know the location of the growth allocation they were approving and, therefore, its effect or impact on the Critical Area regime. The Court of Special Appeals held that the petitioners waived the Overlay Maps issue.

In reaching this conclusion, the intermediate appellate court referred not only to the record, but also to the Circuit Court’s observation that “[a]ll parties recognize in one way or another that the action of the County Commissioners on August 21, 2001, represented final approval of the Hovnanian proposal in terms of the conditions stated in Ordinance 01-01A and other documents containing the County Commissioners’ resolution of April 17, 2001, and conditions of the Planning Commission and CAC [the Critical Area Commission].” In the petitioners’ brief to this Court, they proffer that they have preserved this argument for review, stating that “the issue was fully briefed in Plaintiffs (sic) [MJemorandum in [S]upport of Summary Judgment at pages E-21-22.” 7 Brief of Appellants at 9. Ordinarily, an appellate court will not review an issue that has not been preserved in the trial court. Maryland Rule 8-131(a) provides, in relevant part, that “[o]rdinarily, the appellate court will not decide any other issue unless it plainly appears by the record to have been raised in or decided by the ¹⁴² trial court, but the Court may decide such an issue if necessary or desirable to guide the trial court or to avoid the expense and delay of another appeal.” The rationale for this preservation rule is the promotion of the orderly administration of the law and the desirability that all parties in a case have a fair opportunity to address fully the issues raised by opposing counsel. See Brice v. State, 254 Md. 655 , 255 A.2d 28 (1969); Basoff v. State, 208 Md. 643 , 119 A.2d 917 (1956).

On review of the Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment, we are satisfied that the petitioners did preserve this issue for review. There, the petitioners argued: “In this case though, there is no ‘ambiguity.’ Ordinance 01-01A clearly and unequivocally ‘adopt[ed]’ nothing more nor less than certain ‘attached’ maps. These words must be given meaning: the courts may ‘not add words or ignore those that are there’. In fact, no maps were ‘adopt[ed].’ For this reason alone, Ordinance 01-01A must fall.” (Citations and italics omitted).

The petitioners assert that since the maps were not attached to the Ordinances, as the Ordinances’ text expressly and explicitly stated they would be, the Ordinances are invalid. This is especially so, they continue, because the Ordinances lacked any metes and bounds description indicating the location of the growth allocation the County Commissioners were authorizing. The petitioners rely on Soron Realty Co. v. Town of Geddes, 23 A.D.2d 165 , 259 N.Y.S.2d 559 (N.Y.App.Div.1965). In Soron, zoning amendments enacted by the Town of Geddes were challenged.

In 1942, the Town of Geddes, the appellee, adopted a Zoning Ordinance under which property, owned by Soron Realty Co., Inc. (Soron) was unclassified. That property was leased by Solvay Iron Works, Inc. (Solvay), a small steel fabricating operation, which, in 1948, slowly began to expand its operations. The property remained unclassified until the zoning amendments at issue in Soron sought to classify it as Commercial A. In 1954, the Town of Geddes enacted amendments to the Zoning Ordinance that ¹⁴³ reclassified multiple properties. Soron, 23 A.D.2d at 166 , 259 N.Y.S.2d at 560 .

The property owned and leased by Soron and Solvay, the appellants, was one of the properties reclassified. Dissatisfied and because the reclassification adversely affected Solvay’s business, the appellants challenged the validity of the 1954 Amendments. 8 Their challenge was two-fold. First, they argued that, before the enactment of the 1954 Amendments, the appellants had a nonconforming use as to the entire property. Second, they maintained that the enactment of the 1954 Amendments did not comply with the procedural requirements of a section of the Town Law.

Soron, 23 A.D.2d at 166 , 259 N.Y.S.2d at 561 . It was the latter argument which the New York intermediate appellate court found persuasive and, thus, on which it based its holding. Section 264 of the Town Law, the section on which the Soron appellants relied, required that “every amendment to a zoning ordinance (including any map incorporated therein) * * * shall be entered in the minutes of the town board * * * and a copy of such ordinance or amendment together with a copy of any map incorporated therein shall be posted on the sign board maintained by the town clerk.” Soron, 23 A.D.2d at 167 , 259 N.Y.S.2d at 561 . Soron and Solvay asserted that the procedural requirements of Section 264 were not satisfied because the 1954 Zoning Amendments did not include a geographical description of the areas impacted by the amendments, nor were the new zoning maps entered into the Town Board’s minutes.

Additionally, Soron and Solvay argued that the 1954 Amendments were not enacted pursuant to Section 264 because no new zoning map was placed on the signboard maintained by the Town Clerk. Soron, 23 A.D.2d at 167 , 259 N.Y.S.2d at 561 . ¹⁴⁴ The Soron court held that the Town Board’s failure to comply with the procedural requirements of Section 264 rendered the 1954 Zoning Amendments invalid. Soron, 23 A.D.2d at 167 , 259 N.Y.S.2d at 561 . The intermediate appellate court reasoned that, in light of its earlier precedent, the Town Board’s failure to publish the proposed New Zoning Map or to provide a geographical description of the affected properties denied to affected property owners the right to know the zoning classification of their property.

Soron, 23 A.D.2d at 168 , 259 N.Y.S.2d at 562 . The petitioners in the case sub judice, believing the cases to be factually quite close, proffer that, just as the Soron court found it essential that property owners have proper notice of zoning changes, Queen Anne’s County residents also are entitled to know when and where the County Commissioners have awarded growth allocation. Because no maps were attached to Ordinances 01-01 and 01-01A, they argue that Queen Anne’s County property owners, like the property owners in Soron, were deprived of this important and essential information. The respondent does not agree.

It proffers that, under the petitioners’ view, literal intent would trump the real intention of the Queen Anne’s County Commissioners in enacting Ordinances 01-01 and 01-01A. In support of this proposition, the respondent argues: “In the case of a mistake in a reference in a statute to another statute, to a constitutional provision, or to a public document, record, or the like, where the real intent of the legislature is manifest, and would be defeated by an adherence to the terms of the mistaken reference, the mistaken reference will be regarded as surplusage, or will be read as corrected, in order to give effect to the legislative intent.” (Footnotes omitted). Quoting 73 Am.Jur.2d Statutes § 122 (2006). See Tatlow v. Bacon, 101 Kan. 26, 31 , 165 P. 835, 837 (1917) (citing Coney v. Mayor & Comm’rs of Topeka, 96 Kan. 46, 49 , 149 P. 689, 690 (1915)) (Legislative enactments containing errors, omissions or ¹⁴⁵ mistakes will not be the basis for defeating a statute when the intent of the Legislature is obvious).

See also Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Durkin, 195 Misc. 1040, 1045 , 91 N.Y.S.2d 26, 31-32 (1949). The respondent concludes: the failure of the Queen Anne’s County Commissioners to attach Overlay Maps 49 and 57 should not overshadow the real intention of the Queen Anne’s County Commissioners when they enacted Ordinances 01-01 and 01-01A, which was to approve Hovnanian’s Growth Allocation Petition.

We agree. The preamble to Ordinance 01-01 provides: “An act concerning the Repeal and Readoption with amendments of the Public Local Laws of Queen Anne’s county (1996 Ed.) Title 14, Environmental Protection, 1996 Official Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Map Nos. 49 and 57. “For the purpose of utilizing Critical Area Growth Allocation to redesignate 293.25 acres of property near Stevens-ville, Maryland from Resource Conservation Area (RCA) to Intense Development Area (IDA) and to utilize pre-mapped growth allocation to redesignate 79.55 acres of land from Limited Development Area (LDA) to Intense Development Area (IDA) by amending part of parcels 7, 8 and 11 on Queen Anne’s County Official Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Map No. 49 and Parcels 1, 8, 347 and 532 on Official Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Map No. 57.” There seems to be no dispute, and certainly there is no doubt, that the land referred to in the preamble to Ordinance 01-01 is that belonging to the Four Seasons at Kent Island. Nevertheless, and even though the preamble unequivocally declares that Ordinance 01-01 was intended to utilize growth allocation for the Four Seasons property, the petitioners maintain that this Court should invalidate Ordinances 01-01 and 01-01A because no maps reflecting what the Commissioners approved had been drafted and no such maps were attached to the Ordinances. That is contrary to the court’s duty, however.

This Court’s task, when the meaning of legislation is at issue, is to ascertain and effectuate the real intent of the legislative body enacting it. Andrews v. City of Greenbelt, 293 ¹⁴⁶ Md. 69, 75, 441 A.2d 1064, 1068-69 (1982) (citing Harbor Island Marina, Inc. v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 286 Md. 303, 311 , 407 A.2d 738, 742 (1979)). To be sure, this interpretive principle applies whether the legislative enactment is by a state legislature or is one passed by a local legislative body. See Trip Associates, Inc. v. Mayor & City Council, 392 Md. 563, 573 , 898 A.2d 449, 455-56 (2006) (citing County Council v. E.L. Gardner, Inc., 293 Md. 259, 268 , 443 A.2d 114, 119 (1982)); O’Connor v. Baltimore County, 382 Md. 102, 113 , 854 A.2d 1191, 1198 (2004) (“Local ordinances and charters are interpreted under the same canons of construction that apply to the interpretation of statutes.”); Waters Landing Ltd. P’ship v. Montgomery County, 337 Md. 15, 28 , 650 A.2d 712, 718 (1994); Village Square No. 1, Inc. v. Crow-Frederick Retail Limited Partnership, 77 Md.App. 552, 562, 551 A.2d 471, 475 (1989) (interpreting City of Frederick, Maryland Code § 22-35).

By enacting Ordinances 01-01 and 01-01A, the Queen Anne’s County Commissioners intended to approve Hovnanian’s project which required approval of its growth allocation petition. That was their real intent. If this Court were to adopt the petitioners’ reasoning, we would be placing form over substance and disregarding the real intent of the Queen Anne’s County Commissioners. The petitioners’ reliance on Soron Realty Co. v. Town of Geddes, 23 A.D.2d 165 , 259 N.Y.S.2d 559 (1965) is not persuasive.

The notice concerns in Soron are absent here. The proposition for which the petitioners rely on Soron is that, without the Overlay Maps attached to Ordinances 01-01 and 01-01A, Queen Anne’s County landowners would not have notice of the development category into which the subject property would fall or of any contemplated change to that development category that the County Commissioners’ approval of the Hovnanian Growth Allocation Petition would effectuate. This argument lacks merit because here, unlike in Soron, Queen Anne’s County residents were given a description of the property that was being awarded growth allocation. In the preamble to Ordinance 01-01, approving the growth allocation at issue here, the Queen Anne’s County Commis ¹⁴⁷ sioners reclassified “293.25 acres of property near Stevens-ville, Maryland ... by amending part of parcels 7, 8 and 11 on Queen Anne’s County Official Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Map No. 49 and Parcels 1, 8, 347 and 532 on Official Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Map No. 57.” The 1954 Zoning Amendments in Soron, on the other hand, contained no geographical description of the reclassified boundaries enacted by the Town Board, and Town Officials failed to publish the map containing such information.

Soron, 23 A.D.2d at 166 , 259 N.Y.S.2d at 561 . Thus, citizens in the Town of Geddes had no way of knowing which properties were impacted by the reclassifications that occurred as a result of the 1954 Amendments. Ordinance 01-01, on the other hand, contained a geographical description of the properties that would be reclassified as a result of the County Commissioners’ approval of Hovnanian’s Growth Allocation Petition. In addition, the growth allocation ordinances enacted in this case, unlike the zoning amendments enacted in Soron, only changed the development categories on one property, that belonging to The Four Seasons.

Said otherwise, Ordinance 01-01 and 01-01A did not intend to affect the level of development that any surrounding landowners could engage in because the ordinances only altered the classification of the development categories on the Four Seasons’ property. See Q.A.C.C. § 14:1-77(A) (“A request for growth allocation petition may be initiated by a petition of the property owner filed with the County Commissioners.” (Emphasis added)). Thus, growth allocation is awarded only to property owners that file the requisite petition with the Queen Anne’s County Commissioner. To be sure, like zoning, where non-petitioning landowners can be affected by a county’s legislative acts, see Harbor Island Marina v. Board of County Commissioners, 286 Md. 303, 312-13 , 407 A.2d 738, 743 (1979) (stating that Maryland counties within the limits of the police power, have broad authority to exercise zoning powers), the award of growth allocation can affect the property of a non-growth allocation awardee.

That is not the concern that the Soron case ad ¹⁴⁸ dressed. There was ample notice to the surrounding property owners of Hovnanian’s petition for growth allocation. Indeed, Robert W. Foley, the named petitioner in this case, addressed the Critical Area Commission on September 12, 2000 about Hovnanian’s Growth Allocation Petition. Moreover, Foley was informed about Hovnanian’s Growth Allocation Petition for Four Seasons, as were other contiguous property owners pursuant to Q.A.C.C. § 14:1-77(B). 9 Q.A.C.C. § 14:1-77(B) required that an announcement of the public hearing on Hovnanian’s Growth Allocation Petition be published in a County newspaper at least 14 days prior to the hearing before the Planning Commission.

The ample notice that both Foley and Queen Anne’s County residents received further detracts from Foley’s argument that notice, or the lack thereof, was an issue when Queen Anne’s County Commissioners enacted the Ordinances with no maps attached. There simply is no issue of the kind addressed in Soron, whether the property owner whose property had been reclassified had notice, or sufficient notice, of the reclassification. The central point of contention in this case is whether accurate Overlay Maps had to be drafted and filed with the approving ordinances, which the County Commissioners enacted, in order for Hovnanian’s growth allocation to be effective. The petitioners refer this Court to Maryland Code (2000 Repl.

Vol., 2006) § 8-1808.1(c)(4) of the Natural Resources Article: ¹⁴⁹ “New intensely developed or limited development areas to be located in the resource conservation area shall conform to all criteria of the Commission for intensely developed or limited development areas and shall be designated on the comprehensive zoning map submitted by the local jurisdiction as part of its application to the Commission for program approval or at a later date in compliance with § 8-1809(g) of this subtitle[.]” We disagree with the petitioners’ reliance on that section. 10 Section 8-1808.1(c)(4) addresses a county’s initial establishment of a Critical Area Program and the periodic review of that program that counties must undertake as required by § 8-1809(g) of the Natural Resources Article. 11 In Maryland ¹⁵⁰ Code (2000 Repl. Vol., 2006) § 8-1808 of the Natural Resources Article, local jurisdictions are directed to establish a Critical Area Program, such as the one adopted by Queen Anne’s County, that establishes certain land use policies for development in areas surrounding the Chesapeake Bay. Maryland Code (2000 Repl. Vol., 2006) § 8-1809(g) of the Natural Resources Article provides that “[e]ach local jurisdiction shall review its entire program and propose any necessary amendments to its entire program, including local zoning maps, at least every 4 years beginning with the 4-year anniversary of the date that the program became effective and every 4 years after that date.” As pointed out by the respondent, this statutory language does not require or even imply that Overlay Maps for every award of Growth Allocation by County Commissioners be added before any such Growth Allocation Petition can be approved and become effective.

Instead, § 8-1808.1(c)(4) and § 8-1809(g) require only that maps outlining newly classified IDA or LDA areas be provided to the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission at the inception of a county’s program and every four years thereafter. As neither § 8-1808 nor § 8-1809 addresses the specific role that Overlay Maps play in the Growth Allocation Petition process, and more particularly, whether the effectiveness of the County Commissioners’ approval of Hovnanian’s Growth Allocation Petition is contingent on the attachment to the Ordinances of accurate Critical Area Overlay Maps depicting the approved Growth Allocation, we turn our attention to Q.A.C.C. § 14:1— 77. ¹⁵¹ Article XV, § 14:1-77 of the Queen Anne’s County Code addresses the Growth Allocation Petition process. Q.A.C.C. § 11:1-77(F) and (G) provide: “F. Final approval by the County Commissioners. “(1) Within 120 days of receiving notification from the Critical Area Commission that the proposed growth allocation petition has been conditionally approved pursuant to the provisions of § 8-1809 of the Natural Resources Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland, the County Commissioners shall introduce legislation and take final legislative action on the proposed growth allocation. (2) If the Planning Commission has recommended approval of a growth allocation petition and the County Commissioners propose to approve an award of growth allocation which substantially changes or departs from those recommendations, the proposal of the County Commissioners shall be referred to the Planning Commission, in writing, for its further recommendations and to the Critical Area Commission for review and approval prior to any legislative action.

If such recommendations are not received by the County Commissioners within 90 days after the proposal has been transmitted to the Planning Commission, the County Commissioners may proceed to take final action without such recommendations. (3) A growth allocation petition shall not be effective until after it is approved by the Critical Area Commission and not until 45 days after approval by the County Commissioners. “G. Map amendment. The Official Critical Area Map(s) will be amended to reflect the new development area designation when the approved growth allocation petition becomes effective.” Pursuant to Queen Anne’s County Code § 14:1—77(F), there is a 45 day waiting period between the time when the Queen Anne’s County Commissioners’ approve an applicant’s petition for growth allocation and when that applicant’s approved petition can become effective. Thus, approval of a petition for ¹⁵² growth allocation and the effectiveness of the approved petition are not events that occur simultaneously.

When presented with a question involving statutory interpretation, we begin with the words of the ordinance “since the words of the [ordinance], construed according to their ordinary and natural import, are the primary source and most persuasive evidence of legislative intent.” Lanzaron v. Anne Arundel County, 402 Md. 140, 149 , 935 A.2d 689, 694 (2007) (quoting Rose v. Fox Pool Corp., 335 Md. 351, 359 , 643 A.2d 906, 909 (1994)). Our goal is to effectuate the intent of the legislative body. Comptroller of the Treasury v. Science Applications Int’l Corp., 405 Md. 185, 198 , 950 A.2d 766, 773 (2008); Ishola v. State, 404 Md. 155, 160 , 945 A.2d 1273, 1276 (2008); Taylor v. Mandel, 402 Md. 109, 128 , 935 A.2d 671, 682 (2007). This Court will neither add nor delete language in a statute so as to subvert that body’s plain and unambiguous intent in enacting the particular legislation.

Maryland Overpak Corp. v. Mayor & City Council, 395 Md. 16, 47 , 909 A.2d 235, 253 (2006) (quoting Kushell v. Dep’t of Natural Res., 385 Md. 563, 576-77 , 870 A.2d 186, 194 (2005)). We construe the ordinance so as to give effect to each word so that no word, clause, sentence or phrase is rendered superfluous or nugatory. Kushell, 385 Md. at 577 , 870 A.2d at 193 (citing Collins v. State, 383 Md. 684, 691 , 861 A.2d 727, 732 (2004)). Thus, if an ordinance is clear and unambiguous, our inquiry is at an end.

Kushell, 385 Md. at 577 , 870 A.2d at 193-94 . If, however, the language in an ordinance is ambiguous, then we will look to external sources in an effort to glean the legislature’s intent. Kushell, 385 Md. at 577 , 870 A.2d at 194 . In outlining the process for the Queen Anne’s County Commissioners to approve a Growth Allocation Petition, § 14:1-77(F) provides, in part, that within 120 days of receiving the Critical Area Commission’s conditional approval of a proposed growth allocation petition, the County Commissioners must introduce legislation and take “final legislative action” on the proposed growth allocation.

Q.A.C.C. § 14:1-77(F)(1). If, however, the County Commissioners propose to ¹⁵³ approve a growth allocation petition that substantially deviates from the terms of a proposed petition that previously has been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and the Critical Area Commission, then the County Commissioners must, in writing, once again refer the revised petition, with the Commissioners’ proposed changes, to the Planning Commission and to the Critical Area Commission. In the absence of further action or recommendation on the revised petition by the Planning Commission or the Critical Area Commission within 90 days, the County Commissioners “may proceed to take final action without such recommendations.” Q.A.C.C. § 14:1-77(F)(2). The first mention of Critical Area Overlay Maps occurs in Q.A.C.C. § 14:1-77(G): “G. Map amendment.

The Official Critical Area Map(s) will be amended to reflect the new development area designation when the approved growth allocation petition becomes effective.” The fact that