Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission v. Greater Baden-Aquasco Citizens Ass'n

HARRELL, J. This case considers the legal nexus, if any, between the subdivision of land and land use planning, as represented in adopted and approved “comprehensive plans,” in Prince George’s County. Donald Cox (the apparent 1 “Developer”) applied to the Prince George’s County Planning Board of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission ⁷⁷ (the “Planning Board” or the “Commission”) for approval of a preliminary subdivision plan (the “Preliminary Plan”). The Planning Board approved the Preliminary Plan over the protest of a neighbor who testified, in individual and representative capacities, at the public hearing. Judicial review of that action was sought in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County.

The Circuit Court remanded the case to the Planning Board for further consideration of certain matters referred to in land use planning documents addressed to that part of Prince George’s County (“the County”) where the subject property is located. The Planning Board and the Developer filed a timely appeal to the Court of Special Appeals, complaining about the remand because consideration by the Planning Board of the pertinent land use planning issue (in this case, a numeric residential growth objective) was not required. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court. We shall affirm the Court of Special Appeals, but for reasons somewhat less expansive than articulated in the opinion of our appellate colleagues.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On 30 December 2005, the Developer applied to the Commission for approval of a preliminary subdivision plan proposing 20 single-family detached residential lots on 118.30 acres located east of Md. Rte. 301 in southern Prince George’s County. The subject property is referred to at times in the record as the Schultze Property. 2 It sits astride the east and west sides of Aquasco Road (MD 381) and borders the Charles County line. Aquasco Road is designated by the County as a historic road. Md.-Nat’l Capital Park and Planning Comm’n, Prince George’s County Historic Sites and District Plan H-5 (1992). 3 The subject property is located in a portion of the ⁷⁸ County designated as the Rural Tier, as defined by the 2002 Approved Countywide General Plan 4 , 5 (the “General Plan”).

The Planning Board held a public hearing on 18 May 2006 to consider the Preliminary Plan application. The Board heard testimony initially from two members of the Commission’s Subdivision Section Technical Staff, Ivy Thompson and Alan Hirsch, who recommended approval of the Preliminary Plan. Joanne Flynn of the Greater Baden-Aquasco Citizen’s Association testified in opposition to approval of the Preliminary Plan. Flynn testified, among other things, with regard to the General Plan’s restrictive numeric residential growth objective 6 as it relates to the “excessive” current residential growth experienced in the Rural Tier and its relation to the ⁷⁹ Preliminary Plan, which she maintained, justified disapproval of the application. 7 The Planning Board approved the Preliminary Plan by a Resolution, dated 15 June 2006 (the “Resolution”), subject to fourteen conditions not relevant here.

Pertinent, however, to the dispute in the present case, the Resolution included the following findings (distinguished perhaps more by what it does not address—the numeric growth objective—than for what it does): Community Planning—This site is located in the Rural Tier. The vision for the Rural Tier is the protection of large amounts of land for woodland wildlife habitat, recreation and agriculture pursuits, and preservation of rural character and vistas that now exist. This application is not inconsistent with the 2002 General Plan Development Pattern policies for the Rural Tier. Based on the proposed development, as modified by conditions contained in this report, the subject application conforms to the low rural residential land use recommended in the 1993 Subregion VI Study Area Master Plan.

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 master plan and general plan. No rare, threatened or endangered species of plants or animals will be impacted by the development. Of the approximate 49.80 acres of woodland conservation required, all will be in the form of existing preservation on site. The applicant is actually proposing the retention of 57.10 acres of existing preservation on site.

An additional condition was established for a future Detailed Site Plan (DSP) to address the appearance of the proposed lots and appropriate treatment for the scenic easement with review elements to include Preservation of existing woodlands; Enhancement of the scenic easement with landscaping; The location, appropriate setback and lighting of all lots and ⁸⁰ residences adjacent to Aquasco Road (MD 3 81); The location and type of lighting on the public road; and The conservation of rural character. Conservation easements are required over the environmental features to additionally provide for the retention of environmentally sensitive areas. 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) C criteria established for the Rural Tier____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. The Resolution, in explaining its analysis of the basis upon which the preliminary plan was approved, made no mention of the General Plan’s numeric residential growth objective for the Rural Tier. The Greater Baden-Aquasco Citizens Association and eight individual area residents (collectively, the “Citizens”) filed in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County a petition for judicial review of the Commission’s action. The Circuit Court remanded the case to the Planning Board for further consideration and additional findings.

Specifically, the Circuit Court found that the Planning Board did not articulate findings of fact with regard to conformance with all relevant recommendations of the General Plan and applicable Area Master Plan and that there was not substantial evidence in the record to support the Planning Board’s conclusion that the Preliminary Plan conformed with the General and Master Plans. The Commission and the Developer appealed to the Court of Special Appeals. In an unreported opinion, the intermediate appellate court affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court. ⁸¹ The Commission filed a timely petition for writ of certiorari. 8 We granted the petition, 407 Md. 529 , 967 A.2d 182 (2009), to consider the following somewhat argumentatively framed questions: I. Does the lower court’s decision improperly usurp the County Council’s legislative function by imposing an interpretation of the General Plan that the Council expressly did not intend?

II

Would the lower court’s decision unduly subject the Commission to innumerable lawsuits and effect a de facto moratorium on development in the County’s rural tier?

II

THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS The Commission and the Developer, before the Court of Special Appeals, disputed the Circuit Court’s judgment that there was not substantial evidence to support the Planning Board’s approval of the Preliminary Plan. The intermediate appellate court interpreted its opinion in Archers Glen Partners, Inc. v. Garner, 176 Md.App. 292 , 933 A.2d 405 (2007), aff'd on other grounds, 405 Md. 43 , 949 A.2d 639 (2008), a case involving a different preliminary subdivision plan application for residential development within the Rural Tier of the County, to hold that the General Plan’s numeric residential growth objective was “binding” on the Planning Board. Because the Planning Board did not consider the numeric growth objective in the present case in its Resolution or in its deliberations, the intermediate appellate court concluded that there was not substantial evidence that the application conformed with the Master Plan and the General Plan. According to the Court of Special Appeals, “when the evidence in a given case generates a material issue as to ⁸² compliance with that objective,” the Planning Board must address the General Plan’s numeric growth objective viz-a-viz the preliminary plan application before it.

The court found that the following testimony by Flynn in the present case generated a material issue as to the proposed subdivision’s compliance with the numeric growth objective: Since the adoption of the General Plan, the goal of capturing less than one percent of the County’s dwelling unit growth for the Rural Tier has been exceeded and has resulted in action by [the District] Council to place a moratorium on growth, which has now expired in the Rural Tier, and to attempt to develop a TDR [Transfer of Development Rights] program to meet growth and preservation mandates outlined in the General Plan. The court resolved that the Planning Board did not address adequately in its Resolution the numeric growth objective. The intermediate appellate court also concluded that the Planning Board’s “verbatim recitation” of the written Technical Staff Report and recommendation in the Board’s Resolution “was the functional equivalent of stating ‘the Planning Board agrees with everything in the Staff Report’ and concluding the matter at that point. . Under the circumstances of this case, the Planning Board’s approach is unacceptable.” The court found that the Resolution’s “rote repetition of a Staff Report does not constitute meaningful fact finding where the Staff Report does not clearly articulate the requisite relationship between the facts and the law.” 9 ⁸³ Even where the Planning Board “engaged in independent fact finding during its discussion of ‘community planning’ considerations,” the court determined that its “findings of fact are also insufficient and do not permit our review of the [numeric growth objective] issue raised by the Commission and Developer.... ” The court explained, however, that the “Planning Board retained] discretion ... in its interpretation and application of the binding provisions of the Master and General Plans to a preliminary subdivision plan.” The Court of Special Appeals, therefore, affirmed the Circuit Court’s judgment and endorsed remand of the case to the Planning Board for further factual findings and appropriate conclusions of law.

III

STANDARD OF REVIEW Our review of an administrative agency’s 10 action generally is a narrow and highly deferential inquiry. Trinity Assembly of God for Balt. City, Inc. v. People’s Counsel for Balt. County, 407 Md. 53, 78 , 962 A.2d 404, 418 (2008) (“Trini ⁸⁴ ty Assembly of God ”) (citing People’s Counsel for Balt.

County v. Loyola College in Md., 406 Md. 54, 66 , 956 A.2d 166, 173 (2008)); United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. People’s Counsel for Balt. County, 336 Md. 569, 576 , 650 A.2d 226, 230 (1994). “When reviewing the decision of a local [planning] body, ... we evaluate directly the agency decision, and, in so doing, we apply the same standards of review as the circuit court and intermediate appellate court.” Trinity Assembly of God, 407 Md. at 77 , 962 A.2d at 418 (2008) (citing Loyola College, 406 Md. at 66 , 956 A.2d at 173 ). Our review is “limited to determining if there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the agency’s findings and conclusions, and to determine if the administrative decision is premised upon an erroneous conclusion of law.” United Parcel Serv., Inc., 336 Md. at 577 , 650 A.2d at 230 ; see also Trinity Assembly of God, 407 Md. at 78 , 962 A.2d at 418 ; People’s Counsel for Balt. County v. Surina, 400 Md. 662, 681 , 929 A.2d 899, 910 (2007); Lee v. Md.-Nat’l Capital Park and Planning Comm’n, 107 Md.App. 486, 492 , 668 A.2d 980, 983 (1995). “A conclusion by [the planning body] satisfies the substantial evidence test if ‘a reasonable mind might accept as adequate’ the evidence supporting it.” Trinity Assembly of God, 407 Md. at 78 , 962 A.2d at 418 (citing Loyola College, 406 Md. at 67 , 956 A.2d at 174 ); see also Surina, 400 Md. at 681 , 929 A.2d at 910 .

We owe less deference, however, to “the legal conclusions of the administrative body and may reverse those decisions where the legal conclusions reached by that body are based on an erroneous interpretation or application of zoning statutes, regulations, and ordinances relevant and applicable to the property that is the subject of the dispute.” Surina, 400 Md. at 682 , 929 A.2d at 911 (citing Belvoir Farms Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. North, 355 Md. 259, 267-68 , 734 A.2d 227, 232 (1999)); Trinity Assembly of God, 407 Md. at 78 , 962 A.2d at 419 . Although we review the administrative body’s legal conclusions with less deference than its factual findings, “[w]hen determining the validity of those legal conclusions ... ‘a degree of deference should often be accorded the position of the administrative agency’ whose task it is to interpret the ⁸⁵ ordinances and regulations the agency itself promulgated.” Surina, 400 Md. at 682 , 929 A.2d at 911 (quoting Marzullo v. Kahl, 366 Md. 158, 172 , 783 A.2d 169, 177 (2001)). In the present case, we must determine whether the Planning Board was required by relevant statutory law to consider the residential growth recommendation of the applicable plans in reaching its conclusion that the Prehminary Plan conformed to the requirements of the Subregion VI Master Plan and the Countywide General Plan. If so required, we then ordinarily would determine whether substantial evidence supported its conclusion.

Because of our answer to the first stage analysis, we shall not reach the second inquiry.

IV

LAND USE PLANS A. Land Use Plans Generally The terms “Master Plan” and “General Plan,” as guides to growth and land development, while distinct under most land use statutes and regulations, do not possess universal meanings nationally and are often used interchangeably. See Patricia E. Salkin, American Law of Zoning § 5:3 (5th ed.2009). “Since there are many shades of opinion among planners as to the precise content, the specific emphasis, and the degree of particularity, not all would agree on a definition of such a plan.” Id. For purposes of general discussion of land use plans, the terms “Master Plan” and “General Plan” frequently are conflated in the broad term “comprehensive plan.” Generally, a comprehensive plan is described as “a general plan to control and direct the use and development of property in a [locality], or a large part thereof, by dividing it into districts according to the present and potential use of the property.” E.C. Yokley, Zoning Law and Practice § 5-2 (4th ed.2003). It usually is “more than a detailed zoning map and should apply to a substantial area, be the product of long study, and control land use consistent with the public interest.

An important characteristic of a comprehensive plan is that it be well thought out and give consideration to the common needs of the particular area.” Id. ⁸⁶ Commentators and scholars generally agree that the purposes of a comprehensive plan include: (1) To improve the physical environment of the community as a setting for human activities—to make it more functional, beautiful, decent, healthful, interesting, and efficient.... (2) To promote the public interest, the interest of the community at large, rather than the interests of individuals or special groups within the community.... (3) To facilitate the democratic determination and implementation of community policies on physical development (4) To effect political and technical coordination in community development.... (5) To inject long-range considerations into the determination of short-range actions....

(6) To bring professional and technical knowledge to bear on the making of political decisions concerning the physical development of the community____ Salkin, supra, at § 5:5 (quoting T.J. Kent, Jr., The Urban General Plan 25 (1964)). Many state statutes require that zoning and land development be accomplished “in accordance with a comprehensive plan.” Yokley, supra, at § 5-1. See e.g., Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 9-462.01F (2008 & Supp.2009) (“All zoning and rezoning ordinances or regulations adopted under this article shall be consistent with and conform to the adopted general plan of the municipality, if any----”); Cal. Gov’t Code § 65860(a) (West 2009) (“County or city zoning ordinances shall be consistent with the general plan of the county or city____”); Fla.

Stat. § 163.3194 (l)(a) (LexisNexis 2009) (“After a comprehensive plan, or element or portion thereof, has been adopted ... all development undertaken by, and all actions taken in regard to development orders by, governmental agencies in regard to land covered by such plan or element shall be consistent with such plan or element as adopted.”); Ga.Code Ann. § 36-70-3(1) (2006 & Supp.2009) (“The governing bodies of municipalities and counties are authorized: (1) To develop, establish, and ⁸⁷ implement land use regulations which are consistent with the comprehensive plan of the municipality or county.... ”); Or. Rev.Stat. § 197.010(l)(c) (2007) (declaring the legislature’s intent that comprehensive plans shall be implemented through “more specific rules and land use regulations.”). B. Maryland and Prince George’s County Specifically Maryland zoning and planning enabling statutes, enacted by our General Assembly, provide for comprehensive plans. 11 Non-charter counties and municipalities with zoning and planning powers are governed by Article 66B of the Maryland Code (1957 & 2003 RepLVol. & Supp.2009) generally. Some provisions of Art. 66B, however, also apply to charter counties, such as Prince George’s County. 12 For example, § 1.04(a) provides that a “charter county shall enact, adopt, amend, and execute” a comprehensive plan.

The section also lists the required elements for the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan shall include a transportation element, a mineral resources plan, a water resources plan, “recommendations for land development regulations to implement the comprehensive plan,” and a sensitive areas element. Id. § 1.04(b). The county is charged with ensuring the implementation of the comprehensive plan through zoning and other land use regulations, including subdivision ordinances and regulations.

Id. § 1.04(f). Section 3.01 of Art. 66B addresses the adoption of a comprehensive plan by non-charter counties and municipalities (§ 3.01 is not applicable to charter counties. See § 1.03). The ⁸⁸ plan shall “[sjerve as a guide to public and private actions and decisions to insure the development of public and private property in appropriate relationships____” Id. § 3.05(a)(2).

Section 3.05 describes the plan and its required elements. 13 Any regulations adopted by the local legislative body “shall be adopted: (1) in accordance with the plan.” Id. § 4.03(a)(1). Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties receive additional and special statutory treatment with regard to zoning and planning in Article 28 of the Md.Code. In Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties (charter counties), the Commission is authorized, at the direction of the County Council, sitting as the District Council, to create a general plan for the entire Regional District. Art. 28, § 7-108(a)(l)(i). 14 The general plan shall contain the Commission’s recommendations for development in the regional district.

Id. § 7-108(a)(2). The District Council may direct the Commission to prepare the general plan based on studies and considerations of, among others, “existing and forecasted” population growth, development, transportation needs, housing needs and demands, and transportation needs. Id. § 7-108(a)(3). The District Council ⁸⁹ also may provide “[t]hat the Commission shall consider various alternative concepts of growth or development in preparing the general plan____” Id. § 7-108(a)(4)(i).

The purpose of the general plan is guiding and accomplishing a coordinated, comprehensive, adjusted, and systematic development of the regional district, the coordination and adjustment of this development with public and private development of other parts of the State of Maryland and of the District of Columbia, and the protection and promotion of the health, safety, morals, comfort and welfare of the inhabitants of the regional district. Id. § 7-110. As part of the countywide general plan, Article 28, § 7-108(b) provides that, “to the extent necessary and feasible,” the Commission shall adopt a map of the county, dividing the county into planning areas, subject to the approval of the District Council. The Commission shall adopt, and, from time to time, amend and revise, “a local master plan for each planning area ...” Id. § 7-108(b)(l)(iii).

Master plans differ from General Plans in that “[mjaster plans govern a specific, smaller portion of the County and are often more detailed in their recommendations than the countywide General Plan as to that same area.” Garner v. Archers Glen Partners, Inc., 405 Md. 43 , 48 n. 5, 949 A.2d 639, 642 (2008). The District Council may provide that the “local master plan may include recommendations for zoning, staging of development and public improvements, and public services relative to the implementation of the plan....” Id. § 7~108(b)(l)(iv). The District Council may also provide that “a local master plan shall be based upon and include in greater detail, but need not be limited to, the same factors, elements, and conditions as contained in the general plan....” Id. § 7—108(b)(1) (vi). Furthermore, the District Council may provide that the “local master plan or any amendment thereto shall be, upon adoption by the Commission and approval by the appropriate district council, an amendment to the general plan if so designated by that district council.” Id. § 7—108(b)(2). ⁹⁰ The District Council for Prince George’s County and the Commission, in reliance on the applicable statutory provisions, have created both local master plans and a general plan.

We next shall recount the plans that bear on the subject property of this case. 1. The 2000 Biennial Plan The Prince George’s County Council 15 created Commission 2000, a 53-member, broad-based advisory community panel with a charge to “recommend a comprehensive growth management plan for Prince George’s County and a strategy to achieve it.” Commission 2000, Biennial Growth Policy Plan: Final Report 1 (2000) (the “Biennial Plan”); see also Prince George’s County, Md., No. CR-62-1998 (resolution adopted “[f]or the purpose of establishing a broad-based public panel representing all segments of the County to work -with the Prince George’s County Council, County Executive, Planning Board and Planning ■ Department of the M-NCPPC to (1) prepare a Biennial Growth Management Plan.... ”), 16 , 17 Com ⁹¹ mission 2000’s “fundamental recommendation” was the creation of a heretofore new concept of identifying “growth tiers ... to guide future land use and development in Prince George’s County.” Id. “The three tiers encompass the developed, developing and rural areas of the County.” Id. The District Council approved the Biennial Growth Policy Plan (the “Biennial Plan”) on 24 October 2000, with amendments not relevant here. See Prince George’s County, Md., CB--8Q-2000 (24 October 2000).

One of the goals and objectives of the Biennial Plan is to “[pjreserve rural, agricultural and scenic areas” so that “Prince George’s County will retain a rural area in addition to urban and suburban environments by protecting rural character, preserving rural lands and retaining viable operations in rural areas.” Id. at 9. Additionally, “scenic areas will be identified and protected throughout the County.” Id. A priority of the Plan is farmland preservation. The Plan states that “the County will facilitate the long-term retention of viable agricultural operations and avoid inappropriate development of rural lands.

Non-farm development in rural areas will avoid infringement.” Id. at 11. The Biennial Plan established growth objectives to achieve these objectives and priorities. With regard to the Rural Tier, the objective was to “[sjlow dwelling unit growth ... to 0.75 percent of total Countywide dwelling unit growth over the next 20 years.” Id. ⁹² at 12. The Biennial Plan also lists several reasons, ranked in order of importance, why rural areas are important to the County: “Provision of open space, Environmental protection, Agricultural land retention, Rural character preservation, Equity for property owners, Support for viable agricultural operations, Infrastructure/service cost control, Supporting compact urban growth, [and] Residential growth.” Id. at 22. 2.

The 2002 General Plan On 7 October 2002, the District Council approved a “new” General Plan 18 for the County, superceding the General Plan of 1982. Prince George’s County, Md., Resolution No. CR-47-2002 (7 October 2002). The Commission was an active participant in the preparation of both General Plans. See id.

(stating that the Commission initiated, with the concurrence of the District Council, the preparation of the General Plan, held open meetings and hearings, and published informational brochures regarding the General Plan). The sustaining purpose of the General Plan is to provide broad guidance for the future growth and development of Prince George’s County while providing for environmental protection and preservation of important lands. This guidance is 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. Md.-National Capital Park and Planning Comm’n, Prince George's County Approved General Plan 13 (2002).

The General Plan adopted the growth tier structure of the Biennial Plan. It changed, however, the numeric growth objective for the Rural Tier from less than 0.75 percent to a goal of capturing less than 1 percent of the County’s dwelling unit growth by the year 2025. Id. at 27. The General Plan states ⁹³ that this objective is a measure, among others, that “will be used to gauge the success of [the Plan’s] implementation.” The General Plan described the Rural Tier as follow's: The Rural Tier is comprised of the eastern and southern portions of the county in the Patuxent River, Potomac River, and Mattawoman Creek watersheds.

It encompasses approximately 150 square miles, or approximately 32 percent of the county’s total land area. The Rural Tier is the most scenic part of the county and is characterized by fine landscapes, most of the county’s remaining farms, extensive woodlands, numerous streams, and diverse wildlife habitat. Development activity includes mining and widely dispersed, large-lot residential home sites. The community structure dates back over 300 years and historic roadways and structures dot the landscape.

Public land holdings account for large portions of the Rural Tier, including extensive park and federal agency properties. Although large-lot estate development is anticipated in this Tier, it needs to be carefully balanced with agricultural pursuits and preservation to maintain its rural character. The preservation of the remaining environmentally sensitive features in this Tier is a priority for any future development. Id. at 40.

The General Plan also described the “vision[ 19 ] for the Rural Tier” to be to protect “large amounts of land for woodland, ⁹⁴ wildlife habitat, recreation and agricultural pursuits, and preservation of the rural character and vistas that now exist.” Id. at 5. To achieve that “vision,” the General Plan lists seven “goals”: (1) “[pjreserve environmentally sensitive features;” (2) “[r]etain sustainable agricultural land;” (3) “Maintain rural character;” (4) “[a]llow large-lot estate residences;” (5) “[l]imit nonagricultural land uses;” (6) “[p]rotect landowners’ equity in their land;” [and] (7) “Maintain the integrity of a rural transportation system.” Id. at 40. In 2008, the Commission published the General Plan Growth Policy Update for Prince George’s County. The Growth Policy Update reported that, from 2002-2007, the Rural Tier of the County captured 3 percent of the County’s total dwelling ⁹⁵ unit completions, compared to the less than 1 percent growth objective (if considered untethered from its temporal focus date of 2025) established in the General Plan. 3.

The Subregion VI Master Plan The Property in the present case is located in the Subregion VI Study Area of the County. The Subregion VI Study Area is subject to an area master plan. The goal of the Subregion VI Master Plan (the “Master Plan”) is “[t]o preserve the rural character of the Subregion VI Study Area.” Prince George’s County Planning Dep’t, Subregion VI Study Area Approved Master Plan 61 (1993). Unlike both the Biennial and General Plans, the Master Plan does not contain expressly a textual objective or goal expressed as a percentage of countywide residential growth that should occur within the Rural Tier within Subregion VI.

The Master Plan, however, states that its provisions are meant to be “generally” consistent with the General Plan. Id. at 3. 20 V. THE PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS The Commission’s primary argument in this litigation is that the Planning Board is not obliged to evaluate the General Plan’s numeric residential growth objective for the Rural Tier (or its potential effect, if applied at any point in time prior to 2025) at the time of any preliminary plan of residential subdivision approval in the Rural Tier. It asserts that the Court of Special Appeals, in opining to the contrary, usurped the District Council’s legislative prerogative to decide who and what, if anything, controls residential growth in the Rural ⁹⁶ Tier. The Commission points out that the General Plan contains many goals and objectives that focus on concerns that it contends largely are irrelevant to the subdivision review process, such as employment opportunities, the tax base, housing quality, revitalization, and the design of structures and land improvements.

Another irrelevant objective, it argues, is the numeric growth objective, a long-term objective designed to measure whether the County is meeting its goals, policies, and objectives in the Rural Tier and one which the District Council intended for its direct monitoring of growth activity through the Growth Policy Updates. The District Council intended, as the argument continues, for growth to be controlled through mechanisms other than the subdivision process, such as conservation easements pursuant to § 24-152 of the County Code 21 and that the Council did not intend for the Planning Board to account for or enforce the growth objective as a function of approving or disapproving subdivision applications in the Rural Tier. The Commission does not dispute that the County Code requires that the Planning Board must determine broadly, ⁹⁷ before it may approve a preliminary subdivision plan, that it conforms to the applicable Master Plan. It argues, nonetheless, that if the Planning Board is required to address the numeric growth objective in its subdivision review process in every application proposing residential development in the Rural Tier, it will cause the Commission, applicants, and the County to incur an undue hardship by encouraging “innumerable baseless lawsuits” and impose a de facto moratorium (for at least some period of time) on further residential development in the County’s Rural Tier. 22 The Citizens argue that the Court of Special Appeals held correctly that the Planning Board must consider if and how the proposed subdivision complies with the numeric growth objective.

They argue that the plain language of the applicable County ordinances, planning documents, and Maryland case law makes clear that the growth objective must be a part of the Commission’s subdivision review analysis. In response to the Commission’s undue hardship augury, the Citizens retort that it is wrong factually and irrelevant legally. They contend that, in accordance with “classic principles of administrative law,” 23 the Board has ready access to up-to-date information on residential growth and is required to track growth data and articulate findings based on that information. Undue hardship is not a reason to be excused from complying with the law in these circumstances.

VI

OUR ANALYSIS This case presents the opportunity to weigh in on a dispute that has been simmering in Prince George’s County apparently for several years. 24 , 25 We decide here whether the ⁹⁸ Planning Board, at the least, must consider the General Plan’s numeric growth objective when determining whether to approve or reject a preliminary subdivision plan. For the reasons set forth below, we answer that question in the affirmative. The appellate courts of Maryland have discussed on many occasions the legal effect of land use plans in the context of the subdivision approval process and various other land use contexts. 26 In the context of zoning actions, Master Plans have been viewed generally as non-binding advisory recommendations, unless a governing statute or ordinance clearly elevates them to the status of a regulatory device. See, e.g., Trail v. Terrapin Run, LLC, 403 Md. 523, 535 , 943 A.2d 1192, 1199 (2008) (noting that, as opposed to subdivision contexts, ⁹⁹ “generally, Master Plans, Comprehensive Plans, and the like, are advisory, guides only, and not normally mandatory insofar as rezonings, special exceptions, conditional uses and the like are concerned.”); Pattey v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 271 Md. 352, 360 , 317 A.2d 142, 147 (1974) (“[A] master plan is only a guide and is not to be confused with a comprehensive zoning, zoning map, or zoning classification.... ”); Aspen Hill Venture v. Montgomery County Council, 265 Md. 303, 315 , 289 A.2d 303, 309 (1972) (noting that a master plan is “a guide for the future”); but see subsequent statutory changes in the 2009 legislative session that purport to abrogate to some extent the holding in the Terrapin Run decision. 27 , 28 ¹⁰⁰ In the context of subdivision matters, it is equally well established that the recommendations of a master plan may be binding to the extent there is a statute, regulation, or ordinance requiring that a proposed subdivision conform to the master plan.

Coffey v. Md.-Nat'l Capital Park and Planning Comm’n, 293 Md. 24 , 25, 441 A.2d 1041 , 1041 (1982); Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Gaster, 285 Md. 233, 250 , 401 A.2d 666, 674 (1979) (“The county here has preordained by its subdivision regulations that one who seeks to cut up a larger tract by creating a subdivision must not disrupt the master plan and that the subdivision must be compatible with that master plan.”). In Mayor and Council of Rockville v. Rylyns Enters., Inc., 372 Md. 514 , 814 A.2d 469 (2002), we observed that, ¹⁰¹ where the local government has enacted a statute, ordinance, or regulation that links planning and zoning, “they serve to elevate the status of comprehensive plans to the level of true regulatory device.” Id. at 580 , 814 A.2d at 478 . “[WJhere such a statute or ordinance exists, its effect is usually that of requiring that zoning or other land use decisions be consistent with a plan’s recommendations regarding land use....” Id. at 531 , 814 A.2d at 478 -79 (citing Richmarr Holly Hills, Inc. v. Am. PCS, L.P., 117 Md.App. 607, 635-51 , 701 A.2d 879, 893-901 (1997)); see also Boyds Civic Ass’n v. Montgomery County Council, 309 Md. 683, 699 , 526 A.2d 598, 606 (1987) (noting that “master plans are not invariably advisory. For example, a county’s subdivision regulations may validly require subdivision proposals to conform to a master plan.”).

Noting that “the weight to be accorded a master plan or comprehensive plan recommendation depends upon the language of the statute, ordinance, or regulation establishing the standards pursuant to which the decision is to be made,” Richmarr Holly Hills, Inc. v. Am. PCS, L.P., 117 Md.App. 607, 636 , 701 A.2d 879, 893 (1997) (footnote omitted), the Court of Special Appeals explained that, in examining the relevant statute or ordinance, a court ought to apply the standard cannons of statutory interpretation. “In such cases, we look first to the words of the applicable statute, ordinance, or regulation to divine what the enabler intended the weight to be accorded by the ultimate decision-maker to a recommendation of the plan.” Id. In Coffey, we recognized a binding nature for the recommendations of a master plan in subdivision cases, according to the subdivision regulations of the Prince George’s County Code. 293 Md. at 25, 441 A.2d at 1041. As it does now, the then extant County Code required subdivision plats to conform to the master plan. 29 Id.

We held that, “when subdivi ¹⁰² sion regulations require that a proposed subdivision comply with the master plan, an application for approval of a preliminary subdivision plan that fails to so comply must be rejected.” Id. The applicable master plan at the time Coffey submitted an application for approval of a preliminary subdivision plan proposed a residential density range of 2.7 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre for the part of the County where Coffey’s property was located. Id. His subdivision application proposed a density of 7.38 dwelling units per acre.

Id. Because the Master Plan was deemed binding based on the Council’s adoption of the approval criterion in the subdivision regulations of “conformity” to the plan, we held that the Commission was justified in rejecting Coffey’s proposed subdivision that failed to conform to the master plan. Id. at 31, 441 A.2d at 1044. The analysis in the present case is not so linear, however, because the relevant Master Plan does not contain an express numeric residential growth objective or an express requirement that the Planning Board consider the numeric growth objective of the General Plan.

Article 28, § 7-115(a)(l) of the Maryland Code, (1957, 2003 RepLVol.) requires that any subdivision of land within the “regional district” be approved by the Commission. The Commission is required to apply the subdivision regulations enacted by the District Council when determining whether to approve a subdivision plan within the parts of the County within the regional district (which includes the subject property in the present case). Id. §§ 7-116-7-117; see also Gamer, 405 Md. at 47 n. 3, 949 A.2d at 642 (“The Commission, in making its determinations, applies the subdivision regulations of Prince George’s County for subdivision proposals in that County.”). The County’s Subdivision Regulations provide that a proposed subdivision “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 ¹⁰³ not imposed the recommended zoning.” Prince George’s County Code § 24-121(a)(5).

There is no mention in § 24-121 (a)(5) requiring conformance to the Countywide General Plan, although § 24-104(a)(2) of the County Code notes that one of the purposes of the subdivision regulations is to “guide development according to the General Plan, area master plans, and their amendments.” (emphasis added). Furthermore, the Subregion VI