Naylor v. Prince George's County Planning Board

JAMES A. KENNEY (Retired, Specially Assigned), J. In its 2002 General Plan, the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (the “Commission”) set, as a “smart growth” initiative, an objective of limiting the percentage of dwelling unit growth in the Rural Tier of Prince George’s County through the year 2025 to less than one percent. Md. Nat’l Capital Park & Planning Comm’n, Prince George’s County Approved General Plan 27 (2002). We shall refer to this as the “1% growth objective.” In 2009, the Court of Appeals resolved a long-simmering dispute when it held that the Prince George’s County Planning Board of the Commission is obligated to consider the 1% growth objective when evaluating an application for a preliminary subdivision plan. See Md.-Nat’l Capital Park & Planning Comm’n v. Greater Baden-Aquasco Citizens Ass’n, 412 Md. 73, 106 , 985 A.2d 1160 (2009) (hereafter “Greater Baden ”).

This appeal, however, stems from proceedings that occurred before that question was settled. In 2004 and, after remand, again in 2006, the Planning Board approved a preliminary subdivision plan submitted by Archers Glen Partners, Inc. (the “Developer”), appellee, for construction of nineteen homes in a development to be known as Bennington Farms. 1 Located in the Rural Tier of Prince George’s County, the parcel adjoins Developer’s “sister” subdivision known as Archers Glen, the approval of which was litigated simultaneously and eventually ³¹³ affirmed 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) (hereafter “Archers Glen ”). When the Planning Board adopted an amended resolution (the “Amended Resolution”) approving a preliminary subdivision plan for Bennington Farms (the “Preliminary Plan”), appellants Debra Naylor, Esther O. Naylor, Ruth Naylor, Joyce Anderson, Charles and Janette Hoisington, Scott and Susan Morrill, Ross Williams, and the Greater Baden-Aquasco Citizens Association (collectively “Citizens”) petitioned for judicial review in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County. Despite Citizens’ complaint that the subdivision plan is inconsistent with the 1% growth objective, the circuit court affirmed the Amended Resolution approving the Preliminary Plan.

Citizens challenge that judgment, raising three issues for our review, which we have reordered and slightly rephrased as follows: I. Does the Planning Board have standing to participate in this appeal?

II

Did the Planning Board adequately articulate factual findings regarding the 1% growth objective?

III

Is there substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the Planning Board’s finding that the Preliminary Plan is not inconsistent with the 1% growth objective? Because this appeal can be resolved without deciding whether the Planning Board has standing to defend its Amended Resolution, we decline to address that issue. As for the Planning Board’s approval of the Preliminary Plan for Ben-nington Farms, we shall apply lessons from Archers Glen and Greater Baden to conclude that the Planning Board properly considered the 1% growth objective in finding that this plan is not inconsistent with that objective, and that there is substantial evidence in this administrative record to support that finding. ³¹⁴ FACTS AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS In 2002, the Commission adopted a General Plan stating that, beginning in 2000, “[t]he growth objective of the [General Plan] is that 33 percent of the county’s residential growth over the next 25 years is to be located in the Developed Tier, 66 percent in the Developing Tier, and one percent in the Rural Tier.” Md.-Nat’l Capital Park & Planning Comm’n, Prince George’s County Approved General Plan 4 (2002). As noted, this appeal arises from Citizens’ opposition to the proposed development of Bennington Farms on the ground that approval of the' nineteen dwelling units in that proposed subdivision is inconsistent with this 1% growth objective.

The property at issue is a 95.5 acre parcel in the Rural Tier, located on the south side of Bald Eagle Road in Westwood, which is in Planning Area 87A of Subregion VI. The parcel is zoned Open-Space (“O-S”), which permits single family detached residences on five acre lots, subject to a density limit of .2 dwelling units per acre. Adjoining this parcel is Archers Glen, a separately approved subdivision of forty-seven homes by this same Developer. On December 9, 2004, the Planning Board approved the Developer’s initial preliminary subdivision plan for Bennington Farms.

Subsequent proceedings before the Board and in the courts resulted in the Amended Resolution that is under review in this appeal. The pertinent events are summarized in the following time line. September 2004 Developer submitted a Preliminary Plan seeking approval of the Bennington Farms subdivision. December 9, 2004 The Planning Board’s Planning staff presented to the Board a composite Staff Report recommending approval of the Preliminary Plan with specified conditions.

The Community Planning Division of the Board’s Planning Staff, after reviewing the plan for compliance with the GeneralPlan and the MasterPlan, concluded that “[t]his application is not inconsistent with guidelines for development in the Rural Tier as defined in the General Plan” and that, because ³¹⁵ “[t]his application conforms to the Low Rural residential land use characteristics recommended in the master planL,] [t]here are no master plan issues associated with this application.” The Planning Board passed a resolution approving the plan, with the recommended conditions. February 8, 2005 Citizens petitioned for judicial review of the Planning Board’s action in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County. December 22, 2005 After Developer agreed that further administrative findings were necessary, the circuit court remanded the Preliminary Plan to the Planning Board for additional factual findings consistent with this Court’s opinion in an appeal relating to Archers Glen. See Garner v. Prince George’s County Planning Bd. of the Md. Nat’l Capital Park & Planning Comm’n, No. 2715, Sept. Term (Md.App.) (filed Jan. 18, 2005).

July 13, 2006 The Planning Board again approved the subdivision plan, issuing the Amended Resolution. August 16, 2006 Citizens petitioned for judicial review of the Amended Resolution. March 9, 2007 The circuit court held oral argument on Citizens’ judicial review petition. July 6, 2007 This Court affirmed an amended resolution approving the preliminary subdivision plan for Archers Glen against a challenge by a neighbor, Betty Garner, the individual appellants in this appeal, and the Greater Baden-Aquasco Citizens Association. 2 See Archers Glen, 176 Md.App. 292, 295 , 296 n. 3 (2007).

October 3, 2007 Further proceedings in the circuit court, on Citizens’ petition for judicial review of the Amended Resolution approving the Bennington Farms Preliminary Plan, were stayed pending ³¹⁶ appeal of the Archers Glen subdivision plan to the Court of Appeals. June 9, 2008 The Court of Appeals affirmed, on limited grounds, the judgment affirming the amended resolution for Archers Glen. See Archers Glen, 405 Md. 43 (2008). November 17, 2008 The circuit court heard additional arguments on Citizens’ petition for judicial review of the Amended Resolution approving Bennington Farms.

January 26, 2009 The circuit court affirmed the Amended Resolution approving the Preliminary Plan for Ben-nington Farms. February 23,2009 Citizens noted this appeal. We shall add facts as they pertain to the issues raised by Citizens. DISCUSSION Law Governing Review of the Planning Board’s Amended Resolution This appeal challenges the circuit court’s judgment affirming the Planning Board’s Amended Resolution.

We therefore perform the same task as the circuit court, which is to review the Board’s decision to approve the Amended Resolution based on the administrative record that was presented to the Board. See Greater Baden, 412 Md. at 83-84 , 985 A.2d 1160 . “Our review ... is a narrow and highly deferential inquiry.” Id. at 83 , 985 A.2d 1160 . “We determine whether the Board’s decision is premised upon an erroneous conclusion of law and whether there is substantial evidence in the administrative record taken as a whole to support the Board’s findings and conclusions.” Id. at 84 , 985 A.2d 1160 . In undertaking this review, we are guided by two cases in which Citizens challenged the Planning Board’s approval of other preliminary subdivision plans for different proposed developments in the Rural Tier of Prince George’s County. Because these opinions explain in detail the intricate web of ³¹⁷ statutes, codes, and regulations that govern preliminary subdivision plans in Prince George’s County, an “Article 28 charter” county, we will not reiterate those principles.

Instead, our focus will be on the analogous facts and legal issues because these provide the framework for our analysis. Nevertheless, we shall carefully review those opinions — both as to what they decide and what they do not — as essential background for this appeal. Archers Glen The year after the Planning Board approved the Preliminary Plan for Bennington Farms, we issued our decision 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). In that case, Citizens, along with lead plaintiff Betty Garner, challenged the Planning Board’s approval of the preliminary subdivision plan for Archers Glen, a development of forty-seven residences to be built by Developer on property bordered by the Bennington Farms parcel.

In a prior appeal resulting in an unreported opinion, this Court had remanded to the Planning Board because it failed “to articulate its decision with adequate specificity” as to whether the plan was consistent with the land use provisions in the County’s General Plan and Master Plan. Id. at 296, 933 A.2d 405 . The Planning Board thereafter held a new evidentiary hearing and adopted an amended resolution, again approving the preliminary subdivision plan. Id. at 301-02 , 933 A.2d 405 .

Garner and Citizens petitioned for judicial review. Id. at 303 , 933 A.2d 405 . The circuit court concluded that the Planning Board’s resolution was once again insufficient, because it did “not contain information relating specifically to projected housing unit growth in Prince George’s County between 2000 and 2025.” Id. at 303 , 933 A.2d 405 . In particular, the court criticized the amended resolution for its lack of “specificity” regarding “how many dwelling units have already been approved in the Rural Tier since 2000, when the County Council adopted the Biennial Growth Policy Plan.” Id. at 303-04 , 933 ³¹⁸ A.2d 405.

The circuit court remanded to the Board with instructions 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 [Rjural Tier will cause growth in the Rural Tier since 2000 to exceed 0.75%-1.00% of overall projected dwelling unit growth.” Id. at 304, 933 A.2d 405 . Developer and the Planning Board appealed to this Court, contending, inter alia, that (1) the General Plan, including the 1% growth objective, did not apply; but that, (2) even if it did, the Planning Board “did not err in concluding that the preliminary subdivision plan conformed to the Master Plan and the General Plan”; and that (3) the Planning Board’s “findings [were] sufficient and supported by substantial evidence.” Id. at 304-05 , 933 A.2d 405 . In response, Citizens contended, inter alia, that (1) the requirements in the General Plan are binding because they were incorporated into the applicable Master Plan, (2) the 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,” id. at 305 , 933 A.2d 405 , and (3) “there was no substantial evidence that the developer complied with the General Plan’s numeric restriction on residential growth in the Rural Tier[.]” Id. at 305 , 933 A.2d 405 . In addition, Citizens asserted that the Board “had no right to appeal from a decision that was adverse to it.” Id. at 307 , 933 A.2d 405 .

This Court reached the following conclusions relevant to this appeal: • “[T]he [Planning] Board is a State agency within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act, and ... it had the right to appeal to this Court.” Id. at 308 , 933 A.2d 405 . ³¹⁹ • “[T]he Master Plan is a binding document” that, although it “does not expressly contain a numeric growth objective,” must nevertheless “be consistent and compatible” with the General Plant,]” which does contain the 1% growth objective. Id. at 315 , 933 A.2d 405 . “[T]o the extent that it is not, the General Plan prevails.” Id. Because “[t]he Master Plan ... is binding and it was partially expressly amended by the General Plan, ... the General Plan’s Countywide goals, objectives, policies and strategies, including growth objectives, were made a part of the Master Plan.” Id. • Nevertheless, “[t]he General Plan and the Master Plan contain many general goals and objectives, not necessarily consistent when applied to a specific property.” Id. at 316 , 933 A.2d 405 . For that reason, “at times, various provisions in the Plans have to be interpreted and applied, in light of other provisions, the goals, and limitations contained in the Plans.” Id.

That function is performed by the Board, who “is entitled to deference in that regard.” Id. • “The numeric growth ‘objective’ is, in the words of the General Plan, ‘a specific, measurable activity or target to be accomplished in pursuing a ‘desirable future condition.’ ’ ” Id. “It necessarily requires periodic evaluation to determine if it is attainable!,]” which will depend “on many factors, including the nature, extent, and effectiveness of implementing regulations, and to some extent, the decision making of bodies such as the Planning Board.” Id. • The task of “interpreting and applying the Plans rested with the Planning Board, and subject to the substantial evidence test, it had discretion to determine whether the preliminary subdivision plan conformed to the Master Plan and to the goals, objectives, polices, and strategies in the General Plan.” Id. • In the remanded proceedings before the Planning Board, Citizens’ arguments focused on “whether the Board appro ³²⁰ priately considered and balanced all objectives in the Plans,” rather than focusing specifically “on the 1% numeric growth limitation.” Id. at 322-23 , 933 A.2d 405 . • Based on this record, the testimony by Alan Hirsch, presenting the Planning Staffs recommendation that the Planning Board approve the Archers Glen plan, “constituted substantial evidence, sufficient to support the Planning Board’s decision that the developer’s preliminary subdivision plan conformed to the Plans.” Id. at 323 , 933 A.2d 405 . As we shall set forth in detail in Part II of this opinion, “Mr. Hirsch discussed the elements of both Plans as applied to the property in question,” indicating that all those elements were considered by the staff and that the Archers Glen plan conformed to them. Id. The Planning Board agreed with that testimony, “for the reasons stated in its resolution and amended resolution[,]” id., which we shall also examine infra in Part II. • Because “[t]he Planning Board is in the best position to determine whether the preliminary subdivision plan conformed to the County’s Plans[,]” we declined to “disturb that judgment,” vacated the circuit court’s judgment, and remanded with instructions to affirm the Planning Board’s decision to approve the Archers Glen plan.

Id. Upon petition by Garner and Citizens, the Court of Appeals granted certiorari on two limited questions: (1) whether the Planning Board was entitled to “participate as a party in a judicial review of its decision approving a Preliminary Plan for a residential development[,]” and (2) whether “the law of the case doctrine” applied so that the Planning Board was bound by statements in our unreported opinion from the first appeal as to the binding effect of the General Plan in the subdivision review process. See Garner v. Archers Glen Partners, Inc., 405 Md. 43, 53 , 949 A.2d 639 (2008); Garner v. Archers Glen, 403 Md. 304 , 941 A.2d 1104 (2008). In its opinion, the Court of Appeals declined to address the standing issue because it was “not preserved” in the circuit court, in either the first or the second judicial review proceed ³²¹ ings pertaining to Archers Glen.

See Archers Glen, 405 Md. at 53 , 949 A.2d 639 . Moreover, because it was undisputed that Developer had standing to appeal the circuit court judgment, the Court adhered to the “settled principle of Maryland law that, ‘where there exists a party having standing to bring an action ... we shall not ordinarily inquire as to whether another party on the same side also has standing.’ ” Id. at 54 , 949 A.2d 639 (quoting Sugarloaf Citizens’ Ass’n v. Dep’t of Env’t, 344 Md. 271, 297 , 686 A.2d 605 (1996)). With respect to the law of the case issue, the Court of Appeals held that this Court’s unreported “discussion of the legal role of the recommendations of the General Plan in the subdivision approval process in Prince George’s County,” relied upon Citizens, was merely “self-described” dicta that “did not resolve finally the issue or preclude the parties from litigating the issue on remand.” Id. at 56, 59, 949 A.2d 639 . As such, it “could not have been law of the case, nor was it intended to be so[.]” Id. at 59 , 949 A.2d 639 .

At the conclusion of its opinion, the Court noted that, although the parties “devoted substantial portions of their brief to arguing whether the General Plan’s Growth Objectives are binding on the Commission and applicants in the subdivision review process!,] • • • [t]hat issue is not properly before us and we shall not address it.” Id. at 60 , 949 A.2d 639 . A year and a half later, however, the question of what impact the 1% growth objective has on the subdivision review process was squarely presented in Greater Baden , a judicial review action stemming from Citizens’ opposition to yet another subdivision application in the Rural Tier. We examine that case next. Greater Baden In Md.-Nat’l Capital Park & Planning Comm’n v. Greater Baden-Aquasco Citizens Ass’n, 412 Md. 73 , 985 A.2d 1160 (2009), a developer applied for a preliminary subdivision plan for twenty residences on a 118.30 acre parcel located in the Rural Tier in southern Prince George’s County, bordering the Charles County line.

Id. at 77 , 985 A.2d 1160 . Citizens opposed the application, presenting testimony to the Planning ³²² Board that since adoption of the 1% growth objective in 2002, “the Rural Tier of the County captured more than 1 percent of the County’s dwelling unit growth, causing the District Council to place a temporary moratorium on growth, which moratorium had expired prior to the time the [djeveloper submitted the present application for preliminary subdivision plan approval.” Id. at 77,106 , 985 A.2d 1160 . The Commission’s Planning staff did not address the 1% growth objective. Id. at 106 , 985 A.2d 1160 . “In contrast to his testimony in Archers Glen, neither Mr. Hirsch nor his colleague mentioned the numeric residential growth objection in either the Technical Staff Report or in their testimony before the Planning Board, although Mr. Hirsch discussed generally the goals of the General Plan and stated that the Preliminary Plan was ‘not inconsistent with the requirements, or at least the visions and goals established by the General Plan of 2002.’ ” Id. at 106, 985 A.2d 1160 .

Nor did Citizens “cross-examine Mr. Hirsch with regard to” that conclusion. Id. The Planning Board approved the application, issuing a resolution that reiterated Hirsch’s general statement “that the application was not inconsistent with the General Plan and repeated certain goals found in the General Plan to buttress its approval, but without addressing the residential growth objective.” Id. Citizens petitioned for judicial review.

Id. The circuit court remanded to the Planning Board because its resolution “did not articulate findings of fact with regard to conformance with all relevant recommendations of the General Plan and applicable Area Master Plan and ... there was no substantial evidence in the record to support the Planning Board’s conclusion that the [preliminary [p]lan conformed with the General and Master Plans.” Id. at 77, 80 , 985 A.2d 1160 . The developer and the Planning Board appealed to this Court, arguing that there was substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the Board’s approval of the preliminary plan. Id. at 81 , 985 A.2d 1160 . ³²³ In an unreported opinion, a panel of this Court applied Archers Glen in holding that the 1% growth objective in the General Plan is “binding” on the Planning Board, although the Board has “ ‘discretion ... in its interpretation and application ... to a preliminary subdivision plan.’ ” Id. at 81, 88, 985 A.2d 1160 .

The panel further concluded that “ ‘when the evidence in a given case generates a material issue as to 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.” Id. at 81-82 , 985 A.2d 1160 . It held that, because Citizens’ testimony raised the issue and the Planning Board failed to adequately consider it in either its deliberations or its resolution, “there was not substantial evidence that the application conformed to the Master Plan and the General Plan.” Id. at 81 , 985 A.2d 1160 . In doing so, the panel observed that “the Planning Board’s ‘verbatim recitation’ of the written Technical Staff Report and recommendations 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.’ ” Id. at 82 , 985 A.2d 1160 . Cautioning that “ ‘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[,]’ ” it characterized that approach as “unacceptable.” Id.

Moreover, it concluded that, “[ejven where the Planning Board ‘engaged in independent fact finding during its discussion of “community planning” considerations,’ ” its factual findings were insufficient and did not permit appellate review of the 1% growth objective. Id. at 83 , 985 A.2d 1160 . The Court of Appeals granted certiorari and affirmed, “but for reasons somewhat less expansive than articulated in [the unreported] opinion[.]” Id. at 77 , 985 A.2d 1160 . The Court “decline[d] to adopt” as a general proposition that the Planning Board cannot make its written findings of fact by referencing or incorporating the contents of a staff report.

Id. at 82 n. 9, 985 A.2d 1160 . Instead, it endorsed the approach articulated in Colao v. County Council of Prince George’s ³²⁴ County, 109 Md.App. 431, 460-61 , 675 A.2d 148 (1996), that staff reports and recommendations may be adopted in the Planning Board’s resolution “ ‘so long as the adopted findings and conclusions with each of the reports are sufficiently articulated, clear, and specific.’ ” Id. Applying that standard to the Greater Baden administrative record, the Court pointed out that “the Planning Board did not simply incorporate by reference the Technical Staffs Report.” Id. Although it “included large portions of the report in the [r]esolution,” the Board also made “additional findings of fact and conclusions.” Id.

For that reason, the Court held that “[t]he Board’s adoption of a substantial portion of a Staff Report does not give rise, in and of its mere adoption, to an adverse inference that the Board abdicated its task to exercise independent judgment.” Id. Instead, the Court concluded that the problem with the Planning Board’s resolution was “[t]he omission in the findings of a required consideration[.]” Id. After thoroughly reviewing the statutory scheme governing land use planning in Prince George’s County, id. at 85-95 , 985 A.2d 1160 , the Court agreed with our conclusion in Archers Glen that “the numeric residential growth objective regarding the Rural Tier in the General Plan amended and was incorporated into the Master Plan.” Id. at 106, 985 A.2d 1160 . Even though the Planning Board’s resolution approving that preliminary subdivision plan “stated that the application was ‘not inconsistent’ with the General Plan and repeated certain goals found in the General Plan to buttress its approval,” it did not mention the 1% growth objective.

Id. That deficiency, the Court explained, required remand: [Bjefore the Planning Board approves a preliminary subdivision plan, it must conclude that the application conforms to the applicable Master Plan. In reaching that conclusion, the Planning Board must consider the numeric residential growth objective of the General Plan. The proposed subdivision represents additional potential residential dwelling units in the Rural Tier.

The Planning Board understood the ³²⁵ implications of an identical situation in Archers Glen, but seems here to have forgotten this point.... The General Plan contains an objective, that, by 2025, the Rural Tier should contain less than 1 percent of the County’s dwelling unit growth. Available statistics reflect that residential growth in the Rural Tier between 2002 and 2007 did not track the 1 percent objective, albeit with 18 years to go before declaration of ultimate success or failure in attaining the objective is ascertainable. Although it is mandatory that the Planning Board consider the numeric residential growth objective, it has leeway in that regard, especially where the 2025 horizon selected in the growth objective remains relatively distant at the present time.

Even assuming residential growth in the Rural Tier in the short term may be in excess of the long term objective, the Board is not compelled necessarily to deny all residential subdivision applications coming before it in the Rural Tier until the desired equilibrium is attained. The Planning Board, in determining whether a preliminary subdivision plan conforms to the Master Plan, either must offer some analysis of how the preliminary subdivision plan under consideration may impact the long-term growth objective established in the General Plan or explain why such an analysis or conclusion is not required, as provided in § 24-121(a)(5) of the County Code.[ 3 ] What the Board cannot do, however, is ignore entirely a patently relevant element of the Plan. We concede the Commission’s point that approval of a preliminary subdivision plan is not tantamount to final approval of dwelling unit growth or that actual construction pursuant to an approved subdivision plan is inevitable. Subdivision approval, however, is a necessary and critical ³²⁶ step towards approval and construction of a residential subdivision.

A final plan of subdivision, once approved and recorded, usually determines the maximum number and type of dwelling units that may be allowed to be erected on a subject property. Therefore, it is necessary that the Planning Board at least account for how, if at all, the proposed subdivision might affect residential growth in the Rural Tier, even if some modest assumptions must be made, and more difficult decisions deferred to later in the development process.... We agree with the intermediate appellate court’s statement in Archers Glen that the Planning Board, after balancing and considering all elements, “is in the best position to determine whether the preliminary subdivision plan conformed to the County’s plans.” Unlike what the Planning Board did in considering the numeric growth objective in its second hearing in Archers Glen, that Board here did not consider any bearing the Preliminary Plan might have on growth objective in the Rural Tier. Although we typically accord deference to the administrative body that interprets regularly the regulations applicable to the task before it, here the Planning Board did not even consider in its conformity analysis a relevant and applicable provision of the Master Plan/General Plan, as required by the County Subdivision Regulations.

The Board’s conclusion that the application was “not inconsistent with the 2002 General Plan Development Pattern policies for the Rural Tier” was a broad conclusory statement and not based on sufficient facts in the record before it. Such a half-baked conclusion is not entitled to deferential review. Id. at 106-09, 985 A.2d 1160 (emphasis added and citations omitted). Thus, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment remanding to the Planning Board on the ground that the Planning Board should have considered the General Plan’s numeric growth objective in the Rural Tier in determining whether the Preliminary Plan conformed to the Master Plan.

Our holding in all other ³²⁷ respects is more narrow than that expressed in the opinion of our brethren on the intermediate appellate court. We do not subscribe to the view that the Planning Board did not engage otherwise in meaningful fact-finding because its Resolution approving the Preliminary Plan was a “rote repetition” of the Technical Staff Report. It is not unreasonable for the Planning Board to rely on a Staff Reports, as the Planning Board did in this case, if the Staff Report is thorough, well conceived, and contains adequate findings of fact. We also do not reach the same conclusion as the Court of Special Appeals with regard to whether a material dispute was created on this record by opposition testimony regarding the proposed subdivision and the General Plan’s numeric growth objective (triggering the need for the Board to respond). [Ms.] Flynn’s testimony [on behalf of Citizens] stated that the level of residential growth in the Rural Tier exceeds the objective.

Given the Board’s familiarity with this issue, as