Trinity Assembly of God of Baltimore City, Inc. v. People's Counsel

HARRELL, Judge. This litigation arises from the denial of a church’s request for variances from Section 450 of the Baltimore County Zoning Regulations (the “Zoning Code” or “BCZR”), which limit the area and height of an identification sign to 25 square feet and six feet, respectively. Section 450 allows an institution, including a church, to have one identification sign, 1 within these limits, for each frontage of its property. 2 If multiple such signs are allowed, one may contain changeable copy capabilities. 3 The Zoning Code also permits the County Board of Appeals (the “Board”), in limited circumstances, to grant variances from the strict application of the standards of Section 450 where an applicant demonstrates that its property has unique physical characteristics that cause the area and height limitations to affect disproportionately the property and that compliance with those limitations would impose a practical difficulty for the applicant. In the present case, the church wishes to erect and maintain a new sign facing the Baltimore Beltway.

The proposed sign would be 250 square feet in face area and 25 feet high, with a significant portion of the sign face devoted to electronic changeable copy. The Board denied the necessary variances. The church now challenges the Board’s application of the requirements for the grant of a variance. The church further claims that denial of ⁶² the variances here violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (the “RLUIPA”), a Federal statute that prohibits a zoning authority from imposing a substantial burden on an institution’s religious exercise, unless that burden is the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling government interest. 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000ec et seq.

(2003). For reasons we shall explain, we shall affirm the Board’s decision to deny the requested variances, as well as its conclusion that that denial does not violate the RLUIPA. Facts Trinity Assembly of God of Baltimore City, Inc. (“Trinity”) operates a church from facilities located in a low-density residential zone in the greater Towson area of Baltimore County. Trinity has between 1700 and 2000 members, with approximately 1300 of them attending church services in any given week.

The congregants come from the greater Baltimore area and as far away as southern Pennsylvania. Trinity’s property (“the Property”) consists of approximately 15 acres of land located at the intersection of West Joppa Road and the Baltimore Beltway (“the Beltway” or “1-695”). The north side of the Property abuts the Beltway’s eastbound lanes. Sole vehicular and pedestrian access to the Property is provided by an entrance on the West Joppa Road frontage of the Property.

Trinity has four buildings on the Property: a 2400-seat sanctuary that can be seen from the Beltway; an older sanctuary that is connected to the current sanctuary by a walkway; an educational/office building; and a fellowship hall. These structures make up approximately one-third of the Property. The Zoning Code permits churches in the zone in which the Property is placed. Trinity has two existing identification signs on the Property.

One is 36 square feet and is located at the Property’s West Joppa Road entrance. Trinity received a variance for that sign in 1982, allowing it to be 36 square feet in face area. Trinity’s other sign, which is 24 square feet in face area, is situated where the Property abuts the Beltway and is parallel ⁶³ to the Beltway, such that, theoretically, it is viewable by both eastbound and westbound motorists. The driving force of the present litigation, which began more than six years ago, is Trinity’s desire to replace the current Beltway-facing sign, which simply identifies the church as “Trinity Assembly of God,” with a new, single-faced sign that would be 250 square feet in area, 25 feet tall, and face eastbound traffic only.

A portion of the face area of the proposed sign, approximately five feet long and 18fé feet wide, would be changeable copy operated electronically by Trinity. Trinity seeks variances from the square-footage and height limitations, codified in Section 450 of the Zoning Code (“Section 450” or “the Sign Law”), which, we reiterate, are 25 square feet and six feet, respectively. 4 On 9 September 2002, Trinity filed a Petition for Variance with Baltimore County. The People’s [Zoning] Counsel for Baltimore County opposed the petition. In a written memorandum and order, the Deputy Zoning Commissioner denied Trinity’s petition, concluding: ⁶⁴ After considering the testimony and evidence offered both in support and opposition to [Trinity’s] request, I find that the variance request to permit the sign in question to be constructed on [Trinity’s] property should be denied.

Of particular concern to me was the flashing message portion of the sign in question. The testimony offered at the hearing did demonstrate that the old sign is out-dated and is in need of replacement. However, the sign proposed to replace the old sign is not appropriate and cannot be approved. Trinity appealed to the Board, contending that the grant of the variances is required because the Property is unique and that strict compliance with the Sign Law would result in practical difficulty for Trinity.

The Board held a de novo evidentiary hearing, on three nonconsecutive days between 17 July 2003 and 10 December 2003. Trinity’s first witness was George Raduano, its pastor. Pastor Raduano explained why he felt that Trinity needed to replace its current Beltway-facing sign: Q. Now why is the church asking for a new sign on the north side of the property which faces the 1-695 Beltway? A. Well, a few reasons.

One is identification of the church. We are .usually known as the church with the big roof, but no one knows our name. We’d like to make our name prominent, since it cannot be read from the road sign. Also for directional purposes.

We have had a great number of people who have explained they have had difficulty driving one Sunday, two Sunday[s], three Sundays, before they found us, because the interchange is complicated there. So on the sign, we want the exit number with directions that they could read during the week when they choose to worship with us so they can find us a little more readily..... ... We have situations where people have invited people to church and have waited, and told me later their friend could not find the church because of how difficult it was. ⁶⁵ So we try to, on the back of business cards, on our map, on our web page, have directions everywhere we can. I guess [the proposed sign] would be another way to help us clarify the directions.

Q. Are there other reasons why the church wants to have a new sign in addition to identifying the location? A. Well, we would like also to be able to use it so people know of upcoming events or service times or to use it for some public service, time, temperature or a Red Cross Blood Drive, anything like that, or maybe to put a scripture verse of encouragement, any of those areas. Q. Do you believe that that is an integral part of your functioning as a church to be able to do that? A. Yes, I do.

Pastor Raduano complained that visibility of Trinity’s sanctuary from the Beltway is compromised by a concrete sound barrier, approximately 20 to 25 feet high, running along the Beltway. Moreover, he expressed his belief that travelers on the Beltway have difficulty seeing the current Beltway-facing identification sign because of the physical characteristics of where the Property abuts the Beltway. Pastor Raduano stated that the State Highway Administration placed evergreen trees of varying heights and a six foot high chain link fence on a berm that sits one to two feet higher than the edge of the Property. These obstacles, contributed to by the Property’s physical attributes, are compounded by the complicated nature of the I-695/I-88 interchange, which confuses Beltway travelers as they drive past the Property.

Although Trinity’s web-site posts travel directions to the church, Pastor Raduano contemplated that the proposed larger sign would be helpful in that regard because the directions are difficult for some people to follow. He explained that parishioners and visitors complain regularly to him that Trinity is hard to find; however, when pressed on cross-examination, he could not quantify, even approximately, how many people had such difficulty. Nor did he know approximately how many people, if any, consulted Trinity’s web-site or a map ⁶⁶ to divine directions. Furthermore, Pastor Raduano admitted on cross-examination that the proposed sign would have limited directional value.

Recovering from this admission, however, Pastor Raduano suggested that the sign would let people know where the church is located so that they could come back for church services or other events at a later time. He expressly acknowledged that, besides identification, the sign would serve a non-commercial advertising purpose. He stated that the sign would “let people know where we are and who we are.” Trinity’s next witness, Ellis Shapos, was accepted by the Board as an expert regarding “media signage.” Shapos stated that he is employed by, and part owner of, Visual Message and Displays, Inc., which provides “consulting services [and] marketing” and supplies “electronic media message displays and wireless communication displays.” He has been in the sign industry since 1996. Shapos testified that Trinity approached him in December 2000 to assist with the design of a sign with electronic messages.

Specifically, he stated: I was asked to perform a site survey and do an evaluation by traffic counts, visual inspection, and I took it upon myself, with the Pastor Raduano and the church members, on what they wanted to accomplish as far as my finding, as far as promotion, as far as providing public service in the design element. He explained his methodology for carrying out these responsibilities: I physically went past the [sic] site, but did visual analysis photographs, conferred with [the] State Highway [Administration], did traffic counts, speed analysis, to determine approximate speed. Referred to the Federal Highway Administration, their study, as far as recommended character height, and tried to abide by their rules and regulation in the design process. Shapos claimed to have relied on the industry standard Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (the “MUTCD”) to ⁶⁷ determine how large the electronic characters on the proposed sign would need to be in order for the sign not to pose a safety problem for motorists straining to see it.

Based on his assessment of the MUTCD, and considering that Trinity also wanted the proposed sign to have on it the church’s logo and directions, “Exit 23B, right Joppa Road,” Shapos opined that the proposed sign must be 25 feet high and that the sign’s changeable copy portion must be approximately 84 square feet. Shapos also testified that the electronic characters should be at least 17 inches tall, with a minimum of 15 characters per line, and that the sign should not have more than two lines of electronic messaging. 5 Robert Claus, Ph.D., also testified on Trinity’s behalf. The Board accepted his credentials to testify as an expert in signs and the sign industry. The Board concluded that Dr. Claus has an extensive education in economics and a familiarity with the State and Federal agencies that regulate signs and commercial communications.

Dr. Claus maintained that the MUTCD establishes a national “standard of care” with respect to the “readability, con[spi]cuity or size, height, placement and illumination” of signs. It was Dr. Claus’s opinion that “[e]very state must either adopt [the MUTCD] as Oregon has, or de facto create their own manual around the MUTCD.” Relying on his view of the MUTCD, Dr. Claus stated that the Sign Law conflicts with the appropriate standards for the readability and conspicuity of signs and that the sign proposed by Trinity would not be a safety hazard. He also testified that the proposed sign would be beneficial to Trinity because it would “allow them to use their property as zoned.” As for the surrounding community, Dr. Claus believed, based on his ⁶⁸ studies, that the proposed sign would not have a negative impact. On cross-examination, Dr. Claus disclosed that he is Executive Director of the Sign Foundation for Communication Excellence, a nonprofit educational group committed to “protecting] commercial and non-commercial speech.” He agreed that promoting signs goes “hand in hand” with protecting speech.

He acknowledged also that he is a consultant for the International Sign Association, “the largest trade association in the sign industry.” He spent no more than five hours preparing for his testimony in this case and did not review the Baltimore County Master Plan in connection with that preparation. William Monk was the next Trinity witness to testify. The Board accepted Monk as an expert regarding the Baltimore County zoning and development regulations. He is a principal with Morris and Ritchie Associates, an “engineering, land planning, landscape, architectural surveying, consulting firm.” Monk described what he perceived to be the unique physical attributes of the Property.

Based on his observations and knowledge of the site and environs, he testified that the area and height of Trinity’s proposed sign are necessitated by certain considerations: first, visibility by eastbound travelers on the Beltway is diminished by the Joppa Road overpass; second, that visibility is diminished further by “very bushy” vegetation planted along the Beltway; third, the sound barrier, chain link fence and evergreens that Pastor Raduano complained of create an “additional visual buffer”; and fourth, flowering trees lining the Beltway obfuscate seasonally the current identification sign for westbound travelers on the Beltway. 6 It was Monk’s opinion that adherence to the letter of the Sign Law’s area and height limitations “would be unnecessarily burdensome” for Trinity and that the sign pro ⁶⁹ posed by Trinity is still “within the spirit and intent of the regulations.” On cross-examination, Monk admitted that there were other churches and institutions in Baltimore County whose property is at or near the Beltway and who do not have signs with electronic messages discernable from the Beltway. Indeed, the view of one of those churches from the Beltway, Monk acknowledged, is completely blocked by the concrete sound barrier; whereas, Trinity benefits from a partial break in the barrier along the Property’s border with the Beltway. Although noting several establishments with signs viewable from the Beltway, Monk agreed that they are in areas zoned for commercial use. Nonetheless, Monk was resolute in his belief that the “topography and other site conditions” put Trinity in a different circumstance than the other institutions on the Beltway.

Monk further revealed that his opinion of Trinity’s need for the proposed sign was driven not only by what he perceived to be unique physical attributes of the Property, but also by consideration of Trinity’s uniqueness as an organization. To that effect, he stated: The church has indicated earlier it’s not a local church, it’s a regional church. And not only that, but previous testimony indicated they do other joint ventures [with] other churches, probably outside the immediate area. That being said, it was a different context than the local facility, whether it be an athletic club or a business or some other destination that was common and local residents knew where it was.

Here, we are dealing with a different animal in [a] much more regional context, and the need to provide not only identity, but also whatever assistance is possible, based on their experiences, in giving some sort of directional orientation on how to get there. After Trinity concluded its ease-in-chief, People’s Counsel called Jeffery Long, accepted by the Board as an expert in land use planning. Long has been employed by the Baltimore ⁷⁰ County Office of Planning for 16 years. Long stated that the Office of Planning generally is opposed to placing signs along the Beltway, but it would not “attempt ... to deny a reasonable sign ... and would never control content in any way.” He explained that his “over-arching concern is the size of the [proposed] sign, which is unprecedented for an institutional use of this sort.” This concern, according to Long, is made more serious because the Maryland State Highway Administration plans to widen the Beltway and will need to place traffic warning signs approaching the I-695/I-83 interchange.

Long opined that the Property is not unique. He reached this conclusion from studying the properties of other churches and institutions that abut major highways in Baltimore County. Long asserted that the Property’s topography is quite similar to those other places in the County. He also expressed a view that Trinity can be identified from the Beltway more readily than other comparably situated institutions because of the break in the concrete sound barrier.

Long stated that the Sign Law permits reasonable signage and that Trinity’s 36 square-foot sign on West Joppa Road is sufficient. Moreover, he observed that several churches have signs with changeable copy capabilities that, nonetheless, adhere to the permitted size limits of the Sign Law. Those signs, Long elaborated, “are all oriented towards local roads.” Long also testified to his belief that Trinity’s proposed sign is so large that it would not be subordinate (as should be a normal identification sign) to the Property’s principal use as a church; instead, he suggested, the sign itself would be a primary or principal use of the Property. On cross-examination by Trinity, Long acknowledged that, in forming his opinion that the Property is not unique, some of the institutions he used for comparison are located at or near the westbound lanes of the Beltway; whereas, the Property abuts the eastbound lanes.

He conceded that the Property is located near an overpass, a characteristic not shared with other locations, and that one of the churches to which he ⁷¹ compared Trinity actually sits on land that places it more than 20 feet above the elevation of the highway. Randall Scott, Assistant District Engineer for Traffic with the Maryland State Highway Administration (the “SHA”), was People’s Counsel’s next witness. The Board accepted him as an SHA spokesperson and noted his experience analyzing accident data; however, the Board did not accept him as an expert, despite protestations by People’s Counsel. Scott testified to an accident study that focused on the stretch of the Beltway that includes the Property’s border.

According to Scott, the general area of the I-695/I-83 interchange has an accident rate that is “significantly above the state average for similar type highways.” Scott testified further that he is concerned about weaving patterns of traffic in the vicinity of Trinity’s proposed sign. Regarding the MUTCD, Scott stated that the State relies on it where it applies; however, “regulatory warning signs and guide signs [are] the predominant focus of the manual.” He explained that “the [MUTCD] is very explicit that signs [sic] should only be deployed along the highway if it fulfills a legitimate need, so signs having a purely advertising or commercial aspect would be discouraged.” He elaborated that “need,” as he used the term, refers to warnings for dangerous road conditions, speed limits, and guidance for motorists. On cross-examination, Scott clarified that the MUTCD does not discourage identification signs. He admitted that the accident study he discussed did not address the causes of the accidents in the area of the I-695/I-83 interchange and that he has not compared the weaving patterns of traffic at that location with other similarly situated stretches of highway.

After Scott, John Dillon spoke on behalf of the Valleys Planning Council, Inc., apparently a community organization involved in preservation efforts in Baltimore County. The Board recognized that Dillon testified before the Board several times previously in other cases and accepted him as an expert in planning and zoning matters. Dillon made clear his belief that Trinity’s proposed sign would be a traffic safety ⁷² hazard. He testified that Trinity’s sanctuary already is viewable easily by eastbound travelers on the Beltway and that “[t]he church itself [is] ... its own identification sign.” Furthermore, because Trinity is so apparent from the Beltway, he opined that all Trinity needs reasonably to identify itself is a sign with its name.

Dillon believed this could be accomplished without the desired variances. Regarding Trinity’s existing 36 square-foot sign on West Joppa Road, Dillon testified that most churches in the surrounding community have signs consistent with that sign “in terms of size and clarity.” Moreover, he noted that recent utility work along West Joppa Road resulted in the clearing of trees and underbrush, further enhancing that existing sign’s visibility. On cross-examination, Dillon acknowledged that, in arriving at his opinion that the proposed sign would be a traffic safety concern, he did not conduct any studies regarding driver distraction; rather, he said his opinion was based on many years of driving the Beltway. Donald Girding of the Greater Timonium Community Council testified next for People’s Counsel.

He likewise said that Trinity can be seen easily by eastbound travelers on the Beltway and that no other churches have signs similar to that proposed by Trinity. Girding also emphasized his organization’s position that the proposed sign would have a negative impact on traffic safety; however, on cross-examination, he revealed that his organization rarely supported variance requests and that Trinity’s proposed sign would undermine his organization’s conservation efforts in Baltimore County. A handful of individual residents from the neighboring communities also voiced their opposition to Trinity’s proposed sign. All of them were troubled by potential traffic problems, diminished aesthetics, and lowered property values linked by them to the proposed sign, if allowed.

On 2 July 2004, the Board rendered a lengthy written opinion and order in which it detailed the evidence. The Board concluded that the physical attributes of the Property did not make it unique and that compliance with the Sign Law ⁷³ would not result in practical difficulty for Trinity. Accordingly, the Board denied the variances. Of significance to the Board appeared to be its view that motorists must be alert and not distracted when driving the stretch of the I-695/I-83 interchange.

It found compelling Randall Scott’s testimony, based on a study of accidents on the Beltway, that the proposed sign would pose a traffic safety concern. Regarding the issue of uniqueness, the Board gave considerable weight to the testimony of Jeffrey Long. According to the Board, “being adjacent to the Beltway does not, in and of itself, constitute uniqueness.” The Board was not impressed by Dr. Claus’s testimony because of the comparatively short amount of time he spent preparing for his testimony and because he had only a limited knowledge of the Beltway, had not reviewed the County’s Master Plan, and did not know the name of the community in which Trinity is located. It found that Dr. Claus testified to “generalities and not specifics.” The Board was troubled also by Dr. Claus’s association with groups dedicated to promoting signs.

Likewise, the Board was unimpressed by William Monk’s testimony. It did not consider unique the features that he described because they are “commonly found in many areas [along] the Beltway.” The Board also found that neither Pastor Raduano’s testimony nor that of Ellis Shapos established that the Property is unique within the meaning of the law of variances. With respect to the practical difficulty criterion, the Board believed that Trinity’s request “is really one of ‘desire’ or ‘want,’ rather than one of ‘need.[’]” The Board noted that Trinity provides directions on its web-site and on business cards and that other churches with no Beltway visibility do not have signs similar to what Trinity proposed. The Board was not convinced that Trinity would suffer from denial of the variances.

It also alluded to findings of fact and policy rendered by the County Council in adopting the Sign Law: the “legislative arm of the government has gone on record as not being in favor of signage similar to that proposed by [Trinity].” Moreover, the Board cited a provision of the Zoning Code directing it to construe strictly the Sign Law ⁷⁴ when considering a request for a variance from its standards and limitations. Trinity’s proposed sign, the Board concluded, would be a danger to motorists and inconsistent with the nature of the surrounding community. Trinity filed a Petition for Judicial Review in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County claiming that the Board misapplied the variance standards, the Sign Law is unconstitutional as applied to Trinity, and the Board failed to apply the RLUIPA, which requires a zoning body to demonstrate a compelling government interest if a land use decision places a substantial burden on an institution’s religious exercise. On 31 May 2005, the Circuit Court issued a written judgment and order, holding that the Board applied correctly the law of variances and that, under the generally deferential standards of review for administrative decisions, the Board’s findings were supported sufficiently by the evidence in the record.

The Circuit Court also held that Trinity’s constitutional arguments were meritless because the Sign Law does not restrict impermissibly Trinity’s rights to freedom of speech or freedom of religion. 7 With respect to Trinity’s RLUIPA argument, however, the Circuit Court remanded the case to the Board to consider whether the denial of the requested variances imposes a substantial burden on Trinity’s religious exercise and, if so, whether that denial is the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest. On remand, the Board took no additional evidence, but heard oral argument from the parties. It was Trinity’s position that the proposed sign is a form of religious exercise, as contemplated by the RLUIPA, because it would allow the church to proselytize and attract additional parishioners in accordance with its missionary ministry. Trinity further contended that People’s Counsel had not shown how the Board’s denial of the variances is the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest.

The Board disagreed and, in another written opinion and order dated 8 March 2006, ⁷⁵ concluded that denial of the variances does not violate the RLUIPA. In its later opinion, the Board again had recourse to the factual and policy findings made by the County Council when it enacted the Sign Law, noting that excessive signage creates a traffic safety hazard and “impair[sj the utility of the highway system,” undermines conservation efforts, and diminishes neighborhood aesthetics and property values. The Board also reiterated its legislative mandate to construe strictly the Sign Law when considering a variance request. Accordingly, the Board found that application of the limits of the Sign Law, without variation, is the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling government interest in protecting the community in this case.

The Board also found that denial of the requested variances does not pose a substantial burden on Trinity’s religious exercise. Although no express finding was made that Trinity’s use of the proposed sign would constitute religious exercise, the Board cited Pastor Raduano’s testimony that “this is our ministry, this is what we are all about. This is what we do as a church.” The Board concluded that Trinity has other practical ways to evangelize and to identify itself to potential parishioners. Specifically, the Board found: [Trinity] sits on land adjacent to the Beltway (1-695) and a sound barrier which has been constructed along portions of the Beltway ends at a point where the Church is visible from the Beltway ...

Although there is a chain link fence and trees planted in the area where the sound barrier ends, the Church is quite visible from the Beltway. The Pastor contended that the sign was needed in order to give direction to the potential attendees as to how they could reach the Church from the Beltway. In addition, the Pastor wanted to publicize upcoming events at the Church, such as Easter services and Christmas pageants. The Pastor also wanted to put supportive excerpts on the sign, such as “God Bless Our Troops” and scripture quotes.

Trinity contended that the zoning regulations inhibited the Church in its ⁷⁶ mission to attract new members and to conduct outreach to the community.... ... [T]he record below is absolutely devoid of any evidence indicating that the religious activity of ... Trinity ... is inhibited in any way by the sign ordinance and the refusal to grant the type of sign requested by the Church. The Church contains a 2,400 sq. ft. sanctuary, and the testimony of the Pastor indicated that, on any given Sunday, approximately 1,500 individuals attend church[ 8 ] ... There were no facts or figures given with respect to church attendance at the present time or any evidence to show that church attendance was falling as a result of the fact that there was no large sign to advertise church functions.

As noted in the previous Board decision, the Church has numerous ways of publicizing its activities and evangelizing. It has available to it newspapers, web sites, bulletin boards, radio and television advertising, and various other media outlets____ The totality of the testimony and evidence in this case causes the Board, as finder of fact, to conclude that ... Trinity[ ] is not prevented from using their property for its permitted purpose nor do such zoning restrictions as to height or area regulations render conformity with such restrictions unnecessarily burdensome. The position as presented by [Trinity] is really one of “desire” or “want” rather than one of “need”____ The Board concluded that denial of the requested variances does not violate the RLUIPA.

Again, Trinity sought judicial review of the Board’s decision by the Circuit Court. On 23 January 2007, the Circuit Court concluded that the Board’s denial of the requested variances does not violate the RLUIPA. Trinity filed a timely appeal to ⁷⁷ the Court of Special Appeals, which, in a reported opinion, affirmed. Trinity Assembly of God of Balt.

City, Inc. v. People’s Counsel for Balt. County, 178 Md.App. 232 , 941 A.2d 560 (2008). Trinity filed with this Court a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, which we granted. Trinity Assembly v. People’s Counsel, 405 Md. 63 , 949 A.2d 652 (2008).

Trinity’s petition posed the following questions: I. Did the Board err as a matter of law when it found that denial of the requested variances does not impose a substantial burden on Trinity’s religious exercise?

II

Did the Board apply the correct law of variances as to “uniqueness,” and did it err in its determination that Trinity’s burden was not met? 9 We shall address these questions in reverse order. Standard of Review When reviewing the decision of a local zoning body, such as the Board, 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. People’s Counsel for Balt. County v. Loyola College in Md., 406 Md. 54, 66 , 956 A.2d 166, 173 (2008). “Our function ... is not to substitute our assessment of the facts for those of the Board ..., but merely to evaluate whether the evidence before the Board was ‘fairly debatable’.... ” Pemberton v. Montgomery County, 275 Md. 363, 367-68 , 340 A.2d 240, 243 (1975).

Nevertheless, we “may not uphold the agency order unless it is sustainable on the agency’s findings and for the reasons stated ⁷⁸ by the agency.” United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. People’s Counsel for Balt. County, 336 Md. 569, 577 , 650 A.2d 226, 230 (1994) (quoting United Steelworkers of America AFL-CIO, Local 2610 v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 298 Md. 665, 669 , 472 A.2d 62, 64 (1984)). The scope of judicial review of administrative fact-finding is a narrow and highly deferential one. Loyola College, 406 Md. at 66 , 956 A.2d at 173 .

Accordingly, we will affirm a decision on the facts if it is supported by “substantial evidence.” See id. at 67 , 956 A.2d at 173 ; People’s Counsel of Balt. County v. Surina, 400 Md. 662, 681 , 929 A.2d 899, 910 (2007); see also Pemberton, 275 Md. at 367 , 340 A.2d at 243 . A conclusion by a local zoning board satisfies the substantial evidence test if “a reasonable mind might accept as adequate” the evidence supporting it. Loyola College, 406 Md. at 67 , 956 A.2d at 174 (quoting Surina, 400 Md. at 681 , 929 A.2d at 910 ).

Our review of the legal conclusions of a local zoning body, such as the Board, is less deferential, and we “may reverse those decisions where the legal conclusions reached by that body are based on an erroneous interpretation or application of the 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 910 . Nevertheless, “a degree of deference should often be accorded” the legal conclusions of an administrative agency regarding statutes, ordinances, or regulations that the agency is tasked with administering. Id. (quoting Marzullo v. Kahl, 366 Md. 158, 172 , 783 A.2d 169, 177 (2001)).

Thus, in analyzing whether the Board’s decision was premised on an erroneous legal conclusion, we should take into consideration the relevant expertise of the Board. See Loyola College, 406 Md. at 67 , 956 A.2d at 174 ; Surina, 400 Md. at 682-83 , 929 A.2d at 911 ; see also Bd. of Physician Quality Assurance v. Banks, 354 Md. 59, 68 , 729 A.2d 376, 380 (1999). In the present case, we must determine whether the Board applied the correct legal principles with regard to the prerequisites for the variances sought and whether the denial of the requested variances violates the RLUIPA. If the Board ⁷⁹ correctly identified and applied the relevant laws, we must determine whether substantial evidence supported its conclusions.

Analysis I. “The general rule is that the authority to grant a variance should be exercised sparingly and only under exceptional circumstances.” Cromwell v. Ward, 102 Md.App. 691, 703 , 651 A.2d 424, 430 (1995). As the intermediate appellate court correctly pointed out, “[b]y means of definitions and a table of regulations, [Section 450 of the Zoning Code] controls the type, nature, size, and number of signs that may be erected on properties in Baltimore County.” Trinity Assembly of God, 178 Md.App. at 239 , 941 A.2d at 565 . Under the Sign Law, an institution, including a church, is allowed one identification sign for each frontage of its property. BCZR § 450.4. 10 One of those signs may have changeable copy capabilities.

Id. Whether containing changeable copy or not, such a sign may not exceed 25 square feet in face area nor be more than six feet high. Id. The demands of the Sign Law, however, are not fixed immutably; the Board or Zoning Commissioner is allowed to grant a variance or variances in very limited circumstances.

Id. § 307.1. In relevant part, the Zoning Code’s variance provision provides: [T]he power to grant variances ... [exists] only in cases where special circumstances or conditions exist that are peculiar to the land or structure which is the subject of the variance request and where strict compliance with the [Zoning Code] would result in practical difficulty or unreasonable hardship. 11 ⁸⁰ Id. § 307.1. That provision, however, is tempered by another, which provides, “in considering requests for variances, provisions of [the Sign Law] shall be strictly construed, unless the demonstrable effect of a liberal construction would prevent or reduce the confusion and visual clutter caused by excessive signage.” Id. § 450.8A.1. More than a decade ago, Judge Dale R. Cathell, now retired from this Court and while a member of the Court of Special Appeals, noted that the Zoning Code’s general variance provision essentially requires a petitioner to demonstrate two things: (1) uniqueness of the property and (2) practical difficulty or unreasonable hardship.

Cromwell, 102 Md.App. at 698-99 , 651 A.2d at 427-28 . He elaborated: The first step requires a finding that the property whereon structures are to be placed (or uses conducted) is-in and of itself-unique and unusual in a manner different from the nature or surrounding properties such that the uniqueness and peculiarity of the subject property causes the zoning provision to impact disproportionately upon the property. Unless there is a finding that the property is unique, unusual or different, the process stops here and the variance is denied without any consideration of practical difficulty or unreasonable hardship. If that first step results in a supportable finding of uniqueness or unusualness, then a second step is taken in the process, i.e., a determination of ⁸¹ whether practical difficulty and/or unreasonable hardship, resulting from a disproportionate impact of the ordinance caused by the property’s uniqueness, exists.

Further consideration must then be given to the general purposes of the zoning ordinance. Id. at 694-95 , 651 A.2d at 426 (italics omitted). Similarly, this Court, interpreting Baltimore City’s zoning code, said generally that a variance requires “proof of ‘urgent necessity, hardship peculiar to the particular property, and a burden upon the owner not justified by the public health, safety and welfare.’ ” Kennerly v. Mayor of Balt., 247 Md. 601, 606-07 , 233 A.2d 800, 804 (1967) (quoting Mayor of Balt. v. Polakoff 233 Md. 1, 9 , 194 A.2d 819, 824 (1963)). To be “unique,” a property must “have an inherent characteristic not shared by other properties in the area, i.e., its shape, topography, sub-surface condition, environmental factors, historical significance, access or non-access to navigable waters, practical restrictions imposed by abutting properties (such as obstructions) or other similar restrictions.” Lewis v. Dept. of Natural Resources, 377 Md. 382, 434 , 833 A.2d 563, 594 (2003) (italics omitted) (quoting North v. St. Mary’s County, 99 Md.App. 502, 514 , 638 A.2d 1175, 1181 (1994)).

In its July 2004 written decision in the present case, the Board articulated correctly the legal test with which it was tasked to administer with respect to uniqueness. Relying on Cromwell , the Board expressed its understanding that “ ‘uniqueness’ requires that the ‘subject property have an inherent characteristic not shared by other properties in the area.’ ” To that end, the Board credited the testimony of People’s Counsel’s expert, Jeffery Long, over that of Trinity’s expert, William Monk. The Board gave cogent reasons for why it found Long more convincing, including his familiarity with the local community and knowledge of the physical characteristics of similarly situated properties. The Board also noted that Trinity’s other witnesses offered little in persuasive terms regarding how the Property is unique.

Although Trinity contends that the Board did not give due regard to the Beltway as a factor contributing to the Property’s uniqueness, Long testified that ⁸² other institutions abutting 1-83 provide an equally useful comparison. The Board was permitted to credit his testimony. Perhaps the evidence presented by Trinity might have sustained a finding that the Property is unique; however, on this record, it was the Board’s province to reconcile the competing or conflicting testimony. We agree with the Court of Special Appeals that substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding of lack of uniqueness.

Nevertheless, Trinity maintains that the Board applied incorrectly the legal standard for uniqueness, namely the Board applied Cromwell too narrowly by focusing only on the physical attributes of the Property. Trinity asseverates that the Board should have considered also whether those attributes cause the Sign Law’s area and height limitations to have a disproportionate impact on Trinity. In Umerley v. People’s Counsel for Balt. County, the Court of Special Appeals opined that a zoning authority must determine, as part of its uniqueness inquiry, whether “the uniqueness or peculiarity of the property causes the zoning provision [at issue] to have a disproportionate impact.” 108 Md.App. 497, 506 , 672 A.2d 173, 177 (1996).

Assuming that a disproportionate impact must be found before a local zoning authority may grant a variance, it is a logical fallacy to say that the Board erred on this score. The disproportionate impact consideration, if viable, exists because of the notion that it is not enough for a landowner or user to show merely that the property is somehow physically peculiar or unique; she, he, or it also must prove, to the satisfaction of the tribunal, a connection between the property’s inherent characteristics and the manner in which the zoning law hurts the landowner or user. Where a property's physical peculiarities do not cause the landowner to suffer disproportionately due to application of the zoning enactment in question, the property is not “unique” in the law of variances. For example, if a property has physical characteristics that might justify variance relief from drainage or sewage regulations, those attributes probably would have no bearing on how the property is affected by an ordinance establishing the maximum height for a fence.

Here, the Board ⁸³ concluded simply that the physical attributes of the Property are not distinguishing. That conclusion is supported by substantial evidence. There was no need for the Board to go further to consider whether physical uniqueness (which it found does not exist) causes the Sign Law to affect Trinity disproportionately. Although Trinity relies on Umerley, that case, to our reading, actually undercuts Trinity’s argument that the Board erred in its assessment of uniqueness.

In Umerley, the intermediate appellate court interpreted the same general variance provision of the Zoning Code that set the threshold in this case. 108 Md.App. at 508 , 672 A.2d at 178 . There, the petitioner sought a variance that would allow it to operate a trucking facility at its current location, which was not zoned for such activity. Id. at 502 , 672 A.2d at 175 . The court held that, because the uniqueness inquiry is concerned only with characteristics inherent to the property, the fact that the petitioner had been in operation at its current location since before the effective date of the ordinance prohibiting trucking activity did not render the property “unique.” Id. at 508 , 672 A.2d at 178 .

Here, William Monk, Trinity’s principal expert regarding uniqueness, testified that his opinion was driven, in part, by Trinity’s exceptionalness as an organization, not simply by the inherent physical uniqueness of the Property. To that end, he stated that Trinity is “not a local church, it’s a regional church,” which, in his view, makes it a “different animal” from other local institutions that might prosper with a smaller sign than Trinity believed it required. With respect to the practical difficulty prong of the Zoning Code’s variance standards, the Board applied the factors that this Court articulated in McLean v. Soley, 270 Md. 208 , 310 A.2d 783 (1973). In McLean we adopted, from Professor Rathkopfs treatise, a three-part inquiry to guide local zoning authorities in determining whether a landowner established this element: 1) Whether compliance with the strict letter of the restrictions governing area, set backs, frontage, height, bulk or ⁸⁴ density would unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose or would render conformity