LA PLATA — A youth nonprofit that says it has spent most of the year working its zoning request through Charles County’s review process will have to hire a lawyer and wait at least another month, after the Board of Appeals stopped its hearing before it began.
The board’s legal counsel told the applicant, Southern Maryland Youth Organization Inc., at the Nov. 10 meeting that Maryland law does not allow a corporation to present a case to an administrative body without an attorney. Because no attorney had entered the case, he said, the board could not hear it. The case was continued to Dec. 8.
The organization’s representative said the group had been in the process since about February and was never told it needed a lawyer until 15 minutes before the hearing.
She also asked whether the rule applies to a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. Counsel said it does. “Even though you are a nonprofit, you are a corporation,” he said, calling the requirement “absolute in Maryland.”
He said he found the gap when he reviewed the file the weekend before the meeting and looked for an attorney of record. The architect who helped the group prepare its application did nothing improper, he said, because non-lawyers may help an applicant deal with the reviewing agencies. The line is the hearing itself. Before the Board of Appeals, the Planning Commission or the County Commissioners acting in a quasi-judicial role, he said, a corporation needs a lawyer or the body cannot consider the case.
Who is responsible for knowing
Counsel apologized for the inconvenience but said the burden sits with the applicant. It is not the planning staff’s job to tell applicants what they need, he said, though he added that he and the staff would try to let people know going forward.
The nonprofit’s representative then offered an alternative. The property owner was on the call, she said, and was willing to move the case forward himself, which would spare the organization the legal bill. She noted that the application package appeared complete and that the staff recommendation was for approval.
Counsel said no. Had the owner filed the case in his own name, the board could have gone ahead, he said, but the owner authorized the corporation to file it, and most of the case concerns what the corporation plans to do with the land. The owner could testify only that he owns the property and intends to lease it.
The representative said the group would find a lawyer and absorb the cost.
The board’s own Rules of Procedure are published on the county website, as are its agendas and case files.
What happens Dec. 8
Because the board called the case and continued it to a specific date, the county does not have to advertise the hearing again or repost signs on the property, and the applicant does not pay those fees a second time. If the group still has no lawyer by Dec. 8, counsel asked it to call two or three days ahead so the board can continue the case again to another fixed date. He offered to recommend zoning attorneys in Charles County who might take the case on short notice.
The exchange was the only case on the agenda. Before adjourning, a board member proposed a resolution thanking Chairman Claude “Bud” Humbert and Vice Chair the Rev. Ben Watkins for eight years of service as members and officers. Staff also reported that a sound report the board had required in an earlier case was filed on time.
The Board of Appeals hears requests for special exceptions and variances and appeals of county zoning decisions. The Chronicle has previously reported on how the board schedules and advertises its hearings.
