LA PLATA, Md. — The Charles County Board of Appeals set aside its typical case agenda May 12 to focus on something members said will strengthen future decisions: reviewing board procedures, reinforcing member training and identifying updates that could make hearings clearer, more consistent and better prepared for future appeals.
Rather than hearing zoning applications, the board held an administrative work session with county legal staff to revisit its role, review how decisions are made and begin discussing procedural improvements designed to support both board members and the public moving forward.
Deputy County Attorney Elizabeth Theobalds opened the session by recognizing members for their volunteer service and emphasizing the importance of giving boards the support and tools needed to conduct county business effectively.
“One of the things I’ve really tried to do is ensure that our volunteer members are supported,” Theobalds said.
Attorney Stan Brown then introduced a newly prepared handbook intended to become a single reference guide for members, bringing together Maryland law, county zoning regulations, case law and Board of Appeals procedures into one resource.
“I think this is an important meeting to have with every board, so that everyone is on the same page about what the duties and responsibilities are of board members as well as the council and staff,” Brown said.
Building A Stronger Foundation For Future Decisions
Brown explained that the Board of Appeals serves a different role than elected officials.
The board acts in a quasi-judicial capacity, meaning members apply existing law to individual cases rather than creating policy. Decisions made by the board may be appealed to circuit court but are not overturned by the County Commissioners or Planning Commission.
Cases heard by the board generally fall into three categories:
- Special exceptions
- Variances
- Nonconforming uses
Brown told members that understanding those boundaries — and staying inside them — helps decisions remain consistent and legally defensible.
He also reviewed how evidence is weighed during hearings.
Applicants must show by a preponderance of the evidence that approval standards have been met. If a case is appealed later, courts review whether substantial evidence existed in the record to support the board’s decision.
Rather than deciding the case all over again, Brown explained that a court reviews whether the board had enough evidence in the record to support the decision it made.
“The court looks at whether or not there was substantial evidence in the record to support the preponderance of evidence that you found,” Brown said.
Why Every Case Still Gets Heard
Board members raised questions about why applications that may appear inconsistent with county zoning rules still move forward to the board for review.
Brown said the answer comes down to due process and the board’s responsibility to hear a case before reaching a conclusion.
“You cannot prejudge an application when it comes before you,” Brown said. “You review all the facts and the law … But that property owner has a right to present their arguments to you to decide whether or not it should be approved.”
Brown said the board’s role is not to decide whether an application deserves to be heard, but to evaluate testimony, evidence and zoning standards before reaching a decision.
Focus Turns To Future Improvements
Much of the evening centered on identifying ways hearings could continue evolving.
Among the areas discussed during the meeting were several procedural updates members said could improve hearing consistency, strengthen documentation and provide clearer expectations for applicants, residents and board members moving forward.
Hearing transcripts
Brown recommended creating formal transcripts to strengthen records and improve clarity if decisions are challenged.
“One of the shortcomings that we have here is that we really don’t produce a transcript of our hearings, and we really should start to do that,” Brown said.
He noted several Maryland counties already use affordable electronic transcription systems.
Public comment and evidence procedures
Members discussed continuing efforts to ensure comments included in the official record align with hearing procedures and sworn testimony standards. Clerk Lisa Cureton noted some updates had already been made in recent months.
Cross-examination and expert testimony
Brown said the county’s ordinance already allows opposing parties to cross-examine witnesses and suggested future discussions could make that process clearer while also strengthening standards for expert testimony.
Alternate-member voting procedures
Members also discussed clarifying when alternate members should participate in voting after attending hearings during another member’s absence.
The Nonconforming Use Question
One of the more pointed discussions of the evening centered on a straightforward but strict rule governing nonconforming uses.
Under county zoning regulations, a nonconforming use generally refers to a property, building or activity that was lawfully established under earlier zoning rules but no longer complies with current zoning standards after those rules changed. Those uses may continue under certain conditions but remain subject to county limitations.
Brown read Section 297-468 of the zoning ordinance aloud.
“In the event that a nonconforming use ceases for a period of one year or more, then the nonconforming use shall be deemed abandoned,” Brown read.
That sparked discussion about the practical reality of meeting that timeline.
Chairperson Bud Humbert questioned whether completing permitting and obtaining occupancy approvals within a year is always realistic.
“So Counsel, you try to get a building permit and a use and occupancy in twelve months in Charles County — I wish you all the best,” Humbert said.
Brown acknowledged the concern but explained that the issue is less about whether the board agrees with the result and more about what authority county code actually gives them.
“But see, that’s why I bring this up. I get it. You got to make a decision. If you know administratively you can’t do these things in twelve months, then you shouldn’t hold a property owner to twelve months,” Brown said.
Brown said that if county leaders want flexibility, the ordinance itself would need to include language allowing the board to consider situations where delays were outside a property owner’s control.
“We need to say, a nonconforming use terminates twelve months after it ceases to operate, unless the applicant shows some by implication or inference, some basis that they wanted to continue that particular use, but they couldn’t get a permit because of MDE. They couldn’t get a permit because of critical area issues, whatever it happens to be — but we don’t have that today,” Brown said.
He cautioned that repeatedly approving cases outside what the ordinance allows creates a dangerous pattern.
“You will pigeonhole yourself into a pattern and practice that’s contrary to the law. And it becomes a problem when the case is appealed to court. And that’s what the court will look at,” Brown said.
A Reminder On Open Meetings Rules
The session also included a reminder from Deputy County Attorney Elizabeth Theobalds about communication standards outside of public hearings — particularly when using email.
Theobalds warned members that under Maryland’s Open Meetings Act, discussions involving a quorum of the board cannot happen outside a properly noticed public meeting, including through back-and-forth email conversations.
“If you are having a more or less contemporaneous conversation by replying to it within a couple of minutes or something, that ends up being considered a meeting under the Open Meetings Act,” Theobalds said.
Her recommendation was simple: if information needs to be shared with the full board, send it through Clerk Lisa Cureton rather than replying to a group email.
Theobalds explained that Cureton can distribute information to members without creating an email chain that could unintentionally violate public meeting requirements.
Board Votes To Begin Review Process
The board voted to begin a formal review of its rules of procedure and asked members to submit recommendations to Clerk Lisa Cureton for legal review and future consideration.
Recommendations are expected to be compiled ahead of the board’s June 9 meeting.
Brown’s handbook was distributed to members, with digital copies and additional resources planned to support future discussions.
The vote closed out a meeting focused less on changing policy and more on strengthening the board’s process and preparing for future cases.
Watch the full May 12, 2026, Board of Appeals meeting on CCGTV.
Got a tip or photo? Text us at 888-871-NEWS (6397) or email news@thebaynet.com.
Join The BayNet Membership for exclusive perks and zero ads.
Don’t miss a story—sign up for our newsletter!
