explaining the presumption of correctness to be accorded to the Baltimore County Council’s reduction of the permissible density in an area through the comprehensive rezoning process
How later courts described this case
- explaining the presumption of correctness to be accorded to the Baltimore County Council’s reduction of the permissible density in an area through the comprehensive rezoning process
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CATHELL, Judge,
concurring.
I agree with that portion of the opinion that holds that the Board, in its reclassification, failed to make sufficient findings required by the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area law. While the case law as to findings runs the gauntlet from “complete and comprehensive” to “findings sufficient to apprise one of the reasons for an administrative decision,” what occurred here, in respect to the additional requirements of the “critical area” *676 law, fails to meet any “findings of fact conclusions of law” standard. Thus, while I do not necessarily agree with all of the reasoning of the balance of the opinion nor with its interpretations of the late Judge Davidson’s triad of cases, i.e., Coppolino, Boyce, Dorsey, I concur with the result reached. I also would reverse.