Confusing language in appeals amendment
The Charles County Board of Appeals Zoning Text Amendment being developed by the county attorney’s office was supposed to clear up conflicts permeating the appeals process. However, first it says an appellant must be an aggrieved party — someone who participated in the decision being appealed. Later it says an appellant must be an aggrieved person (no participation required) who is also a party (participation mandatory). So which is it — person or party?
State law says person and, if the Maryland General Assembly wanted appellants to be aggrieved parties, they would have said so in the Land Use Article where it says aggrieved person. If the county attorney wanted to get rid of conflicting language in the zoning ordinance, simply complying with the enabling legislation would be a good start — especially since it is impossible to participate in most administrative decisions where public participation is precluded and no one can be a party.
Maybe the General Assembly intended for citizens to actually appeal decisions to the Board of Appeals instead of discriminating against their appeal rights with legalese. Anne Stark, Waldorf