Full Opinion

Forest Grove Citizens Association, et al. v. Forest Glen Medical Center, LLP, et al. No. 2475, Sept. Term, 2024 Opinion by Leahy, J. Administrative Law > Judicial Review > Standard of Review Where, as here, a party claims that an administrative agency’s decision is void as a matter of law, we review whether the circuit court was “legally correct” in its determination. See Halici v. City of Gaithersburg, 180 Md. App. 238, 249 (2008) (explaining that “a challenge to the statutory authority of the administrative body to take the action at issue” is a “purely legal issue” that may be considered by the reviewing court “at any time, even if it were not raised before the agency”). Because the resolution of this issue requires statutory interpretation, which is a question of law, we review the circuit court’s decision de novo. M-NCPPC v. Anderson, 395 Md. 172, 181 (2006). Zoning and Planning > Regional District Act > Montgomery County Code > “Applicant” Section 50-2.2(A) of the Montgomery County Code defines an applicant as an “individual, partnership, corporation, or other legal entity and its agent that undertakes the subdivision of land[,]” including “all persons involved in successive stages of the project, even though such persons may change and ownership of the land may change.” MCC § 50-2.2(A). This provision expressly contemplates that the entities involved in a project may shift over time—and even ownership of the land itself may change—without undermining the validity of the application. Principal and Agent > Creation and Existence of Agency Relationship Above all, the record in this case established that at the time of the Planning Board Hearing, JLB Realty maintained the actual authority to pursue—and otherwise act in furtherance of—the Plans as the developer and agent of Forest Glen Medical Center LLP (“FGMC”), the property owner. An actual agency-principal relationship may be established “by written or spoken words or other conduct of the principal which, reasonably interpreted, causes the agent to believe that the principal desires him to act on the principal’s account.” Citizens Bank of Md. v. Md. Indus. Finishing Co. Inc., 338 Md. 448, 459 (1995) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Agency § 26) (internal quotation marks omitted). The purchase contract and its expiration date do not determine the issue. What is most relevant are the written words contained in FGMC’s authorization letter to JLB Realty and the subsequent conduct of the principal, here FGMC. Zoning and Planning > Regional District Act > Sector Plan To the extent the Montgomery County Code has “elevated” the 2020 Forest Glen/Montgomery Hills Sector Plan Sector Plan by requiring the Planning Board demand substantial conformance to master plan (or sector plan) recommendations, see Greater Baden-Aquasco, 412 Md. at 100-01, we observe that substantial conformance is not the same as strict conformance. We have explained that even when a sector plan is binding on the Planning Board in terms of what the Board “must find,” the Sector Plan’s specific “recommendations” may remain “aspirational rather than mandatory.” Pringle v. Montgomery Cnty. Plan. Bd. M-NCPPC, 212 Md. App. 478, 489 (2013). To hold otherwise would require us to read “recommendations” as “requirements,” and equate “substantial conformance” with mere “conformance,” running contrary to our canons of statutory interpretation. See Koste v. Town of Oxford, 431 Md. 14, 25-26 (2013). Circuit Court for Montgomery County Case No. C-15-CV-24-001622 REPORTED IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF MARYLAND No. 2475 September Term, 2024 ______________________________________ FOREST GROVE CITIZENS ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. FOREST GLEN MEDICAL CENTER, LLP, ET AL. ______________________________________ Leahy, Reed, McDonald, Robert N. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ. ______________________________________ Opinion by Leahy, J. ______________________________________ Filed: May 29, 2026 Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State * Judge Rosalyn Tang did not participate in the Government Article) this document is authentic. decision to report this opinion pursuant to Md. Rule 8-605.1. '00'04- 15:05:48 2026.05.29 Gregory Hilton, Clerk As our Supreme Court once observed, “Montgomery County is somewhat unique in the source and exercise of its municipal authority to regulate the use of land.” Remes v. Montgomery Cnty., 387 Md. 52, 70 (2005). Most chartered counties in Maryland derive their zoning and planning authority from the Express Powers Act, now codified at Maryland Code (2013), Local Government Article (“LG”), §§ 10-101-330. However, Montgomery County’s zoning power originates in the Regional District Act, a statute that “divides broadly authority related to zoning, planning, and other land use matters between the [Prince George’s and Montgomery] county (district) councils, the Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission [(“M-NCPPC”)], and the county planning boards.” Cnty. Council of Prince George’s Cnty. v. Zimmer Dev. Co., 444 Md. 490, 525-26 (2015); see also Pan American Health Organ. v. Montgomery Cnty., 338 Md. 214, 217-18 (1995); Council of Chevy Chase View v. Rothman, 323 Md. 674, 685 (1991); Northampton Corp. v. Prince George’s Cnty., 273 Md. 93, 96 (1974). Overall, subject to exceptions not relevant here, “Montgomery County’s zoning authority arises from the Regional District Act, and is regulated by the provisions of the Montgomery County Code.” Remes, 387 Md. at 71. In this appeal, three different but interrelated chapters of the Montgomery County Code (“County Code” or “MCC”) govern our analysis: Chapter 22(A) (“Forest Conservation Law”), Chapter 50 (“Subdivision Regulations”), and Chapter 59 (“Zoning Ordinance”).1 Respectively, these chapters prescribe the requirements for a preliminary plan, a “drawing for a proposed subdivision submitted for approval before the preparation of a plat[,]” MCC § 50-2.2; a site plan, a “detailed overview of the applicant’s development[,]” MCC § 59-7.3.4(A)(4) (2014); and a forest conservation plan, MCC § 22(A)-11(b)(2)(A). Forest Grove Citizens Association, Nandini Arunkumar, Pamela Stanziani, and Friends of Sligo Creek (collectively, “Appellants”) filed the underlying petitions for judicial review in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. Appellants challenged a set of resolutions (“Resolutions”) by the Montgomery County Planning Board of the M-NCPPC (the “Planning Board” or “Board”), appellee, approving a preliminary plan, site plan, and forest conservation plan (collectively, “Plans”). These Plans, submitted by developer JLB Realty LLC (“JLB Realty”), involve the proposed redevelopment of a 3.78-acre property on Georgia Avenue facing the Forest Glen Metro Station (the “Property”) owned by co-appellee Forest Glen Medical Center, LLP (“FGMC”). After a hearing, the circuit court affirmed the resolutions, and this appeal timely followed. Appellants present three questions for our review, which we rephrase as follows:2 1 The County Code is available online at https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/montgomerycounty/latest/overview. 2 The Appellants’ questions presented in their brief are: 1. Did the Planning Board err when it approved JLB Realty’s Preliminary Plan, Site Plan, and Forest Conservation plan, even after JLB (Continued) 2 I. Are the Resolutions void as a matter of law because the purchase contract between JLB Realty and FGMC expired prior to their issuance by the Planning Board? II. Is there substantial evidence in the record to support the Planning Board’s determination that the preliminary plan and the site plan substantially conform to the 2020 Forest Glen/Montgomery Hills Sector Plan? III. Is there substantial evidence in the record to support the Planning Board’s grant of the tree variance request associated with the forest conservation plan? For the reasons that follow, we affirm. BACKGROUND The Property The facts of this appeal are generally not in dispute. The Property is located in the northeast quadrant of Georgia Avenue and Forest Glen Road in Silver Spring, Maryland, directly across from the Forest Glen Metrorail Station. It is zoned CRT-2.5, C-2.5, R-2.5, H-120’3 under the Montgomery County Zoning Ordinance (“Zoning Ordinance”), codified Realty no longer held any interest in the Subject Property or the associated development application? 2. Did the Planning Board err as a matter of law by finding that the Preliminary Plan and Site Plan substantially conform with the applicable Master Plan? 3. Did the Planning Board violate Maryland’s Forest Conservation Law by approving JLB Realty’s request for a variance to remove eight Protected Tress and disturb the area within the critical root zone of one Protected Tree as part of the Forest Conservation Plan? 3 The number immediately following the “CRT” classification represents the maximum total floor area ratio (“FAR”) for the site; the numbers following the “C” and “R” represent the maximum non-residential and residential FAR, respectively; and the (Continued) 3 at Chapter 59 of the County Code. Under the Zoning Ordinance, a CRT zone—which stands for a Commercial Residential Town zone—is “intended for small downtown, mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented centers and edges of larger, more intense downtowns[,]” MCC § 59-4.5.1(C), and is designed to, among other things, “implement the recommendations of applicable master plans[.]”4 MCC § 59-4.5.1(A). The governing master plan for the Property is the 2020 Forest Glen/Montgomery Hills Sector Plan (the “Sector Plan”), which, in turn, represents “a comprehensive amendment to portions of the approved and adopted 1989 Master Plan for the Communities of Kensington-Wheaton[.]” According to its own abstract, the Sector Plan “provide[s] comprehensive recommendations for the use of public and private lands,” which “should be referred to by public officials and private individuals when making land use decisions[.]” The Property is described in the Sector Plan as follows:5 Constructed in 1967, the existing medical office building and associated number following the “H” refers to the maximum building height in feet. See MCC § 59-2.1.3(D)(2); see also MCC § 59-4.5.2(A)(2). 4 The County Code provides that a “plan” means “the General Plan, an area master plan, a sector plan, the Master Plan of Highways, a functional plan, and any amendments to those plans,” MCC § 33A-2, but it does not specifically define “sector plan.” We recently observed, however, that such plans are “widely used in both Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties” and described them as “detailed plans for the development of a portion of one or more master planning areas[.]” Heard v. Cnty. Council of Prince George’s Cnty., 256 Md. App. 586, 610 n.15 (2022). 5 The Sector Plan describes the Property as “as a special exception in [an] R-60 zone,” and recommends its rezoning to CRT-2.5, C-2.5, R-2.5, H-120’. The Property had already been rezoned as recommended prior to the approval of the Plans. 4 parking lot are situated on roughly 3.9 acres across multiple lots. . . . [T]he building is nearing the end of its useful life and continuing maintenance and upgrades may begin to exceed the cost of new development. On the site, a roughly 1.25-acre vegetated area currently serves as a buffer between the office building and adjacent residences. The Sector Plan further outlines specific recommendations for the Property. Among other things, for the Property’s land use and zoning, the Sector Plan recommends “[p]rioritiz[ing] affordable housing and habitat preservation and restoration as the top public benefit for optional method development.” Specifically, the Sector Plan notes: Any optional method project that includes residential dwelling units should provide a minimum of 15 percent [Moderately Priced Dwelling Units (MPDU)]. In addition, with redevelopment, a minimum of 25 percent of the units should be two-bedroom units and five percent of the units should be three-bedroom units. Additionally, given the substantial investment by the County in the Metro access tunnel construction, the Plan recommends 10 percent of the units also be provided as affordable to households earning at or below 100 percent of Area Median Income (AMI). (Emphasis added). Regarding the 1.25-acre vegetated area, which is “dominated by native black locust trees[,]” the Sector Plan offers the following environmental recommendation: [w]ith respect to the remnant forest, at the time of redevelopment, maximum flexibility on the site should be given for providing an area of equal environmental benefit that also provides for improved community benefit and access. Equal environmental benefits may include improved water and air quality, strategies that provide for reduced greenhouse gas emissions and increased biodiversity and habitat protections, including improved tree canopy. Development should also, as a part of its open space requirement, preserve healthy indigenous trees and replant stratified vegetation where possible. (Emphasis added). Additionally, the Sector Plan outlines various recommendations for the Property’s urban design and park access. Relevant to the Plans at issue in this appeal, Section 7.3.4.(E)(2)(g) of the Zoning Ordinance and Section 50.4.2.(D)(2) of the 5 Subdivision Regulations require the Planning Board to find that a site plan application and a preliminary plan application “substantially conform” with the recommendations of the applicable master plan for approval. FGMC and JLB Realty sign Contract to Purchase Property FGMC has owned the Property Since 2003. On November 11, 2021, JLB Realty entered into an agreement with the FGMC to purchase the Property.6 Subsequently, on August 23, 2022, Harold Landis, the managing partner for FGMC, signed the following letter: Forest Glen Medical Center LLP is the Owner of the [Property]. * * * This letter hereby affirms that J. Graham Brock at JLB Realty LLC, the Contract Purchaser of the [Property], is authorized to sign for, file, and pursue any and all applications and documents and permits on behalf of Forest Glen Medical Center LLP, in connection with JLB Realty redevelopment at the [Property]; including but not limited to Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission and other applicable government agencies that may be required in connection with pursuing land use entitlements for the proposed project on the [Property]. Such applications and documents may include, but are not necessarily limited to, those associated with . . . Forest Conservation Plan and other related requirements, . . . Sketch Plan review, Preliminary Plan of Subdivision review, and Site Plan review (collectively, the “Applications”). * * * JLB Realty LLC, by and through its authorized representatives and its affiliated entities, is specifically authorized to (i) execute all necessary application forms and documents, (ii) obtain plans and drawings, and (iii) act on behalf of Forest Glen Medical center LLP in furtherance of such Applications. (Emphasis added). 6 This agreement between JLB Realty and FGMC is not in the record. 6 The Planning Board Approves JLB Realty’s Sketch Plan7 In November 2022, JLB Realty, as contract purchaser, submitted sketch plan No. 320230020 (“Sketch Plan”) for the Property to the Planning Board for approval, after having a pre-submittal meeting with the community members in September 2022. In the Sketch Plan, JLB Realty proposed replacing the existing medical office building with a mixed-use building, a civic green space, stratified vegetation, and accommodation for the tunnel access to Forest Glen Metro Station. On March 20, 2023, the Planning Board staff members (“Planning Staff” or “Staff”) issued a report, recommending approval of the Sketch Plan subject to certain conditions. In relevant part, Planning Staff listed issues that JLB Realty, as applicant, needed to address for the preliminary and site plans, including: • “The Applicant must submit and receive approval of a Preliminary/Final Forest Conservation Plan.” • “Plantings should use a variety of native plants that provide habitat and food sources for wildlife.” • “The Applicant should revisit the unit mix provided with the development in order to meet the Sector Plan recommendation . . . for 3-bedroom units.” On March 30, 2023, following a public hearing, the Planning Board voted 4-0— with one member abstaining—to approve the Sketch Plan subject to certain enumerated 7 According to the Zoning Ordinance, a “sketch plan” is a developer’s preliminary development plan, which “describes a project at an early stage to provide the public and the Planning Board the chance to review the proposed development for general design, density, circulation, public benefits, and relationship to the master plan before a developer is required to expend significant resources on design and engineering.” MCC § 59-7.3.3(A)(2). A party filing a sketch plan “must own the subject property or be authorized by the owner to file the application.” MCC § 59-7.3.3(B)(1). To be approved by the Planning Board, the sketch plan must also “substantially conform with the recommendations of the applicable master plan[.]” MCC § 59-7.3.3(E)(2). 7 conditions. In a written resolution, consistent with Staff’s comments, the Planning Board noted that JLB Realty needed to address issues regarding the Forest Conservation Plan, native plantings, and the unit mix when filing preliminary and site plans. Still, the Planning Board concluded that the Sketch Plan “substantially conform[ed] to the recommendations of the Sector Plan.” In a footnote, the Planning Board also clarified that “the term ‘Applicant’ shall . . . mean the developer, the owner or any successor(s) in interest to the terms of this approval” for the purpose of its resolution. First Petition for Judicial Review Forest Grove Citizens Association, Nandini Arunkumar, and Pamela Stanziani (collectively, “Forest Grove Petitioners”) filed a petition for judicial review in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County from the Planning Board’s Resolution approving the Sketch Plan. They claimed, among other things, that the signage notifying the September pre- submittal meeting “was not in conformance with” the County Code requirements. JLB Realty countered that its signage “substantially complied with necessary standards[,]” arguing that both the sign’s content and the high attendance at the pre-submitting meeting established that the notice was “fundamentally fair[.]” On November 16, 2023, the circuit court issued a written order,8 which remanded the case to the Planning Board “for further proceedings, without affirming, reversing, modifying [its] action” and instructed that on remand, the [] Planning Board shall consider and decide, based on the record and without further factfinding, whether (1) substantial compliance 8 Although the order indicates that the circuit court also announced its oral ruling on November 14, 2023, no transcript from that hearing is available in the record. 8 with pre-submittal meeting signage can satisfy applicable notice requirements, and (2) if substantial compliance can be sufficient, whether [JLB Realty’s] notice signs substantially complied with the applicable notice requirements[.] On remand, the Planning Board, by 5-0 vote, concluded that: (1) that substantial compliance with pre-submittal meeting signage satisfies notice requirements under applicable Maryland law; and (2) the pre-submittal meeting sign at issue “substantially satisfied” all relevant statutory and regulatory requirements. The Planning Board further noted, “[a]ny variations were de minimis.” Thereafter, in January 2024, JLB Realty filed a motion with the circuit court to affirm the Planning Board’s approval of the Sketch Plan. The Plans While the judicial review of the Sketch Plan was pending before the circuit court, JLB Realty filed three separate applications on August 23, 2023, for approval of preliminary plan No. 120230160 (the “Preliminary Plan”), site plan No. 820230130 (the “Site Plan”), and forest conservation plan No. F.20240040 (the “Forest Conservation Plan”), respectively. As described by the Planning Board, the Preliminary Plan proposed consolidating six existing lots on the Property into a single 3.78-acre lot to accommodate 5,000 square feet of commercial area and 420,000 square feet of residential development. The Preliminary Plan also anticipated the creation of a separate parcel to be conveyed to the Montgomery County Department of Transportation (“MCDOT”) for a new entrance to Forest Glen Metrorail Station. Consistent with the Preliminary Plan, the Site Plan presented a mixed-use building that would include “420,000 square feet of residential uses[] for up to 390 multi-family dwelling units,” 15% of which would be MPDUs, and 9 “5,000 square feet of retail non-residential uses.” The public and private open spaces proposed as part of the Site Plan included a through-block connection at the north of the property, a civic green and urban plaza at the south of the Property, and streetscape improvements along Georgia Avenue, Forest Glen Road, and Woodland Drive. Additionally, the Forest Conservation Plan provided for “0.43 acres of forest clearing” and included a “request for a tree variance for impacts to subject trees.” JLB Realty sought a variance under MCC § 22A-21 to remove eight specimen trees that measured 30 inches or greater “in diameter-at-breast-height (dbh).” Agency and Staff Review Planning Staff and multiple governmental agencies, including MCDOT, Maryland State Highway Administration (“SHA”), and Montgomery County Department of Housing and Community Affairs (“DHCA”), reviewed the Plans. On February 8, 2024, the DHCA sent an approval letter to Parker Smith, a Planning Staff member, recommending approval “subject to the condition that [JLB Realty] modify their floorplans to comply with the bedroom count percentages as recommended” in the Sector Plan. The letter stated: The development referenced above is within a CRT Zone (CRT-2.5, C-2.5, R-2.5, H-120). Section 4.5.1.A.(1) of Chapter 59 states that the intent of CRT zones is to implement the recommendation of applicable master plans. * * * Although the development is meeting the requirements of Chapter 25A by providing 15 percent MPDUs, they are not substantially meeting the recommendations of the Forest Glen Montgomery Hills Sector Plan, and therefore of the zoning requirements, by either providing 10 percent of the units at 100 percent AMI and/or providing 25 percent of the units as 2-bedroom units and 5 percent of the units as 3-bedroom units[.] 10 To substantially comply with the Master Plan recommendations, DHCA requests that the applicant provide 5 percent 3-bedroom units at the time of the Agreement to Build. As currently shown on their plans, 25 percent of the units should remain two-bedroom units to also comply with the Master Plan. (Emphasis added). Planning Staff subsequently issued an 83-page report (the “Staff Report”), containing its recommendations and proposed conditions for approval of the Plans. The Staff Report contained exhaustive descriptions of the Property and the Plans, supplemented by photos, maps, and computer-generated graphics. It further incorporated data from a school adequacy test and transportation impact study to confirm the Plans’ compliance with the relevant standards and requirements. Additionally, Staff detailed JLB Realty’s community outreach efforts, attaching letters from community members, pre-submission meeting minutes, and supporting affidavits. Based on the record, Staff concluded that the Plans “substantially conform with” the Sector Plan’s recommendations and meet “all requirements of the Subdivision Regulations, Zoning Code, and Forest Conservation Law.” In support of its conclusions, Staff detailed the Plans’ compliance with each individual Sector Plan recommendation. On the issue of affordable housing, Staff noted that, consistent with the DHCA’s February 8, 2024 approval letter, JLB Realty would “provide a minimum of 15 percent [MPDUs], a minimum of 25 percent of the units as two- bedroom units, and a minimum of 5 percent of the units as three-bedroom units.” Staff observed that “[p]rojects are awarded 12 Public Benefit points for every 1 percent of MPDUs provided greater than 12.5 percent[,]” and therefore the Site Plan, with 15% MPDUs, “qualifie[d] for 30 Public Benefit points in the [MPDU] category.” 11 As for the environmental recommendation, Staff observed that the Property contains 0.2 acres of tree cover and 0.43 acres of forest, according to the Natural Resources Inventory/Forest Stand Delineation (“NRI/FSD”). Staff noted that “[t]he Property has many constraints and requirements shaping the design of the proposed development[,]” including: “an existing sewer line running through the center of the Property that must be relocated”; “the storm drain line and stormwater management handling runoff from Georgia Avenue”; the tunnel connecting to the Forest Glen Metro Station”; and the “Sector Plan requirement of providing a minimum of one-half acre of civic green[.]” Staff noted that JLB Realty proposes clearing the existing vegetated area to accommodate a relocated sewer line. Staff found that, “even though small patches of forest are valuable for the wildlife habitat and many environmental benefits,” the existing forest was not a “healthy, regenerative ecosystem” due to heavy infestation by non-native plants. Staff further noted that JLB would provide 0.46 acres of stratified plantings to mitigate the environmental impact, explaining: These planting areas include native trees, shrubs, perennials, grasses, and groundcover that provide a mix of habitat and food sources. Special attention was paid to the needs of the members of the Lepidoptera order (butterflies and moths), which is an important group due to their roles as pollinators and food source for many other animals. For example, Willow Oak (Quercus phellos) is one of the canopy trees and it provides acorns that are an important food source for small mammals, as well as serving as a host plant for Lepidoptera species. Mapleleaf Virburnum (Viburnum acerifolium) produces fruit for wildlife and the flowers provide support for pollinators, as well as hosting the larvae for many species of Lepidoptera. Accordingly, Staff concluded that the Plans offer a “healthy alternative ecosystem to the existing remnant forest and tree cover[.]” 12 In addressing JLB Realty’s tree variance request as part of the Forest Conservation Plan, Staff concluded that denying the variance would result in an “unwarranted hardship” by denying JLB Realty “reasonable and significant use” of the Property. Staff also evaluated the Plans’ impact on each specimen tree, concluding that JLB Realty’s development would result in “the removal of eight (8) Protected Trees and impacts to . . . one (1) Protected Tree[.]” After identifying each tree’s species, location, and size, Staff noted: Trees ST-3, ST-7, ST-8, and ST-11 are located in the forest and vegetated area in the northern portion of the Property. The Sector Plan granted maximum flexibility for the removal and mitigation of the forest and vegetated area. This area will be impacted by the relocated sewer line and site grading, requiring the removal of these Protected Trees. Tree ST-13 is located adjacent to the existing entrance from Forest Glen Road and will be impacted by the removal of the pavement. Redevelopment of the Property requires the removal of the entrance from Forest Glen Road and regrading of the Property to meet the open space requirements of the Sector Plan. It is also adjacent to the new entrance to the Forest Glen Metro Station, requiring the removal of this Protected Tree. Trees ST-15, ST-16, and ST-17 are located within the Woodland Drive right- of-way. Required frontage improvements along Woodland Drive, including adding on-street parking and upgraded pedestrian facilities, require removing these Protected Trees. Tree OST-1 is an off-site tree located in the Sherwood Road right-of-way that will be impacted by utility construction in the paved area of Woodland Drive. This tree will be retained with minor impacts.9 9 Staff also recommended to the Planning Board that, in order for Applicant to meet the requirements of the applicable Forest Conservation law, 1.11 acres of forest mitigation credits must be purchased through a forest conservation bank located in the Sligo Creek watershed or other Priority Area. If no credits are available in a forest conservation bank located in the (Continued) 13 The report concluded with the findings required for granting a tree variance. First, Staff found, granting the variance would “not confer on the Applicant a special privilege” because the variance concerned “site-specific recommendations in the Sector Plan . . . that would be applicable to any redevelopment of the Property.” Second, the need for the variance was “not based on conditions or circumstances which are the result of the actions by the [A]pplicant,” but was instead “based on existing site conditions and the requirements to meet development standards, Sector Plan goals . . . and County Code requirements.” Third, the requested variance was “not based on a condition related to land or building use . . . on a neighboring property[,]” but instead was “a result of the existing conditions and the required improvements on the Property[.]” Finally, granting the variance would not “violate State water quality standards or cause measurable degradation” because the subject trees were not located within a “stream buffer, wetland, or a special protection area.” Board Hearing on the Plans On March 7, 2024, the Planning Board held a public hearing (“Board Hearing”) on the Plans. The Board Hearing began with a PowerPoint presentation by Parker Smith and Amy Lindsey, Planning Staff members who provided an overview of the Property and the Sligo Creek watershed or other Priority Area, the Applicant must purchase 1.32 acres of forest mitigation credits through a forest conservation bank located elsewhere in the County. If no forest mitigation credits are available for purchase at any forest conservation banks in the County, the Applicant may make a fee-in-lieu payment to satisfy the 1.32 acres of reforestation required. 14 proposed development. During the presentation, they addressed the community’s concerns about the development, which included: (1) the creation of a new “access point” on Woodland Drive; (2) the amount of parking; (3) the development’s scale, design, and compatibility; and (4) the loss of existing forest. Smith explained that a traffic study approved by Staff, MCDOT, and SHA confirmed the necessity of the Woodland Drive access point. In response to the concerns that the proposed development would worsen the traffic congestion at the Forest Glen Road and Georgia Avenue intersection, he explained that JLB Realty would be “required to signalize the intersection of Tilton Drive and Georgia Avenue[,]” thus providing an alternative route for drivers. On the issue of parking, Smith highlighted that the Plans proposed 466 parking spaces, which marks “a decrease of 74 spaces” from the Sketch Plan, and would require residents to pay an additional parking fee as a “concrete financial incentive . . . to limit car possession and use.” He also testified that concerns about the development’s scale, design, and compatibility had been “addressed through extensive coordination and design review[.]” Addressing environmental concerns, Lindsey acknowledged that the Plans “propose[] to remove all 0.43 acres of forest” on the Property, while providing, among other things, “0.46 acres of stratified plantings” in mitigation. Nonetheless, Lindsey presented multiple photographs showing the degraded state of the existing vegetation on the Property, explaining that much of the visible greenery was caused by Evergreen Euonymus, an “invasive species that has covered many of the trees[.]” Following this 15 presentation, Staff members affirmed that the Plans substantially conformed to the recommendations of the Sector Plan. The Planning Board also heard testimony from community members, many of whom voiced their opposition to the Plans. Pamela Stanziani testified on behalf of the Forest Grove Citizens Association, which she described as a “community whose members, residents, are directly impacted by this development,” and expressed concerns with the “proposed mass increase of cars traveling throughout [her] neighborhood” and with the “lack of notifications to . . . association residents” throughout the development process. She also emphasized the importance of “maintain[ing] a community as opposed to development for tax dollars and what is clearly not going to be significant affordable housing.” Nandini Arunkumar similarly raised general objections to the development process, stating that there had been “no forum for the neighborhood and the community who [would] be impacted by such a large development[.]” She also submitted a written letter to the Planning Board as the Secretary of the Forest Grove Citizens Association listing the community’s “concerns with the lack of conformance of this development to the Sector Plan,” including “[c]lear cutting and removal” of all trees, and the developer’s “[r]efusal to comply with affordable housing targets set forth in the Sketch Plan[.]” Kit Gage, who identified herself as the “advocacy director” for Appellant Friends of Sligo Creek, opposed the removal of the forest in the Property. Though acknowledging that the forest “ha[d] seen better days[,]” Gage maintained that the forest “could be made healthy with some serious effort” and was in fact “still functional . . . in many ways[,]” 16 emphasizing that it had “some big and substantially healthy trees” and “the dead or dying trees [that] are home to woodpeckers . . . and worms and bugs that baby birds require to live.” Galen Rende, who also testified on behalf of Appellant Friends of Sligo Creek, claimed that the Preliminary Plan and Site Plan did not “substantially conform” to the Sector Plan’s environmental recommendations. According to Rende, although the Sector Plan prioritizes “preserving and restoring the existing forest cover, rather than removing and replacing it[,]” the Staff Report showed no meaningful consideration of “any alternatives to the proposed development that might keep the existing forest intact.” Rende also noted a discrepancy between the 1.25 acreage of the forest in the Sector Plan and the 0.43 acreage reported in the Staff Report, arguing that there was “no explanation . . . as to why this value is so different[.]” Finally, Rende challenged JLB Realty’s variance request under the Forest Conservation Plan, claiming that neither JLB Realty nor the Planning Staff adequately explained how the Property’s conditions justify the variance and removal of trees. Near the end of the hearing, Amy Lindsey responded to the community’s concerns with the Plans’ environmental impacts. As to the discrepancy between the forest acreages cited in the Sector Plan and in the Staff Report, Lindsey explained that environmental conditions on a property may change after a master plan is published, and it is not until a development application is reviewed that the actual forest acreage is determined. She expounded, “when we’re making Sector Plan recommendations and writing descrip