Havre de Grace board dismisses residents' appeal of Legacy subdivision forest conservation plan

The Havre de Grace Board of Appeals on June 4, 2026 dismissed a citizen appeal of the Planning Department's Feb. 27 approval of the Legacy subdivision final forest conservation plan, finding the board lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over that forest conservation decision and that the petitioners had not shown they were "aggrieved persons" under the city's land-use code.

The hearing, Case No. 560, drew arguments from four petitioners who told the board they wanted the merits considered. Lead petitioner Chip Place said neighbors and environmental advocates were pressing the issue because they believe the city and applicants repeatedly failed to follow the Forest Conservation Act. "These are very important issues," Place said, urging the board to hear the substance as well as procedural questions.

The city and the Green family's attorney countered that the question must be resolved as a matter of jurisdiction before any merits hearing. April Ishach, speaking for the city and the planning director, told the board that "if this board is acting outside of its jurisdiction then anything it decides would be ultra vires and it would be void," and urged the panel to consider state law limits on municipal authority. Adam Baker, counsel for the property owners, said the plan had been prepared by licensed professionals and approved after review and that the petitioners had not complied with the procedural requirements for appeal.

Special counsel to the board, identified as Mr. Best, advised commissioners that forest conservation approvals arise from different statutory chapters than routine zoning matters and that courts have reached different conclusions about whether such appeals belong before a local board or must be taken directly to the circuit court. He recommended the board hear procedural arguments first and consider a hearing examiner if the board chose to take up complex technical forestry issues.

Petitioners relied on state cases and DNR guidance to argue that local forest conservation programs must include appeal procedures consistent with local appellate processes. They also presented witness statements and an affidavit from Carol Zimmerman (submitted for the record) and testimony from nearby residents. Carol Andrews, who described herself as active in local tree and forestry efforts, said decades of canopy loss and recent removals made the issue citywide, not merely local. Tammy Kite said her home is five houses (about 200 feet) from the Green property and described specimen trees removed during earlier phases of construction.

City counsel argued that a 30-day appeal period and the requirement to file with specified local officials (including the director of administration) and the board must be satisfied to perfect an appeal under the Land Use Article; the city and property-owner counsel presented a timeline they said showed the petition was not filed in the manner required by statute and local rules. Petitioners said they submitted their initial petition in March, paid a $400 filing fee, provided revised lists of adjoining owners, and later filed a cover letter addressed to the board and requested a stay in April because of concern trees could be removed while the matter was pending.

After extended discussion, commissioners said they were not comfortable ruling that the board had jurisdiction over the forest conservation plan approval; they concluded that, under the city code and relevant Maryland authorities cited in the hearing, the board did not have subject-matter jurisdiction and that the petitioners had not established the particularized aggrievement required before this panel. The board moved to dismiss the appeal on those two procedural grounds. Members were divided on the separate question of whether the appeal had been timely perfected; the board ultimately disposed of the case on jurisdiction and standing rather than on timeliness.

What happens next: commissioners and counsel at the hearing noted an appellate path remains available in the courts. Several participants said petitioners could seek judicial review in the circuit court if they chose to challenge the director's approval and the board's procedural rulings.

The board adjourned after disposing of the procedural questions; the transcript records counsel and petitioners exchanging additional logistical requests about the record and exhibits during the session.