WPC,1 3 "*K5`u8aUsG06?MғQD^bx81<pXlpz~ʽ`pMϘ*qV=L)Av#XlI~ Od64r=GpWt=KB?)dҫ!2Le*C)/x;|TgbMUrPbZ+iUm:PhNbZKfӐ2"-A۳v M7Nx[ܚ2 $s}yI=tt7۔ϢTIxJX6B~ Dgˎ"{pS'N%,9nF/|IZ6RGUg*ؘK,'7ʓe-Qp6FOnhbT.>/rj{%ҷ6ft.ш˲U޲XxΤ2^Hr$`A qNmo^#!$UNE % 0( 1uUN6 U> 0l 0D. 1r ^ w@ 4E Y 0gh  m 1 0o 1 1u 1 1 1 rM 01 0=8 0u 0>= 0{ 0E 0 0a 0 0 09v 0 02 0 0: 0 0_x 0  0k 0L B* D3= Cp D+ 0 0| 06c 0 0:! 0h! 0FC"U6"U*"UN""7#MY# 0]# 1# 1o$ 1$ 1}% 1& 1& 1' 1' 1 ( 1( 0.) 1) 0C*UjB* 0N+ 1e+ 1+s, 1l.l. 1. 1z/ 100 100000 B1HP LaserJet 4P,,,,,,0(hH  Z6Times New Roman RegularX($3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular\  `&Times New Roman((2$ !      0  (#$  0  (EGMSY_ekqAutoList141.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.l, ,,,D,,,U,,,,Dv+:i+003|x,(?$25  0  .3  0@ "U %iEGMSY_ekqAutoList15IIA.IIIIIIIIIIII(WMR$0 25  a  .3  0` (#(#(5EGMSY_ekqAutoList16IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII YhEGMSY_ekqAutoList17IIA.A.IIIIIIIIII(UEGMSY_ekqAutoList18IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII EGMSY_ekqAutoList19I.I.A.I.I.I.I.I.(EGMSY_ekqAutoList20IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII In Inin Init itc]onsistentu]nder i]f0.Normal<:Definition T<GD:Definition L , ;1` hp x (#;  8.` hp x (#886Definition('z&H1      XXX(o&H2  XXX(o&H3  XXX(&H4 XXX XXX(o&H5  XXX(o&H6  XXX20Address8SP6Blockquote , , ;1` hp x (#;   8.` hp x (#8,*CITE,dl*CODEK:<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis6&)4Hyperlink            <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K:<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk (#/K:<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk (#/<:zBottom of I014$ ** ddI  B    ?;%2A`Arial?921*  dd9  XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS  &0 d d////'dxddd'dxd<:zTop of ForI014$** ddI  B    ?;%2A`Arial?921*  dd9  XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS  0Kl.SampleK:<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK:<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable:8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New%2A`Arial(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular     (c$0  0` (#(#2  A  .3  0 ` (#` (#(%EGMSY_ekqAutoList21I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.(5EGMSY_ekqAutoList22IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII(EEGMSY_ekqAutoList23IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII(OEGMSY_ekqAutoList24i.i.i.i.i.i.i.i.(eEGMSY_ekqAutoList25I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.(hCEKQW]cioAutoList9IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII uEGMSY_ekqAutoList26IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII TCEKQW]cioAutoList3II1.IIIIIIIIIIII(EGMSY_ekqAutoList27IXIXIXIXIXIXIXIX EGMSY_ekqAutoList28I.I.A.I.I.I.I.I.L! 6Brief bodyBrief body            (UEGMSY_ekqAutoList30I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.P! 8Quoted TextQuoted Text            \  `*Times New RomanTT(O$(EGMSY_ekqAutoList29IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII(eEGMSY_ekqAutoList31I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.  $    1    _ԀDXXDSprintdidnotfileanapplicationuntilafterthePlanningCommissionhearings,  andthereforelacksstandingtoparticipateinthisappeal.Nonetheless,theTownplacedaSprintconsultantsreportinRecordtransmittedtotheCircuitCourt.App.at2.#Dt##X>XDU#(EGMSY_ekqAutoList12IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII(EGMSY_ekqAutoList32A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(EGMSY_ekqAutoList33A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(EGMSY_ekqAutoList34A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(EGMSY_ekqAutoList13I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I. d !  _8>XXdd8X XXX  XX TABLEOFCONTENTS  TableofContents.....................................................i#X X#XX #D反#DTableofCitations.....................................................ivStatementoftheCase..................................................1#D##DStandardofReview.................................................#Di#D...2#D!#D#X X#XX   QuestionsPresented.................................................#Dm#D...3   #D}#DStatementofFacts.................................................#D#D.....4   Argument.................................................#D叕#D............8  #Dd#L  3L    D  "2  I  .3  0 `   #DM#<DTHETOWNOFTHURMONT,TOWNATTORNEY,TOWN  ZONINGADMINISTRATOR,ANDTOWNBOARDOFAPPEALSVIOLATEDAPPELLANTSCONSTITUTIONALDUEPROCESS#D<#<D  #D< #DRIGHTS"x݌` (#` (# Ќ     ` A.0 TheTownPlanningCommissions#D- #<DԀClosedMeetingonAugust  21,2000ViolatedAppellantsDueProcessRights#D< #<Dandthe  MarylandOpenMeetingsAct#D<叫 #D..........#D$ #D..#D叀 #D....#D #D..........9 (# (# Ѐ#D #D     ` B.0 #D古 #<DAppellant#D<'#<DsDueProcessRightsWereViolatedbytheTown   AttorneyWhoSimultaneouslyRepresentedandAdvisedtheTownofThurmont,theTownZoningAdministrator,the  (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#TownPlanningCommission,andtheTownofThurmont  (# (#    `  BoardofAppealsThroughouttheAppealProcess#D<r#DԀ........11#DP#D $ #D叩#D#X X可#XX    ` #D#DC.0 #D叝#<DAppellants#D<#<D#D<@#<DԀDueProcessRightsWereViolatedbytheTown& (# (#    `  ofThurmontZoningAdministratorWhoSimultaneously#D<叆#<D  '     `  WorkedFortheTownofThurmont,anInterestedParty   `  totheAntennaApplication#D<m#<D,andAdvisedtheIndependent )""    `  ThurmontPlanningCommission,andAlsoMadethe   `  DecisiontoGrantNextelaZoningCertificate#D<h#D#D叅#D............13 +$$  .'' Ї  TABLEOFCONTENTS#D##X>XDB#X XXX>XX    @ 7 ?   ?,0  0` (#(#2  D  .3  0 ` (#` (#  #D叝##X>XD#DXX><DAppellants#D<=#<D#D<叉#ԀDueProcessRightsWereViolatedbytheTown?,W݌  (# (# Ќ     ` 0 ofThurmontandtheThurmontBoardofAppealsThrough  (# (#    ` 0 <DtheProceduresandLimitationsImposed#D<#,andInadequate(  (# (#    ` 0 TimetoPrepareFor,theBoardofAppealsHearingon  (# (#    `  Oct.12,2000.......................................13DL Yh  L#Dc#D  II.0 ` THETHURMONTPLANNINGCOMMISSIONSSITEPLAN NF DENIALWASSUPPORTEDBYSUBSTANTIALEVIDENCE ` (#` (#    ` INAWRITTENRECORD#D#DԀ#D#DԀ..#DF#DԀ.................#D双#DԀ............#D#DԀ.16#DJ#D NF  #D叕#D  III.0 ` THECIRCUITCOURTERREDBYDENYINGNF ` (#` (#    ` APPELLANTSMOTIONTOSUPPLEMENTTHERECORD..21#D#D#X X#XX  NF  #D#D#X X #XX L BE( L#Dw #D0  IV.0` (#(#NEXTELSANDSPRINTSANTENNAS,CONCRETEPAD,NF` (#` (#   0 ` EQUIPMENT,BUILDING,WIRES,ANDFENCEDONOT ` (#` (#   0 ` CONSTITUTE MINORUTILITYINSTALLATIONSIN ` (#` (#    ` THETHURMONTZONINGORDINANCE#Dg!#DԀ............#D##DԀ.....#Dl##Ԁ22 NF L T((BL    D   ` A$2  A  .3  0   NextelandSprintAreNotPublicServiceUtilities........22#Dl$##X>XD #DXX>A$$݌nf (# (# Ќ  L U((TL       ` :&2  B  .3  0   NextelandSprintAreNot MinorUtilityInstallations...24:&}&݌tl (# (# Ќ    L De((ULD0  V.0` (#(#THETOWNOFTHURMONTAND#D'#D#X X友%#XX ԀZONINGADMINISTRATOR x ILLEGALLYFAILEDTOSTAYANTENNACONSTRUCTION ` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#ANDOPERATIONASREQUIREDBYTHEORDINANCEANDARTICLE66B#DX(#D#X X叚(#XX  #D句)#D .#D-*#D..........................................27"x` (#` (# #Dt*#D#X X)#XX L Fu (DL  VI.0 ` THE1996TELECOMMUNICATIONSACTDOESNOT$|` (#` (#    ` PREEMPTLOCALCONTROLOVERTHE HEALTH   ` EFFECTSOFWIRELESSRADIATION....................28  VII.0 ` THEBOARDSDECISIONVIOLATESSUBSTANTIVE(|!!` (#` (#    ` DUEPROCESSBYPLACINGAPPELLANTSINAN   ` UNCONTROLLEDMICROWAVERADIATION   ` EXPERIMENT#D0+#DԀ...........................................#D5.#D#X Xr+#XX #D.#D#X X/#XX Ԁ31#DT/#D +|$$ _ -|&& L @%( FL#D/#D  TABLEOFCONTENTS  #D古0#D#X X取/#XX 0Conclusion#D1#Ԁ.........................................................34D   TextofConstitutions,Statutes,Ordinances,Regulations,OtherAuthorities,  RulesandDefinitions............................................35#D92#D "  Appendix:0 ` #D]3#DPhotosoftheSprintandNextelWirelessAntennas,Building,"` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#Wires,andGroundEquipmentattheTownofThurmont ` (#` (#    ` Water#D3#D#X X`1#XX ԀTowersite...................................#D4#ԀDԀApp.p.1 "     ` March4,1999EngineeringReportbyJulesCohen.......App.p.2  <4  #D5#D  TABLEOFCITATIONS   6 CasesCited:0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#0p(#p(#0 (#(#0x (# (#0 x(#x(#Page (# (#  #D口6##X>XD25#MX>XXX>MDXMX>AmericanTelephoneAndTelegraphCo.v.StateDept.ofAssessmentsandTaxation,     345Md.596,603(1997)#DMDx8#""J(#.&2   8DAnneArundelCountyv.APacLimited,67Md.App.102,506A.2d671(1986)#D9#""J(#.T2MDDԈ   #DMDt:#5MDDAT&TWirelessPCS,Inc.v.VirginiaBeach,155F.3d423#DMD:#<DԀ(4thCir.1998)#D<a;#MDDԀ#DMD;#>(#.R14,1819,21   <D0   AT&TWirelessServicesv.MayorandCityCouncilofBaltimore, (#(#   123Md.App.681,693(1998)#D<:<#MDDP"P"I(#.,19#DMD(=#<DԈ   BoardofCountyCommissionersofCecilCountyv.Gaster,285Md.233(1979)#D<及=#P"P"I(#.  U20DDԈ   #DDN>#DD#DD>#MDD0   BoardofCountyCommissionersOfGarrettCountyv.BellAtlanticMaryland,Inc.,(#(#   346Md.160,173(1997)#DMD>#P"P"I(#.&23DԈ   #D?#DBouldenv.Mayor,311Md.411(1988)#DT@#P"P"I(#."".21DD  #DD@#<DCityofNewCarrolltonv.Rogers,287Md.56,72(1980)#D<6A#DD#DDA#""J(#.\\B9DD % #DDB#MDDCrownCommunicationsv.ZoningHearingBoardOfTheBoroughOfGlenfield, A9   705A.2d#DMDsB#MDD427,430(Pa.1997)#DMD3C#P"P"I(#.FF,23MDDԈ G? Freemanv.BurlingtonBroadcasters,Inc.,204F.3d311(2#DMDC#MDDnd#DMDDD#MDDԀCir.2000)#DMDD#DԀ#DD#P"P"I(#.  Q29 S K <DHarborIslandMarinav.CalvertCo.,286Md.303,311(1979)#D<WE#P"P"I(#.^^F26 i"a <DHarfordCountyv.McDonough,74Md.App.119,536A.2d724(1988)#D<F#""J(#.XXK2DԈ $w #D叵F#D#D G#<DHeathv.MayorofBaltimore,187Md.296,305(1946)#D<SG#D........................21#DG#D &  #DBH#MDDHillsboroughCounty,Floridav.AutomatedMed.Lab.,Inc.,471U.S.707(1985)#DMDH#P"P"I(#.4 4 X28D (!" HowardResearchandDev.Corp.v.ConcernedCitizensfortheColumbiaConcept, *#$   297Md.357,363(1983)#DSI# ! !E(#.&21,26DD +$% #DD`J#MDD  IowaWirelessServices,L.P.v.CityofMoline,Ill.,29F.Supp.2d915(C.D.Ill.1998)#DMDJ#DD.29 -&' #DDlK##X>XD8# X XXX>XX TABLEOFCITATIONS   J CasesCited:0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#0p(#p(#0 (#(#0x (# (#0 x(#x(#Page (# (#  #DK#MDDJ.W.Hampton,Jr.&Co.v.UnitedStates,276U.S.394,408(1928)#DMDM#P"P"I(#.L30D   #DGN#MDDMauerv.Hamilton,309U.S.598,614(1940)#DMDN#P"P"I(#.((528DԈ   #D0O#DMillerv.Pinto,305Md.396,403(1986)#D又O#P"P"I(#.221DԈ   0   #DP#MDDMistrettav.UnitedStates,488U.S.361,371372(1989)#DMDP##P"P"I(#.B(#(##30DԈ 6.  #D,Q#MDD#DMDQ#DMosemanv.CountyCouncilOfPrinceGeorgesCounty, B:    99MdApp.258,636A.2d499(1993)#DQ#""J(#.JJ22 B:  D#DR#<DTownofPalmBeachv.Gradison,296So.2d473,477(1974))#D< S#""J(#.((E9DԈ XP WharfatHandysPoint,Inc.v.Dept.ofNaturalResources,92Md.App.659(1992)#D句S#P"P"I(#.!!\21DԈ nf #DvT#D#DT#D   Constitutions |  6UU.S.Constitution,1stAmendment#DU#P"P"I(#.88*12DԈ | #DU#DU.S.Constitution,5thAmendment#DEV# ! !E(#.HH*12,13DԈ  U.S.Constitution,14thAmendment#DV#=(#.+12,13,31,33DԈ  MarylandDeclarationofRights,Art.6#DvW#P"P"I(#.012DԈ  MarylandDeclarationofRights,Art.8#DX#P"P"I(#.012DԈ   #D叭X#DMarylandDeclarationofRights,Art.19#DY#P"P"I(#.XX112DԈ ! #D友Y#DMarylandDeclarationofRights,Art.40#DY#P"P"I(#.XX115DԈ # #DiZ#D:  Statutes0 @` 0@ ` (#` (#0@ (# (#0@h(#(#0@h(#h(#0@(#(#0@p(#(#0@p(#p(#0@ (#(#0@x (# (#0@ x(#x(# % Z#DZ#MDD?+ 4 <DL!X?15U.S.C.2602(6)#DMDE\#Ԁ(ToxicSubstancesControlAct)P"P"I(#.tt<28 & MDD42U.S.C.2021(h)#DMD.]#P"P"I(#. 30MDDԈ '  42U.S.C.7412(a)(7)#DMD]#ԀMDD(CleanAirAct)#DMD^#ԀP"P"I(#.00129DԈ (!! #D叄^#MDD42U.S.C.7412(b)(2)#DMD^#P"P"I(#. 29DԈ )"" #DT_#MDD47U.S.C.332(c)(7)(B)(iii)#DMD_#P"P"I(#.pp'18DԈ *## #D+`#MDD47U.S.C.332(c)(7)(B)(iv)#DMD`# ! !E(#.dd&28,29DԈ +$$ #Da#D1996TelecommunicationsAct#D]a#@@9(#.``&14,22,29,30,31DԈ ,%% #Da#D1996TelecommunicationsAct,704(b)#D@b#P"P"I(#./30DԈ -&& #Db# D  TABLEOFCITATIONS #D%c#  Dc  DStatutes0 @` 0@ ` (#` (#0@ (# (#0@h(#(#0@h(#h(#0@(#(#0@p(#(#0@p(#p(#0@ (#(#0@x (# (#0@ x(#x(##Dc##X>XDL#DXX>   cMd.Code.Ann.,MDDPublicUtilityCompanies,1101(p)(Supp.2001)#DMD_e#P"P"I(#.K21   Md.Code.Ann.,MDDPublicUtilityCompanies,1101(bb)(2)(Supp.2001)#DMDf#P"P"I(#...O21   Md.Code.Ann.,MDDPublicUtilityCompanies,8201(p)(Supp.2001)#DMDf#P"P"I(#.K26   Md.Code.Ann.,MDDStateGovernment,10501(b)(1)(1999)#DMDg#x!x!F(#.A9,15 ,$ Md.Code.Ann.,MDDStateGovernment,10501(b)(2)(1999)#DMDAh#""J(#.A9 2*  Md.Code.Ann.,MDDStateGovernment,10503(b)(1999)#DMDh#P"P"I(#.>10 80  Md.Code.Ann.,MDDStateGovernment,10505(1999)#DMDi#""J(#.;9 >6  Md.Code.Ann.,MDDStateGovernment,10506(a)(1999)#DMDCj#P"P"I(#.>10 D<  Md.Code.Ann.,MDDStateGovernment,10506(b)(1999)#DMDj#P"P"I(#.>10 JB  Md.Code.Ann.,MDDStateGovernment,10508(a)(7)(1999)#DMDk#P"P"I(#.A10 PH Md.Code.Ann.,MDDStateGovernment,10508(a)(8)(1999)#DMDJl#P"P"I(#.A10 VN Md.Ann.Code.MDDart.66B(1998)#DMDl#@@9(#.(11,14,20,27,34 bZ Md.Ann.Code.MDDart.66B,2.08(1998)#DMDm#P"P"I(#.027 h` Md.Ann.Code.MDDart.66B,3.08(1998)#DMD:n#P"P"I(#.019 nf Md.Ann.Code.MDDart.66B,4.07(d)(1998)#DMDn#P"P"I(#.321 tl Md.Ann.Code.MDDart.66B,5.03#DMDyo#MDDԀ(1998)#DMDo#P"P"I(#.027 zr    Ordinances  ~ KpTownofThurmont,MarylandZoningOrdinance,March2000Revision  Art.I,2P"P"I(#. 17#X>XD e#DXX>Ԉ !   Art.V,1.01.6 ! !E(#. !17,24#X>XD/q#DXX>Ԉ " #X>XDq#DXX>  Art.VIII,2.4P"P"I(#.Z Z 17#X>XD!r#DXX>Ԉ # #X>XDr#DXX>  Art.IX,1.1P"P"I(#. #X>XDr#DXX>17 $ #X>XDss#DXX>  Art.IX,3.4A(#. 25,26,27#X>XDs#DXX>#X>XDRt#DXX>Ԉ % #X>XDt#DXX>  Art.XI,2P"P"I(#.( ( 15#X>XDt#DXX>Ԉ & #X>XDgu#DXX>  Art.XI,3.2P"P"I(#. 21#X>XDu#DXX>Ԉ '  #X>XD  Art.XI,3.5P"P"I(#. 27#X>XDv#DXX>Ԉ (!! #X>XDw#DXX>  Art.XI,4.2 ! !E(#. 20,21#X>XDiw#DXX>Ԉ )"" #X>XDw#DXX>  Art.XIV=(#.  24,25,26,27 *## #X>XDBx#DXX>  Art.XIV,2.0P"P"I(#.f f 26#X>XDx#DXX>Ԉ +$$ #X>XDUy#DXX>#X>XDy#DXX> -&& <D #D<$z#D  TABLEOFCITATIONS   #Dlz#<D#<X X<y#<X<X z#D<z##X>XD){#DXX>D   Regulations    {#D叿{#MDD47C.F.R.24.103#DMDJ|#P"P"I(#." " 22MDDԈ   ,47C.F.R.,#DMD|#,MDDԀ90.685(b)(9)#DMDT}#P"P"I(#.P P #22,MDD,,47C.F.R.,24.,203#DMD}#DԀ#D~#P"P"I(#.X X 22MDDԈ   #DMDw~#,<D,#D<~#,,,MDD47C.F.R._,,90.685,,,203,,,#DMD0#D_Ԁ#D#MDDP"P"I(#.X X 22#DMD#MDDԈ $ #DMDz#<D#<X X<叠{#<X<X ,ThurmontSubdivisionRegulations,Art.I,1.1#D<叾##X>XD#DXX>P"P"I(#.FF:27 :2  D#X X叞#XX  #D#  OtherAuthorities  PH  |MarylandOpenMeetingsComplianceBoardOpinion921,October15,1992P"P"I(#.P10 \T MarylandOpenMeetingsComplianceBoardOpinion9311,November30,1993P"P"I(#.: : R10 bZ MarylandOpenMeetingsComplianceBoardOpinion9509,<DNovember21,1995#D<#P"P"I(#.L L R15 h` D#Dv#D   Rules ~v  ܄#D叺#MDDSecondMemorandumOpinionandOrder,12F.C.C.Rcd.13494(1997)at111#DMD?#P"P"I(#.Q30MDDԈ ~v #DMD#DMarylandRuleofProfessionalConduct1.7#DF#P"P"I(#.412DԈ |    Definitions !   #DІ#D MinorUtilityInstallations(MUI)#Ds# E(#.../Passim#X>XD2#X XXX>Ԉ  # 3\   XX STATEMENTOFTHECASE   #D#_<D    Thiscaseisaboutaresidentsopposedtotwowirelesstelecommunicationsystems 0 constructedonawatertoweronanadjoiningresidentiallotinThurmont,Maryland.Appellantschallengeillegalaspectsoftheprocessusedtoobtainthezoningapprovaltoconstructandoperatethesystems,andtheThurmontZoningOrdinanceatissueinthecase.  InMay2000theCommissionersoftheTownofThurmont,MarylandenteredintocontractswithNextel#D<#DCommunicationsofftheMidAtlantic,Inc.(Nextel)#D+#<DԀandSprintPCS   (Sprint)toleaseanexisting84foottall#D<叟#<DwatertowerinaresidentiallotzonedR1and 0  locatedat109SunhighDriveinThurmont,Marylandforwirelesscommunicationsantennas,buildingsandequipment.RecordExtract#D<0#<D( E)at12(Nextellease)and21(Sprintlease). 0  Ѐ#D<7#<D  OnJuly27,2000#D<ȋ#<DԀtheThurmontPlanningCommission( Commission)#D<&#<D#<X X<q#<X<X Ԁheldapublic  hearingtoevaluatethewirelesssystemsiteplansproposedbyNextelandSprintfortheThurmontwatertowersite.TheCommissionvotedtodenythesiteplans.#D<叞#DE70.OnAug.  21,2002aclosedmeetingoftheCommissionwasheld.#D#DThreedayslater,onAug.24,2000, 0 asecondpublichearingbeforetheCommissionwasheld.TheCommissionvotedtoapprovethesiteplan.E101.OnSeptember7,2000aZoningCertificatewasissuedtoNextel.E105.Appealsweretaken,andonOct.12,2000theThurmontBoardofAppealshelda#D参#D#X X#XX Ԁpublichearing.TheBoardvoted32toapproveNextelsZoningCertificate.E178. 0" #D#D  AppellantsappealedtotheCircuitCourtofMarylandforFrederickCounty.#D#DԀOnJan. $ 13,2001AppellantsfiledaMotionforTROandStay.ThemotionwasdeniedonJan.24,2001.OnFeb.3,2001theAppellantsfiledaMotiontoSupplementtheRecordwiththetranscriptoftheCommissionpublichearings.ThismotionwasdeniedonFeb.26,2001.πOnFeb.20,2001DanielP.Meyer,Esq.wasadmittedprohacvicetorepresentAppellants. %!,   OnOct.17,2001ahearingwasheldbeforetheHonorableJohnH.TisdaleoftheFrederickCountyCircuitCourt.JudgeTisdaleissuedanOpinionandOrderonNov.9,2001denyingAppellantsappeal.Appellantsfileda#D叉#D#X XC#XX ԀMotionforReconsideration.Judge 0*%2 Tisdaledenied#DP#D#X X叒#XX ԀthisonDec.11,2001.OnDec.17,2001Appellantstimelynotedanappeal +'4 fromtheCircuitCourtforFrederickCountytotheCourtofSpecialAppeals. 0-(6 Ї   STANDARDOFREVIEW   Rc#D#D#X X\#XX   Thestandardofreviewofanadministrativedecisioniswhethertheadministrative 0 agencysdecisionisinaccordancewiththelaworwhetheritisarbitrary,illegalorcapricious.Mosemanv.CountyCouncilOfPrinceGeorgesCounty,99MdApp.258,636 0  A.2d499(1993).Whentheissueis#DΖ#<DconcernssolelytheinterpretationofaCountyZoning   Code,itis anissueofstatutoryconstructionandaquestionoflaw...[andin]suchacasethecourt'sreviewisexpansive,thatis,theappellatecourtmaysubstituteitsjudgmentforthatoftheadministrativeagency."HarfordCountyv.McDonough,74Md.App.119,536 0  A.2d724(1988)(internalcitationsomitted).  However,#D<叶#Dacourtmaynotsubstituteitsjudgmentforthezoningbody,absentan 0  agencyabuseofdiscretion,iftheagencysactionisbaseduponsubstantialevidenceandtheissueisfairlydebatable: Iftheissuesbeforethezoningboardarefairlydebatable,thatis,thatitsdeterminationinvolvedevidencefromwhichareasonablemancouldcometodifferentconclusions,thecourtswillnotsubstitutetheirjudgmentforthatoftheadministrativebody.#D叿#DԀAnneArundelCountyv.APacLimited,67Md.App.102,506A.2d  671(1986).#D##X>XD#DXX>D 0 #D՝#MDD#MX>XMD#MDXMX>  UnderMarylandlaw, [t]heconstructionofastatuteisaquestionoflaw,andas   betweenagencyandcourt,thequestionisultimatelydecidedbyacourt.American 9" TelephoneAndTelegraphCo.v.StateDept.ofAssessmentsandTaxation,345Md.596,603 $ (1997)(citationsomitted).Relevanthereisthat [i]fanagencypermitsawitnesstotestifyconcerningthemeaningofastatute,andeveniftheagencyagreeswiththeconclusionofthewitness,thatprocessdoesnotconverttheagencysstatutoryconstructionintoafactualdeterminationbytheagencytowhichacourtmustdefer.Id.at604.#MX>XMDn##X>XXMX>,#X XXX>XX   %6!, ˖   QUESTIONSPRESENTED   (#Dš#DI.0  WHETHER#D叜#<DTHETOWNOFTHURMONT,TOWNATTORNEY,TOWN  ZONINGADMINISTRATOR,ANDTOWNBOARDOFAPPEALSVIOLATEDAPPELLANTSCONSTITUTIONALDUEPROCESS#D<#<DԀ#D<#DRIGHTS. (#(# #D+#L Yh (@LDII.0  WHETHER#D#DԀTHETHURMONTPLANNINGCOMMISSIONSSITEPLAN   DENIALWASSUPPORTEDBYSUBSTANTIALEVIDENCEINAWRITTENRECORD#D9#D. (#(# III.0  WHETHERTHECIRCUITCOURTERREDBYDENYINGAPPELLANTS   MOTIONTOSUPPLEMENTTHERECORD#D#D.#D#D#X X#XX  (#(# #D%#DIV.0  #Dɧ#DWHETHER#D#DԀNEXTELANDSPRINTSANTENNAS,CONCRETEPAD,  EQUIPMENT,BUILDING,WIRES,ANDFENCECONSTITUTE MINORUTILITYINSTALLATIONSINTHETHURMONTZONINGORDINANCE.#Df#D(#(# L De( LV.0  #Db#DWHETHER#D #DԀTHETOWNOFTHURMONTAND#Di#D#X Xg#XX ԀZONINGADMINISTRATOR  ILLEGALLYFAILEDTOSTAYANTENNACONSTRUCTIONANDOPERATIONASREQUIREDBYTHEORDINANCEANDARTICLE66B.#DĪ#DԀ(#(# L Fu (DLVI.0  WHETHER#D۫#DԀTHE1996TELECOMMUNICATIONSACTPREEMPTSLOCAL  CONTROLOVERTHE HEALTHEFFECTSOFWIRELESSCOMMUNICATIONSFACILITIES. (#(# VII.0  WHETHER#D叧#DԀTHEBOARDSDECISIONVIOLATESSUBSTANTIVEDUE  PROCESSBYPLACINGAPPELLANTSINANUNCONTROLLEDMICROWAVERADIATIONEXPERIMENT#D叫#D.#D参#D (#(# L O( FL#DŮ#DL @%((OL#Ds#D  #  #D#D  STATEMENTOFFACTS   #Du#<D  InMay2000theTownof#D<#<D#<X X<#<X<X ԀThurmont,Maryland#D<e#<D#<X X<叧#<X<X ԀCommissionerscontractedwith 0 #D<#DNextel#D右#<DԀandSprinttoleasean84foottall#D<#<DwatertankinanR1zonedlotat109Sunhigh  DriveinThurmont,MDforwirelesscommunicationsantennasandbuildings.#D<b#<DԀE1226.#D</#<DԀ 0    ApublichearingwasheldbeforetheThurmontPlanningCommission( Commission)onJuly27,2000toevaluatetheNextelandSprintsiteplansforthewatertowersite.TheTownStaffReportadvisedthatcommunicationsequipmentonthegroundmustberelocated,evergreenscreeningshouldbeplacearoundthegroundequipment,a#D<{#<DndtheThurmontZoningOrdinance( Ordinance)doesnotpermitthesix   footchainlinkfenceproposedaroundthesite.E27.#D<.#<D#<X X<>#<X<X  0    AttheJuly27,2000hearingNextel(JackAndrews)#D<#<D#<X X<H#<X<X ԀandSprint(NormanRay)  representativesdescribedthefacilities#D<ݷ#<D.#D<叶#<DԀMr.Raystatedthattheequipmentbuilding 0 compound,evenifmovedtotheback,wouldbevisiblefromneighboringproperties,thatSprintsequipmentwasfivefeettalland3footwide,andthattheareaSprintwastryingtocoverwasRoute15.E3435.Route15isadesignatedscenicbyway.E41.#D<#<DԀNextels  equipmentwouldgeneratenoisefrom#D<叄#<DԀanairconditioner.E36.Sprintsantennasareover 0 fivefeettall,andrequirea7ft.highplatformonthetopofthewatertower.E38.Sprint   wouldhavesixantennastransmittingorreceiving100wattseach,andNextelwouldhave12antennasat80wattseach.E39.Nextelsequipmentbuildingis12ftx20ft.x $ 10ft.forproposedandexpandeduse.E39.TheCountystafferlikenedNextels 0!& buildingtoatwocargarage,whichwouldbe substantialaccordingtoMr.Ray.E3940.#D< #<DAsixfootchainlinkfencewouldbeplacedaroundtheequipmentbuilding.E40.#D<号#<DԀ 0$* Ѐ#D<R#<DԀ#D<叭#<D  AttheJuly27,2000hearing25personssignedinand/ortestifiedinobjectionto %!, theapplications.#D<#<DԀAppellantJosephBarbourobjectedtoandexpressedconcernsaboutthe 0'". sixfootfencenexttohisproperty,neighborhoodkidsgettinghurtonthefence,andliability.E41.HisspouseTracyBarbourreiteratedtheconcernsaboutthefence.E44. 0*%2   AppellantLaTrelleRemingtontestifiedthatshewasveryupsetsincethewatertowerwasessentiallyinherbackyard.E54#D<叽#<D.#D<司#<DSheexpressedconcernforthehealthofher 0-(6 threeyoungchildrenwhostayathome24hoursadaysevendaysaweek.E54.#D<#<DԀShe  testifiedthatshewouldhavenotboughtherhouseifsheknewtheantennaswouldbeinstalled,becauseherfamilywantedtoliveinastrictlyresidentialarea.#D<#<DԀE54.Regarding  aesthetics,shetestifiedthatherchildrenenjoytheviewofthewatertowerasitisbecauseitlookedlikethemoon.E54.Sheexpressedconcernthateventuallyshewouldnotbe   abletocontainher3yearoldchildfrominvestigatingthesite.E54.#D<#<DԀShechallengedthe 0   applicantsastowhystudieswerestillongoingiftheradiationwassafe.E54.#D<_#<DԀ   #D<!#<D#<X X<#<X<X ԀNumerousresidentsraisedtheseandotherconcernsorquestions:whycouldntthe 0  antennasbelocatedupinthehillsratherthaninthemiddleofaresidentialneighborhood(E4445);#<X X<叽##X>XX<X {#DXX><DԀwhethertherewasenoughroomforthefencetakingintoaccountallrequired 0  setbacks(E45);#D<##X>XD#<X XXX><X<X Ԁreservationsabouthealtheffects#<X X<#<X<X #D<#<D,whetheralternativesiteswere  adequatelyconsidered(E4546);#D<叻##X>XDy#DXX><Dtheproprietyofrunningacommercialbusinessina 0 residentialneighborhood(E4750);concernaboutthehealthofchildrenwhowouldbe  150feetfrommicrowaveantennas(E50);thattheirhouseacrossthestreetfromthetowerwastheir dreamhome,(E51);objectionstothesightofthebuilding#D<叓#<D#<X X<t#<X<X Ԁandadesire  forprettystreetsandforanothersitetobefound(E51);#D<9#<D#<X X<{#<X<X Ԁconcernsfromacancersurvivor 0 requestingprooftheradiationwouldbesafe(E51);#D<##X>XD[#<X XXX><X<X oppositiontothetowerasjustabout   intheirfrontyardandasuggestionthatthetownshouldstudytheissuesomemore(E56);#D</##X>XDN#DXX><DԀobjectionstotheantennasduetohealtheffectsonthebrain,motorfunctions, $ memory,andincreasesinleukemia,whichoccurevenatexposuresbelowtheallowablelevel,andthenumerousstudiesstillcomingoutinthepastfewmonths#D<l#<D#<X X<M#<X<X Ԁ(E56);thevisual "( impactontheirpropertypurchasedearlierthesameyearandlocated#D<可##X>XD#<X XXX><X<X caddycornertothe 0$* tower,andobjectiontoacommercialentitynowmovingintothearea(E56);#D<#<DԀ#D<叝#<D#<X X<#<X<X objection %!, totheviewfromabedroomwindowfacingthetowerandinvisiblerangeevenwithtreesplanted,andthattheantennaswouldbenoticedallthetime#D<#<D#<X X<"#<X<X Ԁ(E58);#D<#<Dthatalltheyhad ($0 talkedaboutforweekswaswheretomovenowthattheantennas#D<古#<DԀwereproposed(E59);#D<N#<D 0*%2 questionsaboutexpansionplansforthe#D<叫#<D#<X X<X#<X<X Ԁ12ft.x20ft.x10ft.Nextelequipmentbuilding +'4 (E59);testimonyfromDoloresMunafothatherfamilymovedinthepreviousDecember 0-(6 andpaidover$200,00forherhouseandtheyobjectedtotheuglynatureoftheantennasonthetowerwhichcouldbringpropertyvaluesdownormakeithardtosellahouse,andherconcernasacancersurvivorovertheantennaradiation(E60);#D<)#<DԀamazementatthesize  oftheNextelbuilding(E63);#D<X#<DԀconcernaboutlackofinformationaboutthepowerofthe 0  antennas,andtogivingthecompaniescarteblanchetocomeinandputtinginwhatevertheywanted(E63);#D<#<DandconcernaboutTownliabilityexposurefordamagesduetohealth 0   effects(E64).#D<#<D#<X X<k#<X<X    #<X X<#<X<X #D<叐#<D  ThurmontZoningAdministrator(ZA)RichardMaystatedthattherewasno 0  guidancefortheplanningprocessregardingthewatertower.E49.#D<k#<DԀMr.Maystatedthat   therearenowrittenrestrictions toindicateonewayoranotherwhetheritspermissibleornot.E57.#D<^#<DԀCommissionerMooreexpressedreservationsoverwhetherthewater  towerpropertywaszonedfortheproposedantennaoperation.E58.#D<B#<DԀ#D<##<D#<X X<)#<X<X  0 #D<f#<D  Afterthepublictestimony,#D<#<DԀGlennMuth,thePlanningCommissionChair#D<h#<D#<X X<叨#<X<X ,stated  therestrictionstobeplacedonthesite:(1)nogeneratorbackup,toaddresscomplaintsaboutnoise;(2)nonighttimecontractor#<X X<#<X<X #D<#<DԀaccesstothesite(daytimeaccessonly);(3)no  externallighting;(4)noexternalequipmentatall,anyequipmentwouldhavetobeinshelterssurroundedbyboardonboardfenceorsomethingcomparable,justaroundtheequipment;(5)antennaswouldhavetomatchthecolorofthetank;(6)Sprintwouldhavetoprovidecallinnumberswithahumanvoiceratherthanvoicemail#D<:#<DԀforthe $ neighboringresidencesforwhenaproblemarises;(7)thecallinnumberwouldassignatraceabletroubleticketnumber,witha24hourresponsefromSprintorNextel.E6061.#D< #<DԀ "(   CommissionChairmanMuthpointedoutthatjustaweekearliertheCommissionhadrequiredawatertowermovedduetoasingleresidentsconcern,andthatonthisnight(July27,2000)therewas awholeroomfullofresidentswithconcernsandweneedtotakethemintoaccountIthink.E61.#D< #<DԀCommissionerBlakesleequestioned ($0 whethertheapplicantshadtestedalternativesites,statingapreferencefortheapplicantstouseasecondtowertoreducetheamountofmicrowavesexposurethatsomanyresidentswereconcernedabout,andthatthisshouldbelookedat.E62#D<叹#<D.ChairmanMuth 0-(6 statedthat Ialsohaverealconcernsaboutabusinessoperatinginaresidentialarea.E62.#D<+#<DԀFurtherCommissiondiscussioncenteredonsecurity,andhowananimalcouldset 0 offanautomaticsecuritylight,whichChairmanMuthhadprohibited.E63#D<#<D.  #D<#<DCommissionerHooperaskediftheprojectwasdenied,wouldtheapplicantssearchfor 0  othersites,andMr.Ray(Sprint)replied Orappealthedecision.E65#D<E#<D.#D<C#<D   #D<叇#<D  CommissionerBlakesleestatedthathewouldnotapprovethesiteplanbecause 0   therewerechangesrequestedonit,requestingassurancetheantennascouldnotbelocatedonanothertower,andrecognizedthat yougotalltheneighborhoodagainstititsgoingtobeaproblemtheentiretimeitsthere.E68#D<#<D.TheCommissionthen   discussedthecommercialnatureoftheantennasinaresidentialzonedarea.E68.The#D<叅#<DCommissionthevotedtodenybothsiteplans.#D<H#<D    NextelandSprintbothsentlettersdatedAugust1,2000#D<叽#<DԀtoThurmontMayor 0 EileenR.Waeschetorequestreconsiderationand#D<X#<DԀtotransmitarevisedsiteplan#D<#<D.E7475.  OnAug.21,2000,ZARichardMaycalled#D<S#<DԀforacloseddoormeetingofthePlanning 0 Commission.#D<#<DԀE136.TownAttorneyCliffordBridgfordranthemeetingandadvisedthe  Commission.E136,139.Asaresultofthecloseddoormeeting,theCommission#D<h#<Dhelda 0 secondpublichearingonAugust24,2000.Thehearingwaslimitedtoareconsiderationofthesiteplanoriginallysubmitted.E80,middle.#D<V#<DԀTheTownAttorneyprohibitedthe#D<?#<D#<X X<#<X<X  0" publicfromspeakingabouttheirconcernsoverthehealtheffectsofmicrowaveradiationfromtheproposedantennas.E87.TheTownAttorneyclaimedthatareasonforthe 0!& secondmeetingonAugust24wasthatnoreasonswerestatedforthedenialofthesiteplanattheJuly27,2000hearing.E80.#D<叢#<DTheTownAttorneyparticipatedinandadvised 0$* theCommissiononwhattodothroughouttheAugust24,2000hearing.E8082,8788,100#D<叁#<D.Atthehearingapetitionwithabout200namesinoppositionwaspresentedtothe 0'". Commission.E81#D<c#<D.CommissionerBlakesleemovedtocontinuethesiteplanstoreview ($0 thechangetothecharacterandnatureoftheneighborhoodregardingsafetyandaesthetics.#D<##<DԀE101#D<#<D.Ultimatelyt#D<i#<D#<X X<#<X<X heCommissionvotedtoapprovetheNextelandSprintsite +'4 plansbya21vote.E101.#D<叹#<D 0-(6   #D<另#<DOnAugust31,2000,NextelappliedforaZoningCertificate.E104.OnSep.7,  2000Thurmont#D< #<D#<X X<#<X<X ԀissuedNextelaZoningCertificate.E105.Severalappealsfollowed. 0 E184195.OnSep.27,2000theTownsentoutanoticeofappeal.E199.OnSep.28,2000anewspapernoticefortheOct.12,2000Thurmont#D<叽#<D#<X X<#<X<X BoardofAppealshearing#D<*#<D#<X X<l#<X<X was 0  published.E197.CounselforAppellantsrequestedanextensionoftimeonSep.30,andOctober9,2000,butthiswasdeniedbytheBoardonOctober10.E211.  OnOct.12,2000apublichearinglastingaboutfivehours#<X X< #<X<X #D<#<DԀuntilmidnightwasheld   beforetheBoardofAppeals.AtthebeginningofthehearingAppellants#D<双#<D#<X X<J#<X<X Ԁcounsel 0  requestedtopostponethehearing,tomovetoalargerroom,therecusaloftheTownAttorneywhowasadvisingtheBoardinaproceedinginwhichtheTownwasaparty,andobjectedtoconflictsregardingRichardMaywhoasTownZoningAdministratorworemanyhatsfortheTownandwastotestifyasonbehalfoftheTown.E108109.  DuringAppellantsopeningstatementtheBoardChairforcedatelevisioncameraandreportertoleavethehearingroom.E111#D<G#<D.TheBoardvotedtolimiteachwitnessto 0 fiveminutes,over#D<#<DԀAppellantsobjection.E119120#D<[#<D.#D<#<DԀAppellantsand#D<#<DԀseveralwitnesses  testifiedinopposition,expressingmanyofthesameconcernsvoicedatthePlanningCommissionmeetings.#D<X#<DԀ   ӀAdditionalfactsfromtheRecordExtract(E)willbeaddedasneededforargument.#D<+#D   =*ARGUMENT  0 $ `L Pe((@L    2e  I  .3  0    #D#<DTHETOWNOFTHURMONT,TOWNATTORNEY,TOWNZONING 0"& ADMINISTRATOR,ANDTOWNBOARDOFAPPEALSVIOLATEDAPPELLANTSCONSTITUTIONALDUEPROCESS#D<口#<DԀ#D<叅#DRIGHTS'݌0$((#(# Ќ    #D#<DTheTownofThurmontanditsofficialsandattorneyviolatedAppellantsdue 0&!* processrightsundertheU.S.ConstitutionandMarylandDeclarationofRightsinseveraldistinctways.ThecombinedeffectwastodenyAppellantsfairhearings,andafairprocessoverall.ThiscouldhavebeeneasilyavoidediftheTownhadappointedspecialcounselorrecusedtheTownAttorneyfromparticipatingfromazoningmattertowhichtheTownwasaninterestedparty. -)4 =* =  =  #D<#D    ` A.0 TheTownPlanningCommissions#D ##X>XD#DXX><DԀClosedMeetingonAugust  21,2000ViolatedAppellantsDueProcessRights#D< #<Dandthe  MarylandOpenMeetingsAct#D<叚 #D.#D #DԀ (# (#  #D[ #<D,   AfterthePlanningCommissionruledagainsttheTown,NextelandSprint,t#D< #<Dhe  ThurmontZoningAdministrator,TownAttorney,andThurmontPlanningCommissionheldaclosedmeetingonAug.21,2000.Therewasnopublicnoticeofthismeeting.#D<v #<D     TheMarylandOpenMeetingsAct,codifiedintheMarylandCodein#D<t#<D#<X X< #<X<X Ԁthe#D<#<D#<X X<Y#<X<X State 0   Government(SG)#<X X<#<X<X #D<叠#<DԀArticle,10501(b)(1)(1999),#D<叏#<D#<X X<M#<X<X Ԁrequiresopendecisionmakingby   governmentalbodies.Thepurposeistoensure theaccountabilityofgovernmenttothecitizensofthisState,andbecause [t]heconductofpublicbusinessinopenmeetingsincreasesthefaithofthepublicingovernmentandenhancestheeffectivenessofthepublicinfulfillingitsroleinademocraticsociety.SGArt.10501(b)(2)(1999)#<X X<6#<X<X #D<#<D.The  generalruleisthatifapublicbodyismeetingonthesubjectmattercoveredbytheOpenMeetingsActthenthebodymustmeetinopensession.SGArt.#<X X<#<X<X #D<[#<DԀ10505(1999)#D<叓#<D#<X X<Q#<X<X .#D<#<DԀThe  CourtofAppealshasobservedthat everystepoftheprocess...constitutestheconsiderationortransactionofpublicbusiness,andquotedwithapprovalaFloridacase,stating:o0  Onepurposeofthegovernmentinthesunshinelawwastopreventatnonpublicmeetingsthecrystallizationofsecretdecisionstoapointjustshortofceremonialacceptance.Rarelycouldtherebeanypurposetoanonpublicpremeetingconferenceexcepttoconductsomepartofthedecisionalprocessbehindcloseddoors.Thestatuteshouldbeconstruedsoastofrustrateallevasivedevices.Thiscanbeaccomplishedonlybeembracingthecollectiveinquiryanddiscussionstageswithinthetermsofthestatute.d (#(# #D<n#<DCityofNewCarrolltonv.Rogers,287Md.56,72(1980)(citingTownofPalmBeachv. 0% ( Gradison,296So.2d473,477(1974)). &"*   TheThurmontPlanningCommissionisapublicbodysubjecttothisAct.Itsmeetingsmustbeopentothepublic.TheActappliestoapublicbodywhenitismeetingtoconsidergrantinglicenseorpermits,oraspecialexception,variance,conditionaluse,zoning,classification,enforcementofanyzoninglaworregulation,oranyotherzoning ,(2 matter.SGArt.#D<#<D#<X X<*#<X<X Ԁ10503(b)(1999)#<X X<叛#<X<X #D<Y#<D.#D<5#<DԀTheTownAttorneyadmittedthatthesubjectofthe  closedmeetingwastheCommissionssiteplandenial,thereconsiderationrequestsbyNextelandSprint,andthepossibilityoflitigationbetweenSprintandthetown#D<x#<D.E139.  EveniftheActslitigationexception(SGArt.#D<召#<D#<X X<#<X<X Ԁ10508(a)(8))couldbeproperlyinvoked 0  forthepartofthemeetingdiscussingpotentiallitigation,therestofthemeeting#D<=#<Dshould   havebeenopen.The legaladviceexception,SGArt.#D<X#<D#<X X<#<X<X Ԁ10508(a)(7),permitsapublic 0   bodytoconsultwithcounselinclosedsession,butthisexception istobenarrowlyconstruedtocoveronlytheinterchangebetweentheclinicpublicbodyanditslawyerinwhichtheclientseeksadviceandthelawyerprovidesit.MarylandOpenMeetingsCompliance#D<#<DBoardOpinion921,at5,October15,1992.This exceptiondoesnotallow 0  forcloseddiscussionamongmembersofthepublicbodymerelybecauseanissuehaslegalramifications.Nordoestheexceptionapplytoadiscussionbetweenthepublicbodyandanyoneotherthanitslawyer.ComplianceBoardOpinion9311,at2November30,1993(citingBoardOpinion921,at3)(emphasisadded).  TheTownAttorneyandPlanningCommissionChairtestifiedthattheclosedmeetingwascalledbytheZoningAdministrator(ZA)#D<!#<D#<X X<3 #<X<X .Appellantsarguethatmeeting 0 wasactuallyinitiatedbytheTownAttorney,basedonhisdefactorunningofthesubsequentAugust24,2000PlanningCommissionmeeting.However,ineithercase,itisclearthattheCommissiondidnotcallthemeeting,andwasreceiving,ratherthatseeking,advice.Itistheseekingofadvicewhichisrequiredtoinvoketheexception#D<7$#<D. 0!& TheCommissionisnotaclientoftheTownAttorneyfromwhomitcouldseekorreceiveadvice.Finally,theZAisanofficialdistinctfromtheCommissionbody,sodiscussionsbetweentheZAandtheCommissiondonotfallunderthe legaladviceexception.  Evenifasessionmaybeclosedunderanexception,thepublicbodymustgive reasonableadvancenoticeofthesession.SGArt.#D<C&#<D#<X X<y$#<X<X Ԁ10506(a)(1999)#<X X<}(#<X<X #D<;(#<D.Thepublic ($0 bodyshouldgiveawrittennoticethatincludesthedate,time,andplaceofitsmeeting,andstateifallorpartofthemeetingwillbeaclosedsession.SGArt.#D<)#<D#<X X<(#<X<X Ԁ10506(b) +'4 (1999)#<X X<`*#<X<X #D<*#<D.#D<+#<DԀNoadvancenoticeoftheclosedsessionmeetingwasprovided,sotheTown 0-(6 committedasecondviolationoftheOpenMeetingsAct.Inaddition,withoutanadequatepublicrecord,thedivisionoflegislative,executiveandadjudicatorypowerscreatedbyArticle66BoftheMarylandCodemayhavebeenviolated.#D<Q+#<D#<X X<*#<X<X     EvenifitdidnotviolatetheOpenMeetingsAct,thisclosedmeetingviolatesAppellants#D<,#<DԀdueprocessandequalprotectionrights.IftheTownortheapplicantswere   dissatisfiedwithavoteofthePlanningCommission,itisuptothemtoappeal,notfortheTowntouseitsattorneytotwistthearmsoftheCommissioninasecretmeeting.Sprintevenrecognizedthatappealwasthepropernextstepaftersiteplandenial.E65.TheTownsprocessunfairlyforcesAppellants#D<-#<DԀtofileanappealiftheylosebeforethe   Commission,ashappenedatthesecondhearingonAug.24,2000,butworksasecretdealandprocessforitselfanditscontractpartners(NextelandSprint)whentheylosebeforetheCommission#D<叽/#<DԀastheydidonJuly27,2000. 0 <1 #D<0#D   ` B.0 #D叩1#<DAppellant#D<)2#<DsDueProcessRightsWereViolatedbytheTownof 0 ThurmontAttorneyWhoSimultaneouslyRepresentedandAdvisedtheTownofThurmont,TownCommissioners,TownMayor,TownZoningAdministrator,TownPlanningCommission,andtheTownBoardofAppealsThroughouttheApplicationandAppealProcess.#D<t2#D0 (# (#   1 #D3#<DCliffordBridgfordistheTownAttorneyforThurmont.Mr.Bridgfordgavelegal 0 advicetodeterminewhocouldappealtheZoningAdministratorsdecision.E27.#D<{4#<DԀHe ! gavelegaladvicethroughoutthiscasetotheTownMayorandCommissioners,theTownZoningAdministrator,theTownPlanningCommission,andtheTownBoardofAppeals.  Theseinstitutionsallwieldavarietyoflegislative,executive,andadjudicatorypowersdelegatedbytheGeneralAssemblyofMaryland.Whiletheymaywieldthesepowersinasimilarmanner,noinstitutionmayunconstitutionallyexertundueinfluenceonanotherinstitutionsexerciseofitsArticle66Bdutiesandresponsibilities.#D<s5#<DԀWhile ($- someofthisadvicemightbeproperinatypicalzoningcase,itisnotintheinstantcase.ThisisbecausetheTownofThurmontwasaninterestedpartytotheNextelandSprintapplications,since#D<7#<DԀtheTownCommissionerssignedcontractswithNextelandSprint. 0-(3 TheTownstoodtofinanciallybenefitifthesiteplanswereapproved.  Mr.BridgfordsroleasboththeattorneyadvisingtheMayorontheexecutiveaction(contracting)andastheattorneyadvisingtheZAontheexerciseoflegislative  powers(issuingofcertificate,permits,specialexceptions,etc.)usurpedtheconstitutionalsystemsofchecksandbalancesestablishedbytheMarylandGeneralAssembly.#D<8#<D  Tofurthercomplicatematters,theTownAttorneywasadvisinganinterestedparty 0   totheapplicationwhilesimultaneouslyadvisingthePlanningCommission(adjudicatorypowers)andtheZoningAdministrator(legislativepowers),#D<R;#<DԀtwo#D<受<#<DԀsupposedlyindependent 0  entitiesorbodiesentrustedtoperformanunbiasedandindependentreviewofapplications.TheTownAttorneysdualrolesviolatesArt.6,8and19oftheMarylandDeclarationofRights,and#D<<#<DԀAppellantsdueprocessandequalprotectionrightsunderthe  5thand14thAmendment#D<>#<DsoftheU.S.Constitution.Theserights,andthestructureof 0 Marylandplanningandzoninglaw,aredesignedtogiveAppellants#D<>#<DԀafair,objectiveand  independenthearingduringtheentireapplication#D<叟?#<DԀreviewprocess. 0   TheTownAttorneysmultiplerepresentationsalsoappearstoviolateMarylandRuleofProfessionalConduct1.7.Therulerequireslawyerstoobtaininformedconsentfromeachclientafterconsultationiftherepresentationofaclientwillbedirectlyadversetoanotherclient.Noinformedconsentwasapparentlyobtainedfromthevariousclientsrepresented.TheTownhadaninterestingainingapprovalofthesiteplansthatisadversetotheinterestsofthePlanningCommissionandtheBoardofAppeals,whoseinterests,andduty,isanobjectiveandindependentreviewofthesiteplan,andappeals,respectively.HisunsolicitedlegaladviceandpressureexertedontheindependentCommissionbehindcloseddoorsheightensthedueprocessdeniedtoAppellants#D<=@#<D. %!, #D<号C#D  TheTownAttorney,andtheCommissionwhichfollowedhisadvice,prevented 0'". residentsfromspeakingabouthealtheffectsattheAug.24,2000Commissionhearing.E87,92.Indoingso,theTownAttorneyandPlanningCommissionviolateddueprocessand#DD#<DAppellants#D<oE#DԀFirstAmendmentrighttopetitiontheirgovernment#D叿E#DDforaredressof +'4 grievances#DD5F#DD.#DDF#DԀU.S.Const.amend.I. Q-(6 _#DF# D   ` #DpG#DC.0 #DG#<DAppellants#D<3H#<D#D<H#<DԀDueProcessRightsWereViolatedbytheTownof  ThurmontZoningAdministrator,WhoSimultaneously#D<H#<DWorked (# (#    ` 0 FortheTownofThurmont,aPartyinInteresttotheAntennaApplication#D<~I#<D,andAdvisedtheIndependentThurmontPlanning  Commission,andAlsoMadetheDecisiontoGrantaZoning  (# (#    `  Certificate#D<TJ#D.   #DYK#D  #D史K#G<DRichardMayistheThurmontZoningAdministrator(ZA).HeisalsotheTown   SecretaryandTreasurer.HewaspresentatandtookanactivepartinthePlanningCommissionhearingsonJuly27andAug.24,2000toevaluatethesiteplans,calledthecloseddoormeetingheldonAug.21,2000,istheofficialwhoissuesZoningCertificates,andhelpsdeterminewhetherappealswillbeacceptedforhearingbeforetheBoardofAppeals.SeeJuly27,Aug.24,andOctober12,2000Minutes.  ItviolatesdueprocessforthesameindividualwhoworksforapartyininterestinaplanningandzoningmattertosimultaneouslytakeanactiveroleinsecretlyadvisingasupposedlyindependentreviewingbodythePlanningCommissionwhenthatsameindividualisalsotheadministrativeofficialwhoultimatelydeterminestheoutcomeofthatverysamecontestedmatter.Appellantsconstitutionaldueprocessandequalprotectionrightsunderthe5thand14thAmendmentwereviolatedbythedualroleMr. 0 Mayplayedinthismatter. #D<L#D0  0` (#(#D.0 ` (#` (##D叫P#<DAppellant#D<TQ#<Ds#D<叟Q#DԀDueProcessRightsWereViolatedbytheTownof 0! ThurmontandtheThurmontBoardofAppealsThrough#DQ#<Dthe 0 " ProceduresandLimitationsImposed#D<叠R#D,andInadequateTimeto 0!# PrepareFor,theBoardofAppealsHearingonOct.12,2000.  (# (# #DS#P <D  PriortoandduringtheOctober12,2000hearingtheBoardanditscounsel(Town 0$& AttorneyCliffordBridgford)engagedinseveralactswhichbothindividuallyandcumulativelydeniedPetitionersdueprocess.#D<S#<D 0'"*   TheTownofThurmontreceivedthefirstappealsshortlyaftertheZAissuedaZoningCertificatetoNextelonSeptember7,2000.TheZA,BoardandTownAttorneythenwaiteduntilSeptember27,2000tosendletterstoallappellantsstatingthattheirappealhadbeenapproved,andthataBoardhearingwassetforOctober12,2000.E199. 0-(2 AppellantscounseldidnotlearnoftheOct.12BoardhearinguntilSep.30,2000,leavingonlyninebusinessdaystopreparefortheOct.12#D<)U#<D#<X X<-#<X<X ԀBoardhearing. 0   ConsideringthelargenumberofprotestantspreviouslyappearingandtestifyingatboththeJulyandAugustPlanningCommissionhearings,thelengthofthosemeetingminutes,theconfusionabouthowtoproceedevident#D<叆W#<D#<X X<W#<X<X ԀevenamongtheCommissioners   themselves(reflectedinthetranscripts),theneedtoanalyzeconflictingsectionsoftheThurmontcode,statelaw(Art.66B;OpenMeetingsAct),andfederallaw(the1996TelecommunicationsAct),thiswasnotasimplezoningcase.Amereninedaysforasingleattorneytoprepareforthishearingwasgrosslyinadequate.  TheburdenofunderstandingfederaltelecommunicationslawinadditiontolocalandstatezoninglawishighlightedintheTownAttorneysrequestsattheendoftheOct.12BoardhearingforAppellantscounseltoprovidehimwiththeciteforAT&TWireless 0 PCS,Inc.v.VirginiaBeach,155F.3d423(4thCir.1998)#D<Y#<D.E172.Thisisstrikingsince  VirginiaBeach#D<\#<DԀistheleadingcaseinthecountryregardingwhatconstitutessubstantial 0 evidenceandanadequatewrittenrecordinappealsofwirelesscommunicationsapplications#D< ]#<D.Appellants#D<^#<DԀhadtoseekcounselfromoutsideThurmonttohandlethiscase 0 dealingwithfederaltelecommunicationsissues,counselwhowouldnaturallybeasunfamiliarwiththeThurmontOrdinanceanessentialpartofthiscaseastheTownAttorneyobviouslywaswiththecontrollingfederallawunderthe1996Act.AddressingtheambiguityoftheThurmontOrdinanceonMinorUtilityInstallations(discussedinfra) 0!& isamajorissueinthiscaserequiringmoreattorneypreparation.  Additionally,ninebusinessdaysisinadequatetimetoidentifyallpersonstobesubpoenaedaswitnesses(includingpotentialexperts),togetsubpoenasissued,andtohavethesubpoenasservedwithreasonablenoticetothepersonserved.Appellants#D<T^#<D#<X X<WY#<X<X  0'". counselreceivednoticejusttwodaysbeforethehearing#<X X<a#<X<X #D<另a#<DԀthatsubpoenashadbeenissued. ($0 #D<叽b#<DTheshorttimewasalsoinadequateforotheraffectedpropertyownersorinterested 0*%2 personstofindandretaincounsel.  Inshort,oncetheTownhadallbutforcedthePlanningCommission,throughboth 0-(6 illegalcloseddoorandpublicmeetingsrunbyitsownTownAttorney,tograntthesiteplanapprovaltheTown#D<5c#<Ddesired,theTownthenmadeeveryefforttorushtheprocess 0 throughasquicklyaspossible.TheTownAttorneyadvisedtheZAindecidingwhatappealswouldbeallowed,withheldthesefromtheappellantsuntilthelastpossibleday(Sep.27,2000),andalsoadvisedtheBoardofAppealswhichdenied,withoutanyexplanation,protestantsDawnDevereHillsrequeststopostponethehearing.#D<d#<D 0    #D<f# <D  AttheOct.12,2002BoardofAppealshearing,theBoardChairejectedaTV   reporterandcamerafromthehearing.E111112.#D<,g#<DԀThisclearlyviolatedboththeTown 0  OrdinanceandtheMarylandOpenMeetingsAct.TheOrdinancerequiresthat AllmeetingsoftheBoardshallbeopentothepublic.Ordinance,Art.XI,2.TheMarylandOpenMeetingsActpolicyrefersto [t]heabilityofthepublic,itsrepresentatives,andthemediatoattend,reporton,andbroadcastmeetingsofpublicbodies....SGArt.10501(b)(1)(1999).Apublicbodymaynotbartheuseofrecordingandtransmittingdevices. [A]rulerestrictingvideotapingorothersimilaractivitiesisreasonableonlyifitsatisfiestwocriteria:(i)thattheruleisneededtoprotectthelegitimaterightsofothersatthemeetingand(ii)thattheruledoessobymeansthatareconsistentwiththegoalsoftheAct.OpenMeetingsComplianceBoardOpinion9509(Nov.21,1995).The legitimaterightsofattendeesatanopenmeetingdoesnotincludearighttoavoidphotography: Thereisnorighttobeprotectedagainstthegazeofanobserverinapublicforum,oragainstthelensoftheobserverscamera.Id.at141. "(   TheTownofThurmontregularlyallowsvideotapingofTownCommissionermeetingsinthesameroomtheBoardhearingwasin.E119.Notably,theBoardChairdidallowprintreporterstostay.E111.TherewasnojustificationfortheBoardChair, 0'". backedbytheTownAttorney,toforceTVreportersandcamerastoleavethispublichearing.ThisviolatesArticle40oftheMarylandDeclarationofRightsaswellastheOpenMeetingsAct.  Appellants#D< h#<DԀneednotdemonstrateprejudicebytheBoardsactions,buttheywere 0-(6 prejudiced#D<n#<DԀthroughsubsequentBoard#D<叁o#<D#<X X<{b#<X<X Ԁactionsduringthemeeting.Asoneexample,the  sameChairwhoejectedtheTVreportercastthetiebreakingvote,thusupholdinganextremelyunpopulardecision.TheChairpresumablywouldnotlikehisvotebroadcastoverthenews,buthemustacceptthisatapublicmeeting.PerhapsheorothersvotingthatwaywouldvotedifferentlyhadtheyhadtheiractionspubliclybroadcastonTV.However,wewillneverknow,becausetheBoardejectedtheTVreporter,apparentlyforthefirsttimeinThurmontshistory.ThisviolatestheOpenMeetingsActandAppellants#D<o#<DԀdueprocessrightstohaveafullypublichearingontheirappeal. 0    AnotherdueprocessviolationattheOct.12hearingwastheBoardsvotetolimittestimonytofiveminutesperwitness,towhichAppellantscounselobjected.E120. 0  Therewasnopriornoticetothepubliconthislimitation,towhichattendees,includingTownCommissionerBurns,complained.TheBoardChairspeciouslyclaimedithadnoideatherewouldbesomanypersonspresent,despitethelargeopposition,including200signaturesfromresidentsinopposition,atpreviousPlanningCommissionmeetings,theminutesofwhichtheChairandotherBoardmembershadclearlyread.#D<号r#<DԀAppellants#D<u#<D  counselsuggestedthatifthemeetingrantoolong,itcouldbecontinuedatafuturedate,asisthepracticeinotherlocalities,buttheBoarddidnotevenrespond.E120,top.#D< v#<D     Additionally,thehearingroomfortheTownofThurmontwasveryinadequateinsize,withnotablesforattorneysorpartiestositatortoplacepaperson.Appellantscounselwascrampedinasmallfoldingchairbetweenotherattendeesduringthefivehourlonghearing.#D<0w#<DTheBoardChairdidnotruleonobjectionsintelligibly,andopenly "( criticizedcounselsquestioning.E137.Closingargumentswerenotmadeuntilabout 0$* midnight.ThisissimplynotafairprocessforAppellants,#D<只x#<DԀtheircounsel,orothers.#D<y# D %!, L Yh (PL#DSz#D  II.0 ` THETHURMONTPLANNINGCOMMISSIONSSITEPLAN ($0 DENIALWASSUPPORTEDBYSUBSTANTIALEVIDENCE ` (#` (#    ` INAWRITTENRECORD#Dz#D.#D|#{D *&2  #Dr|#<D  TheunanimousoppositionattheJuly27,2000PlanningCommissionhearingwas 0,'4 substantialevidencefortheCommissiontohavelegallydeniedthesiteplan.Themain -)6 objectionraisedbyresidentswasplacingcommercialfacilitiesinaresidentialzone.#D<|#<DԀThis  violatesArt.V,1.01.6,whichdoesnotallowcommercialusesinanR1zone.#D<?~#<D 0   Secondly,theCommissioncouldhavebaseditsdenialonthelackof#D<~#Ԁoffsite  parking. DԀ #D叾#ԀTheOrdinance,Art.IX,1.1,OFFSTREETPARKING,(a)statesthat?+ 4 <DL!X?"No Q  structureshallbeerected,substantiallyaltered,oritsusechangedunlessoffstreetparkingandloadingspaceshavebeenprovidedinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthissection."Thesiteplans#X>XDp#DXX>Ԁdidnotshowoffstreetparkingspaces.  Z    Subparagraph(c)ofthesamesectionstatesthat"Noparkingfornonresidentialuseswillbepermittedinthefrontyardofanyresidentialdistrict."Sincethegatetothecorralandthedrivewayatthewatertowersiteareinthefrontofthetowerstructure,itwasnaturaltoassumethattheparkingwillbethere,inviolationofArt.IX,#X>XD#DXX>Ԁ1.1(c). .~   Athirdgroundfordenyingthesiteplanwasthesixfootfence,whichontheoriginalsiteplanwouldbelocatedaroundtheentiretowerandequipmentcompound,inviolationofArt.VIII,#X>XD#DXX>Ԁ2.4(B)(1),whichlimitsfencesinfrontyardstofourfeet.<DԀThe  StaffReportrejectedtheSitePlanschainlinkfence.#D<##X>XD#DXX>Ԁ<DEvenanalternatefencelimitedto j enclosejusttheNextelbuildingfacedthesameobjections.Residents#D<#Ԁ<Dexpressedrepeated  [ concernsabouttheirchildrenclimbingoverthefence,andtotheaestheticsofthefence#D<叠#.<D     AfourthgroundsfordenyingthesiteplanisthatthecommercialfacilitiesdidnotmeetthepurposeoftheThurmontOrdinance,whichis topromotethehealth,safety,moralsandgeneralwelfareofthecommunity,...tosecuresafetyfromfire,panicandotherdangers;toconservethevalueofproperty.Ordinance,Art.1,#D<j#<D#<X X<叿#<X<X Ԁ2.Therewas #( overwhelmingand#D<!#<DԀunanimousoppositiontestimonyattheJuly24,2000hearingfrom n% * residents.  TherewerealsounansweredquestionsamongtheCommissionersregardingtheapplication,includingwhetheralternativesiteswereadequatelyinvestigated,whethercommercialantennaswerepermittedinanR1zone,andtheneedfortheChairsannouncedlistofchangestobeincorporated.E68. ,>(4   TheleadcaseregardingwhatconstitutessubstantialevidenceandawrittenrecordduringwirelessfacilityreviewsisAT&TWirelessPCS,Inc.v.VirginiaBeach,155F.3d 0 423(4thCir.1998),whichisverysimilartotheinstantcase#D<؉#<D.TheFourthCircuit#D<#<DԀobserved  that [c]onsistentwithitsusualpractice,the[VirginiaBeach]Councildidnotgeneratefindingsoffactconcerningitsvote,nordiditproduceawrittenexplanationofthebasisforitsvote.Id.at425.#D<:#<DԀThecourtheldthatthe1996Actsprovisionat47U.S.C. 0   332(c)(7)(B)(iii)doesnotrequire#D<w#<DԀawrittendecisiontoincludefindingsoffactandan   explanationofthedecision.Id.at430.#D<3#<DԀThecourtfoundadequateadecision reflected 0  inwritingbothinthecondensedminutesoftheMarch25meetingandintheletterfromthePlanningCommissiondescribingtheapplication,withtheword DENIEDandthedateofdecisionaffixed.Id.󀀀Notably,thecourtfoundevenjustcondensedminutesto  beanadequatewriting.Intheinstantcase,theJuly27,2000CommissionMinutesclearlymeettheFourthCircuitsstandardforawrittenrecord.  Regardingsubstantialevidence,theFourthCircuitreviewedSupremeCourtdecisionsinthisarea,statingthatsubstantialevidenceis suchrelevantevidenceasareasonablemindmightacceptasadequatetosupportaconclusionand ismorethanascintilla,butlessthanapreponderance.Id.(citationsomitted).#D<#<DԀItnotedthatacourtmay   notsubstituteitsjudgmentfortheagencysorlegislatures,andmustupholdadecisionthathassubstantialsupportintherecordasawhole,evenifitwouldhavedecideddifferentlyasanoriginalmatter.Id.at430.#D<叜#<DԀ 0!&   TheFourthCircuitfoundtheCouncildecisioninVirginiaBeachwassupported "( bysubstantialevidenceintherecord,includingtheapplication,thePlanningDepartmentsreport,andtranscriptsofhearingsbeforethePlanningCommissionandtheCityCouncil.Notably,thesethreekeyitemswereleftoutoftheRecordbytheTownof 0'". Thurmont.Q  #  1      ׀TheFourthCircuitstatedthatitwasstandardpracticeforthedeciding_body ($0 toissue averbatimtranscriptofitshearingafteritmadeitsdecisionandincorporatingthattranscriptintotherecord,Id.at431,whichiswhatoccurredwiththeThurmont 0 PlanningCommissioninthiscase.#D<#<DMostnotableabouttheVirginiaBeach#D<叧#<DԀdecisionand  applicabletotheinstantappealisthecourtsobservationthatinthatcasethe:#D<#<D 0  0  #D<͙#<DԀ evidencesurelywouldhavejustifiedareasonablelegislatorinvotingtoapprove   theapplication,andmayevenamounttoapreponderanceoftheevidenceinfavoroftheapplication,but therepeatedandwidespreadoppositionofamajorityof    thecitizensofVirginiaBeachwhovoicedtheviewsatthePlanningCommissionhearing ,throughpetitions,letters,andattheCityCouncilmeeting   amountstofarmorethanamerescintillaofevidencetopersuadeareasonablemindtoopposetheapplication. (#(# Id.at431(emphasisadded).Thus,evenifthepreponderanceofevidencehadfavored 8  NextelandSprint,aslongasmorethanascintillaofevidencewaspresentedatthePlanningCommissionmeeting,theapplication#D<B#<DԀdenial#D<#<D#<X X<c#<X<X Ԁmeetsthesubstantialevidence 8 standard.Toviewotherwisewaswrong,thecourtconcluded,andwould effectivelydemandthatweinterprettheActsoasalwaystothwartaverage,nonexpertcitizens;thatis,tothwartdemocracy....Congress,inrefusingtoabolishlocalauthorityoverzoningofpersonalwirelessservices,categoricallyrejectedthisscornfulapproach.Id.at431.#D<=#<D 8   Marylandcourtsagree,andrecognizethevalueofcitizentestimony,evenoverthatofexperts.AT&TWirelessServicesv.MayorandCityCouncilofBaltimore,123 8  Md.App.681,693(1998)( WeagreewiththetrialcourtthattheBoardcould,onremand,rejecttheopinionoftherealestateappraiserhiredbyAT&TandacceptthetestimonyofthepropertyownersintheTenHillscommunitywhotestifiedthatthevalueoftheirpropertywouldbeadverselyaffectedbythepresenceofthetowerfacility.).#D<g#<D 8$(   ApplyingthislawtotheinstantcasemeansthatthePlanningCommissionsJuly27,2000denialwasbackedbysubstantialevidenceandvalidasamatteroflaw.Article66BoftheMarylandAnnotatedCode,3.08,providesinpertinentpartthat:0  ...nostreet,square,parkorotherpublicway,ground,oropenspace,orpublicbuildingorstructure,orpublicutility,whetherpublicorprivatelyowned,shallbeconstructedorauthorizedinthejurisdictionormajorgeographicsectionthereofuntilthelocation,character,andextentofsuchdevelopmentshallhavebeen 8-(3 submittedtoandapprovedbythecommissionasconsistentwiththeplan...)(#(# (Emphasisadded).Obviously,ifaplanningcommissioncanapproveplans,thenitcandenyplans.InBoardofCountyCommissionersofCecilCountyv.Gaster,285Md.233  (1979),theCourtofAppealsexaminedthisissuewithrespecttoanonchartercounty,andfoundthataplanningcommissionactingundersubdivisionregulations canproperlydisapproveestablishmentofaproposedsubdivisionwhichmetallzoningrequirementsbutfailedtocomplywiththemasterplan.Id.at235.Thismeansthatevenabsent   zoningviolations,aplanningcommissioncanstillinvalidateasiteplan.Thisbasisofaplanningcommissionspowerisbecause:#D<#DD0  #X>XD#DXX>zoningisalmostexclusivelyconcernedwithuseregulation,whereasplanningisa 0  broadertermandindicatesthedevelopmentofacommunity,notonlywithrespecttotheusesoflandsandbuildings,butalsowithrespecttostreets,parks,civicbeauty,industrialandcommercialundertakings,residentialdevelopmentsandsuchothermattersaffectingthepublicconvenienceandwelfareasmaybeproperlyembracedwithinthepolicepower.#X>XDw#DXX>#DD#6<DN(#(# #D<ܫ#DDId.at246(citationomitted).#DD=#<DԀThus,theJuly27,2000Commissiondenial#D<口#<D#<X X<叄#<X<X ,basedinpart ' onthewidespreadobjectionofneighboringresidents,waswellwithintheCommissionspowerunderArt.66B.ThewrongfulinterceptionandbypassingoftheprocessthroughaclosedmeetingdefeatsthepurposebehindArt.66B,andwouldreducetheentireCommissiontoamerehandservantoftheTownAttorneyandZoningAdministrator.  ThepostureofthecasebeforetheBoardshouldhavebeentheapplicantsappealing,ratherthanprotestants.AtboththesecondCommissionhearingandtheBoardhearing,notmorethanascintillaofevidencewaspresentedthattheapplicationwouldpromotethehealth,safety,moralsandgeneralwelfareofthecommunity,andtheapplicationsshouldalsohavebeendeniedatbothofthosehearings.TheBoarddidnotconsider#D<##X>XDR#<X XXX><X<X ԀallofthefactorsrequiredintheOrdinance,Art.XI,4.2,particularlythe 'H#-  orderlygrowthoftheneighborhoodandcommunity(C);#D<#<D#<X X<#<X<X Ԁthe mostappropriateuseof x)$/ landandstructures(D);the effectofsuchuseuponthepeacefulenjoymentofpeopleintheirhomes(G);the conservationofpropertyvalues(L);andthecontributiontheproposeduseorbuildingwouldmaketowardthedeteriorationoftheneighborhoodand -H)5 community(N).Heathv.MayorofBaltimore,187Md.296,305(1946)( ...therewas  nosupportingevidenceuponwhichtobasearationaljudgment.)Finally,theBoardsOct.12decisionwasnotbackedbywrittenfindingsoffact. #D<#D    III.0 ` THECIRCUITCOURTERREDBYDENYINGAPPELLANTS 0  MOTIONTOSUPPLEMENTTHERECORD. ` (#` (# #D۴#D  #D#DAppellantLaTrelleRemingtonfiledatimelyappealpursuanttoArt.XI,3.2. 0   HerSep.12,2000appealletterclearlystatedthat#DH#D#X X,#XX Ԁ thisisanappealoftheAugust24,   2000decisionofthePlanningandZoningCommission.E184.Aplanningcommissionis anadministrativeofficialunderArt.66B,4.07(d)#D$##X>XDf#DXX>DԀwhosedecisionsmaybe   appealed.WharfatHandysPoint,Inc.v.Dept.ofNaturalResources,92Md.App.659, 0  67273#X X叡#XX (1992)( 4.07(d)#D#DԀdoesprovidetheKentCountyBoardofAppealswiththe  powertohearappealsfromordersofthePlanningCommission)#X X只#XX ;#X XӺ#XX Ԁ#D#DHowardResearchand 0 Dev.Corp.v.ConcernedCitizensfortheColumbiaConcept,297Md.357,363(1983)#DY#D.#X X#XX   Thurmont,asalocallegislativebody:0  isrequiredtoenactlocallawsauthorizingthecountysboardofappealstoexercisethe#X Xe#XX powersprovidedby4.07(d)...#D!#DԀ#DŽ#DSection4.07(d)statesthat"[t]he  boardofappealsshallhavethefollowingpowers",andthismandatorylanguagerequiresthatthelocallegislativebodyimplementthesemeasures#D#D.(#(# #X X_#XX Millerv.Pinto,305Md.396,403(1986).Thurmontmaynotpassorinterpretitslocal   Ordinancetodirectlyorindirectlycontraveneapublicgenerallaw.Bouldenv.Mayor, 0 " 311Md.411(1988).Therefore,theTownandBoardofAppealsarerequiredbylawtoprocessandhearAppellantsappealofthePlanningCommissiondecision.Unfortunately,instead,theTownillegallychangedAppellantsappealfromanappealoftheCommissiondecision,toanappealoftheZAsdecisiontoissueNextelaZoningCertificate.E197.CounselforAppellantsandtheTowndiscusseddifferencesoverthisissueattheOctober12,2000Boardhearing.E113.  Obviously#X X収#XX #D#DԀinanappealofaPlaningCommissiondecisiontheCommission *&0 hearing#D#D#X X召#XX ԀminutesareanecessarypartoftheRecord.TheTownwronglylefttheseand 0,'2 otherclearlyrelevantmaterials(lease,StaffReport)outoftheRecord#X X#XX #D叉#D.VirginiaBeach -)4 makesclearthatthesematerialsarerelevantinapplyingandevaluatingthesubstantial  evidencestandardunderthe1996Act.TheCircuitCourterredbydenyingAppellantsmotiontosupplementtheRecordwiththeseclearlyrelevantandnecessarymaterials.#X X号##X>XXX # DXX>D0  IV.0` (#(##X X叩#XX NEXTELSANDSPRINTSANTENNAS,CONCRETEPAD, ` (#` (#   0 ` EQUIPMENT,BUILDING,WIRES,ANDFENCEDONOT ` (#` (#   0 ` CONSTITUTE MINORUTILITYINSTALLATIONSIN ` (#` (#    ` THETHURMONTZONINGORDINANCE#X X@#XX #D#D.   #D#D ?   ?0  0` (#(#2Yh  A  .3  0 ` (#` (#  NextelandSprintAreNotPublicServiceUtilities.?݌  (# (# Ќ    #D`##X>XD#DXX><DNextelandSprint