## Facts

- Robert and Ann Pritts contracted to purchase a 2.74-acre tract in Carroll County, Maryland, zoned R-20,000 (single-family residential).
- They applied to the Carroll County Board of Zoning Appeals for a special exception to operate a funeral establishment and a variance from front-yard requirements.
- Nearby residents, including Roger Schultz, opposed the application, emphasizing traffic and safety concerns.
- After the hearing closed, a written compilation of traffic data (described as duplicative of the traffic expert’s hearing testimony) was submitted for the Board’s consideration.
- The Board denied the special exception, finding the project would create dangerous traffic conditions, and treated the variance request as moot.
- The Pritts appealed to the Circuit Court for Carroll County, arguing procedural due process was violated because the Board considered post-hearing evidence and denied a rehearing.
- The circuit court reversed and remanded for a new hearing on due process grounds, but declined to reach the merits of the special-exception denial.
- The protestants appealed and the Pritts cross-appealed; the intermediate appellate court dismissed, concluding the remand order was not a final judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the circuit court’s order reversing and remanding the administrative zoning appeal was a final, appealable judgment.
2. Whether the Board violated procedural due process by considering a post-hearing written submission and denying a rehearing.
3. What substantive standard governs denial of a special exception and judicial review of that denial.

## Decision

- The court held the circuit court’s remand order was a final, appealable judgment because it ended the judicial phase of the case.
- The court held there was no procedural due process violation where the post-hearing submission was duplicative, the applicants knew it would be considered, and they did not timely object or request an additional hearing before the decision.
- The court clarified that a special exception may be denied only upon a showing of adverse effects beyond those normally associated with that special-exception use, irrespective of location within the zone.
- The court rejected a comparative approach that would deny a special exception based on impacts relative to other permitted or hypothetical uses.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the clarified special-exception standard.

## Legal Principles

- A circuit court order reversing an administrative decision and remanding for further agency proceedings can be a final, appealable judgment when it concludes the court’s role in the matter.
- Administrative decisionmaking must satisfy basic fairness; post-hearing evidence can violate due process if parties lack notice or opportunity for cross-examination or rebuttal.
- When parties are aware post-hearing material will be considered and fail to make a timely objection or request to respond, they cannot later establish a due process violation based on that procedure.
- Special exceptions are conditionally permitted uses contemplated by the zoning scheme; denial requires a showing that the proposed use will cause adverse effects beyond those normally associated with that use category.
- A board’s special-exception decision is sustained where the evidence is fairly debatable as to harmony with the zoning plan and adverse effects under the governing standard.

## Conclusion

The court treated the circuit court’s remand as an appealable final judgment, found no due process violation from consideration of a duplicative post-hearing traffic compilation when no timely objection was made, and held that special exceptions may be denied only for adverse effects exceeding those ordinarily associated with the special-exception use.


Schultz v. Pritts, 291 Md. 1, 432 A.2d 1319 (Md. 1981)