The Sykesville Board of Zoning Appeals voted Dec. 3 that it has jurisdiction to hear two pending appeals related to the War Field development and said separate hearings will be scheduled at later dates.

The board made the determination after competing oral arguments from the parties’ counsel about whether appeals in the PEC zone must go directly to circuit court or may instead be heard by the local board. Board Chair opened the session and, after a closed-session consultation with counsel, said, "The board has determined that we do have jurisdiction."

Ms. LaVaughn, arguing on behalf of the appellants, said the town manager’s letter at issue was a ministerial action and therefore not properly before the board: "The town manager is not an administrative official for zoning purposes," she said, arguing that the manager had merely restated code-based procedural requirements rather than made a discretionary zoning determination. She cited Maryland precedent and urged the board to treat statute and local code provisions in harmony so that the specific PEC-zone rule controls forum choice.

Counsel for the developers, Mr. Bowersox, countered that the official who issued the letter (identified in the record as Mr. Cosentini) performs the functions of a zoning administrator and that the town code and the board’s rules permit appeals of administrative decisions to the BZA. "May means you may bring an appeal, and in this case, we may bring an appeal to the board of zoning appeals," Bowersox said, arguing that both local provisions use permissive language and that an election of forums is available under the plain-meaning canon.

After the oral arguments, Chair moved the board into a closed session to consult with counsel under the Annotated Code of Maryland, General Provisions Article §3-305(7). The board reconvened in open session and voted, by voice, to assert jurisdiction over both appeals. The board announced that written determinations explaining each jurisdictional finding will be issued and that the record in each case will remain open until the hearings are held.

Members discussed scheduling and advertisement logistics before adjourning. Several members said early February was the likeliest window for scheduling; the board noted that if a specific continuance date is selected, the item may not need to be re-advertised, but if the date is left open the town may have to re-advertise and incur additional certified-letter costs.

The BZA did not make final determinations on the underlying merits of either appeal; those merits will be considered at the future hearings. The board adjourned at the end of the meeting.