Ignoring years of debate as to whether the United Parcel Service delivery center in Loveton is a warehouse or a trucking facility, the Court of Appeals said the Baltimore County Board of Appeals had no authority to answer that question in the first place.
Attorneys on all sides of the case disagreed as to the impact of Tuesday's opinion, which reversed decisions by the Board of Appeals, a county Circuit Court judge and the Court of Special Appeals.
The case began seven years ago when a neighbor noticed construction and filed a complaint with the county, saying that the property wasn't zoned for a trucking facility.
"The case is, I think, at last over," said Henry R. Lord, attorney for the Atlanta-based corporation.
But J. Carroll Holzer, the opponents' attorney, vowed, "We have just begun to fight." He noted the final footnote in the opinion that the protesters still can challenge alleged zoning violations in the trial courts.
"Since we've been fighting this thing for at least six years, the community is not about to simply drop this issue," Mr. Holzer said. He said it's clear that the facility is a trucking terminal, which requires a hearing for a special zoning exception in a light-manufacturing zone.
"We weren't asking to tear the building down; the building is not the problem," said Mr. Holzer. "We ask that they use it for a lawful purpose, as a true warehouse."
The $14 million UPS facility at the Loveton Industrial Park, in the 14400 block of York Road near Sparks, has been handling more than 43,000 packages a day since it opened in 1987, Mr. Lord said.
"There was never a genuine belief that they would put UPS out of business, but it was possible," said Jack Gohn, a private attorney representing the county.
Mr. Gohn said the court's ruling was important "to preserve the integrity of the building permits process [and] to keep the Board of Appeals to its proper role."
Before getting the building permit, UPS sought informal approval in 1985 from then-Zoning Commissioner Arnold E. Jablon, who said the company planned a warehouse that did not need special zoning.
UPS obtained a building permit for the 36 acres in October 1986. Three months later, resident Paul Hupfer saw the construction and wrote the county to complain.
But under the county code -- which requires a complaint within 30 days of the issuance of a building permit -- he was too late, the Court of Appeals said.
It said the Board of Appeals erred when it allowed Mr. Jablon's January 1987 letter answering Mr. Hupfer's complaint to be used as an official order to trigger an appeal.
The Court of Appeals said the Board of Appeals was wrong to allow Mr. Hupfer and the community groups to challenge the project. Although it allowed the appeal, the board found in favor of UPS that no special zoning exception was necessary. The Circuit Court and the Court of Special Appeals went further, saying the facility was a trucking terminal and required a hearing.
But the Court of Appeals said the board "erred" in taking the case at all. Accepting the protesters' view of the board's jurisdiction "would create chaos in charter counties. . . . The board would be taking the place of . . . county departments."
"This is a very important ruling," said Mr. Gohn, the attorney representing the county. "It will, among many other things, protect the rulings of county officials who are involved in giving the necessary licenses, permits, permissions, whatever is necessary for development to go forward."
Mr. Holzer, the opponents' attorney, said the decision bypassed issues in favor of procedure. But, he added, "The private coziness between the developer coming in and looking for that kind of private ruling when the citizens have no input: It's that process that this case shook up. . . . So from that point of view, this was a landmark case."