In the Matter of Taylor, Todd v.

* This is an unreported opinion. This opinion may not be cited as precedent within the rule
of stare decisis. It may be cited for its persuasive value only if the citation conforms to M D .
RULE 1-104(a)(2)(B).
Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County
Case No. C-02-CV-24-001329
UNREPORTED*
IN THE APPELLATE COURT
OF MARYLAND
No. 2249
September Term, 2024
______________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF TODD TAYLOR, ET
AL.
______________________________________
Friedman,
Albright,
Kehoe, Christopher B.
(Senior Judge, Specially Assigned),
JJ.
______________________________________
Opinion by Friedman, J.
______________________________________
Filed: October 13, 2026

— Unreported Opinion —
This appeal arises from the judgment of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County
affirming the decision of the Anne Arundel County Board of License Commissioners to
renew the alcoholic beverages license for Magothy Inn. We review the Board’s decision
directly rather than the circuit court’s judgment. Thanner Enters., LLC v. Baltimore
County, 414 Md. 265, 275 (2010).
FACTS
The Magothy Inn is a longstanding Pasadena tavern operating under a Class D beer,
wine, and liquor license with a dancing permit. On March 4, 2024, it submitted its annual
license renewal application to the Anne Arundel County Board of License Commissioners.
Todd Taylor and other nearby residents filed a written protest containing more than ten
signatures, raising concerns about traffic, parking congestion, noise, and neighborhood
impacts. Separately, on March 26, 2024, the Anne Arundel County Office of Planning and
Zoning (“OPZ”) issued an informal advisory letter noting possible zoning violations at the
Magothy Inn property.
In response to the written protest, the Board convened a four-hour hearing on April
16, 2024. A head count taken at the outset reflected twenty-eight individuals appearing in
support of renewal and thirteen appearing in opposition. During the hearing, the Inn
submitted exhibits including approximately four hundred signatures and multiple letters
from Pasadena residents supporting renewal, and presented testimony concerning the Inn’s
longstanding community role and the absence of confirmed zoning or noise violations. The
protestants testified regarding noise, parking, and traffic.

— Unreported Opinion —
2
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board unanimously renewed the Inn’s license
along with a dancing permit and later issued a written memorandum opinion explaining its
findings. The circuit court affirmed. This timely appeal followed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under the governing statute, the Board’s decision is presumed to be correct and to
best serve the public interest. MD . CODE , ALC . BEVS . & CANNABIS (“ABC”) § 4-905;
Thanner Enters., 414 Md. at 274-75 . The burden rests with the protestants to show that the
Board’s decision was against the public interest and that the decision was arbitrary,
unsupported by substantial evidence, unreasonable, or illegal. ABC § 4-905; Thanner
Enters., 414 Md. at 274-75. The Board is not subject to the Maryland Administrative
Procedure Act and is therefore not required to issue formal findings of fact or conclusions
of law for each statutory factor. Rather, the Board can satisfy its obligation by addressing
the required considerations informally in a memorandum opinion. Dakrish, LLC v. Raich,
209 Md. App. 119, 144 (2012) (citing Blackburn v. Bd. of Liquor License Comm’rs for
Baltimore City, 130 Md. App. 614, 624 (2000)). We do not substitute our judgment for the
Board’s specialized expertise. We ask only whether a reasoning mind could reach the
conclusion the Board reached on this record. Blackburn, 130 Md. App. at 634 .
ANALYSIS
In their appeal, the protestants argue, in effect, that: (1) the Board should not have
renewed the license because the premises did not conform with applicable zoning laws;
(2) the Board applied the wrong standard when determining the noise restrictions as applied

— Unreported Opinion —
3
to the license; and (3) renewal of the dancing permit violated the Board’s local rules. We
address each of these arguments in turn.
I. 	ZONING C OMPLIANCE
The protestants argue that the Board violated the statutory requirement that a license
may not be issued or renewed unless the premises conform with all applicable zoning laws.
They rely on ABC § 1-405(b), which states that “a license or an alcoholic beverages permit
may not be issued for a premises unless the premises conforms with all zoning laws,
regulations, or ordinances passed in accordance with Division I of the Land Use Article.”
Their challenge presents two alternative theories: first, that OPZ’s informal advisory letter
constituted final findings of a zoning violation that mandated denial; or second, that if it
did not, OPZ’s failure to submit formal recommendations stripped the Board of authority
to act. Both arguments fail.
First, the protestants rely heavily on the informal advisory letter issued by OPZ on
March 26, 2024, which identified several possible concerns relating to the size of the
parking area, the number of signs, the absence of a landscaping buffer and required fence,
and the presence of an inoperable vehicle. This letter, however, did not constitute a final
zoning determination and expressly disclaimed that function. Under governing law, an
informal advisory letter from OPZ serves merely as notification that a zoning violation may
exist and “does not constitute a final decision that a violation exists.” A NNE A RUNDEL
COUNTY CODE § 18-17-202(b). Although OPZ is required to review liquor license
applications and submit formal findings and recommendations on zoning compliance,
traffic patterns, and use magnitude, Id. § 18-2-109, the informal advisory letter issued by

— Unreported Opinion —
4
OPZ here did not fulfill that formal function, imposed no sanctions, and did not alter the
longstanding zoning status of the premises. As a result, OPZ’s letter did not mandate denial
of the Inn’s application.
Moreover, the record contains no OPZ witness testimony, no expert analysis, and
no documentary evidence establishing a final zoning violation. Although the protestants’
zoning testimony spanned several pages of the transcript, the Board acknowledged that
testimony and found it unpersuasive. The Board found that many of the physical conditions
the protestants complained about were longstanding and had been present at prior renewals,
that the Inn has operated with the same longstanding footprint dating back to 1940, that the
Inn has been operated by the current licensees since 1988, and that the licensing file
contains a Certificate of Use and Occupancy that authorizes the longstanding use. 1
Moreover, the Board is not a zoning tribunal and does not adjudicate technical zoning
matters. While it may consider zoning concerns when they are substantiated, it is not
required to deny renewal based on unconfirmed allegations or an informal warning letter.
Second, to the extent the protestants argue that the absence of formal OPZ
recommendations barred the Board from acting, receipt of such administrative findings is
not a statutory prerequisite to license renewal under the Alcoholic Beverages and Cannabis
Article. ABC § 4-210. The Board fulfilled its duties when granting the license by
1 The protestants argue that the Certificate of Use was not admitted into evidence.
Even assuming that is correct, the burden under ABC § 4-905(b) remains on the protestants
to demonstrate a confirmed zoning violation. The advisory letter did not supply that proof.
A reasoning mind could conclude that the premises continued to operate under the
longstanding nonconforming footprint reflected in the licensing file.

— Unreported Opinion —
5
considering the whole record against the six statutory factors. Id. § 4-210(a); see infra
discussion in section IV. The protestants bore the burden to demonstrate that the Board’s
decision was unsupported by substantial evidence or illegal. On this record, a reasoning
mind could conclude that the statutory prerequisite of zoning conformity was satisfied for
purposes of renewal, and therefore, the protestants did not meet their burden. 2
II. 	N OISE R ESTRICTIONS
The protestants next argue that the Board applied an improper noise standard when
renewing the license and therefore failed to enforce the Anne Arundel County ordinance.
They contend that the Board relied on a decibel-based threshold modeled after the
statewide environmental noise standard, rather than the county ordinance that prohibits
amplified sound audible at fifty feet in a residential district. See COMAR 26.02.03.02;
A NNE A RUNDEL COUNTY CODE § 9‑1‑707(d). They argue that the Board’s reliance on the
statewide noise standard was improper and prevented the Board from recognizing
community impact.
The Board’s duty arises under ABC § 4‑210(a). Section 5 of the statute requires the
Board to consider “the impact of the license for which application is made on the health,
safety, and welfare of the community, including issues relating to crime, traffic, parking,
2 OPZ failed to submit updated findings for this renewal as required by Section 18-
2-109 of the Anne Arundel County Code and we note this institutional failure with deep
concern. ANNE A RUNDEL COUNTY CODE § 18-2-109. Treating statutory review mandates
as optional undermines the administrative process. Receipt of OPZ’s findings is not,
however, a statutory prerequisite to the Board’s authority and therefore this lapse does not
alter the outcome. Nonetheless, we remind OPZ to fulfill its statutory duty to submit
findings and recommendations on zoning to the Board.

— Unreported Opinion —
6
or convenience.” The statute, however, does not require the Board to enforce county noise
ordinances or adopt any particular metric as a license condition.
Here, the Board fulfilled the statutory requirement by evaluating the impact of the
noise on the community. The record shows that Board inspectors visited the Inn thirteen
times between 2022 and 2024 and found no violations warranting citation. The Inn
implemented mitigation measures including capped speaker controls and automated alerts.
The Board also considered testimony from neighbors and employees. Ultimately, the Board
weighed the totality of the evidence under the statutory factor requiring consideration of
community health, safety, and welfare. The absence of citations across repeated inspections
and 	minimal 	complaints 	by 	community 	members 	constitutes 	substantial 	evidence
supporting the Board’s conclusion that renewal would not unduly disturb the peace of the
neighborhood.
III. 	D ANCING P ERMIT
The protestants argue that the dancing permit violates the setback provision in the
Board’s local rules, that requires that entertainment be kept at least one hundred feet from
residentially zoned property. ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY L IQUOR B D . R. 1.02. They contend
that the Board renewed the permit despite evidence that a residentially zoned property lies
approximately thirty feet from the Inn. The protestants also argue that the Board committed
legal error by failing to address the one-hundred-foot setback requirement expressly in its
memorandum opinion.
The Board renewed the dancing permit along with the license. During the hearing,
the Board considered testimony relating to entertainment and community impact. It also

— Unreported Opinion —
7
considered that the Magothy Inn has held a dancing permit for decades. The record contains
no final determination establishing a violation of the setback requirement. Furthermore, the
Board is not required to address every sub‑issue seriatim. It must consider the record as a
whole. On this record, a reasoning mind could conclude that renewal of the dancing permit
remained appropriate as part of the longstanding licensing package.
IV. 	SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
State law requires the local liquor boards to consider six factors before approving
or denying a license. These include: (1) the public need and desire; (2) the number and
location of existing license holders; (3) the potential effect on existing license holders;
(4) the commonality or uniqueness of the services offered; (5) the impact on community
health, safety, and welfare; and (6) any other factor the Board considers necessary.
ABC § 4‑210(a).
The Board considered public need and desire for the license. The Board noted the
attendance count at the hearing reflected twenty-eight individuals in favor of renewal and
thirteen opposed. It also considered the number and location of existing license holders and
the potential effect on the community, the testimony of protestants and supporters, the
absence of confirmed zoning or noise violations, and the historical operation of the
premises.
The protestants argue that the Board asked no questions during the hearing.
However, the statute does not require questioning or cross-examination by the Board. The
Board may rely on the record and the testimony presented as it did here. Ultimately, the

— Unreported Opinion —
8
Board addressed the statutory factors informally as required, and its decision was supported
by substantial evidence. Blackburn, 130 Md. App. at 634.
CONCLUSION
The protestants did not meet their burden. The Board’s decision was supported by
substantial evidence and was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or illegal. As a result, the
judgment of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County is affirmed.
JUDGMENT 	OF 	THE 	CIRCUIT
COURT 	FOR 	ANNE 	ARUNDEL
COUNTY 	AFFIRMED. 	COSTS 	TO
BE PAID BY APPELLANTS.