In Meadows of Greenspring Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Foxleigh Enters., Inc., 133 Md. App. 510, 758 A.2d 611 (2000), the developer (Foxleigh Enterprises, Inc.) had a previous plan approved in 1983 by the County Review Group ("CRG"). 133 Md. App. at 512. About fifteen years later, in April 1998, the developer submitted to the DRC a proposed plan for development of the same property. Id. The developer sought the DRC's agreement "that the proposed plan constitutes a refinement to a previously approved CRG . . . plan." Id. Various neighborhood property owners contended that Foxleigh's proposed plan was not a "refinement" to a previous plan and therefore "should be processed under the current development regulations by DRC review, not CRG review." Id. The DRC held a public meeting after which Arnold Jablon, the Director of PDM, wrote a letter, which stated, Pursuant to article 25A, section 5(U) of the Annotated Code of Maryland, and as provided in section 602(d) of the Baltimore County Charter, and section 26-132 of the Baltimore County Code, this letter constitutes an administrative order and decision on the request for issuance, renewal, or modification of a license, permit, approval, exemption, waiver or other form of permission you filed with this department. . . . The DRC has, in fact, met in an open meeting on April 27, 1998, and determined that your project is a material change to the CRG. Please submit new plans, so a new CRG can be scheduled. (Emphasis added.) Id. at 513. The neighboring property owners filed an appeal to the Board of Appeals from Mr. Jablon's decision. Id. Foxleigh filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that Jablon's letter was not a final administrative action from which an appeal could be taken. Id. at 513-14. The Board agreed with Foxleigh, saying, The May 12, 1998 letter describes a CRG plan as opposed to a DRC plan. As a result, it is not governed by the DRC but the CRG per sections 26-169 and 26-211 of the Maryland Annotated Code. As such, Mr. Jablon's role differs from that which he arguably may exercise under the DRC. The CRG process provides for an appeal at the time the plan is approved, not at the juncture at which Developer Foxleigh is advised to submit a plan. That time had not yet occurred at the time of the instant appeal. The instant appeal thus is not ripe and does not constitute a final act from which an appeal lies. Id. at 514. A petition for judicial review was filed by the neighboring property owners, after which the Board's decision was affirmed. Id. On appeal the Court addressed the issue of whether Mr. Jablon's letter advising that Foxleigh's plans would come under the less stringent CRG review rather than the far more onerous DRC review procedures was an administrative order that could be appealed to the Board. The Court said: We find this case sufficiently analogous to United Parcel. Jablon's letter was not an "operative event" that determined that Foxleigh's proposed plan will be granted a license or permit, and did not determine the conditions or scope of that license or permit. Rather, Jablon's letter merely informed Foxleigh that the proposed plan must be reviewed by the CRG. Id. at 516. Later, the Court further explained: Appellants' argument fails to recognize that Jablon's letter does not make any decision and is not an order. It does not issue or modify any license, permit, or approval. Jablon's letter only informs Foxleigh that the proposed plan is a material change from the previously approved plan and that, in order to be approved, new plans must be submitted for consideration. At the time of Jablon's letter and at the time this appeal was filed with the Board of Appeals, Foxleigh could have decided not to submit new plans. Or, if it submitted new plans, the CRG could have approved or disapproved them. Therefore, as the Board of Appeals concluded, the appeal was not ripe. Furthermore, that Jablon's letter stated that it was an administrative order and decision does not automatically make it an appealable decision. As this Court stated in Art Wood v. Wiseburg, 88 Md. App. 723, 596 A.2d 712 (1991): Whether the CRG's action was authorized by the B.C.C. must be determined by the content or effect of that action rather than by the name or description given it by the CRG. . . . The question of whether a judgment, order, or decree is final and appealable is not determined by the name or description which the court below gives it, but is to be decided by the appellate court on a consideration of the essence of what is done thereby. 88 Md. App. at 732-33, 596 A.2d 712 . (Foxleigh, 133 Md. App. at 518-19.)