Montgomery County v. Longo revolves around a dispute over a home renovation. Ms. Longo owned a home in Montgomery County, but she wanted a larger house on that same property. As a result, she obtained a building permit to build an "addition." That permit allowed her to build a home that did not exceed the original footprint by 100 percent and retained 50 percent of the existing exterior walls. Ms. Longo retained two of the four walls of the original home, but she significantly changed them by removing a chimney and garage doors. Her neighbor, Ms. Carol Placek filed a complaint with the DPS for a violation of the building permit. DPS issued a stop work order. DPS met with Ms. Longo and she was able to convince DPS that her renovations did not violate her building permit. DPS permitted her to resume construction. Ms. Placek appealed that decision to the County Board of Appeals, which reinstated the stop work order. Ms. Longo appealed that decision to the Circuit Court, which held that the Board of Appeals did not have authority to hear this case because it found that repealing a stop work order was not appealable under § 8-23. Ms. Placek then appealed the Circuit Court's decision to the Court of Special Appeals.

The Board of Appeals, the Circuit Court and the Court of Special Appeals all relied on the case Nat'l Inst. of Health Fed. Credit Union v. Hawk, which appeared to be one of the few instructive cases on appellate review of building permits. 47 Md. App. 189 (1980). In Hawk, the County interpreted a building permit months after it issued that permit and after the time to appeal the issuance of the permit expired. Id. at 192. Several area residents appealed the County's interpretation of that permit. Id. at 195. However, the court held that the interpretation was an extension of the issuance of the permit. Id. The court found that the interpretation did not fall under the "any other order" portion of § 8-23 because it was really part of the "issuance" portion of that clause. Id. Since the time to appeal the issuance had already expired, the Board of Appeals could not hear the appeal. Id.

In Longo, the Court of Special Appeals found that lifting a stop work order was not an extension of the issuance of the original permit and, therefore, Hawk was not controlling. The court found that a stop work order is issued and lifted under a material change of circumstances not contemplated at the time the permit is issued. Therefore, it is a separate and distinct order of DPS and it is appealable under § 8-23.