Waterman, owner of approximately 140 acres of land in Queen Anne’s County, commonly referred to as the Wheatlands Farm property, filed a petition with the Town of Queenstown seeking to have the property annexed into the town. The Town Commissioners voted to annex the property, and adopted an ordinance rezoning the Wheatlands Farm property from Countryside to Planned Regional Commercial, which permitted commercial and high density uses. The effective date of that ordinance was dependent upon a waiver by the County Commissioners of the existing zoning density pursuant to Md. Code, § 4–416(b) of the Local Government Article (“LG”). The County Commissioners passed Resolution 14–31, which granted the express approval needed to allow for rezoning to a classification that was substantially different and at a higher density, and allowed development consistent with the “Planned Regional Commercial” classification without having to wait the five-year period referred to in LG § 4–416. Soon thereafter, the County Commissioners adopted Resolution 14–33, which rescinded the express approval that previously had been granted. Waterman and the Town Commissioners filed suit, and the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Waterman and the Town Commissioners, concluding that the County Commissioners “had no authority to repeal and rescind Resolution 14–31.”
On appeal, the court concluded that Resolutions 14–31 and 14–33 were public local laws adopted pursuant to Article XI–F, Section 6, and subject to rescission. Here, both resolutions applied to the Wheatlands Farm property that was located within “a single subdivision of the state.” As such, any decision regarding the zoning density limits applicable to Wheatlands Farm had no consequence on any land outside of Queen Anne’s County, would be a matter of purely local importance, and would not involve a State mandated program requiring uniformity. Furthermore, the court found that there was nothing that restricts the power to rescind a local law adopted pursuant to the power granted to the County by Article XI–F, Section 6 of the State Constitution. Even absent an express provision in LG § 4–416 permitting the rescission of a local resolution, the court noted that the County had the inherent power to do so. Lastly, as there was no assertion in the instant case that any rights vested during the short time that elapsed between the adoption of Resolution 14–31 and the adoption of Resolution 14–33, the judgments of the Circuit Court for Queen Anne’s County were reversed.
Boomer v Waterman Family Limited Partnership, 155 A. 3d 901 (MD 3/2/2017)
Posted by: Patricia Salkin | April 29, 2017
MD Court of Special Appeals Holds Rezoning Ordinance and Its Rescission were Public Local Laws Rather than Public General Laws
Posted in Rezoning, Uncategorized
Categories
- Access to Government
- Accessory Uses
- ADA
- Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances
- Adirondacks
- Adult Entertainment Facilities
- Aesthetics
- Affordable Housing
- Aging
- Agricultural Uses
- Airports
- Alcohol Sales
- Alienation of parkland
- Amending Zoning
- Annexation
- Architectural Review Board
- Authority to Zone
- Big Box/Formula Retail
- Book Reviews
- Brownfields
- Building Codes
- Cemeteries
- Climate Change
- Collateral Estoppel
- Comprehensive Plan
- Condemnation/Eminent Domain
- Conditions on Approval
- Conservation Easements
- Constructive Approval
- Contract Zoning
- Current Caselaw
- Current Caselaw – New York
- Density Bonus
- Development Agreements
- Development Rights Agreements
- Discrimination
- Drones
- Dual Zone Parcel
- Due Process
- Easements
- Educational Use
- Endangered Species
- Energy
- Enforcement
- Environmental Justice
- Environmental Review
- Equal Protection
- Equitable Estoppel
- Ethics
- Exactions
- Exclusionary Zoning
- Exemption from Zoning
- Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
- Fair Housing Act Amendments
- Family
- Federal Preemption
- Fees
- FHA
- Financing
- first amendment
- Floating Zones
- Flood Control
- FOIL
- Food Trucks
- Formula Retail
- Fracking
- GIS
- Growth Management
- Hearings
- Highways and Roads
- Historic Preservation
- Home Occupations
- Homeland Security
- Host Community Agreements
- Hours of Operation
- Housing
- Immunity
- Impact Fees
- Incentive Zoning
- Intergovernmental Conflicts
- inverse condemnation
- Junkyards
- Laches
- Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling
- Mediation
- Medical Marijuana
- Mining
- Mobile Homes
- moratoria
- New Legislation
- Non-Conforming Uses
- Notice
- Nuisance
- Oceans
- official map
- Overlay Zone
- Paper Streets
- Pine Barrens
- Planned Development Districts
- Players in the Land Use Game
- Preemption
- Procedural Issues
- Property Rights
- Public Trust Doctrine
- Purchase of Development Rights
- qualified immunity
- Redevelopment
- Referenda
- Regional Planning
- Religious Uses – Non-RLUIPA
- Remedies
- Residency Restrictions
- Restrictive Covenants
- Rezoning
- Ripeness
- RLUIPA
- Second Amendment
- Section 1983 Liability
- Senior Housing
- Setback Requirement
- Short Term Rentals
- sign
- Signs
- Site Plan Review
- SLAPP Suits
- Smart Growth
- solar energy
- Special Facts Exception
- Special Use/Exception
- Spot Zoning
- Standing
- Statewide Planning
- Statute of Limitations
- Straddled Parcels
- Student Housing
- Subdivision Regulation
- Takings
- tatoo parlors
- Transfer of Development Rights
- Uncategorized
- Urbanism
- Utilities
- Variances
- Vested Rights
- Waivers
- Wetlands
- Wind Development
- Wireless Communications
- Younger Abstention Doctrine
- Zoning – Interpretation
- Zoning Administration
- Zoning Boards of Appeal
- Zoning Map
- Zoning-Adopting/Amending
Leave a Reply