Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2008

Home

'. ,. February 25, 2008\ Volume 2\ No.4 !~"\ ~ J ("'" \.. ./ to retain a residential character in order to transition between com- mercial uses and residential uses. The C- T zone also required a minimum lot size for an office structure of5,OOO square feet or the size of an existing lot if greater. The C- T zone further limited the height of existing structures as the maximum height limit and the total floor area as no more than 50 percent of the building's exist- ing condition as of Ja,nuary 1, 2003. Concerned that the new zone would prohibit its subdivision of, and additional development on, the Property, Anderson House pro- tested the rezone. Anderson House brought a court action alleging that the C-T zone regulations violated the uniformity requirement of the state zoning enabling legislation. The states' uniformity re- quirement compelled all zoning regulations to be uniform for each class or kind of development throughout each district. Anderson House also argued that the C- T zone violated the identicality re- quirement of the city zoning code. The city's "identicality require- ment," Anderson House argued could be found in the city zoning code's definition of "zone." In defining the term "zone," the city zoning code required lot areas, building heights and other require- ments to be identical for the zone in which they apply. Anderson House also argued that the ordinances implementing the G~ T zone were arbitrary, capricious, and an invalid exercise of zoning au- thority, and thus, were not rationally related to the public interest. At the heart of Anderson House's challenges was its complaint that zoning the Property as C-T was irrational and unfair because its, property was much larger than those also zoned C- T. The circuit court rejected Anderson House's challenges. Ander- son House appealed to the Court of Special Appeals. Before that court issued a decision' on the matter, the Court of Appeals of Maryland transferred the case to itself. DECISION: Affirmed After finding the circuit court had jurisdiction to decide the is- sues, the court went on to review the issues presented. The court found that the new C- T zone did not violate the uni- formity requirement of the state law. The court looked at other ju- risdictions' analyses of such uniformity requirements. It found that they were in agreement as to the purpose of su~h a uniformity re- quirement. The purpose was to prohibit a zoning ordinance from ,~. treating one property differently as compared to others similarly situated. When zoning regulations were equally applicable oth- er jurisdictions found there were no violations of the uniformity 5 157