Laserfiche WebLink
<br />September 25, 2009 I Volume 3 I No. 18 <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />The Neighbors challenged the Board's decision to the Circuit (\,. <br />Court. The Circuit Court affirmed the Board's decision. <br />The Neighbors again appealed. The Court of Special Appeals also <br />affirmed the Board's decision. <br />The Neighbors again sought an appeal. <br /> <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br /> <br />The Court of Appeals of Maryland agreed that the proposed liv- <br />ing arrangement satisfied the Code's occupancy requirements. It held <br />that, for occupancy purposes, four unrelated tenants residing in a <br />Cresmont apartment unit formed a "single housekeeping unit" which <br />comprised a "family" under the Code. This was because they had: <br />(1) rights and obligations with respect to one another-sharing not <br />only' access to the apartment and use of the entire apartment (with <br />the exception of the other bedrooms) but also responsibility for <br />the c.are and maintenance of the apartment; and (2) could ordinar- <br />ily expect to share an apartment with the same three suitemates for <br />the one-year duration of the lease. Just because there was a possibil- <br />ity "that one (or more) of the suitemates may be removed from the <br />housekeeping unit in less than one year's time [did] not undermine <br />the unit's stability or permanence ...." <br /> <br />See also: Robertson v.W: Baptist Hosp., 267 S. W:2d 395 (Ky. 1954). <br /> <br />See also: Borough of Glassborov. Vallorosi, 117 N.j. 421, 568 A.2d <br />888 (N.J. 1990). <br /> <br />(~) <br /> <br /> <br />) <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />82 <br />