Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/05/2010

Home

June 25, 2010 1 Volume 4 j No. 12 Zoning Bulletin Illegal Zoning —City ordinances effectively create an exception from a city-wide billboard moratorium for a city -owned property Other property owners challenge those ordinances as illegal zoning Citation: MBC Realty, LLC v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 2010 WL 1779671 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2010) MARYLAND (05/05/10)—This case involved the challenge of an or- dinance allowing for billboards on a publicly owned sports arena as an exception to the city's overall ban on new billboards. The case addresses the issues of illegal piecemeal zoning, spot zoning, and contract zoning. The Background/Facts: In 2000, the Mayor and the City Council of Baltimore (collectively, the "City") enacted an ordinance that imposed a moratorium on new billboards (the "Billboard Moratorium"). Approxi- mately three years later, the City enacted three ordinances —Ordinance 03-513, Ordinance 03-514, and Ordinance 03-515—which together cre- ated a conditional use for new billboards on publicly owned stadia and arenas in the city's B-5 zoning district and granted such a conditional use to the city, as owner of such an arena (the "Arena"). Effectively, the ordi- nances allowed the City an exception to the Billboard Moratorium. The three ordinances were challenged in court by various opponents who owned or had interests in properties in the vicinity of the Arena (the "Opponents"). Among the challenged ordinances was Ordinance 03-514 (the "Ordinance"), which, more specifically: amended the text of the city's zoning code to create for the B-5 district a conditional use for new billboards on publicly owned stadia and arenas. At the time of the Ordinance's enactment, the city -owned Arena was "the only property that not only was eligible for such a conditional use but also would have any need to apply for it." The Opponents argued that the Ordinance was illegally enacted. Among other things, they argued that the Ordinance constituted: (1) "piecemeal zoning"; (2) "illegal spot zoning"; and (3) "illegal contract zoning." Eventually, the circuit court declared the Ordinance valid. The Opponents appealed. The Court's Decision: Judgment of circuit court affirmed. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland held that the City's pas- sage of the Ordinance was: (1) not improper piece -meal zoning; (2) not improper spot zoning; and (3) not contract zoning. In reaching its decision, the court first explained that although pas- sage of the Ordinance was passage of a text amendment and not origi- nal or comprehensive zoning, it was still "in the nature of a legislative action." As such, the Ordinance carried a "presumption of validity." 4 © 2010 Thomson Reuters 176