Laserfiche WebLink
22 <br />October 10, 2010 ( Volume 41 No. 19 Zoning Bulletin <br />constituted impermissible zoning— beyond the City's powers. With <br />the exception of one other city, municipalities within Prince George's <br />County (i.e., the county in which the City was located) were "not au- <br />thorized ... to exercise any of the powers relating to planning, subdi- <br />vision control, or zoning ...." The Landlords argued that the Ordi- <br />nance—as impermissible zoning beyond the City's enumerated pow- <br />ers —had to be nullified. <br />The circuit court disagreed. It held that the Ordinance did not con- <br />stitute impermissible de facto zoning by the city. The court said this <br />was because the ordinance did not control or direct the use of land di- <br />rectly or regulate rent based upon location. <br />The Landlords appealed. <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br />The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the Ordinance did not <br />constitute impermissible de facto zoning. <br />The court explained that "zoning" involved the "process of setting <br />aside disconnected tracts of land varying in shape and dimensions, and <br />dedicating them to particular uses in some degree to serve the interests <br />of the whole territory affected by the plan ...." The court described <br />the "very essence of zoning" as: "a territorial division according to the <br />character of the land and the buildings, their peculiar suitability for <br />particular uses, and uniformity of use within the zone." <br />Here, the court found the Ordinance did not: "divide the City into <br />districts "; "define lot sizes "; or "mandate particular uses of any specif- <br />ic parcels or buildings." Rather, the court found it: "set[] a limit on the <br />amount of rent a single- family property owner [could] charge his or <br />her tenants." Just because the Ordinance contemplated land use chang- <br />es (i.e., "shifting rental housing into apartments and out of single -fami- <br />ly neighborhoods ") did not, found the court, "inherently convert what <br />[was] a rent control ordinance into a zoning ordinance " As such, the <br />court rejected the Landlords' "characterization of the Ordinance as an <br />attempt by the City to engage in impermissible `de facto zoning. ' <br />See also: Maryland Overpak Corp. v. Mayor And City Council Of Bal- <br />timore, 395 Md. 16, 909 A.2d 23S (2006). <br />See also: Donnelly Advertising Corp. of Maryland v. City of Baltimore, <br />279 Md. 660, 370 A.2d 1127, 7 Envtl. L. Rep. 20397 (1977). <br />10 © 2010 Thomson Reuters <br />■ <br />