Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/02/1998

Home

Page 6- October 10, 1998 Z.B. up to code within 60 days. The court said it would fine the Ritzes $500 for each day beyond the 60-day period that the vehicles remained on the property. When the Ritzes failed to remove the vehicles or get a variance within 60 days, the court fined them $147,500. The court based the fine on 10 vehicles remaining on the premises 29 days after the 60-day period had expired. At $500 per day per vehicle the fine was $145,000; added to the initial $2,500 fine, the total came to $147,500. The Ritzes appealed, claiming the court improperly'imposed a fine greater than $2,500 for a zoning violation. The planning commission argued the fine was appropriate because the trial court clearly found that each vehicle was a separate violation and that each day was a separate violation. DECISION: Reversed, fine reduced. The $147,500 fine was excessive. It was reduced to $2,500. Despite the planning commission's argument to the contrary, the trial court didn't clearly find each vehicle constituted a separate violation each day. The court stated only that the Ritzes violated the zoning code, not that there were multiple violations due to the presence of each car for multiple days. If the court had found the presence of more than one vehicle constituted multiple violations, it would have been wrong because the ordinance didn't state that the presence of each was a separate violation. That the ordinance prohibited the storage of "vehicles" instead of "a vehicle" suggested that the presence of multiple inoperable or unlicensed cars would be only a single violation. Zoning laws were focused on the use of property, not vehicles. A single parcel would be out of compliance regardless of whether one or 100 unlicensed vehicles were on the property. Rezoning -- Developer and commission spar over definition of "neighborhood" Citation: Burgess and Commissioners of Walkersville v. 103-29 Limited Partnership, Court of Special Appeals of Maryland~ No. 1624 (1998) 103-29 Limited Partnership owned 224 acres of agriculturally zoned land in Walkersville, Md. It asked the town to rezone the land residential so it could develop a residential subdivision. In Maryland, an owner who sought a zoning change had to prove the original zoning contained a mistake or that the condi- tions of the neighborhood had changed. The developer claimed its property should be rezoned because the neigh- borhood had changed. The "neighborhood" it based its argument on excluded adjoining and nearby properties, but included lands much farther away. Its "neighborhood" covered an area of about seven square miles. The town planning commission came up with a different definition of the neighborhood and found it hadn't changed since it was first zoned. It also found that even if a substantial change had taken place, the public schools and public