Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/04/2013

Home

Zoning Bulletin March 10, 2013 1 Volume 7 1 Issue 5 The Background /Facts: On November 22, 2010, the Baltimore City Council passed Ordinance 10 -397 (the "Ordinance "). The Ordinance ap- proved a planned unit development ( "PUD ") for an 11.5 -acre tract of land known as the "25th Street Station." The PUD authorized a mixed -use development located in the Remington and Charles Village neighborhoods of Baltimore City. It was anticipated that the PUD would "bring ap- proximately 20 national retailers . . ." including a super Wal -Mart store. Benn Ray ( "Ray ") and Brendan Coyne ( "Coyne ") (collectively, the "Op- ponents") filed a Petition for Judicial Review of the PUD's approval. Ray lived 2,212.39 feet, or approximately 0.4 miles, away from the PUD. He claimed that he could see the PUD site from his second -floor bathroom during the winter months of the year, and that he could hear noise from the PUD site when his second -floor bathroom window was open. He also believed that the PUD would "directly and dramatically increase traffic . . . in front of [his] home," which would "make it more dangerous for [him,]" given that his street was "a narrow residential road . . . ." Ray also believed that "the Wal -Mart planned to be part of the project [would] change the character of [his] neighborhood." Coyne lived 2,002.18 feet, or approximately 0.4 miles, away from the PUD. Coyne believed that the PUD, and specifically the planned Wal -Mart store, would adversely change the character of his neighborhood, forcing out many local businesses that he frequented and resulting in vacant build- ings in his neighborhood. The circuit court judge concluded that the Opponents lacked standing to challenge the PUD. The judge said this was because: they were "not `adjoining, confronting or nearby' property owners and thereby d[id] not enjoy prima facie [(i.e., "at first appearance ")] aggrieved status "; and had not "shown any special interest or damage unique to [themselves] that would distinguish them from the general public." The Opponents appealed. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The Opponents again appealed. The Court of Appeals of Maryland granted a writ of certiorari to determine the issue of the Opponents' standing. On appeal, the Opponents advanced two arguments: (1) the entire neighborhoods in which Ray and Coyne lived were impacted by the PUD and thus should be considered an aggrieved class, therefore allowing the Opponents, as residents of those neighborhoods, standing; and (2) Ray and Coyne's own claims for special aggrievement including their proximity to the PUD, a change in the character of the neighborhood, increased traf- fic, and visibility of the PUD —were sufficient to establish standing. DECISION: Affirmed. The Court of Appeals of Maryland concluded that Ray and Coyne did not have standing to challenge the City Ordinance, approving the PUD. The court explained that Maryland statutory law defines who may appeal a zoning decision or zoning action of Baltimore City: "any person, © 2013 Thomson Reuters 3