Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/04/2013

Home

Zoning Bulletin March 10, 2013 I Volume 7 1 Issue 5 court rejected the Opponents' argument that "the urban nature of the PUD" expands the proximity factor so that individuals challenging a large urban development are permitted to reside farther away from the PUD than nonurban protestants. The court also found that the •Opponents had failed to show that the PUD produced a harm directly and specifically impacting their property. Ray and /or Coyne had attempted to argue they would suffer harm from the PUD in three ways: (1) a change in the character of the neighborhood as a result of the PUD; (2) increased traffic, and (3) the PUD's visibility. The court found that generally claims of change in the character of the neighborhood by protestants who lack proximity are insufficient to prove special aggrievement. More specifically, the court found that, here, the Opponents' allegations of change in the neighborhood were not sufficient to show special aggrievement because the Opponents failed to identify a halm that directly impacted their properties; while they had complained that the com- mercial establishments now existing in their neighborhood would become vacant buildings, they failed to show that any of those businesses, whether open or closed, affected them in a manner distinct from the general public. The court also found that generally claims of increased traffic, by protestants who lack close proximity, are insufficient to prove special aggrievement. More specifically, here, the court found that Ray's claim of increased traffic was not sufficient to show special aggrievement because any increased traffic from the PUD would have a common affect upon the public and would produce only a general aggrievement —not a specific ag- grievement needed for standing. Finally, the court also found that generally claims of limited visibility, by protestants who lack close proximity, are insufficient to prove special aggrievement. Thus, more specifically, here, the court found that Ray's argument that he had standing because he could see the PUD from his second -floor bathroom window during the winter months was insufficient. Special aggrievement needed for standing required "much more than . . [this] de minimis" kind of visibility. "When one practically has to use a telescope to prove his harm from a rezoning, he has failed to show special aggrievement based on that harm," noted the court. The court concluded that: "The aggrieved class continues to be limited to those individuals who can show by specific facts that they have been specially aggrieved in a manner different than the public generally." Here, the Opponents failed to allege such facts. See also: Bryniarski v. Montgomery County Bd. of Appeals, 247 Md. 137, 230 A.2(1289 (1967). See also: Marcus v. Montgomery County Council, 235 Md. 535, 201 A.2d 777 (1964). See also: YVilkinson v. Atkinson, 242 Md. 231, 218 A.2d 503 (1966). See also: DuBccy v. Crane, 240 Md. 180, 213 A.2d 487 (1965). © 2013 Thomson Reuters 5