Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/06/2014

Home

September 25, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 18 Zoning Bulletin The Background/Facts: Since 1930, the Robert A. Pumphrey Fu- neral Home (the "Funeral Horne") operated out of a three-story house lo- cated in Rockville, Maryland (the "City"). In 1977, RAP Leasing Corporation ("RAP"), a corporate entity owned and operated by the Pumphrey family, purchased the property. (Hereinafter, the Funeral Home and RAP are collectively "Pumphrey.") Pumphrey also owned the adjoining lot, which was open lawn. The Funeral Home had been a nonconforming use since August 3, 1932, when the first zoning ordinance governing the property was adopted. In 2010, Pumphrey sought to expand its existing parking lot for the Funeral Horne onto the adjoining parcel. To permit the expansion, Pumphrey sought a text amendment to the existing zoning ordinance. This "2010 Text Amendment" proposed an amendment to the City zon- ing ordinance governing nonconforming uses in single dwelling unit res- idential zones. That proposed amendment would have allowed a noncon- forming use that has continued on a lot since prior to August 3, 1932, to expand parking on the lot and/or onto an adjacent lot. In December 2010, the City Mayor and Council granted the 2010 Text Amendment. However, in May 2012, the City Mayor and Council filed and granted a "2012 Text Amendment" deleting the provision in the zon- ing ordinance allowing expansion of off-street parking, which had been created by the 2010 Text Amendment. Pumphrey filed a petition for judicial review and for a writ of adminis- trative mandamus, challenging the 2012 Text Amendment as invalid for being enacted arbitrarily and capriciously. The City moved to dismiss the petition for judicial review and for administrative mandamus review. The City asserted that the 2012 Text Amendment was a legislative act that was not subject to judicial or administrative mandamus review. Pumphrey responded that the City Mayor and Council were acting in a quasi-judicial capacity when considering both the 2010 Text Amend- ment and the 2012 Text Amendment, and that, therefore, the 2012 Text Amendment was subject to judicial review as a "zoning action" or to mandamus review. The circuit court agreed with Pumphrey. It held that the 2012 Text Amendment was a quasi-judicial act subject to judicial review. It also held that the 2012 Text Amendment was enacted arbitrarily and capri- ciously and was invalid. The City appealed. DECISION: Judgment of district court vacated, and matter remanded with instructions. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland held that the 2012 Text Amendment was not a zoning action subject to statutory judicial review and, for the same reasons, also was not subject to administrative mandamus review. 10 ©2014 Thomson Reuters