Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin September 25, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 18 <br />In so holding, the court found that the term "zoning action" as used in <br />the state's statutory Land Use Article was any act by the Mayor and City <br />Council that: <br />"(1) decides the use of a specific parcel or assemblage of parcels of land[;] <br />(2) was initiated by an individual application by a property owner or its rep- <br />resentative[;] (3) was based on fact-finding (from a record containing evi- <br />dence, usually both pro and con) adduced through governmental agency <br />analysis of the proposal and through a public hearing[;] and (4) either cre- <br />ates or modifies substantively the governing zoning classification or defines <br />the permissible uses, building and lot sizes, population density, topographi- <br />cal and physical features, and other characteristics of a specific parcel or as- <br />semblage of parcels of land by exercising some discretionary judgment af- <br />ter the consideration of the unique circumstances of the affected parcels and <br />buildings." <br />Looking at that four -prong test, the court concluded that it was not met <br />here: The 2012 Text Amendment did not decide the use of the Pum- <br />phrey's parcel in that it did not change the zoning or alter the site plan or <br />grant a variance or special exception or affect the lawfulness of the <br />nonconforming use. The 2012 Text Amendment was initiated by the City <br />Mayor and Council, not by an individual application by a property owner. <br />The 2012 Text Amendment was not based on findings of fact but instead <br />largely was based on policy concerns favoring cessation of nonconform- <br />ing uses. <br />For those reasons, the court concluded that the 2012 Text Amendment <br />was not a zoning action but was rather a legislative action, and therefore <br />not subject to judicial review or administrative mandamus review (which <br />applied only to quasi-judicial acts). <br />See also: Maryland Oveipak Corp. v. Mayor And City Council Of <br />Baltimore, 395 Md. 16, 909 A.2d 235 (2006). <br />See also: Talbot County v. Miles Point Property, LLC, 415 Md. 372, 2 <br />A.3d 344 (2010). <br />Case Note: <br />Pumphrey had also brought an action challenging the City's denial of its final <br />record plat application. The court concluded that substantial evidence sup- <br />ported denial of the record plat application. <br />2014 Thomson Reuters 11 <br />