Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/09/2015

Home

Zoning Bulletin May 25, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 10 station.' " Rather, the court found that a "switching station" was "a station"—a "facility," which was "distinguishable from and more intrusive to its sur- rounding environment than transmission lines." The court concluded that it was "reasonable for such facilities to be subject to local zoning, while continu- ous transmission lines are exempt because of the onerous nature of navigating local zoning ordinances for all the acreage over which transmission lines cross." Having concluded that a switching station is not a transmission line, the court reversed the decision of the Commission with regard to the applicability of Code § 56-46.1(F) to the Project's switching station. See also: City of Norfolk v. Tiny House, Inc., 222 Va. 414, 281 S.E.2d 836 (1981). Case Note: Other challenges to the Certificate Order were brought, including additional chal- lenges by JCC, as well as challenges by BASF Corporation ("BASF"). Since those other challenges were not related to zoning, they are not discussed here in this summary. Standing—County Citizens Challenge Comprehensive Rezoning Other citizens and county argue challengers lacked standing Citation: Anne Arundel County v. Bell, 2015 WL 1798953 (Md. 2015) MARYLAND (04/21/15)—This case addressed the issue of whether chal- lengers to a county's comprehensive rezonings had standing (i.e., the legal right to bring the case to court). In the case, the court explained the types of standing needed to challenge zoning actions, as well as the elements of the standing necessary to bring a challenge to a comprehensive rezoning. The Background/Facts: In 2011, the County Council for Anne Arundel County (the "County") adopted a comprehensive zoning ordinance, Bill 12- 11. Bill 12-11 governed 59,045 individual parcels or lots. It rezoned the clas- sifications of 264 parcels or lots and maintained essentially the pre-existing zoning of the rest. Bill 12-11 was challenged by various Anne Arundel County property own- ers and community associations (the "Citizens"), who objected to some, but not all, of the rezonings. The Citizens filed an action in court, alleging that the County engaged in illegal spot and contract zoning with regard to those rezon- ings and failed to provide the public with the required notice of the proposed zoning changes. Several Anne Arundel County property owners and ground leaseholders © 2015 Thomson Reuters 9