Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/09/2015

Home

May 25, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 10 Zoning Bulletin whose properties had been re -zoned to classifications desired by them (collec- tively with the County, referred to as "Petitioners") intervened to protect their interests. Petitioners moved to dismiss the Citizens' suit, arguing, among other things, that the Citizens lacked standing (i.e., the legal right to bring the case). The Circuit Court agreed with the Petitioner's and dismissed the case. The court concluded that the Citizens lacked standing because they failed to meet the burden of proving special aggrievement. The court found that the Citizens' interests in the matter were not any different than the interests of a member of the general public. The Citizens appealed. The Court of Special Appeals disagreed with the Circuit Court. The Court of Special Appeals concluded that the Citizens could bring the case challenging Bill 12-11 because they enjoyed property owner standing. The Court of Special Appeals held that the property owner standard of presumed special aggrievement applied to judicial challenges to comprehen- sive zoning legislative actions (as well as quasi-judicial and other administra- tive land use actions generally). The Petitioners appealed. They argued that property owner standing ap- plied only to quasi-judicial and administrative land use actions, but was not sufficient standing for challenges to comprehensive zoning legislative actions. DECISION: Judgment of Court of Special Appeals reversed, and mat- ter remanded with directions. The Court of Appeals of Maryland agreed with the Petitioners. The court held that property owner standing should not be expended to apply to judicial challenges to comprehensive zoning legislations. Rather, held the court, plaintiffs (including the Citizens) wishing to challenge in Maryland courts the legislative action adopting a comprehensive zoning are required to demon- strate taxpayer standing. Here, the court found that the Citizens failed to dem- onstrate taxpayer standing. In holding that property owner standing should not be extended to apply to challenges to comprehensive zoning legislations, the court explained the dif- ferences between legislative zoning actions—such as comprehensive zon- ing—and quasi-judicial zoning actions—such as piecemeal rezoning. Comprehensive zoning is legislative and encompasses a large geographical area, with a process generated by a local government, rather than by a prop- erty owner or owners. It also is the product of careful study and consideration. On the other hand, administrative land use actions, whether reached via quasi- judicial or executive processes encompass a wide variety of things, including piecemeal rezonings, applicable to smaller, specific areas of land. The court said that property owner standing requires that the owner of prop- erty has property rights that are specially or adversely affected—as different from the rest of the public. The court determined that "[c]omprehensive zon- ing on the one hand, and quasi-judicial or administrative land use actions on the other, are not similar sufficiently in process or justification to warrant extension by analogy of property owner standing principles from the latter to the former." The court based that determination on its conclusion that "problems . . . would arise if complainants may satisfy the judicial require - 10 © 2015 Thomson Reuters