Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/09/2015

Home

Zoning Bulletin May 25, 2015 I Volume 9 I Issue 10 ment of standing based on the doctrine of property owner standing when chal- lenging comprehensive zoning ordinances." For example, noted the court, "[h]ypothetically, thousands of plaintiffs with the benefit of property owner standing could have standing to challenge comprehensive zoning legislation." The court stated that plaintiffs (including the Citizens) wishing to challenge in Maryland courts the legislative action adopting a comprehensive zoning are required to demonstrate taxpayer standing. The court said that under the taxpayer standing doctrine (as well as the property owner standing doctrine), "the complainant must have a special interest in the subject -matter of the suit distinct from that of the general public." With regard to taxpayer standing, that special interest can be shown by alleging both: (1) an action by a municipal corporation or public official that is illegal or ultra vires; and (2) that the action may injuriously affect the taxpayer's property, "meaning that it reasonably may result in a pecuniary loss to the taxpayer or an increase in taxes." Further, said the court, to establish eligibility to maintain a suit under the taxpayer standing doctrine, a "complainant must [also] allege two things: (1) that the complainant is a taxpayer and (2) that the suit is brought,, either expressly or implicitly, on behalf of all other taxpayers." With regard to the latter, the plaintiff could allege expressly that the plaintiff is bringing the suit on behalf of other taxpayers similarly situated, or it is enough that the allegations of the injury apply to all taxpayers in the assumed class and not merely the plaintiffs as private complainants. In summary, the court said that for taxpayer standing, the plaintiff must allege an illegal or ultra vires act that caused harm to the plaintiff taxpayer and that there is a potential for remedy to alleviate the harm incurred. Here, the court concluded that the Citizens did not satisfy the requirements of the taxpayer standing doctrine. While at least some of the Citizens were taxpayers, and they had alleged that the actions taken by the County in adopt- ing "the zoning reclassification[s]" in Bill 12-11 constituted "illegal spot zon- ing," the court found that the Citizens failed to allege that the illegal action would result in a pecuniary loss or an increase in taxes. Because the Citizens did not allege sufficiently the elements of taxpayer standing, the court concluded that their action challenging Bill 12-11was properly dismissed. See also: State Center, LLC v. Lexington Charles Ltd. Partnership, 438 Md. 451, 92 A.3d 400 (2014)'. See also: Ray v. Mayor and City Council ofBaltimore, 430 Md 74, 59 A.3d 545 (2013). Zoning News from Around the Nation CALIFORNIA San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee "is proposing amendments to the city's so- called Airbnb law in an effort to ease community concerns over the controver- sial law governing short-term rentals." The proposed amendments would reportedly "impose a 120 -day limit on the number of days per year that residents can rent out their homes or rooms"—in hosted or unhosted rentals. © 2015 Thomson Reuters 11