Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/21/2016

Home

Zoning Bulletin June 10, 2016 ( Volume 10 I Issue 11 must not only affect a matter in which the protestant [here, Moe] has a specific interest or property right but his interest therein must be such that he is personally and specially affected in a way different from that suffered by the public generally." The court said that proximity is the most important factor in determining whether one is specially affected. The court said that "[a]n adjoining, confronting or nearby property owner is deemed, prima facie [i.e., on its face], to be specially dam- aged and, therefore, a person aggrieved." When one is "farther away than an adjoining, confronting, or nearby property owner," they may still be found to be specially aggrieved if they are: "still close enough to the site of the rezoning action to be considered almost prima facie aggrieved," and offer ".`plus factors' supporting injury." The court said that there is no bright -line rule for exactly how close a property must be in order to show special aggrievement. However, in the absence of proximity, the court said that "much more is needed" to show special aggrievement. Where proximity is absent, claims of increasing traffic, change in the character of the neighborhood, lay opinion on a decrease in property values, and limited visibility may only show general aggrievement, not special aggrievement, said the court. Absent proximity, "plus factors," which include specific facts of injury showing harm directly and specifically impacting their property, may establish special aggrievement, said the court. Here, the court found that Moe, whose business was not in direct view of the Chipotle location and was 425 feet from the Chipotle loca- tion, lacked the sufficient proximity and "plus factors." Moreover, the court found that "the motivator driving Moe to protest the rezoning was . . . `simply a matter of competition.' " The court reiterated that it was "clear" that "a person is not `aggrieved' for standing purposes when his sole interest in challenging a zoning decision is to stave off competition with his established business." See also: Ray v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 430 Md. 74, 59 A.3d 545 (2013). See also: Superior Outdoor Signs, Inc. v. Eller Media Co., 150 Md. App. 479, 822 A.2d 478 (2003). Case Note: Unrelated to the zoning issues in the case, but interestingly, the court in this case also held, as a matter of first impression (i.e., the first time the court ad- dressed the issue) that a foreign LLC (here, Moe) may file a suit and subsequently cure its noncompliance with statutory registration requirements and continue with its suit. ©2016 Thomson Reuters 11