Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin May 10, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 9 <br />QACA that LG § 4-416 could not restrict the County's power under the <br />Maryland Constitution to repeal a public local law like Resolution 14- <br />31. The court found there was "nothing that restricts the power to re- <br />scind a local law adopted pursuant to the power granted to the County <br />[under the Constitution]." <br />Moreover, noted the court, again agreeing with QACA's argument, <br />"even absent an express power to rescind a resolution, the County Com- <br />missioners had the inherent power to do so." "It is a general rule . . . <br />that a Municipal Corporation has the right to reconsider its actions and <br />ordinances, and adopt a measure or ordinance that has previously been <br />defeated or rescind one that has been previously adopted before the <br />rights of third parties have vested," said the court. The court acknowl- <br />edged that rule is limited by the presence of a statute or a rule to the <br />contrary, and subject to limitation such as when rights vest during the <br />interim between enactment of a resolution and its rescission. Here, the <br />court found there was no assertion that any rights vested during the <br />two -week period between the adoption of Resolution 14-31 and the <br />adoption of Resolution 14-33. <br />Accordingly, the court concluded that the County Commissioner's <br />rescission of the approval previously granted which had allowed for <br />rezoning of Waterman's Property was permitted. <br />See also: Kent Island Defense League, LLC v. Queen Anne's' County <br />Bd. of Elections, 145 Md. App. 684, 806 A.2d 341 (2002). <br />See also: Dal Maso v. Board of County Com'rs of Prince George's <br />County, 182 Md. 200, 34 A.2d 464 (1943). <br />Variance Zoning board of <br />adjustment grants variance for <br />open-air parking space <br />Neighbors appeal, arguing variance applicant <br />lacked the prerequisite "unnecessary hardship" for <br />a variance because there was no physical <br />circumstance unique to applicant's property <br />Citation: In re Chestnut Hill Community Association, 2017 WL <br />835411 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017) <br />PENNSYLYANIA (03/03/17) This case addressed the issue of <br />whether a zoning board of adjustment erred by finding that denial of a <br />variance would result in unnecessary hardship. <br />© 2017 Thomson Reuters 9 <br />