Laserfiche WebLink
11 <br />Zoning Bulletin August 10, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 15 <br />lic health, safety, security, or general welfare conditions; identify ordinary or <br />inherent adverse effects of a funeral home; or consider "cultural aversion to <br />the death industry" in its considerations. <br />The Background/Facts: Donaldson Properties ("Donaldson") sought to <br />build a funeral home and mortuary in a Rural Residential -Density Exchange <br />Option ("RR-DEO") zoning district in Howard County (the "County"). Fu- <br />neral homes were authorized as a conditional use in the RR-DEO zoning <br />district in the County, subject to requirements contained in Howard County <br />Zoning Regulation ("HCZR") §§ 131.B and 131.N.22. (See HCZR § 105.G.) <br />In June 2009, Donaldson filed a proposed conditional use plan ("CUP") for <br />the funeral home and mortuary. Donaldson later submitted two revised CUPs. <br />In July 2013, the County Board of Appeals (the "Board") issued a Decision <br />and Order, finding that Donaldson's revised CUP "met all of the legal criteria <br />for the conditional use." The Board based its conclusions "exclusively" on the <br />General Standards for Use Approval contained in HCZR § 131.B and the <br />Specific Criteria for Funeral Homes and Mortuaries contained in HCZR <br />§ 131.N.22. <br />Under § 131.B.2 of the HCZR, the Board had the power "to permit a <br />conditional use provided that the proposed location [would] not have. adverse <br />effects on vicinal properties above and beyond those ordinarily associated <br />with such uses." In evaluating a CUP under that standard, § 131.B.2 provided <br />that the Board had to consider the followingfour adverse effect criteria: (a) <br />physical conditions; (b) structures, walls, fences; and landscaping; (c) parking <br />areas, loading areas, driveways, and refuse areas; and (d) safe access. <br />Section 131.N.22 provided that a conditional use may be granted for fu- <br />neral homes or mortuaries in certain zoning districts, provided that certain <br />land and building size and setback requirements were met. <br />Following the Board's approval of Donaldson's CUP, community members, <br />organized as Clarksville Residents Against the Mortuary, Inc. (the "Op- <br />ponents"), filed a petition for judicial review in the County circuit court. The <br />court affirmed the Board's decision. <br />The Opponents then appealed to the Special Court of Appeals, which af- <br />firmed the judgment of the circuit court. <br />The Opponents then filed a petition for writ of certiorari, which the Court <br />of Appeals of Maryland granted. On appeal, among other things, the Op- <br />ponents presented several arguments. First, the Opponents maintained that the <br />Board, in analyzing Donaldson's CUP, was required to apply HCZR § 130.C, <br />which requires that in considering and deciding certain matters within the <br />scope of the HCZR, the Board consider certain public health, safety, security, <br />and general welfare considerations. The Opponents argued that, before grant- <br />ing the CUP, the Board was required to consider a "three-part scheme" of <br />HCZR §§ 130.C, 131.B, and 131.N.22, and that the Board had failed to <br />consider HCZR § 130.C. Second, the Opponents also argued that, before <br />granting the CUP, the Board was required to identify the ordinary or inherent <br />adverse effects of a funeral home. Third, the Opponents argued that the Board <br />should have considered the Asian community members' cultural aversion to <br />the death industry, and that the Board erred in discounting "the cultural <br />© 2017 Thomson Reuters 7 <br />