Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/04/2018

Home

Zoning Bulletin December 25, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 24 MARYLAND (11/01/17)—This case addressed the issue of whether a community -associations group had standing (i.e., the legal right to seek judicial review) to challenge a zoning board's decision to grant a developer a waiver of local "open space" requirements and to approve a planned unit development. The Background/Facts: DMS Development, LLC ("DMS") proposed a planned unit development ("PUD") in Towson, an unincorporated community in Baltimore County (the "County"). DMS proposed that the PUD would contain a "mixed residential dormitory and commercial project." Baltimore County Code ("BCC") required new developments to provide a certain amount of recreational "open space" depending on the number of resi- dential units. The County granted to DMS a waiver of the local open space requirement, and the County set the fee to be paid in lieu of meeting the open space requirements at "zero" dollars. Ultimately, the County Council approved the PUD. Thereafter, the Greater Towson Council of Community Associations ("GTC"), among others, challenged the PUD approval and the open space waiver. GTC was an "umbrella group" that represented more than 30 neighbor- hoods in Towson. Eventually, the County Board of Appeals (the "Board") af- firmed the decision to approve the PUD. The Board also approved the open space waiver at the zero -dollar waiver fee. GTC then filed two separate petitions for judicial review. One challenged the PUD approval and the other challenged the open space requirement waiver. Those cases were consolidated before the circuit court. DMS asked the circuit court to dismiss the actions. DMS argued that GTC lacked standing (i.e., the right to assert the claims in the judicial forum). The circuit court denied DMS's motions to dismiss. The circuit court found that GTC had standing because GTC had participated as a party before the Board in both cases, and because one of GTC's member neighborhood association members owned a community park and garden near the PUD. With regard to the open space waiver case specifically, the circuit court found that GTC had a strong interest in DMS's payment of a higher waiver fee because of the benefits it could bring to GTC's member neighborhoods in the County. The circuit court later affirmed both of the Board's decisions. GTC appealed. DMS again argued that GTC lacked standing to maintain an appeal. DECISION: Judgment of Circuit Court vacated and matter remanded with instructions to dismiss. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland held that GTC lacked standing to petition for judicial review both the Board's decision to grant DMS a waiver of the local open space requirements and to approve the PUD. In so holding, the court explained that, under Maryland law, in order to have standing to petition for judicial review, a party must meet "two condi- tions precedent." First, the party "must have been a party to the proceeding before the Board." Second,- the party must be "aggrieved" in that the party's "personal or property rights are adversely affected by the decision of the Board . . in a way different from that suffered by the public generally." Here, the ©2017 Thomson Reuters 3