Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/04/2018

Home

December 25, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 24 Zoning Bulletin appellate court found that "GTC did not put forth any evidence of its own property ownership, nor that it was specially aggrieved in some other way" different from the general public. The court emphasized that while a party may have standing before the Board, it can lack standing to petition for judicial review in the circuit court (because there is a lower threshold for standing before a Board than a judiciary). The court also emphasized that "Maryland's policy relating to 'as- sociation standing' in land use actions" requires a neighborhood or community association itself to "be `aggrieved' by the decision of the Board regardless of its members' property ownership." In other words, the court said that an as- sociation lacks standing to sue where it has no property interest of its own — separate and apart from that of its members. Here, since GTC lacked any property ownership of its own, it was "required to overcome the difficult burden[of] alleging and proving how the Board's de- cision in the open space waiver case harmed GTC differently than others in the community," said the court. The court found there was "no evidence in the record . . . that GTC was `specially aggrieved' by the decision to permit the zero dollar waiver fee any more than the general public —including all resi- dent property owners in Baltimore County." The court also found that GTC was not an "aggrieved" party based on the property interests of any of the in- dividual resident members of the neighborhoods, which were, in turn, members of GTC—since, to have standing, the association had to, itself, be "aggrieved" by the Board's decision and could not rely on its members' prop- erty ownership or interests. Thus, finding that GTC lacked standing, the appellate court concluded that the circuit court erred in denying DMS' motions to dismiss GTC's petitions for judicial review in both cases. See also: Biyniarski v. Montgomery County Bd. of Appeals, 247 Md. 137, 230 A.2d 289 (1967). See also: Ray v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 430 Md. 74, 90, 59 A.3d 545 (2013). Rezoning/Eminent Domain/Due Process —City rejects Iandowner's request to rezone property Landowner alleges that rezone denial constitutes unconstitutional taking of property Citation: Diversified Holdings, LLP v. City of Suwanee, 2017 WL 4985523 (Ga. 2017) GEORGIA (11/02/17)—This case addressed the issue of whether inverse condemnation was an available remedy on review of a particular zoning classification. It also addressed the issue of whether a city's refusal to rezone property violated a property owner's due process rights. 4 © 2017 Thomson Reuters