Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/01/2018

Home

January 10, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 1 Zoning Bulletin In September 2014, the Town Commissioners voted to annex Waterman's property, and in October 2014 they voted to approve Waterman's requested rezoning. The Town's new PRC zoning clas- sification was "substantially different" from the County's prior CS classification, allowing for a "substantially higher density" than the CS classification. Under Maryland law, LG § 4-416(b), although a munici- pality that has planning and zoning authority has exclusive jurisdiction over the planning and zoning in any area that the municipality annexes, that authority is subject to the proviso that, for a period of five years af- ter annexation, the municipality may not allow development of the an- nexed land for uses "substantially different" from that authorized under the county zoning applicable to the property prior to the annexation. That proviso is subject to the exception that the county may give "express approval" for the new municipal zoning before the five-year period expires. Accordingly, Waterman's property could not be developed with that higher density within five years after annexation, unless the County gave its express approval to the new PRC zoning classification. The Town Commissioners thus made the effectiveness of the rezoning ordinance for Waterman's property contingent in part on the County's approval of the rezoning. On November 25, 2014, the Board of County Commissioners (the "County Commissioners") gave express approval for the Town's rezon- ing of the annexed Waterman property. However, at that time, the County government happened to be in a period of transition as a result of November 2014 elections. On December 2, 2014, the newly elected County Commissioners took office. On December 9, 2014, the newly elected County Commissioners rescinded the resolution that their predecessors had passed to approve the rezoning of Waterman's property. Waterman then filed legal actions appealing the rescission and ask- ing the Circuit Court to declare the resolution rescinding rezoning ap- proval to be void. The Town joined those actions, and the actions were consolidated. The Circuit Court held that the County Commissioners had "no statu- tory right of reconsideration" once the County had granted express ap- proval waiving the five-year delay under LG § 4-416. The Circuit Court declared that the County resolution rescinding approval had "no legal force and effect." The County then asked the Circuit Court to reconsider its decision, which the Circuit Court denied. The County then appealed. The Court of Special Appeals reversed the Circuit Court's judgment. The Court of Special Appeals held that although LG § 4-416 itself did not explicitly provide that a county may rescind approval of a new zon- ing classification of land recently annexed by a municipality, the Mary- 6 © 2018 Thomson Reuters