Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/12/2018

Home

June 10, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 11 Zoning Bulletin not merely the most desired of various options, and (2) precisely how the needed design features require the specific variance sought." The Neighbors argued that the Parish's argument was moot because the Parish did not qualify as a public service organization but was "merely a private organization dedicated to particular religious beliefs and practices." Here, the court held that a church could be a public service organization entitled to additional flexibility in a board's variance analysis. However, here, the BZA had not explicitly found that the Parish itself was a public service organization. Thus, concluding that the Parish could "not demonstrate an exceptional condition affecting its property through the mere presence of a structure that contributes to a historic district," the court vacated the BZA's decision and remanded for consideration of whether the Parish was entitled to additional flexibility as a public service organization and whether the requested variance could be justified under the public service doctrine. See also: Monaco v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 407 A.2d 1091 (D.C. 1979). See also: Draude v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 527 A.2d 1242, 40 Ed. Law Rep. 808 (D.C. 1987). Case Note: In remanding the matter, the court said that the BZA should consider that the variance was requested because of the Parish's desire to erect both a church and a residential building on the lot, which formerly was occupied only by the church. FeesPropertyowners bring class action against county, seeking to recover development impact fees Parties dispute whether impact fees are subject to the rational nexus/rough proportionality test for a government taking Citation: Dabbs v. Anne Arundel County, 2018 WL 1724642 (Md. 2018) MARYLAND (04/10/18)—This case addressed the issue of whether area - wide impact fees are subject to the rational nexus/rough proportionality test for a government taking. The Background/Facts: Beginning in 1987, Anne Arundel County (the "County") imposed road and school impact fees on land developers and builders. Under the County's Impact Fee Ordinance, those who paid impact fees might become eligible for refunds of those fees under certain circum- stances such as the County's failure to utilize or encumber within a specified period of time the collected fees for present or future eligible capital improve- 6 ©2018 Thomson Reuters