Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/03/2005

Home

Page 8 -- February 10, 2005 g.g. Appeal m Realty company challenges new zoning ordinances' Court rules ordinances not subject to challenge Citation: MBC Realty LLC v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, No. 1312, SePtember Term, 2003 (2004) MARYLAND (12/27/04) --The city of Baltimore enacted three new ordinances regarding advertising billboards. The f'LrSt ordinance amended the city's I977 urban-renewal plan and pro- vided that general advertising signs erected or placed in publicly owned stadi- ums and arenas were allowed if approved by ordinance as a conditional use. The second ordinance amended the code to authorize such signs in a certain business district. The third permitted the construction of general advertising signs in the ist Mariner Arena, subject to'express conditiOns, including the removal Of certain signs at other locations in the city. MBC Realty LLC challenged the new ordinances, arguing the enactment of the ordinances was subject to an administrative appeal because the enactment constituted a zoning action. The court ruled inthe city's favor. MBC appealed. DECISION:Affirmed. Two of the new ordinances were text amendments and not subject to admin- istrative appeal. The. third was not a 1ext amendment, but it did not reclassify property with respect to either zone or use. The third ordinance granted a conditional use, not a reclassification. Con- sequently, the court would not decide whether a reclassification of use was tantamount to an illegal reclassification of a district. When a legislative body comprehensively zoned, rezoned, or adopted a text amendment to a zoning action, it'did not constitute a zoning action. How- ever, when a legislative body changed the zoning ~lassification of a particular property, it was a zoning action subject to administrative appeal. see also: Board of License Commissioners for Anne Arundel County v. Corridor Wine Inc., 761 A.2d 916 (2000). see also: Mayor and Council of RockvilIe v. Rylyns Enterprises [nc., 814 A.2d 469 (2002). Oues% non inf0rmatmn CuStomer Service (800) 229~2084: 106 © 2005 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048.