The opinion
Prince George’s County Council, et al. v. Concerned Citizens of Prince George’s County,
et al., No. 23, September Term, 2022. Opinion by Gould, J.
LAND USE – ZONING – STANDARD OF REVIEW
Maryland courts review amendments to the text of a zoning ordinance as legislative
actions. Md. Overpak Corp. v. Mayor of Balt., 395 Md. 16, 35 (2006); MBC Realty, LLC
v. Mayor of Balt., 192 Md. App. 218, 234 (2010). In Prince George’s County, amendments
to the zoning ordinance are considered “final decision[s]” of the Prince George’s County
Council, sitting as the District Council, and are reviewed by courts only for legality. See
Md. Code Ann., Land Use § 22-407(a)(1), (e) (2012, 2022 Supp.); Town of Upper
Marlboro v. Prince George’s Cnty. Council, 480 Md. 167, 180-81, 191 (2022); Cnty.
Council of Prince George’s Cnty. v. Chaney Enters. Ltd. P’ship, 454 Md. 514, 528-31
(2017).
LAND USE – ZONING – UNIFORMITY
In uniformity challenges to zoning regulations, Maryland courts evaluate whether the
regulation is “reasonable and based upon the public policy to be served.” Montgomery
County v. Woodward & Lothrop, Inc., 280 Md. 686, 720 (1977). The Supreme Court of
Maryland has held that “[t]he crux of the [uniformity] requirement is only that similarly
situated properties are treated the same under the zoning regulations,” observing that “the
kind of discrimination violative of the uniformity requirement occurs when a zoning
ordinance singles out a property or properties for different treatment than others similarly
situated.” Anderson House, LLC v. Mayor of Rockville, 402 Md. 689, 714-15 (2008).
LAND USE – ZONING – UNIFORMITY
The Supreme Court of Maryland upheld an amendment to a Prince George’s County zoning
ordinance that allowed qualifying properties in the Residential-Agricultural Zone to
develop higher-density housing. Even though the amendment’s text and history showed
that the Council knew that only one particular property would likely qualify, the
amendment was valid because it furthered a valid public purpose and did not discriminate
between similarly situated properties.
Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County
Case No. C-02-CV-20-001850
Argued: February 3, 2023
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF MARYLAND*
No. 23
September Term, 2022
__________________________________
PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY
COUNCIL, et al.
v.
CONCERNED CITIZENS OF PRINCE
GEORGE’S COUNTY, et al.
__________________________________
Fader, C.J.,
Watts,
Booth,
Biran,
Gould,
Eaves,
Getty, Joseph M. (Senior Justice,
Specially Assigned)
JJ.
__________________________________
Opinion by Gould, J.
Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal
Fader, C.J., Watts, and Booth, JJ., dissent.
Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State __________________________________
Government Article) this document is authentic.
2024.04.26
Filed: August 22, 2023
11:30:09 -04'00'
Gregory Hilton, Clerk
*At the November 8, 2022 general election, the voters of Maryland ratified a
constitutional amendment changing the name of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme
Court of Maryland. The name change took effect on December 14, 2022.
This zoning dispute involves the interplay between the public’s interest in the future
of a small, struggling private airport in Prince George’s County and the financial interests
of its owner.
The airport lies in an area that was once rural and is now largely suburban. Over
the past forty years or so, a few dozen small planes have crashed during takeoff or landing.
Some of those planes have crashed into nearby residences or the highway that runs next to
the airport, sometimes fatally. Since at least the 1990s, the county has identified the airport
as a public safety risk.
The airport has experienced financial difficulties in recent years. As a result, its
owners have said they will increase operations or, alternatively, redevelop the site for
non-airport use. The county’s zoning ordinance has historically limited development of
housing at the airport to low-density, single-family detached housing. To incentivize
redevelopment of the airport, the County Council, over the protests of some constituents,
amended the text of the zoning ordinance to allow the airport to develop higher-density
housing, including townhouses.
Those constituents challenged the legality of that ordinance in court, claiming that
it violated Maryland’s uniformity requirement, which requires zoning laws to “be uniform
for each class or kind of development throughout a district or zone.” Md. Code Ann., Land
Use (“LU”) § 22-201(b)(2)(i) (2012, 2022 Supp.).1 They argued that the ordinance, though
facially neutral, violates uniformity because it is tailored so narrowly as to afford favorable
1
The cited statute applies to Prince George’s County. Maryland’s uniformity law
applicable elsewhere in the State is functionally identical. See LU § 4-201(b)(2).
development opportunities, in effect, to only the airport property. The circuit court rejected
their challenge, but the Appellate Court of Maryland2 reversed, finding that the ordinance
violated the uniformity requirement.
We find that, notwithstanding the financial benefits the airport’s owners and
developers may enjoy, the ordinance was adopted to further a valid public purpose and
does not discriminate against similarly situated properties; therefore, it should have
survived the uniformity challenge. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate
Court.
BACKGROUND
In November 2019, the Prince George’s County Council, sitting as the District
Council (the “Council”),3 enacted Council Bill 17-2019 (“CB-17” or “Council Bill 17”), a
text amendment to the Prince George’s County Code, to encourage the decommissioning
of the Freeway airport by allowing higher-density housing. Under the county zoning
ordinance then in effect (the “Old Zoning Ordinance” or “PGCC § 27-”), the airport was
zoned as Residential-Agricultural (“R-A”). The R-A Zone prohibited single-family
attached residences (“townhouses”) and imposed a maximum development density of 0.5
dwelling units per acre. PGCC §§ 27-441(b), 27-442(h).
2
At the November 8, 2022 general election, the voters of Maryland ratified a
constitutional amendment changing the name of the Court of Special Appeals to the
Appellate Court of Maryland. The name change took effect on December 14, 2022.
3
The Council is the ultimate local legislative authority over zoning laws and maps
within Prince George’s County. LU § 22-104.
2
Council Bill 17, however, exempts qualifying R-A Zone properties, namely the
Freeway airport, from those limitations, allowing townhouses and a development density
of up to 4.5 dwelling units per acre. PGCC § 27-441(b) n.136.4 Specifically, CB-17 allows
for higher-density housing5 if located on an assemblage of adjacent properties that: (1) is
100-150 acres or was formerly used as an airport; (2) is entirely within one mile of a
municipal boundary; (3) is entirely within 2,500 feet of land used for the generation,
transmission, or distribution of electricity; and (4) has frontage on a freeway. Id.
The Freeway Airport and Environs
The Freeway airport is a privately-owned general aviation airport on a 129-acre
property at 3900 Church Road in Bowie. The Rodenhauser family has owned and operated
the airport since it began as an airfield in the 1930s, when the area was rural. In 1947, the
airport opened for general aviation and has operated as an airport ever since. In 1968, the
property was included in the R-A Zone. Because the R-A Zone does not allow for airports,6
the property obtained legal nonconforming use status.7
4
The cited footnote appears throughout the record variously as Footnote 134 and
Footnote 135. The current version of the zoning ordinance codifies the text amendment as
Footnote 136. PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MD., MUN. CODE (2022 Supp., Update 3),
(codified through Bill No. CB-104-2022, effective Dec. 27, 2022).
5
We refer to the allowance of townhouse construction and a development density
of up to 4.5 dwelling units per acre collectively as “higher-density housing.”
6
The R-A Zone allows special exceptions for private airstrips, which are much
smaller and limited in their operations. PGCC §§ 27-441(b), 27-445.07.
7
Nonconforming uses are lawful uses that do not conform to zoning regulations,
typically because they predate the enactment of a new zoning ordinance. Trip Assocs., Inc.
v. Mayor of Balt., 392 Md. 563, 573 (2006). A nonconforming use may be permitted to
3
Today, the airport is largely surrounded by suburban residential communities,
developed mostly in the last two decades, containing hundreds, if not thousands, of homes.
Waterford Estates is directly west of the airport, containing hundreds of single-family
detached homes; Fairwood lies to the north and has approximately 1,700 residences,
including townhouses; Fairview Manor sits to the east; and Woodmore Highlands is to the
southeast. The Woodmore golf course community, directly west of Waterford Estates and
approximately one-half mile from the Freeway airport, contains 259 townhouses. That
community was developed under a 2008 amendment to the zoning ordinance allowing
townhouses on certain R-A Zone properties, up to a density of 0.5 dwelling units per acre.
PGCC § 27-444(b)(6).
Route 50, an interstate highway with four lanes in each direction, abuts the north
end of the airport’s only runway. Along the property’s western edge, high-voltage electric
transmission lines installed in the 1960s run approximately one thousand feet from, and
parallel to, the runway. The transmission lines, in addition to presenting aviation obstacles,
reduce the space available for emergency landings. The eastern boundary of the property
runs along Church Road, a county road with one lane in each direction.
In the mid-1990s, the Small Airports Advisory Committee—which included
Councilmember Derrick Leon Davis, the sponsor of CB-17—studied the various airports
in Prince George’s County in an effort to promote safe development near the Freeway
airport. The committee was especially concerned with the risk of, and damage from, planes
continue if a property owner can show the use was lawful at the time the new zoning
ordinance was enacted. LU § 22-114.
4
crashing during takeoff and landing. Subsequent development of the Fairwood
community, located just north of the airport, incorporated lessons from that study.
Specifically, the Council enacted regulations limiting development density in areas where
planes were more likely to crash.
Since 1983, 32 accidents have been documented at the Freeway airport, resulting in
10 fatalities. In some cases, planes have landed directly on or close to Route 50, colliding
with traffic in at least one instance. On September 12, 2019, while CB-17 was under
consideration by the Council, a plane from the airport crashed into Route 50, striking a car
and injuring multiple people. At least twice, planes have crashed into or very close to
homes, sometimes fatally.
The Enactment of CB-17-2019
Councilmember Davis introduced CB-17 on April 30, 2019, to amend the Table of
Uses under the Old Zoning Ordinance for the stated purpose “of permitting Townhouse
and One-family detached dwelling uses in the R-A (Residential Agricultural) Zones of
Prince George’s County, under certain circumstances.” CNTY. COUNCIL OF PRINCE
GEORGE’S CNTY., MD., SITTING AS THE DIST. COUNCIL, CB-17-2019, 2019 Leg. (2019).
The first draft of the bill would have permitted development of townhouses up to
6.0 dwelling units per acre and single-family detached homes up to 6.7 dwelling units per
acre in the R-A Zone if the assemblage of land: (1) was no more than 140 acres; (2) was
formerly used, entirely or in part, as an airport; (3) was located within one mile of a
municipal boundary; and (4) had frontage on a public right-of way classified as an arterial
5
or higher by the State. Despite the facially neutral language of the bill, CB-17 specifically
sought to incentivize the decommissioning of the Freeway airport.
Two days later, the Prince George’s County Planning Board (the “Planning Board”)
held a hearing on the bill. The Planning Board is a five-member body responsible for local
planning, subdivision, and zoning. LU § 20-202(a)(i). Proposed amendments to the zoning
ordinance must be sent to the Planning Board for comments and recommendations. PGCC
§ 27-217. At the hearing, when a board member asked Robert Antonetti, counsel for
Freeway Airport, LLC,8 why Freeway Airport did not instead apply to rezone the property,
Antonetti said he expected a text amendment would be a faster and more direct process.
The same day, the Planning Board issued a report to the Council opposing CB-17.
The Planning Board argued that townhouses were not appropriate for the R-A Zone, the
stated purposes of which are “to provide for large-lot one-family detached residential
subdivisions, while encouraging the retention of agriculture as a primary land use[,]” and
to “encourage the preservation of trees and open spaces[.]” PGCC § 27-426(a).
The Planning Board determined that, without the “former airport” requirement,
approximately 262 properties would meet the criteria of the bill. With the “former airport”
requirement, however, only the Freeway airport would qualify, as the three other
operational airports in the county were not zoned R-A. The Planning Board added that it
“believe[d] this bill was drafted for a specific property”—the Freeway airport. The Prince
8
Freeway Airport, LLC, a partnership between the Rodenhauser family and St. John
Properties, Inc., is the contract purchaser of the Freeway airport property. For clarity, we
refer to petitioner Freeway Airport, LLC, as “Freeway Airport” and the Freeway airport
property as “the Freeway airport” or “the airport.”
6
George’s County Office of Law (“Office of Law”) agreed, writing in a one-sentence
memorandum that “[t]he bill may be subject to challenge as it appears to be drafted for a
specific parcel.” Neither the Planning Board nor the Office of Law expressly raised the
prospect of a uniformity violation.
Before CB-17 was sent to the Council, the Planning, Housing, and Economic
Development Committee of the Prince George’s County Council (the “Planning
Committee”) considered CB-17 in a hearing on June 20. In advance, Councilmember
Davis had asked Karen Zavakos, Legislative Officer for the Planning Committee, to draft
amendments to the bill (“Draft 2”) “[i]n the interest of tempering the concerns raised by
[the] Planning Board[.]” In response to concerns that the “formerly used as an airport
language . . . may have been too specific,” Draft 2 made the bill “more facially neutral.”
As relevant here, Draft 2 eliminated the “former airport” language; increased the maximum
area from 140 to 150 acres; required the assemblage to be within 2,500 feet of land used
for electrical generation, transmission, or distribution; and changed the requirement of
proximity to an arterial right-of-way to proximity to a freeway.
Discussion at the Planning Committee hearing was dedicated to the Freeway airport.
“Council Member Davis, the bill sponsor, informed the Committee that CB-17-2019 is
intended to facilitate an idea for a development opportunity on property in his district where
growth in the surrounding area of a small airport has occurred.” CNTY. COUNCIL OF PRINCE
GEORGE’S CNTY., MD., PLANNING, HOUSING, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
REPORT, 2019 Leg., 1 (2019). Various constituents testified. Most opposed CB-17,
expressing concerns about traffic safety on Church Road, increased burdens on public
7
resources like infrastructure and schools, and changes to the character of the area. A few
residents, however, testified in support of CB-17, citing the unsuitability of the airport to
the area, the undesirability of expanded airport operations there, and opportunities for
economic development.
Kim Rodenhauser, whose family owns the Freeway airport, read a prepared
statement. She described the financial challenges of the business and said that CB-17
would allow her family to redevelop the property rather than expand airport operations,
which the Rodenhausers believed would otherwise be necessary to stay in business. She
was forthright about the family’s financial interest in CB-17, saying, “This legislation
would benefit our family . . . we have a vested interest in the future of the property[.]” The
statement also described when, in 1998, an airplane crashed into the Rodenhausers’ home,
killing one person. Antonetti testified about the history of aviation accidents at the airport
and the risk presented by the nearby transmission lines, adding that “this bill would
absolutely motivate the permanent closure of this airport.” He also argued that the site was
well-suited for townhouses because it was located near existing housing development, a
freeway, and electricity transmission, and had already been cleared.
Councilmember Thomas Dernoga suggested reducing the maximum distance from
electrical infrastructure from 2,500 feet to 2,000 feet to ensure that no properties other than
the Freeway airport would qualify. This suggestion, however, was ultimately not proposed
as an amendment. The Planning Committee adopted the amendments proposed by
Councilmember Davis, further revised the acreage requirement to include a minimum of
100 acres, and voted to advance Draft 2 to the Council.
8
The Council held a hearing on September 10. Public comment largely tracked the
testimony at the Planning Committee hearing, with most opposing CB-17. Councilmember
Colin Byrd of the Greenbelt City Council expressed concern that, even though the bill
targeted the Freeway airport, it “could allow other properties in the County to do similar
things.” One constituent alleged that the proposed developer, St. John Properties, Inc., had
misled residents into submitting letters supporting the closure of the airport.
Others testified in support. Members of the Prince George’s County Chamber of
Commerce called the use of the site as an airport “unsustainable” and contended that CB-17
would create jobs, expand the tax base, and encourage development of nearby retail and
entertainment. Tom Williams, a longtime employee and instructor at the Freeway airport,
described his unease flying so close to housing developments. Antonetti also introduced
maps into the record showing the 32 documented accidents since 1983.
Councilmember Davis described his participation in the County’s past efforts to
reduce public safety risks arising from the airport’s proximity to housing developments,
namely Fairwood. He also rejected accusations made by certain constituents that
councilmembers had been paid by private interests to support CB-17.
The Council considered further amendments (“Draft 3”) on October 8, 2019. The
principal amendment, proposed by Councilmember Davis, reintroduced the “formerly used
as an airport” language—no longer, however, as an absolute requirement but as an
alternative to the acreage requirement. The record does not reveal why the former airport
use language was reintroduced. When Councilmember Davis was asked if the language
was necessary, given that the Freeway airport already satisfied the acreage requirement, he
9
replied affirmatively but without explanation. Another amendment reduced the maximum
development density to 4.5 dwelling units per acre. The Council approved the amendments
without explanation.
Before the next public hearing, Planning Board staff provided the Planning Board
with a memorandum opposing CB-17, contending that townhouses were neither
appropriate for the R-A Zone nor the successor Agricultural-Residential Zone (“AR”)
under the New Zoning Ordinance (“2022 PGCC § 27-”),9 and that the bill appeared to have
been drafted for a specific property. Two days later, the Planning Board submitted another
report to the Council repeating its concerns and recommending that the property instead be
rezoned to permit townhouses. The report noted that staff could not identify all properties
meeting the criteria of Draft 3 because staff (1) lacked records of land “formerly used as
an airport” and (2) could not determine what was meant by “assemblages of properties,”
which could potentially describe an “infinite” number of properties. The Planning Board,
9
In October 2018, the District Council adopted a new zoning ordinance (the “New
Zoning Ordinance”). The New Zoning Ordinance was set to take effect when the Council
approved a countywide sectional map amendment, a process requiring the Council to apply
the appropriate zoning classification in the New Zoning Ordinance to each parcel of real
property in the County. CNTY. COUNCIL OF PRINCE GEORGE’S CNTY., MD., SITTING AS
THE DIST. COUNCIL, CB-13-2018, 2018 Leg. (2018). The New Zoning Ordinance—both
the zoning text and accompanying maps—ultimately took effect April 1, 2022. To
distinguish citations to the Old Zoning Ordinance (“PGCC § 27-”) from citations to the
New Zoning Ordinance, references to the New Zoning Ordinance are identified as “2022
PGCC § 27-.”
When the New Zoning Ordinance took effect, the Freeway airport was rezoned as
Agricultural-Residential (“AR”), the successor to the R-A Zone under the Old Zoning
Ordinance. The AR Zone, like its predecessor, prohibits townhouses as a principal use and
provides for a maximum density of 0.5 dwellings units per acre. 2022 PGCC
§§ 27-4201(d)(2), 27-5101(c).
10
however, noted that the Freeway airport would meet the criteria if its airport operations
ceased.
The Office of Law also reviewed Draft 3, writing on November 13 that the bill
“appear[ed] to be drafted for a specific parcel contained within an R-A zone” because only
one parcel met the eligibility criteria for townhouse development. The Office of Law stated
that “[i]f townhomes are permitted in the R-A zone, then the zoning regulations will not be
uniform because townhomes are not detached, single family, nor on large lots.” This
statement marked the first direct appearance in the record of a uniformity concern.
Notably, the Office of Law’s concern apparently arose not because only the Freeway
airport met the townhouse development requirements but because, as a general matter,
allowing townhouse development conflicted with the purposes of the R-A Zone.
The Council held a public hearing on Draft 3 on November 19. Constituents
presented similar arguments as those previously described. Antonetti contended that the
bill was “not merely for private gain,” citing the accident history at the Freeway airport
and “the public safety benefit to closing a general aviation airport surrounded by residential
development.” The President of the Woodmore Homeowner’s Association10 expressed
concern that a specific parcel in his community called “Hidden Pond” might qualify for
higher-density housing under CB-17. This prompted the Council to amend the bill in a
manner designed to exclude that parcel.
The Woodmore Homeowner’s Association represents homeowners from the
10
Woodmore golf course community, not to be confused with Woodmore Highlands.
11
When it came time for the Council to vote on CB-17, Councilmember Deni Taveras
explained her affirmative vote and encouraged other Councilmembers to do the same,
saying:
. . . I’ll mention my experience with airport safety issues. And the
irony is that the gentleman from St. John’s does highlight seven
crashes and nine, and ten fatal deaths that have occurred over the last
several years and you are included. I remember. And what it remind
—what that also reminds me of is that, on November 12, 2001, back
where I’m from in New York, we had 265 people die in a plane crash,
Flight 587, heading to Dominican Republic. I don’t know if anybody
remembers that, but it was shortly after 9/11. And I lost ten people,
ten family members, on that plane crash, ones, family and friends.
And, especially after 9/11, as a New Yorker, I was never the same,
and neither was my family, and neither was the neighborhood.
Especially if you live in [sic] an airport, none of that is ever the same.
. . . [T]he alternative [to developing the Freeway airport] is that they’re
going to rebrand and they’re going to reengage to have higher,
increasing traffic. This is the risk that you take. And everybody feels
that it’s not them. They’re never going to get hit. They’re never—
they’ll survive.
And so, the thing is, I just say there’s nothing wrong with the outline
of the development plan that’s provided. With the same way we have
Fairwood and some of these other higher-density, and Woodmore
Highlands, some of these higher densities, they would look at—
there’s no difference with what’s being proposed, which concerns me
that why this area and not Fairwood and not these other places. Why
is that okay? And I think that the lady says, if they were allowed, why
can’t this?
And so, with that, I just want to say that, and there’s already plans for
an ice rink. There’s already plans for a school site. There are already
plans in place for future development that compensates and that
accounts for the changes that are coming. So, with that, I just want to
say go ahead and vote in favorable [sic] for this proposal.
12
The Council then approved the final version of CB-17, and CB-17 took effect 45
days later on January 3, 2020. The enacted bill added Footnote 13611 to the Table of Uses,
permitting townhouses and single-family detached homes in the R-A Zone at up to 4.5
dwelling units per acre if:
(a) The use is located on an assemblage of adjacent properties
that:
(i) is no less than one hundred (100) acres and no more
than one hundred fifty (150) acres in size or was
formerly used as an airport;
(ii) is entirely within one (1) mile of a municipal
boundary;
(iii) is entirely within 2,500 feet of land owned by a
regulated public utility and used for purposes of
electrical generation, transmission, or distribution
in connection with providing public utility service
in the County by a regulated public utility; and
(iv) a portion of the boundary of the assemblage of
adjacent properties has frontage on a public
right--of--way classified as a freeway or higher in
the Master Plan of Transportation and is maintained
by the State Highway Administration.
PGCC § 27-441(b).
Procedural Background
Judicial Review in the Circuit Court
Concerned Citizens of Prince George’s County, et al. (“Concerned Citizens”)
petitioned for judicial review of CB-17 in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County on
December 16, 2019. In its supporting memorandum, Concerned Citizens presented five
11
See text accompanying note 4, supra.
13
questions, including whether CB-17 violated the uniformity requirement.12 They argued,
without reference to case law, that CB-17 “[o]n its face” violated uniformity by allowing a
“very specific, very limited segment of the R-A zone”—the Freeway airport—to develop
higher-density housing, in conflict with the stated purposes of the R-A Zone.
Citing Montgomery County v. Woodward & Lothrop, Inc., 280 Md. 686 (1977),
Freeway Airport and the Council argued in a joint opposition memorandum that CB-17 did
not violate uniformity because: (1) the text of the ordinance applied “uniformly to all
qualifying properties using the same exact terminology of the regulation,” even if it
produced “vastly different results on different properties throughout the zone,” and
(2) CB-17 was “rooted in a sound public policy of protecting the citizens of Prince
George’s County” by encouraging the decommissioning of the Freeway airport.
Concerned Citizens’ reply memorandum focused on the alleged impropriety of using a text
amendment to effect a “site-specific land use process,” but did not elaborate upon the
uniformity issue.
12
Concerned Citizens presented the following questions before the circuit court:
(1) Was the District Council’s enactment of CB-17-2019 an unlawfully granted
zoning approval for the Freeway Airport property, when the statutory requirements
for site-specific zoning actions were not met?;
(2) Did the District Council’s enactment of CB-17-2019 constitute unlawful spot
zoning?;
(3) Did the District Council’s enactment of CB-17-2019 violate the uniformity
requirement of the Regional District Act?;
(4) Did the District Council’s enactment of CB-17-2019 violate the “special law”
prohibition of Maryland’s Constitution?; and
(5) Was CB-17-2019 enacted unlawfully in the absence of a required public
hearing?
14
The matter was subsequently transferred to the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel
County. At the hearing, Concerned Citizens’ uniformity argument was limited to showing
that CB-17 was narrowly drafted to target and benefit the Freeway airport. On May 7,
2021, the circuit court affirmed the Council’s decision without explanation.
Judicial Review in the Appellate Court
On appeal to the Appellate Court of Maryland, Concerned Citizens raised
substantially the same challenges as in the circuit court13 and largely repeated their
uniformity argument. In discussing Woodward & Lothrop for the first time, Concerned
Citizens distinguished that case on the grounds that the regulations there were relatively
broad and had an actual effect on numerous properties, in contrast to those in CB-17, which
“were painstakingly specific to the Freeway Airport property.” Concerned Citizens did not
argue, however, that any criteria of CB-17 were unreasonable or not based on a public
13
Those issues, as stated and numbered by the Appellate Court, were:
(1) Did the District Council’s enactment of CB-17-2019 violate the uniformity
requirement of Maryland Code, Land Use Article, Regional District Act?;
(2) Did the District Council's enactment of CB-17-2019 violate the “special law”
prohibition of the Maryland Constitution?;
(3) Did the District Council's enactment of CB-17-2019 constitute unlawful “spot”
zoning?;
(4) Was the District Council's enactment of CB-17-2019 an unlawful grant of relief
to Freeway Airport from the use and density restrictions of the R-A zone without
the required administrative, quasi-judicial procedure?; and
(5) May the District Council’s enactment of CB-17-2019 be affirmed on the basis
of “public interest” or “public benefit”?
In re Concerned Citizens of PG Cnty. Dist. 4, 255 Md. App. 106, 109-10 (2022).
15
purpose. Those issues arose only when the Appellate Court questioned Freeway Airport
during oral argument, which led to a cursory and unrevealing discussion. Concerned
Citizens did not contend that any other properties were unreasonably excluded from the
development opportunities under CB-17.
The Appellate Court held that CB-17 violated Maryland’s uniformity requirement.
In re Concerned Citizens of PG Cnty. Dist. 4, 255 Md. App. 106 (2022). The Court
reasoned that CB-17 was “tailor-made for Freeway Airport” and that the record did not
show “any public purpose for creation of this special high-density area within an R-A
zone[.]” Id. at 124. In effect, the Court deemed CB-17 a “mere favor” to Freeway Airport.
Id. at 125-27. As evidence, the Court pointed to the provisions in CB-17 relating to former
airport use and proximity to electrical infrastructure, finding that they lacked any
discernible public purpose.14 The Court did not reach the other issues on appeal.
Petition for Certiorari and the Motion to Dismiss
Freeway Airport and the Council each petitioned for writ of certiorari, asking this
Court to reverse the Appellate Court and affirm the validity of CB-17. To complicate
matters, after we granted writ of certiorari, Prince George’s Cnty. Council v. Concerned
Citizens of Prince George’s Cnty., 482 Md. 31 (2022), a newly elected Council enacted
Council Bill 17-2023 (“CB-17-2023”), which took aim at CB-17 and the broader practice
of enacting footnote exceptions to the Table of Uses in the Old Zoning Ordinance. CNTY.
14
The Court did not take issue with the provisions requiring proximity to a
municipality and a freeway. Concerned Citizens, 255 Md. App. at 125-26 & n.16.
Concerned Citizens has not argued that those provisions are not reasonable and based upon
public policy, except to the extent they target the Freeway airport.
16
COUNCIL OF PRINCE GEORGE’S CNTY., MD., SITTING AS THE DIST. COUNCIL, CB-17-2023,
2023 Leg. (2023).15 The Council subsequently filed a notice of dismissal, thereby
withdrawing as a party and leaving Freeway Airport as the sole petitioner. See Md. Rule
8-601(a).
Concerned Citizens moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that CB-17-2023 had
repealed CB-17 and thus rendered the uniformity question moot. See Md. Rule
8-602(c)(8). “Generally, a case is moot if no controversy exists between the parties[.]”
D.L. v. Sheppard Pratt Health Sys., Inc., 465 Md. 339, 351 (2019). In land use and zoning
cases, we generally presume that, absent contrary legislative intent, a substantive change
in law occurring during litigation and before any substantive rights have vested is applied
retroactively. McHale v. DCW Dutchship Island, LLC, 415 Md. 145, 170 (2010). Thus, if
CB-17-2023 were to indeed preclude Freeway Airport from developing under CB-17, this
controversy would be moot.
Freeway Airport, in opposing the motion to dismiss, contends that development of
the airport can proceed under CB-17 despite the passage of CB-17-2023. Freeway Airport
argues that: (1) the New Zoning Ordinance allows, in certain cases, for development under
the Old Zoning Ordinance, see Concerned Citizens, 255 Md. App. at 109 n.2; (2)
CB-17-2023 prohibits development only under 2022 PGCC § 27-1903; and (3)
CB-17-2023 does not prohibit Freeway Airport from developing the property under other
15
Council Bill 17-2023 declared as its purposes: “limiting the authority in the
Zoning Ordinance for development of Townhouse and One-family attached dwelling uses
under the prior Ordinance in the R-A [] Zone” and “eliminat[ing] uses permitted in the
prior Ordinance by way of Footnoted exceptions[.]”
17
sections, namely 2022 PGCC § 27-1704, which allows for development of certain
“grandfathered” projects.
From the information in this record, we are unable to definitively determine that the
case is moot. We shall, therefore, address the merits. The effect of our decision on the
parties will be an issue for another day.
ZONING AND THE STANDARD OF REVIEW
Zoning authorities in Maryland implement land use plans and determinations of
zoning categories primarily through three processes: original zoning, comprehensive
rezoning, and piecemeal rezoning. Mayor of Rockville v. Rylyns Enters., Inc., 372 Md.
514, 532 (2002). Original zoning is the initial designation through legislative action,
ordinarily by a local government, of large areas according to their permissible or prohibited
uses and conditions. Id. at 532, 535. Comprehensive rezoning, as its name suggests, refers
to the same process applied to areas previously zoned. Id. In contrast, piecemeal rezoning
is a quasi-judicial action, culminating in a legislative act, relating to an individual parcel,
lot, or assemblage, and is typically requested by a property owner. Id. at 532; Anderson
House, LLC v. Mayor of Rockville, 402 Md. 689, 708 n.17 (2008).
The Council derives its zoning authority from the Maryland-Washington Regional
District Act (the “RDA”). Prince George’s County v. Zimmer, 444 Md. 490, 525-26, 523
n.29 (2015) (providing a history of the RDA); LU, Titles 14 to 27 (codifying the RDA).
The RDA establishes the Maryland-Washington Regional District, which consists of nearly
all of Montgomery and Prince George’s counties, LU § 20-101, and grants primary zoning
authority to the County Councils sitting as the District Councils, LU § 22-101.
18
The Council’s zoning powers include “divid[ing] the portion of the regional district
located within its county into districts and zones of any number, shape, or area it may
determine.”16 LU § 22-201. The Council has authority to “adopt and amend the text of the
zoning laws” and their accompanying maps to regulate, among other things: “the location,
height, bulk, and size of each building or other structure”; “the density and distribution of
population”; “the location and uses of buildings and structures”; and “the uses of land[.]”
LU § 22-104; see also LU § 22-201(b)(1). Importantly, a text amendment is not a
piecemeal rezoning, as it does not change the assigned zone of any parcel. MBC Realty,
LLC v. Mayor of Balt., 192 Md. App. 218, 238 (2010). Instead, it amends the regulations
that apply to a particular zone. Id.
We review the Council’s action in zoning matters as administrative agency action.
Cnty. Council for Prince George’s Cnty. v. Carl M. Freeman Assocs., Inc., 281 Md. 70, 74
(1977); Md. Rule 7-201(b). We look through the decisions of the trial court and evaluate
agency action directly. Comptroller of Md. v. FC-GEN Operations Invs. LLC, 482 Md.
343, 359 (2022).
For Prince George’s County, Section 22-407 of the Land Use Article provides the
standards of judicial review for the Council’s “final decision[s]” in zoning matters. LU
§ 22-407(a)(1), (e); see also Town of Upper Marlboro v. Prince George’s Cnty. Council,
480 Md. 167, 181, 191 (2022); Cnty. Council of Prince George’s Cnty. v. Chaney Enters.
Ltd. P’ship, 454 Md. 514, 528-31 (2017). Both legislative and quasi-judicial acts by the
16
Here, we use the terms “district” and “zone” interchangeably.
19
Council constitute reviewable “decisions.” Chaney Enters., 454 Md. at 531 n.12
(clarifying that zoning “decision[s]” under LU § 22-407(a)(1) include legislative acts, in
contrast to other statutes that limit review to zoning “actions”); see also Town of Upper
Marlboro, 480 Md. at 180-81, 191 (reviewing legislative acts of Prince George’s County
Council under LU § 22-407).
Section 22-407(e) identifies the circumstances under which we may reverse or
modify a zoning decision by the Council. The decision must be: “(i) unconstitutional;
(ii) in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the district council; (iii) made on
unlawful procedure; (iv) affected by other error of law; (v) unsupported by competent,
material, and substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; or (vi) arbitrary
or capricious.” LU § 22-407(e).
Quasi-judicial decisions may be reversed or modified under any of the above
circumstances. Town of Upper Marlboro, 480 Md. at 180-81, 191. In contrast, we review
legislative decisions only for legality, which implicates only provisions (i) to (iv) of the list
above. Id. Review for legality “is an even more limited standard than the already narrow
review for arbitrary and capricious action, or for action unsupported by substantial
evidence.” Talbot County v. Miles Point Prop., LLC, 415 Md. 372, 393 (2010).
Here, the Council’s enactment of CB-17 was “in the nature of” a legislative action.
MBC Realty, 192 Md. App. at 234 (holding that a text amendment is “in the nature of a
legislative action”); see Md. Overpak Corp. v. Mayor of Balt., 395 Md. 16, 35 (2006).17
17
Community members and at least one councilmember protested the Council’s
decision to use a text amendment here, arguing that Freeway Airport should have applied
20
Legislative action enjoys a strong presumption of validity; we do not substitute our policy
judgments for those of the legislature, and we assume as the action’s basis any reasonably
conceived state of facts that would sustain it. See Rylyns, 372 Md. at 535, 542-43
(“Because special exceptions [and conditional uses] are legislatively-created[,] . . . they
enjoy the presumption of correctness[.]”); Anderson House, 402 Md. at 723-24 (discussing
the presumption in the context of original zoning and comprehensive rezoning). The
challenger to the law or regulation “carries the heavy burden of establishing, by clear and
affirmative evidence” the invalidity of the action. Anderson House, 402 Md. at 724.
for a piecemeal rezoning—a quasi-judicial action. Those critics saw CB-17 and text
amendments broadly as ways to circumvent the more rigorous requirements of
quasi-judicial action.
In that vein, Concerned Citizens argued before the circuit court and Appellate Court
that CB-17 unlawfully bypassed what they contended were the required quasi-judicial
procedures for “site-specific zoning action.” The Appellate Court did not reach this issue,
instead invalidating CB-17 on uniformity grounds.
In MBC Realty, opponents of a text amendment which, in effect, allowed only a
single arena to install new billboards, argued that the amendment was piecemeal zoning.
192 Md. App. at 238. The Appellate Court rejected that argument, reasoning that the
amendment did not change the assigned zone of the arena. The same reasoning applies
here.
Additionally, neither the Land Use Article nor the Prince George’s County Code
require that “site-specific” zoning decisions be subject to quasi-judicial proceedings,
despite providing for rules in other specific situations. See LU § 22-206 (providing for text
amendment procedures); LU § 22-301 (providing authority to grant special exceptions and
variances); PGCC §§ 27-143 to 27-157 (providing rules for map amendments); PGCC
§§ 27-214 to 27-219 (providing rules for text amendments); PGCC §§ 27-296 to 27-418
(providing rules for special exceptions). Though applying for piecemeal rezoning may
have been available to Freeway Airport, the Council was permitted to act legislatively.
21
DISCUSSION
Concerned Citizens challenges the legality of CB-17 on the grounds that the
ordinance violates the uniformity requirement, which requires zoning laws to “be uniform
for each class or kind of development throughout a district or zone.” LU § 22-201(b)(2)(i).
Concerned Citizens argues, and the Appellate Court agreed, that CB-17 violates uniformity
because the Council narrowly tailored it to single out18 the Freeway airport as the only
qualifying property.
Maryland’s uniformity statutes, the likes of which nearly all other states have
adopted, Anderson House, 402 Md. at 713 & n.20, reassure property owners that they will
not be subject to “arbitrary” or “invidious” discrimination, id. at 717-20, or government
favoritism or coercion, id. at 716 (quoting Rylyns, 372 Md. at 536).19 Modern courts,
including this one, understand uniformity as a state law counterpart to “the constitutional
equal protection prohibition against purely arbitrary zoning classifications and
restrictions,” and generally apply similar principles of review. 1 Rathkopf’s The Law of
18
The term “singling out” in Maryland uniformity cases first appears, to our
knowledge, in Anderson House, 402 Md. at 714, 715 n.21, 717, 720, though the concept
appeared long before then in spot zoning cases, see, e.g., Rylyns, 372 Md. at 546.
19
Maryland’s uniformity statutes adopt, nearly verbatim, the language of the
Standard State Zoning Enabling Act, a model act promulgated by the U.S. Department of
Commerce. The model act provides: “All such regulations shall be uniform for each class
or kind of buildings throughout each district.” A STANDARD STATE ZONING ENABLING
ACT § 2 (U.S. DEP’T OF COMMERCE 1926).
Courts have also described improper discrimination as “unfair,” Anderson House,
402 Md. at 720, “unequal,” id., “ad hoc,” id. at 714, and “unreasonable,” Rylyns, 372 Md.
at 546 (describing illegal spot zoning).
22
Zoning and Planning § 4:8 (4th ed. rev. 2023) (“Rathkopf”) (citing Woodward & Lothrop,
280 Md. 686); see also Anderson House, 402 Md. at 719 n.23 (comparing the Equal
Protection clause analysis to uniformity analysis). Spot zoning cases, which typically
involve uniformity or uniformity-like challenges to piecemeal rezonings, are also
instructive.20 See, e.g., Cassel v. Mayor of Balt., 195 Md. 348 (1950); Hewitt v. Cnty.
Comm’rs of Baltimore Cnty., 220 Md. 48 (1959).
We may consider direct and circumstantial evidence, including “the historical
background of the decision under [legislative] challenge, the specific series of events
leading to the enactment or official policy in question, and the legislative or administrative
history, including contemporaneous statements made by the members of the
decisionmaking body.” Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508
U.S. 520, 540 (1993) (describing the standard of review in an equal protection challenge).
Regulations that draw classifications between properties within a zone are, as a
general matter, permissible. The leading cases in Maryland’s limited uniformity case law
provide that such regulations do not violate uniformity when “reasonable and based upon
the public policy to be served,” Woodward & Lothrop, 280 Md. at 720, and when “similarly
situated properties are treated the same[,]” Anderson House, 402 Md. at 715.
20
“Spot zoning occurs when a small area in a District is placed in a different zoning
classification than the surrounding property[.]” Rylyns, 372 Md. at 546 (quoting Tennison
v. Shomette, 38 Md. App. 1, 8 (1977)).
23
Public Purpose
Two of our leading uniformity cases present examples of regulations based upon
valid public purposes, that is, “the public policy to be served.” Woodward & Lothrop, 280
Md. at 720. In Woodward & Lothrop, we upheld regulations discriminating between
properties in the same zone based on size and the year that the use began, when those
regulations furthered “the legislative purpose of encouraging land assembly to permit
cohesive development and to assure open spaces and other amenities[.]” Id. at 721. And
in Anderson House, we found that regulations tailored to existing property conditions—
which, in effect, created classifications—helped “avoid[] the need for a race to obtain
variances lest existing developed properties become nonconforming,” 402 Md. at 719,
“minimiz[ed] the impact of businesses on adjacent residential properties,” id. at 725 n.26,
and “preserv[ed] the residential character of the existing structures and lots,” id.
In contrast, zoning regulations have been held invalid when they lack a public
purpose. In Cassel v. Mayor of Baltimore, we invalidated the rezoning of a single property
in a larger residential zone because the sole purpose of the rezoning was to allow the
property owner to operate a funeral home, not to satisfy any apparent public need. 195
Md. at 358 (finding little local demand for funeral homes, three existing funeral homes
within a close distance, and proximity to a commercial district where the funeral home
could have operated instead). Similarly, in Hewitt v. County Commissioner of Baltimore
County, we struck down a zoning map amendment reclassifying two properties in a large
residential area to business zoning when the only evidence of a public benefit was a vague,
speculative notion of serving travelers from a nearby expressway. 220 Md. at 62-63.
24
The requirement that there be a valid public purpose promotes uniformity by
protecting against mere favoritism toward particular parties. For example, in Board of
County Commissioners of Washington County v. H. Manny Holtz, Inc., the Appellate Court
invalidated the piecemeal rezoning of a property because the Washington County Board of
County Commissioners (the “Board”) had, merely to appease certain neighbors, restricted
the allowable uses of the property as a condition of approval. 65 Md. App. 574, 576-77
(1985); see also Benner v. Tribbit, 190 Md. 6, 20 (1948) (describing invalid zoning
regulations, broadly, as “arbitrary permission to A and prohibition to B to use their own
property, at the pleasure of neighbors or at the whim of legislative or administrative
agencies”); Rockville Fuel & Feed Co. v. City of Gaithersburg, 266 Md. 117, 130 (1972)
(discussing an invalidated ordinance where “the sole basis for [different treatment] was a
‘plebescite [sic] of neighbors’ without any supporting evidence that related to the public
health, comfort, safety or welfare []”).
Here, CB-17 furthers a public purpose by incentivizing the redevelopment of land
currently used for a nonconforming and dangerous airport. Eliminating the risk of plane
crashes, particularly in a residential area, without question furthers an interest in public
safety, and Concerned Citizens has not argued otherwise. Moreover, some constituents
and at least one local association supported CB-17 because they expected townhouse
development would benefit the local economy.
The Council was presented with the following arguments and information, which
together make up a “state of facts reasonably [] conceived that would sustain” the Council’s
25
enactment of CB-17. See Anderson House, 402 Md. at 724 (quoting Edgewood Nursing
Home v. Maxwell, 282 Md. 422, 427 (1978)).
1. A history of crashes and fatalities relating to aircraft taking off or landing at the
Freeway airport. This record included detailed maps in the record showing crash
events—some fatal—and testimony from the owners of the airport.
2. Testimony from an employee of the Freeway airport describing the risks
presented by nearby transmission lines and residences.
3. A history of the County’s past efforts to mitigate crashes involving aircraft from
the Freeway airport (and other airports), the harms from which were exacerbated
by the growth of nearby housing developments. The County’s efforts included
studies and implementation of safety regulations.
4. Support from some residents and members of the Chamber of Commerce on the
grounds that development of townhouses would provide economic benefits and
that continued use of the property as an airport would be inappropriate.
Additionally, the elimination or mitigation of nonconforming uses is, as a general
matter, a valid public purpose.21 Trip Assocs., 392 Md. at 573. That is because
nonconforming uses are, by definition, incompatible with the zone in which they are
located and thus reduce uniformity. Cnty. Council of Prince George’s Cnty. v. E. L.
Gardner, Inc., 293 Md. 259, 267 (1982) (“[N]onconforming uses pose a formidable threat
to the success of zoning” because they “limit the effectiveness of land use controls, . . .
imperil the success of the community plan, and injure property values.”). For instance, we
have upheld as a proper exercise of the police power a regulation that phased out all
21
Concerned Citizens did not argue before the circuit court or Appellate Court that
discontinuing a nonconforming use, either as a general matter or as applied here, is not a
valid public purpose. The question did not even arise until the Appellate Court held that
CB-17’s effort to eliminate a nonconforming use did not overcome the uniformity
challenge. Concerned Citizens, 255 Md. App. at 126-27.
26
nonconforming junk yards within two years. Shifflett v. Baltimore County, 247 Md. 151,
154 (1967). Here, the Freeway airport has been a legal nonconforming use since 1968,
when the mostly rural area was first zoned as R-A. Moreover, the airport has become, over
time, even less practically suited to the increasingly suburban area.
The circumstances here contrast with those in Cassel, 195 Md. 348, and H. Manny
Holtz, 65 Md. App. 574, where we invalidated regulations that reduced uniformity. In
Cassel, we invalidated the rezoning of a property located in an established residential
neighborhood that had previously been used as a residence. 195 Md. at 357-58. The
property had been rezoned to commercial use to allow the owner to run a funeral home. Id.
That is not a use most people would call “in harmony with” a residential area. Id. at 355.
In H. Manny Holtz, a property owner sought a rezoning of his property from
residential to business to operate a convenience store. 65 Md. App. 574. There, the Board,
in its legislative capacity, had already established the appropriate uses for the business
zone, which included a convenience store use. Id. at 577 n.1, 583 n.3. Subsequently, the
Board, in its quasi-judicial capacity, restricted the uses of only the applicant’s property to
prohibit convenience store use. Id. at 577.22 Thus, the Board’s action not only deviated
from the zoning ordinance, but reduced uniformity. Moreover, the Board stripped the
property owner of a use to which he was otherwise entitled. In contrast, the Council here,
in its legislative capacity, passed a text amendment that determined in the first instance the
22
The Appellate Court also said that because the Board had already legislatively
designated the permitted uses in the zone, “the exclusion of any one or more uses by the
County Commissioners in its quasi-judicial capacity [was] a usurpation of the legislative
function.” H. Manny Holtz, 65 Md. App. at 583 n.3.
27
possible uses in the R-A Zone and could be seen as increasing uniformity by encouraging
an out-of-place airport to redevelop as housing in a largely residential area.23
Concerned Citizens, having failed to argue that decommissioning the Freeway
airport, or any other similar airport, has no valid public purpose, instead has presented
evidence of public opposition to CB-17. Indeed, dozens of community members and other
public officials opposed higher-density housing development at the Freeway airport. But
Concerned Citizens conflates public sentiment with public purpose. Our duty is not to
weigh public opinion or debate public policy, but to determine only whether specific
legislation reasonably serves a public purpose.
Concerned Citizens argues that any of the ostensible public purposes for CB-17,
even if valid on their face, are mere pretext for favoritism toward Freeway Airport. In
doing so, counsel for Concerned Citizens acknowledged to the circuit court that the
Council, in enacting CB-17, expressed a concern for public safety:
I mean, come on. How can the District Council. . . not understand and accept
all of this nonsense about how dangerous the airport is[?] Yes, maybe the
airport is dangerous. Maybe when it started in the ‘40s, it was in the middle
of nowhere.
23
Nor does this case present the same risk of “emasculat[ing] the uniformity
requirement,” see H. Manny Holtz, 65 Md. App. at 584, as in Cassel and H. Manny Holtz.
In those cases, the courts feared that upholding the challenged regulations could be “an
opening wedge for other enterprises,” Cassel, 195 Md. at 358, and encourage the
“piecemeal proliferations [sic] of [] mini-districts [,]” H. Manny Holtz, 65 Md. App. at 584.
We see little risk that CB-17 will push Prince George’s County down a slippery
slope into zoning chaos. If anything, CB-17 is just another ordinance in a long line of
exceptions, carveouts, and workarounds to Prince George’s County’s antiquated zoning
ordinance (the Old Zoning Ordinance). Indeed, the enactment of the New Zoning
Ordinance was largely motivated by a desire to streamline zoning and do away with such
exceptions.
28
Concerned Citizens claims, however, that the Council’s concern was either disingenuous
or induced by Freeway Airport through improper means, and that the real driver of CB-17
was “development, money.”
Concerned Citizens has repeatedly alleged the existence of an illegal or unethical
relationship between the Council and Freeway Airport. The Appellate Court appeared to
share this view, expressing concern with what it perceived as a “worrisome dynamic
between public and private interests.” Concerned Citizens, 255 Md. App. at 126.
According to the Court, the Council appeared to have bestowed a “mere favor” upon
Freeway Airport, id. at 125-26, enacting CB-17 “merely to accommodate private interests
detrimental to the welfare of other property owners in the same district[,]” id. at 126
(quoting Page v. City of Portland, 165 P.2d 280, 283 (Or. 1946)). In this vein, the
Appellate Court questioned the credibility of the public safety interest in closing the
Freeway airport, citing the airport’s “[i]ncongruous[]” plan to intensify operations if unable
to develop higher-density housing. Id. at 122.
Concerned Citizens has not, however, identified evidence of favoritism toward
Freeway Airport, instead merely insinuating that developers have contributed to the
election campaigns of councilmembers. The record provides no reason to think the Council
would not have passed CB-17 if some other party owned or intended to develop the airport.
The only specific example of impropriety we have discerned in the record is the allegation
by nearby residents that the developer used misleading tactics to solicit support for the
proposed development. Concerned Citizens has not shown, however, how the developer’s
29
actions implicate the motives of the Council in enacting CB-17.24 And, that Freeway
Airport’s plans under one scenario might conflict with the public safety interest does not
undermine the public safety interest in closing the airport. If anything, Freeway Airport’s
alternative plan to intensify flight operations could reasonably heighten that interest.25
Nor are we moved that Freeway Airport pushed the Council to adopt CB-17 by
raising the undesirable prospect of increased airport operations. See Concerned Citizens,
255 Md. App. at 126 (remarking that the airport owners leveraged their “allegedly
dangerous” airport to “bull[y]” the Council into enacting favorable legislation). Whether
24
In any event, the Council was made aware of these allegations at public hearings.
25
The Appellate Court also contended that the Council lacks authority to make land
use policy relating to airport safety, reasoning that regulation of airport safety is the domain
of the State. Concerned Citizens, 255 Md. App. at 122-23. We disagree. The Council did
not purport to enact an airport safety policy. This was merely a text amendment to
encourage the decommissioning of an airport, which was squarely within the Council’s
domain.
Moreover, though the State is indeed responsible for many aspects of airport
regulation, that authority does not preclude political subdivisions from establishing airports
and enacting certain regulatory measures to promote their safety. State law explicitly
allows political subdivisions to establish airports, Md. Code. Ann., Transp. (“TR”) § 5-416
(1977, 2020 Repl. Vol.), encourages them to adopt zoning regulations to eliminate airport
hazards, TR § 5-602, and affords them authority to “adopt, under its police power, airport
zoning regulations to protect the aerial approaches of [a]ny airport not owned by this State,”
TR § 5-604(a). See also Rathkopf § 85:3 (“State courts generally have rejected implied
state preemption claims based on state licensing or regulation of pilots or aircraft, or control
of other aspects of airport development and operation.”) (footnote omitted).
In fact, Prince George’s County has already used zoning regulations to promote
airport safety. The County established Aviation Policy Areas “to establish a standard of
safety and compatibility for the occupants of land in the immediate vicinity of airports[.]”
PGCC § 27-548.32; see also PGCC § 27, Part 10B. These areas are subject to detailed
regulations, covering everything from development density to the proliferation of birds that
might interfere with flight paths. PGCC § 27-548.38.
30
the operative word is “bullied,” “pressured,” “persuaded,” “influenced,” or “encouraged,”
the result is the same. That Freeway Airport, a private company, presented the Council
with two options—including one at odds with the public interest—does not evidence
corruption, but a business decision. Even if the Council conceded more than what was
necessary to incentivize redevelopment of the property, such miscalculation does not
sustain a uniformity challenge. Accountability for any such error in judgment must come
from the voters, not the courts.
Facial Neutrality
Concerned Citizens asks us to infer, as the Appellate Court appears to have done,
that the Council improperly favored Freeway Airport simply because CB-17 is
“site-specific,”26 “tailored” in an “excruciatingly detailed” manner to “single out” the
Freeway airport without mentioning it by name. Concerned Citizens thus asks us to look
beyond the facial neutrality of CB-17 to the reality of its practical application.
Freeway Airport, on the other hand, argues that facial neutrality is the only
requirement to survive a uniformity challenge, understanding Anderson House to require
only that the same terminology apply to all properties in a zone. Freeway Airport finds
support in our statements there that “uniformly applicable regulations that produce
disparate results in application do not violate the uniformity requirement,” Anderson
26
In this context, we understand the term “site-specific” to mean affecting one or
just a few properties. Though the term is used broadly in the zoning context, see Rathkopf
§ 60, the term does not appear to have any basis in Maryland uniformity law, as it is absent
from our key uniformity cases. See, e.g., Anderson House, 402 Md. 689; Woodward &
Lothrop, 280 Md. 686; H. Manny Holtz, 65 Md. App. 574; Rylyns, 372 Md. 514.
31
House, 402 Md. at 717; that “zoning regulations need to be equally applicable,” id. at 719
n.23; and that we focus “upon the terminology of the ordinance, rather than upon its
application,” id. at 718 (quoting Woodward & Lothrop, 280 Md. at 720). If Freeway
Airport is correct, CB-17 is valid because, regardless of the results, it is facially neutral.
Facial neutrality, though relevant to our analysis, is not, on its own, a sure defense
to a uniformity challenge. See Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, 508 U.S. at 534 (holding,
in an equal protection context, that facial neutrality is not determinative when evaluating
claims of improper discrimination). Rather, regulatory classifications must “be founded in
real and not feigned differences having to do with the purpose for which the classes are
formed.” Rumson Ests., Inc. v. Mayor of Fair Haven, 828 A.2d 317, 330 (2003) (emphasis
added) (quoting Roselle v. Wright, 122 A.2d 506, 511 (N.J. 1956)). Otherwise, legislators
could circumvent the uniformity requirement with clever drafting. Indeed, facial neutrality
in Woodward and Anderson House was not enough to survive a uniformity challenge—we
also required a showing of a reasonable relationship to a public purpose and equal treatment
of similarly situated properties.
Moreover, courts in the out-of-state cases that we reviewed in Anderson House
required the same showing. 402 Md. at 714-15 (citing Rumson Ests., 828 A.2d 317 and
Harris v. Zoning Comm’n of New Milford, 788 A.2d 1239 (Conn. 2002)). We distinguished
the regulations in those cases from ones that did not further the public welfare, which were
consequently invalidated. Anderson House, 402 Md. at 725 n.26 (citing Hamer v. Town of
Ross, 382 P.2d 375 (Cal. 1963) and C & M Devs., Inc. v. Bedminster, 820 A.2d 143 (Pa.
2002) and Nat’l Land and Inv. Co. v. Kohn, 215 A.2d 597 (Pa. 1965)).
32
“Site-Specific”
Concerned Citizens argues that CB-17 is invalid because it is too site-specific.
Concerned Citizens highlights not only the narrowly drafted qualifying criteria, but also
what the Dissent calls the “very limited shelf life” of CB-17. Dissenting op. at 9, 45, 71.
Concerned Citizens and the Dissent contend that the Council, aware that the previously
enacted New Zoning Ordinance would soon take effect, not only understood the Freeway
airport to be the sole qualifying property at that time, but likely for all time. Dissenting
op. at 9 (“[CB-17] did not have any prospective application beyond the Freeway
Property.”); id. at 65.
The record is not clear, however, that other properties—including non-airport
properties qualifying under the property size criterion—could not have developed under
CB-17 between its effective date of January 4, 2020, and the effective date of the New
Zoning Ordinance, April 1, 2022. When the Council considered CB-17, the effective date
of the New Zoning Ordinance was unknown, as it was contingent upon the Council’s
adoption of the countywide sectional map amendment—an outcome which, at the time,
was not itself guaranteed. Indeed, the sectional map amendment was not enacted until
April 1, 2022. See note 9, supra. In other words, CB-17 was in effect for more than two
years, during which time other property owners could have sought to develop under the
ordinance. Nonetheless, for purposes of our analysis, we proceed as if the Council, in
enacting CB-17, intended to reach only the Freeway airport and believed it would be the
only property to ever qualify under, and take advantage of, CB-17.
33
We do not think that a regulation’s “site-specific” intent or effect alone sustains a
uniformity violation. That a regulation affects only one or a few properties, though relevant
to our uniformity analysis, is not dispositive. See Rylyns, 372 Md. at 543-44 (quoting
Collard v. Village of Flower Hill, 421 N.E.2d 818, 821 (N.Y. 1981) (“[Z]oning is not
invalid per se merely because only a single parcel is involved or benefitted[.]”)); id. at 546
(explaining that spot zoning is not per se invalid). For example, the piecemeal rezoning in
Cassel was invalidated not because it affected one property—which is the definition of
piecemeal rezoning—but because it discriminated between similarly situated properties
without good reason. 195 Md. at 357-58.
This proposition holds not only when regulations inadvertently affect only one or a
few properties, but even when a zoning authority deliberately targets a particular property
or properties. See Rockville Fuel & Feed, 266 Md. at 130 (upholding a text amendment
challenged on equal protection grounds even though it was enacted for the sole purpose of
thwarting the construction of a specific concrete mixing plant). That a legislature may
contemplate a specific property does not prove the absence of a public purpose, or arbitrary
or invidious discrimination; we do not require legislatures to conceive of legislation “as an
abstraction” without any actual properties in mind. MBC Realty, 192 Md. App. at 236.
And though Concerned Citizens portrays the Council’s “site-specific” efforts as alarming,
such amendments are not unusual and are often initiated by private interests.27
27
See O’Donnell v. Basslers, Inc., 56 Md. App. 507 (1983) (owner of a private
airfield seeking to develop a commercial airport and who successfully petitioned the zoning
board for a text amendment allowing commercial airports in certain zones); MBC Realty,
192 Md. App. at 223-26 (noting that “every conditional use that has been added to the
34
For example, in MBC Realty, LLC v. Mayor of Baltimore, the City Council of
Baltimore enacted a text amendment, at the express request of a development company,
allowing new billboards in the “B-5” zone only on publicly owned stadiums and arenas,
knowing that only the First Mariner Arena would be eligible. 192 Md. App. at 226 & n.5,
235-36. Immediately after, the City Council granted the conditional use to that arena. Id.
Though the text amendment was not challenged on uniformity grounds, the Appellate
Court rejected the challengers’ argument that the circumstances proved favoritism and a
lack of public purpose, holding that we “[do] not impose a [] knowledge limitation upon
the legislative act.” Id. at 236.
Thus, the Appellate Court upheld a text amendment solicited by a private interest
and targeting one property both in intent and effect. Moreover, as with CB-17, only one
property would ever likely qualify under the text amendment, given that the text
Baltimore City Zoning Code since 1971 has been effectuated by means of a text
amendment”).
Other times, opponents of development or certain uses seek “site-specific” text
amendments to restrict uses by others. See Rockville Fuel & Feed, 266 Md. at 119-23 (text
amendment prohibiting concrete manufacturing that the City of Gaithersburg enacted as an
emergency measure just one day before the plaintiff property owner sought final approval
for a special exception to construct and operate a concrete manufacturing plant); Free State
Recycling Sys. Corp. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs for Frederick Cnty., Md., 885 F. Supp. 798
(D. Md. 1994) (zoning board that sought to close a recycling facility with a text amendment
that would impose impossibly burdensome regulations on the facility). For example,
citizens thwarted Costco’s plans to install a large gas station at the Westfield Wheaton Mall
by persuading the Montgomery County Council, on two separate occasions, to pass text
amendments requiring greater distance between large gas stations and nearby communities.
Bill Turque, Wheaton Costco Gas Station Nixed by Montgomery Planning Board, WASH.
POST, Mar. 1, 2013; Bill Turque, Costco Loses Latest Round in Fight to Open Big Gas
Station at Wheaton Mall, WASH. POST, Dec. 21, 2015; MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD.,
ZONING ORDINANCE § 59-3.5.13.C (2023).
35
amendment applied only to publicly-owned stadiums and arenas. Yet those circumstances
did not give rise to a finding of improper favoritism. Id.; see also Eutaw Enters., Inc. v.
City of Baltimore, 241 Md. 686, 696 (1966) (upholding ordinances that the City Council
knew would only affect one commercial check casher because the ordinances were general
in application and applied equally to similarly situated properties).
Finally, we note that the “painstakingly specific” tailoring to which Concerned
Citizens points as evidence of favoritism toward Freeway Airport was prompted in part by
opposition to higher-density housing on other properties. For instance, at the request of
the President of the Woodmore Homeowner’s Association, the Council passed a narrowing
amendment to ensure that the Hidden Pond parcel in Woodmore would not qualify for
higher-density housing. Similarly, the provision requiring a minimum acreage of 100 acres
was proposed not by Freeway Airport but by an outspoken critic of CB-17, Councilmember
Dernoga, to “further limit the number of [qualifying] properties.” Councilmember
Dernoga had also proposed, unsuccessfully, to reduce the proximity to electrical
infrastructure requirement from 2,500 feet to 2,000 feet—again, to limit the number of
qualifying properties. Thus, at least some of the “painstakingly specific” tailoring of which
Concerned Citizens complains arose not out of demands by Freeway Airport but,
ironically, out of concerns by others that non-Freeway airport properties might qualify for
higher-density development.
36
Similarly Situated Properties
A finding that a regulation furthers a public purpose does not mark the end of our
uniformity analysis. We also examine how the regulation operates, specifically whether it
discriminates between properties in a reasonable manner. Woodward & Lothrop, 280 Md.
at 720 (“reasonable and based upon the public policy to be served” (emphasis added)).
It is worth repeating that discrimination between properties within a zone, i.e.,
regulatory classification, is not per se prohibited. We held in Anderson House that “[t]he
crux of the [uniformity] requirement is only that similarly situated properties are treated
the same under the zoning regulations,” 402 Md. at 715 (emphasis added), observing that
“[m]any jurisdictions agree that the kind of discrimination violative of the uniformity
requirement occurs when a zoning ordinance singles out a property or properties for
different treatment than others similarly situated,” id. at 714 (emphasis added). A
regulation that discriminates between similarly situated properties is invalid.
What it means for properties to be “similarly situated” is central to understanding
the apparent disconnect between the parties’ arguments, and between ours and the
Dissent’s. Concerned Citizens assumes that all properties in the R-A Zone are, by
definition, similarly situated and that site-specific classification within the zone thus
violates uniformity. Just because properties are within the same zone, however, does not
make them similarly situated; zoning categories are not determinative. Rylyns, 372 Md. at
593 (Cathell, J., dissenting) (quoting Sweetman v. Town of Cumberland, 364 A.2d 1277,
1288 (R.I. 1976)) (establishing, in a conditional use challenge, that “[o]wners of property
in the same land-use category are not necessarily ‘similarly situated’ so that they must be
37
treated identically under the equal protection clause. . . . [T]wo parcels may have been
classified at different times when the needs of the municipality differed. Different pieces
of property [in the same zone] may also have physical characteristics which differ enough
to require some minor differences in use restriction[.]”).28
Properties are similarly situated when there is no reasonable basis to treat them
differently; regulations thus violate uniformity when they discriminate between properties
unreasonably. See Anderson House, 402 Md. at 714 (discussing N.T. Hegeman Co. v.
Mayor of River Edge, 69 A.2d 767 (N.J. 1949), where the setback requirement that was
invalidated applied to only one block of a business district without any apparent reason for
disparate treatment); id. at 715 (discussing Veseskis v. Bristol Zoning Comm’n, 362 A.2d
538 (Conn. 1975), where the invalidated ordinance applied only in one specific instance,
but not in other instances presenting the same circumstances); see also Village of
Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564-65 (2000) (invoking the concept of “similarly
situated” in an equal protection claim). For example, as we cited in Anderson House, 402
Md. at 715 n.21, a Wisconsin court struck down, on uniformity grounds, an ordinance
exempting one of four parcels in the same zone from obtaining a permit for a rendering
plant because the exemption was “not based upon substantial distinctions which make the
operation of a rendering plant and packing plant in one area of the industrial district
different from any other areas in the industrial district,” Boerschinger v. Elkay Enters.,
Inc., 145 N.W.2d 108, 110-11 (Wis. 1966).
28
Conversely, just because properties are zoned differently does not permit
invidious discrimination between properties. Rathkopf § 4:8.
38
In Anderson House, we upheld zoning regulations that discriminated between
properties based on size and produced different—and even unique—results. 402 Md. at
720. In doing so, we, by implication, held that properties of different sizes were not
similarly situated and could thus be treated differently under the regulations. Similarly, in
Woodward & Lothrop, we upheld density regulations based on property size, thus
recognizing properties 22,000 square feet or larger as not similarly situated to smaller
properties. 280 Md. at 721. We did the same for the compliance requirements there, which
differed according to whether the use of the property began before or after January 1, 1959.
Id. at 722-23.29
29
The Dissent distinguishes CB-17 from the valid regulations in Anderson House,
Woodward & Lothrop, and MBC Realty, on the grounds that those cases involved original
and comprehensive zoning or text amendments having “general application” in a zone.
Dissenting op. at 7-8, 35 & n.15. By “generally applicable,” we understand the Dissent to
be describing regulations affecting many properties broadly, even if they produce different
or unique results among properties in the zone. See Dissenting op. at 31, 34-36; see also
Anderson House, 402 Md. at 715. The Dissent distinguishes between “generally
applicable” regulations and those which target a property or properties. Dissenting op. at
7-8, 34-36. Council Bill 17, the Dissent contends, is invalid because, as applied, it affects
only one property, even if the entire body of regulations applying to the R-A Zone are
facially neutral and apply uniformly. Dissenting op. at 7-10, 34-36, 41.
As an initial matter, in our view, the Dissent misconstrues the text amendment held
valid in MBC Realty, 192 Md. App. 218, as having “general prospective application[.]”
Dissenting op. at 35 n.15. There, the City Council of Baltimore enacted Ordinance 03-514,
at the explicit request of a development company, to “amend[] the text of the Zoning Code
to create for the B-5 district a conditional use for new billboards on publicly owned stadia
and arenas[.]” MBC Realty, 192 Md. App at 226 & n.5. The City Council knew that only
the First Mariner Arena would be eligible for the conditional use. Id. at 226, 235-36. That
does not strike us as a text amendment having “general application.”
Instead, Council Bill 17 stands out for how transparently the Council targeted the
Freeway airport, as manifested by the legislative history. That seems to be, at heart, what
the Dissent takes issue with. Dissenting op. at 9-10 (“[T]he legislative record in this case
39
Perhaps hypotheticals will help. Imagine two identical, adjacent single-family
houses. A regulation, with narrowly drafted and facially neutral terms, allows House A to
install a backyard swimming pool, but not House B. The owner of House B could argue
that the regulation violates uniformity because his property is similarly situated to his
neighbor’s and, yet, his property is treated differently.
Or, under the circumstances here, imagine a property in an R-A Zone that was
formerly used as an airport, has freeway frontage, and is within one mile of a municipality,
but fails to qualify for higher-density development under CB-17 because it is 3,000 feet
from the nearest electrical infrastructure rather than entirely within 2,500 feet, as CB-17
requires. The owner of that property could argue that the regulation violates uniformity
because the property is similarly situated to the Freeway airport and yet is excluded because
of the 2,500-foot requirement. At that point, the Council would have to explain why the
500-foot difference between 3,000 feet and 2,500 feet is reasonable and based in public
contains a robust discussion among the decisionmakers that reflects a clear and
unmistakable intent to draft criteria that would apply only to the Freeway Property.”).
Transparency, however, should not count as a demerit in a uniformity analysis.
Indeed, transparency seems to be the antidote to the Dissent’s concern that our
holding will encourage landowners to secure favorable text amendments through ex parte
communications with local elected officials. Dissenting op at 68. But enacting a text
amendment requires much more than obtaining the sponsorship of a single elected official.
In Prince George’s County, enacting a text amendment requires a public hearing with
adequate notice to the public. PGCC § 27-216. The proposed amendment must be referred
to the Planning Board for comments and a recommendation. PGCC § 27-217. Moreover,
an amendment generally requires multiple readings and consideration by the appropriate
standing committee. See THE CNTY. COUNCIL RULES OF PROC. (CNTY. COUNCIL FOR
PRINCE GEORGE’S CNTY., MD. JULY 2020). A text amendment requires a majority vote of
the full Council, PGCC § 27-218.
40
policy. If the Council lacks a credible explanation, then that regulation would evince the
sort of arbitrariness or favoritism characteristic of a uniformity violation.
Here, CB-17 discriminates between properties, but Concerned Citizens has not
shown that CB-17 discriminates between similarly situated properties. Concerned Citizens
has not identified any actual, or even hypothetical, properties similarly situated to the
Freeway airport that the qualifying criteria of CB-17 excluded from higher-density
development opportunities.30
This comes as little surprise, as there are presumably few, if any, properties in the
R-A Zone that reasonably resemble the Freeway airport. Instead, Concerned Citizens
assumes that all R-A Zone properties are, by definition, similarly situated. Not only is that
assumption legally erroneous, see Rylyns, 372 Md. at 593 (Cathell, J., dissenting), but it is
practically flawed, for many other existing properties in the R-A Zone are very different
from the airport. For instance, the properties featuring single-family detached residences
in nearby Waterford Estates are wholly different, practically speaking, from the 129-acre
airport property, and treating them differently does not offend our sense of fairness.
Concerned Citizens has not argued that any of the qualifying criteria of CB-17 are
unreasonable, i.e., that they discriminate between similarly situated properties or are not
“based upon the public policy to be served.” Woodward & Lothrop, 280 Md. at 720. As
30
Nor does the Dissent. Instead, the Dissent appears to incorrectly shift the burden
to Freeway Airport, pointing out that Freeway Airport failed to identify any other
properties qualifying under CB-17 that would have showed that CB-17 had “general
application.” Dissenting op. at 7 (“Although the Majority alludes to ‘similarly situated
properties,’ neither the Majority, nor Freeway identify any.”); id. at 63-64 n.30.
41
previously noted, that topic arose only when the Appellate Court questioned Freeway
Airport during oral argument. The Court then took it upon itself to evaluate the
reasonableness of those criteria, finding that the requirements of proximity to a municipal
boundary and freeway frontage could reasonably relate to a public interest, but that the
requirement of proximity to electrical infrastructure and the provision making eligible
former airport property do not. Concerned Citizens, 255 Md. App. at 125-26 & n.16.
We disagree with how the Appellate Court analyzed the qualifying criteria. The
Court evaluated each criterion of CB-17 in a vacuum, focusing on the “site-specific” nature
of each rather than the broader purpose of encouraging the closure of the Freeway airport
and any other nonconforming airport presenting similar public safety risks, to the extent
one exists. When viewed in this light, the qualifying criteria are “reasonable and based
upon the public policy to be served.” Woodward & Lothrop, 280 Md. at 720. Nearby
highways, population centers, and transmission lines are the safety hazards at the Freeway
airport. That these features are not uniquely hazardous at Freeway Airport, but other
airports too, bolsters that finding. Moreover, the Council could have reasonably concluded
that higher-density housing, though generally inappropriate in the R-A Zone, is appropriate
near existing highway transportation, electrical infrastructure, and population centers.
The Appellate Court also seized upon the clause making eligible properties formerly
used as airports, finding that it lacked a public purpose and was included only to select the
Freeway airport, while finding the qualifying criterion of property size reasonably based
upon public policy. Concerned Citizens, 255 Md. App. at 126. But identifying airport
42
property, and the Freeway airport specifically, is the public purpose here, and, if anything,
the qualifying criterion based on property size is the peculiar provision.
Concerned Citizens speculates that the property size criterion was drafted to make
CB-17 look less “site-specific”31 and that the former airport provision was subsequently
reintroduced either to (1) bolster CB-17’s ostensible public purpose of decommissioning
unsafe airports or (2) allow Freeway Airport to develop fewer than one hundred acres. The
first possibility is irrelevant, as CB-17 indeed furthers a public policy of retiring a
hazardous, nonconforming airport. The second possibility, even if true, would remain
consistent with the aim of encouraging the redevelopment of the Freeway airport by
allowing the developer greater flexibility.
Again, we assume any reasonably conceived state of facts that would sustain CB-17.
See Anderson House, 402 Md. at 724. We can reasonably suppose—and, in the absence
of contrary evidence, conclude—that the Council sought both to encourage the
decommissioning of the Freeway airport and to provide for general housing needs on large
properties near existing population centers and infrastructure. For these reasons, we cannot
say that the disjunctive requirement of property size or former airport use is so
unreasonable as to violate uniformity.
31
That the Council drafted CB-17 to appear less “site-specific” by including other
assemblages of properties, in addition to airports, does not change the fact that CB-17 was
designed, as its critics contend, to target the Freeway airport. The Council’s effort to make
CB-17 more legally defensible by broadening its potential application is not, however, a
sufficient basis to invalidate CB-17.
43
CONCLUSION
The Council, in enacting CB-17, exercised its authority under the RDA to amend
the text of the Prince George’s County zoning ordinance. LU § 22-104. We afford
legislative action a strong presumption of validity, and Concerned Citizens has the “heavy
burden of establishing, by clear and affirmative evidence[,]” that CB-17 is invalid.
Anderson House, 402 Md. at 723-24. Consistent with that standard of review and burden
of proof, we neither invalidate CB-17 on speculation that the Council acted with improper
motives nor transfer the primary burden of proof to Freeway Airport.
Though Concerned Citizens has accurately observed that CB-17 targets the Freeway
airport using narrow, site-specific language, Concerned Citizens has not shown that CB-17
lacks a public purpose or discriminates between similarly situated properties. Concerned
Citizens has not established that CB-17 discriminates arbitrarily, either by providing
examples of similarly situated properties that CB-17 treats differently or by establishing
that its qualifying criteria are not reasonably based upon the public policy to be served. See
Woodward & Lothrop, 280 Md. at 720; Anderson House at 402 Md. at 714-15. On these
grounds, Concerned Citizens’ uniformity challenge falls short.
For these reasons, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court and affirm the
decision of the District Council. With respect to the issues that Concerned Citizens raised
but were not reached by the Appellate Court, our analysis here substantially answers those
questions and renders a remand unnecessary. See Md. Rule 8-604(d)(1).
JUDGMENT OF THE APPELLATE
COURT OF MARYLAND REVERSED.
COSTS TO BE PAID BY RESPONDENTS.
44
Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County
Case No.: C-02-CV-20-001850
Argued: February 3, 2023
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF MARYLAND*
No. 23
September Term, 2022
PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY COUNCIL, et al.
v.
CONCERNED CITIZENS OF PRINCE
GEORGE’S COUNTY, et al.
Fader, C.J.,
Watts,
Booth,
Biran,
Gould,
Eaves,
Getty, Joseph M., (Senior Justice,
Specially Assigned),
JJ.
Dissenting Opinion by Booth, J., which Fader,
C.J. and Watts, J., join.
Filed: August 22, 2023
* At the November 8, 2022 general election, the
voters of Maryland ratified a constitutional
amendment changing the name of the Court of
Appeals of Maryland to the Supreme Court of
Maryland. The name change took effect on
December 14, 2022.
Respectfully, I dissent.
In this case, we must determine whether the Prince George’s County Council, sitting
as the District Council (“District Council”), was acting within its legal boundaries when it
enacted CB 17-2019—a legislative zoning text amendment that permitted townhouse uses
in certain limited circumstances in the Residential-Agricultural (“R-A”) Zone, a Euclidean
zone in the Prince George’s County zoning ordinance that was in effect in 2019. See Town
of Upper Marlboro v. Prince George’s County Council, 480 Md. 167, 180–81 (2022)
(explaining the standard of review for agency actions that are deemed to be legislative is
limited to assessing whether the agency was acting within its legal boundaries); Maryland
Code (2012, 2022 Supp.), Land Use (“LU”) § 22-407(e).1 “Under this ‘legal boundaries’
1
In this case, it is undisputed that the Prince George’s County Council, sitting as
the District Council (“District Council”), was undertaking a legislative act (as opposed to
a quasi-judicial act) when it enacted CB 17-2019. The General Assembly has provided for
judicial review of a District Council’s decision pursuant to Maryland Code (2012, 2022
Supp.), Land Use (“LU”) § 22-407(e), authorizing courts to:
(1) affirm the decision of the district council;
(2) remand the case for further proceedings; or
(3) reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the petitioner have been
prejudiced because the district council’s action is:
(i) unconstitutional;
(ii) in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the district
council;
(iii) made on unlawful procedure;
(iv) affected by other error of law;
(v) unsupported by competent, material, and substantial evidence in
view of the entire record as submitted; or
(vi) arbitrary or capricious.
Under the statute, a court may reverse or modify the decision of the District Council if the
court determines that the district council exceeded its statutory authority. LU § 22-
1
standard, government legislative action will be permitted to stand as long as it was
‘consistent with relevant law.’” Talbot County v. Miles Point Prop., LLC, 415 Md. 372,
393 (2010) (quoting Judy v. Schaefer, 331 Md. 239, 264–66 (1993)).
I.
Overview
In determining whether the District Council exceeded its legal boundaries in
enacting CB 17-2019, we start our analysis with the State enabling statute that confers
authority upon the District Council to enact text amendments within Euclidean zones. We
begin our discussion with the enabling statute because, “[u]nder Maryland’s constitutional
scheme, a local government’s authority to regulate land use may emanate only from the
enabling legislation of the General Assembly.” County Council of Prince George’s County
v. Zimmer Dev. Co., 444 Md. 490, 504 (2015) (citations omitted). Indeed, where a local
government adopts zoning legislation that is inconsistent with its enabling authority, this
Court has not hesitated to hold that it is invalid.2
407(e)(3)(ii). This standard of review is consistent with our case law that describes the
scope of our review of legislative actions as assessing whether the legislative body was
acting within its legal boundaries. Town of Upper Marlboro v. Prince George’s County
Council, 480 Md. 167, 180–81 (2022); Talbot County v. Miles Point Prop., LLC, 415 Md.
372, 393 (2010).
2
See, e.g., Mossburg v. Montgomery County, 329 Md. 494, 496, 508 (1993)
(holding that a provision of the Montgomery County zoning ordinance that required special
exceptions to be granted by a “supermajority” vote was not “expressly authorized by the
General Assembly in the zoning enabling statute” and was therefore invalid); Richmark
Realty Co. v. Whittlif, 226 Md. 273, 276, 285–86 (1961) (invalidating an ordinance that
purported to waive a zoning provision prohibiting the construction of a filling station within
300 feet of a park because it was arbitrary and discriminatory).
2
A. The Enabling Statute and the Uniformity Requirement
It is undisputed that the R-A Zone is a Euclidean zone. The applicable State
enabling statute requires that zoning laws enacted by the District Council for traditional
Euclidean zones “shall be uniform for each class or kind of development throughout a
district or zone.” LU § 22-201(b)(2)(i) (emphasis added). If the zoning text amendment
violates the “uniformity” requirement of the enabling statute, it is invalid. Although there
is not a lot of case law on the uniformity requirement, courts consistently find the
requirement violated in at least one scenario. That scenario “occurs when a zoning
ordinance singles out a property or properties for different treatment than others similarly
situated.” Anderson House, LLC v. Mayor & City Council of Rockville, 402 Md. 689, 714
(2008) (emphasis added). In Anderson House, this Court explained that “the uniformity
requirement demonstrates that . . . discrimination in favor of, or against, particular
properties . . . will not be tolerated.” Id. at 717. In this case, we must determine whether
the text amendment enacted by CB 17-2019 violates the uniformity requirement. By way
of brief background, it is helpful to review CB 17-2019’s provisions and the facts about
the property at the center of this case, the Freeway Property.
B. CB 17-2019
Prior to the enactment of CB 17-2019, townhouses were not permitted in the R-A
Zone. The text amendment enacted by CB 17-2019 permitted townhouses to be
constructed at a density of up to 4.5 dwelling units per acre in “certain circumstances.”
Those circumstances are that the townhouses could be constructed “on an assemblage of
adjacent properties” that: (1)(a) is no less than 100 acres and no more than 150 acres in
3
size, or (b) “was formerly used as an airport”; (2) is located entirely within one mile of a
municipal boundary; (3) is located “entirely within 2,500 feet of land owned by a regulated
public utility and used for purposes of electrical generation, transmission, or distribution
in connection with providing public utility service in the County by a regulated public
utility”; and (4) “has frontage on a public right-of-way classified as a freeway or higher in
the Master Plan of Transportation and is maintained by the State Highway Administration.”
C. The Freeway Property
The Freeway Property, also known as Freeway Airport, is owned by the
Rodenhauser family and is under contract to be purchased by Petitioner Freeway Realty,
LLC (“Freeway”), a partnership between St. John Properties, Inc. and the Rodenhauser
family. The Freeway Property is located at 3900 Church Road, Bowie, Maryland.
Although its mailing address is Bowie, it is located outside Bowie’s corporate limits, but
within one mile of the municipal boundary. The Freeway Property consists of multiple
separate parcels totaling 129 acres. It has been used as a general aviation airport since
1947, and its airport use has been a certified nonconforming use3 under the Prince George’s
3
A nonconforming use is a use that predates the adoption of a new zoning ordinance
and is inconsistent with it. If a property owner can demonstrate that a use was valid and
lawful at the time of the adoption of a new zoning ordinance, the use may be permitted to
continue. Trip Assocs., Inc. v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., 392 Md. 563, 573 (2006).
The Regional District Act (“RDA”) expressly authorizes Prince George’s County and
Montgomery County to recognize the continuation of “lawful nonconforming use[s] that
existed on the effective date of a zoning law enacted” within the Regional District. LU
§ 22-114. Although the continuation of nonconforming uses is not favored (and local
ordinances are strictly construed in order to effectuate the purpose of eliminating
nonconforming uses), such uses are nevertheless “‘a vested right entitled to constitutional
protection.’” Trip Assocs., Inc., 392 Md. at 573–74 (quoting Amereihn v. Kotras, 194 Md.
591, 601 (1950)).
4
County Zoning Ordinance since 1968. In the 1960’s, a power company that owns an
adjacent property installed high-tension lines along the entire western boundary of the
Freeway Property. The Freeway Property’s northern boundary runs along U.S. Route 50,
and its eastern boundary runs along Church Road, which is a county road.
Before April 1, 2022, the Freeway Property was classified in the R-A Zone under
what I refer to as the Old Zoning Ordinance. As part of the enactment of a New Zoning
Ordinance and a comprehensive rezoning, the Freeway Property was rezoned to the
Agricultural-Residential (“AR”) Zone effective April 1, 2022. Under both the former R-A
Zone and the successor AR Zone, the Freeway Property can be developed as a matter of
right for single-family residences on two-acre lots.
It is undisputed that the Freeway Property fit the criteria contained within CB 17-
2019, and therefore could be developed with townhouses at a maximum density of 4.5
dwelling units per acre—a use and density that were not permitted in the R-A Zone prior
to the enactment of CB 17-2019, and which are not permitted in the successor AR Zone.
D. The Parties’ Contentions
Respondent Concerned Citizens of Prince George’s County (“Concerned Citizens”)
argues that the text amendment violates the uniformity requirement because it is “site-
specific” and applies only to the Freeway Property. Concerned Citizens contends that the
criteria are “painstakingly specific” to the Freeway Property. In determining whether the
text amendment violates the uniformity requirement, Concerned Citizens urges the Court
to look not simply at the text of the criteria, but to consider the text within the broader
context of the legislative record in this case, including contemporaneous statements by the
5
Bill sponsor, the Bill’s drafter, and a member of the District Council who opposed the Bill,
and the various iterations of the Bill that were proposed over the course of seven months.
Concerned Citizens contends that the legislative record in this case confirms that the
criteria of the text amendment were drafted in a manner to ensure that only the Freeway
Property would be eligible for townhouse uses. Concerned Citizens asserts that the text
amendment was discriminatory and site-specific to the Freeway Property, giving it
favorable treatment over other similarly situated properties.
Freeway argues that the text amendment does not violate the uniformity requirement
because “identical terminology . . . applies to all present and future properties in the R-A
Zone, including all other properties that potentially qualify under the criteria set forth” in
the text amendment. Or, stated another way, Freeway asserts that the text amendment
applies “to any eligible R-A zoned property within Prince George’s County.” Freeway
points out that, under the uniformity case law, the question is whether the zoning
classification “uniformly applies to all qualifying properties using the same exact
terminology or whether a property is singled out for discriminatory treatment.”
E. Summary of Conclusions
The Majority assumes that the Council “intended to reach only the Freeway airport
and believed it would be the only property to ever qualify under, and take advantage of,”
CB 17-2019. Maj. Op. at 33. Under the Majority’s theory, the District Council’s action in
deliberately targeting the Freeway Property for favorable treatment satisfies the uniformity
requirement under state law because the Majority believes that the text amendment did not
discriminate between similarly situated properties. Id. at 41 (“Here, CB [17-2019]
6
discriminates between properties, but Concerned Citizens has not shown that CB [17-2019]
discriminates between similarly situated properties.”). Although the Majority alludes to
“similarly situated properties,” neither the Majority, nor Freeway identify any. Moreover,
an independent review of the record reflects that there are no similarly situated properties. 4
For the reasons set forth more fully herein, I agree with Concerned Citizens that
CB 17-2019 violated the uniformity requirement because “by the terms of the
legislation[,]” it singles out the Freeway Property “for disparate treatment[.]” Anderson
House, 402 Md. at 720. This is a rare case where zoning text that uses ostensibly facially
neutral language was not, in fact, generally applicable because its criteria were pretextual.
Together, the criteria serve no purpose other than to identify an individual property. In
short, the text was drafted in a manner to ensure that it would apply only to Freeway
Property, thereby singling it out. As I will detail below, the Majority embraces the clear
and unmistakable effort on the part of the Bill sponsor to draft a text amendment that
purported to have general application, but in fact, singled out a specific property for
favorable treatment.
Under our case law, as well as the case law from other states, when faced with a
uniformity challenge, courts generally interpret the ordinance in question utilizing the same
4
The Majority contends that I am incorrectly shifting the burden to the District
Council and, by extension, to Freeway. Maj. Op. at 41 n.30. I am not. My review of the
legislative record in this case confirms Concerned Citizens’ contention that no one—
including the Prince George’s County Planning Board—could identify any other property
that satisfied the criteria, aside from the Hidden Pond parcel, which was excluded by final
legislative amendments after the public hearing closed. Freeway argued to this Court that
the amendment applies to other similarly situated properties. That argument is not borne
out by the record.
7
principles employed when analyzing equal protection claims. In the context of equal
protection claims, facial neutrality is not dispositive. I would consider the ordinance’s text
and also its context in the broader legislative rezoning process that was ongoing in Prince
George’s County when the text amendment was being considered, as well as the legislative
record, including contemporary statements by the Bill sponsor as he proposed various
iterations of the Bill.
Starting with the text, the criteria are tailor-made to describe the unique
characteristics of the Freeway Property. The Freeway Property falls within CB 17-2019’s
size and location criteria. Other criteria identify the uses being made of the adjacent
properties. Although the text amendment uses facially neutral language, its unique set of
combined criteria do not in fact apply to “similarly situated properties,” and single out the
Freeway Property for disparate treatment. In other words, the legislation was drafted in a
manner to ensure that only one property could satisfy the criteria despite the general
language utilized by the District Council, in violation of the uniformity requirement.
This is confirmed by the broader legislative rezoning. As discussed in more detail
herein, six months prior to the District Council’s consideration of CB 17-2019, it adopted
a new zoning ordinance which does not permit townhouse uses in the AR Zone that
succeeded the R-A Zone. The new zoning ordinance was expected to become effective
upon the completion of a district-wide comprehensive rezoning, which was ongoing when
CB 17-2019 came before the District Council. At the time, the Council was aware that the
text amendment permitting townhouse uses would have a very limited shelf life. In other
words, the District Council knew the text amendment would not have prospective
8
application to “similarly situated properties” beyond the period necessary to complete the
ongoing comprehensive rezoning. Although the Majority acknowledges that the Old
Zoning Ordinance was being phased out, it makes no attempt to explain how a text
amendment to an old zoning ordinance—that was enacted after the adoption of a new and
inconsistent zoning ordinance—could possibly apply to any property other than the
Freeway Property. In other words, it did not have any prospective application beyond the
Freeway Property.
Additionally, the legislative record in this case—including the contemporaneous
statements of the Bill sponsor, Bill drafter and a District Councilmember who opposed the
legislation, as well as the various iterations of the Bill itself—clearly demonstrate that the
criteria were drafted in a pretextual manner to suggest that the text might have general
application, but in fact, when read in their aggregate, would apply only to one property—
the Freeway Property. Although the Majority purports to review the legislative record, and
pays lip service to the notion that, without such a review, “legislators could circumvent the
uniformity requirement with clever drafting[,]” Maj. Op. at 32, that is precisely what
occurred here. The Majority condones the conduct that it purports to disavow by refusing
to grapple with the pretextual nature of CB 17-2019. As I set forth in more detail below,
the legislative record in this case contains a robust discussion among the decisionmakers
that reflects a clear and unmistakable intent to draft criteria that would apply only to the
Freeway Property.
CB 17-2019 singled out the Freeway Property for favorable treatment in violation
of the uniformity requirement. The effect of the text amendment was to permit townhouse
9
uses on only one property within the R-A Zone, which is now the AR Zone under the New
Zoning Ordinance. The text amendment was the functional equivalent of an illegal spot
zoning of a particular property—the creation of a “mini-district” comprised of the Freeway
Property in the R-A Zone—enabling that lone property to be developed for townhouses.
Accordingly, I would hold that CB 17-2019 violated the uniformity requirement of the
enabling statute and is therefore ultra vires and invalid.
II.
Planning and Zoning Laws—Some Background
Before turning to the uniformity analysis, it is useful to provide an overview of the
planning and zoning tools that the General Assembly has provided to the District Council.
If our case law teaches us anything in the area of zoning law, it is that zoning and planning
concepts are nuanced and difficult to discuss in a vacuum. Zoning opinions tend to be
lengthy for a reason—it is necessary to understand the interrelationship between different
zoning tools and the reasons behind them—to consider their correct application.
Unfortunately for the reader, this dissenting opinion is no exception
A. The Maryland-Washington Regional District Act
In November 1970, the citizens of Prince George’s County adopted a charter form
of government pursuant to Article XI-A of the Constitution of Maryland. Prince George’s
County v. Thurston, 479 Md. 575, 579 (2022). The legislative branch of the County
government—the Prince George’s County Council—is comprised of eleven members, nine
of whom are elected from geographic districts and two of whom serve as at-large members.
Prince George’s County Charter, Art. III §§ 301, 304.
10
Like all charter counties in Maryland, Prince George’s County has been given
planning and zoning authority by the General Assembly. Prince George’s County’s zoning
authority primarily emanates from the Maryland-Washington Regional District Act
(“RDA”), which is currently codified in Division II of the Land Use Article of the Maryland
Code. Zimmer, 444 Md. at 523–24. “The RDA is the essential source of the delegation by
the State of zoning authority to Prince George’s County for the areas of Prince George’s
County within the Regional District.” Id. at 524–25 (footnote omitted).
The RDA “regulates planning and zoning” within the Maryland-Washington
Regional District (“Regional District”), which includes most of Prince George’s County
and Montgomery County.5 In Zimmer, we described the statutory delegation of planning
and zoning authority within the Regional District as follows:
[T]he RDA divides broadly authority related to zoning, planning, and other
land use matters between the county (district) councils, the Maryland-
National Capital Park & Planning Commission, and the county planning
boards.
The district councils for Prince George’s County and Montgomery County
consist of their respective county councils. LU §§ 22-101, 14-101. They
have primary legislative authority. The district councils are authorized to
adopt and amend zoning ordinances and the accompanying zoning maps for
their counties, LU §§ 22-104, 22-201, and to develop processes and
procedures to ensure that development complies with zoning requirements,
see, e.g., LU §§ 20-503(a), 22-214(e). They have a role also in the creation
of plans by establishing procedures for the planning process, see LU
§ 21-208(a), and approving master plans for their counties, see LU § 21-212.
Moreover, the district councils may delegate certain responsibilities and
5
The Regional District encompasses “the entire area of Prince George’s County,
except for the City of Laurel as it existed on July 1, 2013.” LU § 20-101(b).
11
authority to other local governmental units or tribunals, subject to limitations
as may appear in the RDA.
444 Md. at 525–26 (footnote omitted).
The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission is an agency of the
State that is comprised of a total of ten members—five of whom are residents of
Montgomery County and five of whom are residents of Prince George’s County. LU
§§ 15-101–15-102. The commission members from each county are designated as “the
Montgomery County Planning Board or the Prince George’s County Planning Board,
respectively.” LU § 20-201; see also LU § 14-101(b)–(c). The county planning board “is
responsible for the planning, subdivision, and zoning functions that are primarily local in
scope[.]” LU § 20-202(a)(1)(i). It has “exclusive jurisdiction over: (i) local functions,
including: 1. the administration of subdivision regulations; [and] 2. the preparation and
adoption of recommendations to the district council with respect to zoning map
amendments[.]” LU § 20-202(b)(1)(i).
The district council for each jurisdiction has legislative authority to adopt and
amend zoning laws and zoning maps for the portion of the Regional District located within
their respective counties. LU § 22-104(a). The RDA also establishes procedures for the
amendment of zoning laws and zoning maps, which I discuss in more detail infra. The
land use tools and procedures established in the RDA are not unique to the counties
comprising the Regional District. To the contrary, the zoning tools established in the RDA
have been around since the establishment of the first zoning laws in this country, and have
universal application, not only in Maryland, but in our sister states.
12
B. Local Land Use Tools—Planning, Zoning, and Subdivision
Generally speaking, there are three integral parts of land use management:
(1) planning; (2) zoning; and (3) subdivision regulation.6 In Wesley Chapel Bluemount
Association v. Baltimore County, this Court described these distinct, but complementary
components, as follows:
Governmental control over land development is effected principally in three
ways—through the adoption of (1) master plans delineating the desired uses
for all land within the planning area, both for development and for roads,
parks, schools, and other public purposes, (2) zoning regulations designed to
implement the master plans by placing legal restrictions on the use of land
by non-governmental persons and entities, and (3) subdivision and other
development regulations designed to ensure that private development of the
land is consistent with the applicable master plan and zoning regulations.
Although each of these devices has an independent purpose and may be
subjected to a separate development and approval procedure, their functions,
to some extent, coalesce, in that they are all designed to assure that land
development occurs in a manner that is consistent with overall legislative
policy and community welfare.
347 Md. 125, 129 (1997) (citing generally Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Gaster, 285 Md. 233
(1979)). The General Assembly has adopted various enabling statutes that authorize local
governments to enact local legislation to carry out each of these functions.
1. Planning Authority
The enabling statutes that govern the planning functions for most counties are found
primarily in LU §§ 1-401–1-418 and §§ 3-101–3-304, et. seq. Under these statutes,
counties and municipal corporations having planning and zoning authority are required to
adopt a “comprehensive plan.” LU §§ 1-405, 3-101. “Plans are developed to guide the
6
I mention subdivision regulations simply to identify the three components of land
use planning. Because subdivision is not involved in this case, I do not discuss it further.
13
implementation of land use controls and zoning in a rational way that is beneficial to the
public.” Zimmer, 444 Md. at 520 (citations omitted). A comprehensive plan generally
applies to a substantial area and is the product of years of study and public input. Id.
at 520–21. The preparation of a comprehensive plan is undertaken by the planning
commission of the local jurisdiction and presented to the local legislature for adoption. See
LU §§ 1-406(a), 1-415(b), 3-102(a), 3-202(a). The legislative body is required to adopt a
comprehensive plan by legislative act. See LU §§ 1-415(b), 3-202(a). The county is
charged with ensuring the implementation of the comprehensive plan through zoning,
subdivision, and other land use regulations. See LU §§ 1-415(b), 3-303(b).
The process for creating a plan within the Regional District is slightly different than
elsewhere in the State. Zimmer, 444 Md. at 521. Specifically, under the RDA, “two types
of plans are required: (1) a ‘general plan’ containing, at a minimum, recommendations for
development in the respective county and supporting analysis; and, (2) ‘area master plans’
pertaining to local planning areas into which each county is divided.” Id. at 521–22. “The[]
plans are prepared by the Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission (which
is composed of separate planning boards for each county; the two boards sit together on bi-
county issues and separately on matters that pertain purely to its respective county) and
must be approved by the local legislature of the respective county.” Id. at 522 (citing LU
§§ 14-101(b), 14-101(f), 21-202, 21-208(a)).
The purpose of the general plan is to:
(1) guide and accomplish a coordinated, comprehensive, adjusted, and
systematic development of the regional district; (2) coordinate and adjust
the development of the regional district with the public and private
14
development of other parts of the State and of the District of Columbia;
and (3) protect and promote the public health, safety, and welfare.
LU § 21-101(b). “Master plans differ from General Plans in that master plans govern a
specific, smaller portion of the County and are often more detailed in their
recommendations than the countywide General Plan as to that same area.” Maryland-Nat’l
Capital Park & Planning Comm’n v. Greater Baden-Aquasco Citizens Ass’n, 412 Md. 73,
89 (2009) (cleaned up).
2. Euclidean Zoning Principles Generally
Whereas planning concepts are more abstract, zoning concepts are concrete.
Euclidean zoning has its roots in the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act, which was
written in the 1920’s. See Zimmer, 444 Md. at 512 n.14; 1 Arden H. Rathkopf, et al.,
Rathkopf’s The Law of Zoning and Planning § 1:3 (4th ed. rev. 2023) (hereinafter
Rathkopf’s). Its name is derived from the Supreme Court case, Village of Euclid v. Ambler
Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926), that upheld a basic zoning ordinance. Zimmer, 444 Md.
at 511 n.13. “Euclidean zoning is a fairly static and rigid form of zoning[.]” Mayor &
Council of Rockville v. Rylyns Enters., Inc., 372 Md. 514, 534 (2002). The General
Assembly enacted Maryland’s first local zoning enabling statute in 1927. Zimmer, 444
Md. at 507 (citing Ch. 705, 1927 Md. Laws).7
7
The statute authorized Baltimore City and other municipalities with more than
10,000 inhabitants to enact zoning regulations. County Council of Prince George’s County
v. Zimmer Dev. Co., 444 Md. 490, 507 (2015) (citing Ch. 705, 1927 Md. Laws). Since
then, the General Assembly has delegated zoning powers to charter and non-charter
counties and municipalities. Id. (citing LU §§ 4-102, 22-104).
15
Euclidean zoning has been described as “a legislative method or device for
controlling land use by establishing zoning districts with set boundaries and providing for
specific regulations as to type or nature of permitted and prohibited land uses, height of
structures, lot sizes and restrictions, building coverage limitations and similar regulations.”
Stanley D. Abrams, Guide to Maryland Zoning Decisions § 1.01 n.1 (5th ed. LexisNexis
2012 & 2022 Cum. Supp.). Euclidean zoning regulations are legislatively established in
the text of the zoning ordinance, with a corresponding zoning map that identifies the
particular areas to which the zoning laws apply. Id.
3. Enabling Statutes Governing the Text of Zoning Laws
Maryland counties and municipalities with planning and zoning authority have the
authority to adopt zoning laws within their territorial boundaries. See LU §§ 4-102, 22-
104. For that portion of Prince George’s County that is located within the Regional
District, the General Assembly has given the District Council the authority to “adopt and
amend the text of the zoning law[s]” by local law. LU § 22-104(a)(1). The local zoning
laws may regulate, among other things, the location, height, bulk, and size of buildings and
structures on property, the size of lots, and the density and distribution of population. LU
§ 22-104(b). The District Council’s authority to enact Euclidean zoning laws within
separate zoning districts is set forth in LU § 22-201, which states as follows:
(a) In general. — A district council may divide the portion of the regional district
located within its county into districts and zones of any number, shape, or
area it may determine.
(b) Zoning laws. — (1) Within the districts and zones, the district council may
regulate the construction, alteration, and uses of buildings and structures and
the uses of land, including surface, subsurface, and air rights.
16
(2) (i) Zoning laws shall be uniform for each class or kind of development
throughout a district or zone.
(ii) The zoning laws in one district or zone may differ from those in other
districts or zones.
(Emphasis added). The language described above is “commonly referred to as the
‘uniformity requirement’ of Euclidean zoning” and “has its roots in the Standard State
Zoning Enabling Act, which states, at § 2, that applicable zoning ‘regulations shall be
uniform for each class or kind of buildings throughout each district, but the regulations in
one district may differ from those in other districts.’” Anderson House, 402 Md. at 713
(footnote omitted) (quoting 1 Robert M. Anderson, American Law of Zoning 3d § 5.25
at 417 (1986)). “This or a similar limitation appears in the state zoning enabling acts of
nearly every state.” Id. (citation omitted). I will return to a discussion of the uniformity
requirement, as well as our case law discussing this principle, in part III.A.
4. Applying Euclidean Zoning to Properties in Maryland
The above-described enabling statute describes the authority of the local
jurisdiction—in this case, Prince George’s County—to adopt zoning laws. In Maryland,
Euclidean zoning laws are applied to properties located in zoning districts through three
primary legislative zoning processes: “(1) original zoning; (2) comprehensive rezoning;
and (3) piecemeal rezoning.” Rylyns, 372 Md. at 532. The fundamental distinction
between these zoning processes “is that the first two are purely legislative processes, while
piecemeal rezoning is achieved, usually at the request of the property owner[s], through a
quasi-judicial process leading to a legislative act.” Id. (citations omitted).
17
a. Original and Comprehensive Rezoning
As noted above, “the act of zoning either may be original or comprehensive
(covering a large area and ordinarily initiated by local government) or piecemeal (covering
individual parcels, lots, or assemblages, and ordinarily initiated by the property owner).”
Rylyns, 372 Md. at 535. For a zoning action to qualify as a comprehensive zoning or
rezoning,
the legislative act of zoning must: 1) cover a substantial area; 2) be the
product of careful study and consideration; 3) control and direct the use of
land and development according to present and planned future conditions,
consistent with the public interest; and, 4) set forth and regulate all permitted
land uses in all or substantially all of a given political subdivision, though it
need not zone or rezone all of the land in the jurisdiction.
Id. (citations omitted). The legislative body’s motive or wisdom “in adopting an original
or comprehensive zoning enjoy a strong presumption of correctness and validity[.]” Id.
(citing Norbeck Vill. Joint Venture v. Montgomery County Council, 254 Md. 59, 65–66
(1969)). Once zoning is established, it may only be changed “by the adoption of a
subsequent comprehensive rezoning, or, in the case of a piecemeal Euclidean zoning
application, upon a showing that there was a mistake in the prior original or comprehensive
zoning or evidence that there has been a substantial change in the character of the
neighborhood since the time the original or comprehensive zoning was put in place.” Id.
at 535–36 (citing Stratakis v. Beauchamp, 268 Md. 643, 652–53 (1973); Anne Arundel
County v. Maryland Nat’l Bank, 32 Md. App. 437, 440 (1976)). “The scope of review by
Maryland courts of the legislative decisions embodied in original zonings and
comprehensive rezonings is quite narrow.” Zimmer, 444 Md. at 509 (footnote omitted).
18
Specifically, judicial review is limited to “whether the local zoning authority: (1) followed
the appropriate procedure designated by the zoning enabling statute and its own
ordinances; (2) comported with the requirements of due process; (3) aimed to achieve a
valid public purpose; and (4) did not otherwise exceed its police powers.” Id. (footnote
and citation omitted).
The rigidity of Euclidean zoning, and the presumption of correctness arising from
an original or comprehensive rezoning, may feel “unduly harsh to the landowner who finds
that planned uses of a property are no longer allowed under the zoning classification into
which the land has been placed.” Rylyns, 372 Md. at 536. In Rylyns, we explained:
The presumption performs, however, and perhaps somewhat ironically, a
critically essential function to the benefit of the property owner. Because
zoning necessarily impacts the economic uses to which land may be put, and
thus impacts the economic return to the property owner, the requirement that
there be uniformity within each zone throughout the district is an important
safeguard of the right to fair and equal treatment of the landowners at the
hands of the local zoning authority. Frankly put, the requirement of
uniformity serves to protect the landowner from favoritism towards certain
landowners within a zone by the grant of less onerous restrictions than are
applied to others within the same zone elsewhere in the district, and also
serves to prevent the use of zoning as a form of leverage by the local
government seeking land concession, transfers, or other consideration in
return for more favorable treatment.
Id. (emphasis added).
In other words, the uniformity requirement protects landowners by ensuring that a
neighboring or nearby property will not be used in a manner that is inconsistent with the
uses permitted in that zone.
19
b. Piecemeal Zoning
As noted above, “the original or comprehensive zoning may be changed (unless by
a subsequent comprehensive zoning) only by a subsequent piecemeal zoning, which in the
case of a Euclidean zone may be granted” by satisfying what is commonly referred to as
the “change-mistake rule.” Rylyns, 372 Md. at 538 (citations omitted).
The “change-mistake rule” is an either/or rule. Id. To establish the “change” side
of the equation for a piecemeal zoning, “there must be a satisfactory showing that there has
been a significant and unanticipated change in a relatively well-defined area (the
‘neighborhood’) surrounding the property in question since its original or last
comprehensive rezoning, whichever occurred most recently.” Id. The “mistake” side of
the rule “requires a showing that the underlying assumptions or premises relied upon by
the legislative body during the immediately preceding original or comprehensive rezoning
were incorrect.” Id. at 538–39. Stated another way, “there must be a showing of mistake
of fact[,]” not a mistake of judgment. Id. at 539.
In addition, even where the standard for change or mistake has been satisfied, “there
is no reciprocal right to a change in zoning, nor is there a threshold evidentiary standard
which when met compels a rezoning.” Rylyns, 372 Md. at 539. Where strong evidence
exists to support a determination of change or mistake, “piecemeal zoning may by granted,
but it is not required to be granted, except where a failure to do so would deprive the owner
of all economically viable use of the property.” Id. (citations omitted). “In Maryland, the
change-mistake rule applies to all piecemeal zoning applications involving Euclidean
zones[.]” Id.; see also Hardesty v. Dunphy, 259 Md. 718, 720, 725–26 (1970) (reversing
20
a zoning board’s grant of an application to rezone properties in an agricultural-residential
area for commercial use because there was no “legally sufficient change or mistake” and
therefore a comprehensive rezoning was the only method available for the rezoning). “The
change-mistake rule does not apply . . . to changes in zoning made in a comprehensive
rezoning[.]” Rylyns, 372 Md. at 539.
Piecemeal rezonings are quasi-judicial in nature and are “reviewed most frequently
under the substantial evidence test.” Zimmer, 444 Md. at 510 (citation omitted). In Prince
George’s County, “[a] contested application for a map amendment . . . may not be granted
or denied without written findings of material facts and conclusions.” LU § 25-204. “All
witnesses appearing in a hearing before the [D]istrict [C]ouncil are subject to cross-
examination.” LU § 25-203.8
8
For the sake of completeness, I briefly mention two other types of zoning—
contract zoning and conditional zoning, neither of which are applicable in this case.
Contract zoning “occurs when an agreement is entered between the ultimate zoning
authority and the zoning applicant/property owner which purports to determine
contractually how the property in question will be zoned, in derogation of the legal
prerequisites for the grant of the desired zone.” Mayor & Council of Rockville v. Rylyns
Enters., Inc., 372 Md. 514, 547 (2002). In the absence of “valid legislative authorization,
it is impermissible because it allows a property owner to obtain a special privilege not
available to others, disrupts the comprehensive nature of the zoning plan, and, most
importantly, impermissibly derogates the exercise of the municipality’s powers.” Id.
(cleaned up). Conditional zoning is permitted in Prince George’s County pursuant to LU
§ 22-214(a), which allows the placement of conditions on the grant of piecemeal zoning of
a subject property, in a manner that may be more limited or restricted than the standards
that are generally applicable to all land zoned similarly in the district. “Although
conditional zoning introduces flexibility” as far as the zoning authority’s ability to place
limitations or restrictions on the property, it “does not obviate the necessity for the zoning
authority to make the underlying legislative findings required for the grant” of the rezoning,
i.e., a determination that the change-mistake rule has been satisfied in the case of a
piecemeal zoning application. Zimmer, 444 Md. at 519.
21
c. Spot Zoning
“Spot zoning occurs when a small area in a district is placed in a different zoning
classification than the surrounding property.” Tennison v. Shomette, 38 Md. App. 1, 8
(1977) (citation omitted); see also 3 Rathkopf’s § 41:1 (stating that illegal spot zoning
claims “arise when a tract of land is upzoned to allow a higher density or more intensive
use or development”).
In Cassell v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, this Court described spot zoning
in connection with a challenge to a city ordinance which created a separate commercial
district consisting of a single property to permit that property to be used for a funeral home.
195 Md. 348, 352 (1950). Prior to the enactment of the ordinance, the property had been
zoned in a residential district, and would continue to be surrounded by residentially zoned
properties. See id. at 353. We concluded that the rezoning constituted an illegal spot
zoning and invalidated the ordinance. Id. at 357–58.
We explained that “[t]he State Zoning Enabling Act demands that all zoning
regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of buildings throughout each district,”
and that “[i]nvidious distinctions and discriminations in zoning cannot be allowed, for the
very essence of zoning is territorial division according to the character of the land and the
buildings, their peculiar suitability for particular uses, and uniformity of use within the use
district.” Id. at 354 (citations omitted). This Court described “spot zoning” as follows:
“Spot zoning,” the arbitrary and unreasonable devotion of a small area
within a zoning district to a use which is inconsistent with the use to which
the rest of the district is restricted, has appeared in many cities in America as
the result of pressure put upon councilmen to pass amendments to zoning
ordinances solely for the benefit of private interests. . . . It is, therefore,
22
universally held that a “spot zoning” ordinance, which singles out a parcel
of land within the limits of a use district and marks it off into a separate
district for the benefit of the owner, thereby permitting a use of that parcel
inconsistent with the use permitted in the rest of the district, is invalid if it is
not in accordance with the comprehensive zoning plan and is merely for
private gain.
On the other hand, it has been decided that a use permitted in a small area,
which is not inconsistent with the use to which the larger surrounding area is
restricted, although it may be different from that use, is not “spot zoning”
when it does not conflict with the comprehensive plan but is in harmony with
an orderly growth of a new use for property in the locality. The courts have
accordingly upheld the creation of small districts within a residential district
for use of grocery stores, . . . and even gasoline filling stations, for the
accommodation and convenience of the residents of the residential district.
Cassell, 195 Md. at 355–56 (emphasis added) (citations omitted).
The Court held that the ordinance, which reclassified a single lot to allow a use that
was not permitted in the surrounding residential district, was “an arbitrary and
unreasonable discrimination for the reason that it d[id] not operate alike on all persons
residing in the residential area.” Id. at 358. This Court concluded that the ordinance was
“beyond the statutory power of the City Council” and declared it to be invalid. Id.; see
also Hewitt v. County Comm’rs of Balt. County, 220 Md. 48, 52, 64 (1959) (holding that
the County Commissioners’ action rezoning two residentially improved lots totaling 19
acres from a residential-use classification to a commercial-use classification constituted
“invalid ‘spot zoning’” because it was “an arbitrary and unreasonable devotion of a small
area to a use inconsistent with the uses to which the rest of the district [was] restricted,
made for the sole benefit of the private interests of the owner and not in accordance with
[the] comprehensive plan”).
23
5. Land Use Tools that Provide Relief and Flexibility from Euclidean Zoning
To address the tension between the “stability and predictability of Euclidean
zoning[,]” on the one hand and its “undesirable rigidity” on the other, Maryland, like our
sister states, has created zoning tools—special exceptions,9 variances,10 floating zones,11
9
“The terms ‘special exception’ and ‘conditional use’ are essentially
interchangeable.” People’s Counsel for Balt. County v. Loyola Coll. in Md., 406 Md. 54,
71 n.19 (2008) (citations omitted). Special exception uses are identified by the legislative
body as uses that are “conditionally compatible in [a] zone,” but not permitted “unless
specific statutory standards . . . are met” to ensure that the use on a particular property is
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Rylyns, 372 Md. at 541. These uses are
specifically identified as “special exception” uses in a zoning ordinance and are considered
to be “a middle ground between permitted and prohibited uses.” Zimmer, 444 Md. at 513
n.17. Stated another way, special exception uses are “prima facie compatible for a given
zone, subject to a case-by-case evaluation to determine whether the use would result in an
adverse effect on the neighborhood (other than any adverse effect inherent in that use
within the zone), such that would make the use actually incompatible.” Id. (citation
omitted). “Because special exceptions are legislatively-created within the comprehensive
zoning regulatory scheme, they enjoy the presumption of correctness[.]” Rylyns, 372 Md.
at 542 (citation omitted). Accordingly, the application for a special exception is not
required to make any showing of a change or mistake. Id. at 543.
10
“‘A variance refers to administrative relief which may be granted from the strict
application of a particular development limitation in the zoning ordinance (i.e., setback,
area and height limitations, etc.).’” Rylyns, 372 Md. at 537 (quoting Stanley D. Abrams,
Guide to Maryland Zoning Decisions § 11.1 (3d ed. Michie 1992)); see also 3 Rathkopf’s
§ 58:1 (“A variance is the right to use or to build on land in a way prohibited by strict
application of a zoning ordinance. It is permission given to a property owner to depart
from the applicable zoning requirements by constructing or maintaining a building or
structure, or establishing or maintaining a use of land that otherwise would not be
allowed.”). “Although different jurisdictions use slightly different standards for granting
a variance, there is a common purpose behind allowing variances: The variance is a means
of correcting occasional inequities that may be created under general Euclidean zoning
ordinances.” Md. Reclamation Assocs., Inc. v. Harford County, 468 Md. 339, 402 (2020)
(footnote omitted).
11
A floating zone allows the local zoning authority to establish in its zoning
ordinance “a specific zoning classification for a specific purpose or a class of purposes, but
24
and overlay zones12—that provide flexibility or relief from the rigidity of Euclidean zoning
in certain circumstances. Zimmer, 444 Md. at 513–14 (footnotes omitted) (citations
omitted). In this case, the District Council did not employ any of these tools as part of its
effort to introduce townhouse uses within the R-A Zone. For this reason, it is unnecessary
to discuss them further other than to point out that: (1) none of these zoning procedures
requires the application of the change-mistake rule; (2) each of them involves the filing of
an application for a specifically identifiable property or properties; and (3) the approval
process for each involves a quasi-judicial proceeding, with findings of fact that must be
made by the approving authority prior to granting the application.
[] not assign on the zoning map the classification to any property[.]” Zimmer, 444 Md.
at 515 (citation omitted). This type of zone is said “to ‘float’ above the local jurisdiction
to which the zone may be applied through the grant of a piecemeal zoning map
amendment[.]” Id. at 516 (citations omitted). “To rezone a property to a floating zone, the
zoning authority must find generally that the legislative prerequisites for the zone are met
and the rezoning is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood (much as required to
grant a special exception).” Id. (citations omitted).
12
An overlay zone “has been described as a mapped district superimposed on one
or more established zoning districts, which may be used to impose supplemental
restrictions on uses in these districts, permit uses otherwise disallowed, or implement some
form of density bonus or incentive zoning program.” City of Hyattsville v. Prince George’s
County Council, 254 Md. App. 1, 45 (2022) (cleaned up). “A property located in an overlay
zone is simultaneously in two zones, both the overlay zone and the underlying zone.” Id.
(cleaned up). Although overlay zones do not fit within the description of a floating zone
(given that they do not float, but are pre-mapped), like floating zones they do not require a
showing of change or mistake. Id. at 50–52. The rationale for floating zones and overlay
zones is the same—the local legislature establishes a detailed process in its zoning
ordinance to approve these zones, which include definite, concrete standards, which make
the process more akin to the special exception process. Id.
25
Having reviewed the nature of Euclidean zoning, and various tools that permit
flexibility from the rigidity of Euclidean zoning, I turn to the process that the District
Council used here—the adoption of a text amendment that permitted townhouses to be
constructed in a Euclidean zone under “certain circumstances” where a property satisfied
enumerated criteria.
III.
Analysis
It is undisputed that the R-A Zone is a Euclidean zone. The applicable State
enabling statute requires that zoning laws enacted by the District Council in traditional
Euclidean Zones “shall be uniform for each class or kind of development throughout a
district or zone.” LU § 22-201(b)(2)(i) (emphasis added). If the zoning text amendment
violates the “uniformity” requirement of the enabling statute, it is invalid. As previously
mentioned, there is little case law discussing the uniformity requirement under the enabling
statute. Two of this Court’s cases discussing uniformity in detail, Anderson House, LLC
v. Mayor & City Council of Rockville and Montgomery County v. Woodward & Lothrop,
Inc., arose in different contexts than this case. As discussed below, in those cases,
landowners challenged the rezoning of their properties as part of a comprehensive
rezoning. In connection with the rezoning, the landowners alleged that the zoning
regulations that applied to their properties (and which undisputedly had general application
within the zoning district) violated the uniformity requirement.
26
A. Case Law Describing the Uniformity Requirement
In Montgomery County v. Woodward & Lothrop, Inc., 280 Md. 686, 689–92 (1977),
ten property owners challenged the rezoning of their properties to a new zoning
classification within a newly modified central business district (“CBD”). The Montgomery
County Council (“the Council”) had adopted zoning text amendments that corresponded to
the modifications of the CBD and “regulated the height, area and use of permissible
development and thereby sharply reduced the densities and floor area that could be built”
in the CBD. Id. at 691–92. The development criteria established by the zoning text
amendments had been recommended by, and were the product of, a years-long study
undertaken by a blue-ribbon committee formed to study development in the area. Id.
at 694–97. The new zone and development standards were in conformity with the
recommendation of the General Plan and a local Master Plan for the planning area. See id.
at 694. The Council then undertook a sectional map amendment process in which it
assigned the new zoning classification to 37 properties. Id. at 691–92, 715.
Several of the affected property owners challenged the rezoning and text
amendments adopted by the Council, asserting that the sectional map amendment process
did not constitute a comprehensive rezoning, and that the associated text amendment
violated the uniformity requirement. Id. at 692. We determined that the establishment of
the modified zone, and its application to 37 identified properties pursuant to the sectional
map amendment process, constituted a comprehensive rezoning, and as such, “enjoy[ed] a
strong presumption of validity.” Id. at 706 (citations omitted).
27
The property owners argued that the Council violated the uniformity requirement
by adopting zoning regulations for the new CBD that: (1) adopted a computation for
parking requirements that was different than for other business districts; (2) permitted
properties that were 22,000 square feet or more to be developed at higher densities;
(3) vested “complete authority” in the Planning Board to allocate floor area ratio
requirements to different parcels; and (4) created a different standard for when property
owners were required to conform to the new code for buildings that had use permits prior
to 1959. Id. at 718–19, 721–22.
This Court rejected the property owners’ uniformity challenges. Id. at 721–23. We
determined that the parking requirements applied to “all property uses” sharing the same
characteristics identified in the ordinance. Id. at 721. With respect to the minimum size
requirement for additional densities, we observed that “[t]he zoning regulations apply
uniformly to all parcels less than 22,000 square feet as well as those in excess of that area.”
Id. We determined that the property owners’ third challenge, to the Planning Board’s
authority, was premature. Id. at 721–722. Finally, we determined that the differential
treatment of nonconforming uses based upon the date that the use commenced was “neither
arbitrary nor invidiously discriminatory, but affect[ed] alike all properties similarly
situated.” Id. at 723.
More recently, in Anderson House, LLC v. Mayor & City Council of Rockville, this
Court engaged in a more in-depth discussion of the uniformity requirement in connection
with a landowner’s challenge to the rezoning of its property. In that case, the city enacted
legislation creating a new commercial transition zone and implemented a comprehensive
28
rezoning. 402 Md. 689, 696 (2008). As part of a comprehensive map amendment process,
the landowner’s property was rezoned into the new commercial transition zone, which the
landowner contended would deny it the ability to subdivide the property, “and thus
preclude additional development.” Id. at 696, 699.
Like the property owners in Woodward & Lothrop, the property owner in Anderson
House challenged on uniformity grounds the rezoning of the property, as well as the text
of the zoning regulations that applied as a result of the rezoning. Id. at 701. The
landowner’s property was rezoned along with approximately 20 other properties as part of
a comprehensive rezoning. Id. at 699–700, 725 n.27. The landowner’s property was the
largest property that was subject to the rezoning. Id. at 697. The landowner argued that,
as a result of the size of the property, the zoning regulations would impact its property in a
manner different from smaller properties. Id. at 725.
Writing for this Court, Judge Harrell explained the history and rationale of the
“uniformity requirement” in Euclidean zoning, which “has its roots in the Standard State
Zoning Enabling Act, which states, at § 2, that applicable zoning ‘regulations shall be
uniform for each class or kind of buildings throughout each district, but the regulations in
one district may differ from those in other districts.’” Anderson House, 402 Md. at 713
(citing 1 Anderson, supra, § 5.25 at 417). The Court noted that “[t]his or a similar
limitation appears in the state zoning enabling acts of nearly every state.” Id. (citation
omitted).
We explained that “[t]he apparent motive for including the uniformity requirement
in the early days of the introduction of zoning controls was appeasement of potentially
29
hostile landowners.” Id. (citing 1 Anderson, supra, § 5.25 at 418). The Court stated that
the uniformity requirement assured property owners “that similarly situated properties
would be subject to similar regulation.” Id. at 713–14 (citation omitted). In other words,
we noted, “the uniformity requirement springs less from pure legal necessity, but more
from a policy desire to give notice to property owners that ad hoc discriminations will not
be tolerated by the law.” Id. at 714 (citation omitted). We also noted that courts “have
been somewhat reluctant to elaborate on or supply judicial gloss to the meaning of the
uniformity requirement, perhaps due to the original policy purpose for its inclusion.” Id.
(citation omitted).
Nevertheless, we observed that “[t]rends as to its application . . . appear in a number
of states.” Anderson House, 402 Md. at 714. We stated that “[m]any jurisdictions agree
that the kind of discrimination violative of the uniformity requirement occurs when a
zoning ordinance singles out a property or properties for different treatment than others
similarly situated.” Id. (emphasis added). We undertook an analysis of case law from New
Jersey and Connecticut to “provide a useful ‘side by side’ illustration of the application of
the uniformity requirement.” Id.
We noted that in New Jersey, a court found a violation of the uniformity requirement
“when an ordinance imposed a setback requirement of 25 feet throughout a business
district[,]” with the exception of a single block in which the regulations imposed a 67-foot
setback. Id. (citing N.T. Hegeman Co. v. Mayor & Council of Borough of River Edge, 6
N.J. Super. 495, 69 A.2d 767 (Law Div. 1949)). On the other hand, the New Jersey
Supreme Court found no violation of the uniformity requirement where an ordinance “used
30
a mathematical formula to determine minimum lot sizes and maximum lot coverage based
upon the steepness of slopes on properties[,] . . . even though it created varying results
based upon a parcel’s physical conditions or characteristics.” Id. (citing Rumson Estates,
Inc. v. Mayor & Council of Borough of Fair Haven, 177 N.J. 338, 828 A.2d 317 (2003)).
That court “emphasized that uniformly applicable regulations could result in different
conditions without violating the requirement.” Id. at 714–715 (citing Rumson Estates, 828
A.2d at 329–30). Based upon our review of the New Jersey cases, we explained that “[t]he
crux of the [uniformity] requirement is only that similarly situated properties are treated
the same under the zoning regulations.” Id. at 715 (citations omitted).
We also noted that cases from Connecticut recognized the same distinction. For
example, we pointed out that the Connecticut Supreme Court held that an ordinance was
discriminatory and violated the uniformity requirement where the legislation required a
buffer strip for one specific parcel of property, while failing to impose the same
requirement on similarly situated properties in the same zone. Id. (citing Veseskis v. Bristol
Zoning Comm’n, 168 Conn. 358, 362 A.2d 538 (1975)). On the other hand, the Connecticut
Supreme Court found that an amendment to a town zoning regulation did not violate the
uniformity requirement by creating different minimum lot sizes within a particular zone
depending on various factors such as lot slope, and whether and the extent to which a
property was covered by wetlands or watercourses. Id. (citing Harris v. Zoning Comm’n
of Town of New Milford, 259 Conn. 402, 788 A.2d 1239 (2002)). In this latter case, Harris,
the Connecticut Supreme Court distinguished the first case, Veseskis, by noting that “the
regulation in Veseskis affected only one specific parcel of land,” where in Harris, the
31
amendment to the regulation had general application within the zoning district. Id. (citing
Harris, 788 A.2d at 1258). The court in Harris stated that “‘the thrust of the statutory
requirement of uniformity is equal treatment’ and concluded that ‘the fact that the
amendment has [a] differing effect on parcels of land throughout the town does not render
its application inconsistent or unequal’ because it is applied to ‘every parcel within its
purview consistently and equally.’” Id. (quoting Harris, 788 A.2d at 1258) (alteration in
original).
After reviewing the case law from these two states, we stated that “Maryland’s
common law conforms to the trend.” Anderson House, 402 Md. at 716. We noted that
“[a]s with other states, Maryland’s limited case law on the uniformity requirement
demonstrates that it is discrimination in favor of, or against, particular properties that will
not be tolerated. In contrast, uniformly applicable regulations that produce disparate
results in application do not violate the uniformity requirement.” Id. at 717 (emphasis
added). We proceeded to contras
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.