Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1142 September Term, 2007

P OVERLOOK, LLLP v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND, ET AL.

Eyler, Deborah S., * Adkins, Sally D. (Specially Assigned), Rodowsky, Lawrence F. (Ret'd, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Eyler, Deborah S., J.

Filed: December 2, 2008 * Sally D. Adkins, Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals, participated in the hearing and conference of this case while an active member of this Court; she participated in the adoption of this opinion as a specially assigned member of this Court.

This case concerns a nine-lot residential density restriction on certain property owned by P Overlook, LLLP ("Overlook"), the appellant, in Washington County. In 2003, the Board of Commissioners of Washington County ("the Commissioners"), the appellee, granted a piecemeal map amendment to Overlook's predecessors-in-title, Sylvia and William Martin, rezoning the property in question ("Property") to the Rural Village ("RV") district, conditioned upon the nine-lot density restriction. At that time, the RV zone was not yet in existence, but was projected to be once certain rural areas of the County were comprehensively rezoned. Overlook participated in the map amendment process. Neither it nor the Martins challenged the density restriction. Indeed, they were notified that the map amendment request was being granted conditioned upon the nine-lot density restriction and that, if they did not agree to the condition within five days, they could withdraw their rezoning request. They did not do so. Soon after the map amendment was granted, Overlook purchased the Property from the Martins. In the meantime, comprehensive rezoning of certain rural areas, including the Property, was moving forward in Washington County. In 2005, when the comprehensive rezoning ordinance was enacted, the Property in fact was classified as RV. The ordinance itself was silent as to any density restriction for the Property. A year later, Overlook wrote to the Zoning Administrator for the County asking him to "confirm" that the Property is located in the RV zone but is not subject to a nine-lot density restriction. By letter, the Zoning Administrator replied that, by virtue of the

Commissioners' map amendment decision in 2003, the Property now is in the RV zone with a nine-lot density restriction. Overlook challenged the Zoning Administrator's letter "determination" before the Washington County Board of Appeals ("Board"). The Board ruled that it was questionable whether the letter was an appealable "determination" and that, if it were, and even if the Zoning Administrator were in error, Overlook was estopped to challenge the density restriction. In the Circuit Court for Washington County, Overlook filed an action for judicial review. The court upheld the Board's decision. In this Court, Overlook raises two questions for review, which we have rephrased: I. Did the Board err in determining that the Commissioners had lawfully placed a nine-lot density restriction on Overlook's property? Did the Board err by failing to find that the Commissioners exceeded their authority by imposing a restriction on the number of lots that could be developed on Overlook's property, as zoned, after the zone was created?1

II.

The questions as worded by Overlook contain several subparts, which are arguments in support of the two main issues raised. Overlook frames its questions as follows: I. Did the Board of Zoning Appeals for Washington County err in its decision to affirm the nine (9) lot restriction on the Rural Village zoning of Appellant's property purportedly imposed by the Board of County Commissioners? a. Did the Board's decision affirm a prior impermissible zoning contract entered into by the Board of County Commissioners and the Martins; and, b. Was the Board's decision materially influenced by the actions of the Board of County Commissioners' 2003 rezoning by local map amendment of Appellant's property to a zone that did not exist at the time? II. Did the Board of Zoning Appeals for Washington County err when it failed (continued...)
2

1

As we shall explain, the questions Overlook presents do not address the bases for the Board's decision. We shall affirm the Board's decision on the grounds on which it was made, and shall not address the issues raised by Overlook on appeal, as they are not properly before us.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
The Property is slightly less than 24 acres of land situated near Maryland Route 340 and Keep Tryst Road, in Washington County. When Washington County first adopted a Zoning Ordinance, in 1973, the Property was zoned "Conservation" ("C"). In the early 1980s, the Martins purchased the Property. In 1983, they applied for and obtained a zoning change to "Business-General" ("BG"). The Property as purchased included an existing motel, which the Martins planned to expand or rebuild. That plan never came to fruition, however. On April 17, 2002, the Martins, through counsel, filed with the Washington County Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") a zoning map amendment application,

1

(...continued) to find that the Board of County Commissioners exceeded its authority in rezoning Appellant's property to the RV zone with a restriction on the number of lots that could be created when: a. The Board of County Commissioners failed to follow statutory notification requirements for the imposition of conditions on zoning and the July 2005 ordinance adopting the comprehensive zoning contained no restriction on the number of lots that could be developed on Appellant's property; and, b. The density restrictions on the zoning or rezoning of property are not authorized under Article 66B of the Maryland Annotated Code or the zoning regulations applicable in Washington County?
3

seeking a piecemeal zoning reclassification to the "Residential Suburban" ("RS") zone. In Washington County, the Commissioners, as the local legislative body, determine amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, whether map or text. WASH. CO., MD., ZONING ORDINANCE art. 27,

Download P Overlook v. Washington County.pdf

Maryland Law