Preview:

People's Counsel for Baltimore County, et al. v. Loyola College in Maryland, No. 137, September Term 2007. ZONING - SPECIA L EXC EPTION S - SCHULTZ V. PRITTS STANDARD FOR EVALUATING APPLICATIONS FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN APPLICANT TO PRESENT, AND THE ZONING BODY T O CO NSID ER, A COMPARISON OF THE POTENTIAL AD VERSE EFFECTS OF THE PR OPOSED USE AT THE PROPOSED LOCATION TO THE POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USE AT OTHER, LIKE-ZONED L OCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE JURI SDIC TION .

Circuit Co urt for Baltim ore Cou nty Case No. 03-C-05-007730

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 137 September Term, 2007

PEOPLE'S COUNSEL FOR BALTIMORE COU NTY , et al. v. LOYOLA COLLEGE IN MARYLAND

Bell, C.J. Harrell Battaglia Greene Murphy Eldridge, John C. (Retired, specially assigned) Raker, Irma S. (Retired, specially assigned) JJ.

Opinio n by Ha rrell, J., Murphy, J., Concurs.

Filed: September 9, 2008

The legacy in Maryland land use law of Schultz v. P ritts, 291 Md. 1, 432 A.2d 1319 (1981), has been beneficial and well-applied for the most part over the ensuing years. The synthesis of earlier cases threaded through its reasoning supplies a lucid explanation of the legislative calculus for why some land uses, at the time of original adoption or later amendment of the text of a z oning ord inance, are p laced in the blessed category of permitted uses in a zone or zones while other uses in the same zone o r zones receive a mo re measured imprimatur of presumptive compatibility as allowed only with the grant of a special exception or cond itional u se. Schultz also iterated how special exception uses are useful zoning tools for fleshing out the grand design of land use planning, as well as postulated an anal ytical paradigm for how individual special exception applications are to be evaluated. In carrying-out the latter goal, however, some of the language of Judge Davidson's opinion for the Court in Schultz occasiona lly has been m is-perceived by subseque nt appellate c ourts and frequently misunderstood by some attorneys, planners, governmental authorities, and other citizens. We aim in the present case to greater clarity in explaining the proper evaluative framework for discrete special exception/conditional use applications and dispelling any lingering mis-understandings of what the Court truly intended when it filed the opinion in Schultz twenty-seven years ago.

Facts and Procedural History In October 2001, Loyola College in M aryland ("Loyola") contracted to purchase a fifty-three acre parcel (the Property) in northern Baltimore County for the purpose of constructing several build ings to be u sed for w eekend s piritual retreats. T he Prope rty is

located in the R.C.2 (Resource Cons ervation) zo ne. Acco rding to the B altimore C ounty Zoning Regulations (BCZR)

Download People's Counsel v. Loyola.pdf

Maryland Law