Preview:

People's Counsel for Baltimore County, et al. v. Dorothy Surina, et al., No. 111, Sept. Term 2006. ZONING LAW - SPLIT-ZONED PROPERTY UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP PERMITTED USES - STORMWATER MANAGEMENT (SWM) - SWM FACILITIES, AS AN ANCILLARY USE, ARE CONTEMPLATED BY THE ZONING SCHEME DESPITE THE LACK OF THEIR EXPRESS INCLUSION AS "USES" IN THE PERMITTED USE ENUMERATIONS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. ZONING LAW - SPLIT-ZONED PROPERTY UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP INTERIOR ACCESS ROADS - PLACEMENT OF THE ACCESS ROAD DID NOT VIOLATE THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE WHERE THE ROAD SERVES IDENTICAL PERMITTED USES IN BOTH THE R.C. 2 AND R.C. 5 ZONES.

Circuit Court for Baltimore County Case No. C-04-12588

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 111 September Term, 2006

PEOPLE'S COUNSEL FOR BALTIMORE COUNTY, et al. v. DOROTHY SURINA, et al.

Bell, C.J. Raker *Cathell Harrell Battaglia Greene, Wilner, Alan M. (Retired, (specially assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Harrell, J.

Filed: August 23, 2007 *Cathell, J., now retired, participated in the hearing and conference of this case while an active member of this Court; after being recalled pursuant to the Constitution, Article IV, Section 3A, he also participated in the decision and adoption of this opinion. We are asked in this litigation to determine whether a proposed stormwater management ("SWM") facility and private residential access road, the former designed

primarily to serve new single-family residential construction on lots in Baltimore County's R.C. 5 (Rural-Residential) zone and the latter serving those lots and a lot in the R.C. 2 (Rural-Agricultural) zone, both may be placed on the R.C. 2 zoned portion of the split-zoned tract. The Baltimore County Zoning Commissioner and Board of Appeals approved the proposed development. The Circuit Court for Baltimore County, on judicial review of that action filed by neighbors of the proposed development, reversed, holding that placement of the SWM facility on the R.C. 2 portion of the development violated existing zoning regulations. The Circuit Court, however, found no zoning problem with regard to the access road. The Court of Special Appeals, in an unreported opinion, reversed-in-part and affirmedin-part the judgment of the Circuit Court, holding that there existed "no zoning impediments" whatsoever to the development plan. We shall affirm, but for reasons different than those relied on by the Court of Special Appeals. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The basic facts underlying the present case are as follows, divergent inferences advocated by the parties aside. The controversy arises from a development plan submitted to Baltimore County by Respondents, Dorothy Surina and Jeanne Gough (the land owners) and Gaylord Brooks Realty Company (the developer). The development project, identified as "Lynch Property - Sweet Air Road," is proposed for a 47 acre tract of land located near the intersection of Sweet Air Road and Manor Knoll Court, east of Jacksonville, a rural area in the northeastern portion of Baltimore County (the "Property"). Under the "Rural Protection and Resource Conservation" ("R.C.") area zoning in the County, Baltimore County Zoning Regulations ("BCZR")

Download People's Counsel v. Surina.pdf

Maryland Law