Preview:

The Mayor and Council of Rockville, et al v. Rylyns Enterprises, Inc. No. 43, September Term, 2001 ZONING - ANNEXAT ION - CONDITIONS - Municipality's initial zoning of annexed property improper where the zoning of the property was granted subject to conditions which prohibited certain uses of the property otherwise permitted as of right or by special exception within the zon e assign ed. Initial municipal zoning of annexed property additionally improper, as a matter of public policy prohibiting contracts restricting the exercise of the governmental powers, where legislative body wielding ultimate zoning authority entered into contractual relationship with land own er fo r the purp ose o f res tricti ng uses o f pro perty otherwise permissible for other properties within the zone assigned.

Circuit Co urt for Mo ntgomery C ounty Case: Civil No. 202841V

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 43 September Term, 2001

THE MAYO R AND COUN CIL OF ROCKVILLE et al.

v.

RYLYNS ENTERPRISES, INC.

Bell, C. J. Eldridge Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia, JJ.

Opinion by Harrell, J. Bell, C.J. and Cathell, J. Dissent

Filed: December 31, 2002

According to Respondent, Rylyns Enterprises, Inc. (Rylyns), this case presents an unusual situation where a land use restriction demanded by Montgom ery County, Maryland, during municipal annexation proceedings by the City of R ockville req uired the C ity to impose improper "conditional zoning" on the annexed property. The Court of Special Appeals, in an unreported opinion, held that the municipality's imposition, at the insistence of the County, of a condition lim iting the use of the new ly annexed property more restrictively than allowed by the City zoning ordinance for the zoning district in which the property was placed was tantamount to improper conditional zoning. The intermediate appellate court also held that the zoning reclassification, in light of the limitation, constituted illegal "spot zoning." We shall affirm that judgment ba sed on the Court's ho lding as to impermiss ible conditional zoning, although we shall employ somewhat different reasoning. I. The material facts of this case are not in dispute. They must be considered against the backdrop of Ma ryland Code (1957, 19 98 Rep l. Vol.), Article 23A,

Download Rockville v. Rylyns.pdf

Maryland Law