Preview:

Sycamore Realty Co., Inc. v. People's Counsel of Baltimore County, Relay Improvement Association, Louisa Vanderbeek, Herbert Plitt and John Heinrichs - No. 130, 1995 Term ZONING -- County not estopped to downzone property that was under reservation for potential acquisition at the time it was downzoned.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 130 September Term, 1995 ___________________________________ SYCAMORE REALTY CO., INC. v. PEOPLE'S COUNSEL OF BALTIMORE COUNTY, RELAY IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION, LOUISA VANDERBEEK, HERBERT PLITT AND JOHN HEINRICHS ___________________________________ *Murphy, C.J. Eldridge Rodowsky Chasanow Karwacki Bell Raker JJ. ___________________________________ Opinion by Chasanow, J. ___________________________________ Filed: November 21, 1996

*Murphy, C.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 the adoption of the opinion.

In this case, we are called upon to decide whether Baltimore County should be estopped from enforcing a new zoning scheme, enacted during the County's quadrennial rezoning process, against a property owner whose property was under reservation for potential acquisition by the County at the time it was downzoned. For the

following reasons we hold that the County should not be estopped.

I. The facts in this case are simply stated. Petitioner,

Sycamore Realty Co., Inc., is the owner of Hilltop Place, a 24.37 acre parcel of land in Baltimore County. On December 4, 1990,

Petitioner filed a development plan with the Baltimore County Review Group (the "CRG") seeking permission to erect a 220-unit townhome complex on the site. At the time the development plan was

filed, 18.21 acres of the site were zoned density residential (DR) 10.5, and 6.16 acres of the site were zoned DR 5.5. The 220-unit

townhome complex would have been compatible with this zoning scheme. Obtaining the approval of the CRG was only the first

requirement that Petitioner had to fulfill in order to begin its project. a Petitioner would then have had to apply for and receive

building permit authorizing Petitioner to proceed with the A site planning and engineering expert estimated that, in

project.

the usual course of events, it takes up to 3 months to obtain CRG approval, and approximately 12 months for a project to move from

-2CRG approval to the beginning of construction. This project, however, did not proceed in the usual fashion. On July 1, 1991, while the CRG was considering the merits of Petitioner's development plan, the Baltimore County Council

reserved the 24.37 acre parcel, pursuant to Baltimore County Code

Download Sycamore Realty v. People's Counsel.pdf

Maryland Law