Montgomery County v. National Capital Realty Corp.
267 Md. 364, 1972 Md. LEXIS 678, 297 A.2d 675 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A zoning reclassification is impermissible conditional zoning when it is granted in reliance on covenants offered by a landowner that are contingent upon the approval of the rezoning itself. Zoning authorities cannot rezone a particular parcel with conditions or limitations on use that are not generally applicable to all other land in the same zoning district.
Facts:
- An appellee, the owner of a 1.4-acre parcel of land in Montgomery County, sought to rezone the property from C-0 (commercial office building) to C-2 (general commercial).
- The property is located on the northern edge of the Silver Spring business district, directly adjacent to an established single-family residential area to the north.
- The requested C-2 zoning conflicted with the recommendations of both the existing 1957 Master Plan and a new draft Master Plan, which designated the area for high-density residential use to serve as a transition zone.
- To support its application, the appellee submitted a 'Declaration of Covenants' with an attached site plan, promising to develop the property in a specific manner with greater setbacks and less density than the C-2 zone required.
- The declaration explicitly stated that the covenants would only become effective 'upon the approval of the zoning application' and would have no effect otherwise.
- A local citizens' association opposed the application, expressing concerns about increased traffic and inadequate parking, citing existing problems from nearby high-rise developments.
- The Montgomery County Planning Board and a County Program Coordinator recommended approval of the rezoning, but their recommendations were based almost entirely on the appellee's conditional covenants.
Procedural Posture:
- The appellee (landowner) filed an application with the Montgomery County Council, sitting as the District Council, for a zoning reclassification.
- A hearing examiner conducted a hearing and recommended that the Council deny the application.
- The Montgomery County Council adopted the examiner's report and denied the rezoning application.
- The appellee appealed the Council's decision to the circuit court (the trial court of general jurisdiction).
- The circuit court reversed the Council's decision, finding it arbitrary and capricious, and ordered that the zoning application be granted.
- Montgomery County (appellant) appealed the circuit court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Maryland (the state's highest court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a local government engage in impermissible conditional zoning when it grants a zoning reclassification based on a property owner's submitted declaration of covenants, where those covenants are explicitly conditioned to become effective only upon the granting of the requested reclassification?
Opinions:
Majority - Levine, J.
Yes. Granting a zoning reclassification in reliance on covenants that are contingent upon the rezoning's approval constitutes impermissible conditional zoning. The County Council was correct to deny the application because it cannot legally engage in such ad hoc bargaining, which violates the principle that zoning regulations must be uniform for all properties within a given district. The court found that the favorable recommendations from the Planning Board and a county official were based entirely on these legally worthless covenants and were thus properly disregarded by the Council. Additionally, the court held that the Council's finding that there was no substantial change in the character of the neighborhood to justify rezoning was 'fairly debatable' and supported by evidence, meaning a court cannot substitute its own judgment. Because the Council's denial was based on substantial evidence and correct legal principles, it was not arbitrary or capricious.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms Maryland's strict prohibition against conditional zoning, clarifying that the rule applies even when the conditions are voluntarily offered by the applicant rather than demanded by the government. The case establishes that the contingent nature of such covenants—becoming effective only upon the grant of rezoning—is the key feature that renders them invalid as a basis for a legislative zoning decision. This holding protects the integrity of the comprehensive zoning plan by preventing ad hoc, contract-like negotiations for zoning changes, ensuring that land use regulations are applied uniformly and not through private deals. The ruling solidifies the 'fairly debatable' standard of review, reinforcing judicial deference to the decisions of local legislative bodies in zoning matters.
