PEOPLE'S COUNSEL FOR BALTIMORE CTY. v. Loyola College
406 Md. 54, 2008 Md. LEXIS 509, 956 A.2d 166 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The standard for evaluating a special exception application focuses solely on whether the proposed use at the specific location would have adverse effects on the surrounding neighborhood that are greater than those inherently associated with such a use in general. The standard does not require a comparative analysis of potential adverse effects at other sites within the same zone.
Facts:
- In October 2001, Loyola College in Maryland ('Loyola') contracted to purchase a 53-acre property in northern Baltimore County, which was located in an R.C.2 (Resource Conservation) zone.
- Loyola intended to build a spiritual retreat center on the property, a use classified as a 'college,' 'church,' or 'camp' that requires a special exception under the Baltimore County Zoning Regulations.
- The proposed development plan involved constructing buildings on approximately 10 acres of the property, leaving the remaining 43 acres for agriculture or open space.
- The property is located in an area characterized by active agriculture, narrow country roads without shoulders (Stablersville Road) used by farm vehicles, and proximity to a local trout stream (a tributary to the Fourth Mine Branch).
- Opponents of the project, including Citizens Against Loyola Multi-use Center ('Citizens'), argued that the proposed location was particularly sensitive to adverse impacts on traffic, agriculture, and the environment compared to other areas in the R.C.2 zone.
Procedural Posture:
- Loyola College filed a petition for a special exception with Baltimore County.
- The Baltimore County Zoning Commissioner/Hearing Officer granted the special exception in June 2004.
- Citizens Against Loyola Multi-use Center ('Citizens') and People's Counsel for Baltimore County appealed to the Baltimore County Board of Appeals.
- After a de novo hearing, the Board of Appeals affirmed the grant of the special exception in June 2005.
- Citizens and People's Counsel filed a Petition for Judicial Review in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County.
- The Circuit Court reversed the Board, holding that the Board erred by restricting its geographic scope of inquiry and not conducting a zone-wide comparative analysis, and remanded the case.
- Loyola, as appellant, appealed the Circuit Court's judgment to the Court of Special Appeals.
- The Court of Special Appeals vacated the Circuit Court's judgment, effectively reinstating the Board's decision to grant the special exception.
- Citizens and People's Counsel, as petitioners, were granted a writ of certiorari by the Court of Appeals of Maryland to review the decision.
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 the standard for granting a special exception, as established in Schultz v. Pritts, require an applicant to prove, and a zoning body to consider, a comparison of the proposed use's adverse effects at the subject location versus its potential adverse effects at other locations within the same zoning classification throughout the jurisdiction?
Opinions:
Majority - Harrell, Judge.
No. The standard established in Schultz v. Pritts does not require a comparative, multi-site geographic analysis when evaluating a special exception application. The proper analysis focuses on whether the proposed use at the particular location would have adverse effects on the immediate neighborhood above and beyond those inherently associated with such a use, without regard to how it might operate at other locations. The court's reasoning rests on a close reading of Schultz and its predecessors, which consistently emphasize a localized inquiry into the effects on 'neighboring properties,' the 'general neighborhood,' and the 'locality involved.' The phrase in Schultz, 'irrespective of its location within the zone,' is clarified to be a backward-looking reference to the legislature's initial determination that the use is presumptively compatible with the zone, not a mandate for a forward-looking comparative analysis of different sites. The court explicitly disapproves of language in prior appellate decisions (Holbrook, Lucas, Futoryan, Hayfields, and Mossburg) that misinterpreted Schultz to require such a comparative study.
Concurring - Murphy, Judge.
Agrees with the majority's conclusion that Schultz does not require a comparative geographic analysis. The concurrence is written to emphasize two points: first, that the 'neighborhood involved' in the analysis may include properties with different zoning classifications than the subject property; and second, that while the court disapproves of the legal reasoning (the language) in prior cases like Holbrook and Lucas, it is not disapproving of the ultimate outcomes (the 'bottom line' decisions) in those cases, which were factually justifiable based on the localized impacts presented.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies Maryland's special exception law by resolving a long-standing ambiguity in the application of the Schultz v. Pritts standard. By firmly rejecting the requirement for a comparative, zone-wide analysis, the court streamlines the special exception process and reduces the evidentiary burden on applicants, who no longer need to conduct costly studies of alternative sites. The ruling re-establishes that the focus of a special exception hearing is strictly local—on the specific, demonstrable impacts on the immediate neighborhood—rather than a wide-ranging search for a hypothetically 'better' location. This decision provides clear guidance to zoning boards and lower courts, disapproving a confusing line of cases and ensuring future zoning decisions are based on a more focused, site-specific inquiry.
