Anne Arundel County v. Bell
113 A.3d 639
Md.2015Background
- Anne Arundel County adopted Bill 12-11 (2011), a comprehensive rezoning covering ~59,045 parcels (4,265 acres); 264 parcels had their zoning classifications changed.
- Various property owners and community associations (the Citizens) challenged select rezonings in consolidated suits (judicial review/administrative mandamus and declaratory judgment), alleging spot/contract zoning and inadequate notice.
- Intervening property owners whose parcels benefited from the rezoning moved to dismiss for lack of standing; the Circuit Court granted dismissal for failure to show special aggrievement.
- The Court of Special Appeals reversed, applying property-owner (proximity) standing principles (from Bryniarski and Ray) to comprehensive zoning and finding at least one plaintiff “almost prima facie aggrieved.”
- The Maryland Court of Appeals granted certiorari and held that challenges to comprehensive zoning must meet taxpayer-standing requirements, not property-owner (proximity) standing; Citizens failed to plead taxpayer standing, so dismissal was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether property-owner (prima facie aggrievement/proximity) standing applies to judicial challenges to comprehensive zoning | Citizens: property-owner standing principles (adjoining/nearby or “almost prima facie” with plus factors) apply to comprehensive zoning as they do to administrative/quasi-judicial land-use actions | County/Petitioners: proximity-based property-owner standing is limited to administrative/quasi-judicial land-use decisions, not purely legislative comprehensive zoning | Held: No — property-owner standing does not extend to comprehensive zoning challenges; taxpayer standing required |
| Whether the “almost prima facie” standard (200–1000 ft. + plus factors) applies to comprehensive zoning | Citizens: Ray’s “almost prima facie” category supports standing for nearby owners with plus factors | County: Ray is confined to administrative/quasi-judicial contexts and should not be extended to legislative comprehensive rezoning | Held: No — Ray’s proximity categories do not apply to judicial challenges of comprehensive legislative rezoning |
| What standing doctrine governs judicial challenges to comprehensive zoning ordinances | Citizens: property-owner standing protects nearby landowners from special harms caused by rezoning | County: taxpayer standing is the appropriate doctrine for challenges to legislative acts like comprehensive zoning | Held: Taxpayer standing is the correct doctrine for challenges to comprehensive zoning; plaintiffs must allege taxpayer status and a nexus to pecuniary injury/tax burden |
| Whether alleged harms (traffic, noise, diminished property character/value) satisfy taxpayer standing here | Citizens: affidavits alleged increased traffic, noise, decreased property values and participation-right injuries | County/Petitioners: such complaints are general public harms and do not allege pecuniary loss or increased taxes necessary for taxpayer standing | Held: Citizens did not allege pecuniary loss or increased taxes or that relief would alleviate tax burden; taxpayer standing not shown, dismissal proper |
Key Cases Cited
- 120 W. Fayette St., LLLP v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 407 Md. 253, 964 A.2d 662 (2009) (recognized property-owner and taxpayer standing in challenge to certain executive/implementation acts tied to urban renewal)
- Ray v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 430 Md. 74, 59 A.3d 545 (2013) (proximity is primary factor for property-owner standing; prima facie and almost-prima-facie categories explained)
- State Center, LLC v. Lexington Charles Ltd. P’ship, 438 Md. 451, 92 A.3d 400 (2014) (clarified distinctions between property-owner and taxpayer standing and applied taxpayer standing to certain challenges; limited extension of property-owner standing)
- Bryniarski v. Montgomery County Board of Appeals, 247 Md. 137, 230 A.2d 289 (1967) (established prima facie special-aggrievement for adjoining/confronting/nearby owners)
- Montgomery County v. Woodward & Lothrop, 280 Md. 686, 376 A.2d 483 (1977) (describes comprehensive zoning as fundamentally legislative and different from piecemeal/quasi-judicial rezoning)
- Boitnott v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 356 Md. 226, 738 A.2d 881 (1999) (upheld taxpayer standing to challenge urban renewal/ordinance implementation where taxpayers alleged potential pecuniary injury)