Boomer v. Waterman Family Ltd. Partnership, 155 A.3d 901

Waterman owned ~140 acres (Wheatlands Farm) in Queen Anne’s County; property was county-zoned Countryside (low-density).
Waterman petitioned Queenstown to annex the property; Queenstown annexed and rezoned it to Planned Regional Commercial, which allowed substantially different/higher-density uses.
Under LG §4-416(b), such rezoning after annexation is restricted for five years unless the county expressly waives that limitation. On Nov. 25, 2014, the County Commissioners adopted Resolution 14-31 granting the express approval (waiver).
New County Commissioners were sworn in on Dec. 2, 2014; on Dec. 9, 2014 the County adopted Resolution 14-33 rescinding Resolution 14-31.
The Town Commissioners and Waterman sued in circuit court seeking review and declaratory relief; the circuit court held the county lacked authority to rescind and declared Resolution 14-33 null. The county dismissed its appeal; QACA-intervenors appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the County could rescind Resolution 14-31	Waterman/Town: County lacked authority; LG §4-416 is a public general law and, once waived, town has exclusive jurisdiction; no statutory right to rescind	QACA: Resolutions are public local laws under Art. XI-F §6; county constitutionally may amend/repeal local laws and has inherent power to rescind	Reversed circuit court: County had authority to rescind 14-31; both resolutions are public local laws and rescission was permitted absent vested third-party rights

Kent Island Def. League, LLC v. Queen Anne’s County Bd. of Elections, 145 Md. App. 684 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2002) (distinguishes local vs. general laws and when county action is pursuant to state general law)
Dal Maso v. Bd. of County Comm’rs of Prince George’s County, 182 Md. 200 (Md. 1943) (municipal/board has inherent power to reconsider or rescind prior legislative actions prior to vesting of third-party rights)
Cole v. Secretary of State, 249 Md. 425 (Md. 1969) (classification of laws as general or local depends on substance and statewide effect)
Dasch v. Jackson, 170 Md. 251 (Md. 1936) (applying settled legal principles to determine general vs. local law)
Schultze v. Montgomery County Planning Bd., 230 Md. 76 (Md. 1962) (agencies may correct quasi-judicial errors but must not act arbitrarily)
Cinque v. Montgomery County Planning Bd., 173 Md. App. 349 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2007) (recognizes agencies’ inherent authority to reconsider quasi-judicial decisions)
Town of Sykesville v. West Shore Communications, Inc., 110 Md. App. 300 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1996) (vesting of rights in zoning context requires significant, visible construction in good faith pursuant to valid permit)
Harden v. Mass Transit Admin., 277 Md. 399 (Md. 1976) (legislature presumed to act with knowledge of existing law and doctrines when enacting statutes)