Cleanwater Linganore, Inc. v. Frederick County
151 A.3d 44
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2016Background
- Casey Foundation owned 634 acres in Frederick County; sought rezoning from Agricultural to Planned Unit Development (PUD) and negotiated a Development Rights and Responsibilities Agreement (DRRA) with the County in 2014.
- The BOCC approved the PUD rezoning (Ordinance No. 14-20-675) and the DRRA; the DRRA included a broad "freeze" clause listing numerous local regulatory fields to be held as of the agreement date.
- Cleanwater Linganore, Inc. (CLI) and other neighbors challenged (circuit court review) arguing the DRRA unlawfully froze laws beyond LU § 7-304(a)’s limits and that the BOCC failed to make required factual findings for the rezoning.
- Frederick County later amended certain local laws (notably a waterbody/buffer ordinance) that CLI said would otherwise apply to development of the Casey property, making the dispute over the DRRA freeze ripe.
- The circuit court upheld the BOCC actions; the Court of Special Appeals affirmed, holding the DRRA freeze fit within the legislative purpose and history and that the BOCC’s rezoning findings were supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (CLI) | Defendant's Argument (Casey/County) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of DRRA "freeze" — whether LU § 7-304(a) limits freezing to local zoning ordinance | Freeze should be narrow: only the local zoning ordinance ("use, density, intensity" are zoning terms) | DRRAs may freeze any local laws that govern use, density, or intensity; statute and legislative history anticipate broader categories (subdivision, fees, stormwater, etc.) | Ambiguous statute; legislative history and purpose support a broader reading. DRRA’s enumerated fields (as in Casey DRRA) are permissible; BOCC/County acted lawfully. |
| Ripeness of challenge to DRRA freeze given subsequent county ordinance amendments | Post‑DRRA amendments (e.g., waterbody buffer rules) make the challenge ripe because they directly affect Casey development | The County argued prior cases left scope unripe absent changed laws; here amendments have occurred | Challenge was ripe: amendment to waterbody law created a concrete controversy. Court reviewed and resolved scope issue. |
| Whether parties impermissibly negotiated beyond statutory scope or abridged police power | Parties cannot expand statutory limits by negotiation; DRRA here overreaches | Parties may negotiate which relevant local laws are frozen so long as within LU § 7-304 and subject to public‑health/safety exception | No impermissible negotiation found; LU § 7-304(b) and DRRA safety clause preserve local police power. |
| Adequacy of BOCC factual findings for PUD rezoning (design/siting, compatibility, population) | BOCC failed to make required specific findings; population analysis was superficial | Rezoning ordinance contains findings (some dispersed through the text) addressing design, compatibility (including buffers), and population estimates | BOCC made adequate findings supported by substantial evidence; rezoning affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grasslands Plantation, Inc. v. Frizz-King Enterprises, LLC, 410 Md. 191, 978 A.2d 622 (discussing substantial‑evidence and deference standards for zoning reviews)
- Trinity Assembly of God of Baltimore City, Inc. v. People’s Counsel for Baltimore Cnty., 407 Md. 53, 962 A.2d 404 (explaining narrow, deferential scope of review of administrative fact‑finding)
- Critical Area Comm’n for Chesapeake & Atl. Coastal Bays v. Moreland, LLC, 418 Md. 111, 12 A.3d 1223 (permitting consolidated/organized findings and focusing on substance over form)
- Prince George’s Cnty. v. Sunrise Dev. Ltd. P’ship, 330 Md. 297, 623 A.2d 1296 (discussing vesting and commencement principles relevant to development rights)
- Kaczorowski v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 309 Md. 505, 525 A.2d 628 (on discerning legislative intent and statutory purpose)