Cleanwater Linganore, Inc. v. Frederick County, 153 A.3d 874

The Blentlinger family owns two parcels in Frederick County (the Property); after rezoning to Low Density Residential (LDR) they applied for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and submitted a Development Rights and Responsibilities Agreement (DRRA).
The BOCC approved the PUD with conditions (675 units cap; no first building permit before Jan 1, 2020) and executed/recorded the DRRA on November 24, 2014. Appellants sought review in circuit court, which affirmed; this appeal addresses only the DRRA approval.
The DRRA contained (inter alia) a broad "freeze" clause defining the local laws, rules, regulations, and policies that would apply as of the effective date; a provision stating the DRRA constitutes covenants running with the land; and commitments by developer concerning APFO compliance, fees, and a conditional proffer of a 24.5+ acre school site to the Board of Education.
Maryland law requires DRRAs to be recorded to bind successors, authorizes freezing of local laws governing use/density/intensity (LU § 7-304), and mandates DRRAs include terms deemed necessary to ensure public health, safety or welfare (LU § 7-303).
The central legal disputes: scope of permissible "freeze" provisions under LU § 7-304; whether a DRRA may be a covenant running with the land; and whether this DRRA is supported by adequate consideration/enhanced public benefits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the DRRA’s freeze clause impermissibly freezes laws beyond LU § 7-304	Freeze provision unlawfully expands freeze beyond statute (too broad)	DRRA’s listed categories fall within the statute’s scope; legislative history supports a broad reading	Court held the freeze clause valid; the legislature intended a broader scope including the listed categories
Whether declaring the DRRA a covenant running with the land is impermissible	DRRA should not be converted into a real property interest; doing so impairs county authority	Recording requirement and statute already bind successors; DRRA language merely confirms that effect	Court held DRRA may be a covenant running with the land; Mercantile test satisfied and statute requires recordation/binding successors
Whether the DRRA is void for lack of consideration/enhanced public benefits	DRRA lacks legally cognizable enhanced public benefits; developer’s promises merely restate obligations (APFO, fees); school site conveyance is conditional and optional	Developer and county point to APFO compliance, infrastructure commitments, and the school-site proffer as consideration/benefit	Court held DRRA void for lack of consideration/enhanced public benefits because the DRRA only required obligations the developer would already have to meet and the school-site dedication was conditional/illusory

Queen Anne’s Conservation, Inc. v. Cty. Comm’rs of Queen Anne’s Cty., 382 Md. 306 (2004) (discusses DRRAs as contracts to vest rights in exchange for enhanced public benefits)
Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 308 Md. 627 (1987) (sets four-part test for covenants running with the land)
Prince George’s County v. Sunrise Dev. Ltd. P’ship, 330 Md. 297 (1993) (addresses when developer rights vest under visible commencement rule)
Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. v. Saddlebrook W. Util. Co., LLC, 229 Md. App. 241 (2016) (discusses vertical privity for covenants running with the land)
Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987) (land-use exaction doctrine — nexus requirement)
Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994) (land-use exaction doctrine — rough proportionality requirement)