Ray v. Mayor of Baltimore
203 Md. App. 15
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2012Background
- This appeal concerns standing to seek judicial review of Baltimore City’s approval of the 25th Street Station PUD (plainted by Benn Ray and Coyne).
- Statutory framework requires aggrievement (standing) under Maryland Zoning Enabling Act, Art. 66B § 2:09(a)(1).
- Bryniarski v. Montgomery County supplies the aggrievement standard: a protestant must be party to the proceeding and either prima facie or specially aggrieved.
- Ray and Coyne argued they were prima facie or specially aggrieved due to proximity/visibility and character impacts on their neighborhoods.
- Judge White dismissed, finding Ray and Coyne lacked standing because they were not sufficiently nearby and lacked special, personal injury distinct from the public.
- The Court of Special Appeals affirms, holding neither appellant showed personal or property rights specially affected beyond general neighborhood impacts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ray and Coyne have standing as aggrieved challengers | Ray/Coyne contend they are aggrieved due to proximity/impact | City/Owners contend they are not aggrieved; lack near-by property owner status and special injuries | No standing; they lack aggrievement beyond general neighborhood impact |
| Whether proximity alone creates prima facie aggrievement | Proximity or ‘nearby’ status should confer prima facie aggrievement | Proximity must be measured from protestant’s property and Ray/Coyne fail | Proximity did not establish prima facie aggrievement for either appellant |
| Whether visibility from the protestants’ property can sustain standing | Sight of the project from their property or adjacent views supports aggrievement | Visibility from employment or distant sight does not count; must be from protestant’s property | Visibility from property alone does not confer standing; no actionable view from their homes |
| Whether argument about general neighborhood impact can salvage standing | General concerns about traffic and property values show aggrievement | General impacts to the neighborhood do not constitute special aggrievement | General aggrievement does not confer standing; no special, personal injury shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Bryniarski v. Montgomery County, 247 Md. 137 (1967) (two-prong aggrievement: party to proceeding and aggrieved; prima facie or special aggrievement)
- Chesapeake Bay Foundation v. Clickner, 192 Md.App. 172 (2010) (special aggrievement requires evidence of unique interest; proximity not always decisive)
- 120 West Fayette Street v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 407 Md. 253 (2009) (standing requires aggrieved status; public interest claims insufficient)
- Committee for Responsible Development on 25th Street v. Baltimore, 137 Md.App. 60 (2001) (general proximity rules; near-by range and visual proximity discussed)
- Marcus v. Montgomery County Council, 235 Md. 535 (1964) (proximity standards; nearby property owners presumptively aggrieved)
- Wilkinson v. Atkinson, 242 Md. 231 (1966) (visibility as a factor in proximity standing)
- White v. Major Realty, Inc., 251 Md. 63 (1968) (no standing where protestants could not see the subject property)
- Holland v. Woodhaven Building and Development, Inc., 113 Md.App. 274 (1997) (nearby definition; proximity is fact-intensive)
- Cassel v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 195 Md. 348 (1950) (nearness measured by proximity doctrine)