Legal maneuvering =
in
Elkridge case tied to Comp Lite legality
by a sun report=
er
Originally published October 4, 200=
6
A two-pronged challenge launched against a
decision by the Zoning Board involving a relatively small parcel of land in
Elkridge appears to be part of a broader chess match regarding the legality=
of
Comp Lite, the county's rezoning procedure last year, and what happens shou=
ld
the courts invalidate that process.
What makes the legal maneuverings unusual is=
that
they are coming from the winning side, in large part as a defense in case t=
he
courts rule Comp Lite illegal.
At stake in the Elkridge case could be the
development of almost 28 acres at Routes 100 and 108, which has been the
subject of a prolonged and heated debate.
Rezoning of the property has been approved a=
nd
rejected in alternate decisions -- essentially by the same county officials=
--
and opponents continue to employ every available legal instrument to block =
the
planned development.
Nancy Cavey, representative of the estate of=
her
parents, Carroll and Ruth Braun, sought the rezoning to permit a mixture of
residential and commercial development.
The commercial rezoning was approved and con=
tained
in Comp Lite, broad rezoning legislation affecting dozens of properties pas=
sed
last year by the County Council.
But when those changes were thrown into limb=
o for
months while the courts considered a voter referendum on Comp Lite, Cavey
sought special, or "piecemeal," rezoning of her property. That
petition was opposed by numerous nearby residents and, after several lengthy
hearings, rejected in May by the Zoning Board, which is made up of members =
of
the County Council.
To approve piecemeal rezoning, the board had=
to
find that the character of the neighborhood had changed substantially, maki=
ng
existing zoning no longer viable, or that the council erred in not rezoning=
the
land in 2004 as originally sought, or both.
On May 11, the Zoning Board voted, 3-1, to d=
eny
the piecemeal rezoning, saying that neither standard had been met. But in i=
ts
formal and written decision and order, the board did not specify the reasons
for the rejection. Instead, the board dismissed the matter, said it no long=
er
had jurisdiction and that the case was moot.
That dismissal and the lack of specificity a=
re
being challenged.
"To deny ... a written decision setting=
forth
the reasons for its verbal decision ... is a grave injustice, a denial of d=
ue
process and a denial of the basic rights afforded by the county's charter a=
nd
code," writes attorney Katherine L. Taylor in a motion to the board to
reconsider its decision and order.
Taylor, who represents opponents of the Cavey
rezoning and Comp Lite legislation, also has filed an appeal of the board's
decision in Circuit Court contesting the legality of the written decision. =
But if the board specifies why it rejected t=
he
petition, Cavey could not seek rezoning for two years, under the existing c=
ode.
William E. Erskine, an attorney with the firm
Reese & Carney LLC who helped represent Cavey, said he considers
But he said he doubts they will succeed.
"She can want it, but she's not legally
entitled to it," he said.
But, she said, "a more important motiva=
tion
is that we believe that the decision made by the Zoning Board is absolutely
relevant to this piece of property, no matter whether Comp Lite sticks or
not."