1 6 4 [9 1 O p
. A tt ’y

Anne Ar undel County

Bill 54-05 ame nded various portion s o f the 1 County zon inglaw t o tre at pu

bli c c hart er school s si mil arly to c e rt a in private sc hools. Y ou also expressed concern about the ma nner in whic h the County ’s deve lopment regulations and permitting require ments are a pp lie d to c ha

rt e r s c ho ols

. E DU CA T I ON
P UB L I C S CHO OLS

– A PPL I CA T I ON OF L OCAL Z O N I NG R E GUL AT I ONS T O C HAR T E R S CHO OLS

Sept ember 1, 2006

T he Hon orab l e D on ald H

. D w yer, Jr. Ma ry la n d

D e leg a te

Y ou have r eques t ed ouropi ni on on the ap pl i cat i on of l ocal zoni ng r equi r ement s to p ubl i c cha r t ers chool s
. Y ouri nqui r yw as a p p a re n tlytrig g e re d b ya n a m e n d m e n t o f th e A n n e A ru n d e l C o u n ty zoni ng or di nance t hats peci fi cal l yaddr es s es chart er s chool s and that r es t r i ct s t he l ocat i on of publ i c c h art ers chool s i n cert ai n zoni ng di s t r i ct s t hr ough a s peci al exce pt i on orcondi t i onal us e pr oces s not appl i cabl e t o ot her publ i c school s
. Y ou as k w hether t he St at e l aw 1 authori zi ng pu bli c chart er schoo l s preem pts such l ocal r egu l at i on s.
In o u r op in io n , th e a p p lica tio n o f lo c a l zo n in g re q u ire m e n ts to p u b lic c h a rte r sc h o o ls d e p e n d s o n w h e th e r th e S tate h a s a p ro p e rty i nt er es ti n t he fa ci l i t yhous i ng t he s chool

. I f t he school i s oper at ed in a fa cil ityo w n ed o r l ea sed b ya S tat e e n ti ty , su ch as th e loc al bo ard o f e d u c a tio n , lo c a l z o n in g re q u ire m e n ts d o n o t ap p ly . H o w e v e r, if th e sc h o o l is op e ra ted in a f a c ili ty n o t o w n e d o r l e a se d b y a S tate enti t y , t hat faci l i t yw ou l d b e subjectt o local zon i ng requi rem ents

. T hus , a l ocal gover nm entw i t h zoni ng author it y co u l d pr ovi de that a p riv a tely -o w n e d f

a c ili tym a yh o u se a p u b lic ch a rte r sc h o o l w ith in cert ai n zo ning dis t ri ct s onlypu rs uan tt o a spec i al excep t i on or as a condi t i onal us e.G en. 164] 165

L oc a l bo ard s of ed

uc atio n co uld have e sta

bli sh e d c ha

rt e r s c ho ols 2 prior to t he20 03 le g isl atio n und e r t he ir g e ne ral a

uth ority to e sta bli sh public schools within their respe ctive jurisdictions. ED §§4-108, 4- 109. At the time of the 2003 leg islative session, the Frederick County Boa rd of Education wa s the only local board that had approve d a public ch arter school, although Baltimore City had esta blished a Ne w Schools Initiative Program unde r which indivi dual s chools operate s imilar to public char ter schools. However, under the No Child L eft B ehind Act of 2001, the av a il a b il it y o f f e d e r a l gr ant mo n e y f

o r th e im p le mentati o n o f

charter schools depende d on the exis tence of “a specific State statut e” that p e r mi tt e d f le xib le o p e r ati o n an d ma n a g e ment o f th e s c h o o ls

. See20 U.S.C. §7221i(1)(A). I

P u b lic C h a r te r S c h o o ls
I n 2003, aft era fi ve- y eareff or t , t he G ener al A s s embl y enac t ed l egi s l at i on es t abl i s hi ng t he M ary l and Publ i c C har ter School P r o g r a m . C h a p ter 3 5 8 , L a w s o f M a ry lan d 2 0 0 3 ; s ee Ti t l e 9 o f t he E ducat i on A r t i cl e ( “ED ”), A n n ot at ed C ode of M ary l and. T he p u rp o se o f

th e p ro g ra m “ is to e sta b lish a n a ltern a tiv e m e a n s w ith in t he exi sti n g publ i c s chool s y s t em i n or dert o pr ovi de i nnovat i ve lea rn in g o p p o rtu n iti e s a n d c re a tiv e e d u c a tio n a l ap p ro a c h e s to im p ro v e th e e d u c a tio n o f stu d e n ts.” E D § 9 -1 0 1 (b ). T h e sta tu te 2 defines a “pu bli c chart er s cho ol” as :

a p u b lic s c h o o l th a t:

(1 ) Is n o n se c ta ria n in a ll i ts program s, po l i ci es, and op erat i on s; (2 ) Is a sc h o ol t o w hich p a re n ts choos e t o s end thei rchi l dr en; ( 3) I s open t o al l s tudent s on a sp a c e -a v a ilab le b a sis a n d a d m its stud en ts o n a l o tt ery b asis if m o re s t u d e n t s appl y t han ca n be acc om m odat ed; (4) Is a n ew p u b li c sc h o o l or a c o n v e rsio n o f

a n e x istin g p u b lic s c h o o l;1 6 6 [9 1 O p
. A tt ’y

Many of these elements were apparently derive d from the f ederal 3 No Child L eft B ehind Act. See20 U.S.C. §7221i(1)(A)- (L).

( 5) Pr ovi des a pr ogr am of el ement aryors econda r y educa t i on or bot h; ( 6) O pera t es i n pur s ui tof a speci fi c setof ed ucati on al obj ect i ves; ( 7) I s tui t i on- fr ee; ( 8) I s s ubj ectt o federal and St at e l aw s pr ohi bi t i ng di s cr i m i nat i on; (9 ) Is in c o m p lian c e w ith a ll app l i cable heal t h an d safetyl aw s; (10) Is i n co m pli ance w i th [l egal r equi r ement s conce rn i n g c h i l d r en w ith d isab il it ies]; ( 1 1 ) Ope r a t e s under t h e s uper vi s i on of t h e publ i c cha r t er i ng a u th o rityf

ro m w h ich its c h a rte r is grant ed an d in accordanc e w i t h it s c h a rte r a n d , ex c e p t as p ro v id e d in §9- 1 06 of t hi s t i t l e, t he pr ovi s i ons of l aw and r egul at i on go v erni ng ot her pu bli c schoo l s; ( 12) R equi r es s tudent s t o be phy s i cal l ypres enton s chool pr emi s es for a per i od of t i m e s ubs t ant i al l ys i m i l ar t o t hatw hi ch ot herpubl i c s chool s tudent s s pend on s chool pr emi s es ; and ( 13) I s cr eat ed i n acc or dance w ith th is ti tle a n d th e a p p ro p ria te c o u n t y b o a r d p o l i c y.
E D §9 -102. A chart er m aybe g rant ed to t he st aff o f a p u b lic

3
s c h o o l , a p a r e n to rg u a r d i a n o f a p u b l i c s c h o o l s tu d e n t i n t h e c o u n t y, a nons ect ar i an nonpr ofi t ent i t y , a nons ect ar i an i ns t i tut i on of hi gherG en. 164] 167

F or th e s ak e o f

b r e v i ty , w e u s e th e t e r

m“ l o c a lb o ar d ” i nthi s 4 opinion to refer

to th e 2 3 co unty

boards of

education as well as the Baltimore City

Boa rd of School Commissi oners. As “ se c on da

ry pu bli c c ha rt e ri nga uthority” , th e StateB oa

rd is 5 responsible for

actingin an appe llate re view ca pacity when a local board denies a n application and f

or d et erminingwhether

a cha rter w ill be grante d for a

restruc tured publi c school if the l ocal boa rd fails to act on an application within a pre scribed time period. ED §§9-103(b), 9-104( a)( 4), 9-104(b)

. Th e Mo de l Po lic y

is a vaila bleat 6 www. mary land pu bli c sc ho ols

. org / NR/rd o n l y

re s / 6 4 9 9 9 4 6 2 -A D6 7 -4 7 E O- 9 3 6 6 -3 5 4 5 7 DC BA CF2/7967/ ModelPolicyGuide.pdf

. edu cat i on , or a com binat i on of an yof those i nd i vid u a l s or ent i t i es. ED § 9

- 1 0 4 ( a ) ( 2 )

. Ho we v e r , a c h a r t e r ma y n o t b e g r a n t e d t o a h o me sch o o l, a p aro ch ial sch o o l, o r a p ri v ate sc h o o l. E D § 9 -10 4 (a)(3).
A n appl i cat i on fora publ i c cha r t er s chool i s t o be s ubm i t t ed t o t he l ocal boar d of educ at i on ( “l ocal b o ard” ) , w hi ch i s t he 4 “pr i m arypubl i c cha r t er i ng author i t y
. ” ED §§9- 103( a) , 9- 104( a). Th e St a t e Boa r d i s t h e “ s e c o n d a r y p u b l i c c h a r t e r i n g a u t h o r i t y
. ” ED § 9 -10 3 (b). 5
S u b je c t to a p o ss ib le w a iv e r b yth e S tate B o a rd , a p u b lic c h a rte r sc h o o l m u st c o m p lyw ith th e law s g o v e rn in g o th e r p u b lic sc h o o ls. E D § 9 -1 0 6 ; s ee al s o E D §9- 102( 11)

. Pr ofes s i onal s t aff at a p u b lic c h a rte r s c h o o l ar e re q u ire d to h o ld th e a p p ro p ria te S tate cert i fica ti on; empl oy ees of a publ i c cha r t ers chool have c ol l ect i ve bar gai ni ng r i ght s guar ant eed ot herpubl i c s chool empl oy ees
. E D §§ 9 -1 0 5 a n d 9 -1 0 8 , res p e c tiv e ly . A m o n g o th e r m a tters , the sta tu te r e q u i r e s e a c h l o c a l b o a r d t o d e v e l o p a p u b l i c c h a r t e rs c h o o l p o l i c y, E D § 9 -1 1 0 (a ), m a n d a tes p a rity in f u n d in g b e tw e e n c h a rte r sc h o o ls and otherpub li c s chool s , E D §9- 109( a) , and addr es s es obl i gat i ons of cha r t ers chool s t o s tudent s w i t h s peci al needs , E D §9- 107.
T he Leg isl atur e di r ect ed the M ary l and St at e D epart m entof E ducat i on ( “M SD E ”) t o devel op a model publ i c cha r t ers chool po l i cy a s a n a i d t o l oc a l bo a r ds i n d e ve l op i ng c ou ntypo l i c i es. C hapt er358, §2, L aw s of M ary l and 2003. See M a ry la n d P u b lic C har t er School

s Model P ol i cy and R es our ce G ui de ( R ev. 9/ 1/ 2005) (“M o d el P o li cy ”). 61 6 8 [9 1 O p
. A tt ’y

SeeN.Y. Educ. L aw §2853(g )(3) (a) (stating that, for pur poses of 7 local zoning, c harte r schools are to be tre ated a s nonpublic schools). W hi l e the l aw s of s om e s t at es es t abl i s hi ng chart er s chool s s et for t h t he s t a tu s o f

s u c h s c h o o l s u n d e rl o c a l z o n i n g l a ws , t he 7 M a ryla n d s ta tu te is s ile n t o n th a t s u b je c t.

II
A n a ly sis
A s y ou not ed i n y ourr eq u est for thi s opi ni on, t he St at e has gener al l ypr eempt ed t he fi el d of educ at i on fr om l ocal r egul at i on as dem on strat ed b yextensi ve S t at e l egis l at i on on t he subj ect. McC ar thy v. B oar d of

E ducat i on , 280 M d. 634, 374 A

. 2 d 1135 ( 1977). Y ou s ugges t ed thatt hi s pr i nci pl e w oul d pr ecl ude a l ocal gover nm entfr om s ubj ect i ng publ i c ch art ers chool s t o zoni ng re g u latio n
. H o w e v e r, th e S tate E d u c a tio n A rticle d o e s n o t ex p licitly exem pt publi c schoo l s fr om l ocal zo ning or ot her l and use re g u la tio n s . T o re s p o n d to y o u r q u e s tio n , w e f ir s t d i s c u s s w h y a t r adi t i onal publ i c s chool i s exempt fr om l ocal zoni ng r egul at i on. A
. A pp licati on of

L ocal L and U s e R egulati on to T

r aditi onal P u b lic S c h o o ls
W e a d d re ss e d th e a p p lica tio n o f lo c a l lan d u se re g u latio n to tr a d itio n a l p u b lic s c h o o l p ro p e rt yin a p ri o r o p in io n
. See 87 O pi ni ons of

the At t or ney G ener al__ ( 2002) [O pi ni on 02- 011 ( A ugus t14, 2002) ]

. I n t hatopi ni on, w e conc l uded that , b ecaus e a l ocal board is c o n sider ed a S t at e agen cyfor l and use pu rposes, publ i c s chool s ow ned bya l ocal boar d are nots ubj ectt o a l ocal g o v e rn m e n t’ s z o n in g a u th o ri ty. I d. , slip o p . at 4 -6 ; s ee al s o C i t y of B al t i m or e v. St at e D ep’ tof Heal th & M

entalH ygi ene , 38 M d. A pp. 57 0, 57 4, 38 1 A

. 2d 11 88 (1978 ) ( “m u n icip a l i t ym ayno texerci se zoni ng jur i s di ct i on overSt at e- ow ned and us ed pr oper t yunl es s t he S tate h a s s u b

jec ted itse lf to th e a u th o rityo f th e m u n icip a lity ” ). T h is i s cons i s t entw i t h t he gene r al ru le i n m os ts t at es t hatl ocal zoni ng re g u la tio n s d o n o t a p p ly to p u b lic s c h o o ls

. See 1 R a p p , E ducat i on Law § 4

. 0 1 [4 ][b ][i] ( 2 0 0 5 ).G en. 164] 169

Absent a statutory exception, a local board may lea s e s ch ool 8 sy stem proper

ty only in a manner

consistent with its obl iga

tions as trustee o f th e p r o p e rty. ED §4 -1 14 (a)( 1) ; see91 Opinions of the Attorney Gene ral 33 (2006). T he exe m pt i on of S tat e- ow ned l and fr om l ocal zoni ng author i t yder i ves fr om t he St at e’ s s over ei gnt y
. 62 O pi n ion s o

f the A tto rn e y G e n e ra l 9 4 1 (1 9 7 7 ). G e n e ra lly , the f o c u s is o n o w n e rsh ip o f th e p ro p e rt yra th e r t h a n th e p ro p e rt y ’s u s e
. B d. of C hi ld C ar e of the Bal t i m or e AnnualC onf er ence of the Met hodis tC hur ch, I nc. v. H ar ker , 316 M d. 683, 695, 561 A

. 2d 219 ( 1989) ( holdi ng t hat pr oper t yow ned by nonpr ofi t corpor at i on and used a s St at e- l i cens ed and r egul at ed chi l d car e fa ci l i t ynotexempt fr om countyzoni ng re g u la tio n s ).
A lth o u g h th e g e n e ra l ru le s e t f o rth a b o v e a p p lies to a S tate e n titysu c h a s a lo c a l b o a rd th a t h o ld s a f e e sim p le in ter e st in pr oper ty , q ues t i ons conce r ni ng zoni ng occa s i onal l yar i s e w hen a g o v ern m en tal en ti tyh o lds a p rop ertyinterest as a lesso r or le s s e e
. In 1 9 7 7 , A tto rn e yG e n e ra l B u rc h c o n c lu d e d th e S tate ’s im m u n ity f ro m lo c a l zo n in g re g u latio n s e x te n d s to p riv a te p ro p e rtyth a t is l eas ed t o a S tat e ent i t y
. 62 O pi ni ons of

the At t or ney G ener al45 ( 1977)

. T he anal y s i s di ffe r s , how ever , w hen a St at e ent i t y le as es p r o p e r t y t o a p r i v a t e p a r t y. W h i l e S t a t e - o w n e d p r o p e r t y u s e d b y a pr i vat e ent i t yfora publ i c purpos e r emai ns exempt fr om l ocal zoni ng re g u latio n , su c h p ro p e rtyu se d f o r a p riv a te p u rp o se s is su bje c t to l ocal zoni ng contr ol

. 73 O pi ni ons of the A t t or ney G ener al238, 240 (1 9 8 8 ); see al

so 78 O pi ni ons of

the At t or ney G ener al5 8 (19 9 3 ). 8
B ycontr as t , pr i vat e s chool s m aybe s ubj ectt o zoni ng re g u la tio n th a t is in a p p lic a b le to tr a d itio n a l p u b lic s c h o o ls

. S e e , e .g ., C reat i ve C ou ntr

y D ay S cho ol of

Sa nd y Sp ri ng v. Mon t

go m ery C o u n ty B d . o

f Ap p e a ls , 2 4 2 M d

. 5 5 2 , 2 1 9 A. 2 d 7 8 9 ( 1 9 6 6) ( M ont gom er yC ount yzoni ng or di nan ce , w hi ch r equi r ed s peci al exce pt i on forpr i vat e school w i t houtanys i m i l arr equi r ement for p u b lic s c h o o l, d id n o t v io la te e q u a l p ro te c tio n p ri n c ip le s ).
B
. A p p lica tio n o

f L o c a l L a n d

U se R e g u la tio n to P u b lic Ch a rte r S c h o o ls
1. P ubl i c C hart er School F aci l i t i es
T h e re is n o q u e stio n th a t a c h a rte r sc h o o l is a p u b lic s c h o o l, butt he fa ci l i t yi n w hi ch the s chool oper at es m ayorm aynotbe a1 7 0 [9 1 O p
. A tt ’y

p u b lic b u ild in g . A n a p p lica tio n f o r a c h a rte r sc h o o l w o u ld o rd in a rily i nclude “[a] faci l i t i es p lan that descri bes t he types of faci l i t i es, pos s i bl e l ocat i on, and t he cha r act erist i cs of t he fa ci l i t yt hatw i l l be neede d t o ens ur e the appr opr ia t e i m pl ement at i on of the pr opos ed e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m. ” M SD E Model P ol i cy §I V

. K

. 3. h. U nder M S D E ’s M od el P oli cy , fi nal ap proval of an a pp l i cat i on t o est abli sh a publ i c cha r t ers cho o l w o ul d be cont i ngenton t he ac qui s i t i on of f a c iliti e s c o n s is te n t w ith th e f a c iliti e s p la n
. Id

. A chart ers chool m ayoper at e w i t hi n a fa ci l i t yori n par t of a f a c i l i t y u n d e r t h e c o n t r o l o f t h e l o c a l b o a r d

. F o re x a mp l e , t h e M S DE M odel Pol i cyforchart ers chool s cont empl at es t hats uch a s chool m a yb e e sta b lish e d b yth e c o n v e rsio n o f a n e x istin g p u b lic s c h o o l. Model P ol i cy , p. 1. A l t ernat i vel y , t he cha r t er i ng ent i t ym ayow n t he f a c ili tyu se d a s a c h a rte r sc h o o l o r m a ylea se sp a c e f ro m a p riv a te ent i t y
. I n s om e i ns t ance s , i tm aybe the ca s e t h at, at th e t i m e an appl i cat i on fora cha r t ers chool i s fi l ed, t he s pons or s of t he s chool m a yn o t h a v e d e te rm in e d p re c is e ly w h e re it w ill o p e ra te

. 2
. C h a rte r S ch o o l i n P u b li c F a cil it y
I f a publ i c cha r t ers chool oper at es w i t hi n a bui l di ng ow ned by t he l ocal boar d or ot her governm ent ent i t y , l ocal zoni ng r egul at i ons wou l d n o ta p p l yt o t h a tp r o p e r t ya s i ti s o wne d b yt h e g o v e r nm ent a n d u s e d f

o r a p u b lic p u rp o s e
. See Brown v. B d. of E duc. , 34 7 U. S. 483, 493 ( 1954) ( educa t i on i s “perhaps t he m os ti m por t antfunct i on o f sta te a n d lo c a l g o v e rn m e n ts” ); see al so 68 A m J ur2d S c h o o ls §6. If th e o p e ra to rs o f

th e c h a rte r sc h o o l ar e u n d e r a n o b lig a tio n to tra n sf e r titl e to th e f

a c ili tyto th e sc h o o l sy ste m , the sa m e ra tio n a le w o u ld a p p e a r t o a p p ly.
3. C har t e r Sc hoo l i n Fac i l i t y O w ne d by C har t e r i ng E n ti ty o r O th er E n ti ty
A m or e di ffi cul t ques t i on i s pos ed i f a c har t ers chool oper at es i n a f a c i l i ty o w n e d b y t h e c h a r t e r i n g e n t i t y o rb y a p r i v a t e e n t i t y. Sh o u l d t h e c h a r t e r s c h o o l b e c o n s i d e r e d t o s h a r e a p o r t i on of t he St at e’ s s over ei gnt y and ther efor e be i m m une fr om zoni ng r egul at i on in its o w n rig h t?
T her e i s no ques t i on t hat t he oper at i on of a chart er sc h ool cons t i tut es a publ i c purpos e. H ow ever , a governm entcontr act oror l i cen s e e p e r f

o r mi n g a g o v e r n me n t a l s e r v i c e p u r s u a n tt o a c o n t r act w i t h t he St at e does not become a St at e ent i t y for purpos es of zoni ng im m u n ity. B d. of

C hi ld C ar e of

the Bal t i m or e A n nualC onf er enceG en. 164] 171

We also no tethat, i n mu

nic ipalit ie s and in n on -c ha rt e r c ounti e s, 9 a public building g enerally cannot be constructe d without a ref erral to the lo cal pl ann in g comm is si on . Anno tat ed C od e o f Marylan d, Art icl e 66 B, §3 .0 8; se eals o 87 Opinions of the Attorney Gene ral
___ (2002) [Opinion 02-011 (August 14, 2002)], sl ip op. at 5.
In Ba l t i m o re City , schools areheld in trust by the Mayor and 10 City Council rather

than the B oard of

School C ommissi oners. ED § 4-114(a)(1)

. of the Methodis tC hur ch v. H ar ker , 316 M d. 683, 561 A

. 2d 219 ( 1989)

. O n t he ot her hand, a chart er s chool “w i t hi n t he ex ist ing sc h o o l sy ste m ” m ig h t b e v iew e d a s m o re a n a lo g o u s to th e S tate itse lf th a n a g o v e rn m e n t c o n tr a c to r o r l ic e n s e e
. A c o n sid e ra tio n o f

th e law s g o v e rn in g th e sitin g a n d p ro p e rty o f tra d iti o n a l p u b lic s c h o o ls is in stru c tiv e . W h ile tra d iti o n a l p u b lic s chool s ar e i m m une fr om loca l zoni ng, t heyar e notfr ee of reg u lat ion

. A loca l b o ard m ayn o t acq u ir e a sit e o r bu il d ing fo r a tra d iti o n a l p u b lic s c h o o l w ith o u t ap p ro v a l o f th e S tate S u p e rin ten d e n t o f

S c h o o ls. E D § 4 -1 1 5 (b )(1 ). T h e lo c a l b o a rd is r equi r ed t o con su ltand s eek a dvi ce f r om a l ocal comm i s s i on or agenc yw i t h r es pons i bi l i t yforcountyl and us e pl anni ng i n s el ect i ng t he locat i on for a new schoo l faci l i t y
. E D §4 -116(a)( 1). A si t e m ust

“ c o n f o rm a s f a r a s p ra c tica b le to d e v e lo p m e n t p lan s f o r la n d u se in th e c o u n ty .” E D § 4 -1 1 6 (a )(2 ). In so m e c a se s, a p u b lic h e a rin g is req u ir ed b ef

o re f inal ap p rov al of

a sit ing d ec isi o n
. E D § 4 -11 6 (b). 9 T he s chool pr oper t yi s t hen “he l d i n t rus t ” byt he l ocal boar d fort he b en ef it o f th e sc h o o l sy stem

. E D § 4 -11 4 (a); s ee 91 O pi ni ons of

the 10 A t t or ney G ener al 33 ( 2006)

. W hen a fac i l i t yi s no l ongerneede d as a tr adi ti o n al publ i c s chool , i ti s or di nar i l yfi r s tt r ans ferr ed t o t he count y gover nm ent

. E D §4- 115. T hes e r equi r ement s pr otect not o n lyth e ta x p a y e rs’ in v e stm e n t, bu t co n tro l th e lo c a tio n o f sc h o o ls a n d t h e u s e o f

s c h o o l p r o p e r t y. A s not ed above, t he char t er s chool s t atut e i s s i l ent as t o s i t i ng of such s chool s and l ocal l and us e r egul at i on. N one of the s t atut es g o v e rn in g th e lo c a tio n o f tra d iti o n a l p u b lic s c h o o l f a c ili ties w o u ld appl yt o a cha r t ers chool oper at ed i n a pri vat e faci l i t y
. I f t he cha r t er s c h o o l w ere im m u n e f

rom zo n ing reg u lat ion b ase d o n the S tat e’s s over ei gnt y , t her e w oul d appar en tl y be no contr ol s on t he l ocat i on of cha r t ers chool s
. H ow ever , i ts eems unl i kel y that t he G ener al A s s embl yi nt ended that a ch art ers chool w oul d have a bl anket1 7 2 [9 1 O p
. A tt ’y

The sample ch ec k list developed by MSDE for use of

local 11 bo ard s in re viewi ngpu

bli c c ha rt e r s c ho ol a

pp lic atio ns a dd

re sse s mu ltiple matters re lating to the proposed fa cilities and, specifically , planningand zoning re quirements. Model Policy , p
. 24. T his fa c tor su g g e sts that, i n theview o f MSD E, loc a l zonin gre gulatio ns wo uld a pp ly , at le a st i n s ome ins tanc e s. This is not to say that a local g overnme nt c ould exclude school 12 fac iliti es entire ly

from an a

rea through its z oning regulations. In light of the inhere nt benef

icial nature of schools, an outright ban would serveno purpose “ rea sonably related t o the m orals, health, welfa re and safe ty

of the community .” See Cornell University v . Bagnardi , 68 N.Y.2d 583, 594-95, 50 3 N. E. 2d

50 9 ( 19 86 ); se eals o 2 Young , Anderson’s American Law of Zoning § 12.10 (4 ed. 1996).

th exempt i on fr om land us e r egul at i on notenj oy ed bya tr adi t i onal p u b lic s c h o o l.
I n ourvi ew , t he abse nce of anyr efe r ence t o zoni ng r egul at i on i n t he char t er s chool s t atut e does not m ean t hata cha r t ers chool i n a no n-gov ernm ent faci l i t y i s exem pt fr om l ocal l and use regulat i on s; r ather , l ocal zoni ng r egul ati o n s m aycontr ol t he l ocat i on of cha r t er s c h o o l s i n s u c h f

a c i l i t i e s
. Th u s , a l o c a l g o v e r n me n twi t h z o n i ng author i t ym ayr equi r e t hat t he ow ner of t he prope r t yobt ai n a s peci al excep t i on or q uali fyas a con dit i on al use i n cert ai n zo ning dis t ri ct s. 11
I n s um m ar y , a l ocal governm entm ayr egul at e the l ocat i on of publ i c cha r t ers chool on pr i vat e pr oper t yi n par t i cul arzoni ng dis t r i c t s t hr ou gh a s pe c i a l e xc e pt i on orc on di t i on a l us e pr ocess unl es s t he pr oper t yw as l eas ed t o t he l ocal boar d. 12
III
C oncl usi on
In o u r o p in io n , the a p p lica tio n o f lo c a l zo n in g re q u ire m e n ts to p u b lic ch a rte r sc h o o ls de p e n d s o n w h e th e r th e S tate h a s a p ro p e rty i nt er es ti n t he fa ci l i t yhous i ng t he s chool

. I f t he school i s oper at ed in a f ac il ityo w n ed o r l ea sed b ya S tat e e n ti ty , su ch as th e loca l bo ard o f e d u c a tio n , lo c a l z o n in g re q u ire m e n ts do n o t ap p ly . H o w e v e r, if th e s c h o o l is o p e ra ted in a f a c ili tyn o t o w n e d o r le a se d b ya S tate enti t y , t hat faci l i t yw ou l d b e subjectt o local zon i ng requi rem ents

. T hus , a l ocal gover nm entw i t h zoni ng author it y co u l d pr ovi de that a p riv a tely -o w n e d f

a c ili tym a y h o u se a p u b lic c h a rte r sc h o o l w ith inG en. 164] 173

cert ai n zo ning dis tr i ct s onlypu rs uan tt o a spec i al excep t i on or as a condi t i onal us e.

J. Jo sep h C u rran , Jr. A t t or ney G ener al
W i l l i am R

. V ar ga A ssista n t A tto rn ey G eneral
R o b e rt N . M c D o n a ld C hi ef C ouns el O pi ni ons and A dvi ce