Opinion ID: 2442682
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: de facto zoning

Text: With the exception of the City of Laurel, municipal corporations within Prince George's County, including the City of College Park, are not authorized, by means of an amendment to its charter or otherwise, to exercise any of the powers relating to planning, subdivision control, or zoning granted by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission or the County Council of Prince George's County. Md.Code, Art. 28, § 7-103(b). Appellants contend that the Ordinance must be nullified as an act of de facto zoning by the City, beyond its enumerated powers. They are mistaken. In Maryland Overpak Corp. v. Mayor & City Council, we defined zoning as the `process of setting aside disconnected tracts of land varying in shape and dimensions, and dedicating them to particular uses in some degree to serve the interests of the whole territory affected by the plan.' 395 Md. 16, 48, 909 A.2d 235, 254 (2006) (quoting Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Stephans, 286 Md. 384, 388-89, 408 A.2d 1017, 1019 (1979)). Similarly, we observed that `[t]he very essence of zoning is a territorial division according to the character of the land and the buildings, their peculiar suitability for particular uses, and uniformity of use within the zone.' Donnelly Adver. Corp. v. City of Baltimore, 279 Md. 660, 665, 370 A.2d 1127, 1130 (1977) (quoting Heath v. Mayor & City Council, 187 Md. 296, 305, 49 A.2d 799, 804 (1946)); see also Appleton Reg'l Cmty. Alliance v. County Comm'rs, 404 Md. 92, 101, 945 A.2d 648, 653 (2008) (defining zoning action as one which `decides the use of a specific parcel or assemblage of parcels of land' and `creates or modifies substantively the governing zoning classification or defines the permissible uses, building and lot sizes, population density, topographical and physical features, and other characteristics of a specific parcel or assemblage of parcels of land. . . .' (quoting Md. Overpak, 395 Md. at 50, 909 A.2d at 255)). As noted by the City in its brief, the Ordinance does not divide the City into districts, define lot sizes, or mandate particular uses of any specific parcels or buildings. Rather, the Ordinance sets a limit on the amount of rent a single-family property owner may charge his or her tenants. That the Ordinance may contemplate land use changes, i.e., shifting rental housing into apartments and out of single-family neighborhoods, does not inherently convert what is a rent control ordinance into a zoning ordinance. See Donnelly, 279 Md. at 665-66, 370 A.2d at 1130-31 (finding that a municipal ordinance regulating signs under the police power was not an exercise of zoning power [a]lthough it is within the scope of the zoning power to regulate signs). As such, we reject Appellants' characterization of the Ordinance as an attempt by the City to engage in impermissible de facto zoning.