Opinion ID: 2278305
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The R.C. 5 Rural-Residential Zone

Text: The R.C. 5 rural-residential zone was established by Baltimore County on the premise that, among other things, rural-residential development constitutes a wasteful use of land and is fiscally expensive to serve with respect to the provision of basic services. BCZR § 1A04.1.A.1.b. [23] In that vein, the R.C. 5 zone was created in order to: 1. Provide for rural-residential development in suitable areas in which basic services are not anticipated. 2. Eliminate scattered and generally disorderly patterns of future rural-residential development. 3. Assure that encroachments onto productive or critical natural resource areas will be minimized. 4. Provide a minimum lot size which is sufficient to provide adequate area for the proper functioning of on-lot sewer and water systems. BCZR § 1A04.1.B.1-.4. Permitted uses of right in the R.C. 5 zone pertinent to the present case are single-family detached dwellings, BCZR § 1 A04.2.A.2, and streets and ways, BCZR § 1A04.2.A.7. Stormwater management facilities are not mentioned as such in the list of permitted uses within the R.C. 5 zone. [24] A primary difference between the R.C. 2 and R.C. 5 zones, presumably because of the divergent foci between them in terms of residential and agricultural development, are the density levels permitted in each. Minimum lot size and density levels permitted within the R.C. 5 zone are more generous than those allowed in the R.C. 2 zone. The regulations provide that no lot may be created within the R.C. 5 zone with a total gross area of less than 1.5 acres, BCZR § 1A04.2.B.a, and the maximum allowable residential density within the zone is 0.5 dwellings per acre. Id. II. What is to be Made of the Fact That a SWM Facility, Which is a Utilization of the Property Required by the County as a Pre-Condition to the Approval of a Proposed Development, is Not Addressed As Such As a Permitted Use in the Zoning Regulations? [25] , [26] Respondents posit that construction and operation of a SWM facility is not a use within the contemplation of the zoning regulations because the management of stormwater is not addressed as such in the enumeration of permitted uses in the BCZR in the R.C. 5 or R.C. 2 zones. Rather than constituting a use in and of itself, Md.Code (1982, 2007 Repl.Vol.), Environment Article, § 4-204; Baltimore County Code § 33-4-104(b), Respondents contend that, because development regulations and zoning laws are separate, but interrelated bodies of law, the SWM facility, at least under the circumstances of the present case, falls outside regulation by the BCZR, notwithstanding Petitioners' assertion to the contrary. It must be conceded, as general rule, that, when a zoning ordinance enumerates specifically the permitted uses within a particular zone, the ordinance establish[es] that the only uses permitted in the [] zone are those designated as uses permitted as of right and uses permitted by special exception. Any use other than those permitted and being carried on as of right or by special exception is prohibited. Kowalski v. Lamar, 25 Md.App. 493, 499, 334 A.2d 536, 540 (1975) (citations omitted); see also ARDEN H. RATHKOPF & DAREN A. RATHKOPF, 1 THE LAW OF ZONING & PLANNING § 1:7 (4th ed. 2005) (Reported court decisions often involve simply whether an owner's proposed use within a particular zoning district is a use allowed by right, an accessory use, a specially permitted use, or a use entirely prohibited within that district.). It is well-settled that zoning regulations and subdivision controls regulate different aspects of the land use regulatory continuum. Coffey v. Maryland-Nat'l Capital Park & Planning Comm'n, 293 Md. 24, 30, 441 A.2d 1041, 1044 (1982) (holding that zoning and subdivision planning represent separate municipal functions and neither is a mere rubber-stamp for the other) (quoting Popular Refreshments, Inc. v. Fuller's Milk Bar, 85 N.J.Super. 528, 205 A.2d 445 (App.Div. 1964), cert. denied, 44 N.J. 409, 209 A.2d 143 (1965)); Remes v. Montgomery County, 387 Md. 52, 64 n. 8, 874 A.2d 470, 477 n. 8 (2005); Wesley Chapel Bluemount Ass'n v. Baltimore County, 347 Md. 125, 129, 699 A.2d 434, 436 (1997) (citing generally Board of County Comm'rs v. Gaster, 285 Md. 233, 401 A.2d 666 (1979)). See also ARDEN H. RATHKOPF & DAREN A. RATHKOPF, 5 THE LAW OF ZONING & PLANNING § 90:24 (4th ed. 2005) ([W]here the rules and regulations enacted or approved by the legislative body as a guideline for the planning board contain requirements different from those imposed by the zoning ordinance with respect to lot size, frontage, width, setback or other non-use features, or standards relating to design of the subdivision such as road length, size of cul-de-sacs, location of points of ingress and egress and the like, such rules and regulations have been held to control. For example, where the subdivision regulations provide that a subdivision must be compatible with the county master plan and the proposed plat shows a greater density than called for in the master plan, the subdivision may be rejected although the zoning ordinance permits the density proposed.). While zoning laws define the uses that are permitted in a particular zoning district, i.e., the R.C. 5 and R.C. 2 zones, subdivision regulations inform how, when, and under what circumstances a particular tract may be developed. Remes, 387 Md. at 74, 874 A.2d at 482 ([Z]oning dictates what one can build on, or how one may use his property while subdivision or planning determines how the land is divided). Included in these subdivision controls are provisions which require the developer/property owner to construct infrastructure improvements of various types necessary to support uses permitted in the zone by the applicable zoning regulations. Despite their different aims, however, the two regulatory schemes are intended to complement each other in terms of the safety, health, and general welfare of the community at large. Zoning regulations and subdivision/development controls, along with the establishment of a master plan in a particular locality, serve additional common objectives in terms of the effective, efficient, and consistent use of land within similarly-situated districts. Coffey, 293 Md. at 30, 441 A.2d at 1044. As we stated in Wesley Chapel Bluemount Association, [g]overnmental control over land development is effected principally in three ways  through the adoption of (1) master plans delineating the desired uses for all land within the planning area, both for development and for roads, parks, schools, and other public purposes, (2) zoning regulations designed to implement the master plans by placing legal restrictions on the use of the land by non-governmental persons and entities, and (3) subdivision and other development regulations designed to ensure that private development of the land is consistent with the applicable master plan and zoning regulations. Although each of these devices has an independent purpose and may be subjected to a separate development and approval procedure, their functions, to some extent, coalesce, in that they are all designed to assure that land development occurs in a manner that is consistent with overall legislative policy and community welfare. 347 Md. at 129, 699 A.2d at 436 (citing generally Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Gaster, 285 Md. 233, 401 A.2d 666 (1979)). Thus, although zoning laws and subdivision regulations are separate forms of regulation, and typically are administered by different governmental agencies or bodies, they operate in practical application to ensure that land in a particular locality is developed in a relatively uniform and consistent manner, especially when Euclidian zones, [27] such as the R.C. zones, are concerned. Nowhere in any of the relevant cases explaining the differences between zoning and subdivision regulation is there an indication that improvements required by a subdivision regulation may be placed anywhere the developer wishes, regardless of an improvement's location relative to internal zoning boundaries and their requirements. [28] To the contrary, all proposed subdivision developments must comply with the applicable zoning ordinances in effect at the time the subdivision is proposed. Baltimore County Code § 32-4-104 (Proposed development shall be in compliance with the present zoning classification on the property to be developed.); Baltimore County Code § 32-4-114(a) (Except as otherwise provided in this title, all development shall comply with this title and all other applicable laws or regulations of the county.); Wesley Chapel Bluemount Ass'n, 347 Md. at 129, 699 A.2d at 436 ([Z]oning decisions take into account the provisions of the applicable master plan and subdivision and development approvals take into account compliance with applicable zoning regulations.). Respondents' interpretation, however, that a SWM facility is not contemplated by, and therefore not subject to the BCZR generally and the R.C. 2 and R.C. 5 regulations specifically, when required in conjunction with single-family residential permitted use, defies logic and common sense because, at the same time, it is required by the subdivision controls as a condition of approval of that subdivision. The fault in Petitioners' reasoning is particularly apparent when the BCZR, read in broader context, contemplates expressly the construction of SWM facilities despite the absence as an enumerated permitted use as such in any of Baltimore County's resource conservation zones. In the R.C. 6 (Rural Conservation and Residential) zone, for example, no specific reference is made to stormwater management in terms of uses permitted, as of right or otherwise. BCZR § 1A07.3. Yet, the BCZR provisions governing use of land in the R.C. 6 classification provide that [s]tormwater management facilities must be integrated with the topography of the site and consistent with the visual appearance of the surrounding natural features. BCZR § 1A07.8.C.1. The BCZR follow an identical pattern in its provisions relating to the R.C. 7 (Resource Preservation) zone. While stormwater management facilities are not mentioned as uses permitted in the R.C. 7 zone, BCZR § 1A08.3, another provision otherwise makes specific reference to stormwater management. SWM facilities located in R.C. 7 zones must be integrated with the topography of the site and consistent with the visual appearance of the surrounding natural features. BCZR § 1A08.6.C.1. In like fashion, the provisions pertaining to R.C. 8 (Environmental Enhancement) zones do not mention SWM facilities as uses permitted in the zone, yet they provide that SWM facilities shall be integrated into the site design to utilize nonstructural practices unless it is demonstrated that this is not possible. BCZR 1 A09.7.C.1. Thus, regardless of whether an SWM facility properly may be characterized as a use in its traditional sense, it is clear that SWM facilities are nevertheless clearly contemplated by, and embraced by, the BCZR's basic zoning scheme in conjunction with allowed, explicitly mentioned uses in the rural conservation zone scheme generally. Thus, SWM facilities, required by subdivision regulations in conjunction with permitted uses in the R.C. 2 and R.C. 5 zones, are not exempt from regulation under the BCZR merely because SWM facilities are not mentioned in the permitted use enumerations. Moreover, though we do not decide here whether a stormwater management facility is an uncontrolled excavation within the meaning of that term as permitted in the R.C. 5 and R.C. 2 zones as an ancillary use, primarily because Respondents did not file a cross-petition for certiorari raising that issue which they pursued in the Circuit Court, we observe that the construction of stormwater management ponds typically requires the digging of . . . earthen material from a land surface . . . [f]or grading or other purposes incidental to improvement of the land; and [w]hen incidental to the development of land or to grading for a public improvement[] . . ., BCZR § 101, such as here to serve to control run-off from a proposed residential subdivision. Thus, it seems not inconsistent with the development of expressly permitted uses, like single-family detached homes allowed in the R.C. 5 and R.C. 2 zones, to allow ancillary required infrastructure such as SWM facilities. By the same token, there is no Maryland authority for Respondents' proposition that infrastructure improvements in the development approval process are immune from appropriate zoning requirements, where the zoning ordinance may be wholly silent on the subject, because the improvements are required as conditions of the subdivision regulations. The more reasonable construction is that when an infrastructure improvement ancillary to an otherwise permitted residential subdivision is required as a condition to county approval of the development plan, some flexibility is implied in the definition of the uses which are subject to the zoning regulations of the county, particularly when certain other provisions of the same zoning regulations, despite the absence from the enumeration of the permitted uses in the particular zone of the particular use, contemplate specifically that utilization of the land. SWM management facilities are contemplated by the zoning scheme despite the lack of their express inclusion as uses in the permitted use enumerations in the BCZR. III. Under the Circumstances of the Present Case, the Decisions of the Commissioner and CBA That There are No Zoning Impediments to Placing the SWM Facility and a Portion of the Interior Access Road in the R.C. 2 Zone are Correct. Whenever a single tract is divided by a zone boundary so that portions of such a tract lie within R.C. Zones of different classifications, the total number of dwellings or density units permitted shall apply to each tract individually and, for the purpose of these regulations, shall be considered as separate parcels. BCZR § 1A00.5. With this in mind, Petitioners argue that, because each zone is designed and structured with uniformity and to be self-contained with respect to principal and accessory uses, it is impermissible to locate in the R.C. 2 agricultural zone infrastructure, i.e., the SWM facility and access road, designed to support lots located on the R.C. 5 rural residential land, especially where the zoning laws applicable to the agricultural zone would not permit the lot density the road and SWM facility were designed to support. Respondents, on the other hand, argue that no such zoning conflict exists between the commonly-owned, split-zoned Property. A. The Proposed Placement of the SWM Facility on the R.C. 2 Land Would Not Violate the BCZR. The record indicates that there was substantial disagreement between the parties at the CBA hearing regarding the consequences of placement of the SWM facility. Daniel O'Leary, a principal civil engineer called by Petitioners as an expert in stormwater management, testified as to various aspects of the placement of the SWM facility. Mr. O'Leary explained, inter alia, that, from a design standpoint, there would be more uncontrolled or unmanaged flow from the development if the drainage pond were moved upgradient. [29] As such, he testified that, if the SWM facility were placed entirely within the R.C. 5 zone, there may be some areas along the R.C. 5/R.C. 2 border that may no longer drain to it because they [would not] physically drain there, although he acknowledged that moving the facility onto the R.C. 5 land would not be fatal to the general development scheme. Regarding the environmental impacts of increased runoff from both the development and the access road ancillary to the proposed construction, counsel for Respondents inquired whether there would be more uncontrolled runoff if [the SWM facility] were constructed in the R.C. 5 versus R.C. 2 location. Mr. O'Leary replied, Yes. When asked whether the SWM facility would be smaller in size if designed to serve either the R.C. 2 lot by itself or, more abstractly, a single-lot development, O'Leary testified as follows: Question: If . . . you had none of this development in the R.C. 5, and you simply had one house where it's currently proposed on lot number seven, would you need a stormwater management facility? Answer: I don't think so. You would still need to address stormwater management. Q: But you would not need a facility such as the size and magnitude that's proposed on this [Respondent]'s [development plan]? A: I said [it would] be very unusual to have a stormwater management device for a single lot. So, yes. You have to address it, so not knowing exactly what the impact is from just that lot would be, it [is] hard for me to say. But it [is] unlikely a pond, for instance, would be required for a single lot development.    Q: In follow up then, it [is] the density of the housing on the R.C. 5 along with the road system that requires the facility that [is] proposed on the [Respondent]'s [development plan]. A: Yes. In a follow up question, Respondents' counsel asked O'Leary whether the SWM facility, as proposed on the R.C. 2 zoned land, would be effective controlling the runoff from the R.C. 5 property. O'Leary replied in the affirmative, indicating that at least three of the R.C. 5 lots and the roadway, which, in his opinion, was the most important factor because it would create the most runoff draining into the stormwater management pond, flowed to the facility. [30] Moreover, O'Leary testified that, because the Property sits on a low ridge, the R.C. 2 lot on the east portion of the Property actually would drain to the east and not into the SWM facility. While the bulk of the runoff collecting in the SWM facility would originate from the R.C. 5 lots, however, runoff originating from the stretch of the interior access road in the R.C. 2 zone would flow into the SWM pond. [31] In reaching its decision to affirm the Commissioner's approval of the development plan, the CBA placed significant emphasis on the testimony of O'Leary regarding the efficacy of placing the stormwater management at the low point on the Property in an effort to minimize runoff, indicating th[at], if the stormwater management facility were moved from the R.C. 2 zone to the R.C. 5 zone, runoff would actually be increased. We conclude that a reading of the SWM development regulations, as well as the BCZR, supports the CBA's decision. The County's entire purpose in requiring adequate stormwater management is to protect, maintain, and enhance the public health, safety, and general welfare by establishing minimum requirements and procedures to control the adverse impacts associated with increased stormwater runoff. Baltimore County Code § 33-4-102; BALTIMORE COUNTY DEP'T OF ENVTL. PROT. & RES. MGMT., STORM WATER MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING REGULATIONS, Article 5 § 14-151(A) (2001). This coincides, to some degree, with one of the stated purposes of the BCZR resource conservation zones to [p]rotect both natural and man-made resources from the compromising effects of specific forms and densities of development. BCZR § 1A00.2.B. Stephen Preston, a resident in the community located to the west of the Property, testified, before the CBA, as to his concerns regarding stormwater runoff. Mr. Preston testified that [t]he Lynch Property itself is a low ridge, basically, so that it runs off on every side onto adjacent property. It runs off to the east into Gunpowder State Park, and it runs off to the west through the adjoining properties []. Mr. Preston referred specifically to a map of the area surrounding Gunpowder State Park, and testified that the map show[ed] the fact that [the Property sat on] a low ridge with drainage off of the east, north, and west occurring on [his (Mr. Preston's)] property immediately below where that runoff occurs. Mr. Preston testified further that his property, and the property of Mr. Elser, his neighbor to the south, sat lower than the Lynch Property, such that stormwater drained off the Property and onto their land. As the Commissioner concluded correctly, the entire purpose of having a SWM facility is to maintain stormwater runoff onto neighboring parcels at the level predating construction, and as if the Property were undeveloped. BALTIMORE COUNTY DEP'T OF ENVTL. PROT. & RES. MGMT., STORM WATER MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING REGULATIONS, Article 5, § 14-151(C) (2001) (Proper management of stormwater management runoff will: (1) Minimize damage to public and private property; (2) Reduce the effects of development on land and stream channel erosion; (3) Assist in the attainment and maintenance of water quality standards; (4) Reduce local flooding; and (5) Maintain after development, as nearly as possible, the predevelopment runoff characteristics. ) (emphasis added). The record reflects that the SWM facility design was based on the topography, the location of impervious surfaces on the Property, and achieving a pre-development rate of stormwater runoff. The CBA determined that if the SWM facility were located in the R.C. 5 zone, that change would result in more uncontrolled or unmanaged runoff. Although most of the runoff directed to [the SWM facility] will originate in the R.C. 5 zone, the runoff originating from the R.C. 2 portion of the road will flow additionally into the SWM facility. In other words, the SWM facility is ancillary to the single-family dwellings in both the R.C. 5 and R.C. 2 lots, which are uses permitted as of right in both zones. Based on the evidence in this record, if the Commissioner and CBA, charged with interpreting the resource conservation provisions of BCZR, chose to place emphasis on the environment impacts associated with placement of the SWM facility, a conclusion based on those environmental impacts to approve the development plan was not unreasonable or irrational. [32] The CBA's conclusion also is reasonable considering that BCZR provisions relating to the overall resource conservation scheme contemplate SWM facilities and that they should be sited according to topographical considerations. As stated supra, the BCZR provisions governing use of land in the R.C. 6 classification provide that [s]tormwater management facilities must be integrated with the topography of the site and consistent with the visual appearance of the surrounding natural features. BCZR § 1A07.8.C.1 (emphasis added); BCZR § 1A08.6.C.1.(providing that SWM facilities located in R.C. 7 (Resource Preservation) zone must be integrated with the topography of the site and consistent with the visual appearance of the surrounding natural features.); see also BCZR 1A09.7.C.1 (stating that, in the R.C. 8 (Environmental Enhancement) zone, SWM facilities shall be integrated into the site design to utilize nonstructural practices unless it is demonstrated that this is not possible.). [33] The Baltimore County Code provisions governing SWM management provide that a site may be comprised of one lot or even multiple lots if those lots are commonly owned and where those lots, when completed, will form a larger subdivision. Baltimore County Code § 33-4-101(dd) (defining a site as any tract, lot, or parcel of land, or combination of tracts, lots, or parcels of land, that are in one ownership, or are contiguous and in diverse ownership, where development is to be done as part of a unit, subdivision, or project . . . .) (emphasis added). B. Placement of the Access Road Did Not Violate the Resource Conservation Provisions of the BCZR Where There is Evidence in the Record that the Road was Designed to Provide Access to Both the R.C. 2 and R.C. 5 lots. Turning our focus to the access road, although we agree with Petitioners that zoning ordinance[s][are] concerned with the use of property and not with ownership thereof nor with the purposes of the owners or occupants, Anderson v. Associated Professors of Loyola College, 39 Md.App. 345, 349, 385 A.2d 1203, 1204-05 (1978); Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Poe, 224 Md. 428, 433, 168 A.2d 193, 195 (1961); Boulevard Scrap Co. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 213 Md. 6, 10, 130 A.2d 743, 745 (1957), we conclude that the R.C. 2 and R.C. 5 zoning regulations do not conflict where the road is designed to service identical permitted uses in both zones. In the present situation, the proposed development, currently in common ownership, is split-zoned, but each zone allows single-family, detached residential dwellings as primary uses permitted as of right. Streets and ways are permitted as of right in both zones in order to provide access to major roads for the purposes of ingress and egress. The foundation of the controversy manufactured for this case is that other zoning regulations applicable to each zone differ in terms of permissible lot density. In Leimbach Construction Co. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 257 Md. 635, 264 A.2d 109 (1970), there were two adjacent parcels of land, under common ownership, one zoned for residential use and the other for commercial use. Leimbach Construction Co., 257 Md. at 637, 264 A.2d at 109. Because the pre-existing access to the commercial lot was made impossible by the earlier collapse of a bridge leading to the property, the landowner applied for a permit to install a driveway across the otherwise vacant residential lot. Leimbach Construction Co., 257 Md. at 637, 264 A.2d at 109-10. Because there were no structures on the residential lot to be served by the proposed road, it was manifest that the access road located within the residentially-zoned lot was intended to serve only the commercially-zoned lot. Leimbach Construction Co., 257 Md. at 637-38, 264 A.2d at 110. In concluding that the road impermissibly would be a `business' use of land in a residential use district, Leimbach Construction Co., 257 Md. at 640, 264 A.2d at 111, our predecessors reasoned, somewhat naively, that [a]ccess can be accomplished on foot or on horseback; material can be fetched by pack-train. A bridge would be far more convenient, of course, and, in the long run, much less expensive. But this is none of our concern. . . . Id. As the CBA correctly pointed out in this case, [i]f the roadway had been constructed only across the R.C. 2 land and its sole use was to access the lots in the R.C. 5 zone, then Petitioner's argument may have some merit. In Leimbach, the road had no apparent or immediate utility in terms of proposed uses on the residential lot on which it was located. In the present case, however, the proposed access road encroaches upon only a small portion of the R.C. 2 lot, and is ancillary to the proposed single-family, detached dwellings on both the R.C. 2 and R.C. 5 zoned lots. The access road is a use permitted as of right in both the R.C. 2 and R.C. 5 zones according to BCZR §§ 1A01.2.B.5 and 1A04.2.A.7, respectively, and serves as a mode of ingress and egress for the homes located in both zones. While certainly Leimbach may be said to support the proposition that each zone is designed and structured with uniformity and to be self-contained with respect to principal and accessory uses, we find nothing in the BCZR, the subdivision regulations, or our precedents which indicates that, when a split-zoned property, in which both portions are under common ownership when developed, is to contain infrastructure improvements ancillary to permitted uses consistently allowed in both zones, the relative infrastructure must be located entirely within the more densely-developed zone. [34] We are not persuaded by Petitioner's direction of our attention to Delbrook Homes, Inc. v. Mayers, 248 Md. 80, 234 A.2d 880 (1967), Board of County Commissioners of Anne Arundel County v. Snyder, 186 Md. 342, 46 A.2d 689 (1946), or Alviani v. Dixon, 365 Md. 95, 99, 775 A.2d 1234, 1236 (2001), as support for the sweeping proposition that accessory uses may not be located in zones in which the principal use they serve is prohibited. In Delbrook Homes, Chartwell, a private community located in Anne Arundel County, sought to operate a beach area for its residents in a nearby water-oriented community known as Lakeland. 248 Md. at 82, 234 A.2d at 882. Neighbors residing in Lakeland challenged the use of the beach area by Chartwell residents and their guests, claiming that it created traffic problems, excess noise, and other various encroachments, including individuals parking and otherwise trespassing on their property. Delbrook Homes, 248 Md. at 83-84, 234 A.2d at 882-83. Our task was to determine whether such a private community beach must be located within the perimeter of, or contiguous to the community which it serves. Delbrook Homes, 248 Md. at 82, 234 A.2d at 881. We concluded that land owned in a separate water-oriented community could not be used as a private community beach, under the Anne Arundel County zoning ordinances, where the beach is located outside the boundaries of the community it was intended to serve. Our decision hinged on the fact that [t]he term private community beach in the context of the zoning ordinance means a beach for the use and benefit of the surrounding and neighboring property owners, not one for the exclusive use of a community in another area. Although the uses imposed on the property by either group might well be identical, the fact remains that the residents of Chartwell cannot be expected to assume attitudes of responsibility toward the surrounding neighborhood and community control over the beach facilities as would those who reside in close proximity to the beach, that is, the residents of the Lakeland area. Delbrook Homes, 248 Md. at 83, 234 A.2d at 882 (emphasis added). In other words, the violative land use was for the exclusive use of the Chartwell residents, to the exclusion of Lakeland residents. As indicated supra, we deal in the present case with a situation where the proposed use is ancillary to and serves permitted uses on both parcels of land. Snyder is similarly distinguishable. Maurice Snyder applied for a permit to construct on Solomon's Island Road in Edgewater, Maryland, a showroom, office, lounge, and warehouse for the sale and display of factory-built motor boats. Snyder, 186 Md. at 343, 46 A.2d at 690. The proposed development site was located in a residential zoning district. Snyder, 186 Md. at 344-45, 46 A.2d at 690-91. Although we concluded there that [t]he whole purpose of the [zoning] regulations is to exclude mercantile, manufacturing and trade activities from the area, and to permit therein only residential and farming activities, Snyder, 186 Md. at 345, 46 A.2d at 691, the case involved in no way a situation where the owner was building infrastructure in order to support two differently zoned parcels of commonly-owned land. Rather, Snyder involved a traditional, straightforward case in which the owner was attempting to establish a purely commercial use in a residential zone. In Alviani, the property at issue was a 1.2 acre parcel located in Anne Arundel County, and split-zoned under the applicable ordinances as C 1-B (community retail) and RLD (residential low density). Alviani, 365 Md. at 98, 99, 775 A.2d at 1236. The landowner sought to build an automotive service facility, a use permitted by special exception/variance in the C1-B zone, but prohibited altogether in the RLD zone. Alviani, 365 Md. at 99, 775 A.2d at 1236. As a result, the property owner sought to have the RLD portion re-zoned as either C 1-B or C4 (highway commercial), where the facility would be permitted as of right. Id. Aside from the fact that the holding in Alviani involved principally the appropriateness of granting the requested variances, rather than an issue implicating the special problem of split-zoning, the factual circumstances are entirely dissimilar from the present case. We deal in the present case with a utilization of land ancillary to permitted uses on two parcels within different residential districts with different density limitations. The proposed use in Alviani involved placement of a principal use spanning two zoning districts, in one of which the principal use was prohibited.