Rodriguez v. Prince George's County

⁵³⁹ WILNER, Judge. This appeal concerns the rezoning of a 186.2-acre tract of land in Prince George’s County. The rezoning was approved by the County Council, sitting as the District Council, subject to certain specified conditions, and that action was affirmed by the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County. The property in question lies in the Beltsville area; it fronts on the west side of U.S. Route 1, about three miles north of the Capital Beltway.

Known as the Ammendale Normal Institute, the property was used for many years by a religious order for the training of novitiates, but that use has ceased, and the buildings, some of which are included in the National Register of Historic Places, have fallen into disrepair. For purposes of this case, the property consists of three parcels: a 56.1-acre parcel fronting on U.S. Route 1; a 26.1-acre parcel, which forms the center part of the tract and contains most or all of the buildings; and a 104-acre parcel that was once used for sand and gravel mining and is largely undeveloped. The first of these parcels was placed in the E-I-A (Employment — Institutional Areas) zone in 1976; the other two parcels have R-R (Rural — Residential) zoning. In December, 1985, an application was made to place the entire tract in the E-I-A zone.

With the application was a Basic Plan proposing the development of 2.7 million square feet of institutional, service, office, and commercial facilities. Construction would take place in two stages, over a period of from six to 10 years. (1) The E-I-A Zone — Approval Process The E-I-A zone is a comprehensive design zone provided for in § 27-499 of the Prince George’s County Code. The essential purpose of the zone seems to be to “[pjrovide for a mix of employment, institutional, retail, and office uses in a manner which will retain the dominant employment and institutional character of the area.” § 27-499(a)(4). ⁵⁴⁰ Because the E-I-A zone is a comprehensive design zone, full approval of the development occurs in three stages: First: approval by the District Council of a Basic Plan showing the kinds and amounts of proposed land uses as part of and as a precondition to approval of a zoning map amendment authorizing those land uses; Second: approval by the Planning Board of a Comprehensive Design Plan showing the amounts and locations of the land uses and circulation systems and indicating the general schedule of development; and Third: approval by the Planning Board of Specific Design Plans for each portion of the development to be constructed within a particular time period.

We are concerned here with the first of these three stages. Section 27-499 sets out a number of standards or conditions which a Basic Plan must meet to qualify the property for E-I-A zoning. They are supplemented by other standards or conditions specified in § 27-195, dealing with map amendment approval of comprehensive design zones. Section 27-195(b) provides, in that regard, that: “(1) Prior to the approval of the application and the Basic Plan, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the District Council that the entire development meets the following criteria: (A) The proposed Basic Plan shall either conform to: (i) The specific recommendation of a General Plan map, Area Master Plan map, or urban renewal plan map; including the principles and guidelines of the plan text which address the design and physical development of the property, the public facilities necessary to serve the proposed development, and the impact which the development may have on the environment and surrounding properties; or (ii) The principles and guidelines described in the plan (including the text) with respect to land use, the number ⁵⁴¹ of dwelling units, intensity of nonresidential buildings, and the location of land uses.

(B) The economic analysis submitted for a proposed retail commercial use shall adequately justify a use of the size and scope shown on the Basic Plan; (C) Transportation facilities (including public streets and public transit) which are existing, under construction, or for which construction funds are contained in either the first six (6) years of the adopted County Capital Improvement Program or the first five (5) years of the adopted State Highway Administration Construction Program shall be adequate to carry anticipated traffic. The uses proposed shall not generate traffic which would lower the level of service anticipated by the land use and circulation systems shown on approved General or Area Master Plans, or urban renewal plans; (D) Other existing or planned private and public facilities which are existing, under construction, or for which construction funds are contained in the first six (6) years of the adopted County Capital Improvement Program (such as schools, recreation areas, water and sewerage systems, libraries, and fire stations) shall be adequate for the uses proposed; (E) Environmental relationships reflect compatibility between the proposed development and surrounding land uses, so as to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the Regional District; and CDZ applications filed after October 31, 1978. (2) Notwithstanding Subparagraphs (C) and (D), above, where the application anticipates a construction schedule of more than six (6) years (Section 27-179), public facilities (existing or scheduled for construction within the first six (6) years) shall be adequate to serve the development proposed to occur within the first six (6) years. The Council shall also find that public facilities probably will be adequately supplied for the remainder of the project.

In considering the probability of future public facilities construction the Council may consider such things as ⁵⁴² existing plans for construction, budgetary constraints on providing public facilities, the public interest and public need for the particular development, the relationship of the development to public transportation, or any other matter that indicates that public a [sic] private funds will likely be expended for the necessary facilities.” Section 27-195(c)(l) authorizes the District Council, in approving a zoning map amendment, to “impose reasonable requirements and safeguards (in the form of conditions) which it finds are necessary to either: (A) Protect surrounding properties from the adverse effects which might accrue from the Zoning Map Amendment; or (B) Further enhance the coordinated, harmonious, and systematic development of the Regional District.” Section 27-195(c)(2), however, provides that “[i]n no case shall the conditions waive or lessen the requirements of, or prohibit uses allowed in, the approved zone.” Finally, both State and county law require the District Council, in approving (or denying) a zoning map amendment over protest, to make specific findings of fact, in writing. Md.Ann.Code art. 28, § 8-123 states: “In Prince George’s County, no application for a map amendment or special exception, which is contested, may be granted or denied except upon written findings of basic facts and written conclusions.” Similarly, § 27-141 of the County Code requires a final decision of the Council in any zoning matter to be “supported by specific written findings of basic facts and conclusions.” (2) Procedural Background The instant application was first considered by the Technical Staff of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. In a report filed May 12, 1986, the Staff recommended that the application be denied. Among its findings of fact, the Staff stated: “7.

The subject property is affected by two Master Plans: the Adopted and Approved Master Plan for ⁵⁴³ Fairland-Beltsville and Vicinity (1968) and the Northwestern Area Plan (1975). 8. The Adopted and Approved Fairland-Beltsville Master Plan proposed R-90/R-80 one-family detached residential zone with a recreation center proposed for the center of the area. 9. The Northwestern Area Plan designates E-I-A zoning for the 56.1 ± acres adjacent to U.S. Route 1, public/quasi-public use for the Ammendale Normal Institute and suburban residential for the northwest portion of the subject property. 10. The Approved General Plan for Prince George’s County (1982) identifies the eastern portion of the site as a ‘Major Employment Area.’ 11.

Prior to approval of the Basic Plan, it must be demonstrated to the District Council that the proposed development is entirely compatible with this existing and proposed development of the surrounding area. 12. Both the Northwestern Area Plan and the Approved General Plan sets guidelines and policies for employment areas.” The “Determinations” of the Staff were as follows: “1. The Basic Plan does not take the full development of the employment areas into account in forecasting the affect [sic] of the proposed use on roads and surrounding residential areas. 2. The proposed use would significantly increase the flow of traffic through neighboring residential areas. 3.

The roads which will be in place in the vicinity of the proposed use will not be able to handle the amount of traffic which would be attracted to such use. 4. Transportation Systems Management techniques may make some additional E-I-A Zone development feasible. 5. With the addition of automatic fire extinguishing systems, the existing and programmed public facilities will be adequate. ⁵⁴⁴ 6. The proposed development does not conform to guidelines set forth in the Northwestern Area Plan relating to traffic impact of employment areas on residential neighborhoods. 7.

The proposed E-I-A Zone development is not consistent with the recommendations of the Fairland-Beltsville Master Plan for suburban residential development in the R-80/R-90 Zones.” In the concluding paragraphs of its Report, the Staff opined that the road improvements proposed by the applicant or planned by the State Highway Administration “are not enough to adequately serve the proposed addition of 2,168,000 square feet of institutional, office and commercial floor space.” It was “unsure of how much additional traffic can be accommodated by the roads in the area,” and it expressed concern about the diversion of traffic “through the residential areas west and south of the subject property” which “would have a negative impact on these residential areas.” The Planning Board reached a different conclusion. In a Resolution adopted November 13, 1986, it recommended approval of the application, subject to nine conditions relating principally to road improvements and the preservation of trees and historic buildings. It made no detailed findings of fact; indeed, aside from the conditions, the Resolution says no more than that “[T]he Planning Board disagreed with the analysis and recommendation of the Technical Staff based on the following determinations: 1. The public/quasi-public use of the subject property has been abandoned.

The Northwestern Area Plan’s recommendation for a public/quasi-public use for a portion of the subject property is therefore no longer appropriate. 2. The proposed business park is compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding area. ⁵⁴⁵ 3. Without proper controls, the traffic generated by the proposed use would exceed planned road capacities and result in unacceptable levels of service on roads in the area. 4. The proposed business park should be approved in phases which take into account future road improvements and the ability of area roads to accommodate additional traffic. 5.

With the addition of automatic fire extinguishing systems in all buildings, the existing and programmed public facilities will be adequate.” The next stage in the process was a hearing before a Zoning Hearing Examiner. He arrived at a third recommendation — that the Council retain the E-I-A zoning for the 56.1-acre parcel, rezone the middle 26.1 acres to E-I-A, and retain the residential zoning on the balance (104 acres). The Examiner expressed two concerns over the rezoning of the 104 acres. First, he pointed out that the area was in a suburban community and was designed to remain residential in the two Master Plans to which it is subject.

Second, he concluded that, even without this rezoning, by reason of other approved developments in the immediate vicinity, there was going to be “a major congestion problem at U.S. Rt. 1 and Powder Mill Road for a period of at least six years,” and that, without some “mitigating affects [sic]”, he could not find that “transportation facilities will be adequate to carry anticipated traffic.” The District Council, of course, had before it all of these reports and recommendations when it met, in April, 1987, to consider the matter. The arguments made to the Council focused on three considerations: compatibility of the proposed development with the neighboring residential communities; the traffic problems likely to be caused or exacerbated by the development; and, to a lesser extent, the apparent statutory requirement that the proposed land uses be consistent with existing master plans. After listening to argument, the Council initially continued the hearing, without making a decision, for 30 days, to allow the two sides an ⁵⁴⁶ opportunity to try to resolve their differences through the development of “covenants” that would limit the uses to which the property could be put. On June 4, 1987 — four days before the District Council’s scheduled reconvening on the matter — the applicant informed the Council that it had met with the protestants to explore the possibility of entering into covenants “to exclude undesirable E-I-A uses” and that the protestants were “not willing to enter into any covenants whatsoever with the applicant.” It therefore proposed “to fulfill the District Council’s intentions” by voluntarily amending its Basic Plan to exclude certain uses otherwise expressly permitted in the E-I-A zone.

Attached to its letter as an appendix was a proposed revision of the Basic Plan eliminating 15 categories of use. Aware of the strictures set forth in § 27-195(e)(2), the applicant hastened to assure the council that “this is not an offer on the applicant’s part to have the Council conditionally zone the property, nor the proffer of additional evidence, but simply a designation by our Basic Plan that we are binding ourselves to limit or lessen that which would be otherwise permissible to the E-I-A zone. In this manner, it is hoped that the Council’s April 27, 1987 wishes are fulfilled without any violations of the Prince George’s County Zoning Ordinance. Further, this letter is intended to be in response to the dictate of the Council’s motion of April 27, 1987.” This amendment was apparently filed pursuant to § 27-181 of the county code, dealing with requests to amend an application.

In relevant part, that section allows an applicant to request an amendment to an application at any time if the amendment concerns “an error, omission of fact, or other factual change not mentioned below in this Section____” The two changes “mentioned below” were amendments that change the total area or configuration of the property and those changing the requested zoning classification, for both of which special conditions apply. ⁵⁴⁷ When the District Council reconvened on June 8, it regarded the Basic Plan as having been