Templeton v. CTY. COUNCIL OF PR. GEO'S

Moore, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. By Order dated November 13, 1974, the Court of Appeals of Maryland issued a writ of certiorari to this Court in this case in which our opinion, filed on June 19, 1974, was reported at 21 Md. App. 636 , 321 A. 2d 778 ; and it was further ordered that the case be remanded to this Court for reconsideration of our opinion in the light of the opinion of the Court of Appeals in Northampton Corporation v. Prince George’s County, 273 Md. 93 , 327 A. 2d 774 , in which the judgment of this Court in an opinion reported at 21 Md. App. 625 , 321 A. 2d 204 , filed on June 17, 1974, was reversed. We have carefully reviewed the opinion of the Court of Appeals in Northampton and we conclude that while twm corrections in our opinion in this case are necessitated, such corrections do not affect the merits and we therefore adhere to our original determination in which we affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County. As the opinion of the Court of Appeals emphasizes, the zoning and planning powers of Prince George’s County, Maryland, in that portion of the County which lies in the Regional District, are those granted by the Regional District Act, Chapter 780 of the Laws of 1959, as amended, Prince George’s County, Md., Code of Public Local Laws §§ 59-61 through 59-105 (1963), and not those granted by the Prince George’s County Charter, effective December 3, 1970.

The Court of Appeals therefore held in Northampton “that the proper procedure was that mandated by § 59-104 of the Regional District Act”: “In Prince George’s County, no application for a map amendment or special exception, which is ⁵⁹⁸ contested, shall be granted or denied except upon written findings of basic facts and written conclusions.” Accordingly, we correct by deleting in its entirety footnote 3 of our opinion in Templeton at 21 Md. App., page 640, 321 A. 2d page 780. Secondly, in rejecting appellant’s contention that the adoption by the District Council of the Zoning Hearing Examiner’s findings of fact and conclusions of law was improper, 21 Md. App., page 643-4, we quoted in the conclusory portion of our