|
|
|
Localities Must Follow the Plain Meaning of Their Own Ordinances, Even if it Leads to Absurd Results
(December 2010) By Gregory L. Arbogast, Associate
For more information, contact Paul Farquharson.
Anselmo v. Mayor of Rockville,
No. 1006 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. November 1, 2010)
In Anselmo v. Mayor of Rockville,
the Court of Special Appeals addressed the requirements imposed upon the City of
Rockville when approving residential developments. Rockville, Md., Adequate
Public Facilities Standards (November 1, 2005) ("APSF") requires the City of
Rockville to assess both the local schools' capacity and demand before issuing
permits for residential development. However, in this case, Rockville only
assessed the capacity of the Montgomery County School System and did not address
the future demand on those schools. Therefore, the Court of Special Appeals held
that the permit was invalid.
On October 20, 2006, MHP Town Center, Inc. ("MHP") filed a
"use" permit application with the City of Rockville to construct a new housing
development at the corner of North Washington Street and Beall Avenue. In
determining the merits of the application, the City of Rockville assessed the
program capacity for Richard Montgomery High School, Julius West Middle School
and Beall Elementary School, the affected public schools.
When assessing the schools' cumulative capacity,
Rockville used the formula provided by Montgomery County Public Schools,
which determined the schools' future capacity as 110 percent of the current
school capacity. Under this formula, the affected school cluster had 18
fewer students than the total capacity. Rockville estimated that the new
development would add a maximum of eight (8) students; and therefore,
approved the permit.
However, Rockville did not consider the change in
demand on these schools. The AFPS requires Rockville to adjust the current
schools' censuses for demographic changes, changes in district boundaries,
and other changes anticipated by the city planners. Instead, Rockville only
relied on the schools' current censuses.
The Maryland Court of Special Appeals found that
Rockville did not comply with the plain meaning of the AFPS, which required
an assessment of capacity and demand. Rockville argued that considering the
change of the schools' demand in the permit stage would lead to absurd
results. Rockville argued that the permit stage is so far removed from the
completed stage of the development, that it would be absurd to calculate the
future demand on schools and reserve spots for students in a complex that
has not even broken ground on construction. The Court of Special Appeals
agreed that it might be impractical and a waste of time and resources to
reserve spaces for children in such an early stage of the development, but
the plain meaning of the AFPS requires Rockville to make that exact
determination. Therefore, the Court of Special Appeals held that Rockville
must comply with the express terms of its own ordinances.
|
|
|
Top
