## Facts

- Baltimore City Council enacted Ordinance 04-659 authorizing the establishment and operation of a parking lot to serve a proposed apartment building at 2807 Cresmont Avenue.
- Nearby residential property owners petitioned the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for judicial review under Md. Code, Art. 66B, § 2.09 and Maryland Rules Title 7, alleging zoning/subdivision violations and an unlawful taking.
- The City moved to dismiss, arguing the ordinance was not subject to statutory judicial review and the circuit court lacked jurisdiction.
- The circuit court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction and denied a motion to alter or amend.
- After appellate proceedings, the case returned to the Court of Special Appeals to decide whether the ordinance qualified as a reviewable “zoning action” under Art. 66B, § 2.09(a)(1).

## Issues

1. Whether a City Council ordinance granting a site-specific conditional use constitutes a “zoning action” under Md. Code, Art. 66B, § 2.09(a)(1).
2. If so, whether the circuit court had statutory jurisdiction to hear the property owners’ petition for judicial review.

## Decision

- The Court of Special Appeals held that the administrative grant of a conditional use applicable to a specific property is a “zoning action” within the meaning of Art. 66B, § 2.09(a)(1).
- The court ruled that the property owners had a statutory right to judicial review in the circuit court.
- The dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
- Any language in MBC Realty v. Mayor & City Council of Balt. suggesting a narrower view of “zoning action” was disapproved to the extent inconsistent.

## Legal Principles

- A site-specific conditional-use approval enacted by municipal ordinance can constitute a statutory “zoning action” subject to judicial review.
- Where the governing statute authorizes judicial review of “a zoning action” by a local legislative body, courts may interpret that term to include conditional-use determinations affecting permissible land use on particular parcels.
- A circuit court lacks discretion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction when the statute grants a right of judicial review over the challenged land-use action.

## Conclusion

The court interpreted “zoning action” in Art. 66B, § 2.09(a)(1) to include site-specific conditional-use ordinances, restoring affected property owners’ access to circuit-court judicial review and requiring further proceedings on the merits after reversal of the jurisdictional dismissal.


Armstrong v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., 169 Md. App. 655, 906 A.2d 415 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2006)