## Facts

- A landowner sought to rezone a 6.35-acre tract in Prince George’s County from R-R (Rural Residential) to C-2 (General Commercial) to develop a shopping center.
- County planning staff and the Planning Board recommended denial as inconsistent with the county’s general plan and zoning scheme.
- After hearings, the District Council granted the rezoning, finding substantial changes in the “neighborhood,” which it defined as a 51.6-square-mile market area.
- The District Council cited population growth and urbanization, increased traffic, planned road improvements, availability of public sewer service, and asserted need for a shopping center.
- Nearby property owners/taxpayers petitioned for judicial review; the circuit court affirmed the rezoning as supported by substantial evidence.
- The protestants appealed, arguing the “neighborhood” definition was improper, evidence of change near the tract was insufficient, and the action was impermissible spot zoning inconsistent with comprehensive planning.

## Issues

1. Whether the rezoning was supported by substantial evidence of a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood (or mistake in original zoning) sufficient to justify piecemeal rezoning.
2. Whether the District Council permissibly defined the relevant “neighborhood” as a 51.6-square-mile retail market area.
3. Whether, in the absence of adequate change-or-mistake proof, the rezoning was arbitrary or capricious and effectively spot zoning inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed the circuit court.
- The court held the rezoning invalid and remanded with directions to set aside the District Council’s action.
- The court concluded the District Council’s “market area” definition of neighborhood was legally improper and the record did not show the required substantial change in the immediate environs.
- Because the change-or-mistake predicate was not met, the rezoning was an arbitrary, capricious departure from the comprehensive zoning scheme and tantamount to spot zoning.

## Legal Principles

- Comprehensive zoning is presumed correct; a piecemeal rezoning is permissible only upon strong evidence of either (a) mistake in the original zoning or (b) subsequent substantial change in the character of the neighborhood.
- For the change-in-conditions test, “neighborhood” means the immediate geographic environs and their physical character and uses, not a large economic or retail market radius.
- Generalized growth, traffic increases, planned road projects, and utility extensions do not alone establish a substantial change where such developments were consistent with the comprehensive plan’s expectations.
- The “fairly debatable” standard does not insulate a rezoning decision absent substantial evidence satisfying the change-or-mistake requirement; without that evidentiary basis, the action must be set aside as arbitrary and capricious.
- A rezoning that singles out a small tract for a use classification inconsistent with surrounding zoning and the comprehensive plan, without adequate change-or-mistake proof, is invalid as spot zoning in effect.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated the county’s commercial rezoning because the council relied on an impermissibly broad concept of “neighborhood” and lacked substantial evidence of substantial change (or original mistake) in the tract’s immediate environs, making the action an arbitrary, plan-inconsistent piecemeal rezoning.


Clayman v. Prince George's Cnty., 266 Md. 409, 292 A.2d 689 (1972)