## Facts

- A developer owned three tracts in the Tantallon area of Prince George’s County that were zoned rural/low-density residential under comprehensive zoning.
- The developer sought piecemeal rezoning of two tracts to C-2 (general commercial) and one approximately 29-acre tract to R-H (multiple-family, high-rise residential).
- Planning commission technical staff recommended denial, stating that rezoning away from the existing residential classification would constitute spot zoning and that the area’s land-use trend was single-family residential.
- Staff also concluded that placing an R-H high-rise classification in a low-density setting conflicted with the stated purpose of the R-H zone.
- The developer asserted post-zoning changes, including road development, a golf course, a reserved school site, and increased single-family development.
- The District Council approved all three rezonings.
- Neighboring property owners sought judicial review; the circuit court affirmed, noting no claim or showing of mistake in the original zoning.

## Issues

1. Whether the rezonings were supported by substantial evidence of either (a) mistake in the original comprehensive zoning or (b) a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood since that zoning.
2. Whether the R-H high-rise rezoning, and/or the C-2 rezonings, constituted impermissible spot zoning or unjustified departures from the comprehensive zoning scheme.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part.
- The court upheld the circuit court’s affirmance of the two C-2 commercial rezonings.
- The court reversed the affirmance of the R-H high-rise rezoning and invalidated that portion of the District Council’s action.
- The court held the developer had not pursued a “mistake” theory and failed to show the type of substantial neighborhood change required to justify the high-rise classification in a predominantly single-family area.

## Legal Principles

- After comprehensive zoning, piecemeal rezoning is improper absent proof of (1) mistake in the original zoning or (2) a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood since the comprehensive action.
- Claimed “change” must be substantial rather than minor, cumulative, or merely reflective of anticipated development consistent with the existing plan.
- Zoning decisions receive a presumption of validity, but that presumption yields when the record lacks substantial evidence satisfying the change-or-mistake requirement.
- A rezoning that confers a special benefit on a single parcel without adequate justification, and that conflicts with the area’s prevailing character and zoning purposes, risks being treated as impermissible spot zoning.
- The intensity and purpose of the requested classification matter: a high-density/high-rise designation demands a stronger factual showing of neighborhood change and plan consistency than a more limited reclassification.

## Conclusion

The court applied Maryland’s change-or-mistake doctrine to limit piecemeal departures from comprehensive zoning, striking down a high-rise rezoning unsupported by substantial neighborhood change while allowing the commercial rezonings to stand on the record presented.


MacDonald v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 238 Md. 549, 210 A.2d 325 (1965)