## Facts

- A regional General Plan (1964) and an Olney-area Master Plan (approved Aug. 31, 1966) designated Olney as a low-density “satellite” community buffered by a greenbelt to limit suburban expansion.
- To implement those plans, the Maryland–National Capital Park and Planning Commission proposed a sectional map amendment for the Olney area that reduced allowable residential density across roughly 12,000 acres, including appellants’ approximately 183 acres, by changing zoning from R-R (½-acre lots) to R-A (2-acre lots).
- In November 1966, an outgoing county council adopted numerous last-minute rezonings affecting about 2,000 acres, many inconsistent with adopted or proposed plans and staff recommendations; the actions generated public controversy and contributed to suspension of certain federal grants.
- A newly elected council reconsidered many of the prior rezonings and adopted a comprehensive sectional map amendment covering about 50 square miles, restoring lower densities consistent with the General and Master Plans, including the R-A classification for appellants’ land.
- At public hearings, planning officials, staff, and citizen groups supported the low-density plan; appellants presented experts disputing the planning assumptions and emphasizing reduced development potential and value.
- The circuit court affirmed the comprehensive rezoning, and the landowners appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the newly elected council violated due process or lacked authority by reconsidering and replacing prior zoning actions affecting the Olney area.
2. Whether downzoning the landowners’ property from R-R to R-A constituted an unconstitutional taking by using zoning as a substitute for eminent domain.
3. Whether the comprehensive sectional map amendment was arbitrary or capricious or lacked substantial evidence.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the judgment upholding the comprehensive rezoning.
- The council’s reconsideration and adoption of a new comprehensive sectional map amendment did not violate due process.
- The downzoning did not constitute an unconstitutional taking because reasonable, economically viable use remained.
- The record contained substantial evidence supporting the plan-based rezoning; the action was not arbitrary or capricious.

## Legal Principles

- Comprehensive rezoning that implements adopted general and master plans is accorded strong judicial deference and will be upheld if reasonably related to public welfare and supported by substantial evidence.
- A legislative zoning body may revise or replace prior zoning actions of its predecessor through proper procedures; landowners generally have no vested right in an existing zoning classification absent substantial reliance.
- A reduction in permitted density and property value does not, by itself, amount to a taking; a taking is not established where the regulation does not deprive the property of all reasonable uses to which it is adapted.
- When the record contains competing expert views, the zoning authority may choose among reasonable alternatives; the presence of contrary evidence does not invalidate a zoning decision supported by substantial evidence.

## Conclusion

Maryland upheld a comprehensive, plan-based downzoning in the Olney area, holding that the council acted within its authority and with adequate process, that the density reduction was not a compensable taking because reasonable residential use remained, and that substantial evidence supported the rezoning as a legitimate exercise of the police power.


Norbeck Vill. Joint Venture v. Montgomery Cnty. Council, 254 Md. 59, 254 A.2d 700 (Md. 1969)