variance requirement in Maryland

1995Another typical Baltimore City case in that regard is Easter v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 195 Md. 395, 400 , 73 A.2d 491 (1950), where the'Court noted “facts to justify an exception . . . [show] that the hardship affects the particular premises and is not common to other property in the neighborhood.” This is a variance standard. 8.

1995Another typical Baltimore City case in that regard is Easter v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 195 Md. 395, 400 , 73 A.2d 491 (1950), where the'Court noted “facts to justify an exception . . . [show] that the hardship affects the particular premises and is not common to other property in the neighborhood.” This is a variance standard. 8.

2025Id. at 494-95 . 21 Uniqueness is a necessary element of the variance test, allowing a zoning board “to determine whether the zoning law’s effect on [the] property is particularized to that given property.” Id. at 494 .

2025Id. at 494-95 . 21 Uniqueness is a necessary element of the variance test, allowing a zoning board “to determine whether the zoning law’s effect on [the] property is particularized to that given property.” Id. at 494 .

2020Bd. of Adjustment, 387 P.3d 333 (Okla. 2016) (“A zoning variance . . . granted by a local government entity [is a] [] historic procedure[] designed to . . . act as a safety valve when applying a zoning regulation to prevent governmental restrictions from operating in such a manner that the burden on an individual landowner amounts to a taking.”) (cleaned up); Rathkopf § 58:1 (explaining that the variance “is a kind of ‘escape hatch’ or ‘safety valve’ of zoning administration”); zoning authority divides geographically an area into use districts.

2002This is the reason why many cases which arise in Baltimore City, such as this one, discuss exceptions and variances without differentiation." [Footnote omitted.] [11] Under the Supreme Court's case of Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 , 121 S.Ct. 2448 , 150 L.Ed.2d 592 (2001), and our recent case of Roeser, supra, the fact that the statute predated an owner's purchase of a subject property would have no bearing on the ability of an owner to seek variance relief.

2002This is the reason why many cases which arise in Baltimore City, such as this one, discuss exceptions and variances without differentiation." [Footnote omitted.] [11] Under the Supreme Court's case of Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 , 121 S.Ct. 2448 , 150 L.Ed.2d 592 (2001), and our recent case of Roeser, supra, the fact that the statute predated an owner's purchase of a subject property would have no bearing on the ability of an owner to seek variance relief.

2002That court said that “while SCI ... may have painted itself into a corner when it entered into a lease agreement ... ‘the variance that is desired ... cannot be the source of the first [uniqueness] prong of the variance process----’ ” Evans, 112 Md.App. at 308 , 685 A.2d at 466 (citing Cromwell, 102 Md.App. at 695 , 651 A.2d at 426 ) (alteration added).

2002That court said that “while SCI ... may have painted itself into a corner when it entered into a lease agreement ... ‘the variance that is desired ... cannot be the source of the first [uniqueness] prong of the variance process----’ ” Evans, 112 Md.App. at 308 , 685 A.2d at 466 (citing Cromwell, 102 Md.App. at 695 , 651 A.2d at 426 ) (alteration added).

2002In Marino, 215 Md. at 216 , 137 A.2d at 201 , we stated: "Ordinarily, there is a marked distinction in the law of zoning between a variance and an exception, but there is none in Baltimore City since an exception apparently overlaps a variance inasmuch as both may be granted where there are 'practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships'.

2002In Marino, 215 Md. at 216 , 137 A.2d at 201 , we stated: "Ordinarily, there is a marked distinction in the law of zoning between a variance and an exception, but there is none in Baltimore City since an exception apparently overlaps a variance inasmuch as both may be granted where there are 'practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships'.

2002This is the reason why many cases which arise in Baltimore City, such as this one, discuss exceptions and variances without differentiation." [Footnote omitted.] [11] Under the Supreme Court's case of Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 , 121 S.Ct. 2448 , 150 L.Ed.2d 592 (2001), and our recent case of Roeser, supra, the fact that the statute predated an owner's purchase of a subject property would have no bearing on the ability of an owner to seek variance relief.

1996Our review of the evidence that was produced before the Board and the considerable amount of argument presented by the parties in this appeal on the issue of uniqueness convinces us, as a matter of law, that there is no substantial evidence to support a finding of uniqueness; and, therefore, it cannot be said that such a finding would be “fairly debatable.” As this Court said in Ocean Hideaway Condominium, Ass’n. v. Boardwalk Plaza Venture, 68 Md.App. 650 , 515 A.2d 485 (1986), “[WJhen a Board’s finding cannot be said to be ‘fairly debatable,’ it is arbitrary, capricious and a denial of due pr

1996Our review of the evidence that was produced before the Board and the considerable amount of argument presented by the parties in this appeal on the issue of uniqueness convinces us, as a matter of law, that there is no substantial evidence to support a finding of uniqueness; and, therefore, it cannot be said that such a finding would be “fairly debatable.” As this Court said in Ocean Hideaway Condominium, Ass’n. v. Boardwalk Plaza Venture, 68 Md.App. 650 , 515 A.2d 485 (1986), “[WJhen a Board’s finding cannot be said to be ‘fairly debatable,’ it is arbitrary, capricious and a denial of due pr

1994As the Court of Appeals noted in Dampman v. Mayor and City Council, 231 Md. 280, 285 , 189 A.2d 631 (1963): Ordinarily there is a distinction between a variance and an exception. ...

1994As the Court of Appeals noted in Dampman v. Mayor and City Council, 231 Md. 280, 285 , 189 A.2d 631 (1963): Ordinarily there is a distinction between a variance and an exception. ...

1976App. 537 , 252 A. 2d 270 (1969], we applied the variance rule when we said, at 538-39: “The indictment charged that McDuffy forged an ‘American Oil Credit Card.’ Testimony showed that the card was not in any way forged or altered by anyone, but that a receipt for certain merchandise was forged by McDuffy, who contends that he cannot be convicted of forging a receipt under an indictment which charges him with forging a credit card.