You are viewing an archived code
Any application for a special exception or modification of a special exception filed and not approved on or before May 6, 2002 must be decided based on the law in effect after May 6, 2002. At the request of the applicant, the application must be decided based on the law in effect when the application was filed.
(Legislative History: Ord. No. 8-61, §§ 8, 9; Ord. No. 9-14, § 1; Ord. No. 10-39, § 10; Ord. No. 10-80, §1; Ord. No. 11-16, § 3; Ord. No. 11-40, § 5; Ord. No. 11-50, § 25; Ord. No. 11-72, § 11; Ord. No. 11-91, § 5; Ord. No. 12-15, § 1; Ord. No. 12-81, § 3; Ord. No. 12-84, § 3; Ord. No. 13-14, § 6; Ord. No. 13-18, § 3; Ord. No. 13-14, § 6; Ord. No. 13-47, § 12; Ord. No. 13-76, §1; Ord. No. 14-11, § 2; Ord. No. 14-47, § 1; Ord. No. 14-53, § 1; 15-21, § 5; Ord. No. 16-14, § 1; Ord. No. 17-01, § 2.)
Editor's note—Section 59-G-1.21 is quoted in Mills v. Godlove, 200 Md. App. 213, 26 A.3d 1034 (2011). Section 59-G-1.21 is cited and interpreted in Montgomery County v. Butler, 417 Md. 271, 9 A.3d 824 (2010), where the Court upheld Council’s authority to enact the provisions. Section 59-G-1.21 is cited in Purich v. Draper Properties, Inc., 395 Md. 694, 912 A.2d 598 (2006). Section 59-G-1.25 is cited in Concerned Citizens of Great Falls v. Constellation-Potomac, 122 Md. App. 700, 716 A.2d 353 (1998) and in Cowles v. Montgomery County, 123 Md. App. 426, 718 A.2d 678 (1998). Section 59-G-1.2 [formerly § 111-35] is quoted in Gerachis v. Montgomery County Board of Appeals, 261 Md. 153, 274 A.2d 379 (1971); and in Tauber v. County Board of Appeals for Montgomery County, 257 Md. 202, 262 A.2d 513 (1970). In B. P. Oil, Inc. v. County Board of Appeals for Montgomery County, 42 Md. App. 576, 401 A.2d 1054 (1979), the court sustained the County’s denial of a special exception for a filling station. The constitutionality of paragraph (f) of section 59-124 (the predecessor section to the above section) was upheld in Lucky Stores, Inc. v. Board of Appeals of Montgomery County, 270 Md. 513, 312 A.2d 758 (1973). In American Oil Company v. Board of Appeals of Montgomery County, 270 Md. 301, 310 A.2d 796 (1973) the court affirmed the denial of a special exception for a gasoline station, ruling that Amoco had not demonstrated a present need by the neighborhood population for the station. In Luxmanor Citizens Assoc., Inc. v. Burkhart, 266 Md. 631, 296 A.2d 403 (1972), the court affirmed the granting of a special exception for a medical or dental clinic. In the City of Takoma Park v. County Board of Appeals for Montgomery County, 259 Md. 619, 270 A.2d 772 (1970) it was held that a woman and her 2 children living in a man's home and helping him (sometimes) in his trade of making slip covers are a part of the man's family within the meaning of the home occupation exception. The special exception was granted for an R60 zone. In Eger v. Stone, 253 Md. 533, 253 A.2d 372 (1969) the court ruled that hearsay evidence was sufficient evidence upon which to base the granting a special exception. Section 59-G-1.2 [formerly §59-123] is cited in Redden v. Montgomery County, 270 Md. 668, 313 A.2d 481 (1974). The predecessor to the above section is cited in Springloch Area Citizens Group v. Montgomery County Board of Appeals, 252 Md. 717, 251 A.2d 357 (1969). Section 59-G-1.2 [formerly §§104-22 through 104-29] is cited in Town of Somerset v. Montgomery County Board of Appeals, 245 Md. 52, 225 A.2d 294 (1966). Section 59-G-1.2 [formerly §104-29] is cited in Stacy v. Montgomery County, 239 Md. 189, 210 A.2d 540 (1965). Section 59-G-1.2 [formerly §104-27] is cited in Bryniarski v. Montgomery County Board of Appeals, 247 Md. 137, 230 A.2d 289 (1967). Section 59-G-1.2 [formerly §§104-27 and 107-28] is described in Montgomery County v. Mossburg, 228 Md. 555, 180 A.2d 851 (1962). Section 59-G-1.21 is quoted in Mossburg v. Montgomery County, 107 Md.App. 1, 666 A.2d 1253 (1995); and is cited in Rockville Crushed Stone, Inc. V. Montgomery County, 78 Md.App. 176, 552 A.2d 960 (1989) and Pierce v. Montgomery County, 116 Md.App. 522, 698 A.2d 1127 (1997).
Section 5 of Ord. No. 11-91 added § 59-G-1.25(9), thus duplicating paragraph numbers. The editor has redesignated former (9) as (10).
See County Attorney Opinion dated 10/28/1997 indicating that a family burial site is not an accessory use to an agricultural use, but may be nonconforming in some instances.