Article 59-H. Amendment Procedures.*

----------

   *Editor's note-In Reiskin v. County Council for Montgomery County, 229 Md. 142, 182 A.2d 34 (1962), it was held that the mere fact that the proposed rezoning would make the land more valuable (as in a case where there is a contract for sale conditioned upon the rezoning) is insufficient, standing alone, to justify rezoning. In Montgomery County Council v. Kaslow, 235 Md. 45, 200 A.2d 184 (1964), it was held that a court when reviewing a zoning decision may consider evidence outside of the record on appeal to determine if the County's action was controlled or influenced by factors outside of the record. In this case the use of depositions was deemed proper.  In Montgomery County Council v. Kacur, 253 Md. 220, 252 A.2d 832 (1969), the court in affirming the denial of rezoning ruled that the mere fact that greater profits to the landowner might result if the land were rezoned is not sufficient grounds to support rezoning.  In Aspen Hill Venture v. Montgomery County Council, 265 Md. 303, 289 A.2d 303 (1972), it was held that rezoning cannot be denied on the sole basis that there is no need for the proposed use.  In Ligon v. State of Maryland, 448 F. Supp. 935 (D. Md. 1977), it was held that failure to grant rezoning is not a civil rights violation.  In Wheaton Moose Lodge No. 1775 v. Montgomery County, 41 Md. App. 401, 397 A.2d 250 (1979), it was held that the County could consider an application for rezoning in light of all possible uses which the requested rezoning would allow and not justify the use to which the applicant intends to operate.  In Marshall v. Fitzgerald, 47 Md. App. 967, 423 A.2d 967 (1980, the court refused to apply the res judicata doctrine where the district council had previously denied the rezoning (see Fitzgerald v. Montgomery County, 37 Md. App. 148, 376 A.2d 1125 (1977)) on the grounds that the prior zoning action involved a 30 percent high density potential.

   Article 59H is cited in:  Montgomery County Council v. Scrimgeour, 211 Md. 306, 127 A.2d 528 (1956) (upholds denial of rezoning); County Council for Montgomery County v. Gendleman, 227 Md. 491, 177 A.2d 687 (1962) (upholds denial of rezoning); Town of Somerset v. County Council for Montgomery County, 229 Md. 42, 181 A.2d 677 (1962) (upholds rezoning); Reiskin v. County Council for Montgomery County, 229 Md. 142, 182 A.2d 34 (1962) (upholds denial of rezoning); Tankersley v. County Board of Appeals, 230 Md. 379, 187 A.2d 302 (1963) (upholds denial of rezoning); Montgomery County v. Ertter, 233 Md. 414, 197 A.2d 135 (1964) (upholds denial of rezoning); Hyson v. Montgomery County, 242 Md. 55, 217 A.2d 578 (1966) (upholds rezoning); Tauber v. Montgomery County Council, 244 Md. 332, 223 A.2d 615 (1966); Polinger v. Briefs, 244 Md. 538, 224 A.2d 460 (1966) (invalidates rezoning); Aubinoe v. Lewis, 250 Md. 645, 244 A.2d 879 (1966) (reverses rezoning from R-90 to RH); Baker v. Montgomery County Council, 241 Md. 178, 215 A.2d 831 (1966) (reverses rezoning); O. F. Smith Brothers Development Corp. v. Montgomery County Council, 246 Md. 1, 227 A.2d 1 (1967) (upholds rezoning); Stephens v. Montgomery County Council, 248 Md. 256, 235 A.2d 701 (1967) (upholds rezoning); Randolph Hills, Inc. v. Whitley, 249 Md. 78, 238 A.2d 257 (1968) (invalidates rezoning from single-family to multi-family/apartments); Wahler v. Montgomery County Council, 249 Md. 62, 238A.2d 266 (1968) (invalidates rezoning from single-family to multi-family); Brown v. Wimpress, 250 Md. 200, 242 A.2d 157 (1968) (invalidates rezoning from R90 to R20); Scull v. Coleman, 251 Md. 6, 246 A.2d 223 (1968) (upholds sectional map); Montgomery County Council v. Kacur, 253 Md. 220, 252 A.2d 832 (1969) (upholds refusal to rezone from rural residential to commercial); Norbeck Village Joint Venture v. Montgomery County Council, 254 Md. 59, 254 A.2d 700 (1969); Garrett Park v. Montgomery County Council, 257 Md. 250, 262 A.2d 568 (1970) (upholds rezoning); Chevy Chase Village v. Montgomery County Council, 258 Md.27, 264 A.2d 861 (1970) (reserves denial of rezoning); Chapman v. Montgomery, 259 Md. 641, 271 A.2d 156 (1971) (reverses county's action in rezoning from rural residential to local commercial); Cabin John Limited Partnership v. Montgomery County Council, 259 Md. 661, 271 A.2d 174 (1970) (upholds denial of rezoning from R90 to C1); Randolph Hills v. Montgomery CountyCouncil, 264 Md. 78, 285 A.2d 620 (1972) (upholds denial of rezoning); Aspen Hill Venture v. Montgomery County Council, 265 Md. 303, 289 A.2d 303 (1972) (reverses denial of rezoning);  Montgomery County v. National Capital Reality Corp., 267 Md. 364, 297 A.2d 675 (1972) (upholds denial of rezoning); F & B Development Corporation v. County Council for Montgomery County, 22 Md. App. 488, 323 A.2d 659 (1974); County Council for Montgomery County v. District Land Corp., 274 Md. 691, 337 A.2d 712 (1975) (upholds sectional map amendments); Kanfer v. Montgomery County Council, 35 Md. App. 715, 373 A.2d 5 (1977) (reverses denial of rezoning from R-T to R-R); Montgomery County v. Woodward & Lothrop, Inc., 280 Md. 686, 376 A.2d 483 (1977) (upholds sectional map amendment); Fitzgerald v. Montgomery County, 37 Md. App. 148, 376 A.2d 1125 (1977) (upholds denial of rezoning); Wheaton Moose Lodge No. 1775 v. Montgomery County, 41 Md. App. 401, 397 A.2d 250 (1979) (upholds denial of rezoning from R-60 to C-3); Potomac Valley League v. County Council for Monty Co., 43 Md. App. 56, 403 A.2d 388 (1979); Montgomery County v. Horman, 46 Md. App. 491, 418 A.2d 1249 (1980); Marshall v. Fitzgerald, 47 Md. App. 967, 423 A.2d 967 (1980) (upholds rezoning); and JMC Construction Corp., Inc. v. Montgomery County, 54 Md. App. 516, 456 A.2d 931 (1983) (comprehensive rezoning upheld). 

   Cross reference-Zoning amendment procedures, App. E.