People’s Counsel for Baltimore County v. Loyola College in Maryland
Court of Appeals of Maryland
956 A.2d 166 (2008)
Loyola College in Maryland (Loyola) (defendant) contracted to purchase a parcel of land (the property) in Baltimore County. Loyola sought to use the land as a retreat center for weekend spiritual retreats. However, Baltimore County zoning law did not permit, as of right, the use of the property as a school or a college, church, or camp. Loyola applied for a special exception. After a three-day hearing, the hearing officer granted the special exception and approved Loyola’s development plan. A group of citizens called Citizens Against Loyola Multi-use Center (Citizens) (plaintiffs) opposed the special exception and the development plan, and appealed the hearing officer’s decision. In a six-day hearing, the Baltimore County Board of Appeals (the Board) reviewed the special exception de novo, conducted an appeal on the record on the development plan, and considered voluminous evidence from both parties. However, the Board rejected the argument by Citizens that Loyola was required to prove there were no other locations in the property’s zone in Baltimore County where the proposed use would have less of an adverse effect than on the property’s local neighborhood. Accordingly, the Board ignored Citizens’ evidence that there were other areas in the zone that would be less adversely affected. Loyola presented no contrary evidence on that point. The Board affirmed the hearing officer’s grant of a special exception and approval of the development plan. Citizens appealed to the circuit court, which held that the Board had erred as a matter of law. Loyola then appealed to the intermediate appellate court, which reversed the circuit court and reinstated the Board’s decision. Citizens and the People’s Counsel for Baltimore County (plaintiff) then petitioned the Court of Appeals of Maryland for a writ of certiorari on the legal question of whether a special-exception applicant must produce, and whether the zoning body must consider, evidence that the adverse effects of the proposed use at the proposed location would be less than at other locations in the same zone.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Harrell, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 725,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 725,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,600 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.