Frisky's Wildlife and Primate Sanctuary, Owned by Colleen Layton is a sanctaury?

This case, in a land use or zoning context, addresses the question of the retrospective


applicability of a related statutory law which is amended during the course of litigation. It

presents the issue of whether the rule in Yorkdale Corporation v. Powell, 237 Md. 121, 205

A.2d 269 (1964), may be applied to enlarge uses as well as to limit uses.

Colleen Layton and Scott Robbins, d/b/a Frisky’s Wildlife and Primate Sanctuary,

Inc., (collectively referred to as “Frisky’s”), the petitioners, attempted to obtain a special

exception to operate as a charitable and philanthropic institution in Howard County. The

primary reason for the application was that Frisky’s had apparently been out of compliance

with Howard County’s zoning ordinances in its operation as an animal rehabilitation center

and primate sanctuary. The Howard County Board of Appeals (the “Board”) granted

Frisky’s special exception in part, but denied it permission to operate as a primate sanctuary.

Thereafter, on June 17, 2004, petitioners filed a petition for judicial review in the Circuit

Court for Howard County. On June 25, 2004, Richard Wyckoff and Julianne Tuttle,

neighbors of Frisky’s, filed a separate petition for judicial review, which the Board joined

(collectively the respondents). Both petitions, by order of the court, were later consolidated.

On September 27, 2004, a pertinent portion of the Howard County Code was amended,

changing the definition upon which the Board had relied in making its initial zoning

decision to deny Frisky’s permission to operate a primate sanctuary. On April 8, 2005, the

Circuit Court held a hearing on the matter and, on July 13, 2005, issued a memorandum

opinion affirming the decision of the Board.
 
The conclusion here