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