Judge: Rockville’s Actions in Pumphrey Decision Were ‘Arbitrary and Capricious’

The Rockville City Council’s actions were “arbitrary and capricious” when it reversed a law that would have allowed a funeral home to build a parking lot in a historic residential district, a Montgomery County Circuit judge wrote in an opinion issued Monday.

The opinion is tied to an April 29 ruling that forced the City of Rockville to reinstate a measure permitting Robert A Pumphrey Funeral Home to build a 17-space parking lot in a vacant field next to its property.

The city appealed the ruling May 29.

Pumphrey Funeral Home has been at its current location since 1854, predating city laws that prohibited funeral homes from being built in residential areas.

The legal battle centers around a Rockville City Council vote on May 7, 2012, quashing a prior council’s approval of a text amendment that would have allowed the parking lot. The decision sparked fierce debate, with some vocal in their belief that a parking lot didn't belong in Rockville’s historic West End and others arguing that Pumphrey was being treated unfairly.

The funeral home petitioned the court June 6, 2012.

According to Monday's 12-page opinion by Judge Eric M. Johnson, the city’s decision to overturn the text amendment was “arbitrary and capricious” because it was “unsupported by substantial evidence that the change was warranted.”

Johnson ruled that the City Council acted quasi-judicially—not as a legislative body—when it reached its decision, arguing that the city’s ruling was not rooted in policy on authorized parking lots, but was instead narrowly framed around the advantages and disadvantages of allowing Pumphrey’s to build the lot.

According to the opinion:

“The City’s decision rested primarily on very individual grounds and could not have been easily applied to any other property.”

The judge’s opinion also addresses an April ruling that reversed the Rockville City Planning Commission’s decision to deny the funeral home’s request to merge two of its lots into one:

“… the City’s determination that the adjoining lots should not be consolidated when they visually appear as one emerges as arbitrary and capricious and is unsubstantiated by evidence.”

Speak Out: Do you agree with the judge's opinion? Post your comments below.