Supreme Court in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 130, 98 S.Ct. 2646, 57 L.Ed.2d 631 (1978), made it clear that no “taking” is established “simply by showing that [plaintiffs] have been denied the ability to exploit a property interest [in air space] that they heretofore had believed was available for development ....” As in Penn Central, Greenspring continues to be able to use its building as it has in the past, and the Ordinance does not prohibit all air development, just development higher than 35 feet. Moreover, the rationales cited by the County to support its enactment of the Ordinance clearly fall within those recognized by the courts as reasonable bases for zoning laws. See Sylvia Dev. Corp. v. Calvert County, 48 F.3d 810, 828-29 (4th Cir.1995)(<HOLDING>). In urging passage of the Ordinance, County
holding that  1926b prohibited munici pality from using its annexation of territory within rural water district as springboard for providing its own water service to residents holding that village could not condition provision of water services on annexation where prospective customer was within a rural water associations service area and the water association was federally indebted holding that credibility determinations are for the jury holding that proper bases for zoning determinations include concern about further growth in rural areas residential density community aesthetics traffic congestion and water supplies holding that a water courts historic use determinations may not be reviewed under the retained jurisdiction provision