by special exception. Any use other than those permitted and being carried on as of right or by special exception is prohibited.” Kowalski v. Lamar, 25 Md.App. 493, 499, 334 A.2d 536, 540 (1975) (citations omitted); see also Arden H. Rathkopf & Dajren A. Rathkopf, 1 The Law of Zoning & Planning § 1:7 (4th ed. 2005) (“Reported court decisions often involve simply whether an owner’s proposed use within a particular zoning district is a use allowed by right, an accessory use, a specially permitted use, or a use entirely prohibited within that district.”). It is well-settled that zoning regulations and subdivision controls regulate different aspects of the land use regulatory continuum. Coffey v. Marylandr-Nat’l Capital Park & Planning Comm’n, 293 Md. 24, 30, 441 A.2d 1041, 1044 (1982) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Popular Refreshments, Inc. v.
holding that zoning and subdivision planning represent separate municipal functions and neither is a mere rubberstamp for the other holding that the llupa does not provide for judicial review of requests to change zoning or comprehensive zoning plans holding a dedication of a rightofway in connection with a subdivision did not vest rights in the property owner for the purpose of estopping the county from changing the zoning classification absent a showing that the planning commission or county knew that the sewer permit would not be granted or that the countys subdivision regulations guaranteed the zoning of the property would not change holding that a zoning commission was capable of being sued directly under section 1983 because zjoning commissions function legislatively when adopting zoning regulations and holding public hearings for the adjudication of individual petitions for zoning redress holding that legislative functions such as powers of zoning and rezoning cannot be delegated