In Appleton v. Cecil County, 404 Md. 92, 945 A.2d 648 (2008), a developer asked the Board of County Commissioners of Cecil County to upgrade the water and sewer category designation of a property on which it planned to construct a residential development. 404 Md. at 94-95. The Board eventually approved the proposed amendment, prompting a group of citizens to file a petition for judicial review challenging the approval. Id. at 96-97. The citizens sought review pursuant to Art. 66B, 4.08(a), which authorizes judicial review of "a zoning action of a local legislative body." Id. at 98. The circuit court dismissed the petition, and this Court affirmed, holding, inter alia, that the plan amendment was not a "zoning action" subject to judicial review under 4.08(a). Id. The sole issue considered by the Court of Appeals was the question of reviewability under 4.08(a). Id. at 98-99. The Court began its analysis by summarizing the criteria for a judicially reviewable "zoning action": First, there must be a determination that the process observed by the governmental body in affecting an alleged zoning action was quasi-judicial in nature, rather than legislative. A quasi-judicial proceeding in the zoning context is found where, at a minimum, there is a fact-finding process that entails the holding of a hearing, the receipt of factual and opinion testimony and/or forms of documentary evidence, and a particularized conclusion, based upon delineated statutory standards, for the unique development proposal for the specific parcel or assemblage of land in question. Second, if the governmental act in question involves a quasi-judicial process, the inquiry moves to the question of whether it qualifies as a "zoning action." Where the legislative body exercises its discretion in deciding the permissible uses and other characteristics of a specific parcel or assemblage of land upon a deliberation of the unique circumstances of the affected land and its surrounding environs, a "zoning action" is the result. Id. at 101. The Court went on, however, to "assume, without deciding" that the water and sewer plan amendment was adopted by a quasi-judicial process based on the citizens' assertions that the process "was initiated by a single party, the developer; required a hearing with receipt of factual and opinion testimony; and, covered only a few specific, related parcels of land." Id. at 100-01. The Court further assumed "that the proposed Plan amendment affected only parcels owned or controlled by the developer." Id. at 101, n.10. These assumptions are not helpful here, as their purpose in Appleton was merely to set up the analysis of whether the Board's action constituted "zoning." The more instructive portion of Appleton comes from the Court's refusal to distinguish our decision in Gregory v. Board of County Commissioners of Frederick County, 89 Md. App. 635, 599 A.2d 469 (1991) Id. at 103. The citizens in Appleton argued that, unlike the more comprehensive amendment at issue in Gregory, the amendment in their case was "piecemeal" and thus more closely resembled a reviewable "zoning action" than a non-reviewable "planning action." Id. at 103-04. The Court wrote that "all amendments to a Master Water and Sewer Plan are, by definition, comprehensive planning actions." Id. at 104. "Thus," the Court stated, "merely because amendments to the Plan occur in small steps does not mean that the inherent planning process is transformed into a 'zoning action.'" Id. at 104.