Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/05/2014

Home

April 25, 2014 i Volume 8 i Issue 8 Zoning Bulletin Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12131-12165, and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 794) requires recovering heroin addicts be treated as persons with. a disability, a methadone clinic cannot be treated any differently than a medi- cal clinic that is serving as an ordinary medical clinic. Accordingly, the court acknowledged that municipalities are not free to apply different zoning stan- dards to methadone clinics from an ordinary medical clinic. See also: New Directions Treatment Services v. City of Reading, 490 F.3d 293, 19 A.D. Cas. (BNA) 687 (3d Cir. 2007) (holding § 621(a)(1) of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code regulating the location of methadone clinics was facially discriminatory under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 because it singled out clinics for different zoning procedures). xistence of Remedies —Community organization asks county to enforce zoning orders on land owned by county and leased by restaurant County says it is entitled to discretionary enforcement of zoning laws Citation: Falls Road Community Ass 'n, Inc. v. Baltimore County, 2014 WL 712665 (Md. 2014) MARYLAND (02/25/14)—This case addressed the issue of whether a writ of mandamus was available to compel a county, either as enforcer of local zoning regulations or as landlord of the subject land, to take certain actions. The Background/Facts: Baltimore County (the "County") owned Oregon Ridge Park, a largely undeveloped woodland area covering approximately 1,200 acres. Along one edge of the park was a 2.63-acre parcel (the "Prop- erty") leased by the County to Oregon, LLC ("Oregon"). Oregon operated a restaurant known as the Oregon Grille in a historic building on the site. Around 1994, Oregon and a community organization, the Valleys Planning Council, entered into a restrictive covenant agreement (the "Covenant"). Among other things, the Covenant provided that Oregon was not to have "tents, canopies, or other similar overhead covering[s]" in the outdoor dining area, and the parking area at the restaurant would remain a nonpaved surface, "unless otherwise required by law." Those restrictions in the Covenant were later incorporated into a Supplemental Lease Agreement between Oregon and the County. They were also incorporated into a 1995 Board of Appeals Order. Under a 2004 Board of Appeals order, the prohibition against paving the park- ing lot remained in effect, as did the limitations on the use of outdoor tents. Then in 2006, "[a] curious thing happened": the parking lot was paved and objects described as "tents" or "canopies" or "umbrellas" appeared in an out- door seating area at Oregon's restaurant. A local community organization, 4 © 2014 Thomson Reuters