Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/05/2014

Home

Zoning Bulletin April 25, 2014 ) Volume 8 I Issue 8 Falls Road Community Association (the "Community Association"), re- quested that the County require Oregon to correct the alleged violations of the Board of Appeals orders and the Supplemental Lease Agreement that resulted from the paving of the parking lot and the appearance of what it believed to be tents or canopies on the patio. When the County attorney refused to take any action, the Community Association filed suit against the County and Oregon. The Community Association sought writs of mandamus and declaratory judgment. It alleged that the paving of the parking lot and the use of the Prop- erty for outdoor events violated, among other things, the 1995 and 2004 Board of Appeals' orders. The circuit court ruled in favor of Oregon and the County. The court found that mandamus relief against a public official was only available when the of- ficial's duty was "imperative or ministerial," and not when the duty called for the exercise of discretion or judgment by the public official. The court found the County's enforcement authority here was discretionary, and thus, the Com- munity Association could not obtain mandamus relief to direct the exercise of that discretion and essentially force the County to pursue enforcement over the parking lot paving and erection of large umbrellas in the outdoor dining area. The court did find that the paving of the parking lot and the number of park- ing spaces added to the lot violated the orders of the Board of Appeals. The court also concluded that the paving of the entire lot was neither required by the Americans with Disabilities Act nor justified by liability concerns —and thus were not "otherwise required by law." Nonetheless, the court ruled in favor of Oregon and the County on the declaratory relief claim. The court concluded that declaratory relief could not be granted because a declaratory judgment would "not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the action." (Maryland Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, Courts and Judicial Proceedings, § 3-409(a).) The court concluded that it lacked the authority to issue an injunction directing Oregon to "tear up the parking lot" as part of a declaratory judgment proceeding. The Community Association appealed. The Court of Special Appeals af- firmed the judgments of the Circuit Court. The Community Association again appealed. DECISION: Judgment of court of special appeals affirmed in part, re- versed in part, and remanded with directions. The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that mandamus relief was not avail- able to direct the exercise of the County's discretion in enforcement of the zoning laws or its contractual relationship. However, the court also held that the circuit court had the authority to issue a declaratory judgment as to whether the Board of Appeals orders were violated by the paving of the parking lot, and, if so, had the authority to decide what relief to grant. In so holding, the court explained that common law mandamus is "an extraordinary remedy" that "is generally used to compel inferior tribunals, public officials or administrative agencies to perform their function, or perfoiiu some particular duty imposed upon them which in its nature is imperative and to the performance of which the party applying for the writ has a clear legal ©2014 Thomson Reuters 5