Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/06/2015

Home

Zoning Bulletin July 10, 2015 I Volume 9 1 Issue 13 The court held that Kent therefore properly exercised its authority under RCW 69.51A.140(1) (the MUCA) to zone the land use activity involving collective gardens. The court concluded that the Ordinance was consistent with state law and not preempted. See also: Lawson v. City ofPasco, 168 Wash. 2d 675, 230 P.3d 1038 (2010). Standing—Restaurant challenges zoning decision for competitor Competitor says challenge must be dismissed as it was brought by restaurant that had forfeited right to do business in state Citation: A Guy Named Moe, LLC v. Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC, 2015 WL 3440472 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2015) MARYLAND (05/29/15)—This case addressed the issue of whether a foreign LLC that has lost its right to do business in the state of Maryland has a right to bring a petition as a "person aggrieved," challenging a zoning decision. The Background/Facts: Since 2006, A Guy Named Moe, LLC ("Moe's") had operated Moe's Southwest Grill on Dock Street in Annapolis, Maryland. In August 2012, Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC ("Chipotle") filed with the City of Annapolis's Department of Planning and Zoning an applica- tion for a special exception to operate a "standard restaurant"—Chipotle Mexican Grill—in close proximity to Moe's Southwest Grill on Dock Street. The City of Annapolis's Board of Appeals (the "Board") approved Chipotle's application. Moe's appealed, challenging the Board's decision. Chipotle asked the circuit court to dismiss Moe's appeal. Chipotle noted that Moe's had forfeited its right to do business in Maryland in November 2006 when it failed to file the proper registration fees, among other things, and had nonetheless continued to do business in Maryland. As such, Chipotle contended that Moe's lacked standing (i.e., the legal right to bring a lawsuit) as a taxpayer under Maryland Code, § 4-401(a) of the Land Use Article ("L.U.") (L.U. § 4-401(a)(2)) or as a "person aggrieved" by the Board's deci- sion (L.U. § 4-401(a)(1)). The circuit court granted Chipotle's motion to dismiss Moe's action "with prejudice." The court found that Moe's lacked standing because it was not a taxpayer in that it had failed to pay real property taxes to the City of Annapolis. Moe's appealed. Moe's argued that although it had lost its right to do busi- ness in Maryland, it could nonetheless legally maintain a suit because Moe's had filed its petition for review within the statutorily required 30 days of the Board's decision and because that petition was revived when, in September 2013, Moe's right to do business in Maryland was restored. Moe's also argued that, whether or not able to bring suit as a taxpayer, Moe's suit should not have been dismissed because Moe's was a "person aggrieved" by the Board's decision with a right to bring the suit. © 2015 Thomson Reuters 7