Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/03/2016

Home

Zoning Bulletin January 10, 2016 I Volume 10 I Issue 1 dential, the Sizemores no longer had a basis to support a new zoning permit for their restaurant, found the court. The court concluded with a finding that the Board did not err in upholding the denial of the2012 permit application. See also: Prince George's County, Md. v. Sunrise Development Ltd. Partnership, 330 Md. 297, 623 A.2d 1296 (1993). See also: Putnam Armonk, Inc. v. Town of Southeast, 52 A.D.2d 10, 382 N.Y.S.2d 538 (2d Dep't 1976). See also: Fountain Village Development Co. v. Multnomah County, 176 Or. App. 213, 31 P.3d 458 (2001). See also: Trip Associates, Inc. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 392 Md. 563, 573, 898 A.2d 449 (2006). Case Note: The court also held that the Sizemores' vested right argument should have been raised in the case that they had abandoned (the appeal of the zoning administrator's revoca- tion of their permit, as opposed to this appeal of the denial of a new permit). Thus, res judicata (i.e., the preclusion of a claim already judged) barred consideration of the Sizemores' claim of vested right on appeal from the denial for the request for a new permit. Case Note: The Sizemores had also argued that under the Tolling Bill (2009 Md. Laws, ch. 334 (SB 958)) their permit should have been tolled until June 30, 2010. The Tolling Bill tolled certain permits issued by the State, or any county or municipality, until June 30, 2010, for the reason that "[tJhere exists a state of national recession, which has drastically affected various segments of the Maryland economy, but none as severely as the State's banking, real estate, and construction sectors." The court noted that the sunset provi- sions of the Tolling Bill limited its application to a period of years—between January 1, 2008, and Jame 30, 2010, and thus, even if the Tolling Bill had applied to the Sizemores' 2003 permit, it would only have preserved the permit through June 30, 2010. Thereaf- ter, the zoning permit could have been properly revoked for noncompliance with § 290- 27(E), and application of the Tolling Bill would not have prolonged the survival of the permit, said the court. Accordingly, the court concluded that Sizemores' attempt to rein- state the 2003 zoning permit through the Tolling Bill was moot because the Tolling Bill could no longer revive or sustain a zoning permit after the expiration of its effective period. © 2016 Thomson Reuters 5