My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/21/2016
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2016
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/21/2016
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:25:39 AM
Creation date
8/26/2016 4:41:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
07/21/2016
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
229
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
June 10, 2016 1 Volume 10 1 Issue 11 Zoning Bulletin <br />Standing —Restaurant owner <br />challenges special exception given <br />to competitor restaurant <br />Parties dispute whether challenger is <br />"person aggrieved" to have standing to <br />bring the action <br />Citation: A Guy Named Moe, LLC v. Chipotle Mexican Grill of Col- <br />orado, LLC, 2016 WL 1637650 (Md. 2016) <br />MARYLAND (04/26/16)—This case addressed the issue of whether <br />a competing restaurant chain was a "person aggrieved" by the grant of <br />a special exception to a competitor restaurant such that the competing <br />restaurant chain had standing (i.e., the legal right) to file a judicial <br />review action. <br />The Background/Facts: In 2012, Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colo- <br />rado, LLC ("Chipotle") applied for a "special exception" to build a <br />restaurant in Annapolis, Maryland (the "City"). The location for the <br />proposed restaurant was 425 feet from Moe's Southwest Grill, owned <br />by A Guy Named Moe, LLC ("Moe"). Moe opposed Chipotle's special <br />exception application. Ultimately, the City's Board of Appeals (the <br />"Board") approved Chipotle's special exception application. Subse- <br />quently, Moe appealed that decision. Chipotle argued, among other <br />things, that Moe did not having standing to appeal (i.e., the legal right <br />to bring the appeal) because Moe was not "a person aggrieved" under <br />Section 4-401(a) of the Land Use Article, Maryland Code. <br />The Circuit Court agreed that Moe lacked standing because it <br />petitioned the court "simply [as] a matter of competition." <br />Moe appealed to the Court of Special Appeals. The Court of Special <br />Appeals affirmed, finding Moe did not have standing to bring the action. <br />It concluded that "a person is not `aggrieved' for standing purposes <br />when his sole interest in challenging a zoning decision is to stave off <br />competition with his established business." <br />Moe again appealed. <br />DECISION: Judgment of Court of Special Appeals affirmed. <br />The Court of Appeals of Maryland agreed that Moe lacked standing <br />under Section 4-401 of the Land Use Article, Maryland Code, to chal- <br />lenge the grant of the special exception to Chipotle because Moe was <br />not "a person aggrieved." <br />The court explained that to be a person aggrieved, "[t]he decision <br />10 © 2016 Thomson Reuters <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.