Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/06/2018

Home

Zoning Bulletin July 10, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 13 dressed the issue of whether a commercial tenant had a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in building permits issued by the city. The Background/Facts: Rockville Cars, LLC and Priority 1 Auto- motive Group, Inc. (collectively, "Rockville Cars") sold new and used cars. In pursuit of that business, Rockville Cars leased a parcel of land owned by Robin Tang ("Tang") in the City of Rockville (the "City"). On that parcel of land was a building that had previously housed a restaurant and small furniture store. Rockville Cars sought to convert that building into an automobile showroom. Before starting work on the building conversion, Rockville Cars submitted two documents to the City. First, Rockville Cars submitted a Minor Site Plan Application (the "Plan Application"), in which it listed Tang as the owner of the property, and maintained that it planned to "repurpose" the building into a show room. Second, months later, Rockville Cars submitted, to a separate division of the City's Planning Department, a Commercial Building Permit Application (the "Permit Application"), in which it listed Priority One Automotive Group, Inc. as the property owner and stated an intent to "demolish and renovate" the building. After receiving the Permit Application, in March 2013, the City is- sued a building permit in Tang's name. Rockville Cars then razed the leased building, leaving only the foundational slab. However, in July 2013, the City issued a Stop Work Order. That order explained that Tang had claimed Rockville Cars lacked authority to submit a building permit application. The order also stated that the scope of the project "did not comport with the Minor Site Plan Amendment," which the City had previously approved. Later, the City further explained to Rockville Cars that its demolition of the building resulted in a violation of the City's zoning ordinances. A "build -to" provision of the zoning ordinance, applicable to the com- mercial strip upon which Tang's property was located, mandated that construction of new buildings be within a certain distance from the road. Since the original building had predated the build -to provision, it was exempt from compliance. That exemption would have continued if Rockville Cars had merely renovated the interior of the original building. However, because Rockville Cars demolished the building, Rockville Cars was required to build any new structure in accordance with the build -to provision. Some time subsequently, Rockville Cars submitted a new application to the City, and the City approved that application. However, since Rockville Cars had "conceded to numerous demands at a considerable expense," it brought a legal action against the City, which alleged that suspension of its March 2013 building permit violated its procedural © 2018 Thomson Reuters 9