Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/06/2018

Home

July 10, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 13 Zoning Bulletin due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Rockville Cars claimed that it received a property interest in the March 2013 building permit because the City's zoning ordinances limited the City's power to suspend or revoke permits for cause, thus creating entitlement. The City asked the district court to dismiss Rockville Cars' complaint. The City argued that no property interest vested in a building permit granted on the basis of material misrepresentations within an application. The City argued that no property interested vested in the permit granted to Rockville Cars because Rockville Cars' application contained material misrepresentations —as to the owner of the property and intended scope of the work —and the demolition of the building resulted in a violation of the City's zoning ordinances. The district court granted the City's Motion to Dismiss. The court agreed that no property interest vested in a building permit granted on the basis of material misrepresentation within an application. Rockville Cars appealed. DECISION: Judgment of district court affirmed. Agreeing with the City and the district court, the United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, held that the City did not violate Rockville Cars' due process rights because no property interest vested in a build- ing permit granted on the basis of material misrepresentation within an application. The Fourth Circuit explained that in order to establish a due process claim (and survive the City's Motion to Dismiss), Rockville Cars had to show: (1) that it had a protected property interest; (2) of which the City deprived it; and (3) without due process of law. Here, the court concluded that Rockville Cars failed to show the first element: no prop- erty interest vested in Rockville Car's building permit since the permit was granted on the basis of material misrepresentations. The court explained that "[t]he vested rights doctrine allows property owners to `obtain a vested right in an existing zoning use that will be protected against a subsequent change in a zoning ordinance prohibiting that use.' " But, to prove a vested right, a property owner must: (1) obtain a lawful building permit; (2) commence building in good faith; and (3) complete a substantial portion of construction. The fact that the first element of the vested rights doctrine requires obtaining a lawful building permit illustrates a core principle, said the court: "[Maryland] law does not entitle permit holders to a property right when permits are obtained on the basis of mistake or in violation of the law." Such events render any permit void ab initio (i.e., from the beginning). The Fourth Circuit held that, here, Rockville Cars' procedural due 10 © 2018 Thomson Reuters