Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/06/2018

Home

Zoning Bulletin August 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 16 termination that the proposed premises "comply with all zoning and planning requirements" (COMAR 10.62.25.07(B)(3)(b)), and require "[t]he premises and operation of a licensee shall conform to all local zoning and planning requirements" (COMAR 10.62.27.02(D)). Furthermore, the court noted that Maryland courts had "made clear that the issuance of a building permit is not a ministerial act unless applica- tions `fully comply with applicable ordinances and regulations[.]' " Moreover, the court found that a lack of certainty as to the County's medical cannabis zoning requirements was "evidence that the zoning regulations [were] discretionary, not objective in nature." Addressing the Applicants preemption argument, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland also held that the Maryland Medical Can- nabis Program's regulatory framework did not preempt "the entire field of zoning law." And, the court held that Ordinance 17-06 did not pro- hibit an activity that was intended to be permitted by state law "where the plain language of the regulations requires dispensaries, growers, and processors to `conform to all local zoning and planning requirements.' " As such, the court held that there was no preemption of Ordinance 17-06, and therefore it applied to the Property. See also: Siena Corporation v. Mayor and City Council of Rockville Maryland, 873 Rid 456 (4th Cir. 2017). Vested Rights/Mootness—After Village denies special -use permit for strip club, state adopts ordinance essentially foreclosing any locations for strip clubs in village District court concludes applicant's appeal for injunctive relief is thus moot, but applicant claims a vested right to regulations at the time of the permit application Citation: Chicago Joe's. Tea Room, LLC v. Village of Broadview, 894 F.3d 807 (7th Cir, 2018) The Seventh Circuit has jurisdiction over Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. © 2018 Thomson Reuters 9