Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/06/2005

Home

August 25, 2005 -- Page 7 Vested Right -- Used-car dealer seeks to protect vested rights with special hearing Litigation still pending as zoning amendment goes into effect Citation: Antwerpen v. Baltimore County, Court of Special-Appeals of Maryland, No. 696, September Term, 2004 (2005) MARYLAND (07/07/05) --Antwerpen wanted to move his used-car business to another property. The deputy zoning commissioner approved the move. At the time of approval, a zoning amendment was pending that made used-car lots prohibited uses in the area. The amendment went into effect nine days later. To protect his use, Antwerpen requested a special hearing during this time; however, his request was denied. After the amendment went into effect, Antwerpen was told he could no longer operate a used-car business on the property. Antwerpen sued, and the court ruled in favor of the county. Antwerpen appealed, arguing his fights to sell used cars akeady had vested in the nine days before the amendment went into effect. DECISION: Affirmed. Antwerpen did not have the fight to sell cars on the property. Vested rights did not come into being until htigation involving the zoning ordinance from which the vested right was claimed to have originated was completed. A request for a special hearing was a request for a declaratory judgment. Antwerpen asked the zoning commissioner to declare.he had the right to oper- ate a used-car lot on the property. Antwerpen needed this declaration not only to get a license from the Maryland Department of Transportation to sell used cars, but also to obtain an occupancy permit. Without a favorable decision on the request for a special hearing, Antwerpen could not have obtained either a license or a permit. Therefore, Antwerpen needed the zoning officer's approval to sell used cars on the property. Just as ri*~hts could not come into being while the ~ant of a request for special exception was on appeal, no right that emanated from the deputy zoning commissioner's de- claratory judgment could have vested until that judgment became final. Here, the vested rights were based on a statute that was amended prior to the completion of the subject litigation. At the time Antwerpen claimed his rights were vested, the zoning examiner's decision already had been appealed. Thus, Antwerpen knew the decision was subject to reversal. By the time the appeal'was heard, the new ordinance was in effect, and the board had no choice but to apply the law in effect on the day the case was heard. Ultimately, used-car sales were not permitted on the property, and Antwerpen had no vested fights in doing so. xee also: Powell v. Calvert County, 795 A.2d 96 (2002). xee also: Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Dembo Inc., 719 A. 2d 1007 (1998). 2005 quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 201