Bryant Woods Inn, Inc. v. Howard County, Md.

Decision Date19 January 1996
Docket NumberCivil Action No. S 95-595.
PartiesBRYANT WOODS INN, INC., Plaintiff, v. HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Maryland

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Beth Pepper, Stein & Schonfeld, Baltimore, MD, Nathan Siegel, Venable, Baetjer & Howard, Baltimore, MD, for plaintiff.

Andrew D. Levy, Brown, Goldstein & Levy, Baltimore, MD, Amici Curiae, for Assisted Living Facilities Assn. of America, Inc. and Assisted Living Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. Louis P. Ruzzi, Senior Asst. County Solicitor, Ellicott City, MD, for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SMALKIN, District Judge.

This action is before the Court on the defendants' motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment with respect to liability. Neither side requested a jury trial. The issues have been fully briefed, and no oral hearing is necessary. Local Rule 105.6.

Factual Background

The plaintiff, Bryant Woods Inn, Inc., is a corporation that operates two group homes in Columbia, Maryland. The homes provide housing and other services in a non-institutional setting to elderly people with disabilities, most of whom suffer from Alzheimer's disease or related forms of dementia. The homes are owned by Richard Colandrea, who is the sole shareholder and president of Bryant Woods Inn, Inc. The corporation pays rent to Mr. Colandrea for the use of his properties as group homes. The home at issue in this litigation, Bryant Woods Inn I, is located at 10461 Waterfowl Terrace and has been owned by the Colandrea family for over twenty years.

In 1989, the Colandreas began using Bryant Woods Inn I as a group home for up to eight elderly people with disabilities. Between 1989 and 1994, the home operated as Group Senior Assisted Housing under a program supervised by Maryland's Office on Aging. In 1994, Bryant Woods Inn I was licensed by the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene as a "domiciliary care" home. In 1992, Mr. Colandrea asked both the Office of Aging and the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to approve the home as a home for up to fifteen residents. Both state agencies denied his request, because Mr. Colandrea had not secured zoning authority from Howard County to house more than eight elderly or disabled people.

Section 110.C.4 of the Howard County Zoning Regulations permits the following uses as a matter of right, as uses accessory to a principal residential use:

"The housing by a resident family of:
a. Not more than four non-transient roomers or boarders; or
b. Not more than eight mentally and/or physically disabled persons or persons 62 years of age or older, provided the use is registered, licensed or certified by the State of Maryland; or
c. A combination of a or b above, provided that the total number of persons housed in addition to the resident family does not exceed eight."

Consequently, to the extent that the Colandreas were a "resident family" at the Waterfowl property, they did not require special zoning approval to provide homes for up to eight elderly disabled people.1 Richard Colandrea's plans to house fifteen people at Bryant Woods Inn I in addition to family members and staff, however, could not be realized without zoning authority from Howard County.

Columbia is a New Town Zoning District under the Howard County Zoning Regulations, and is subject to a different zoning scheme from the remainder of Howard County. H.C.Z.R. ? 125.A.1. In particular, the special exception procedure which ordinarily permits Howard County property owners to apply for changes in the zoning status of their properties is not available to residents of Columbia. Before October, 1993, no effective mechanism existed whereby individual property owners could request changes in the zoning regulations applicable to their properties. In 1993, however, Howard County provided that Columbia residents could request exceptions from the zoning regulations by applying for an amendment to their neighborhood's Final Development Plan (FDP). H.C.Z.R. ? 125.D.2. Section 125.D.2.c. of the Howard County Zoning Regulations vests the authority to approve FDP amendments in the Howard County Planning Board and sets forth the criteria governing the Planning Board's decisions:

"The Planning Board shall approve, approve with modifications or deny the proposed amendments to the Final Development Plan, stating the reasons for its action. The Planning Board shall approve the request only if it finds that:
(1) The use is consistent with the land use designation of the property ... and compatible with existing or proposed development in the vicinity.
(2) The use will not adversely affect vicinal properties."

As soon as the new provisions took effect, Richard Colandrea prepared and submitted to the Howard County Planning Board a petition for an FDP amendment. Colandrea described his proposed amendment as follows:

"Allow for the housing of disabled persons provided the use is licensed or certified by the state of Maryland. The housing of disabled persons shall not be considered a business use; shall not change the use classification of the property or the structure from that of residential and shall require no other community association approval."

(Colandrea's December 6, 1993 application for a plan amendment, Exh. 4 to Dfts.' Mot. Summ.J.) Because the State of Maryland would allow Colandrea to provide homes for fifteen elderly people with disabilities if zoning approval were granted, the effect of Colandrea's petition would be to increase the number of residents of Bryant Woods Inn I to 15, excluding members of the Colandrea family.

Mr. Colandrea's application for an FDP amendment was one of the first received by the Planning Board pursuant to the new regulations. Under the new procedure, the Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning was responsible for processing Colandrea's petition and for making an initial recommendation to the Planning Board.2 It is undisputed that when the Department of Planning and Zoning received the Colandrea petition it wrote to Mr. Colandrea, explaining that his proposed amendment to provide for the housing of disabled persons was not defined in the Howard County Regulations, and did not "clearly define your proposed use." (January 12, 1994 letter from Gina Tirinnanzi to Richard Colandrea, Dfts.' Exh. 5 to Mot. Summ.J.) In addition, the Department advised Mr. Colandrea that it lacked authority to waive local covenant requirements, and that Mr. Colandrea's petition should therefore "contain language for land use only." (Ibid.) Finally, the Department asked Mr. Colandrea to supply additional information about the number of employees, parking requirements and availability, and lot coverage. (Ibid.)

Recognizing that he had insufficient information to prepare a comprehensive staff report, Richard Blood, the staff member assigned to handle the Colandrea petition, asked Joseph Rutter, the Director of the DPZ, whether or not to go ahead with the hearing as scheduled. (Blood Depo. at 262-263, Pltf.'s Exh. 43 to Mot.Summ.J.). Meanwhile, Mr. Colandrea's neighbors had requested a postponement of the hearing on the basis that the sign on the property giving notice of the hearing was not sufficiently conspicuous. (Rutter Depo. at 365, Dfts.' Exh. 22 to Opp.) Mr. Rutter took the position that "if the residents find the sign enough to know that it's in their opinion not properly posted, well, they found it, that's the intent of the sign, to make notification." (Ibid.) Mr. Rutter therefore determined that Mr. Colandrea "should have his opportunity to go to the Planning Board and make his case, and not have delays at the request of the residents because of a technicality in posting." (Id. at 366). Mr. Colandrea did not ask for a postponement of the hearing. Richard Blood explained at his deposition that Mr. Rutter ordered him to go ahead and "notify the residents that the hearing was going to be the 17th and do the best I could on the staff report and if it had to be negative for lack of information, that is how it would have to be." (Blood Depo. at 264-265, Exh. 43 to Pltf.'s Mot.Summ.J.).

Blood accordingly prepared the staff report, recommending to the Board that Colandrea's petition be denied. On February 10, 1994, when the staff report had been finalized and approved, the Department received Mr. Colandrea's response to its requests for further information. (Pltf.'s Exh. 53 to Mot. Summ.J.). Mr. Colandrea proposed that his property should "be used for a Group Care Facility," described in detail the number of employees and prospective residents, and set forth the parking needs of the expanded use. Blood did not revise the packets of information which had been prepared for review by the members of the Planning Board to take account of the new submission.

The public hearing before the Planning Board took place on February 17, 1994. As was customary, the proceedings began with a presentation by Richard Blood, the member of the Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning who had been responsible for processing the Colandrea petition. Blood stated that because the Colandrea petition was so indefinite, the Department had relied on regulations and other land use criteria applicable to Group Care Facilities under the Howard County Zoning Regulations. Using the Group Care Facility criteria, Blood concluded that Bryant Woods Inn I had inadequate parking, and that there was a risk that off-street loading and storage areas might be incompatible with the residential character of the neighborhood. Blood also explained to the Board that Mr. Colandrea's amendments to his original petition had been received after the staff report had been finalized.

The Board heard argument from Mr. Colandrea's attorney and testimony from a number of witnesses. Mr. Colandrea's attorney specified the proposed use of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • Douglas v. Kriegsfeld Corp., 02-CV-711.
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • October 13, 2005
    ...F.3d 35, 48-49, 52-53 (2d Cir.2002); Smith & Lee Assocs. v. City of Taylor, 102 F.3d 781, 790 (6th Cir.1996); Bryant Woods Inn v. Howard County, 911 F.Supp. 918, 928 (D.Md.1996), aff'd, 124 F.3d 597 (4th Cir.1997); Sunderland Family Treatment Servs. v. City of Pasco, 107 Wash.App. 109, 26 P......
  • Mckivitz v. Twp. of Stowe, Civil Action No. 08–1247.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • December 22, 2010
    ...a particular dwelling, not just some dwelling somewhere in the town”) (emphasis in original); see also Bryant Woods Inn, Inc. v. Howard County, 911 F.Supp. 918, 946 (D.Md.1996) (construing the FHA to prohibit local governments “from applying land use regulations in a manner that will exclud......
  • A Soc'y Without a Name v. Commonwealth of Va.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • August 24, 2011
    ...Res. Research & Mgmt. Grp., Inc. v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 687 F.Supp.2d 237, 253–54 (E.D.N.Y.2010) (citing Bryant Woods Inn, Inc. v. Howard Cnty., Md., 911 F.Supp. 918, 946 (D.Md.1996)). The Second Amended Complaint alleges that the systematic relocation of services—not the siting, construction......
  • Mckivitz v. Twp. Of Stowe
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • December 22, 2010
    ...enjoy a particular dwelling, not just some dwelling somewhere in the town")(emphasis in original); see also Bryant Woods Inn, Inc. v. Howard County, 911 F.Supp. 918, 946 (D.Md. 1996)(construing the FHA to prohibit local governments "from applying land use regulations in a manner that will e......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • No More Kids! How Overcrowded Schools May Lead to Violations of Fair Housing Laws
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association California Real Property Journal (CLA) No. 33-2, June 2015
    • Invalid date
    ...that city had made a commitment to a project before completing required environmental review).34. Bryant Woods Inn v. Howard Cnty., 911 F. Supp. 918, 930 (D. Md. 1996) (citing Dailey v. Lawton, 425 F.2d 1037, 1039 (10th Cir. 1970)).35. See, e.g., United States v. City of Chicago Heights, 16......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT