Falls Rd. Cmty. Ass'n, Inc. v. Balt. Cnty. Md.
| Decision Date | 25 February 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 39,39 |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
| Parties | FALLS ROAD COMMUNITY ASS'N, INC., ET AL. v. BALTIMORE COUNTY MARYLAND, ET AL. |
Adm inistrative Law - Exhaustion of Administrative Rem edies - Enforcement of Restrictions in Final Orders of County Board of Appeals. When final administrative orders of the County Board of Appeals limited the paving of, and structures placed on, park land leased to a private entity for use as a restaurant, neighbors and local community association were not required to initiate a new administrative process as a prerequisite to bringing a declaratory judgment action in court to enforce those restrictions.
Mandamus - Common Law Mandamus - County Zoning Enforcement. The decision of County code enforcement officials as to what, if any, enforcement action to take, with respect to an alleged violation of zoning regulations and orders, was an inherently discretionary decision. Accordingly, the Circuit Court properly declined to issue a writ of mandamus to direct County officials to take enforcement action.
Mandamus - Common Law Mandamus - County Contractual Remedies. County officials charged with administering a County contract had discretion to decide whether to pursue contract remedies for an alleged violation of an agreement that leased County property to a private entity for commercial purposes. Accordingly, the Circuit Court properly declined to issue a writ of mandamus to direct County officials to pursue contract remedies.
Declaratory Judgments Act - Availability of Ancillary Injunctive Relief. Under the Maryland Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, Maryland Code, Courts & Judicial Proceedings, §3-401 et seq., a court that grants a declaratory judgment may grant further relief that is "necessary or proper" to implement the declaratory judgment as part of the declaratory judgment action itself or in a subsequent action. A plaintiff that seeks a declaratory judgment need not identify in the declaratory judgment action the specific ancillary relief that may be necessary to implement a decree.
Opinion by McDonald, J.
*Bell, C.J., now retired, participated in the hearing and conference of this case while an active member of the Court; he did not participate in the decision and adoption of this opinion.
This case arises from a controversy about the paving of a parking lot. The parking lot is on park land leased to a restaurant and subject to various land use restrictions. Paving of the property was restricted by a formal agreement between the restaurant and a local community organization - a restriction that was incorporated in administrative zoning orders. But, despite the agreement and the orders, the lot was paved to the surprise and chagrin of some neighbors.1 Litigation ensued.
Resolution of the case is complicated by the fact that Respondent Baltimore County appears in three somewhat conflicting guises - as landlord of the property in question (Department of Recreation and Parks), as code enforcer (Department of Permits, Approvals, and Inspections), and as final administrative adjudicator of disputes arising under local land use laws (County Board of Appeals).2 As administrative adjudicator, it forbade the paving of the parking lot. As landlord, it directed its tenant, Respondent Oregon, LLC ("Oregon"),to pave the parking lot. And, as code enforcer, it decided not to take action in response to the apparent violation of the final administrative order issued by the Board of Appeals.
A local community organization, Petitioner Falls Road Community Association ("Community Association"), and two individual neighbors brought suit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County seeking declaratory and mandamus relief against the County and Oregon.3 The Circuit Court ruled against the Community Association, granting summary judgment as to the mandamus claims and, following a bench trial, declining to issue declaratory relief despite concluding that the paving had violated the administrative order. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed those judgments, although on a different ground than the Circuit Court - that the Community Association had failed to exhaust administrative remedies - but went on to discuss the merits of the Circuit Court rulings.
We disagree with the Court of Special Appeals, both as to whether further resort to the administrative process was required and as to its critique of the Circuit Court rulings. But the bottom line is that we largely affirm its judgment and remand for further proceedings in the trial court concerning a surviving aspect of the case.
In the Hunt Valley area of Baltimore County lies Oregon Ridge Park, a largely undeveloped woodland area covering approximately 1,200 acres and owned by BaltimoreCounty. Along the edge of the park, at the corner of Shawan Road and Beaver Dam Road, is a 2.63 acre parcel (the "Property") leased by the County to Oregon. Oregon currently operates a restaurant known as the Oregon Grille in a historic building on the site. The relationship between Oregon and the County, as both Oregon's landlord and land use regulator, has developed over a number of years.
Oregon leased the Property from the County under a 25-year lease that began in 1985.4 Under that lease, Oregon agreed that, among other things, it would "fully comply with all Federal and State laws, County ordinances, and regulations of public authority ...." In addition, the County reserved "the right and duty at all times, to exercise full governmental control and regulations with respect to all matters connected with the [l]ease." The lease permitted the County to cancel the arrangement if Oregon violated any of its terms or conditions.
In March 1994, the County, as owner of the Property, filed three petitions with the Baltimore County Zoning Commissioner in connection with Oregon's planned use of the Property for a restaurant:
The petitions were filed pursuant to §500.7 of the Baltimore County Zoning Regulations ("BCZR").5
The Deputy Zoning Commissioner conducted a hearing at which a representative of the Community Association, among others, testified in opposition to the proposal.6 On June 28, 1994, the Deputy Zoning Commissioner issued an opinion and order that allowed the conversion of the existing building on the Property into a restaurant, but set conditions on that use and affirmed the applicability of the BCZR. In particular, the Deputy Zoning Commissioner denied the Petition for Special Hearing insofar as it sought an exemption from the BCZR; he concluded that the Property was subject to the BCZR because it was being leased to a private party for commercial purposes.7 Second, he granted the Petition forSpecial Exception and approved the conversion of the existing building into a restaurant. Third, he granted the Petition for Variance allowing a smaller number of parking spaces than the zoning regulations would otherwise require for a restaurant of this size.
The use of the Property for a restaurant was made subject to a number of conditions, certain of which are relevant to this case. In particular, Oregon was prohibited from hosting parties, weddings, and other outdoor events on the Property. Oregon was permitted to have an outdoor seating area, but was not permitted to use this area for anything other than sit-down dining. Moreover, Oregon was not to have "tents, canopies, or other similar overhead covering[s]" on the patio or elsewhere, although "table umbrellas" would be permitted for outdoor diners.
Subsequently, Oregon requested that its petition for a variance from the required number of parking spaces be dismissed as it wished to expand the then-existing parking lot. It further proposed that the surface of the expanded parking lot be of "crushed stone or other permeable surface" so as to match the existing parking area. The Deputy Zoning Commissioner granted this request in an amended order issued on July 27, 1994.
Oregon and various community organizations appealed the orders of the Deputy Zoning Commissioner to the Baltimore County Board of Appeals. While that appeal was pending, one of the community organizations, the Valleys Planning Council, and Oregon entered into a restrictive covenant agreement (the "Covenant") to resolve the community's concerns.8 In exchange for the community's support for using the Property for a restaurant, Oregon agreed, among other things, that:
In November 1994, Oregon and the County, in its capacity as landlord, executed a Supplemental Lease Agreement amending and extending the 1985 lease. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial