Trip v. Baltimore
Decision Date | 09 May 2006 |
Docket Number | No. 58, September Term, 2003.,58, September Term, 2003. |
Citation | 392 Md. 563,898 A.2d 449 |
Parties | TRIP ASSOCIATES, INC. et al. v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE. |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
John A. Austin, Towson, for Petitioners.
Sandra R. Gutman, Chief Sol. (Thurman W. Zollicoffer, Jr., City Sol., on brief), Baltimore, for Respondent.
Argued before BELL, C.J., RAKER, WILNER, CATHELL, HARRELL, BATTAGLIA and JOHN C. ELDRIDGE, (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.
The question this case presents is whether the Board of Municipal and Zoning Appeals ("the Board") erred when it restricted the number of days per week the appellants could operate a valid nonconforming use. The appellants' property, located in the B-5-1 Zoning District in Baltimore City, is being used for the operation of "Club Choices," a nightclub and after-hours establishment that sometimes features adult entertainment. The Club is owned by the appellant, Anthony Dwight Triplin ("Triplin"), who also is the owner of Triplin Associates, Inc. ("Trip"), the other appellant.
Triplin purchased 1815-17 North Charles Street, the property at issue, in 1983. Prior to his purchase, the property had been a nightclub featuring adult entertainment, including male and female exotic dancing. The adult entertainment had been presented up to five nights a week since 1979. When Triplin purchased the property, the applicable zoning ordinance did not prohibit the use of the property as an adult entertainment facility. Nevertheless, Triplin reduced the number of nights of nude or exotic dancing from five to two nights per week, featuring music and comedy on the other nights. The Board approved his use of the premise as an "after hours establishment" in 1992.1 With this approval, the adult entertainment was presented after hours, exclusively.
On December 15, 1994, Ordinance No. 443 was enacted. That ordinance, codified at Baltimore City Code, Art. 30, § 8.0-61, regulated adult entertainment businesses, "where persons appear in a state of total or partial nudity."2 It also provided that "[a]ny adult entertainment business existing on September 10, 1993 is considered a nonconforming use, subject to all Class III regulations."3 Baltimore City Zoning Code § 13-609. After this Ordinance was passed, Triplin continued to use the facility as a club that provided adult entertainment after hours. That use was unchallenged until April 14, 2000, when a Baltimore City zoning inspector issued a "Code Violation Notice and Order" to the Club. The violation notice charged:
Triplin appealed to the Board. On appeal, Triplin testified that Club Choices featured exotic dancing and adult entertainment two times a week, Wednesdays and Fridays, for two hours each night. That testimony was confirmed by employees, who offered further that such dancing with partial nudity has been presented two nights per week since 1983.
The Board ruled:
Board of Municipal and Zoning Appeals, Appeal No. 327-00X, October 12, 2000. Thus, the Board, despite finding that Club Choices was a valid nonconforming use, limited that use, based on the testimony, to two nights per week.
Triplin petitioned the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for judicial review of the Board's decision. That court affirmed the Board's decision and, in addition, ruled that Triplin needed to "apply for and obtain all necessary and relevant licenses required by the City for the operation of an adult entertainment business." Upholding the Board's power to impose the two night per week restriction, it reasoned5:
Triplin noted an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals, Trip Assoc. Inc. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 151 Md.App. 167, 824 A.2d 977 (2003), in which he challenged the Board's power temporally to restrict the nonconforming use and the ruling by the Circuit Court that he obtain an adult entertainment license in order to avoid abandonment of the nonconforming use. The intermediate appellate court agreed with Triplin that the Circuit Court erred in ordering Triplin to obtain an adult entertainment license. It affirmed the judgment, however, insofar as the Board's power to restrict the nonconforming use was concerned, concluding that the restriction placed on Club Choices was neither plain error, 151 Md.App. at 175, 824 A.2d at 982, nor unconstitutional. 151 Md.App. at 177, 824 A.2d at 983. Focusing on § 13-406,6 which prohibits the expansion, "in any manner," of a Class III nonconforming use, 151 Md.App. at 175, 824 A.2d at 982, the Court of Special Appeals interpreted that provision as permitting the Board, because it had been presented with evidence of precisely how the property was being used—adult-entertainment twice a week—when the zoning ordinance prohibiting that use was enacted, to define the future further use in exactly the same way, as permitting "Triplin to continue to do what he had done since he acquired the club in 1983," 151 Md.App. at 176-177, 824 A.2d at 982-983, and no more.7
Underlying the Court of Special Appeals' decision was Maryland's well-established policy against the expansion of nonconforming uses. 151 Md.App. at 176, 824 A.2d at 982, citing County Council v. Gardner, Inc., 293 Md. 259, 268, 443 A.2d 114, 119 (1982). The intermediate appellate court also relied on out-of-state cases, in which temporal restrictions placed on the continued use of valid nonconforming uses were upheld as consistent with the policy against the expansion of such uses, on the theory that, without them, the nonconforming use would be expanded. Garb-Ko v. Carrollton Township, 86 Mich.App. 350, 272 N.W.2d 654 (1978) ( ); Incorporated Village v. 280 Hillside Ave. Rest. Corp., 55 A.D.2d 927, 390 N.Y.S.2d 637 (1977) ( ); Time-Low Corp. v. City of LaPorte Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 547 N.E.2d 877 (Ind.Ct.App.1989) ( ); Cornell Uniforms, Inc. v. Township of Abington, 8 Pa.Cmwlth. 317, 301 A.2d 113 (1973) ( ).
The Court of Special Appeals addressed an issue which it perceived not to have been raised by either party, that of whether the offering of adult-entertainment for more than two nights per week constituted an "intensification" of the nonconforming use, rather than an expansion of that use. Acknowledging that our decisions in Jahnigen v. Staley, 245 Md. 130, 225 A.2d 277 (1967) ( ), Feldstein v. LaVale Zoning Board, 246 Md. 204, 227 A.2d 731 (1967) ( ), and Nyburg v. Solmson, 205 Md. 150, 106 A.2d 483 (1954) ( ) recognized a distinction between the more intensive use of property and the expansion of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Auditorium v. Prince George's Cnty.
...over a reasonable period of time, and by ‘abandonment,’ i.e. non-use for a specific [ ] time.” Trip Assocs., Inc. v. Mayor and City Council of Balt., 392 Md. 563, 575, 898 A.2d 449 (2006). “True amortization provisions almost if not universally call for a termination of non-conforming uses ......
-
Cnty. Council of Prince George's Cnty. v. Zimmer Dev. Co.
...omitted) (footnotes omitted).16 We summarized Maryland's non-conforming uses jurisprudence in Trip Associates, Inc. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 392 Md. 563, 898 A.2d 449 (2006). A property owner establishes a non-conforming use if the property owner can demonstrate to the relevant......
-
Sizemore v. Town of Chesapeake Beach
...abandoned apply with equal force to vested rights to continue construction where there has been a zoning change.In Trip Associates, Inc. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, the Court of Appeals stated that "[a] valid and lawful nonconforming use is established if a property owner can demo......
-
Cnty. Council of Prince George's Cnty. v. Zimmer Dev. Co.
...omitted) (footnotes omitted). 16. We summarized Maryland's non-conforming uses jurisprudence in Trip Associates, Inc. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 392 Md. 563, 898 A.2d 455 (2006). A property owner establishes a non-conforming use if the property owner can demonstrate to the releva......