Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND SOUTHERN DIVISION ELIZABETH A. REEVES, et al., Plaintiff, Civil Action No. AW-02-2449 vs. ST. MARY'S COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Elizabeth A. Reeves ("Plaintiff") filed a second suit in this Court against St. Mary's County Commissioners, the St. Mary's County Board of Appeals, and numerous individual defendants (collectively, "Defendants") alleging a "Taking" under the Fifth Amendment, violations of Plaintiff's Due Process rights, and an unreasonable restraint of trade under the Sherman Act. By stipulation of both parties, the Sherman Act claim was dismissed leaving only the constitutional claims remaining.1 Currently pending before the Court is the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants [Paper No. 41] and Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment [Paper No. 45]. The motion has been fully briefed by both parties. No hearing is deemed necessary. See D. Md. R. 105.6.2 Upon consideration of the arguments made in support of, and opposition to, the cross-

Plaintiff repeatedly states in filings with the Court that the Court has denied her a "contractual" right to amend her Complaint to assert new charges against the Defendants. She bases this claim on the stipulation of dismissal. The stipulation of dismissal could not have been clearer, however, that Plaintiff was to amend her Complaint to reflect the fact that her Sherman Act claim was dismissed. Instead, she attempted to file an Amended Complaint containing numerous other legal theories and allegations. The Court was as a result forced to reject her motion to amend the Complaint. Plaintiff's has made numerous requests for an "evidentiary" hearing on the motions for summary judgment. First, any hearing would only address the legal arguments briefed fully in the cross-motions; it would not be a chance for either party to bring witnesses or to present evidence. Second, the Court fails to see how any hearing would be helpful in determining the disposition of the cross-motions, especially in light of the broad evidentiary record from which the Court can make its ruling.
2

1

motions, the Court makes the following determinations. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The following underlying and procedural facts are not in dispute. The core of the litigation revolves around a denial by the Board of Appeals for St. Mary's County ("Board") of Plaintiff's application for a conditional use permit to construct an Alzheimer's facility on her land. Plaintiff wished to construct an Alzheimer's facility on land she owned in St. Mary's County ("County"). She proposed a 100-bed care facility three stories in height and 60,000 square-feet in area, not including the area to be distributed for parking. The proposal was for a conditional use in the Rural Preservation District. A public hearing was held regarding Plaintiff's application, at which witnesses testified for and against the proposal. The Board of Appeals by written Order and Decision dated July 23, 1999 held that the proposal did not meet the majority of Standards General and that Plaintiff was not entitled to a conditional use permit. On August 20, 1999, Plaintiff filed a petition for judicial review of the denial with the Circuit Court for St. Mary's County. While that appeal was pending, Plaintiff filed another proposal for an "Assisted Living Village". In a letter to Plaintiff, a county employee informed her, inter alia, of a zoning ordinance which stated that no application for development could be re-submitted after a previous Board rejection for two years, unless the new application was substantially different than the first. While the "new" proposal was pending, Plaintiff filed a complaint of discrimination with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") alleging that the Board had discriminated against her in denying the conditional use application. The complaint alleged discrimination on the basis of "race and handicap" against the Board, the Office of Planning and 2

Zoning, and each member of the Board. Meanwhile, the Circuit Court affirmed the denial of the original application on April 27, 2000. Plaintiff appealed that decision to the Court of Special Appeals. On June 2, 2002, Plaintiff's engineer sent a "revised" concept plan for the second application. On July 21, 2001, Plaintiff filed for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy. The County's Director of Planning and Zoning informed Plaintiff's engineer that the "new" application would required a public hearing. The hearing was scheduled for December 14, 2000. By letter dated November 27, 2000, the County Attorney informed Plaintiff that there were concerns as to whether a quorum of the Board would exist at the public hearing to hear her "new" application. The concerns were based on the fact that Board members might feel compelled to recuse themselves considering there was a pending complaint of race discrimination logged against all of them. The County Attorney recommended to Plaintiff that she proceed directly to the Circuit Court, stating that he would recommend that the question of her application be certified directly. The property was sold at a foreclosure sale on February 28, 2001. In light of the foreclosure sale, the issue of Plaintiff's second application was tabled. In an unpublished decision by Chief Judge Murphy for the Court of Special Appeals, the Court affirmed the Board's denial of Plaintiff's application. The Court noted the Board's original reasons for denying the application which included, inter alia, the detrimental effect the proposal could have on the public safety and the disruptive impact it would have on the local community. Although applying a deferential standard, the Court agreed with Circuit Court's findings that Plaintiff "was not entitled to a conditional use permit to construct the proposed facility." The Court held that the "evidence presented to the Board was sufficient to support a finding that appellant did not satisfy the statutory requirements for this 3

permit." Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider, which was denied. The Maryland Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, respectively, denied certiorari. Plaintiff's first suit against Defendants in this Court ("Reeves I") was filed on July 20, 2001, with Plaintiff amending her Complaint on July 23, 2001.3 In the Complaint, Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act and violations of Plaintiffs' civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C.

Download Reeves v. St. Mary's County Commissioners, et al..pdf

Maryland Law