The Baltimore Street Parking Company brought two actions against the Baltimore City Commission for Historic and Architectural Preservation and the City, seeking judicial review and declaratory judgment. The plaintiff alleged that their due process rights were violate since the City failed to provide them with notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before placing their structure on a historical list.
The Appeals Court first addressed the plaintiff’s due process claim, which had three sub-claims: that there was no meaningful notice as per the March 11th, 2008 meeting, that the historical list indefinitely burdens the property, and that the specific historic designation is inconsistent with the Urban Renewal Plan, as it was not listed there-in as one of the Notable Properties.
First addressing the notice claim, the court stated that the statute requires ten days notice, and the defendants satisfied that requirement. There were multiple hearing and postponements, but the initial notice of the proceedings was given on December 16, 2007, and the hearing upon which the determination was made was conducted on March 11, 2008 (which notice was again given on February 28, 2008). During the interim, plaintiff requested that an agreement be made, through sending an informal agreement to the interested parties, but there after was given notice on February 28th, 2008 of a hearing on March 11, 2008, impliedly indicating the informal agreement would not be accepted. Also, concerning the hearing, the plaintiff had four representatives at the hearing, and none of them proffered evidence showing they received no such notice. Furthermore, plaintiff could produce no evidence to substantiate their claim that there was an agreement between the parties that no hearings concerning the designation would occur while there were ongoing negotiations.
The court then addressed the plaintiff’s second claim regarding the indefinite burden imposed though the specific designation on the property. The plaintiff’s allegation arose because the statute requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to send a permit application, after they receive it, to the defendant for authorization before a permit may be granted by the Department. If the defendant chooses to deny the permit, they can instruct the Department to postpone issuance of the permit for up to six months. The court concluded this does not amount to an indefinite burden with limitless discretion vested in the defendant, as they must have a hearing, give notice to those involved, can delay issuance for only six months, and further, the statute provides for the input of the structure’s owner.
Lastly the court addressed the plaintiff’s allegation that the designation was inconsistent with the enabling act and the Urban Renewal Plan. The plaintiff contended that the specific designation given to their property was not authorized by the enabling legislation and that the specific designation is inconsistent with the Urban Renewal Plan as the property is not listened as one of the Plan’s Notable Properties. The court stated that the Maryland statute allows Baltimore to enact landmark zoning and protection legislation. The local legislation conform to that statute, in that it was created for historic preservation, and included that important sites may be given second protections. The court determined that the specific designation bestowed upon the plaintiff’s property was within the local and state legislative purpose, and thus was encompassed by the state law. Also, the court found there was no inconsistency between the special designation and the Urban Renewal Plan as they share the same goal, but the special designation is just more limited and use for a shorter period of time.
Baltimore Street Parking Co. v Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 2010 Md. App. LEXIS 132 (Ct. of Spec. App. Md. 9/15/2010).
The opinion can be accessed at: http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/cosa/2010/279s09.pdf
