Clayland Farm Enterprises, LLC v. Talbot County, Maryland et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge J. Frederick Motz on 4/30/2015. (bmhs, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

CLAYLAND FARM ENTERPRISES, LLC

*
*
*
v.
*
*
TALBOT COUNTY, MARYLAND, ET AL. *
******

Civil No. – JFM-14-3412

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff has filed this action alleging various constitutional violations stemming from the
enactment of an ordinance which substantially reduced the number of sewer permits that can be
issued to plaintiff’s property located in Royal Oak, Talbot County, Maryland. The action was
removed to this court.
Defendants have filed motions to dismiss. The action will be dismissed on the ground
that the issues raised by plaintiff are not yet ripe for adjudication. It is beyond the province and
competence of this court to make zoning decisions. Rather, the role of the court is mainly to
assure that the body making such decisions has acted constitutionally. The record does not
suggest that the Talbot County Council has yet denied any of plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
Plaintiff’s concern about the substantial reduction in sewer permits that it might obtain is
entirely understandable. It appears, however, that the Talbot County Council was required to
take the action it did so that it could properly consider changes in the environmental conditions
in the area where plaintiff’s property is located, as well as changes in Maryland state law. The
county council apparently has not yet reached any final decision but will do so by the end of this
year when it enacts a 2015 comprehensive plan in accordance with Maryland law.

1

Against this background, it would be premature for a federal court in Baltimore to second
guess decisions that are properly made in the first instance by the Talbot County Council, in
accordance with state law. Of course, if defendants make decisions that improperly have an
adverse effect upon plaintiff’s property rights, judicial review of the Council’s decision would be
appropriate.1

Date: April 30, 2015

_/s/_________________________
J. Frederick Motz
United States District Judge

1

As stated above, this action was removed to this court by defendants. It appears, however, that
the only claims asserted by plaintiff are federal ones. Ultimately, if plaintiff feels aggrieved by
any action by the Council, it might well be appropriate for plaintiff to seek review of the
Council’s decision under state, as well as federal, law.
2