Adams Hous., LLC v. City of Salisbury, Civil No. JFM-15-1011

147 F.Supp.3d 390

Adams Housing, LLC

v.The City of Salisbury, Maryland.

Civil No. JFM-15-1011

United States District Court, D. Maryland.

Signed November 30, 2015

Luke A Rommel, Otway Russo and Rommel P.C., Salisbury, MD, for Adams Housing, LLC.

Victoria M. Shearer, Karpinski Colaresi and Karp PA, Baltimore, MD, for The City of Salisbury, Maryland.

MEMORANDUM

J. Frederick Motz, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Adams Housing, LLC (“Adams Housing”) brings suit against the City of Salisbury (“Salisbury”) seeking to invalidate a city zoning ordinance and alleging tortious interference with contract. The case is ripe for declaratory judgment.¹ For the reasons set forth below, I find the city zoning ordinance unconstitutionally vague as-applied to Adams Housing.

BACKGROUND

The instant dispute originates in the city of Salisbury, Maryland. Adams Housing, a limited liability corporation headquartered in Salisbury, owns a variety of rental properties there. (ECF No. 1, ¶ 6). The current suit concerns an Adams Housing rental property located at 418 W. College Avenue, Salisbury (“the Property”), which Adams Housing describes as “a 1.5 story, 2-bathroom, detached, 1,615 square foot house, with a finished basement.” Id. ¶ 7. The Property falls within the boundaries of Salisbury District R-10 (“R-10”), which Salisbury labels a “residence district.” Id. ¶ 10. Dwelling units in R-10 are subject to single-family zoning, which means tenants must be classified as either a “family” or “functional family” to live in R-10 under Salisbury's Municipal Code. Salisbury, Marylaod, Municipal Code §§ 15.24.1610(A)-(B); 15.24.1620.

In December 2002, Salisbury, responding to the overcrowding of residence districts, enacted Occupancy Ordinance. The Occupancy Ordinance restricted the definition of families in R-10 dwelling units to (a) groups of related persons; and (b) “not more than four unrelated individuals.” Id. at ¶ 11. In 2006, Salisbury further narrowed the number of unrelated individuals permitted to quality as a family in a R-10 dwelling unit to a maximum of “two unrelated persons.” Salisbury, Maryland, Municipal Code§ 15.24.1610(A)-(B).

If tenants did not qualify as a family under the new Occupancy Ordinance, owners of properties with pre-existing non-conforming uses could apply to be grandfathered in as permissible non-conforming uses. See Salisbury, Maryland, Municipal Code § 15.24.1610(A). Similarly, a group of four or fewer people could apply to the Salisbury Department of Neighborhood Services and Code Compliance to be considered a “functional family.”² As a result of these regulatory accommodations, Adams Housing alleges that there are more “non-confirming” rental properties on the 400 block of W. College Ave. then there are “conforming” properties. (ECF No. 1, ¶ 13).

In July 2014, Adams Housing signed a renewable one-year lease at the Property with three tenants (“the tenants”)-two brothers and a lifelong friend of the brothers. (ECF No. 1 at ¶ 14). Each tenant occupied his own bedroom in the house. Adams Housing describes the tenants as “good neighbors” and reports the tenants stayed out of trouble. Id.

On September 26, 2014, a Salisbury Code Enforcement Officer issued an “Order to Reduce Occupancy” for the Property. Id. at ¶ 15. The officer cited Adams Housing and the tenants for a violation of the Occupancy Ordinance, Salisbury Municipal Code §§ 15.24.490(l)(a) and 15.24.490(l)(b)(i)(A). Specifically, the officer determined the tenants did not meet the Municipal Code's definition of “family” because there were more than “two unrelated persons” living at the Property. Section 15.24.490(1) provides, in relevant part:

“Family” means and includes, subject to the exceptions stated below:

1. A core consists of one person living alone or one of the following groups living as a single housekeeping unit:

(a) Two or more persons who are related ...

(b) Up to a maximum of four persons who are not so related, hereinafter referred to as “unrelated persons” provided, however that:

(i)(A) Any existing lawful occupancy in any dwelling or dwelling unit, including an apartment, in an R-5, R-8 or R-1 0 district, or in Spring Chase PRD No. I, the maximum shall be two unrelated persons, not including the children of either of them, after December 16, 2002 ....

(emphasis added). The order indicated a failure to comply could result in a municipal infraction citation, and up to a $500 initial fine, which could increase in the future. (ECF No. 1, at ¶ 16).

Following the order, Adams Housing filed an appeal with the Salisbury Housing Board of Adjustments and Appeals (“HBAA”). The HBAA heard the appeal on February 9, 2015. In addition to asking the HBAA to overturn the Code Enforcement Officer's interpretation of more than “two unrelated persons,” Adams Housing also asked the HBAA to determine the tenants were a “functional family” under § 15.24.1620. (ECF No. 1, ¶ 30). The HBAA upheld the Code Enforcement Officer's order and ruled that the tenants did not qualify as a “functional family.” Id. at ¶¶ 17, 30. The HBAA allowed the tenants to remain at the Property until the end of their lease-July 2015. The HBAA formalized its decision in a March 2, 2015 letter to Adams Housing. Id. at ¶ 18.

Exercising its appeal rights under Md. Rule 7–201 and Salisbury Municipal Code § 15.24.450, Adams Housing filed a petition for judicial review of the HBAA's decision in Wicomico County Circuit Court on February 27, 2015. (See generally ECF No. 17, Ex. 7).

Shortly thereafter, on April 8, 2015, Adams Housing filed a complaint in this court seeking declaratory relief and punitive damages. (See generally ECF No. 1). Adams Housing brings four claims: (1) the Occupancy Ordinance is facially unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution; (2) the Occupancy Ordinance is unconstitutional as-applied to Adams Housing under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution and the Maryland Declaration of Rights;³ (3) the Occupancy Ordinance is unconstitutionally vague; and (4) Salisbury's conduct constituted tortious interference with contract. Id. For the first three counts, Adams Housing seeks declaratory judgment. Id. at ¶¶ 20, 32, 39. For the last, it seeks punitive damages. Id. at ¶ 45.

On May 26, 2015, Adams Housing filed an unopposed motion to stay state court proceedings while federal court proceedings continued. (ECF No. 17, Ex. 6, p. 2). The state court granted the motion. In federal court, on June 18,2015, Salisbury filed a motion to dismiss all claims in the complaint, to which Adams Housing responded. (ECF Nos. 17, 18). Briefing on the motion concluded when Salisbury filed a reply. (ECF No. 19).

ANALYSIS

I. Facial Due Process and Equal Protection Challenge

The court dismisses Adams Housing's first claim-a facial Due Process and Equal Protection challenge to the Occupancy Ordinance's prohibition on no more than “two unrelated persons” living together in district R-10 single-family dwelling units. Adams Housing fails to state a Due Process or Equal Protection claim because the Occupancy Ordinance comfortably clears the hurdle of rational basis scrutiny.

Facial challenges are “the most difficult challenge[s] to mount since the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the [legislation] would be valid.” United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987). As the Supreme Court has long held, zoning is an exercise of a local government's traditional police power. Vill. of Euclid. Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 389, 47 S.Ct. 114, 71 L.Ed. 303 (1926). Provided a zoning ordinance does not “trammel [ ] fundamental personal rights” or “draw[ ] upon inherently suspect distinctions such as race, religion, or alienage,” the court must employ rational basis review in answering a facial Equal Protection or Due Process challenge. City of New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297, 303, 96 S.Ct. 2513, 49 L.Ed.2d 511 (1976). There is no allegation here that Salisbury's Occupancy Ordinance implicates any fundamental personal rights or draws any inherently suspect distinctions. Accordingly, for both its facial Due Process and Equal Protection challenge, Adams Housing must show the Occupancy Ordinance fails rational basis review.

Under the rational basis standard, the Occupancy Ordinance is presumed constitutional and must be upheld against an Equal Protection or Due Process challenge if there “is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification.” F. C. C. v. Beach Commc'ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313, 113 S.Ct. 2096, 124 L.Ed.2d 211 (1993) (quoting Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts Co., 410 U.S. 356, 364, 93 S.Ct. 1001, 35 L.Ed.2d 351 (1973) ) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Vill. of Belle Terre v. Bora as, 416 U.S. 1, 4, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974). The ordinance fails only if it “has no foundation in reason and is a mere arbitrary or irrational exercise of power having no substantial relation to the public health, the public morals, the public safety or the public welfare in its proper sense.” MLC Auto., LLC v. Town of S. Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 281 (4th Cir.2008) (quoting Nectow v. City of Cambridge, 277 U.S. 183, 187, 48 S.Ct. 447, 72 L.Ed. 842 (1928) ). To defeat a statute through rational basis review, its opponent must “negate every conceivable basis that might support it.” Beach Commc'ns, Inc., 508 U.S. at 313, 113 S.Ct. 2096.

In the present case, it is undisputed Salisbury has proffered at least one stated basis for the Occupancy Ordinance's enactment: reducing overcrowding in R-10 and other residence districts. (Compare ECF No. 1, 22 with ECF No. 17, p. 17). The question becomes whether over-occupancy is a legitimate basis rationally justifying the Occupancy Ordinance. Adams Housing argues there is “no correlation or rational relation between overcrowding and the requirement that no more than two...