balcoresponse

8/9/2019 balcoresponse

1/8


2/8

5. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 5 except the

statement the unconstitutional provisions of [Baltimore Countys] zoning

regulations, which Defendant asserts are not unconstitutional.

6. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 6.


JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 8.


PARTIES

10. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in paragraph 10.


FACTS

12. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 12, however,

as previously stated, Defendant has not enforced Baltimore County Zoning

Regulation (BCZR) 450.7.F since entry of this Courts Order on July 20, 2007,

and therefore Defendant denies BCZR 450.7.F is at issue in this matter.




-2-

Case 1:10-cv-01349-CCB Document 9 Filed 06/17/10 Page 2 of 8


3/8


17. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 17, however,

BCZR 450.7.F is no longer enforced.


19. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 19 to the

extent that BCZR 450.7.F remains published by Baltimore County in the official

version of the Baltimore County Zoning Ordinances. However, Defendant denies

Baltimore County Code Enforcement Inspectors continue to enforce BCZR

450.7.F. The Code Inspection and Enforcement Correction Notice (the

Correction Notice) attached to Plaintiffs Verified Complaint as Exhibit D

erroneously cited BCZR 450.7.F. The text of the Correction Notice states,

Ehrlich sign in front yard too large. Sign cannot be 8 sq[uare] f[ee]t. Please

remove or replace with appropriate size. This statement was clearly meant to

refer to BCZR 450.4.14, not BCZR 450.7.F. Additionally, Defendant denies

disregarding District Court Judge Catherine C. Blakes ruling that BCZR 450.7.F

is unconstitutional. Though BCZR 450.7.F has not been repealed, Defendant

does not enforce this zoning regulation.




-3-



4/8







25. Defendant admits, in part, the allegations contained in the first

sentence of paragraph 25. However, as stated above, citing BCZR 450.7.F was a

mistake. Defendant objects to Plaintiff misrepresenting the Plaintiffs Correction

Notice as a Citation. As the title of the County notice clearly indicates, a Code

Inspections and Enforcement Correction Notice is not a Citation. See Ex. D of

Plaintiffs Verified Complaint. Moreover, Title 6, 3-6-203 and 3-6-205 of the

Baltimore County Code, 2003, make clear the difference between a correction

notice and a citation.


Defendant denies thatEx. D is a citation.


Defendant denies thatEx. D is a citation.

-4-



5/8


Defendant asserts that BCZR 450.4.14 is the zoning regulation that should have

been cited in the Correction Notice.













COUNT I

38. Defendant incorporates its Answers to Paragraphs 1-37 as if fully

stated herein.

-5-



6/8

39. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 39 asserting

that BCZR 450.7.F is unconstitutional for the reasons previously presented to this

Court by the Defendant in Bell v. Baltimore County, Maryland. However,

Defendant has complied with this Courts Order by not enforcing BCZR 450.7.F.






COUNT II

45. Defendant incorporates its Answers to Paragraphs 1-44 as if fully

stated herein.






51. Further answering the Plaintiffs Verified Complaint, Defendant

denies Plaintiff is entitled any relief sought in the WHEREFORE clauses appearing

below Count I and Count II.

-6-



7/8

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

52. Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

53. Waiver.

54. Statute of Limitations.

55. Estoppel.

56. Laches.

57. Privilege.

58. Qualified Immunity.

59. Public Official Immunity.

60. Governmental Immunity.

61. The Baltimore County Zoning Regulations governing signs are

reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.

62. The Baltimore County Zoning Regulations governing signs are not

content-based restrictions, are narrowly tailored, and leave open ample alternative

means of communication.

63. Defendant has not enforced Baltimore County Zoning Regulation

450.7.F since entry of this Courts Order on July 20, 2007 in Bell v. Baltimore

County, Maryland.

-7-



8/8

64. Defendant reserves the right to raise such additional defenses as may

become apparent as a result of further investigation of the Plaintiffs claims and

discovery in this action.

John E. Beverungen,

County Attorney

/s/

_____________________________

James J. Nolan, Jr., Bar No. 1865

Assistant County Attorney

Baltimore County Office of Law

400 Washington AvenueTowson, Maryland 21204

(410) 887-2654

Attorneys for Defendant

Electronically filed: June 17, 2010

-8-


Documents

balcoresponse