197 A.3d 546
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2018Background
- In May 2014 Baltimore County amended its Zoning Regulations to define “Hookah Lounge” and to require such establishments to operate only between 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight.
- Towson Nights (operator) and its landlord challenged the ordinance after it effectively reduced their late-night hours (previously open until 2:00–3:00 a.m.), claiming economic harm and seeking a longer amortization period.
- Appellants argued the County acted ultra vires by placing time restrictions in zoning, that the midnight closure violated substantive due process, and that singling out hookah lounges violated equal protection.
- Administrative and county appellate tribunals upheld the ordinance; the Circuit Court for Baltimore County affirmed, and Appellants appealed to the Court of Special Appeals.
- The County’s legislative record cited police service calls/arrests tied to hookah lounges and public-health studies showing elevated particulate matter and carbon monoxide in hookah venues as rational bases for the restriction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether placing hour limits in zoning was ultra vires | Baddock: time restriction is a zoning regulation and County exceeded authority | County: restriction is an exercise of police power (public health/safety), not a zoning prohibition | Court: not ultra vires; restriction is police-power regulation regardless of location in zoning text |
| Whether midnight closure violates substantive due process | Baddock: irrational/arbitrary economic regulation; harms business and not tied to legitimate ends | County: rationally related to public safety and health (crime, smoke exposure) | Court: passes rational-basis review; legitimate health/safety grounds supported restriction |
| Whether the restriction required amortization for nonconforming use | Baddock: midnight closure effectively prohibits lawful late-night use, so amortization needed | County: does not prohibit use as a hookah lounge, only limits hours | Court: amortization inapplicable because use remains lawful; only hours limited |
| Whether singling out hookah lounges violates equal protection | Baddock: ordinance arbitrarily treats hookah lounges differently from similar late-night businesses | County: classification is rationally related to legitimate interests (unique safety/health risks) | Court: no equal protection violation under rational-basis review; distinction reasonable and not suspect |
Key Cases Cited
- Piscatelli v. Bd. of Liquor License Comm’rs, 378 Md. 623 (2003) (legislative time restrictions can be police-power regulations, not zoning)
- United States v. Carolene Prods. Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938) (formulation of rational-basis review for economic regulation)
- Tyler v. City of College Park, 415 Md. 475 (2010) (police-power enactments must bear real and substantial relation to public health, morals, safety, welfare)
- DRD Pool Serv., Inc. v. Freed, 416 Md. 46 (2010) (presumption of constitutionality and deferential rational-basis review)
- Frey v. Comptroller of Treasury, 422 Md. 111 (2011) (courts should not second-guess legislative commercial classifications under rational basis)
- Lonaconing Trap Club, Inc. v. Md. Dep’t of Env’t, 410 Md. 326 (2009) (underinclusiveness does not defeat rational-basis equal protection review)
- City of New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297 (1976) (presumption of constitutionality for commercial classifications)
- Montgomery Citizens League v. Greenhalgh, 253 Md. 151 (1969) (charter counties derive express legislative powers from the General Assembly)