Quinn v. Board of County Commissioners for Queen Anne's County
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12182
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Kevin Quinn bought over 200 small, undeveloped lots on South Kent Island, Maryland; many lots cannot support septic systems and thus depend on sewer service for development.
- Queen Anne’s County planned a sewer extension to address failing septic systems and obtain state funding, but state funding rules and overdevelopment concerns constrained which lots could be served.
- County’s plan: extend sewer lines to streets with failing septic systems (serving developed and abutting vacant lots), exclude streets that contain only vacant lots, and prohibit later connections outside the initial service area.
- County also adopted a 2014 Grandfather/Merger Provision requiring undersized contiguous lots under common ownership to be merged before receiving building permits (isolated undersized lots could still be built upon).
- Quinn sued the County and the Maryland Department of the Environment claiming (1) a regulatory taking under the Fifth Amendment, (2) violations of substantive due process, and (3) an equal protection violation; the district court dismissed/entered summary judgment for defendants, and Quinn appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Regulatory taking—denial of sewer service | Quinn contends County’s selective provision of sewer service to some lots and not others effectuates a taking by depriving him of use/value of excluded lots | County argues Quinn had no preexisting property right to sewer service; failure to extend service is not a compensable taking | No taking; plaintiff had no entitlement to sewer service and bought land without it, so no compensable property interest existed |
| Regulatory taking—Grandfather/Merger Provision (Lucas claim) | Quinn argues the merger rule deprives him of all economically beneficial use of his lots (per se taking) | County says the rule is a routine zoning tool that preserves open space and controls density; lots (or merged parcels) retain economically beneficial use | No per se taking; merged lots remain developable and provision is a common density-control regulation |
| Regulatory taking—Grandfather/Merger Provision (Penn Central) | Quinn claims Penn Central factors (economic impact; investment-backed expectations; character of government action) yield a taking | County argues economic harm is limited, Quinn’s expectations were speculative (dependent on sewer), and rule is a legitimate public program controlling density | No taking under Penn Central; factors favor government (limited economic loss, speculative expectations, traditional zoning purpose) |
| Due process and equal protection | Quinn contends both the sewer plan and merger provision are arbitrary, irrational, and deny property without adequate process or equal treatment | County/State assert actions are rationally related to legitimate interests (public health, environment, securing state funding, preventing overdevelopment) and Quinn lacks a protected entitlement to sewer service | Claims fail: no substantive due process violation (actions rationally related to police power), and no equal protection violation (rational basis for differential treatment) |
Key Cases Cited
- Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005) (takings inquiry distinguishes regulatory limits from government appropriation)
- Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) (multi-factor test for regulatory takings)
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992) (per se taking when regulation denies all economically beneficial use)
- Murr v. Wisconsin, 137 S. Ct. 1933 (2017) (upholding merger/grandfather provisions and treating contiguous lots as a single parcel for takings analysis)
- Front Royal & Warren Cty. Indus. Park Corp. v. Town of Front Royal, 135 F.3d 275 (4th Cir. 1998) (no taking where purchaser bought land without sewer entitlement)
- Henry v. Jefferson Cty. Comm’n, 637 F.3d 269 (4th Cir. 2011) (zoning density controls typically not takings and relate to legitimate public programs)
- Neifert v. Dep’t of Envir., 910 A.2d 1100 (Md. 2006) (Maryland does not create a property right in access to sewer service)