Quinn v. Board of County Commissioners for Queen Anne's County
124 F. Supp. 3d 586
D. Maryland2015Background
- Queen Anne’s County (the County) sought to extend sewer service to South Kent Island to address widespread failing septic systems and public-health/environmental risks; funding depended on Maryland’s Bay Restoration Fund with PFA limitations.
- 2014 state amendment allowed funding outside PFAs if (1) SGCC approved a PFA exception and (2) funding agreements denied future connections outside the project Service Area; the County’s funding agreement included such a Denied-Access Provision.
- The County revised its Water and Sewer Plan to exclude large blocks of vacant contiguous lots and adopted Ordinance No. 13-24 (Grandfather/Merger) requiring unimproved contiguous lots under common ownership to merge to meet a 20,000 sq ft minimum, reducing eligible vacant lots from ~1,600 to ~632.
- Plaintiff Kevin Quinn bought at least 232 small platted lots (many contiguous) earlier (1984–2002); later changes in percolation rules and the County’s Service Area exclusion left many of his lots ineligible for sewer service and, he alleges, undevelopable.
- Quinn sued claiming (1) Fifth Amendment and Maryland takings, (2) Equal Protection (U.S. and Md.), and (3) Substantive and Procedural Due Process (Counts III and IV against County and MDE); defendants moved to dismiss/for summary judgment.
- The Court treated portions of the motion as for summary judgment (Quinn did not show need for discovery) and granted defendants’ motions, dismissing all federal claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process: Does Quinn have a protected property interest in sewer access? | Quinn: State law (Env. §9-661) entitles abutting parcels to a connector; exclusion is arbitrary and deprives property interests. | County/MDE: Statutes grant broad discretion to define Service Areas; no entitlement to sewer access. | Court: No protected property interest; due process claim fails. |
| Takings (total deprivation): Do the Plan and Grandfather/Merger effect a Lucas taking of all economically viable use? | Quinn: Merging and permanent denial of sewer service eliminate market for individual lots and deprive all economically viable use. | County: Lots remain usable when merged; inherent title limitations and prior percolation rules meant lots relied on septic; regulations serve public health. | Court: No Lucas taking; lots retain viable use as larger parcels and background/state-law limits apply. |
| Takings (regulatory taking under Penn Central): Do regulations violate Penn Central balancing? | Quinn: Economic impact and interference with investment-backed expectations warrant compensation. | County: Measures are reasonable land-use and public-health regulation tailored to funding constraints and Smart Growth law; legitimate public purpose. | Court: Penn Central factors favor the County; no taking as a matter of law. |
| Equal protection: Were Quinn’s properties singled out or irrationally targeted? | Quinn: Service Area boundaries and the merger ordinance disproportionately and intentionally target his contiguous lots. | County: Ordinance and Service Area apply generally; many similarly situated lots excluded; actions rationally related to public health and funding constraints. | Court: Quinn failed to show disparate treatment or lack of rational basis; Equal Protection claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards; legal conclusions not presumed true)
- Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (total regulatory takings doctrine)
- Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (takings analysis and Penn Central framework)
- Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (multi-factor test for regulatory takings)
- First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (regulatory action that effects a taking requires compensation)
- Gardner v. City of Baltimore, 969 F.2d 63 (Roth entitlement standard applied to municipal land-use decisions)
- Neifert v. Department of the Environment, 395 Md. 486 (state-level precedent on sewer-permit denials and taking analysis)