Opinion: Maryland Court of Appeals on SPAW vs Annapolis

From City of Annapolis: The highest court in Maryland supports the City of Annapolis administrative process which requires approval before starting any alteration to the exterior of a building in the historic district.

This decision comes in the wake of an ongoing disagreement between the owner of a Maryland Avenue property and the City of Annapolis. The owner, SPAW LLC, replaced wood windows with vinyl windows without a Certificate of Approval (COA) from the Historic Preservation Commission, beginning almost five years of litigation after the City cited SPAW, LCC for municipal infractions.

“This was not about denying an owner of a property in the historic district the right to perform exterior building changes, but rather about compliance with the law of the City Code, which requires an application for a COA prior to doing exterior building work and a public hearing on the application,” Assistant City Attorney Gary Elson said. “SPAW unnecessarily exhausted City of Annapolis staff in an effort to avoid an administrative process clearly set forth in the City Code. With the recent Court of Appeals opinion, SPAW must still apply for a COA.”

Elson represented the city throughout the litigation. The chronology of the litigation, along with the opinion of the Court of Appeals, is as follows:

• August 19 1977: 2 Maryland Ave purchased by Ronald Hollander
• February 2 2007: Property transferred to Rochelle Hollander
• February 2007: SPAW LLC formed
• September 12 2007: 2 MD Ave conveyed to SPAW LLC
• March 30 2012: City inspector notes vinyl windows during inspection and notifies Historic Preservation Division
• December 12 2012: City issues 2 citations to SPAW LLC, one for replacement of wood windows with vinyl windows without a COA and one for removal and replacement of windows without a COA
• May 7 2013: Trial held in District Court of Maryland; Court finds in favor of the City and orders SPAW to file for a COA
• July 23 2013: District Court denies motion to amend or alter judgment
• December 17 2014: Bench trial in Circuit Court commences based on de novo appeal by SPAW
• March 5 2015: Trial scheduled to continue, postponed to May 28 2015 and again to September 15 2015
• September 11 2015: SPAW files supplemental answers to interrogatories admitting 9-10 wood windows were replaced with vinyl windows in or around 2010.
• September 15 2015: Court awards summary judgment to City and orders SPAW to file for a COA
• Subsequently SPAW moved for new trial or amended order; Circuit Court denies the motion; SPAW files a petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals, which is granted.
• September 8 2016: Arguments before Court of Appeals
• March 27 2017: Opinion Reported

“This not only concludes this case, but sets the standard for others who attempt to avoid the City Code process, requiring an application to the Historic Preservation Commission and approval before altering the exterior of a building in the Historic district,” Elson added.

Image via Shutterstock