Mastandrea v. North

John Mastandrea and his wife (defendants) owned land with frontage on Glebe Creek in Talbot, Maryland. The Mastandreas had constructed many amenities on their property, including a pier. The Mastandreas’ daughter, Leah, was confined to a wheelchair, so they constructed a brick-in-cement path that connected their house to the pier so that she could access the pier. The Talbot County Zoning Ordinance, which governed variances for properties within the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area, provided that any new roads, structures, or surfaces located within 100 feet of the shore of Glebe Creek required a variance. The Mastandreas’ brick path was located within 100 feet of the shore of Glebe Creek. The Mastandreas did not acquire the required building permit for the path, and authorities discovered the unauthorized path. Subsequently, the Mastandreas filed a variance application with the board to remedy the incompliance. The Mastandreas claimed that the variance should be granted as a reasonable accommodation for Leah’s disability so that she could access the pier. The Mastandreas also presented evidence that they mitigated environmental damages and took efforts to preserve the coast. The Critical Area Commission (the commission) (plaintiff) opposed the application. The board voted to grant legitimizing variances for the existing pathways from the Mastandreas’ house to the pier. The board concluded that the paths provided reasonable access to the waterfront for handicapped persons and were reasonable accommodations for Leah’s disability. The commission sought judicial review of the board’s decision in circuit court. The Mastandreas argued that the board’s grant of the variance was not only appropriate but required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The circuit court found for the commission and concluded that the ADA is limited to places of public accommodation and does not apply to local land-use regulatory actions. The Mastandreas appealed.