Richard Roeser Professional Builder, Inc. v. Anne Arundel County
Maryland Court of Appeals
368 Md. 294, 793 A.2d 545 (2002)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
Facts
Richard Roeser Professional Builder, Inc. (Roeser) (plaintiff) purchased two lots in Anne Arundel County (the county) (defendant) on which Roeser sought to build a house. One of the two lots was located adjacent to wetlands in a critical area buffer zone, and there were setback requirements in place. In order to build the intended-size house, Roeser had to apply for variances from the critical area and zoning provisions from the county that imposed the setback requirements. Roeser submitted applications for the variances but was denied by the zoning board. The board found that the conditions surrounding Roeser’s request were self-created because Roeser should have known of the setback requirements before purchasing the property. Roeser brought suit in circuit court contesting the decision of the board. The circuit court found in favor of Roeser that Roeser’s hardship was not self-created and was a result of the natural topography and placement of the property. The county appealed. The court of special appeals reversed the circuit court and found that Roeser was not entitled to a variance because it purchased the property intending to apply for a variance from the restrictions imposed by the ordinance and that did not constitute a hardship that would entitle him to relief. Roeser appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cathell, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
