Case 1:10-cv-01349-CCB Document 9 Filed 06/17/10 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

STEPHEN V. KOLBE *

Plaintiff *

v. *
Civil Action No. CCB-10-1349
BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND

*
Defendant
*

**************************************

BALTIMORE COUNTY’S ANSWER TO

PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT

Defendant, Baltimore County, Maryland, by and through its undersigned

counsel, Answers the Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint as follows:

1. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 1.

2. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 2, however,

Defendant has not enforced the zoning regulations described in paragraph 2 since

entry of this Court’s Order, dated July 20, 2007, in Bell v. Baltimore County,

Maryland.

3. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 3.

4. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 4.

 Case 1:10-cv-01349-CCB Document 9 Filed 06/17/10 Page 2 of 8

5. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 5 except the

statement “the unconstitutional provisions of [Baltimore County’s] zoning

regulations”, which Defendant asserts are not unconstitutional.

6. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 6.

7. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 7.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 8.

9. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 9.

PARTIES

10. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in paragraph 10.

11. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 11.

FACTS

12. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 12, however,

as previously stated, Defendant has not enforced Baltimore County Zoning

Regulation (“BCZR”) §450.7.F since entry of this Court’s Order on July 20, 2007,

and therefore Defendant denies BCZR §450.7.F is at issue in this matter.

13. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 13.

14. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 14.

15. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 15.

-2-
 Case 1:10-cv-01349-CCB Document 9 Filed 06/17/10 Page 3 of 8

16. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 16.

17. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 17, however,

BCZR §450.7.F is no longer enforced.

18. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 18.

19. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 19 to the

extent that BCZR §450.7.F remains published by Baltimore County in the official

version of the Baltimore County Zoning Ordinances. However, Defendant denies

Baltimore County Code Enforcement Inspectors continue to enforce BCZR

§450.7.F. The Code Inspection and Enforcement Correction Notice (the

“Correction Notice”) attached to Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint as Exhibit D

erroneously cited BCZR §450.7.F. The text of the Correction Notice states,

“Ehrlich sign in front yard too large. Sign cannot be 8 sq[uare] f[ee]t. Please

remove or replace with appropriate size.” This statement was clearly meant to

refer to BCZR §450.4.14, not BCZR §450.7.F. Additionally, Defendant denies

disregarding District Court Judge Catherine C. Blake’s ruling that BCZR §450.7.F

is unconstitutional. Though BCZR §450.7.F has not been repealed, Defendant

does not enforce this zoning regulation.

20. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 20.

21. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in paragraph 21.

-3-
 Case 1:10-cv-01349-CCB Document 9 Filed 06/17/10 Page 4 of 8

22. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in paragraph 22.

23. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in paragraph 23.

24. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in paragraph 24.

25. Defendant admits, in part, the allegations contained in the first

sentence of paragraph 25. However, as stated above, citing BCZR §450.7.F was a

mistake. Defendant objects to Plaintiff misrepresenting the Plaintiff’s Correction

Notice as a “Citation.” As the title of the County notice clearly indicates, a “Code

Inspections and Enforcement Correction Notice” is not a “Citation.” See Ex. D of

Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint. Moreover, Title 6, §§3-6-203 and 3-6-205 of the

Baltimore County Code, 2003, make clear the difference between a “correction

notice” and a “citation.”

26. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 26.

Defendant denies that Ex. D is a “citation.”

27. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 27.

Defendant denies that Ex. D is a “citation.”

-4-
 Case 1:10-cv-01349-CCB Document 9 Filed 06/17/10 Page 5 of 8

28. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 28.

Defendant asserts that BCZR §450.4.14 is the zoning regulation that should have

been cited in the Correction Notice.

29. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 29.

30. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 30.

31. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 31.

32. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in paragraph 32.

33. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 33.

34. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 34.

35. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in paragraph 35.

36. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the

allegations contained in paragraph 36.

37. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 37.

COUNT I

38. Defendant incorporates its Answers to Paragraphs 1-37 as if fully

stated herein.

-5-
 Case 1:10-cv-01349-CCB Document 9 Filed 06/17/10 Page 6 of 8

39. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 39 asserting

that BCZR §450.7.F is unconstitutional for the reasons previously presented to this

Court by the Defendant in Bell v. Baltimore County, Maryland. However,

Defendant has complied with this Court’s Order by not enforcing BCZR §450.7.F.

40. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 40.

41. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 41.

42. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 42.

43. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 43.

44. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 44.

COUNT II

45. Defendant incorporates its Answers to Paragraphs 1-44 as if fully

stated herein.

46. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 46.

47. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 47.

48. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 48.

49. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 49.

50. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 50.

51. Further answering the Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint, Defendant

denies Plaintiff is entitled any relief sought in the WHEREFORE clauses appearing

below Count I and Count II.

-6-
 Case 1:10-cv-01349-CCB Document 9 Filed 06/17/10 Page 7 of 8

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

52. Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

53. Waiver.

54. Statute of Limitations.

55. Estoppel.

56. Laches.

57. Privilege.

58. Qualified Immunity.

59. Public Official Immunity.

60. Governmental Immunity.

61. The Baltimore County Zoning Regulations governing signs are

reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.

62. The Baltimore County Zoning Regulations governing signs are not

content-based restrictions, are narrowly tailored, and leave open ample alternative

means of communication.

63. Defendant has not enforced Baltimore County Zoning Regulation

§450.7.F since entry of this Court’s Order on July 20, 2007 in Bell v. Baltimore

County, Maryland.

-7-
 Case 1:10-cv-01349-CCB Document 9 Filed 06/17/10 Page 8 of 8

64. Defendant reserves the right to raise such additional defenses as may

become apparent as a result of further investigation of the Plaintiff’s claims and

discovery in this action.

John E. Beverungen,
County Attorney

/s/
_____________________________
James J. Nolan, Jr., Bar No. 1865
Assistant County Attorney
Baltimore County Office of Law
400 Washington Avenue
Towson, Maryland 21204
(410) 887-2654
Attorneys for Defendant

Electronically filed: June 17, 2010

-8-