Opinion ID: 2194789
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Issuance of Building Permits, Generally, is a Ministerial Act

Text: We recently stated in City of Bowie v. Prince George's County, that: The City's third and final issue challenges the sufficiency of the notice given of the filing of the application for final plat approval and the Planning Board's hearing thereon. The City asserts that it was denied due process rights by the Board's failure to provide it notice that Green Hotels had filed for final plat approval and that the Board had scheduled the matter for hearing. The parties argue at length whether the Board's action . . . should be deemed ministerial, and thus relieved of any externally-imposed formal notice requirement or should be labeled discretionary, therefore making it incumbent upon the Board to provide actual notice to the City. . . . `It is elementary that governmental bodies, tribunals, agencies . . . and officials . . . exercise functions that are divided into three general categories: executive [i.e., ministerial], judicial, and legislative. . . . And functions, when they are not purely and completely judicial or legislative in nature, but have qualities or incidents resembling them, are referred to as quasi-judicial or quasi-legislative [i.e., discretionary].' Ministerial acts are objective in nature and include, for example, the issuance of a building permit, predicated upon presentation of final plat approval, as in the case sub judice . . . . The City also argues that it was entitled not just to notice but to `meaningful' notice of the Board's acceptance . . . of Green Hotels' final plat. Green Hotels contends that the Subdivision Regulations . . . are purposely silent as to any procedure requiring notice or public hearing at the final plat stage. . . . . . . [We hold that] as the Board's act of approving or rejecting the final plat is a ministerial function, we find no merit in the City's contention that it was denied due process by the Board's failure to provide it specific and individualized notice of the Board's receipt and scheduling of Green Hotels' application for final plat approval. Bowie, 384 Md. 413, 439-43, 863 A.2d 976, 991-93 (2004) (quoting Hyson v. Montgomery County Council, 242 Md. 55, 62, 217 A.2d 578, 582-83 (1966)). See Martin v. Bucklin, 214 Md. 140, 142-43, 133 A.2d 426, 426-27 (1957) (recognizing the ministerial nature of the application and issuance process in respect to building permits in denying mandamus). In Potomac Electric Power Company v. Montgomery County, 80 Md.App. 107, 118, 560 A.2d 50, 56 (1989), where, albeit perhaps as dicta, Chief Judge Gilbert, for the intermediate appellate court, opined: Once the PSC has by order authorized the erection of power lines along a designated route, little more remains for local government to do except perform the ministerial duty of issuing the necessary building permits. [20] Accordingly, we hold that the issuance of building permits in respect to applications that fully comply with applicable ordinances and regulations of a particular subdivision is a ministerial act. No notices beyond that provided for in the applicable laws of the particular jurisdiction are normally required. The failure to give notice when none is required by constitution or statute, is not, normally, a denial of due process, [21] nor is it the deprivation of any of the bundle of rights incident to the ownership of private property.