Opinion ID: 2068552
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ordinance 04-659 and the Third Construction Permit: The Present Litigation

Text: The Property is located in the City's Parking Lot District II, a special district created by § 10-503 of the Zoning Code. [4] At the times relevant to these proceedings prior to the City's amendment of § 10-501's definition of parking lot, discussed infra, § 10-504 of the Zoning Code prohibited land in Parking Lot District II from being used as a parking lot unless authorized by an ordinance of the Mayor and City Council. [5] Because of this requirement, on 27 October 2003, Bill 03-1228 (the Bill) was introduced in the City Council. The purpose of the Bill was to authorize, as a conditional use, a parking lot on the Property. After introduction, the Bill was assigned to the Council's Land Use and Planning Committee (Committee), after consideration by the Baltimore City Planning Commission. Following its consideration, in a staff report dated 4 December 2003, the Commission stated: The applicants are requesting this conditional use [B]ill because several community residents have taken this project to court regarding the use of an alley, and because they are concerned about this same group challenging them regarding the Parking Lot District provisions in the Zoning Code. The City would not normally require this conditional use ordinance because the parking to be provided is accessory to the apartment building. The applicants simply wish to ensure that they may proceed with their project and are willing to provide the higher level of scrutiny afforded the community in the ordinance process, if that would speed the project's implementation. The staff report recommended that, before passage by the City Council, the Bill be amended to provide that the plans and landscaping plans [provided by Cresmont be] attached to, and made part of the [B]ill. Sections 16-401 and 16-402 of the Zoning Code required, prior to action by the full Council on the Bill, the Committee to consider the proposed conditional use at a public hearing. [6] Rules 10-9 and 10-10 of the Rules of the City Council required the Committee to report the Bill to the City Council after acting on it. [7] If the Committee proposed to amend substantively the Bill after the first hearing, it was required to hold another hearing. [8] The Bill was the subject of a Committee public hearing on 4 February 2004. Although notice of the hearing had been duly posted at the Property and on the City's website, only the Chair of the Committee and one other Committee member were present at the hearing on behalf of the Committee. [9] That hearing lasted nearly three hours and was attended by about forty-five other individuals, including some of the Petitioners. During the hearing, the Committee did not adduce or discuss site plans for the proposed parking lot. According to an affidavit in the record filed by Joan L. Floyd, one of the Petitioners, [a]t the hearing, the chair of the Committee made a statement to the effect that the [opponents] of Bill 03-1228 could not expect there to be any further public meetings or hearings on Bill 03-1228. No further public Committee hearing or work session was held in fact. Rather, on 4 March 2004, in a report submitted to the City Council, the Committee recommended that the Bill be enacted as amended. [10] One of the amendments included a detailed site plan of the parking area, a plan to which no reference was made at the 4 February hearing. The site plan had been obtained by the Committee subsequent to the public hearing, as had a follow-up City agency report addressing the issue of accessibility to the neighbors' garages impacted potentially by the proposed development of the Property. The report, conducted by a Transportation Department employee, was intended to advise the [Committee] regarding existing and proposed rights-of-way between adjacent properties and the proposed development site. It concluded that the proposed development [will] not harm[] access to adjacent garages. Petitioners contended that the measurements relied on in the report to form the basis of its conclusion were erroneous. The Committee's method of amending and approving the Bill, after the 4 February session, was through the collection of signatures of a quorum of mostly Committee members who had not attended the hearing. According to an affidavit of the Bill's co-sponsor: [] As is common practice in the City Council, a vote was not taken at the Committee hearing with regard to the adoption of a Committee Report on this [B]ill. Instead, the method by which the Committee adopted its March 4, 2004 Report of favorable as amended with regard to Council Bill 03-1228 was through the collection of the written assent of at least a majority of the Committee's members-in this case the signature of four Committee members, of which I was one. [] As is common practice in the City Council, one of the clerks circulated the [B]ill among the Committee's members to collect these four signatures. There was never a second meeting of the Committee after the public hearing held on February 4, 2004 with regard to this legislation. Thus, the quorum of the Committee that recommended that the Bill be enacted as amended, including the detailed site plan and in reliance on the agency report, did so: (1) without having vetted the disputed agency report or detailed site plan before the public at the hearing; (2) without having discussed the amendments suggested by members of the public at the 4 February meeting or explaining why they were rejected; and (3) without having presented or discussed in open session the amendments made subsequently. The only evidence of the Committee's deliberations and decision-making process were the signatures of the four members who signed the backing of the Bill. As a result of the Committee's recommendation, the Bill was advanced to the full City Council. On 8 March 2004, the amended version of the Bill passed second reader. On 15 March, Petitioners delivered to the City Council President a letter relating Petitioners' position that the Committee approved amendments that had not been the subject of a public hearing and plans that did not meet minimum statutory requirements ... and that constituted an unlawful taking of the property of adjacent owners, and that the Committee acted on the basis of an inaccurate and misleading agency report ... without a public open meeting of the Committee as required by the State Open Meetings Act. The letter asked the Council President to remedy the situation by taking immediate measures to void the action of the City Council Land Use and Planning Committee on Bill 1228 and either withdraw the [B]ill, or table it and schedule it for an open public re-hearing and Committee vote. No direct response was forthcoming. At the next City Council meeting, on 22 March 2004, Bill 03-1228 passed on the third and final reading. On 25 March, it was signed into law as Ordinance 04-659. Petitioners filed a timely complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, alleging that the City violated Md.Code, State Government Art. § 10-501 to -512 (Open Meetings Act) (2004 Repl. Vol. & Supp. 2008). [11] The relief Petitioners sought included a declaration that Bill 03-1228 and Ordinance 04-659 were void, that the City Council be enjoined from issuing any permits pursuant to Ordinance 04-659, and that Petitioners be awarded reasonable attorney's fees. [12] The City and Cresmont filed motions to dismiss on the ground that, because the Committee did not convene a quorum of its members to discuss the proposed bill, the Open Meetings Act did not apply. The Circuit Court rejected the City's and Cresmont's position, concluding, in a written opinion, that the Committee's actions with regard to the passage of Ordinance 04-659 were in violation of the Open Meetings Act: In this Court's view, the Committee, in this case, violated the Open Meetings Act in spirit and in fact. The Committee conducted business with a quorum of its members when it circulated the Bill for signatures of members who were going to vote in favor of sending the Bill to the City Council with a favorable report. This was done in private and away from the public's view, in violation of the essence of the Open Meetings Act. Community and Labor United For Baltimore Charter Committee (CLUB) v. Baltimore City Board of Elections, 377 Md. 183, 186-87, 832 A.2d 804 (2003), and Md.Code Ann. State Govt[.] Art., § 10-501. Further evidence of this is highlighted by the fact that the Bill was signed by three members who did not attend the February 4, 2004 meeting. The Committee sent the Bill to the City Council and recommended it as favorable as amended. By amending the Bill, a reasonable inference can be drawn that there was discussion or should have been discussion among the members of the Committee in order to enable a quorum to agree to recommend the Bill. At the February 4, 2004 meeting, the Chair requested further information from the city agency who conducted the access and egress of the alleys abutting the parking lot. There is no record that this information was obtained. But it is unlikely that the request of the Committee Chair would have been be [sic] ignored by a city agency; and that this information played no role in the Committee's decision to recommend the Bill. While it is true a quorum is technically necessary to qualify as a meeting, the contention that a quorum is necessary to trigger the Act and open the meeting to the public is not the case. The totality of the circumstances surrounding each meeting in light of the purpose of the Act and its importance to the maintenance of a democratic society must be examined. By intentionally avoiding holding a meeting with the necessary number of participants to establish a quorum, the Committee cannot avoid compliance with the Act. Md.Code Ann., State Govt. Art., § 10-501(a). The Legislature intended the Open Meetings Act to allow the general public to view the entire deliberative process. Community And Labor United For Baltimore Charter Committee (CLUB)[,] et al. v. Baltimore City Board of Elections, et al., 377 Md. 183, 194, 832 A.2d 804 (2003). The Committee violated the Act by not performing public business ... in an open and public manner[], and not allowing citizens to observe the deliberations and decisions that the making of public policy involves. Md.Code Ann., State Govt. Art., § 10-501(a)(2)(ii).    [The City and Cresmont] argue that it is the routine for the City Council to circulate a Bill for signatures without holding a meeting. Merely because it is the practice of the City Council does [not] give legal justification for violating the Open Meetings Act.    The actions of the Committee, in the subject case, do not involve minor changes, e-mail or thinking out loud. This matter involves actual deliberations on whether a bill should be forwarded to the City Council as approved or disapproved. If the Act is only triggered by a meeting of a quorum at one time, then it would be possible for public officials to conduct business, by e-mail or in small groups, hold no meetings and never be subject to public scrutiny. A committee could hold a meeting, without a quorum to think out loud, then circulate a proposed Bill from member to member without the public being permitted to observe any of the deliberative process. This is not consistent with the goal of the Open Meetings legislation as it would not allow citizens to observe the performance of public officials and the deliberations and decisions that the making of public policy involves. Md. Code Ann.[,] State Govt. Art.[,] § 10-501(a). For these reasons, the Court finds that the Committee did violate the Open Meetings Act. Next, this Court must consider the relief Petitioners request, that is, whether Bill 03-[1]128 and Ordinance 04-659 should be declared void in light of the violation.    The Open Meetings Act does not allow this Court to void an action of a public body because there was a violation of this subtitle by another public body. Md.Code Ann., State Govt. Art., § 10-510(a)(2). Although the Committee serves the City Council[, t]he Land Use and Planning Committee and the City Council of Baltimore are separate public bodies. The City Council was free to conduct an inquiry and vote as it saw fit on Bill 03-1228.    In the subject case, ... the subsequent lawful actions of the City Council cured the violation of the Open[] Meeting[s] Act by the Land Use and Planning Committee; and therefore the Petitioners' request to declare the passage of Bill 03-1228 and Ordinance 04-659 void is denied. State Govt. [Art.,] § 10-510(d)(5) permits the award of reasonable counsel fees to the party who prevails in the action. In light of the Court's ruling that there was a failure to comply with the Open Meetings Act, counsel for Petitioners are awarded reasonable counsel fees to be paid by [the City].[ [13] ] (footnotes omitted). Everyone was disappointed in some way or another with the trial court's rulings and, thus, all parties pursued appeals to the Court of Special Appeals. Petitioners argued that the Circuit Court should have voided Ordinance 04-659. The City and Cresmont argued that the Petitioners are not entitled to counsel fees. On 2 July 2007, the Court of Special Appeals issued an unreported opinion in the matter. A panel of the intermediate appellate court determined that, although the City Council enacted Ordinance 04-855 in January 2005, which amended § 10-501 of the Zoning Code and thereby made no longer necessary the attainment of an ordinance to establish an accessory parking lot as a conditional use, as discussed infra, the present case was not moot. The intermediate appellate court agreed with the Circuit Court that the Committee violated the Open Meetings Act by recommending an amendment to Bill 03-1228 without first allowing the public an opportunity to hear the reasoning behind the recommendation. Further, the court agreed with the Circuit Court's conclusion that when a legislative committee meeting is closed to the public improperly, in violation of the Open Meetings Act, the City Council may rectify the violation by itself holding a proper public meeting on the bill. Thus, the intermediate appellate court determined that the City Council's subsequent actions, taken at public meetings, cured the violation committed by its Land Use and Planning Committee. Finally, the panel disagreed with the Circuit Court's determination that Petitioners are entitled to counsel fees. The Court of Special Appeals concluded that, because Petitioners did not achieve the relief they sought on the merits of their claims, they may not be considered a prevailing party, as required under Md.Code, State Govt. Art. § 10-510(d)(5), and, therefore, may not be awarded counsel fees. Armstrong v. Mayor of Balt ., No. 01243, September Term 2005, 175 Md.App. 762 (filed 2 July 2007). Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The City, on the other hand, requested that the Court of Special Appeals's opinion be reported. On 25 August 2008, the court denied both requests. On 9 September 2008, Petitioners filed with this Court a Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The City and Cresmont filed answers to the Petition requesting its denial. In its response, the City also included a Conditional Cross-Petition. On 10 November 2008, we granted the Petitioners' Petition and the City's Cross-Petition. [14] Armstrong v. Baltimore, 406 Md. 442, 959 A.2d 792 (2008). Cresmont expressly declined to participate further in the present litigation.