Opinion ID: 2556180
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Eligibility to initiate a judicial review action.

Text: The Council argues, as a preliminary issue, that the Citizens were not eligible to seek judicial review of the District Council's decisions to withdrawal review of the two agency decisions. While not cast as such, Council's argument sounds like a standing argument, as the Petitioners question how the [C]itizens obtained rights to attack [the District Council's] decisions. The right to challenge agency zoning decisions in Prince George's County is governed by the Regional District Act. See Maryland Code (1957, 2003 Repl.Vol.), Article 28, §§ 7-101 et seq. As we recently described in Prince George's County v. Ray's Used Cars, 398 Md. 632, 635-36, 922 A.2d 495, 497 (2007): The Maryland General Assembly, by the Regional District Act, delegated zoning power for most of Prince George's County to the Prince George's County District Council. Pursuant to § 8-101(2) of the Act, the District Council may by ordinance adopt and amend the text of the zoning ordinance and may by resolution or ordinance adopt and amend the map or maps accompanying the zoning ordinance text to regulate, in the portion of the regional district lying within its county ... (ii) the size of lots, yards, courts and other open spaces.... The Regional District Act also creates the Prince George's County Board of Zoning Appeals (§ 8-107), provides for the Board of Zoning Appeals to extend or continue nonconforming uses (§§ 8-108 and 8-109), and authorizes the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant special exceptions and variances to the provisions of the zoning regulations. (§§ 8-110 and 8-111). (Some citations omitted). Besides empowering local bodies with decision-making power, the Regional District Act also established judicial procedure for contesting local decisions, and established criteria for standing of potential litigants: In Prince George's County, any incorporated municipality located in Prince George's County, any person or taxpayer in Prince George's County, any civic or homeowners association representing property owners affected by a final district council decision, and, if aggrieved, the applicant may have judicial review of any final decision of the district council. Proceedings for review shall be instituted by filing a petition in the Circuit Court of Prince George's County within 30 days after service of the final decision of the district council[.] Art. 28, § 8-106(e) (emphasis added). [10] The Citizens certainly meet these non-demanding standing requirements. They are taxpayers of Prince George's County, [11] and at least one of the Citizens has participated at each administrative hearing. [12] Moreover, [i]n actions for judicial review of administrative land use decisions, `an adjoining, confronting or nearby property owner is deemed, prima facie, ... a person aggrieved.' Sugarloaf Citizens' Ass'n v. Dep't of Env't, 344 Md. 271, 297, 686 A.2d 605, 618 (1996) ( quoting Bryniarski v. Montgomery Co., 247 Md. 137, 145, 230 A.2d 289, 294 (1967)). The Citizens, as nearby property owners, are prima facie aggrieved. The Petitioners do not attempt to rebut this presumption. Instead, the Petitioners argue that the Resident's expansion of their arguments, from the limited issues raised at the agency level to the fourteen points raised in their Petition for Judicial Review, render them ineligible to bring a judicial review action: ... Ms. Billings objected only to the architectural features on the new buildings, not the gas station or car wash operations themselves.    [The Citizens' testimony] demonstrated concerns-but not proofs.... The [C]itizens proved nothing, submitted no evidence, and did not even advise ... that they had substantial opposition to either of [EPC's] applications. [The Citizens'] lengthy [Circuit Court] memorandum... is very much at odds with the brief oral submissions they made [at the agency level]. The Petitioners' claims regarding the expansion of the Citizens' arguments do not affect whether the Citizens may bring a judicial review action, only what they may argue in such an action. Cf. Sugarloaf, 344 Md. at 294-96, 686 A.2d at 617 (In cases involving challenges to administrative land use decisions, there is a distinction between standing in court to obtain review of the governmental action and the merits of the challenger's position.... `Because the result on the merits might be adverse ... does not mean that the protestant would not have status to challenge the board's action.') ( quoting Bryniarski, 247 Md. at 145-46, 230 A.2d at 295).