Opinion ID: 2556180
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Permissible Scope of Review in the District Council and the Circuit Court

Text: A central theme of the Petitioners' eligibility and exhaustion arguments is that the Citizens' impermissibly introduce at the judicial review arguments never raised before the agency. In Petitioners' words: The respondent [Citizens], other than Dedra Billings, hardly bothered to show up, and even Ms. Billings objected only to the architectural features on the new buildings, not the gas station or car wash operations themselves. The [C]itizens failed to articulate any sound objections to Eastern Petroleum's proposals... and they chose not to appeal [the decisions].    [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 by their counsel, who did not participate in administrative proceedingsis very much at odds with the brief oral submissions they made [at the agency level]. Petitioners see unfairness in allowing the Citizens to go forward with these allegedly expanded complaints: What this case is about is fairness. That would be fairness to the applicant, Eastern Petroleum; fairness to the technical and administrative staffs of the Planning Board and District Council; and fairness to the agency decisionmakers themselves, the hearing examiner, the Planning Board members, and the District Council members. It is not fair, and it is not sound judicial policy, to allow parties in court to challenge administrative agency decisions on grounds radically different from those presented to the agency. Without question, a party to a District Council review hearing may not present new evidence. See Colao, 346 Md. at 348, 697 A.2d at 99 (Although no new evidence may be presented at the District Council hearing, the Council may remand a case to the Zoning Hearing Examiner[.]). A party may, however, present new arguments at the District Council hearing based on the existing agency record. The Council cites Bulluck v. Pelham Wood Apts., 283 Md. 505, 390 A.2d 1119 (1978), and Cicala v. Disability Review Board, 288 Md. 254, 418 A.2d 205 (1980) for the proposition that a party before an agency who sees objectionable evidence or incorrect procedure, or who has substantial objections to an application, must raise the point before the agency makes its final decision; he or she may not wait to argue the matter later, in court. This preservation requirement, although correctly stating the rule, does not advance Petitioners' cause. The requirement addresses what arguments may be made upon judicial review, and places no limitation on what arguments could be posited before the District Council. A failure to raise an argument at the first level of agency consideration does not bar a party from introducing the issue when appeal is made within the agency. When agency decisions are subject to District Council review, the parties have an additional opportunity to raise an issue before the agency makes its final decision. See Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Shepard, 399 Md. 241, 260, 923 A.2d 100, 111 (2007) ([I]n an action for judicial review of an adjudicatory administrative agency decision, the reviewing courts should decline to consider an issue not raised before the agency[.]). A review of the agency record confirms that the Citizens have preserved several issues for judicial review. Three of the citizens appeared at the agency level and testified. David Johnson believed that the project involved taking a nonconforming use and expanding it five times in perhaps the worst spot you can imagine[,] and stated that it was dangerous and would harm the environment. Cheryl Corson focused on the traffic safety issues, and the lack of certain safety features in the plan. Dedra Billings raised architectural and aesthetic issues, among others. Although the Citizens did not introduce independent evidence outside of their testimony and so will be limited to the evidence in the record, they have raised some issues that are viable for judicial review.