Gosain v. County Council of Prince George's County

420 Md. 197

22 A.3d 825

Rishi GOSAIN, et al.

v.COUNTY COUNCIL OF PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, Maryland, Sitting as the District Council, et al.

No. 26

Sept. Term

2008.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

June 22, 2011.

Susan B. Gray, Highland, MD, for petitioners/cross-respondents.John C. Fredrickson (Susan Zuhowski of O'Malley, Miles, Nylen & Gilmore, P.A., Calverton, MD), on brief for respondents/cross-petitioners.Steven M. Gilbert, Principal Counsel, Office of County Council, Upper Marlboro, MD, for respondents/cross-petitioners.Argued before BELL, C.J., HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, MURPHY, JOHN C. ELDRIDGE (Retired, Specially Assigned) and IRMA S. RAKER (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.JOHN C. ELDRIDGE (Retired, Specially Assigned), J.

The issue in this case is whether the petitioners Rishi Gosain and Abid Chaudhry, who operate gasoline service stations in Prince George's County, have standing under a section of the Regional District Act, Maryland Code (1957, 2010 Repl.Vol.), Article 28, § 8–106(e), to maintain an action for judicial review of a final administrative decision by the Prince George's County Council, acting as the District Council. The standing issue depends entirely upon the correct interpretation of Article 28, § 8–106(e). ¹ The decision of the District Council, which the petitioners seek to challenge, was the approval of a detailed site plan for a parcel of commercial property in Prince George's County. Both the Circuit Court for Prince George's County and the Court of Special Appeals held that petitioners lacked standing to bring this action. We shall agree, although our reasoning differs from that of both courts below.

I.

The facts relevant to the standing issue are as follows. The respondents Atapco Ritchie Interchange, Inc., and Ritchie Interchange, LLC,² are the owners and developers of real property in Prince George's County known as the Steeplechase Business Park. This property is located at the intersection of the Capital Beltway and Ritchie Marlboro Road. Atapco submitted to the Prince George's County Planning Board an application for approval of a detailed site plan for a portion of the Business Park property. Atapco proposed to construct on this portion one bank, one drug store, one gasoline service station with a convenience store, two “fast-food” restaurants and two “sit-down” restaurants. After a hearing, the Prince George's County Planning Board approved the site plan for the parcel with conditions.

The Prince George's County District Council “elected to review” the Planning Board's approval.³ Subsequently several individuals, including the petitioners Gosain and Chaudhry, filed with the District Council an appeal of the Planning Board's approval. The majority of these individuals, like petitioners Gosain and Chaudhry, appeared to have some connection with gasoline service stations in Prince George's County. Following a hearing, the District Council initially remanded the case to the Planning Board with certain instructions. Shortly thereafter, however, the District Council rescinded its remand order and issued a “Final Decision” which affirmed the Planning Board's decision “with additional conditions.”

Petitioners Gosain and Chaudhry commenced the present action by filing in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County a petition for judicial review of the District Council's final decision. In a memorandum supporting the judicial review petition, Gosain and Chaudhry argued, inter alia, that the District Council's approval of the detailed site plan was predicated upon an earlier invalid text amendment to the Prince George's County Zoning Ordinance, and that the District Council's decision was not supported by substantial evidence.

Atapco filed a response to the judicial review petition, stating that it intended to participate in the action. Thereafter, Atapco filed a motion to dismiss the action, arguing that petitioners Gosain and Chaudhry lacked standing under the Regional District Act, Article 28, § 8–106(e), to have judicial review of a decision by the Prince George's County District Council. Atapco argued that, to have standing under § 8–106(e), one must be either a resident of Prince George's County or a Prince George's County taxpayer. Atapco alleged that Rishi Gosain was a resident of Springfield, Virginia, and Abid Chaudhry was a resident of Crofton, in Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Atapco further alleged that neither Gosain nor Chaudhry owned property in Prince George's County or paid taxes to Prince George's County.

Shortly after filing the above-described motion to dismiss, Atapco filed a second motion to dismiss, asserting that one must also be aggrieved by the District Council's decision in order to maintain an action for judicial review and that neither Gosain nor Chaudhry were aggrieved by the administrative decision. The respondent District Council joined the two motions to dismiss filed by Atapco.

The Circuit Court held a hearing on the motions to dismiss at which the petitioner Gosain testified and several documents were submitted. In addition, an affidavit by petitioner Chaudhry was filed. This evidence disclosed the following. Rishi Gosain was a resident of Springfield, Virginia, and he operated an Exxon gasoline service station in Prince George's County, at 10350 Campus Way, Largo, Maryland. This service station did business as “Campus Way Exxon,” and the business was owned by a corporation named “Sona Auto Care, Inc.” The corporation leased the building and land from Exxon Mobil corporation and had a franchise agreement with Exxon Mobil. In addition, taxes paid to Prince George's County and the State of Maryland in connection with the business have been paid by the Sona Auto Care corporation. Rishi Gosain testified that he “owns” the corporation and operates the business with ten employees. He also testified that the service station is about two miles from Atapco's proposed business park and that he was concerned about the economic effect of the business park upon the service station. The personal property tax return filed by Sona Auto Care, Inc., lists Rishi Gosain as president of the corporation.

Abid Chaudhry was not at the Circuit Court's hearing on the motion to dismiss. Nevertheless, the documentary evidence shows that he operated a BP–Amoco gasoline service station in Prince George's County, at 1322 Ritchie Road, Capital Heights, Maryland. Between 1998 and December 2005, the service station property was owned by BP–Amoco. In December 2005, the property was purchased by a corporation called MNA, LLC. Abid Chaudhry and “two other partners” own the corporation. It is undisputed that Abid Chaudhry does not reside in Prince George's County.

Following the hearing, the Circuit Court entered an order dismissing the petition for judicial review. The order contained the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

“1. Petitioner Gosain is a resident of and domiciled in the Commonwealth of Virginia and is not ‘a person ... in Prince George's County,’ as that term is used in § 8–106(e) of the Regional District Act, Article 28, Annotated Code of Maryland.

“2. Petitioner Chaudhry is not a resident of or domiciled in Prince George's County and is not ‘a person ... in Prince George's County,’ as that term is used in § 8–106(e) of the Regional District Act.

“3. Neither petitioner Gosain nor petitioner Chaudhry owns real property in Prince George's County.

“4. Neither petitioner Gosain nor petitioner Chaudhry is a ‘taxpayer in Prince George's County,’ as that term is used in § 8–106(e) of the Regional District Act.

“5. Neither named petitioner meets the requirements in § 8–106(e) of the Regional District Act, and neither petitioner is authorized by law to petition the District Council's decision to this Court.

“6. Neither named petitioner has standing in this case, to file a petition for review of the final decision of the District Council approving the SP–05044 detailed site plan application.”

Petitioners Gosain and Chaudhry appealed to the Court of Special Appeals which affirmed. Gosain v. Prince George's County, 178 Md.App. 90, 940 A.2d 1132 (2008). The Court of Special Appeals, relying upon an earlier Court of Special Appeals opinion, Egloff v. Prince George's County, 130 Md.App. 113, 744 A.2d 1083 (2000), held that “to be a ‘person ... in Prince George's County’ within the meaning of § 8–106(e), one must be domiciled there.” Gosain v. Prince George's County, supra, 178 Md.App. at 97, 940 A.2d at 1136. The appellate court then pointed out that neither Rishi Gosain nor Abid Chaudhry was domiciled in Prince George's County. The Court of Special Appeals further held that, to be a “taxpayer in Prince George's County” within the meaning of § 8–106(e), one must pay real property taxes to Prince George's County, and the appellate court concluded (178 Md.App. at 97–98, 940 A.2d at 1136):

“The tax returns filed for the Exxon station were filed by the entity Sona Auto Care, Inc., not Gosain in his individual capacity. Chaudhry did not introduce the tax returns for the BP Station, but acknowledged that the business was owned by an LLC, i.e., not by him individually. Although these entities may be taxpayers of real property taxes in Prince George's County, appellants Gosain and Chaudhry are not.”

Rishi Gosain and Abid Chaudhry filed in this Court a petition for a writ of certiorari, presenting the question of whether the petitioners have standing under § 8–106(e) of the Regional District Act to maintain an action for judicial review of a final decision by the District Council. The Prince George's County District Council filed a conditional cross-petition for a writ of certiorari, raising the issue of whether one must be “aggrieved” by the District Council's decision in order to maintain an action for judicial review. This Court granted both the petition and the cross-petition. Gosain v. Prince George's County, 405 Md. 62, 949 A.2d 651 (2008).

II...