The Town of Upper Marlboro v. The Prince George's Cnty. Council

THE TOWN OF UPPER MARLBORO v. THE PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY COUNCIL

No. 0801-2020

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

September 14, 2021

Circuit Court for Prince George's County Case No. CAL 19-40094

Kehoe Gould, Zic, JJ.

OPINION ^[*]

Zic J.

In November 2019, the Prince George's County Council ("Council"), sitting as the District Council approved County Resolution 98-2019 ("CR-98-2019"), which removed the Old Marlboro Primary School (Historic Site 29-019-51) and the Old Marlboro High School (Historic Site 79-019-52) from the 2010 Prince George's County Historic Sites and Districts Plan. The Circuit Court for Prince George's County affirmed that decision on September 14, 2020. The Town of Upper Marlboro ("Town") appeals.

On December 17, 2019, the Town appealed the Council's final decision in CR-98-2019, which was adopted on November 19, 2019, to the circuit court based on alleged procedural deficiencies in the initiating resolution, County Resolution 72-2019 ("CR-72-2019"). CR-72-2019 was adopted on July 23, 2019. The circuit court affirmed the Council's decision, finding that the decision to adopt CR-98-2019 and CR-72-2018 was supported by substantial evidence in the record. The Town appealed CR-98-2019, not CR-72-2019. We shall affirm the judgment of the circuit court. We explain.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

The Town presents three questions for appellate review, ^[1] which we have recast and rephrased as follows:

1. Was CR-72-2019 a final decision that had to be challenged within 30 days of finality as required by § 22-407 of the Land Use Article?

2. Was the Town's appeal of CR-98-2019 sufficient to challenge alleged procedural deficiencies in CR-72-2019?

3. Was the decision of the Council to approve CR-98-2019 supported by substantial evidence?

We answer the first question in the affirmative, the second question in the negative, and decline to rule on the third question. Thus, we shall affirm the judgment of the circuit court. We explain.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

CR-72-2019

On July 23, 2019, the Council published CR-72-2019, a County Resolution that "direct[ed] the Prince George's County Planning Board of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission to initiate a minor amendment[^[2] to the 2010 Historic Sites and Districts Plan." CR-72-2019 states that the purpose of the resolution is to "direct[] the Prince George's County Planning Board of the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission to initiate a minor amendment to the 2010 Historic Sites and Districts Plan. CR-72-2019 further specifies that "the District Council finds that there is a need to reevaluate the designation of Historic Sites 79-019-51 and 79-019-52 for removal from the 2010 Prince George's County Historic Sites and Districts Plan." Historic sites 79-019-51 and 79-019-52 are the Old Marlboro Primary School and the Old Marlboro High School, respectively. Additionally, CR-72-2019 states that "the existing Historical Cemetery on the site shall be preserved."^[3] CR-72-2019 was adopted by the Council on July 23, 2019.

CR-98-2019

CR-98-2019 was published by the Council on November 19, 2019 and approved the proposed minor amendment detailed in CR-72-2019. The Prince George's County Planning Board ("Planning Board") and the Council held a public hearing on the proposed minor amendment on September 17, 2019. After the public hearing, the planning staff drafted a Technical Staff Report detailing the proposed amendment, public comments, and recommendations to the Planning Board. The Planning Board held a public work session concerning the proposed amendment on October 10, 2019. Additionally, the Council conducted a public work session on October 29, 2019 to evaluate the public hearing record and the Planning Board's recommendations concerning the proposed minor amendment. The Council approved the minor amendment on November 19, 2019. The adopted minor amendment states in part:

Amend the 2010 Prince George's County Historic Sites and District[s] Plan to remove the Old Marlboro Primary School, Historic Site 79-019-51, and the Old Marlboro High School, Historic Site 79-019-52, . . . and incorporated fully herein.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dr. William and Sarah Beanes Cemetery (Historic Site 79-019-22) be preserved in place and protected from any redevelopment of the subject property including though [sic] delineation of an appropriate environmental setting.

The Town's Appeal of CR-98-2019

On December 17, 2019, the Town filed a Petition for Judicial Review in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. In its Petition, the Town stated that it "requests judicial review of the decision of the Prince George's County Council Sitting as the District Council . . . for . . . approving a minor amendment to the 2010 Prince George's County Historic Sites and Districts Plan . . . as adopted and endorsed on November 19, 2019, by Prince George's County Resolution CR-98-2019." A hearing was held on September 11, 2020 in the circuit court. The court found that the decision of the Council to approve the minor amendment through CR-98-2019 was supported by substantial evidence in the record and upheld the Council's decision to remove the Old Marlboro Primary School and the Old Marlboro High School from the 2010 Prince George's County Historic Sites and Districts Plan. This appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

"In Maryland, traditional land use powers are generally delegated by the State to local political subdivisions." Grant v. County Council of Prince George's County, 465 Md. 496, 503 (2019) (citing County Council of Prince George's County v. Zimmer Dev. Co., 444 Md. 490, 503-504 (2015)). "In situations involving zoning actions entirely within Prince George's County, the County Council of Prince George's County sits as the District Council." Grant, 465 Md. at 503 (citing Md. Code Ann., Land Use § 22-101(b)). "When acting in its zoning capacity, the District Council acts as an administrative agency." County Council of Prince George's County v. Palmer Rd. Landfill, Inc., 247 Md.App. 403, 416 (2020) (quoting Grant, 465 Md. at 503).

"When an appellate court reviews the final decision of an administrative agency, we look through the circuit court's decision, and review the decision of the agency." Richardson v. Maryland Dep't of Health, 247 Md.App. 563, 569 (2020) (citing Cosby v. Dep't of Hum. Res., 425 Md. 629, 637 (2012)). "Our role is 'limited to determining if there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the agency's findings and conclusions, and to determine if the administrative decision is premised upon an erroneous conclusion of law.'" Richardson, 247 Md.App. at 569 (quoting Milliman, Inc. v. Md. State Ret. & Pension Sys., 421 Md. 130, 151 (2011)).

DISCUSSION

I. The Town Forfeited Judicial Review of CR-72-2019.

The Town argues that CR-72-2019 did not properly set forth the purpose and scope of the minor amendment. The Council, however, argues that the Town forfeited its right to appeal CR-72-2019 by not bringing an appeal within the 30-day timeframe as required by Land Use § 22-407(a)(2).

A. Statutory Authority for Judicial Review of the Council's Decision.

The Maryland-Washington Regional District Act ("RDA") governs zoning and planning decisions within the Prince George's County portion of the Maryland-Washington Regional District and is the "essential source of the delegation by the State of zoning authority to Prince George's County." Zimmer, 444 Md. at 523-25. The RDA was codified into the Land Use Article of the Maryland Code in 2012; previously, the RDA was codified in Article 28 of the Maryland Code. Id. at 520 n.28. When the RDA was recodified in 2012, no substantive amendments were intended to be included. Id. Particularly, Land Use § 22-407(a) provides in part:

(1) Judicial review of any final decision of the district council, including an individual map amendment or a sectional map amendment, may be requested by any person or entity that is aggrieved by the decision of the district council and is:

(i) a municipal corporation, governed special taxing district, or person in the county;

(ii) a civic or homeowners association representing property owners affected by the final decision;

(iii) the owner of the property that is the subject of the decision; or

(iv) the applicant.

(2) A petition for judicial review under this subsection shall be filed in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County within 30 days after service of the final decision by the district council.

(emphasis added).

Additionally, Rule 7-203 similarly states:

(a) Generally. Except as otherwise provided in this Rule or by statute, a petition for judicial review shall be filed within 30 days after the latest of:

(1) the date of the order or action of which review is sought;

(2) the date the administrative agency sent notice of the order or action to the petitioner, if notice was required by law to be sent to the petitioner; or

(3) the date the petitioner received notice of the agency's order or action, if notice was required by law to be received by the petitioner.

While interpreting and applying Rule 7-203, which requires appeals from administrative decisions to be brought within 30 days of the agency's action or order, this Court has found that the petition at issue "must be filed within the thirty-day filing period in order for the circuit court to have authority to hear the appeal." Colao v. County Council of Prince George's County, 109 Md.App. 431, 444 (1996). If an appeal of an administrative decision is not filed within the 30-day time requirement then the circuit court does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim. Id. at 444-45 (finding that "the thirty-day period under Rule 7-203 is now considered in...