320 A.3d 530
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2024Background
- In 2009 Prince George’s County adopted sectional map amendments (SMAs) and area master plans for Subregions 5 and 6; many applicants failed to file required public ethics affidavits (Gen. Provs. §5-835).
- Litigation (the “Accokeek” cases) resulted in a circuit court judgment voiding the 2009 SMAs for failure to meet affidavit requirements and remanding to the Council/Planning Board for reconsideration with corrected affidavit information.
- The Planning Board altered the record and recommendations; the Council adopted revised SMAs in 2013 and later faced appellate review (Bazzarre), which directed reconsideration based on the 2009 record supplemented by updated affidavits.
- On remand the Council in February 2019 adopted CR-11-2019 and CR-12-2019 in a closed work session (no public hearing or notice); affected landowners (including MCQ, Robin Dale, Neale Drive, Christmas Farm) sought judicial review; the circuit court reversed and ordered a public hearing per PGCC §27-227 and related law.
- While appeals were pending, the County recodified its zoning ordinance and in November 2021 enacted a Countywide Sectional Map Amendment (CR-136-2021). The Council argued that CR-136-2021 mooted these appeals; the Appellate Court held it did not and affirmed the circuit court’s reversal, remanding for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the Council need to hold a public hearing under PGCC §27-227 / Land Use §22-206 before re-adopting SMAs on remand? | Appellees: yes — state and county law require an advertised public hearing; work session insufficient. | Council: §27-227 inapplicable because Council was acting under court-directed remand, not voluntary reconsideration. | Held: public hearing required; the work session without notice/comment violated state and county law. |
| Are the appeals moot because CR-136-2021 is a comprehensive rezoning that supersedes the 2019 decisions? | Appellees: no — CR-136-2021 was a non-substantive, technical recodification to map old zones to the new ordinance. | Council: yes — CR-136-2021 is a countywide comprehensive rezoning, so Yorkdale rule applies and appeals are moot. | Held: CR-136-2021 was a technical, non-substantive reclassification to implement the recodified ordinance, not a comprehensive rezoning based on the traditional factors; appeals are not moot. |
| Are Neale Drive’s and Robin Dale’s challenges to growth-tier designations moot because county plans later assigned tiers? | Appellees: challenges remain viable. | Council: later county plans (Plan 2035, conservation plans) and legislation changed tier status, so claims are moot. | Held: record is inadequate to find mootness; Court declined to decide and allowed Council to develop record on remand. |
| Did the Council adequately consider MCQ’s 2010 revisory petition (which restored C‑M zoning) when re-adopting SMAs? | MCQ: Council failed to consider the prior revisory proceeding and its findings. | Council: counsel’s work‑session presentation and language in CR-11-2019 show it was considered. | Held: Council did not adequately consider or explain the effect of the 2010 revisory petition; must clarify and address it on remand. |
| Do doctrines like law of the case or res judicata bar appellees’ claims? | Appellees: no — prior appellate statements did not preclude the present claims and some prior panel language was erroneous as to MCQ. | Council: Bazzarre forecloses relitigation; doctrine precludes relief. | Held: doctrines do not bar relief here; prior panel’s erroneous characterization (re: MCQ) does not bind and would not have preclusive effect. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson House, LLC v. Mayor & City Council of Rockville, 402 Md. 689 (Md. 2008) (sets out attributes of a comprehensive rezoning)
- Mayor & Council of Rockville v. Dustin, 276 Md. 232 (Md. 1975) (a subsequent comprehensive rezoning can moot pending zoning appeals)
- Rylyns Enters., Inc. v. Mayor & Council of Rockville, 372 Md. 514 (Md. 2002) (explains comprehensive rezoning purpose and planning considerations)
- Armstrong v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 409 Md. 648 (Md. 2009) (zoning amendments enacted while appeal pending apply unless vested rights exist)
- McHale v. DCW Dutchship Island, LLC, 415 Md. 145 (Md. 2010) (change in law after decision is applied absent vested rights)
- Montgomery County v. Woodward & Lothrop, Inc., 280 Md. 686 (Md. 1977) (public hearing requires opportunity to be heard and to present evidence)
- Garner v. Archers Glen Partners, Inc., 405 Md. 43 (Md. 2008) (law of the case may be disregarded if prior decision was clearly erroneous)
- Becker v. Falls Rd. Cmty. Ass'n, 481 Md. 23 (Md. 2022) (treatment of agency/quasi-judicial findings in later proceedings)