193 A.3d 225
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2018Background
- Convenience & Dollar owned a small retail property rezoned from C-S-C to R-T in 2010, making retail uses nonconforming.
- Convenience & Dollar applied (Dec 2012) for a nonconforming use certification under PGCC § 27-244; Planning Board staff initially recommended denial for insufficient documentary proof of continuous retail use.
- After hearings and supplemental documentation (lease, tax returns, purchase receipts, affidavits, testimony), the Planning Board voted unanimously to grant certification, finding the 180-day gap closed.
- The Prince George’s County District Council reviewed the Planning Board decision (on its own motion) and reversed, conducting its own de novo weighing of the evidence and finding insufficient documentary proof of continuous operation.
- The circuit court reversed the District Council, concluding the Council exercised appellate, not original, jurisdiction; the Court of Special Appeals affirmed that the Council’s review is appellate and ordered the Council to affirm the Planning Board because the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District Council exercises original (de novo) jurisdiction or appellate jurisdiction when reviewing Planning Board decisions on nonconforming-use certification | Convenience & Dollar: Planning Board has original jurisdiction over local zoning functions; Council’s review is appellate under RDA (LU § 20-202) | County Council: Asserts statutory scheme (including LU §§ 22-111–114 and local ordinances) grants the District Council original jurisdiction to decide nonconforming-use certifications | Court: Nonconforming-use certification is a local planning/zoning function within the Planning Board’s original jurisdiction; the District Council’s review is appellate (reverse only if decision is illegal, arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence). |
Key Cases Cited
- Prince George’s County v. Zimmer Dev., 444 Md. 490 (2015) (establishes Planning Board’s original jurisdiction over certain local planning functions and limits District Council to appellate review supported by substantial evidence)
- People’s Counsel for Baltimore County v. Surina, 400 Md. 662 (2007) (explains the substantial-evidence standard and deference to agency factfinding)
- People’s Counsel for Baltimore County v. Loyola Coll., 406 Md. 54 (2008) (administrative factfinding owed deference absent legal error)
- Board of Public Works v. K. Hovnanian’s Four Seasons at Kent Island, LLC, 425 Md. 482 (2012) (generally remand to agency appropriate when legal error is found unless remand would be futile)