County Council of Prince George's County v. Chaney Enterprises Ltd. Partnership
165 A.3d 379
Md.2017Background
- Prince George’s County District Council adopted the 2013 Subregion 5 Master Plan with amendments (the "Amendments") that, among other things, restricted sand-and-gravel surface mining to the Rural Tier and added guidelines on reclamation, traffic mitigation, hours/duration, and economic benefits.
- Mining entities (Chaney, Southstar, and MTBMA) did not participate in the District Council’s hearings and challenged the Amendments in circuit court under Md. Code, Land Use § 22-407(a)(1), asserting procedural defects and that the Amendments are preempted by Maryland’s Surface Mining Act (SMA).
- Circuit Court upheld the Amendments; the Court of Special Appeals reversed, finding procedural defect (failure to send amendments back to Planning Board for written comment) and rejecting SMA preemption; both sides sought certiorari.
- Key procedural dispute: whether LU § 22-407(a)(1) authorizes judicial review of area master plan amendments and whether petitioners must have participated in administrative proceedings or exhausted administrative remedies before suit.
- The Court of Appeals held LU § 22-407(a)(1) authorizes judicial review of District Council final decisions including master plan amendments, that participation/exhaustion under the APA is not a prerequisite here, and that the Amendments were procedurally invalid for failure to comply with Prince George’s County Code § 27-646(a)(3).
- The court also held the Amendments are severable from the rest of the Master Plan and that the SMA does not impliedly preempt local zoning/planning authority to restrict surface mining in the Developing Tier.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LU § 22-407(a)(1) permits judicial review of area master plan amendments | Mining entities: § 22-407 authorizes review of any final District Council decision, including master plans | District Council: master plans are advisory (Title 21), § 22-407 (in Title 22) covers zoning actions only, not planning | Held: § 22-407 broadly authorizes review of any final decision of the District Council, including these Amendments because they have regulatory effect and bind special-exception review |
| Whether petitioners needed to participate in District Council proceedings (APA party requirement) | Mining entities: APA does not apply to county councils; § 22-407 standing suffices | District Council: petitioners must have participated and shown aggrievement before judicial review | Held: APA participation requirement does not apply; § 22-407 statutory standing governs and petitioners met it |
| Whether petitioners had to exhaust special-exception administrative remedies before filing under § 22-407 | Mining entities: exhaustion not required when challenging validity/authority of legislative act; § 22-407 provides direct judicial remedy | District Council: must exhaust available administrative remedies (apply for special exception) before court | Held: Exhaustion not required here; § 22-407 provides a 30-day judicial review window and this is a direct attack on legislative adoption procedure |
| Whether the Amendments were procedurally valid under county code and whether SMA preempts them | Mining entities: Amendments invalid because District Council failed to refer proposed amendments to Planning Board for written comment; SMA preempts local restrictions | District Council: Amendments were based on the record so no additional hearing required; SMA preempts/supersedes local restrictions | Held: Adoption violated PGCC § 27-646(a)(3) (failure to send to Planning Board) — Amendments invalid but severable; SMA does not impliedly preempt local zoning/planning authority to restrict surface mining in the Developing Tier |
Key Cases Cited
- County Council for Prince George’s County v. Carl M. Freeman Associates, 281 Md. 70 (1977) (statutory phrase "any final decision" permits judicial review of District Council rezonings and similar resolutions)
- Zimmer Development Co. v. County Council, 444 Md. 490 (2015) (discussion of RDA land use regime and distinction between planning and zoning)
- Rylyns Enterprises, Inc. v. Mayor & Council of Rockville, 372 Md. 514 (2002) (plans are advisory but become regulatory when law ties development approvals to plan compliance)
- Boyds Civic Ass’n v. Montgomery County Council, 309 Md. 683 (1987) (Administrative Procedure Act does not apply to county councils sitting as district councils)
- Md. Reclamation Assocs., Inc. v. Harford County, 414 Md. 1 (2010) (preemption/exhaustion analysis regarding state permitting and local zoning for rubble landfills)
- Anne Arundel County v. Bell, 442 Md. 539 (2015) (discusses taxpayer standing doctrine; statutory standing can be independent)
- Marzullo v. Kahl, 366 Md. 158 (2001) (standard for appellate review of administrative agency findings)