County Council v. Billings, 21 A.3d 1065

Eastern Petroleum sought to expand a gas station in Prince George's County, needing a Departure from Design Standards (DDS 564) and a Special Exception (SE 4549).
After hearings, the Planning Board approved DDS 564 and the Zoning Hearing Examiner approved SE 4549; notices advised three paths: file an appeal, district council review, or let decisions become final.
The District Council elected to review both decisions, but subsequently withdrew its election and declared the agency decisions final.
Citizens, as nearby landowners, petitioned for judicial review; the Circuit Court dismissed; the Court of Special Appeals reversed, remanding for council-ordered review with findings.
Maryland Court of Appeals granted certiorari to resolve eligibility, exhaustion, and whether the council may withdraw after electing to review; held in favor of the Citizens on all points and remanded for proper proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Eligibility to seek review after withdrawal	Billings argues citizens are eligible as aggrieved parties under Art. 28.	Council contends lack of standing or eligibility to challenge withdrawn decision.	Citizens eligible to seek judicial review.
Exhaustion of administrative remedies	Citizens exhausted remedies by participation; no written exceptions needed after council review election.	Citizens failed to file written appeals/exceptions; exhausted remedies required.	Citizens exhausted administrative remedies; not required to file separate appeals after council elected to review.
Authority to withdraw after electing to review	Council cannot withdraw; must follow statutory review procedure and provide findings.	Council may withdraw election and thus finalize agency decisions.	District Council may not withdraw its election to review without following statutory procedures and providing written findings.
Scope of review and admissibility of new arguments	Citizens can raise new arguments at district council review based on the record; not new evidence.	New arguments should not be introduced at judicial review stage.	New arguments permitted at district council review within the record; no new evidence allowed; preserved viable issues.

Sugarloaf Citizens' Ass'n v. Dep't of Env't, 344 Md. 271 (1996) (standing for administrative land-use challenges; adjacent landowners presumptively aggrieved)
Colao v. County Council, 346 Md. 342 (1997) (administrative exhaustion and district council review procedures; exceptions at agency level)
Prince George's County v. Ray's Used Cars, 398 Md. 632 (2007) (statutory framework for standing and judicial review of district council decisions)
Pollock v. Patuxent Inst. Bd. of Review, 374 Md. 463 (2003) (administrative rule about agency procedures and finality; deference to agency rules)
Bryniarski v. Montgomery Co., 247 Md. 137 (1967) (standing and aggrieved party status in administrative proceedings)