County Council v. Zimmer Development Co.
120 A.3d 677
Md.2015Background
- Zimmer sought to develop a 4.14-acre parcel in Prince George’s County (the Edwards Property) in an L-A-C (floating/comprehensive design) zone approved by the District Council in 2004 subject to conditions.
- Zimmer submitted a Comprehensive Design Plan (CDP‑1001) and Specific Design Plan (SDP‑1001); the Planning Board approved both with conditions after technical review and a public hearing in 2011.
- The District Council “called up” the Planning Board approvals, remanded them to the Planning Board to address three specified concerns (community benefit/tree canopy/Edwards Way access), and after the Planning Board reconsidered, the Council again reviewed the matter and denied the CDP and SDP (listing multiple additional reasons).
- Zimmer sought judicial review; the Circuit Court reversed the Council, ordering the Council to approve the Planning Board decisions. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted certiorari to resolve jurisdiction, scope of review after remand, and proper remedy questions.
- The Maryland Court of Appeals held: (1) the Planning Board has original/exclusive jurisdiction to approve/deny CDPs and SDPs under the RDA, and the District Council’s review is appellate in nature; (2) if the Council remands and later reviews the Board’s modified decision, the Council may reverse only on the issues remanded; and (3) where no further administrative discretion remains, a court may reverse rather than remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District Council has original (de novo) jurisdiction over Planning Board CDP/SDP approvals or only appellate review | District Council argued it had original jurisdiction (citing PGCC §27-132(f) and procedural role) to decide CDP/SDP merits | Zimmer argued Planning Board (MNCPPC) has original/exclusive jurisdiction over local planning functions (CDP/SDP) under the RDA; Council’s attempt to exercise de novo review conflicts with RDA | Court: Planning Board has original/exclusive jurisdiction; District Council’s review is appellate only — it may reverse only if the Planning Board’s decision is unsupported by substantial evidence, arbitrary, capricious, or illegal. |
| Whether, after remanding limited issues to the Planning Board, the District Council may later base reversal on issues not remanded | Council contended remand cannot be so limiting and it may consider any issue when it ultimately reviews the Board’s decision | Zimmer argued PGCC §27-523(c) and the remand structure limit the Council on second review to only remanded issues to prevent “sandbagging” the Board | Court: Where Council remands, its subsequent review may reverse the Planning Board only as to the issues remanded for consideration / reconsideration. |
| Standard of review the District Council must apply when reviewing Planning Board CDP/SDP decisions | Council claimed broader discretion (de novo) or different standards under county code | Zimmer maintained appellate-style standards (substantial evidence; arbitrary/capricious/illegal) are required so as not to usurp Board’s original jurisdiction | Court: Council must apply the same deferential standards courts use — substantial evidence; arbitrary/capricious/illegal — and may not substitute its own judgment for the Board’s. |
| Remedy when an agency (Council) applied incorrect standard of review | Council argued that an erroneous standard requires remand so Council can reapply correct standard | Zimmer argued no remand was necessary because Planning Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and there was no remaining administrative function for Council to perform | Court: If no administrative discretion remains and the correct outcome is compelled by law and record, the court may reverse and need not remand; here the Planning Board’s decisions were supported and reversal of the Council was appropriate without remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rylyns Enterprises, Inc. v. Mayor & City Council of Rockville, 372 Md. 514 (Md. 2002) (distinguishing legislative/comprehensive rezoning from piecemeal and floating-zone processes and explaining planning/zoning interaction)
- Dutcher v. County Council of Prince George’s County, 365 Md. 399 (Md. 2001) (RDA silence does not create Council review of some Planning Board subdivision decisions)
- United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. People’s Counsel for Baltimore Cnty., 336 Md. 569 (Md. 1994) (judicial review of administrative findings is limited to whether substantial evidence supports the agency’s findings and conclusions)
- Spencer v. Maryland State Bd. of Pharmacy, 380 Md. 515 (Md. 2004) (heightened deference for matters committed to agency expertise; arbitrary and capricious standard)
- Linchester Sand & Gravel Corp. v. Department of Natural Resources, 274 Md. 211 (Md. 1975) (courts cannot substitute independent original judgment for administrative determinations)
- Anne Arundel County v. Bell, 442 Md. 539 (Md. 2015) (distinguishing comprehensive rezoning and piecemeal/floating-zone procedures and explaining standing and change/mistake rule)