Gosain v. County Council
22 A.3d 825
| Md. | 2011Background
- Gosain and Chaudhry operate gasoline stations in Prince George's County and sought judicial review of the District Council's final site-plan decision SP-05044.
- The District Council reviewed the Planning Board's approval of a detailed site plan for a Steeplechase Business Park parcel with various tenants, including a gas station.
- Petitioners were not residents of Prince George's County, did not own real property there, and did not pay property taxes there; the properties were owned by corporations in which they had stock or employment roles.
- The circuit court dismissed for lack of standing under Art. 28, § 8-106(e), concluding petitioners were not ‘a person or taxpayer in Prince George's County’ and were not aggrieved.
- Court of Special Appeals affirmed, holding that ‘any person in Prince George's County’ required domicile, and that petitioners lacked standing because they did not reside or own property nor pay county property taxes.
- The issue presented is the meaning of ‘any person or taxpayer in Prince George's County’ and the proper standing standard under § 8-106(e).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of ‘any person or taxpayer in Prince George's County’ | Gosain/Chaudhry argue broader standing exists for residents and taxpayers in PG County. | Atapco and District Council contend standing is limited to those with residence, property, or tax linkage in PG County. | Interpretation narrowed to property interest or tax payment in PG County; non-residents without such interest lack standing. |
| Whether aggrievement is required for standing | Aggrievement not required for § 8-106(e) standing, as owner/taxpayer interests suffice. | Aggrievement requirement applies only to appellants in some contexts; petitioners must be aggrieved. | Rejected that aggrievement is the sole gatekeeper; for non-applicant standing, aggrievement is not the controlling barrier. |
| Effect of corporate ownership on standing | Petitioners’ interests as stockholders/employees should translate into standing because corporations pay taxes. | Standing is tied to the entity paying taxes or owning property, not to individual investors or employees. | Standing requires individual property interest or tax payment in PG County; corporate ownership does not confer standing on individuals. |
Key Cases Cited
- Egloff v. Prince George's County, 130 Md.App. 113 (2000) (held domicile-based reading of § 8-106(e) was appropriate)
- Superior Outdoor Signs v. Eller Media Company, 150 Md.App. 479 (2003) (interpreting 'any taxpayer' to mean property taxes in context of land use)
- Sugarloaf v. Dept. of Environment, 344 Md. 271 (1996) (standing standards and aggrievement discussed)
- Medical Waste v. Maryland Waste, 327 Md. 596 (1992) (standing and aggrievement principles in Maryland)
- Montrose Christian School v. Walsh, 363 Md. 565 (2001) (appeal-related standing principles)
- Harford County v. Saks, 399 Md. 73 (2007) (aggrievement and standing principles context)
- Paolino v. McCormick & Co., 314 Md. 575 (1989) (aggrievement considerations in standing)
- Offutt v. Montgomery Co. Bd. of Ed., 285 Md. 557 (1979) (standing and aggrievement standards in Maryland)