Kenwood Gardens Condominiums, Inc. v. Whalen Properties, LLC
144 A.3d 647
Md.2016Background
- Whalen Properties submitted a Planned Unit Development (PUD) application to Baltimore County Councilman Thomas Quirk; Council introduced Resolution No. 108-11 initiating County review.
- Shortly before introduction, Whalen’s principal (Stephen Whalen, Jr.) made illegal campaign contributions tied to Quirk’s campaign; Whalen later pled guilty to campaign finance violations, but no criminal charges were brought against Quirk.
- Resolution 108-11 was a preliminary legislative finding of eligibility that opened a multi-step PUD review: agency reviews, concept-plan conferences, a finalized development plan, and a five-day quasi-judicial hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).
- The ALJ approved the PUD after evidentiary hearings; the Board of Appeals affirmed. Kenwood Gardens (adjacent owner) challenged approval below, arguing an appearance of impropriety tainted the Council’s initiation and related later enactment (Bill 38-12).
- Circuit Court and Court of Special Appeals affirmed; the Court of Appeals granted certiorari to resolve whether the Council’s initiation was legislative or quasi-judicial and whether alleged impropriety could void the process or Bill 38-12.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Councilman Quirk’s acceptance/introductio n of the PUD resolution is reviewable for an appearance of impropriety | Kenwood: Illegal contributions and emails created an appearance of impropriety that tainted the initiation and should invalidate Resolution 108-11 | Whalen: Introduction/adoption of the resolution was a legislative act; motives are generally not subject to judicial inquiry; review is limited | Held: The resolution was legislative; motives/appearance of impropriety not reviewable by ALJ/Board in this process so long as Council acted within legal bounds |
| Whether the PUD initiation by Council was quasi-judicial (subject to broader review) or legislative (narrow review) | Kenwood: Council’s gatekeeper role involves parcel-specific factual findings making it quasi-judicial | Whalen: The Council’s action was policy-oriented, preliminary, and legislative; the fact-intensive review occurred later before the ALJ | Held: Although the resolution concerned a single parcel, the Council acted on legislative (general) facts with minimal fact-finding; therefore the initiation was legislative |
| Whether evidence of impropriety makes Bill 38-12 an invalid special law enacted to favor Whalen | Kenwood: Timing/content of Bill 38-12 shows it was designed to assist Whalen and therefore is a special law | Whalen: Bill 38-12 applies generally to a class of parcels and is not tailored solely to Whalen’s project | Held: Bill 38-12 is a general legislative enactment applicable to a class of parcels and is not invalidated by the alleged impropriety |
| Whether ALJ/Board could and should disqualify Councilman Quirk or void later administrative approvals because of alleged impropriety | Kenwood: The reasonable-person appearance-of-impropriety test should disqualify Quirk and void subsequent approvals | Whalen: ALJ/Board lacked authority to probe Council motives; the quasi-judicial hearings were independent and thorough | Held: ALJ and Board properly refused to examine Council motives; the quasi-judicial proceedings were independent and supported the PUD approval |
Key Cases Cited
- Overpak Corp. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 395 Md. 16, 909 A.2d 235 (2006) (distinguishes legislative from quasi-judicial action based on reliance on legislative vs. adjudicative facts and the quality of fact-finding)
- Talbot Cnty. v. Miles Point Prop., LLC, 415 Md. 372, 2 A.3d 344 (2010) (clarifies that focus on a parcel alone does not make an action quasi-judicial; reliance on legislative facts favors legislative characterization)
- County Council for Montgomery County v. District Land Corp., 274 Md. 691, 337 A.2d 712 (1975) (judicial reluctance to inquire into legislative motives)
- Workers’ Comp. Comm’n v. Driver, 336 Md. 105, 647 A.2d 96 (1994) (courts ordinarily do not probe legislative motives except where action exceeds legal bounds)
- Regan v. State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam’rs, 355 Md. 397, 735 A.2d 991 (1999) (articulates appearance-of-impropriety/recusal standard applicable to quasi-judicial actors)