Laurel Racing Association, L.P. v. Anne Arundel County
165 A.3d 525
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2017Background
- Laurel Racing sought redevelopment approvals for Laurel Park in 2006–08; OPZ approved a sketch plan in 2008 allocating 1,501 EDUs (equivalent dwelling units) for water and sewer. Laurel Racing did not appeal that approval.
- County law requires DPW to compute EDUs and OPZ to issue allocation letters; allocation fees (CFCCs and deferral fees) became due on the fifth anniversary (November 2013). Laurel Racing paid reservation charges earlier but disputed the later CFCC amounts.
- In late 2013 Laurel Racing argued the 2008 allocation double-counted existing on-site usage and sought EDU credits; DPW invited submission of data and received engineering analyses in January 2014 claiming no net increase in flow.
- DPW responded February 25, 2014 with recalculated incremental EDUs (470 water, 954 sewer) based on peak historical usage and stated OPZ would issue a revised allocation letter; DPW framed that letter as a recalculation and an intent to seek OPZ action.
- DPW issued a revised billing March 5, 2014 (reduced fees) and Laurel Racing appealed to the County Board of Appeals; the Board treated the February 25 letter as an appealable modification and granted relief. The circuit court reversed, holding the February 25 letter was not a final, appealable administrative decision. Laurel Racing appealed to this Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DPW's Feb. 25, 2014 letter was a final, appealable administrative decision modifying the 2008 allocation | Laurel Racing: the letter was a final approval/modification that left only ministerial steps and had immediate legal consequences (tax sale risk) | County: only OPZ can modify the 2008 allocation; DPW letter was an intent-to-act and required further OPZ action and plan resubmission | Held: Not final or appealable — DPW letter was preparatory and required OPZ approval and additional filings before becoming an appealable decision |
| Whether interlocutory review is allowed because the letter caused irreparable harm | Laurel Racing: the County’s collection efforts and threat of tax sale produced irreparable harm justifying immediate review | County: alleged harms flow from nonpayment of longstanding fees and would be remediable; no direct irreparable injury from DPW letter itself | Held: No irreparable harm shown; exception to finality doctrine does not apply |
| Whether DPW’s recalculation supplanted OPZ’s prior allocation | Laurel Racing: DPW’s recalculation effectively revised the allocation | County: Only OPZ’s formal allocation/approval controls; DPW’s computation is not binding until OPZ acts | Held: DPW recalculation does not supersede OPZ’s final 2008 allocation absent OPZ’s formal action |
| Whether the Board of Appeals had jurisdiction to hear Laurel Racing’s appeal of the Feb. 25 letter | Laurel Racing: Board had jurisdiction because the letter was appealable and timely | County: Board lacked jurisdiction because the letter was not a final order | Held: Board lacked jurisdiction to resolve an appeal of the non-final February 25 letter; circuit court judgment affirming dismissal was affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. People’s Counsel for Balt. Cty., 336 Md. 569 (confirmatory administrative statements are not appealable final actions)
- Dorsey v. Bethel A.M.E. Church, 375 Md. 59 (interlocutory administrative decisions may be reviewable only when they cause immediate legal consequences and irreparable harm)
- Holiday Spas v. Montgomery Cty. Human Relations Comm’n, 315 Md. 390 (finality requirement: an administrative order is final only if it leaves nothing further for the agency to do)
- Md. Comm’n on Human Relations v. BGE Co., 296 Md. 46 (definition of final administrative action and ministerial-step test)
- Montgomery County v. Longo, 187 Md. App. 25 (distinguishing situations where new factual submissions and revised applications produced appealable agency action)