Montgomery Preservation, Inc. v. Montgomery County Planning Board of Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission
36 A.3d 419
Md.2012Background
- Petitioners seek historic designation for the Perpetual Building in Silver Spring by amending the Master Plan for Historic Preservation.
- Planning Board recommended against designation and drafted a proposed amendment reflecting that denial.
- Montgomery County Council, acting as an administrative body, did not take action on the Planning Board's Draft Amendment.
- Petitioners filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus alleging the Council's inaction rendered the Planning Board's recommendation final and appealable.
- Circuit Court dismissed the mandamus action; Court of Special Appeals affirmed; this Court granted certiorari.
- The issue before the Court is whether the Planning Board's 'not to amend' recommendation is a final appealable administrative decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Planning Board's recommendation final and appealable? | Petitioners: Planning Board's recommendation is final and appealable. | Respondent: Planning Board's action is only a recommendation, not a final decision; final authority lies with the Council. | No; the Planning Board's recommendation is not a final appealable decision. |
| Does Council inaction within statutory timeframes constitute final action under 7-108(d)(2)? | Council's inaction could not occur without triggering finality; petitioners rely on inaction as finality. | Inaction triggers finality by operation of law under 7-108(d)(2). | Yes; Council's inaction within the 180-day window constitutes approval by operation of law. |
| Who has the final authority to amend the Master Plan in this context? | Planning Board or petitioners argue for Council oversight; Board's recommendation could be final if Council abdicates. | Council alone has final authority to approve/reject amendments; Board cannot finalise. | Council has final authority; Board's action remains a recommendation. |
| Is Billings controlling for whether a council can disavow jurisdiction and render underlying agency decisions final? | Council's disavowal could convert underlying decisions into final ones. | Billings is distinguishable; no statutory provision here to permit abandonment of jurisdiction. | Not controlling; here Section 7-108(d)(2) vests final action in the Council and its inaction constitutes approval. |
| Are Petitioners left without recourse if the Planning Board's recommendation is not final? | Petitioners could challenge Council's inaction as the operative final decision. | Recourse lies in challenging Council's inaction, not the Planning Board's recommendation. | Petitioners may pursue review of the District Council's action-by-inaction; Planning Board's recommendation is not final. |
Key Cases Cited
- West Montgomery County Citizens Assoc. v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Comm'n, 309 Md. 183 (Md. 1987) (limits planning delegation and emphasizes Council as final decision maker)
- Boyds Civic Assoc. v. Montgomery County Council, 309 Md. 683 (Md. 1987) (ultimate decision resides with the Council; Planning Board actions are non-final)
- County Council v. Billings, 420 Md. 84 (Md. 2011) (council cannot abandon jurisdiction once invoked; contrasts where statutes alter finality)
- Washington County Taxpayers Assoc. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 269 Md. 454 (Md. 1973) (illustrates appropriate scope of judicial review in replan/adoption context)
- Montgomery Preservation, Inc. v. Montgomery County Planning Bd., 197 Md. App. 388 (Md. App. 2011) (Planning Board recommendation not final; inaction by council can trigger finality by operation of law)
- Goodwich v. Nolan, 343 Md. 130 (Md. 1996) (administrative mandamus and exhaustion principles guiding review)