RENAISSANCE CENTRO COLUMBIA, LLC. v. Broida
27 A.3d 143
| Md. | 2011Background
- Renaissance owns a 1.46-acre parcel at Little Patuxent Pkwy and Wincopin Cir. (2005) site plan proposes a 22-story mixed-use building with 160 residential units, 10,697 sq ft retail, and a four-level garage.
- Opponents including Broida filed to deny approval; Planning Board approved with minor changes after two public meetings.
- Opponents appealed the Planning Board decision; a Howard County hearing examiner dismissed for lack of standing under §16.900(j)(2)(iii).
- Board of Appeals heard the appeal; Renaissance moved to dismiss for lack of standing; Board initially indicated Broida had disputed standing, others were denied standing.
- Board deliberated on January 22, 2007 and planned to reconvene after confirming two new members; a 2-2 vote on Broida’s standing occurred on January 22, 2007.
- Renaissance filed a declaratory judgment and sought stay of board proceedings; separate circuit court petition for judicial review was stayed pending the declaratory judgment outcome; both courts treated the board’s action as non-final and not exhausted administrative remedies; court ultimately held there was no final administrative decision and that declaratory judgment was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board’s 2-2 vote was a final decision. | Renaissance contends the 2-2 vote was final, triggering exhaustion. | Broida asserts Board’s final decision required majority vote; plan to reconvene invalidates finality. | No final decision; recount plan prevented finality. |
| Whether Renaissance exhausted administrative remedies. | Renaissance argues exhaustion occurred via Board proceedings. | Board proceedings did not render a final agency decision; remedy not exhausted. | Exhaustion not satisfied; no final agency decision. |
| Whether a declaratory judgment action lies to review an administrative decision. | Renaissance seeks declaratory relief despite primary administrative remedies. | Declaratory relief precluded where exclusive remedy exists. | Declaratory judgment not available; must follow §5(U) administrative/judicial remedy. |
| Whether the stay of proceedings affected finality/exhaustion. | Stay paused proceedings, excusing exhaustion. | Stay did not create finality or cure exhaustion. | Stay does not alter finality or exhaustion requirement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Laurel Racing v. Video Lottery, 409 Md. 445 (Md. 2009) (finality and exhaustion generally required before judicial review)
- Holiday v. Anne Arundel County, 349 Md. 201 (Md. 1979) (declaratory judgments precluded where exclusive/primary remedy exists)
- Mooney, University System v., 407 Md. 390 (Md. 2009) (administrative remedy primary; exhaustion required; sua sponte considerations allowed)
- Prince George's County v. Ray's, 398 Md. 632 (Md. 2007) (exhaustion required for administrative remedies; finality principle)
- Dorsey v. Bethel A.M.E. Church, 375 Md. 59 (Md. 2003) (final administrative decision prerequisite for judicial review)