Smith v. County Commissioners
18 A.3d 16
| Md. | 2011Background
- Kent County growth allocation for Drayton Manor was approved conditionally in 2007 under the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays Critical Area Program.
- State Critical Area Commission may modify, deny, delay, or preclude local approval; local approval may be non-final until Commission acts.
- Petitioners sought judicial review of the County's approval before Commission acted, leading to dismissal as premature by COSA.
- Kent County Growth Allocation Policy allowed aggrieved persons to appeal within 30 days after the County's decision, but tied to final State action.
- Maryland Court of Appeals held the County's approval was not final because Commission could alter or supersede it; thus no immediate right to judicial review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there a statutory right to judicial review of the County action? | Smith argues County action is final and appealable despite Commission review. | County/State contend final action required Commission approval; County action not final. | No final, appealable County action; right to review contingent on State action. |
| From which government level does the right to review arise? | Policy grants aggrieved persons right to judicial review of County action. | Review, if any, rests with State Commission’s action, not local action. | Review, if any, is governed by the Commission’s action; local action is not independently final. |
| Does exhaustion/administrative remedies principle apply to premature review? | Stay rather than dismissal best protects right to review local action pending Commission. | Premature review should be dismissed to avoid inappropriate interference. | Premature review dismissed; circuit court should dismiss remanded action; stay may be appropriate in other contexts. |
| Is the local action quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial for review purposes? | County's action overlays state program; may be reviewed as administrative action. | State Commission’s action is quasi-legislative; local action relates to program amendment. | State action treated as quasi-legislative; review framework complex and not readily reviewable via standard judicial review. |
| Should the case be remanded for dismissal of the petition rather than outright dismissal? | Remand to allow exhaustion and avoid forfeiting rights; MRA III supports stay/remand. | Dismissal appropriate due to premature action and lack of finality. | Court vacated COSA judgment; remand with directions to dismiss petition for judicial review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Foley v. K. Hovnanian at Kent Island, LLC, 410 Md. 128 (Md. 2009) (finality and sequencing in CA program amendments; review dynamics)
- Maryland Reclamation Assocs. v. Harford County, 382 Md. 348 (Md. 2004) (stay/remand when exhaustion applies with multiple administrative avenues)
- Public Serv. Comm'n v. Wilson, 389 Md. 27 (Md. 2005) (exhaustion defeats judicial review when statutory remedy not pursued)
- Willis v. Montgomery County, 415 Md. 523 (Md. 2010) (finality and administrative finality concepts in review)
- Board of Educ. v. Hubbard, 305 Md. 774 (Md. 1986) (exhaustion and ordering stay vs. dismissal in administrative appeals)