Town of Forest Heights v. M-NCPPC
463 Md. 469
Md.2019Background
- The Town of Forest Heights adopted two annexation resolutions in 2016 to add ~736.85 acres (two nonresidential areas) owned principally by tax‑exempt entities: MNCPPC, Prince George’s County, the State, the federal government, school board, and a church. The annexation would more than double the Town’s area and contains no residents or registered voters.
- Forest Heights did not solicit owner consents under LG § 4‑403(b)(2) because the properties are tax‑exempt and the Town relied on precedent that tax‑exempt owners need not be counted toward the 25% property‑owner consent requirement.
- MNCPPC and Prince George’s County sued in Prince George’s County Circuit Court seeking declaratory relief; the circuit court held the annexations were void for failure to obtain 25% owner consent and also ruled the Town’s annexation plan impermissibly attempted to usurp MNCPPC law‑enforcement jurisdiction.
- The Court of Appeals granted certiorari and reviewed (1) whether the 25% consent requirement of LG § 4‑403(b)(2) includes tax‑exempt property owners and (2) whether the annexation plan unlawfully divests or duplicates MNCPPC’s policing jurisdiction.
- The Court concluded LG § 4‑403(b)(2) does not require consent from owners of tax‑exempt property (affirming the policy of City of Salisbury v. Banker’s Life), and that the annexation plan’s limited language permitting policing “as permitted by law” was speculative and did not usurp MNCPPC jurisdiction; it reversed the circuit court and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (MNCPPC/County) | Defendant's Argument (Town of Forest Heights) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LG § 4‑403(b)(2)’s 25% property‑owner consent requirement includes owners of tax‑exempt property in the annexation area | Owners of tax‑exempt property must be counted because Tax‑Property § 7‑106 requires exempt real property to be assessed; assessed value language therefore includes tax‑exempt parcels | Tax‑exempt owners need not be counted; legislative history and prior precedent (Banker’s Life) show the 25% consent was meant to cover only those who bear municipal tax burdens | Court held tax‑exempt property owners are excluded from the 25% consent requirement; Banker’s Life policy stands |
| Whether Forest Heights’ annexation plan unlawfully divests/duplicates MNCPPC law‑enforcement jurisdiction | Plan attempts to assert municipal policing over MNCPPC lands and thus violates LG § 4‑104(b) and LU § 17‑303(a) | Plan only states police may serve the area “as permitted by law” and contemplates mutual‑aid or other lawful mechanisms; language is conditional and speculative | Court held the annexation plan was appropriately conditioned and speculative; it did not effectuate a usurpation, so circuit court erred |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Salisbury v. Banker’s Life, 21 Md. App. 396 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1974) (held statute’s consent requirement should not include tax‑exempt property owners and influenced interpretation of LG § 4‑403(b)(2))
- Koste v. Town of Oxford, 431 Md. 14 (Md. 2013) (statutory interpretation principles on ambiguity and legislative intent)
- Zimmer Dev. Co. v. County Council of Prince George’s County, 444 Md. 490 (Md. 2015) (background on MNCPPC/regional district statutory framework referenced by the Court)
- Brown v. State, 454 Md. 546 (Md. 2017) (restatement of statutory‑interpretation standards relied on by the Court)