Viles v. Board of Municipal and Zoning Appeals
148 A.3d 358
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2016Background
- In 2010 Baltimore City Council established the 25th Street Station Planned Unit Development (PUD) by ordinance for an 11-acre parcel.
- In 2013 the Baltimore City Planning Commission approved a design modification to that PUD under Baltimore City Zoning Code (BCZC) § 9-118(c) after a major tenant withdrew.
- Opponents (Viles et al.) appealed the Planning Commission decision to the Board of Municipal and Zoning Appeals (the Board); the Board held a hearing but dismissed the appeal, concluding it lacked jurisdiction based on Baltimore City Charter Art. VII § 86.
- Appellants sought judicial review; the circuit court affirmed the Board. The Court of Special Appeals reviewed de novo whether the Board had jurisdiction and whether BCZC § 9-118(c) validly authorized the Planning Commission to modify PUD terms.
- The court held the Board had jurisdiction to hear appeals under Md. Code, Land Use § 10-404(a)(1) because the Planning Commission acted as an "administrative official" when approving minor, property-specific PUD design modifications; it ruled that Charter § 86 does not preclude the General Assembly from granting appellate authority to the Board.
- The court did not decide the validity of BCZC § 9-118(c); it remanded so the Board may address substantive challenges to § 9-118(c) and the merits of appellants’ contentions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board had jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the Planning Commission's PUD modification | The Planning Commission was an "administrative official" under LU § 10-404(a)(1); Board may hear appeals of administrative decisions or local laws adopted under Title 10 | Charter § 86 bars the Board from reviewing or altering Planning Commission determinations; alternatively the modification authority is not under Title 10 or is an "administrative adjustment" outside Board review | Held: Yes. The Planning Commission acted administratively; LU § 10-404(a)(1) authorizes the Board to hear the appeal; Charter § 86 does not preempt the public general law granting that authority |
| Whether BCZC § 9-118(c) validly authorizes the Planning Commission to modify PUD terms | Appellants assert § 9-118(c) may be invalid and its grant of modification authority should be reviewed on the merits | City defends § 9-118(c) and argues the modification is an administrative adjustment or otherwise not subject to Board appeal | Not decided on the merits. Court remanded to the Board so the administrative process may address substantive challenges first |
Key Cases Cited
- Queen Anne’s Conservation, Inc. v. County Comm’rs of Queen Anne's County, 382 Md. 306 (clarifies test for legislative vs administrative actions)
- Wharf at Handy’s Point, Inc. v. Dep’t of Natural Res., 92 Md. App. 659 (multi-member planning commission qualifies as an "administrative official")
- Maryland Overpak Corp. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 395 Md. 16 (distinguishing quasi-judicial decisions regarding PUDs)
- Board of Sup’rs of Elections of Anne Arundel County v. Smallwood, 327 Md. 220 (public general laws prevail over conflicting charter provisions)
- Rosecroft Trotting & Pacing Ass’n, Inc. v. Prince George’s County, 298 Md. 580 (General Assembly may extend, modify, repeal local powers under constitutional scheme)
- City of Baltimore v. Princeton Const., 229 Md. 176 (older precedent regarding board authority; distinguished because pre-1970 statute)
- Windsor Hills Imp. Ass’n v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 195 Md. 383 (older precedent; likewise predates statutory grant of appellate authority)