Bethel World Outreach Church v. Montgomery County

JAMES R. EYLER, Judge. This case concerns the Montgomery County Council’s (“Council”) denial of a request submitted by Bethel World Outreach Church (“Bethel”), appellant/cross-appellee, to change the water and sewer category designation of its property in Montgomery County for the purpose of constructing a church and ancillary facilities. There is no statutory right of appeal from the Council’s action. Thus, Bethel filed a Petition for Administrative Mandamus pursuant to Title 7, Chapter 400 of the Maryland Rules against the Council and Montgomery County, appellees/cross-appellants (collectively, “the County”), contesting the legality of the Council’s action.

The petition was dismissed without prejudice by the Circuit Court for Montgomery County based on its determination that the Council acted in a legislative, rather than a quasi-judicial, capacity. Bethel subsequently amended the petition, which in its final form contained seven counts: I. Certiorari; II. Judicial Review; III. Mandamus; IV.

Declaratory Judgment; V. Injunctive Relief; VI. Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA); and VII. Maryland Declaration of Rights, Article 24. 1 Both parties moved to dismiss or for ⁵⁷⁶ summary judgment, and the circuit court entered summary judgment in favor of the County. In doing so, the court reversed its earlier determination and found that the Council acted in an administrative, or quasi-judicial, capacity when it denied Bethel’s request, but concluded that the denial was supported by substantial evidence.

The court additionally found that the non-administrative mandamus counts lacked merit because they were not properly part of an administrative appeal, and that RLUIPA and Article 24 claims lacked evidentiary, support. Bethel appealed, and the County cross-appealed. At the center of this case is the Private Institutionalized Persons (“PIF”) 2 Policy contained in Montgomery County’s Ten-Year Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan (“water and sewer plan” or “plan”). The former version of this policy, applicable at the time Bethel’s request was under consideration, allowed the Council to amend the water and sewer plan to change the category designation of properties owned by PIFs located outside the community water and sewer service envelope, thus allowing the development of such properties.

On appeal, Bethel presents the following questions concerning the denial of its application under the PIF policy, which we have consolidated and rephrased: 3 ⁵⁷⁷ I. Was the Council’s denial of Bethel’s application arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful?

II

Did the circuit court err in denying Bethel’s RLUIPA claim without making any specific findings or conclusions of law as to the substantial burden component of that claim? The County raises the following questions on cross-appeal, which we have again consolidated and slightly reworded: I. Are the claims for (1) judicial review, (2) mandamus, (3) declaratory and injunctive relief, and (4) violations of RLUIPA cognizable?

II

Did the circuit court err by granting the County’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment?

III

Did the circuit court err by denying the County’s motion to compel discovery and motion to strike a report prepared by Bethel’s expert? We agree with the circuit court that the Council’s action was not arbitrary and capricious and that the evidence was insufficient to support the RLUIPA claim. Consequently, we shall affirm the entry of summary judgment. 4 ⁵⁷⁸ Facts and Proceedings Maryland Code (2007 RepLVol., 2008 Supp.), § 9-503 of the Environment Article (“EA”) requires Maryland counties to develop 10-year plans addressing, among other things, water supply systems and sewerage systems. The statute requires that county plans “[p]rovide for the orderly expansion and extension of [water supply and sewerage systems] in a manner consistent with all county and local comprehensive plans.... ” EA § 9-505(a)(l); see also Code of Maryland Regulations (“COMAR”) 26.03.01.02.

Accordingly, each plan must establish category designations indicating the status of community water and sewer service in each area of the county. COMAR 26.03.01.04. The Maryland Department of the Environment (“MDE”) must approve each plan and any subsequent revisions or amendments adopted by the county’s governing body. EA §§ 9-503(a), (c).

Additionally, counties must hold a public hearing before revising, amending, or adopting a new plan. Id. § 9-503(d). 5 ⁵⁷⁹ In the case before us, the County’s water and sewer plan consists of text containing general objectives and policies, and specific requirements applicable to water and sewer systems; appendices containing technical information and updates to the plan; and maps identifying the water and sewer categories for all properties located within the County. The property at issue, an undeveloped 119.37 acre parcel located at 10715 Brink Road, is designated W-6 (water) and S-6 (sewer) by the County’s water and sewer plan, which are labels for “[a]reas where there is no planned community service either [within ten years or beyond].” The property is located within the County’s Rural Density Transfer (“RDT”) Zone, which is primarily intended for agricultural use. The water and sewer plan specifies that RDT zones “are generally not intended to be served by community systems.

However case-by-case exceptions can be considered where community service is logical, economical, environmentally acceptable, and does not risk extending service to non-eligible properties.” The County’s Functional Master Plan for the Preservation of Agricultural and Rural Open Space (“master plan”) likewise recommends the denial of “water and sewer service to areas designated for agricultural preservation that utilize the RDT Zone.” One mechanism for obtaining an exception to the general prohibition on community water and sewer service in the RDT Zone was the water and sewer plan’s PIF policy, as it existed prior to late 2005. The pre-2005 PIF policy allowed the County Council to consider requests for category change amendments from PIFs located outside the water and/or sewer envelope. Under the pre-2005 PIF policy, approval for new PIF uses requiring new water and/or sewer main extensions, such as the property at issue, was permitted only when the required main extensions would “abut only properties which are otherwise eligible for service under the general policies of [the water and sewer plan].” In April 2001, the owner of the property at issue, Farm Development Company, LLC (“Farm Development”), request ⁵⁸⁰ ed that the county change the property’s water and sewer service area categories to W-3 and S-3, thus giving it “immediate priority” for construction of community water and sewer service. This change was necessary to accommodate Farm Development’s plan to subdivide the property and construct four 1,000-seat church facilities. 6 During the same period when the Council was first considering Farm Development’s category change request, the PIF policy was coming under scrutiny due to the increasing and unexpected number of PIFs populating the County’s rural areas.

A memorandum from the Council’s legislative analyst to the Council, dated February 22, 2002, listed 13 category change requests, including Farm Development’s, up for consideration as part of the Council’s semi-annual review of proposed amendments to the water and sewer plan. Farm Development’s request was one of five requests singled out for more in-depth discussion based on the “issues” it raised. An Executive Staff Report on the Farm Development proposal contained in the memorandum commented that it “would provide for a large institutional use in the RDT-zone that would have the potential for greater environmental impacts than any allowed for non-institutional uses.” The report also stated that “the extension of public water would abut one additional property zoned RDT [and][t]he extension of sewer could abut additional properties depending on its final alignment.” Consequently, the report advised the Council that it “would have to amend the water (and possibly sewer) main as a restricted access main” and noted that the Council had “not used this approach for specific category changes in the past.” Because of these and other issues, the County Executive and the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission (“M-NCPPC”) 7 recommended that the Council defer Farm ⁵⁸¹ Development’s request pending its upcoming review of the PIF policy. The County’s Transportation and Environment Committee (“T & E Committee”) concurred with this evaluation.

Indeed, the issues raised by Farm Development’s request were among those singled out during the PIF policy review, which occurred in 2003 as part of the County’s mandatory triennial review of its water and sewer plan. See EA §§ 9-503, 9-515. In July 2003, the County Executive submitted to the Council a draft comprehensive update to the water and sewer plan that identified a number of “unintended concerns” created by the PIF policy, including the following: The policy has resulted in the clustering of PIF uses at the edge and outside of the acknowledged community water and/or sewer service envelopes. The policy has facilitated the siting of PIF uses on properties where the institutional use and its ancillary needs, especially parking, can create imperviousness far in excess of that normally resulting from residential uses, leaving little open space and creating water quality problems.

The policy has facilitated the siting of PIF uses within the county’s RDT-zoned agricultural preserve areas. The draft plan also included several substantive modifications to the PIF policy, including a complete prohibition on PIF approvals in the RDT zone. Nevertheless, it acknowledged that: The County cannot address [] all of the issues affecting private institutional uses only within the context of the Water and Sewer Plan. Addressing these issues will involve considering changes to other aspects of the County’s land ⁵⁸² use planning, zoning and water quality protection processes.

The County will likely need to address these institutional uses in the context of its master plans, zoning and subdivision ordinances, and water quality regulations. The M-NCPPC raised similar concerns about the PIF policy. An October 1, 2003, a memorandum from M-NCPPC staff to the Planning Board listed the following problems associated with the unanticipated proliferation of PIFs in areas zoned for single family residential and agricultural use: Traffic congestion/parking overflow during times of peak facility uses. Cumulative size and intensity of select PIF uses in residential areas that are out of scale with the surrounding single-family residential uses.

Significantly increased impervious area for PIF, when compared with development for underlying base zoning. To address these problems, M-NCPPC staff recommended suspending all PIF requests “until a revised policy is adopted which addresses community and environmental impacts.” Suggested policy revisions included capping the amount of impervious surface for PIF uses and adopting “planning, zoning and water quality protection measures.” A November 14, 2003, memorandum from the Council’s legislative analyst to the Council summarized the positions of the County Executive and M-NCPPC regarding the PIF policy, and noted the recommendations of the T & E Committee. The memorandum advised that the impervious surface cap and other proposed restrictions on the PIF policy would not solve all land use problems associated with PIFs, as some PIFs could still build with well and septic systems. Accordingly, the T & E Committee urged the Council to continue reviewing PIF requests on a case-by-case basis, and address the proposed prohibition on PIF approvals within the RDT zone, and the cap on impervious surface through zoning or subdivision regulations.

On November 18, 2003, the Council approved the updated water and sewer plan. The updated plan placed some new ⁵⁸³ restrictions on PIFs, 8 but deleted the draft language prohibiting PIFs in the RDT zone, and did not cap impervious surface. The text of the plan, however, described the modifications as “an interim step towards a final policy” and recommended further action to address concerns raised by PIFs. In March 2004, Bethel, pursuant to a purchase contract for the property, 9 submitted a letter to the Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) amending the Farm Development request to identify itself as the new applicant.

The letter also revised the tentative development proposal, describing a new site plan as follows: Religious sanctuary seating up to 3000 persons. Currently there are 3000 members. Religious school and daycare building. (250 children) Social hall with a capacity of 600-800 persons and serving a dual function to accommodate youth and fellowship activities.

Administrative offices. Present offices are occupied by 28 full time and part time employees. By memorandum dated October 11, 2004, the County Executive recommended that the Council approve Bethel’s category change request conditioned on DEP’s confirmation that the sewer main extension would comply with the PIF policy. In late 2004, as the Council was again preparing to vote on Bethel’s category change request, the Planning Board and Council staff recommended further deferral of the request pending the Council’s consideration of a zoning text amendment (“ZTA”).

The ZTA, originally submitted to the Council by the Planning Board in April 2004, proposed limiting impervious surface in the RDT zone to 15% of the lot area. The ⁵⁸⁴ Council deferred Bethel’s category change request, but did not take immediate action on the ZTA. In January 2005, the Council formed an interagency working group to study the environmental impact of PIFs in rural zones. Following several meetings and a public forum, the working group issued a report dated June 27, 2005, detailing its recommendations.

These recommendations included adopting the previously rejected prohibition on PIFs in the RDT zone, and approval of the ZTA, capping impervious surface on lots in the RDT zone at 15% of total lot area. The T & E committee held a public hearing on September 29, 2005, to solicit community input on a package of category change requests, including Bethel’s. A second public hearing was conducted by the full Council on November 8, 2005, to receive comments on the proposed ZTA and the prohibition on community service to PIFs in the RDT zone. The Council was advised by memorandum dated November 28, 2005, that the T & E Committee recommended approval of Bethel’s request, conditioned on a conservation easement approximately 10 acres in size, and a 25% limit on impervious surface.

The Planning Board, however, recommended denying the request. Further, the Council was cautioned that MDE might deny future amendments to the water and sewer plan under the PIF policy if they conflicted with the recommendations of the master plan. On November 29, 2005, the Council met to consider the package of water and sewer category change requests, including Bethel’s, and the amendment to the plan prohibiting PIFs in the RDT zone. 10 Though Bethel agreed to the conditions proposed by the T & E Committee, the Council voted 6-2 to deny its request. The Council also approved the amendment prohibiting community service to PIFs in the RDT zone. ⁵⁸⁵ At this point, we fast forward to observe that, on appeal, Bethel takes the position that its request was denied by the Council under the pre-2005 PIF policy, which gave the Council discretion to grant a category change, and not under the newly adopted 2005 PIF policy, which precluded approval of Bethel’s request.

The County takes the position that the Council denied Bethel’s request under the 2005 policy. Based on our review of the entire legislative record, we conclude that the Council denied the request under the pre2005 policy. As Bethel argues, had the Council applied the 2005 policy, there would have been no reason to debate individual applications. Our review of the transcript of Council proceedings reveals that Council members were aware of the retrospective application issue that might result from the adoption of a new policy, discussed whether the 2005 policy, if adopted, should contain a grandfathering clause, and informally decided that it should.

As adopted, the 2005 policy is silent in that regard, but that is consistent with our conclusion that ultimately the Council decided the pending, individual applications under the pre-2005 policy; therefore, there was no need to grandfather pending applications. 11 On January 27, 2006, Bethel filed a Petition for Administrative Mandamus in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. Bethel’s petition was filed pursuant to then new Title 7, Chapter 400 of the Maryland Rules, which, as of January 1, 2006, “govern[s] actions for judicial review of a quasi-judicial order or action of an administrative agency where review is not expressly authorized by law.” Md. Rule 7-401. The County moved to dismiss on March 26, 2006, arguing that Bethel’s petition was untimely, and that the new administrative mandamus rules were inapplicable because the Council ⁵⁸⁶ acted in a legislative rather than a quasi-judicial capacity. The circuit court agreed with the latter argument, and by orders dated July 10, 2006 and August 11, 2006, granted the County’s motion, dismissing both petitions for administrative mandamus 12 without prejudice to Bethel’s right to file an amended petition within 30 days.

Bethel filed an amended petition on August 9, 2006, which developed into a third amended petition containing counts for certiorari; judicial review/administrative mandamus pursuant to Title 7, Chapter 400 of the Md. Rules; mandamus pursuant to Title 15, Chapter 700 of the Md. Rules; declaratory judgment; injunctive relief; a violation of RLUIPA; and a violation of Maryland Declaration of Rights, Article 24. Both parties designated expert witnesses and engaged in discovery. On November 29, 2007, the County filed a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. Bethel responded on December 4, 2007, with its own motion for summary judgment, supported by an expert’s report.

The County moved to strike the report on grounds that Bethel’s challenge was confined to the record relating to the Council’s action, and that the report contained opinions beyond the scope of the author’s expertise. On December 28, 2007, the trial court conducted a hearing on the opposing motions for summary judgment, the County’s motion to strike the expert’s report, and a motion by the County to compel proper responses to discovery requests. 13 Following an extensive exchange between the parties and the court on the question of whether the Council acted in a legislative or quasi-judicial capacity in denying Bethel’s request, the court found that the Council’s action was quasi-judicial. Consequently, the court concluded that the certiorari, declaratory judgment, non-administrative mandamus, and injunctive relief counts were not cognizable as part of an ⁵⁸⁷ administrative appeal, and it denied the County’s motion relating to the expert’s report and discovery responses as moot because the parties were limited to the administrative record. As to the count for administrative mandamus/judicial review, the court found the Council’s decision was rational and supported by substantial evidence because Bethel’s application did not comply with the pre-2005 PIF policy.

Specifically, the court noted that the water and sewer mains necessary to serve Bethel’s property would abut properties ineligible for service. In addition, the court, noting that the counts invoking RLUIPA and Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights did not “rest upon an administrative record,” concluded that they were unsupported by the evidence. 14 Discussion I Bethel has taken a buckshot approach to challenging the Council’s action, presumably because of the uncertainty as to the nature of the Council’s action. Bethel’s pursuit of this strategy results in a major inconsistency: Bethel treats the case as a judicial review of a quasi-judicial decision by an administrative body, yet it relies on an expert’s report that was not part of the administrative record, and asserts a RLUIPA claim that was never raised before the administrative body. See Halici v. City of Gaithersburg, 180 Md.App. 238, 248-49 , 949 A.2d 85 (2008) (“Ordinarily, a court reviewing the decision of an administrative agency may not pass upon issues presented to it for the first time on judicial review....

The failure to raise an issue before the administrative agency is a failure to exhaust administrative remedies and an improper request for the courts to resolve matters ab initio that have been committed to the jurisdiction and expertise of the agency. (internal quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted)). The County contends that we should treat Bethel’s complaint, which contained counts for certiorari, non-administra ⁵⁸⁸ tive mandamus, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief as a request for review of a legislative act and, accordingly, apply a less rigorous standard of review. The County argues that the Council did not engage in a quasi-judicial process, and Bethel did not claim before the Council that such a process was required. 15 A In order to prune this procedural thicket and properly address the parties’ contentions, we must first determine the character of the Council’s action.

In general terms, a government body acts in a quasi-judicial capacity when it considers “facts about the parties and their activities, businesses and properties. They usually answer the questions of who did what, where, when, how, why, -with what motive or intent.” Armstrong v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 169 Md.App. 655, 668 , 906 A.2d 415 (2006) (quoting Montgomery County v. Woodward & Lothrop, Inc., 280 Md. 686, 712 , 376 A.2d 483 (1977)) (internal quotation marks omitted). In contrast, legislative action is predicated on facts that “do not usually concern the immediate parties but are general facts which help the tribunal decide questions of law and policy and discretion. The difference essentially depends on whether the decision is to be made on individual or general grounds.” Id.

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The County relies heavily on Appleton Regional Community Alliance v. Cecil County, 404 Md. 92 , 945 A.2d 648 (2008), and Gregory v. Board of County Commissioners of Frederick County, 89 Md.App. 635 , 599 A.2d 469 (1991), to argue that water and sewer plan amendments are comprehensive planning actions and, therefore, legislative in nature. In its reply brief, Bethel asserts that Appleton and Gregory were limited to the question of whether a water and sewer plan amendment was a “zoning action” within the meaning of Maryland Code ⁵⁸⁹ (1957, 2007 Repl.Vol.), § 4.08(a) of Article 66B (Art. 66B), and did not decide whether the process was quasi-judicial or legislative. Bethel alternatively points to Maryland Overpak Corp. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 395 Md. 16 , 909 A.2d 235 (2006), as supporting its argument that the Council acted in a quasi-judicial capacity when considering the category change request.

We agree with Bethel that Appleton and Gregory are not definitive on the question of whether the denial of Bethel’s request for a category change amendment to the water and sewer plan was a legislative act. Many of the cases relied on by the parties address the meaning of “zoning action” as used in Art. 66B, which provides an express right of appeal from zoning actions. In answering that question, the early cases did not clearly focus on whether the action was quasi-judicial or legislative in nature, but the later cases have done so. Compare Bd. of County Comm’rs of Carroll County v. Stephans, 286 Md. 384, 388-397 , 408 A.2d 1017 (1979), with Md. Overpak, 395 Md. at 32-40 , 909 A.2d 235 .

As was pointed out in Md. Overpak, the determination of whether an action is legislative or quasi-judicial does not necessarily determine whether it constitutes “zoning action.” 395 Md. at 36-37 , 909 A.2d 235 . Nonetheless, the later cases addressing “zoning action” are instructive because they discuss the difference between quasi-judicial and legislative action as a necessary part of the determination of “zoning action.” Id. at 53 , 909 A.2d 235 . Our review of the cases convinces us that the Council’s action was legislative. In Appleton, a developer asked the Board of County Commissioners of Cecil County to upgrade the water and sewer category designation of a property on which it planned to construct a residential development. 404 Md. at 94-95 , 945 A.2d 648 .

The Board eventually approved the proposed amendment, prompting a group of citizens to file a petition for judicial review challenging the approval. Id. at 96-97 , 945 A.2d 648 . The citizens sought review pursuant to Art. 66B, ⁵⁹⁰ § 4.08(a), which authorizes judicial review of “a zoning action of a local legislative body.” Id. at 98, 945 A.2d 648 . The circuit court dismissed the petition, and this Court affirmed, holding, inter alia, that the plan amendment was not a “zoning action” subject to judicial review under § 4.08(a).

Id. The sole issue considered by the Court of Appeals was the question of reviewability under § 4.08(a). Id. at 98-99, 945 A.2d 648 . The Court began its analysis by summarizing the criteria for a judicially reviewable “zoning action”: [FJirst, there must be a determination that the process observed by the governmental body in affecting an alleged zoning action was quasi-judicial in nature, rather than legislative.

A quasi-judicial proceeding in the zoning context is found where, at a minimum, there is a fact-finding process that entails the holding of a hearing, the receipt of factual and opinion testimony and/or forms of documentary evidence, and a particularized conclusion, based upon delineated statutory standards, for the unique development proposal for the specific parcel or assemblage of land in question. Second, if the governmental act in question involves a quasi-judicial process, the inquiry moves to the question of whether it qualifies as a “zoning action.” Where the [legislative body] exercises its discretion in deciding the permissible uses and other characteristics of a specific parcel or assemblage of land upon a deliberation of the unique circumstances of the affected land and its surrounding environs, a “zoning action” is the result. Id. at 101 , 945 A.2d 648 (quoting Md. Overpak, 395 Md. at 53 , 909 A.2d 235 (second alteration in original)). The Court went on, however, to “assume[ ], without deciding” that the water and sewer plan amendment was adopted by a quasi-judicial process based on the citizens’ assertions that the process “was initiated by a single party, [the developer]; required a hearing with receipt of factual and opinion testimony; and, covered only a few specific, related parcels of land.” Id. at 100-01 , 945 A.2d 648 .

The Court further assumed “that the proposed Plan amendment affected only ⁵⁹¹ parcels owned or controlled by [the developer].” Id. at 101, n. 10 , 945 A.2d 648 . These assumptions are not helpful here, as their purpose in Appleton was merely to set up the analysis of whether the Board’s action constituted “zoning.” The more instructive portion of Appleton comes from the Court’s refusal to distinguish our decision in Gregory. Id. at 103, 945 A.2d 648 . The citizens in Appleton argued that, unlike the more comprehensive amendment at issue in Gregory , the amendment in their case was “piecemeal” and thus more closely resembled a reviewable “zoning action” than a non-reviewable “planning action.” Id. at 103-04, 945 A.2d 648 .

Citing Gregory , the Court wrote that “all amendments to a Master Water and Sewer Plan are, by definition, comprehensive planning actions.” Id. at 104, 945 A.2d 648 . “Thus,” the Court stated, “merely because amendments to the Plan occur in small steps does not mean that the inherent planning process is transformed into a ‘zoning action.’ ” Id. at 104 , 945 A.2d 648 . In Gregory , like Appleton, a group of residents challenged the Board of Commissioners of Frederick County’s adoption of an amendment upgrading the water and sewer category of two undeveloped parcels of land. 89 Md.App. at 637 , 599 A.2d 469 . Also like Appleton, the sole issue considered was whether the action was a judicially reviewable “zoning action” under § 4.08(a). Id.

In answering “no” to this question, we distinguished between comprehensive zoning and planning actions on one hand, and piecemeal zoning actions on the other: Planning actions are not substantially concerned with use regulation, and are “contrived to promote the common interest in matters that have from earliest times been considered as embraced within the police power.” Comprehensive zoning actions are substantially concerned with use regulation, but share with planning actions a broad or comprehensive land use planning basis. Neither a planning action nor a comprehensive zoning action is appealable under § 4.08(a) as a “zoning action.” Only a ⁵⁹² piecemeal zoning action, which is substantially concerned with regulation of property uses and, in contrast to a comprehensive zoning action, is narrow and restricted in focus, is appealable under § 4.08(a) as a “zoning action.” Id. at 640-41, 599 A.2d 469 (citations omitted). We concluded that the water and sewer plan amendment at issue fell into the former category, and thus was not renewable under § 4.08(a). Id. at 643, 599 A.2d 469 .

In fact, we were “unable to conceive of a situation in which the adoption of an amendment to a county’s comprehensive water and sewerage plan would lack such a comprehensive basis.” Id. Thus, while neither Appleton nor Gregory explicitly labeled a water and sewer plan amendment as a legislative action, both likened the process to comprehensive zoning, which is recognized as legislative in nature. See Md. Overpak, 395 Md. at 35-36 , 909 A.2d 235 (referring to comprehensive zoning as a legislative action). As Bethel correctly points out, the petitioners in Appleton and Gregory sought judicial review pursuant to Article 66B, § 4.08(a), while Bethel’s petition relies on Title 7, Chapter 400 of the Md. Rules.

Nonetheless, this distinction does not lessen the import of the above analogy. Moreover, both cases rejected the comparison of a water and sewer plan amendment to piecemeal zoning by noting that the proposed amendments would have an effect beyond the specific parcels of land seeking a category change, and that a water and sewer plan remains a comprehensive land use planning tool even when it is changed incrementally. Appleton, 404 Md. at 103-05 , 945 A.2d 648 ; Gregory, 89 Md.App. at 643-44 , 599 A.2d 469 . The facts of this case reflect these principles, and are consistent with a legislative process.

Farm Developmeni/Bethel’s category change request was bound up in broader policy considerations nearly from the time it was submitted. When the request first came before the Council, the County Executive and M-NCPPC recommended that it and another PIF request in the RDT Zone be deferred pending a review of the PIF policy. This policy review was prompted by the unex ⁵⁹³ pected clustering of PIFs in the RDT zone, which raised environmental concerns and conflicted with the master plan recommendation against extending community water and sewer service to the RDT zone. Though the pre-2005 PIF policy update excluded the proposed prohibition on PIFs in the RDT zone, the Council continued to defer category change requests by Bethel and other PIFs while it considered the ZTA limitation on impervious surface and further revisions to the PIF policy.

When the Council was finally prepared to reach a decision on Bethel’s request, it conducted public hearings that, based on the portions of the transcripts provided to this court, were largely focused on the broader issues raised by PIFs in rural zoning areas. Moreover, the statements of the Council members at the November 29, 2005, hearing denying Bethel’s request indicate their decision was driven by policy considerations: [Councilmember Andrews:] I think while this is a tough case because of the timing of the application, it is really the tough cases that make or break a policy, not the easy ones. And I think that the — the interest that has to prevail here is in protecting the Agricultural Reserve for its intended use, and that argues for denying the application for water and sewer. [Councilmember Leventhal:] I can’t think of a more meritorious use then that use that the church would like to place at the corner of Brink and Wild Cat Roads, but I do know that as long as I serve in the Council there will be other meritorious proposals that are not in keeping with the agricultural and open spaces purposes of the RDT zone. [Councilmember Knapp:] So I think we need to, as I have said many times, reaffirm our commitment to Ag Reserve and agricultural policy, while at the same time create an affirmative policy for how we are going to work with our religious institutions and Private Institutional Facilities so ⁵⁹⁴ they can grow and expand to meet the challenges that they’re confronting as well. [Planning Board representative Derick Berlage]: This property is located in the RDT zone. The Planning Board has an almost perfect record of not recommending sewer extensions in the RDT zone.

We believe that is a fundamental threat to the Agricultural Reserve not only with respect to the particular property, but once the sewer is in the ground there is no way to guarantee it may not some day be extended further. So our position on this particular application is opposition because it’s the RDT zone. [Council President Perez]: As I understand our conversations with [sic] relating to water and sewer hookup and the grandfathering, the universe of churches seeking water and sewer hookup in the RDT zone to be grandfathered pursuant to the very tough policy — appropriately tough policy we have just enacted