Dugan v. Prince George's County

MATRICCIANI, J. This appeal centers around two resolutions approved by the Prince George’s County Council (“the Council”). Both resolutions involve an application made by Reaching Hearts International (“RHI”) on August 13, 2010 1 for a water and sewer amendment for development of property at 6100 Brooklyn Bridge Rd. in Laurel, Maryland. RHI’s application was partially approved by the Council on September 13, 2011, and the remainder of the application was approved on January 24, 2012. The Maryland Department of the Environment (“MDE”) approved the amendments on August 17, 2012.

Appellants, who are homeowners bordering the property in question, timely filed several appeals. The appeals include the following: three petitions for judicial review (for the Council’s first resolution (case CAL 11-25989), for the Council’s second resolution, and in the alternative, a writ of administrative mandamus (case CAL 12-03856), and for MDE’s approval (case CAL 12-27009)); and two declaratory judgments and petitions for writ of mandamus (for the Council’s first and second resolution (case CAL 11-36987) and for MDE’s approval (case CAL 12-29029)). ⁶⁵⁴ In June 2012, the court granted the appellees’ motion to dismiss a declaratory judgment action for the Council’s resolutions (CAL 11-36987) on the grounds that the resolutions were quasi-judicial. 2 Appellants appealed this dismissal. The court then consolidated all of the remaining cases on the issue, and upheld the Council’s resolutions and MDE’s approval. Appellants timely appealed to this court on all of the judgments, except the petition for judicial review of the MDE decision. 3 Questions Presented Appellants present several questions for our review, which we rephrase and combine below: I. Whether the circuit court erred when it found that the Council’s amendments to the water and sewer plan for RHI’s land were quasi-judicial (CAL 11-36987)? a.

If quasi-judicial, whether the Council’s resolutions fail to articulate the basis of the Council’s decision at a level sufficient for judicial review of the legality of the decisions (CAL 12-03856)? b. If quasi-judicial, whether the administrative record fails to include substantial evidence supporting the Council’s resolutions to amend the water and sewer plan (CAL 12-03856)? c. If quasi-judicial, whether the Council lacked legal authority to consider RHI’s application for a water and sewer amendment because Prince George’s County failed to first certify that the proposed amendment conformed to its 2008 4 General Plan (CAL 12-03856)? ⁶⁵⁵ II. Whether the MDE acted outside its legal boundaries when it approved the Council’s amendments to the water and sewer plan for RHI’s land (CAL 12-29029)?

For the reasons that follow, we answer no to all of the questions and affirm. Factual and Procedural History There has been a lengthy litigation history associated with this case. Although a $3.7 million jury verdict 5 is generally strong enough to put an issue to rest, appellants remain undeterred; they continue to litigate this case to prevent RHI from developing land under the false pretext of environmentalism. Perhaps, this decision will finally allow RHI to move forward.

Before delving into the details of the case, it is necessary to provide some background information on the law regarding water and sewer systems. Maryland Code (1983, 2007 Repl. Yol.), § 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 “[pjrovide 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. Prince George’s County is a home-rule county which adopted a charter form of government in 1970. The County is authorized to exercise the powers set forth in Article 25A of the Maryland Annotated Code.

The County delegates to the Council the responsibility to approve water and sewer category changes. In Prince George’s County, if one wants to ⁶⁵⁶ change a sewer and water category from 5 to 4, 6 it must be accomplished through a legislative amendment process. Prince George’s Water and Sewer Plan 2-5 (2008). During this process, the applicant submits a proposed amendment to the County’s Department of Environmental Resources (DER) during one of three annual amendment cycles.

Prince George’s Water and Sewer Plan 6-2 (2008). DER then submits the proposed amendment to the County Executive, who in turn submits it to the Council with a recommendation. Id. The Council votes on the amendment after holding a public hearing.

Id. If the Council amends the plan, MDE must approve the amendment. Maryland Code (1983, 2007 Repl. Vol.), § 9-503(a), (c) of the Environment Article.

In 2002, RHI, a Seventh Day Adventist affiliated congregation, purchased approximately 17 acres (7 acres in the front parcel and 10 acres in the rear parcel) of unimproved property in Laurel, Maryland with the intent to construct a church and a school. Prior to purchase of this land, Prince George’s County (“the County”) had assigned approximately 13.6 acres 7 of the property (half of the front parcel 8 and the entirety of the back parcel) a water and sewer category 5, which prohibits development until adequate public facilities are available to serve the proposed development. On March 31, 2003, RHI applied to change the water and sewer category to 4 for the 13.6 acres to allow for development. Despite DER’s and the County Executive’s favorable recommendations, the Council denied the change in category.

The Council gave three reasons for denying the category change: 1) the proposed church building was adjacent to the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) Reservoir 9 , 2) the project was out of character with the surrounding ⁶⁵⁷ lot (residential) development, 3) and impervious surfaces at the building site could have a negative impact on the water quality of the adjacent reservoir. At the same time, the Council approved Dugan’s Addition to Meromy Estates, a residential development of five single-family homes, that was located on the same road as RHI’s property and adjacent to the WSSC property. RHI then filed a mandamus action in state court challenging the Council’s denial of its application. The Circuit Court for Prince George’s County upheld the Council’s rationale for denying RHI’s application, we affirmed, and the Court of Appeals denied RHI’s petition for a writ of certiorari.

While the mandamus action was being litigated, RHI revised its plan to build only on the front parcel of the land. On November 25, 2003, the Council passed a resolution, CB-83-2003, that had the effect of preventing RHI from building on the front parcel of the land. 10 On November 4, 2004, RHI filed a subdivision application to combine the front and real parcels of its property in order to comply with CB-83-2003 by developing only 10 percent of the lot. The Planning Board for Prince George’s County denied RHI’s subdivision application on April 7, 2005 because the Board said that the land in water and sewer category 5 could not be counted towards the overall lot coverage. As a result, RHI exceeded the 10 percent threshold set by CB-83-2003.

RHI appealed, but the circuit court and this court affirmed the Planning Board’s decision. The Court of Appeals again denied RHI’s petition for a writ of certiorari. While appealing the Planning Board’s decision, RHI filed a second application to change its water and sewer category for 13.6 acres of its land, and was denied again by the Council for the same reasons as in 2003. ⁶⁵⁸ In 2006, RHI filed suit in federal court alleging religious discrimination and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act violations against the County and the Council. 11 In April 2008, a jury found that the County’s actions were motivated by religious discrimination, and had imposed a substantial burden on RHI’s exercise of religion. The jury awarded damages for $8,714,822.36, and the federal court ordered the Council to process any future water and sewer category change applications by RHI without further delay and without religious discrimination.

The federal court also declared CB-83-2003 unconstitutional as applied to RHI. The County appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. 12 On August 13, 2010, RHI applied to change its 13.6 acres of property to water and sewer category 4, and the Council again rejected the application for the same reasons given for the earlier denials. In July 2011, RHI filed a motion for contempt against the Council in federal court. The U.S. District Court directed the Council to show cause why its members should not be held in contempt and sanctioned for violating its 2008 order.

At the urging of the County Executive, in September 2011, the Council reconsidered its denial of RHI’s amendment to the water and sewer category, but only for the front 3.6 acres of RHI’s property. The federal court then directed supplemental briefing concerning whether the Council’s partial approval of RHI’s application conformed with its earlier orders. After holding a hearing on the contempt motion, the U.S. District Court entered an order vacating the part of the Council’s resolution that denied a portion of RHI’s application. It remanded the matter to the Council to reconsider its partial denial, and to process the application without delay or religious discrimination.

In January 2012, the Council approved RHI’s water and sewer amendment for the remainder of the ⁶⁵⁹ property. In its resolution approving RHI’s water and sewer category change, the Council cited the federal court’s opinion and order. MDE then approved the Council’s resolution changing the water and sewer category. As stated above, appellants filed several timely appeals challenging the Council’s approval of amendments to the water and sewer category for 3.6 acres of RHI’s land as well as the remaining 10 acres, and challenging MDE’s approval of the amendments.

The circuit court consolidated the cases, and affirmed the Council’s and MDE’s approval of amendments to the water and sewer category. Appellants appealed the circuit court decision to both this court and the Court of Appeals. As noted above, the Court of Appeals denied certiorari. Discussion I. Appellants first argue that the circuit court erred in finding that the Council’s amendments to the water and sewer plan for RHI’s land were quasi-judicial, instead of quasi-legislative.

Appellants maintain that because the amendments to the water and sewer plan were quasi-legislative, the court wrongly dismissed their declaratory judgment action. 13 We review the trial court’s legal conclusions de novo. Nesbit v. Gov’t Employees Ins. Co., 382 Md. 65, 72 , 854 A.2d 879 (2004). In determining whether the Council’s action was quasi-judicial or quasi-legislative, we look to “the nature of the particular act in which it [the Council] is engaged” and “whether the decision itself is made on individual or general grounds.” Bucktail, LLC v. Cnty.

Council of Talbot Cnty., ⁶⁶⁰ 352 Md. 530, 545 , 723 A.2d 440 (1999). A recent Court of Appeals decision further clarified this determination stating that “the greater a decisionmaker’s [sic] reliance on general, ‘legislative facts,’ the more likely it is that an action is legislative in nature. Likewise, the greater a decision-maker’s reliance on property-specific, ‘adjudicative facts,’ the more reasonable it is to term the action adjudicatory in nature.” Talbot Cnty. v. Miles Point Prop., LLC, 415 Md. 372, 387 , 2 A.3d 344 (2010). Although the general process of considering water and sewer category change requests in Prince George’s County is a legislative amendment process, the consideration of RHI’s application was unique.

When partial approval was granted in September 2011, the application was not combined with any other water and sewer category change requests, but was reviewed separately. Moreover, the approval was not based on the overall community planning, but rather a specific federal court opinion and order concerning discrimination against RHI’s application. 14 In fact, the Council had already addressed any potential community planning issues when it approved the same type of amendment for a similarly situated development in 2003. 15 While appellants point to the cases of Bethel World Outreach Church v. Montgomery Cnty., 184 Md.App. 572, 589 , 967 A.2d 232 (2009), Appleton Reg’l Cmty. Alliance v. Cnty. Comm’rs of Cecil Cnty., 404 Md. 92 , 945 A.2d 648 (2008), and Gregory v. Board of County Comm’rs of Frederick Cnty., 89 Md.App. 635 , 599 A.2d 469 (1991), to show that water and sewer amendments are quasi-legislative in nature, the facts of this case are distinguishable.

Bethel, Appleton, and Gregory involved water and sewer category change requests that had a ⁶⁶¹ broad planning basis in mind. See Bethel World Outreach Church v. Montgomery Cnty., 184 Md.App. 572, 592 , 967 A.2d 232 (2009) (stating that the “category change request was bound up in broader policy considerations nearly from the time it was submitted”); Appleton Reg'l Cmty. Alliance v. Cnty. Commis. of Cecil Cnty., 404 Md. 92, 104 , 945 A.2d 648 (2008) (stating that if the proposed amendment was effective, there would be “an effect beyond the specific parcels proposed to be changed”); and Gregory v. Bd. of Cnty.

Comm’rs of Frederick Cnty., 89 Md.App. 635, 643 , 599 A.2d 469 (1991) (stating that the “decisionmaking (sic) process in adopting the Amendment focused on a considerable number of properties as they relate to each other and to the surrounding area”). As explained