Mayor of Rockville v. Pumphrey

DEBORAH S. EYLER, J. This appeal arises from two actions for judicial review filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. In each case, William Pumphrey, on behalf of the Robert A. Pumphrey Funeral Home, and RAP Leasing Corporation (“RAP”) (collectively “Pumphrey”), the appellees, were the petitioners. In the first action for judicial review, Pumphrey challenged a text amendment to the City of Rockville’s zoning ordinance enacted by the Mayor and City Council of Rockville (“Mayor and ¹⁶³ Council” or “the City”), an appellant, which eliminated language permitting the expansion of off-street parking for certain nonconforming uses within Rockville (“the text amendment case”). Pumphrey alternatively sought mandamus relief against the City.

In the second action, Pumphrey challenged a decision of the City of Rockville Planning Commission (“the Planning Commission”), an appellant, denying his final record plat application for the consolidation of two adjacent parcels into one lot (“the plat case”). The circuit court denied the City’s motion to dismiss the text amendment case, granted Pumphrey’s motion to consolidate the two actions, heard argument, and ruled that the text amendment to the zoning ordinance was invalid because the City acted arbitrarily and capriciously in enacting it. The circuit court further ruled that the Planning Commission’s decision to deny Pumphrey’s final record plat application was arbitrary, capricious, and unsupported by substantial evidence in the record. The circuit court reversed and vacated the text amendment enacted by the City; ordered a prior text amendment to be reinstated; and reversed the Planning’s Commission’s order denying the final plat application.

On appeal, the City and the Planning Commission present four questions for review, which we have rephrased: I. Did the circuit court err by concluding that the enactment of the text amendment was a quasi-judicial act, and not a purely legislative act, and in denying the City’s motion to dismiss on that basis?

II

Did the circuit court err by reversing the decision of the Planning Commission in the plat case?

III

If the Planning Commission erred, was the circuit court obligated to remand the plat case to the Planning Commission for further proceedings?

IV

Did the circuit court err or abuse its discretion by consolidating the text amendment case and the plat case? For the reasons to follow, we conclude that the circuit court erred by denying the City’s motion to dismiss the text amend ¹⁶⁴ ment case and by reversing the decision of the Planning Commission in the plat case. We shall vacate the circuit court judgment and remand with instructions that it enter orders dismissing the text amendment case and affirming the decision of the Planning Commission. Our resolution of these first two issues obviates the need to address the third and fourth issues.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Since 1980, the Robert A. Pumphrey Funeral Home, f/k/a Pumphrey’s Colonial Funeral Home (“Funeral Home”), a family-run business, has operated out of a three-story house located at the corner of West Montgomery Avenue and Williams Street in the West End neighborhood of Rockville. 1 The Funeral Home’s address is 300 West Montgomery Avenue and it fronts on that road. In 1977, RAP, a corporate entity owned and operated by the Pumphrey family, purchased the property. The lot next door, 304 West Montgomery Avenue (“the adjoining parcel”), was purchased by the Pumphrey family in 1961. At that time, it was improved with a large house.

The house was demolished in 1970. Since then, the adjoining parcel has been open lawn with a perimeter of screening vegetation between it and a neighboring residential property at 306 West Montgomery Avenue. RAP also is the record owner of 304 West Montgomery Avenue. The Funeral Home has been a nonconforming use since August 3, 1932, when the first zoning ordinance governing the property was adopted.

Presently, it and the adjoining parcel are zoned R-90 HD, Single Unit Detached Dwelling Restricted Residential, Historic District. ¹⁶⁵ The Funeral Home has 17 off-street parking spaces available for visitors, all of which are located in its backyard. Two of the spaces are enclosed in a one-story garage. The other 15 spaces are on an open, paved lot. Access to the parking lot is from a driveway off of Williams Street.

When, as is often the case, the parking lot is full, visitors park on Williams Street and other nearby residential streets. For some time, this practice has resulted in complaints from neighbors. A. The 2010 Text Amendment In 2010, Pumphrey began to investigate expanding the existing parking lot for the Funeral Home onto the adjoining parcel. City officials informed him that the zoning ordinance prohibited the expansion of nonconforming uses except in very limited circumstances not applicable to the expansion of a parking lot.

City officials also informed Pumphrey that he could pursue a text amendment to the zoning ordinance to permit such an expansion. At all relevant times, the City’s zoning ordinance (“the Ordinance”), which is codified at Chapter 25 of the Rockville City Code (“RCC”), and Md. Code (1957, 2010 Repl. Vol.), Article 66B (“art. 66B”), 2 governed the procedure for text amendments. As pertinent here, section 25.06.02 provides that “any interested person or governmental agency” may file “[a]n application for an amendment to the text of [the Ordinance].” RCC § 25.06.02.b.1.

The application must be submitted to the City Clerk on a form provided by the City’s Chief of Planning and be accompanied by a filing fee as determined by the Mayor and Council. RCC § 25.06.02.b.2. The City Clerk must transmit the proposed text amendment to the Planning Commission within five days of receipt of an application. RCC § 25.06.02.d.1.

The Planning Commission “may submit a written recommendation to the Mayor and Council.” Id. If it does so, its recommendation becomes part of the record upon ¹⁶⁶ the Mayor and Council’s consideration of the text amendment. Id. An application for a text amendment may not be granted unless a public hearing is held by the Mayor and Council.

RCC § 25.06.02.f.; art. 66B, § 5.03(c)(1) (before a local legislative body may adopt a regulation, it must hold a public hearing). Before such a hearing, notice of the proposed amendment must be published in “a newspaper of general circulation.” RCC § 25.06.02.c; art. 66B, § 5.03(c)(2). After notice and a public hearing, the Mayor and Council may grant a text amendment “by ordinance” or may deny, dismiss, or allow the withdrawal of the text amendment. RCC § 25.06.02.g.1.

On June 24, 2010, in accordance with these provisions, Pumphrey filed with the City’s Department of Community Planning and Development Services (“Department of Planning”) an “Application for Text Amendment” (“the 2010 Application”), with a $3,000 application fee. The 2010 Application was designated TXT2010-00228 by the City Clerk. The application sought to amend “[e]xisting [t]ext” to “allow expansion of parking of a long standing nonconforming use in a single dwelling unit residential zone.” Specifically, Pumphrey sought to amend Section 25.08.05 of Article 8 of the Ordinance, which governs nonconforming uses in Single Dwelling Unit Residential Zones, to add a new subsection “d.” As proposed by Pumphrey, the new subsection would read: Additional Off-Street Parking—Where a nonconforming use in a Single Dwelling Unit Residential Zone has been in continual existence on a lot since prior to August 3, 1932, off-street parking for the nonconforming use may be altered, expanded, or enlarged on the lot and/or on an adjacent lot in accordance with the requirements of Article 16 and the Landscaping, Screening and Lighting Manual. The 2010 Application was forwarded to the Planning Commission for review.

On September 17, 2010, the Chief of Planning filed a staff report recommending that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the 2010 Application for two ¹⁶⁷ reasons: 1) a general policy against expansion of nonconforming uses and 2) potential adverse impacts on adjoining residential properties. The staff report explained that the purpose of the proposed amendment was to “facilitate the continuation of the nonconforming use [of the Funeral Home] by expanding the off-street parking onto the adjoining lot at 304 West Montgomery Avenue,” which, it noted, would bring the nonconforming use into closer conformity with development standards by adding 32 off-street parking spaces. Alternatively, the staff report recommended revision of the proposed text amendment to limit its applicability to nonconforming uses in the R-90 zone that were in existence in 1932, when the City first adopted a zoning ordinance. The staff report emphasized that Pumphrey would be required to consolidate its two properties so that the parking was on the same lot as the use being served.

The Planning Commission considered the 2010 Application at a meeting on September 29, 2010, and voted three to two to recommend to the City and Council that the text amendment be denied. The Historic District Commission (“HDC”) conducted a courtesy review of the 2010 Application and also voted to recommend that it be denied. On October 25, 2010, the Mayor and Council convened for a public hearing on the 2010 Application. The Zoning Administrator introduced the proposed text amendment, explaining that its purpose was to “allow for the expansion of [off] street parking in connection with a [non]conforming use in existence before August 3, 1932,” which, he noted, was “a funeral home located at 300 West Montgomery Avenue.” He informed the Mayor and Council that the Planning Commission and the HDC had recommended denial of the text amendment.

He took questions. Council members asked for some general information about nonconforming uses and about what would happen to the Funeral Home if the text amendment were denied. They also asked what would happen if the Funeral Home were sold or ceased operation. The Zoning Administrator explained that, under the Ordinance in its then current form, if a nonconforming use ceased for a period of three ¹⁶⁸ months or more, it would lose its status as a lawful nonconforming use.

Moreover, if the Pumphrey family were to sell the 300 West Montgomery Street property and the new owners did not wish to continue the funeral home use, the property would revert to a residential use. With respect to the effect of the proposed text amendment, the Zoning Administrator described it as being “fairly general” and opined that there could be a “few other nonconforming uses elsewhere in the city” that the change might affect. This was why the staff report had recommended “tightening the language up” to include only nonconforming uses in existence since 1932 in an R-90 zone. According to the Zoning Administrator, if the proposed text amendment were altered in that way, it would apply only to the Funeral Home.

Following the presentation by the Zoning Administrator, individuals and representatives of organizations were allowed to speak. Pumphrey’s lawyer spoke first. She stated that the proposed text amendment was designed to allow the Funeral Home to expand its parking lot onto the adjoining parcel to alleviate on-street parking congestion on Williams Street. She explained that the text amendment was drafted narrowly, so as not to affect other properties, and that Pumphrey did not object to the even more narrow language proposed by the planning staff.

She asked the Mayor and Council not to be swayed by those who were arguing that this was a “black and white” issue of expansion of a nonconforming use. She urged them to consider that the Funeral Home was both a nonconforming use and a community landmark. She also asked the Mayor and Council to consider the impact on the residents of Williams Street, who were outside of the historic district and were bearing the brunt of the lack of adequate parking for the Funeral Home. Finally, she suggested that one of the concerns voiced by the planning staff—that the expansion would require combining the lots at 300 and 304 West Montgomery Avenue, which would result in a large lot that might never revert to a residential use—could be alleviated if the Mayor and Council would permit the parking expansion to be on the adjoining parcel without the lots having to be combined. ¹⁶⁹ William Doggett, an architect hired by Pumphrey to design the parking lot, spoke next.

He stated that the expanded parking lot would be constructed from a pervious material, that it would be “fully screened” with landscaping, including trees blocking its view from West Montgomery Avenue, and that it would be lit with three foot high bollards that “cast a shallow pool of light.” He displayed renderings of the proposed parking lot. He was asked several questions about the design, including whether he had considered the impact of car headlights on the property owners at 306 West Montgomery Avenue. He replied that there is an existing seven-foot high wall at the property line between 304 West Montgomery Avenue and 306 West Montgomery Avenue. Pumphrey spoke briefly as well.

He advised the Mayor and Council that he intended to do whatever was necessary to mitigate any negative impacts on neighbors caused by the planned parking lot expansion. He emphasized the great need for more parking and that the proposed text amendment was designed to affect only his properties. Four neighboring property owners, including Meg and Phil Bowen, the owners of adjacent property at 306 West Montgomery Avenue, spoke in opposition to the text amendment. Another four neighboring property owners, three of whom live on Williams Street and one who lives in the house directly across the street from 304 West Montgomery Avenue, spoke in support of the text amendment.

The president of the West End Community Association gave a statement explaining that because community opinion on the proposal was so mixed, the association had decided not to take a position on the text amendment. A spokesperson for the HDC spoke and explained its reasons for opposing the text amendment. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Mayor and Council decided to keep the record open for two more weeks before deliberating on the proposed text amendment. The Mayor and Council reconvened for public deliberations on November 15, 2010.

Those supporting the amendment took the position that the safety of pedestrians and residents ¹⁷⁰ of the neighboring properties on Williams Street would be improved by moving the parking off-street. They also emphasized that the Funeral Home is an historic use in the neighborhood. The opposing members expressed concern about approving an expansion of any nonconforming use and that the expansion here would result in a parking lot on a vacant lot, making it less likely that the lot would revert to a residential use at some point in the future. Ultimately, the Mayor and Council voted three to two to support the amendment.

The Mayor and one council member opposed and the remaining three council members voted in favor of the amendment. On December 13, 2010, the Mayor and Council reconvened and adopted Ordinance 22-10, which we quote in pertinent part: WHEREAS, William A. Pumphrey ... filed [the 2010 Application] for the purpose of amending [the Ordinance] to allow the expansion of parking in connection with a nonconforming use in a single dwelling unit residential zone; and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed text amendment ... and recommended denial of the application as set forth in a memorandum to the Mayor and Council ...; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 66B of the Annotated Code of Maryland, the Mayor and Council ... gave notice that a hearing on said application would be held ...; and WHEREAS, on October 25, 2010, said application came on for hearing ...; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council having considered the text amendment application and the entire file pertaining thereto, said Mayor and Council having decided that the granting of this application, as amended, in the form set forth below, would promote the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Rockville. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND, that Text Amendment Application No. TXT201000228, be, and the same is hereby, granted, as amended, by ¹⁷¹ amending Article 8, “Transitional Provisions, Nonconformities, Nonconforming Alteration Approval,” by adding a new subsection d. to Section 25.08.05 of Chapter 25, “Zoning” as follows: 25.08.05—Nonconforming Uses d. Additional off-street parking.

Where a nonconforming use has been in continual existence in the R-90 Zone within the City since prior to August 3, 1932, off-street parking for the nonconforming use may be altered, expanded or enlarged in accordance with the requirements of Article 16 and the Landscaping, Screening and Lighting Manual. (“2010 Text Amendment”) B. Aftermath of the 2010 Text Amendment After the application was granted, Pumphrey began the process to combine the two lots and to seek approval for a nonconforming alteration, i.e., to expand the parking lot. Combining the two lots was a prerequisite to expanding the parking lot because the Ordinance requires a parking accessory to a lawful use to be on the same lot as the use being served. See RCC § 25.16.04.a (requiring “[a]ll off-street parking ... required by [the parking regulations of the Ordinance] for any use ... be located on and entirely within the same record lot with that use, unless otherwise provided in this chapter.”).

By November 2011, Pumphrey had filed with the planning division a pre-application and had completed the preapplication meeting. While the pre-application process was ongoing, however, the City’s municipal elections were held, on November 8, 2011. Two council members who had voted in favor of the 2010 Text Amendment were defeated, one by a new council member who had campaigned on his opposition to that text amendment. The result was a shift from a three to two majority in favor of the 2010 Text Amendment to three to two majority opposed to it. ¹⁷² On November 16, 2011, Pumphrey filed with the Planning Department a site plan application.

It was bifurcated into a request for a nonconforming alteration, assigned case number VAR2012-00030, and a request for a hew record plat, assigned case number PLT2012-00514. It was set in for review by the Development Review Committee (“DRC”) on December 15, 2011. Meanwhile, at the first meeting of the newly elected Mayor and Council on November 28, 2011, the issue of the 2010 Text Amendment was raised and City staff were directed to draft a memorandum about the procedures that were followed in adopting that text amendment and the status of Pumphrey’s site plan application. C. The 2012 Text Amendment In its memorandum, the City staff concluded that there had been “no serious procedural or legal errors” in the process by which the 2010 Text Amendment was adopted.

On January 9, 2012, the Mayor and Council convened at a public hearing to discuss the memorandum. At that time, Pumphrey’s site plan application remained under DRC review and had not been set in for a hearing before the Planning Commission. After lengthy deliberations, the Mayor and Council voted three to two to direct planning staff to file a new text amendment to delete the language inserted in the Ordinance by the 2010 Text Amendment. Those opposed to revisiting the issue took the position that, absent some legal or procedural error in the process that had been employed to adopt the 2010 Text Amendment, the Mayor and Council could not or should not undo the prior amendment.

On January 12, 2012, the Mayor and Council filed an application for text amendment for the stated purpose of “deleti[ng] [the] provision allowing expansion of off-street parking” at the Funeral Home (“the 2012 Application”). The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed text amendment and voted four to one to recommend approval ¹⁷³ because the regulation of non-conforming uses intends for such uses to ultimately cease to exist, so that only permitted uses in the current zone can be approved in the future. Allowing the expansion has the practical effect of perpetuating the non-conforming use into the foreseeable future. As noted in the Planning Commission Staff Report, the funeral home can continue to operate as a non-conforming use as it has been for the past 80 years.

On March 26, 2012, the Mayor and Council held a public hearing on the proposed text amendment. It heard a presentation from the Zoning Administrator, who advised that the effect of the adoption of the text amendment would be to prevent the Funeral Home from expanding its parking lot. The Zoning Administrator noted that Pumphrey’s request for alteration of the nonconforming use had not yet been heard or approved by the Planning Commission. The Mayor and Council then heard testimony from more than 40 people in attendance.

Twenty-one community members spoke in opposition to the newly proposed text amendment and twelve spoke in support. Pumphrey and his attorney each addressed the Mayor and Council, as did counsel for the Bowens. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Mayor and Council decided to keep the record open until April 2, 2012. On April 16, 2012, the Mayor and Council reconvened at a public hearing to deliberate.

They voted three to two to adopt the text amendment deleting Section 25.08.05.d (the 2010 Text Amendment). On May 7, 2012, the Mayor and Council adopted Ordinance 06-12, which we quote in pertinent part: WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council of Rockville ... filed Text Amendment Application TXT 2012-233 for the purpose of amending Chapter 25 of the [RCC] so as to delete Section 25.08.05.d; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed text amendment ... and recommended that the text amendment be approved; and ¹⁷⁴ WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 66B of the Annotated Code of Maryland, the Mayor and Council gave notice that a hearing on said application would be held ...; and ... WHEREAS, on March 26, 2012, said application came on for hearing ...; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council having considered the text amendment application and the entire file pertaining thereto, said Mayor and Council having decided that the granting of this application, in the form set forth below, would promote the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Rockville. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND, that Text Amendment Application No. TXT201200233, be, and the same is hereby granted, by amending Article 8, “Transitional Provisions, Nonconformities, Nonconforming Alteration Approval” so as to delete Section 25.08.05.d.

(“2012 Text Amendment”) On June 6, 2012, in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Pumphrey filed a petition for judicial review and for a writ of administrative mandamus, under Rule 7-401 et seq. D. The Final Record Plat Application Although the enactment of the 2012 Text Amendment prevented Pumphrey from going forward with his request to alter a nonconforming use to expand the parking lot, it did not prevent the completion of his request to consolidate 300 West Montgomery Avenue and 304 West Montgomery Avenue into one record lot. On May 16, 2012, planning staff recommended approval of Pumphrey’s proposed record plat. Staff noted that Pumphrey sought “the resubdivision of two parcels into a single record lot made up of 46,965 square feet of land.” The resulting combined lot would be composed of 44,862 square feet, with 2,103 square feet dedicated to public use. ¹⁷⁵ The staff report explained that the granting of the record plat application would not permit “any right to further development of the property” because the nonconforming Funeral Home use could not be “enlarged or expanded.” With respect to the plat application’s compliance with the Ordinance, the staff report stated that lots in an R-90 Zone “must contain a minimum of 9,000 square feet of land and be a minimum of 80 feet wide.” The Ordinance further provides that “[i]n any resubdivision of developed or undeveloped lots within an existing residential area, the plat must maintain, to the extent feasible, the average area and frontage of existing lots within 500 feet of the proposed re subdivision.” The staff report concluded that, if the plat application were approved, the resulting lot “would clearly be the largest single lot in the area at 44,862 square feet of land with 220 feet of frontage along West Montgomery Avenue and approximately 209 feet of frontage along Williams Street.” Although a nearby church appeared to be larger, it actually was comprised of two deeded lots, the larger of which was just 31,176 square feet.

The staff concluded, nevertheless, that the plat maintained “to the extent feasible, the average area and frontage of existing lots within 500 feet of the proposed re subdivision.” This was so because the purpose of the lot size regulation was to prevent subdivision that would create “unusual or different lots associated with the existing and surrounding neighborhood.” Because the Funeral Home and the adjoining parcel had been in common ownership for more than 50 years and “visually, the overall property ha[d] appeared to be a single property since the house on the western lot was demolished in 1970,” the resubdivision of the lots would not alter the character of the neighborhood. Moreover, were strict compliance with the lot size regulation required, Pumphrey’s lots actually would have to be subdivided into smaller lots. For these reasons, the staff found in its report that the final record plat met the feasibility prong of the Ordinance and should be approved. On May 23, 2012, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the plat application.

It heard from coun ¹⁷⁶ sel for Pumphrey and one community member, who opposed the plat application. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission voted four to two to deny the plat application. Those members voting against the plat application opined that approving the application would produce a lot much bigger than the average lot in the neighborhood. Members also expressed concern that combining the lots would make it less likely that the property ever would return to a residential use.

By letter dated June 6, 2012, the Chief of Planning informed Pumphrey in writing that the plat application was denied because it would have resulted in a lot that “far exceeded” the average area of existing lots within 500 feet and because the proposed lot “was not in keeping with the Master Plan, which recommends maintaining the residential character of the area.” Approval of a combined lot would have “move[d] it further from becoming a residential lot in the R-90 Zone, particularly with the existing nonconforming use on the property.” On June 27, 2012, in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Pumphrey petitioned for judicial review of the Planning Commission’s decision. E. Proceedings in the Circuit Court On August 6, 2012, the City moved to dismiss the petition for judicial review and for administrative mandamus review in the text amendment case. It asserted that the Mayor and Council’s enactment of the 2012 Text Amendment was a legislative act not subject to judicial or administrative mandamus review. On September 7, 2012, Pumphrey moved to consolidate the judicial review action in the text amendment case and the judicial review action in the plat case.

The City and the Planning Commission opposed consolidation. By order dated October 25, 2012, the circuit court granted the motion to consolidate. ¹⁷⁷ On January 17, 2013, the circuit court heard argument on the City’s motion to dismiss and on the petitions for judicial review. It held both matters sub curia. On April 29, 2013, the circuit court entered a memorandum opinion and order denying the City’s motion to dismiss the petition for judicial and administrative mandamus review in the text amendment case; ruling that the Mayor and Council’s approval of the 2010 Text Amendment and its approval of the 2012 Text Amendment were quasi-judicial acts subject to judicial review; ruling that the 2012 Text Amendment was enacted arbitrarily and capriciously and was invalid; and ruling that the Planning Commission’s denial of the plat application was not supported by substantial evidence and also was arbitrary and capricious.

This timely appeal followed. DISCUSSION I. Denial of the City’s Motion to Dismiss in the Text Amendment Case The City contends the “only issue” in the text amendment case is whether the circuit court erred by denying the motion to dismiss; and that is an issue of law that we review de novo. It asserts that the Mayor and Council were acting in a purely legislative capacity when they enacted Ordinance 06-12, which had the effect of granting the 2012 Text Amendment and reversing the effect of Ordinance 22-10, which had granted the 2010 Text Amendment. The City maintains that the Mayor and Council were legislating, not adjudicating; therefore, enactment of the text amendment was not a “zoning action,” as that term is used in art. 66B, section 4.08(a), and was not subject to judicial review. 3 It further asserts that the ¹⁷⁸ propriety of the 2012 Text Amendment is not an issue appropriate for administrative mandamus relief because such an action only may challenge “a quasi-judicial order or action of an administrative agency.” Md. Rule 7-401(a).

Pumphrey responds that, under the authority of Maryland Overpak Corp. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 395 Md. 16 , 909 A.2d 235 (2006), the Mayor and Council was acting in a quasi-judicial capacity when it considered the 2010 Text Amendment, which was initiated by him and would affect only his property, because it based its decision to adopt the amendment on the unique characteristics of the properties at 300 and 304 West Montgomery Avenue, not on broad-based policy justifications. The same was true of the Mayor and Council’s subsequent act in adopting the 2012 Text Amendment that deleted the language authorizing Pumphrey to expand its parking lot. Pumphrey asserts that given that both text amendments were enacted by the Mayor and Council in its adjudicatory capacity, the 2012 Text Amendment is subject to statutory judicial review as a “zoning action” or to mandamus review pursuant to Rule 7-401. He further asserts that, under the “change of mind” doctrine, the Mayor and Council’s adoption of the 2012 Text Amendment plainly was arbitrary and capricious. 4 We review the circuit court’s denial of the City’s motion to dismiss de novo.

See Nesbit v. Gov’t Employees Ins. Co., 382 Md. 65, 72 , 854 A.2d 879 (2004) (“When the trial court’s order ‘involves an interpretation and application of Maryland statutory and case law, [Maryland appellate courts] must determine whether the lower court’s conclusions are legally correct under ¹⁷⁹ a de novo standard of review.’ ” (quoting Walter v. Gunter, 367 Md. 386, 392 , 788 A.2d 609 (2002))). The circuit court denied the motion because it concluded that enactment of the 2010 Text Amendment and the 2012 Text Amendment were quasi-judicial acts subject to judicial review pursuant to Section 4.08(a) of art. 66B or under the rules governing administrative mandamus review. We begin by setting out those provisions.

For non-charter counties and certain municipal corporations, including the City, section 4.08(a) of art. 66B creates the right to challenge, in the circuit court, certain zoning and land use decisions. It provides: (a) Who may appeal; procedure.—(1) Any of the following persons may, jointly or severally, appeal a decision of a board of appeals or a zoning action of a local legislative body to the circuit court of the county: (i) A person aggrieved by the decision or action; (ii) Any taxpayer; or (iii) Any officer, department, board, or bureau of the local jurisdiction. (2) The appeal shall be taken in accordance with Title 7, Chapter 200 of the Maryland Rules. (3) This subsection does not change the existing standards for review of a zoning action.

(Emphasis added.) Rule 7-401 provides that an “action[ ] for judicial review of a quasi-judicial order or action of an administrative agency ” may be pursued as an action for writ of administrative mandamus. Md. Rule 7-401(a) (emphasis added). The question of what constitutes a “zoning action” under section 4.08(a) and its counterpart at section 2.09(a)(1)(ii), which governs Baltimore City, has generated numerous appellate opinions by this Court and the Court of Appeals. As we shall explain, these decisions make plain that the 2012 Text Amendment at issue in the instant appeal is not a zoning action subject to statutory judicial review and, for the same reasons, also is not subject to administrative mandamus review. ¹⁸⁰ Before 2006, “the prevailing rule was that only zoning reclassifications constituted “zoning actions” [as that term is used in Art. 66B.].” Md. Overpak Corp., 395 Md. at 32 , 909 A.2d 235 ; see, e.g., Bd.

Of County Comm’rs of Carroll County v. Stephans, 286 Md. 384 , 408 A.2d 1017 (1979) (zoning reclassification is a “zoning action”). In MBC Realty, LLC v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 160 Md.App. 376, 387 , 864 A.2d 218 (2004), vacated on other grounds, 403 Md. 216 , 941 A.2d 1052 (2008), this Court summarized the state of the law as follows: We know from [Stephans, 286 Md. at 384 , 408 A.2d 1017 ,] that when a legislative body comprehensively zones, comprehensively rezones, or adopts a text amendment to a zoning ordinance, it is not “zoning action.” We also know that when a legislative body changes the zoning classification of a particular property, it is “zoning action” subject to administrative appeal. (Emphasis added.) Since this Court decided MBC Realty, we and the Court of Appeals have clarified that a local legislative body may engage in “zoning action” beyond the realm of zoning classification (or reclassification) of a particular property. Two cases inform our analysis.

First, in Maryland Overpak, supra, the Court of Appeals considered whether the Baltimore City Council had engaged in a “zoning action” subject to judicial review when it adopted an ordinance amending an approved 67 1/2 acre planned unit development (“PUD”) in an area of Canton in Baltimore City that was zoned for heavy industry. The amendment to the PUD increased the number of permitted residential dwelling units and modified “the uses and buildings permitted and their locations and size.” 395 Md. at 24 , 909 A.2d 235 (internal