MD Court of Appeals Upholds Dismissal of Appeal from Planning Board Decision for Lack of Standing

Rishi Gosain and Abid Chaudhry (hereinafter “petitioners”), operates of  gasoline service stations in Prince George’s County, sought review of the planning board’s decision to approve a site plan for a parcel of commercial property submitted by local developers.  The County Council agreed to review the decision following an appeal filed by the petitioners who expressed concerns surrounding the economic effect of the proposed development on their businesses. The district council affirmed the planning board’s approval, and petitioners filed a petition for judicial review of the final decision by the district council in the circuit court. The circuit court dismissed the petition for lack of standing and the court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed but for different reasons.

At issue was the meaning of the phrase “any person or taxpayer in Prince George’s County” under Md. Ann. Code art. 28, 8-106(e) which authorizes appeals of final district council decisions. The lower court found that “any person… in Prince George’s County” within the statutory context delineated a domicile requirement in the standing analysis, and that the requirement that one be a Prince George’s County “taxpayer” referred specifically to property taxes.  Because petitioners were neither domiciled nor did they pay taxes in the County, they lacked standing, according to the lower courts. 

 The Court of Appeals first addressed the meaning of “any person,” and concluded that interpreting such phrase to its logical breadth would effectively render the provision meaningless, as it would grant standing to virtually any temporary visitor who had ever made a purchase in the County, since he or she technically become a “taxpayer.”  This would violate the well-settled principle that a court will not construe statutes in a way that is illogical or against common sense, and therefore the Court, considering the legislative history and previous decisions, found that the land use context of the statute made it clear that the legislature intended “any person” who is a “taxpayer” to mean a person with an interest in a parcel of real property and paying property taxes in Prince George’s County.  They also found that the legislature had purposefully eliminated any residence or domicile requirement through statutory revisions.  Lastly, in considering the “aggrievement” provision, the Court found that only an applicant who sought judicial review needed to show that they were “an aggrieved party,” but a “taxpayer” who sought judicial review of a County Council decision did not.

In looking at the specific facts in this proceeding, the Court found that petitioners’ themselves did not pay property taxes to the County.  The record indicated that the corporations associated with petitioners’ businesses paid the businesses’ property taxes.  Significantly, the corporations themselves were not parties to this litigation.  Although petitioners’ showed that they were the presidents of their respective corporations, Maryland law expressly made corporations legal entities distinct from their shareholders, and therefore, petitioners’ were not “taxpayers” for purposes of standing.  Moreover, the Court found that for the same reasons, petitioners’ lacked any interest in real property located in Prince George’s County.  Therefore, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the lower court based on petitioners’ lack of standing.

Gosain v. County Council of Prince George’s County, 22 A.3d 825, 2011 WL 2462950 (Md., 6/22//2011)

The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.courts.state.md.us/opinions/coa/2011/26a08.pdf