Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/06/2011

Home

August 10, 2011 I Volume 5 I No. 15 Zoning Bulletin The County's Planning Board approved Atapco's site plan for the parcel with conditions. The County's District Council "elected to review the Planning Board's ap- proval." Subsequently, several individuals filed with the District Council an appeal of the Planning Board's approval. Among those individuals appealing was Rishi Gosain ("Gosain") and Abid Chaudhry ("Chaudhry"). The District Council ultimately affirmed the Planning Board's decision to approve Atapco's site plan. Gosain and Chaudhry appealed to the circuit court. They argued that the District Council's approval was based upon an earlier invalidated text amendment to the County's zoning ordinance and was not supported by substantial evidence. Atapco joined the action. Thereafter, it filed a motion to dismiss the ac- tion. It argued that Gosain and Chaudhry lacked standing (i.e., the le- gal right to bring the action) under the Regional District Act, Article 28, 8-106(e) (Ann. Md. Code, Art. 28, § 8-106(e)). They argued that to have standing under § 8-106(e), one must: (1) be a resident of the County; or (2) be a County taxpayer; and (3) be aggrieved. Gosain was a resident of Springfield, Virginia. He operated an Exxon gas- oline service station in the County. That business was owned by a corpora- tion named "Sona Auto Care, Inc." Gosain was the president of the corpo- ration. The corporation leased the building and land from Exxon Mobil cor- poration. Sona Auto Care, Inc. paid taxes in connection with the business. Chaudhry did not reside in the County. He operated a BP -Amoco gaso- line service station in the County. Until 2005, the service station property was owned by BP -Amoco. As of December 2005, the property was owned by an- other corporation, MNA, LLC. Chaudhry was co -owned that corporation. The Circuit Court dismissed Gosain and Chaudhry's action, finding they lacked standing. Gosain and Chaudhry appealed. DECISION: Affirmed (on different grounds). The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that Gosain and Chaudhry (herein- after, collectively, the "Objectors") were not required to be aggrieved in order to have standing to seek review of the District Council's decision. The court also held that the Objectors were not required to be domiciled in the County in order to have standing. However, the court held that the Objectors were re- quired, in order to have standing, to: (a) reside in the County; or (b) have a property interest in the County; or (c) pay property taxes in the County. The court based its decision on the interpretation of Art. 28, S 8-106(e). It reads as follows: In Prince George's County, any incorporated municipality locat- ed in Prince George's County, any person or taxpayer in Prince George's County, any civic or homeowners association represent- 8 © 2011 Thomson Reuters