Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/06/2011

Home

Zoning Bulletin August 10, 2011 Volume 5 I No. 15 ing property owners affected by a final district council decision, and, if aggrieved, the applicant may have judicial review of any final decision of the district court. Applicable here was the phrase "any person or taxpayer in Prince George's County." Finding that this phrase reached the "height of ambiguity," the court looked to legislative history to interpret its meaning. Based on that his- tory, the court concluded as follows: First, the court found it was clear that, except for the applicant, aggrievement is not required for standing to bring a 8-106(e) judicial review action. Thus, the court rejected the argument that Gosain and Chaudhry could not maintain this action because, allegedly, they were not aggrieved by the District Council's decision. Second, the court that "any person ... in the [County]" did not mean "domiciled" in the County. The court noted that "[t]raditionally, standing to challenge in court gov- ernmental decisions regarding the use of land has been based on the chal- lenger's having some type of interest in real property in the area." Conse- quently, the court determined that "a reasonable interpretation of 'any per- son ... in [the County]"' meant "a person or entity having some type of in- terest in real property in the County." This, said the court, would include: a person residing in the county; and businesses or other entities owning or leasing real estate in the County. Similarly, the court found it "reasonable to conclude that 'any ... taxpayer in [the County]"' meant "any person or en- tity which pays property taxes to the [the County]." Here, the court found that neither Gosain nor Chaudhry resided or had a property interest in a residence in the County. Neither owned or leased any real property in the County, nor paid property taxes to the County. While both were owners of corporations which leased or owned property in the County and paid property taxes to the County, the court emphasized that in Maryland: "a corpo- ration is a distinct legal entity, separate and apart from its stockholders." Gosain and Chaudhry could not gain standing to challenge the District Council's deci- sion "based on employment in the same area or owning stock in a corporation doing business and owning property in the same area," concluded the court. See also: Eglo f f v. County Council of Prince George's County, 130 Md. App. 113, 744 A.2d 1083 (2000). See also: Superior Outdoor Signs, Inc. v. Eller Media Co., 150 Md. App. 479, 822 A.2d 478 (2003). Case Note: The court also found it would be unreasonable to give the phrase "any person ... in the [County]" its broadest literal meaning. Case Note: Neither corporation owned by Gosain and Chaudhry was a party to the litigation. © 2011 Thomson Reuters 9