Laserfiche WebLink
July 10, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 13 <br />Zoning Bulletin <br />Case Note: <br />The Carriers had also contended that the ZBA 's denial was not supported by <br />substantial evidence, under the Telecommunications Act, 47 U.S.C.A. <br />§ 332(c)(7)(B)(iii), and the Municipal Land Use Law, N.J. Stat. Ann. 40:55D-1 et <br />seq. The court agreed, saying its conclusion that the ZBA 's denial was not sup- <br />ported by substantial evidence was "consonant with [its] conclusion . . . that a <br />DAS is not a feasible alternative to the proposed monopole." <br />Authority —District council reverses <br />planning board decision, denies <br />development design plans <br />Developer appeals, arguing district council <br />exceeded its authority in exercising original <br />jurisdiction instead of appellate jurisdiction <br />Citation: County Council ofPrince George's County v. Zimmer Develop- <br />ment Co., 2014 WL 2208279 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2014) <br />MARYLAND (05/28/14)—This case addressed the issue of whether, <br />under Maryland law, a district council is vested with appellate jurisdiction <br />or original jurisdiction over zoning matters. <br />The Background/Facts: Zimmer Development Company ("Zimmer") <br />sought to construct a retail center on a triangular 4.14-acre property zoned <br />for retail in Prince George's County, Maryland (the "County"). The County <br />Planning Board of Maryland -National Capital Park and Planning Commis- <br />sion (the "Planning Board") approved Zimmer's Comprehensive Design <br />Plan ("CDP") and Specific Design Plan ("SDP"). Thereafter, the County <br />Council, sitting as the District Council (the "District Council"), reversed the <br />decision of the' Planning Board. Zimmer petitioned the circuit court for <br />review. <br />The circuit court concluded that the District Council had improperly <br />exercised original jurisdiction in reviewing the Planning Board's decision <br />by considering new issues and reasons for denying Zimmer's application <br />that the Planning Board had not addressed. The District Council, said the <br />circuit court, could only exercise appellate jurisdiction, with its authority <br />limited to determining whether the Planning Board's decision was arbitrary, <br />capricious, discriminatory, or illegal. <br />The. District Council appealed. Among other things, it argued that it did, <br />in fact, have the authority to exercise original jurisdiction in reviewing the <br />Planning Board's decision. <br />DECISION: Judgment of circuit court affirmed. <br />10 © 2014 Thomson Reuters <br />