Preview:

Following approval by the Prince George's County Planning Board of an application for Preliminary Plat of Cluster Subdivision and Conceptual Site Plan submitted by appellees, Curtis Regency Service Corporation and Rose Valley Limited Partnership (Curtis Regency), a local citizens' group appealed to the County Council for Prince George's County, sitting as the District Council

(District Council).

On November 20, 1995, the District Council

reversed the decision of the Planning Board, and Curtis Regency sought judicial review by the Circuit Court for Prince George's County (Shepherd, J.). After oral argument, but before a final

decision by the circuit court, the County Council for Prince George's County (the County Council)1 adopted County Bill (CB)-761996, which amended the County's zoning ordinance, purporting to clarify that the District Council had original jurisdiction in appeals from the Planning Board and from the Zoning Hearing

Examiner (ZHE).

The circuit court reversed the decision of the

District Council and reinstated the Planning Board's approval. Appellant, the District Council, filed a Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, and asked the court to rule that the District Council had original jurisdiction in these appeals as a result of the passage of CB-76-1996. The circuit court denied the motion. The District

Council appeals and asks:

We refer to the District Council and County Council separately. Although they are the same body, the names indicate the exercise of different functions. The District Council refers to the appellate review of the land use decision and the County Council refers to the legislative functions of the Council.

1

I. Did the circuit court err in applying the wrong standard of review? II. Did the circuit court err in finding that there was no record evidence to support the decision of the District Council? III. Did the circuit court err by failing to apply retroactively the ordinance enacted by the County Council? We conclude that the circuit court applied the correct

standard of review, but improperly reinstated the Planning Board's decision. We hold that the appropriate action is to remand the

case to the circuit court so that it may further remand to the District Council for review of the appeal using the correct

administrative standard of review.

As a result of our decision, we

refrain from reviewing the second issue, since our affirmance on the first issue renders consideration of the second issue

premature.

Finally, we conclude that the circuit court correctly

refused to apply retroactively the ordinance enacted by the County Council.

FACTS
Curtis Regency owns an 83.71-acre parcel of land zoned Rural Residential. The proposed subdivision of the land was known as On October 26, 1994, Curtis Regency filed an Plat of Cluster Subdivision and

Rose Valley Cluster. application for

Preliminary

Conceptual Site Plan approval under

Download P.G. County v. Curtis Regency.pdf

Maryland Law