Bethel v. Montgomery County
| Decision Date | 09 March 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 3082, September Term, 2007.,3082, September Term, 2007. |
| Citation | 967 A.2d 232,184 Md. App. 572 |
| Parties | BETHEL WORLD OUTREACH CHURCH v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Maryland, et al. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Nathan J. Greenbaum (Barbara A. Sears, Linowes & Blocher, LLP, on brief), Bethesda, for Appellant.
Clifford L. Royalty (Edward B. Lattner, Marc P. Hansen, Leon Rodriguez, County Atty., on brief), Rockville, for Appellee.
Panel: JAMES R. EYLER, ZARNOCH, J. FREDERICK SHARER (Ret., specially assigned), JJ.
This case concerns the Montgomery County Council's ("Council") denial of a request submitted by Bethel World Outreach Church ("Bethel"), appellant/cross-appellee, to change the water and sewer category designation of its property in Montgomery County for the purpose of constructing a church and ancillary facilities. There is no statutory right of appeal from the Council's action. Thus, Bethel filed a Petition for Administrative Mandamus pursuant to Title 7, Chapter 400 of the Maryland Rules against the Council and Montgomery County, appellees/cross-appellants (collectively, "the County"), contesting the legality of the Council's action. The petition was dismissed without prejudice by the Circuit Court for Montgomery County based on its determination that the Council acted in a legislative, rather than a quasi-judicial, capacity.
Bethel subsequently amended the petition, which in its final form contained seven counts: I. Certiorari; II. Judicial Review; III. Mandamus; IV. Declaratory Judgment; V. Injunctive Relief; VI. Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA); and VII. Maryland Declaration of Rights, Article 24.1 Both parties moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, and the circuit court entered summary judgment in favor of the County. In doing so, the court reversed its earlier determination and found that the Council acted in an administrative, or quasi-judicial, capacity when it denied Bethel's request, but concluded that the denial was supported by substantial evidence. The court additionally found that the non-administrative mandamus counts lacked merit because they were not properly part of an administrative appeal, and that RLUIPA and Article 24 claims lacked evidentiary support. Bethel appealed, and the County cross-appealed.
At the center of this case is the Private Institutionalized Persons ("PIF")2 Policy contained in Montgomery County's Ten-Year Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan ("water and sewer plan" or "plan"). The former version of this policy, applicable at the time Bethel's request was under consideration, allowed the Council to amend the water and sewer plan to change the category designation of properties owned by PIFs located outside the community water and sewer service envelope, thus allowing the development of such properties.
On appeal, Bethel presents the following questions concerning the denial of its application under the PIF policy, which we have consolidated and rephrased:3
I. Was the Council's denial of Bethel's application arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful?
II. Did the circuit court err in denying Bethel's RLUIPA claim without making any specific findings or conclusions of law as to the substantial burden component of that claim?
The County raises the following questions on cross-appeal, which we have again consolidated and slightly reworded:
I. Are the claims for (1) judicial review, (2) mandamus, (3) declaratory and injunctive relief, and (4) violations of RLUIPA cognizable?
II. Did the circuit court err by granting the County's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment?
III. Did the circuit court err by denying the County's motion to compel discovery and motion to strike a report prepared by Bethel's expert?
We agree with the circuit court that the Council's action was not arbitrary and capricious and that the evidence was insufficient to support the RLUIPA claim. Consequently, we shall affirm the entry of summary judgment.4
Maryland Code (2007 Repl.Vol., 2008 Supp.), § 9-503 of the Environment Article ("EA") requires Maryland counties to develop 10-year plans addressing, among other things, water supply systems and sewerage systems. The statute requires that county plans "[p]rovide for the orderly expansion and extension of [water supply and sewerage systems] in a manner consistent with all county and local comprehensive plans . . . ." EA § 9-505(a)(1); see also Code of Maryland Regulations ("COMAR") 26.03.01.02. Accordingly, each plan must establish category designations indicating the status of community water and sewer service in each area of the county. COMAR 26.03.01.04. The Maryland Department of the Environment ("MDE") must approve each plan and any subsequent revisions or amendments adopted by the county's governing body. EA §§ 9-503(a), (c). Additionally, counties must hold a public hearing before revising, amending, or adopting a new plan. Id. § 9-503(d).5
In the case before us, the County's water and sewer plan consists of text containing general objectives and policies, and specific requirements applicable to water and sewer systems; appendices containing technical information and updates to the plan; and maps identifying the water and sewer categories for all properties located within the County. The property at issue, an undeveloped 119.37 acre parcel located at 10715 Brink Road, is designated W-6 (water) and S-6 (sewer) by the County's water and sewer plan, which are labels for "[a]reas where there is no planned community service either [within ten years or beyond]."
The property is located within the County's Rural Density Transfer ("RDT") Zone, which is primarily intended for agricultural use. The water and sewer plan specifies that RDT zones The County's Functional Master Plan for the Preservation of Agricultural and Rural Open Space ("master plan") likewise recommends the denial of "water and sewer service to areas designated for agricultural preservation that utilize the RDT Zone."
One mechanism for obtaining an exception to the general prohibition on community water and sewer service in the RDT Zone was the water and sewer plan's PIF policy, as it existed prior to late 2005. The pre-2005 PIF policy allowed the County Council to consider requests for category change amendments from PIFs located outside the water and/or sewer envelope. Under the pre-2005 PIF policy, approval for new PIF uses requiring new water and/or sewer main extensions, such as the property at issue, was permitted only when the required main extensions would "abut only properties which are otherwise eligible for service under the general policies of [the water and sewer plan]."
In April 2001, the owner of the property at issue, Farm Development Company, LLC ("Farm Development"), requested that the county change the property's water and sewer service area categories to W-3 and S-3, thus giving it "immediate priority" for construction of community water and sewer service. This change was necessary to accommodate Farm Development's plan to subdivide the property and construct four 1,000-seat church facilities.6
During the same period when the Council was first considering Farm Development's category change request, the PIF policy was coming under scrutiny due to the increasing and unexpected number of PIFs populating the County's rural areas. A memorandum from the Council's legislative analyst to the Council, dated February 22, 2002, listed 13 category change requests, including Farm Development's, up for consideration as part of the Council's semi-annual review of proposed amendments to the water and sewer plan. Farm Development's request was one of five requests singled out for more in-depth discussion based on the "issues" it raised. An Executive Staff Report on the Farm Development proposal contained in the memorandum commented that it "would provide for a large institutional use in the RDT-zone that would have the potential for greater environmental impacts than any allowed for non-institutional uses." The report also stated that "the extension of public water would abut one additional property zoned RDT [and] [t]he extension of sewer could abut additional properties depending on its final alignment." Consequently, the report advised the Council that it "would have to amend the water (and possibly sewer) main as a restricted access main" and noted that the Council had "not used this approach for specific category changes in the past." Because of these and other issues, the County Executive and the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission ("M-NCPPC")7 recommended that the Council defer Farm Development's request pending its upcoming review of the PIF policy. The County's Transportation and Environment Committee ("T & E Committee") concurred with this evaluation.
Indeed, the issues raised by Farm Development's request were among those singled out during the PIF policy review, which occurred in 2003 as part of the County's mandatory triennial review of its water and sewer plan. See EA §§ 9-503, 9-515. In July 2003, the County Executive submitted to the Council a draft comprehensive update to the water and sewer plan that identified a number of "unintended concerns" created by the PIF policy, including the following:
The policy has resulted in the clustering of PIF uses at the edge and outside of the acknowledged community water and/or sewer service envelopes.
The policy has facilitated the siting of PIF uses on properties where the institutional use and its ancillary needs, especially parking, can create imperviousness far in excess of that normally resulting from residential uses, leaving little open space and creating water...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ford v. State
... ... Maurice Ford was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County of possession of heroin with intent to distribute and possession of that substance. The jury ... ...
-
Hunt Valley Baptist Church, Inc. v. Balt. Cnty.
...interim, the church pursued an appeal in the Maryland courts, without success. Id. at 553 (citing Bethel World Outreach Church v. Montgomery Ctny., 184 Md. App. 572, 967 A.2d 232 (2009)). The church also brought suit in federal court, asserting claims under RLUIPA as well as federal and Sta......
-
Hunt Valley Baptist Church, Inc. v. Balt. Cnty.
...interim, the church pursued an appeal in the Maryland courts, without success. Id. at 553 (citing Bethel World Outreach Church v. Montgomery Ctny., 184 Md. App. 572, 967 A.2d 232 (2009)). The church also brought suit in federal court, asserting claims under RLUIPA as well as federal and Sta......
-
Congregation v. Mayor
...a discriminatory fashion or in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise." Bethel World Outreach Church v. Montgomery Cty. , 184 Md. App. 572, 601, 967 A.2d 232 (2009)(citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc ). In relevant part, RLUIPA provides the following:(a) Substantial burdens......