Prince George's County v. Mayor and City Council of Laurel

• Decision Date: 14 May 1971
• Docket Number: No. 385,385
• Parties: PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, Maryland, et al. v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF LAUREL et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 171

262 Md. 171

277 A.2d 262

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, Maryland, et al. v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF LAUREL et al.

No. 385.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

May 14, 1971.

Harry W. Lerch, Bethesda, for appellant, Maryland-Nat. Capital Park and Planning Commission.

Walter H. Maloney, Jr., Harry L. Durity, Upper Marlboro, and James F. Sharkey, Hyattsville, on the brief, for appellant, Prince George's County.

Russell W. Shipley, Hillcrest Heights, for appellees, Henry M. Witt and others.

James C. Chapin, Hyattsville, for appellee, City of Laurel.

Argued before HAMMOND, C. J., and BARNES, McWILLIAMS, FINAN and SINGLEY, JJ.

FINAN, Judge.

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (Commission) was created in 1927 by Chapter 448 of the Laws of the General Assembly for that year. The law created a district, known then as the Maryland-Washington Metropolitan District, in the Maryland suburban area contiguous to Washington, D. C., and included in that district approximately all of what is now enclosed by the Capital Beltway in Montgomery and Prince George's counties. Throughout the years, exclusive authority for parks, planning, and zoning within this district was vested in the Commission and the Boards of County Commissioners of the two Maryland counties.

In 1939, the park and planning functions in the district were separated, and the Maryland-Washington Regional District (Regional District) was created as the planning and zoning district. Between 1931 and 1965, the Maryland General Assembly expanded the Regional District on some ten occasions, so that it now includes all of Montgomery County and Prince George's County except for the Town of Laurel, Maryland. Also, in Montgomery County a few older municipalities were granted planning and zoning authority by the Legislature, notably Rockville and Gaithersburg.

On April 1, 1968, Laurel (one of the appellees in this appeal) annexed approximately 498 acres of land, and approved certain zoning classifications for this area. At the time of the annexation and rezoning, the property in question was part of, and was situated within, the borders of the Regional District. Laurel's actions were the source of some dismay to the Board of County Commissioners for Prince George's County and the Commission (appellants), both of which refused to give any recognition to the attempted rezoning. The appellees then sought a declaratory judgment as to Laurel's right to rezone the land in controversy.

The Circuit Court for Prince George's County (Loveless, J.) rendered an opinion and decree, holding (1) that the Town of Laurel has exclusive planning and zoning authority over the annexed property and that neither of the appellants has such authority, (2) that the appellants retained jurisdiction and power over the acreage in question as to building regulations, subdivision approval, street names and house numbers, and (3) that Chapter 373 of the Laws of 1965, which repealed and re-enacted Chapter 484 of the Laws of 1961 (which had expanded the Regional District to include the disputed acreage) was unconstitutional as violative of Article XI-E, section 1, of the Maryland Constitution. We affirm that portion of the lower court's opinion which relates to the authority of the Town of Laurel, the Commission and the Board of County Commissioners for Prince George's County, and reverse that portion treating upon the constitutionality of Chapter 373 of the Laws of 1965.

Before reaching the merits of this case there is in limine a question which must be answered arising from the following interesting sequence of events. After the filing of briefs by all parties to this action Walter H. Maloney, Jr., Esq., County Attorney for Prince George's County, Maryland, a body corporate and politic, successor to the Board of County Commissioners for Prince George's County, Maryland, filed a line of dismissal on March 29, 1971, as to Prince George's County. On April 1, 1971, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as to the County. Thereafter, on April 5, 1971, the appellees moved to dismiss the entire appeal on the premise that the issues presented were moot in the light of the dismissal of the appeal by Prince George's County. On April 8, 1971, this Court heard oral argument of the remaining parties on the motion to dismiss, as well as on the merits of the appeal. On April 20, 1971, Lionel Lockhart, Esq., purportedly acting as special counsel to the County Council for Prince George's County, moved to strike the line of dismissal. Thereafter, on the 23rd day of April 1971, this Court ordered that the line of dismissal filed by Mr. Maloney, as County Attorney, be stricken and that Prince George's County be resinstated as a party to the appeal. Subsequently, Prince George's County, through Mr. Maloney, filed opposition to the motion to strike the line of dismissal, but this was filed after the line of dismissal had been struck and Prince George's County reinstated as a party. The theory behind Mr. Maloney's action is that with Prince George's County no longer a party to the suit, the Commission has no authority or standing to continue with this appeal. As we see it, there is no need for this Court to determine in this case whether or not Prince George's County, Maryland, a body corporate and politic, should, or should not be a party to this suit or whether the County Council of Prince George's County has, or does not have, the authority to countermand Mr. Maloney's actions, for the simple reason that on the strength of Maryland-National Capital & Planning Commission v. McCaw, 246 Md. 662, 229 A.2d 584 (1967), we are of the opinion that the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, in its own right, has sufficient interest in this action to maintain the continuation of the appeal. In Maryland-National Capital & Planning Commission v. McCaw, wherein the standing of the Commission's capacity to sue was challenged, Judge Oppenheimer, writing for the Court, stated:

'The threshold question, raised by the appellee's motion to dismiss, is whether the Commission has standing to appeal. The appellee contends that the Commission is not a party, within the requirement of Code (1957) Article 5, section 6, because it has not shown a direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation. That section of the Code provides that any party may appeal from any final decree entered by a court of equity. Under it, appeals are permitted by parties of record and also persons who were directly interested in the subject matter of the suit. See First Union Savings & Loan, Inc. v. Bottom, 232 Md. 292, 295, 193 A.2d 49 (1963), and cases therein cited. The test of standing here involved is broader than that involved in zoning cases, where ordinarily an appeal from a decision of the administrative agency can only be taken by an aggrieved party who not only has a specific interest or property right affected but is personally and specially affected in a way different from the effect upon the public generally. Jahnigen v. Staley, 245 Md. 130, 225 A.2d 277 (1967); Alvey v. Hedin, 243 Md. 334, 339, 221 A.2d 62 (1966); Dubay v. Crane, 240 Md. 180, 185, 213 A.2d 487 (1965), and cases therein cited. * * *.

'Under explicit statutory provisions, the Commission is a representative of the public in matters such as are here involved. It is empowered to make general plans for the physical development of the District and in doing so, is expressly made the representative of the State. Code of Public Local Laws of Prince George's County, sections 59-68, 59-69 (1963). * * *.' 246 Md. 669-670, 229 A.2d 587.

Accordingly, recognizing the authority of the Commission to continue with this appeal, we shall consider the merits of the case.

Statutory Interpretation

The first of the appellants' objections to the lower court's ruling centers around the interpretation of Article 23A of the Maryland Code entitled 'Corporations-Municipal,' and a discussion of the pertinent provisions of that Article would be appropriate at this juncture of the opinion.

In 1954, Article XI-E of the Maryland Constitution, known as the Municipal Home Rule Amendment, was enacted by the General Assembly and ratified by the voters. The following year, Chapter 423 of the Laws of 1955 was enacted to implement Article XI-E and to provide a method for home rule for municipalities. This statute was codified as Sections 9 through 43 of Article 23A of the Code.

In 1955, Section 9(c) of Article 23A read as follows:

'(c) Limitations on charter amendments.- No municipal corporation which is subject to the provisions of said Article 11E shall so amend its charter or exercise its powers of annexation, incorporation or repeal of charter as to affect or impair in any respect the powers relating to sanitation, including sewer, water and similar facilities, and zoning, of the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission or of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission.' Maryland Code (1951 Ed.), Art. 23A, § 9(c) (1955 Supp.).

The portion of Section 19 of Article 23A (subtitled 'Annexation') which is pertinent to this decision read as follows in 1955:

'(p) Exercise of planning and zoning jurisdiction in certain areas not authorized.-The powers granted to municipal corporations by Article 11E of the Constitution, by this Article, and by Article 66B (of the Code), shall not be deemed to authorize any municipal corporation, either through procedures under this subheading or other changes in its charter, to exercise planning (including subdivision control) and zoning jurisdiction or power within any political subdivision in which such planning and zoning jurisdiction or power, or either, is exercised by any State, regional or county agency or authority.' Code (1951 Ed.), Art. 23A § 19(p) (1955 Supp.).

It is clear that in 1955 the Legislature intended that no municipal corporations were to exercise powers of annexation, zoning, or planning in...