Here, Atapco Ritchie Interchange, Inc., and Ritchie Interchange, LLC (collectively “Atapco”) owned and developed a Prince George’s County business park (the “Property”). Atapco submitted a proposal to the Prince George’s County Planning Board (the “Board”) to build a gas station on the Property. After the Board approved Atapco’s proposal, the Prince George’s County District Council (the “Council”) elected to review the Board’s decision. Rishi Gosain (“Gosain”), a stockholder and employee of another gas station located in Prince George’s County, brought an action for judicial review of the decision to permit the construction of Atapco’s gas station.

Gosain argued, inter alia, that the Council’s approval of Atapco’s proposal was not supported by substantial evidence. Atapco filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that Gosain, who was neither a resident of Prince George’s County, nor a Prince George’s County taxpayer, lacked standing under § 8-106(e) to maintain an action for judicial review of a final administrative decision by the Council.

Dismissing Gosain’s Petition for Judicial Review, the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County agreed with Atapco and concluded, inter alia, that Gosain did not have standing under § 8-106(e) to challenge the Council’s decision. Affirming the Circuit Court, the Court of Special Appeals held that in order to be a taxpayer in Prince George’s County within the meaning of § 8-106(e), one must pay real property taxes to Prince George’s County.

The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed, concluding that Gosain did not have standing to challenge a land use decision under § 8-106(e). The Court acknowledged that standing to challenge a Prince George’s County governmental decision regarding land use required a challenger to have an interest in real property in Prince George’s County. Although Gosain was employed by a corporation that paid property taxes to Prince George’s County, Gosain, not the corporation, filed the claim against Atapco. Because Gosain and the corporation were two separate legal entities, the Court concluded that Gosain could not blur the distinction between the corporation and its members for purposes of establishing standing to maintain a judicial review action.