Cnty. Council of Prince George's Cnty. v. Chaney Enters. Ltd., 66, Sept. Term, 2016

Decision Date28 July 2017
Docket NumberNo. 66, Sept. Term, 2016,66, Sept. Term, 2016
Citation165 A.3d 379,454 Md. 514
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

Argued by Rajesh A. Kumar, Principal Counsel (Karen T. Zavakos, Zoning and Legislative Counsel, Prince George's County Council, Upper Marlboro, MD), on brief, for Petitioner/Cross–Respondent.

Argued by Warren K. Rich (Peter C. Hershey, Rich and Henderson, P.C., Annapolis MD; Richard R. Page Wyrough, Law Offices of Richard Page Wyrough, LLC, Lothian, MD), on brief, for Respondents/Cross–Petitioners.

Argued before Barbera, C.J., Greene, Adkins, McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, JJ.

Adkins, J.Land use decisions are often contentious and frequently challenged—both administratively and in court. Petitioner County Council of Prince George's County sitting as District Council amended an area master plan to prohibit surface mining in certain mineral-rich areas of the county. Today we consider whether Respondents—two mining companies and a mining trade organization—can seek judicial review of the master plan. We also determine whether the master plan amendments are preempted by state law.


The Maryland–Washington Regional District Act ("RDA") governs zoning, planning, and other land use matters in most of Prince George's and Montgomery Counties. Md. Code (1957, 2012 Repl. Vol.), § 20–101 of the Land Use Article ("LU"); see also Cty. Council of Prince George's Cty. v. Zimmer Dev. Co. , 444 Md. 490, 521, 120 A.3d 677 (2015).1 Through the RDA, and subject to its provisions, the State granted these counties the authority to regulate land use in those parts of the Maryland–Washington Regional District ("Regional District") located within their respective borders. LU §§ 20–202, 22–104. Under the RDA, the District Council has the authority to adopt and amend zoning laws and maps, LU § 22–104(a)(1), (2), and must periodically consider whether to amend the master plans for the areas located in the Regional District, LU § 21–105(c)(1). The District Councils for Prince George's County and Montgomery County consist of their respective county councils. LU §§ 22–101, 14–101(f)(1). The RDA divides the counties' planning and zoning authorities into separate titles—Title 21 governs planning and Title 22 governs zoning.

Maryland has long recognized a distinction between zoning and planning.

Appleton Reg'l Cmty. Alliance v. Cty. Comm'rs of Cecil Cty. , 404 Md. 92, 102, 945 A.2d 648 (2008). Although they "complement each other and serve certain common objectives," they achieve those objectives through different means. Zimmer, 444 Md. at 505–06, 120 A.3d 677 (citation omitted). Zoning is "the process of setting aside disconnected tracts of land varying in shape and dimensions, and dedicating them to particular uses designed in some degree to serve the interests of the whole territory affected by the plan." Id. at 505, 120 A.3d 677 (citation omitted). The primary goal of zoning is "the immediate regulation of property use through the use of [zoning] classifications." Mayor & Council of Rockville v. Rylyns Enters., Inc. , 372 Md. 514, 530, 814 A.2d 469 (2002) (citations omitted). A property owner may receive a special exception, which permits a use not automatically allowed by the zoning classification. See Stanley D. Abrams, Guide To Maryland Zoning Decisions § 11.01 (5th ed. 2012). Special exceptions must be authorized by an administrative body pursuant to existing zoning laws and are subject to standards and conditions. Id.

Plans, on the other hand, serve as a guide for long-term land use and development goals and propose zoning changes to implement these aims. Rylyns , 372 Md. at 529, 814 A.2d 469 (footnote omitted); Pattey v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs for Worcester Cty. , 271 Md. 352, 360, 317 A.2d 142 (1974) (citations omitted). Because plans do not regulate property use, zoning tools such as sectional map amendments, which alter zoning for large portions of land, are used to implement their recommendations. 1 Sara C. Bronin & Dwight H. Merriam, Rathkopf's The Law of Zoning and Planning § 1:41 (2017); see Cty. Council for Montgomery Cty. v. Dist. Land Corp. , 274 Md. 691, 696, 337 A.2d 712 (1975) (quoting from a District Council resolution explaining that a sectional map amendment was adopted to bring an area into conformance with a master plan).


For zoning and planning purposes, Prince George's County is divided into seven subregions, each with its own master plan. Subregion 5, the focus of this appeal, covers nearly 74 square miles of land located in the southwest corner of Prince George's County, just south of Washington, D.C. Subregion 5 is a major source of sand and gravel for construction projects in the surrounding area. Respondents Chaney Enterprises Limited Partnership ("Chaney") and Southstar Limited Partnership ("Southstar") own and operate sand and gravel mines in Prince George's County.2 Respondent Maryland Transportation Builders and Materials Association ("MTBMA") is a trade organization that represents the mining industry and has members with mining operations located in the county (collectively, "Mining Entities").

In 2002, Prince George's County approved a new general plan that set forth the long-term vision for land use and development in the county. As part of its vision, the 2002 Prince George's County Approved General Plan ("2002 General Plan") divided the county into three land use areas called the Developed, Developing, and Rural Tiers. Approximately three-quarters of Subregion 5 was placed into the Developing Tier, with the remainder in the Rural Tier.

Several years later, the Preliminary 2009 Subregion 5 Master Plan ("2009 Master Plan") revised the subregion's master plan to reflect the goals and policies of the 2002 General Plan. The 2009 proposed plan recognized that "[s]and and gravel [are] essential element[s] of new construction in the Washington, D.C. [ ] region" and sought to "capitalize[ ] on the extraction of sand and gravel resources prior to the land being preempted by other land uses." It also set a goal of providing "commercially viable access to sand and gravel resources." Petitioner Prince George's County Council sitting as District Council ("District Council") adopted the 2009 Master Plan in September 2009.

In 2012, the Circuit Court for Prince George's County invalidated the 2009 Master Plan due to the District Council's failure to follow State-mandated procedures. In April 2013, the District Council held a joint public hearing with the Prince George's County Planning Board ("Planning Board") on a new plan, the 2013 Subregion 5 Master Plan ("2013 Master Plan"), which contained the same goals and policies for surface mining as the 2009 Master Plan. At the hearing and in written comments, several participants expressed concern about the effects of mining operations in Subregion 5 on the surrounding communities. The Mining Entities did not appear at the hearing or submit written comments on the 2013 Master Plan. After considering the oral and written testimony, the Planning Board added more detailed special exception guidelines, but it did not propose any changes to the 2013 Master Plan's sand and gravel policies.

On July 8, 2013, the District Council met to consider several zoning matters, including the 2013 Master Plan. The meeting notice did not indicate that the District Council would be considering matters related to surface mining.3 At the meeting the District Council considered the testimony and exhibits related to the 2013 Master Plan, and then directed its staff "to prepare a resolution of approval with revisions."

On July 24, 2013, the District Council adopted, by resolution ("Resolution"), the 2013 Master Plan with amendments added since its July 8, 2013 meeting ("the Amendments"). The purpose of the 2013 Master Plan was to "establish [ ] policies and strategies to carry out a land use, preservation, and development vision for [ ] Subregion 5" consistent with the 2002 General Plan. The Amendments "restrict[ed] sand and gravel mining to the [R]ural [T]ier." It altered the plan's goal from "capitaliz[ing]" on sand and gravel resources to "balanc[ing] the need for" them against "the potential negative impact and nuisance to nearby properties and the environment" and removed language that prioritized the extraction of sand and gravel resources over other land uses. The District Council inserted language to "[e]ncourage" mining companies to "provide specific evidence" of a mine's economic benefit. The plan was also amended to require mining companies to "mitigate on[-] and off-site transportation impacts" and potentially limit the hours and duration of mining activities. Finally, the Amendments required mining companies "to achieve post [-]mining reclamation that meets environmental needs."4

The District Council did not send the Amendments back to the Planning Board for comment or a public hearing prior to their approval. On August 15, 2013, the District Council published a public notice announcing its approval of the 2013 Master Plan with the Amendments.

On August 2013, the Mining Entities filed a petition for judicial review of the 2013 Master Plan in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County pursuant to LU § 22–407(a)(1). The Mining Entities argued that the Amendments were invalid because the District Council failed to follow procedural requirements for their adoption. They also argued that the Amendments were preempted by Maryland's Surface Mining Act ("SMA").5 In its opposition to the Mining Entities' petition, the District Council raised four jurisdictional arguments for dismissal. Specifically, it argued that the petition was not properly before the court because: (1) none of the Mining Entities participated in the 2013 Master Plan proceedings; (2) the Mining Entities failed to exhaust administrative remedies...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Montgomery Cnty. v. Complete Lawn Care, Inc.
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • May 2, 2019
    ...that the County ordinance frustrates the purposes of State law run counter to County Council of Prince George's County v. Chaney Enters. Ltd. P'ship , 454 Md. 514, 541 n. 19, 165 A.3d 379 (2017) (Frustration of purpose has never been applied to resolve a conflict between State and local law......
  • Willowbrook Apartment Associates, LLC v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • September 27, 2021
    ...ways: (1) preemption by conflict, (2) express preemption, or (3) implied preemption." County Council of Prince George's Cnty. v. Chaney Enters. Ltd. P'ship , 454 Md. 514, 540-41, 165 A.3d 379 (2017) (quoting Maryland Reclamation Assocs., Inc. v. Harford Cnty. , 414 Md. 1, 36, 994 A.2d 842 (......
  • Prince George's Cnty. Council v. Concerned Citizens of Prince George's Cnty.
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • August 22, 2023
    ...P'ship, 454 Md. 514, 528-31 (2017). Both legislative and quasi-judicial acts by the Council constitute reviewable "decisions." Chaney Enters., 454 Md. at 531 n.12 (clarifying zoning "decision[s]" under LU § 22-407(a)(1) include legislative acts, in contrast to other statutes that limit revi......
  • Prince George's Cnty. Council v. Concerned Citizens of Prince George's Cnty.
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • August 22, 2023
    ...P'ship, 454 Md. 514, 528-31 (2017). Both legislative and quasi-judicial acts by the Council constitute reviewable "decisions." Chaney Enters., 454 Md. at 531 n.12 (clarifying zoning "decision[s]" under LU § 22-407(a)(1) include legislative acts, in contrast to other statutes that limit revi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT