County Com'rs of Queen Anne's County v. Days Cove Reclamation Co.

• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Argued before DAVIS and EYLER, JJ., and SHERRIE L. KRAUSER; DAVIS
• Citation: County Com'rs of Queen Anne's County v. Days Cove Reclamation Co., 713 A.2d 351, 122 Md.App. 505 (Md. App. 1997)
• Decision Date: 01 September 1997
• Docket Number: No. 1477,1477
• Parties: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY et al., v. DAYS COVE RECLAMATION COMPANY, et al. ,

Page 505

122 Md.App. 505

713 A.2d 351

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY et al., v. DAYS COVE RECLAMATION COMPANY, et al.

No. 1477, Sept. Term, 1997.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

July 15, 1998.

Kurt J. Fischer (Roger D. Redden, Brett Ingerman, Piper & Marbury, L.L.P., Baltimore, Patrick E. Thompson, County Atty. and Foster, Braden & Thompson, L.L.P., Stevensville, on the brief), for appellant, County Com'rs. J. Carroll Holzer and Holzer & Lee, Towson, on the brief, for appellant, Pinder.

Warren K. Rich (William D. Evans, Jr. and Rich & Henderson, P.C., on the brief), Annapolis, for appellees.

Argued before DAVIS and EYLER, JJ., and SHERRIE L. KRAUSER, Judge (Specially Assigned).

DAVIS, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City in favor of appellees/cross-appellants Days Cove Reclamation Company and Springview Land Partnership, Inc. (appellees). The judgment (1) enjoined appellant/cross-appellee the County Commissioners of Queen Anne's County (appellant) from (1) amending its Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP or Plan) to delete appellees' proposed rubble landfill and (2) declared that Ordinance No. 96-13, an amendment to the County's Zoning Ordinance that imposed certain terms and conditions on the establishment and operation of landfills within the County, was invalid and preempted by State law. ¹

Appellees cross-appealed, asserting that Ordinance No. 96-13 violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They also argue that the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) should have been permitted to retain overview control over the pending landfill permit.

By Order dated October 2, 1997, this Court granted a motion of Edward G. Pinder, Evelyn Glanding, and Peggy Boyles (owners of property in the neighborhood of the proposed rubble landfill) and the Millington Quality of Life Preservation Coalition (collectively, "appellant Pinder") to be joined as appellants/cross-appellees. ²

Appellants raise three questions for our review which we have distilled for clarity:

I. Did the circuit court err in holding that appellants' proposed plan amendment was ripe for adjudication under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, Md.Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. (C.J.), §§ 3-401 to 3-415?

II. Did the circuit court err in enjoining appellant from amending its SWMP so as to remove appellees' rubble landfill from the Plan?

III. Did the circuit court err in holding that Ordinance No. 96-13 was an invalid exercise of County zoning and land use authority?

On cross-appeal, appellees raise an additional question:

IV. Did the lower court err in failing to find that Ordinance No. 96-13 violated the Commerce Clause, thereby giving rise to a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim?

We answer questions I, II, and IV in the negative; however, because we conclude that the record does not support the trial court's finding that several of the standards included in the local ordinance were unreasonable and failed to "bear a substantial relationship to the protection of the public," we remand for further proceedings to determine the existence, vel non, of a nexus between the challenged "stringent performance standards" and the County's general welfare.

FACTS

On February 15, 1990, appellee Springview Land Partnership (Springview) purchased real property located at the junction of Glanding and Peters Corner Roads in Queen Anne's County, Maryland. Appellee Springview decided to collaborate with appellee Days Cove Reclamation Company for the purpose of developing and operating a rubble landfill on the acquired property. In June 1993, appellees notified the Queen Anne's County Department of Public Works of its desire to locate a rubble landfill on the property and requested that the County amend its SWMP to include the proposed facility. On October 18, 1994, then-Commissioner Archibald McGlashan introduced legislation amending the SWMP to provide for certain existing and planned rubble landfills, including the landfill planned for appellees' property. On November 1, 1994, the Commissioners held a public hearing on the proposed amendment to the SWMP. The hearing was part of a biennial review of the SWMP as required by MD.CODE (1996 Repl.Vol.), Envir. § 9-503 (§ 9-503(b) requires a review of the plan at least once every three years). The Commissioners approved the amendment, incorporating the property as a proposed rubble landfill with the caveat that "[t]he proposed facility will not be allowed to accept any material until it receives all state, local, and other required permits and approvals."

In December 1995, representatives of appellees met with the County Administrator and the Director of the Department of Public Works to explain their plans for the rubble landfill and to seek the County's support. Appellees assert that, at the meeting, County officials advised that a revised SWMP would be developed that would provide additional statistical data that further supported the need, both in Queen Anne's County and throughout the Eastern Shore of Maryland, for the planned landfill. Appellees aver that the County officials successfully encouraged them to forego filing an application for a conditional use permit with the Board of Appeals until the revised SWMP was developed. Appellants, on the other hand, state that the County officials did not represent to appellees that the revised SWMP would support the need for the proposed landfill or advise them that appellees should delay filing an application for a conditional use permit. Nevertheless, relying on the inclusion of the property in the SWMP, appellees continued to develop plans and prepare permit applications for the proposed landfill.

On June 24, 1996, appellees submitted their initial application to MDE for a refuse disposal permit for the proposed facility. ³ Along with their application, appellees submitted a Phase I Report--a site characterization that includes general information regarding site features, land use, geology of the site vicinity, and information on the proposed facility. Section IX of the Phase I Report, entitled "Conformance with the Queen Anne's County Solid Waste Management Plan," indicated that "the proposed site was included in the Queen Anne's County Solid Waste Management Plan in 1994." A copy of the Phase I Report was provided to the Department of Public Works.

On October 30, 1996, the MDE sent a letter to the County requesting the County to provide a written statement as to the status of appellees' proposed landfill under the County's zoning and land use requirements and the SWMP. The County responded by letter dated November 26, 1996, stating: "As the Applicants [appellees] have not received conditional use approval from the Board of Appeals, the proposed rubble landfill is at present not in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance." ⁴

As to whether the proposed facility was in compliance with the current SWMP, the County responded:

The existing 1976 Solid Waste Management Plan was amended by ordinance with the introduction of legislative bill # 94-16 on October 18, 1994 which was followed by a legislative hearing on November 1, 1994 to include the proposed Unicorn Facility site as a potential rubble landfill. Therefore, this permit application is in conformance with the County's current Solid Waste Plan as amended.

Queen Anne's County is now in the fourth month of a six month moratorium which has temporarily halted development of rubblefills and sludge storage facilities. The County Planning Commission has recommended several modifications to the Zoning Ordinance which, if adopted, would not permit the proposed rubble landfill, even as a conditional use. Our Public Works Department is nearing completion of an updated Solid Waste Management Plan which likewise, would have an effect on this application if and when adopted.

As a result of these pending matters which may directly impact this application, we ask that our request for an informational meeting concerning the Unicorn Facility be withdrawn until such time that it meets the criteria you have identified. We will keep you advised of any future developments concerning this project.

(Emphasis added.)

In a letter dated December 31, 1996, the MDE informed appellees that, because the County Board of Appeals had not granted a conditional use permit, the MDE would not proceed further with its permit review process. The letter stated:

The [County's] letter states that "this permit application is in conformance with the County's current Solid Waste Plan as amended." This statement satisfies the requirement under Section 9-210(a) of the Environment Article, Annotated Code of Maryland. The letter also states that "the proposed rubble landfill is at present not in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance." This statement, however, does not satisfy the zoning and land use requirements under the same statute. Please note that MDE has no jurisdiction over local government issues such as this. We will not proceed any further with the permit review process and will place this application in an inactive file.

On November 19, 1996, the Planning Commission introduced Ordinance No. 96-13 to the Commissioners. The Ordinance was drafted by the Planning Commission with the help of County residents. It contained numerous amendments to the 1994 Queen Anne's County Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. The amendments, inter alia, (1) include rubble landfills in the definition of "waste disposal facility," (2) provide that all new waste disposal facilities be owned and operated by Queen Anne's County or a multi-jurisdictional regional authority, (3) allow waste disposal facilities only in zoning districts designated as agricultural (AG) and suburban industrial (SI) districts, where such facilities are a conditional use, and (4) prescribe performance standards for the construction and operation of rubble landfills in the County. Neither...