Harford Cnty. v. Md. Reclamation Assocs., Inc.

• Decision Date: 01 August 2019
• Docket Number: No. 788, Sept. Term, 2018,788, Sept. Term, 2018
• Citation: 242 Md.App. 123,213 A.3d 757
• Parties: HARFORD COUNTY, Maryland v. MARYLAND RECLAMATION ASSOCIATES, INC.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

242 Md.App. 123

213 A.3d 757

HARFORD COUNTY, Maryland

v.MARYLAND RECLAMATION ASSOCIATES, INC.

No. 788, Sept. Term, 2018

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

August 1, 2019

Argued by: Andrew H. Baida(Benjamin Rosenberg, Jamar R. Brown, Rosenberg, Martin, Greenberg, LLP, on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for Appellant.

Argued by: Brett Ingerman(Ellen Dew, Nicole Kozlowski, DLA Piper LLP, Baltimore, MD, Rachael Kessler, DLA Piper LLP, New York, NY, John R. Greiber, Smouse & Mason LLC, Annapolis, MD, William D. Hooper, Jr., Fallston, MD, Robert H.B. Cawood, Annapolis, MD), on the brief, for Appellee.

Panel: Berger, Nazarian, Wells, JJ.

Berger, J.

The origin of this dispute dates back to 1990, when Maryland Reclamation Associates, Inc.("MRA" or "Maryland Reclamation"), appellee, purchased sixty-two acres of land for the purpose of constructing and operating a rubble landfill.¹After MRA acquired the land, Harford County(the "County"), appellant, modified its zoning laws to disallow landowners -- MRA included -- from operating rubble landfills.For nearly three decades, MRA has fought the County's regulatory efforts in various administrative and judicial forums.The dispute now reaches the Maryland appellate courts for the fifth time.²

In this appeal, the County appeals from a verdict rendered by a jury in the Circuit Court for Harford County, in which MRA prevailed on its inverse condemnation claim and was awarded $45,420,076, representing just compensation in the amount of $30,845,553 plus $14,574,523 in interest.For the reasons explained herein, we reverse the judgment entered below, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

After the County enacted zoning regulations that prohibited MRA from operating a rubble landfill, MRA sought several variances.If approved, the variances would have permitted MRA to proceed with its project.The Harford County Hearing Examiner denied MRA's requests, and in 2007, the Harford County Board of Appeals(the "Board of Appeals" or the "Board") affirmed the Hearing Examiner's decision by a unanimous vote.In MRA IV , 414 Md. 1, 994 A.2d 842(2010), the most recent case between the parties, the Court of Appeals held, among other things, that the County was not estopped from amending its zoning laws, and that the County did not err in denying MRA's requests for variances.

On February 19, 2013, following MRA IV , MRA filed suit in the Circuit Court for Harford County, alleging that the County's actions constituted a regulatory taking in violation of the Maryland Constitution and the Maryland Declaration of Rights.³Thereafter, the County filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment, arguing that MRA's inverse condemnation claim was barred by the statute of limitations.The County averred that MRA's claim accrued in June 2007, when the Board of Appeals voted 7-0 to deny MRA's requests for variances.The circuit court disagreed.In a memorandum opinion, Judge William O. Carr denied the County's motions, ruling that MRA's claim was timely because the claim accrued in 2010, when the Court of Appeals issued its opinion in MRA IV .

The case was then tried before a jury in April 2018.The jury ultimately found in favor of MRA on its takings claim and awarded damages in the amount of $45,420,076.This timely appeal followed.⁴

On appeal, the County poses six questions, which we set forth verbatim .

1.Should MRA's takings claim be dismissed based on MRA's failure to raise this constitutional issue in any administrative proceeding?

2.Is MRA's takings claim barred by the statute of limitations when it was filed more than three years after the final administrative agency decision denying MRA's variance requests?

3.Is MRA's takings claim barred by the final judgment in MRA IV under the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel?

4.Did the Board's denial of MRA's variance requests to construct and operate a landfill constitute an unconstitutional taking when MRA has no vested property right or interest with respect to such a use?

5.Did the Board's denial of variances to prevent public harm constitute a taking for which compensation is due?

6.Should the jury's award of more than $45 million in damages be reversed when MRA failed to present any evidence of the Property's fair market value?

In its cross-appeal, MRA presents an additional question, which we set forth verbatim .

Did the Circuit Court err when it granted summary judgment on MRA's per se takings claim under Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council , 505 U.S. 1003, 112 S.Ct. 2886, 120 L.Ed.2d 798(1992) ?

We hold -- as a matter of law -- that MRA's inverse condemnation claim accrued in 2007, when the Board of Appeals denied MRA's requests for variances.As a result, MRA's claim is time-barred.We, therefore, reverse the judgment entered by the circuit court and remand the case for the entry of judgment in favor of the County.

BACKGROUND

This dispute concerns a sixty-two-acre plot of land in Harford County, Maryland.We draw from the Court of Appeals' comprehensive opinions in MRA II , supra , 342 Md. 476, 677 A.2d 567(1996), andMRA IV , supra , 414 Md. 1, 994 A.2d 842(2010), to summarize the history of the various administrative proceedings and earlier appeals.

In August 1989, the plaintiff-appellant, Maryland Reclamation Associates, Inc., contracted to purchase property located adjacent to Gravel Hill Road in Harford County, Maryland.Maryland Reclamation intended to construct and operate a rubble landfill on this property; thus, it began the process of obtaining a rubble landfill permit from the Maryland Department of the Environment pursuant to Maryland Code(1982, 1996 Repl.Vol), §§ 9-204 through 9-210,§§ 9-501 through 9-521 of the Environment Article, andCOMAR 26.03 through 26.04.

Maryland Reclamation first requested that Harford County include the Gravel Hill Road property in Harford County's Solid Waste Management Plan as a rubble landfill.Thereafter, Harford County amended its Solid Waste Management Plan to include Maryland Reclamation's Gravel Hill Road site as a rubble landfill.The property's inclusion in the Harford County Solid Waste Management Plan, however, was made subject to twenty-seven conditions, including a minimum landscape buffer of 200 feet.On November 16, 1989, Harford County advised the Maryland Department of the Environment that Maryland Reclamation's Gravel Hill Road property had been included in the County's Solid Waste Management Plan as a rubble landfill site.

Maryland Reclamation next sought approval at the state government level from the Department of the Environment.On November 20, 1989, Maryland Reclamation received Phase I permit approval from the Department of the Environment.Maryland Reclamation then filed with the Department the necessary reports and studies for Phase II and Phase III approvals.

[M]aryland Reclamation had entered into a contract to purchase the property located adjacent to Gravel Hill Road in August 1989, before its inclusion in Harford County's Solid Waste Management Plan.Allegedly relying on the property's inclusion in Harford County's Solid Waste Management Plan and on the Department of the Environment's Phase I approval, Maryland Reclamation consummated the purchase of the Gravel Hill Road property on February 9, 1990, for $732,500.The settlement occurred on the last possible day under the terms of the contract of sale.

Four days after the settlement date, newly appointed Harford County Council PresidentJeffrey D. Wilson and Council Member Joanne Parrott introduced in the County Council Resolution 4-90, which provided for the removal of Maryland Reclamation's property from the County's Solid Waste Management Plan.[Footnote omitted.]In the litigation that ensued over this resolution, the Court of Special Appeals held that Resolution 4-90 was invalid because it was preempted by the State's authority over solid waste management plans and the issuance of rubble landfill permits.[MRA I ], 90 Md. App. 120, 600 A.2d 864, cert. dismissed sub nom .County Council v. Md. Reclamation , 328 Md. 229, 614 A.2d 78(1992).[Footnote omitted.]

While the litigation over Resolution 4-90 was pending, Bill 91-10 was introduced in the Harford County Council, on February 12, 1991, as an emergency bill.Bill 91-10 proposed to amend the requirements for a rubble landfill by increasing the minimum acreage requirements, buffer requirements, and height requirements.The bill, inter alia, would establish a minimum rubble fill size of 100 acres and a buffer zone of 1000 feet.After public hearings, the County Council passed the bill on March 19, 1991, and the County Executive signed the bill into law on March 27, 1991.[Footnote omitted.]

On April 2, 1991, Bill 91-16 was introduced in the Harford County Council.This bill would authorize the County Council to remove a specific site from the County's Solid Waste Management Plan if the site does not comply with certain zoning ordinances, if a permit has not been issued by the State Department of the Environment within eighteen months of the site being placed in the County's Solid Waste Management Plan, or if the owner of the site has not placed the site in operation within the same eighteen month period.Bill 91-16 was passed by the County Council, signed into law by the County Executive on June 10, 1991, and is codified as § 109-8.4 of the Harford County Code.[Footnote omitted.]

The President of the Harford County Council, on April 25, 1991, sent a letter to the State Department of the Environment, enclosing a copy of enacted Bill 91-10, and advising the Department that the provisions of the bill could call into question the status of sites which were in the process of obtaining rubble landfill permits.On May 2, 1991, the Department of the Environment advised the County Council that if a permit were to be issued to Maryland Reclamation, such issuance would not authorize Maryland Reclamation to violate

...