Md. Reclamation Assoc.s Inc v. Harford County
Decision Date | 07 May 2010 |
Docket Number | 2008.,No. 143,144 Sept.Term,143 |
Citation | 414 Md. 1,994 A.2d 842 |
Parties | MARYLAND RECLAMATION ASSOCIATES, INC.v.HARFORD COUNTY, Maryland, et al.Maryland Reclamation Associates, Inc.v.Harford County, Maryland, et al. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Susan T. Ford (James P. Nolan of Council, Baradel, Kosmerl & Nolan, P.A., Annapolis, MD; William D. Hooper of Hooper & Jacobs, L.L.C., Bel Air, MD), on brief for Appellant.
Jennifer M. Schwartzott (Miles & Stockbridge, P.C., Baltimore, MD; Nancy Giorno of Harford County Dept. of Law, Bel Air, MD; Sherrilyn Ifill of University of Maryland School of Law, Baltimore, MD; and Lisa Sheehan of People's Counsel, Forest Hill, MD), all on brief for appellee.
Nancy Giorno (Harford County Dept. of Law, Bel Air, MD; Sherrilyn Ifill of University of Maryland School of Law, Baltimore, MD; Lisa Sheehan of People's Counsel, Forest Hill, MD; and Jennifer M. Schwartzott of Miles & Stockbrigge, P.C., Baltimore, MD), all on brief for Appellee.
ARGUED BEFORE BELL, C.J., HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, MURPHY, ADKINS and BARBERA, JJ.
In this opinion we address two appeals filed by Appellant Maryland Reclamation Associates (“MRA”) involving a sixty-eight acre agriculturally zoned property located in Harford County Maryland (“Property”) on which MRA seeks to construct and operate a rubble landfill. This rubble landfill has been highly controversial and the litigation involving this Property has spanned over ten years. It now reaches this Court for the third time.1 Among other contentions, MRA asks this Court to adopt the doctrine of zoning estoppel, and hold that Harford County is estopped from applying an amendment to its zoning code that would render the Property ineligible for use as a rubble landfill.
The two appeals include: (1) Case No. 143, an appeal from a September 3, 2008 judgment of the Circuit Court for Harford County affirming the Harford County Board of Appeals's (“Board”) denial of MRA's request for several variances from applicable zoning regulations that will allow it to build a rubble landfill, and (2) Case No. 144, an appeal from an October 22, 2003 judgment of the Circuit Court for Harford County affirming the Harford County Board of Appeals's interpretation of various zoning provisions applicable to MRA. The Appellees are Harford County as well as a group of individuals, represented by People's Counsel, who live in the neighborhood surrounding the proposed rubble landfill and are opposed to its development (“Protestants”).
In order to resolve the issues in these appeals, we must understand the history of the various administrative proceedings and earlier appeals. Knowing this task is decidedly tedious, we have done our best to be concise. Judge Eldridge, formerly an active member of this Court, helps us with this task.
In MRA II, Judge Eldridge detailed the following history:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Md. Reclamation Assocs., Inc. v. Harford Cnty.
... Md. Reclamation Assocs., Inc. v. Harford Cty. , 382 Md. 348, 855 A.2d 351 (2004) (" MRA III ") ; Md. Reclamation Assocs., Inc. v. Harford Cty ., 414 Md. 1, 994 A.2d 842 (2010) (" MRA IV "). The earlier litigation between the parties concluded with this Court's 2010 opinion in MRA IV , wh......
-
Montgomery Cnty. v. Complete Lawn Care, Inc.
...expressly, (2) by conflict, or (3) by implication. Chaney , 454 Md. at 540-41, 165 A.3d 379 (citing Md. Reclamation Assocs., Inc. v. Harford County , 414 Md. 1, 36, 994 A.2d 842 (2010) ). The circuit court found, and Appellees assert, that the County's law is preempted both by conflict and ......
-
Cnty. Council of Prince George's Cnty. v. Chaney Enters. Ltd., 66, Sept. Term, 2016
...of three ways: (1) preemption by conflict, (2) express preemption, or (3) implied preemption." Md. Reclamation Assocs., Inc. v. Harford Cty. (MRA IV ), 414 Md. 1, 36, 994 A.2d 842 (2010) (citation omitted). The Mining Entities rely on the third category.19 Implied preemption occurs when a l......
-
75-80 Props., L.L.C. v. Rale, Inc.
...and has perhaps shown a receptivity toward the doctrine when we last discussed the concept, see Md. Reclamation Assocs., Inc. v. Harford Cty. , 414 Md. 1, 52–63, 994 A.2d 842 (2010) (" MRA "), we have thus far refused to recognize or apply it in Maryland.Over the years, we have repeatedly c......