Steuart Inv. Co. v. Board of Com'rs, St. Mary's County

• Decision Date: 10 January 1978
• Docket Number: No. 1079,1079
• Citation: 38 Md.App. 381,381 A.2d 1174
• Parties: STEUART INVESTMENT COMPANY v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, ST. MARY'S COUNTY, Maryland, et al.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Page 381

38 Md.App. 381

381 A.2d 1174

STEUART INVESTMENT COMPANY v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, ST. MARY'S COUNTY, Maryland, et al.

No. 1079.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

Jan. 10, 1978.

Oliver R. Guyther, Leonardtown, and Norman M. Glasgow, Washington, D. C., with whom were Robert V. Smith, Washington, D. C., Alfred H. Carter, Rockville, John F. McCabe, Jr. and Wilkes & Artis, Washington, D. C., on the brief, for appellant.

James F. Vance, Camp Springs, filed brief, in behalf of amicus curiae, Potomac River Association, Inc.

Joseph Ernest Bell, II, County Atty., for appellees.

Argued before MOYLAN, DAVIDSON and MOORE, JJ.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The appellant, Steuart Investment Co. (Steuart), is the owner of 397 acres of industrially zoned land at Piney Point, St. Mary's County, on which since 1950 it has operated an oil storage facility, a permitted use, ¹ now containing 26 storage tanks. In August, 1975, as a prerequisite to the issuance of building permits for the construction of additional tanks identical to four existing tanks, Steuart submitted a site plan for approval. ² Steuart also submitted a report from a civil engineer to show compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. After holding hearings and requiring Steuart to file grading and soil sedimentation control plans and to upgrade the fire protection system, the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) ³ approved the site plan. After hearings the Planning Commission recommended approval of the site plan with a "stipulation that all Federal, State and County regulations and Ordinance requirements be met prior to the expansion of operation of the additional tanks; and that the appropriate agencies be requested to provide results of any evaluation and approvals as may be forthcoming." ⁴ Subsequently, the Planning Commission indicated that in its opinion "all regulatory requirements are currently satisfied as prerequisite to site plan approval." ⁵

Notwithstanding that neither article 9 nor article 14 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a showing that the proposed facility does not lie within a fifty-year flood plain, on 8 January 1976, Steuart, in answer to a request from the Board of County Commissioners (Board), ⁶ provided information showing that its facility was not so located. On 16 January 1976, in answer to a request from the Board regarding ambient water and air quality at the Piney Point facility, Steuart explained that the earthen dike surrounding each tank prevented water pollution and that measurements of the air quality would be meaningless because there were no State standards for hydrocarbon emissions.

On 4 February 1976, the Board determined that "additional, objective data is needed to ultimately decide whether to approve or disapprove the site plan as proposed." In a letter dated 5 February 1976, it asserted that there was:

"a lack of data which might be properly termed probative evidence to substantiate an allegation that all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance have been met. Specific reference is made to Article 9.3 'Performance Standards', A-J. While it is true that some such data has been supplied by the applicant and additional data has been assembled from federal and state agencies by Mr. Richard Platt, at the direction of the Planning Commission, it does not comply fully with the scope and intent of Article 9.3J."

Notwithstanding the fact that the uncontradicted evidence showed that "the proposed tank expansion would not increase through-put," ⁷ the Board found that "the fact that the proposed expansion represents a substantial increase in capacity would on the surface, at least, make such testimony inconsistent." It determined that the "impact upon the loading and unloading facilities and operating procedures" resulting from a "potential for increased through-put of petroleum products" had "not been addressed." The Board concluded that:

"an environmental impact analysis is needed to objectively decide in this matter. Such analysis should:

"(1) Be paid for by the applicant. This is a reasonable expectation in that under the terms of the Zoning Ordinance, it is the burden of the applicant to show that any proposed establishment or expansion of an industrial use is in conformance with the performance standards of the Ordinance.

"(2) Be performed by a firm of the Board of County Commissioners' choosing and directed by the Board of County Commissioners. The applicant and the St. Mary's County Environmental Committee shall be allowed to review the credentials of any proposed firm and comment on same prior to final selection.

"(3) Be organized in such a fashion that will identify each requirement of the Zoning Ordinance and address same by providing probative evidence relative to each requirement.

"(4) Devote particular and concerted attention to the loading and unloading facilities and operating procedures both from the standpoint of what exists and what might be required if the proposed expansion increases through-put. This phase of the analysis should include a determination of what the 'technological state of the art' is with respect to loading and off-loading petroleum and containment of spills; and should further compare Steuart's operating procedures and facilities to such.

"The Board of County Commissioners should like to assure the applicant that it shall not act in an arbitrary and capricious manner in this case, but rather shall base its ultimate approval or disapproval on the objective data developed through the environment impact analysis.

"The Board shall await your response to this letter and stands ready to promptly work out the details as to who shall perform the environmental impact analysis and the procedures by which same shall be accomplished."

In a letter dated 4 March 1976, the Board submitted "draft-preliminary" specifications for the environmental impact analysis (EIA) to Steuart for review and invited Steuart "to discuss the matter further." In a letter dated 26 April 1976, Steuart asked that the building permits be issued. The Planning Commission, pointing out that the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and "the additional requirements and standards deemed necessary by the St. Mary's County Commissioners . . . have not yet been fulfilled," said "your request is denied." Steuart's request for reconsideration of the denial of its application was denied "(u)ntil such time as the County Commissioners authorize otherwise."

In a letter to the Board dated 30 April 1976, Steuart, insisting that it had complied with all requirements of article 9, demanded that the building permits be issued. In a letter dated 6 May 1976, the Board wrote:

"The Board wishes to reiterate that its position is the same today as stated in (the letters of 5 February and 4 March 1976). Your demand that the site plan be approved and building permit issued within ten (10) days is therefore denied. The Board also wishes to reiterate its willingness to discuss the preliminary specifications for the environmental impact analysis so that the analysis may move forward."

On 25 May 1976, in the Circuit Court for St. Mary's County, Steuart filed a bill of complaint seeking, among other things, a writ of mandamus to compel the County to approve the site plan and issue the building permits. After oral argument, the trial court found, among other things, that: 1) the Zoning Ordinance authorizes the Board to approve industrial site plans; 2) the Zoning Ordinance authorizes the Board, even without a recommendation from the Planning Commission, to impose additional standards and requirements before approving an industrial site plan; and 3) the Zoning Ordinance contains sufficient guidelines to govern the imposition of those additional standards or requirements. We agree for the following reasons:

1) On 10 March 1977, the Zoning Ordinance was amended to include a specific authorization for the Board to approve site plans. ⁸ Steuart concedes that the question of whether the Board has authority to approve industrial site plans is moot.

2 In interpreting a statute, the court must accord words their ordinary and natural signification. If the statute is part of a general statutory scheme or system, the sections must be read together to ascertain the true intention of the legislative body. ⁹ Here the 10 March 1977 amendments establish a legislative intent to place ultimate responsibility for industrial site plan approval in the Board. This implies that the legislature intended the Board to have the right to take such reasonable action as it deemed necessary in order to fulfill its responsibility. Accordingly, the statutory provision which authorizes the Board to impose additional standards and requirements ¹⁰ must be read as permitting the Board to exercise that function in a manner it deems appropriate independently of the recommendations of any other agency. Thus a Planning Commission recommendation is not required before the Board may impose additional standards or requirements.

3 When a legislative body delegates authority to administrative officials, it must establish adequate guides and standards, but such guides and standards need not be established when the legislative body itself is exercising the police power. ¹¹ Here the Zoning Ordinance contains detailed standards which require that consideration be given to questions such as noise, vibration, smoke and particulate matter, toxic matter, odorous matter and glare. Additional standards and requirements which the Board may impose are limited to those "necessary for the maximum protection of the environment and health and safety of the citizens of the County." ¹² These standards are adequate. ¹³ Accordingly, the Zoning Ordinance is valid whether the action of the Board is legislative or administrative.

The trial court additionally found that the regulations that permit the Board to impose additional standards and requirements comply with the requirement that the regulations shall be...