Opinion ID: 2049120
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Proposed Rubble Landfill Will Adversely Affect St. James And Its Historic Graveyard

Text: Testimony presented during the hearing established that St. James is a vibrant, active 103-member congregation. Reverend Violet Hopkins-Tann has served as pastor of the St. James church for 23 years and provided testimony about the events and activities that take place at the church. These activities included Bible study, cooking and baking, choir rehearsals, board meetings, weddings and funerals, and took place both during the week and on weekends. Although MRA proposed an arrangement in which truck activity would not take place during funerals, no such concession was made with regard to rubble landfill operation during other church activities. MRA's property surrounds St. James's property and according to the joint stipulation of facts, [t]he outer boundary of `the property' lies within 25 feet from St. James[.] Edward Serp, an environmental engineer, testified on behalf of MRA that the following equipment would be used at the rubble landfill between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 5:00 p.m.: bulldozers, front end loaders, water trucks, power broom sweeper, self-loading earth moving pans, hydroseeder, and mulcher. Serp also testified that there would be noise from the back-up alarms that results from the use of these machines. It is easy to envision how this kind of machinery could obstreperously interfere with church activities occurring at St. James. A major point of discussion during the course of the hearings was the historical significance of the church, which would be adversely impacted if MRA is permitted to operate a rubble landfill on its Property. Appellees provided Carl Westmoreland, an expert in the preservation of historic African-American sites, to discuss this topic. When asked about the effect the rubble landfill would have on the historic preservation of the St. James site, Westmoreland testified that: The imposition or the activation of a dump site would create an industrial environment that would be in conflict with the 18th and 19th century environment that predominates at this point and would compromise the historical integrity and the cultural legitimacy of this community that has existed for over 150 years and that has attempted to function within the mores and the cultural traditions of Maryland. To me, when you arrive there, if you didn't know that it was a black church, it's just a little modest church. When you see the Civil War monuments, the only reason you know they're black is because it says USCT, but it's typical of what you would see in the Maryland landscape. And I think that's what people in Havre de Grace and in Gravel Hill have struggled for, to become a part of the American mainstream and this documents their efforts. . . . MRA does not challenge the specific proposition that the rubble fill activities will interfere with church activities or diminish the historical ambiance of the church. Instead, MRA attempts to discredit Westmoreland's testimony. They argue: [Westmoreland claimed] that MRA's property should remain undeveloped because he concluded a landfill would create an industrial environment, but later contradicted himself stating the one closed rubble landfill he had seen was a golf course. (Mr. Westmoreland was the only expert witness introduced by Protestants whose testimony was discussed in the Findings of Fact portion of the Board's opinion denying variances.) Reliance upon Mr. Westmoreland's generalized conclusions of adverse impact, which were clearly not based upon any review of the technical record presented by MRA in the case, or any applicable regulatory standards, was erroneous as a matter of law. This argument reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of Westmoreland's testimony, which was not at all technical in nature. Rather, Westmoreland offered perspective on the general atmosphere at St. James and the impact that rubble landfill activity would have on it. We are not convinced that Westmoreland's lack of technical expertise diminishes the value of his opinion. Appellees also presented the testimony of an expert archaeologist, Dr. James Gibb, as further evidence of the fact that operating a rubble landfill on the Property will adversely affect the Church. Gibb holds a doctorate in anthropology, has been an instructor in anthropology and archaeology, and specializes in surveying properties for archaeological sites and collecting data that can be used to identify historical significance. Gibb testified that the Church is historically significant, a central institution that the African-American community built. Appellees specifically rely on Gibb's testimony that the Church represents the history of that community, and his opinion that operating a rubble landfill in the immediate vicinity will adversely affect the Church both atmospherically and physically. MRA challenges Gibb's testimony because in forming his opinion, he said he did not conduct the level of research for this case that he would have were he operating under a normal contract. When we examine the nature of Gibb's testimony, it becomes clear that the level of research he did doreviewing tax records, examining the original deeds available from the Maryland State Archives, and the work of a local historianis commensurate with the portion of his opinion on which the Appellees rely: the church's historic atmosphere. Gibb's testimony regarding the impact of MRA's proposed rubble landfill on the historic graveyard that surrounds the Church was also challenged by MRA. The graveyard is designated as a Harford County historic place because buried therein are the remains of soldiers who served in the United States Colored Infantry during the Civil War. MRA and the Appellees disagree about whether the rubble landfill will adversely impact the graves, which resulted in a credibility contest between their experts. Gibb testified that dust will be permitted to blow onto the cemetery, which will destroy the historic setting of the cemetery. Gibb also testified that the slopes around the existing graves are stabilized with vegetation and that destabilizing the vegetation could be detrimental to the graves. MRA argues that Gibb's opinion is not sufficiently supported by a technical analysis. MRA's archeological expert, Michael Clem, opined that the proposed rubble fill would not adversely affect the historic cemetery located on the Church property and that the graves will actually be better protected from erosional forces by filling. Appellees point out that Clem has not yet obtained his Ph.D. and works for the same company as all of MRA's other experts. The Appellees contend that Mr. Clem's opinion is not only completely unfounded, it was undermined by Dr. Gibb, who has substantial experience excavating cemeteries. Appellees also point out that Mr. Clem admitted that he could not testify to the impact that the operation of the rubble landfill may have on the graves during its operation. In Dundalk Holding Company, Inc. v. Horn, 266 Md. 280, 292, 292 A.2d 77, 83 (1972), we held that when there are differing opinions of two well-qualified experts and a zoning issue is fairly debatable, then the County Board could quite properly accept the opinion of one expert and not the other. We further held that [c]ourts, under these circumstances, should not substitute their judgment on a fairly debatable issue for that of the administrative body. Id. The Board was in the best position to evaluate the credible position of these two experts and it was within its bailiwick to give greater weight to the appellee's expert's opinion. MRA challenges the substance of Appellee's expert and cites Anderson v. Sawyer, 23 Md.App. 612, 626, 329 A.2d 716, 725 (1974), in which the CSA reversed a Board decision that hinged on expert testimony. In Anderson, opponents to a proposed funeral home seeking special exception for construction of a funeral home on land zoned for residential use. The opponents presented testimony indicating concerns with traffic congestion and safety as well as that the proposed use would have detrimental psychological effects due to the morbid nature of the undertaking business. Id. at 616, 329 A.2d at 719. The CSA reversed the Board's denial of the exception because the traffic engineer's testimony was unsupported by facts and the real estate expert's opinion regarding psychological effects was insufficient to overcome the presumption that the special exception would promote the general welfare. Id. at 622-25, 329 A.2d at 723-24. The CSA concluded that [t]he record is so devoid of substantial supporting facts as to be incapable of raising a debatable issue. Id. at 625, 329 A.2d at 725. We do not see Gibb's testimony as devoid of substantial supporting facts. He discussed the detrimental environmental effects that would result from construction and operating the rubble fill: . . . I think if we look at aerial photographs, we'll find a good part of that area has always been forested with clearings for house and gardens and such, small fields for maize and tobacco. So in order to use that quarry again, it will have to be deforested. You have to remove the trees before you can get the trucks in; and that's just logical. And that will be fairly extensive deforestation. So that will affect the setting. And as far as physical effects on the site, we've got dust, which is unavoidable in cases where any kind of clearing goes on. And I presume . . . that problem will be exacerbated with trucks moving large quantities of rubble. So dust is going to affect the fabric of the building, the church. It may effect the gravestones too. I haven't really looked at it in those terms, but the dust will affect the building. Dust gets into all the cracks and crevices. We've had a temperate winter, but sooner or later we're going to have a cold, wet winter. That dust, once it gets into the crevices, will absorb water. It will expand and contract and cause deterioration of the building. An area that is difficult to ascertain at this point is going to be the effects of vibrations. We don't know what effects vibrations in the original quarry had on the building, but it may have been partly responsible for some of the damage done to building[.] [Emphasis added.] Gibb also refuted Clem's testimony, which gave the hearing examiner sufficient grounds to favor his testimony rather than Clem's: [Appellee Counsel]: Dr. Gibb, have you read the testimony of MRA's expert archaeologist, Mr. Michael Clem, who testified before this body on June 1st? [Gibb]: I have. [Appellee Counsel]: In his testimony Mr. Clem stated that the cemetery would, quote, be positively impacted by a better view shed and the graves would be better protected from erosional forces by filling if the proposed rubble landfill was allowed to proceed. . . . Do you agree with that statement? [Gibb]: In the present condition of the land, I would say no because you would have to clear those slopes before you can fill them. Right now the slopes down from the cemetery, the quarry face, have stabilized. They've revegetated. There must be 30, 40 years of growth there at least. In sum, we conclude that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the Board's finding that the rubble landfill activities will be substantially detrimental to the St. James church and graveyard.