Opinion ID: 2049120
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Preemption Based on Legislative Changes to The Environment Article

Text: MRA further argues that: [t]he State's 1988 amendment to [Section 9-210 of the Environment Article] repealed the County veto authority over rubble landfill approvals. Environment Article Section 9-210 was amended by Chapter 412 of the Acts of 1988, which required the permit applicant, rather than the county council, to submit a written statement to the MDE confirming that the proposed refuse disposal system conformed to local zoning and land use requirements. Before the 1988 amendment, the statute charged the County Council with this duty. Section 9-210 read: Same  Prerequisites for issuance of a permit. The Secretary may not issue a permit to install, materially alter, or materially extend a landfill until: (1) The landfill meets all zoning and land use requirements of the county where the landfill is or is to be located; and (2) The Department has a written statement that the board of county commissioners or the county council of the county where the landfill is to be located does not oppose the issuance of the permit. The 1988 amendment made 91-10 read as follows: The Secretary may not issue a permit to install, materially alter, or materially extend a refuse disposal system regulated under § 9-204(a) of this subtitle until the Department has a written statement from the applicant that the refuse disposal system conforms to the county solid waste management plan and meets all applicable zoning and land use requirements. (Emphasis added.) MRA looks to MRA I, 90 Md.App. at 153, 600 A.2d at 880, for support, focusing on the CSA's statement that the 1988 amendment reflects the legislature's intent to remove any suggestion that a county exerts control in the process of issuing landfill permits. (Emphasis added) This comment does not advance MRA's cause because the control that the County imposed here relates to zoning, not permitting. But it has always been clear that the State recognizes that the county zoning laws may limit a property owner's ability to utilize any permit issued by DOE. [4] MRA also looks to the 1998 amendment to the statute added by Chapter 532 of the Maryland laws, which added, inter alia, a new subsection (b), which reads: Upon completion of the requirements of subsection (a)(1) and (2) of this section, the Department shall cease processing the permit application until the requirements of subsection (a)(3) of this section are met. MRA argues: The County's role in the context of Md. Code Ann., Envir. § 9-210 (including granting or denying zoning approval) must have a beginning and an end. As clarified by State law, the County's role ends after it provides the MDE with a written statement that the refuse disposal system meets all County and land use requirements and is in conformity with the County solid waste plan. This was also Harford County's expressly stated policy manifested by its consideration of MRA's SWMP and Site Plan application during Phase I of the MDE permit review process. While of course the County is permitted to subsequently amend its zoning code within constitutional bounds, it may not apply its amendments to a rubble landfill application pending before the MDE in Phases II or III with the effect of interfering with the MDE's process of issuing a landfill permit or causing the MDE to issue lifeless permits (i.e., permits which cannot be used because of retraction of zoning approvals). (Citations omitted and emphasis added.) This argument again conflates zoning and permitting by failing to recognize that they perform different functions and can occur in tandem and with different results. Success in each arena is necessary to operate the rubble landfill; neither alone is sufficient. Because MRA is dissatisfied with the zoning result in this case, it attempts to impose time limits on legislative changes to the zoning code that simply do not exist. Contrary to MRA's assertion, its argument is not supported by the CSA's decision in Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. The New Pulaski Company Limited Partnership, 112 Md.App. 218, 684 A.2d 888 (1996). In New Pulaski, the City of Baltimore imposed a moratorium banning the construction or expansion of incinerators in the City for five years and the CSA found that this ban intruded on the State's power to regulate and issue permits in the area of solid waste management[.] Id. at 233, 684 A.2d at 894. MRA asks this Court to view the ban in New Pulaski in a similar light to the zoning regulation at issue here. But the regulation at issue here is less restrictive than a categorical ban and thus, New Pulaski's reasoning does not apply. In sum, the County's right to enact and enforce zoning regulations is not preempted by the state statute governing landfills. 2. Constitutional Issues