Opinion ID: 2049120
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: The Right Time and the Right Case The Present Case

Text: MRA contends that the County should be estopped from applying its newly enacted zoning regulation, Bill 91-10, to MRA's property and the intended rubble fill on Gravel Hill Road, based on the doctrine of zoning estoppel. It argues that the County reversed its stated policy that the County's zoning approval was given coincident with Phase I of the State permit process, and that MRA relied upon this clear, succinct, and publicly-stated policy, along with the approval of its Site Plan and inclusion in the SWMP, to its detriment in purchasing the Gravel Hill property and expending substantial sums on engineering fees after it received County zoning approval. MRA also maintains that its reliance on the Site Plan and SWMP approvals was reasonable and in good faith, and that it would be unfair to require MRA to have foreseen, prior to the time it purchased the Gravel Hill property, that Council President Hardwicke would resign from the Council, that Mr. Wilson would be appointed to take his place as President, that President Wilson would be opposed to MRA's rubble landfill, and that Council members Wilson and Parrott would join him in actions to reverse the County's policy and effectively revoke MRA's Site Plan approval though the enactment (and attempted application to MRA's property) of Bill 91-10. Finally, MRA claims that, based upon this reliance, it proceeded to undertake substantial obligations, namely, spending over a million dollars on the purchase of the Gravel Hill property and on engineering fees required to proceed through the State permitting process. As a threshold matter, I believe that this Court should adopt in this case the principles of zoning estoppel expressed by Heeter and as followed in a number of our sister states. I maintain that our decision in Sycamore Realty, where we rejected the Court of Special Appeals's proposed narrower definition of zoning estoppel and held that Heeter's definition of zoning estoppel conflicted inherently with our strict doctrine of vested rights, misunderstood the key doctrinal distinctions between zoning estoppel and vested rights. As noted supra, the doctrine of vested rights has its foundations in common law and constitutional law and is designed to address situations where a property owner seeks constitutional protection from the local government's attempts to revoke a previously issued permit or approval. The central question in such a case concerns whether the holder of the permit or approval acquired a legitimate claim of entitlement to the permit or approval, based on its justifiable reliance and expenditures, such that its rights to the permit or approval are constitutionally protected. On the other hand, where the local government or authorities expressed specifically their approval of a proposed project and gave their official assurances that construction may proceed, the doctrine of zoning estoppel, with its foundations in notions of equity and fairness, should be available to the plaintiff who relies upon such affirmative actions by the government in undertaking substantial expenses and obligations necessary to a separate state permitting process. The two doctrines can co-exist in Maryland. Zoning estoppel relieves the occasional otherwise harsh and unfair results that the strict application of the vested rights doctrine would tolerate. Here, MRA was required, as part of the State permitting process, to obtain County zoning approval and expend significant sums on the land purchase price and engineering fees, prior to proceeding to MDE's Phases II and III. Once MRA undertook those significant obligations, relying in good faith on the affirmative assurances of the County and its officials, it should be afforded some protection against abrupt political shifts and resultant mere change of heart that seeks to prevent the development of its property in accordance with the State-issued permit. Requiring MRA first to obtain a permit, which, by State statute, could not be issued until attendant expenses were undertaken, as a prerequisite to protection under the vested rights rule is unfair. This case demonstrates the necessity and desirability of adopting the doctrine of zoning estoppel for Maryland to protect plaintiffs who must obtain approval at the County level as a preliminary to the State permitting process. As such, I would adopt Heeter's definition of zoning estoppel in Maryland. Applying Heeter's definition to the present case, in order to estop the County from applying the provisions of Bill 91-10 to its Gravel Hill property, MRA must demonstrate that it relied in good faith upon some act or omission of the County and made such a substantial change in position or incurred such extensive obligations and expenses that it would be highly inequitable and unjust to frustrate its plan. Concerning the act or omission element, the County indeed appears to have had a well-established and publicly-stated policy of approving zoning compliance at the County level during Phase I of the MDE permitting process in order to save the applicant the time and expense of proceeding too deeply into the expensive and time-consuming State-issued permit process only to discover that the proposed use would not be acceptable under County land use regulations. In addition, MRA notes that the County Council voted to include the Gravel Hill property in the County's SWMP, subject only to fulfillment ultimately of the stated conditions, to approve the rubble fill Site Plan for the property, and that Harford County officials encouraged otherwise MRA to proceed with construction of the landfill. Such actions certainly constitute official assurances by the County to MRA, that MRA fulfilled the requirements for County approval of its landfill, and that it could proceed to undertake the expenses and obligations necessary to advance through Phase II and III of the MDE permitting process, assuming that it could meet the State's technical requirements. Regarding good faith, there exists no evidence in the record to suggest that MRA deliberately tried to increase its equities in some way. It incurred the expenses it alleges after it received approval of the Site Plan and following inclusion of the Gravel Hill property in the SWMP, and apparently undertook the obligations and costs only as necessary to proceed to Phase II and III of the state permitting process. As such, MRA relied in good faith upon the assurances given by the County when it expended the money to purchase the Gravel Hill property and for the engineering fees required in order to complete the State permitting process. It is clear that MRA's reliance in this case was of a substantial and extensive nature. Although there are no hard and fast rules about what amount constitutes a substantial expenditure, it is clear to me that MRA's purchase of the property and the incurring of significant engineering fees was substantial. Finally, because zoning estoppel is grounded in equity, I would conclude that it would be highly inequitable and unjust to allow the County to apply Bill 91-10 to MRA's property and proposed rubble landfill, essentially preventing it from operating the landfill at all. Only the change in the makeup of the County Council (and attendant change of political mind), and the Council's concerted efforts to reverse its previously stated policy of giving local zoning approval during Phase I, prevented MRA from proceeding with establishment of the intended use. I agree with MRA that it would be highly inequitable and unjust to require it to have foreseen, when it undertook to purchase the property and incur the engineering fees, the subsequent chain of events that lead it to the position in which it found itself.