Opinion ID: 2049120
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Zoning Versus Permitting

Text: MRA argues that the application of Bill 91-10 to MRA's pending State permit application after County zoning approval had been granted ... veto[ed] the entire State permitting process regarding MRA's pending application[.] MRA cites the Express Powers Act, Maryland Code (1957, 2005 Repl.Vol.), Article 25A (Express Powers Act), Section 5(T), which allows the County: To enact local laws enabling the county council to adopt from time to time, after reasonable notice and opportunity for public hearing and with or without modifications, ordinances and amendments thereof for the protection and promotion of public safety, health, morals, comfort and welfare, relating to any of the following: the location, construction, repair, and use of streets and highways; the disposal of wastes; the control of problems of soil erosion and of the preservation of the natural topography in newly developed and other areas; and the erection, construction, repair and use of buildings and other structures; and to enact local laws providing appropriate administrative and judicial proceedings, remedies, and sanctions for the administration and enforcement of such ordinances and amendments. MRA also cites the Express Powers Act Section 5(X)(2)(v), which provides: The powers granted to the county pursuant to this paragraph shall not be construed: 1. To grant to the county powers in any substantive area not otherwise granted to the county by other public general or public local law; 2. To restrict the county from exercising any power granted to the county by other public general or public local law or otherwise; 3. To authorize the county or its officers to engage in any activity which is beyond their power under other public general law, public local law, or otherwise; or 4. To preempt or supersede the regulatory authority of any State department or agency under any public general law. MRA reasons that because Section 9-210 of the Environmental Article gives the State government authority to issue permits for rubble landfills, the County is preempted from enacting zoning ordinances that would preclude operation under such a permit, if the applicant had passed any phase of the State's multi-phase permitting process. This argument ignores Sections 5(X)(2)(i) and (ii) of the Express Powers Act which provide: (2)(i) It has been and shall continue to be the policy of this State that the orderly development and use of land and structures requires comprehensive regulation through implementation of planning and zoning controls. (ii) It has been and shall continue to be the policy of this State that planning and zoning controls shall be implemented by local government. The Express Powers Act clearly contemplates zoning as an activity that exists in a sphere separate from the operations of State level regulation. See, e.g., 4-55 Antieau on Local Government Law § 55.11 (2d Ed. 2009) (local planning and zoning regulations may be imposed in conjunction with regional planning activities where there is no conflict between the two). MRA cites the CSA's opinion in MRA I in arguing that Harford County's actions here amount to a de facto veto of MDE's permitting process, thus allowing local government to impermissibly control a state regulatory scheme. In MRA I, the CSA held that [t]he important governmental function of providing responsible solid waste management cannot be abandoned to the vicissitudes of the local political scene by an over-broad interpretation of what constitutes a regulatory field. 90 Md.App. at 157, 600 A.2d at 882. MRA overlooks the previous paragraph in the opinion, where the CSA held that the state legislature may take a broad category ... and legislatively preempt a segment or portion of that category, leaving other portions open for local control.... Likewise, the Maryland statutes governing solid waste management divide the regulatory scheme into segments pertaining to issuing permits and to planning, and whereas the planning segment assigns to counties a distinct, albeit state-supervised role, the permit-issuing segment reserves power to the state's agency, MDE. Id. at 156-57, 600 A.2d at 881-82 (emphasis added). The CSA held that the County could not revoke its inclusion of the Property in SWMP as a step in the State permitting process, but made no ruling about the county's authority to modify its zoning law. The CSA delineated the role that local authorities play with regard to landfills: In summary, we hold that the legislature intended to occupy the field of landfill regulation in a manner that limits a county's role to identifying the type of waste that may be disposed of in a rubble landfill, determining whether a proposed site is consistent with its SWM plan, and in determining whether a site meets all applicable zoning and land use requirements. Id. at 157, 600 A.2d at 882 (emphasis added). The CSA concluded that when the Harford County Council enacted Resolution 4-90, it obviously did so because of a feared threat to ground water resources in the area and because of considerations related to land use compatibility. It was not a determination that the site was inconsistent with the Harford County solid waste management plan. Under the statutory scheme, as it exists between the state and Harford County, the specific determination concerning the hydrogeological conditions of the site and the area was an impermissible invasion on the state's permit review prerogative. Id. (emphasis added). When the County Council enacted Bill 91-10, it did not do so based on hydrogeological conditions of the site or other criteria falling within the bailiwick of MDE. It did so for classic zoning considerations: the impact of the use on neighboring properties due to emissions from the site, increase in noise, increase in traffic, danger to children, impairment of landscape and visual concerns, etc. There is no doubt that an MDE permit is mandatory for operation of any waste disposal system in this state. See Md. Code (1982, 2007 Repl.Vol., 2008 Cum. Supp.), § 9-204(d) of the Environment Article (A person shall have a permit issued by the [MDE] Secretary under this section before the person installs ... [a] refuse disposal system.). It is equally plain that local zoning requirements are a check on the permitting process. Environment Article Section 9-210(a)(3)(i) states that the [MDE] Secretary may not issue a permit to install a waste disposal system unless that system [m]eets all applicable county zoning and land use requirements.... Taken together, these provisions indicate a clear intent on the part of the General Assembly to locate environmental permitting with the MDE, and zoning with local government. There is no reasonable way to construe these provisions of the Maryland Code as doing anything other than complementing local government's role in planning and zoning. If we held otherwise, we would be reading an over-broad preemptive intent into an otherwise clear statutory scheme. MRA's preemption argument fails because it does not account for the dual nature of this process. See Ad + Soil, Inc. v. County Comm'rs of Queen Anne's County, 307 Md. 307, 513 A.2d 893 (1986) (holding that the relevant body of state law [did] indeed regulate many aspects of sewage sludge utilization but was not so comprehensive that the acceptance of the doctrine of pre-emption by occupation is compelled.).