East Star, LLC v. County Commissioners
38 A.3d 524
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2012Background
- This is an environmental/land-use preemption dispute in Queen Anne's County, Maryland arising from a local zoning ordinance.
- County Ordinance 08-20 adds a new Section 18:1-95E(9) restricting major extraction operations (sand and gravel) within the county.
- Ordinance limits disturbance to 20 acres, caps operation duration to five years (renewable in five-year increments), and requires reclamation before expansion, with expansion/renewal subject to conditional use approval.
- Appellants East Star, Shore Sand and Gravel, and Bramble challenge CO 08-20 as impliedly preempted by state surface mining laws and as violating substantive due process.
- The circuit court granted the County summary judgment, concluding CO 08-20 is not preempted and does not violate due process.
- Appellants appeal, arguing state law comprehensively regulates surface mining and preempts local restrictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is CO 08-20 impliedly preempted by state surface mining law? | East Star argues state law is comprehensive, occupying the field. | Queen Anne's County argues state law complements local zoning and allows concurrent regulation. | Preemption by implication established; state law occupies field. |
| Is CO 08-20 preempted by conflict with state law? | State law does not permit local restrictions incompatible with its framework. | County asserts no conflict because local and state regulations can coexist. | Conflict preemption shown; local restrictions conflict with state requirements on disturbance, reclamation, and permit terms. |
| Does CO 08-20 violate substantive due process? | Regulation imprudently deprives lawful business and property use without legitimate public interest. | County acted within police powers to balance health, safety, and welfare via zoning controls. | Court does not reach due process claim because preemption issues control outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Days Cove Reclamation Co. v. Queen Anne's County, 146 Md.App. 469 (Md.App. 2002) (land-use field preemption despite local requirements in environmental context)
- Skipper v. Talbot County, 329 Md. 481 (Md. 1993) (comprehensive state regulation can preempt local ordinances)
- Md. Reclamation Assocs. v. Harford County, 414 Md. 1 (Md. 2010) (local zoning may proceed where not precluded by state environmental scheme)
- Ad + Soil, Inc. v. County Comm'rs, 307 Md. 307 (Md. 1986) (local control with state supervision; express concurrent authority)
- Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. New Pulaski Co. Ltd. Partn., 112 Md.App. 218 (Md.App. 1996) (state solid waste regulation indicative of occupying field)
- Soaring Vista Properties, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners of Queen Anne's County, 356 Md. 660 (Md. 1999) (illustrates preemption concerns in environmental-regulatory context)