Piney Orchard Community Ass'n v. Maryland Department of the Environment
149 A.3d 1175
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2016Background
- Tolson applied in 2002 for a State permit to construct/operate a rubble landfill in Anne Arundel County; MDE’s multi‑phase review extended through 2014 when MDE issued the final permit.
- Under EN § 9‑210(a), MDE must complete Phase 1, send Phase 1 findings to the county, then cease processing until the county provides a written statement that the site “meets all applicable county zoning and land use requirements” and conforms to the county solid waste plan.
- Anne Arundel County sent MDE a written letter on August 28, 2002 stating Tolson’s proposed rubble landfill met county zoning requirements and conformed to the county solid waste plan.
- MDE completed Phases 2 and 3, held public hearings, issued a Response to Comments, and made a Final Determination approving the permit (effective Nov. 24, 2014).
- Piney Orchard challenged MDE’s permit in circuit court asserting (1) MDE erred by relying on the 2002 county letter rather than making a present‑tense finding in 2014 that the site “meets” county zoning, and (2) two later county zoning bills (Bill 21‑14 and Bill 34‑03) applied retroactively and invalidated the county certification.
- The circuit court upheld MDE; the Court of Special Appeals affirmed, holding MDE satisfied EN § 9‑210(a)(3)(i) by receiving the county’s written statement at the statutorily required point and that the county bills did not apply to Tolson.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Piney Orchard) | Defendant's Argument (MDE/Tolson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MDE was required under EN § 9‑210(a)(3)(i) to make a present‑time factual finding, at permit issuance, that the site "meets" county zoning and land use requirements | "Meets" is present tense; MDE had to articulate that the site complied at the time the permit issued (2014), not rely on a 2002 letter | Statute requires MDE only to receive a county written statement at the Phase 1 point; MDE is not authorized or required to reevaluate county zoning compliance at permit issuance | Court held MDE was not required to make an independent present‑time factual finding; receipt of the county's 2002 written statement at the statutorily required point satisfied EN § 9‑210(a)(3)(i) and was supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether Anne Arundel County Bills 21‑14 and 34‑03 applied retroactively to invalidate Tolson’s special exception / affect the county’s 2002 written statement | The subsequent ordinances changed local law in ways that rendered the 2002 county certification "stale," so the permit should not have issued | The bills were prospective, did not contain retroactivity clauses, and Tolson’s special exception predated the ordinances; statutory and local provisions protect prior approvals | Court held neither Bill 21‑14 nor Bill 34‑03 applied to Tolson; the 1993 special exception remained effective and the later county ordinances did not invalidate it retroactively |
Key Cases Cited
- MDE v. Anacostia Riverkeeper, 447 Md. 88 (2016) (describing arbitrary and capricious standard and deference to agency factfinding)
- Najafi v. Motor Vehicle Admin., 418 Md. 164 (2011) (explaining the "reasoning mind" substantial‑evidence test for administrative factfinding)
- Catonsville Nursing Home, Inc. v. Loveman, 349 Md. 560 (1998) (defining substantial evidence review)
- Bereano v. State Ethics Comm’n, 403 Md. 716 (2008) (agency decisions carry presumption of validity)