For Your Data Maryland Reclamation Associates V. Harford County Instance Brief

Maryland Reclamation Associates v. Harford County instance brief summary
994 A.2d 842 (2010)

CASE SYNOPSIS

Appellant belongings possessor appealed ii judgments of the Circuit Court for Harford County (Maryland), 1 of which affirmed the Harford County Board of Appeals's denial of the owner's asking for several variances in addition to the other which affirmed the Harford County Board of Appeals's interpretation of diverse zoning provisions that were applicable to the owner.

BRIEF CASE FACTS
The possessor sought to build in addition to travel a rubble landfill on the property.

CASE FACTS

In Feb of 1990, Maryland Reclamation Associates (MRA) (P) purchased belongings located inwards Harford County (D).
MRA wanted to role the dry reason for a landfill.
Before the purchase, the county had decided to include the belongings inwards its Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP), in addition to the dry reason had issued an environmental permit for a landfill at the site.
The project’s inclusion inwards the SWMP was brought past times a vote of 4 of vii council members: ii had abstained due to inadequate information; 1 abstained because his boy was the president of MRA.
Hundreds attended the blessing hearings that took house inwards Nov of 1989, inwards opposition to the rubble landfill.
The county ultimately adopted a zoning amendment which imposed novel atmospheric condition for rubble landfill sites in addition to required role variances.
MRA sued the urban nub to compel it to permit the rubble landfill on the theory that MRA had a vested correct to cash inwards one's chips along amongst its plan.
The trial courtroom held that MRA did non convey a vested correct to build the rubble landfill.
MRA filed an appeal, invoking zoning estoppel past times alleging that MRA had spent over 1 meg dollars for the dry reason buy in addition to technology scientific discipline fees subsequently relying on the city’s inclusion of the landfill site inwards its SWMP.

RULES
"In guild to obtain a vested correct inwards an existing zoning role that volition travel protected against a subsequent alter inwards a zoning ordinance prohibiting that use, the possessor must initially obtain a permit" in addition to must brand a substantial commencement inwards structure to commit the dry reason to its permitted role earlier the zoning ordinance has been changed.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, the possessor challenged diverse decisions which led to the denial of the necessary variances.
Among other things the courtroom of appeals held that the Board did non err inwards finding that granting the requested variances would travel substantially detrimental to the side past times side property.
Evidence showed that the landfill activities would travel substantially detrimental to the historic church building in addition to graveyard that were following to the dependent area property.
Furthermore, the community would travel detrimentally affected, equally an increment inwards air pollution was probable to resultant inwards worsening of asthma inwards children, cardio-respiratory difficulties inwards elderly persons, in addition to increased truck traffic inwards areas where children played in addition to boarded schoolhouse buses.
As for the instant case, the courtroom of appeals concluded that the county's correct to enact in addition to enforce zoning regulations was non preempted past times the State statute governing landfills.
The courtroom also noted that the possessor needed to a greater extent than than a dry reason permit in addition to site invention blessing to convey a vested correct inwards an existing zoning role in addition to neither equitable nor zoning estoppel applied.

CONCLUSION
The judgments of the trial courtroom inwards both cases were affirmed.

See also: Maryland Reclamation Associates v. Hartford County total case

Suggested police line schoolhouse written report materials