|
|
|
State Environmental Law Preempts a County Zoning Ordinance
(March 2012) By Gregory L. Arbogast, Associate
For more information, contact Paul
Farquharson.
East Star, LLC v. The County Commissioners of Queen
Anne’s County, No. 2616 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. March 1, 2012) |
View pdf
In East Star, LLC v. The County Commissioners of Queen Anne’s County, the Court of Special Appeals held that state environmental law
preempted a zoning ordinance adopted by Queen Anne’s County, which regulated
mining. The trial court found in favor of the County, but the Court of Special
Appeals reversed and found that the State of Maryland sufficiently regulated the
area of mining to impliedly preempt all county ordinances.
East Star, LLC arose out of a zoning ordinance adopted by
Queen Anne’s County, which regulated the size and duration of mining.
Specifically, the zoning ordinance stated that mines over twenty (20) acres
could only grow in increments of twenty (20) additional acres and the mines
could only have a duration of five (5) years, unless they received approval for
an additional five (5) years. Chapter 8, Title 15 of the Environmental Article
of the State Code also regulated mining, though its requirements were not as
strict as the Queen Anne’s County ordinance.
In response to the mining ordinance, East Star, LLC
(“East Star”) filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration from
the Circuit Court for Queen Anne’s County that Maryland environmental law
preempts county zoning ordinances with respect to mining. The Court,
however, ruled in favor of Queen Anne’s County and found that Maryland
environmental law did not preempt the ordinance. East Star appealed to the
Court of Special Appeals.
The Court of Special Appeals assessed whether
Maryland’s environmental law preempts Queen Anne’s County’s zoning
ordinance. State law can explicitly or implicitly preempt local ordinances.
The only allegation in this case is that state law implicitly preempted the
local ordinance. State law implicitly preempts local ordinances when the
Legislature intended to occupy an entire area of law. Factors to consider
are: (1) whether the laws are of the same subject matter; (2) whether there
is extensive regulatory rules in the area; (3) whether the area is
traditionally one localities regulate; (4) whether the Legislature expressly
permitted concurrent regulation; (5) whether there is a state agency
responsible for regulating the field; (6) whether the local regulation has
been addressed in the state law; and (7) whether local regulation would
engender chaos.
The Court of Special Appeals held that Maryland’s
environmental law preempts the county ordinance. The Court found that the
State of Maryland already regulated the entire field of mining; and
therefore, it implicitly preempted local law. Moreover, the Maryland
Department of the Environment is charged with regulating the mining
industry, further evidencing the State of Maryland’s intent to preempt local
ordinances.
|
|
|