## Facts

- Maryland Reclamation Associates, Inc. (MRA) planned to develop a rubble landfill on a 68-acre, agriculturally zoned tract in Harford County.
- MRA contracted to purchase the property in 1989 and began pursuing state approvals through the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE).
- Because state permitting required consistency with the County Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP), MRA sought the site’s inclusion in the SWMP.
- The County voted to include the site in the SWMP, and MRA completed its purchase in 1990.
- The proposal generated substantial public opposition during local proceedings.
- While MRA’s state permitting efforts were pending, the County removed the site from the SWMP and enacted Bill 91-10, amending the zoning scheme for rubble landfills by adding conditions and requiring use variances, which prevented MRA from proceeding as planned.
- MRA asserted it had spent over $1 million on the acquisition and project preparation and argued the County could not apply the amended zoning to block the landfill.
- Two consolidated appeals followed: one challenging the denial of variances needed under the amended zoning, and another challenging the County’s zoning interpretation and raising preemption, vested-rights, and estoppel theories.

## Issues

1. Whether Maryland’s state environmental permitting scheme for rubble landfills preempted Harford County’s zoning authority over landfill siting and use.
2. Whether MRA obtained vested rights to develop the landfill based on SWMP inclusion, progress in state permitting, property purchase, and substantial preparatory expenditures.
3. Whether Harford County was equitably estopped (through “zoning estoppel” or similar doctrine) from applying Bill 91-10 and related zoning restrictions due to MRA’s reliance on earlier County actions.
4. Whether the Board of Appeals’ denial of variances was supported by substantial evidence and whether the County’s legislative zoning action was non-arbitrary.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the circuit court judgments in both consolidated appeals.
- The court held that state environmental permitting for rubble landfills did not preempt local zoning; developers must satisfy both regimes.
- The court held MRA lacked vested rights because purchasing property and spending funds in preparation did not vest a right to a zoning use absent the type of reliance Maryland requires.
- The court declined to grant relief under zoning estoppel; even assuming such a doctrine could apply, MRA did not show the required good-faith reliance and resulting inequity.
- The court upheld the Board of Appeals’ variance denial under a deferential substantial-evidence standard and found no basis to invalidate the County’s legislative zoning action as arbitrary or capricious.

## Legal Principles

- State environmental permitting and local zoning regulate different subjects and may operate concurrently; absent clear legislative intent, state permitting does not displace local zoning controls on land use.
- In Maryland, vested rights in an existing zoning use are not created by property purchase or preparatory expenditures; vesting generally requires reliance of a type recognized by Maryland law, not merely planning and sunk costs.
- Equitable estoppel in the zoning context, even if assumed available, requires proof of good-faith reliance on government action or inaction and a substantial change in position or obligations such that it would be highly inequitable to deny the claimed right; reliance is not in good faith when known circumstances indicate approvals may change.
- Appellate review of variance decisions is deferential; a denial will be affirmed if supported by evidence a reasonable mind could accept, and legislative zoning actions are upheld absent proof of arbitrariness or caprice.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Harford County’s ability to apply amended zoning restrictions to a proposed rubble landfill despite ongoing state permitting efforts, rejecting claims of preemption, vested rights, and zoning estoppel, and affirming the Board’s variance denial under deferential review standards.


Maryland Reclamation Assocs., Inc. v. Harford Cnty., 414 Md. 1, 994 A.2d 842 (Md. 2010)