King v. Gleason

359 A.2d 242, 32 Md. App. 145, 1976 Md. App. LEXIS 410
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland
DecidedJune 28, 1976
DocketNo. 857
StatusPublished

This text of 359 A.2d 242 (King v. Gleason) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Special Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
King v. Gleason, 359 A.2d 242, 32 Md. App. 145, 1976 Md. App. LEXIS 410 (Md. Ct. App. 1976).

Opinion

Menchine, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

J. Russell King (appellant) filed an action in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County seeking to enjoin the County Executive of Montgomery County from the acquisition of property known as “Landfill Site 30” and to enjoin the Montgomery County Council from including that site in the 1975 revision of the Montgomery County Ten Year Solid Waste Management Plan and to compel elimination of such site from that Plan “until and unless a public hearing is held upon the designation of the site.”

He contended that the statutorily required public notice as given in the subject case did not comply with law because publication of such notice failed to disclose with specificity the location of landfill sites proposed as solid waste acceptance facilities in the proposed comprehensive plan.

He maintained that Article 43, § 387C mandates: (a) that landfill sites must be designated with specificity in the required ten year proposed county plan dealing with solid waste disposal systems and solid waste acceptance facilities and (b) that any site thereafter added by the Montgomery County Council by amendment, permissively could be incorporated in the final plan only after notice and public hearing upon the proposed amendment prior to final passage. No constitutional due process issue is suggested.

The chancellor rejected both contentions. As to the first, he said: "... I find no expression of language or phrases that require the delineation of specific sites for public facilities [147]*147which are to be a part of the system or a part of the plan....” As to the second, the chancellor found that the statute granted to the County Council “a broad discretion with respect to action subsequent to a hearing.” Acting in accordance with those conclusions the chancellor dismissed the bill of complaint. We shall affirm.

Section 387C is a lengthy, somewhat complex statute that, inter alia, imposes a duty upon every county of the State to prepare and to submit to the State Department of Health a comprehensive ten year plan (with annual revisions) “for the provision of adequate water supply systems and sewerage and solid waste disposal systems and solid waste acceptance facilities throughout the county....”

The statutory procedural requisites in the development of such plans in Montgomery County are set forth in subsection (b), par. 1 (III) and read as follows:

“In Montgomery County, the County Council shall have the responsibility for the approval of the plans and annual revisions of such plans for Montgomery County. The County Council shall prepare a statement of the objectives and policies to be achieved and implemented by the plans and which shall include any or all related aspects of planning, zoning, population estimates, engineering, economics and State, regional, municipal, local and area plans to be taken into consideration, included in, or noted by the plans. The County Council may make such annual revisions in its established objectives and policies as it deems necessary. The county executive shall have the responsibility for preparing the plans and annual revisions of plans for Montgomery County to achieve the objectives and policies established by the County Council. The Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission and the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission shall provide to the Council and county executive such information and assistance as may be reasonably [148]*148required by either or both of them for their respective above-stated functions in the preparation, review and adoption of the plans and annual revisions thereof, with the procedures for the requests and for the transmittal of responses, including a reasonable timetable therefor, to be worked out among the county executive and the Council and the two commissions. The Sanitary Commission shall provide requested information as to engineering, design, present and future capacities, available service projections and fiscal elements of the water and sewerage plans and annual revisions thereof, and the Park and Planning Commission shall provide requested information as to population, growth projections, planning factors and other developmental criteria specified by the County Council or county executive. The county executive shall prepare and submit to the County Council a preliminary draft for its consideration, revisión, modification, comments and approval as a preliminary plan. The final plans or annual revision of plans shall be prepared by the county executive, conformable with the action of the Council in approving the preliminary drafts, taking into consideration significant intervening planning of development changes. The County Council shall hold a public hearing on the proposed final county plans and the annual revision thereof, ten days notice of which shall be given by one publication in a newspaper or newspapers of general circulation in Montgomery County.,[1] At least thirty days prior to the date set [149]*149for the public hearing, the Council shall transmit its proposed final plans to the Washington [150]*150Suburban Sanitary Commission and the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission for their recommendations. After the respective public hearings, the Council shall review and amend as it sees fit and approve the proposed plans or annual revision. However, such approval shall not become final until ten days have expired during which time the county executive may review the plan and make whatever recommendations he may deem necessary or desirable for the Council’s consideration. Thereafter, the Council shall submit the plan or annual revision to the State Department of Health, all within the time requirements as elsewhere set forth in this section.” (Emphasis added.)

The proposed final plan for the 1974-84 decade did not pinpoint the landfill sites proposed for use during the period. It did, however, refer to an “Inventory of Potential Solid Waste Disposal Sites” that in turn included, inter alia, “Landfill Site 30” — the facility at'issue here.

Subsequent to the public hearing of November 14, 1973, the County Council at a session held on January 22,1974, by a five to two vote “accepted Councilwoman Garrott’s motion to amend the proposed Ten Year Solid Waste Management Plan, as follows:

“ ‘The County Council has approved Site 30, located in the northern part of the County, bounded on the northeast by I-70S, on the north by Md. 95, [151]*151on the northwest by Shiloh Church Road for approximately 4,000 feet and on the southeast by Md. 121 for approximately 4,000 feet, and as more particularly described in “Volume 3, Solid Waste Management Ten Year Plan, July 1974 Disposal System, Inventory of Potential Solid Waste Disposal Sites.” The County Executive will select a specific site from the area (of Site 30) after a public hearing.’ ”

In the lower court appellant referred to a notice of public hearing relating to possible acquisition of seven landfill sites within Montgomery County, complaining that the notice did not include the subject tract. That hearing notice was not given pursuant to any requirement of Code Article 43, § 387C, it was given pursuant to the provisions of Section 20-37 of the Montgomery County Code of 1972 relating to land acquisition. Site 30 was not at that time envisioned for final acquisition.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hewitt v. County Commissioners
151 A.2d 144 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1959)
Swarthmore Co. v. Kaestner
266 A.2d 341 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
359 A.2d 242, 32 Md. App. 145, 1976 Md. App. LEXIS 410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-gleason-mdctspecapp-1976.