Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Argument Preemption topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Petitioner tells Howard County Board Eastar precedent makes County’s renewal provision unlawful
Summary
Counsel for Chase Land LLC told the Board that the Maryland Eastar decision is directly on point and that Condition 23’s five‑year renewal requirement effectively duplicates state permitting authority, asking the board to vacate the hearing examiner’s denial.
Petitioner counsel argued at length that a Maryland appellate decision (referred to in the record as Eastar / ESTAR) squarely controls and makes Howard County’s five‑year renewal condition unlawful. Counsel said the Eastar ordinance limited mine duration and that Condition 23 is "identical" in effect, leaving the county without authority to compel five‑year renewal hearings.
"The condition is identical to condition number 23," counsel told the board, adding that Eastar’s holding means the county cannot adopt a renewal device that effectively sets the permit duration or relitigates the conditional‑use approval every five years. Counsel asked the board to vacate the hearing examiner’s decision and grant relief to the petitioner.
Board members questioned counsel on whether Condition 23 actually limited duration or simply required periodic compliance checks. Counsel maintained the renewal device functionally imposes the same term limitation Eastar struck down, and underscored that operational regulation and permit duration are within the Maryland Department of the Environment’s province, not the local board’s.
