Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Mining topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Howard County Board of Appeals says five‑year renewal requirement is preempted; Chase Land may continue operations
Summary
The Board of Appeals granted Chase Land LLC’s preemption motion, ruling that Condition 23’s five‑year renewal requirement is preempted by state mining law. The board voted unanimously and directed the Office of Law to issue a written decision order.
The Howard County Board of Appeals voted unanimously on Aug. 29 to grant a preliminary motion that the five‑year renewal requirement in Condition 23 of the quarry conditional use is preempted by state law, removing the board’s authority to hold periodic renewal hearings on that condition.
"So this board has found, that we grant the motion on behalf of Chase Mine and that this hearing is not allowed and they shall continue to, operate their mine," Chair Gene Ryan said after the roll call vote, directing that a written decision order be drafted by the Office of Law.
The ruling resolves a narrow legal question presented by Chase Land LLC’s petition: whether the county’s renewal provision — which requires the applicant to appear for review every five years and allows termination without renewal after 25 years — is functionally equivalent to the ordinance struck down in the Maryland case referenced repeatedly during argument (often cited in the record as Eastar/ESTAR). Petitioner counsel argued the renewal device duplicates state‑level permitting authority; opposing counsel said the renewal serves a distinct local compliance function and protects residents.
Board members stressed the scope of the ruling is limited to the preemption question; they repeatedly noted that enforcement of specific county conditions (setbacks, noise, blasting, etc.) remains available through Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ) complaints, notices of violation, and other administrative processes. The board also announced the Office of Law will issue a written order within the standard timeframe described in board rules.
The vote came after lawyers for both sides gave extended oral argument and answered multiple board questions about the practical differences between the County’s Condition 23 and the cited Eastar decision. Following the public proceeding the board recessed and then moved into a closed session to consult with counsel on rules of procedure regarding decisions and orders.
