East v. Gilchrist

Eldridge, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. On December 2,1977, the Environmental Health Administration of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene ordered Montgomery County to identify a site for a new sanitary landfill. The order further required Montgomery County, after its designation of a landfill site and approval thereof by the Secretary of Health and Mental Hygiene, 1 to obtain the necessary permits for the county’s operation of ³⁷⁰ the landfill. Accordingly, the county proceeded to plan for the development of a new sanitary landfill.

Montgomery County initially selected four sites for the placement of the landfill and amended the county’s ten-year solid waste management plan to reflect these selections. 2 The county ultimately chose a 550 acre site near the town of Laytonsville, in an area zoned R-2 residential, for the placement of the sanitary landfill. Several Montgomery County residents, in the meantime, initiated a proposed amendment to the Montgomery County Charter, designed to prevent the expenditure of county funds for the operation of sanitary landfills on residentially zoned land. This amendment was placed on the November 1978 general election ballot and approved by the county voters. The amendment became Art. 3, § 311A, of the Montgomery County Charter.

Section 311A provides: "§ 311A. Limitations on expenditures for landfills in residential zones. No expenditure of county funds shall be made or authorized for the operation of a landfill system of refuse disposal on land zoned for residential use.” Despite this charter provision, the county, acting under a conditional sanitary landfill construction and operation permit issued by the Department in November 1978, continued to develop plans for the operation of a sanitary landfill at the Laytonsville site. Pursuant to state law and directives issued by the Department, Montgomery County submitted the requisite final permit applications for operation of the new sanitary landfill.

In May 1979, the Department issued a final permit authorizing the county to establish and operate a sanitary landfill disposal system at the Laytonsville site. Thereafter on June 3,1981, Charles R. Buck, Jr., then Secretary of Health and Mental Hygiene, ordered Montgomery County to begin landfill operations at ³⁷¹ the Laytonsville landfill site within one year from the date of the order. This case began in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County in January 1981. It was instituted by several Montgomery County taxpayers and a former member of the Maryland House of Delegates.

The ultimate defendants were a number of Montgomery County officials and the county itself. The plaintiffs requested a declaratory judgment that § 311A of the county charter was valid and that the defendants had violated that section. In addition, the plaintiffs sought a writ of mandamus and injunctive relief to require the defendants to comply with § 311A. Finally the plaintiffs sought damages from the county and the county officials.

The defendants subsequently filed a "counterclaim” seeking a declaratory judgment that § 311A was invalid, and they also moved for "a separate trial on the issue of law created by the counterclaim.” The motion for a separate trial was granted by the circuit court. In July 1981, the trial court filed a declaratory judgment, solely on the defendants’ counterclaim, declaring that § 311A was invalid under Art. XI-A of the Maryland Constitution. The trial court further declared that § 311A was an invalid public local law because it conflicted with a public general law, the Regional District Act, Code (1957, 1978 Repl. Vol.), Art. 66 D, § 1-101 et seq.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Special Appeals and, prior to any proceedings in that court, we granted the plaintiffs’ petition for a writ of certiorari. We were required to dismiss the appeal, however, under Maryland Rule 605 a. East v. Gilchrist, 293 Md. 453 , 445 A.2d 343 (1982). After the dismissal of the appeal, further proceedings were held in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County.

Following the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the circuit court on June 9, 1982, filed a declaratory judgment, again declaring § 311A to be invalid under Art. XI-A of the Maryland Constitution and the Regional District Act. The plaintiffs’ requests for other relief were also denied by the trial court. The plaintiffs then took an appeal to the Court of Special ³⁷² Appeals, and, again prior to any proceedings in that court, we granted the defendants’ petition for a writ of certiorari. On this occasion, we are satisfied that the case is properly before us.

In taking the position that § 311A of the Montgomery County Charter is invalid under Art. XI-A of the Maryland Constitution, the defendants argue, and the trial court held, that § 311A is not proper charter material under Art. XI-A, as construed in Cheeks v. Cedlair Corp., 287 Md. 595 , 415 A.2d 255 (1980). They contend that § 311A constitutes the type of legislation which, under Art. XI-A, is the prerogative of the Montgomery County Council to enact. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, insist that § 311A represents the type of limitation upon government authority to make expenditures which is appropriate for a county charter under Art. XI-A. The theory underlying the defendants’ alternate argument, namely that § 311A of the Montgomery County Charter conflicts with the Regional District Act, is that § 311A constitutes a zoning law, and that, under