A sand and gravel company has sued the county and the County Councilfor blocking its efforts to develop a rubble fill at its Joppa site.
The suit, filed Thursday by Harford Sands Inc. of Joppa, is similar to one filed June 20 by Maryland Reclamation Associates Inc. over new laws that set strict standards for rubble fills proposed for the county.
Harford Sands and Maryland Reclamation are asking Harford CircuitCourt to overturn the laws.
"The defendants have been engaged in a continuing unlawful scheme and an illegal concerted course of action performed in bad taste . . . for the purpose of damaging (Maryland Reclamation) and Harford Sands," Harford Sands says in its 21-page suit.
Jefferson Blomquist, deputy county attorney, said the county had not yet received the suit.
Harford Sands mines and processes industrial sand and gravel at a 79-acre site on Fort Hoyle Road. The company has been in operation since 1964, although the site has been used for excavating sand and gravel since 1942.
The company, operated by Larry G. Stancill and his wife, Dorothy, says in its suit that it began seeking a permit from the state Department of the Environmentfor a rubble fill at the site in 1988.
The county designated the Harford Sands site for a rubble fill in its solid-waste management plan in September 1988.
Meanwhile, Maryland Reclamation of Churchville began seeking approval for a rubble fill on a 68-acre site near Havre de Grace, sparking an ongoing legal battle with the county.
The laws at issue in the Maryland Reclamation and Harford Sands suits were approved by the council March 19. They require sites for rubble landfills to be on tracts of at least 100 acres and at least 1,000 feet from buildings.
The council adopted a resolution June 11 removing the Maryland Reclamation and Harford Sands sites from the county's solid-waste plan because they no longer met the standards for rubble fills.
Harford Sands, represented by Robert B. Scarlett of Baltimore, contends in its suit that the council approved the laws and resolution knowing that the firm could not meet the rubble fill standards.
The company noted in its suit that the size and location of its rubble fill site was not an issue when the council included its project in the waste-management plan three years ago.