3170                                                 VETOES

from its effective date and thus it is properly described
as imposing a finite moratorium rather than an outright
and indefinite prohibition.

It should be noted that the bill purports to be a
land use bill restricting the use of land (and buildings)
rather than the preparation of land or the construction
of buildings for later use, In light of the one—year
limitation on the effectiveness of the bill, this becomes
particularly significant when one considers that most
major new facilities which would fall within the use
prohibitions could not be constructed and actually ready
for use within a year. While we recognize that local
officials responsible for issuing building permits might
be reluctant to allow construction to proceed in light of
legislation such as House Bill 1785, there would be no
basis in this legislation alone for the denial of a
building permit so long as it was clear that if the
building were completed within a year it could not be
used for one of the prohibited purposes within that
period. We also recognize that as a practical matter a
company might not wish to proceed with construction in
the face of a one year use limitation in the light of
possibility of later extension of the initial moratorium.
None of this alters the fact, however, that House Bill
1785 would not make it legally impermissible for a
prohibited facility to be constructed (as opposed to
used) during the next year. In the absence of further
legislative action, the use could commence at the end of
that time.

In addition, we should point out that the Anne
Arundel County Council has recently seen fit to exercise
its zoning authority to prohibit chemical and catalytic
manufacturing and the storage of petroleum and petroleum
products and certain other materials in various zoning
districts throughout the county. See Bill No. 120—73,
enacted January 24, 1974. House Bill 1785, while it is
aimed at uses similar to those recently restricted by the
County Council, nonetheless is in conflict in various
respects with the existing zoning laws of Anne Arundel
County, as amended by Bill No. 120—73.

We have recently had occasion to review two somewhat
related bills pertaining to the control of similar land
uses in St. Mary's County (Senate Bill 389 and House Bill
1736) and we wrote to you on May 10, 1974, setting forth
our views on the constitutional questions raised and
enclosing two prior opinions dealing with the bills. A
copy of the three letters are attached for your
convenience. Some but not all of the views which we
expressed then are pertinent here and, accordingly, we
direct your attention to these earlier letters. However,
we do not believe that any of the particular questions
raised and discussed in those letters would stand as an