Evening star., 1953-08-07
Court Is Asked
To Void County
zoning Edict
Injunction Sought
Against Bourd
In Prince Georges

Prince Georges commissioners
after an uproarious hearing is
under attack in the county'S
Circuit Court.
Republican Delegate j. Frank
Lillard, jr., in a scathing de-
nunciation of the all-G.O.P.
commissioners board, called the
hearing farcical and asked that
the ruling be reversed.
Particularly sharp criticism
was directed at Commissioner
Edward j. Waters.
Mr.. Lillard filed the bill of
complaint as counsel for Orvin
D. Brunk and Ray Ogburn. both
of 1920 Sheridan Street, Hyatts-
vile.
Judge Charles C. Marbury
ordered the commissioners to
show cause by August 81 why
an injunction should not be
issued, requiring them to grant
the applicants request.
Mr.. Lillard and his clients lost
two hard-fought battles in
Hyattsville for reclassiflcation Of
residential property west of the
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad
tracks between Greenbelt and
Branchville roads. Several par
GELS of nearby land are zoned
industrial and commercial.
Planners Approved.
At the first hearing on May 20,
Mr.. Brunk and Mr.. Ogburn
asked that their tract be desig-
mated heavy industrial. The
Maryland National Capital Park
and Planning Commission recon-
mended approval. The COM
missioners denied the change
after objections by what Mr..
Lillard called alleged" residents
of the Berwyn section.
Mr.. Lillard contends he was
not permitted to cross-examine
witnesses at the hearing, that
witnesses we're allowed to make
hearsay and conjectural state
ments and that the hearing was
conducted in an unfair and ar
bitrary manner.
He added that one commits
sioner, unnamed in the suit but
identified as Mr.. Waters, said
frequently during the hearing
that he was opposed to the re-
zoning. His remarks, the action
claims, constituted fragrant dis
regard and gross abuse" of the
boards discretionary powers.
It was Mr.. Waters who Sue
cesSfully moved for rejection OF
the request by the commissioners.
Revised Plea Rejected.
An amended petition was filed
asking that part of the tract
be zoned heavy commercial and
the remainder light industrial.
A rehearing was held July Is.
The second request was refused,
again on motion by Mr.. Wa
ters. Papers in the suit pictured
the proceedings in this wise:
"The hearing was conducted
in an unidentified manner. with
utter lack of decorum. witnesses
were allowed to make statements
simultaneously. At frequent in
tervals, alleged" residents OPP
posing the rezoning shouted re-
marks prejudicial to the petit
TONERS"
Witnesses" the suit contin-
ued, were permitted to engage
in long discourses on subjects in
no way connected with the issue.
Members of the board carried on
conversations with persons in
the room openly and in such
manner that they could be heard
by every one present" The con-
versation. the suit alleges, con-
cerned the case under discussion.
At one point in the hearing,
the suit declares. counsel for the
applicants asked the board to
rule on light commercial coming
for the entire tract.
Objections From Audience.
"Then, the board asked per-
sons in the audience with no of
fetal capacity and those purport-
ing to have semiofficial capacity
whether there was an objection.
When affirmative answers were
given, the board ruled out the
request of counsel to have matter
considered at that time"
On at least one occasion, the
suit claims, Mr.. Lillard was
forced to stop presentation Of his
case because of the uproar. De-
spite his repeated requests for
order. the action continues. mo
member of the defendant board
voiced any opposition to the
demonstrations"
Because of the clamor. the
suit AYERS, it was impossible for
the applicants counsel to elicit
pertinent testimony from wit
neSses. Consequently, the Com
missioners. the suit claims. did
not base their decision on facts
but rather on "the number and
verbosity" of the opposition.
To cap it all off, the action
recited Mr.. Lillard was shouted
down at the end of the hearing
when he tried to learn the rea-
sons for the unfavorable ruling.
elI FH