Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1962-07-12
Zoning Suit
Is Filed i'm
Caithersburg

Galthersburg's Mayor and
Council last week authorized
town attorney James Hane to
represent the town in suit
filed against it by Glen A.
Young and Shirley P. Young of
Ia E. Deer Park DIR.
The suit was filed in behalf
of the Youngs by attorney Cecil
Custer and seeks enforcement
of the towns zoning ordinance
by the mayor and council on E.
Deer Park DIR.
In addition to the town, the
suit also lists as defendants
members Of the town council
as individuals, realtor Kay Bowl.
ing, Joseph c. and Frances L.
Hilton of 120 E. Deer Park dr.,
and Orlow r. and Geraldine
Zumwalt of 200 Hutton st.
The suit complains Of viola,
lions of Gaithersburg's coming
map and ordinances adopted i'm
October, 1858 which are based
on study by Fred w. Tuemm-
Ter g. Associates of HyattsviIle.
AT that time rural residential
coming was set up along E. Deer
Park dr., and lots with IOO-fOOt
frontage were established.
1t is alleged that realtor KAY
Bowling and her late husband
acquired title to little more
than an acre of land on the
street late in 1860 and that Mrs.
Bowling applied for a building
permit to construct a dwelling
on the land. The permit was
granted but was not used.
Later, the suit contends, Mrs.
Bowling requested an amend
ment to the coming map and
asked for rezoning from rural
residential to ROO, which was
denied by town officials.
At this time, according to the
compliments, a dwelling was
under construction on the land
which Mrs. Bowling conveyed,
to the Joseph Kittens, along
with 47/100 of an acre and
frontage of 80 feet. Several
months later, the compliments
brief said, the realtor conveyed
an undivided one-half interest
in a parcel of land 20 feet wide
adjoining the house and land
sold by her to the Joseph Hill.
tens. 1t was agreed that the Hill
ten interest in the parcel would
exist until the adjoining land
owned by Mrs. Bowling should
be zoned to permit subdivision
OF the tract to lots having less
than 80 feet of frontage on Deer
Park.
The cOmplainants further al
legged that on January %, 1862,
Mrs. Bowling asked for a build.
ing permit for "IOt II of the
tract and stated that the dwell
ling to be constructed would be
15 feet from the west side of the
tract. The portion of the tract
previously conveyed to the Hill
tens is on the east side of the
tract.
At this time, the Youngs ap-
pearing as compliments went
to the Mayor and Council and
protested alleged violation of
the coming ordinance and said
construction of two houses, one
on each side of the tract, leav-
ing an Soft wide center lot was
an attempt to circumvent town
ordinances.
On April, the suit contends.
Mrs. Bowling conveyed Lot 1 to
Mr.. and Mrs. Orlow r. Zumwalt
as well as an interest in the
20-foot strip; Zumwalt, the suit
said, filed for a building permit
and it was issued May II.
The compliments charge
there is a conspiracy between
Mrs. Bowling, the Kittens and
the Zumwalts to develop lots l
and 2 into three separate lots
with frontages of less than 100
feet by creation of a situation
that will justify such develop
ment.
They charge further that the
Mayor and Council granted
building permits without know.
ing the identity of lots involved
and that, 'if the conspiracy sue.
ceeds, it will result in accom-
plishing, indirectly, the identical
situation prohibited BY the town
when it denied" Mrs. Bowling's
original application to obtain
R.90 coming in the area,