Opinion ID: 1507214
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Exhaust the Administrative Remedy

Text: It is not alleged that the agreements under attack or that the master plan or zoning text amendment which might allow the zoning reclassification have been implemented by a zoning map amendment, or that Funger's application for a reclassification has been approved by the County Council. If and when an application is considered, Friendship Heights and its residents will have ample opportunity to be heard, as provided by § 70-90 of the Montgomery County Code (1965, as amended by Ch. 177 of the Laws of 1967). In the interim, their position does not rise above that of apprehension, and apprehension is not ordinarily the stuff of which declaratory or injunctive relief is made in zoning matters, where the question may never arise if statutory remedies are followed, Gingell v. County Commissioners, 249 Md. 374, 239 A.2d 903 (1968). Additionally, in Hartman v. Prince George's County, 264 Md. 320, 286 A.2d 88 (1972), we reiterated the rule of Code (1957, 1971 Repl. Vol.) Art. 31A, § 6 that declarations will not be given where a statute provides a special form of remedy for a specific type of case because that form of remedy must be followed. See also David W. Chertkof Trust v. Dep't of Natural Resources, 265 Md. 291, 289 A.2d 314 (1972); Poe v. Baltimore City, 241 Md. 303, 216 A.2d 707 (1966) and Mayor and City Council v. Seabolt, 210 Md. 199, 123 A.2d 207 (1956) which hold that a property owner who has not exhausted his administrative remedies cannot seek a declaration that a regulation or zoning ordinance as applied to his property is invalid. We are satisfied that the lower court was quite correct when it entered an order declaring that the action could not be maintained. Order affirmed, costs to be paid by appellant.