Opinion ID: 2051293
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: i, ii, iii.

Text: It will be noted that these contentions of the appellant overlap; hence, they will be considered together. In its brief, the appellant attempts to sustain them by a rather extended argument to the effect that the Board should have accepted the appellant's evidence at face value, and should have paid little, or no, heed to its own inspection of the subject premises and the evidence of the protestants. Section 39 of the Zoning Ordinance, in fixing guides and standards, provides, inter alia, as follows: The Board    shall inspect the premises and hold a public hearing, giving all parties in interest the right to testify as to any material facts    and shall approve or disapprove the issuance of the permit    in accordance with the evidence adduced before it and from its own investigation [italics supplied] as to whether or not such proposed use would menace the public health, safety, security or morals    and they shall give consideration to the following:    (5) Protection of occupants of buildings from noise, dust and gases caused by traffic. (6) The type of electric illumination for the proposed use with special reference to its effect upon nearby structures and the glare, if any, from such illumination in surrounding sleeping quarters   .    (8) The size, type and kind of structures in the vicinity where the public are apt to gather in numbers, such as    churches,    schools and the like. (9) The proximity of dwellings and the effect such uses have, if any, upon the peaceful enjoyment of such dwellings.    (11) The conservation of property values. (12) Any other matters considered to be in the interest of the general welfare. The uncontroverted facts in the record, we think, disclose a reasonable basis to support the Board's refusal to issue the permit, as an exercise of the police power. Adler v. City of Baltimore, 220 Md. 623, 155 A.2d 504. There is no doubt that the reasonable protection of the public health and safety is a proper exercise of the police power. The plat of the vicinity of the proposed site shows an unusual intersection, due to the angles formed by the convergence of the several highways. The streets are not level. A very heavy flow of traffic at the intersection, with numerous turns, is shown by the appellant's own expert witness. It is undisputed that students from three schools (with a fourth under construction) use the intersection. A public church is located just 301 feet away from the proposed location of the filling station. The appellant's application called for 6 floodlight poles, 8 fluorescent floodlights, fluorescent island light fixtures at the pump islands, two sign poles, one SHELL sign, one rotating SHELL sign (both signs with interior illumination and about 17 feet high), and one air tower. The proposed station would open at about 6:30 a.m. and close at about 10:30 or 11:00 p.m. There was testimony that there were sixteen, or more, filling stations within a radius of one mile of the proposed site. The plat also shows that the service station, if erected, would directly face the dwellings across Erdman Avenue, and be only a few feet distant from the rears of the lots that face on Lawnview Avenue. The reports from the Fire Commissioners, the Commissioner of Health and the Department of Transit and Traffic are made to aid the Board, but they are not controlling. The Zoning Ordinance (Section 35 (k)) directs that the Board shall study zoning, its development, application and relation to public and private municipal development   . And Section 39, as we have stated above, requires the Board to inspect the premises and give due regard to the evidence produced before it at the hearing and its own investigation when deciding whether a permit should issue. In making their decision, the Board members perform their duty as experts. Aaron v. City of Baltimore, 207 Md. 401, 406, 114 A.2d 639. We hold that the record clearly shows a reasonable basis to support the Board's refusal to issue the permit, as an exercise of the police power. This brings us to the alleged political and emotional aspect of the hearing, advanced by the appellant. A short answer to the argument is that the record is devoid of any showing of disorder or any improper conduct during the hearing. The contention seems to be based entirely upon the fact, mentioned only in appellant's brief, that there was some hand-clapping and cheers during the taking of testimony and that certain City Councilmen testified. The record shows that a public hearing was held; all of the witnesses, who desired to testify, were fully heard; there was no coercion, intimidation or browbeating of any witness; all of the exhibits offered by the appellant were received; and the resolution thereafter passed by the Board shows a knowledge of the relevant facts involved in making a determination of whether the permit should issue. The testimony of the Councilmen was short, and, in the main, stressed the increased hazards to traffic, the possible injury to the health of nearby residents, and the adverse effect on property values, if the station were permitted. Insofar as the record discloses, there has been no denial of due process of law.