Opinion ID: 1885020
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Change

Text: The lower court found sufficient evidence of change in the neighborhood in which the subject property is located to make the question of change of character of the neighborhood fairly debatable [2] and thus did not disturb the Board's reclassification from R-6 to R-A. We think that finding should be reversed. The lower court indicated that the following changes had occurred in the neighborhood since the adoption of the Comprehensive Zoning Map of 1960: (1) the widening of Frederick Road; (2) changes in the already nonconforming Ridgeway Inn; (3) the development of the Baltimore campus of the University of Maryland; (4) the development of Catonsville Community College and (5) the acquisition by the Board of Education of the Kerr property for use as an elementary school. The record shows that the widening of Frederick Road stopped about 200 feet from the subject property and that where it was widened it consisted of increasing the width from approximately 33 feet to 48 feet under a public works agreement. In addition, there was testimony that the State Roads Commission had plans for widening the road to 66 feet from the Baltimore City line to Ellicott City but there was also evidence that no one knew when funds might become available for this project. Certainly the improvements to Frederick Road do not significantly alter the basic character of the neighborhood as did the vast improvements to Stevenson Lane in Jobar Corp. v. Rodgers Forge, 236 Md. 106, 202 A.2d 612 (1964). In Jobar, prior to the comprehensive map adoption in 1955, Stevenson Lane was a partially private 12 to 15 foot roadway, connected neither to York Road nor Bellona Avenue. In fact, it did not even exist in front of the subject property. At the time of the application in 1961, however, the road had become fully paved, extended from York Road to Charles Street and provided a 70 to 80 foot right-of-way. Conversely, the mere widening of an already existing paved thoroughfare, as in the instant case, does not of itself constitute a basic change in the character of the neighborhood. The changes in Ridgeway Inn, an already nonconforming use, consisted primarily of enclosing the porch. This amounts to no more than a permissible intensification of an existing nonconforming use [3] and hardly amounts to a change that would affect the character of the neighborhood. There is nothing whatsoever in the record to show the proximity, if any, of the subject property or the neighborhood in which it is situated, to the Baltimore campus of the University of Maryland or to Catonsville Community College, other than that they are in the general area. The Kerr tract, condemned for the construction of an elementary school, is identified as being within two blocks of the subject property. We presume this means more than one block away and not more than two. The contention raised by the appellees that the construction of an elementary school will constitute a change affecting the character of the neighborhood is answered by the fact that schools constitute a permissive use under § 200.3 and § 200.6 of the Baltimore County Zoning Regulations. Cf. Baker v. Montgomery County, 241 Md. 178, 185, 215 A.2d 831, 835 (1966). Certainly, the record, insofar as the location of the last three mentioned institutional uses are concerned, falls far short of the changes occasioned by the institutional uses found in Meginniss v. Sheppard-Pratt, 246 Md. 704, 229 A.2d 417 (1967), wherein the Towson State College property was across the street from the subject property and The Greater Baltimore Medical Center almost directly south. There is little to persuade us in the recounting of the number of nonconforming commercial uses in the neighborhood. The fact that they were in existence prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Zoning Plan of 1960 would indicate a legislative intent to maintain the residential character of the neighborhood free from further commercial encroachment. The philosophy of zoning supports the theory that nonconforming uses will gradually be eliminated and not conversely that the neighborhood will eventually succumb to nonconforming domination. See Baltimore v. N.A.A.C.P., 221 Md. 329, 157 A.2d 433 (1960); Grant v. City of Baltimore, 212 Md. 301, 129 A.2d 363 (1957); Schiff v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 207 Md. 365, 114 A.2d 644 (1955); 2 Metzenbaum, Law of Zoning Ch. X-g (2d ed. 1955). Appellees' witness, Mr. Gavrellis, replying to a question concerning change in the neighborhood stated: My recollection, without referring to a map,   , is that all development has occurred within the constraints imposed by the zoning map, and that several attempts to change the zoning have not been successful. This would indicate that there have been only such changes in the subject area as were anticipated by those who enacted the comprehensive plan. See County Council v. Gendleman, 227 Md. 491, 177 A.2d 687 (1962); Serio v. City of Baltimore, 208 Md. 545, 119 A.2d 387 (1956). We are of the opinion that the record in this case is so lacking in evidence of change affecting the character of the neighborhood as to render the question not fairly debatable and that the lower court was in error in affirming the decision of the Board granting reclassification. Order reversed, appellees to pay costs.