Court Opinion

ID: 9752196
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 17:43:07.044282+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:08.254041
License: Public Domain

Barnes, J.,
filed the following dissenting opinion.
The majority opinion illustrates to my mind the essential unsoundness of the “mistake in original zoning-change in physical conditions” rule which we have applied in rezoning cases since the decision of this Court in Wakefield v. Kraft, 202 Md. 136, 96 A. 2d 27 (1953). I pointed out, at some length, in Part III of my dissenting opinion in MacDonald v. Board of County Commissioners of Prince George’s County, 238 Md. 549 at page 557, 576-601, 210 A. 2d 325, 329, the unfortunate entry of this doctrine into the Maryland law and its rapid and unhealthy growth. The MacDonald case, however, involved the “change in physical conditions” portion of the rule; the case at bar involves “mistake in original zoning”, the remaining part of the rule. The comments in Part III of the dissenting opinion in MacDonald are generally applicable in this case, and need not be repeated here. There are additional observations with particular reference to the “mistake” portion of the rule which should be made.
In the majority opinion it is stated that for the petitioner to prevail, he must “meet the heavy burden placed upon him” *276to show the original mistake. In MacDonald the majority stated that the rezoning could only be sustained when there is “strong evidence of mistake” in the original zoning or when there is “a substantial change in conditions” in the neighborhood. In some of our prior cases we have indicated that there is a strong presumption of the reasonableness of a zoning ordinance but this presumption of reasonableness does not apply with the same weight or “with as great force” to a rezoning ordinance. See Mettee v. County Commissioners of Howard County, 212 Md. 357, 366, 129 A. 2d 136, 141 (1957) and cases cited in that opinion.
As all of the cases agree that both zoning and rezoning ordinances involve the exercise of legislative power, why is it that the exercise of legislative power at a later time does not have at least equal force or an equal presumption of validity as does the prior exercise of legislative power? Apart from rezoning legislation, we have consistently, vigorously and, to my mind, quite properly held that one legislative body may not prevent •contrary action by the legislative body acting at a later date, however emphatically it attempts to do this. Montgomery County v. Bigelow, 196 Md. 413, 423, 77 A. 2d 164 (1950); see also State v. Fisher, 204 Md. 307, 315, 104 A. 2d 403 (1954); Prince George’s County v. Donohoe, 220 Md. 362, 367, 152 A. 2d 555 (1959). In my opinion, there should be no “heavy burden” upon the petitioner or the requirement of “strong evidence of mistake” in the original zoning. As stated by the Court in Bartlett v. Middletown Township, 51 N. J. Super. 261, quoted in 1 Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and Planning, 27-14 (n. 22) :
“* * * the presumption of validity attending the original ordinance must give way to the presumption of the correctness of the amendatory ordinance. The Legislature not only conferred upon municipalities the power to adopt zoning ordinances but also the power to amend, change, modify or repeal them * * *.”
I fear that our present rule is justly subject to the observation by Rathkopf when he stated:
“The Maryland rule would appear to be a limita*277tion upon the power of the legislative body to rezone rather than a strict rule of presumption.” (Id., p. 27-16).
We should return to more orthodox doctrine. If we are not able to do this because of the doctrine of stare decisis, 1 again suggest, with great respect, as I did in the dissent in MacDonald, that the Legislative Council and ultimately the General Assembly give serious thought to a change of the present rule by appropriate legislation.
In my opinion the “mistake in original zoning” portion of this rule—assuming arguendo its validity—has been misapplied by the majority in the case at bar. While the facts are rather fully stated in the majority opinion, they need some further amplification.
Mr. Gavrelis, the Deputy Director of Planning for Baltimore County for six years and the Acting Director of the Office of Planning and Zoning, was with the Department of Planning in 1955 or 1956 when the Department of Planning originally processed the subdivision plans for the 5.2 acre parcel involved in this case. The prior studies culminated with the recommendation in connection with the adoption of the Western Planning Area Zoning Map. It is undisputed that the Department of Planning recommended to the Planning Board that the subject property be zoned B-L (Business-Local). Mr. Gavrelis gave in some detail the factors which led the Planning staff to recommend that the subject property be given commercial zoning. These factors were:
1. The fact that Old Court Road was proposed to be relocated so as to eliminate the 90-degree turn at the present intersection of Old Court Road with Marriott’s Lane.
2. The plans of the Planning staff called for the ultimate extension of Rolling Road northerly from Liberty Road across Scott’s Level Branch to intersect Old Court Road as relocated opposite the middle of the subject tract.
3. The subdivision had been developed so that the back lots adjoining the commercial area had lot depths greater than those typical in an R-6 development.
4. The concept of a small shopping area for neighborhood *278service areas seemed logical to the Planning staff as the subject property was approximately halfway between two commercial areas, and there were no other shopping facilities for this newly-developed area other than at Reisterstown Road or at Liberty Road. The Planning staff felt there was a need, based on its general studies, and that the small commercial area on the subject property was appropriate.
It is uncontradicted that the Department of Planning prior to 1960, and as early as 1956, approved preliminary site plans for the subject property indicating a proposed shopping center on this site.
It is also undisputed that the B-L zoning for the subject property as recommended was placed on the Master Plan and remains at the present time on the Master Plan.
On the documents of both the Department of Planning and the Planning Board when the Planning Board presented its recommendations to the County Council on October 16, 1961, it clearly appeared that the Planning Board’s recommendation was for B-L zoning for the subject property and was not for R-6 zoning. There was no other recommendation by the Planning Board. It is entirely clear from the testimony of Mr. Gavrelis that there was absolutely no basis for any other recommendation. The motion made at the meeting of the County Council on October 16, 1961 was “to accept the Planning Board’s recommendation of R-6 zoning” and this motion “carried unanimously.” (Emphasis supplied.) The intent of the County Council was clearly to accept the Planning Board’s recommendation. The only recommendation was for B-L zoning. This is undisputed. It follows that the inclusion of “R-6” zoning, rather than the recommended “B-L” was an error. Mr. Gavrelis leaves little doubt about this. When asked: “If Minute No. 21 is an accurate reflection of what transpired in the County Council on that date, do you have an opinion as to whether or not the Council was in error when they put R-6 zoning on this property?”, Mr. Gavrelis replied, “If the minutes fairly represent the Council’s understanding of this situation, that in fact the Planning Board had recommended R-6 rather than B-L, then I would say something was in error.” Whatever the degree of the burden upon the petitioner to es*279tablish an original mistake in zoning—be it light, medium, or heavy—in my opinion, he has met it. In any event, the lower court could most certainly have found—as it did—that the matter was “fairly debatable” and the determination of the County Board of Appeals that a mistake had been made, should be sustained.
The majority opinion indicates that Item 21 does not show a mistake in original zoning because (1) the question is “whether or not the Council made a basic and actual ‘mistake’ as that term is used in zoning law, at the time when it classified the property R-6” and (2) the other items on the agenda of the County Council’s meeting of October 16, 1961 with the explanation by Mrs. Boone and with comments by Mr. Dill, Director of Planning and Zoning, Mr. Graef and Mr. Gould, assistants to Mr. Dill, in which certain requested changes were granted or denied, indicate that the “likelihood that the Council was acting under the misapprehension that it was adopting the Planning Board’s recommendation * * * is quite remote.” These reasons do not appeal to me as weakening the showing by Item 21 that a mistake was made. As indicated in the majority opinion, the meeting of the County Council of October 16, 1961 was not open to the public and no persons other than the members of the Council and the Planning Officials were present. The B-L zoning recommended to the Planning Board by the Planning Staff (Mr. Dill, Mr. Graef and Mr. Gould were part of that staff) and by the Board to the Council was the result of the studies and past action by the Planning staff. The B-L zoning was at that time and still is on the Master Plan. There is no suggestion in the Minutes of the Council that any one presented any evidence or arguments against the recommended B-L zoning. Under the circumstances, it is almost inconceivable that any such testimony or arguments were presented. Item 21 indicates the contrary. It states that the Council unanimously accepted the Planning Board’s recommendation. It would seem apparent that if the Council had not intended the recommendation, it would have stated this and the motion would have been “* * * motion to reject the recommendation of the Planning Board for B-L zoning and in lieu thereof, to establish R-6 zoning,” or language to that effect. *280No reasons or facts justifying R-6 zoning appear in the Minutes of the Council. All of the evidence is to the contrary. It seems to me that it might be assumed that the Council acted reasonably and in accordance with the only evidence apparently before it and in fact intended to do what it said it intended to do, i.e., “accept the Planning Board’s recommendation.” The inclusion of R-6 zoning, which was not recommended by the Planning Board was a mistake in original zoning both “actual” and “basic” in my opinion. At least the Board of Appeals could so find (as it did) ; and the matter was fairly debatable, as Judge Jenifer decided.
But there are other facts to be considered. The Planning staff had approved the preliminary site plans for the subject property prior to 1961. The signs for sales promotion placed on the subject property prior to 1961 indicated that a shopping center would be erected on the subject property. The advertising for sales of lots indicated the same thing. Two of the property owners who testified before the Council in opposition at the hearing on April 8, 1964 before the Board of Appeals, which granted the re-classification to B-L zoning, admitted that they knew of this proposed use when they purchased their property. In short, the community was put on notice before the purchase of lots of the erection of the proposed shopping center.
Bernard M. Willemain, an expert with unusually high qualifications 1 testified that after having made a study of the subject property, he had an opinion “as to the correctness of the R-6 zoning imposed upon this property by the adoption of the map.” This opinion was “that the present R-6 zoning of the property is in error and that the proper zoning for the property is the B-L classification requested by the petitioner today.” *281In giving his reasons for his opinion, Mr. Willemain indicated that:
1. He visited the subject property five or six times after employment to testify as an expert.
2. He reviewed the zoning and planning files to add to his personal knowledge of the history of the particular proposal and the specifics of the property itself.
3. He was present at the public hearings.
4. He obtained copies of the published reports accompanying the Planning Commission’s recommendations to- the County Council; he had read the relevant minutes.
5. Before the map was adopted, he discussed the land uses on the paper prepared by the Planning staff before they were presented to the Board.
6. He considered the contemplated changes in the various highways and the proposed engineering plans as well as the various factors of location.
Mr. Willemain also indicated that there was a need for the proposed local shopping center and that the B-L zoning would have no adverse effect on any of the adjoining properties or lead to further reclassification in the immediate neighborhood.
William B. Purdum, a consulting engineer, testified that he prepared the layout for the 5.2 acre parcel, that sanitary facilities and water were available and that in view of the location of the subject property, its triangular shape and small size, he did not think “it would be economically feasible to develop in detached homes.” He also testified that there would be no traffic hazard resulting from the reclassification to B-L zoning.
In the majority opinion it is suggested that part of the testimony mentioned above was presented in the present tense rather than in the past tense, the inference being that this testimony is of limited value in determining whether there has been a mistake in the original zoning. I do not think this inference is justified in that, in my opinion, the basic factual situation in regard to the subject property and the surrounding area was substantially the same at the time the testimony was given at the reclassification hearing as it was on October 16, 1961 and when the zoning map was adopted by the County Council, even though the issue in regard to “change in the character of the *282neighborhood” was not before the Zoning Commissioner in this application because the two year period from the date of the adoption of the zoning map provided for in Section 500.3 b of the Baltimore County Zoning Regulations had not expired prior to the filing of the application.
These additional facts, to my mind emphasize the actual and basic mistake in the original zoning. The Planning staff and the Planning Board found that there was a community need for this local shopping center prior to the original zoning. The same need continues to exist. B-L zoning was recommended to satisfy this community need. The satisfaction of this need will not injure the surrounding properties or bring in new re-classifications. The R-6 zoning did not satisfy this community need in 1961 and does not satisfy it now. The R-6 zoning will result in an uneconomic use of the subject property. This was the situation in 1961. It is apparent to me that the Council, without evidence, without argument and against the recommendation of the Planning Board and the Planning staff made an actual and basic “mistake” in zoning the subject property “R-6” instead “B-L”.
The majority indicates that the case at bar is readily distinguishable from the holding in Jobar Corp. v. Rodgers Forge Community Ass’n., 236 Md. 106, 202 A. 2d 612 (1964). In my opinion, the case at bar is a far stronger case for a holding that there was a mistake in original zoning than was presented by the facts in lobar. I cannot agree that “Willemain did not state the situation of the critical area and the conditions surrounding it at the time of the adoption of the map, including the projects, improvements and developments which were reasonably probable of fruition in the foreseeable future.” Not only did Mr. Willemain indicate his consideration of the studies of the Planning staff prior to 1961 which included these factors, but the testimony of the other witnesses presented these matters as well. It seems clear to me that the reclassification to B-L zoning by the Board of Appeals was properly sustained and that Judge Jenifer’s order should be affirmed.

. B.S. in Civil Engineering and Landscape Architecture, University of Massachusetts; Master of City Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Deputy Director of the Baltimore County Planning Commission for 5 years; drafted the present Baltimore County Zoning Code; he has done consultative work in three states and the District of Columbia; his clients have included the State Roads Commission of Maryland, Baltimore and Montgomery Counties, City of College Park, Baltimore Urban Renewal Agency, the Baltimore Transit Company, and others.