Court Opinion

ID: 9636769
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:42:20.758487+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:49.193005
License: Public Domain

Sobeloff, C. J.,
delivered the following dissenting opinion, in which Collins, J., concurred.
While Judge Collins and I concur heartily in the prevailing opinion’s admirable thesis on the limited powers of the judiciary in zoning controversies, and indeed would give it further emphasis, this case is in our judgment one that calls for judicial intervention not judicial passivity. Whether a used car center is permitted to be established at the location in question is of less moment than the standards of judging which we lay down for the guidance of the trial courts as well as zoning officials in future cases.
In reversing Judge Boylan’s decree in this case there is danger that the Court will be understood as declaring itself powerless to scrutinize any change in classification, no matter how palpably unfounded in fact, provided only that the zoning authorities pay the necessary tribute to form. In one breath it is insisted that these authorities must prove a “public need” for the proposed *152change and in the next it is added that if they utter the magic words “we find a public need” courts must refrain from inquiring, “need for what?” The decision declares in effect that even when the record plainly discloses that the zoning officials and the property owner intend not-to meet the proven need but only to create in the rezoned area something for which no need has been shown or attempted to be shown, courts must look aside.
A judicial review so attenuated is wholly illusory. It were better if the courts openly confessed total impotence in zoning matters. We think, however, that giving full effect to the acknowledged limitations upon the scope of judicial review there is still the opportunity and the duty to look to substance and not merely to form.
If the challenged action were, in form and avowedly, a reclassification to permit an automobile salesroom and used car lot there would be no hesitancy in holding that public need, the essential basis of reclassification, has not been proved. However genuine may be the necessity of the Parlett Motor Co. that would not be a sufficient basis for the action. Easter v. Mayor and City Council of Balto., 195 Md. 395, 73 A. 2d 491; Gleason v. Keswick Improvement Ass’n, 197 Md. 46, 78 A. 2d 164.
It is important to note that the testimony recited at length pertained exclusively to a neighborhood necessity center, not an automobile sales establishment and a used car lot. While the appellants seek reclassification of their property to a “Commercial A” zone by showing the need for such a necessity center, nevertheless their real object, abundantly established in this record, is to establish an automobile sales agency, used car lot and related facilities.
Quite justifiably neighbors fear that reclassification is the Trojan Horse which will, under cover of a classification grounded on other commercial needs, gain entrance for the automobile salesroom and used car lot *153to the detriment of the neighborhood. The immediate practical effect to be anticipated from the proposed reclassification is the admission of one of the most objectionable uses allowable in a Commercial A area. This is expected to occupy an as yet undertermined portion of the 4.38 acres involved in the controversy. The remainder, if any, not used for this purpose, will indeed be potentially available, if Parlett is willing, for less objectionable and perhaps desirable uses that could serve the neighborhood, such as retail stores and service shops. As to the latter there is considerable vagueness.
While the resolution adopted by the County Commissioners declares that public need and convenience require a commercial district in this vicinity to serve a steadily growing community, their answer filed in court says it is not their duty to determine the need for any of the specific uses permitted in “Commercial A” districts.
This cavalier dismissal of what is supposed to be the central question — the need for a commercial district at this point — is hardly reassuring to the protesting neighbors who foresee, as a result of the reclassification, the inevitability of the automobile sales business and used car lot nearby. At the same time, while the claimed benefits from retail service stores serve the cause of appellants in their attempted reclassification, such stores may in fact never materialize. Nor does this treatment of the matter enhance confidence in the bare recital of the County Commissioners that need exists for a commercial district.
Except for the few enumerated non-conforming uses, the neighborhood is predominantly residential. Eighty-five to ninety new houses have been built in this neighborhood in the last several years. Some costing as much as $25,000 to $40,000 were built close to this intersection recently, in reliance on the residential classification. This growth in the number of residences along Columbia Road from Ellicott City to the Montgomery Road crossing emphasizes the residential character of *154the neighborhood.
The appellants argue that the action of the County Commissioners is in effect merely the completion of a classification contemplated five years ago. It is highly significant, however, that only the Wakefield corner is being reclassified, not the opposite corners at the same intersection.
It is freely granted that courts are not to take issue with the legislative authority, Colati v. Jirout, 186 Md. 652, 47 A. 2d 613, and that a zoning classification is presumed to be reasonable. N. W. Merchants Term. v. O’Rourke, 191 Md. 171, 60 A. 2d 743. Understandably, when one classification presumably correct is sought to be displaced by another, the presumption of correctness as to the reclassification is somewhat weakened. Kracke v. Weinberg, 197 Md. 339, 79 A. 2d 387.
Subtle distinctions as to the force of presumptions are, however, of slight practical value. These neat formulations have a literary appeal but they often are too artificial and elusive for minds to apply them to concrete cases. What is really meant is that in every case the judge must look at the facts and if there is substantial basis for the action, he is not to oppose his judgment to that of the authorized officials. But the judge is not bound to accept as binding fact a declaration' not based on proof.
No one can tell from the evidence and the findings what if anything the Commissioners intended to provide in the way of stores; and it is plain as can be that the Parletts are not planning to erect stores on the lot, but a salesroom and open air used car lot.
While we do not mean to insist that in all cases the precise store uses must be shown in advance — for this may be a difficult and in some circumstances an unreasonable requirement — something more should be shown than is disclosed by this record.
Mr. Parlett indicated that of the 4.38 acres some portion might at some future time be used for stores. The bulk of the lot is intended to be used for his auto*155mobile business, and perhaps for a gasoline station. He was at some pains in his testimony to deny an intention attributed to him to establish the filling station, but he avoided a commitent not to establish it. He made it clear that a used car lot will be established. The land not immediately needed for his business purposes may, he testified, be held for his future needs or, if he sees fit, some of it may be used for stores. Throughout the record there is a studious effort to avoid commitment on this point.
C. William Brooks, who had served as consultant to the County Commissioners of Howard County in the preparation and adoption of the zoning map in 1948, was called as a witness for the appellants to support the proposed rezoning, but he did not unqualifiedly approve the reclassification. He said that with new houses being erected in the general neighborhood some provision of retail stores would have to be made for neighborhood convenience. Neither he nor any one else uttered a word in support of any need for a used car lot, or even undertook to defend its location at the place in question. With commendable frankness he admitted that persons of normal sensibility would be “offended” by bringing into the neighborhood lights, advertising banners and noise (such as would likely attend an automobile salesroom and used car lot) and that if he were living nearby he would prefer not to have such surroundings as they would adversely affect him. “In fact”, he said, “I wouldn’t be there”, but he declined to say on cross-examination that the proposed use by the Parletts would depreciate real estate values.
He criticised the zoning law of Howard County for not having a more refined system of land classification. In his opinion the property in question should not be either “Residential” or “Commercial A” which permits nineteen uses, but there should be some intermediate classification lower than “Residential” yet not permitting some of the uses authorized in “Commercial A”. He *156had, in fact, recommended to the County Commissioners in 1948 a more precise classification of areas but the Commissioners wanted to adopt as few classifications as possible. Hence, he said, Howard County has only three classifications, “Residential”, “Commercial A”, and “Commercial B”.
A difficulty in this case is that Howard County has a rather primitive zoning law; the mesh in its zoning sieve is too coarse. Passing through the over-sized openings, along with neighborhood service stores to which there is comparatively little objection, is a variety of uses to which there is much reason to object.
Certainly the defect in the law was, according to their consultant, specifically pointed out to the Howard County Commissioners before its adoption. The people of Howard County may yet prefer an occasional untoward result rather than a more refined and exacting system of zoning classifications. Tighter restrictions are still looked upon with disfavor and suspicion in some communities which have turned to zoning only recently and most tentatively.
Good zoning is not unrelated to the general problem of achieving good government. It should be understood that if there is to be good zoning, that will effectively protect neighborhoods and justly resolve conflicting interests within the community, the people — including the press and all other communal forces — must see to it that sound legislation is put on the books and that proper administrators are put into office. For the courts there will still remain an important role, but the judiciary alone cannot accomplish the whole task.
While in this instance we differ with our colleagues in the application of these basic princples, we think it salutary that even in what may appear to be a routine zoning case they see fit to stress these fundamentals of our governmental system. The public. often seems to think that courts can protect them against every blunder and unwise exercise of power by any official. The truth is that courts have a narrow scope in pre*157venting the intrusion of unwelcome and even harmful uses of land even if the authorities exercising a quasi-legislative function appear to the judges to be mistaken in their judgment. It is only in cases of arbitrary action, taken in excess of the police power or without factual foundation, that courts may interfere.
The division of government into three branches is elementary doctrine. We all accept the principle. Nothing in our history has stirred more heat than instances of alleged judicial legislation; yet when it is felt that the Legislature has not acted with wisdom, or that administrative officers have been inept, the temptation is strong to turn to the courts for relief. Courts, however, may not rewrite statutes.
With full awareness of the very proper limitations on the scope of judicial review, we do not think that a set of facts may be proved to establish a particular need, and on this basis a reclassification made, only to bring into being a use for which no need has been shown. Courts should not blind themselves to the realities and feel bound by what Mr. Justice Holmes, in another context, called “a mere form of words”. Their function is not so mechanical.
It is conceded that once a commercial zone is created in the proper manner, it is no concern of courts what other and future uses may be made of the land if the zoning law allows such uses in such an area. Where, however, there is reason to believe that the basis for the classification is one thing and the use contemplated is an entirely different one for which no need has been shown, courts are not powerless. From beginning to end of the record one will search in vain for a single word in justification of a reclassification to allow an automobile business and used car lot. It is beside the point to answer that even if properly proven uses were made of this zone there might nevertheless be a diversion later to less desirable uses.
Zoning is a sharp instrument; it should be handled carefully and responsibly. It is an exercise of the police *158power pf the State and can be sustained only when the action taken has substantial relation to. the public health,, safety, morals or general welfare. The Court may not disregard the recitals in the County Commissioners’ Resolution; neither should it shut its eyes to other facts which are undisputed.
In the instant case the location of an automobile sales business and used car lot, for a private and not a public benefit, appears from the entire record to be the only objective certain to be achieved by planting a “Commercial A” island in a residential neighborhood. We declare that under the crcumstances of this case the challenged action is an unreasonable exercise of power, in excess of the delegated authority, arbitrary and void.
We think the decree of the Circuit Court should be affirmed.