Court Opinion

ID: 9756201
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 21:14:28.534632+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:14.538507
License: Public Domain

Henderson, J.,
filed the following dissenting opinion:
I am unable to agree with the holding of the Court in this case, and since the question raised goes to the heart of the *65zoning process, I shall try to state briefly the reasons for my dissent.
The new classification M. R. was included in revised zoning regulations adopted by the County Commissioners of Baltimore County on March 30, 1955, prior to the adoption of the new Charter, pursuant to a public local law, Title 23, Section 366 of the Baltimore County Code (Title 30, Section 532 in the 1955 Code). This section, like the corresponding sections of the general law, Code (1951), Article 66B, Sections 2 and 3, authorizes zoning in accordance with a comprehensive plan, and authorizes the County Commissioners to divide the county into as many districts or zones as they deem necessary and to impose restrictions upon uses that must be uniform within the various districts or zones. They are also authorized to revise the zones and restrictions from time to time. Implicit in these provisions is the concept of controlling the future development of particular areas, large or small, by planning in advance. In Ellicott v. City of Baltimore, 180 Md. 176, 181, Chief Judge Bond, speaking for the Court, said: “The purpose of the zoning law is, of course, to devote general areas or districts to selected uses. ‘The whole value of zoning lies in the establishment of more or less permanent districts, well planned and arranged.’ Rehfeld v. San Francisco, 218 Cal. 83, 85, 21 P. 2d 419, 420.” It is true that in Anne Arundel County v. Ward, 186 Md. 330, 339, we pointed out that there is no requirement that an entire municipality or county be zoned at one time, or that regulations be uniform throughout the county. Nevertheless, after restrictions have been imposed, they are not to be lightly disregarded. Professor Haar’s article, “In Accordance With a Comprehensive Plan”, 68 Harv. L. Rev. 1154, states: “The phrase here under examination — ‘in accordance with a comprehensive plan’ — apparently originated in Section 3 of the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act. An explanatory note to that section states: ‘This will prevent haphazard or piecemeal zoning. No zoning should be done without such a comprehensive study’.”
In a long line of cases we have stated the presumption that attaches to original zoning. In Temmink v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 205 Md. 489, 494, we said: “It is an established *66rule that where an application is made for reclassification of a tract of land from one zone to another, there is a presumption that the zones established by the original zoning ordinance were well planned and arranged and were intended to be more or less permanent, subject to change only when there are genuine changes in conditions. Thus, before a zoning board rezones a property, there should be proof either that there was some mistake in the original zoning or that' the character of the neighborhood had changed to such an extent that reclassification ought properly to be made.” In Mettee v. County Com’rs, 212 Md. 357, 366, we noted that even where the legislative body acts, rather than an administrative agency, the presumption obtains, and something more than a change of mind must be shown. In American Oil Co. v. Miller, 204 Md. 32, 44, it was said that “Zoning cannot be done by piecemeal legislation. It can be upheld only as part of a general plan for a community which sets apart certain areas for agricultural, residential, and business purposes, where such uses are obviously suitable and needed.” In Zinn v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 207 Md. 355, 359, we said: “Zoning, of course, looks to the future and is predicated upon an assumed ability to predict future needs within a narrow range of fallibility. When it is argued that an unanticipated need has developed, this presupposes a fault in the original plan, that should be ideally corrected by a resurvey of the land use map, rather than by piecemeal alteration.” We also said (p. 363) : “The fundamental objection lies in the fact that there is apparently not now in existence, any more than there was in 1945, a truly comprehensive land use plan. In the absence of such a plan, the Board is put in the position of making piecemeal adjudications on testimony produced by successive applicants and protestants, in which one proposed exception follows another, without any opportunity to consider objectively the long-range purposes. The dangers in this type of procedure have been noted.” Cf. Eckes v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 209 Md. 432, 441.
The startling feature of the regulations in the instant case is the disclaimer by the Planning Commission of its ability to prescribe or delineate in advance areas suitable for light industrial development. In its report the Commission con*67cedes that it has no present plan to alter the residential classification oí this district, which will remain in the zone of lowest density. But it states that “many such industries do not need or desire access to railroads. It is, therefore, difficult to anticipate and designate on the zoning map in advance all or more than a few of such sites in locations that meet the particular needs of certain industries, hence the provision that makes possible the petition for an ‘M. R.’ zone.” The report also sought to justify the proceeding for reclassification by petition, on the ground that the Federal Government was forcing certain industries to disperse into “essentially rural and sparsely-settled areas which cannot in most cases be earmarked in advance.” If the Planning Commission cannot plan industrial development in advance, then certainly the Zoning Commissioner, who is not required to possess expert qualifications in the planning field, and who is confronted with testimony in a series of contested cases, cannot do so. It seems that the future development of large segments of the County is to be left to the whim of individual factory owners. Indeed, in the instant case, it is difficult to see any reason for Diecraft, Inc., to select this particular location, in the open country, except for the extraneous fact that its owner also owns a country estate there.
I agree that there was no showing in the instant case that the proposed structure and use would seriously annoy the neighbors. It seems clear, however, that it will materially alter the character of the neighborhood, and render it less desirable for those who have built or purchased large homes and country estates in the area. Many of the arguments here advanced, pro and con, were considered in the case of Walker v. Talbot County, 208 Md. 72. Surely there are at least some areas in Baltimore County that could properly be set aside for this type of use, and from which industry could be properly excluded. A factory will naturally attract workers, and create a demand for small homes in the neighborhood, with a consequent demand for more public services, schools and facilities. It will obviously upset the stability that zoning is intended to promote. No doubt it will increase the value of the land for subdivision purposes.
It would seem that the Federal policy on dispersal plays *68only a minor part in the new scheme. Many industries are on the move, stimulated by the ease of motor transport and by a desire to avoid the congestion and other disadvantages of an urban location. The uses permitted in an M. R. zone include many that are not in any way connected with defense, and cover virtually the whole range of light industry. The practical effect is that property owners in a residential zone of the lowest density can no longer rely on the zoning classification. At any time, light industrial plants can move into an exclusively residential area, so long as an administrative official determines that the factory will not annoy the immediate neighbors, without reference to any general plan. True, he must consult the Planning Commission but its opinion is wholly advisory. This represents an abrogation of the zoning power to plan in advance, and a return to the older concept of nuisance. Territorial distribution of uses, in accordance with a comprehensive plan, seems to have gone by the board. I think such a scheme is ultra vires and beyond the scope of the enabling act. If such a departure from accepted tenets is required by modern conditions, as contended, it should be brought about by change in the basic law. At the very least, the choice open to the administrative official should be subject to some territorial limits and the application of prescribed standards consistent with a general plan.
The Supreme Court of New Jersey, in a unanimous decision, has struck down an ordinance based on the same theory as the regulations in the instant case. Rockhill v. Chesterfield Township, 128 A. 2d 473, 478 (N. J.). The court said: '“The scheme of the ordinance is the negation of zoning. It overrides the basic concept of use zoning by districts, that is to say, territorial division according to the character of the lands and structures and their peculiar use súitability and a comprehensive regulatory plan to advance the general good within the prescribed range of the police power. The local design is ‘normal agricultural’ and residence uses and the specified ‘special uses’ by the authority of the planning board and the local governing body, generally where ‘investigation has shown that such structures and uses will be beneficial to the general development,’ and ‘light industrial uses and other *69similar facilities having no adverse effect on surrounding property and deemed desirable to the general economic well-being of the Township,’ terms hardly adequate to channel local administrative discretion but, in all events, making for the ‘piecemeal’ and ‘spot’ zoning alien to the constitutional and statutory principle of land use zoning by districts and comprehensive planning for the fulfillment of the declared policy. The fault is elementary and vital; the rule of the ordinance is ultra vires and void. * * *
“Reserving the use of the whole of the municipal area for ‘normal agricultural’ and residence uses, and then providing for all manner of ‘special uses,’ ‘neighborhood’ and other businesses, even ‘light industrial’ uses and ‘other similar facilities,’ placed according to local discretion without regard to districts, ruled by vague and illusive criteria, is indeed the antithesis of zoning. * * * The course taken here would flout this essential concept of district zoning according to a comprehensive plan designed to fulfill the declared statutory policy.”
The opinion of the court in the instant case argues that the scheme of the M. R. zone classification is in the nature of a special exception. One answer to that argument is that Section 250 of the Regulations is not set up as a special exception, nor does it call for the application of the standards for special exceptions set up in Section 270 and 502 of the Regulations. But even if it did, the new scheme goes far beyond anything that we have yet approved, by way of special exception. In Montgomery County v. Merlands Club, 202 Md. 279, we held that the Board of Zoning Appeals was properly empowered to grant a special exception in the case of a private club, upon finding that it would not adversely affect the development of neighboring properties and would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning plan. In effect, the legislative body had determined in advance that the establishment of a private club was permissible in a residential zone, beneficial to such use, and not inconsistent therewith. This is a far cry from the reclassification in the instant case. We might take judicial notice of the fact that country clubs, of the type proposed in the case *70cited, are not only entirely consistent with, and beneficial to, residential communities of a certain type, but whole communities in Baltimore City and elsewhere have been .built up around them. But always heretofore it has been assumed that industrial and residential uses are inconsistent and incompatible, and not beneficial to one another. It is difficult to see how the legislative body in the instant case could make a factual determination to the contrary, and I do not find that it has done so. The scheme is frankly described as one to “provide greater freedom in the selection of industrial areas”. The selection is by the interested persons who profit from the change, subject only to approval by an administrative official who considers only whether the proposed development plans are designed to shield the impact on adjacent properties.
Again, in another line of cases, dealing chiefly with shopping centers, we have recognized that there is “no inherent objection to the creation of small districts within a residential zone, not inconsistent with a comprehensive plan, where establishments for the service and convenience of residents may be permitted.” Zinn v. Board of Zoning Appeals, supra, and cases cited. It can hardly be maintained in the instant case that a factory will serve the convenience of the residents. In Oursler v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 204 Md. 397, and Erdman v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 212 Md. 288, we approved special permits for a restaurant in a residential district, and a filling station in a commercial district. These facilities had been found by the legislative body to be consistent with, and beneficial to, the respective zonal uses. It was noted that, no reclassification was involved, and no departure from the general plan. Likewise, in Rodgers v. Village of Tarrytown, 96 N. E. 2d 731 (N. Y.), strongly relied on in the opinion of the court in the instant case, the change was from one residential classification to another, so as to permit garden type apartments. The legislative action there was similar to the action approved in some of the Maryland cases cited, and I cannot see that the case supports the holding in the instant case.
For the reasons stated, I think the order of the trial court should be reversed.