Alvey v. Michaels

Marbury, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Feeling aggrieved at a decree of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County which declared the rezoning by the County Commissioners of a tract of waterfront property from “Agricultural Use” to “Heavy Commercial Use” to be void, the appellant brings this appeal. The appellant is the owner of a thirty-nine acre tract of land located in the First Flection District of Anne Arundel County, which, by the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of 1952, was given an agricultural classification. The appellant’s deceased husband applied to the County Commissioners for the rezoning of 4.75 acres of this land along a body of water known as Ramsay Bay to a Heavy Commercial classification, for the avowed purpose of operating a marina on the property.

The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the application. At the public hearing upon the application before the County Commissioners, the appellees, all property owners of land in close proximity to the tract in question, opposed the requested rezoning. The testimony at the hearing by appellant, her husband (now deceased) and their son, who was to aid them in the operation of the marina, is easily summarized. Mr. Alvey in his testimony made the bald statement that there was an error in the original zoning of the land for agricultural use.

He stated that although one section of his waterfront land was zoned heavy commercial, it was not suitable for the operation of the marina because of heavy water grass and shallow water. ²⁵ The testimony of the appellant’s other witnesses, as well as her own, indicated that a survey of marinas in the county and on the Eastern Shore shows a definite need for more boating facilities. Appellant stated that the land was not suited for agricultural purposes because of its small size and the expense of farming it. Robert E. Lee, a marina owner who testified for appellant, stated that he had filled his marina with boats within a week after he published an advertisement in a Washington newspaper. On the other hand, appellees’ testimony indicated that the area was already overcrowded with boats and boating facilities and that there was a question of public safety on the waters of Ramsay Bay if the marina were to be allowed.

There was testimony to the effect that there was already a pollution problem which would be made worse by the presence of a marina. It was also pointed out that the entrance to the Bay is through a narrow bridge, which adds to the danger which would be caused by more boats in the area. In his memorandum opinion, the chancellor found that there was no mistake in the original zoning ordinance and that the only evidence presented to support the claim that the character of the neighborhood had changed was the testimony that boating in the area had increased. He found that the need for marinas in the locality was not a local need, but one to accommodate non-resident boating enthusiasts.

Although appellant raises five questions on appeal, we do not find it necessary to answer them separately, since we feel that appellant has not sustained the burden of showing the necessary requirements for a zoning change, namely, an error in the original zoning plan or a change in the character of the neighborhood to such an extent that a reclassification might properly be made. Baltimore v. N. A. A. C. P., 221 Md. 329, 335 , 157 A. 2d 433 ; Nelson v. Montgomery County, 214 Md. 587, 593 , 136 A. 2d 373 , and cases cited therein. See also Reclassification, Variances, and Special Exceptions, 21 Md. L. Rev., 306 , 308-314. The duty of the chancellor was to determine whether the County Commissioners’ action was arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, or illegal, and not to disturb a finding that is