Board of County Commissioners v. Troxell

¹³⁷ Henderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal in a zoning case is from a decree of the Circuit Court for Talbot County invalidating a resolution of the Board of County Commissioners which rezoned a tract of land of about 90 acres from “Waterfront” to “Suburban”. No question is raised as to the standing of the County Commissioners to appeal, and in any event the intervening developers joined in the appeal. In 1951, Robert E. Austin and Herbert T. Austin purchased a tract of land or farm known as “Oaklands”, located on a peninsula bounded on the east by the Easton-toOxford road, on the north by an estate known as “Cedar Point”, on the west by EeGates Creek, and on the south by Peachblossom Creek.

It contained about 240 acres, with about a mile of waterfront. There were two residences then located on the property, and the Austins in 1952 obtained approval, under an interim zoning ordinance then in effect, of a development plan comprising 28 lots, 20 of which ranged in size from 1 y2 acres to 2 acres, and 8 of which were larger than 2 acres, the average size being in excess of 2 acres. The lots laid out bounded on the two creeks, and the interior land or core of the peninsula was not subdivided. However, when the comprehensive zoning ordinance was passed in 1953, the whole tract, with the exception of a 500-foot strip along the road, was zoned “Waterfront”, a classification wherein the minimum lot size is 2 acres.

In 1956, the Austins applied to the County Commissioners to rezone the interior land as “Suburban”, a classification that permits lots of a minimum size of 10,000 square feet, or under certain conditions relative to water and sewerage, 7,500 square feet. At that time 18 lots had been sold and residences ranging in value from $29,000 to $81,000, had been erected on the original lots laid out. The application was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and a public hearing was held. The County Commissioners based their resolution on a finding that the 90-acre tract had been improperly zoned “Waterfront” in the ordinance of May 16, 1953, “for the reason that the aforesaid ninety (90) acres are surrounded by other properties, to wit: ‘Waverly’ to the North, and the sub-division South of Peachblossom Bridge, ¹³⁸ which were zoned ‘Suburban’ upon the passage of said Ordinance.” However, the evidence shows that “Waverly” is located some distance from the tract in question, about 2 miles by water and 1.7 miles by road, separated from the tract in question by the “Cedar Point” estate.

It consists of some 375 acres comprising woodland, farm and undeveloped areas, and 70 acres divided into 14 parcels on the Tred Avon River and Plantem Cove. The westerly side of the tract abuts on a territory within the suburban jurisdiction of Easton, where suburban size lots are permitted. The other property referred to is located at its nearest point about half a mile from the tract in question, and beyond the Peach-blossom Bridge. A subdivision known as Gilnock Hall contains about 22 acres that had been laid out in small lots before zoning became effective, and two negro settlements containing small lots.

The whole area contains about 740 acres, with a railroad track running through it. The fact that these two areas were zoned “Suburban” would not seem to be controlling, if relevant at all. Factors not present in the case of “Oaklands” may have been pertinent there. The Chancellor found that “Oaklands” was not comparable to the other two tracts at the