Board of County Commissioners v. Ziegler

Hornby, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This zoning case, wherein the special exception sought by the applicants to erect an automobile service station within a shopping center was denied by the district council but was permitted by the circuit court, must be remanded for further proceedings because we are unable to decide the questions posed on the record presented. The Board of County Commissioners of Prince George’s County, acting as the district council for the Maryland-Washington Regional District of the county, is the appellant. The applicants, Richard T. Ziegler and Hanson Buchner, the owners and developers of the 9.5 acre shopping center located on Fort Washington Road immediately west of Indian Head Highway, are the appellees.

The tract was reclassified as a C-2 (General Commercial) Zone in August of 1964. In addition to the stores and shops usually erected in a neighborhood shopping center, the proposed service station, if permitted, will be located in the northwest corner of the shopping center. The source of the power and authority of the district council with regard to special exceptions is twofold. In general, § 59-89 of the Code of Public Local Laws of Prince George’s County (Everstine Edition 1963) states that: “A District Council in its zoning regulations may provide that the board of zoning appeals or the district council * * * in appropriate cases and subject to appropriate principles, standards, rules, conditions, and safeguards set forth in the regulations, may make special exceptions to the provisions of the zoning regulations in harmony with their general purposes and intent.” ²²⁷ Specifically, § 28.2 of the “General Provisions” of the county zoning ordinance provides that: “A special exception may be granted when the Council finds that: a.

The proposed use is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the general plan for the physical development of the District as embodied in this ordinance and in any master plan or portion thereof adopted or proposed as part of said general plan. b. The proposed use will not [a]fleet adversely the health and safety of residents or workers in the area and will not be detrimental to the use and/ or development of adjacent properties or the general neighborhood.” Section 28.3 of the “Specific Provisions” further provides that: “A special exception may be granted in accordance with the specific provisions herein enumerated, in connection with a use for which such an exception is required. The Council may and is hereby empowered to add to the specific provisions any others that it may deem necessary to protect adjacent properties, the general neighborhood, and the residents and/or the workers therein.” And subsection b of § 28.320 entitled “Auto Repair and Service Station” provides that: “An automobile repair and service station may be granted in the appropriate zone, if, the location of driveways and/or access and egress points will not endanger pedestrians or create traffic congestion or hazards.” The questions presented by the appeal relate to the capacity of the district council to create “additional provisions” to be met by an applicant, the propriety of denying a special exception solely because the applicant had not shown a need therefor, and the propriety (based on the record) of disapproving ²²⁸ the use of the proposed site for a gasoline service station. But, as above indicated, the record of the evidence and the proceedings, particularly the latter, are so indefinite as to preclude a decision by this Court of the questions presented.