Cochrane v. Mayor of Baltimore

SONNER, J. A resident who lives nearby an apartment building that houses nine AT & T telephone antennas on its roof has appealed a decision from the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. He claims that the upgrading of the equipment on the roof expanded the conditional use of the building. The circuit court held that the Board of Municipal and Zoning Appeals did not have to provide notice and a hearing before granting approval of AT & T’s action. We affirm that decision.

On March 7, 1996, AT & T applied to the Board of Municipal and Zoning Appeals to erect rooftop telecommunications radio towers and electronic equipment at Belvedere Towers, an eight-story apartment building located in a residential zoning district. The radio towers provide links in the Baltimore area for AT & T’s national wireless telecommunications system. At the hearing thereafter, no one spoke in opposition. In fact, the North Roland Park Improvement Association, 1 Baltimore City Fire Department, and the Baltimore City Department of Transportation all went on record by letters to the Board as being not opposed.

The Board subsequently approved the conditional use, which no one appealed, and consequently that decision received no subsequent review. AT & T constructed the towers and enclosed the requisite electronic equipment inside a 350-square-foot rooftop penthouse compartment. None of that electronic equipment is visible from outside the Belvedere Towers. ⁴⁷² Four years later, in 2000, AT & T determined that it needed to improve the capacity of the materials at the Belvedere Towers to process cellular telephone calls. Cautiously, it sought administrative approval of its intention to upgrade the system, by writing to Susan Williams on the planning staff of the Board.

Ms. Williams, by memorandum to the Board, responded that since the changes were not visible, there should be no objection. Also, out of an abundance of caution, AT & T contacted several neighborhood associations about the proposed improvements and succeeded in stopping any organized opposition. Nevertheless, one resident, Hunter Coch-rane, appellant, did object, and after the Board, by resolution, approved AT & T’s request, he noted an appeal to the circuit court, which upheld the Board, following a hearing. In this appeal, Mr. Cochrane raises the following issues: I. Whether the circuit court erred in its finding that appellant did not have standing to bring an appeal of the Board’s action.

II

Whether the amended conditional use was a change or expansion pursuant to the Baltimore City Zoning Code ... so as to trigger the notice and hearing requirements of [that] Code....

III

Whether the circuit court’s tacit refusal to accept proffered evidence and testimony relating to appellant’s standing was an abuse of discretion. Because we decide that