Eastern Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Mayor & City Council

HARRELL, Judge. This appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City concerns the denial by the City of Baltimore’s ⁵⁰⁰ Board of Municipal and Zoning Appeals (the Board) of a conditional use application for a general advertising sign (billboard) within a designated urban renewal district. The applicant for the conditional use permit, Eastern Outdoor Advertising Company (Eastern), sought judicial review of the Board’s decision in the circuit court. The Mayor and City Council noted its intention to participate in the proceedings. 1 The circuit court affirmed the Board’s denial and Eastern noted this appeal.

ISSUES Appellant frames three questions for our consideration, which we have rephrased slightly: I. Did the circuit court apply an incorrect standard of review in reaching its affirmance of the decision of the Board?

II

Did the Board err as a matter of law in concluding that the proposed general advertising sign is not permitted, as a conditional use, -within the Mt. Vernon Urban Renewal Area?

III

Was the evidence before the Board sufficient to render it fairly debatable that the square footage of the proposed double-sided sign exceeded the maximum 900 square feet allowed by the zoning ordinance? For the reasons explained in this opinion, we reverse. FACTS On or about 24 October 1996, Eastern filed with the Board a ⁵⁰¹ combined permit application/appeal (No. 97-97X) 2 seeking permission to erect a new double-faced, illuminated general advertising sign on property, described as 808 Guilford Avenue, owned by 828 Guilford LLC and to be leased by Eastern. Each face of the sign was to be fourteen feet high by forty-eight feet wide.

The height of the proposed sign was to be ninety feet. 808 Guilford Avenue was zoned in the B-5-1 Business District. The property was improved with strip commercial buildings housing a laundromat, bail bondsman, two food carry-outs, and a video store. The proposed sign was to be located in the parking lot of the strip center. The sign was intended to be visible to traffic traveling on the adjacent Jones Fall Expressway (1-83).

The lot that contained the existing uses and structures, and was to be the site of the proposed sign, had frontage of approximately 320 feet on the west side of Guilford Avenue (which runs parallel and adjacent to the west side of 1-83), covering the entire block between Read Street and Madison Street. The lot also had approximately 162 feet of frontage on Read Street along the lot’s northerly boundary and 166 feet of frontage along its southerly boundary on Madison Street. Across 1-83 from the subject property was the City Jail and Maryland Penitentiary. General advertising signs are permitted as conditional uses in the B-5-1 District, provided approval is obtained from the Board and certain criteria are met.

Baltimore City Code, Art. 30 (Zoning Ordinance), § 10.3.1(c). A specific criterion applicable to such signs proposed in the B-5-1 District (and which was pertinent to this case) was that the total area of the sign shall not exceed 900 square feet. 3 Moreover, the Zoning ⁵⁰² Ordinance, at § 11.0-5(a), provides, in pertinent part, generally as to any conditional use approval: 11.0-5 Standards a. Standards for Conditional Uses. No conditional use shall be authorized unless the Board finds in each specific case that the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the conditional use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, security, general welfare, or morals, and, as a further guide to their decision upon the facts of each case, they shall give consideration to the following, where appropriate: 1. the nature of the proposed site, including its size and shape and the proposed size, shape, and arrangement of structures; * * * 3. the nature of the surrounding area and the extent to which the proposed use might impair its present and future development; 4. the proximity of dwellings, churches, schools, public structures, and other places of public gathering; 8. the preservation of cultural and historic landmarks; 9. any Urban Renewal Plan approved by the Mayor and City Council or the Master Plan approved by the Planning Commission; 10. all standards and requirements contained in this ordinance; 12. any other matters considered to be in the interest of the general welfare. ⁵⁰³ The subject property was located within the boundaries of the Mount Vernon Urban Renewal Area.

This area, originally recognized in a Renewal Plan for Mount Vernon by the Mayor and City Council in 1964, 4 included the subject property in the far northeastern corner of the area. Included as part of this Renewal Plan (the Plan) was a Land Use Map, referred to in the Plan text (§ C) as Exhibit No. 2. The text of the Plan, at § C(b), purported generally to describe, by reference to the Land Use Map, what “uses ... will be permitted within the project area [the described Mount Vernon area].” The subject property was depicted on the Land Use Map as “commercial.” § C(b), “Permitted Uses,” of the Plan text does not mention as such any conditional uses among the uses there addressed (and appearing on the Land Use Map). 5 Likewise, signage as a principal use is not mentioned in the Plan’s “Permitted Uses” section. The text of § C(2)(Land Use Plan) of the Plan text otherwise mentions signs as follows: c.

Regulations, Controls, and Restrictions on Land to be Acquired [6] The following regulations, controls, and restrictions will be implemented where applicable by covenants or other provisions in agreements for land disposition and instruments of conveyance ... (a) General Provisions ... ⁵⁰⁴ xi. Signs (b) No signs other than those identifying the structure upon which they are installed or identifying the uses conducted therein shall be permitted. d. Duration of Provisions and Requirements The land use provisions and building requirements specified in Paragraphs C.2.a., C.2.b., and C.2.c. above shall be in effect for a period of not less than 40 years following the date of the approval of this Plan by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. e.

Applicability of Provisions and Requirements to Property Not to Be Acquired The provisions of Paragraph C.2.b (Permitted Uses) above shall apply to all properties not to be acquired within the project area. The provisions of Section C.2.c. shall apply as appropriate to properties not currently proposed to be acquired by this Plan when the owners thereof acquire adjacent project land made available by the Department of Housing and Community Development under the provisions of this Plan. f. Signs Except as hereinafter provided, beginning at the time of the approval of this Plan by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, June 22, 1964, no minor privileges for new signs over the public right-of-way shall be issued within the project area. Except as herein provided no minor privileges for signs over the public right-of-way shall be renewed after three (3) years from the above-mentioned time, except that signs on existing marquees will be permitted to continue.

Minor privilege permits may be issued for signs which do not exceed or project more than twelve inches beyond the building wall proper or for signs existing on April 1,1967, which are within the limits of show windows or cornices ⁵⁰⁵ or which do not extend more than three inches from show windows or cornices into the public right-of-way. Minor privilege permits for signs designed solely to designate a public parking facility may be issued provided such signs do not extend more than five feet from the property line and are not more than four feet in height or width nor more than twelve inches thick. No minor privileges shall be issued for any sign which projects above the top of the vertical wall of the building or for any sign which is flashing, animated, or rotating in any manner. The frontage along Howard Street from Monument to Madison Streets and the project area south of the north right-of-way line of Centre Street shall be excluded from the provisions of this Section.

Nothing in this Plan shall be construed to permit any sign otherwise prohibited by the laws, ordinances and regulations of the City of Baltimore. The Plan text gave special treatment for signs in a portion of the area called the Antique Row Commercial Area. 7 Concerning “Exterior Rehabilitation Standards” for that area, the text provided in pertinent part as to signage: D.2.c.4(g) No new general advertising signs (billboards and posterboards) shall be allowed within the Antique Row area. Existing general advertising signs shall be terminated within five years. Finally, the Plan text provides, under § E (“Other Provisions Necessary To Meet State and Local Requirements”), as follows: 2.

Zoning All appropriate provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of Baltimore City shall apply to properties in the Mount Vernon Project Area as shown on the Zoning Districts Map, Exhibit No. 5. No zoning changes are proposed as part of this Plan. ⁵⁰⁶ 3. Reasons for the Various Provisions of this Plan a. Planning for Mount Vernon has sought to utilize its many existing diverse strengths.

In this area of Baltimore, centering on Mount Vernon Place, a unique concentration of nationally known cultural institutions, fíne houses, churches and monuments provides a nucleus around which an attractive and desirable residential neighborhood could grow. Consequently, the Plan emphasizes the retention of existing structures where survey data has revealed that they are basically sound and appropriate for residential use. b. Clearance and redevelopment is generally located in the eastern portion of the project where deterioration of structures is most prevalent. By this approach, existing concentrations of blight will be removed, future deteriorating influences will be curtailed, and new investment encouraged in the area.

On 18 November 1997, the Board conducted an evidentiary hearing in this matter. Received into evidence at that hearing, among other things, were a host of memoranda and letters from various City agencies, individual citizens, and historical/cultural groups opposed to Eastern’s sign proposal. Most of this opposition, without benefit of elaboration, asserted (among other things) that the Mount Vernon Urban Renewal Plan did not permit on the subject property a general advertising sign of the size and height proposed by Eastern. For example, the City’s Department of Housing and Community Development, in two memoranda dated 17 April 1997 and 18 November 1997, opposed the sign because “such a sign is prohibited in the Mount Vernon area by ordinance [meaning the Plan].” The Citizens Planning and Housing Coalition, in a letter dated 17 November 1997, asserted that the Plan prohibited billboards by virtue of their omission from the enumeration of permitted uses.

In yet another letter, dated 18 November 1997, a group titled “Renaissance Mount Vernon” implied that unspecified “stringent rules” in “Urban Renewal ⁵⁰⁷ Ordinances” and/or “the Commission for Historic and Architectural Preservation” foreclosed such a sign. Of arguably greater specificity, the Mt. Vernon/Belvedere Association, in its 2 April 1997 letter, stated: This property is in the Mount Vernon Urban Renewal District. The Ordinance governing this Urban Renewal District specifically lists the uses permitted in the District (see Section C.2. and particularly C.2.b.(3) of the Ordinance).

Billboards are not among the uses permitted by the Ordinance. Furthermore, in the Section dealing with Signs (Section C.2.c.(2)(a)xi.(c’)), the Ordinance states that any “free-standing single or multi-faced signs [are] not to exceed five (5) square feet” and “The height of such signs above curb level shall not exceed six (6) feet.” The proposed sign is clearly in violation of the provisions of the Urban Renewal Ordinance for Mount Vernon. (Emphasis in original). The City’s Department of Planning, by memorandum of 17 January 1997, opined: Staff has concerns about the proposed general advertising sign that relate to its potential disruption to the shopping center on the premises, the proliferation of general advertising signs along the 1-83 corridor, and the visual impact of the sign on the Mt.

Vernon Historic and Urban Renewal Areas. Note that billboards are not among the list of permitted uses in the Mt. Vernon Renewal Area. • Location in a shopping center parking lot The applicants have not provided a layout for the parking lot that shows the billboard would not take away spaces from what is already a tight parking situation for the existing strip shopping center on the premises. While the applicant has reported to community planning staff that the structure would be located on a traffic island, we have no site plan that demonstrates that.

Staff very much opposes any changes that would remove spaces from this parking lot. • Proliferation of general advertising signs along 1-83 ⁵⁰⁸ Staff has an on-going concern about the proliferation of billboards along the Jones Falls Expressway, the major gateway for thousands of commuters and visitors to downtown Baltimore. The southernmost link of 1-83 already contains a series of billboards, including locations just north of the Orleans Street viaduct and Gay at Fallsway where there are two (2) billboards at lots across the street from each other. To the north of the site in question is a large rooftop board designated by the applicants as an “identification sign” that is used to advertise businesses other than the billboard company that owns it. The sign has in recent occasions (spring 1996) announced “Sign it here” and offers an 800 number to do so.

Were the users truly occupants of the building, it would appear that the sign owner would not need to post a sign with an 800 number to respond. We recommended disapproval of an appeal for a billboard at the northeast corner of Gay and Fallsway. The Board chose to approve that appeal, contending that it was not principally viewed from 1-83. Staff has found in practice that that 63’ high billboard towers over 1-83, with far greater visibility from the Interstate highway than from Gay Street.

Staff questions the need for a fifth billboard along that south end of 1-83 from Guilford at Mt. Royal to Fayette. • Visual impact on the Mt. Vernon Historic (and Urban Renewal) Area The sign would also have a visual impact on the Mt. Vernon Historic District and Urban Renewal Area, and the Midtown Belvedere Urban Renewal Area, as well as the downtown skyline.

The Board has turned down other billboards along 1-83 for reasons based on impact on historic districts and vistas, including 400 W. North Avenue. Furthermore, the Urban Renewal Plan for Mt. Vernon, as noted earlier, does not list [bjillboards as a permitted use. (Emphasis supplied).

At the Board hearing, Eastern produced two witnesses, both officers of Eastern. Although not offered as experts in ⁵⁰⁹ any particular field, one of those witnesses, Ms. Jean G. Smith, offered the following opinions on direct examination: Q. Does the sign, and this is item number 9 [copy of the Mount Vernon Urban Renewal Plan], which the Chairman referred to, does the sign interfere with any Urban Renewal plan approved by the Mayor and City Council, or Master Plan for the City approved by the Planning Commission? A. No, it does not. Q. I have a copy of the Master Plan dated June 22nd, 1964, approved by the Mayor and City Council which was last amended in 1984 and ask you if you’re familiar with that particular plan?

A. Yes, I have examined that plan. Q. All right. Is there any specific prohibition to a billboard in the area which is encompassed by the renewal plan, as you have read it? A. No, there’s not.

Q. The only prohibition in fact to the — as a billboard is on Howard Street, I believe, South Howard Street, and Antique Row, is that correct? A. It’s far distant from that. Q. And how far is the present location from the Antique Row on Howard Street, which is specifically prohibited in the Urban Renewal Plan? A. About six — about a half mile. & 3? & tfc Q. Does the sign meet all standards and requirements contained in Zoning Ordinance Number 105-1, and Sections 10.0-3-C and Sections 1.0-5-A?

A. Yes, it does. Q. Are there any matters of general welfare which would attach to the erection of the sign at this location, is there anything that inhibit in terms of the general welfare of this sign being erected? A. None whatsoever. ⁵¹⁰ Eastern’s other witness, Mr. Kurt Rutherford, also not offered as an expert, identified various photographs of the site, existing general advertising signs along the 1-83 corridor in the general vicinity, 8 and the neighborhood, and various sight lines to and from the subject property and surrounding landmarks. Based on his knowledge of the neighborhood and the photographs he took, Mr. Rutherford opined: A. Well, it’s a unique site, there are several high rise buildings along Calvert Street to the west, and they obscure the [proposed sign] completely from Calvert Street, west to the vast majority of the Mount Vernon area.

Q. Is there any way that this board will be seen from Calvert and Read? A. Not at all, I tried to shoot exactly where the billboard would be, it would be completely obscured by the building. I was able to get a small piece of the City Jail, thankfully it is several hundred thousands square feet. So I was able to get a small piece of it in there, but the bulletin itself would be completely obscured.

The Board, in deciding the matter, made no findings of fact resolving the evidentiary disputes appearing in the record. Instead, the Board majority was concerned apparently with those portions of the opposition expressed at the 18 November 1997 hearing focused on the Mount Vernon Urban Renewal Plan. The key premise considered by the Board was that the Urban Renewal Plan, because it expressed its land use provisions in terms of a list of what uses were permitted (rather than prohibited), precluded billboards -within the Mount Vernon Plan area by not including billboards or outdoor advertising signs expressly on the enumeration of permitted uses, other than as limited in the Antique Row area. Further, the Plan did not acknowledge expressly that such signs could be ⁵¹¹ approved as conditional uses in Business Districts within the Plan area.

The representative of the City Planning Department who testified at the hearing, Mr. Thomas Stosur, Community Planner for the Central District (including the Mount Vernon Midtown Area) for the 1-1/2 years prior to the hearing, 9 opined that this was the Department’s opinion regarding the Mayor and City Council’s intent in adopting the urban renewal plan for the Mount Vernon Area. This opinion by Mr. Stosur was conceded to have been based on a staff interpretation made without consultation with the City’s attorneys or any identified intrinsic or extrinsic legislative support. The second problem area focused on by the Board was the proposed sign face area calculation. According to the Board’s Staff Report, the design of the proposed sign showed the two faces of the sign as being separated by a distance of 3-1/2 feet at their closest point and as much as 18 feet apart at their most remote point (in something of a “V’ configuration).

Accordingly, the area of each sign face (14 feet multiplied by 48 feet = 672 square feet) would be counted in determining compliance with the 900 square foot maximum area permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. By that method, Eastern’s proposed sign was alleged to be a total of 1344 square feet. In the Board’s 3 December 1997 written decision disapproving Eastern’s application, the rationales of the Board’s majority and minority were explained as follows: Two members of the Board voted to approve the application, believing that if billboards were intended to be excluded in the Mount Vernon Urban Renewal District, the ordinance would have excluded them in the same way that it excluded signs in the antique row district of the Urban Renewal Plan. However, two members of the Board were in agreement with the Protestants, and were of the opinion that the Urban Renewal Ordinance is a positive ordinance, ⁵¹² which means that if a use is not specifically listed as a permitted use, that use is not permitted.

The Board, in making its decision to disapprove this appeal, applied the standards for conditional uses under Section 11.0-5a of the Zoning Ordinance, particularly standard number nine which states that the Board must consider any Urban Renewal Plan approved by the Mayor and City Council when determining whether to approve a conditional use. Based on the report from Planning, and a review of the Urban Renewal Ordinance, the Board was of the opinion that the proposed billboard was not a permitted use in the Mount Vernon Urban Renewal District. The Board also considered the standard set forth in Schultz v. Pritts, 291 Md. 1, 21-22 , [ 432 A.2d 1319 ] (1981), which states that when deciding a conditional use would have an adverse effect and should be denied, the Board must determine whether the facts and circumstances show that the particular use proposed would have a greater adverse effect at the proposed location than it would have if it were located elsewhere within the zone. In applying that standard to this case, the Board finds that for the reasons stated above, the proposed billboard is not a permitted use in the Mount Vernon Urban Renewal Area and would thus have a far greater adverse impact at the proposed location than it would have if it were placed elsewhere in the B-5 zoning district at a location not designated as part of an urban renewal district.

The Board further finds that under Section 13.0-2(75) of the Zoning Ordinance, the total area of a billboard cannot exceed 900 square feet, the Board is without authority to approve a billboard of this size. Where the Board lacks the concurring vote of three members of the Board in favor of granting the permit, the application must be disapproved. [10] ⁵¹³ The circuit court, in affirming the Board’s decision, seemingly eschewed positing its decision on the Board’s interpretation of the Mount Vernon Urban Renewal Plan as prohibiting Eastern’s proposed sign, although it apparently agreed that “advertising signs of the size and height of the proposed sign are not among the listed permitted uses.” 11 Instead, the court based its affirmance on the Board’s Schultz v. Pritts rationale, implicitly assuming the sign would be allowed by the Mount Vernon Urban Renewal Plan if a conditional use approval were otherwise forthcoming. Guided by the Schultz standard of “whether there are facts and circumstances that show that the particular use proposed at the particular location proposed would have any adverse effects above and beyond those inherently associated with such a [conditional] ⁵¹⁴ use irrespective of its location within the [district]” {Schultz, 291 Md. at 21-22 , 432 A.2d 1319 ), the circuit court concluded: In this case, evidence presented to the Board established that the proposed sign would adversely affect residences, churches and historical and preservation uses in the area; there was also testimony that the proposed sign would be a hazard to motorists using the adjacent interstate highway. That evidence provides substantial support for the Board’s denial of the application.

(footnote omitted). The court expressly declined to address the sign area calculation issue in view of its disposition of the prior issue. STANDARD OF REVIEW We have held on numerous occasions that a court’s role in “reviewing the decision of an administrative agency is limited to determining if there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the agency’s findings and conclusions, and to determine if the administrative decision is premised upon an erroneous conclusion of law,” e.g., Richmarr Holly Hills, Inc. v. American PCS, L.P., 117 Md.App. 607, 652 , 701 A.2d 879 (1997) (citing Lee v. M-NCPPC, 107 Md. App. 486, 492 , 668 A.2d 980 (1995)). In fulfilling that role, courts recognize two standards of review of a decision of a zoning board: one for the board’s conclusions of law and another for the board’s findings of fact or conclusions of mixed questions of law and fact.

When reviewing the board’s legal conclusions, the court “must determine whether the agency interpreted and applied the correct principles of law governing the case and no deference is given to a decision based solely on an error of law.” Id. When reviewing findings of fact and conclusions regarding mixed questions, however, the circuit court “cannot substitute its judgment for that of the agency and must accept the agency’s conclusions if they are based on substantial evidence and if reasoning minds could reach the same conclusion based on the record.” Id. See also Friends of the Ridge v. Baltimore Gas and Elec. Co., 120 Md.App. 444, 465 , 707 A.2d 866 (1998), vacated in part, 352 Md. 645 , 724 ⁵¹⁵ A.2d 34 (1999); People’s Counsel for Baltimore County v. Prosser Co., Inc., 119 Md.App. 150, 167-68 , 704 A.2d 483 (1998); Colao v. Prince George’s County, 109 Md.App. 431, 457-58 , 675 A.2d 148 (1996); Columbia Road, Citizens’ Assoc, v. Montgomery County, 98 Md.App. 695, 698 , 635 A.2d 30 (1994).

If a court finds no substantial or sufficient evidence to support the factual findings of the Board, the Board’s decision will be reversed because it was arbitrary and illegal. See Mossburg v. Montgomery County, 107 Md.App. 1, 30 , 666 A.2d 1253 (1995). We have also explained that: The substantial evidence standard applicable to the Board’s findings of fact and resolution of mixed questions of law and fact, sometimes referred to as the “fairly debatable” test, is implicated by our assessment of whether the record before the Board contained at least “a little more than a scintilla of evidence” to support the Board’s scrutinized action. If such substantial evidence exists, even if we would not have reached the same conclusions as the Board based on all the evidence, we must affirm.

Stated another way, substantial evidence pushes the Board’s decision into the unassailable realm of a judgment call, one for which we may not substitute our own exercise of discretion. Of course, on pure questions of law, we extend no deference to the Board (or the circuit court for that matter) beyond the weight merited by the persuasive force of the reasoning employed. Friends of the Ridge, 120 Md.App. at 466 , 707 A.2d 866 (emphasis omitted). “The role of this Court ‘is essentially to repeat the task for the circuit court; that is, to be certain the circuit court did not err in its review.’ ” Red Roof Inns, Inc. v. People’s Counsel for Baltimore County, 96 Md.App. 219, 224 , 624 A.2d 1281 (1993) (citing Art Wood Enters, v. Wiseburg Community Ass’n, 88 Md.App. 723, 728 , 596 A.2d 712 (1991)). Furthermore, our scope of review is a narrow one.

This Court “may not substitute our judgment for that of the [board], assess the weight and credibility of that evidence, make specific findings of fact, and then draw and articulate ⁵¹⁶ conclusions of law therefrom. A reviewing Court may not uphold the agency order unless it is sustainable on the agency’s findings and for the reasons stated by the agency.” Colao, 109 Md.App. at 463 , 675 A.2d 148 (emphasis added in original) (citations omitted). I. Eastern contends that the circuit court did not apply the correct standard of review in upholding the Board’s decision to deny the conditional use permit. It argues that the circuit court exceeded its authority by making wholly independent factual findings, not stated or relied upon by the Board, rather than confining its review to the Board’s express findings and conclusions for denying the permit.

We agree with appellant. As presented supra, the Board’s “findings” and rationale for its decision contained no true findings of fact. To the contrary, the Board resolved no patent factual dispute regarding billboard proliferation, visual impact, traffic safety impact, loss of parking spaces, or any other site specific public health, safety, and welfare issue in the record. Instead, the Board based its decision on conclusions of law as to the legal effect of the Urban Renewal Plan vis á vis the City Zoning Ordinance provisions otherwise allowing outdoor advertising signs in B-5-1 Districts as conditional uses. 12 ⁵¹⁷ In reviewing the Board’s decision, the circuit court did not discuss the “findings” of the Board or whether the Board’s “findings” were based upon substantial evidence.

Instead, the circuit court upheld the Board’s denial apparently by sifting through the evidentiary record to find evidence that the billboard might have an adverse impact on “residences, churches and historical and preservation uses in the area”, that the sign would be hazardous to motorists using the interstate highway and that these reasons provided “substantial support” for the Board’s denial. The Board cannot be affirmed for findings of fact that it did not make or rely on as a basis to deny the conditional use permit. See Bucktail, LLC v. County Council of Talbot County, 352 Md. 530, 552-53 , 723 A.2d 440 (1999); United Steelworkers of America AFL-CIO, Local 2610 v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 298 Md. 665, 679 , 472 A.2d 62 (1984); Colao, 109 Md.App. at 463 , 675 A.2d 148 . Nowhere in its decision did the Board make any findings of fact regarding the billboard’s adverse impact on “residences, churches and historical and preservation uses in the area” or that the sign would be hazardous to motorists using the interstate highway.

By making such factual findings independently, the circuit court substituted its own judgment for that of the Board. This the court cannot do. We have previously explained the rationale for confining a court’s review only to the administrative body’s findings: Given express findings, the court can determine whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence, and whether the findings warrant the decision of the board. If no findings are made, and if the court elects not to remand, its clumsy alternative is to read the record, speculate upon the portions which probably were believed by the board, guess ⁵¹⁸ at the conclusions drawn from credited portions, construct a basis for decision, and try to determine whether a decision thus arrived at should be sustained.

In the process, the court is required to do much that is assigned to the board, and the latter becomes a relatively inefficient instrument for the construction of a record. Gough v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 21 Md.App. 697, 702 , 321 A.2d 315 (1974)(emphasis in original)(quoting 3 R.M. Anderson, American Law of Zoning § 16.41, at 242 (1968)). Accord Bucktail, 352 Md. at 556, 723 A.2d 440 (citing to Gough).

II

A. Appellee urges us to uphold the Board’s decision that the conditional use permit be denied because the proposed sign is a prohibited use under the Mount Vernon Urban Renewal Plan. Appellee focuses on the legislative purpose of the Plan which it asserts is to list expressly all of the uses permitted in the District. Any use not listed, appellee claims, is not permitted. Appellee points to § C of the Plan text which enumerates permitted uses in the Urban Renewal District, but does not include billboards, and to Section C.2.e.(l)(a)xi.(b), which provides that “no signs other than those identifying the uses conducted therein shall be permitted.” Appellee discerns from these provisions that there is “little doubt of the Legislature’s intent to exclude general advertising signs, which, under Section 13.0-2(79) of the Zoning Ordinance is defined as ‘a sign which directs attention to a business, commodity, service, event, or other activity which is sold, offered, or conducted elsewhere than on the premises upon which the sign is located’....” We reiterate at the outset that, on issues of law, we pay no deference to the Board.

See Richmarr Holly Hills, Inc., 117 Md.App. at 652 , 701 A.2d 879 . The threshold issue here is whether, even assuming the organizational structure of the Plan text purportedly operates to prohibit outdoor adver ⁵¹⁹ tising signs of the size proposed by Eastern, the Plan modifies, negates, or “trumps”, as a matter of law, the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance allowing such use as a conditional use generally in the B-5-1 District. The Board found the opposition’s view of the Plan to be dispositive as a matter of law in denying the conditional use permit, rather than considering it merely as one of the many factors to be considered as provided by Chapter 11 of the Zoning Ordinance. We believe that the Board’s conclusion implicitly equates the adoption of the Urban Renewal Plan with an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance or, alternatively, if the Plan conflicts with, or is more restrictive than, the Zoning Ordinance, the Plan “trumps” the Zoning Ordinance.

We conclude that the Board’s legal conclusion is erroneous and inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance, the Renewal Plan, the intent of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, and with relevant common law. We hold, therefore, that the Board erred as a matter of law in concluding that Eastern’s proposed general advertising sign is prohibited, as a matter of law, within the