Fuller v. County Commissioners

Brune, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County dismissing a bill of complaint which sought an injunction to require the relatively low density residential zoning of the whole of a 48-acre tract located along the Timonium Road in that County and to prevent its use for higher ¹⁷¹ density residential zoning. This tract, now named “Emerald Acres”, is the same land, then called “Enchanted Acres”, that was involved in Board of County Com'rs v. Oxford Development Co., 209 Md. 373 , 121 A. 2d 239 . The appellants are property owners who reside along the Timonium Road, a short distance west of the point where the new Harrisburg Expressway crosses the Timonium Road by means of an overpass, and their properties either adjoin Emerald Acres or are directly across the road from it.

In the latter part of 1952, the Baltimore County Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) undertook an extensive study of land used in Baltimore County for the purpose of preparing a coordinated master plan for the County, which would serve as the basis for a completely new zoning map. On March 30, 1955, in furtherance of such project, the County Commissioners of Baltimore County (“County Commissioners”) adopted new zoning regulations and restrictions for the entire County. Under the new regulations a number of classifications were established, among which were: RUO Zone Residence (one-family to each acre), R-20 Zone Residence (one-family to each one-half acre), R-10 Zone Residence (one-family to each one-quarter acre), R-6 Zone Residence (one- and two-family houses with a lot of 6,000 square feet). Following the adoption of these Regulations, it became necessary to prepare new zoning maps for each district.

The Planning Commission, after making a study of the situation in the Eighth District, in which Emerald Acres is located, came to the conclusion that the Harrisburg Expressway was the logical boundary for the high density residential area to the east of that highway and that the R-40 classification, the lowest density residential classification, would be proper for the area to the west thereof. A map was drawn accordingly, but at a subsequent time the Planning Commission reconsidered the plan and changed the recommendation to an R-20 zone. This latter recommendation was transmitted to the Zoning Commissioner. ¹⁷² The Zoning Commissioner, after considering the conclusions of the Planning Commission, and holding a hearing at which the then owner of Emerald Acres sought a high density classification for that tract and after making his own study of the local situation, recommended to the County Commissioners in a final report that the land involved in this suit be-zoned partially for R-6, partially for R-10, and partially for R-20. The County Commissioners on December 6, 1955, held a. public hearing to hear objections to the Zoning Commissioner’s final report.

One of the appellants appeared and protested the adoption of the final report, but two weeks later the County Commissioners approved and signed a new zoning map incorporating the recommendations of the Zoning Commissioner. The appellants then filed their bill of complaint seeking an injunction to enjoin the use of the land as newly rezoned and seeking to force the County Commissioners to classify the land as recommended by the Planning Commission. After a full hearing in open court, the Circuit Court for Baltimore County entered its decree dismissing the bill of complaint. The appeal is from this decree.

The standing of the plaintiffs to sue was challenged by the defendants, but we think it is sufficient. The plaintiffs alleged that the value of their respective properties would be damaged and depreciated by the zoning action of the County Commissioners. The defendants failed to deny this allegation and thereby admitted it. Former General Equity Rule 20, now Rule 372 b of the Maryland Rules.

Similar allegations were held sufficient against demurrer in Crozier v. County Com’rs of Prince George’s County, 202 Md. 501 , 97 A. 2d 296 . Cf. Loughborough Development Corp. v. Rivermass Corp., 213 Md. 239 , 131 A. 2d 461 . On this appeal, the appellants raise two issues: (1) whether or not the zoning adopted by the County Commissioners is valid, and (2) whether or not the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to admit certain evidence.

In adopting the new zoning map for the entire Eighth District, the County Commissioners were acting in a legis ¹⁷³ lative capacity. The Court’s function to review such action is restricted and its scope is narrow. The legislative exercise of the police power is presumed to be valid and a successful attack upon it must show affirmatively and clearly that it is arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory or illegal. Grant v. City of Baltimore, 212 Md. 301 , 129 A. 2d 363 ; Erdman v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 212 Md. 288 , 129 A. 2d 124 , and cases there cited.

It was admitted by the appellants that no question of health, safety or morals is involved and they did not offer any evidence that the increased density of the population in the area would create any traffic hazards or like problems. The appellants’ principal contention is that the action of the County Commissioners is the negation of a comprehensive plan and amounts to spot zoning since Emerald Acres is the only land on the western side of the