Gerczak v. Todd

Henderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal in a zoning case from Baltimore County in ²⁶ volves a special exception for a mobile homes park in an M-L zone. The Board of Appeals granted the exception, and on appeal the case was remanded for the taking of additional testimony. A second appeal resulted in an affirmance of the Board’s action.

We find it unnecessary to review the record in detail, or to discuss the contention of the appellants that the zoning authorities have no power to grant a special exception for a trailer park in an M-L zone. The key issue, as both sides agree, is whether there was a sufficient showing of ready access to the proposed development. It seems to be conceded that the only practicable means of ingress and egress, except by recourse to a network of narrow, winding and inadequate roads in an old development to the north, is by way of Patapsco Avenue in the vicinity of the main line of the Pennsylvania Railroad. After crossing the railroad at grade, a left turn leads into an existing dirt road known as Philadelphia Avenue, parallel to the tracks, into the proposed nine acre development.

The developer testified he proposed to widen and pave Philadelphia Avenue, shown on the plats as a paper street. This street had never been dedicated to or accepted by the County; indeed, the appellants argue that under sec. 28-16 of the County Code (1962 Supp.) the County lacks the power to accept a road under 40 feet in width. See Chapman v. Rogan, 222 Md. 12, 17 . The Board granted the special exception “based on the provision that Philadelphia Avenue be widened [to 30 feet].

As to how the road is widened, by whom, or any other problems attending to the widening of the road, the Board does not feel that it is necessary that these facts be known to them.” We disagree. Before a special exception may be granted in Baltimore County, it is necessary that the Board find that the proposed development, among other things, will not create congestion in the roads, streets or alleys. The burden of proof is upon the petitioner. The record shows that both sides of Philadelphia Avenue, from Patapsco Avenue to the property in question, are owned by the Pennsylvania Railroad.

Mr. Hippie, local supervisor of real estate for that company, testified that the Railroad had no present objection to the maintenance or use by others of Philadelphia Avenue, but he also testified that any ²⁷ conveyance of title or interest would have to be approved by the Board in Philadelphia. He further testified that the Railroad was “supposed to use that