Hitzrot v. County Board of Appeals

Per Curiam. Dr. Hitzrot and nine of his neighbors would have us reverse an order of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County which dismissed an appeal which they had attempted to take from an order of the County Board of ²⁹⁸ Appeals. A brief summary of the facts will demonstrate why we cannot do so under the applicable law. In May, 1966, the Baltimore County Zoning Commissioner reclassified as R. A.

(Residence, apartment) a 38.94 acre tract in the County’s eighth election district theretofore zoned R.10 and R.20 (Residence, one family, minimum lot size 10,000 and 20,000 square feet, respectively) . A timely appeal from the Zoning Commissioner’s order to the County Board of Appeals was taken by Mr. and Mrs. Erroll B. Hay, III and Mr. and Mrs. Donald F. Nesbitt, Jr., none of whom is a party to the present controversy. It would appear that the appeal never came on for hearing because of an uncertainty as regards that portion of the property needed for the widening of the Baltimore Beltway. In September, 1970, a notice of dismissal of the Hay-Nesbitt appeal was filed by taeir counsel of record, and the Board entered an order of dismissal.

In October, 1970, Dr. Hitzrot and his neighbors sought to reinstate the proceeding by taking an appeal to the Circuit Court from the Board of Appeals’ order of dismissal. They at once encountered an insurmountable obstacle: the procedural framework of