Hunter v. Board of County Commissioners

Finan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. On May 23, 1967, the owners of a 300 acre tract of land lying northeast of Taneytown, Carroll County, filed a petition with the County Commissioners of Carroll County to have 150 ³⁰⁷ acres of the land adjacent to Maryland Route 194 and the Pennsylvania Railroad, rezoned from “A” Agricultural to “I-G” General Industrial District. The subject property and the adjacent property for miles in every direction has always been used for farming and was classified “A” Agricultural by Zoning Ordinance No. I-E of the County Commissioners of Carroll County, effective August 17, 1965, which ordinance was the first and only county-wide zoning ordinance adopted by the County Commissioners, other than an interim ordinance adopted in 1961. The stated purpose of the application was to permit the Bowerstown Shale Company to erect a plant along the railroad for the manufacture of clay tile products.

The County Commissioners referred the application to the Carroll County Planning and Zoning Commission, which on June 27, 1967, recommended the reclassification. There was nothing in either the findings or recommendation of the Commission to the effect that the reclassification would promote the health, safety or general welfare of the public or that it was in harmony with any comprehensive zoning plan. Likewise, no mention was made of any mistake in original zoning or change in the character of the neighborhood. The observation was made that, when the Board of Appeals had approved in June of 1965, the use of another location southeast of Taneytown [approximately 7 miles from the subject property] for the extraction of shale from the land, zoning was granted on the basis that: “* * *a location could be found to locate a modern plant facility in reasonable proximity to this location.

Natural gas, which is required in large quantities for the terra cotta [pipe] manufacture, is readily available at the subject location in that it is proposed to be brought south from the Pennsylvania line to the petitioner's property(Emphasis supplied.) A public hearing was held September 6, 1967, at which time many protestants appeared, including the appellants, in opposition to the proposed rezoning. Again, no testimony was adduced as to the rezoning promoting the general welfare or as to mistake in the original zoning or change in the character of the neighborhood. ³⁰⁸ On September 27, 1967, the County Commissioners, basing their decision on the recommendations and findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission, unanimously approved the reclassification of the property to an “I-G” district. The appellants subsequently filed their bill for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief requesting that the County Commissioners be restrained from rezoning the property General Industrial District “I-G” and that they be ordered to restore the classification to “A” Agricultural. Erom the order of the lower court dismissing the bill this appeal was taken.

The lower court being of the opinion that the “I-G” General Industrial Classification was “Euclidian” in character, held that it could not disregard the pertinency of the “change-mistake” rule. Furthermore, the rezoning being in essence “Euclidian,” it did not come within the ambit of Huff v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 214 Md. 48 , 133 A. 2d 83 (1957) or Beall v. Montgomery County, 240 Md. 77 , 212 A. 2d 751 (1965), relied upon by the appellee. The court found that the rezoning was not analogous to a special exception, valid spot zoning or a floating zone, within the framework of the decisions of this Court in Huff, supra, and Beall, supra, to which we would also add, among the many cases of this Court reviewing these categories, Kramer v. Prince George’s County, 248 Md. 27, 38 , 234 A. 2d 589 (1967) ; Board v. Turf Valley, 247 Md. 556, 561 , 233 A. 2d 753 (1967) ; Knudsen v. Montgomery County Council, 241 Md. 436, 442 , 217 A. 2d 97 (1966) ; MacDonald v. County Board, 238 Md. 549, 556 , 210 A. 2d 325 (1965) ; Costello v. Sieling, 223 Md. 24, 29 , 161 A. 2d 824 (1960) ; Temmink v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 205 Md. 489, 495 , 109 A. 2d 85 (1954) ; Offutt v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 204 Md. 551, 561 , 105 A. 2d 219 (1954) ; Ellicott v. City of Baltimore, 180 Md. 176, 183 , 23 A. 2d 649 (1942). From the facts of the case at bar it becomes immediately apparent, as was emphasized by the lower court, that there is a complete lack of compatibility between the rezoned classification and that of the surrounding neighborhood.

The absence of any showing of a benefit to the general welfare of the public or to the surrounding neighborhood should also be noted. ³⁰⁹ Up to this point we are in