Lambert v. Seabold

Finan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The Circuit Court for Baltimore County affirmed the action of the County Board of Appeals, hereinafter referred to as the Board, of September 9, 1965, which reclassified the properties known as 5400, 5402 and 5404 Edmondson Avenue, Baltimore County, from R-6, residence, one and two-famíly, to B-L, business, local. The three properties comprise the entire block of the northwest side of Edmondson Avenue between Orpington Road and North Bend Road in the Catonsville area. The properties in question had been subject to comprehensive rezoning, which took place in 1960 when the County Council adopted the land use map for the Catonsville area.

The properties here in-involved were zoned R-6 which was contrary to the Planning Board’s earlier recommendations, which had approved B-L classification for the properties in question. On March 13, 1961, the Baltimore County Zoning Commissioner, hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner, denied an application for reclassification from R-6 to B-L filed by appellees Seabold and Hanf, the then and present owners of the 5400 and 5402 Edmondson Avenue. On appeal to the Board, the Commissioner’s action was affirmed. In its opinion of December 14, 1961, the Board stated: “It is the unanimous opinion of the Board of Appeals that there have been no changes which warrant a reclassification —■ further as the Board has held in other opinions the Land Use Maps of Baltimore County adopted by the County Council must be upheld, unless there is substantial testimony to show an error in original zoning.

The Board can find no such error in the testimony presented by the petitioners in the instant case.” ⁵⁶⁴ The applicants did not appeal from the Board’s decision. In 1964 two petitions, seeking reclassification from R-6 to B-L, were filed with the Commissioner with respect to the three properties here involved. The Commissioner denied the reclassification requested and separate appeals to' the Board were taken. Although the Board held independent hearings, it is apparent that the applications were considered as companion cases and in separate opinions, filed September 9, 1965, the Board reversed the Commissioner and granted rezoning from R-6 to B-L with respect to the properties herein involved.

In its opinions the Board did not cite any subsequent change in the nature of the area since the comprehensive rezoning of 1960, but found that: “the original zoning on the 1960 map was in error because of the complete failure of the Council to' consider existing uses at that time, and its complete failure to follow the logical recommendation of the Planning Board which did not only recognize existing uses of the subject property, but was completely in accord with reasonable uses in the immediate vicinity which the map, as adopted, was certainly not. * * Appellant, “aggrieved” property owners, filed appeals in both cases to the Circuit Court, where they were heard as one. The lower court affirmed the Board’s action, solely on the basis of a mistake, stating :• “All parties to these appeals agree that there has been no significant change in the area since April, 1960, when the comprehensive zoning map was adopted by the County Council of Baltimore County. Accordingly, reclassification can be justified only, if at all, on the ground of error or mistake in the map.” The court further stated that the Board’s decision on December 14, 1961, in which it denied reclassification from R-6 to B-L of the Seabold and Hanf properties, did not constitute res judicata and was not therefore binding upon the Board’s present action. The judge reached this result because in 1961 the Board did not have before it applications to rezone all the properties ⁵⁶⁵ here involved, but only the Seabold and Hanf properties and “reclassification of those properties alone would have had the ridiculous result of establishing as a dividing line between the B.L. land and R-6 land a property line in the middle of a block.” He thus concluded: “Accordingly, if the Board had reclassified Seabold and Hanf in 1961, such action would have been arbitrary and capricious.

The case presented to this Court at this time for consideration is quite different therefore, from that presented to the Board in 1961. * * *.” The issue before this Court is whether the lower court erred in not finding the Board’s reclassification of the properties to be arbitrary, capricious or illegal in view of the absence of change in the character of the neighborhood and the Board’s previous decision that the I960' zoning map was not in error. The record reveals that when the County Council of Baltimore County adopted the comprehensive zoning map in April 1960, the Council made a personal inspection of the properties in question prior to classifying them as R-6. It is true that the Planning Board in its recommendations had designated the block, in which these properties are situated, as B-L, but its recommendations were only advisory and the ultimate classification was the prerogative of the County Council, which chose not to follow the Board’s recommendation. A number of witnesses testified in the lower court adducing testimony on both sides of the question as to whether the original classification of the properties as R-6 was erroneous.

Mr. Gavreiis, who was Deputy Director of Planning for Baltimore County at the time of the adoption by the Council of the comprehensive rezoning map and who is now Director of Planning, testified as follows: Q. Didn’t you say you thought the Planning Board was correct,—however * * * A. However, these recommendations, which are advisory, were rejected by Council. The same issue was then tested, and the map was found to be correct. So it is my personal feeling that the events, which happened since the Planning ⁵⁶⁶ Board made its recommendations, have shown to me that the map was correct, as adopted by Council, with respect to its not having commercial zoning here. Mr.