Loughborough Development Corp. v. Rivermass Corp.

Henderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal is from a decree of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, passed after full hearing, dismissing a bill of complaint filed by the appellant, which attacked the action of the County Council in rezoning from residential to commercial a tract of land containing about 20 acres, to permit its use as.a shopping center with parking facilities. The appellant contends that the action of the County Council was arbitrary and capricious and unauthorized by law; that the record did not establish original mistake or subsequent change in the character of the neighborhood; that the action' of the Council was not in conformity with the standards set up in the ordinance; and that there was an inadequate posting of the property as required by the ordinance. We find it un ²⁴¹ necessary to discuss any of these contentions, for we think that there was no such showing of special damage to the appellant as to give it standing to sue. ■ The tract in question is irregular in shape and undeveloped.

It abuts on one side an area traversed by a railroad, long zoned industrial. It lies between the main arteries, River Road and Massachusetts Avenue, not far from the District of Columbia line, and it is proposed to open a connecting road 90 feet wide through the tract. The appellee owns the land immediately adjacent to the tract rezoned on the other sides. Beyond River Road there are several flourishing residential areas.

The 6 lots owned by the appellant are located on Massachusetts Avenue at a distance of approximately half a mile from the tract in question and completely out of sight. In between there is a residential section, a public park traversed by a stream, the tracks of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, and an industrial zone. The witness, Mr. Walker, president of appellant corporation, testified on cross-examination that he and his wife owned another piece of commercial property-in the general area, which they intend to develop into a shopping center. The appellee suggests that this was one of the main reasons for the institution of the suit.

In any event, it does not appear that any other property owners have joined in the suit. Apparently, other owners of residential property in the neighborhood are not opposed to the project. Mr. Walker testified that in his opinion the erection of the shopping center would depreciate the value of the appellant’s 6 lots, but said that he could “not possibly” fix the amount. He testified that he had reduced the price of the lots, but had not been able to effect a sale.

Several witnesses for the appellee testified there would be no depreciation in value. There was testimony that the opening of the shopping center would increase the value of residential property in the general neighborhood, and that there was a need for such a center. There was also testimony that the location selected was ideal for the purpose. The chief contention of the appellant on this point seems to be that the shopping center will increase the flow of traffic on Massachusetts Avenue, and cause traffic to “back up in ²⁴² front of” its lots, particularly if a traffic light is