Montgomery County Council v. Shiental

Horney, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. In this Montgomery County zoning case, the County Council sitting as the District Council denied the application of Sol and Rose Shiental for a reclassification of a tract of land from, rural residential to light industrial. The Circuit Court (Pugh, J.) reversed the decision of the County Council and it appealed; to this Court. The question here is (a) whether the refusal of the zoning authority to reclassify the property was supported; ¹⁹⁶ hy legally sufficient evidence and (b) whether the decision was •arbitrary or capricious.

The property in question, containing approximately 67 acres, ds located in Bucklodge, near Boyds, at the intersection of the •Barnesville Road, Slidell Road and Maryland Route 117. Topographically, the property is rolling pasture land with a few single family dwellings and is zoned R-R (rural-residential). The contour and development of the surrounding properties are similar in that they are likewise zoned R-R except for a 78-acre tract zoned 1-1 (light-industrial) to the northwest separated from the subject property by Route 117 and a 55-acre tract ■ also zoned 1-1 to the southwest separated from the subject property by the right of way of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad. 'The only residential development in the area is along Route 117 and the Barnesville Road. The technical staff of the Maryland-National Capital Park • and Planning Commission recommended denial of the application concerning this tract (No. E-539) as well as the application concerning a nearby tract (No. E-544) not involved in “this appeal.

The staff report concluded— ¹⁹⁷ The County Planning Board of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission disagreed with the technical staff and recommended approval stating that the “subject properties * * * are located in a logical area for industrial zoning and for this reason approval of the applications can be justified.” ¹⁹⁶ “In this immediate area 133 acres of land, more or less, are presently zoned 1-1 and none of it is used. The granting of these two applications would provide over 220' 1 acres of unused industrial land at this one location. While the staff believes that this general location is a good one for industrial uses, additional zoning •at this time would be superfluous. Over-zoning, as pointed out in the General Plan, leads to raising false ■expectations by artificially inflating land values to a point which inhibits development of the land.

The staff is of the opinion that this is what could occur if these properties were rezoned. Based upon the lack of a change in character and the prematureness of these requests, the staff recommends denial of both applications.” ¹⁹⁷ At the hearing before the County Council sitting as the District Council, the Shientals relied on the industrial reclassifications which were granted in 1958 and 1963 but which have never been developed to such use 2 as showing substantial change in the area. They also relied on the testimony of their attorney and a real estate broker to the effect that a railroad right of way was conducive to industrial and not residential development. In contrast several residents and property owners in the area testified in opposition to the proposed rezoning that reclassification would create congested traffic conditions; that the subject property is a beautiful recreational area that would be harmed by industrial use; that the area lacked sewerage and water facilities; that industrial waste would pollute the local creeks; that there had been no development of the industrially zoned land already in the area and that residential development wTas continuing. ¹⁹⁸ The County Council sitting as the District Council, relying on the staff report, denied rezoning.

It found : “The subject property is rolling pasture land -which is surrounded by R-R zoned property except for a tract of 1-1 property to the southwest, separated from the subject property by the B and O Railroad right of way, and a tract to the northwest, separated from the subject property by Maryland Route 117. These tracts have been undeveloped and unused since their classification in 1958 and 1963 respectively, clearly showing that the present industrial property is more than ample and that there is no need for any additional industrial land. Any additional industrial zoning would be detrimental to the development and use of adjacent residential and recreational areas. Therefore, reclassification of the subject property is unwarranted and unneeded as there has been no substantial change in the character of the neighborhood.” On the appeal to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Judge Pugh stated in his initial opinion and order that the District Council had been arbitrary in refusng to