Norwood Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Mayor of Baltimore

GRASON, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The College Gardens Corporation (herein called Corporation) applied to the Buildings Engineer of Baltimore City for permits for the erection of dwelling units, which were granted. The Board of Municipal and Zoning Appeals, after a careful and thorough hearing, affirmed the action of the Buildings Engineer, and an appeal was taken by The Norwood Heights Improvement Association, Inc. (herein called Association) to the Baltimore City Court, in which the Association made the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore defendant. The court permitted the Corporation to intervene, and after hearing testimony in the case it affirmed the decision of the Board, and from that ruling the case comes here on appeal.

The Corporation owns a tract of land comprising eighty- two acres situated in the northwestern section of Baltimore City. It is unimproved land. On the north it is bounded by the Frederick Road, on the south and east by Loudon Park Cemetery,, and on the west is the ⁵ property referred to as Carozza’s land. The evidence shows that a permit has been issued to Carozza for the development of a project similar to the project of the Corporation.

The Corporation proposes to utilize thirty-five acres of its land for its proposed project. These thirty-five acres are enclosed, or surrounded, by the remaining land of the Corporation. The thirty-five acre tract is shown on a plat filed in the case. Looking at the plat, the development appears to be in the shape of a horse-shoe.

The narrow part is to the west, and extending from the west to the east end of the tract in a half circle, on the northerly side thereof, will be a street to be called Parkton Street. From the west, on the entire southern side, in a half circle, will be Maidville Drive. These two streets meet at the easternmost end, and together constitute one road around the entire tract. On each side of these roads will be apartment houses.

In the middle of this development, and extending through the whole of the same, in a northerly and southerly direction, will be Yale Avenue. These are the main streets as shown on the plat, and from them, projecting back to these apartment houses, are streets twenty feet wide, which terminate in open spaces about sixty feet square, which are to be used for parking purposes. Provision is made to accommodate poles for electric lights and telephones, the installation of a sewer system, laying of pipes for water, and such other matters as are reqüired by law. All departments of the City government that must approve such a project have approved this proposed development.

There were thirty-one permits issued by the Buildings Engineer. Permits Nos. 1 to 26 cover groups of individual apartments that will contain two bedrooms, and some will contain three. The houses to be built under those permits are really row houses. They front on the main streets and on streets running therefrom to the parking spaces mentioned.

All of these apartments will be under the single ownership, management and operation of the Corporation. ⁶ On the five lots affected by permits Nos. 27 to 31, the Corporation is authorized to build apartment buildings, which will be larger than the apartments covered' by the other permits. Four of these permits apply to apartment buildings to be built on corner lots, and the buildings to be erected on these lots differ from the other apartments in that each building has two numbers on it, its own heating plant and sewer line and water connection, but each building is one building and not two buildings as contended by the Association. Mr. Macht testified that he saw personally the various department heads that have to approve building plans and they approved the plans in this case and the permits were issued. In its petition filed in the court below the Association stated: “The grounds upon which this appeal is taken is that, the issuance of the above permits are in violation of Paragraphs 8-11-20-21-22-23-24-29-31-82-34-b and 44 of Ordinance No. 1247, approved March 30, 1931, and for such other and further reasons to be shown at the hearing of this appeal.” Paragraph 35, Court Review, (a) of Ordinance 1247, among other things, provides: “Any person or persons jointly or severally aggrieved by any decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals, or any taxpayer, or any officer, department, board or bureau of the municipality, may present to the Baltimore City Court a petition, duly verified, setting forth that such decision is