Maryland case law › Ragan v. Hildesheim

Ragan v. Hildesheim

247 Md. 609 (1967) · Court of Appeals of Maryland
Court of Appeals of MarylandDisposition: AffirmedHornby✓ Good law
HoldingIn this Baltimore County zoning case, the only question was whether the reclassification of a fourteen-acre undeveloped tract from R-6 (one and two family residence) to R-A (residence, apartments) was fairly debatable.

Hornby, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The only question posed by the appeal in this Baltimore County zoning case is whether or not the reclassification of land from one zone to another constituted such change as was fairly debatable. The rezoned property is an undeveloped tract of approximately fourteen acres located on and bounded by Sollers Point Road, Johnson Avenue and Delvale Boulevard in the twelfth district of the county. Topographically the tract is low-lying and swampy and subject to flooding during periods of heavy rainfall.

At the time of the adoption of the comprehensive zoning-map on May 1, 1956, the land in question was zoned R-6 (residence, one and two family) but it had not been developed for such use. The zoning commissioner declined to reclassify the property.. The board of appeals, in reversing the commissioner, granted reclassification to R-A (residence, apartments). In so doing the-board found that there had been substantial change in the neighborhood since the adoption of the 1956 map, that there was. error in the original zoning and that the cost of developing the property as theretofore classified would be prohibitive.

The-circuit court affirmed the board and this appeal followed. The proponents-appellees are Herbert Hildesheim and his-wife, former owners of the property, and the Dun Lea Apartments, the corporate contract purchaser, which plans to build, garden type apartments on the premises. The protestants-appellants are Mrs. Franklin Ragan and several other residents, of the neighborhood. When the 1956 zoning map was adopted, Delvale Boulevard' was not in existence.

At the hearing before the board of appeals, a surveyor and engineer (Augustine F. Miller) testified' that he was then a member of the board of county commissioners and that if a plan to construct the boulevard was in exis 611 tence, he had no knowledge of it. He further testified that there was error in the original zoning because it would have been impossible to build R-6 homes on the tract even at that time. He also specified at least twelve zoning changes in the surrounding neighborhood which, along with the construction of Del-vale Boulevard, he thought were substantial enough to warrant reclassification. A real estate broker (Frederic P. Klaus), not only confirmed the testimony of the former county commissioner as to change, but testified that in his opinion the highest and best use-of the land was for residential apartments.

A consulting engineer and traffic expert (Joseph D. Thompson), whose firm

This is a preview of Ragan v. Hildesheim. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.