Reus, Jr. v. CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE

Prescott, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 17 of Article 40 of the Baltimore City Code (1950), as revised by Ordinance No. 711, approved May 21, 1953, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore duly ordained Ordinance No. 1582 which granted permission to the appellee, The Vernon Realty Company (Realty Company) and Fred R. Holzworth and wife, owners, to establish, maintain and operate an open area for the parking of motor vehicles on the property known as 221, 223 and 225 West Monument Street, in a Residential and Office Use district. Appellant, the owner of valuable property directly across the street, filed a bill of complaint to declare Ordinance No. 1582 void and invalid, and for an injunction and other relief. After hearing, the Circuit Court of Baltimore City passed its order dismissing the bill of complaint, and this appeal is from that order.

Prior to June 26, 1953, the entire block of West Monument Street, which includes the property presently involved, was zoned for Residential Use, but, on that date, was rezoned for Residence and Office Use, except for the westernmost buildings on the north and south sides which have their principal fagades on Howard Street and have always been zoned for First Commercial Use. Legal authority for the introduction and passage of Ordinance 1582 is found in the provisions of Section 17 of Article ⁵⁶⁸ 40 of the Baltimore City Code (1950 Edition), titled Zoning, as revised by Ordinance No. 711, approved May 21, 1953. In brief, this section provides that notwithstanding any provision of the zoning ordinance, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore may provide by ordinance, upon such conditions as the Mayor and City Council shall determine, for the establishment, maintenance and regulation of open areas in a Residential and Office Use district, or in a Residential Use district, for the parking thereon of automobiles when to permit the parking of such automobiles would benefit the health, safety or general welfare of the community. The section then provides that no such ordinance shall become effective until after public hearing in relation thereto, after publication of notice of the time and place of such hearing in a daily newspaper published in Baltimore City and the posting of a similar notice upon the area supposed to be used for such parking areas.

It provides further that such an ordinance when introduced shall be referred to the Board of Fire Commissioners, the Commissioner of Transit and Traffic and the Planning Commission for investigation, recommendation and report. Accordingly, upon its introduction, Ordinance No. 1582 (then No. 2212) was referred to the Planning Commission, Fire Department and the Commissioner of Transit and Traffic. The evidence shows that the Eire Department and the Commissioner of Transit and Traffic approved the passage of this Ordinance without reservation. The Planning Commission suggested that a low brick wall be built on the north side of the property and a planting strip provided for (both suggestions being adopted iii the Ordinance), and with these changes also recommended approval and passage of the Ordinance.

The appellant does not deny that all of the provisions of Section 17 were complied with, nor does he contest the section’s validity. Pie offered testimony in an attempt to show that there was no urgent need for the parking lot for which approval was sought, that if parking were allowed it would adversely affect the value of properties and the aesthetic appearance of the block of Monument Street involved, and that ⁵⁶⁹ there was no error in the original zoning or substantial change of conditions in the neighborhood. In his brief, as well as in his argument, the appellant limits his contentions to a claim that there was no error in the original zoning of the property involved nor substantial change in the character of the neighborhood; consequently, he argues, Ordinance 1582, which permits a parking area in a zoning district where such a use is generally prohibited, is “piecemeal rezoning” or “spot zoning” and, therefore, “arbitrary and discriminatory, unconstitutional and void.” In an attempt to sustain this argument, he relies almost entirely upon the cases of American Oil Co. v. Miller, 204 Md. 32 , 102 A. 2d 727 and Baylis v. City of Baltimore, 219 Md. 164 , 148 A. 2d 429 . In the first of these cases, this Court set aside a rezoning of property by the Commissioners of Anne Arundel County, because of a failure to show error in the original zoning or a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood; and, in the later case, we held that a rezoning of property in Baltimore so as to permit the operation of a funeral home was invalid for the same