Maryland case law › RS Constr. Co. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

RS Constr. Co. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

269 Md. 704 (1973) · Court of Appeals of Maryland
Court of Appeals of MarylandDisposition: AffirmedSmith, J.✓ Good law
HoldingR.

705 Smith, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. R. S. Construction Company, Inc., (R. S. Construction) here appeals because it was unsuccessful in its attack on a Baltimore City ordinance requiring property owners to maintain dwellings in urban renewal areas in accordance with standards not required of all property owners in Baltimore City. It likewise will be unsuccessful here. R. S. Construction owns a house at 623 West Lanvale Street in Baltimore.

This is in the Upton urban renewal area. The city ordinance in question requires a properly equipped bathroom in each home properly connected to the public sanitary sewer or an approved sewage disposal system, with hot and cold water lines, within and accessible from within the dwelling unit; utility spaces containing heat-producing, air-conditioning and other equipment to be ventilated to the outer air and the air from such spaces not to be recirculated to other parts of the building in such a way as to create a hazard to occupants; natural ventilation of spaces such as attics and enclosed basementless space with exterior ventilation openings to be effectively screened where needed; the removal of lead base paint from interior surfaces of dwellings; windows with “right-fitting” sashes of proper size and design with the elimination of sashes with rotten wood or broken joints; floor covering for kitchens and bathrooms of a waterproof, non-absorptive material; no unvented, open flame gas space heaters; and the installation of at least two separate duplex convenience electrical outlets in every habitable room of the structure except for the requirement of three such outlets in any room other than a sleeping or dining room which has a perimeter of over 50 feet. There are at least 11 urban renewal areas in Baltimore City to which these regulations apply. Prior to the passage of the ordinance, Baltimore City determined through a house to house inspection “that the area, in general, was . . . blighted, deteriorated or deteriorating” and that it thus “constituted a serious and growing menace, injurious and inimical to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the residents of the City of Baltimore.” Such a legislative finding was in the ordinance in question. 706 R. S. Construction objects to these additional standards saying that “such standards for residential properties do not apply to other similar residential property not within the area affected by said Ordinance, or similar ordinances, but situate in the City of Baltimore, and there are such other similar residential properties.” It contends “there is no reasonable basis for such discrimination” and that the ordinance thus “violate[s] the equal protection clause of the federal and state constitutions.” The trial judge (Ross, J.) had the matter before him on stipulation of the parties and certain exhibits filed pursuant to those stipulations.

No evidence was presented by R. S. Construction other than its statement in the stipulation that there are other homes in Baltimore similar to its dwelling at 623 West LanVale Street to which such standards do not apply. Judge Ross held that no evidence was presented sufficient to overcome the presumption of constitutionality. As Judge Oppenheimer put it for the Court in Queen

This is a preview of RS Constr. Co. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.