Maryland case law › Sampson Bros. (MD.), Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners

Sampson Bros. (MD.), Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners

240 Md. 116 (1965) · Court of Appeals of Maryland
Court of Appeals of MarylandDisposition: AffirmedBarnes, J.✓ Good law
HoldingSampson Brothers (Md.), Inc.

Barnes, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant, Sampson Brothers (Md.), Inc. (owner) as owner of 37 acres of land situated on the northerly side of St. Barnabas Road adjacent to Eastover Knolls and Birchwood City, Oxen Hill, Prince George’s County, Maryland, filed petitions on June 7, 1963 with the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission (Planning Commission) requesting a zoning reclassification from an R-R (rural residential) zone to R-18 (multiple-family, low density residential) zone of two parcels as follows: Petition A-5031 — 14.7098 acres more or less. Petition A-5032 — 22.32 acres more or less. Between the two parcels is a substantial area which was already zoned R-18.

The parcel involved in Petition A-S031 is bounded on the north by lots subdivided for individual homes 118 in "an R-55 (single family residential) zone, on the south by St. Barnabas Road and a Hebrew Cemetery, on the east by a proposed school site and on the west by the tract already zoned R-18. The parcel involved in Petition A-5032 is bounded on the north by Mystic Drive (as proposed), on the south by St. Barnabas Road, on the east by the tract already zoned R-18 and on the west by new individual homes under construction and a 15 acre site for a proposed school. In the Master Plan of the Henson Creek Watershed adopted May 15, 1963 (less than one month before the petitions were filed by the owner), the two parcels were placed in an R-55 zone. The Technical Staff of the Planning Commission filed their reports on both petitions on October 2, 1963.

In both reports denial of the applications was recommended. It was pointed out in the reports that in the Master Plan for the Henson Creek Watershed R-80 zones were proposed for the two parcels, there was no evidence to indicate an error in the original zoning, and there had been insufficient change in the character of the area since the plan was adopted on May 15, 1963 to justify favorable consideration of the requested reclassification. The Technical Staff set out various reasons for its conclusions. The Planning Board,- however, on October 2, 1963 recommended approval on Petition A-5031 on the ground that there had, in its opinion, been sufficient change in the character of the area to justify reclassification and the requested rezoning would be a reasonable extension of the existing R-18 zoning.

In regard to -Petition A-5032, the Planning Board at first disapproved the application on October 2, 1963, but on November 20, the Board rescinded this action and approved it for 14.65 acres. Later, on January 8, 1964, the Planning Board rescinded this action and approved it for 13.79 acres and still later on February 5, 1964, rescinded its previous, action and approved the application, provided certain rights-of-way for public roads be withheld. The final conclusion of the Planning Board, therefore, was favorable upon Petition Á-5032 as well as upon Petitio'n A-503'1. ' At the hearing on the two petitions held before the Board 119 of County Commissioners for Prince George’s County, sitting as the District Council (District Council), expert testimony was produced and documentary evidence was offered by the applicants indicating various reasons why the residential reclassification should be granted. The Birchwood City Community Association opposed the reclassification and its spokesman at the hearing asked those present who were opposed to stand.

They did this. The Chairman had counsel for the District Council explain to those present that the District Council did not decide zoning cases in accordance with a plebiscite. On April 28, 1964, the District Council disapproved the applications, giving its reasons for the disapproval. On appeal to the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Judge Powers, on October 23, 1964, rendered an oral opinion in which he stated: “The Court concludes it is not necessary to go beyond the Technical Staff Reports, which are in the

This is a preview of Sampson Bros. (MD.), Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.