Wilkinson v. Atkinson

Oppenheimer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The only question in this zoning appeal is whether the appellant, Dorothy E. Siegel, is an aggrieved party. The appellee, Joseph A. Atkinson, sought zoning reclassification of two parcels of land in Baltimore County from an R-6 Zone (Residence, one and two-family) to an R-A Zone (Residence, apartment). The two parcels are divided by the Baltimore County Beltway and in the zoning petition were designated as parcel “A” (on the west side of the Beltway) and parcel “B” (on the east side).

The appellant, Mrs. Siegel, and others appeared as protestants at a hearing before the Baltimore County Board of Appeals. The Board denied the reclassification as to parcel “B” and granted it as to parcel “A”. Mrs. Siegel and two other protestants appealed to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County from the granting of the application as to parcel “A”. The appellee filed a petition to intervene and a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that Mrs. Siegel and the two other protestants were not aggrieved parties.

Judge Men-chine permitted additional testimony to be taken before the court on the question of whether Mrs. Siegel was an aggrieved ²³³ person within the meaning of Section 604 of the Baltimore County Charter. Thereafter, the Judge, in an able and comprehensive opinion, concluded that Mrs. Siegel was not an aggrieved person and granted the motion to dismiss. Mrs. Siegel is the sole remaining appellant. In DuBay v. Crane, 240 Md. 180, 183 , 213 A. 2d 487 (1965), Judge Horney, for the Court, said: “Prior to 1960, in Baltimore County, any aggrieved party or taxpayer could maintain an appeal, but it is now necessary to be both a party to the proceeding before the board of appeals and a ‘person aggrieved’ by its decision in order to appeal to the circuit court.

This, in addition to showing the proximity of one property to the other, requires proof of the adverse effect the changed status of the rezoned property has, or could have, on the use, enjoyment and value of the property of the protestant in order to establish the status of the appellant as an aggrieved person.” Mrs. Siegel concededly was a party to the proceeding before the Board. On the general rule as to whether a person is. “aggrieved” by the Board’s decision in order to have standing under the Charter to appeal to the Circuit Court, Judge Horney said in DuBay , at 185 : “In zoning cases, the rule in this State is that for a person to be aggrieved by an adverse decision of the administrative agency, and thus entitled to appeal to the courts, the decision must not only affect a matter in which the protestant has a specific interest or property right but his interest therein must be such that he is personally and specifically affected in a way different from that suffered by the public generally.” [Citing cases]. In the testimony before Judge Menchine, Mrs. Siegel stated that she and her husband are the owners of property not less than seven hundred and fifty feet distant in a direct line from, the reclassified property. The distance by one road is one and one-tenth miles by one route and seven-tenths of a mile by an ²³⁴ ■other road.

The Siegel property is separated from the reclassified property by other properties and by the Baltimore County Beltway. Mrs. Siegel testified that she could see the reclassified property from her home; the Siegel house is on the highest elevated