Agrarian, Inc. v. Zoning Inspector of Harford County

• Citation: 277 A.2d 591,262 Md. 329
• Decision Date: 02 June 1971
• Docket Number: No. 446,446
• Parties: AGRARIAN, INC. v. ZONING INSPECTOR OF HARFORD COUNTY et al.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland

Page 329

262 Md. 329

277 A.2d 591

AGRARIAN, INC. v. ZONING INSPECTOR OF HARFORD COUNTY et al.

No. 446.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

June 2, 1971.

Raymond J. Coughlan, Jr., and Michael P. Crocker, Baltimore, for appellant.

J. Wilmer Cronin, Aberdeen, and Philip O. Foard, Towson (George W. White, Jr., Buckmaster, White, Mindel & Clarke, Towson, and Robert H. Archer, Jr., Bel Air, on the brief), for appellees.

Argued before HAMMOND, C. J., and BARNES, McWILLIAMS, FINAN, SINGLEY, SMITH and DIGGES, JJ.

HAMMOND, Chief Judge.

This is a short case, soon decided. The appellant corporation, Agrarian, Inc., owns two separate tracts of land in Harford County, each of which it has divided into lots, eighteen in one tract and ten in the other shown on recorded plats, all in due compliance with the sub-division regulations of the County. Each tract lies in an A-1 Agricultural District as provided for in Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance of Harford County. A permitted use in such districts under Article 7.012 is 'Single-family and two-family (detached) dwellings, and individual trailers for single family occupancy when located on an individual lot.' Agrarian applied to the Zoning Inspector (defined in Art. 4.50 of the Zoning Ordinance as 'The Zoning Inspector (Administrative Officer) or his authorized representative, appointed by the Board of County Commissioners of Harford County') for permits authorizing the use of a lot in each tract 'for the location thereon of an individual trailer for single family occupancy.' The Zoning Officer refused to issue the permits on the ground that the proposed use was contrary to the sub-division agreement covering the tract (although it may well be that the underlying reason for the refusal was the fear of the County that each of the twenty-eight lots would soon hold a trailer, and therefore there would come into being trailer camps that were not subject to the zoning regulations governing such camps).

The Zoning Ordinance of Harford County, pursuant to Code (1970 Repl.Vol.), Art. 66B, creates a Board of Appeals. Article 20.32 provides:

'An Appeal to the Board may be taken by any person aggrieved, or by any officer, department, board, or bureau of the County affected, by any decision of the Zoning Inspector. Such appeal shall be taken within twenty (20) days after the decision by filing with the Zoning Inspector and with the Board a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof.'

Article 20.41 provides:

'The Board of Appeals shall have the power to hear and decide Appeals where it is alleged there is error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative official under the provisions of this Ordinance.'

Under Article 20.33 any party adversely affected by a decision of the Board may appeal to the Circuit Court on the ground that the decision was illegal and then appeal to the Court of Appeals from the determination of the Circuit Court.

Agrarian did not appeal to the Board from the action of the Zoning Officer but instead filed petitions for mandamus against the Officer and the County Commissioners to compel the issuance of the permits on the ground that the Officer must perform his ministerial duty and his failure to do so deprived Agrarian of its property without due process. Judge Dyer sustained demurrers to the petitions, rightly we think.

It is well established that a claimant ordinarily must seek to redress the wrong of which he complains by using the statutory procedure the legislature has established for that kind of case, if it...