Baltimore County v. Security Mortg. Corp., 86

Decision Date15 December 1961
Docket NumberNo. 86,86
PartiesBALTIMORE COUNTY et al. v. SECURITY MORTGAGE CORP. et al.
CourtMaryland Court of Appeals

Walter R. Haile and Thomas L. Hennessey, Towson (Johnson Bowie, Towson, on the brief), for appellants.

Francis D. Murnaghan, Jr., Baltimore (Luke Marbury and Venable Baetjer & Howard, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellees.

Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, PRESCOTT, HORNEY and MARBURY, JJ.

MARBURY, Judge.

This is a suit instituted by the Security Mortgage Corporation and Ace Construction Company (developers, plaintiffs below, and appellees), for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against Baltimore County, Maryland, the Planning Board of Baltimore County, the Director of Planning and Zoning, the County Health Officer, the Director of Public Works of Baltimore County, the Joint Subdivision Planning Committee of Baltimore County, and the Roads Engineer of Baltimore County, seeking an adjudication that the county was not justified in refusing approval necessary to permit recordation of Plats 3 and 4, Section 2 of the subdivision known as Glenmont, in Baltimore County, because of appellees' unwillingness to agree to pay, at an undetermined future date, one-half of whatever it would ultimately cost to build a bridge or culvert in a road to be constructed on the land of others entirely beyond the subdivision boundary.

After a full hearing the chancellor determined that the requirement was an improper one for Baltimore County to make. The present appeal is from the decree making a declaration to that effect and enjoining the appropriate county officials from continuing to refuse approval of appellees' plats on that ground.

The facts briefly stated are as follows:

The appellees, planning to develop for residential purposes a tract of land containing 70.27 acres, to be known as Glenmont, submitted a preliminary plan to the planning board indicating that the streets of the development would connect with Glendale Road on the south, but would have no adequate outlet to the north of the development. To rectify this situation the officials of Baltimore County suggested in a comment letter of October 7, 1957, that the developers amend the preliminary plan so as to provide a northern entrance to the development, that is, an entrance from the street system in the development to the north thereof. The developers acquiesced in the suggestion put forth by the appropriate county officials and so amended the preliminary plan to provide a northern entrance to the development, which shows a street approximately 145 feet in length and 90 feet in width, partly inside and partly outside the boundaries of the subdivision, which is designated as 'Emanon (which is 'No name' spelled backwards) Street'. The County deemed it necessary to build a bridge or culvert because of an existing ravine on the Hahn property adjoining that of the developers to the east, over which the County planned an extension of Emanon Street to connect with a proposed extension of Goucher Boulevard.

In the letter of October 7, 1957, there also appears a statement that 'the cost of the culvert or bridge structure in Emanon Street shall be half developer and half County cost.'

Appellees contend that they never acquiesced in the aforesaid requirement of the letter of October 7, 1957. In this they are supported by the provision in the public works agreement for Section 2 of Glenmont, which states, with respect to Emanon Street, that it is to be constructed for a length of 135 feet, from Queens Ferry Road to the northeast outline of the subdivision, but does not provide for construction of a bridge or culvert in Emanon Street. The form of the agreement promulgated by the County sets out several categories of improvements, including bridges, with blank spaces for checking the nature of the actual items covered by each specific agreement. While the agreement...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Mayor and Council of Rockville v. Brookeville Turnpike Const. Co.
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • April 4, 1967
    ...permissible if the funds are to be used for general public purposes. This Court reached the same conclusion in Baltimore County v. Security Mtge. Corp., 227 Md. 234, 175 A.2d 755, where we held that a developer could not, in the absence of express or implied statutory authority, be required......
  • Board of Sup'rs of James City County v. Rowe, 740994
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • June 13, 1975
    ...860 (Fla.D.Ct.App.1972); Coronado Development Co. v. City of McPherson, 189 Kan. 174, 368 P.2d 51 (1962); Baltimore County v. Security Mortgage, 227 Md. 234, 175 A.2d 755 (1961); Gordon v. City of Warren Plan & Urb. Renew. Com'n, 388 Mich. 82, 199 N.W.2d 465 (1972); West Park Ave., Inc. v. ......
  • Baltimore Planning Commission v. Victor Development Co.
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • April 8, 1971
    ...be expressly granted or necessarily implied. If the action taken exceeds that power, the action is void. Baltimore County v. Security Mortgage Corp., 227 Md. 234, 175 A.2d 755 (1961); State v. Mott, 61 Md. 297 (1884). The power delegated to the Commission to formulate and publish rules and ......
  • Oakes Const. Co. v. City of Iowa City, 64373
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • April 15, 1981
    ... ... have the right to file the same with the county recorder, assessor ... Page 803 ... and ... Baltimore Planning Commission v. Victor Development Co., ... In Baltimore v. Security Mortgage Corp., supra, the county sought to ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT