Board of County Com'rs for Prince George's County v. Kines

• Decision Date: 27 May 1965
• Docket Number: No. 329,329
• Citation: 210 A.2d 367,239 Md. 119
• Parties: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, Maryland, et al. v. Ronald L. KINES et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 119

239 Md. 119

210 A.2d 367

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, Maryland, et al. v. Ronald L. KINES et al.

No. 329.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

May 27, 1965.

Russell W. Shipley, Washington, D. C., and Lionell M. Lockhart, Upper Marlboro (Robert B. Mathias, Harry L. Durity and Joseph S. Casula, Upper Marlboro, on the brief), for Bd. of County Commissioners, part of appellants (H. Winship Wheatley, Jr., Hyattsville, on the brief, for Nathan Mitchell and Mat-Land Co., other appellants).

Lawrence E. Carr, Jr., David A. Scott, Washington, D. C., and Daniel R. Thompson, Hyattsville, on the brief, amicus curiae, for City of Carrollton.

Daniel R. Thompson, Hyattsville, for appellees.

Before PRESCOTT, C. J., and HAMMOND, HORNEY, SYBERT and OPPENHEIMER, JJ.

HAMMOND, Judge.

Judge Digges reversed the action of the Board of County Commissioners of Prince George's County, sitting as the District Council, in rezoning fourteen acres of land on the north side of Good Luck Road near the new Capital Beltway from rural residential to R-10 (high-rise apartments) and six acres on the south side of Good Luck Road from rural residential to R-18 (garden-type apartments).

Both tracts of land and almost all of the surrounding area had been zoned rural residential in 1949, the year of the last comprehensive zoning. Over the years there have been a number of reclassifications in the vicinity of the two pieces of land, all but one having been to R-55 (single family residential), and some two thousand homes have been built. The one exception was a relatively small parcel of land near the Beltway, which had been rezoned local commercial about a week before the hearing before the District Council on the subject properties, to permit its use as a private club. Across the Beltway a piece of land had been rezoned for apartment use in 1958.

The Technical Staff and the Planning Commission recommended denial of the rezoning of the subject lots for five reasons. 1. There was no evidence of original error. 2. The significant changes in classification had been to single lot, single family residential use. 3. The uses permitted by the rezoning sought would be incompatible both as to type of structure and extent of density with existing uses, and the changes would therefore, constitute invalid spot zoning, as the adopted Plan for the Bladensburg area, which shows the subject lots for single family occupancy, confirms. 4. There is no direct access to the Capital Beltway. 5. The larger lot has been included in the County park acquisition program, financed largely by federal grants.

The proponents of the rezoning, the owners of the two lots and the contract purchasers of both, offered testimony as to the widening of nearby existing roads, the extension through the County of new high speed highways, such as the Beltway and the Baltimore-Washington Expressway, the recent and proposed creation of centers of employment throughout the County and the projected growth in population of the County. From all this the witnesses concluded that apartments would be successful, serve a need and not depreciate values of surrounding homes.

Judge Digges said:

'The defendants in this case concede that there was no error in the zoning as originally adopted by the Master Plan concerning the two properties which are the subject of this litigation. They do, however, contend that there has been a substantial change in the neighborhood since the original zoning, and therefore the District Council was justified, if not compelled, to adopt the two resolutions changing the zoning classifications heretofore referred to.

'The defendants rely principally on the testimony of Mr. Harry Boswell, Jr., a professional land planner and developer, to substantiate their position in this case. Through the testimony of Mr. Boswell, as well as to some extent other witnesses, the defendants attempt to show that there is a change in the neighborhood brought about principally because of the construction, either completed or in the process of being completed, of a number of arterial highways, either in the immediate vicinity or in the general area of these two properties.

* * *

* * *

'Everyone agrees that there has been a change in the use to which the land in the area is being put since the original Master Plan was adopted. But at least as far as construction of buildings are concerned, the change has been from vacant land to single-family dwellings, and the classification therefore generally has been changed from R-R (Rural-Residential) to R-55 (Single-Family Dwellings).

'Mr. Boswell states that in his opinion apartments should be permitted in this area, and on these particular pieces of property, because the area has substantially changed due to the fact that there are main highways being built, with access therefor to places of employment for long distances in either direction from the property. He further states that he believes economically and socially a community should have apartments which are attractive to old people and therefore provide a well-rounded community.

* * *

* * *

'The Court has no doubt that what Mr. Boswell says in this respect is true. But we believe his approach as to the change is too broad to be of assistance in light of the decisions of the Court of Appeals as we view them to be. There are many places of employment and other activities that come into the general Washington area from time to time which of course...