Bosley v. Hospital for Consumptives of Md.

Decision Date06 April 1967
Docket NumberNo. 188,188
Citation246 Md. 197,227 A.2d 746
PartiesMrs. Howard BOSLEY et al. v. HOSPITAL FOR CONSUMPTIVES OF MARYLAND et al.
CourtMaryland Court of Appeals

Richard C. Murray, Towson, for appellants.

W. Lee Harrison, Towson, for appellees.

Before HAMMOND, C. J., and HORNEY, OPPENHEIMER, BARNES and McWILLIAMS, JJ.

BARNES, Judge.

The County Board of Appeals of Baltimore County (the Board) rezoned a 15.016 acre tract of land in the Ninth Election District of Baltimore County, owned by the appellee, Hospital for Consumptives of Maryland, commonly called Eudowood, from the R-10 and R-6 zones (residential lots of not less than 10,000 and 6,000 square feet, respectively) to the B-L (business, light) zone. The Board's action was affirmed by the Circuit Court for Baltimore County (Menchine, J.) on April 21, 1966. The appellants, who own and dwell in residences in the general vicinity of the 15.016 acre tract, protested the rezoning before the Board and took a timely appeal to this Court from the order of the Circuit Court.

The 15.016 acre tract (the subject property) is triangular in shape bounded on three sides by public roads, i. e., on the north by Joppa Road, a 48 foot paved road on a 70 foot right-of-way; on the east by Prince Road, a 42 foot paved road on a 70 foot right-of-way; on the west-southwesterly side of Goucher Boulevard, which has a 110 foot right-of-way with two 36 foot paved lanes of travel. The proposed use to be made of the subject property by the contract purchaser, Vornado, Inc., is for a discount department store which will have a one-story building of 141,000 square feet with a parking area for 746 parking units. There are adequate public water and sewer facilities at the subject property for the proposed use.

The existing topography of the subject property is irregular. It is at the road level with Prince Road on the east of the site, but on the western one-third of the subject property-a triangular portion bounded by Joppa Road and Goucher Boulevard-there is a grade running as high as 40%. At the intersection of Goucher Boulevard and Joppa Road the property is 22 feet below the grade of the intersection.

The original zoning map, placing the subject property in the R-6 and R-10 zones, is dated November 14, 1955. At that time neither Goucher Boulevard nor Prince Road were in existence, although there was testimony before the Board that the intention to construct these roads in the general area was known at the time the zoning map was adopted. However, neither road appears on the zoning map.

Prior to the adoption of the zoning map, the Hospital owned and used 300 acres of land which extended from Hillen Road on the south, to Joppa Road to the north and from the Greenbriar Development on the west to Pleasant Plains Road on the east. This large tract was reduced in 1954 by the sale of 150 acres to the Swarthmore Company, which developed the Eudowood Shopping Center, and by the sale of 20 acres to the Bendix Corporation. The portions of the original 300 acre tract had been farmed by the Hospital prior to the sales. The remaining land contained all of the hospital buildings and was used by the Hospital for its treatment of tubercular patients.

Beginning in 1960 roads were extensively developed in the area. Goucher Boulevard (then called Taylor Avenue Extended) was constructed from Loch Raven Boulevard to Prince Road and Prince Road was constructed from Goucher Boulevard to Joppa Road. In 1964 Joppa Road was widened from a 22 foot paved road (including shoulders) to a 48 foot road, and by means of a 24 foot fill the elevation of Joppa Road was raised substantially to form an intersection at grade with Goucher Boulevard. During this same period, Goucher Boulevard was extended from Prince Road to Rpovidence Road on a 110 foot right-of-way providing two 36 foot wide pavel lanes with a 12 foot median strip. The Hospital had protested the final location of Goucher Boulevard because it severed the subject property, containing the principal hospital buildings, from the remaining portion of the Hospital's property. Notwithstanding this protest, the road was built in its present location. The Hospital closed on June 30, 1964. The record does not indicate the value of the vacant buildings, but there was testimony that it cost the Hospital $10,000 a year to maintain them.

An engineer produced by the applicant at the hearing before the Board, testified in detail concerning substantial improvements made in the water and sewerage facilities serving the subject property since the 1955 zoning map was adopted.

Bernard Willemain, a well-qualified land planner, testified for the applicant before the Board. In his opinion, the R-10 and R-6 zoning was incorrect when placed on the subject property on November 14, 1955 since the zoning was inconsistent with the circumstances and knowledge that the County Commissioners had at that time. Mr. Willemain pointed out that the County Commissioners knew of the location of the property and its characteristics and that there was a proposed shopping center to be erected on 40 acres across the road from the subject property (25 acres of which was zoned B-L) subject to a contract of purchase when the zoning map was adopted.

Mr. Willemain testified that in 1954 the plans for extending Goucher Boulevard were based on the construction of a high level bridge which would be erected 20 feet above the existing railroad tracks in order to comply with the minimum requirements for steam and diesel trains. The proposed alignment of Goucher Boulevard at that time was different from the present existing road. In 1959, the railroad operation was discontinued and abandoned, so that Baltimore County was permitted to drop the originally proposed alignment and construction plans and to provide for the intersection of Joppa Road and Goucher Boulevard at grade.

It was also pointed out at the Board hearing that there had been four substantial changes in the zoning in the vicinity of the subject property from R-6 to R-A (residence-apartments) since the adoption of the original zoning map. One rezoning application from the R-6 to the R-A zone was for the development of approximately 36 acres, including a high-rise apartment, whereby 832 apartment units were allowed. This rezoned parcel is located approximately one-third of a mile from the subject property in the area lying south of Hillen Road. The application was approved by the Roard on March 19, 1963 and was later...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • Rouse-Fairwood Ltd. Partnership v. Supervisor of Assessments of Prince George's County
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1997
    ...a parcel to a classification that results in less density could constitute a less intensive use. Cf. Bosley v. Hospital for Consumptives, 246 Md. 197, 204, 227 A.2d 746 (1967) (observing that rezoning changes that increased density constituted "more intensive residential use"). Although app......
  • Chapman v. Montgomery County Council
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • November 18, 1970
    ...to 110,000 square feet of gross retail floor area, is not, in this respect, premature.' This Court in Bosley v. Hospital for Consumptives of Maryland, 246 Md. 197, 227 A.2d 746 (1967) held that substantial growth in the population in the neighborhood with resulting changes in the zoning fro......
  • Rockville Crushed Stone, Inc. v. Montgomery County
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1988
    ...for that of the zoning body and should affirm when the latter's decision is supported by substantial evidence. Bosley v. Hospital for Consumptives, 246 Md. 197, 204 ...(1967). ["Substantial evidence" means "a little more than a scintilla of evidence." Montgomery County v. Gr. Colesville Ass......
  • Howard County v. Dorsey
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • June 12, 1980
    ...Court stated in Kanfer v. Montgomery County Council, 35 Md.App. 715, 730, 373 A.2d 5, 12 (1977), citing Bosley v. Hospital for Consumptives, 246 Md. 197, 204, 227 A.2d 746 (1967): ". . . the appellate court may not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning body and should affirm when t......
  • 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