County Com'rs of Queen Anne's County v. Miles

• Decision Date: 12 April 1967
• Docket Number: No. 136,136
• Parties: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY et al. v. Charence W. MILES et ux.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 355

246 Md. 355

228 A.2d 450

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY et al. v. Charence W. MILES et ux.

No. 136.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

April 12, 1967.

William H. Adkins, II, Easton, and James E. Thompson, Jr., Centreville (Robert R. Price, Jr., Centreville, on the brief), for appellants.

Clarence W. Miles, Baltimore (Robert L. Karwacki, Baltimore, and Vachel A. Downes, Jr., Centreville, on the brief), for appellees.

Before HAMMOND, C. J., and MARBURY, OPPENHEIMER, McWILLIAMS and FINAN, JJ.

OPPENHEIMER, Judge.

The substantive issues presented in this appeal are whether the action of the County Commissioners of Queen Anne's County (the Commissioner), in promulgating as part of its comprehensive zoning ordinance an 'R-1' Estate District with a five acre minimum lot size, is constitutional insofar as it affects the property of the appellees and other properties similarly situated; and, if the classification is constitutional, whether the Commissioners' action is invalid because of arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory action in the classification of the property of the appellees and other similar properties as R-1 as contrasted with the A-1 classifications of other allegedly similar properties in like areas.

Queen Anne's County on the Eastern Shore of Maryland has an area of 373 square miles. Of the 23 counties and the City of Baltimore which constitute the 24 political subsdivisions of the State of Maryland Queen Anne's County is the fifteenth largest subdivision in terms of land area. Of the 24 subdivisions, the County is the third smallest subdivision in terms of population, ranking ahead of Calvert and Kent Counties only. On the basis of the 1950-1960 census figures for Maryland, the County had a population of 14,579 in 1950 and of 16,569 in 1960, an increase in population of 1990 persons, or 13.5 percent, during the decade. During the same period, the population of the State increased from 1,343,001 in 1950 to 2,100,689 in 1960, an increase for the decade of 32.3 percent.

The estimated population of the County in 1970, according to the U. S. Census of Population Projections, is from 19,900 to 20,600, and in 1980, from 25,000 to 27,000. According to the U. S. Census definitions of 'urban' and 'rural', the entire population of the County is classified as 'rural.' The eight incorporated towns in the County in 1930 contained together only approximately 20 percent of the total population; the largest of these towns, Centreville, contained less than 2,000 people. The greatest rate of growth in the County during the decade 1950-1960 was on Kent Island, which is the eastern terminus of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge; the population of the Island during the decade increased by 909 persons, a gain of over 41 percent.

The major economic activities of the County include agriculture and seafood catching and processing. The County has a total water frontage of 258 miles. There are many large landholdings and estates improved by substantial residences, often of historic significance.

At the outbreak of the Revolution, Queen Anne's was one of the most prosperous counties in the State and a number of the large houses throughout the County, still in existence, were built about that time. The tendency then, as in the present day, was to build on the water, which not only afforded more pictureque sites but served as access to water transportation. The abolition of slavery resulted in the erection of a number of small houses in the midst of little clearings, often in proximity to the old Tidewater estates. Emory, Queen Anne's County, Maryland, Its Early History and Development, 270, 530-31 (The Maryland Historical Society, 1950).

In January, 1961, pursuant to Code (1957) Article 66B, the Commissioners appointed a Planning and Zoning Commission (the Commission) which, with the Commissioners, is an appellant herein. The Commission, composed of men from various parts of the County, employed professional planners, met frequently, consulted numerous State and County agencies and studied the entire County in detail. On the recommendations of the Commission, intervening ordinances and subdivision regulations were adopted by the Commissioners. In mid-1963, tentative drafts of a comprehensive zoning ordinance and a proposed zoning map were submitted to the Commission and reviewed by it in conjunction with various State agencies. The Commission received the suggestions and advice of interested citizens and civic groups in the County, including the Real Estate Board and the Bar Association. Numerous public meetings were held throughout the County. In April, 1964, the ordinance and map were recommended by the Commission to the Commissioners. The ordinance and map were adopted by the Commissioners on June 16, 1964, substantially in the form recommended by the Commission.

The property of the appellees, known as 'Blakeford', was purchased by them in 1957 from the Whitehall Foundation. Three other farms owned by the Foundation were acquired by the appellees at the same time; two of these farms, referred to as the 'Stevens Farm', were sold virtually simultaneously by the appellees at the time of their acquisition of Blakeford. Blakeford in its present form consists of approximately 588 acres; it is located on the east side of the Chester River immediately north of Queenstown Creek and fronts on the Chester River for a distance of 7200 feet and on Queenstown Creek for a distance of 900 feet. Blakeford was described by one real estate expert 'as a property almost in one class by itself, equal to or above any in charm and elegance * * *' The main dwelling, as shown in the exhibits, is a beautiful manor house. There are eight other residential structures and numerous farm buildings. The improvements include a swimming pool, a greenhouse and over 12 acres of lawn, shrubbery and ornamental plantings. Of the 588 acres, 300 are devoted to a dairy cattle operation conducted by the appellees. The average daily production of milk on the farm in 1964 was 200 gallons, all of which was sold commercially. The gross revenue derived from the dairy operation in that year was over $58,000; the gross expenses were over $82,000, including some $18,000 for labor. The aggregate investment by the appellees in assets related totally to the farming operation, exclusive of buildings and land, amounts to over $99,000.

The appellees repeatedly made objections to the Commissioners and the Commission to the classification of their property within the five acre minimum lot district and made alternate suggestions to the Commissioners which, after consideration, the Commissioners rejected.

These proceedings were instituted under the Declaratory Judgment Act, Code (1957) Article 31A, in the Circuit Court for Queen Anne's County promptly after the adoption of the zoning ordinance and map. The appellants demurred to the bill of complaint and the demurrer was overruled. After an extensive hearing and the introduction of numerous exhibits, Judge Rollins held that the ordinance was invalid insofar as its provisions related to and affected the appellees' property and similar properties located in the County in the R-1 District. The briefs and arguments on this appeal have been of great help to this Court.

I

The threshold procedural question is whether the action of the trial court in overruling the appellants' demurrer to the appellees' bill of complaint was correct. The bill of complaint alleged the unconstitutionality of the classification of the appellees' property, the nature and use of Blakeford, and the irreparable loss because of the severe restrictions upon the use of their property, with supporting reasons for the expected decrease in value. The bill also alleged that the classification is arbitrary and unreasonable, and set forth details as to the similarity of Blakeford and the adjoining Stevens Farm, which is classified as 'A-1' Agricultural. The relief prayed was a declaration of the unconstitutionality of the ordinance and an injunction against its enforcement. While the demurrer raised several legal contentions, the only argument relied upon by the appellants in this Court is the appellees' lack of requisite standing.

This Court has repeatedly held that demurrers should rarely be sustained or bills dismissed without a declaration of the rights of the parties when declaratory judgment relief is prayed. Myers v. Chief of Baltimore County Fire Bureau, 237 Md. 583, 591, 207 A.2d 467 (1965), and cases therein cited. Constitutional rights are not to be determined abstractly under the Declaratory Judgment Act or otherwise. Liberto v. State's Attorney, 223 Md. 356, 361, 164 A.2d 719 (1960). We find that the allegations of the bill are sufficient to show that the appellees' rights are affected by the ordinance and that they will sustain special damage by its enforcement. Richmark Realty Co. v. Whittlif, 226 Md. 273, 281, 173 A.2d 196 (1961), and cases therein cited. See also Case, Declaratory Judgments in Maryland, 6 Md.L.Rev. 221, 225 (1942). The alleged special damage to the appellees was present, not future, in the immediate effect upon the value of their property. We agree with the action of the court below in overruling the demurrer.

II

The first substantive question is whether the zoning ordinance is valid under the enabling act. The ordinance provides for five residential zones, two business and three industrial zones, including an M-O floating zone, one agricultural and one agricultural conservation zone. The A-1 Agricultural District permits, inter alia, agriculture, grazing and the usual agricultural buildings and structures and single-family and two-family dwellings, with a one acre minimum lot requirement. For the Residence Districts R-1 through R-5, the minimum lot area requirements go from 7,000 square feet in R-5 to five acres in R-1.

In the R-1 Estate District, the principal permitted uses are single-family...