Mayor and Aldermen of City of Annapolis v. Anne Arundel County

• Decision Date: 30 January 1974
• Docket Number: No. 184,184
• Citation: 271 Md. 265,316 A.2d 807
• Parties: MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF the CITY OF ANNAPOLIS et al. v. ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, Maryland et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 265

271 Md. 265

316 A.2d 807

MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF the CITY OF ANNAPOLIS et al. v. ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, Maryland et al.

No. 184.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Jan. 30, 1974.

Eugene M. Lerner, City Atty. (Richard G. Anderson, Asst. City Atty., Annapolis, on the brief), for Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Annapolis and the Historic District Commission of the City of Annapolis.

John C. Murphy, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., and Henry R. Lord, Deputy Atty. Gen., Baltimore, on the brief), for State of Maryland acting on behalf of the Maryland Historical Trust and Commission on Negro History and Culture.

John M. Court, Asst. County Sol. (Paul F. Borden, County Sol., Annapolis, on the brief), for appellees.

Argued before MURPHY, C. J., and BARNES, SINGLEY, SMITH, DIGGES and LEVINE, JJ.

BARNES, Judge.

The principal questions presented to us for resolution in this appeal arise out of the construction and application of the provisions of Maryland Code (1957, 1970 Repl.Vol.) Article 66B, §§ 8.01 through 8.15, 15, under the subtitle 'Historic Area Zoning' and Chapter 22, Article XI, 'Historic District,' Sections 22-226 through 22-236 of the Annapolis City Code, implementing in substantially the same basic language that which is contained in Art. 66B, §§ 8.01 through 8.15, in so far as these provisions relate to the Mt. Moriah African Methodist Episcopal Church (Mt. Moriah), located on Franklin Street in the City of Annapolis and owned by Anne Arundel County. ¹

Mr. Moriah was built in 1874 at its present location at 82-84 Franklin Street to the rear of the Courthouse in Annapolis. The congregation, however, was organized in 1799 and consisted of free blacks rather than those held in slavery. The cornerstone of the present church building is dated 1816 and was the cornerstone of an earlier church structure built by the Mt. Moriah congregation. As will be more fully developed later in this opinion, Mt. Moriah is a significant symbol of black society and of the accomplishments of free black persons surrounded, as it were, by conditions of chattel slavery and racial discrimination.

Historic Annapolis, Inc., a private organization, conducted a survey in 1970 of historic structures in the City of Annapolis under the direction of duly-qualified specialists. Their material was submitted to a 'jury' of qualified architects and architectural historians and Mt. Moriah was given the highest rating of 'outstanding.' ² As a result of a nomination made by the State of Maryland, through the Governor's Advisory Commission on Historic Preservation, Mt. Moriah was identified and placed on the National Register of Historic Places. The description in the nomination-accepted by the National Register of Historic Places, an agency of the Federal Government-stated, in part:

'Mt. Moriah Church is an exceptional example of small scale Victorian Gothic Ecclesiastical architecture, and is an important contribution to the architectural collection of Annapolis. . . . Mt Moriah is one of Annapolis' hidden architectural treasures, is of paramount importance in black history, and should be preserved at all costs.'

Although the exterior of the church building is in need of 'some masonry (namely pointing) and window frame and cornice repair,' the building generally appeared to be in good condition.

After negotiations with the Trustees of Mt. Moriah, it was purchased by the appellee, Anne Arundel County (the County), by a deed dated May 28, 1970, and duly recorded among the land records of Anne Arundel County. At that time, Mt. Moriah was not included within the boundaries of the Historic District of the City of Annapolis, but was included in that District shortly after its purchase by the County.

One of the appellants, the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Annapolis, established the Historic District Commission of the City of Annapolis (the Commission), pursuant to Art. 66B, § 8.03, as well as the Historic District within the City of Annapolis in accordance with the 'Historic Area Zoning' enabling act, Art. 66B, §§ 8.01 through 8.15. Article XI, 'Historic District,' Sections 22-226 through 22-236 of the Code of the City of Annapolis, was submitted to a referendum of the voters in the City of Annapolis at the general election of 1969 and was ratified by the electorate.

On September 27, 1972, the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Annapolis filed a suit in equity (Equity No. 21050) in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, seeking to enjoin the County from awarding a contract for the demolition of Mt. Moriah and from demolishing it and also seeking a declaratory decree that the County must comply with the Historic District Ordinance of the City of Annapolis, Art. 66B of the Maryland Code, and the Building Code of the City of Annapolis. On June 7, 1973, the County did apply for a permit with the Building Inspector's Office of the City to demolish Mt. Moriah. No further proceedings have been taken in that suit.

The demolition permit filed by the County was sent by the Building Inspector to the Commission in accordance with the provisions of the Historic District Ordinance and the established practice. The Commission thereafter gave the usual notice of the filing of the application by the publication of its standard advertisement for a public hearing on the application. The County appeared at the public hearing on June 20, 1973, and was represented at that hearing by Robert Strott, Director of Administration for the County.

At the June 20 hearing, substantial testimony was taken and documentary evidence was submitted by a number of individuals and organizations in opposition, including two of the appellants, the Maryland Historical Trust and the Maryland Commission on Negro History and Culture. This testimony and supporting documents detailed the historical and architectural merits of Mt. Moriah and its particular relevance to the black community. There was also evidence submitted indicating alternative methods for the construction of the proposed parking facility without demolishing Mt. Moriah. The County, however, offered no evidence concerning the historical or architectural merit of Mt. Moriah or its relevance to the black community. Mr. Strott testified in regard to the proposed use of the site on which Mt. Moriah is located for a parking structure and possible expansion of the courthouse and related facilities now in the courthouse. Since the County's testimony clearly indicated that it had developed only preliminary plans, it was impossible to state whether the site occupied by Mt. Moriah would be used for parking facilities, an addition to the courthouse, or a combination of both. It was stated that if the Commission were to grant the demolition application, the County would use the site in question for a temporary parking area until such time as the County could devise final plans for the utilization of the space. Mr. Strott testified that Mt. Moriah was, in his opinion, an obstacle to the construction of the courthouse complex; that it would be expensive to move Mt. Moriah; and, that Mt. Moriah was not an appropriate structure for use in the courthouse complex.

During the June 20 hearing, Mr. Strott frequently referred to an 'Avtech Report,' which, he said, discussed the needs of the County for expanded courthouse facilities. At that time, Mrs. John Symonds, the chairwoman of the Commission, asked Mr. Strott if he would make the Avtech Report available to the Commission, whereupon counsel for the various parties indicated that if that report were introduced into evidence-Mr. Strott not having the report with him at the hearing-they desired an opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Strott on the contents of the report.

Mrs. Symonds testified that, during a break in the hearing, she asked Mr. Strott if he would extend the hearing to a later date for the purpose of discussing and reviewing the contents of the full Avtech Report and Mr. Strott agreed to this. At the conclusion of the June 20 hearing, a motion was made and passed to continue the hearing to a later date. Mr. Strott, after the conclusion of the June 20 hearing, did furnish the Commission with a full copy of the Avtech Report. Mrs. Symonds, prior to advertising the resumed hearing date, telephoned Mr. Strott and they arrived at a mutually agreeable date for the resumption of the June 20 hearing, namely, July 25, 1973.

At the resumed hearing on July 25, Mr. Strott again represented the County, together with Randolph Rozencrantz, Central Services Officer for the County, both of whom testified on behalf of the County. The County again asked for permission to demolish Mt. Moriah.

The Commission, on August 7, 1973, issued its unanimous, written decision denying the County's application to demolish Mt. Moriah, as follows:

'Pursuant to a public hearing held before the Historic District Commission of the City of Annapolis on June 20, 1973, on the application of Anne Arundel County, Maryland, for a permit to demolish Mt. Moriah Church a 82-84 Franklin Street, Annapolis, said public hearing being continued at a further public hearing on July 25, 1973, by the agreement of the applicant and the Commission, and after reviewing all of the exhibits testimony, and evidence on file in the case, the Commission finds as follows:

'(1) the Commission finds and deems the structure, Mt. Moriah Church to be valuable according to studies performed for the Historic District of Annapolis and for this particular building and to have significant historical and architectural value in and of itself and in relation to the surrounding area.

'(2) the Commission further finds that the demolition of the structure would be a great loss, to the City of Annapolis, to the State of Maryland and the United States of America, and therefore, must be guided by the provisions of § 22-231(f)(1) of the Historic District Ordinance.

'(3) the Commission further finds that while the record...