Ocean Hideaway Condominium Ass'n v. Boardwalk Plaza Venture

• Decision Date: 09 October 1986
• Citation: 515 A.2d 485,68 Md.App. 650
• Parties: OCEAN HIDEAWAY CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, et al. v. BOARDWALK PLAZA VENTURE. 47 Sept. Term 1986.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Page 650

68 Md.App. 650

515 A.2d 485

OCEAN HIDEAWAY CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, et al. v. BOARDWALK PLAZA VENTURE.

47 Sept. Term 1986.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

Oct. 9, 1986.

K. King Burnett (Webb, Burnett, Jackson, and Cornbrooks & Wilber, on brief), Salisbury, for appellants.

Raymond S. Smethurst, Jr. (Fletcher P. Thompson, and Adkins, Potts & Smethurst, on brief), Salisbury, for appellee.

Argued before BISHOP and BELL (ROSALYN B.), JJ., and GETTY, (JAMES S.), Associate Judge of the Court of Special Appeals (retired), specially assigned.

BISHOP, Judge.

Ocean Hideaway Condominium Association and a number of its members and unit owners appeal the decision of the Circuit Court for Worcester County. The court affirmed, on appeal, a zoning decision made by the Ocean City Board of Zoning Appeals (the Board), which would permit appellee, Boardwalk Plaza Venture, to construct a seventeen story building on land at the Ocean City Boardwalk between 17th and 18th Streets.

FACTS

Appellants' condominium building is located between 18th and 19th Streets, immediately north of the intended location of the proposed building. In contrast to the location of the high-rise structures in north Ocean City, beginning at 88th Street, the location of the proposed building would be in the southern or older part of Ocean City. This area is zoned R-3, which permits buildings with a maximum height of 45 feet.

In accordance with the introductory paragraph and Subsection C of § 105-122, entitled Special Exceptions, of the Ocean City Code, appellee applied for a Special Exception from the 45 foot height limitation, to permit the construction of a building 145 feet high. Including the actual building itself, the required parking and the setback requirement, the utilized area would cover the entire square block bordered by the Boardwalk on the east, 17th and 18th A public hearing on the application inexplicably started shortly before midnight on November 29, 1984, and concluded in the early morning hours of November 30, 1984. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board voted unanimously to grant the special exception. This action was reduced to writing in a document which contained a summary of the Board's action and its "Findings of Fact" as follows:

Streets on the south and north, respectively, and Baltimore Avenue on the west.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

Ocean City, Maryland

November 29, 1984

BZA 877

Applicant: Boardwalk Plaza Venture

The Board of Zoning Appeals, by unanimous vote, Grants your appeal as requested, under Section 105-122C, Special Height Exceptions, to permit an overall building height of one-hundred and forty-five (145) feet, instead of the maximum of forty-five (45) feet as provided under Section 105-87 Height, Area and Bulk Regulations (R-3) District. The purpose of the appeal is to permit construction of a seventeen (17) story apartment building consisting of sixteen (16) living levels and one parking level below. The site of the appeal is described as all of Block 62 of the Sinepuxent Beach Company Plat, further described as abutting the eastern boundry [sic] of Atlantic Avenue, (Boardwalk) between 17th and 18th Streets and lots 11 and 12, Block 4, Sinepuxent Beach Company Plat, further described as the northwest intersection of 18th Street and Baltimore Avenue, in the Town of Ocean City, Maryland.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Due to the location, size, layout and principal use, traffic to and from the building will not be hazardous or

unreasonably inconvenient to the neighborhood nor will it duly conflict with the normal traffic of the neighborhood.

2. The proposed building will not have an unreasonably detrimental effect upon the neighboring property or the neighboring area in general nor will it impair the value of the neighboring property.

3. The existing sanitary and storm water sewer systems are adequate to meet the demands created by the proposed building and the sanitary sewer system of the proposed building is adequate to meet the demands of the use of said building.

4. The public water system of the proposed building are [sic] adequate to meet the needs of both fire extinguishment and domestic consumption.

5. The present location of firehouses and their equipment is such that the protection afforded by said firehouses and equipment is adequate and reasonably available to the site of the proposed building.

6. Adequate police protection is available.

7. The proposed building will not cast excessive shadows upon adjacent public or private properties.

8. The proposed building will not unreasonably interfere with the circulation of air and access of light to adjacent privately owned properties.

9. The proposed use of said building and the height thereof is in harmony with the orderly development of the zoning district in which it is situated.

The applicant has established that the standards of Section 105-122 Subsection C(1) & C(2), of the Ocean City Code, Special Height Exceptions are substantially met.

Appellants raise three issues; ¹ however, because our decision on the first and second issues will be dispositive of the appeal, we will address only those issues:

I. Whether the Board made adequate findings of fact as required by Ocean City Code § 105-122C(3) and whether it conformed with the requirements of Md.Ann.Code, art. 66B, § 1.00.

II. Whether the special exception should have been denied because the uncontradicted evidence shows that the building will cast shadows on both public and private property during most of the hours and on all the dates set out in the ordinance.

I.

The Board's "Findings of Fact"

A.

Ocean City Code

Section 105-122C(3) of the Ocean City Code provides:

"... the Board of Appeals in its decision shall render a finding of fact on each of the nine (9) standards stated in Subsection C(2) above."

In addition, the introductory paragraph of Section 105-122 provides that the Board may grant a special exception if

"in its opinion, as a matter of fact, such exceptions will not substantially affect adversely the uses of the adjacent and neighboring property under the terms of this Chapter."

The Board did address the nine standards; however, it did not render a finding of fact in each of them, which is what § 105-122C(3) requires.

In Montgomery v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 256 Md. 597, 261 A.2d 447 (1970), the court considered the provision in the Prince George's County Code:

"59-104. In Prince George's County, no application for a map amendment or special exception, which is contested, shall be granted or denied except upon written findings of basic facts and written conclusion."

The Board of County Commissioners granted a requested rezoning based upon a Summary of Reasons from the Technical Staff who, in turn recommended the rezoning that had been approved by the Planning Board. The Court remanded the case because there "were no findings of fact or conclusion" upon which determination of mistake in the original zoning or changes in the neighborhood could be based. The Court made it clear that the statute required written findings of fact which, if not contained in the record, could not be supplied by either the circuit court or any appellate court. Id. 603-04, 261 A.2d 447.

Even in the absence of a statutory requirement for written findings of fact, where findings of fact are not in the record, the Court has remanded for the purpose of making such findings. In Baker v. Board of Trustees, 269 Md. 740, 309 A.2d 768 (1973), where there was no such statutory requirement and where the record not only disclosed no findings of fact but also an outright refusal on the part of the agency to make such findings when requested, the Court said:

"As long ago as Adams v. Board of Trustees, 215 Md. 188, 195, 137 A.2d 151, 155 (1957), we reversed, as not supported by the evidence, an action taken by the Board without a finding of fact, or an assignment of reasons for the result reached. Only the circumstances that the record before us makes it clear that the Board could have reasonably reached the result which it did, Heaps v. Cobb, supra, 185 Md. at 380, 45 A.2d at 76 [1945], saves this case from a similar fate. To be certain that the teaching of Adams is not again overlooked, we propose This is no more than a recognition of the fundamental right of a party to be apprised of the facts relied upon by the agency, Blue Bird Cab Co. v. Department of Employment Security, 251 Md. 458, 466, 248 A.2d 331, 335 (1968) and, even in the absence of a statutory provision, is frequently required by a court as an aid to judicial review, 2 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, § 16.05 at 444-49 (1958); 2 Am.Jur.2d Administrative Law § 447 at 256 (1962), and cases cited. See also Code (1957, 1971 Repl.Vol.) Art. 41, § 254 which imposes this requirement on those agencies of the State which are subject to our Administrative Procedure Act.

to remand, for appropriate findings of fact, any case which hereafter reaches us in the posture of this one.

The Zoning Board of Howard County denied a reclassification in Pistorio v. Zoning Board, 268 Md. 558, 302 A.2d 614 (1973), and made the following findings of "facts":

"1. The Petitioner's request is not in accordance with the General Plan of Howard County adopted on July 20, 1960.

"2. Petitioner's property is bounded on the eastern boundary by an R-A-1 District.

"3. Public water is presently available.

"4. Public sewer is not available and will not be available until fiscal year 1973-74 provided the current schedule is maintained.

"5. The subject property is bounded on the east by a stream valley which is shown on the General Plan as part of a stream valley park.

"6. The rezoning request if granted will have an adverse effect on vicinal properties to the east.

"7. That while a problem exists with proper utilization of the 200 foot strip abutting the subject property and U.S. Route 1 in its present classification, it appears that it would be...