Red Roof Inns, Inc. v. People's Counsel for Baltimore County

• Decision Date: 01 September 1992
• Docket Number: No. 1406,1406
• Citation: 624 A.2d 1281,96 Md.App. 219
• Parties: RED ROOF INNS, INC. v. PEOPLE'S COUNSEL FOR BALTIMORE COUNTY. ,
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Page 219

96 Md.App. 219

624 A.2d 1281

RED ROOF INNS, INC. v. PEOPLE'S COUNSEL FOR BALTIMORE COUNTY.

No. 1406, Sept. Term, 1992.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

May 26, 1993.

Gary C. Duvall (Daniel Nuzzi and Miles & Stockbridge, on the brief), Towson, for appellant.

Peter Max Zimmerman and Robert W. Eldridge (Phyllis Cole Friedman, on the brief), Towson, for appellee.

Argued before GARRITY, WENNER, and HARRELL, JJ.

GARRITY, Judge.

This appeal is from an order of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County (Cahill, Sr., J.), which affirmed a decision of the County Board of Appeals of Baltimore County (the Board) denying a variance to permit a larger and higher free-standing sign than that permitted in the county zoning regulations. Appellant, Red Roof Inns, Inc., had applied for the variance in connection with its business, and appellee, People's Counsel for Baltimore County, opposed it.

Facts

In connection with the operation of its motel at the intersection of Timonium Road and Greenspring Drive, appellant asked the Zoning Commissioner to grant it variances from the Baltimore County Zoning Regulations relating to the size and number of signs that it could place on its property. The Commissioner granted several of appellant's zoning variance requests, which are not at issue here, but denied appellant's request for a substantial increase, beyond ordinance maximums of the area of the sign face (25 to 216 square feet) and height (6 to 70 feet) of a stationary free-standing business sign. The Commissioner's decision was based at least in part on the Deputy Director of Planning's official comment regarding this matter, which indicated that the need for additional signage beyond that otherwise permitted by the regulations was "questionable" because the unique architectural features of the Inn already made it quite recognizable. The opinion recited the Planning Department's consistent opposition to requests for additional signage on major road systems in the area and warned that the already existing sign congestion problem would be exacerbated and that a potential traffic hazard would result. In denying appellant's Request for Variance, the Zoning Commissioner found as follows:

[T]here is insufficient evidence to allow a finding that the Petitioner would experience practical difficulty or unreasonable hardship if the requested variances were denied in part. The testimony presented by the Petitioner is in support of a matter of a preference rather than of a necessity for the variances. The Petitioner has failed to show that compliance would unreasonably prevent the use of the property or be unnecessarily burdensome.

Appellant appealed the denial to the Baltimore County Board of Appeals, which held a de novo hearing before affirming the Commissioner's decision. The Board found that appellant failed to carry its burden of establishing practical difficulty or undue hardship as would justify a variance. The Board's conclusion rested, in part, on its belief that the testimony clearly demonstrated that appellant wants the taller sign "principally for advertising purposes to attract motorists on Interstate 83 [and] to be able to compete with other motels in the area." The Board explained that its denial of the variance also was based upon its statutory duty to be consistent and to consider the rights of all those who might be affected by the granting of a variance.

Appellant then appealed to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, contending that the Board's decision denying the variance was arbitrary and capricious and in error because appellant produced substantial evidence to prove practical difficulty while the protestants offered no evidence that would render the question fairly debatable.

The court affirmed the Board of Appeals' decision, holding that sufficient facts had been presented to the Board to make its decision fairly debatable and therefore should be affirmed.

Appellant contends on appeal that:

1. The court erred in affirming the Board of Appeals' decision where the Board is alleged to have erroneously applied the legal standards for a variance request as to sign regulations.

2. The court erred in finding that the issue before the Board of Appeals was fairly debatable.

Standard of Review

The standard of judicial review as applied to decisions of administrative agencies in general, and to those of zoning boards in particular, has been stated and restated in many decisions of this Court and the Court of Appeals. Once a decision has been rendered by the zoning authority, it must be affirmed by the reviewing court if it is, in the language of the cases, "fairly debatable." Pattey v. Board of County Commissioners for Worcester County, 271 Md. 352, 360, 317 A.2d 142 (1974); Montgomery v. Board of County Commissioners for Prince George's County, 256 Md. 597, 602, 261 A.2d 447 (1970). In Eger v. Stone, 253 Md. 533, 542, 253 A.2d 372 (1969), the Court of Appeals defined the term "fairly debatable":

We have made it quite clear that if the issue before the administrative body is "fairly debatable," that is, that its determination involved testimony from which a reasonable man could come to different conclusions, the courts will not substitute their judgment for that of the administrative body, in the absence of an unconstitutional taking of private property for public use without the payment of just compensation....

See also Art Wood Enters. v. Wiseburg Community Ass'n, 88 Md.App. 723, 727, 596 A.2d 712, cert. denied, 325 Md. 397, 601 A.2d 130 (1992); Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Bruce, 46 Md.App. 704, 715, 420 A.2d 1272 (1980).

In reviewing the zoning authority's decision, the court must consider all of the evidence in the administrative record. Sedney v. Lloyd, 44 Md.App. 633, 637, 410 A.2d 616 (1980); see also Mayor of Annapolis v. Annapolis Waterfront Co., 284 Md. 383, 394-98, 396 A.2d 1080 (1979). The reviewing court's role, however, is confined to determining the legality of the procedure employed and whether the decision was fairly debatable in light of the evidence adduced before the zoning authority. Jabine v. Priola, 45 Md.App. 218, 234, n. 17, 412 A.2d 1277 (1980); Entzian v. Prince George's County, 32 Md.App. 256, 257-58, 360 A.2d 6 (1976).

The role of this Court "is essentially to repeat the task for the circuit court; that is, to be certain the circuit court did not err in its review." Art Wood v. Wiseburg, 88 Md.App. at 728, 596 A.2d 712, quoting Mortimer v. Howard Research, 83 Md.App. 432, 442, 575 A.2d 750 (1990).

Discussion of Law

1. Legal Standards for a Variance Request

A request for a variance from sign regulations may be granted by the Baltimore County Board of Appeals "where special circumstances or conditions exist that are peculiar to the land ... and where strict compliance with the zoning regulations for Baltimore County would result in practical difficulty or unreasonable hardship." B.C.Z.R. § 307.1 (1992). Courts have interpreted the "practical difficulty or unreasonable hardship" standard to be disjunctive, meaning that satisfaction of either of the conditions may warrant a variance. Loyola Loan Ass'n v. Buschman, 227 Md. 243, 250-51, 176 A.2d 355 (1961). Because a variance from sign regulations is deemed to be an "area" variance, the impact of which is viewed as being much less drastic than that of a "use" variance, a party need only show "practical difficulty," the lesser standard of proof, to be entitled to relief. McLean v. Soley, 270 Md. 208, 213-14, 310 A.2d 783 (1973); Anderson v. Board of Appeals, 22 Md.App. 28, 39, 322 A.2d 220 (1974). The criteria for determining "practical difficulty" was set forth by the Court of Appeals in Anderson v. Board of Appeals, supra, as...