Snowden v. City of Baltimore (State Report Title: Snowden v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore)

• Decision Date: 14 March 1961
• Docket Number: No. 147,147
• Citation: 168 A.2d 390,224 Md. 443
• Parties: Florence L. SNOWDEN, etc., et al. v. CITY OF BALTIMORE and Keyser Investments, Inc.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 443

224 Md. 443

168 A.2d 390

Florence L. SNOWDEN, etc., et al. v. CITY OF BALTIMORE and Keyser Investments, Inc.

No. 147.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

March 14, 1961.

Juanita Jackson Mitchell, Baltimore, for appellants.

Leonard Goodman, Baltimore for Keyser Investments, Inc., appellees.

John A. Dewicki, Asst. City Solicitor, Baltimore (Harrison L. Winter, City Solicitor, Baltimore, on the brief), for Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, appellee.

Before HENDERSON, HAMMOND, HORNEY, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.

HAMMOND, Judge.

Appellee, Keyser Investments, Inc., purchased for investment in 1949 a four-story row house at 1523 McCulloh Street, Baltimore. The house then contained eight apartments which the new owner reduced to seven. An inspection of the premises by the City's Bureau of Building Inspection early in 1959 resulted in an order that the number of apartments be reduced from seven to four, to bring about compliance with the population density requirements of the zoning ordinance.

Keyser appealed to the Board of Municipal and Zoning Appeals of Baltimore City, claiming that a non-conforming use of the building for seven families existed on March 30, 1931, when the zoning ordinance became effective, so that continued use of the seven apartments was permissible under the ordinance (Art. 40, Sec. 31, Baltimore City Code, 1950). The claims were opposed by home owners nearby and the Baltimore Urban Renewal and Housing Authority.

On conflicting testimony, the Board held that the use of the building to house seven families had been shown as of March 30, 1931.

The Baltimore City Court sustained the Board on the appeal by the protestants, and the appeal to this Court followed.

The judicial function in appeals from an administrative agency is well established and defined. The court will correct illegal actions and those which are arbitrary and unreasonable because they are not based on substantial evidence but it will not substitute its own independent examination of or its own judgment on the facts for those of the agency to which the carrying out of state policy has been delegated. Aaron v. City of Baltimore, 207 Md. 401, 406, 114 A.2d 639; Heath v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 187 Md. 296, 304, 49 A.2d 799; Wakefield v. Kraft, 202 Md. 136, 141, 96 A.2d 27; City of Baltimore v. Weinberg, 204 Md. 257, 261, 103 A.2d 567; Oppenheimer, Administrative Law in Maryland, 2 Md.L.Rev. 185, 208-210.

Judge Harlan found 'that although the evidence is conflicting as to whether or not a non-conforming use existed for this property * * * there was substantial evidence before the Board upon which they could base their findings * * *.' In the property on September 29, 1913, according to the Health Department Plumbing division records, there was 'one water closet on each of the first, second, third and fourth floors; one water basin on the first floor, two on the second, one on the third and one on the fourth; one bathtub on each of the first, second, third and fourth floors; and seven sinks as follows: one in the basement, one on the first floor, two on the second floor, two on the third floor, and one on the fourth floor.' The owners produced a disinterested witness, a Mr. Sussman, whose family had a grocery store near 1523 McCulloh Street and who daily delivered orders throughout the neighborhood in the early twenties. He recalled 'vividly' the entire area changing, and the conversion to apartment houses to the extent his father 'had to move in 1925 because of his customers moving out of the area.' He has owned real estate in the neighborhood since 1930 and said that 'any conversions were done in the twenties.' There were produced the earliest records of the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company on the subject showing that there were eight electric meters in the property in 1936, seven apartment meters and one basement and public service meter. The records showed that six meters were installed in 1936; the date of installation of the other two is shown as 'unknown.' The notation is: 'The old record is destroyed when a meter is replaced. Also some of the meters have no date of installation because of the length of time on the premises and failure to transcribe the date to each successive meter book.'

Miss Anne Harris, unable to appear because of illness wrote a letter which came in without objection, stating that her mother died in March 1930 and in the following September or October she and her sister moved into 1523 McCulloh Street and...