delivered the opinion of the Court.
The appellant, Sampson Brothers (Md.), Inc. (owner) as owner of 37 acres of land situated on the northerly side of St. Barnabas Road adjaсent to Eastover Knolls and Birchwood City, Oxen Hill, Prince George’s County, Maryland, filed petitions on June 7, 1963 with the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission (Planning Commission) requesting a zoning reclassification from an R-R (rural residential) zone to R-18 (multiple-family, low density residential) zone of two parcels as follows:
Petition A-5031 — 14.7098 acres more or less.
Petition A-5032 — 22.32 acres more or less.
Between the two parcels is a substantial area which was already zoned R-18. The parcel involved in Petition A-S031 is bounded on the north by lots subdivided for individual homes *118 in "an R-55 (single family residential) zone, on the south by St. Barnabas Road and a Hebrew Cemetery, on the east by a proposed school site and on the west by the tract already zoned R-18.
The parcel involved in Petition A-5032 is bounded on the north by Mystic Drive (as prоposed), on the south by St. Barnabas Road, on the east by the tract already zoned R-18 and on the west by new individual homes under construction and a 15 acre site for a proposed school.
In the Master Plan of the Henson Creek Watershed adopted May 15, 1963 (less than one month bеfore the petitions were filed by the owner), the two parcels were placed in an R-55 zone.
The Technical Staff of the Planning Commission filed their reports on both petitions on October 2, 1963. In both reports denial of the applications was recommended. It was pointеd out in the reports that in the Master Plan for the Henson Creek Watershed R-80 zones were proposed for the two parcels, there was no evidence to indicate an error in the original zoning, and there had been insufficient change in the character of the areа since the plan was adopted on May 15, 1963 to justify favorable consideration of the requested reclassification. The Technical Staff set out various reasons for its conclusions.
The Planning Board,- however, on October 2, 1963 recommended approval on Petition A-5031 оn the ground that there had, in its opinion, been sufficient change in the character of the area to justify reclassification and the requested rezoning would be a reasonable extension of the existing R-18 zoning. In regard to -Petition A-5032, the Planning Board at first disapproved the appliсation on October 2, 1963, but on November 20, the Board rescinded this action and approved it for 14.65 acres. Later, on January 8, 1964, the Planning Boаrd rescinded this action and approved it for 13.79 acres and still later on February 5, 1964, rescinded its previous, action and approved thе application, provided certain rights-of-way for public roads be withheld. The final conclusion of the Planning Board, therefore, was favorable upon Petition Á-5032 as well as upon Petitio'n A-503'1.
' At the hearing on the two petitions held before the Board *119 of County Commissioners for Prince George’s County, sitting as the District Council (District Council), expert tеstimony was produced and documentary evidence was offered by the applicants indicating various reasons why the residential reclassification should be granted. The Birchwood City Community Association opposed the reclassification and its spokesman at the hearing asked those present who were opposed to stand. They did this. The Chairman had counsel for the District Council explain to those prеsent that the District Council did not decide zoning cases in accordance with a plebiscite.
On April 28, 1964, the District Council disapproved the аpplications, giving its reasons for the disapproval. On appeal to the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Judge Powers, on October 23, 1964, rendered an oral opinion in which he stated:
“The Court concludes it is not necessary to go beyond the Technical Staff Reports, which are in the case as part of the record, to find that the question of substantial change is fairly debatable, and thus the conclusions reаched by the District Council in denying the applications were within the proper area of their discretion and not arbitrary, capriciоus or illegal.
“So that in this case, with respect to both applications, the reasons that the Technical Staff Reports indicate — whiсh certainly should be given serious consideration and are to be evaluated as having substance • — that the changes in the charactеr of the neighborhood are not such as to warrant a change in zoning classification, notwithstanding the favorable action by the Planning Board thereafter, the Court feels that that question is clearly within the area of debatability and, therefore, clearly within the discretion of the District Council making a determination and that this discretion was not abused in concluding there had not been sufficient change.”
We agree with the lowеr court’s conclusion. The test is whether the action of the District Council in disapproving the applications and in
declining to reclassify
as requested in the
*120
petitions was arbitrary, unreasonable and capricious.
Muhly v. County Council for Montgomery
County,
This case is to be distinguished from
Board of County Commissioners of Prince George’s County v. Oak Hill Farms,
The trial court did not pass upon the constitutionality of the provision in Section 79 of the Act of 1950, now Subsеction 59-85 (i) of the County Code giving the Circuit Court the power to reverse if it finds the decision of the District Council to be “against the weight of competеnt, material and substantial evidence in view of the entire record, as submitted by the agency” (emphasis supplied) and did not pass upon the question of the weight of the evidence before the District Council. We do not deem it necessary to pass upon this issue. 1 See Maryland Rule 885.
*121
As we have indicatеd there was substantial evidence to justify the District Council’s disapproval of the requested reclassifications. The evidence does not indicate that its decision was based upon a plebiscite of opposing neighboring property owners. Cf.
Benner v. Tribbitt,
Order affirmed, the appellant to pay the costs.
Notes
. We have heretoforе declined to pass upon the constitutional issue in Bishop v. Board of County Commissioners of Prince George’s County,