*1 v. PIERPONT WELLS Term, 184, September 1968.] [No. May
Decided 1969. *2 Hammond, Mar J.,C. before argued The was cause Singley, Finan McWilliams, bury, Barnes, JJ. appellant. Singer Marvin I. appellee. Harrison for
LeeW. Barnes, the Court. opinion delivered McWilliams, J., 561 at Barnes, J., page by Dissenting opinion dissents. J., infra. corner the northwest bought appellee (Pierpont) In 1918 Baltimore Avenue and Clarke Mill Road of Windsor Woodlawn, mile west is about a suburb of County then the since of Baltimore boundary City. western Ever prop- acre lot (the this two and one-third on room frame house age reached the having In his home. has been erty) property entrepreneur. he sold it to a Since supermarket zone, a condition Two-Family) Onе R-6 (Residence, in an that Pierpont of the sale was consummation precedent from to reclassification the property effect the would Zoning In 1965 the Commissioner de- (Business-Local). June (Board), Board of County Appeals The petition. nied his Zoning granted Commissioner and reversed September In the trial May judge, J., the reclassification. Maguire, affirmed the action of the Board.
The in the R-6 placed classification adop- (the tion of the Comprehensive Zoning of November Map which, conceded, map) insists, it is contains no error. Pierpont the Board evidence of a substan-
however, before that there was neighborhood, subsequent in the character tial issue de- fairly sufficient to make that map, him. Maguire Judge agreed Board and Both the batable. of the narrow ques- to a consideration not. As'we proceed W'e'do facts mindful the relevant tion- one must be presented, thus and circumstances. we with which' are con- Mill Road section of Windsor the Baltimore line city northwesterly
cerned runs from the each one lane of traffic in only It is an road with Beltway. old and then goes direction. downhill It runs toward feet,to continuing a.ridge, the crest of uphill for. -1000 perhaps the Beltway. mile to there less than a from for something and, renamed Woodlawn In was widened 1964 Clarke Avenue Judge right angles. Mill Road at Drive. It intersects Windsor major time a it at the his said “is Maguire, opinion, present *3 in highway County.” Baltimore quad- the lies in the northwest As earlier mentioned property the contains The rant of the intersection. northeast quadrant The Volun- of the playground Woodlawn Elementary School. the south- building firehouse) occupies teer Fire Company’s (the a the first of includes The remaining quadrant east quadrant. the the Abutting property detached houses. well-kept row of Amusement Cemetery. Oak Gwynn north is the Woodlawn mile about one-half the Drive Park is same side of Woodlawn on Drive, Woodlawn On both sides of property. northeast Road, one abutting Mill the firehouse on south of Windsor other, Manor thе Clarke lots on side and residential on Abutting are located. Apartments (220 units) Hill consist- known as development Maple northwest is the 20 The classification predominant of about houses. ing northwest, Indeed, there are no com- south is R-6. west and Drive Woodlawn uses Windsor Mill Road between mercial uses, one of Beltway non-conforming three except and the switching but dial containing unattended building nothing a a the other two are gear telephone company; belonging so to small A half mile or service station and a food market. have there are several parcels northwest (Residence-Apartments). been reclassified from to R-A
557 Road, one Mill Windsor along direction easterly in an Moving School, encounters, Elementary the Woodlawn after passing by classified district which was Woodlawn business large is the southwest About a mile to the map. Center, recognized” “affirmed Boulevard Security Shopping along Liberty will be found areas map. Other shopping mile or more Mill Road a Road which runs to Windsor parallel farther north. strong presump
It there is a firmly is now established that of comprehensive original zoning tion of the correctness of therefrom there rezoning, change and that to sustain a piecemeal in zon original must be evidence of mistake produced strong of substantial or or else evidence comрrehensive rezoning ing Minor v. change neighborhood. the character of the Shif cited; Ran 158 therein flett, 252 Md. and the cases (1969), Hills, Md. 78 Woodlawn dolph Whitley, (1968); Inc. v. 249 And, of Board, Area Ass’n v. Md. 187 (1966). Citizens course, the reclassi seeking burden of one proof facing Lucas, fication is Inc. 247 Md. quite Agneslane, onerous. v. and the cases therein cited. (1967), his before the Board To contention that the evidence support respect neigh- substantial the character of change borhood made the issue debatable relies fairly Pierpont prin- cipally of Frederick P. Klaus whom we de- upon testimony scribed, Hospital, as “a Bosley (1967), real estate well-qualified widening Mr. Klaus cited the expert.” of Woodlawn (Clarke Drive in 1964 as the most Avenue) sig- nificant evidence of in the character neighborhood. result, said, he was the the center of movement of Wood- lawn from east of Oak Avenue to the intersection of Gwynn *4 Windsor Mill Road and if Woodlawn Drive. his state- Even correct, is, ment is and quite it it has no likely validity Gavrelis, context instant case. The testimony George E. Baltimore Director of County’s an Planning, from which excerpt follows, is uncontradicted: Gavrelis, Mr. at the
“Q. time the land use was map was Woodlawn adopted, Drive then known as Clarke Boulevard located as it presently exists on [Avenue] Drive, called then Woodlawn A. map? land use fact, on shown [Avenue], Boulevard
Clarke loca- I believe Plan. Master Area Western corre- precise constructed, in almost tion, finally — obviously map on shown with the route lation feet, a matter of within changes have been could there occurred, route predicted, from the construction when construc- route predicted essentially but but same, only were about that occurred tion change. [Emphasis minor added.] located Manor Apartments the Clarke Were “Q. A. The it adopted finally? when was the land use map fact, apart- secured their Manor Apartments, Clarke the map.” means of by ment zoning here, us as it concerns neighborhood,” The “character of the con The map in November 1962. map was established today as it exists Drive almost precisely Woodlawn templated Apart Manor the erection of Clarke just contemplated as it main which has been integrity, It also the contemplated ments. west tained, Mill Road along classification Windsor of the R-6 warp Drive is Woodlawn Drive. Woodlawn Since idle to argue “character” it seems neighborhood’s woof of the De v. College it thereby. has been Goucher changed Cf. Wolfe, ; Hospital, supra. Bosley Md. 638 (1968) “three west of Mr. Klaus next cited a acre tract blocks” on the same side of Windsor property (beyond ridge), Road, Mill R-A in which was reclassified from R-6 tо June At “unde 1964. the time of the it was still hearing, May acres, He cited veloped.” contiguous also a of 26 parcel Road, north of Windsor Mill “five blocks” from the property, which was reclassified R-A in At from R-6 to November 1965. the time of the hearing construction had on that begun parcel. We fail to see these how two can affect the “char rezonings acter” the neighborhood. ordained the construction map of apartments within a stone’s throw of the (Clarke Manor) property. apartments More mile quarter away, half boot, sight out of other than to increase the would population, and, seem to be inconsequential as we said in Comm’rs v. County
559
“a merе
Inc.,
(1963),
Club,
Md.
572
230
Beach
Fairwinds
in the character
change
does not prove
in population
increase
Board
zoning.”
of
type
another
justify
to
neighborhood
of the
Cf.
Kines,
A mile or half Drive, end near the tract, side of Woodlawn on the same acre Amusement the Oak Gwynn occupied by has been of which was, of park The amusement years. Park for a number of of the course, the time of the adoption use at a non-conforming were clas acre tract the entire 63 at which time sections of map, tract R-10, the entire In 1964 sified R-6 and September B-L. at Roadside); to B-R (Business, was reclassified (63 acres) the amuse for was granted the same time a speciаl exception sig as rezoning this look urged upon use. We are to park ment neighbor the in the of nificant evidence of a character change The reclassifi this is so. hood but we are not that persuaded B-R, think, cation is more an intensification B-L to we case the adoption classification than a in use. In any use. of the tract to commercial good part committed map Furthermore, excep fact granting special very tion some a non-conform for the amusement park, years use, that authorities ing zoning a determination presumes health, use would not be “detrimental requested involved,” Baltimore or safety, locality welfarе general a, or, in Wahler Zoning Regulations, 502.1 as County expressed Council, that Montgomery County (1968), the use with the residential specially “compatible excepted to hold character of we are reluctant neighborhood.” While that extends as far as the amusement neighborhood actually far, that, go it even if it does park, say seems fair to R-6, amusement were facets R-10 and park In our of the character of the in November 1962. B-R, reclassification, judgment the September circumstances, on the had no discernible effect character Indeed, seems neighborhood. the B-R to this day classification not have been exploited. were Beltwаy other rezonings
Several west side sig- discussed think have any but we are too remote to they nificance in the case at bar. sought to confine the map testified
Mr. Gavrelis area on Windsor Mill to the shopping potentials” “commercial *6 Drive, the Boulevard Security Shop- east of Woodlawn Road existing activity” along “commercial Center Lib- ping future, that, for the they also foreseeable Road. He testified erty freety himself conceded that Pierpont entirely adequate. were area; in the Woodlawn shop “there are to plenty places” * * * and room zoned commercially of them “plenty [in Mr. Klaus “there Although for more” he added. аdmitted area] changes have commercial since of map” been no he he felt that “the commercial had aspect development” said not with the classifications that have occurred for other “kept up However, uses.” his answer to a on cross-examination question re- casts some doubt on the of his depth zoning expertise which, sure, veals a rather curious to be is at odds philosophy with by the law of as it has been this Court. zoning developed asked, you say He was “Where would Wind- [along sor Mill to He “Where the eco- ought stop?” replied, Road] nomics dictate it should Mr. Gavrelis out also stop.” pointed that the in the facilities in the оld existing investment Woodlawn area not to be further diluted” a shopping “ought by supermarket on the for which need. Pierpont property there no firehouse, small, “a
Much is made of the fact that old that, down and building” pursuant in November was torn to modern larger, the issuance of a structure special exception, was erected its Our attention is directed the new place. kitchen facilities which can accommodate 140 at “crab people feasts, oyster roasts and other social functions.” There is also a ask, however, might siren. One well what a volunteer fire com- would be crab feasts and a siren ? pany Pierpont thought without the new firehоuse was “a nice He contributed building.” fire has “never made company,'he any objection” to its activi- ties but there have been times when he wished “that siren was in Towson instead of Woodlawn.” Without doubt there has been more on at the than going new firehouse the old one accommodate but it ever able to has not been plain made to us the character of that has neighborhood been disturbed there- by. In case we any perhaps should the zoning assume authori- ties satisfied themselves before issuing special exception the character of compatible use would be the permitted Council, supra. County Montgomery Wahler neighborhood. Bеrnard Willemain Jr., B. Guy, W. Appellant produced that the the opinion was of Mr. Willemain as witnesses. expert changed. Mr. not be should R-6 classification of to jus- of change evidence enough there had been thought Guy R-A, statement from a reclassification of tify but much comfort seems to derive which counsel for Pierpont We doubt as we are concerned. as far which fails of persuasion testimony analysis can be an anything gained nothing for we see either Mr. or Mr. Willemain Guy the issue of sub- have made record before the Board which could de- fairly stantial in the character his “oner- short, to sustain batable. In since has failed Pierpont trial judge of the learned оus” burden of the order proof, must be September the order of the Board of 6 affirming *7 reversed.
Order reversed. the costs. Appellee pay to : J., dissenting Barnes, evidence because, sufficient there veas
I in my opinion, dissent its finding debatable” “fairly Board make before the to neighbor- in conditions there had been sufficient from subject justify rezoning hood to (Business- zone to (Residence, Two-Family) One zone. Local) sup the Board to before
If “substantial evidence” there ivas and we debatable” decision, “fairly port its then issue the decision affirming order should affirm the Court’s Circuit Court, recently stated for the Singley, As Board. Judge 277-78, 273, Council, 251 Md. Montgomery County Kirk man v. from 255, with approval (1968), quoting 247 A. 2d 258 the trial court: opinion of
“ has further test been evidence” ‘The “substantial cases, Board including refined in later defined and Farms, 274, ], (1963) A.2d 761 Hill 232 Md. Oak [192 Baltimore, 224 v. City [168 Snowden held evidence” is to “Substantial (1961) A. 2d 390 ]. evidence “as a rea and such scintilla” than a be “more to adequate support as might accept mind sonable if the trial were to justify, “enough conclusion” Board a verdict.” v. Oak direct a refusal to a jury, Snowden, Farms, In Court supra, Hill supra. said, alia, the fact finding process “The heart of inter inferences from the facts. The drawing often is the is committed one whom agency administrative inferences are to reasonably of whatever drawing from the factual evidence. ‘The may be drawn Court on not substitute its whether judgment question one or whether a dif right the inference drawn is better The test is supported. ferent inference would be reasonableness, Davis, rightness.’ not [Administrative ’ ” 29.05, Treatise 139.” (1958) ], p. Sec. Law Kirkmam, land, one, In we held that three reclassifications of feet, two, and the other approximately approximately feet, case, from the under consideration made to the subsequent ordi comprehensive nance constituted substantial evidence sufficient to support rezoning. case,
In the instant the record indicates that there are exist ing apartments behind the immediately properties across Wind sor Mill Road from subjeсt two property. Some blocks west Road, subject Mill property on Windsor 22.47 acres of land were rezoned on (subsequent adop June tion of the comprehensive zoning map November 1962) from the R-6 zone to an R-A zone which allowed the construc *8 tion of 360 units apartment on land. To the north tract, it, 22.47 acre and a contiguous to 26.6 acre tract was re 1965, zoned from R-A 23, R-6 to on November allowing units, construction of approximately apartment which were under construction at the time of the hearing before Board. is The 26.6 acre tract some three blocks from the subject prop erty. Son, The land of Walter Crismer & Inc. on the west J. Avenue, acres, .sidе of Swynndale consisting of 18.5 was rezoned 20, 1964, from to R-A on January and allows erection feet approximately tract This units. apartment of 296 flies.” the crow “as subject property from in part used land 1964, acres 10, 63.75 September On same side and on Park Amusement Oak Gwynn one-half about and subject as the Drive Woodland from rezoned subject property mile northwest of zone, a spe- with B-R zones R-10, the R-6 and B-L rezoning, this Prior to park. amusement for an exception cial use; re- after non-conforming a use was park amusement acre the entire 63.75 use conforming it became B- for the uses permitted development tract available for those per- include usеs commercial R These permitted zone. stores, es- dry cleaning types in a zone (various mitted tablishments, more than persons, not employing hand laundry ; studio, those buildings) per- and office offices photographic rooms, billiard and in sales mitted the B-M zone (automobile rooms, dance including enterprises, commercial recreational pool store, halls, clubs, second-hand night shops, service garage, pawn ; theatre, storage) drive-in and warehouse—-sales including also, others, drink establish- among bottling but uses for a soft ment, and, court, if 50 laboratory motel or motor greenhouse, of the com- feet from the residential zone boundaries at the ends sales zoned mercially frontage, building storage materials kennel, tire yard, lumber stone or monument work yard, retreading or recapping. mentioned,
In addition to the all made zoning reclassifications subsequent zoning map, comprehensive there have been drastic in changes, fact, road conditions the neighborhood of the subject When property. compre- 1962, hensive 15, zoning map was on Pier- adopted November Lane, pont which was used as an entrance to the subject prop- erty and to a portion of Mr. Mr. Pierpont’s sold Pierpont awas narrow into private road. Introduced evidence was October, taken in photograph 1962 (аpproxi- mately one month before the comprehensive zoning map adopted November 1962) which indicated this clearly narrow road country shaded on both sides by trees which many places met overhead to form an arch. In land was from Mr. acquired Pierpont to convert this road country into *9 lane, the present four .48-foot paved public highway on a 70 foot known right-of-way now as Drive. Woodlawn The proposed highway was indicated on the comprehensive zoning-map, ap- proved November 1962 as Clarke Avenue. Part of the Pier- pont land was acquired also the widening of Wind- Road, sor Mill is which now on a 55 39 feet wide foot right-of- way.
Mr. Klaus was of the that: opinion
“* * * the greatеst impact subject on the is that Woodlawn Drive has center moved the of Wood- street, lawn in a northerly direction. It wide very as has been testified and it by engineer, connects into large and complexes industry, Social Se- curity operation, by the construction of this road road, as a feeder actually cross and it has moved.the traffic from the old Woodlawn area to an area pattern where the is.” Pierpont property After out Windsor Drive was constructed pointing through the and that to that time the Pierpont property prior Pierpont had access to Windsor Mill by Road means lane, of private Klaus Mr. testified: “* * * whole of movement has рattern changed the. Drive, by the of Woodlawn construction makes course, this much more accessible for property, Woodlawn, which, than uses the heart commercial to, area, as has is an been..testified older we Reisterstown, have had Cockeysville, Towson roads, —but the construction of new feeder busi- ness toward has moved these roads because it has much better access.” Board, opinion, found: my properly roads, construction two
“Prior to the of these i.e. in at the time of the what map adoption, is now' and what Woodlawn Drive' was then Lane Pierpont be seen on may clearly Petitioner’s No. Exhibit 3-H. hard to find a It would-be better exаmple of change' Mr. in the character of roads than those surrounding Pierpont’s property.” *10 proposed that the of
The indicates because location majority appeared comprehensive zoning map, Drive on the Woodlawn 1962, 15, this re testimony Mr. Klaus’ in November adopted gard instant I do “has in the context of the case.” validity no of drawing this conclusion. The mere lines a not agree cannot, the location of a future road indicating proposed map itself, ultimate will be the way forecast in definitive what any in if, when and as the the upon neighborhood of that road effect constructed, and the actually are road acquired, rights-of-way existing conditions undеr the general used the public then by and the impact neighborhood upon The the upon the future. in owner, occurs neighborhood in when that individual the road construction are actually acquired, rights-of-way the the It by the road is then used public. and actually place fakes or not there it whether then that can be determined is only as a neighborhood the a in the character of change has been There be no might the road. construction and use of result of the the facts upon change, depending there be a change may such or a rezoning ap it considers presented the Board at the time to of neighbor a “change in the charaсter opinion, In plication. my fact, road not a theory. presence proposed is a hood" the Board by be considered in is a factor to zoning map the of presented All the facts at it is no conclusive. but means issue, be may and considered relevant to hearing are con in its decision. This reaching the Board weighed by and Halle, Finney in 241 in our decision clusion was implicit 224, in held that A.2d 530 which we (1966), Md. 216 in conditions indicating change a factor important first and most Baltimore construction in involved in and its effect County Beltway upon zoning map, Finney, comprehensive case. Although that 1959, 15, Beltway, did show the April proposed not approved ap time knew аt the County the Baltimore authorities Belt proval map, the proposed location of general Forge v. Rodgers An case Jobar stronger even way. Corp. Ass’n, 106, In (1964). A. 2d 612 Community 202 236 566
Jobar, comprehensive zoning on the appeared Stevenson Lane but at time it had not been map, approved April not would ever be settled whether or that road extended and Avenue. At the time ap- connect York Road Bellona 12 proval was a small map, Stevenson Lane was, road, drive. It private foot and extended part, and so that hear- widened at the time of the Board, it ing fully before the was a to 44 bitumi- paved 42 foot nous concrete with a to 80 it roаd foot allowed right-of-way; 14 feet for traffic major traffic in each direction became Ave- artery between York Road and Charles Bellona Street nue. The experts before the Board produced by applicant in Jobar testified this in the character of Steven- son than land “perhaps any more other use con- Lane sideration” would affect the character of the neigh- immediate *11 borhood of the involved in that case. We sustained the and, rezoning in Jobar in in my opinion, decision that case require should us to sustain the in the rezoning present case in view of the close between the similarity situation in to regard in change the chаracter the roads of in the respective cases.
The discounts majority the effect of the rezoning subsequent 1962, 15, to November of substantial areas of land in the neigh from borhood R-6 to R-A and construction of apartments land, part rezoned R-A a dictum quoting of the Court in County Comm'rs Anne Arundel County v. Fairwinds of Club, Inc., 569, 572, Beach 845, 230 Md. 187 A. 2d 846 (1963), that “a mere in increase does population prove not a in change the character of the neighborhood to justify another type clear, however, It is zoning.” that an increase of population may under certain and with facts proper findings Board be an factor in important a sufficient indicating change in the neigh borhood to a justify a rezoning of commercial area to care for needs Indeed, increased population. this is indicated in opinion Court in Fairminds immediately following mentioned, the quotation Judge where (later Chief Hen Judge) stated, derson for the Court:
“It was argued also that because of the increase in a population need for additional shopping facilities was testimony precise there But demonstrated. more than were neighborhood facilities
shopping need was to public as testimony adequate, figures population from general conclusions upon based The protestants in evidence. not even put that were shop- in force, increase argued, with some defined in the area service stations facilities and ping made The Board in population. increase exceeded find- only general a but on this point of fact finding no 572, Md. at (230 changed’.” have ‘conditions ing that 2d 846) 187 A. at had been forth necessary if proof indication is that clear made, Board had been finding by if the necessary
coming indi later decisions different. Our been the result would have neigh in a density in population cate that a substantial sufficient indicating in factor an important borhood can be rezoning a Board in justify prop to in conditions” “change of the then the needs tO' satisfy for commercial erty purposes Hospital Con Bosley As we stated existing population. 746, : sumptives, A. 2d (1967) “Moreover, No rezoning changes subsequent discussed, were important vember previously changes in the law and resulted in substantial changes though even all the character of the were more intensive residen rezoning changes from R-6 or density tial use an increase units housing to R-A. The substantial development could reason growth population the concurrent *12 zoning lead to need for additional commercial ably the the wants of the increased popula area to supply least, men tion. At reasonable could conclude—as the Board in conditions in changes concluded—thаt these the of subject area could the justify rezoning prop the B-L zone. erty to The Courts not substitute may their for that when the judgment of the Board Board’s decision is substantial supported evidence issue before fairly the Board was Vogel debatable. v. McCosh, 371, 242 Md. 2dA. 89 Fin (1966). 219 See 568 224, ; Halle,
ney v.
Md.
A. 2d 530 (1966)
241
216
Appeals
Oursler v. Board
Baltimore
Zoning
of
of
397,
County, 204
Another zoning chаnge subsequent 15, 1962, comprehensive the re- zoning map on November was classification acre tract on the same side 63 of Woodlawn Drive, the Gwynn near end of which has occupied by been Oak Amusement years. Park for a number of has already As indicated; 1962, 15, been this amusement park on November R-10, non-conforming and the entire tract use had R-6 and 1964, 10, classifications. On this entire September tract was rezoned B-R and at same (Business-Roadside) time, special exception granted amusement use. park use, The conversion of this non-conforming commercial to a use conforming was a which significant change had direct bear- ing on the “charactеr of neighborhood.” The prevailing uses, zoning theory is that non-conforming are incom- with patible general character will ulti- neighborhood, “wither vine” mately on the so disappear ultimately in the future the area will entire be in conformity gen- erally established use the neighborhood. Shifflett, Minor v. 158, 167, 159, 252 Md. A. 2d Collins, v. (1969); 249 165 S tieff 604, 601, 489, ; 237 Md. A. 2d (1965) 491 Board Schiff 368, Appeals, Zoning 207 Md. 114 A. 2d ; Jirout, 652, 657, Colati v. (1955) 47 A. 2d (1946). of the R-10 Obviously rezoning portions and R-6 63 acre tract to the B-R is a recognition by zone Board commercial development interest public granting special exception for the continuation of the theretofore amusement non-conforming it a park (thereby making use) commercial is en- conforming *13 not, my in opiniоn, and is concept that consistent with tirely tois remain neighborhood that concept with the compatible commercial The permitted R-6 zone. as an be developed forth, in part, set already been have B-R zone which uses the neighbor- development with the hardly compatible are houses. for single family as a zone hood the 63 acre tract doubt, that in my opinion, little seems There it majority states although “neighborhood,” is within aptly Hammond Judge As Chief that it is. “reluctant” to hold DeWolfe, College v. Court, stated, in Goucher for the 379, : 2d 383 (1968) A. in a of a neighborhood of the reaches “The matter its be to affect must change how near a given case and the Board to determine.” for primarily character are case, changes determined In the Board present the neighborhood within the reaches of mentioned were above clear to me that Board and affected its character. It is least, were At the determinations correct these determinations. “fairly debatable.” 63 acre
The considered that tract Board properly within the and our decisions indicate that “neighborhood” prior it Montgomery County was correct in Kirkman v. doing. so See Council, supra.
The building substantial addition to the firehouse subsequent of the new zoning map its comprehensive larger kitchen facilities and an facilities social functions is additional in reaching factor the Board could consider properly its conclusion that there had been a change character of “small, neighborhood Instead of old question. building” there is a modern structure can be larger and is now feasts, used for oyster “crab roasts and social other functions.” features of the Many objectionable use of con- newly structed facilities at did not firehouse exist when the com- prehensive zoning map was adopted November 1962. resulting increased noise and traffic from these new activi- fact, indeed, ties do “character neighbor- commercial, give hood” and rather than a residеntial, character. of William B. testimony at the look a closer
In my opinion, *14 should be for protestants, testified an who Jr., expert 'Guy, taken. a real es- qualified who is well Mr. Guy, the first place,
In neighborhood Klaus that the (but Mr. agreed with tate expert, “mixed character.” He stated: had a particular block) not the in had, neigh- number changes been a of admittedly, “There in essence, that the changes In it was his opinion borhood.” classification, the exist- rezoning a from justified neighborhood R-6, rezoning that the should be opinion but he was of the ing R-A in his testimony: instead of He stated B-L. argument
“I think it would be hard to make an very R-A, in against the of this to rezoning apartments, view the fact were about a сonstructed apartments half and there change, a block and there was a away, have been other changes.
“Q. (Mr. Parker member of the On a Board]) [a size, acres, tract this 2.32 for A. I think apartments? it could be I feel that developed apartments. wouldn’t it was bad here. zoning put apartments member
“Q. (Mr. Baldwin of the Do Board]) [a feel you that R-6 is incorrect? A. present zoning I think it don’t was incorrect when the map pro duced, but the that liave been in the changes made might now, neighborhood make it incorrect yes. There been have some I changes. think the street is a itself apartments, also, change, admittedly, and the which have been cited previously.” (Emphasis supplied) cross-examination, On he stated:
“Q. felt it was (Mr. Harrison) You enough change incorrect, to make the present zoning and the only is whether it question should be zoned or should R-A, Yes, be zoned is that correct? A. sir.” Secondly, Mr. stated Guy that his there was in- opinion Woodlawn, sufficient parking at the center of stating: '“I think it is self-evident the in the center of parking Woodlawn is not sufficient by modern standards.” October the photographs comparison a Finally, at subject property rural, character bucolic showing the comprehensive time at about or Pierpont Lane same loca- showing photographs adopted, map clearly to indicate fail, my opinion, can hardly tion today urban, character high-speed that the conclusively present the character change a substantial neighborhood represents subject rezoning prop- neighborhood, justifying B-L zone. erty from the opinion well-considered The Board filed comprehensive of a substan- sufficient that there had been evidence indicating tial application B-L rezoning should This decision was affirmed granted. be the Circuit Court also and well- comprehensive filed opinion, holding considered our cases and reviewing prior *15 the question was at least “fairly my debatable.” It properly, opinion, affirmed the decision of the Board. I affirm. would
PUBLIC SERVICE OF COMMISSION MARYLAND TRANSPORTATION, INC.,
v. HAHN al. et 188, September Term, [No. 1968.] May
Decided 1969.