Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland; September 1, 1989; Maryland; State Appellate Court
On October 14, 1987, Hemby King Development Group entered into a contract to purchase land in the New Market District of Frederick County, Maryland. Following the purchase, Hemby King applied to rezone the land from Agricultural to General Commercial. Although the Planning Staff recommended denial, the Frederick County Planning Commission conditionally approved the application. A hearing was held on March 31, 1988, where the Board of County Commissioners approved the rezoning with conditions and later issued a formal opinion on April 19, 1988.
Residents Richard D. Buckel and Edward W. Rossig, Jr. appealed the Board’s decision, and the municipality of New Market sought to intervene. The Circuit Court upheld the Board's decision and denied the municipality's intervention. The appellants subsequently filed timely appeals.
The land, a seven-acre parcel near Interstate 70 and Route 75, is intended for a motel development. The statute allows for zoning changes based on substantial neighborhood changes or mistakes in zoning. The Board's approval was based on findings of substantial change in the neighborhood. However, upon reviewing the record, the appellate court found insufficient evidence to support the Board's decision, particularly given the planning staff's previous recommendation against rezoning, which highlighted ongoing residential development and the proximity of existing commercial zoning. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the issue of substantial change was not fairly debatable based on the evidence presented.
The report section titled "Change in the Neighborhood" indicates that while some changes have occurred, they are primarily west of New Market and not near the site in question. Despite preliminary approvals for various site plans and subdivisions, only one shopping center has commenced construction, leading staff to conclude that this does not justify additional commercial zoning. Staff argued that rezoning would exceed what is necessary for future residential development and public services related to I-70.
The Planning Commission recommended conditional approval, citing a "change in the character of the neighborhood" but failed to provide supporting findings. Public testimony largely revolved around the adequacy of water and sewer systems for the intended property use, with opponents arguing that no significant changes had transpired in the neighborhood. An attorney for the Town of New Market noted that while nine new commercial uses emerged since 1977, many were offset by closures or were replacements of prior commercial entities.
The Board's findings, later codified in Frederick County ordinance 88-9-486, identified a neighborhood change based on the staff report, referencing 40 new residences, a shopping center under construction, and another with site plan approval. The circuit court deemed the evidence for substantial change "fairly debatable." The Board's reliance on the shopping center under construction was scrutinized, as it had been zoned General Commercial before the 1977 comprehensive zoning. Established legal precedents indicate that anticipated changes prior to comprehensive zoning are generally irrelevant to determining substantial change for rezoning. The significance of such changes must be assessed alongside subsequent alterations, and the Board's reliance on this particular shopping center was found to be misplaced.
The increase in residential dwellings and intensification of residential zoning does not automatically justify rezoning, particularly to a commercial designation. The intended use of the property as a motel cannot be justified solely by a moderate rise in residential density in a predominantly rural area. The document references a recent rezoning to General Commercial for a small shopping center and motel. Historical rulings from the Court of Appeals indicate that judicial review of zoning decisions is limited to determining whether the evidence supporting such decisions is "fairly debatable," implying significant deference to legislative bodies if reasonable evidence is presented. Conversely, the Court has established a strong presumption in favor of original zoning and comprehensive rezoning, requiring robust evidence of either a mistake in the original zoning or substantial neighborhood changes to support piecemeal changes. Numerous cases illustrate the courts' willingness to overturn zoning decisions based on insufficient evidence of neighborhood changes, including reliance on distant changes, past knowledge of conditions, and developments not diverging from prior zoning. Specific cases cited demonstrate that increases in traffic, residential development, or infrastructure improvements alone do not constitute substantial changes warranting rezoning.
In Randolph Hills, Inc. v. Whitley, and Miller v. Abrahams, Maryland courts determined that evidence of zoning changes alone does not establish a substantial change in the character of a neighborhood if those changes are inconsequential, unrelated to the area, or in line with the original master plan. Specifically, population growth and nearby road widening were deemed insufficient to demonstrate significant neighborhood change, especially in the context of minimal building activity on newly rezoned land.
Appellate courts apply a deferential "fairly debatable" standard only when there is legally sufficient evidence showing substantial change. A local body's assumption that mere neighborhood changes justify rezoning may lead to reversal if no substantial evidence is presented. In the case concerning Hemby King's property, the record indicated no substantial neighborhood change since 1977, with the applicant failing to provide persuasive evidence.
Evidence of population increase lacked significance, and recent rezonings primarily involved agricultural to residential classifications, which do not fundamentally alter neighborhood character. The conversion of a single property to general commercial zoning is also not seen as a substantial change, especially when the area remains predominantly agricultural-residential, as testified by local residents. The courts emphasized that mere "paper changes" in zoning do not equate to actual character changes.
Consequently, the court reversed the Circuit Court's approval of the rezoning application, ruling that the Board erred in its decision. The parties involved were ordered to share the costs of the appeal, and the property in question was clarified to be located east of Route 75, consisting of seven acres out of a total of approximately 21 acres. The issue of the trial court's denial of a motion to intervene was not addressed due to the ruling on the rezoning.
In Cardon Investments v. Town of New Market, the Court of Appeals of Maryland determined that the 1977 rezoning by the Board represented a comprehensive change, establishing a benchmark for assessing any "substantial change" for future rezoning applications. This finding conflicts with a later report indicating that 64 new dwellings have been built in the area since 1977. Conditions set by the Planning Commission for the rezoning approval included requirements for road improvements, access to community water and sewer services, and oversight by an independent architectural design committee. The court recently upheld the circuit court's decision affirming the Board's grant of a rezoning application, referencing expert testimony suggesting substantial changes in the neighborhood. However, Hemby King did not provide expert testimony or evidence of substantial change to the Board, limiting the applicability of the previous case's findings. An analysis by a zoning expert emphasized that the character of the neighborhood is shaped by surrounding property uses rather than the rezoning itself, particularly when no actions have been taken on the rezoning.
