Turner v. Hammond

310 A.2d 543, 270 Md. 41
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
DecidedNovember 12, 1973
Docket[No. 39, September Term, 1973.]
StatusPublished
Cited by65 cases

This text of 310 A.2d 543 (Turner v. Hammond) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Turner v. Hammond, 310 A.2d 543, 270 Md. 41 (Md. 1973).

Opinion

McWilliams, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Captain John Smith sailed up the Wicomico River in 1608. When he came to what is now Salisbury he found a small community of Nanticoke Indians. They drifted away to the north in the face of later incursions of the white settlers. A century or so later their displacement seems to have been accomplished. In the summer of 1732 the Assembly passed an act “for the erecting a Town at the Head of Wiccomoco River ... in a Fork thereof” and empowering five commissioners to buy, for that purpose, a tract of 15 acres lying “most convenient to the Water.” Our present concern is another 15 acre tract (the property) about a mile farther north but “convenient” to the very same “Water.” 1 *43 Differences of opinion about the use of the property have engendered a commotion the Nanticokes would likely have thought passing strange if, indeed, it could have been within their powers of comprehension.

We have filed with this opinion a part of the official map of Salisbury, reference to which is essential if the facts and circumstances of this case are to be understood. North has been indicated; the scale is 1" = 1000'; the hachured area between Union and Hickory Avenues represents the property.

It will be noticed that the corporate boundary line of the City of Salisbury, the easterly shore of Johnson’s Pond, and the southwestern boundary of the property are coincident. The area enclosed by Union Avenue, Emerson Avenue, Handy Street and the shore line is for the most part unimproved. In the area enclosed by North Division Street, Hickory Avenue, the property, and Union Avenue are single family dwellings, some as old as 60 years. St. Peter’s Episcopal Church owns both the property and the abutting Parsons Cemetery.

It is conceded that the zoning classification of the property is Residential B. 2 34567Apartment houses are permitted in *44 residential districts provided a special use exception is granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals (Board). The criteria to be applied by the Board are set forth in Section 54:

“Buildings and uses, as special exceptions, limited as to location, and especially in the locations described below in this section, are permitted by the terms of this ordinance, if the board of zoning appeals finds, that in its opinion, as a matter of fact, such exceptions will not substantially affect adversely the uses of adjacent and neighboring property permitted by this ordinance and provided such exception is approved by the board:
12. Apartment houses in residential districts as follows:
a. A group of apartment houses
b. A housing project of a group of apartment houses to be constructed as a unit according to a comprehensive well planned design, with adequate provisions for access of light and air to the apartments and to neighboring *45 properties provided there is substantial compliance with the population density regulations of the district, and further provided that the aggregate area of the open yard spaces is substantially equivalent to the minimum aggregate area required for these buildings in this district and on the further condition that the buildings shall collectively and individually comply with front and rear yard regulations and that there shall be not less than thirty feet between buildings, and the buildings not less than thirty feet from adjacent property lines.” (Emphasis added.)

The appellant (Turner) proposes to build on the property 197 garden apartment units in 12 groups of buildings, 67 in all, each two and one-half stories high. The plans call for 49 single bedroom units, 100 two bedroom units and 48 three bedroom units. On a parcel 120 feet by 450 feet along the southeastern boundary beginning at Union Avenue and extending 100 feet beyond Brooklyn Avenue there will be six single family dwellings. This, it is said, will provide a buffer zone between the apartment project and the existing dwellings. To this end Turner obtained from the church an option to purchase the property; subsequently he applied for the special use exception required by the ordinance. The Board, after a hearing, adopted the resolution set forth below, verbatim. It is at once obvious that the Board used a prepared form.

"Upon a motion by Verdin Cantrell seconded by Walter Phillips and duly carried, the Board _denied_ the request for a Special Use Exception in the within case and as its reason for so doing states as follows:
"'We find from a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed use of this property for an apartment project consisting of 197 units
*46 1. will er-will-net substantially affect adversely the uses of adjacent and neighboring property;
2. will er-wili-Het substantially affect adversely persons residing, studying, working, or other-lands or wise occupying / buildings adjoining or in the vicinity of the project area;
3. will-er will not be compatible with the character and use of buildings adjoining or in the vicinity of the project;
4. will er-will-net affect adversely the safe and efficient movement of traffic in and through the area by the use of existing street patterns;
5. has-er has not been so designed to minimize adverse affects on adjacent properties and the surrounding neighborhood;
6. that-publie-utilities-eaH-er-eaH-ne-fe-eeenemieally-fee-extended-te-fche-s-ihe-ef-the-Brejeet-j
6 ?. that development in the neighborhood since the not zone plan and ordinance were adopted has / been such as to promote a change toward the proposed type of development.
"Thus by virtue of the requirements of Section 53 and 54 of the Ordinance No. 789 of the City of Salisbury, Maryland, the above findings ’require that the Special Use Exception be _denied_.
/s/ Michael J. Hynes /s/ Oris W. Horsey Sr.
/s/ William H. Bull
/s/ Verdin S. Cantrell
/s/ W. L. Phillips "

*47 On 7 February 1973 the Circuit Court for Wicomico County, Pollitt, J-, affirmed the decision of the Board. From that order Turner has appealed. We shall reverse.

The hearing before the Board on 9 March 1972 appears to have been attended almost exclusively by opponents. Their reactions, whether favorable or unfavorable, were both vehement and vocal. There was received in evidence, before the testimony, a letter from the Wicomico County Fire Marshal, endorsed by the Deputy Fire Chief of the Salisbury Fire Department, stating that their joint inspection of the property enabled them to report that

“1.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Elbert v. Charles Cty. Planning Comm'n
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 2023
McDonell v. Harford Co. Housing
462 Md. 586 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2019)
McDonell v. Harford Cnty. Hous. Agency
202 A.3d 540 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2019)
Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc. v. DCW Dutchship Island, LLC
97 A.3d 135 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2014)
Chesapeake Bay Found. v. DCW Dutchship
Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2014
B.H. v. Anne Arundel County Department of Social Services
58 A.3d 533 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 2012)
Mills v. GODLOVE
26 A.3d 1034 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 2011)
Montgomery County v. Butler
9 A.3d 824 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2010)
PEOPLE'S COUNSEL FOR BALTIMORE CTY. v. Loyola College
956 A.2d 166 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2008)
Trail v. Terrapin Run, LLC
943 A.2d 1192 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2008)
Gibson v. Sussex County Council
877 A.2d 54 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 2005)
Towson University v. Conte
862 A.2d 941 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2004)
Murrell v. Mayor of Baltimore
829 A.2d 548 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2003)
Mehrling v. Nationwide Insurance
806 A.2d 662 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2002)
Annapolis Market Place, L.L.C. v. Parker
802 A.2d 1029 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2002)
Alviani v. Dixon
775 A.2d 1234 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2001)
Department of Health & Mental Hygiene v. Campbell
771 A.2d 1051 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2001)
Baltimore Scrap Corp. v. David J. Joseph Co.
81 F. Supp. 2d 602 (D. Maryland, 2000)
Bucktail, LLC v. County Council
723 A.2d 440 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1999)
Hamdan v. Klimovitz
722 A.2d 86 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
310 A.2d 543, 270 Md. 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-v-hammond-md-1973.