Marvin Mandel, Governor                          1895

Senate Bill No. 675—Baltimore City Zoning Powers

AN ACT to repeal and re-enact, with amendments, Section 2.08
(c) of Article 66B of the Annotated Code of Maryland (1970 Replace-
ment Volume), title "Zoning and Planning," subtitle "Zoning in Balti-
more City," giving the additional power to the board of zoning appeals
to prevent the overcrowding of schools and other public facilities
under such rules as may be provided by ordinance of the local legisla-
tive body upon the application PURSUANT TO CERTAIN SEC-
TIONS OF THE BALTIMORE CITY CODE of any person who would
be adversely affected by proposed RESIDENTIAL construction.

May 28, 1971.

Honorable William S. James
President of the Senate
State House
Annapolis, Maryland 21404

Dear Mr. President:

In accordance with Article II, Section 17, of the Maryland Con-
stitution, I have today vetoed Senate Bill 675.

This bill purports to grant to the Baltimore City Board of Zoning
Appeals the power "to prevent overcrowding of schools and other pub-
lic facilities***."

The purpose of the bill probably was to authorize the Board of
Zoning Appeals, when acting upon a zoning application, to consider
the availability of school and other public facilities in the area. If this
were the purpose, I would be entirely in accord with it. However, the
language of the bill does not reflect such purpose. Instead, the Board
its given the affirmative power "to prevent the overcrowding of schools
and other public facilities." Read literally, this language may em-
power the Board to disapprove the types or locations of schools or
other public facilities planned by the City or the State, on the theory
that the type of facility planned, or a facility located in a particular
place, would be overcrowded. In fact, the literal language of the bill
goes further and might authorize the Board to take direct action of
some unspecified type to prevent the overcrowding of public facilities.

The bill does provide that the new "power" being granted to the
Board is to be exercised "upon the application pursuant to Sections 34,
36 and 40 of the Baltimore City Code*** of any person who would
be adversely affected by proposed residential construction." However,
this language does not cure the defects in the wording of Senate Bill
675. Once an application is filed by such a person, the Board's broad
power comes into being. The Board is not merely authorized to deny
an application; instead, it is empowered "to prevent the overcrowding
of schools and other public facilities." Moreover, the reference to
Sections 34, 36 and 40 of the Baltimore City Code is also defective, as
the Baltimore City Code is divided into Articles, and the bill does not
indicate which Article is involved.

While I agree with the probable purpose of Senate Bill 675, I am
unable to sign the bill in light of the manner in which the bill was
worded.

Sincerely,
/s/ Marvin Mandel,

Governor.