We Got Us a Council Campaign

Tonight, the Garrett Park Citizens Association held a meeting at which four candidates’ names were placed in nomination for three council seats. The council consists of five people, so that’s like half its membership up for election this year. (Why, yes, I did attend the AIG Mathematics Academy.)

Here are some highlights of nominating speeches:

Peter Benjamin said Chris Petito listens carefully, speaks thoughtfully and respectfully, and acts based on principles.

Peggy Pratt said Marian Green puts her hands where her heart is, is thoughtful and a calm problem-solver, and works well with others.

Elaine Martin said Phil Schulp has integrity, is intelligent, wants a government for the people, and has no agenda.

Kevin Pope said Jack Mandel is a great neighbor, a good supporter of the town, and has a great sense of humor.

People: Can we please stop this negative campaigning right now?

This may or may not be the final slate of candidates, given that others can petition to run by the April 13 filing deadline.

No sign tonight of Solange Hansen or Charles Berry. We'll find out next month if they're in or not.

UPDATE: Solange tells me she is not running for a second term.

If in Doubt, Make it Up

Due to a difficult work schedule and general after-hours lethargy, the Garrett Park Blog did not have a representative — culled from its staff of one — who was able to attend the March 9 Town Council meeting. We presume, however, that important things happened and that the town’s populace was well served. Yet, journalism must go on. So, in the longstanding tradition of reportorial giants the likes of H.L. Mencken, we present a totally fictional account of the meeting.

Last Monday, the council held its first session since passage of Ordinance 2009-23: the Every Viewpoint is Legitimate (EVIL) Act. The proceedings got to a bit of a late start, given that Mayor Keller took more than 10 minutes calling the meeting to order. Wielding the new “honor all points of view” gavel, Keller had difficulty deciding which of its 13 heads to rap against the table.

The first order of business was approval of the February meeting minutes — and the four sets of minority opinions. Unfortunately, each of them required amendment, largely because Councilmember Jack Mandel demanded he be identified in all official documents as “the Jackmeister.”

Moving to presentations by citizens, a Post Office representative, who identified herself solely as “a Post Office representative,” apologized for the confusion about service hours for the facility housed at Penn Place. The hours are not being severely curtailed, she said. A report to that effect was erroneous. However, she added, all Garrett Parkers must now share a single mailbox. (A personal note: Would whoever took my copy of O, the Oprah Magazine please return it. It’s the issue with a picture of Oprah on the cover.)

Several citizens then took the floor to offer suggestions of what the town could do, were it to receive any economic stimulus money. The ideas included making Ted Pratt our town sheriff, paving Wells Park, starting a Garrett Park communal bamboo grove, and expanding our recycling program to include motor oil and pet waste.

The meeting then turned somewhat more serious and officious, as Councilmember Beth Irons conducted a variance hearing. This being the first variance action since the lot coverage referendum, things could have gone south in a hurry, so everyone was at least a little on edge. And that, it turned out, couldn’t have been a more dramatic moment for Councilmember Irons to reveal the latest tool in municipal zoning calculations: Garrett Park’s new Wheel of Setbacks. With a Vegas-like spin and a clattering reminiscent of a playing card in the spokes of a bicycle, the wheel landed on “get out of zoning free.” The lucky homeowner, now entitled to cover every last inch of his lot with anything he wanted (up to and including a helicopter landing pad) stood up, shouted an epithet or two, and loudly threatened to “sue you guys into submission for discriminating against me.”

In his monthly report that followed, Mayor Keller discussed a recent Maryland Municipal League budget conference he attended, where, for the most part, participants sat around and wept uncontrollably.

In councilmembers’ reports on areas of responsibility:

• Jack Mandel reported that Town Hall is no longer available for fraternity parties, after the unfortunate cow incident in January.

• Charles Berry said the new playground equipment should be installed in Cambria Park within about a month. In an effort to keep up with kids’ leisure trends, the new equipment will consist of 12 flat screen TVs, with videogame consoles attached. In a bow to safety, though, all mulch will be replaced with rubberized pellets, in case anyone falls down.

• Solange Hansen debuted plans for an autumn leaf inventory that will require the purchase of six billion stickers with barcodes on them.

• Hans Wegner reported the town’s plans to obtain all electrical power from the wind has been a huge success, with two blocks of Kenilworth Avenue now powered solely from excess gusts emanating from land use task force meetings.

As always, the meeting ended with the town clerk’s budget update. This month's report said, in its entirety: “If you have to ask, we can’t afford it.”

With that, the mayor gaveled the meeting to a close. Well, he ended the meeting. Instead of the gavel, he just banged his head.

The Referendum Passes. Is Peace in Our Time at Hand?

Well, nothing is over until Garrett Park says it's over, but the 18 percent lot ordinance passed yesterday by a vote of 261 to 222.

Now, we know there have been plenty of debates about the collateral effects of this ordinance, and I can now reveal that there are several. Because of your vote to support this ordinance:

• The mayor of Garrett Park must legally change his or her first name to Bubba.

• The town council must have a membership evenly split between men and women. Given that there are five councilmembers, some negotiation may be ahead -- or, at the least, Jack Mandel may be in for a makeover.

• The tulip poplar is now a protected species.

• Any band playing for the town's July 4 festivities must do at least one Jonas Brothers song.

• The dog swim at the pool will take place on Memorial Day weekend. Given the thorough cleaning necessary afterwards, the pool will reopen Aug. 25.

• The town speed limit is now 18 miles per hour.

Yes!

It’s over.

Martin v. Garrett Park, the lawsuit about a porch, has been settled.

Mayor Chris Keller announced at tonight’s town council meeting that Garrett Park will issue a building permit to John and Elaine Martin. The town has also agreed not to appeal the judge’s order from mid January that struck down its minimum combined setback ordinance and ordered the town to issue a permit for the porch originally applied for by the Martins.

The Martins have agreed to dismiss the remaining three counts of their suit, and they will join with the town in seeking to correct a few ambiguous words in the judge’s order that might have raised questions about the town’s authority to regulate lot coverage.

“This has been a long and very painful process,” Keller said. “All of us have lost a lot of sleep, missed a lot of dinners.” The decision to settle, he continued, included not only consideration of Garrett Park’s finances, but also the “psychic wear and tear on the town.”

The settlement, Keller said, is “complete and binding,” although one issue remains to be resolved by attorneys before it can be presented to the court. He did not elaborate on that issue. Keller said the detailed terms of how the settlement is to be implemented will be made public at a later date.

This is, quite obviously, good news—certainly for those who are paying a little extra attention to the town’s coffers these days.

There’s also been a rather voiciferous bunch of attendees at recent council meetings, who have made their feelings on this suit quite clear, pro and con. Yet, I am not one who thinks Garrett Park is dangerously divided. We argue, and then we get over it.

But, during council meetings of late, there’s been way too much name-calling. The Martins have been referred to as “dissidents.” It’s been suggested that they are in the pocket of developers or that they’re puppets of political partisans.

This type of talk needs to stop. Now.

Last week, as settlement negotiations were ongoing, I had the chance to sit down and talk with John and Elaine Martin. John termed the notion that anyone else's money was involved in the lawsuit “a misconception.” He told me neither he nor Elaine had received any financial support from builders, developers, or family members, and that their lawsuit was based on nothing but the desire to build a porch. Personally, I take him at his word.

But you know what? I think there’s a bigger point here. I have never agreed with the Martin’s suit. I think there were options short of going to court. Yet, there is no doubt that they had a right to sue the town. It was expensive. It was complicated. It left the town and town council with few options but to defend the case—and, in the end, with no good option other than to settle. But none of that makes John and Elaine Martin villains. They are citizens of our town who chose to exercise their legal rights. How dare any of us suggest that makes them bad people?

A Thought for the Land Use Task Force

In the past few days, a number of Garrett Parkers have been in touch, to voice their opinions about land use issues. It’s gratifying to realize there’s a strong current of reasonableness in town—something that’s not always apparent in the contentious atmosphere of council meetings.

In their E-mails, several have mentioned difficulties negotiating the path to permissible building projects and the frustrations of running into restrictions they didn’t know about.

Garrett Park’s zoning regulations aren’t the easiest things to grasp. With historic designations, an overlay zone, and setback ordinances, it’s a tough slog to understand what’s legit and what’s not.

To his great credit, Harry Gordon, on behalf of the Setback Advisory Committee, gives generously of his time, meeting informally with residents and giving preliminary reads on their planned projects, before the homeowners begin construction or apply for a building permit.

But is the situation different when you’re new?

Like many, I was attracted to this town because of the historic homes, trees, open space, and sense of seclusion in a major metropolitan area. When I moved here, I will admit that I didn’t read the town charter or ask questions about setbacks and lot coverage. I was caught up in interest rates, contracts, and moving preparations. Looking back, it’s pretty clear that I should have done my homework.

So, where is the line? Should homebuyers in Garrett Park be more thorough, or should the town provide a helpful heads-up?

I think this small point is worth discussion by the new Land Use Task Force. Does the town have an obligation—practical or ethical—to inform potential new residents that its zoning regulations may be somewhat different than they assume? Is it feasible that real estate agents selling homes in Garrett Park might voluntarily include a brief statement in their fact sheets (something like: “Garrett Park prides itself on trees and open space. To preserve that unique character, the town has certain zoning ordinances that may differ somewhat from other communities. For more information…”)? Should the town send a courtesy letter to all new residents, summarizing the rules and notifying them whom to contact for advice and questions?

When you consider the land use issues on the table, this one’s pretty small. Then again, maybe it’s just this kind of attention to small points that really makes a community.

Thoughts from the January Council Meeting

Near the end of last night’s town council meeting, Hans Wegner began to speak. Councilmember Wegner, for those who may not know him, is a quiet man; he chooses his words carefully—and is equally judicious about when he chooses to talk. Ostensibly discussing his thoughts about the town’s new Land Use Task Force, Wegner’s meaning was much broader and quite profound.

With passion clearly building, Wegner spoke about being in the uncomfortable position of passing judgment on his neighbors. He talked about how the town council sits at the intersection of clearly defined statute and personal discretion, and about the frustration of being seen as an obstructionist in situations where the only thing that’s inflexible is the law. And he clearly was letting out just a little bit of the frustration of one who, bound by an attorney’s instructions, is forced to listen to monthly invective, without being able to respond.

It is the essence of small-town government that what you do affects someone you know. It is also a fact of modern existence that the ways in which many of us use our homes differ greatly from the needs of families 30, 50, or 100 years ago, when those houses were built. Many residents quite legitimately seek larger houses. Or porches. Or garages.

In considering applications for such additions, the town is bound to consider law and to follow its own ordinances. The town council, however, does not become involved until rules say “No.” In some cases, where a building permit has been declined, the council is allowed to grant a variance, which is always a judgment call. In other cases, the council has considered—and passed—changes to the town code that repair inequities.

Imagine, if you will, what it's like to be a councilmember. A family has applied for a building permit for a new front porch. The town limits the resident’s home to 18 percent lot coverage. The porch would put the house at 18.1 percent. The building permit is denied. Your involvement would only begin if the resident applied for a variance. But they don’t. They sue the town, eventually challenging the 18 percent ordinance. Almost a year later, they win, and the ordinance is struck down. That, in a nutshell, is the Martin case.

At last night’s council meeting, Elaine Martin stood in front of the mayor and council, holding what she said was a building permit. Several times, she said that a signature was all it would take to make her lawsuit go away. She even quoted the judge’s admonition to settle the suit. Yet, Mrs. Martin left out the fact that the judge struck down Garrett Park’s minimum combined setback ordinance; therefore, at present, only Montgomery County has the authority to regulate lot coverage in Garrett Park. (As previously reported, the judge has stayed her decision, as Garrett Park considers filing an appeal.) Last night, Mrs. Martin wanted the town to authorize a building permit on the spot. But, at the moment, does Garrett Park even have the legal or practical authority to issue that permit? On January 9, didn't the judge say, "To go ahead and build now would be a mistake"?

So, should the town have caved to the Martins’ suit long ago, or is there such a thing as principle worth defending? There isn’t any question that the Martins had an absolute right to sue, and I bear them no malice whatsoever. In fact, I’d like to renew my offer for them to sit down and tell me their side. But, inquiring minds certainly want to know why the Martins filed suit so quickly over one tenth of one percent lot coverage. Was this case really just about a porch?

Now we face a messy landscape. The town needs to find a way to settle. The principle worth defending—the minimum combined setback—has been struck down. A lengthy appeal will benefit no one. The Martins need to accept a rational settlement. And then people need to calm down. No, the town isn’t coming apart over this issue. I daresay the majority of Garrett Parkers don’t really know much about this situation or particularly care.

Going forward—and it’s time we went forward—there are legitimate issues the town needs to consider. Would it be better if zoning regulations were carved in stone, if they were spelled out in great detail, with no leeway? Would it be better if Garrett Park gave way to Montgomery County zoning rules, which, one can reasonably presume, would be quite rigid? Or does the town want to work out a reasonable plan that spells out—but still allows—a modicum of discretion on the part of its council? My vote is for Hans Wegner.

Decision Day in Martin v. Garrett Park

Garrett Park had a rough day in court Friday. Delivering a much-anticipated ruling on key portions of Martin v. Garrett Park, Circuit Court Judge Mary Beth McCormick sided almost exclusively with the plaintiffs.

But, in the case about a porch, the one thing the Martins didn’t get was their porch.

First, Judge McCormick denied Garrett Park’s request that the suit be dismissed. Town attorney Louis Liebowitz had argued that the Martins filed their case prematurely, having failed to exhaust administrative remedies when they refused to request a variance. Siding with the Martins, the judge ruled there is an exception to standard practice, when a court action, such as the Martins’, challenges the legality of a statute.

For their part, the Martins had, indeed, challenged the legality of Garrett Park’s 16-year-old minimum combined setback ordinance, saying it amounts to a regulation of lot coverage, which the town lacked authority in 1992 to enact. The judge agreed. Therefore, she ruled, the denial of the Martins’ building permit was illegal.

McCormick went on to say that, in the absence of a legitimate setback ordinance, only Montgomery County has authority to regulate lot coverage in Garrett Park—at least for now, pending a referendum on the new lot coverage ordinance the Town Council passed last fall. However, under county rules, which would allow 20 percent lot coverage in Garrett Park, the Martins would get their porch.

But the judge did one more thing. She stayed the decision, pending the town’s appeal to a higher court. Garrett Park has 30 days to file, and the appellate process could easily drag on for a year or more.

In the meantime, the Martins’ porch remains on hold. “To go ahead and build now would be a mistake,” Judge McCormick said. “You ought to go back to what Judge Mason [the original judge in this case] urged of you: Try to resolve this.” Truer words were never spoken.