My column on the October council meeting, as submitted for the November Bugle

This is the original piece I submitted to the Bugle for its November edition. I wanted you to have a chance to see it, as I intended the column to be read.

After three months of contentious debate and a worrisome, rising tide of personal accusations and invective, the Town Council, at its October meeting, finally passed a change to Garrett Park’s zoning ordinances that amounts to no more than simple, common sense.

Now, if you’re tired of reading about this issue, please be assured I’m tired of writing about it. So here’s the shortest-possible recap. Family requests building permit for front porch. It’s denied. With the addition, structures on the lot would have exceeded what’s allowed. Family doesn’t file for a variance; files a lawsuit. During a hearing, judge raises altered state law, which changes how lot coverage should be calculated. Garrett Park says a property’s combined setbacks must create 82 percent open space. New state law suggests you should, instead, specify maximum lot coverage. In our town, that would be 18 percent. At special August council meeting, 18 percent ordinance is introduced. Small group of townspeople goes ballistic. Yet another in a many-year series of malicious surprises by a procession of devious mayors and councils, some say. Council postpones scheduled September vote, to allow for more discussion. Council acts at October meeting.

So to cut to the vote, the 18 percent lot coverage statute passed unanimously. There were, however, two amendments of note, both of which were proposed by Jack Mandel, and both of which also passed unanimously.

When proposed in August, the new setback ordinance included a “laundry list” of items that were to be included in calculations of lot coverage, such as chimneys, decks, stoops and similar items. These have traditionally been considered—but not mandated for consideration—in applications for building permits. The amendment removed that list from the new ordinance. In other words, what “extras” are calculated in lot coverage remain a judgment call.

Jack’s second amendment added language specifying that if the new, altered ordinance were to be struck down by a referendum or a court, the town would simply revert to its previous zoning regulations. This move gave the conspiracy theorists one last chance to claim there was, well, a conspiracy afoot, to silence the voice of the people. Of course, another way of seeing things is that the town wants to make sure it isn’t left without any building regulations whatsoever.

One final note on zoning—well, for this month, at least. Mayor Keller talked at length about a task force he and the council are working to assemble, which will take a comprehensive look at zoning issues. The membership is not yet final, but he said the panel will have wide latitude to establish its own groundrules and mandates, in order to review every aspect of Garrett Park zoning and suggest potential changes. Clearly, Chris said, public meetings will be key, and this will be your time to speak up. Should Garrett Park drop its unique zoning and simply conform to Montgomery County’s rules? Is 25 percent lot coverage more appropriate for today’s land use? Is there a revolutionary idea that will make Garrett Park a national model? It’s time for all of us to step up and get involved—but not with a referendum on a minor change.