A proposed revision of a town zoning ordinance, orchestrated as the first step in an effort to settle Martin v. Garrett Park, was removed from the agenda of Monday’s council meeting, amid signs that negotiations to end the 10-month-old lawsuit are at a standstill.
Mayor Chris Keller revealed that Councilmember Charles Berry has been meeting with the Martins, without lawyers present, attempting to find a resolution to the case that has cost the town $108,335 in legal fees to date. Those discussions were apparently leading toward an agreement, which would have required the zoning law change originally slated to be introduced last night and voted on in January 2009.
The revised ordinance would have allowed lot coverage to exceed, by up to two percent, the current 18 percent limit—if the extra construction were for a front porch. That move presumably would have allowed the Martins to build a porch somewhat smaller than the proposed structure for which they were first denied a building permit in January.
Sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said negotiations collapsed after the Martins added a demand that Garrett Park relinquish to Montgomery County any responsibility for building inspections or oversight of the porch’s construction.
Keller and members of the council were careful to discuss only the substance of negotiations conducted by Berry and not the court-mandated mediation that remains under a confidentiality order.
During an exchange about the town budget and legal fees, 45-year Garrett Park resident George Martin Sr. asked why a proposal in October by setback advisory committee chair Harry Gordon to change lot coverage rules, in order to accommodate porches, had apparently received scant attention. “What am I missing?” he asked. “Is the bleeding going to continue?”
Keller explained that the October proposal was “specifically in response” to mediation. Asked for further details after the meeting, Keller said “the parties filed a joint motion, signed by the attorney for the Martins, to continue the case because, according to the motion, settlement had been reached.” Five days later, Keller said, the plaintiffs withdrew.
Cindy Kratz, sister of plaintiff Elaine Martin, challenged the council to pass the porch-related ordinance change. “The lawsuit goes away if you do this ordinance,” she said. “There is no standing” for the case to continue.
Keller countered that the town alone could not terminate the case. There would, he said, need to be mutual agreement on steps necessary for the Martins to withdraw their suit. “You know there have been many prior steps,” he said. “We’re not going to solve here what a court hasn’t after 10 months.”
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Sunday, December 7, 2008
The Council Year in Review
Yeah, the year’s not over yet, but it seemed like a fun time to take a look back at the Garrett Park town council’s 2008.
January. The owner of a historic property wants to build an addition. But, because his house is on a corner lot, town setback rules essentially apply twice, so there’s nowhere for the new construction to go—well, legally, that is. Worse yet, the situation doesn’t meet standards for consideration of a variance. Setback advisory committee chair Harry Gordon proposes a small change in a town ordinance, to remove the undue burden on this and other corner lots.
February. Much discussion about tax receipts, the town’s financial position, and a slightly ominous outlook for the 2009 fiscal year. (Looking back, doesn't "slightly ominous" sound nice?)
March. The owner of a property on Clyde Ave. has been denied a building permit for a small deck, because his house covers every buildable square foot of his property. The possibility of a “small lot variance” exists—presumably because his lot is, well, small. Debate ensues among councilmembers about a 2006 Maryland court case that may severely limit instances where a variance can even be considered. Because one of its members is absent, council postpones its vote for a month.
April. January’s proposed corner setback ordinance change passes. March’s variance for the Clyde Ave. deck passes.
May. Chris Keller chairs his first meeting as newly elected mayor. Council votes to keep the property tax rate steady, meaning that if assessed values rise, so will tax bills.
June. The council holds two meetings. First, a special session, in the closing hours of fiscal 2008, to rebalance the year’s budget. The meeting turns contentious, because there’s more than $30,000 in expenditures for Martin v. Garrett Park, the civil suit ostensibly over a porch. A couple dozen angry townsfolk want to know why the town hasn’t reached a reasonable accommodation—presumably by ignoring its laws and caving in. The amended budget (the sole reason for this meeting) passes. At the regular June meeting, the council hears a variance request for a front stoop and steps on Oxford St. It’s a non-starter. The house and all of the extra structures that have to be taken into consideration already slightly exceed maximum lot coverage. A variance can’t even be considered. Homeowner continues his request for a month, with the suggestion he consult the setback advisory committee.
July. Oxford St. variance from June comes back up. Homeowner hasn’t consulted setback advisory committee. No go for a variance—again. Homeowner says he’ll “contact a lawyer and see what I can do.”
August. Bucking precedent, the council meets, to introduce (but not vote on) a new ordinance that would express lot coverage in terms of, well, lot coverage—and not in terms of open space. The changed ordinance would also spell out just what structures (bay windows, chimneys, etc.) would count toward maximum lot coverage. Every seat is full, and the meeting boils over. Partisans argue the council is trying to pull an August surprise, slipping a big-time change under the people’s noses. Some allege it’s just an effort to invalidate Martin v. Garrett Park. One resident refers to another by an insulting anatomical name. Recipient of profanity offers to take it outside. Neutral observers appear grateful the town is a torch- and pitchfork-free zone (well, at least nuclear ones).
September. Council does not act on the lot coverage ordinance change, but simply listens to concerns of citizens. Discussion is mostly civil, but a rehash of August. “Sense of the council” resolution passes, to remove deck, shed, bay window specifics from the proposed ordinance.
October. What had been the sense of the council resolution passes, but with an amendment 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. Conspiracy theorists have a new reason to live. Mayor Keller discusses the soon-to-be-formed zoning task force.
November. More budget adjustments, due primarily to attorney’s fees from you-know-what.
December (spoiler alert: this hasn’t happened yet). The Oxford St. variance is scheduled for a return engagement. And, Mayor Keller is slated to introduce a new ordinance with the longest description we’ve ever seen: “An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 4 of the Garrett Park Town Code to decrease the minimum combined setback to 80 percent from 82 percent in certain circumstances where the portion of the main building that intrudes into the 82 percent combined minimum setback comprises solely an open front porch or where the main building already intrudes into the combined minimum setback and any further decrease in combined minimum setback up to 80 percent comprised solely an open front porch.”
January. The owner of a historic property wants to build an addition. But, because his house is on a corner lot, town setback rules essentially apply twice, so there’s nowhere for the new construction to go—well, legally, that is. Worse yet, the situation doesn’t meet standards for consideration of a variance. Setback advisory committee chair Harry Gordon proposes a small change in a town ordinance, to remove the undue burden on this and other corner lots.
February. Much discussion about tax receipts, the town’s financial position, and a slightly ominous outlook for the 2009 fiscal year. (Looking back, doesn't "slightly ominous" sound nice?)
March. The owner of a property on Clyde Ave. has been denied a building permit for a small deck, because his house covers every buildable square foot of his property. The possibility of a “small lot variance” exists—presumably because his lot is, well, small. Debate ensues among councilmembers about a 2006 Maryland court case that may severely limit instances where a variance can even be considered. Because one of its members is absent, council postpones its vote for a month.
April. January’s proposed corner setback ordinance change passes. March’s variance for the Clyde Ave. deck passes.
May. Chris Keller chairs his first meeting as newly elected mayor. Council votes to keep the property tax rate steady, meaning that if assessed values rise, so will tax bills.
June. The council holds two meetings. First, a special session, in the closing hours of fiscal 2008, to rebalance the year’s budget. The meeting turns contentious, because there’s more than $30,000 in expenditures for Martin v. Garrett Park, the civil suit ostensibly over a porch. A couple dozen angry townsfolk want to know why the town hasn’t reached a reasonable accommodation—presumably by ignoring its laws and caving in. The amended budget (the sole reason for this meeting) passes. At the regular June meeting, the council hears a variance request for a front stoop and steps on Oxford St. It’s a non-starter. The house and all of the extra structures that have to be taken into consideration already slightly exceed maximum lot coverage. A variance can’t even be considered. Homeowner continues his request for a month, with the suggestion he consult the setback advisory committee.
July. Oxford St. variance from June comes back up. Homeowner hasn’t consulted setback advisory committee. No go for a variance—again. Homeowner says he’ll “contact a lawyer and see what I can do.”
August. Bucking precedent, the council meets, to introduce (but not vote on) a new ordinance that would express lot coverage in terms of, well, lot coverage—and not in terms of open space. The changed ordinance would also spell out just what structures (bay windows, chimneys, etc.) would count toward maximum lot coverage. Every seat is full, and the meeting boils over. Partisans argue the council is trying to pull an August surprise, slipping a big-time change under the people’s noses. Some allege it’s just an effort to invalidate Martin v. Garrett Park. One resident refers to another by an insulting anatomical name. Recipient of profanity offers to take it outside. Neutral observers appear grateful the town is a torch- and pitchfork-free zone (well, at least nuclear ones).
September. Council does not act on the lot coverage ordinance change, but simply listens to concerns of citizens. Discussion is mostly civil, but a rehash of August. “Sense of the council” resolution passes, to remove deck, shed, bay window specifics from the proposed ordinance.
October. What had been the sense of the council resolution passes, but with an amendment 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. Conspiracy theorists have a new reason to live. Mayor Keller discusses the soon-to-be-formed zoning task force.
November. More budget adjustments, due primarily to attorney’s fees from you-know-what.
December (spoiler alert: this hasn’t happened yet). The Oxford St. variance is scheduled for a return engagement. And, Mayor Keller is slated to introduce a new ordinance with the longest description we’ve ever seen: “An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 4 of the Garrett Park Town Code to decrease the minimum combined setback to 80 percent from 82 percent in certain circumstances where the portion of the main building that intrudes into the 82 percent combined minimum setback comprises solely an open front porch or where the main building already intrudes into the combined minimum setback and any further decrease in combined minimum setback up to 80 percent comprised solely an open front porch.”
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
A Brief Housekeeping Note
In response to several requests, I'm setting up an E-mail list, so you can get new items from the Garrett Park Blog sent right to your inbox. If you would like to get those posts as E-mails, just shoot me a note to rafolkers@verizon.net.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
