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.