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.