Rich's Garrett Park Blog

We Got Us a Council Campaign

2009-03-25T21:16:00.010-04:00

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

2009-03-15T11:27:00.012-04:00

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?

2009-03-03T10:01:00.009-05:00

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!

2009-02-09T23:29:00.007-05:00

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

2009-01-19T10:58:00.000-05:00

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

2009-01-13T14:48:00.007-05:00

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

2009-01-10T08:48:00.002-05:00

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.

The Suit About a Porch Gets a Day in Court

2009-01-02T08:23:00.002-05:00

On Tuesday morning, as she began hearing a series of motions from a steady parade of attorneys, Circuit Court Judge Mary Beth McCormick informed the parties in the Martin v. Garrett Park suit that theirs would be last on the docket. “If you would like to use the time to resolve this, feel free,” she said.

It was the laugh line of the day. Garrett Park might just celebrate its bicentennial before this thing goes away.

When the time came for their hour-long hearing, Michele Rosenfeld, the attorney for plaintiffs John and Elaine Martin, argued that a principal section of Garrett Park’s zoning ordinances is illegitimate and should be struck down, while Garrett Park’s attorney Louis Liebowitz asked the judge to dismiss the Martins’ suit outright.

There are quite a few technical arguments in this case, and McCormick was clearly still getting up to speed, having been assigned to the case, she said, just the day before. McCormick did her best to make both sides winnow their arguments to essential elements, once chiding the plaintiffs for “a shotgun approach that’s hard to follow.” I’m going to narrow this discussion even more, because there were way too many big words for me to understand (although some of it was pretty darn funny, like the discussion of whether there are exceptions to exceptions).

A quick refresher: You will recall that the Martins filed suit after the town denied their building permit for a front porch, on the grounds that the new structure would cause their house to exceed the maximum amount of the lot that could be legally built upon.

The denial was based on the “minimum combined setback,” an ordinance Garrett Park enacted in 1992, in order to preserve open space. The gist of that ordinance, which is still in force today, is that 82 percent of a lot must be open space. How it mandated that calculation is, it seems, is one of the keys to this lawsuit.

Technically speaking, the plaintiffs’ attorney Rosenfeld argued, a setback is a linear measurement. If, for example, the front setback is 30 feet, you simply measure 30 feet from the curb and see if the house conforms. Ditto for the left side, the right side, and the rear.

In the 1992 ordinance, Garrett Park began to calculate setbacks in terms of rectangles, rather than lines. It’s a little bit like a tic-tac-toe game. Say the house occupies the box in the center. The area of all of the other boxes—the open space on the lot—must add up to at least 82 percent of the total. Rosenfeld, in her argument to the court, claimed the town had no authority in 1992 to calculate rectangles; hence, that law is invalid, and the court must strike it down.

Not so, argued Liebowitz. The Martins, he claimed, are making an unjustified leap of legal faith that setbacks can only be a linear measurement, and Garrett Park does not recognize “any defect” in the minimum combined setback ordinance. (He also argued that the suit should be dismissed because the Martins failed to exhaust administrative remedies, since they refused to request a variance.)

So here’s where things get more interesting. In 2006, the Maryland General Assembly explicitly granted municipalities in the state the authority to regulate lot coverage. That change led the Garrett Park Town Council, in the fall of 2008, to pass an amended ordinance that specified maximum lot coverage of 18 percent. Rather than saying 82 percent must be open, the ordinance said no more than 18 percent could be covered. That move, which has never gone into effect because of a pending (but as-yet unscheduled) referendum, would likely have invalidated the Martin’s suit.

Were McCormick to strike down the 16-year-old minimum combined setback ordinance, the town would then be governed—at
least temporarily—by Montgomery County’s zoning rules, which would allow houses to cover 20 percent of a lot under a unique “overlay zone” for Garrett Park. In that case, Garrett Park would almost certainly ask the judge to stay her decision pending results of the referendum on the new lot coverage ordinance. (In their suit, the Martins are challenging all of the town's zoning ordinances; however, their motion in court Tuesday only asked the judge to strike down the minimum combined setback.)

The bright side (for the Martins) would be a shiny new porch. What a pity it’s come to this. You’d think that Garrett Park could have made a reasonable proposal to settle the suit. Oh, wait. That happened. More than once.

If the judge were to dismiss the Martins’ case, most court watchers agreed an appeal would likely be in the cards.

So what have we learned this week?

1. Judges are at great advantage, when it comes to fashion. Black goes with everything.

2. Peter Benjamin was dead on when he wrote in the January 2009 Bugle that “I do not know what the purpose of the Martins’ lawsuit is, but it is not about getting a porch.”

3. With luck, McCormick will more closely consider case law, legal precedent, and written briefs than the lackluster oral arguments Liebowitz presented.

4. McCormick is tentatively scheduled to announce her decision January 9.

No Resolution in Sight for Lawsuit Against Garrett Park

2008-12-09T16:16:00.002-05:00

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.”

The Council Year in Review

2008-12-07T18:06:00.006-05:00

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.”

A Brief Housekeeping Note

2008-12-02T06:55:00.002-05:00

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.

Thanksgiving

2008-11-23T19:02:00.018-05:00

Anyone who knows my family knows we are dog people. It’s a love—or perhaps an obsession—that began two decades ago with Bear, an abused sheltie, and Annie, a mix of multiple breeds, all of which we presumed were actually dog. Annie and Bear were up in years when we moved to Garrett Park, and they didn’t live here for long. Annie succumbed to an enlarged heart, and Bear had a stroke.

When Bear died, we swore he was our last dog, and we kept that promise for four days. We welcomed a sheltie puppy named Belle, followed several months later by her littermate Lily. These two sisters had a little Thelma and Louise in them. One afternoon, a woman pulled up in a station wagon, with two black dogs in the back. She’d found them on opposite sides of the tracks, attempting to catch a freight train. Underneath the coating of grime lurked our dogs. Another day, these mostly white dogs rolled their way through a freshly mown lawn and came out day-glo green.

Two years ago, on President’s Day, Lily died from a rare liver disease. Belle is still with us, but she is in decline. She shares her existence (mostly willingly) with Tess, a former stray from West Virginia believed to be an American Eskimo dog, and Piper, a cross between a sheltie and a collie rescued from a dog hoarder in Georgia.

Somehow, though, three just didn’t turn out to be enough. This summer—as if to prove, first, that you should never let your spouse volunteer in an animal shelter and, second, that a spouse’s heart is generally bigger than her sense of what the neighbors will think—we brought home Cora. A nine-pound Pomeranian, she was a breeding mother from a horrific puppy mill in Tennessee. She had likely never been out of a chicken-wire cage, having been bred during every cycle of her 5 years. Her first days in our family, Cora spent most of her time on the deck, trotting in a small, counterclockwise circle, presumably the only pattern of movement she knew. She didn’t understand affection, because she had never been held or petted. For her entire life, she’d been a breeding machine.

After a day or two, I tried to get Cora to take a walk. Within a few uncertain blocks, something clicked. She began to prance at the end of the leash. She was fearful of people (and the ice cream truck) but not of the world. After that, we would walk in the evening for an hour, and then she would sleep in our bed, safe in the crook of my left arm. More than once, the thought occurred to me that if her life were to end tomorrow, we’d given her a better today than she’d ever known.

Columbus Day weekend, Cora’s tomorrows with us came to an end. She slipped out of the yard and, according to the few people who caught a glimpse of her, ran as if her life depended on it. Just what happened to that life, whether she was picked up or perished, we do not know.

It was, however, in the hours and days after Cora disappeared that we came to truly understand what it means to live in this town. It had nothing to do with houses or yards or gardens. It had nothing to do with historic preservation. It had nothing to do with trees. It had nothing to do with living in an enclave protected from the encroaching traffic of Rockville Pike and Connecticut Avenue. And it most certainly had nothing to do with a silly lawsuit about setbacks. It had everything to do with people who cared.

The weekend Cora went missing, a brigade of flashlight-toting neighbors came out and searched late into the evenings. I saw kids with missing-dog flyers on their bikes and scooters. I saw a woman and her husband walking through the woods gently calling her name. As we searched, not a single neighbor complained about the flyers we slid in their doors and under their windshield wipers. With just one exception, no one whined about the recorded phone message about her. Neighbors volunteered to help search on Saturday and Sunday and Monday. Garrett Parkers allowed us to peer into their yards and sheds, often more than once. People we didn’t know called to ask if she’d been found or simply to express their sympathies.

Yes, Cora was a dog, and not all of us see pets in the same light. Yet, she was precious to us. To all of you who shared that sentiment or who simply wanted to help a family in distress, please accept our deepest thanks.

This story has an epilogue. His name is Griff, a feisty, 15-week-old ball of Pomeranian fluff (pictured above) from an Amish puppy mill in Ohio, where he would have been consigned to a life not much better than Cora’s. Griff has made us smile again. He will never replace Cora, nor will we ever repair the hole she left in our hearts. That’s probably not a surprise. Anyone who knows my family knows we are dog people.

Believing in Small Gestures

2008-11-12T22:23:00.002-05:00

There was a minor agenda item at Monday night’s council meeting that got me thinking.

Garrett Park Administrator Ted Pratt sought (and received) authorization from the council to move the town’s checking account and the Betsy White Emergency Loan Fund account from Wachovia Bank to Sandy Spring Bank. The proposed move was, in part, practical: The new accounts will yield higher interest. But Ted also made an impassioned case for moving the town’s money from a bank mired in financial crisis caused, at least in part, by bad mortgage debt and other troubled investments to one that is local and accountable to its community.

Given the dollar amounts in question, it’s pretty clear that switching banks isn’t going to make a dent in Wachovia’s balance sheet. And that’s what led me to wonder whether symbolic gestures like Ted’s are worth the trouble.

Like Councilmember Hans Wegner’s belief that town property should be powered solely by wind-generated electricity, even if it costs more and public appreciation is short lived.

Like Warren Kornberg’s belief in an impeachment petition that would likely have had no impact on national debate.

Like Garrett Park’s declaration, more than a quarter century ago, of its nuclear freedom.

Why do some of our fellow citizens take the time and go to the considerable effort of standing up for symbols? Maybe it’s because passion, commitment, and personal code sometimes trump what is practical. And sometimes sparks catch fire.

Does that mean we should vote in favor of anything anyone believes is right? Of course not. Should we discuss and debate what our community stands for? You bet. But perhaps this quirky little town should pause once in a while and say thanks to our neighbors, even the ones we disagree with, who believe in the power of small gestures.

November Town Council Meeting

2008-11-11T10:25:00.000-05:00

What a difference a month makes. At its November meeting last night, the Town Council didn’t debate a zoning ordinance. There were no arguments or accusations about the lawsuit against the town and who’s right or wrong. In fact, the meeting was relatively brief and, frankly, not particularly exciting. It was wonderful.

First up was a presentation about the Garrett Park Elementary School’s stage. As all GPES alumni know well, this school has a long tradition of support for the arts. Yes, it’s elementary school, and performances of pre-teens often fall into the category that Randy Jackson on American Idol would call “a little pitchy, dog.” But that misses the point. These are little kids, who just might, if they are very, very lucky, move through life with a lasting appreciation for music and the stage. The problem right now is the stage itself. GPES is slated, beginning in late 2010, to be transformed into a modern, three-story building. Unfortunately, the County’s plans for a small, trapezoidal stage with no wings or back curtain would put quite a crimp on performance possibilities. So, the Garrett Park Elementary School Education Foundation is raising money to fund a stage at least the size of the existing one and maybe, if the bucks are right, bigger. The foundation wants the town to contribute $5,000 to the effort this fiscal year and $10,000 next year. (The whole stage project will cost $150,000 to $200,000.)

The obvious question is whether the town should play. Well, there is a history. Sixty years ago, the town kicked in to help build the stage GPES has now. In the current case, Mayor Keller suggested that, in return for the town’s possible financial backing (budget planning starts in a couple months), the town might be able to negotiate first dibs on rentals of the new space for events too large for town hall.

During this discussion, I couldn’t escape a feeling of foreboding--that if America’s fiscal nightmare is protracted, the town, in years to come, will have fewer and fewer opportunities to devote precious funds to more than basic services.

It may be lucky, then, that there is a possible resolution about the future of the Garrett Park Nursery School that likely wouldn’t consume buckets of cash. Mayor Keller and Councilmember Hans Wegner reported on a recent meeting with Montgomery County park and planning officials, who seem amenable to transferring to the town ownership of the nursery school building and the lot it sits on. But the County wants something in return: the half of the basketball court near Penn Place that the County park system doesn’t currently own. There would need to be clear conditions on this land swap, said the mayor, including a perpetual easement to the town, ensuring that a basketball court remains a basketball court and that access to Porcupine Woods remains unchanged. One potential enticement: the County folks have suggested that they might be able to build us a gazebo. Next steps: a written proposal from park and planning, followed by careful consideration.

In the more immediate fiscal situation, the town budget is taking a big hit in one area: the lawsuit Martin v. Garrett Park. “We are burning through cash in legal fees at the rate of $50,000 a month,” said Town Administrator Ted Pratt. At the moment, there’s a budget shortfall of about $54,000 in the “professional fees” category, so the council voted to transfer $20,000 from the operating contingency fund and $35,000 from the capital contingency fund, to cover the gap. There will almost certainly be more transfers needed, down the line. [Insert the comment of your choosing here about who’s to blame.]

Why a Blog?

2008-11-11T08:27:00.000-05:00

I am now writing in this online forum because of a disagreement with the Bugle about editing--not whether the Bugle had an absolute right to edit my copy, but whether, as a volunteer writer, I had should have been granted the privilege to review, before publication, how my words had been edited.

For the year and a half that I covered the council for the Bugle, I never pretended to be providing reportage. I wrote a column--a reported column--in which I was not shy about saying what I thought. Along the way, I have been accused of bias by partisans on both sides of the same issue. More than one councilmember has complained about my coverage. I have tried to be fair, yes, but have never pretended to be impartial. I called them as I saw them. After 25 years in journalism, I believe I understand the concept of fairness.

In the November issue of the Bugle, Loretta Bonner wrote, in a letter to the editor, that my coverage of town setback issues was "an editorial" and that I had "lost sight" of my duty to "report the news fairly and impartially."

So, here's an offer to the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the town, to show you just how fair and impartial I can be: Sit down with me for an interview. I will ask you some questions about the suit and what principles led you down this path. I'll also have some questions you may not like, about the timing of your suit and whether there have been any settlement offers along the way. Let's sit down for a conversation. I will record the whole thing, and will publish a complete transcript. Try me, and see just how fair I can be. If you're interested, just shoot me an E-mail to rafolkers@verizon.net.

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

2008-10-23T10:12:00.000-04:00

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.