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.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, January 2, 2009
The Suit About a Porch Gets a Day in Court
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
No Resolution in Sight for Lawsuit Against Garrett Park
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.”
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.”
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
