gaithersblog.net

Update 4: WTOP says:

Someone saw something and then said something, that’s what happened in Old Town Gaithersburg Thursday afternoon.

A section was blocked to traffic, parts of an office building were evacuated and MARC rail service on the Brunswick line was disrupted all because someone parked their car.

And WJZ (Baltimore Channel 13) says:

The officer believed there was a propane odor coming from the car, but fire department spokesman Pete Piringer says the odor was coming from trash in a nearby pickup truck.

As a precaution, police, fire department personnel and the bomb squad were requested to the scene. A bomb sniffing dog sniffed the car and did not react, so police conducted steps to rule it out as a potential threat.

At 2:00pm, Alert Gaithersburg sent out the following:

S. Summit Ave. closed between Hutton St. & E. Dimaond Ave. Olde Towne Ave. closed from Fulks Corner to S. Summit Ave. because of a suspicious vehicle.

It took a while for stories to show up in the news, but now Fox 5 and NBC 4 are reporting that a suspicious vehicle, plastered with anti-war stickers and emanating a odor of propane was found in the parking garage; the initial report came in about 1:00 pm, and the MARC train service is at the moment shut down. I’m expecting some photographs from a Gaithersblog reader, I’ll post them when they’re available.

Update 1: WJZ (Baltimore Channel 13) has a story and a helicopter video up; the narrator manages to get multiple things wrong — as far as I know the apartment building next to the Garage is not a “Senior Assisted Living Facility” (I assume someone told the reporter it was near Asbury and they got confused) — so take it for what it’s worth.

Update 3: The incident appears to have been cleared; I just got notices from MARC that the railroad was re-opened, and about a minute later from Alert Gaithersburg that the streets were re-opened.

Update 2: Pictures.

Photos courtesy Clark W Day Photo-Graphics.

Public hearings before the Historic District Commission are relatively rare. For those who don’t know, there are two levels of historic preservation review in Gaithersburg. The formal, quasi-judicial review is done by the Historic District Commission, which, although nominally a distinct body, has never been constituted by a membership distinct from the Mayor and Council, even though the HDC terms are out of sync with those of the Mayor and Council. HDC meetings are held during Mayor and Council meetings; the Mayor and Council adjourns, the HDC convenes, does their business, adjourns, and then the Mayor and Council re-convenes. No one ever has to leave their chair. However, many of the technical issues that must be considered in preservation review are comparable in complexity to those considered by the Planning Commission, and to hash out these details the Mayor and Council appoints members to a standing Historic Preservation Advisory Committee, or HPAC. The HPAC typically meets once per month, although it sometimes holds additional meetings for various reasons. In all (or perhaps virtually all) cases the HPAC’s considerations of these applications are conducted as public hearings. As I said, the work done by the HPAC is similar to that done by the Planning Commission, and it is not unusual for HPAC members to be nominated to the Planning Commission — for example, John Schlichting (now on the Council), John Bauer and Lloyd Kaufman all served on HPAC before they were on the Planning Commission.

Although the HPAC reviews applications, they do not have the power to make a final decision — that’s left up to the HDC. Instead, the HPAC makes recommendations to the HDC, and the HDC makes their own decision — which in most cases simply agrees with the HPAC’s recommendation. If there is no controversy and the HDC intends to simply accept the HPAC’s recommendation, this is typically done without a public hearing. However, if an applicant or other party doesn’t particularly like what the HPAC recommended, they can go to the HDC and raise a fuss. The HDC, being constituted by members of an elected body, can sometimes appear to be more sensitive to the political aspects of a case than is the HPAC, which is typically more focused on the technical.

112 Meem Avenue

In the case of the public hearing scheduled for next Monday, the HPAC unanimously recommended denial of an application. Aware that the applicant was unhappy with this decision — and presented with several signatures of neighbors who said they liked the work the applicant had done on the house — when this issue came before the them for policy discussion last month, the HDC decided to defer the decision and call for a public hearing.

The history of the case before them next Monday is basically as follows. I’ve gathered this information from the background materials provided to the HDC at their meeting on August 20 (this background document is 53 pages long and includes photographs of the property as well as the complete transcript of the HPAC meeting recommending denial):

• In 2005, the applicant applied for a permit to build an addition on his house. Because the house is in a historic district — even though it wasn’t considered a “contributing resource” — the application had to first be considered by the HPAC.
• The HPAC recommended approval of the application, with the single condition “That a vertical siding pattern on the front gable be used to match the side gables.”
• The Planning Commission then considered the application, and they also gave their approval, also including a condition about the siding requirement, and adding their own standard condition on obtaining a Historic Area Work Permit (HAWP) from the HDC. It actually is not typical that an HAWP application would go before the Planning Commission. This one did for reasons having nothing to do with historic preservation. The applicant wanted to build the addition on a footprint that would not be allowed under the standard zoning rules for his lot. Quoting the transcript of the August’s HPAC meeting,
  

  The reason this went to the Planning Commission at that time was the plan was calling for a rear addition and a front addition. The rear addition, this being R-90, it was no concern about that. But the front addition was intruding into the front yard setback. So it went to the Planning Commission and they thought it was a good use of the TND option, the Traditional Neighborhood Development option and reviewed the elevations and the site plan and granted approval.

  The minutes of the relevant Planning Commission hearing are included below.

• The HDC granted approval of the HAWP, preserving the condition on the siding.
• The applicant worked on the addition for close to two years, and in doing so departed from the approved plans — including using brick, rather than a “veritical siding pattern” in the gable.
• Following the expiration of the building permits, the City’s code enforcement office produced a report identifying a number of deficiencies, including the departure from approved plans, possibly non-code-compliant framing, and the use of part of the new space without inspection approvals. I’ve extracted this report from the PDF, attempted to clean up the OCR’d text, and included it below.
• The applicant applied for retroactive approval of the changes to the plan. This application was considered by the HPAC on August 2, 2007. The HPAC unanimously recommended denial.
• The application was forwarded to the HDC.

In my mind, this should be a simple, open-and-shut case of denial. The applicant went through a very detailed process, asking for and obtaining specific exceptions to the normal rules. He then proceeded to ignore much of what had been agreed to, including specific conditions set forth in the approval and possibly even the building code. While the building code issues are not at question in this part of the process, the condition on materials very much is. If the HDC approves this application, what does this say to future applicants about how seriously the City takes these processes?

I will add that the HDC would seem to be in something of an odd position here, what with being asked to approve a permit for work which may not meet code. According to the discussion contained in in the transcript of the HPAC meeting, as there are code-compliance issues and deviations from plans that had been approved by the Planning Commission, both the Code Enforcement staff and the Planning Commission would still have some say in this if the HDC grants approval here. As I understand the discussion, if the HPAC had recommended approval of the application, then the application would have gone back to the Planning Commission before being reviewed by the HDC. The Planning Commission, if the the code issues could be worked out and they were of a mind to approve the application, would typically include — as they had before — a condition that the applicant obtain a Historic Area Work Permit from the HDC. So it is almost as if the application is going through the process backwards. But while it may be an odd position politically, in fact the code and zoning issues aren’t really at question here, and the HDC could grant the HWAP purely on the basis of their understanding of the preservation guidelines, and count on the code-enforcement and Planning Commission processes to run their course. I just don’t know why they would want to do this.

Introduction to the background materials provided to the HDC:

This application proposes a retroactive amendment to HAWP-95 approved by the Historic District Commission on June 6, 2005, for a rear and front addition HAWP-95 was processed as site plan SP-05-0003 receiving approval from the Planning Commission on May 18, 2005. The property at 112 Meem Avenue is a non-contributing resource in the Chestnu/Meem Historic District.

The applicant has proceeded with work on the existing house which does not conform to the approved plans. Accordingly, the applicant is requesting a retroactive amendment to the approved plans to permit the completion of the work as currently constructed. The modifications requested include changes to the proposed windows, roof style, and materials.

At their meeting of August 2, 2007, the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (HPAC) held a public hearing on this request. The HPAC voted unanimously to recommend denial of HAWP-95A (retroactive amendment to HAWP 95) finding the completed “as-built” work a significant deviation from the approved plan resulting in a lack of compatibility with the original structure. See transcript Exhibit 24 and the draft minutes (Exhibit 32).

The HPAC recommends the HDC make the following motion: Deny HAWP 95A Retroactive Amendment to HAWP 95 finding, based on the record before HPAC and for the reasons articulated by HPAC, that the significant as built changes to the roof design, windows, and materials, are in violation of the historic area work permit approval and have resulted in a lack of compatibility with the original house. A denial will require a written notification by the HOC of the reasons for the denial (Sec. 24-228.1(e)(2).

Since the close of HPAC’s record Exhibits 25-31, correspondence from the applicant’s neighbors, were submitted which support the built design Per Section 24-228.1(c) the HOC may render its decision based on HPAC s recommendations or in its discretion, hold its own public hearing.

Report of the code enforcement office, from the background materials:

To:	Pat Patula
From:	Greg Dennison
Date:	July 26 2007
Subject:	112 Meem Avenue Permit number PI-B050862

Currently the building and electrical permits for 112 Meem Avenue have expired. Upon a verbal request from the homeowner/permittee to extend his permit a progress inspection was performed, the following items have been noted;

1- The rear addition has been completed and is currently occupied without any framing, electrical or plumbing inspections or approvals.

2- The exterior of the front addition is 90 percent complete, the interior of the front addition is incomplete and the new framing is not in accordance with the approved plans.

3- The front and side elevations do not match the approved plans.

4- The roof lines, windows and exterior materials do not match the approved plans.

Note: The windows, as placed on the front may need to be removed or blocked due to the roof not being framed in accordance with the approved plans. Revised plans have not been submitted. The large half oval window may interfere with the location of a ridge beam or may be blocked entirely if ceiling joists are installed.

6- Also note there have been several complaints about the construction debris at the site.

At this time the homeowner has been asked by this office to have the electrical system inspected and certified by a licensed master electrician to determine the safety of the dwelling electrical components as installed. Some, if not all, of the interior finishes, will be required to be removed to determine code compliance and the structural integrity of the framing.

Permits and Inspections will determine what steps to take next following the report from the master electrician and the outcome of the changes to the elevations.

cc:	Greg Fulmer
	file

Minutes from the May 18, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting:

SP-05-0003 — 112 Meem Avenue - Kahn Residence
R-90 Zone
201.6-Sq.Ft. Front Addition and
380.72-Sq.Ft. Rear Addition
CONCEPT/FINAL PLAN REVIEW

Planner Patula located the property and introduced this application for front and rear additions to the existing house, proposed under the Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) option. She explained that this proposal is before the Commission because the sunroom encroaches 3three feet into the front setback. She noted this house is a noncontributing resource in the Chestnut/Meem Historic District and a legally nonconforming structure.

Applicant Irfan Kahn, 112 Meem Avenue, presented the plan and indicated the front addition would enclose an existing concrete patio area that measures 9’x16’, and he is proposing to extend it to 12 feet. The proposed addition in the rear would be 20’ x 16’. He pointed out that other homes in the neighborhood have reduced yard setbacks. He also presented and discussed the proposed elevations, noting the existing entrance would be extended four feet to align with the proposed addition.

There was no public testimony.

Ms. Patula voiced staff’s recommendation for approval with conditions that she listed, and noted the plan is in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance §§ 24-170, 24-171, and 24-11 through 24-21.1.

Commissioners Hopkins and Levy voiced their support of this proposal’s use of the TND option noting it will be an improvement to the streetscape.

Commissioner Levy moved, seconded by Commissioner Winborne, to grant SP-05-0003 - Kahn Residence at 12 Meem Avenue, CONCEPT/FINAL PLAN APPROVAL, with the following conditions:

1. Planning Commission grants the TND Option for this in-fill development finding it meets the requirements of § 24-22.3 because:
   1. The project will not negatively impact the existing neighborhood.
   2. The density is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.
   3. The lot size does not change and is at least 75 percent of the average lot size of the existing block.
   4. The building is set back from a public street more than the required minimum of 10 feet.
   5. There is adequate access for public safety and utility availability.
   6. The green space remains compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
2. Applicant is to acquire a historic area work permit from the Historic District Commission; and
3. Applicant is to use a vertical siding pattern on the front gable to match the side gables.

Vote: 5-0

Update: Karin Brulliard writes in the Washington Post, ‘What We Had Here Was a Family’

Herndon shuttered its publicly funded day-laborer hiring site yesterday in a publicized move to crack down on illegal immigration, but the controversy seemed likely to continue as dozens of workers marched about a mile and a half to a path beside a park, where they plan to renew their quest for jobs.

Guided by representatives from the Los Angeles-based National Day Laborer Organizing Network, they picked a 13-foot-long patch of public land between a curb and the boundary of Alabama Drive Park in central Herndon. The workers said they will be there this morning to begin looking for jobs.

Town spokeswoman Anne Curtis said that people are free to solicit work from inside the space, in accordance with the court’s ruling, as long as they do not impede traffic or seek jobs while inside the park.

But a town zoning ordinance prohibits workers from creating a “designated or formalized site” without a special exception from the Town Council, she said.

Sandhya Somashekhar writes in the Washington Post’s Virginia Briefing:

After Herndon’s hiring center for day laborers closes tomorrow, workers will begin soliciting employers for jobs on the sidewalk near Alabama Drive Park, an activist group announced yesterday.

The workers are planning to hold a march at 10 a.m. tomorrow from the center to the park to draw employers’ attention to the informal new job site, said Marco Amador, education and outreach coordinator for the National Day Laborer Organizing Network.

Also in that item, there’s an AP wire story reporting that Spotsylvania supervisors have declared English the county’s official language.