gaithersblog.net

As mentioned in my report on the 10/09/06 Council meeting, the City has provided notice of a closed executive session to be held on October 16, 2006. Following is the text of the announcment:

ANNOUNCEMENT OF PLANS FOR A CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION

Notice to the general public is hereby given that the Mayor and City Council of Gaithersburg plan to conduct a closed Executive Session on Monday, October 16, 2006, immediately following the regular meeting of the Mayor and City Council, pursuant to Sections 10-508(a)(7) and 10-508(a)(8), State Government Article, of the Annotated Code of Maryland, to consult with legal counsel and staff concerning pending litigation. The topic to be discussed is the effect of a recent ruling from the federal court concerning a pending law suit in which the City was a named defendant. The meeting will be conducted pursuant to a motion properly adopted during the regular meeting of the Mayor and City Council on October 16, 2006.

Anyone know what this is about?

Update: According to B., this appears to be related to a suit against the Gaithersburg Police…

On Thursday, October 12, 2006 at 7:30pm, the Gaithersburg Mayor and Council will hold a special work session on the proposed site for a day labor center. This meeting was first announced about a week ago. From the background document,

A potential location for a Montgomery County-run employment
center has been identified at the Festival at Muddy Branch
Shopping Center on Muddy Branch Road. Staff feels it meets
much of the criteria set forth by Gaithersburg’s Day Laborer Task
Force.

The Special Work Session will begin with a panel of speakers
addressing various aspects of the center –

1. Dave Humpton, City Manager – Will introduce the panel
   and provide background on the proposed location
2. Mr. Norman Dreyfuss – Mr. Dreyfuss is the landlord of the
   Wheaton site and has agreed to relate his experiences with
   that operation
3. Chris Bonvillian, Police Captain – Will discuss the
   involvement of the police in managing the current
   gatherings of workers and report on feedback from
   Montgomery County police regarding the Wheaton center

A Resolution endorsing this site is attached and will be available
on Thursday night. The City Manager would then undertake
negotiation of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with
Montgomery County relating to the establishment, funding, and
operation of the center. The MOU would be brought back to the
Council for approval as soon as possible.

There are three attachments in the background document: Memos from Olde Towne Coordinator Cindy Hines and Chief of Police Mary Ann Viverette reporting on their respective visits to the CASA-run day labor center in Wheaton, and a proposed resolution.

The two memos are generally supportive. Ms. Hines’ states:

In exploring the potential impact of existing employment centers on neighboring businesses, I visited the stores in the shopping strip where the Wheaton Employment Center is located. I spoke with representatives of all of the businesses and did not get one negative comment. The consensus was that businesses experienced no problems related to the center.

The manager of a residential facility located above the center acknowledged that, initially, she was very apprehensive about the proposed use. However, she stated that none of the anticipated concerns ever materialized. Currently, 168 families live in the complex.

while Chief Viverette’s says (please not that this is OCR’d from the bitmap pages in the pdf — do not rely on this text):

Given that the Mayor and Council are exploring the opening of an Employment Center in the City of Gaithersburg, I discussed the issue yesterday with Captain Patty Walker. Captain Walker was the 4th District Commander in Wheaton when the Employment Center in Wheaton was established.

Captain Walker advises that Ms. Natalie Cantor of the Mid-County Government Center had the bulk of the responsibility with regard to planning. Although Captain Walker is now in charge of the Major Crimes Unit, she advises that, from a police perspective, the site on Veirs Mill Road was not problematic. Specifically, she informed me that there was no increase in crime or criminal activity related to the employment center.

Captain Walker’s recollection was that the opening of the location generated little fanfare and that, from her perspective, the businesses were fine with it. While assigned as the 4″ District Commander, it was her belief that most of the day laborers used the site and that they were cooperative on the occasions they had to be moved from other areas. Captain Walker believes that it was helpful for her personnel to direct individuals to the established Employment Center when the need arose to disperse them from other areas. On occasion, police officers would go to the site and conduct training on issues that may be of interest to day laborers (i.e., driving laws, drinking in public, etc.).

Few Minuteman Civil Defense Corps volunteers were ever at the site, and when present caused no problems.

Following is the text of the proposed resolution. Please keep in mind that this has not yet been adopted. Also note that I copied this text out of a pdf and formatted it into HTML myself; thus do not rely on this text, consult the original document before commenting to the City:

RESOLUTION ENDORSING A SITE WITHIN THE FESTIVAL AT MUDDY BRANCH SHOPPING CENTER AS THE LOCATION FOR AN EMPLOYMENT CENTER IN THE CITY OF GAITHERSBURG TO BE FUNDED AND OPERATED BY MONTGOMERY COUNTY

WHEREAS, the City of Gaithersburg commissioned a citizen task force to explore the operation of an employment center and to develop criteria for selection of a site for such a center; and

WHEREAS, the task force recommended that such a center be located in the City and the Mayor and City Council endorsed that recommendation; and

WHEREAS, Montgomery County government has determined that employment centers serve the needs of day laborers and benefit the community at-large, and it has established and funded such centers in Wheaton and Silver Spring and has expressed a commitment to do so within the City; and

WHEREAS, the City has identified a location within the Festival at Muddy Branch Shopping Center that is an appropriate and suitable location for an employment center that will serve workers within the City and from other areas of upper Montgomery County; and

WHEREAS, the City and the County have determined that it is in the best interests of both parties to establish, via a Memorandum of Understanding, a partnership by which a location for the Center could be established, funded, and operated:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the site for an employment center at the Festival at Muddy Branch Shopping Center is hereby endorsed by the City Council.

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager is hereby authorized to undertake negotiations on a Memorandum of Understanding with Montgomery County, Maryland relating to the establishment, funding, and operation thereof.

ADOPTED by the City Council this 12th day of October, 2006.

Ernesto Londoño writes in the Washington Post:

Two men suspected of being MS-13 gang members have been charged with attempted murder in a stabbing that happened Sept. 23 after a party in Gaithersburg.

Roberto Moreno, 25, and Dimas I. Castillo, 27, both of Gaithersburg, confronted Douglas Parada after Parada drove off in Castillo’s vehicle without permission, according to a charging document filed by Montgomery County police.

The incident started at a party on Pepperwood lane, near Midcounty Highway in Emory Grove; the stabbing happend on South Frederick Ave.

Jaime Ciavarra writes in the Gazette,

Police have not yet determined what killed Jacob Matthew Dunn, a 23-month-old who was found dead last night along with his father in a Gaithersburg apartment.

The father, Gerald Robert Wells, 39, of the 18300 block of Streamside Drive, apparently committed suicide. He was found dead about 8 p.m. last night in his bathroom with a gunshot wound, police report.

The boy, who lived with his mother in Olney, had no apparent physical trauma, said Lt. Eric Burnett, a police spokesman.

Streamside Drive is near Flower Hill Way & Woodfield road, on the East side of the City. Channel 4 also has a story on this, with a video report. Also, Ernesto Londoño has a story in the Washinton
Post.

Update: Ms Ciavarra has an follow-up in the 10/18/06 Gazette.

Ms. Ciavarra also writes,

A Gaithersburg woman has been arrested after allegedly flirting with men at a party and over the Internet and luring them to a basement apartment in a scheme to rob them, according to county police.

Margaret Elizabeth Stierle, 19, of Boxberry Court, was arrested Oct. 5 for her involvement in two September armed robberies in which — on separate occasions — she asked men to meet her at the back entrance of a house where she said she lived.

Stierle allegedly played the bait as her accomplices, three black men brandishing a knife and gun, waited for and then robbed the victims, said Lt. Eric Burnett, police spokesman.

This took place on Cinnabar Drive in Gaithersburg, which is north of the Airpark, off Woodfield opposite Fieldcrest.

The Washington Times had an editorial on Saturday regarding the day laborer situation:

Perhaps Gaithersburg Mayor Sidney Katz and his council members are encouraged that none of them faces an election this year. They shouldn’t be. Angry Gaithersburg residents have already signaled their intention to seek a recall of the mayor and City Council if members approve the plan. Judicial Watch, a public-interest law firm, has also threatened to sue the city if it opened the center. Indeed, Judicial Watch did just that over the Herndon center.

[…]

In August, for instance, Assistant City Manager Tony Tomasello said, “If you look at the letters and the calls and the e-mails, they’re 90 percent opposed.”

Everyone who has ever written a letter to complain about something, raise your hands. OK, put them down. Now, everyone who has written a letter to say that you’re happy with how things are going, raise your hands. Yeah, that’s about what I thought.

Update: The City has posted an Outcomes document. See also my annotations below. Also, the video of this meeting is now available.

Outcome: Minutes of the previous meeting were approved with corrections.

Update: The City has revised this agenda to final status and published background materials for most of the items. Background materials for T-379 have not been released as of this morning (10/17/06), and one item has been removed. I’ve updated the text below to include links to the background PDFs.

The City has posted a tentative agenda for the October 18, 2006 meeting of the Planning Commision. Items on this agenda include:

T-379 — Ordinance to amend Chapter 24 of the City Code, entitled “Zoning,” to create a new Article XVI, entitled, “Affordable Housing Requirements,” §§ 24-248 through 24-254, so as to require the inclusion of moderately priced dwelling units and work force housing units in new residential developments
TBA - Background Material (pdf format)
Outcome: This item is not listed in the Outcomes, presumably it was removed from the agenda at the last minute.

SDP-06-003 — Request to amend the previously approved Schematic Development Plan SDP-L5, Lakelands Lane in the Woods. The current application (SDP-06-003) requests modification to pedestrian facilities, landscape, lighting, and tot lot removal. The subject property is located in the Lakelands subdivision and is in the Mixed Use Development (MXD) Zone.
Background Material (pdf format)
Outcome:Recommended for approval

T-379 and SDP-06-003 were subjects of a recent Mayor & Council meeting.

AFP-06-041 — 340 Tschiffely Square Road in Kentlands
MXD Zone
(Shaw Residence)
1-½ Story Addition to Garage with Porch & Steps
AMENDMENT TO FINAL PLAN REVIEW
Background Material (pdf format)
Outcome:Approved

AFP-06-027 — Goddard School
MXD Zone
Quince Orchard Park Crescents
900 Wind River Lane
13,000-Sq.Ft. Private Educational Facility
AMENDMENT TO FINAL PLAN REVIEW
Background Material (pdf format)
Outcome:Approved with condition

SP-06-0007 — Washingtonian South Ten
MXD Zone
9711 Washingtonian Boulevard
Two Office Buildings and Garage
FINAL PLAN REVIEW
This item has been removed from the agenda

AFP-06-039 — 10 Highland Avenue
R-90 Zone
(Hoiler Residence)
Garage/Driveway Changes
AMENDMENT TO FINAL PLAN REVIEW
Background Material (pdf format)
Outcome:Approved

AFP-06-040 — Crown Pointe
RP-T Zone
Norwich/Sharpstead Lanes
Revised Elevations  Norwood Model
COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITION OF APPROVAL
Background Material (pdf format)
Outcome:Granted

CSP-06-002 — Russell & Brooks Addition
R-B Zone
10 Brookes Avenue
Conversion of Residence to Office with Parking
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW
Background Material (pdf format)
Outcome:Approved

Update: The video of this session is now available. Also, the date in the headline for this post has been corrected.

Update 2: The City has posted an outcomes document for this meeting. Also, there is notice of the closed executive session mentioned below.

Tonight’s Last night’s Council meeting was largely dedicated to two public hearings: The Destruction of the Talbott House and the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. There was also announcement of a closed executive session regarding a lawsuit being brought against the City (I’ll provide a link when the City posts an announcement on their website) and a statement from John Schlichting that, as a result of a financial interest in the Festival at Muddy Branch shopping center (the location for the proposed day labor center), he will not be participating in the special Council meeting this coming Thursday.

Clarification: Mr. Schlichting’s financial interest is in a company — JBG Properties — that is 50% owner of the leasing and managment company for the shopping center, JBG Rosenfeld.

The Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) portion of the meeting, which was a joint hearing with the Planning Commission, took around 45 minutes. Two major points of concern were (a) whether it was a good idea to have an APFO that was substantially stricter than the APFO of the surrounding and adjacent jurisdictions (the beer that Mr. Schlichting bought for Mr. Ossont a few days ago was not sufficient to convince the Planning & Code Director to go on the record with his opinion on this question) and (b) whether the APFO should be sensitive to the six-year planning horizon used by MPCS for school construction, or whether it should, as drafted, be sensitive to the two-year funding horizon used by the County for such capital improvements. The County’s APFO uses the six-year standard, while Rockville’s uses a two-year standard. Apparently one MCPS official told Assistant City Manager Fred Felton that they would prefer that Gaithersburg use the six-year standard, but MCPS has not provided any written documentation which identifies the reasons for this preference or even just states this an official position of the school system. Several speakers expressed skepticism regarding the six-year standard, especially given MCPS’ horrendous track record for funding new school construction; it is not uncommon for projects to languish for a decade or more in the unfunded years-three-to-six portion of the planning horizon. As this was just a public hearing, there were no conclusions at this point.

The HDC hearing on the Hair Bar also took close to an hour. Mr. Halici’s lawyers and his appraiser presented a long — and to my ear whiney — case for why the demolition should be allowed. Mr. Halici’s team still did not provide any documentation to demonstrate the claimed financial hardship, I expect because there simply isn’t any. Instead, they talked about the tens of thousands of dollars it would cost to bring the building up to code, and that it would cost (IIRC) around a quarter of a million dollars to rehabilitate it to the point that the second floor could be used. While I expect they thought that these numbers sounded impressively large, I thought that they sounded like perfectly reasonable, routine and maybe even low costs for a commercial redevelopment project. Admittedly, I base this not on experience in commercial construction but rather on some familiarity with costs for residential projects, ranging from painting and roofing to garages and additions, and a general sense that construction on a commercial project is likely to cost more than the equivalent for residential work. Costs being what they are, it would seem to me not to be unusual for even a homeowner to spend as much as $100,000 to update a century-old home after living in it for nearly twenty years. Also, since this property is a designated historic asset, Mr. Halici is able to take advantage of various tax credits that will offset much of the this cost; as this is a commercial property, he is able to get these credits for more types of work than can the owner of a historic residential property.

During the hearing, several speakers rose to speak against the demolition. The CouHistoric District Commission voted, after much back and forth with Mr. Halici’s lawyers, to hold the record open for thirty days. Mr. Halici’s lawyer preferred that they hold the record open for at most ten days. He also made the outrageous request that he be allowed to respond to all public comment even if it arrives at the very end of the comment period — in effect, that he be allowed to have the last word — this would require that the record be reopened for Mr. Halici and Mr. Halici only. The HDC made it quite clear that this was not how the process worked.

Mr Halici was seen, after the meeting, talking at length to Gazette reporter Jaime Ciavarra. It will be interesting to see how the Gazette will spin this.