Baltimore Fish Bowl | Proposed demolition sparks bullying allegations in Mount Vernon –

[ad_1]

A developer has proposed to demolish the above garage at 12 East Eager Street.

Baltimore residents opposed to the demolition of a fire-damaged building in the historic Mount Vernon district could be questioned by a promoter’s lawyer about the letters they wrote, a process that some say amounts to bullying.

At issue is a decision before the Baltimore Commission for Historic and Architectural Preservation regarding a request to shave a fire-damaged garage at 12 East Eager Street. The city received seven letters of opposition to the demolition.

At a meeting in June, an attorney for the promoter said he wanted to cross-examine the authors of the letters before a decision was made. The request delayed the decision and some residents denounced it.

It’s intimidation, said Drew Rieger, a member of the Mount Vernon Belvedere Associations architectural review board and one of the letter’s writers. Why do they force individuals to overcome more barriers to express an opinion?

The back-and-forth highlights the tensions between developers and neighborhood residents and conservationists in parts of the city.

Rieger said he wrote the letter in part to avoid aggressive actions by the lawyers.

Last year, developer Larry Jennings sued residents of Clipper Mill after they voiced opposition to his plans to the preservation board and planning commission. as did the residents of Clipper Mill.

Rieger was among several residents writing letters informed by a town employee that they should be prepared to virtually attend a preservation commission meeting on July 13 so they could be cross-examined by counsel for the developers, or the views in their letters can be ignored.

The message was sent on July 6 by Caitlin Audette, planner on the preservation commission. The subject is now postponed.

12 Eager Street East

I am contacting you regarding your letter of opposition to the garage demolition project at 12 E. Désireux, Audette wrote. This proposal was tabled by the commission during the CHAP hearing on June 8 and will be back for the CHAP hearing on July 13. It was filed following a request by Plaintiff’s Counsel to cross-examine those who wrote letters opposing the proposal. Since neither of these people was present, it was not possible.

Abraham Hurdle, the attorney representing the developer, said established case law allows for questioning of people providing written testimony and his request is not intended to discriminate.

Audette said in her post that the agenda item was also tabled because the committee wanted advice from the city’s legal department on how to respond to the lawyers’ request to cross-examine the perpetrators of the letter.

The Legal Department informed us that they did not believe we could compel anyone who wrote a letter to attend the hearing for cross-examination, as requested by counsel for the plaintiff.

Audette then shared what town lawyers suggested as a way to handle the situation.

To avoid litigation, she said, they recommend that the commission make a decision without considering the opposition letters. The final decision rests with the committee.

Garage damaged by fire

The main building at 12 East Eager Street is a three-story townhouse that was built in the late 1800s as a single-family dwelling and was later used as office space. According to state land records, the property is owned by 12 East Eager St. LLC, who paid it $ 500,000 in 2018, and its zoning is for commercial use. CHAP’s June diary indicated that the demolition permit applicant was David John Amato.

The property was the subject of controversy in the neighborhood several years ago when a group led by the directors of Reveal Real Estate, Stefan Popescu and Andrew Klymkowsky, proposed to create up to 12 micro-units in the front building. Neighbors opposed the micro-unit plan and the project never materialized. According to neighbors, the main house is currently being used as a residential drug treatment center.

At the CHAP meeting on June 8, Commissioners learned that the owner wanted to demolish an early 1900s shed at the rear of the property which was used as a garage but was damaged by fire on February 3. the extent of fire damage. The building is now missing its garage door and part of its roof, leaving it open to the elements.

A fire restoration expert hired by the owner said the garage was badly damaged and it would take soda or sandblasting to remove soot from the brick surface, causing the building to lose some much of its original appearance. He noted that other houses in the block have parking lots rather than garages.

Audette, who is the agency’s main liaison with Mount Vernon, told the commission the damage was not so severe that the building lost its historical significance. Despite the fire, she said, the masonry structure appears to be relatively strong. At the same time, the installation of a new roof structure, windows and doors is necessary to restore the garage to good condition, she said.

Jump through more hoops

Prior to the meeting, the preservation committee posted notices on the property and on the city’s website about the request, offering the option to virtually testify or submit letters of support or opposition.

Drew rieger

Rieger, one of the seven letter writers, said he believes writing a letter is an acceptable alternative to in-person testimony, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. He said he did not understand how a city agency could compel a writer to attend a public meeting and be cross-examined, in order for his letter to be considered.

Is this a new policy? He asked. I thought the letters were meant to replace public testimony. How can they force someone who writes a letter to submit to cross-examination?

Rieger wonders about people who may not have access to a computer or cell phone. How can the city demand that they be present and cross-examined? He asked. He doesn’t treat everyone the same.

Contentious issue

Eric Holcomb, executive director of the preservation council, said he decided to remove the item from the CHAPs calendar for July 13 because he and the commissioners still have questions for the city’s legal department. He said the matter would come back to the commission at a future hearing, most likely in August. He declined to answer further questions about the application or the process.

Due to the contentious nature of this issue, I can’t answer any of your questions at this time, Holcomb said in an email. This is an evolving problem.

The request to question the authors of the letter came 15 minutes after the start of the June 8 hearing by Hurdle, the lawyer representing the owner.

We received copies of the letters prior to the hearing, with our right to summon these people to that hearing, Hurdle said. I have had issues with CHAP hearings in the past, not being able to cross-examine people. It was appealed and we took the lead on these issues.

After verification, commission chairman Tom Liebel told Hurdle that no one who submitted a letter was present at the virtual hearing. What might be safe at this point is to file the case and we can make those letters available to you and you can continue from there. Would that be acceptable?

Yes. We would like to bring these people to the hearing, Hurdle said.

Panel member Aaron Bryant asked if there was a precedent for the letter writers to appear at a public meeting and agree to be cross-examined, for their letters to be considered.

Can we force people to come to hearings to testify? He asked.

The panel voted 9-0 to postpone the case to seek legal advice.

Hurdle said in an email message that he and his clients were in agreement with Holcombs’ decision to postpone the hearing given the complexity of the case.

He said his request was not intended to intimidate or harass the authors of the letter.

Our system is based on the right to face our accusers, he said. This is not to intimidate or scare anyone. Someone cannot say whatever they want in a letter and have it taken for granted. Established case law states that, upon request, that person must testify under oath to his statement, or his testimony is withdrawn. I just want the authors of the letters to testify, under oath and under penalty of perjury, to their prior statements.

Unduly under pressure

John Murphy, a lawyer who represented the residents of Clipper Mill sued by Jennings, said a lawyer has the right to cross-examine people who testify at a government hearing provided they get information that can help the commissioners to make an informed decision and not to intimidate individuals.

Generally speaking, people who testify in a CHAP hearing on an individual case are subject to cross-examination, he said in an email. However, CHAP must ensure that this is genuine cross-examination and not harassment.

Murphy added that the letters traditionally lack the strength of live testimony in government hearings, in part because of the lack of an opportunity to cross-examine. A letter is not a substitute for a live testimony.

But he said letters can still be valuable for government advice. Administrative agencies often consider letters, he said.

Asked about the Eager Street issue, which he is not involved in, Murphy said he doesn’t believe CHAP should change his long-standing practices and policies.

I think CHAP is under undue pressure from the lawyer, he said. If it is CHAP’s general practice to consider letters, they should stick to the general practice. Counsel may argue that CHAP should not pay much attention to the letter.

Ed Gunts is a local freelance writer and former architecture critic for the Baltimore Sun.

[ad_2]