Critics of a plan to build 325 homes on one part of historic Doughoregan Manor and preserve the rest of the Ellicott City estate attacked the complex proposal as a "manufactured artifice," as they tried this week to defeat a necessary zoning change.
Opponents used the very intricacy of the multipart plan and the fact that Howard County's zoning board members also serve as County Council members as the basis for their argument. Several opponents also suggested that there might have been collusion between the estate's owners and county lawyers. The plan, which has been in the works since last year, can't move forward without zoning board approval, and if it fails, supporters fear sprawling development of homes across the historic 892-acre estate.
Critics asked the zoning board to request as witnesses landowners Camilla and Phillip Carroll, Sang Oh, their attorney, and Paul Johnson, the board's own county legal adviser. The Carrolls are famously private and have not appeared or testified at any of the many hearings or meetings on their estate's fate over the past several years. Johnson said he's seen no similar request in his 31-year career.
"The whole reason we are here is because of them," said Christina Delmont-Small, a protesting resident who wanted the Carrolls and the lawyers as witnesses. All the unusual requests for testimony were denied by board chairwoman Jen Terrasa, who noted that the board has no subpoena powers and can't force anyone to testify.
Andrea DeWinter, the attorney for a group of residents living on the estate's eastern border near the land proposed for housing, charged that several parts of the Doughoregan proposal were "orchestrated" to produce the desired final result. A zoning change that would allow the new homes clustered on one parcel would be "illegal spot zoning," she said, urging the county zoning board Monday night to turn down the request.
DeWinter, supported by county zoning counsel Eileen Powers, said the various parts of the arrangement are so intertwined that they amount to "contract zoning," a legal term meaning an arranged deal to swap a zoning change for certain promises from a developer. "In exchange for rezoning, we're going to give you these things," DeWinter said, explaining her argument. Powers is an independent public advocate whose job is to defend current zoning.
Oh, attorney for the Carroll family, descendants of Charles Carroll — a signer of the Declaration of Independence whose country estate once covered more than 10,000 acres — said the charges made by DeWinter and Powers are unfounded and irrelevant. There is no deal and the zoning board is completely free to approve or deny the zoning change, as it does in any other case, he said.
"What's happening here is an effort to pollute the record and then complain that the record is polluted," he said.
Johnson told the board members that "contract zoning is when there is a deal between a petitioner and the zoning authority."
The Carrolls' plan for the estate would change zoning and include public utilities to allow the new homes clustered on 221 acres in the northeast corner of the estate, close to Frederick Road and Kiwanis-Wallas Park. The Carrolls would give the county 36 acres to enlarge the park, and preserve the rest of the property, raising money for the restoration and to keep the estate in family hands, while preserving its historic appearance and integrity.
Without approval of all the individual parts, the entire proposal would fail, leaving the family to raise money by using the current rural zoning to develop up to 400 homes spread across their land, using individual wells and septic systems. Supporters of the 325-home plan contend this would ruin the visual ambiance of the historic property, a view strongly backed by preservationists.
Residents opposing the zoning said they fear traffic jams and lowered property values while the county goes out of its way to protect the Carrolls' interests at their expense. Delmont-Small said she'd rather the zoning stay as is, dispersing the new homes and the traffic, while forcing the Carrolls to make a "business decision" that would provide more balance for other area residents. She said she also feared townhouses could be built on the land, while other homes in the area are detached
"We feel very threatened and uncomfortable because we don't know the impact on the community" of the new homes, said Victor Ilenda, president of the Chateau Ridge Lake Community Association, the group represented by DeWinter. Residents fear that eventual pressure from people who buy the new homes would, in time, force opening dead-end Burnside Drive off Centennial Lane in their community as a second point of access to Doughoregan's new homes.
"My complaint is the roads," said Larry Jeeter, another resident. "There's not adequate access."
He said limiting 325 homeowners to a single entry and exit via already-congested Frederick Road won't work.
"[The Carrolls] want it far away so they won't have to see it," said Janet Rollins, another resident who said her home is 20 feet from the estate boundary, so she will see the new homes on small lots up close.
The argument against the same five people sitting on the zoning board also serving on the County Council point out that the council has already approved a bill to extend water and sewer lines into the estate, which sits just west of the current border of land served by public utilities. That decision is now the basis for the Carrolls' case for proving a zoning "mistake" that would justify the zoning change they seek. Oh's argument is that with public utilities now approved, rural zoning is wrong for the 221-acre development site.
The council also last week approved a second portion of the broader plan, to enter 500 acres of the estate into the county's Agricultural Preservation program, a move that will bring the Carroll descendants more than $19 million over two decades. A fourth element of the plan, a side agreement between the county and the Carrolls creating a contract to guarantee their promises will be fulfilled, is scheduled for a public council hearing Monday night and a council vote July 29.
Testimony in the zoning case has concluded, and the board is scheduled to hear closing arguments and begin deliberating Friday.