Officials to review building process

At least two Maryland state lawmakers will meet with the Montgomery County Planning Board tonight to discuss repairing the county’s housing development review process and the possibility of slowing down the county’s current building pace.

The meeting comes after the county Planning Board last week found hundreds of building violations in a sprawling multimillion-dollar housing development known as the Clarksburg Town Center.

A report issued by the Planning Board last week also said staff member Wynn Witthans altered site plans and lied about it to cover up violations in the construction of the town center. Mrs. Witthans has since resigned.

“If the accountability can’t be achieved for the process, then we need to rethink how quickly we’re going forward,” said state Sen. Rob Garagiola, Montgomery County Democrat whose district includes Clarksburg.

Clarksburg is the “last major development expansion in the county,” Mr. Garagiola said. “This is a small community being transformed overnight into a suburban town.”

Planners envision that the community’s population will increase from an estimated 5,500 to nearly 40,000 people in 20 years.

The Clarksburg Town Center remains under construction, but building violations and negligence have plagued it.

The county’s inspector general has begun an investigation into the falsification of site plans, and the Planning Board has promised a comprehensive audit of its planning process.

It’s “the biggest planning mess I’ve seen in Montgomery County and I’ve lived here for 30 years,” said Delegate Jean B. Cryor, Montgomery County Republican whose district includes Clarksburg.

The Washington Times first reported the violations last month.

In the report, the Planning Board’s staff admitted that there has been no oversight of building heights and setbacks in the Clarksburg Town Center development. The Planning Board on Thursday ruled that about 500 of the 725 residences built so far are in violation site plans.

There also are questions about whether builders followed appropriate channels at the board to make several major changes to original site plans.

The board’s findings, including possible fines and other penalties, will be disclosed at a July 28 hearing.

“What was promised just hasn’t come to fruition, in part because there have been many modifications. There needs to be a better system for addressing that,” Mr. Garagiola said. “Maybe we need to put the brakes on and do things a little more slowly, because once you build this, it’s hard to fix.”

That could have a negative effect on the county’s housing market, said Charles Maier, a spokesman for the town center’s developer Newland Communities.

“If you’re going to put an artificial stop on housing, it’s going to drive up the cost of everything,” Mr. Maier said.

“A lot of the jurisdictions are bemoaning that there aren’t enough affordable houses, and they’re trying to create it. But who ultimately creates it is the builders. … What is the cause of the moratorium? Is it because the government can’t regulate everything?

“It’s counter to what the market wants. It’s counter to what the homeowner wants. The ultimate effect is you’re going to have more explosive housing costs.”

The developer and builders at Clarksburg insist they followed procedure by working with staff to get any changes approved.

The Clarksburg Town Center is being built under what is called an “optional method,” which gives the Planning Board increased authority to approve changes.

However, the method is the biggest problem, said Amy Presley, co-chairman of the Clarksburg Town Center Advisory Committee (CTCAC), which has documented what the group says are widespread violations.

“Under optional method, the Planning Board has the entire authority for the entire project,” she said. “What you’ve effectively done is created a totally autonomous organization, with no oversight.”

The CTCAC also has argued that site plan drawings, not board or staff opinions, have ultimate authority over what is to be built.

At last week’s 10-hour public hearing, Planning Board member Meredith K. Wellington agreed with CTCAC, saying the drawings “are the inviolate documents, not the site plan opinion.”

“We cannot start undoing our support of those documents and go to a more amorphous process,” she said. “I’m sitting here listening to the undoing of years and years of how the commission has done business, and I’m appalled at what I’m hearing.”

Others on the board expressed confusion about where builders should have sought guidance.

Mrs. Cryor, who as a reporter covered the Planning Board before she ran for public office, said the management of the situation is to blame.

“Citizens came forward, over and over again, not with emotional stories, but with data, saying, ’This is what is supposed to happen, and this is what is happening,’” she said.

“Why it wasn’t followed up on, I have no idea.”