Appeals Hearing On Turf Valley Turns Into 'Circus'

The big question of the night about the contentious Turf Valley condominium development plan went unanswered during a zoning board of appeals hearing that the vice chairman said turned into a circus.

Resident William Gasser spent much of the three and a half hour meeting at the lectern as a witness for Marc Norman, a Turf Valley resident who has appealed the Planning Board’s decision to approve a development that would include two condominium buildings, as well as maintenance facilities, on Resort Road in Ellicott City.

Gasser, who has a degree in planning and is also a Turf Valley Resident, said that in his professional opinion, the roads, which were built to support just 22 homes, were not sufficient to support additional households. He displayed a photograph of what the road looked like with a single landscaping vehicle parked on it. The vehicle appeared to block half the two-lane road, creating a dangerous situation for drivers and pedestrians, he said, because there are no sidewalks. 

He expressed the same concerns about Turf Valley Road in a letter to the Columbia Flier in which he said it “has served as combined road, sidewalk, golf cart drive, jogging path and dog-walking area for 50 years.”

Gasser also testified that he did not believe the site was appropriate for the condominiums. If he were looking for a site for a multifamily development, he said, “I would have driven past this site” because of its proximity to an existing neighborhood of single-family homes.

An important part of the neighborhood is “its image,” which, he said, was not compatible with the 489 units that the two condominiums would bring. “Elsewhere, someone wouldn’t find something like that,” he said.

Gasser’s testimony was overshadowed much of the evening by Norman, who filed the appeal. He often interjected and, though he was not sworn to testify, spoke at length when responding to objections from Sang Oh, the attorney for Turf Valley developer, Mangione Family Enterprises. Norman claimed that the amount of traffic the development would bring was not allowed under the county's own regulations.

After the appeals board failed to admit into evidence older copies of the comprehensive sketch plan that Norman submitted, citing lack of relevance, the back and forth between Norman and the board reached a climax.

Norman said several times that it was difficult to obtain the plans and that he had to file records requests and pay for them himself.

“You have been testifying virtually the whole evening,” Vice Chairman Hank Eigles said. “You are interfering, egregiously with [Oh’s] right on behalf of his client to present his case.

"When you respond to Mr. Oh's objections, you turn around and testify," he went on. "Much of what you testify, although it may be correct, it’s not relevant."

Eigles said that Norman had gone so far beyond the scope of the case as to “turn this hearing into a circus.”

Norman will be calling additional witnesses; the appeals board told Oh not to expect to present his witnesses at the next meeting.

The next scheduled hearing on the Turf Valley development is Tuesday, May 24, at 6:30 p.m. in the George Howard Building.