Community Issues - Code Enforcement

G&M Auto

For the past two decades, numerous local citizens have been fighting the illegal activities of G&M Auto that are trashing our neighborhood. Throughout this period, the County has done very little to help us, coming up with every excuse they could to ignore our pleas, or just simply ignoring them without an excuse. The documented evidence presented below will clearly show this.

The violations involve multiple properties which G&M Auto owns or has at various times owned or used:

• 11825 Belair Rd - the main property - purchased by George Majchrzak on 8 April 1991 for $310,000 (a bankruptcy case, previously Schulte). Mortgaged for $350,000.
• 11819 Belair Rd - the house to the south of the business. G&M bought on Oct 3, 2001 and immediately turned it into an extension of the sales lot.
• 11815 Belair Rd - the house to the south of that one which he bought on Apr 25, 2016. G&M has already tried to use as a sales lot.
• Vacant lot - this is the lot that extends from Bradshaw Rd behind the main property and behind the two houses south of it, and includes the space between the two houses and the stream. See description of Zoning Case #1979-0209 below.
• 7400 Bradshaw Rd - the "Bank building", including its parking lot. This was purchased by George Majchrzak on Aug 18, 1999 and sold to the mortgage company occupying the "bank" on Jan 30, 2002, while George held a mortgage. It is now owned by "7400 Bradshaw Road, LLC", which, in typical fashion, provides anonymity. However, it was sold to this LLC by Thomas G Murphy in a "non-arm's length" transaction, so he apparently remains the real owner.
• 7402 Bradshaw Rd - The "vacant" lot behind the "bank", between it and 7424 Bradshaw is now owned by "7402 Bradshaw Road, LLC" of 2025 Inverness Ave, another "shell" company. It was sold to them by "7400 Bradshaw, LLC" in 2014 which had acquired it from Thomas Murphy 6 months earlier.

Background

Of course, as long-time residents remember, this site was, for many years, a new car dealership operated by Green and then Schulte (Premier Chevrolet). Prior to the sale to G&M, there was a zoning case #1979-0029 which was for expansion of the building. As a result, the case and the approved site plan for the main property as well as the lot behind the "bank" identify a number of limitations and requirements on the use of the property, which still apply today. They are as follows:

• The approved use is "new-used car sales (used cars incidental to new)" - This means that a "used car lot" by itself never was an approved use (and not allowed in this BM CR zone today).
• Area in rear of main building is for "customer parking".
• Lot behind bank building is for "customer parking" and "new car storage" only.
• Area in front and side of main building along Jerusalem and Bradshaw Rd is not for parking of any kind (mainly because there is not enough space between the building and the road right-of-way).
• "Shrubs" to be maintained along Belair and Jerusalem Rd to shield vehicles from view.
• "Disabled vehicles not to be stored outside." This means exactly what it says.
• Supposed to be a 6ft fence separating the main lot from the house lot to the south (on the parcel boundary).

In a later zoning case #1979-0209, William Schulte asked for a variance to allow commercial parking on the vacant lot behind the existing dealership and adjacent to the stream. Because of major opposition from GKCA and others, the request was denied. At the time, it was recognized that the real intent was to park vehicles for sale and would have seriously encroached on the neighboring residences and the stream.
See here for plan

There was another strange zoning case in 1986, Case 1987-0096 requesting a change in zoning of 1.777 acres from BM and RC5 to BR. A letter from Schulte's lawyer requested that the Petition to the Board of Appeals should be withdrawn as it was not submitted, authorized, nor signed by the property owner (Schulte).

It had been filed by a lawyer from Germantown for Dr. Vernon E Martens of Haywood, VA, as contract purchaser. It appears to be a request to reverse the 1984 CZMP change from BR to BM and RC5, claiming that the neighborhood had "substantially transformed, both prior to, and subsequent to the Promulgation". The filing made no mention of the intended use. However, it listed William Schulte as "petitioner". This was then followed up by threats from the Zoning Commissioner (Jablon) to sue for non-payment of fees. Vernon Martens never actually purchased this property.

Since then, there have been many actions and attempts by residents to curtail the illegal uses on these properties by G&M. Following is a summary of the actions and the results:

11825 Belair (or Jerusalem in some CE records) Rd (main property) - zoned BM CR

The following cases are (or were) shown online:

Case CC99CO0001744 - March 17, 2004
Complaint: Lights shining in neighboring house

• May 26, 2004 - the inspector ordered the light turned off, after she went into the complainant's bedroom and found that she could read a book by the light from G&M's spot-light.
• June 7, 2004 - my letter to inspector

Case CC99CO0010925 - March 4, 2005
Complaint: Signs and balloon - action was taken to get rid of them.

Case CC99CO0022811 - May 3, 2006
Complaint: Untagged vehicle for sale outside fenced area, signs

Case CC99CO0042158 - Feb 28, 2008
Complaint: Signs

Case CC99CO0061947 - June 1, 2009
Complaint: Junk cars, no violation May 28 (don't know how this was possible 3 days before the complaint was filed)

June 20, 2011 - Complaint letter sent - signs, no action resulted.

Follow-up letters July 21, 2011 and September 21, 2011

Case CC99CO0103319 - Nov 2, 2011
Complaint: "abandoned vehicles, new illuminated wall sign on back wall, truck full of used tires"

• Anonymous complaint filed
• Nov 1, 2011 - initial inspection (don't know how this was possible the day before the complaint was made)
• November 9, 2011 - Complaint letter sent in to add to existing case.
• Nov 22, 2011 Re-inspection
• Dec 7, 2011 Re-inspection
• Dec 29, 2011 Re-inspection
• Jan 23, 2012 Re-inspection
• Feb 14, 2012 Re-inspection
• Feb 22, 2012 Re-inspection
• Mar 27, 2012 Re-inspection
• Apr 12, 2012 Re-inspection
• May 1, 2012 Re-inspection
• May 24, 2012 Re-inspection
• June 19, 2012 Re-inspection
• July 11, 2012 Re-inspection
• Aug 2, 2012 Re-inspection
  (I am not kidding about this sequence of 13 re-inspections without action - it's right off the County website! This clearly shows an inspector who was not doing his job, but just "milking" it for easy work! He's now gone.)
• Aug 23, 2012 Inspector says "in compliance", although the illegal sign is still there 9 years later. (I can see it from my yard.)

Case CC99CO0117729 - Sept 12, 2012

Aug 2010 - multiple huge "New hours" signs were put up (within view of my yard!)
Complaint filed and inspector quickly got them removed.
Large "Jesus' sign put up in its place. (Note the illegal boat storage in these two photos!)

How about this for totally desecrating our flag!

Feb 22, 2012 - Following more complaints, he was finally told to remove the "Jesus" sign, which he did.

A new complaint was filed December 12, 2012, but no action resulted.

Feb 25, 2013 - The "Jesus" sign was put back up. (Does he think that orders "expire" in one year? - or that I would forget?)
Following further complaints, the sign was finally removed again. (It's now at his home on Mt Vista.)
I think it's amazing how someone who professes to be so "christian" can demonstrate time and time again the opposite!

Complaint August 2015 - No case opened
Another Kingsville resident sent in a complaint letter, which was apparently ignored, as no case can be found. The letter detailed the following issues:

• Massive number of cars on lot next to building and in front of two houses
• Massive number of vehicles on lot across from business in fenced area
• All kinds of religious signs in windows and attached to buildings
• Tag-less cars on former bank lot
• Going west on Bradshaw Rd it is hard to see oncoming vehicles due to the number of vehicles parked in front of business

See full letter here - this is obviously from someone who is really frustrated!

Case CC1601016 - Feb 24, 2016

Complaint: "Multiple sign violations:

1. signs on vehicle parked at corner of Bradshaw/Jerusalem
   (the Code states that "No vehicle or trailer of any kind may be placed or parked in any location for the purpose of displaying a sign attached thereto or placed or painted thereon.")
2. excessive signs on front wall
   (The Code allows 1 wall sign at this location)

Mar 1, 2016 - Correction Notice issued. Lots of signs were then removed, getting closer to the legal limit.

Case CC1815652 - Oct 3, 2018

Complaint: "Illegal signs: one blow up "fox" and one animated (twirling banner)."

Correction notice issued Oct 17, 2018 to "remove all temporary signs - pennants, blowup fox, feather flags, twirling flag/banner". Compliance required by Oct 23.

Fox and twirling banner immediately removed. Citation issued Oct 30 for remaining illegal signs "flag pennants". A hearing was held on Nov 7 for the remaining violation and the judge ordered that there was no violation (probably based on the BCZR exemption for "flags of a nation".

Following this action, in which the County agreed with my original complaint and got the "fox" removed, the property owner had his lawyer write me a "cease and desist" letter (for "misuse of the zoning processes") and threatened to sue me in District Court if I did not stop harassing him. After I sent him back a polite letter suggesting that he learn what the Baltimore County Code Enforcment process is before he sent threatening letters, which he could get in trouble for, I heard no more.

Case CC1916639 - Dec 6, 2019

"Lights shining right into neighbors property"

Online record (as of Nov 2021) shows "in compliance", but also "pending", so no real action occurred.

Case CC2014234, Nov 13, 2020

"Has non-permitted flag signs"

CE record shows "no violation" and "closed" on Nov 17 so there must have been an inspection. I did not notice it corrected.

Case CC2100600, Jan 27, 2021

"Signs in front of prop mounted in ground" (apparently same ones and complainant as previous complaint.

Although the CE record still (Nov 2021) shows "inspection scheduled" and "pending", there must have been in inspection with the violation corrected while the inspector was there, as I noticed the flags were removed. (Leaving the record open will cause the next complaint to immediately be marked "duplicate".)

Case CC2113847. Aug 25, 2021

Dilapidated wooden fence behind garage, untagged/inop veh, G&M Automotive" (See original - also addresses 7402 Bradshaw Rd)

Recorded as "no violation" on Oct 4, 2021 so there must have been another inspection (although there were obviously multiple violations, if not of the BCZR, still of the approved site-plan which prohibits outdoor storage of "inoperable vehicles".

11819 Belair Rd

House lot south of G&M business property. This lot is zoned RC5 - that means that no use other than as a single-family residence is allowed. While the County generally allows a resident to sell up to 2 vehicles per year from their residential property, the vehicles must be licensed, properly parked, and belong to them personally.

This has got to be one of the longest running (and most ridiculous) cases in the County without a resolution. In spite of dozens of complaints and letters to the County, many visits to the property by inspectors, and multiple correction notices and hearings before the Code Enforcement hearing officer and the Board of Appeals, there is absolutely no improvement over where we started in 2003. It should be noted that even the County must agree with this assessment since, in Apr 2015 the inspector got multiple violations corrected after obviously giving the owner yet another verbal warning! But again, it was very strange that no written correction notice was issued. It's as if CE wants to avoid leaving any trail that shows that the continual complaints have been valid.

Phase 1

1. Sept 26 2001 - Parcel purchased by G&M.
2. 2002 - Driveway blocked off and filled in, front yard paved, and cars parked here for sale.
3. Case 02-1314 - modifying garage w/o permit, selling cars from property, notes by CE on Mar 8 about untagged vehicles, Nov 25 - report of inspection - found "no cars for sale"
4. Mid-2003, representatives of GKCA talked to the owner about cars for sale on this lot. He blew them off.
5. Aug 4, 2003 - One GKCA board member filed complaint. Inspector told the owner to move vehicles on Aug 5.
6. Aug 5, 2003 - Inspection by Jeff Radcliffe "Spoke to George about vehicles, no notice issued".
7. Aug 13, 2003 - Inspection by Jeff Radcliffe "vehicle on residential side has tags. Closed case." (As if the lack of tags was the original complaint.)
8. Dec 19, 2003 - New complaint filed.
9. Dec 22, 2003 - Inspector found both tagged and untagged vehicles. Correction notice issued.
10. Dec 29,2003 - Inspector found "no untagged vehicles".. Again, whether tagged or not was not the issue.
11. Jan 1, 2004 - Inspector's photos showed "vehicles with tags that were previously reported as 'lost' by the owner" (The inspector went so far as to check if the tags used were valid.)
12. Jan 6, 2004 - Inspector found "no untagged vehicles".
13. Jan 23, 2004 - 3rd complaint filed by Doris Smith and Carole Maier.
14. Jan 29, 2004 - Inspector found 5 untagged vehicles and issued citation - proposed fine $16,400, Case 03-6308.
15. March 16, 2003 - Inspection by Jeff Radcliffe - "untagged vehicles, trailer present"
16. March 17, 2004 - Code Enforcement hearing
17. March 18, 2004 - Order issued to cease business use, Code Enforcement ordered to continue inspections. The order noted that one of the inspectors had erroneously told Mr. Majchrzak that he could park any vehicles on the property as long as they were tagged. $600 fine.

Phase 2

1. Apr 19, 2004 - New complaint filed by Mike Pierce and Doris Smith
2. May 9, 2004 - Inspector's photos showed unlicensed vehicles
3. May 10, 2004 - New citation issued - proposed fine $20,800.
4. June 30, 2004 - Code Enforcement hearing held.
5. July 2, 2004 - Ordered to cease business use and fined $6,000.
6. July 21, 2004 - Appeal filed
7. August 13, 2004 - My letter to Rob Loskot on the matter
8. Oct 7, 2004 - Appeal heard (after 2 postponements requested by petitioner). Prior to the hearing, an agreement made by Mr Majchrzak, Oct 5, which includes the stipulation that "the storage of any and all vehicles associated with the service garage business carried on next door shall cease". Penalty reduced to $4,000. Notes after hearing - copy from CE files - states thst [County Assistant attorney] "told the neighbers who appeared ... if they viewed a violation, to call him directly."
   Further, the BoA order states the "VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISION ... SHALL BE GROUNDS FOR THE COUNTY IMMEDIATELY FILLING FOR INJUCTIVE RELIEf ... IN A COURT" (double emphasis in original).
9. Dec 2, 2004 - Final Order issued by Board of Appeals. Order reads: "shall comply with BCZR", "no activity other than associated with single family dwelling", "storage of all vehicles associated with service garage shall cease".

Phase 3

1. (This new phase began with repeated inspections as a result of the October 7, 2004 hearing and agreement.)
2. October 24, 2004 - Inspection by Sophia Jennings "untaggged vehicle and trailer present"
3. October 27, 2004 - Inspection by Sophia Jennings "untaggged vehicle and trailer present"
4. October 31, 2004 - Inspection by Sophia Jennings "untaggged vehicle and trailer present"
5. November 7, 2004 - Inspection by Sophia Jennings "trailer is still there along with a red Honda with dealer tags. The VIN for this vehicle was not found when run through MVA."
6. November 15, 2004 - Inspection by Sophia Jennings, Her report: "Trailer is still in front of the house along with the red Honda and white Ford F150 pick-up truck. As I was pulling out of G&M driveway, Mr. Majchrzak came out and began yelling. He said I had to tell him when I wanted to make an inspection, had to be in a County vehicle, and I was harrassing him. He said the vehicles parked there tonight were company vehicles that the residents of that house drove and they had a right to park in front of their house. He continued to vent, got angry, and said he would write another registered letter."
7. Nov 17, 2004 - a 10-page Citation issued with proposed fine of $485,000. (Sophia Jennings was a real "take no prisoners" type of inspector. I wish we had her back!)
8. Oct 28, 2004 and Dec 30, 2004 - further complaints filed.
9. Jan 2, 2005 - Inspection
10. Consent agreement executed on Jan 4, 2005 to abate fine.
11. Jan 7, 2005 - Code Enforcement hearing. Agreement made prior between Mr. Loscot (assistant County Attorney) and Mr. Majchrzak (by his attorney Larry Schmidt) to allow 4 vehicles with dealer tags and sales stickers, but the other restrictions against business use remained. Mr. Loskot explained twice (by phone and at the hearing) that this was to allow the house residents (Mr. Majchrzak's daughter and her husband) to each drive a dealer-tagged vehicle and to park it at home, as well as Mr. Majchrzak and his wife who might be visiting (separately!). The community participants (Mike Pierce and Carole Maier) saw right through this charade and objected, but it did no good.) This was obviously bogus, as the driveway had been blocked off several years earlier, thus it was impossible to drive a vehicle onto the property to "visit".

Phase 4

1. April 4, 2005 - Inspection - "untagged Ford F150 in front of the garage"
2. April 15, 2005 - Inspection - "Today there was a red/white Ford pick-up with a "transporter" tag on it.
3. April 22, 2005 - Attorney advised to tell owner that "the transporter vehicle had to be removed". Letter to Loscot by attorney stating that owner stated that "there was never a rollover transporter truck parked on the residential property". That's not what the inspector said! He just chooses to not understand!
4. April 24, 2005 - Inspection - "blue Chevy Tracker with transporter tags"
5. May 9, 2005 - Further citation issued, "failure to comply with consent agreement", proposed fine $13,200.
6. May 11, 2005 - Inspector returned owner's call and explained that transporter tags are not the same as dealer tags (as owner claimed). Inspector's record states: "Mr. Majchrzak said that this inspector was picking on him, inspecting on Sundays, and not writing anyone else up in the neighborhood."
7. June 6, 2005 - Inspection. Report: "There were 2 vehicles with dealer tags parked on the property and an untagged Chevy pick-up truck parked partially on this property in front of the garage. As this inspector was getting back into her truck, a female came out from the business side with a loose Doberman walking across the lot towards the house."
8. August 3, 2005 - Inspection found "untagged green Saturn on the display ramp" (which was partially on this property)
9. August 9 , 2005 - Inspection found following vehicles
   • untagged green Saturn on display ramp
   • pewter Lexus SUV, with dealer tag 1A74838, exp 6/07
   • red Corvette, tag 1A91960, exp 6/07
   • green Mustang, with regular tags STS801, exp 6/06, belongs to Charles Hicks at 1404 Old Joppa Rd
10. Aug 22, 2005 - Case 03-6308, Code Enforcement hearing, after multiple postponements as respondent changed lawyers (5 hours long). Disagreement over location of boundary. The testimony of Carole Maier about where the boundary is, who has been very familiar with this property for a long time, was ignored (as was common sense). Mr. Majchrzak was ordered to get a survey and hearing was put on hold. A survey was done (clearly incorrectly) and an inspector unfamiliar with the case visited the site and declared it in compliance. A line, supposedly the property boundary, was painted on the pavement, about 2 feet over from where the property line obviously is. The Final Order does not actually state that it was determined that there had been no violation, but the hearing officer decided that "there were no commercial vehicles parked on the residential lot" and dismissed all charges. The hearing was a sham! In the end, it doesn't matter where the property boundary is - what is important is where the zoning boundary is. And I can show you how his attorney took advantage of a similar inaccuracy in another more recent case involving a car dealer on York Rd!

Shortly after this, Councilman McIntire, prompted by a phone call from a neighbor, discussed the situation with the County Attorney's office. As a result, Mr. Loscot was in the process of preparing a new case when he was "let go". At about the same time, a discussion with the People's Counsel resulted in an opinion that the agreement was wrong and should be overturned. No action was taken, due to confusion on how to bring this about.

Follow-up

Throughout 2005 and 2006, there were numerous discussions concerning how the agreement (to allow parking of 4 dealer-tagged vehicles) might be overturned, but nothing came of them. In spite of further complaints, complete with photos proving even repeated violation of the "4-car limit", nothing was done. In fact, after one specific complaint in 2011 for about 8 vehicles parking on this lot, on Dec 12, 2011, the inspector came to my door to explain why he did not have time to address it, and that he was going to Fork for another case. An hour later, I observed the 8 vehicles still there, which he probably passed on this way from Towson to my house! Anything to avoid taking real action! That was always his way!

Aftermath

Each time complaints were filed, Mr. Majchrzak tried to get even, or, in his own words "to stick it in our faces". Following some of the above actions, he replaced the 4 cars parked on this lot with giant trucks which had not been seen anywhere on G&M property before. He obviously went out of his way to find them and bring them to this location actually parking them as close to the road as possible. In other cases, he filed nuisance complaints against those neighbors who signed onto the complaints against him. And he calls himself a Christian?

Meanwhile

While all this was going on, Mr. Majchrzak tried twice to upzone the property from RC5 to BM and was turned down both times by Councilman McIntire. (Too bad it can't be downzoned to "doesn't exist".)

Carole Maier

Earlier in this battle, I and Carole Maier went into Code Enforcement to get a full copy of everything in the file. Many of the documents and information on this page came from that visit. Carole was a wonderful person who died suddenly in 2013, still waiting for this case to be settled. We all miss her smiling face. I dedicate this continuing fight to her!

Continuation of Violations

Case CC99CO0044044, Apr 17, 2008
Complaint: "Banner w/o a Permit"
No online record of actions

Case CC99CO0061205, May 19, 2009
Complaint: "PARKING MORE THAN 4 CARS ON PROPERTY - ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY MADE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE OWNER TO ALLOW PARKING OF 4 VEHICLES WITH DEALER PLATES, THIS ALLOWANCE HAS BEEN CONSTANTLY ABUSED."

• May 20, 2009 Initial inspection, inspector's comments: "OBSERVED 4 DEALER CARS ON THE PROPERTY. THIS IS THE AMOUNT THAT WAS AGREED UPON BY THE COUNTY. NO VIOLATION. PHOTOS TAKEN. MONITOR. P/U 5/27/09. KLP"
• May 28, 2009 Re-inspection, inspector's comments: "OBSERVED FOUR VEHICLES WITH DEALER TAGS ON THE PROPERTY. SPOKE WITH OWNER ON SITE. HE IS VERY MUCH AWARE OF ONLY 4 DEALER VEHICLES ALLOWED TO BE PARKED ON THE PROPERTY. PHOTOS TAKEN. CLOSE CASE. KLP Conv- No Violation"
  Obviously, the owner has never understood this. Whether or not he is "aware" of the restriction, one can only speculate!

Case CC99CO0096356, June 20, 2011
Complaint: Displaying vehs for sale, see letter in file

• June 28, 2011 Initial inspection, inspector's comments: "NO APPEARANCE OF ANY VIOLATION. MONITOR, P/U (pop up) 7/5/11. KLP"
• July 13, 2011 Re-inspection, inspector's comments: "7/11/11, PROPERTY IS IN COMPLIANCE. CLOSE CASE. KLP Conv- No Violation"
• Sept 22, 2011, follow-up letter, no action or response
• December 21, 2011 2nd follow-up letter sent, still no response
• January 25, 2012 3rd follow-up letter sent, still no response

The follow-up letters showed photographic proof of violations of the 4 tagged vehicle limit, but Code Enforcement continued to ignore this valid complaint. Requests to discuss the matter were ignored.

Case CC1502818, Apr 10, 2015
Complaint: "DISPLAY AND SELLING OF VEHICLES BELONGING TO ADJACENT AUTO SALES FACILITY - UTVS, SOME DISPLAYING A 'TRANSPORTER' TAG"

• March 30, 2015 Letter
• Apr 14, 2015 Inspector obviously visited site, since 9 photos taken - showed at least 7 vehicles on this property, many w/o tags
• Apr 27, 2015 "Initial inspection, no violation", several more photos taken, shows 4 vehicles, one with "transporter" plate - also "rack" on property
• Aug 21, 2015 follow-up letter to Robyn Clark

The inspector's own photos showed many vehicles without tags on the first visit, yet, no correction notice was issued. It is obvious that the inspector issued a "verbal warning" on the first visit on April 14 since photos on April 27 show all 4 remaining vehicles with tags. In the end, there was still an inappropriately tagged vehicle on the property. Back in about 2004, in one of the Hearings, the hearing officer made a statement to the effect that dealer tags and transporter tags were the same, so the requirement that vehicles be tagged could be fulfilled with either. This is simply not true. The Transportation Article of the State law defines these two types of tags as follows:

• Section 13-621 Dealer Tag is for "vehicle owned by the dealer and mainly used in the dealer's business, and any vehicle in the possession of the dealer but not owned by him, if the dealer has the consent of the owner of the vehicle to this use"
• Section 13-625 Transporter Tag "may be used only on a vehicle in the possession of, but not owned by, the transporter, if the vehicle is operated to facilitate delivery, inspection, repair, painting, etc." It says nothing about "for sale".

Case CC1511193, Sept 8, 2015
Complaint: "Unlicensed vehicles parked or for sale on residential property. See also letter to Ms. Clark August 21, 2015"

• Sept 17, 2015 Initial inspection - "No violation" - on same day I observed 6 vehicles.
• Sept 20, 2015 - Letter asking to reopen case - ignored

Case CC1601303, March 6, 2016
New complaint filed via e-mail - unlicensed vehicles parked on property.
Code Enforcement incorrectly opened a case for 11819 Bradshaw Rd (which does not exist) and then did nothing.

Case CC1612937, Oct 17, 2016
Complaint: Large advertising signs ("SA-LE") placed on vehicles on RC5-zoned property.
Action: Inspector took 7 photos on Nov 4 of vehicles at the adjacent business at 11825 (not the subject property) and declared "no violation"!

Case CC1810183, July 16, 2018
Complaint:

This case was closed on Nov 9 after an inspection in spite of my request to discuss this matter if there were any questions.

A new request was made to Mike Mohler (interim director of PAI) to address this long-standing case. He responded on April 24 that a new case should be opened and "if the allegations are true, it may involve Baltimore County taking legal (courts, not ALJ) action". In spite of this, the "new case" (which was really just reopening the previous), resulted in an inspector going to the property and deciding that there were no violations, in spite of the obvious violations of the recorded Consent Agreement. No record of this inspection or result can be found in the County's online system.

By a PIA request, I received (a very bad) copy of the record. It shows the inspector's comments after an inspection on 11/9/2018 as "no violation, only 4 vehicles on property related to business". Anyone reading the Order of the Board of Appeals which the Consent Agreement requires be followed will immediately see that this was a violation, since it states that "no activity other than activities associated with the single family dwelling shall take place" and "storage of any and all vehicles associated with the service garage business carried on next door shall cease".

Through a follow-up PIA request and a complaint filed with the Maryland PIA Ombudsman, I finally received reasonable copies of the photos that the inspector had taken. They show 4 vehicles parked in front of this house, but completely avoided showing the others parked on both the north and south sides of the house.

Case CC2100866, Feb 6, 2021
A new complaint was filed and a case opened which copied the complaint language from the previous case. As of July 12, the status still showed "status pending", "inspection scheduled", and "due on 2/28/2021" in various places, so take your pick as to what the actual status was.

After filing a PIA request for this case, I got a response that said that an inspection was done on 4/6/2021 and that "1 blue inoperable van w/o tags on D side of property, 4 vehicles 4-sale parked in front", then no further action. This is bogus, there have been at least a dozen vehicles parked on this property for the past year. The owner was probably warned by someone in Code Enforcement that the inspector was coming or else the owner deceived the inspector about where the boundary is. Why wasn't action taken against the violations that the inspector did find? The first response to my PIA request also contained very bad black/white copies of the 12 photos taken by the inspector that day.

After further requests to the County for action, this case was closed as "no violation found" on 27 Sept, although multiple violations are clearly visible. It is still being pursued. In the end, the citizens of Kingsville will prevail!

Case CC2115774, Sept 24, 2021
Someone filed a complaint for "signs and flags that are not permitted". It likely won't get addressed because it was marked "duplicate" because of some other open case. I don't know what prompted this complaint since I have not observed any non-permitted signs on this property recently. Probably, it was meant to address non-permitted signs on the adjacnet business property.

Case CC2200070, Jan 6, 2022
"TJD AND OLD CARS COVERED IN TRASH ALONG THE DRIVEWAY. UNTAGGED"
Although the county Accela system only shows "no violation" and closed on Jan 10, some cleanup has been observed, so it is obvious that an inspector made at least 2 visits and issued a verbal warning.

11815 Belair Rd - zoned RC5

The Colgan family owned this property since 1933. It was sold to G&M in April 2016. I fear that G&M will try to extend the sales lot even further onto this front yard, which then opens up the vacant lot for access for a used car lot all of the way to the stream. Thus, it is extremely important to stop this use. Even before buying this parcel, G&M had already tried to use it for sales. The same truck that appeared on the adjacent vacant lot in September 2015 and was ordered removed, was placed on this lot for sale in January 2016.

Case CG1400234 - Dec 23, 2014
Complaint: Grading yard without controls or permits over 5000 sq ft, also by stream.

Since this was observed being done 2 days before Christmas and in the rain, with the dirt being pushed onto the vacant lot adjacent to the stream, it was presumed that this was intentional to avoid County detection. The complaint was responded to quickly, to the County's credit.

Actions:

• Dec 23, 2014 - initial inspection
• Jan 2, 2015 - no violation (evidently because it was found to be less than 5,000 sq ft). It turned out to be simply the construction of a parking space adjacent to the driveway at 11815, apparently for the residents of 11819, since the driveway serving 11819 had been blocked off in 2002.

Case CC1600565 - Feb 3, 2016
Complaint: Unlicensed truck parked on grass for sale by nearby used car sales business (G&M). Same vehicle gotten rid of from adjacent lot by inspector in August 2015 following previous complaint.

Actions:

• Feb 4, 2016 - correction notice issued
• Notice returned with new address - 15980 Meandering Dr, Brandywine, MD 20613 (PG County)
• Feb 22, 2016 - in compliance/closed

Vacant property behind dealership (and between the house at 11815 and the stream) - zoned RC5

• Aug 18, 2015 - initial inspection See inspector's photo on Aug 19
• Aug 21, 2015 - recorded as "no violation". Meaning that a verbal warning had been given, and heeded, since the inspector's photos showed the violation on Aug 19 and none on Aug 21

The same vehicle appears later (see above) on the adjacent house property (11815) and then on 11819 (new complaints filed for both).

This "vacant" parcel is zoned RC-5, but a portion of it is actually inside the main fence and being used as the back-end of the parking lot behind the main building, so all vehicles parked there are illegal. This is the sort of violation that Code Enforcement can never figure out how to enforce. It's also the type of situation that CE thinks is "no violation" as long as it's hidden behind a sufficient fence.

7400 Bradshaw Rd - The "Bank Building"

In the CZMP 2016, the zoning was changed from BM CR to RCC. (Issue 5-048)

G&M has also been using this parking lot to store vehicles. There are often numerous untagged vehicles and sometimes obviously inoperable vehicles, both of which are illegal in a lot otherwise used by the public. In addition, there has often been a truck loaded with used tires, also a violation, since there is no state-issued permit for used tire storage at this property. The owners of the property are liable for any violations.

Case CC1601563, March 12, 2016

• March 12, 2016 - New complaint filed - "Unlicensed vehicles parked in parking lot used by public."
• March 15 - Inspection
• March 16 Correction notice issued.
• April 19, 2016 Citation.
• April 20, 2016 Reinspection, found in compliance.

Case CC99CO00020320 was opened on Feb 2, 2006 for "STORAGE OF DAMAGED & DISABLED VEHS, UNLIC VEHS, NO SCREENING JUNK YARD
2ND COMPL - OVERGROWN WEEDS, JUNK VEHS"
Complaint filed Jan 25, 2006, signed by 14 residents, for operating a junk yard in this lot and numerous other violations on the "bank" parking lot. (You really have to look at this complaint letter for the rest of the photos as you could not even imagine that a person would do this in our community! It is unbelievable! Cars up on blocks, partially dismantled, junk everywhere! Anyone who does this should get the 18th century treatment - tarred and feathered and run out of the County.

The online information does not reflect what action was taken, although we know that it was, because in the following months, many of those who signed the complaint reported actions in which the owner tried to get even by filing, or threatening to file, complaints against them, like for a brush pile behind an elderly lady's shed - a perfectly acceptable practices in our "rural" area. It seems that he spends more time and effort trying to get even than he does trying to resolve the problems and being a "good neighbor" (one of his favorite phrases).

This lot was eventually cleaned out. For a while, there was logs and tree debris stored here, but that was cleared out and, now, G&M is back using it as a general purpose storage lot, so we will see what happens. Note that the approved site plan from Case 1979-0029 is for this lot to be used only for "customer" and "new car parking" not used cars or vehicle storage, so its present use is apparently illegal. Will the County take action if a complaint is filed? Probably not! They think that anything is okay as long as it's hidden behind fence. (But it's not really hidden as the gate is always open.)

In the CZMP 2016, Issue 5-048, the zoning of this parcel was changed to RCC. Hopefully, this new RCC zoning will help to limit what goes on here, except that the county is very loose with declaring uses to be "grandfathered". At least any of the other uses previously allowed in BM should not be allowed.

Case CC1913422 was opened on Sept 5, 2019 for

Sept 10, 2019 correction notice issued with a "compliance date" of Jan 10, 2020, but apparently returned as "undeliverable". (It was sent to the correct legal address.)

The CE record (obtained by a PIA request) shows that inspections were also done on 10/25/2019 and 12/13/2019.

July 12 and again on Sept 17, 2021, I wrote to the head of CE. Finally, we have a head of CE who, on Sept 17, immediately had a new citation issued with a hearing scheduled for Oct 5 which was then postponed until Oct 21 to give the owner time to address the problems. Too bad he didn't start when he should have gotten the Correction Notice 2 years ago.

A hearing was held on Oct 21 and, after testimony, found to be in violation, fined $3,000 which was suspended providing that it is brought into full compliance by Nov 2. Apparently, another inspection was done on Nov 9, but no action resulted. The case was again closed on Dec 13 without cleanup being completed.

Case CC2200881 was opened on Feb 11, 2022 which reads:

Following several inspections, a new correction notice was issued on Feb 15.

Jerusalem Rd

Everyone in the Kingsville area knows how dangerous the traffic situation is around the "Triangle". G&M continues to make it worse by its use of the end of Jerusalem Rd as if it personally owns this part of the road. First of all, the approved plan from 1979 for this business does not include parking along the front (or side) of the building. That plan also included an on-site area for "new car unloading" (see photo below). Never-the-less, there are often vehicles parking here sticking out into the roadway, and trucks illegally parked such that they block Jerusalem Rd.

April 2004 - vehicles parked along clarly marked no-parking area.

Traffic Engineering was asked to look into this situation by Letter on Dec 18, 2006, but there was no response, which is usually the case with County officials (our servants).

For the future

There remain many violations at these properties beyond what has already been dealt with, which will, no doubt, be the subject of future complaints and, hopefully, effective Code Enforcement action. If not, it will be necessary for the residents to initiate legal action to put an end to this travesty in our community. Maybe in the end, this business will move somewhere else and a responsible person can buy the property and turn it into something we can all be happy about. The current business has completely worn out its welcome!