BY JAMES RADA, JR.
News Editor
jrada@thedispatch.us
EMMITSBURG, Md. – A member of the Frederick County Planning
Commission, accused in the past of trying to protect her parents’ property when
she was a member of the Emmitsburg Planning Commission, has been found to have
violated the county’s ethic ordinance for doing much the same thing.
Catherine
Forrence was found in violation of the county ethics ordinance because “it
seems clear to the Ethics Commission that changing the allowable density on
those parcels located so close to the parents’ property would nevertheless have
a direct financial impact on the value of the property…”
The April
18 decision stems from a vote initiated by Forrence and on which she voted to
downzone properties on Annandale
Road that border her parents’ property.
During the summer of 2007 when
Forrence was a member of the Emmitsburg Planning and Zoning Commission, member
Pat Boyle accused Forrence of violating the town’s ethics ordinance. The basis
of the accusation was that Forrence recommended shifting development on a
parcel that abutted her parents’ property away from the shared property without
acknowledging that it was her parents’ property.
Forrence’s
actions on the county planning commission caused Frederick County
attorney Leslie Powell to write a letter to Forrence asking her to recuse
herself from decisions that affect her parents’ property. Attorney Krista
McGowan and developer Andy Mackintosh brought up the letter during a county
planning commission meeting and were chastised by commission members rallying
to Forrence’s defense.
Commission
member Bob White called the letter “inflammatory,” “intimidating,” “shameful”
and “something that ought to be withdrawn and an apology
issued.”
The ethics
commission saw it differently. The commission ruled that because such a
decision affects only a limited number of homes, it does “constitute a direct
financial impact, as distinguished from the public generally.” For the
commission to say that there was no direct impact would have been too narrow an
interpretation of the ethics ordinance.
Forrence
wrote in an e-mail reply to an inquiry from The Dispatch that she doesn’t see
how there is a direct impact on her parents’ property.
“As I told
the Ethics Commission, I am simply not aware how any change in the
comprehensive land use designation of the EDC property would affect the value
of my parents’ property – either positively or negatively. Indeed, no one has
articulated a direct financial impact on my parents’ farm, but instead only
alluded to an indirect impact – without even stating what that impact would
be,” Forrence wrote.
Even if
that were true, the Ethics Commission wrote that her vote “could give the
appearance of a conflict of interest under the Ethics Ordinance.”
Because of
these things, the Ethics Commission wrote, “Should a similar situation arise in
the future where a discussion or vote would have an impact on a limited number
of properties, one or more of which is owned by a close relative of the
Planning Commission member, … the Ethics Commission recommends that the
Planning Commission member identify the nature of the potential conflict on the
record and then recuse herself from any discussion or vote on that matter.”
“I will
certainly abide by the conclusion of the Frederick County Ethics Commission,”
Forrence wrote.
