Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, GETTR, Truth Social, Twitter
Will and Irina Cawley of Oxford had approval to build their new home on 106 Stewart Street. Until they didn't.
If you live in a small town or are part of a homeowner's association, you have probably experienced being in front of one of these local, volunteer committees. You want to do something to improve your beloved home, or, better yet, you want to build a new home. You're all excited to fix your house or experience your dream. You realize you have to get papers, permits, permissions, etc. so you gather all your documents, pay the fees, and get ready to appear before some approval committee.
That, my friend, is where all your joy and excitement ends in front of a group of five or more people you either don't know or know only casually. These people have been given the ability to decide your fate and the fate of your home. Sometimes they follow the rules. Other times their decisions are more arbitrary. The Cawley's experienced the latter.
The Cawley's home, which was presented and approved unanimously by the Oxford Historic District* Commission on September 1, 2022, was suddenly unapproved on October 7, 2024 by the same Historic District Commission. It appears this was because of a clerical error and an error of omission by the Town of Oxford.
However, because of this error in 2022, the Cawleys were forced to go before the Historic District Commission AGAIN for approval in October 2024.
During that meeting on October 7, 2024, one member of the commission, Justin Werner stated he had a "gut feeling" against the approval of the Cawley home. He also said, "I just don't think it's the right house." He wasn't citing any specific town rules or codes to make that claim, just a personal opinion and bias, which committee members swear not to have when they take their oath to be on the commission. More on that oath later.
Chairman Jennifer Stanley had voted to approve this home on September 1, 2022, but had forgotten that even after she was reminded during the subsequent October 7, 2024 meeting. The Cawley's home was NOT approved during this second meeting. The tally was 2 votes approve, 2 votes do not approve, and one abstention. When asked why she and some members of committee voted "no" Stanley replied, "Different people." Not a valid reason.
Town Lawyer Lindsey Ryan, when asked about the October vote, stated in an email to the Easton Gazette, "After reviewing the facts of the matter, Building Permit No. 22-75 (the "Building Permit") was validly and lawfully approved by the Historic District Commission on September 1, 2022 by unanimous vote of the HDC. The HDC approval on September 1, 2022 did not expire and the Building Permit was not required to go in front of the HDC for further approvals. Therefore, the HDC's decision on the Building Permit on October 7, 2024 is void and the original approval in September 2022 stands."
In another email to the Cawleys regarding the situation Ryan commented that it appeared that the HDC was "confused" during their October meeting. If one watches that meeting, that is clear. Members of the committee have no or very little information in front of them and therefore voted to unapprove a house they had approved and did not consider the application for a pool house that the Cawleys actually presented on that day.
Good news? The home has approval. Bad news? Once again, the Cawley's building process was delayed by months.
One wonders what happened between the approval and the "unapproval" of the permit for the Cawley's home. Why didn't the Historic District Commission know the events that had occurred regarding this home prior to the October meeting and that a clerical error was made by the town? Why did Chairman Jennifer Stanley "forget" that she had voted FOR the Cawleys' plans before? Why didn't the committee have the information they needed? Why didn't they cite any guidelines in their decision?
Again, the EASTON GAZETTE asked about whether the Historic District Commission has guidelines they must follow in approving a home permit. Town Attorney Ryan answered, "The HDC applies the Historic District Commission Guidelines when reviewing applications. The Guidelines are legally binding and should be strictly enforced unless the specific provision within the Guidelines permits flexibility or a variation."
This is in direct opposition to a statement that committee member Justin Werner made during a HDC meeting in March of 2024 regarding a request by Committee Chairman Jennifer Stanley to put up a fence that, by the guidelines, is not permitted:
Mr. Werner noted that the commission members had seen the written word, had the audience participation along with the neighbor's participation, and have come back to the fact
that the guidelines are not the law of the land. He thought the members needed to use their own
personal opinion as a board as to whether they should approve something or not, based on all the
data that has been put in front of them. He added that even though the guidelines say that the
style isn't permitted, it does allow the commission the latitude to say they can't look at it from a
neighborhood standpoint and that the commission should have the ability to vote on what they
feel is an appropriate action for this type of proposal.
Again, it's clear that Mr. Werner didn't understand the duties of the Historic District Commission then and doesn't seem to now.
Here are pictures of the fence in question.
We have been told that this mix of fencing was not considered permissible according to Historic Guidelines.
The HDC cannot make a decision on what is called an "impermissible change of mind." Nor can a committee member decide to vote for or against an application based on a "feeling" or personal opinion or "like". Yet committee member Justin Werner makes statements in that vein repeatedly. It doesn't seem that he or some of the other committee members are aware of how they should consider approvals. They are making decisions on personal biases and/or prejudices.
There are some who point out that these are merely volunteers and should not be held responsible for their actions. That sets up a disturbing dichotomy. These volunteers have the ability to keep citizens from taking actions regarding the property they own in town. They have been given this right and responsibility to make these decisions on behalf of the commissioners, the people who appointed them. These decisions can cost homeowners/property owners tens of thousands of dollars. If we believe that volunteers are not accountable for their actions and mistakes, how can we allow them to make these very important decisions on behalf of the town? How can we allow them to follow their own "feelings" and "opinions" in making those costly decisions?
We can't. Those two situations cannot exist in the same space at the same time. We can't negate their accountability while giving them real responsibility. They take an oath to abide by the laws and guidelines of the Town of Oxford.
Did they forget the oath they took when taking their spot on the committee? Apparently. Here is the oath that all committee and commission members take:
“I, …………………………, do swear (or affirm, as the case may be), that I will support
the Constitution of the United States; and that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the State
of Maryland, and support the Constitution and Laws thereof; and that I will, to the best of my skill
and judgment, diligently and faithfully, without partiality or prejudice, execute the office of
……………………….., according to the Constitution and Laws of this State.”
It's clear that members of the HDC, in both the October meeting and a recent meeting on January 13, not only forgot the oath they took but acted in direct opposition it. The livestream of the January 13 meeting can be found below (There are two parts). During this meeting, the Cawleys were unilaterally put on the agenda to discuss the pool house they planned for their property:
Stream Video - Town Hall Streams
Stream Video - Town Hall Streams
Apparently, the commission wanted to discuss the pool house being planned for the property. Yes, the same one that should have been up for approval in October but was delayed by over 100 days because the HDC arbitrarily and incorrectly voted on the Cawley's home in October. Mr. Cawley wanted the committee to acknowledge that they had made a mistake in removing approval for his home.
It's what we call A HUGE MESS caused by the fact that people who have decision making responsibility see that as a right to do whatever they want, by the rules or not. This cannot be excused by saying "they are just volunteers." Yes, the town office at the time made the mistake. Yes, the town did not supply the commission with the needed information. In that case they should not have acted.
In the Town of Oxford, that's how it is. The town has all these small "volunteer" committees, many of whom have to approve something citizens or businesses want to do. These committees are chosen by the Commissioners from applicants who may or may not have any expertise in any of the work of these committees.
Many of these volunteers have good intentions and do a wonderful job. Some of these committees operate ethically and within the rules and guidelines. They accept the humility of public service. The rest, not so much. As someone who spent many of my years volunteering for different organizations, I respect true volunteerism.
In a recent article in THE EASTON GAZETTE, we talked about how Oxford needs to change in order to move forward from approximately twelve years of less than transparent governance and financial dealings under the former administration. There are a lot of things that need to change. We hope our new town manager will be able to work with our commissioners to enact change and make improvements.
One of the biggest things is the "volunteer" committee structure that virtually runs the town. These committees rule on so many important issues including ethics violations, zoning designations, administration of Oxford as a port, planning, etc. Each committee has the ability to decide whether citizens' plans fit within the Charter and rules of the town with a thumbs up or a thumbs down.
The structure on its own is not bad. It was designed and developed years ago to allow citizens of town to participate in town governance. The problem is not the committees, but the people chosen to run them and why some of them are chosen. Some have clear conflicts of interests. Others are just on a power trip. Some play fast and loose with the truth and the rules. A few are just on the committees for way too long. Term limits might be a good idea.
The selection process for these committees is also a problem. No one knows how people actually get picked. Apply and you may never get acknowledgement, hear that you weren't picked, or find out why you weren't picked.
One committee, the Oxford Historic District Commission, has the huge responsibility to tell a builder, homeowner, etc. if their planned construction, home additions, improvements, or installation of modern conveniences, can go forward in the town's historic district. The goal is to keep the historic nature of the town and to preserve it. Here is what is stated in Oxford ordnance 1224 regarding the members of this commission:
The Commission shall consist of five members, appointed by the Town Commissioners. All five members of the Commission shall be full time residents of the Historic District and registered voters eligible to vote in Oxford town elections. Each member shall possess a demonstrated special interest, specific knowledge, or academic training in such fields as history, architecture, architectural history, planning, archeology, historic preservation, urban design or related disciplines and agree to serve on this Commission.
It's not clear how some current members are qualified.
A reasonable person would assume that people on the Historic District Commission would take their duties seriously and would strive to be fair and by the book with everyone coming before them. After all, they took an oath to act without prejudice or bias. They would consult the town's guidelines when making decisions and would keep their private opinions out of the mix. They would be polite and professional to citizens asking for their approval and certainly treat would all equally. They would be prepared for meetings with all documents on proposals, etc. That's what they signed up to do.
That isn't what's happening.
While the sloppiness in decision making and the work of the Historic District Commission is a problem in the Cawley's circumstance, the attitude and behavior of the Chairman of the Historic Commission towards those that appear before her is an even larger issue. Cawley's wife, who speaks English as a second language, was laughed at by the Chairman when she addressed the committee during the meeting. This was derisive and demeaning and clearly based on her foreign accent. By the way, Mrs. Cawley is a Ukrainian by birth and speaks two languages fluently. Can anyone on the committee claim that skill? Doubtful. A couple of them struggle to find words in English to describe their opinions. Here's a portion of that exchange between Chairman Stanley and Ms. Cawley:
In another instance, a longtime resident of the town spoke near the end of the meeting and two members of the committee, including the chairman, couldn't be bothered to pay attention and look at her while she spoke. They sat ruffling papers, looking at their phones and being generally dismissive and rude. I guess they had somewhere to go.
At times other members of the committee are kept from speaking while input from specific members is encouraged. The Chairman rolled her eyes in annoyance when Commissioner Bell stood up at the January 13 HDC meeting to apologize to the Cawleys for the huge mistake the Town of Oxford and the committee had made. The Chairman never apologized.
And now we have a homeowner who had a home approved then suddenly unapproved because of the "gut feeling" and personal opinions of a committee. He has been given the royal runaround for over 108 days and will have to appear in front of this "tribunal" again next month to do the same song and dance again. This not only has cost him time, but considerable money as well since building costs are constantly rising.
All because members of a committee were unprofessional, violated their oath, didn't follow the Town's guidelines, and didn't do their due diligence to find out the history of this project. Shameful.
Oxford, this is part of the problem. It wouldn't take much for the people of these committees to act professionally at these meetings, to use common sense, follow guideline to own up to mistakes and move forward. If that would have happened, the matter at hand would have been cleared up in expedient fashion and everyone would have left the meeting feeling good about the results. No one would have been made to feel like a second-class citizen who has to grovel for their rights while being openly ridiculed.
But, then again, some people on these committees look down on the rest of the town's citizens.
If Oxford ever wants to get back to the town we used to be, this must change soon. We need to better train or vet our volunteers.
*Oxford has a designated "historic district" which includes part of the town which have been designated as such and because of that, have more stringent building guidelines.
WE HAVE RECEIPTS FOR THE EMAILS SENT TO US BY TOWN LAWYER LYNDSEY RYAN AND WILL MAKE THEM AVAILABLE TO ANYONE WHO ASKS.
HERE ARE THE MINUTES FROM THE MARCH 2024 HDC MEETING:
