Category Archives: Views

General views, commentary, and editorials

Deception Burglaries

Posted on by

Deception Burglaries Capt. Martin Lurz – BCOPD Precinct 7

These incidents seem to increase with the arrival of warmer weather, although they can occur any time of the year. MOST IMPORTANTLY – SHARE this information with your neighbors
and family.

Deception burglaries have one common theme – to get homeowners distracted by getting them to walk into another room or, more frequently, asking the homeowner to step outside and then getting them to move to the side or rear of the house (out of view) while a second suspect enters the house through the unlocked door and steals whatever is quickly accessible.

Here is how it works:

The first suspect will come to the door and use some type of ruse to win the confidence of the homeowner. For example, the suspect may tell the homeowner he works for a fence company (TV, or landscaping company — you name it, they’ve tried them all) and tell the homeowner to step outside with him so he can examine the property line in the rear of the property. If the owner does step outside, they will generally leave the door unlocked and the first suspect will escort the owner around the back out of view of the door. The first suspect may use a cell phone to “call his boss” when, in fact, he is ACTUALLY CALLING THE SECOND SUSPECT to let him know that entry into the home can now be made. After about ten minutes, the first suspect and the homeowner will walk back into the house AFTER the second suspect has slipped out. These burglars generally take small items, a purse or wallet, or jewelry that are easy to grab and
conceal.

There are generally two common themes to all these type burglaries:
A ruse or “scam” is used to gain trust and confidence.
The elderly are more likely to be a victim of these burglaries

There are many variations to the “scam” burglar, here are several examples. Two suspects come to the door and ask the homeowner to accept a package for their neighbor. If they are allowed in the house, one will say she is thirsty and ask for water. As the homeowner walks the one to the kitchen and engages in conversation, the second one slips off and steals small
valuables.

In the Power Company employee scam, the suspect says they are an employee and needs to get to the basement to investigate a “problem in the lines”. When the homeowner walks that person to the basement, the second suspect enters and steals the valuables.

DO NOT let anyone that you do not know and trust into your house. Employees of BGE carry ID photos. CALL the company for verification. IF THE “EMPLOYEE” PROVIDES YOU WITH THE NUMBER FOR VERIFICATION, DON’T CALL THAT NUMBER! CALL THE NUMBER LISTED IN THE PHONE BOOK. The reason is that if the person at the door is trying to scam you, the number they supply is probably the cell phone number of the second suspect who will tell you “Yes it’s perfectly OK to let that person into your house.”

If you are really suspicious, tell the person you are calling 911. A legitimate employee will wait for the police, the deception burglars won’t.

Stay alert and get the word out, especially to elderly neighbors, family members and friends. Awareness is key.

Tell them to call 911 immediately to report suspicious activity. Memorize the suspect’s appearance (scars, marks, anything unusual). If a vehicle description and/or license plate number can safely be obtained write it down immediately and provide it to the 911 operator.

Be alert, be aware, be curious and call 911.

Appellate Court Rules For Community – County Council Changes Law to Allow Double Density

Posted on by

What were they thinking? What about zoning regulations in RC4 and RC5? Do they not matter any more?

The Muellers asked for and got permission from Baltimore County to sink a 2.d well for irrigation and build a two-story, detached garage with storage, but in fact built a 2.d home with a bathroom and utilities on the l,t floor, 2 bathrooms, 2 bedrooms, and full kitchen on the 2,,d; all served by their new well and an unpermitted septic system. Then they petitioned the County to bless the defacto subdivision of their single lot as an “in-law” apartment. The neighbors and FRCA opposed the Petition, and the County Zoning Officer said No! The Muellers appealed to the County Board of Appeals , but the Board denied their Petition, finding:

The current precedent is to allow “in-law” living quarters as an addition to an existing dwelling, where there is the medical necessity ofan elderly relative. Under this precedent, this matter does not meet the requirements to allow “in-law” living quarters in the existing accessory structure. The Board is concerned that by allowing the current living arrangement in the existing accessory building, the density of the property is increased beyond what is allowable in RC 4 and RC 5 zones.

The Muellers then appealed to the County Circuit Court which said, SURE. So, the FRCA appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, and last month the appellate Court reversed the Circuit Court and reinstated the ruling of the County Board of Appeals, finding:

The Board’s statement that the “current precedent is to allow ‘in-law’ living quarters as an addition to an existing dwelling, where there is the medical necessity of an elderly relative,” is amply supported by the evidence.

In addition, the Board noted that:

There was no testimony presented why [the Mueller's' son] cannot reside in the main dwelling, other than he frequently entertains fellow students and friends and some stay overnight. To reclassify the accessory structure as an “in-law apartment” is a misnomer.

This is another way of saying that allowing a healthy, college-age son to live in a separate residence on the same lot is not the sort of “comfort, convenience or
necessity” contemplated by the County Council when it enacted the definition of accessory use. We defer to the Board’s interpretation of the BCZR.

So, the Community wins, right? Wrong!

On July 6 more than a month before the Appellate Court released its Opinion, the County Council introduced Bill [now Bill 49-11 ] which grants every owner of a single standing house in the entire County the right to get a permit to have a second dwelling on their single lot so long as they certify that both dwellings will be occupied by ANY member of an immediate family.

Thus, every large house in our community can now add a second residence on the property to allow junior to move home without having to share a messy kitchen with him.