It was déjà vu last week, with Councilman Isaac “Yitzy” Schleifer again lambasting Zoning Board Executive Director Rebecca Witt in harsh, often personal terms.

As he did at an agency budget hearing two years ago, Schleifer denounced Witt for getting rid of the consent docket, an unlawful practice that she discovered upon taking charge of the agency.

For decades, Baltimore’s Board of Municipal and Zoning Appeals (BMZA) had been granting side- and rear-yard setback variances and other exceptions from the zoning law en masse in a single vote, whether they deserved it or not.

Variances are only supposed to be granted for structures that are unique in some way. But that test was only being applied when someone challenged the application and it came before the board. As a result, illegal structures in the city abound.

Under Witt the BMZA ditched the docket and began considering applications individually, leading to occasional denials, including some in Schleifer’s 5th district in Northwest Baltimore.

For this, he threatened to “zero out” her budget, accusing her of being obstructionist, needing help from the city’s lawyers and costing the city “tens of millions of dollars worth of development.”

This year Schleifer gave his attack a new twist, suggesting that the policy is discriminatory and, in effect, antisemitic.

“Do you believe that your interpretation of the uniqueness law that you have decided to enforce under your tenure disproportionately affects any specific community?” asked Schleifer, whose district has a large Jewish population.

After a pause, Witt said that perhaps rowhouse owners are disproportionately impacted “because it’s difficult to make a uniqueness argument for a rowhouse when the rest of the houses on the block are basically identical.”

“Pretty offensive”

Schleifer pressed on, grilling Witt about comments he said she had made at past BMZA meetings, including her observation that “a lot of these rejections keep happening in specific areas . . . specifically singling out my district.”

Witt explained that her review of 2024 data showed that most of the zoning cases were from two primarily rowhouse districts, the southeast 1st District and the South Baltimore 11th District.

“And so I think I was referring to the 5th District being higher in that ranking than I would have expected given that it’s not primarily a rowhouse district.”

But Schleifer plowed on, alleging that her policy unfairly singles out his 5th District constituents seeking to build additions.

“Larger families, predominantly Jewish families that have a lot of kids, have been coming before your board and unanimously, for the most part, have been getting rejected – even though every neighbor of theirs have all gotten these variances,” he said, characterizing the decisions as “discriminatory behaviors of your board.”

Witt noted that family size is not a basis for variances, explaining that they are granted based on the characteristics of the building, not the people living in it.

“These were conditions that the appellants themselves were requesting” – Rebecca Witt, BMZA Director.

The councilman pushed on, zeroing in on the case of a high school’s request for a conditional use that the board approved after imposing conditions to address neighbors’ concerns about traffic.

“You did something that I’ve never seen done before and actually it’s pretty offensive where you told a Jewish school that they would have to meet conditions that have never been required of anybody else ever,” he charged.

“Why do you think it’s okay,” he asked, “to put conditions on a Jewish school, but not put those same conditions on any other school, organization or anything?”

Witt pointed out that the restrictions were chosen by the board from a three-page list of possible conditions drawn up by consultants who were hired by the school.

“These were conditions that they were requesting the board place on them because of the significant community opposition,” she explained. “The code gives the board the authority to propose any conditions relevant to the request.”

“I’m baffled by the idea that the board wouldn’t have the right to adopt conditions that the school themselves suggested.”

Alone This Year

While Schleifer’s allegations echoed his approach at the 2023 BMZA hearing (he didn’t show up at last year’s budget hearing), their effect this time around was distinctly different.

Two years ago, Eric Costello, then the 11th district’s representative, had teamed with Schleifer to harangue Witt. Other lawmakers, to a lesser degree, chimed in.

Last week Schleifer stood alone.

Costello, who lost his bid for reelection in last year’s primary, was not there. Zac Blanchard, who defeated him, instead made a point of complimenting Witt.

“The forthright and honest nature that you bring to every single decision that you make and the way you communicate it, regardless of whether it’s what I want to hear or not, is tremendously valuable,” he enthused.

Councilwoman Odette Ramos also praised Witt for addressing out-of-date and unevenly enforced zoning provisions rather than by institutionalizing the consent docket. (Schleifer’s 2023 bill that would have done so died.)

• After bullying a bureaucrat who was trying to do the right thing, Schleifer follows up with a bad bill [Op-ED] (6/16/23)

“I support the board’s decision because it was illegal what we were doing,” Ramos said. “What you have challenged us to do was figure out how do we solve it in the code?”

Her 8th District colleague, Paris Gray, said he introduced a bill that would loosen the so-called “bulk-and-yard restrictions” that limit the size of structures built on a given lot, in two zoning designations, R-7 and R-8.

“It allows people to do additions and do it the right way,” Gray said. “It’s giving people a little more freedom to do what they would like with their property.”

Cut off by Budget Chair

In her opening remarks to the budget committee, Witt explained that while she at one time assumed the city’s bulk-and-yard provisions were “grounded in science and public health research,” she had come to question them.

“The way to solve that problem is not through variances one at a time, but through legislation and changing the code that applies to everyone.”

Witt applauded lawmakers for tackling the zoning code in a way that balances “maintaining some consistency versus building more housing because people need to live.”

Schleifer, meanwhile, repeatedly suggested Witt and the board were out of balance, remarking that members seem to take her advice and asking at one point, “Is the board pro or anti-development?”

“I don’t think they’re either one,” she answered.

Still trying to make his case about an hour into the hearing, Schleifer produced an old tweet from Witt’s long-ago deleted Twitter account that he said “somebody sent me” and which he found “quite troubling.”

“You said, ‘Are we being made to believe that businesses are making decisions about where to expand based on who they run into at a pool party at Vegas?’”

It was a reference to the Maryland Party, scheduled in Las Vegas every year to coincide with an annual shopping center convention.

The three-day bash consistently draws throngs of elected officials and developers for out-of-state schmoozing and dealmaking.

• This year’s Maryland Party: Another cozy gathering of developers and political leaders in Vegas (5/19/25)

“What you’re referencing is what I believe to be probably one of the most productive venues,” he scolded. “Where business leaders from across the city do actually make plenty of decisions about where to put their grocery stores, where to put their businesses.”

“This gives off the impression that you are personally anti-development,” he continued. “So could you just explain whether you are anti-development, and what you mean by that tweet?”

“I don’t have a Twitter account,” Witt began.

“You didn’t tweet this?” Schleifer demanded. “Is your Twitter handle not @wittbecky?”

At this point, Committee Chair Danielle McCray stepped in, cutting him off and ending the session.

“Thank you, director,” she said. “We are now in recess.”