Development
Silver Spring townhouses pass one hurdle, face another
With fewer houses and a reconfigured layout, Chelsea Court, a proposed townhouse development less than a block from downtown Silver Spring, got the nod from Montgomery County's hearing examiner, bringing it one step closer to reality. The County Council next has to approve the project, and they should.
Townhomes like this could be coming to Silver Spring. Photo by the author.
Two years ago, Bethesda-based developer EYA bought planned a development at the five-acre Chelsea School campus at Pershing Drive and Springvale Road after the school decided to move. Noting the site's proximity to the Silver Spring Metro and demand for transit-accessible housing, EYA sought to have the site rezoned from R-60, which allows single-family homes, to RT-15, which allows townhouses.
The zoning change was approved by the county Planning Board, which pointed to the twelve-story Colesville Towers apartments across the street and said townhouses weren't too dense for the neighborhood.
Then it went to the County Council, but they rejected the zoning change due to opposition from residents only want single-family homes in their neighborhood.
The County Council asked EYA to come back with a new proposal, and they did, which was just approved by the Hearing Examiner, Lynn Robeson, who basically serves as a judge for the county's zoning code.
The examiner's office released this 111-page report detailing how it came to this conclusion.
The site will now be zoned RT-12.5, which still allows townhouses, but at a lower density. There will be only 64 townhouses, instead of 77 as EYA first proposed, while the number of county-mandated moderately-priced dwelling units will drop from 13 to 8 10. The houses will be placed further away from Springvale Road to appease residents of that street, while a private street for the new development has been moved.
Because of these changes, half of the site is set aside as open space, including wider courtyards between townhouse rows and a larger park at the corner of Springvale Road and Pershing Drive. There's also more open space around the historic Riggs-Thompson House, which was built by the founder of Riggs Bank was originally going to be saved in the first proposal.
Neighbors continue to oppose townhouses
Nonetheless, some neighbors weren't satisfied. No fewer than 6 civic associations opposed the project, including the adjacent Seven Oaks-Evanswood Civic Association (SOECA), but also Lyttonsville and South Four Corners, both of which are several miles away from the site.
Residents complained about the loss of large trees, while others questioned that EYA's traffic studies showing no increase in nearby congestion. SOECA president Vicki Warren said there wasn't enough open space around the Riggs-Thompson House, though historic preservation planner Judith Christensen said she could "live with" what was provided because the county's Historic Preservation Commission would have a say in how it was used.
Many complained that the project's layout resembled military barracks, though the "alternative plan" submitted by Kenneth Doggett, SOECA's "expert land planner," looks much like EYA's proposal, but with fewer houses.
Doggett's proposal for the Chelsea Court site.
In response, EYA tried to show how Chelsea Court fit into the local context. Vice president Aakash Thakkar displayed a model of Clarendon Park, a project they built in Arlington with a similar layout, and noted how the end houses were designed to look like single-family homes, helping them blend into the neighborhood.
Miguel Iraola, a planner at Hord Coplan Macht who's designing the project, offered several precedents throughout Silver Spring, Wheaton and Bethesda that are similar in design or density to their proposal. Neighbors Maria Schmit and Tom Anderson claimed that they weren't comparable to Chelsea Court, but Robeson agreed with Iraola's conclusion.
With the hearing examiner's approval, the new Chelsea Court proposal will now go before the County Council once again, and I hope they approve it as well. EYA has worked hard to meet the neighborhood's concerns, crafting a project that not only respects the site's history but its current surroundings.
They also have a good track record for creating quality infill projects, which many neighbors recognize. "Based on EYA's National Park Seminary [in Forest Glen], I am convinced this new development will be attractive Many Silver Spring residents say they want to support local businesses, are upset about traffic congestion, and are concerned about safety. Yet they are often the same ones who oppose projects like Chelsea Court, which would generate more customers, allow more people to walk, bike or use transit instead of driving, and provide more "eyes on the street."
We could do far worse than this. Chelsea Court has been fully vetted and dutifully revised, and now it's time to get it built.
A planner and architect by training, Dan Reed is interested in suburban retrofits. Dan works for the Friends of White Flint, writes his own blog, Just Up the Pike, and serves as the Land Use Chair for the Action Committee for Transit. Dan lives in Silver Spring. 
Comments
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- Metro policy for refunds after delays falls short, riders say
- PG planners propose bold new smart growth future
- Prince George's County struggles to get trails right
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
Still there is the larger issue that people are protecting their economic interests through the regulatory system rather than using the regulatory system to prevent bad actors. Just because you like the neighborhood the way it is doesn't mean you can gum up the process by trying to insert veto power at every stage.
by X on May 23, 2012 1:39 pm • link • report
by DRT on May 23, 2012 1:55 pm • link • report
by jag on May 23, 2012 1:57 pm • link • report
by Rich on May 23, 2012 4:20 pm • link • report
Nevertheless, I often wonder who's actually making planning decisions in DTSS given how awful the urban planning actually is around here. The Cameron houses are a good example - a 2 min walk from Metro should've been a much-denser development and I left there because despite being row homes they lack any green space (i.e. concrete jungle).
by TC on May 24, 2012 9:58 am • link • report
by jag on May 24, 2012 10:37 am • link • report
Hey, I was just about to say that. Cameron Hill was a public parking lot before the county sold it - perhaps they should've held onto it a few more years until there was demand for something bigger, but hindsight is always 20/20.
by dan reed! on May 24, 2012 10:40 am • link • report
The Colesville Towers are an outlier, from before the Master Plan. It is wrong to use them as some sort of precendent for this development. Seven Oaks - Evanswood is not in the CBD; Cedar Street separates it from the CBD, and the Chelsea School property is squarely inside Seven Oaks - Evanswood, and not in the CBD.
The claim that EYA worked hard to meet the neighborhood's concerns is a bad joke for anyone who was actually involved in this case. EYA consistently refused to negotiate on the number of townhouses, which was the main concern, and even though it is not required by law to put an exit onto Springvale Road, it chose to do so anyway, again, over the great concerns of the neighborhood. EYA's "concessions" were either cosmetic in nature, or forced upon it by the County when it rejected RT 12.5 rezoning.
EYA now wants to clearcut virtually all the trees on the property. Will the County allow that to happen? Probably. Money talks.
by DTSSER on May 26, 2012 2:31 pm • link • report
Wrong. The new plan under RT 12.5 must have at least 50 percent green space; the old plan under RT 15 required only 30 percent.
and I like that the road went straight through instead of curving.
You fail to understand that the Planning Board rejected the first, straight road because it cut directly through the environmental setting of the historic property.
Just because you like the neighborhood the way it is doesn't mean you can gum up the process by trying to insert veto power at every stage.
So instead, residents should just roll over every time a developer wants to build in their neighborhood? There were many complex issues in this case, not the least of which was ensuring that EYA comply with County regulations for RT zoning. You may call that gumming up the works, but other people call it due process and democracy.
by Observer on May 26, 2012 5:40 pm • link • report
So not complaining about everything a developer wants to do = rolling over? Seems reasonable.
After all, these people own the land that the developer wants to build on, right?
by Gray on May 26, 2012 5:47 pm • link • report
Of course not. But residents living in an inner-suburban neighborhood a mile from a Metro station and walking distance to one of a major downtown should be realistic about what's going to be built around them.
by dan reed! on May 26, 2012 5:47 pm • link • report
by dan reed! on May 26, 2012 5:48 pm • link • report
As it is, this plan will still be the densest townhouse development in North Silver Spring, and it does not even lie adjacent to a major road like Georgia Avenue.
"Realistic" means different things to developers (and their supporters and cronies), and the people who actually live in the communities targeted by those developers.
by Observer on May 26, 2012 6:55 pm • link • report
by agent499% on May 28, 2012 10:33 pm • link • report
Actually, the law allows townhouses in an R-60 zone under "cluster housing." EYA didn't need the zone to be changed at all. The cluster arrangement would have allowed a compatible and appropriate low-impact development of about 20-25 townhouses.
"Nonetheless, some neighbors weren't satisfied."
Justly so, long-established suburban neighborhoods (SOECA is a 100 year old suburb) including those that supported the Seven Oaks Evanswood Neighborhood, within a mile from the Metro, are not satisfied by the call to be urbanized, by developers that will remove all the huge trees that define the suburban communities they live in. There is a line that should not be crossed, in this neighborhood that line is Cedar Street.
For EYA to attain 63 townhouses at RT 12.5 zone they plan to clearcut 77 old growth trees, and effectively build 16 townhouses on one acre, not 12. As the Hearing Examiner stated in her first report, The "Green Zone" is the Neighborhood, the "Gray Zone" is the Central Business District. She upheld that they are dramatically different zones with Cedar Street as the dividing line.
These huge trees are integral to the neighborhoods identity, they are the buffer between the leafy quiet neighborhood and the central business district pollution, noise and dirty stormwater runoff. These trees do not need to be cut down to build townhouses, there is plenty of already former ball-field open space to build just enough to fit the landscape as ecologically appropriately.
Clear cutting the upper hills and perimeters will turn the Green Zone buffer into A Gray Zone incursion. Open space on the lower parcel is available for a low impact RT-8 zone that would preserve the most old growth trees and would be most respectful and most compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
by ksamiy on May 29, 2012 12:05 pm • link • report
Silver Spring cannot afford to continue to build detached SFHs so close the metro. In addition, Silver Spring and Montgomery County need more walkable developments to keep up with market and cohort demand and to keep us competitive with other counties.
by Patrick Thornton on May 29, 2012 2:07 pm • link • report
There are no old growth trees in Silver Spring. I would challenge you to find a single one in the entire Eastern U.S.
At best, there may be a few secondary growth trees in Montgomery County.
And the pollution of the CBD is largely caused by single family home owners who insist on driving every where. If housing isn't built in walkable areas, it will surely be built somewhere else since people need somewhere to live. And that will surely cause much more pollution. Air quality cannot be segregated, and in general the air quality is fairly bad in the Eastern and Midwestern U.S. do the heavy use of coal fired power plants.
by Patrick Thornton on May 29, 2012 2:11 pm • link • report
Actually the 'denser' version, of RT-15 is illegal at the Chelsea site, its a kind of zone placed and approved only when adjacent to industrial, commercial and institutional zones none of which exists at the Chelsea School, which is surrounded on all 4 sides abutting land zoned residential and which is why the Hearing Examiner denied the RT-15 density, and the District Council upheld her decision.
The expert tree testimony precisely lists the champion, majestic, and specimen trees on the Chelsea site-some well over 100 years old. Maybe 'old growth' is not the most precise term an arborist would use to describe 100 plus tall trees with full leafy canopies and roots that extend as wide as the tree is tall.
At the Silver Spring Library, behind the desk a 4 foot photograph shows the Silver Spring Pine Forests-hundreds of years old. You can also see 6 of them standing at Kingsbury and Dale Drive next to the new construction at Mrs. Kay's restaurant. If the construction to widen the road does not kill them soon. There are many other Pines and White Oaks-the State Tree, in the Seven [white] Oaks Evanswood Neighborhood.
You might want to stand on the Riggs-Thompson civil war site and experience the tranquility and peace the trees bring to the Neighborhood as a buffer from the CBD.
There is a WSSC consent decree that downtown CBD stormwater pollution is running into Sligo Creek and the Bay down the length of Ellsworth Drive, intermingled with the underground springs of Silver Spring. This decree is a legal document, put in place after 100,000 gallons of city pollution was dumped routinely into the Ellsworth-Bennington Tributary, as chronicled on the Friends of Sligo Creek website.
by ksamiy on May 29, 2012 3:34 pm • link • report
"And the pollution of the CBD is largely caused by single family home owners who insist on driving every where."
The Seven Oaks Evanswood neighborhood is already walkable, and the streets are the safest routes for bikers going to work and families with kids and strollers who enjoy walking from the dtss condos or Colesville Towers apartments a short walk away to the downstream Sligo Creek Park through the leafy cool green Seven Oaks Evanswood Neighborhood.
Many SOECA residents walk, bike, bus and metro to work. The bulk of cars on downtown Silver Spring streets is because dtss development is all about building hirise 1 and 1.5 BR apartment condos and office space, 5,000 units under construction..
What is needed are many essential stores for a wide variety of basis needs like clothing and day-to-day necessities.
Most residents living in downtown Silver Spring, no matter if they live in a house, townhouse, or condo, have to drive to find these essential necessitites on weekends in the shopping malls of Wheaton, Rockville and Bethesda.
On weekdays a large percentage of those living in the density development areas downtown reverse commute to work to places that our county has NO viable transit options, like out RT-29 corridor, or upcounty via the Beltway, or towards Baltimore.
by ksamiy on May 29, 2012 3:47 pm • link • report
by Observer on May 29, 2012 4:24 pm • link • report
People who live right by transit are not looking to drive on weekends. We actively don't like driving around. That's why we live so close to the metro and bus routes.
In many ways, I don't think owners of detached SFHs understand this way of life. Many of the arguments I see against this proposed development are through the eyes of people who view their cars as an extension of themselves. But that's not how many people live, and the Millennial generation is trading in cars and suburbia for walkability.
When I say this debate is partly about fear, it's that many in opposition can only think of traffic and congestion, when the people this project is aimed at aren't looking to drive everywhere.
People who purchase townhomes are the kinds of people who walk to take care of their day-to-day needs or use transit to get what they can't find close by.
I understand that some people commute out into parts of Maryland that aren't transit accessible. But many commute into DC and Arlington, where much of the best paying jobs are. I personally would not take a job in Maryland outside of DTSS or Bethesda (perhaps Rockville) because of the lack of transit and quality employers. Employers situated in suburban office parks are really the cream of the crop.
The county is looking to court more younger professional residents to help our tax situation and make the county competitive for the future. It cannot do that with SFHs and a lack of transit. That simply won't do.
by Patrick Thornton on May 29, 2012 5:23 pm • link • report
If we build densely enough, it's easy to walk to take care of all of these needs. If we insist on SFHs spread apart from each other and separated from commercial uses, that's going to be pretty hard to accomplish.
by Gray on May 29, 2012 5:33 pm • link • report
Employers situated in suburban office parks are rarely the cream of the crop.
Employers attracted to low rents and low quality of life for their employees don't attract top talent.
by Patrick Thornton on May 29, 2012 5:37 pm • link • report
Yes, restrictive zoning without density forces people to drive around to get basic goods and services. If people want less traffic, they need to support more density and more mixed-use development.
For the record, I live in the DTSS area and am able to get all of my day-to-day needs met, including my eye doctor and dentist.
DTSS certainly needs more businesses, but we can't support more without more density and a better built environment. DTSS is in need of serious traffic calming, and we have far too much infrastructure dedicated to cars, even in our dense areas.
by Patrick Thornton on May 29, 2012 5:42 pm • link • report
If there is a massive environmental issue with this proposed development, then the county should take that very seriously. The county as a whole could do a much better job with storm water runoff. There is a general lack of permeanable surfaces, and this is something that needs to be addressed.
I would think that the Chelsea development could be done correctly environmentally, especially if some steps were taken to make surrounding areas more permeaable. The county has taken steps to the CBD more permable and put in more trees, which soak up pollutants, but there is still much work to be done.
FYI, I used to work for an international conservation NGO. That's why I disagreed with the assesment that DTSS has old growth trees. :) I love trees as much as anyone, especially big, old trees. I'd say 100 is middle aged for a tree. There are a lot of things to balance, however, when it comes to the environment.
The entire county needs more trees, and older trees do a better job of filtering. Denser, more walkable development, however, can help us save a lot of trees and cut down on vehicle miles driven.
by Patrick Thornton on May 29, 2012 5:53 pm • link • report
People need to look a little deeper. EYA has slick promotional material, but check out their plans. Instead of saving the historical house on the property as they said they would, they proposed putting a road right through its setting. The Chelsea site could be something special with an innovative combination of the historic property, parkland and complementing modern housing, but the EYA plan sure isn't it!
by vicki warren on May 29, 2012 6:48 pm • link • report
To Vicki Warren: the master plan you don't want changed is from the 90's and was conceived long before the wildly succesful revitalization of downtown Silver Spring. Master plans are not set in stone. They are intended to be reviewed and modified as times change. And as far as the 'unimaginative' plan by EYA, you also seem to be unaware that tastes have changed. EYA, like any developer, is profit driven. Unlike some developers, they continually monitor and evaluate what their customers want and then design and builds accordingly. They are exceptionally successful and widely respected as quality developers. The sell out every project because they know what today's buyers want. I ask the SOECA opposers: when is the last time YOU bought a home? If it more than 15 years then you are likely of touch with what buyers want.
by David Adams on May 29, 2012 10:52 pm • link • report
That objection isn't surprising given that opposition members so value their own back yards, as have owners of single family suburban homes for the past 100 years. Today's owners of townhomes in urban locations near transit don't place any value on the backyard. EYA has said that they know from experience that green space behind townhomes is frequently wasted and would be unused by the demographic that buys their product. By removing this 'private' green space from the backs, it allows much larger common green space (courtyards) between the fronts of the buildings.
There are also many site-related constraints, most notably a severe grade change across the proeperty. The EYA plan is the most sensible to work with the grade rather than against it. To do what Ms. Warren wants would require extensive retaining wall construction (and then the opposition would complain there are too many walls).
Ironically, as Dan pointed out in his post, SOECA's expert land planner presented the opposition's alternate plan which had the same 'barracks" style layout as EYA's. Maybe he knows a thing or two about working with sites with severe grade changes.
by David Adams on May 30, 2012 7:50 am • link • report
The fact is that the CBD has a northern edge. That edge is Cedar Street. Seven Oaks-Evanswood is outside the CBD. It is a historically low density neighborhood. People move there because they do not want to live in apartments or townhouses anymore. They want houses with yards, especially if they have families. And that is what they expected when they purchased homes in Seven Oaks-Evanswood.
The way some commenters here go on, it seems as if the only choice people should have is living in an apartment or townhouse, or buy a single family detached home in the outer suburbs, which would require a long, costly, and wasteful commute and is a terrible option. But that is the beauty of Seven Oaks-Evanswood. You can have a house with a yard close in to downtown Silver Spring and D.C.
(Keep in mind that even Rollin Stanley, a pro-high density growth advocate, chose to live in a single family detached home, not a townhouse or condo).
Townhouses are for young people without families, or retirees. I have friends who lived in townhouses until they had kids, and then they moved out to single family detached homes, in neighborhoods like Seven Oaks-Evanswood. Despite the arrogant assertions otherwise, people want to live in single family detached homes in R60 neighborhoods, especially when they get out of their 20's or early 30's. The Chelsea site should have been developed that way, to give young families a place close in to raise their kids. Instead, there will be fewer options close in, and those people will be forced to do what too many other people must do: find a house far away, with long, destructive commutes.
SOECA has done a great job of limiting the harm that EYA would have inflicted on its neighborhood. Anyone who smugly dismisses SOECA as "the community" has no appreciation of the value of community. Perhaps one day these critics will settle down into a neighborhood they love and join their own civic association. And if the neighborhood that they love is ever threatened by a developer and/or politicians who are looking to profit at their expense,then they will understand why it is so important to rally together as a community. (No doubt at that point they will have their own little group of smug, immature onlookers sniping at them, as SOECA does now. Life is ironic that way).
This townhouse development is an incursion of high density development into a low density neighborhood, and is happening not because the County Council believes in smart growth or MPDU's, but because of money, in more ways than one. That's a problem afflicting all of Montgomery County, if not the world: wealthy, powerful interests and their political allies will always try to steamroll over people, even, in the case of politicians, people they were elected to serve. Groups like SOECA are vital in fighting back, and if you doubt that, consider what happens to poorer communities that lack effective citizens associations like SOECA.
by DTSSER on May 30, 2012 8:07 am • link • report
by DTSSER on May 30, 2012 8:14 am • link • report
DTSSER said Perhaps one day these critics will settle down into a neighborhood they love and join their own civic association. And if the neighborhood that they love is ever threatened by a developer and/or politicians who are looking to profit at their expense,then they will understand why it is so important to rally together as a community.
Perhaps you are hoping this will happen to SOECA itself since the overwhelming majority of residents within SOECA's boundaries neither hold membership in the association nor participate in it. Again, this is all in the hearing examiner testimony transcrips.
There are about 725 homes within SOECA's boundaries. SOECA's bylaws allow a max of two member from each home. If one (conservatively) estimates 1.5 potential members per home, that gives a potential membership of 1087.
At the time of the SOECA meeting where membership voted to oppose or support the townhome development, SOECA had just 170 paid members (15.5% of potential). At the meeting, there were only 55 members present (33% of actual membership, 5% of potential membership). Of those, 41 voted to oppose the townhomes. So, from there SOECA took the vote of 3.7% of the entire neighborhood as a mandate for opposition. That's fine, but they shouldn't claim they speak for everyone as they have repeatedly done. SOECA later collected approximately 260 signatures on an opposition petition. Even if in the unlikely scenario that every person signing was subject to the same rules as SOECA membership, that would be only 24% of the potential membership.
SOECA only represents its membership. The planning board, hearing examiner and county council all know that. SOECA should be very pleased they were able to accomplish the goal of reducing the size of the project and preserving a larger historic easement. They put up a very good fight and the hearing examiner forced the developer to accomodate. Now they need to let it go and compromise instead of insisting on getting everything.
by David Adams on May 30, 2012 9:18 am • link • report
SOECA was joined by several other civil associations and Montgomery Preservation. SOECA's petition was signed by more than 200 people. EYA's supporters, on the other hand, were a distinct minority in our neighborhood. The County knows all that. I don't know if you're a resident of our neighborhood or a member of SOECA, but I am both, and the turnout for the SOECA vote was huge by regular attendance standards.
Accusing SOECA of refusing to compromise is actually funny, because it was EYA that refused to compromise, ever, on the number of townhouses. SOECA, on the other hand, tried to compromise and was rejected. Where do you get your information from?
I don't know why my earlier comment on the SOECA's land use expert and was deleted, but I'll try again and hopefully it won't violate any comment policy: there is far more to the story than you know. You were not involved in that process.
by DTSSER on May 30, 2012 9:46 am • link • report
by David Adams on May 30, 2012 9:51 am • link • report
Townhouses are for young people without families, or retirees. I have friends who lived in townhouses until they had kids, and then they moved out to single family detached homes, in neighborhoods like Seven Oaks-Evanswood. Despite the arrogant assertions otherwise, people want to live in single family detached homes in R60 neighborhoods, especially when they get out of their 20's or early 30's.
You know, I grew up in an apartment (in downtown Silver Spring, no less), then a townhouse. Many of my aunts and uncles in Greater Washington raised kids in apartments and townhomes, both in DC, MD and Northern Virginia. Some people do want to live in a single-family house when they raise kids, and when my parents could afford it, they bought one. But that's not true for everybody.
Nobody's forcing anyone to live in an apartment or townhouse. In fact, most of the housing stock around downtown Silver Spring today are single-family homes. So providing more townhouses would actually create more choice, not take it away.
by dan reed! on May 30, 2012 10:04 am • link • report
If SOECA loses this round, it won't be for lack of trying. EYA had far more money and resources in this fight, and it was clear the first time that a few council members had their minds made up from the very beginning, just like the Planning Board. Anyway, it won't be the first time that a powerful developer gets its way, either here in Montgomery County or elsewhere. Like the old song asks, though: which side are you on?
by DTSSER on May 30, 2012 10:07 am • link • report
I got it directly from SOECA's May newsletter. Is it not a reliable source? The newsletter saysWe still need help to finance these important efforts. We have privately raised and spent more than $30,000 on legal funds and a land use expert. However, as of April 30, 2012, $7,000 in funds are still needed, so please send your contributions to help preserve our neighborhood and obtain a compatible low impact Chelsea townhouse development to...
by David Adams on May 30, 2012 10:14 am • link • report
If you consider the percentage of residents that voted for County Council by percentage, the top 2010 Vote getter received 17.3% for Marc Elrich and least was 16.4% for George Leventhal. SOECA is almost double that stat at 33%!
My calculation is that of the 725 SOECA total households that are paid members, the percentage is 23.5%, not the 15.5% posted. This is a great stat by any measure. And about 100 of 725 homes are in the Park Hills overlap, so the percentage is higher if you remove these households who can choose which civic they wish to participate in.
My calculation of the 170 paid members and 55 who could attend to vote on Chelsea is 33%. This is considered an overall representative sample, statistically used by many organizations.
By the way SOECA did a poll and a petition of just the SOECA Neighborhood and over 250 people signed against rezoning.
The rezone, and breaking of the Master Plan, is at issue because the quantity of townhouses will adversely impact a civil war historic house and create environmental degradation of increased impervious surfaces and tree removal that over-urbanizes this suburban neighborhood.
Contrarily, The Planning Board, it's Staff aad EYA are not accountable to voters wishes. At least Seven Oaks Evanswood reaches out to all residents, and got 33% turnout to vote on the Chelsea issue. and those most immediatealy impacted as residents living closest to the site turned out in significant numbers, compared to those homeowners who live on the other side of Sligo Creek.
This is not how development decisions in the Planning Department are made, residents are sidelined and dissed, Master Plans are considered a bother and treated as "outdated", and votes are poop pooed on blogs.
Lets hope the County Council in making this political decision on the EYA application to rezone, is listening to neighborhoods who turn out voters.
by ksamiy on May 30, 2012 3:27 pm • link • report
SOECA got 33% of the paid members to vote, not ALL residents as your statement above suggests. You claim that SOECA membership (which by your calculations 23.5% of potential members) is an accepted statistical sample, but then you say that those who attended and voted at the meeting were a disproportionately represented because they are the most immediately impacted. Ksamiy, you can't have it both ways--it's either a statistical sample of the entire neighborhood or it wasn't.
by David Adams on May 30, 2012 3:58 pm • link • report
On your last point: Councilmembers ignore the voters at their own peril. What Montgomery County residents may lack in the ability to make campaign contributions, they more than make up for in the ability to vote a person into or out of office.
by DTSSER on May 30, 2012 4:02 pm • link • report
I am over 50. I take transit to work, I walk and bicycle, and if I lived in a suitable place (which is my goal) I would hardly ever drive.
"Townhouses are for young people without families, or retirees. "
I raised my kid in a town house. For several years, in an apt in a high rise. There are thousands of families in this region with kids in apts, and tens of thousands with kids in townhouses.
The arrogance and narrowmindedness expressed in the comments above is astounding.
I have friends who lived in townhouses until they had kids, and then they moved out to single family detached homes, in neighborhoods like Seven Oaks-Evanswood. Despite the arrogant assertions otherwise, people want to live in single family detached homes in R60 neighborhoods, especially when they get out of their 20's or early 30's. The Chelsea site should have been developed that way, to give young families a place close in to raise their kids. Instead, there will be fewer options close in, and those people will be forced to do what too many other people must do: find a house far away, with long, destructive commutes.
SOECA has done a great job of limiting the harm that EYA would have inflicted on its neighborhood. Anyone who smugly dismisses SOECA as "the community" has no appreciation of the value of community. Perhaps one day these critics will settle down into a neighborhood they love and join their own civic association. And if the neighborhood that they love is ever threatened by a developer and/or politicians who are looking to profit at their expense,then they will understand why it is so important to rally together as a community. (No doubt at that point they will have their own little group of smug, immature onlookers sniping at them, as SOECA does now. Life is ironic that way).
This townhouse development is an incursion of high density development into a low density neighborhood, and is happening not because the County Council believes in smart growth or MPDU's, but because of money, in more ways than one. That's a problem afflicting all of Montgomery County, if not the world: wealthy, powerful interests and their political allies will always try to steamroll over people, even, in the case of politicians, people they were elected to serve. Groups like SOECA are vital in fighting back, and if you doubt that, consider what happens to poorer communities that lack effective citizens associations like SOECA.
by DTSSER on
by AWalkerInTheCity on May 30, 2012 4:15 pm • link • report
Residents and developers each have to play by the rules. And that includes immediately impacted residents getting to have their say, be they one or two hundred.
If your vote count method was applied by comparison of registered voters to votes cast of elected County Council officials one would come up with lesser percentage than the soeca vote of 33% of members plus 250 soeca residents who signed a petition against rezoning.
My stake is living in the neighborhood. What is at Stake for EYA?
And, Whats your strong personal stake in this rezoning? You have spend hours dissing the Seven Oaks Evanswood neighborhood so vociferously and intently. Are you on the EYA staff or PR team, have a personal relationship with an EYA connection, are you the Planning Dept staffer with the same name, or are you just set on maximizing urban density at the expense of Master Plans and killing off leafy green neighborhoods, against the wishes of hundreds of residents?
Picking on the soeca votes is a distraction. Infill Townhouses are not the issue, that's decided. Rezoning or not, that's decided.
It's not mpdu's at stake, If it's more mpdu's well that's up to EYA to choose they can build more than the 8 minimally required under RT-8 or RT-12.5.
Its not affordable housing at stake, oops EYA townhouses start at $700,000 each don't qualify at this price point.
Walk ability, not at stake, covered. Yet EYA wants an unrequired second exit for CARS onto Springvale, WHY? so they said, 'to get to Whole Foods' a block away, even when walking is faster and fashionable and their motto: 'within walking distance' maybe EYA should redo that to 'within car distance' it'd be more accurate with the second exit option to get to Whole Foods and the Beltway.
Whats left at stake? Quantity! ah! It's not decided. So, Your beef against soeca must be purely about EYA profits, as that's really the only thing left at stake.
But for SevenOaks Evanswood residents the stakes have nothing to do with money, just the love of the quiet, the leafy green trees, a great place to live and great neighbors doing the right thing standing up for their long established community, to limit the excess quantity of infill to put the earth first.
by ksamiy on May 31, 2012 12:44 am • link • report
The only thing I'll add to this is if you truly care about the Earth then you should be in favor or more density closer to the metro. If people don't build in walkable areas close to transit, they'll build elsewhere. Detached SFHs are simply less environmentally friends than townhouses.
It's fine to not like change. But putting more density on this parcel of land is in the Earth's interest. People need places to live. It's far better for those to be in walkable areas close to public transit.
Please don't evoke the Earth in this debate when you're position is to encourage sprawl.
by Patrick Thornton on May 31, 2012 10:40 am • link • report
by citdem on May 31, 2012 11:03 am • link • report
EYA/Planning ALREADY gave up units in order to please the community. Is it a never-ending cycle? Every time they come up with a new plan, the community says "aww it's just giving up a few more units to save XYZ!"
This townhome development is actually a great transition from the CBD to the single-family homes of the neighborhood and will actually probably help protect those homes from further dense development.
by MLD on May 31, 2012 11:16 am • link • report
Strathmore has a beautiful new TH development, which respected the R60 zone..118 townhouses, allowed under density bonuses under R60 on this large piece of property on a major arterial. Was there a conversation about the waste of that space? Would love to hear about it, just to compare.
Are you saying that a development next to a major highway in Strathmore is comparable to a development in a highly walkable part of downtown Silver Spring? If you really think those are interchangeable locations, I'm not sure how we can have a serious discussion about TOD.
Moreover, if the developers had asked for more density in Strathmore, what neighbors would have complained about the loss of trees on land they don't own?
by Gray on May 31, 2012 11:20 am • link • report
The Planning Department never gave up a single townhouse unit to please the community, and neither did EYA. The reduction in townhouses was mandatory after the County Council sent the case back to the Hearing Examiner.
by Observer on May 31, 2012 11:24 am • link • report
Isn't that how it works? The people (their representatives - i.e. the Council) recommend that they reduce the size of the development in order to get the zoning variance?
EYA: Here's what we want to do but we need a zoning variance.
Council: Well we think it should be smaller, redo things and we'll take another look.
EYA: Here's a new plan with fewer units.
I don't see how your version of things is at odds with mine.
by MLD on May 31, 2012 11:40 am • link • report
I looked up Symphony Park, the townhouse development by the Grosvenor-Strathmore Metro you mentioned. It's 118 houses on 18.61 acres, or about 6 homes/acre. That's half as dense than the Chelsea Court proposal, but they're also much more expensive houses, with prices starting at $900,000. That's the trade-off: we can have fewer houses, but they'll be much more expensive. Land is valuable in Silver Spring, and no matter how many houses are built at Chelsea Court, EYA still has to make a profit or at least break even on the project. Not that $600k is "affordable" or anything, but it's within reach for more people who might like to live in Silver Spring.
According to the Planning Department staff report I linked to above, 8.8 acres, or about 47% of the site, are set aside as park space. That's comparable to what EYA's doing at Chelsea Court by saving 50% of the property as open space. They've split it up into two small parks and several courtyards instead of one big park as was done at Symphony Park, but it's still a lot of space.
by dan reed! on May 31, 2012 11:58 am • link • report
The difference between the version I presented, and yours, is that you said the PB and EYA "gave up units in order to please the community." First, as I wrote, this wasn't done to please anyone. Giving up units was not an option. Second, as I understand it, the County Council did not makes its decision to in order to please the community, but because they ruled that the first plan did not comply with the regulations for rezoning to townhouses. It was a matter of law, in other words. Please correct me if I got anything wrong.
by Observer on May 31, 2012 12:00 pm • link • report
my real question about Symphony Park is, here is a major piece of land in MoCo, next to a Metro rail station, and on a major arterial (355), why wasn't that rezoned and built at an RT density? This is a prime spot for TOD, but it wasn't done. I read a bit of background and saw the first developer couldn't make things happen and someone else picked it up.
Sure, EYA wants to make a profit, but I guess the question is, and really none of our business as they are a private company, how much of a profit is "enough" and can a profit be made on, say 40 market price at 600-700K (by the time they are built) and 10 or so MPDUs (price uncertain, understand HOA is working on formulas based on building, land and other costs...could be close to $300K). All to ponder and watch.
by citdem on May 31, 2012 12:12 pm • link • report
Symphony Park probably should've been built at a far higher density, but there's a market for $900k-$2m townhouses that probably doesn't exist in Silver Spring, meaning a developer can do more with fewer houses. And I don't know this for sure, but I imagine neighborhood opposition to any new development, or at least the potential of neighborhood opposition, would discourage any upzoning at that property anyway.
by dan reed! on May 31, 2012 12:16 pm • link • report
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501591.html
by Ben Ross on May 31, 2012 12:43 pm • link • report
I am sure the county, if they wanted to really implement TOD and smart growth, could have found a developer for that Symphony Woods property who could have made a comfortable profit on an RT10 or 12.5 zoned property with lots more townhouses, even with the green space. Perhaps the PB and staff pick and choose where the battles can be won (Director of Strathmore which was one of Duncan's pet projects, plus better connected Garrett Park residents vs. the Silver Springers trying to achieve a similar goal?). Maybe I'm reading too much into this, 2005 was a different time.
by citdem on May 31, 2012 2:27 pm • link • report
Times are a changing.
by Patrick Thornton on May 31, 2012 4:52 pm • link • report
Add a Comment