Posts about Anti Neighbors

It also got approval from the Hearing Examiner, Lynn Robeson, who basically serves as a judge for the county's zoning code. 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. The examiner's office released this 111-page report detailing how they came to their 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. 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.

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—just as attractive as our existing neighborhood and perhaps even more so," wrote SOECA resident Leslie Downey in a letter to the Planning Board last year.

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.

Very few people will keep a bike that long. The purpose of bike sharing is for short point to point trips, not long rentals. But a lot of folks initially placed the system into their mental box of "bike rentals," and evaluated it accordingly. That'll pass, if it hasn't already, once people actually get to try using it.

Last night, at a public meeting in Brooklyn Heights, a few residents argued against bikeshare stations on their streets. Bikeshare supporter Mike Epstein (who's also a personal friend) tweeted some of the objections from the meeting:

Has a single station in DC turned into a "place for people to hang out"? Not that I'm aware. But some people worried about that here, too.

A BID employee from Montague Street, in Brooklyn Heights, wanted to keep 5 parking spaces instead of add 39 bikeshare docks, while a MetroTech BID representative was pleased there aren't stations in their area.

DC residents know what will happen:

The system will open, and residents will realize that bike sharing is nothing like their worst fears. Neighbors will clamor for stations. Actually, many already are. Residents in Park Slope, which isn't getting Citibike yet, are eager for expansion.

Meanwhile, pass the popcorn.

Email spreads myths

The latest email makes 4 charges:

Attack 1: Under proposed new commercial and residential zoning rules, increased building height + density, lot occupancy, and use could fundamentally degrade your home's environment and value.

False. No zones allow taller buildings than they do today. No zone's lot occupancy will change at all. The only change to lot occupancy removes an incentive to fill in courtyards and side yards, thereby leading to less density rather than more.

No floor-area ratios (FAR), the standard measure of density, increase in any zones outside downtown. None of the height limits in any zones outside downtown will increase. There's a small change to how to measure heights, which will more often make the height rules more restrictive than the reverse.

Opponents seem to have assumed that the zoning update is massively upzoning their neighborhoods, and speaking on that basis, even though it is not.

Plus, this statement seems designed to alarm rather than inform. Who says "your home" will have its value degrade? One of the changes which is genuine, allowing accessory dwellings, will likely increase the value of most homes because people will be able to rent out a garage, bringing in income, which they can't do today.

Attack 2: Redevelopment on or adjacent to a bus line—designated a "transit zone"—could substantially exceed building allowed today.

Again, false. "Transit" zones only vary from non-transit zones in 2 ways, neither of which allows larger buildings and one of which is more restrictive. Also, single-family house zones, the ones "Neighbors For Neighborhoods" is trying to agitate, won't be "transit zones" even if they are right next to transit.

In non-SFH zones near transit, new buildings will not have minimum parking requirements, but there will be stricter limits on driveways. If a commercial or mixed-use property backs onto an alley, in a transit zone it will have to use the alley for any driveway instead of a curb cut in the front. That's because around transit lines, the design of the buildings should better accommodate pedestrian traffic.

Attack 3: New code standards would be "matter of right", i.e. implementing new rules would require no review nor allow citizen comment.

This sounds like something a person would say who doesn't understand any zoning laws, anywhere. Any zoning code allows some things "matter of right," other things after a hearing (in DC, by "special exception"), and some things not at all unless a zoning board grants a "variance" after a more rigorous and difficult process.

The new zoning code continues this. A few things which need special exceptions do become matter of right, such as an accessory dwelling. A few things which require variances become special exceptions. But rather than argue against any specific changes on policy grounds, this email tries to frighten residents by implying that all building would suddenly happen without any public review.

Attack 4: Overlays designed to protect some communities from inappropriate development or uses would be removed.

Entirely false. Overlays will not exist in the new code as such, but all of the rules of the overlays remain. Right now, up to 3 separate and sometimes conflicting sets of rules can apply to a single piece of land. For example, my house is in an R-5-B (row house) zone under the Dupont Circle overlay. To understand my zoning, I have to look in 2 places, which have different standards.

Under the new code, I will live in an AT-4-B zone. All of the rules of the Dupont Circle overlay are part of AT-4-B. People not in the Dupont Circle overlay instead will have their property zoned AT-3-B. The advantage of this system is that a property owner only needs to look in one place for the rules about setbacks, FAR, and so on, instead of two or more.

For example, one end of my block is in an SP-1 zone. A building owner recently proposed a new exterior stair which I originally thought violated zoning, since the SP-1 zoning requires a 12-foot rear yard setback and "egress stairs" can only break into the rear setback by 4 feet. As it turns out, that's because the Dupont Circle overlay is more permissive with rear yards in SP-1 zones, but that wasn't clear enough when I looked at the SP-1 text in the old zoning code.

When I read the new zoning code, it was far more clear. The area will be an MT-2-A zone, where the Dupont Circle overlay rules apply. In the text for MT-2-A, it listed the different rear yard measurement standard right there with the other information for MT-2-A. There was no need to remember to look in 2 places; it's all in one.

The Office of Planning has posted a table listing all of the current zones and overlays and what designation each will get in the new code. The authors of the alarmist email, who claim OP hasn't provided enough information, must not have looked at that table.

Brown repeats myths

Councilmember Michael Brown's letter, sadly, falls for much of the same misinformation. The letter warns against nonexistent goals of the zoning rewrite and repeats opponents' charge that a 5-year process with hundreds of community meetings, and most of a year or more left to run, is "moving too fast."

He says, "A one-size-fits all approach doesn't seem right for our city, with its rich history of unique neighborhoods, but that seems to be the direction we are heading." The draft zoning code has 94 different zones and myriad different paragraphs that customize rules for each neighborhood. It's hard to seriously conclude that this is any kind of "one-size-fits-all" approach.

Brown writes that "The code should not be used as a blunt instrument to drive unsupported social change," but doesn't specify how a zoning update which takes great pains to change very little in single-family neighborhoods is either a "blunt instrument" or one driving "unsupported social change."

Below is the full text of the email, which went to the Cleveland Park Citizens' Association listserv.

CPCA members might be interested in a new group addressing the comprehensive changes proposed for the DC Zoning Code which the Zoning Commission will adopt later this year or early next year.

Neighbors for Neighborhoods (N4Ndc) is organizing to alert DC residents to the need to respond to the proposed new regulations. Beginning with chapters in Chevy Chase DC, 16th Street Heights, AU Park and the Queens Chapel area, N4Ndc is forming new chapters in all neighborhoods. N4Ndc is a multi-neighborhood effort to make positive zoning changes for DC residents citywide.

Fathoming details of the proposed new Code requires persistence, fortitude and imagination, but here are some generalities:

• Under proposed new commercial and residential zoning rules, increased building height + density, lot occupancy, and use could fundamentally degrade your home's environment and value.
  
• Redevelopment on or adjacent to a bus line—designated a "transit zone"—could substantially exceed building allowed today.
  
• New code standards would be "matter of right", i.e. implementing new rules would require no review nor allow citizen comment.
  
• Overlays designed to protect some communities from inappropriate development or uses would be removed.

While N4Ndc is building awareness of potential zoning changes in DC's diverse neighborhoods, individual residents are encouraged to inform the Office Planning and public officials of particular concerns. N4Ndc can help you pinpoint your concerns and tell you where to direct your emails. Do not expect CPCA nor any other group to represent your specific concerns: you have the power of the pen, and you possess the right to speak up.

Recently, At-Large City Councilmember Michael Brown has aligned with N4Ndc's goals in a letter to the Zoning Commission. He urged that more outreach is necessary before the new regulations are adopted. He said, "This code has to 'make sense' to the public before adoption, not after [and] should not be used as a blunt instrument to drive unsupported social change. And we should not take for granted the hard-earned tranquility of our residents." He warned particularly about allowing Accessory Housing Units in all residential neighborhoods and expressed concerns about greater development in "transit zones."

The project is now in the middle of its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) phase. Officials have refined a set of 9 alternatives down to 3, plus a 4th no-build scenario. The City of Alexandria is now required by law to evaluate each of the 3 alternatives that made it through the screening phase.

Some residents at a public meeting on April 19 vehemently opposed alternatives B and D, because the project's construction could temporarily affect the George Washington Memorial Parkway. Both of those alternatives place the station farther north than the other alternative, A.

The speakers came primarily from Potomac Greens and Old Town. Some were fine with a station at A, while others opposed the station entirely. For most, the Parkway was the primary reason they cited, though some also feared construction noise and didn't want a station near their homes.

Impact on the GW Parkway

Those opposed to alternatives B and D repeatedly lauded the uniqueness of the parkway among capital cities worldwide. They demanded that officials throw out any build alternative that interferes with the roadway, even for two years or less.

Alternative D, located closest to existing and planned density in the area, probably has the most impact on the GW Parkway. This alternative requires elevating tracks to cross over the existing Metrorail and CSX tracks, passing through an aerial station roughly where the movie theater now stands, and then passing back over the CSX tracks to rejoin existing tracks.

There are construction benefits and drawbacks for this option, but it undoubtedly puts the infill station much closer to existing neighborhoods and the densest portion of future planned development.

At least two speakers at the meeting asked for a traffic study, but this study has already been done as part of the Potomac Yard small area plan (chapter 6). One infill Metro station isn't a traffic panacea, but according to the study, traffic will be worse in the Potomac Yards area if the station is not built.

The Potomac Yard small area plan calls for drastically-reduced density without a Metro station. But even in this scenario, traffic will be worse than with higher density and a Metro station. The closer the Metro station is to existing and planned density, the more cars it will take off the road.

Nonetheless, Old Town resident Poul Hertel reached as far back as 1902 to protest impacts on the Parkway, quoting a document from the McKinley Commission referring to the "Mount Vernon Road" as "affording an opportunity for the most refreshing and delightful drive to be had in any direction from Washington and not to be equaled at any great capital of the world."

While historical context is important, the massive back-ups on this main artery into the city mean McKinley's commission surely would have enjoyed the "refreshing and delightful" drive far less today. They probably would have made a temporary trade-off in parkway accessibility to save green space farther out from the city and temper traffic increases long-term.

The EIS process

Alexandria staff explained at the meeting that they are working with the National Park Service, and nothing will go forward without approval by the NPS. There are also other requirements regarding technical and financial viability, among other things.

Officials cannot throw out alternatives during the EIS phase until the city puts forward a locally-preferred alternative. But speakers demanding staff eliminate parkway-disturbing options did not yield, as speaker after speaker stood up to call for the city to change course in a way that is not possible.

David Fromm of Del Ray pointed out that the city could have done a better job explaining the reasons the screening process put forward each alternative. He was right, but it didn't appear that the most vocal in the audience would have been convinced by any option that breached the sanctity of the GW Parkway, regardless of long-term traffic benefits.

City staff periodically referred speakers to the PY website since they could not cover the vast amount of information about the potential development in a single public meeting.

Density, transit and the urban core

One speaker seemed to understand the larger point. Though she is a Potomac Greens resident who surely will be impacted by the construction, she pointed out that without the infill station, future growth in the area will make it so everyone will have plenty of time to admire things along the GW Parkway-turned-parking-lot, as traffic continues to get worse.

Large growth in the DC area is coming, so area municipalities need to responsibly manage that growth with improved infrastructure. Her statement brought sporadic applause, indicating she was not the lone supporter of the station.

For tangible proof of the traffic-reducing impacts of public transit and responsible land use planning, look no further than the Rosslyn-Ballston-Clarendon corridor. In this corridor, with access to public transit, people choose to live closer to jobs, stores, restaurants, etc.

In turn, people use their cars less, if they keep a car at all. This is why traffic volumes in that corridor have stayed relatively flat over the past 30 years despite massive development. Creating these livable communities reduces driving and therefore traffic.

With growth coming to the DC area, we can either clear-cut and pave over more outlying forests, or add more density close to the core. The most responsible action is to create dense, livable communities with good access to multi-modal transportation.

Even if urban living isn't for everyone, real estate pricing and trends indicate there's a shortage of walkable, transit-oriented communities and an over-supply of distant, exurban sprawl.

To be good stewards of our region, we simply must build density near transit near the urban core. If the most feasible option requires disturbing the GW Parkway during construction, that should not be a reason to avoid it. Temporarily interfering with GW Parkway traffic patterns does not outweigh losing acres of land that would have to be built farther out to replace the lost units and transportation capacity in Alexandria.

Audio of the April 19 public meeting is available here, and the presentation itself is available here.

Cross-posted at The Arlandrian.

THESE CHANGES WOULD FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE CHEVY CHASE FROM A QUIET, RESIDENTIAL AREA TO A MORE TRANSIENT, BUSINESS-ORIENTED AREA

SPECIFIC AREAS OF CONCERN. We identified four major areas of concern to Chevy Chase. Each is explained below:

1. CHANGE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES INTO BUSINESS AND RENTAL UNITS
   
2. TURN RESIDENTIAL STREETS INTO COMMERCIAL "TRANSIT ZONES"
   
3. NO "TRANSPARENCY" IN DEVELOPING THESE REGULATIONS
   
4. COMPRESSED SCHEDULE FOR FORMAL ADOPTION OF REGULATIONS

The hysteria goes beyond the excessive capitalization. Each of these 4 items, and the preamble, is false.

Very little will change in Chevy Chase

The zoning update will not "fundamentally change" Chevy Chase. Almost all its land is zoned for low-density residential development. OP has made it absolutely clear that "transit zones" will not apply to the low density residential areas at all, even when they are near transit. That means that single-family housing, even if it's just a few hundred feet from a Metro station, won't change.

The zoning update will allow a few limited "corner" stores in residential areas, but these also won't apply to the low-density areas like Chevy Chase. No homes can "change into business" units in the neighborhood.

The Office of Planning has bent over backward to ensure that very little will change in single-family home neighborhoods like this. Some think they should have been more aggressive in removing regulations which so severely limit what a homeowner can do with his or her property, but they chose a more conservative path. That hasn't stopped charges that they are plotting wholesale destruction of neighborhoods.

Furthermore, the zoning update has been going on for over 4 years. OP has had hundreds of public meetings and offered to meet with any organization that wishes it. They return phone calls promptly and very patiently explain complex concepts. It is laughable to suggest that there has been "no transparency" or a "compressed schedule."

OP has posted documents from each phase online. The current draft chapters are available to anyone, even though it's not even a finalized draft for official public comment. If all of this is compressed, what would not be a compressed schedule? What is enough "transparency"?

Flyer's facts are simply wrong

The flyer claims that OP is reducing rear setbacks from 25 to 20 feet, but according to Dan Emerine of the Office of Planning, that is not true at all. The flyer says that side setbacks can decline from 8 to 5 feet without mentioning that anyone building with a 5-foot setback on one side has to leave 10 feet on the opposite side, for lots at the minimum allowed width.

Houses in single-family neighborhoods like Chevy Chase are constrained more by the lot occupancy, which limits the percentage of land a house can cover, than the side setbacks. Those lot occupancy limits aren't changing, meaning that houses can't cover any more footprint. Property owners will just have a very tiny bit more flexibility in where their houses sit on the lot.

It says that "'non-profit and institutional uses,' ... including fraternity houses, 'service organizations' and a variety of non-profits" can locate in residential houses. Emerine said more permissive rules for some institutional uses were part of an early draft shown to the Task Force, but the current plan is to leave the regulations for institutional uses as restrictive or more so than today.

Also, fraternity houses definitely don't qualify under the definition of institutional or service organizations. The misunderstanding stems from an erroneous chart that went out to a few people, Emerine noted. OP corrected the chart, but the fear stuck.

The flyer says,

The "transit" streets would see blocks of houses replaced "as a matter of right" by commercial activity or more dense residences (think multi-family). These changes could occur not only on Military, for example, but on any street within 500 feet of it. Streets like Chevy Chase Parkway, Nevada Ave, 32nd Steret, 27th Street, etc.—a two block swath outward from the transit street.

Actually, no. This sounds like something that came out of a game of "telephone" where people tried to explain the zoning update to one another. One person noted that there will be transit streets; another mentioned some sort of 500-foot radius around the streets; and the author concludes that any residential property within 500 feet can suddenly house large apartment buildings.

It can't. A transit line could affect commercial areas or multi-family residential areas within 500 feet, but not single-family residential areas. Some people in DC think it should, but OP doesn't agree.

The rewrite will indeed make some changes to the code, though in places like Chevy Chase they are very minor. Accessory dwellings like garage apartments will become legal. A building 40 feet tall, as zoning allows today, could hold 4 ten-foot stories instead of just 3 taller stories.

Residents should indeed learn about and understand the changes in the zoning update, and make up their own minds. But they should form conclusions based on the truth, not distortions that prey on people's fears.

Alarmism doesn't help solve real problems

People in Chevy Chase have real concerns that nobody should dismiss. Many dislike teardowns and "McMansions" replacing historic homes. But the changes in the zoning update will have little effect. Would anyone replace a building only to move it laterally by a few feet? How many property owners who don't want to tear down and rebuild their entire house today, suddenly would once they can rent out a garage apartment? Very, very few, if any.

At a recent meeting of the Federation of Citizens' Associations to discuss the issue, several people asked whether the zoning code would allow certain types of changes to properties—but the current code already allows those changes.

McMansions are legal under current zoning. Anyone can tear down their home in Chevy Chase; the neighborhood overwhelmingly rejected a historic district that would have prevented that.

Chevy Chase residents worried about certain types of building should advocate for zoning changes which actually address their concerns rather than just taking a knee-jerk position of opposing the zoning update. OP has added some restrictions in the zoning code: Geoff Hatchard and I pushed for limits on locating parking in front of commercial buildings, and OP even agreed to accelerate that provision.

Unfortunately, instead of trying to work with OP to use zoning to solve the neighborhood's problems, a number of people have decided to simply oppose the entire endeavor and refuse to speak with OP staff to separate truth from fiction. Residents of Chevy Chase should look for real information, not agitprop.

Safeway went back to the drafting board, and partnered with Clark Realty and New Urbanist architects Torti Gallas to design a mixed-use development with a 56,000 square foot grocery store and 190 residences.

The development team has spent a lot of time engaging the community. They have created an imaginative project with reasonable density that will blend into the existing neighborhood fabric while also enlivening the street.

The plan calls for more than just replacing the timeworn Tenleytown Safeway with a new store. By adding a residential building, the project will reinvigorate this stretch of Wisconsin Avenue marked by aging commercial development and help it start to transform into a mixed-use commercial and residential district.

Unfortunately, at the March 8 ANC 3E meeting, residents lodged a litany of complaints about the height, density, and parking and traffic impacts of the project.

Some Ward 3 residents have criticized the project as being too dense for the surrounding neighborhood. But the site's location on Wisconsin Avenue, between the Tenleytown and Friendship Heights Metro stations and served by high-frequency bus lines, makes it very appropriate for transit-oriented, slightly denser development.

Growth like what Safeway proposes will bring increased foot traffic and customers to stores and restaurants, giving residents in quieter surrounding neighborhoods more shopping and dining choices, and bolsters DC's tax-base while adding minimal traffic.

The development team showed great sensitivity to community concerns. The architects moved delivery traffic to Davenport Street from the originally proposed location on Elicott Street, where drivers will now unload in a covered delivery court. This buffers the noise and keeps truck traffic away from Georgetown Day School students across the street. The team also added a cover over the delivery court after residents voiced concerns about noise.

The architects added a row of liner townhouses to screen off the potentially blank, uninteresting walls of the grocery store, enhancing the sense of a residential environment. They also stepped back the height of the building to create terraces, increasing green space for the development, and added a second entrance to Safeway along 42nd Street to make the shopfront livelier.

Also, in direct response to concerns expressed at the January ANC meeting, the development team removed one whole story from the residential main block, making it 4 residential stories instead of 5 as originally planned.

There are, of course, details that still need to be resolved, such as how to foster lively street life, how to to minimize traffic congestion and enhance safety, putting utility lines, and encouraging other amenities like bike and car sharing.

The one area that could most improve is at the corner of Ellicott and 42nd, where WMATA has a small service building often referred to as a "bunker." Safeway and Clark are negotiating with Metro about this property. A semi-public use, such as a coffeehouse pavilion, would bring many benefits to the community and developer alike. DC could also modify the slip lanes in this area to create additional public space.

Either way, the final proposal is an excellent one. The team has shown willingness to compromise, and deserve full support from area residents.

In response to these proposals, Fairfax County authorized a special study to examine the area's potential for revitalization. The county appointed a citizen task force and funded a market analysis and a traffic study.

The task force began its work in December 2010. They met monthly for the next 16 months, and staged 3 public hearings. As the process evolved, planners generated a binder full of data pointing to a series of related conclusions:

• The community is concerned about the ongoing decline of Penn Daw and wants to attract better retailers to the area.
  
• The retail market no longer supports either the volume or the layout of the area's existing retail space.
  
• There is unmet demand for high quality, multifamily residential development in the market area.
  
• Several intersections in and around the study area have existing traffic congestion and safety concerns.
• Surrounding residential streets need to better accommodate pedestrians.

At the end of the process, the task force drafted a plan to replace the area's single-use, auto-oriented pattern with up to 735 apartment units and about 40,000 square feet of urban scale retail space.

Some local residents spoke out against the proposed plan with concerns about increased cut-through traffic and the potential loss of community-serving businesses. Others went a step further and openly challenged the veracity of the planners working on the project.

Some opponents simply did not believe the results of the market or traffic studies. They suggested that the consultants either didn't know what they were doing or were somehow compromised. This group seemed believe that there was demand for retail at Penn Daw, and that the applicants were holding out on signing leases with potential retail tenants in order to push mixed-use projects.

While the charge about greedy developers lying to make money is as old as planning itself, at multiple public hearings one resident after another stood up and made a number of other emotionally driven claims. But the facts refute each of the opponents' fears.

• Fear: Residential development would cause worse traffic problems than retail development. Reality: Retail uses typically generate far more traffic per square foot than residential, a fact highlighted by the county's traffic study.
  
• Fear: The apartments wouldn't really be luxury, and would actually attract large, low-income families, causing overcrowding in schools. Reality: The two proposed apartment buildings are conceived as consisting of urban-style units that expressly appeal to young professionals and empty nesters.
  
• Fear: Development would gridlock neighborhood streets and lead to children being killed by speeders. Reality: It is directly contradictory to simultaneously claim that traffic will become gridlocked, and that there will be so many speeders that children's lives become endangered.
  
• Fear: There isn't enough market demand for apartments, so mixed-use development will end up a vacant slum. Reality: In the current economy, it's extremely unlikely a non-viable project would receive funding from money lenders.
  
• Fear: The developers would make more money by building fewer units. Reality: Given the high costs of demolishing existing buildings, preparing sites for redevelopment, and navigating such a lengthy and contentious planning process, a large number of units are needed to justify proceeding with the projects.

In the end, the county Planning Commission was not swayed by the dissenters' pleas and voted unanimously in favor of the plan.

In light of such a strong endorsement from the county, it may seem that future revitalization efforts along Richmond Highway will proceed smoothly. While this may prove to be the case, the battle lines are clearly drawn for the next skirmish.

Even if the developments at Penn Daw are successful and new residents do in fact choose to walk and use transit, the overall volume of traffic along Richmond Highway isn't going to shrink anytime soon. Future development proposals are thus likely to generate the same protests and angry reactions from surrounding neighborhoods.

While the commission voted based on the recommendations of a citizen task force and two technical studies rather than the emotionally charged opposition, planners can learn from the Penn Daw process in two key ways.

First, planners and developers need to be very proactive about engaging and educating citizens. And second, development projects should take place within the framework of a comprehensive transportation plan, so that residents cannot blame individual developers for existing and longstanding traffic problems.