THE TOWN OF WASHINGTON GROVE OUR PRESENT!
OUR FUTURE?
1
THE TOWN OF WASHINGTON GROVE URGENTLY NEEDS YOUR ATTENTION! The current plan to move County facilities adjacent to historic Washington Grove does not adhere to Smart Growth principles, ignores recommendations of the 2005 Shady Grove Sector Master Plan, and violates zoning regulations. We request that you immediately stop the current plan for Heavy Industrial development next to our historic town and insist that planners work in good faith with existing communities to find solutions to these difficult planning problems, rather than ignoring local citizens. THE TOWN OF WASHINGTON GROVE (Town) is a historic resource in Montgomery County, registered on the National Register of Historic Places; in fact, it is one of only two Montgomery County sites on the Register. Originally established as a Methodist Camp Meeting site in 1873, it was a refuge for summer activities associated with the First Methodist Church of Washington, DC. In 1937, the Town was chartered by the State of Maryland. Our community was/is built around shared outdoor activities and social fabric based on porches and walkable space interactions that the County is now trying to re-establish. The Town remained part of the protected rural legacy of Montgomery County until development began in the area in the 1970s. On pages 2 and 3, we provide you satellite images from 1951, 1970, 1993, and 2006 to show the dramatic impact of development on the Town over time. Less than 5 years ago the Town actively participated in the Shady Grove Sector Plan process. At the time, the benefit of the Shady Grove Sector Plan to the old communities, such as Washington Grove, Derwood, Briardale, Amity, and Mill Creek was that the intense industrial uses would be moved out of the neighborhood. Overall, the exchange of high density residential, commercial and office space would be a net improvement in terms of traffic and environment. The Town conceded the exchange as balanced. Now with this proposal, the older communities reap the harm of continued intense industrial uses combined with the same higher density development. This creates a mix that unquestionably degrades the quality of life for these older communities. We ask that you review this brief overview of the Town’s concerns regarding the proposed use of the Casey 6 and 7 sites. Page 5 will provide background on actions taken by the Montgomery County Council and the County Executive that the Town feels are not in the best interest of the Town and adjacent communities, or of the stated goals of the County’s Smart Growth Initiative. In addition, I am providing a brief statement on actions taken by the Washington Grove Town Council and Mayor that we hope you will consider before this unwise project gets too much farther down the road toward planning and implementation. The final pages will outline specific information on what the County has said regarding Smart Growth, the zoning aspects of Casey 6 and suggestions for appropriate uses of that site, as well as comments on Casey 7. CONTACT: Darrell Anderson, Mayor of Washington Grove (home) 301-963-8555; (cell/daytime) 240-506-2341 Town Office (301-926-2256)
1
WASHINGTON GROVE 1951
WASHINGTON GROVE 1970
2
WASHINGTON GROVE 1993
WASHINGTON GROVE 2006
3
The picture on page 5 illustrates the changes that are currently being implemented and those proposed for Casey 6 and 7. Taken in context of the promise for Smart Growth, this exemplifies a failure on the part of those given the public trust to protect our environment and legacy of existing communities. The Town of Washington Grove and its neighboring communities are outlined by the yellow circle. In the following (from 3:00 counterclockwise): •
ICC that has increased the separation of the Town from the Shady Grove Sector Plan under the tenets of Smart Growth. Through severely increased air, noise and light pollution, the ICC already threatens the quality of life enjoyed by those unlucky enough to be its neighbors. Rather than act responsibly to ameliorate the deterioration this will bring, the County proposes to pile on more air, noise, and light pollution to the already stricken communities with proposed heavy industrial uses on the adjacent Casey 6 and 7 properties.
•
County Purchased from Toll Brothers for an undecided use. It abuts the ICC and I can’t imagine it being anything but a noisy and polluted site (see ICC above).
•
LOS field, currently in litigation with Toll Brothers in an effort to protect it from further development, such as that proposed on Casey 6. The Town is not convinced that this field will not become something other than an “open meadow” in the future—maybe not in 10 years, but the Town and Camp have existed for 136 years and have a much longer view of stewardship than M-NCPPC.
•
Roberts Oxygen site that the County is proposing to buy (outlined in brown) for the EMOC on Casey 6. The current industrial usage (Zone I-1) is grandfathered. With change in ownership the allowed zone is I-3 according the Sector Master Plan and is contrary to the proposal by the County.
•
Casey 6 EMOC site that is proposed to house I-1 facilities, although it is zoned I-3. This facility will exist 50 feet from Town borders.
•
Casey 6 ICC West Maintenance Area that began the development of the entire site with the approval of the ICC. Washington Grove cooperated with MNCPPC and SHA so this site could proceed without additional environmental impact studies that the Town could have required. The understanding was that all would benefit by keeping to the intention of the Sector Plan for mixed use/residential development on Casey 7, which was jeopardized by the State’s plan to locate the Maintenance Area there. Reward for the co-operation and support the Town provided for the Sector Plan is a black eye.
•
Casey 7 site that is proposed as the Bus Maintenance Facility. This move by far makes less sense than any of the proposed service park moves. It is an expensive piece of property that entails a move of only 2 blocks. This cannot be cost-effective, and is opposed by each of the community organizations that will be impacted by placement of the bus lot at a site that was to be part of the residential re-development of the Shady Grove Smart Growth area. Our concern also is for the survival of the Grove Shopping Center, which will have increased pressure to sell for industrial uses.
4
As you can see from the picture below, what was proposed for the Shady Grove Sector Plan between the Town and future Shady Grove re-development (compatibility) no longer exists.
Town of Washington Grove
LOS
County Purchased
Roberts Oxygen
ICC
Casey 6 EMOC Casey 7 C6-ICC West. Maintenance
Current SG service park and Metro
Finally, there has been no meaningful outreach to the Town or the rest of the surrounding communities by the Executive or MNCPPC during the site selection process for uses now planned on Casey 6 and 7 and Roberts Oxygen. As part of the process on the Webb tract, planners from MNCPPC and representatives from the Executive have been meeting with that community for over a year before the mandatory referral. Contrast this to the short notification and fait accompli presented to the affected communities surrounding Casey 6 and 7. A great impact on the Town and surrounding communities is the I-1 uses planned on Roberts Oxygen, with a buffer of 50 feet from the Town. This part of the plan was not even part of the announcement of a mandatory referral. It was pulled out of a hat late in the process because the site is so woefully inadequate for the proposed uses.
5
BACKGROUND Washington Grove supported the Smart Growth Initiative as applied to redevelopment of the Shady Grove Metro from industrial to residential. A large part of that support was the promise from the County to provide connections between the Metro development, the Town, and the adjacent communities around Derwood, Briardale, Amity, and Mill Creek. This is one of the overarching tenets of Smart Growth (connecting existing neighborhoods with compatible development). In fact, every plan presented during the approval process for the Shady Grove Sector Plan showed these connections. In a cooperative effort between the County and the Town during the Shady Grove Sector Plan process, the zoning for Casey 6 (and Roberts Oxygen) was changed from I-1 (Light Industrial) to I-3 (Technology and Business Park), which is intended to be more compatible with our adjacent residential area. What has happened since the Shady Grove Sector Plan was approved by the County Council in 2006? • •
• •
•
The County Council stood aside as the ICC was approved, a “Road to Nowhere” except into the pockets of developers. The County Council approved the purchase of Casey 6 and 7 for movement of the service parks previously existing on the Shady Grove Metro site. Developers get paid twice: once for selling basically worthless property at maximum prices, and again for getting property at Shady Grove for virtually nothing. Note that the EMOC site has only 18 buildable acres on the 42 acre site, but the owner was paid a price that was seemingly comparable to 42 buildable acres. The citizens and taxpayers of Montgomery County expect local government to use their tax dollars wisely for the general good, not to line developers’ pockets. The proposal to move EMOC to Casey 6 was never on any plans presented to any community group until the residents around the Webb Tract protested loudly that they would not accept it. Unfortunately, there are more residents (i.e., voters) around the Webb Tract than in the Town. In the community “charettes” the County is required to hold, the planners for the EMOC on Casey 6 stated that EMOC is an I-3 use. As we will demonstrate in the section entitled “Zoning and Casey 6 and 7,” this assertion is ludicrous, and sends the message that the County doesn’t really care what zoning exists if they want to put heavy industrial next to a residential neighborhood. Decisions by the County Council and the County Executive to place the ICC, the proposed bus lot, the ICC Western Maintenance Facility, and the EMOC adjacent to our Town have made it apparent that our support for the Shady Grove Sector Plan was misplaced.
The very existence of Washington Grove as a National Historic Resource is jeopardized by these proposed industrial uses. The National Historic preservation Act strongly cautions against the danger to historic resources due to cumulative effects from uncoordinated individual projects. Comprehensive planning is based on managing these disparate forces to prevent damage to existing communities. Certainly, building heavy industrial within 50 feet of our Town cannot be construed as enhancing our environment and protecting our historical designation. We will never give up fighting to protect our historical nature. The Washington Grove Town Council submitted a letter to the County Council on June 10, 2009, opposing the purchase of Casey 6 and 7. In addition, a public hearing was held in the Town on June 22, 2009, to hear from Town residents and formulate a Town response, approved by the Town Council, to oppose EMOC on Casey 6 and the bus depot on Casey 7. We would rather work cooperatively to create a livable space for our Town and the surrounding communities, but it appears that we are not being given serious consideration for our concerns.
6
SMART GROWTH─CASEY 6 AND 7 As stated earlier, the tenets of the Smart Growth Initiative are not consistent with the development planned on Casey 6 and 7. While most residents of the Town fully support the concepts of Smart Growth, we also believe that protection and compatibility of existing neighborhoods is a goal of Smart Growth that must be adhered to in order to fully develop the concepts needed in toto for true Smart Growth principles. In a June 3, 2009 presentation before the American Council of Engineering Companies of Metropolitan Washington, the County’s Tina Benjamin presented a clear and succinct picture of Montgomery County’s Smart Growth Initiative. Describing those initiatives, bullet three states “Redevelopment and clean-up of old industrial sites;” describing the implementation of the Shady Grove Sector Plan, bullet one notes ‘…creating thousands of new housing units as part of an Urban Village near the Metro, turning an old industrial area into a “Smart Growth” area.’ Replacing an old industrial site with an attractive multitude of new housing and amenities for the new businesses and employees the county is seeking to attract allows for that to happen. But relocating those old industrial uses to Casey 6 and 7 does just the opposite for a 136 year-old Town, designated historic for its people-oriented design and natural environment. This is especially relevant when the size of the needed land and impact must be increased to meet needs anticipated because of Smart Growth at Shady Grove. It places new development projects ahead of protecting historic and unique communities like Washington Grove. As stated earlier, Montgomery County has too few historic sites, and only two on the National Register of Historic Places. Decades ago, the Town designated almost half of its total acreage as Forest Reserves, recognizing that green space in the county was fast disappearing. This decision was not without internal debate, but has proved one of the wisest actions the Town has taken, both for its own benefit and for the benefit of neighboring communities. You may know that we also have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in an ongoing effort to preserve in perpetuity “Casey Fields”, an adjacent meadow. These actions have not lessened the impacts of noise, night lights and loss of green space caused by completion of I-370 and, now, construction of the ICC. As these elevated highways with their egress ramps are put into full use, these impacts on the Town and surrounding communities will dramatically increase along with the run-off and air degradation that goes hand-in-hand with traffic and pavements. This is important background for understanding the strength of Town opposition to additional impacts such as the named industrial uses. It seems clear to us that placing County-designated “Old Industrial Uses” adjacent to Washington Grove and impacting the communities of Briardale, Amity, Mill Creek, and Derwood is directly contrary to four of the ten principles of Maryland’s Smart Growth policy: • • • •
Strengthen and direct development toward existing communities Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place Create walkable communities
Of greatest conflict with Smart Growth is the proposal to move the Brownfield uses at the Shady Grove Service Park to a Greenfield site at Casey 6 and 7; it is contradictory to take credit for eliminating a Brownfield through re-development if you just move it a few hundred feet and spoil what was a Greenfield site. Please return to the principles that you expound regarding Smart Growth.
7
ZONING─CASEY 6 AND 7 In expanding on the reasons Casey 6 and 7 should not be the site of EMOC, it is important to use the County’s own regulations regarding zoning. The following is excerpted from Montgomery County Code, Cpt. 59: Zoning. This will instruct you on the characteristics of the County’s I-3 zone, the designation of Casey 6/7. During the July 20th “charette” regarding Casey 6 and 7, Hamid Omidvar, of the County’s Department of General Services, asserted that the proposed use on Casey 6, and a subsequent parcel proposed to be purchased from Roberts Oxygen, is an “I-3 use”. Please note that Mr. Omidvar's assertion is NOT FACTUAL. • • • •
“Automobile filling station” is not a permitted use in the I-3 Zone. “Storage yards” are not permitted in the I-3 Zone. “Off-loading and transfer sites for storage of sand, gravel or rocks” are not permitted in the I-3 Zone (The Town got the assistance of the County Council many years ago to add Footnote 7 below that such a use in the I-1 Zone must be 750 feet from the nearest residential property.) “Storage, outdoor” is not a permitted use in the I-3 Zone--and is only permitted in the I-1 (Light Industrial) Zone with additional requirements as per Footnote 15 below.
Note that the enclosed table (extracted from Montgomery Code Chapter 59: Zoning) includes a line whereby “Publicly owned or publicly operated uses” are exempted from I-3 restrictions in all these zones. This provision does not make the proposed use of Casey 6 and 7 an “I-3 use. EXCERPTS FROM MONTGOMERY COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 59: ZONING Division 59-C-5. Industrial Zones. Sec. 59-C-5.1. Zones established. The following are the industrial zones and their identifying symbols: I-1 Light industrial I-2 Heavy industrial I-3 Technology and business park I-4 Low-intensity, light industrial R&D Research and development LSC Life Sciences Center 59-C-5.21. Allowable uses. No use is allowed except as indicated in the following table: -Permitted Uses. Uses designated by the letter “P” and uses of a similar character, are permitted on any lot in the zones indicated, subject to all applicable regulations. -Special Exception Uses. Uses designated by the letters “SE” may be authorized as special exceptions, in accordance with the provisions of Article 59-G. (See Table on next page—can anyone really “fit” EMOC and the Bus Transfer Station into the I-3 zone?)
8
Red items are those proposed for Casey 6 and 7
I-1
I-2
I-3
I-4
R&D
Contractors, storage yards.
P
P
Fuel storage yards.
P
P
Printing and publishing.
LSC
P
P
P
P
Research, development and related activities.
P
P
P
P
P
Sign making shop.
P
SE
SE
P
P
(b) Manufacturing and industrial. I. Uses of a light industrial nature.
P
P
II Uses of a heavy industrial nature. Automobile recycling facility
P
Central mixing plants for asphalt, concrete or other paving materials.
P
Off-loading and transfer sites for storage of sand, gravel, or rocks.
P7
P
P7
Recycling facility.
P30
P
P30
Public utility buildings and structures.
SE
SE
Trucking terminals.
P
(c) Transportation, communication and utilities. SE
SE P
(e) Services. Automobile filling stations.21
SE
SE14
Automobile repair and services.
P
P
Automobile, truck and trailer rentals, outdoor.
P
P
Landscape contractor.
P
Publicly owned or publicly operated uses.
P
P
Storage, outdoor.15
P
P
P
P
SE
P
P P
Warehousing and storage services: Industrial and commercial users. 7 14 15
16 21 30
P16
P
In the I-1 and I-4 zones, activities involving the off-loading, transfer or storage of sand, gravel or rocks must be set back at least 750 feet from the nearest residential property. If in existence on June 26, 1989. Such use is not a nonconforming use and may be modified in accordance with paragraph (c) Section 59-G.1.3. Such uses must not include the storage of materials and goods associated with uses prohibited in the zone. Where such uses abut residentiallyzoned properties, they must be screened by a solid or sight-tight fence not less than 6 feet in height. Stored materials cannot exceed the height of the fence within a setback area equal to the required setback in the adjoining residential zone, and in no case can stored materials exceed 15 feet in height. This requirement is not applicable to quarries licensed under to Chapter 38 of the Montgomery County Code. Not including storage of materials and goods prohibited in this zone. Temporary outdoor storage must comply with the requirements of subsection 59-C-5.434, "Enclosed Buildings and Temporary Outdoor Storage." A car wash with up to 2 bays may be allowed as an accessory use to an automobile filling station. Recycling construction or demolition debris is prohibited.
9
WHAT WE ARE ASKING OF YOU We could support uses for Casey 6 and 7 that meet the I-3 zoning; there are adequate choices of facilities needed to be moved from Shady Grove to fulfill this request. The Town Council and Mayor of Washington Grove would like your support to protect one of Montgomery County’s valuable historic resources, and to uphold the promise of the Smart Growth Initiative. The proposed uses for Casey 6 and 7 are clearly not appropriate or reasonable. Any final decision regarding the funding and movement of service park entities from Shady Grove to acceptable sites lies in the hands of the County Executive and the County Council. These decisions should not be made on purely political grounds, but should be made with the goal of protecting older neighborhoods and maintaining a proper balance between private homes and public facilities. Whatever facilities ultimately are placed on Casey 6 and 7, the County must fund remediation for sound, light, and sight impacts on adjacent neighborhoods BEFORE beginning development of the sites. The Town has learned from past experience that these remedial steps are promised to communities but never quite get funded or implemented because once the project is completed, there is little incentive to uphold previously-promised actions. The County also tends to this behavior, especially when adding the cost of the remediation makes the cost look too high and threatens approval for funding. The Town is committed to making sure this will not happen on the development of Casey 6 and 7. Washington Grove has been a model for viable, walkable communities for 136 years, and has served as an inspiration for the development of the first traditional neighborhood design (TND) community at Kentlands. To jeopardize an existing success story to enable a tentative development just doesn't make sense. In addition, the moving of the service uses at Shady Grove was to be a "revenue neutral" undertaking, with the developers bidding to move the uses at no cost to the County to sites outside the Sector. Why is the County now paying for the land and paying for the construction? What does the developer, EYA, get out of it? Will the County sell the metro-adjacent land for a fortune down the road? What is the benefit to Washington Grove and our neighboring older communities? Finally, the Town is saying to the County Executive and the County Council: live up to your ideals. You have only to read your own words to know that the proposed use of Casey 6 and 7 for heavy industrial uses is contradictory to your stated beliefs on how to make Montgomery County a safe and livable place for all its citizens. As our elected representatives, you have the power and the responsibility to protect this small historic Town and its neighboring communities by resisting the promise of short-term gain over long-term stability. As always, Washington Grove supports reasonable growth to sustain and improve our County’s quality of life. But it is time you knew that we cannot stand the disregard we are being shown. Your actions will speak louder than your words. In summary: • Choose something appropriate for an I-3 site on Casey 6 and 7. • Rethink the current approach for buying the Roberts Oxygen section to add to Casey 6. • Honestly work with existing communities to find solutions to imponderable problems, rather than the static approach currently employed, or worse, simply ignoring local concerns of citizens and listening only to developers. • Find a more constructive way to balance Smart Growth principles with decisions that have reasonable outcomes for existing communities.
CONTACT: Darrell Anderson, Mayor of Washington Grove (home) 301-963-8555; (cell/daytime) 240-506-2341 Town Office (301-926-2256)
10