Community Issues
Layhill Alliance News
The Layhill Alliance is an umbrella association representing civic, community, condominium, and homeowner associations in the Layhill area, serving the critial role of keeping AGWG in touch with the larger community around us. See Community Issues News for notices of upcoming Town Hall meetings. Contact Alliance president Rocky Lopes (rocky@rockylopes.com, 301-598-6886) for more information.
To ensure that the communities participating in the Layhill Alliance continue to meet and share information, the Alliance's bylaws specify that it will take no official position on any issue unless unanimous consensus can be reached.
November 2008 Update
Rocky Lopes, President, Layhill AllianceIndian Spring/Poplar Run
The housing project called Poplar Run (located at the former Indian Spring Country Club site) is still moving ahead with plans to build 773 homes, of which 440 are townhouses and the rest are single family dwellings. This project will be built by Winchester Homes. Survey and engineering work on the property was completed this fall. We understand that groundbreaking is to occur by Spring. We had hoped or thought that the project would be delayed due to the bad economy, but while construction may be slowed, it will not be abandoned.Privacy World/JBG Development
Redevelopment of the old garden-style apartment complex located across from the Metro parking garage at Glenmont, called "Privacy World," is being considered. The complex as first planned, with 1,550 residential units and 90,000 square feet of retail, has bounced back and forth from the Montgomery County Planning Board to the Office of Zoning and Administrative Hearings to the County Council. Currently, the project is back in the hands of the developer. It was coming up for what was looking to be a very ugly battle before the Zoning Administrator. The developer withdrew the project from zoning consideration at the last minute, effectively canceling the hearing. Our concerns have always been the volume of traffic that such a large project would generate. We felt that the traffic studies that the developer had done were flawed, and inconsistent with "transit-oriented development" (TOD) zoning standards. Apparently community concern and pressure, as well as the economy, has forced re-thinking to be done on the project. We are waiting for more news, which will probably come from the Planning Board when the developer submits an entirely new site plan for consideration.The Big Picture on Area Road Projects
Like everyone who lives in the Layhill area, we are all watching the bouncing ball for the funding for various major road projects that will affect our area. We are following construction of the ICC and its various contracts. We have learned that Contract B, linking Georgia Avenue to US-29, has just had a notice to proceed issued. Contracts A (linking I-370 to Georgia Avenue) and Cotract C (linking US-29 to I-95) are both already under construction. We fought (with others) to try to convince the State Highway Administration not to open the "interim interchange" of the ICC on Rt. 28 across from Bailey's Lane. We prefer that no ICC intersections be opened until the entire ICC is ready. We were concerned about the added volume of traffic onto an already "failed" interchange at Rt. 28 & Georgia Avenue, since that would be the interim "terminus" of the ICC for traffic coming from I-370. Unfortunately, our pleas for reasonable reconsideration based on the SHA's own data fell on deaf ears. Then in early August, we learned that Montgomery County's #1 roadway capital improvement priority -- the grade-separated interchange at Randolph Road and Georgia Avenue -- has been indefinitely delayed since the State Highway Administration reprogrammed funds due to the tight state economy. We thought that this might make an opportunity to ask SHA to re-visit their decision on opening the ICC interim interchange at Rt. 28 as soon as they can (September, 2010?). We appealed that the matter be reviewed, and had several County Council members and state elected officials agree with our request. Unfortunately, the SHA remained steadfast in their decision to move full-steam ahead, as planned. Now we have the SHA continuing to proceed with the planning for significant improvements and widening of Rt. 28 & Rt. 198. They say that they have the money for that project. Looking at all three of these issues, one can't help but wonder if anyone steps back to look at the grand scheme of things, and how traffic from one project affects another. And we, in Layhill, live right in the middle of it. That's what we are looking at, and keeping our eye on.October 2007 Update
Indian Spring
The Indian Spring project, now called Poplar Run by the developer, Winchester homes, had its preliminary site plan (773 homes, of which 440 are townhouses and the rest are single family dwellings) approved by the Planning Board at a meeting on October 11. The Planning Board Chairman, Dr. Royce Hanson, held the hearing about that plan at 10:00am on Oct. 11, despite many protests by community leaders to hold the hearing in the evening. Even Council President Praisner was unable to persuade the intractable Planning Board Chairman to hold the hearing in the evening when community leaders who work during the day can attend. Dr. Hanson claimed that he wanted the Planning Board to deal with "tough issues" in the morning when they were "fresh." This ludicrous argument held no bearing with community leaders or the Montgomery County Council.Rocky Lopes, President of the Layhill Alliance, is working with Councilmember Praisner to deal with the scheduling of Planning Board hearings and institute changes -- perhaps legislatively -- to the process by which the Planning Board schedules these hearings. If the Planning Board Chairman continues to rebuff local civic leaders, then perhaps the only way he can be persuaded to change his ways is through legislative action directing such change.
Because the Layhill Alliance was not able to draft a position statement for review with adequate time to circulate it among members for review and approval, the Alliance took no formal position on the site plan. There is one remaining issue within the plan, which is the location of a school within the development or to re-open the Saddlebrook Elementary School which is now serving as the Park Police Headquarters. The community is divided on this issue, so the Alliance can not take a position.
As a point of information, Dick Kauffunger, a community activist who works on these issues privately and not as part of a formal civic association or similar registered group, filed a lawsuit against the Planning Board about procedures they used when they reviewed and approved the pre-preliminary plan about Indian Spring. A judge heard the case this summer, and summarily dismissed the case on all points, with significant rebuttal of all of Mr. Kauffunger's points. Therefore, there is currently no legal action pending against this project and it is continuing per the developer's schedule. (Though we still won't see ground broken for years to come.)
The Alliance continues to monitor development project in the area and meets as needed to discuss them, recruit volunteers to testify and attend public hearings, and keep communities informed about local projects.
July 2006 Update
Indian Spring
An in-depth discussion was held regarding the development of Indian Springs and the impact to the surrounding area at last week's Layhill Alliance Meeting. The AGWG concurred with other Civic and Homeowner Associations on three points:- The plans lack sufficient ingress and egress to the development (773 units proposed); currently all traffic will empty onto Layhill and Randolph and present little flexibility should an emergency requiring an evacuation occur in the development,
- The Montgomery County Planning Board refuses to consider the traffic impact resulting from the ICC should the Layhill Interchange be constructed,
- The developer (Winchester Homes) has failed to make available to community groups any changes to their preliminary plans that were originally denied last year. In addition, the Planning Board has failed to notify the Layhill Alliance and any other civic organizations as to the availability of the revised plans and has limited access to these plans. Originally an hearing on Indian Springs was scheduled for July 27 or 28th; to our surprise, it has been rescheduled for July 20th along with a limited opportunity for the public to submit comments to the Planning Board. As a result of these concerns, The Alliance along with the concurrence of the AGWG and other Alliance members has submitted the following letter to the Parks and Planning Commission.
July 5, 2006
Mr. Derrick Berlage, Chairman
Montgomery County Planning Board
8787 Georgia Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Dear Mr. Berlage:
I am writing regarding the hearing on the pre-preliminary plan by Winchester Homes for the Indian Spring parcel in the Layhill area of Silver Spring. I represent The Layhill Alliance, which is an umbrella organization serving homeowner, civic, community, and condominium associations in the Layhill area of Silver Spring, Maryland. Our eleven (11) member associations collectively represent approximately 3,800 homes.
I have heard from Mr. Richard Weaver of your staff that the hearing on this project is now scheduled or July 20! If community leaders in our area had not been keeping in touch with your staff, we would not have known about this until the formal notice about the hearing was mailed and the hearing agenda was made available.
We understand from Mr. Weaver that there is no requirement for the Planning Board nor the applicant to mail copies of the latest version of the pre-preliminary plan for Winchester Homes' development at Indian Spring to community leaders. Further, Mr. Weaver said that "the plan hasn't changed much" since the earlier version "of a few months ago." I want to point out, though, that there are many of us who do not have a copy of the plan since it was introduced in its first version, which was denied by the Planning Board, back in Spring, 2005. Therefore, I urge you to postpone the preliminary hearing on this development until at least 45 days after community leaders in the Layhill area have received the latest version of the pre-preliminary plan.
As you know, this development that is massive in size and poses a huge impact on the community. The Planning Board has had a customary practice of sending copies of even small one-lot parcels proposed for development in our area. So we would expect that we would at least get a copy of this plan mailed to us in advance. We also want to be provided at least 45 days to review it and provide comments in writing for Planning Board review prior to a hearing. We feel that not sending this plan to us and telling us that the plan is available in your office is quite inappropriate especially in the post-Clarksburg world.
I requested a copy of the revised pre-preliminary from Mr. Lemon of Winchester Homes, but he refused to send one to me directly. He said that the plan was still being modified based on input through the DRC process (which at the time was still in progress), and indicated that I would get a copy of the plan when the Planning Board sends it out. Mr. Weaver indicated that what Mr. Lemon told me was wrong.
Further, it was only through community activism, not outreach from your staff, that we learned that the deadline for submission of written testimony about this project to the Planning Board had been set for July 7. This timing is way too short and quite unfair to volunteer community leaders to meet and to submit thoughtful and thorough comments. While we know this project has been pending for a while,we must insist that adequate time be provided for us to review the most recent version of the plan after adjustments based on the DRC process had been made, and then respond to it.
We understand that Winchester Homes feels pressured to get development approval prior to the end of the calendar year in order for its purchase agreement for the property from the Kay family to go through. However, this project is so massive that we need adequate time for community leaders to meet and to develop a thoughtful response, and be able to deliver it to your office two weeks before a scheduled hearing so that our comments may be included in the Commissioners' packet.
Thank you for your immediate attention to this urgent request.
Sincerely,
Rocky Lopes
President, Layhill Alliance
cc: Mr. Richard Weaver
Ms. Cathy Conlon
County Executive Doug Duncan
County Administrative Officer Bruce Romer
Councilmember Nancy Floreen
Councilmember Marilyn Praisner
Mid-County Services Center Director Natalie Cantor
Sent on behalf of Layhill Alliance Member Associations as listed:
Allanwood-Gayfields-Wilson Hills-Gaywood Estates Civic Association
Autumn Walk Condominium Association
Beacon Place HOA
Bel Pre Estates HOA
Bel Pre Square Condominium Association
Bonihill Civic Association
Layhill View Two HOA
Layhill Village East Citizens Association
Longmead Crossing Community Services Association
The following associations are members of the Layhill Alliance, but have not taken a position on this letter:
Middlebridge HOA
Strathmore Bel Pre Civic Association
March 2006 Update
Winchester Homes at Indian Spring Country Club
Winchester Homes is proposing to build over 700 homes (single family and town) at the Indian Spring Country Club. This plan will result in the complete shutdown of the 36-hole golf course and clubhouse. The development in the area is called for in the Master Plan. This sector is in the Wheaton Master Planning zone. Development, therefore, can not be prohibited, but the quality and quantity of development, as well as primary and secondary impacts, can be mitigated through negotiation.Access Roads
The plan currently defines three access points.
- Using the existing road into the country club, Indian Spring Lane (will serve as primary access road; will require traffic light on Layhill Road)
- A second opened through Tivoli Lake Blvd. (the Master Plan calls for this to be opened)
- A second opened through Foggy Glen (this access point may server as an emergency access only)
- Possible connection of new community with Alderton road (would occur as a secondary road as currently envisioned and would involve access across what is now private property between the current end of Alderton and the country club property)
Quality/Quantity/Density of Development
The following issues have been raised by the Layhill View East Civic Association, member of the Layhill Alliance: compatibility with surrounding communities, environmental, congestion on surrounding roads and schools:
- Compatibility with Surrounding Communities: Average lot sizes appear to be smaller than adjacent subdivisions and should be increased to be consistent with surrounding communities.
- Encroachment into Environmental Buffers: Proposal appears to involve 5 acres of the environmental buffer; except for that necessary to develop access to Tivoli Lake Boulevard, no encroachment should be allowed, and that encroachment should involve compensation elsewhere.
- Visual Buffer with Surrounding Communities: A limited visual buffer should be provided between new units and existing homes in surrounding communities; would assist with limiting construction impacts on adjacent property owners.
- High-density Development with Single Access Points: The current proposal appears to include 42 multi-unit structures along with a single access; those multi-unit structures should be disbursed around the development or an access road with multiple connections should be planned.
- Storm Water Management: Plan should emphasize infiltration to extent possible; storm water treatment, storage and discharge should be distributed throughout development, rather than concentrated in a couple of areas.
- Schools: Proposed development would exacerbate overcrowding problem at area schools; plan should include a multi-acre parcel set aside for an elementary school.
Mid-County Recreation Center
Montgomery County is planning to build a Mid-County Recreation Center in 2007 at the intersection of Layhill Rd. and Queensguard Rd. The Layhill Village East Civic Association (LVECA) and three other nearby associations opposed the Queensguard site because they felt a recreation center at the Queensguard site would have a negative impact on their communities. They supported an alternative site at Strathmore Park because it is closer to the apartments and condos they believe it is intended to serve.The latest update on this project is that the County Council and the Planning Board support the Queensguard site. A follow up meeting will be scheduled before the budget cycle on May, 2006.
The Layhill Alliance did make any formal recommendations on this project but helped disseminate critical information.(The AGWG took no official position on the recreation center.)
Giant Rennovation at Plaza Del Marcado
The renovation has been approved by the county. The plan must now be approved and scheduled by the Giant Food parent corporation. If approved, the Giant food store would be closed for up to 18 months.The Layhill Alliance took no official position on this development, but has been monitoring how the project will impact parking in the shopping center. (The AGWG took no official position on the Giant redevelopment.)
