Montgomery County Council Denies SOECA Oral Argument

A brief statement released by Jean Cavanaugh, president of SOECA:

Nancy Floreen voted to deny SOECA the
opportunity to present argument against EYA's plan. 
Valerie Ervin was absent from the vote.  

OUTRAGEOUS DENIAL OF SOECA’S REQUEST FOR ITS DAY IN COURT

-- June 19 hearing cancelled

--Please write to Councilmembers

Dear Friends and Neighbors,

On Tuesday, June 12, 2012, the Montgomery County Council voted 5-3 to deny our neighborhood its opportunity to present an oral argument against the Chelsea School rezoning plan. According to SOECA’s attorney, this was highly unusual. The County Council regularly approves a party’s request for oral argument; they certainly were happy to approve EYA’s request for an oral argument last year, when the Hearing Examiner sided with SOECA, but this year, when it was our turn to ask, they said no. The vote was 5 to 3, with Councilmembers Floreen, Rice, Riemer, Navarro, and Leventhal voting to deny our request for oral argument, and Councilmembers Elrich, Berliner, and Andrews voting in our favor. After this vote, the Council then voted to approve EYA’s new plan for developing the Chelsea School property by a vote of 7 to 1, with Councilmember Mark Elrich voting in our favor because in his opinion, EYA’s plan is far too dense for our neighborhood. Councilmember Ervin was absent for the vote. 

The June 19^th hearing is therefore cancelled. EYA’s new plan is approved.

Put simply, our County Council denied us our day in court. It is important to remember that this case has been ex parte for more than a year, meaning that we were not allowed to communicate with the Council at all about it. When SOECA asked for a mere 20 minutes to present its case to the Council after all this time, they said no. The County Council’s salaries are paid for with our tax dollars. At the very least, they had an obligation to hear us out on a development that will permanently affect our neighborhood. However, they could not be troubled to do so.

Hans Riemer and Nancy
Navarro voted against
community's request
to be heard.

SOECA had important things to say in our oral argument. We had planned to argue how the density and massing violate and undermine our Master Plan and are incompatible with our neighborhood and its interior location, outside of the Central Business District and behind the existing single family homes on Cedar Street. We had planned on opposing EYA’s plan to clear-cut nearly every single tree on the Chelsea property, including a stand of white oaks that are more than 100 years old. We were going to discuss serious issues related to stormwater management and the protection of our local environment, all of which are threatened by EYA’s plan to clear-cut the property. We were going to discuss the impact of EYA’s plan to build a road connecting the townhouse development to Springvale Road, thereby opening up our community to traffic from up to 126 cars from the development and potentially more cut-through traffic - turning quiet interior roads into busy ones. Montgomery Preservation, which generously supported SOECA’s legal fund, had planned to argue how the development fails to protect the full environmental setting of the historic Riggs-Thomson House, as required by our Master Plan. We were even going to point out that EYA could provide the County with the same number of MPDU’s under RT-8 zoning, using bonus density, as they would under their RT-12.5 plan. These are important issues that will affect us all for decades to come, yet the Council would not even give us the chance to make our case.

George Levanthal voted to deny
SOECA right to oral argument
as did Craig Rice (below right)

SOECA is considering its next move, but in the meantime, if you are disturbed by the Council’s outrageous decision to deny us our day in court; if you are disturbed that they were willing to give a well-connected developer its day in court last year, but not do the same for the residents of our neighborhood; if you believe that the citizens of Montgomery County deserve to have their voices heard by the people they elect to serve them, then please contact Councilmembers Floreen, Rice, Reimer, Navarro, and Leventhal and let them know that was they did was inexcusable, especially for a county that prides itself on being progressive and responsive to its citizens. You may also wish to contact Councilmember Ervin and ask her why she did not ask to have the vote delayed if she could not attend a vote concerning a massive development in her own neighborhood. Consider also thanking Councilmembers Elrich for his vote to support our neighborhood.

The Councilmembers read the emails and letters they receive. As public servants (and politicians), they need to know that their actions have consequences, and that the taxpaying residents of Montgomery County deserve far better than the backs of their hands. 

The Councilmembers may be contacted in the following ways:

E-mail: county.council@montgomerycountymd.gov

Mail: 100 Maryland Avenue • Rockville, MD 20850

Telephone: (240) 777-7900 (voice) • (240) 777-7914 (TTY for hearing impaired) • (240) 777-7888 (fax)

For an additional statement from SOECA president Jean Cavanaugh regarding the decision, please visit the WeAreMoCo site:

http://wearemoco.org/chelsea-oral-argument/#more-1038

A Message to EYA: Cut Townhouses, Not Trees!

The Seven Oaks Evanswood Citizens’ Association (“SOECA”) is proud to announce that its first video is now available on YouTube:  EYA: Cut Townhouses, Not Trees!





EYA plans to cut down 77 trees on the Chelsea School property, including white oaks that are a century old.  As you will see from our video, these are not small, decorative trees, but a surviving remnant of the forests that used to cover Montgomery County, and from which the neighborhood of Seven Oaks/Evanswood derives its name.

Trees are vital to the health of our local environment.  According to Montgomery County:
http://www.montgomeryplanning.org/environment/documents/TreeCanopy_Report_MontgomeryCountyFinal.pdf

Tree canopy (TC) is the layer of leaves, branches, and stems of trees that cover the ground when viewed from above. Tree canopy provides many benefits to communities, improving water quality, saving energy, lowering city temperatures, reducing air pollution, enhancing property values, providing wildlife habitat, facilitating social and educational opportunities, and providing aesthetic benefits. Establishing a tree canopy goal is crucial for communities seeking to improve their green infrastructure and livability. A tree canopy assessment is the first step in this goal-setting process, providing estimates for the amount of tree canopy currently present in a county as well as the amount of tree canopy that could theoretically be established.

Montgomery County also has laws and policies in place dedicated to preserving and protecting its urban forests. 
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/dectmpl.asp?url=/content/dep/climatechange/treelaws.asp

We understand that in order to build townhouses, EYA must cut down some trees, but what we do not understand is EYA’s unwillingness to consider preserving some of the most valuable trees on the property, trees that will improve the setting of the new development, block noise from downtown Silver Spring, screen buildings, and absorb stormwater keeping it from running into Sligo Creek. “Smart Growth” may sound nice in theory, but if it means clear-cutting the trees on the Chelsea School site, then it practice, it is not "smart."

Write to Robert Youngentob, EYA, 4800 Hampden Lane, Suite 300, Bethesda, MD 20814 and ask EYA to PRESERVE the trees on the Chelsea School property in Silver Spring.

Chelsea School Trees In Danger

Identified in the photo series at the link below are some of the mature trees on the Chelsea School site that EYA intends on clearcutting to make way for a high density townhouse development. Many of these trees are specimen trees and/or old forest remnants. Their root structures help stave off erosion and they provide a "green screen" or "shield" which protects the neighborhood from the noise and pollution of the Central Business District. They represent both a cultural and environmental neighborhood treasure.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/keepsoecagreen/sets/72157630021109441/
In a letter submitted to the Hearing Examiner regarding EYA's proposed high density development on the Chelsea School site, Don Grove, an aborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture and a Maryland Licensed Tree Expert, made the following observations:

"The tree inventory listing that is part of the preliminary forest management plan (PFMP) proposed by the developer shows that 44 out of 128 trees listed in the inventory will be “preserved.” That seems encouraging until one notes that the PFMP includes many large trees on adjoining properties. Those large trees (trees that are not even located on the 5.25 acre site) are to be “preserved” while nearly every single large tree on the development site is to be removed." [Emphasis added].

Essentially, EYA claims that it will "preserve" trees that are located on another person's property. In its forest management plan, EYA made a promise not to cut a neighbor's tree, they did NOT make a promise to preserve any of the trees located on the actual land it will acquire.

Of the trees that EYA intends to clear cut, Don Grove further observes:

"The large, mature, slow-growing trees on site are all destined for removal. These include eleven large White Oaks. These are very large trees that took many years to reach this size. The presence of low limbs and scars where low limbs have been suggests that these trees did not begin their lives in forest-like conditions. Trees growing in more open conditions grow larger faster than those in the forest but some of these could still be approaching 100 years old–certainly they are older than the people who are discussing whether to end their long lives to build townhouses that won’t last as long. White Oaks can live for hundreds of years.

All but two of these Oaks are “significant” trees of 24" diameter or greater. The two exceptions are 21" and 22" diameter, just below the threshold for “significant” trees. Four of the large White Oaks are “specimen” trees. A “specimen tree” is a tree “that is a particularly impressive or unusual example of a species due to its size, shape, age, or any other trait that epitomizes the character of the species.” MNCPPC Trees Approved Technical Manual, September 1992, Appendix A, Glossary of Terms. These trees are grouped together in a grove near the southwest boundary of the development site. Some are very near the boundary. It seems that at least some if not all of these large Oaks could be preserved."

Yet EYA refuses to preserve them. EYA refuses to preserve them because that would mean scaling back their high density development (in its current barracks-like layout) to accommodate these trees which have existed and served as guardians for this area for 100 years.

For Don Grove's full testimony, please go to the following link:

http://chelseaschoolzoning.weebly.com/trees.html

The Buffer Between Seven Oaks Evanswood and the CBD

In order to justify the change in zoning within the traditional, detached single family residential neighborhood of Seven Oaks Evanswood, EYA and its proponents argue that the Chelsea School site borders or is adjacent to the  downtown Central Business District (CBD) of Silver Spring.  This argument is completely false. We urge EYA and their proponents to stop perpetuating such a falsehood to justify bringing high density development into the R-60 zoned neighborhood.  The Silver Spring CBD stops at Cedar Street.  A row of single family homes are located on the far side of Cedar Street, across from the CBD, inside the Seven Oaks Evanswood R-60 zoned neighborhood.  The Chelsea School is NOT "adjacent" to the CBD.  Instead, it is behind these existing Cedar Street homes, inside the Seven Oaks Evanswood neighborhood and thus inside the R-60 zone. 

Below is a photoslide show of the buffer:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/keepsoecagreen/sets/72157630020570353/

The Road So Far...the Long Fight To Keep Seven Oaks Evanswood Green

EYA, a DC metro area developer specializing in the development of urban townhouses, plans to build a townhouse development on the current Chelsea School site in the Seven Oaks Evanswood ("SOECA") residential single family home area.  While they have represented to SOECA that they are a good developer acting in good faith, EYA has been locked in a battle with SOECA regarding their proposed change in the zoning of the Chelsea School site from its current R-60 zoning (single-family resident zoning) to the highest possible density permitted for townhouses (RT-15).  EYA insists on leaping past the Central Business District ("CBD") of downtown Silver Spring and dropping high density development in the middle of a single family home residential area.  This is in direct contradiction to the explicit directives of the 2000 North and West Silver Spring Master Plans. Throughout the process, which has involved a number of public hearings before the Planning Board, the Hearing Examiner, and the District Council, EYA has consistently and adamently refused to reduce the density of their townhouses and plans on clear cutting many of the old forest remnant trees located on the property.  EYA plans on drastically reducing the tree canopy of the site, which currently covers 50.9% of the Chelsea School site and is populated with some resident trees that are nearly 100 years old.  EYA's actions have been greatly disappointing and disrespectful to this neighborhood and will be discussed in further detail in later blog entries.

In order to better understand the nature of the dispute between EYA and SOECA, a timeline of the dispute is provided below:

·         September 30, 2010: The membership of SOECA voted to oppose the proposed change in their neighborhood’s zoning that would permit dense townhouse development by the developer EYA, on the Chelsea School property.  EYA sought to build 76 townhouses on this property and to do so, it sought to a local map amendment from Montgomery County to change the current zoning from R-60, (single family) to RT-15, the highest density townhouse zoning available and typically used in central business districts.

·         January 4, 2011: EYA’s application to change zoning was filed.  The application requested reclassification of the Chelsea School site from the existing R-60 zone to the RT-15 zone – the highest density townhouse zone.

·         May 9, 2011: May 9, 2011: Technical Staff of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) reviewed EYA’s plans and recommended approval

·         May 12, 2011: Planning Board hearing held wherein the Planning Board approved EYA’s application with a vote of 4 to 1.

·         May 26, 2011, June 6, 2011, June 27, 2011, June 30, 2011, and July 18, 2011: Public hearings before the County Hearing Examiner regarding EYA’s application to change zoning of the Chelsea School site from R-60 to RT-15.

·         September 22, 2011: The Hearing Examiner issued a Report and Recommendation to the District Council recommending remand of EYA’s application.  The recommendation for remand was for the purpose of allowing development with less density and less massing so that it will be more compatible with the character of the transition from the Silver Spring Central Business District (CBD) to the R-60 residential community north of Cedar Street.

 

The Hearing Examiner also called for more consistency with the 2000 North and West Silver Spring Master Plans, and to resolve issues relating to the alignment of the private road and its relationship to the environmental setting for the pre-Civil War era Riggs-Thompson House.  

The remand also recommended that the Planning Board consider the size of the environmental setting of the Riggs - Thompson House due to the language in Appendix D of the North and West Silver Spring Master Plan which contradicted a statement in the body of the plan.   

·         Oct 18, 2011: County Council, acting in its capacity as District Council, rejected EYA’s original rezoning application requesting RT-15 zoning in the R-60 neighborhood.  The District Council voted that the application be “remanded” back to the Hearing Examiner after EYA revised its original plans to conform with the Hearing Examiner’s recommendation to (1) protect the Riggs Thompson property; (2) to develop a less dense and less massive development more in keeping with the neighborhood; and (3) to reduce potential cut-through traffic into the neighborhood

·         December 2011/January 2012: EYA submitted a revised plan to rezone to RT-12.5 (the next highest density zoning for townhouses) and build 63 townhouse units on the property with traffic access directly onto Springvale Road, an interior neighborhood road.  The revised plan did NOT satisfactorily address the issues that were to be addressed in the second round of the process, including protection of the original 1.4 acre historic setting of the Riggs Thompson property, design for a less dense and less massive development in keeping with the neighborhood, and avoidance of cut-through traffic.  

·         January 28, 2012: The Planning Board held a public hearing on EYA’s modified site design.

·         March 6, 2012: Planning Board issued a recommendation to approve EYA’s modified application.

·         March 23, 2012, March 26, 2012: Second round of hearings before the Hearing Examiner

·         May 16, 2012: Hearing Examiner approved EYA’s modified application to change the zone to RT-12.5.

* Update on June 12, 2012: The Montgomery County Council voted 5-3 to deny SOECA its request to present an oral argument against the Chelsea School rezoning application and then voted 7-1 in favor of EYA's proposed development.