Letter from Marc Elrich Regarding the EYA Proposed Plan

Marc Elrich was one of only three County Council
members who voted to grant the Seven Oaks
Evanswood neighborhood's request
for oral argument against EYA's proposed
development on the Chelsea School site. 

In response to a Seven Oaks Evanswood resident's open letter to the County Council expressing disappointment that the majority of the County Council refused to grant the Seven Oaks Evanswood Citizens' Association's ("SOECA") request for oral argument against EYA's application to rezone the Chelsea School to the second densest zoning available for townhouse development,

Marc Elrich - one of only three County Council members to vote in favor of SOECA's right to be heard - stated the following:

"I too was dismayed by the outcome of the vote...I have had serious concerns about this development all along, and I did not believe that the changes sufficiently addressed my concerns.  I believe that the approved plan violates the intention of the North and West Silver Spring Master Plan.  The proposed project of townhomes is too dense given its proximity to the adjacent single-family neighborhood. 

The master plan for the area included a conscious decision that the buffer between the R-60 zone and the more dense zones would be along Cedar Street; that is, the single-family detached homes along Cedar Street which were recommended to be special exceptions for non-resident professional offices (some are still owner occupied).  In fact, during the master plan process, there was some discussion about allowing townhomes along Cedar Street but the decision was made to leave them as they are now.  The idea was that when one drove by them, they looked like part of a single-family neighborhood. 

The reclassification of the Chelsea School property eliminates that buffer and violates the conscious decision stated in the master plan that the transition between the CBD and the R-60 zones would be on Cedar Street.  Furthermore, I believe that the Hearing Examiner's decision did not sufficiently protect the environmental and historic resources in the area." [Emphasis added]

It is a shame that other County Council members, including another former citizens association president, Nancy Floreen, as well as Craig Rice, Hans Reimer, Nancy Navarro, and George Levanthal, chose not to respect the recommendations of the North and West Silver Spring Master Plan.

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