Nov. 17, 2004

The Hon. Steve Silverman
The Hon. Marilyn Praisner
The Hon. Nancy Floreen

Montgomery County Council
Rockville, MD

Via e-mail

Dear Councilmembers Silverman, Praisner and Floreen,

I am writing to you as someone who has been a Montgomery County resident for most of my life, as someone who has lived in Olney for the past 14 years and as someone who has been active in my community, with our neighborhood homeowners’ association and in regional civic groups.

I am writing as someone who first became engaged in civic affairs because it seemed to me years ago that it made no sense to build more houses along an already overburdened two-lane road simply because a master plan from 1980 said it was all right to do so, regardless of the realities of the mid-1990s.

And, finally, I am writing to you as someone who is concerned about the vitality of Olney as it develops far beyond the original estimates of our size, and takes its place as a prominent community in Montgomery County.

I’m certain there will be many submissions that will go into much more detail about the intricacies of the Master Plan on which you were deliberating. I’d like to highlight a few concerns as I ask you to consider some of the larger, and smaller issues that will shape the life of this community for years to come.

As a member of the citizens advisory group on the plan, I think I can safely say that our goal was to come up with recommendations that would preserve and enhance the quality of life here in Olney, setting the stage for what might be called manageable growth. We recognize that there is land to be developed here, and we recognize that there are county-wide issues that need to be addressed. At the same time, you should be aware that the two are not necessarily related.

The tale of the now-infamous 32 acres is instructive. It was never raised as an issue during the entire time we discussed the plan in our advisory group. It thus came as a rude shock to see it appear earlier in the process as a site for affordable housing.

Affordable housing is a worthy concept, but it must be executed properly in order to be of the best use to those who would live there, and to the community at large. Simply to look at an open plot of land and declare that dense developments should be put down on it serves no purpose, and even harms the intended purpose, if the particular spot is not suitable.

The site on Bowie Mill Road is simply not suitable for massive development. It sits on a two-lane road, in the middle of one development, across the road from two others. There is no mass transit, and even if there were, it would not be terribly helpful because the road carries a heavy load of traffic, particularly in rush hour. There are environmental issues on the site which also need to be taken into consideration. To ask for dense development on that site is to ask to create a problem that would plague the community for many years to come.

The idea of workforce housing is intriguing. As I understand it, however, you have no formal policy on workforce housing.
Should you come up with one, which allows for controlled development and housing for those who can take advantage of the relatively remote site (as opposed to being on Georgia Ave.), we would gladly participate in the discussion. Perhaps you could leave the 32-acre parcel as is until you develop such a policy.

The Golden Bear property at Routes 97 and 28 is also squarely in the sights of developers, and an item for your consideration. I heard the presentation from those who consider it the “silver standard” of development. While the “gold standard” is development near Metro, this is silver because of its relationship to the parking lot on Norbeck Road and buses down Georgia Ave.

However, unless there is something in the covenants that requires the residents of any development of those parcels to take the bus, said standard is, in fact, meaningless. Building as many as 700 homes on that site makes absolutely no sense.
All of the traffic will be poured out onto an intersection so crowded that it frequently backs up in the morning almost to Emory Lane in the morning. As we know, despite ambitious plans for multimillion-dollar improvements to the intersection, houses go up much faster than roads go in, and even intersection improvements and the ICC would do nothing to alleviate much of the commuting traffic heading south via Georgia or Connecticut Avenues.

Finally, there is the issue of the character of the town center. This issue touches in part on the 32-acre site, for which retail uses have been discussed, and on the Silo Inn site. The advisory group, and the Greater Olney Civic Association, of which I am a former president, consistently advocated maintaining commercial development in the center of town. That creates commercial synergies, allows for better traffic flow and enhances the rest of the community. You will note the advisory group also called for mixed-use development in the town center, to allow for residential buildings there as well.

I understand that the community adjacent to Silo Inn has endorsed commercial development. Normally, we try to be good neighbors and agree with those in the community who have an opinion of a project.

In this case, however, we have an honest disagreement, and I think the better good for the region as a whole mandates that the Silo Inn site be reserved for residential use. First, developers have consistently threatened the adjacent neighborhoods, saying that if they don’t approve of some strip mall or another, much worse projects will move in. That is highly unlikely. Second, even if the community likes the current idea of a trendy store and some shops now, how will they like the site in a few years should it deteriorate and become a center for loitering, necessitating harsh lighting and increased police patrols? We noted with amusement that the community favored a site plan allowing for no access by road to the community from the commercial site. They want it close, but not too close.

To close, I am interested in preserving the character of Olney and the quality of life here. There is much to be commended in the staff master plan. But placing inappropriate facilities into the community and creating new burdens on an already overburdened infrastructure would harm much of what has been built up over the years.

I harbor no illusions about Olney being a rural community. Our “rural entryway”, particularly on Georgia Ave., is about 200 yards between Norman’s market and the cemetery. I do, however, believe that we can, and we must, maintain our character as a thriving, diverse, satellite community that allows for a good quality of life for all of our residents. I ask you to take that vision into consideration in your deliberations.

Thank you for your attention.


Rgds,

Art Brodsky