preserving the quality of life in Olney, Maryland

Community Feedback on Development Proposals for the 32 acre Property on Bowie Mill Road

There are several conceptual options on the table for the 32 acre property.  Olney Coalition wants to hear what the community thinks.  We need your input in order to represent you effectively.  Please take a few minutes to read and reply.  Details of each proposal follows the feedback form.

32-ACRE PROPERTY HISTORY

The Planning Board "recommendation" to the Council was to retain the R200 zone and build 78 units (64 market rate and 14 MPDU's.) 

During the Council work sessions, Councilmember Silverman asked the Planning Staff to prepare 3 options for developing the land with more density than the adjoining R200 properties that have been developed at 2 units per acre without MPDU’s.  Click here to see drawings of these three plans.  ALL THREE OPTIONS REQUIRE SOME DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE WETLANDS AND THE FLOODPLAIN.  Both Khalid Afzal and John Carter (from Park & Planning) reinforced that R200 with a 22% bonus density for MPDU’s – or a maximum of 78 units is the limit the land could most likely support.

The Board of Education estimated that only 21.3 acres of the 32 acres can be developed due to the streams, wetlands, and utility constraints.  Olney Coalition has hired several environmental experts who believe at most 2/3rds of the land is useable for development.  This puts 100% of the density on 2/3rds of the land requiring clustering, smaller lots, and different dwelling unit types (townhouses and semi-attached houses) than the existing single family detached dwellings on half acre lots that dominate the adjacent properties. 

Here is how the Planning Staff assumed the land would be developed under each option (see web site for drawings):

- R200 with MPDU’s would yield 77 units with 46 single-family houses & 31 townhouses
- PD 3 with MPDU’s would yield 117 units with 42 single-family houses & 75 townhouses
- PD 4 with MPDU’s would yield 156 townhouses

On January 18, 2005, the Council ”accepted” a motion by Councilmember Silverman to reverse both the Planning Board’s and PHED Committee’s carefully considered recommendations to retain R200 zoning. (Theoretically this result could be changed again when the final Council vote on the Olney Master Plan is taken in March.) 

Silverman’s motion increases the density by changing the zoning to R200/PD3 zone.  Councilmember Leventhal made a friendly amendment to this motion and incorporated the following development standards from the Olney Coalition’s (OC) testimony. 

OC supports affordable housing on the 32-acre site provided that:

1) Affordable Housing is the highest un-met public need for this land.

2) The size, scale, and design of the housing development preserves the sensitive environmental resources on this site and enhances the natural storm water filter and recharge function the land around the streams, wetlands, and floodplain perform today.

3) The density of development and the resulting population increase does not overwhelm the area’s already severely strained public facilities (an infrastructure shortfall put Olney in moratorium and this shortfall has never been addressed even though the moratorium was lifted by this Council.)

4) Lot sizes, the mix of housing types (single family detached and townhouses), and the density are compatible with adjacent properties.

Steve Silverman further stated that a majority of the 117 units should be affordable.  He concluded that 58 units would be affordable housing – HOC units, MPUD's, or workforce housing units. This option wins Silverman political points with the affordable housing advocates in the County, but it ignores both the physical realities of this land and the hundreds of letters from the community urging less density in order to ensure adequate capacity of roads, schools and emergency services for the new residents and a reasonable level of compatibility with the character of existing neighborhoods.

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS (in no particular order)
 

1.  HOC - down from the small urban village that would house 1,000+ people to an unpublished number of affordable housing units.  The only public statement made by Scott Minton, the director of HOC, is that he would like a few more units than the R200 zone would allow.  The “straw vote” to accept Silverman’s motion limits the number of units to 117, but it is still not clear if HOC would be bound by the zoning.  No concept plans are available.
 

2.  There is an idea to swap the number of affordable housing units on the 32 acre property with market rate housing in another area of Olney.  This idea is part of the implementation of the master plan – nothing needs to change in master plan in order for this to happen.  THIS IDEA DEPENDS ON THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH and how DHCA decides to dispose of the property.  The Executive Branch/DHCA has not made public the disposition process for this and other county owned properties, what criteria will be used to determine land use, and who will make that decision.  Therefore, there are many possibilities:
 

a. DHCA could just give it all to HOC.

b. DHCA could put out a request for proposals (RFP) for development of affordable housing.

c. DHCA could include the swap idea in the RFP by stipulating that the County wants X number of affordable housing units from the 32-acre property.  A developer could put some on the 32-acre site and the remaining ones on another property within the master plan area that is a better location (due to transit, shopping, etc) for affordable housing.  The Golden Bear Triangle and/or Town Center are options.  In the end, there will be 117 units on the 32 acre property (see one possible concept plan for this, click here) and the county has the same total number of affordable housing units with some of the units in a more suitable location. 
 

3.  AIM (Action in Montgomery - a group of 30 church congregations representing approximately 60,000 voters) is recommending 176 - 180 affordable housing units and is pressuring Duncan to carry out his pledge of 1,000 units on county owned land over the next four years beginning with the 32-acre property.  The “straw vote” by the Council on January 18 limits the number of units on this property to 117 maximum if it is privately developed.  Again, if HOC gains development rights to this land, the density and type of housing is uncertain.
 

4.  OBGC is proposing as double gymnasiums that look like rustic barns plus 60 - 80 workforce housing units.  Click here to see the concept plans for this proposal. 

DECISION CRITERIA

1.  WHAT IS THE HIGHEST PUBLIC USE FOR THIS PUBLIC LAND?  We have been told it is not a school and it is affordable housing.  The next question is what type of affordable housing is the highest public need.  OC believes that it is workforce housing because we need our middle class to remain economically viable.  Today there is affordable housing in Olney for low income families, MPDU's for the low end of the middle, and elderly affordable housing. However, there is nothing for households at 80% to 100% of the area median income - typically teachers, nurses, firefighters, police officers, and other county employees.                    

NOTE - Once the land use is determined, the next question is how much.  The criteria for determining how much are as follows.

2.  HOW MUCH OF THE LAND CAN BE DEVELOPED WITHOUT CAUSING ENVIRONMENTAL HARM?  This requires that the NRIFSD (Natural Resources Inventory) be completed.  Based on the experts that OC brought in to evaluate the land, OC believes it is likely that LESS THAN 2/3rds of the acres can be developed if adequate buffers are provided for the streams, spring heads, and wetlands.  The Countywide Stream Protection Strategy calls for stream restoration and the Council agreed to have an 8% impervious cap for the Norbeck Country Club property that is immediately downstream.  The 32 acre property is the last undeveloped property in the Williamsburg Run sub watershed which is currently at ~ 17% imperviousness.  Experts have testified that going past 19% may push this sub watershed that drains into the North Branch of Upper Rock Creek to degrade beyond the point that it can ever be restored (Sept 2003 testimony).  It is also important to note that the increased density of the new MXTC zone and the subsequent development/redevelopment of town center under this zone will create density that drains into this sub watershed as well. 

3.  HOW MUCH OF THE LAND CAN BE DEVELOPED WITHOUT CAUSING APFO (adequate public facilities ordinance) PROBLEMS? This is particularly true regarding the traffic on Bowie Mill Road and the impact on class sizes in area schools.

4.  HOW MUCH OF THE LAND CAN BE DEVELOPED WITHOUT HARMING THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT PROPERTIES?   It is important to remember that many of the adjacent properties were developed under R200 without MPDU's.  Just the MPDU law increases the density by 22% over adjacent neighborhoods.  Clustering all the development on 2/3rds of the land will force a majority of lot sizes to be significantly smaller (4,000 to 6,000 square feet versus 20,000 square feet).  This raises compatibility issues with the mature, single-family detached neighborhoods that surround the 32 acres today.

BE INFORMED

Click here to subscribe to receive email updates.  After consolidating your feedback and meeting with officials, we will post letter writing guidelines on this web site.  The final decisions are made by elected officials = our County Council and County Executive.  They need to hear from you.