preserving the quality of life in Olney, Maryland

What is happening with the 32 acre property on Bowie Mill Road?

Right now the county is to choose between two developers who will build something on this property.  This "something" can be a variety of housing units and may or may not include a gymnasium.  The number of housing units that are ultimately built will depend on the final zoning of the property and the environmental constraints.  Right now the property is zoned R200 with a recommendation in the master plan for the PD3 zone (see below for what these zones mean for this property).  The County Council will have to approve the zoning change to PD3 (since it is recommended in the master plan, this will most likely happen).  A study of the exact environmental features needs to be done to identify the appropriate stream and wetland buffer areas.  The county will also have to decide whether or not a gymnasium will be built on this property.  All of these things will affect the final total number of units. 

Why was I asked to come and hear the plans from the developers?

The Request For Proposals (RFP) went out to two developers: Elm Street Developers (teamed with Montgomery Housing Partnership referred to as MHP) and Mid City Urban, LLC.  Both developers were required to submit a concept plan and financing for two options - one with housing only and one with fewer housing units and a gymnasium.  The first step the county will decide is WHICH developer to work with.  Once that is decided, THEN which option (with or without the gym) will be chosen.  This was stated at the GOCA meeting on 10/9/07 by Scott Reilly who is Chief Operating Officer for the Department of Housing and Community Affairs (DHCA).  He is also the chairman of the Selection Committee which is reviewing the final two proposals in order to make a recommendation to the Director of DHCA who will make the final selection.

There apparently were questions as to why folks were asked to meet the developers and see the plans before commenting.  Since the county wanted to hear comments about which developer should be chosen, it would make sense to meet the developer and their teams to hear what approach they would take in developing this property.  Unless one is in the development field, it is unlikely one would know enough about the developers to make comments without hearing the plans.

What about a gym on this site?

There was an organized effort to have the county hear resident's concerns about the need for gym space in Olney.  In response, the Department of Recreation is doing a needs analysis.  A needs analysis of recreation facilities was done as part of the Olney Master Plan update process in 2000.  At that time, the only need identified by the Department of Recreation for the Olney area were three additional ball fields and a public outdoor pool (pages 117 - 119 of the Olney Master Plan, April 2005).   If the Department of Recreation determines there is a need for additional gym space in Olney, then a site selection process will be done.  The 32 acre property on Bowie Mill Road may or may not be chosen.  There are other county owned properties in Olney that would also be considered during the site selection process. 

What is the trade off to put the gym on this site?

The current concept plans show that the gym replaces 20 housing units of which 12 would be affordable.  To build 12 affordable units on another site, there would have to be at least 80 total units (80 x 15% MPDU requirement = 12 units).  With developable land in the county rapidly disappearing, it is not as common as it once was to have developments built that are larger than 80 units.  With prices of new homes in Montgomery County averaging $1 million (click here to read the Washington Post article from 9/27/07), affordable housing is one of the top goals for the county.

What has been the opinion of the Olney Coalition?

There are people who erroneously believe that the Olney Coalition has opposed any development on this site.  The Olney Coalition always felt this property should be used for the highest public need.  In the beginning, everyone felt it should remain a school site.  Once the school system proved that the property was not needed for a future school site, the Olney Coalition supported housing on the site.  It supported a zone called R200 to match the surrounding communities. 

When the county determines the maximum number of housing that can be built on a property, it uses the entire property even though one cannot build on all of it.  For example, on this 32 acre property, 10 acres is the stream and wetland buffer.  This leaves 22 acres left to be developed.  R200 zoning is 2 units per acre x 32 acres = 64 houses.  The 22% MPDU bonus raises this total to 78 houses.  78 houses on 22 acres = 3.5 houses per acre which is almost twice as dense as the surrounding areas.  The County Council recommends a higher zone called PD3 which allows 3 units per acre (3 x 32 = 96 plus the MPDU bonus raises it to a total of 117 units).  Putting 117 units on 22 acres is just over 5 units per acre.  This is two and a half times denser than the surrounding areas.  One also must consider the environment.  This is the last undeveloped property in the watershed called Williamsburg Run (part of the North Branch of the Upper Rock Creek).  Upstream and downstream areas are protected with an impervious cap (restriction as to how much concrete can cover the earth) whereas this property is not protected.  Higher densities = more impervious surfaces and less environmental protection.  There are residents living downstream that are on well water and they depend on properties upstream to protect their drinking water.  This is the foundation as to why the Olney Coalition supported the R200 zone for this property. 

How is Olney being represented?

Everyone in the county is always able to express their personal opinion to officials.  There is a Selection Committee that is tasked to evaluate the proposals and make a recommendation to the Director of DHCA as to which developer will develop this property.  The Director may or may not follow the recommendation of the Selection Committee.  A few have questioned ability of Barbara Falcigno to represent the community on the Selection Committee because she lives adjacent to the property.  These few seem to be from supporters of the gym on the site.  This does not seem logical because whether or not the gym is built on the site, what is built on the main section of the property does not change.  In addition, Barbara has two young children who love sports.  She grew up involved with the Wheaton Boys and Girls Club where her father was commissioner for many years.  She even coached soccer in the late 1980s for the club.  If there was to be any perceived bias, one would think due to her background,  it would be in favor of the gym option.

Do I need to Vote?

There is an incorrect perception that submitting a comment is a vote.  The community does NOT have a vote in this process.  The developer will be chosen based on the evaluation criteria outlined in the RFP.  Some of the evaluation criteria items are subjective which is why community comments are useful.  Whether or not a county gym will be built in Olney (on this site or any other site) will be determined by the results of a needs analysis that the County's Department of Recreation is currently doing on recreation space in the county. 

The Olney Boys and Girls Club sent out an email stating "In an email released by GOCA's President on Friday October 5, it is stated that in order to vote on this issues [sic], a community member now "needs to listen" to each developer's presentation by Tuesday night October 9th, before they can vote to support the gym, therefore, purposely nullifying our 2,200 previous votes for it."  This was incorrect information.  The email released on October 5 stated "Those who listen to the presentations will have the opportunity to fill out Community Comment Cards."  This was for the reader's information, clearly not a requirement for submitting comments.  Nothing in that email says one "needs to listen" before commenting - click here to read the entire email.  Even the GOCA website simply states "There will be survey forms available to provide your feedback to the county."  The point of all these emails was to let people know they would have the opportunity to write down their thoughts and submit them to the county.  It is not a vote. 

What is next?

For those that have comments on the two different proposals, they should submit them to Scott Reilly at 100 Maryland Avenue, 4th floor, Rockville, MD 20850.  In order for comments to be received before the Selection Committee meets again, they need to be received by October 23, 2007.  The Selection Committee will make a recommendation to the Director of DHCA by the end of this year.  Once the developer is selected, the County Executive will choose which option (gym or no gym) based on the analysis done by the Department of Recreation and how this property can help meet the affordable housing goals of the County.