Contributor's Opinion By Ken Sandin: Welcome, Victory Court
Jul 16, 2009 9:22 - 21 Comments
Posted by: Cindy Cotte Griffiths
Department: Contributor Opinion,Opinion
Tags: affordable housing, zoning
Department: Contributor Opinion,Opinion
Tags: affordable housing, zoning
>We moved to Montgomery County 44 years ago for the high-quality schools, which prepared our children well for their college and subsequent careers. We are still here because of the high quality of life, attributable in large part to good, progressive governance. So, when I heard that the County had leased, at no cost, an unused parcel of public land to Victory Housing, Inc. to build Victory Court (an independent living facility for seniors, age 62+, with incomes less than $40,000 per year, including assets), I thought, “That’s one of the things I treasure about this place; we help one another.”
Then it came to my attention that residents of a moderately-upscale town house development adjacent to the Victory Court site are circulating a petition opposing the project in its current form, expressing concern regarding the size, density, and loss of green space. OK, we have a case of good vs. good, which can be resolved through negotiation and mediation.
But further reading showed that this group of residents was piling objection upon objection: that Victory Court would [negatively] impact the character of their neighborhood; reduce the uses, visibility, and property value of historic houses; and [add to] a high concentration of lower-than-market-rate housing currently existing in the West End neighborhood. This last objection is curious–neither the Victory Court site nor the petitioners’ neighborhood is located in the West End neighborhood. Taken together, these objections suggest that the petitioners are opposing the project in its entirety. For further evidence of their determination to block the project, see Alice Liu’s July 14 posting on this site.
So, it’s not a case of good vs. good, and I must take issue with the petitioners’ position. I do, however, thank them for their generous payments of taxes that contribute to all the good things our county and city governments do.
For details on the project, a good place to start is: www.rockvillemd.gov/government/commissions/hdc/2008/HDC2009-00452.pdf
Ken Sandin
New Mark Commons
This is a contributor opinion. Rockville Central encourages readers to submit such opinions for consideration — the more voices the better. We especially welcome people who disagree with us. We ask that all such contributions be civil and we reserve the right to edit (in consultation with the author) or reject. Contributor opinions should not be seen as reflecting opinions held by Rockville Central editors, as they are just as frequently at odds with our own views. That’s the whole point!
Follow on Twitter
Bless you. How nice to have a voice of truth on this issue. I have tried to stay current on this issue, as I have stated on this site, and brought notice of the Monday meeting to the attention of Rockville Central so it could be listed and all interested parties could attend. There is a secret opposition campaign operating with disinformation and malice.Having witness the smear job some West End Citizens have done for a year related to BGII–and continue to do behind the backs of the full WECA which approved a revised design–I so welcome this piece and your continued involvement.Please come on to meeting Monday night!
Mr. Sandin, you don’t have the facts right in this case. I believe Courthouse Walk is indeed part of the WECA. Also, if you read the July 14th piece, the entire article talks about the disadvantage residents have versus developers, their attorneys and the cooperation of city staff. This is a fact, and is true in every case. The particular case presented by citizens at the Planning Commission meeting was directed solely at the abandonment issue. It was our contention simply that the staff prepared a shoddy and incomplete report and the Commission agreed when they sent the staff back with instructions to make changes in 4 key areas. A public hearing on the abandonment has been scheduled, but M&C failed to set a date for a public information session to preceed it. We have been in contact with city staff to in fact schedule that meeting. This will satisfy one of the requirements set out by the Planning Commission..to provide a cost/benefit analysis to residents.
The WECA area is quite large and does include this neighborhood. The clustering issue has no legs at all given the size of the WECA area.And please remember that WECA itself has NEVER take a position on this project, and as I have stated repeatedly, there is indeed a splinter group of WECA members who have been going to all the meetings (regardless of whether they live nearby) and opposing the project. Mr. Sandlin is indeed right on this issue. And he is right that they are spreading misinformation. JJ–I’m still waiting to be added to the list serv. My email address, again, is TDEFINO@aol.com.See you all Monday night.
Mea culpa. I apologize to all for getting the boundaries of the West End wrong. I was thinking East is East, and West is West, and ne’er the…but that’s a different story; or maybe not. I had thought that maybe it was a matter similar to the one of some people I knew who lived not far West of I-270, had Rockville mailing addresses, but said they lived in Potomac. Do people still do that? Anyway, just after I submitted my July 15 Welcome to Victory Court, I was informed that, actually, the West End Citizens Association considers the Victory Court sirte to be part of the West End; and JJ, in his comment, said Courthouse Walk is part of the WECA membership. So, if West End doesn’t mean a W. street address, i.e., West of Washington Street; maybe it means something like “they’re our kind of people” or “they live in our kinds of dwellings,” or maybe “they’re on our side in zoning matters.” In any case, all that stuff indicates that the East-West division is now Monroe Street. Actually, in New Mark Commons, I live West of the Washington Street meridian, but I’m not sure WECA wants me as a member, which is just dandy with me. But, more importantly, my dog takes me, an old retired guy, on a lot of long walks–both East and West of Monroe Street–and we find the people on the East side at least as friendly. The important things are a tail wag and a smile.
Ken, I live in Saddlebrook, which is west of Rockville, but, west of 270. I’m one of those that has a Potomac address, but enjoys the wonderful services that Rockville provides. When asked where I live I have a tendency to say Rockville, not Potomac. Thanks for your well written opinion, above. I must admit that if I owned one of those townhomes that Victory House is being built behind, I would be pretty upset, especially if Mount Vernon Place is being extended and run behind their properties.Regards to you!!
Ken, I was once told by WECA that Maryland Avenue is the dividing line, but that doesn’t seem to be true. NMC was “rejected” as a West End community because we have our own HOA..that doen’t make sense either, given other WECA communities. I think NMC is fine with things as they are.
Currently, the City has a right of way to build a street or path on this strip of property (which we call the Mt. Vernon Place expansion). There is no plan to build a street or path, nor would there be if the Victory community is built. The developer has asked for an abandonment of this dedicated use of this property as a street. The Victory community would not be built in the right of way. It would remain green space under their plan. The City would need an easement to get at the sewer pipes. So, the Mayor and Council are being asked to give up the right to build a street or path behind the townhouses.
Cindy’s explanation is not quite 100% accurate. The way the city staff originally presented this abandonment was to divide it down the middle…which is how these matters are usually done. In this case, half would go to the county and half to Courthouse Walk. The city then wanted easements on the residents’ half…to maintain the stormwater pipe and to reserve the right to build a bike path of some sort. The developer’s side would remain forest, but there was concern about encroachment.This kind of action is at the heart of Alice’s opinion piece and the objections raised at the Planning Commission meeting. As I stated before, the PC told staff to redo parts of the report and have a public information meeting to present a cost/benefit analysis to residents…telling them why these easements would be beneficial. There are now no less then 6 options on how to handle the application, and the public hearing that was supposed to happen this week will be held in September.
Joe, I think my statement is accurate. You may have added more details but I have correctly stated the situation.Victory Housing informed me today that there would be no encroachment.
I agree with Mr. Sandin’s opinion of Rockville being a wonderful place to live. I do not think it is accurate or fair to try and label those who have concerns about the development in it’s current form as not good or evil. There are a number of good reasons to want to limit development. People may not want a large building towering over their back yard. The impact on the historic homes in the area is also a concern. Others may be concerned about traffic and the loss of green space. Whatever the reasons there are certainly legitimate points on both sides of the issue.
Cindy, your statement that “There is no plan to build a street or path, nor would there be if the Victory community is built” is not 100% accurate. First, I don’t think Victory Housing can make that commitment for the City, as this path would be on the half of the road that the City will either put on easement on if it’s abandoned to Courthouse Walk or will retain as they do today. Second, read the two staff reports on the road abandonment – the June 15 and July 8 report prepared for the M&C meeting on July 13. In the June 15 report, the City proposes abandoning the road the conventional way, 50-50 to each property owner abutting the road. This report states that the city has no plan to build a road, but they have an IDEA to build a bike/pedestrian path. However there was no data presented to support this need. When they heard our concerns about the lack of analysis and old data in the staff report (three year old letters from Washington Gas and Verizon), as Joe said, the PC recommendation was to deny the application (see http://www.rockvillemd.gov/government/commissions/pc/2009/actions/pcactions-1009.htm). Then in the July 8 staff report, the City still did not present data supporting the bike/road path or other use of the road. They changed their recommendation to give half the road to the County as before, and the City to keep the other half instead of giving it to Courthouse Walk, essentially preserving the status quo for this half (the City has control over the entire right-of-way today). The City did not respond to the PC recommendation for a public information meeting to explain how road abandonments work, how easements work, how the City will notify us if they need to do storm drain maintenance, etc. That was a mistake since the Staff Report mentioned that the July 13 M&C meeting would help decide whether one would be needed. At our insistence, one is being organized now. Also regarding the encroachment issue, that is an example of the constant discussions going on between the City and the Developer that we are not privy to. Since at least the Pre-Application Area Meeting of April 28, the site plan has shown a parking lot encroachment into the right-of-way, the half that would go to the County and be put under a forest conservation easement. That was new to us since previous site plans did not show an encroachment. This was not totally unexpected – all this is talk and paper right now so things can change. We did not know until we heard at the July 13 M&C meeting that the Developer and the Planning Dept were discussing this and the Developer now says they don’t need to encroach. What we have been asking for, in all of our postings and in the City meetings, is a fair chance for citizens to speak, equal time with the City, for the City to do its job to look out for the public interest. We know that decisions will not necessarily go our way, but if we’re at least heard and issues are thoroughly considered and debated, we’ll feel that proper due diligence has been done. This is an issue with any development, not just Victory Housing, as I’ve heard this is how it has been from citizens who have lived in Rockville for decades, and should be discussed more broadly.Road abandonment is irreversible and the City should consider all potential uses of that road before abandoning it and calculate the cost/benefit to the community. What about keeping it green space? This is supposed to be a Green city yet we may lose the last forest in the Town Center area to the Victory Housing development.Courthouse Walk is not necessarily opposed to the road abandonment – we just want all the facts and information and thorough analysis before the City makes a decision. The City just has an idea for a bike/pedestrian path but no supporting data, and we are definitely opposed to a path which will create a security/privacy risk for us (it will literally be in our backyards) as well as create a nuisance from more trash and litter (which already accumulates on the sidewalks and paths that surround us now that we pick up ourselves, not the City).
Forgot to mention – yes Courthouse Walk is a part of WECA. I’m one of the block captains. WECA has not taken a position on this because as information about the Victory Housing development became public, WECA had a changeover of officers, they’ve been preoccupied with Beall’s Grant II, and they went on summer recess after the June 30 meeting. They have been involved but to take a position requires a meeting of the membership which will now not happen until September.All our information is factual, either supplied from Victory Housing or the City. If you find a difference it may be because of the ongoing discussion between VH and the City that we are not privy to. A lot of these discussions happen at the Development Review Committee meetings and one-on-one between the Planning Department and the Developer. I know it would be next to impossible to be involved in every conversation, but one solution would be to invite us to the DRC meetings or share those meeting notes with us afterwards.
Alice, you are quibbling over a small point. Instead, could you please address the fact that there is a campaign — a petition campaign right now–to stop this development? Are you part of this? That’s what the contributor piece is about.Could you also please explain about the list serv and how people could join to learn more about this?Thanks very much.
Theresa, you may dismiss these issues as quibbles if you like – transparency, openness, due diligence, quality analysis, accurate representation of the facts, equal time for citizen input. Yes a petition is going around and it has never been kept a secret. We have not asked anyone to keep its existence quiet. All it says is this:PETITION OF CONCERN ABOUT THE VICTORY HOUSING PROJECT “Victory Court” ON THE FLEET STREET PROPERTY (Application PAM2009-00005)We, the undersigned citizens of the City of Rockville, have the following key concerns about the proposed 90-unit senior affordable housing development as it is currently planned by Victory Housing, Inc. (called “Victory Court”):• the mass (size and scale) of the development • the height of the development (two and ½ stories higher than the townhouses)• the loss of green space• the impact to the character of our neighborhood and our personal enjoyment of our homesYou can see our web site (just hover over my name on this posting to see the link) for the requirements to join the mailing list. I’m sure Obama people did not have McCain supporters on their lists and vice versa. That is why the list is not open to just anyone. You are free to disagree and associate with those who share your views.
Alice, the road is the quibble.Re: the list serve–The requirements are to be concerned about the project and to list your address. I did both.You don’t know my opinion of this project because frankly—I don’t have one. I have never stated I was for OR against this project. By cutting people off who you “think” disagree with you, and by making it personal as you have, you are doing a disservice to the community and to WECA. Most importantly, you are undermining your own cause.
Alice, I take it very seriously when someone accuses me of inaccuracy. I would like to clarify my statement. The wording may be confusing because I did not want to presuppose the approval and construction of Victory Court out of respect for those who are working to oppose it. I certainly acknowledge the changing nature of development proposals and would never be so bold as to say something would not happen. All I meant to say is that at this time there is no plan from the developer or the City to build a path or street if Victory Court is constructed.I have no association with Victory Housing. I have no knowledge of a statement from Victory Housing which could be viewed as them making a commitment for the City. Victory Housing has made an application to abandon the right to a street or pathway on the Mt. Vernon Place expansion. I think we can agree that they do not have a street or pathway in their plans.Since I watched last Monday’s Mayor and Council meeting live, I am aware of the options facing the City regarding the abandonment. Cas Casten asked the Mayor and Council for direction on the timing for making the abandonment decision and emphasized that they were not looking for a formal decision. The staff presented a few options and a public hearing on the matter was set for September 14, 2009. These options ran the gamut from denying the application and retaining the right of way as it exists with no easements to full abandonment as both a roadway and pathway with an easement for the storm drain. Also included were partial abandonment with no roadway, retention of the option for a pathway, and a forest easement joined back to Montgomery County. Obviously there is no decision or plan from the City regarding a future street or pathway on the Mt. Vernon Place expansion property.As for the encroachment issue, I attended a presentation by Victory Housing to learn about the plans for the development and ask questions. Two City Commissions requested the meeting. Victory Housing seems very interested in speaking with members of our community and quite willing to keep everyone up-to-date on their plans. I appreciate how open they have been since my home is within a block of the property.
I stopped commenting on this, but want to clarify something…Victory Housing is not the party that filed the application. The applicant is Montgomery County Department of Housing and Community Affairs. This is why we were dumbfounded when the “spokesperson” for the county at the PC meeting, M&C meeting and HDC meeting were the attorneys for Victory Housing.
What is so dumbfounding about all of this?Montgomery County owns the property so is the proper applicant for the abandonment of Mt. Vernon Place.Montgomery County has selected Victory Housing to develop the property. So, they are working hand in hand as their interests are totally aligned. None of this should be surprising or dumbfounding. Indeed, it seems quite logical.
Typically an applicant sends their own attorney. When the attorney representing the county was asked what his relationship with the county was, he said there was none…they were not a client, past or present. The PC found this to be a stretch, but allowed it anyway. I’m not questioning the county’s application…of course they are the proper party…
Would the citizens’ opposition to this project be more or less worthy if the proposed construction were an office building or luxury apartments? I believe if you take the fact that this construction is for low income individuals out of the equation you have the same issues. The existing residents had a reasonable belief, based upon the existing zoning, that when they purchased their property the worst that could happen is a road being built behind their townhouse, not a three story building blocking out the sun and with views of their bedroom windows.It is obvious from the comments that the City and County have failed miserably in their duty to make even the bare minimum effort here. The citizens feel disenfranchised, and rightly so. Any change in existing zoning should be met with skepticism and careful consideration of those most effected by the change. And the homeowners should not be made to feel like they are bad people because the proposed project is for low income individuals. Our homes are most peoples single largest investment and they have a right to protect that investment. Mr. Sandin is correct, Rockville is a wonderful place to live with many great services, but I do not think the rights and opinions of a developer (or the complacent city/county official) are any better or more important than the rights and opinions of the home owners, regardless of what is being developed.
>The existing residents had a reasonable belief, based upon the existing zoning, that when they purchased their property the worst that could happen is a road being built behind their townhouse, not a three story building blocking out the sun and with views of their bedroom windows.
I’m curious about how many people really examine the Master Plan for future zoning when they buy a property. I suspect that it’s not a lot, and the assumptions are that things will basically stay unchanged. Having lived in the Rockville area for 35 years, and having witnessed massive changes in that time, I know that most people have a very short-term view of things, and are frequently disappointed in the long term.