12 Comments

1. Brigitta Mulilcan

   I support this project and have reviewed the website for additional facts and figures, which are informative. I wish this type of facility was available for my parents so they didn’t need to move to Florida, where it is cheaper for them to live. With our aging populations, there is a greater need for more projects like this

2. Theresa Defino

   In the interest of debate, I am reposting a letter to the editor that appeared today about this project.

   As I believe it is important to discuss the facts about any issue, I hope that those who speak tonight can defend the comments made in this letter.

   In particular, point # 1 is incorrect. There has been no poll and it is not opposed by everyone, “strongly” or otherwise.

   Point #2 is especially worrisome. The developer is the Archdiocese of Washington, which does not “profit handsomely” from anything. Calling it a “so-called non-profit” is pretty much beyond the pale.

   The project is to provide housing. Would opponents prefer to see the county sell this for commercial development, or for a parking garage, e.g,? Those would all be within its rights.

   I find it interesting that there’s nothing about how all people wanted when they fought BGII was senior housing.

   Wednesday, Aug. 12, 2009
   Conversion of public to private property is inappropriate

   |
   The Victory Housing project proposed for the Fleet Street Property near Rockville town center is inappropriate in many ways and should be rejected. Victory Housing has requested a Special Exception on zoning and Abandonment of City rights-of-way. “Special Exceptions” and abandonment of government property rights should be granted only in rare and exceptionally meritorious cases — this project fails that test in many ways and should not go forward:

   1. Neighborhood residents strongly oppose this project.

   2. This is a giveaway of county and city government property and property rights worth millions of dollars to a private entity, with no significant compensation to the taxpayers. The county did not acquire this property for this purpose.

   3. Victory Housing Inc. may be a “nonprofit corporation,” but many individuals stand to profit handsomely from the conversion of public to private property. There is no real limit on compensation of nonprofit corporation employees, contractors or consultants.

   4. This development will cost the city far more in services and capital improvements than it takes in taxes, if any real-estate taxes are paid on the so-called nonprofit.

   5. This is not low/moderate income housing. Lower income seniors are unlikely to be able to afford living here, unless they have major equity in their existing home. The income limit is $40,000, per person — that’s a lot of pension for a lower income single retired person.

   6. The neighborhood already has a lot of low and moderate income housing.

   7. This development will destroy urban forest, which is already in short supply in Rockville. This is in violation of stated city policy and reduces the quality of life for those living in the area.

   8. This development will greatly aggravate the storm water management problem. This project alone probably offsets the total storm water savings of several citywide stormwater programs.

   9. This institutional building and its height are out of character for the immediate residential neighborhood.

   10. This project will generate more automobile traffic in an already congested area.

   11. This project may reduce the surrounding property values.

   12. This project could be built on private property in any number of other places, that is already zoned for institutional buildings and purchased on the open market by Victory Housing, Why build it here on government property?

   13. This project is betrayal of [the] Master Plan and good community planning principles. This reinforces Rockville’s reputation as a pushover for developers’ interests over the interests of the city and its residents.

   We would hope that Rockville City Council would stand up for the interest of Rockville residents, stop this highly inappropriate project, and stop the giveaway of government property and property rights to private interests.

3. JJ

   Most people in the area oppose the scale and design of the proposed building. Parts of the overall plan are in violation of the new zoning ordinances, and these will be addressed at the PC meeting.

4. Theresa Defino

   If they are in violation of the new zoning ordinance, that would be up to the city zoning staff to flag.

5. JJ

   It would also be up to city residents who take the time to do the research and analysis. You might want to tune into the PC meeting this evening.

6. Brigitta Mulilcan

   I will send my comments to the Planning Commission for approval.

   So far the government has not planned to use this property nor is there funs for it.

7. Theresa Defino

   Just to be clear, I did not write the letter to the editor and don’t agree with it.

   The link is here:

   http://www.gazette.net/stories/08122009/montlet174808_32531.shtml

8. Brigitta Mulilcan

   Meant to type the word “FUNDS”! Sorry for keyboard slip. Sent message to fast.

9. Brigitta Mulilcan

   Theresa, I read the GAZETTE opinion comments and I do not agree with some of the comments written.

   Tonight the Rockville Planning Commission voted to send the application to the Rockville Board of Appeal with additional conditions to be considered. There are still more procedures for this application to go through, but the Commission did address the many issues and balanced all the advantages and disadvantages.

   I believe the commissioners did a good job in their deliberation.

   In addition to my testimony, I provided these written comments to the Planning Commission.

   Subject: Testimony for the Special Exception SPX2009-00378, Victory Housing, Inc. for the construction of an 86-unit senior adult housing facility in the MXT Zone on property bounded by Maryland Avenue, Fleet Street and Monroe Street.

   This is my testimony to ask the Rockville Planning Commission to recommend the Special Exception for the Victory Housing, Inc. to the Board of Appeals.

   I strongly support the Victory Housing Project, a low and moderate income housing for seniors in Rockville. I almost qualify for the project and it is a good one. The information on the website is very helpful and informative.

   During the public hearing tonight I truly hope the speakers will be respectful to the Rockville Planning Commissioners. The Commission is responsible to listen and review all comments. The Commission should give approval or disapproval on FACTS not EMOTIONS by a few people.

   If this project has to endure all that the Beall Grant project did, Rockville is to be ashamed. Every project has its price and the needs of the ENTIRE community must be considered. I would rather see a new facility for people to be housed than worry about an old tree that will eventually die or a building that is costly to maintain for less use.

   I strongly recommend that the Rockville Planning Commission send this Victory Housing special exception to the Board of Appeals.

10. Theresa Defino

    I spoke as well.

    The Planning Commission voted to recommend the Board of Appeals approve the exception 5-0. The members were all “strongly supportive” of the project and praised the development team for its responsiveness to the residents’ concerns. I am sure Cindy will have a more detailed update.

    The Gazette also covered the meeting.

    My comments follow.

    My name is Theresa Defino. I have lived at 400 Mannakee Street, in Rockville for 10 years.

    I come before you tonight to express my support for the special exception request submitted by Victory Housing.

    I have the perspective of having served for four months on the WECA committee dealing with Beall’s Grant II, a proposed affordable housing development that has been held hostage for more than a year despite having all legal approvals.

    The first thing I would like to do is commend the planning commission for the position you took on that project-and to ask that you be steeled this night in your resolve to follow the city’s requirements for granting a special exception.

    Do not be swayed by emotional appeals, arguments not based on facts, or any other factors that are outside the scope of what you must consider when you decide the merits of the narrow request before you.

    I believe the proposed use is appropriate in a residential area which borders commerical streets, and will provide much needed affordable housing for seniors. I’ve seen the tactics of the opponents of BGII and affordable housing before. Their arguments weren’t valid then, and they aren’t valid now.

    It’s kind of funny, because I know first hand that the community is deeply supportive of affordable housing for seniors-this came up over and over again at the BGII committee meetings. We, as a committee, repeatedy asked the developer to investigate turning the property into senior housing. Yet now it is opposed.

    The Victory Housing project will have no impact on schools, which also seemed to be a primary concern of those who were against BGII.

    And I have heard all this talk about the historic houses nearby. To me this is a joke-they might be historic but they are already an eyesore.

    It also seems quite odd to me that some who oppose it say it isn’t really “affordable housing” and that the income levels are too high. I assume this means they would support something for people with very low incomes. How about for people with no incomes?

    Would they instead prefer a homeless shelter on this site? The county could propose that.

    Perhaps a half-way house for substance abusers? The county could propose that.

    Or maybe a battered-women’s’ shelter? A group home for those with mental illness? Would these purposes appear somehow more worthy, raise fewer baseless objections?

    I kind of doubt it.

    In addition, this building is sufficiently far away enough from BGII and senior housing near Washington Street to discount any arguments about “clustering” of affordable housing.

    Also the numbers that have been bandied about-that there are 500 affordable housing units nearby-are just not accurate.

    The project has a pleasing design that puts very few units near Courthouse Walk and has a strong emphasis on landscaping.

    This isn’t a land grab, a giveaway, or some personal insult to taxpayers…and it’s just almost unbelievable that opponents would try to make the case that the Catholic Church is somehow not “non-profit” enough.

    I’d also like to point out that this issue has NEVER been put to a vote of the West End Citizens Association, so there is no way to claim this organization either supports or opposes this project. Everyone here is simply representing him or herself.

    My children attend Richard Montgomery High School, so during the school year I drive past this location twice a day. While I love seeing trees as much as the next person, I am realistic about the use of this land.

    The only constant in this world is change-and that land is not going to remain undeveloped forever, and this is a far better use than many other possibilities.

    Thank you.

11. Theresa Defino

    I have pasted my comments as written before the meeting with some changes to reflect what I said. I did not say the paragraph about WECA, although it is true. So I am correcting myself.

12. Brigitta Mulilcan

    EXCELLENT TESTIMONY, Theresa!! IT IS GREAT TO SEE COMMENTS WITHOUT FALSE STATEMENTS AND EMOTION.

    It was great seeing a balance of testimonies last night. The Planning Commissioners gave excellent questions and comments. They made the right decision, although the project still has a difficult process to endure.

    Can’t wait to tour the facility.

Leave a Reply

Read our comment policy. Please be civil. Don't write something you would not say to someone's face. COMMENTS ARE MODERATED. If your comment is not approved we will email to to let you know. (This is an experimental policy.)

• Recent Comments
• Most Active
• Tags