Editorial Opinion By Cindy Cotte Griffiths: Questions Arise About The APFO Committee

APFO Committee Members present during the Planning Commission Appointments On Wednesday.

If you want to find out who was appointed to the Rockville Planning Commissions Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) Advisory Committee, you need to listen to the video from the Wednesday, December 15, 2010 meeting. The list of who will be appointed was not on the Agenda for the meeting nor has it been posted anywhere on the City’s website.

Surprisingly, before the nine members were appointed on Wednesday night, an article was published in Wednesday’s edition of The Gazette and it appeared online with the lede:

The Rockville Planning Commission had tasked nine people with reviewing one of its most controversial zoning ordinances.

The members of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Committee will officially be announced at the Planning Commission’s meeting today. The list includes business, non-profit and neighborhood representatives.

(The grammatical error is The Gazette’s, not mine.) The article includes the names of who will be appointed later in the day.

During Wednesday’s meeting, Planning Commission David Hill admitted to providing the information about the appointments to The Gazette on Monday so that they could publish in their paper version on Wednesday. He also emailed the information to the Mayor and Council on Monday.

So my first question is, why does The Gazette get such privilege over all the other news providers?

My second question is, why can’t I find the names of who was appointed anywhere except for this news article? The names are still not on the Planning Commission section of the City’s website. Why weren’t they included on the Agenda for Wednesday’s meeting if they were sent to a news outlet on Monday? Shouldn’t the citizens have the information first – before a newspaper?

After repeated attempts throughout the years, The Gazette still does not deliver to my house. Many of my neighbors in apartments don’t get it either. This obviously is not the way to communicate with residents.

I hope The Gazette spelled their names correctly because I have no way of officially knowing:

Jason Anthony
Temperance Blalock
Denis Cain
Julie Carr
Sean Hart
Soo Lee-Cho
Charles Littlefield
Roald Schrack
Eric Segal

During Citizen’s Forum at Monday night’s Mayor and Council meeting, Beryl Feinberg spoke about her application for the APFO Committee. She said that no one who applied was ever contacted or interviewed about their application. She was only contacted to be told she was not selected. She knew that there would be seven (7) male and three (3) female members chosen, including one reserve. Since Rockville’s population is roughly 50-50 male-female, she didn’t think the Committee was inclusive or reflective of our population.

Councilmember John Britton responded by asking for copies of the resumes and applications of all the applicants knowing that it is privileged information. Due to Ms. Feinberg’s remarks, he was curious about the ethnic, gender and geographic breakdown.

Councilmember Piotr Gajewski used his response to Citizen’s Forum to explain his position on the Committee:

I’m sure you’re not going to be the last to complain about the composition of this Committee which is the problem I have with the forming of this Committee to begin with. APFO is arguably one of the most inflammatory issues that our City will be facing. I think it should be faced by elected officials at the very least it should be faced by officials appointed by elected officials.

Mayor Phyllis Marcuccio reminded everyone that it was within the privilege of the Planning Commission to appoint a subcommittee. The Mayor and Council had absolutely no input. The Planning Commission will eventually make recommendations to the Mayor and Council for a decision. She added:

I think it’s a process that maybe is flawed in some ways. I don’t think that anyone had the intention of slighting a soul. I think they were just looking for more help and this was one way to do it. Sometimes when you mean to do well, you do poorly. Let’s hope it results in something we can positively use.

I’ve been told that originally only 11 people applied for the 9 positions which is why the deadline was extended and about 21 applications were eventually received.

Regardless of these concerns, the Planning Commission seems pleased with their selections.

During Wednesday night’s meeting the Planning Commission decided the Advisory Committee’s start date will be January 2, 2011 and they must report to the Planning Commission by their first meeting in July.

Commissioner John Tyner reminded the representatives that their first chore is to elect a Chair to keep the meetings moving on schedule.

Offering all the Commissioners as a resource, Tracy Pakulniewicz advised the Task Force that they can contact them with questions in addition to asking City staff because “it is a pretty hefty task that you’re being charged with and we want to make sure you have all the information, all of the insight you need to effectively and efficiently do your job.”

Mr. Tyner added “You won’t be left hanging out in the breeze. That’s for sure.”

Next Steps For Victory Court Development

Victory Housing continues to work toward building 86 affordable apartments for seniors on property owned by Montgomery County at the intersection of Fleet Street and Maryland Avenue.

Although the Circuit Court upheld the Board of Appeals decision to grant the Special Exception for affordable housing to build this project, the citizens that filed the complaint can appeal it. They have one month to do so from the decision, so the deadline would be November 8th.

The West End Citizen’s Association newsletter reports that “So far, neighbors near the site of Victory Court have spent more than $50,000 to support legal challenges.”

The “MXT” zoning for the property allows for Special Exception approval of “Housing for Senior Adults and persons with Disabilities” as long as the additional requirements of the Rockville Zoning Ordinance are met. Although the code defines this use as allowing food service, day care, nursing and services, Victory Court has proposed an independent, multi-family building with common areas such as a community, television and exercise rooms.

On Wednesday, October 27, 2010 at 7 PM, the Planning Commission is scheduled to consider approval of the Record Plat for this development. The Final Record Plat creates a total of (7) lots, five are for the existing historic houses in the Rockville Heights Historic District. The Victory Court Senior Housing Project would be located on Lot 2 of the new subdivision. The meeting will be held in the Mayor and Council Chambers at City Hall. The public will have an opportunity to provide input at the meeting.

One other approval is outstanding. Although the resolution for the abandonment of the right of way for Mount Vernon Place was already passed by the Mayor and Council, the resolution still needs to be finalized.

Victory For Victory Court, Judge Affirms Board Of Appeals Decision

On Friday, October 8, 2010, Judge Robert A. Greenberg ruled to affirm the decision of the Board of Appeals of the City of Rockville concerning Victory Court, the proposed development of affordable senior housing on property owned by Montgomery County on Fleet Street. Some community members had appealed to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County to overturn the Board of Appeals approval of the Special Exception for Victory Court.

In the Noreen Bryan, ET AL vs Victory Housing, Inc. ET AL. decision, Judge Greenberg found:

There was substantial evidence to support the decision of the Board of Appeals, and no denial of due process in the amendment of the original decision.

Judge Greenberg ruled in favor of the Board of Appeals on each of the individual assertions by the plaintiffs.

The Court found no support for the petitioners’ assertion that the affected area was not precisely defined, especially since every address within about ¼ of a mile in every direction from the property was notified. Also, this claim was untimely since the argument was not raised at the time of the hearings.

As to the Petitioners’ claim that the Board’s decision should be reversed because the proposed site was not “low density”, Judge Greenberg stated there is no statutory definition of “low density” and the proposed use satisfies the definition of a mixed-use transition zone because it transitions between the “medium-high intensity of city hall and the county government buildings to the north and east and the adjacent detached and multi-unit residential district to the south and west”.

Concerning the Petitioners’ contention that the use violates the Master Plan in regards to scattered affordable housing, the Court stated the Master Plan serves only as a guide. The Petitioners’ argument “does not correspond to the goal of the Master Plan, which is to support affordable housing – not to make sure that it is scattered.”

As to the statement that the increase in affordable housing would create a change in the character of the neighborhood considering a number of similar uses, Judge Greenberg wrote, “Since the proposed site use is affordable housing for seniors, it is not a ‘similar use’, as there is no other affordable housing development in the area specifically for seniors.”

Judge Greenberg also decided there is no buffer requirement necessary for the historic homes belonging to Montgomery County as they have been used for a variety of non-residential purposes. On the other side, the setback between the property and the adjacent Courthouse Walk is substantial at 59 feet. Even if the driveway and parking spaces were removed from the setback area, it would still be 22 feet wide and there is no absolute requirement for the width of a setback.

As to the Petitioners’ argument that the Board must make an additional finding that the site has “adequate accessibility to, or provides on-site, public transportation, medical services, shopping areas, recreational, and other community services frequently used by residents of such use”, Judge Greenberg stated that the Board did so based upon the testimony at the public hearings and the site is located in the Town Center Planning Area which provides access to all of these services.

The last assertion, that the Board of Appeals improperly amended its decision because there was no notice, hearing, deliberations, or findings, was also found to be lacking because the Rules of Procedure of the Board of Appeals state that “a clerical error may be corrected at any time without prior notice or hearing”. In addition, the Judge pointed out that the correction of the clerical error to include the measurement of a flat roof style verses a gabled roof was in the Petitioners’ favor since they advocated for a reduced height of the building and expressed satisfaction with the flat roof style.

Since Rockville’s Planning Commission unanimously approved the site plan on June 23, 2010, this Court decision removes a last legal barrier. Victory Housing is now one step closer to building the Victory Court community.

Snapshot Of The Afffordable Housing In Rockville

Councilmember Bridget Newton requested information on the location of affordable housing in Rockville for last Monday’s Mayor and Council meeting. Staff prepared a table entitled Income-based Assisted Housing In Rockville. As there is always much discussion as to which neighborhoods have the most affordable housing, the information sheds light on the issue.

The chart contains information about the existing and planned housing in Rockville. Across the City a total of 2,262 units (of all types) currently exist.

Here a breakdown of the totals by Planning Areas, listed from areas with the least to the most:

Existing Number of Units

16 West End/Woodley G. E
42 Twinbrook Station
76 Southlawn
105 Lincoln Park
190 Hungerfor/Lynfield
204 Fallsgrove
344 Rockville Pike
377 King Farm
520 Town Center

388 City Wide (Housing Choice Vouchers and Rockville Housing Enterprise Scattered Sites)

Units In The Pipeline

86 Victory Court Senior Housing (# depends on financing)
106 Upper Rock
121 Town Center (KSI,Duball)
213 Twinbrook Station (units not formerly in a Planning Area yet)

The details of all the totals and types of housing can be found on the chart, however a description of Town Center Area might be helpful since it contains the most units.

Existing Town Center Units include:
166 Moderately Priced Dwelling Units including the Town Center Phase I development
225 HUD Assisted Project units including Bethany and Heritage Houses for the Elderly
60 Mixed Income Rental Units including Beall’s Grant
69 Housing Choice Vouchers which can be used for any rental unit within a specific price range.

Mayor And Council Reject APFO Change; Eye Changes To Historic Designation Rules

Rockville Mayor and Council At Work

On a 3-2 vote at last night’s meeting of the Rockville Mayor and Council, Our Fair City’s governing body rejected a proposed text amendment to the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance that would have exempted affordable housing from having to meet the infrastructure criteria.

The amendment was proposed as a way to make it easier to build affordable housing in general, but specifically to make it possible to move forward with the controversial Beall’s Grant II affordable housing project that had been struck down by the Maryland Court of Special Appeals. In its ruling, the Court had suggested in a footnote that Rockville may wish to revise its APFO.

Councilmember Piotr Gajewski had proposed the amendment, and stressed in his presentation supporting it that a “yes” vote on the proposal would not change the law right away, but would begin a process of discussion. The next steps would have been for City staff to prepare changes and then for it to go to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. “The amendment I propose may not be perfect,” he said. “It may be too broad. There may be ways that we can tweak it.”

Councilmember John Britton joined Gajewski in supporting the amendment, also observing that a “yes” vote would “begin a process.”

However, in a straw vote called by Mayor Phyllis Marcuccio before Gajewski’s introduction, it was clear that the measure lacked a majority.

Councilmember Bridget Newton said she would not support the amendment, saying that “the Planning Commission is where this should happen. This [looking at changes to the APFO] is a great subject that has gotten hijacked.” Councilmember Mark Pierzchala said he would not support the amendment because changes to the APFO because he, too, would “rather see this all rolled up into a Planning Commission review,” and that he had a problem with the definition of “affordable housing” in the proposal. Mayor Marcuccio said she would not support the amendment, as it “flies in the face of the APFO that exists [to create exceptions for certain types of building]. We also know that the Planning Commission is appointing a subcommittee to explore the APFO, and I think it’s premature to put . . . this burden on [them] as they do their work.”

Earlier in the evening, at Citizen’s Forum, twenty five citizens spoke against the proposed measure, with six speaking in favor. Messages on the PTA email listservs of both Julius West and Beall Elementary had been sent drawing attention to the issue and the evening’s meeting. Objections raised by citizens centered around school overcrowding in Rockville, with most speakers pointing out that Beall Elementary School is at 138% capacity (714 students enrolled with a capacity of 518), resulting in a range of problems including unnoticed bullying during free periods, lunches shortened from 30 down to 20 minutes, and difficulties just getting students in and out of the school. Beall is not alone, as one commenter noted that every school in the Richard Montgomery cluster was over capacity.

One speaker said he thought the school board’s statistician who made school enrollment projections “should be fired,” prompting Councilmember Pierzchala (a statistician) to respond that “anyone who in 2005 made any projections with any kind of economic component, got it wrong in 2010. There was an economic collapse in 2008, with lots of ramifications.”

Proponents of the measure said in their remarks that, when it comes to Beall’s Grant II, the stated concerns of people opposed to the development have shifted over time, and stressed the critical need in Rockville for affordable places for working people to live. One speaker said he “moved here because of a sense of fairness and welcoming,” and he wanted to see that continued.

Several citizens said that the issue pitted two good goals (affordable housing and maintaining quality schools) against one another, and that the decision was not an easy one.

One outcome of the meeting was that the Mayor and Council appear committed to working much more closely — and aggressively — with the Montgomery County Public Schools as well as with the County itself, in an effort to find a solution to apparently chronic overcrowding and inadequate enrollment projections. Two brand-new schools, Richard Montgomery High School and College Gardens Elementary School, are already over capacity.

Historic Designation Changes Possible

In other news from last night’s meeting, a joint worksession between the Mayor and Council and the Historic District Commission focused in part on issues with how properties get designated as “historic” when the owner is not seeking such a designation. Councilmembers and the Mayor held differing views on the amount of deference to give property owners in such a situation, and asked City staff to develop options for how to more fully take into account those wishes in cases of involuntary designation.

There was, however, consensus around at least two issues. First, the Mayor and Council thought it a good idea to streamline the current process so that they only review designations once they have already gone through the Historical District Commission and the Planning Commission. (Currently, they see the issue before it goes to those bodies and then again afterwards.)

The second item of clear agreement was that the Mayor and Council ought to strongly consider designating Glenview Mansion as historic — it surprised all present that it was not already.

Editorial Opinion by Cindy Cotte Griffiths: Board of Appeals Brought To Court

Originally, back in March 2010, the Rockville City Council voted to instruct the City Attorney not to represent the Board of Appeals when they were petitioned by 15 members of the community for a court review concerning their decision to approve a Special Exemption for Victory Court, an 86-unit affordable senior housing development planned for property owned by Montgomery County on Fleet Street. (For the record: Phyllis Marcuccio, Bridget Newton and Piotr Gajewski voted against representing the volunteer Board while John Britton and Mark Pierzchala voted to allow the salaried City Attorney to represent the Board.)

Obviously as the Chair of one of our City’s Commissions, I was tremendously concerned about how these volunteers were treated. Roy Deitchman, a member of the Board of Appeals for seven years resigned over the matter. At the time, I could only put myself in the Board’s shoes and imagine being left alone to defend my Commission against this group in court.

In April when Montgomery County assigned an attorney to respond to the Petition for Judicial Review, the Mayor and Council reversed their decision in a 4-1 vote with Bridget Newton continuing to oppose the representation. The minutes from the April 12, 2010 meeting state “Councilmember Newton said she did feel the Board’s decision was flawed and would vote to not go forward with the City’s response.”

The members of the Board of Appeals dedicate many hours of service without compensation. I strongly believe the City they serve should represent them. One of the City Attorney’s duties is to “Defend challenges to decisions/actions of the Mayor and Council, Boards and Commissions, and staff.” The majority of our elected officials eventually did the right thing.

Yesterday I went to Judge Greenberg’s Circuit Courtroom to see what would happen with this Petition brought by Alice Lui and 14 others. Mayor Phyllis Marcuccio and Councilmember Bridget Newton were in attendance along with Alice Liu and Noreen Bryan.

The City Attorney was present to represent the City of Rockville. Montgomery County, the owner of the property, and Victory Housing, the developer, both had attorneys present. The Board of Appeals was represented by Alan Sternstein a member of the Board of Appeals, who pointed out that he was not being compensated.

Judge Greenberg held the hearing to a one-hour time limit and explained he had read all the documents submitted. Since the attorney representing Montgomery County decided not to speak, this left 15 minutes for each of the other attorneys. Obviously what was heard in the courtroom was not the full argument on either side. I’m sure someone with a legal background could find fault with my descriptions since the words spoken quickly in a limited time period might not have been as accurate as all the many stacks of evidence in this matter. Regardless, I am going to attempt to portray what occurred in the courtroom because this issue is important to our City.

The attorney, Mr. Chen, representing the petitioners in this matter attempted to list issues, reusing numbers in his description. He stated that the deciding agency did not render defining reasons and there was an absence of evidence. He was also concerned about how the amended decision evolved, which he believed was eligible for review. He also stated that the Board of Appeals was required by State Code 66B to go over and above anything in our City’s Zoning Ordinance to make sure that a special exemption would not adversely affect the health of the neighborhood. A development cannot change the character of a neighborhood. He also stated that the “neighborhood” was not properly defined. Notices were sent to everyone in a ¼ mile radius of the property but the Board of Appeals never legally defined the area in their decision. There is also concern about what is planned in the 59-foot buffer area especially the parking. When he mentioned that the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Rockville stated affordable housing must be scattered-site, the Judge asked about whether this was a recommendation rather than a requirement. He responded that the State Statute 66B requires it to be “complied with” so scattered means scattered. Using the ¼ mile radius area, it is overly impacted by affordable housing. The Board of Appeals did not address this situation. Another issue mentioned was that adequate accessibility to public transportation, medical services, shopping and recreational/community services had to be determined since the proposed housing would serve people with disabilities. The petitioners believe there was no attempt to do so by Victory Housing other than to say all of these existed “in Rockville”.

Personally, I do not discriminate on the basis of income. Having neighbors (who might not make as much money as the people living in the townhouses of Courthouse Square or the single-family houses on South Washington and Argyle Street) living in apartments does not lower housing values or adversely affect our neighborhood. To believe otherwise is discrimination. I say this with my house being less than a block from the Victory Court site and a stone’s throw from those bringing this petition. Also, the Victory Court location is across the street from City Hall, a few blocks from Town Square and the Metro, with bus stops and sidewalks surrounding it. I love my neighborhood because it is so close to everything, an excellent location for all of the amenities mentioned.

Now, let me review the responses from the other attorneys.

The City’s Attorney indicated that she had fully responded in writing. Ms. Daniel used her time to explain that the concerns over the “flat roof” were unjustified. Throughout the body of the Board’s original decision, a flat roof was mentioned three times, which she detailed. Clearly the intention was to approve a flat roof. About the concern that the amendment signed by all three Board members after the January hearing should have required an additional meeting, she stated the document evidenced what occurred in the January hearing and did not require another hearing since it simply corrected the decision. There is nothing in the law requiring a new hearing. Even if the Court found an error, there would still not need to be a hearing. She stated that the only reason everyone was in Court was because these neighbors were not happy with the decision. As to the area used for this case, other legal cases have clarified that it need not be “strictly defined in any way”. She explained that no one was confused as to the area used in this case. The petitioners never raised the issue and said, “Hey, I don’t know what neighborhood you are talking about.” The City and neighborhood all had the same area in mind when the development was discussed.

When representing the Board of Appeals, Mr. Sternstein stated that to contend that there was some other design other than a flat roof was inconsistent since it was always very clear it was a flat roof. When the 39-foot roof was specified to comply with City’s Zoning, it actually gave the developer even less leeway because it could be higher. He pointed out that Ms. Liu testified that the 39-foot height was moving the project in the right direction and Ms. Bryan stated it went a long way to fit into the neighborhood. He added that their attorney stated the Board was in fact responsive. No harm to the petitioners’ properties was ever defined. He also wanted comment about the photos provided by the petitioners showing a balloon raised to the height of the building. A citizen demonstrated to him exactly how the photo had been cropped and manipulated. He had actually been present when the balloon was raised so he urged the Court to be careful.

The attorney for Victory Housing, Mr. Kline, addressed the issue that “the case before you is the absence of evidence”. He believed the evidence in this appeal was the most he had ever seen. Everybody had a chance to put into the record everything they had to say. These hearings occurred on four Saturdays and lasted all day, one even from 9:30 AM until 5:30 PM. There is a substantial body of evidence. It’s all in the record and the questions were all asked. With so much evidence, it puts it in the “fairly debatable category” but a decision had to be made by the Board. He defended the use of a 59-foot buffer which is landscaped. The City Staff determined it was adequate. With evidence on both sides, the presumption goes to the Board of Appeals. When you get into the issues, the petitioners have “no basis for them.” In Maryland a Board can correct a decision without a public hearing and there was no change from what was stated in the public hearing.

The attorney for the petitioners spoke again in response, stating that if facts were discussed after the January hearing and before the Board issued their corrected decision, then there should have been another hearing. Even if his petitioners benefitted from the clarification that the roof was to be 39-feet high, they had a right to know what was going on. He said they need to see what is in the Board’s emails to make sure the decision was exclusive to the Board of Appeals and that there were no emails sent by City Staff or the developer.

Judge Greenberg ended by stating “Thank you very much for this well-briefed case.” Then he said it wouldn’t be very long until he gave his written opinion.

This is my first time attending a court case and attempting to describe it to our readers. Obviously, this housing project for seniors is in my neighborhood and I have a special interest because I volunteer on one of our City’s Commissions. I strongly believe we all volunteer to make our City a better place. I hope this incident does not deter others from coming forward to serve. 

Appeals Court Overturns Beall’s Grant II Use Permit [UPDATED]

On Wednesday, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland reversed an earlier circuit court ruling that had upheld the City of Rockville Planning Commission’s August 29, 2008 granting of a use permit for the Beall’s Grant II affordable housing development to Montgomery Housing Partnership, Inc., the developers of the property. The project is essentially stopped. [UPDATE: Corrected date. Thank you Larry Giammo for pointing this out.]

In an unambiguous decision in John Anselmo, et al. v. Mayor and City Council Rockville, et al. (pdf link), the Court held that the City had not properly followed the requirements of its own Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) and Adequate Public Facilities Standards (APFS).

Beall's Grant II Use Permit Revoked

Specifically, the Court found that City staff had relied exclusively on school capacity and enrollment figures from Montgomery County Public Schools, but that the APFO required it to take into account other data and do further analysis. Just relying on MCPS data made it appear that the development would not cause enough crowding in Beall Elementary to stop the project. Taking into account the further data pushed the enrollment number over the threshold. “[The staff report in this case," reads the decision, "on the issue of the proposed development on Beall Elementary School, particularly school demand, is wholly deficient and relied upon an incorrect standard."

This resulted in the Planning Commission issuing a decision (granting the use permit) that the Court found flawed. "[T]he Planning Commission simply incorporated the Staff’s inadequate ‘findings’ by reference, and made no independent assessment on the record of the Staff’s analysis,” according to the Court.

In its arguments, the City had evidently contended that it was unreasonable to take those further steps, but the Court decided that, “Although the [City] may very well be correct that it makes little or no common sense to follow the plain language of the APFS and perform the required analysis . . . we did not write the City’s ordinance. . . . [T]he methodology used by the Planning Commission in this case contravenes the express language of the APFO and the APFS enacted by the City. For this reason alone, the decision must be reversed.”

This was not the only issue with which the Court found fault, but it was pivotal. Read the full decision here (pdf) to get a sense of the full context.

Reactions

Former mayor Larry Giammo, one of the plaintiffs and the author of the original APFO, said:

While I am pleased with the outcome of the case, it is extremely disappointing that for the last two years the city government refused to entertain the possibility that they made a serious mistake, despite repeated attempts by me, John Hall and others to highlight the problem.

The cost to the community as a result of the city government’s incapability and arrogance is significant. Consider the tens of thousands of dollars of legal costs incurred by both the appellants and the city government, MHP’s considerable costs to develop and modify its plans several times, the hundreds of hours of time put in by community members at neighborhood meetings and in negotiating with MHP, the discord in the community across the last two years — all of this would have been avoided had the city government simply applied the law correctly from the outset.

Most concerning for me is the city government’s attitude and lack of commitment to follow its own laws. Ultimately, a city government that cares not whether it follows its own law cannot stand.

Councilmember Mark Pierzchala said:

The Appeals Court gave a no-nonsense, clear victory to the appellants. It sends a strong message to the City about how it should be applying its own laws. It is unfortunate that the compromise Bealls Grant II plan, that was arrived at with great effort by the neighborhood and MHP, can no longer go forward, all because of a projected handful of children.

The decision puts the school capacity issue back into the hands of Mayor and Council. For example, that elected body can decide whether to revise the APFO and/or the APFS (the ordinance and/or the numeric standards). In my opinion, we should anyway take a formal vote on whether to re-open the APFO/APFS, not for the Bealls Grant II issue in particular, but on broad policy grounds for the City as a whole. But given current school crowding, I doubt that any change Mayor and Council would make would materially affect the prospects for this project.

I find it valuable that this went to court. The decision has a clarity to it for City Staff, the Planning Commission, and Mayor and Council itself, that never would have come about otherwise.

Finally, the original (larger) plan had one flaw in it in my estimation. It was too big especially its massing. The compromise took it down, considerably improved its look, and improved the parking access. But I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; the project was intended for law-abiding people who work. The residents would have added to the neighborhood and the building would have provided low-wage earners with badly needed housing.

I’m wondering what MHP will do now that the property is useless to their mission. Sell it? The zoning ordinance does allow a large building to go there.

Councilmember Piotr Gajewski said:

The question that the Council will need to grapple with is whether we are satisfied with a law that has the net effect of putting an indefinite moratorium on building family housing in much of Rockville. This, especially in the context where neither the City, nor the owners of developable property (in this one case, the charity: Montgomery Housing Partnership), have any way to cure the moratorium, as neither has any direct influence on Montgomery County Public Schools, school construction.

I urge Rockville residents to get in touch with me at [email protected] and express their views on this issue. I am sure this will also be a hot discussion topic at my next quarterly Townhall Meeting, soon to be scheduled for November.

Prospects For The Future

In order to move forward, the project would need to go before the Planning Commission again, and the Commission would need to perform the analysis required by the APFO and APFS in the way it is specified. While a petition for review is possible, that review would be at the discretion of the Court.

As Councilmember Pierzchala points out, it is unclear what MHP will want to do with its property.

As Councilmember Pierzchala and Gajewski’s comments illustrate, the Court’s ruling raises the question in some people’s minds as to whether the APFO needs to be revisited. In fact, the Court raises this explicitly in a footnote:

“The City is free to re-write its APFO . . ., should it so desire, to better reflect its policy goals regarding the impact of the development on the public schools. We, however, cannot re-write a municipal ordinance simply because the City would prefer a different outcome in this or some other case.”

Such a move to revisit the APFO is likely to face opposition. In an email sent to the Stop Beall’s Grant II group, the leaders of that organization wrote: “With the ink barely dry on this Appeals Court ruling, some members of the City Council and City Staff are already scheming to rewrite the APFO to circumvent the school limits. In the meantime, all the dire predictions the citizens warned about Beall Elementary School have come true and worse. . . . Few City officials seem to care. Why would anyone with an interest in serving the citizens of Rockville seek to weaken the APFO now?”

Affordable Housing Wait List Now Open Through 6/24

Editor >Cindy Cotte Griffiths posted an article about this earlier in the month, but sometimes such things get lost in the shuffle. We wanted to remind you that:

Rockville Housing Enterprises (RHE), the City’s independent public housing agency, will accept applications for the Public Housing waitlist for affordable three-and-four-bedroom units from Tuesday, June 22, through Thursday, June 24, 2010.

The last time the Public Housing wait list opened was in July 2009. Whenever RHE doesn’t have enough applicants to fill anticipated public housing vacancies, RHE opens the wait list. Generally, this occurs every two to three years. There is also a separate Housing Choice Voucher wait list but it will not be open at this time. Housing Choice Vouchers can be used to rent units from private landlords while the Public Housing waitlist is for specific units.

For the full rundown, see the original article here.

Since there is just one more day, we’d appreciate it if you passed the word.

Affordable Housing Waitlist To Open June 22-24

>Rockville Housing Enterprises (RHE), the City’s independent public housing agency, will accept applications for the Public Housing waitlist for affordable three-and-four-bedroom units from Tuesday, June 22, through Thursday, June 24, 2010.

The last time the Public Housing wait list opened was in July 2009. Whenever RHE doesn’t have enough applicants to fill anticipated public housing vacancies, RHE opens the wait list. Generally, this occurs every two to three years. There is also a separate Housing Choice Voucher wait list but it will not be open at this time. Housing Choice Vouchers can be used to rent units from private landlords while the Public Housing waitlist is for specific units.

The program includes 105 units at locations throughout the City. This housing is located at David Scull Courts, First Street in Rockville (76 units) and at various single-family sites throughout Rockville (29 units). The Public Housing Program is supported by assistance from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and from tenant rents.

Applications must be submitted through the RHE website but the application is not available until June 22nd. If an applicant needs assistance, they can go to the RHE offices at 621 A Southlawn Lane between 8:30 AM and noon on June 22, 23, and 24.

When an applicant gets to the top of the wait list and RHE knows a unit will be available in the next month or two, RHE sets up an application interview. Documentation related to household income and composition will then be required along with criminal and other screening information, to determine eligibility. Eligible applicants are then scheduled for the next available Public Housing unit.

Tenant rent for the program is determined by formula (approximately 30 percent of household income) or is a flat rent set at market value. The resident household chooses whether to pay the formula rent or flat rent. RHE has established $50 as the minimum rent regardless of income.

Here are the Income limits for the program . For more information contact RHE at [email protected] or 301-424-6265.

Victory Housing Withdraws Financing Letter Request

As many >Rockville Central readers know, there is an ongoing effort to develop an affordable senior housing project in the Town Center area. It is being proposed by Victory Housing, Inc., and has been the subject of some controversy. This post links to most of the relevant article here.

On Monday, the developers went before the Mayor and Council requesting a letter of support from Rockville, which they need in order to complete their financing application, which relies on state tax credits. The Mayor and Council decided to hold off on any action until their next meeting, February 8.

Here are the basics from the Gazette’s recap of that meeting:

Developers of an affordable senior housing project slated for construction in Rockville asked the City Council on Monday to back its bid for State Tax Credit funding, but the city chose to wait until next week to make a decision.

Victory Housing Inc., the development branch of the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, asked the council to send a letter to the state saying it supports Victory Court, a proposed four-level apartment building bounded by Maryland Avenue and Monroe and Fleet streets.

After several council members and city residents raised questions about the application process and how the public was notified of the funding mechanism, the council chose to wait until its Feb. 8 meeting to consider sending the letter.

Today, Victory Housing has formally withdrawn its request for the letter of support. They did so in a three-page letter that details their efforts at community involvement and input to date.

Click the image below to read the full letter:

(The withdrawal comes in the last paragraph of the letter.)

Reader Note by Roald Schrack: Update On MHP Meeting

>The Montgomery Housing Partnership held a meeting on Wednesday night to inform the community about the status of the Beall’s Grant II proposed affordable housing development. Neither Cindy Cotte Griffiths nor I were able to attend, but Rockville central reader Roald Schrack sent along the following report:

Report on Oct 14, 2009 Meeting help by Montgomery Housing Partnership

This meeting was held to inform the community of the coming application by MHP to Rockville for certification for the revised form of Beall’s Grant II. Since the original application was rejected, MHP has worked with the community, specifically the West End Citizen’s Association to make Beall’s Grant II acceptable in size and appearance. The original level of 109 apartment units has been reduced to 74. The original height has been reduced from 4 stories to 2 ½ on Beall Ave and 3 stories on North Washington. An floor of parking garage has been removed. The appearance on Beall has been modified to make the building look like separate townhouses, including separate entrances on Beall. Although the new design does not supply the number of parking spaces required, MHP believes they will be given a variance on the parking space requirements under a new zoning law.

The real conflict still exists though because WECA wants MHP to sign a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) covering all the points of discussion between WECA and MHP during the last several months. MHP does not want to sign the agreement while it is still under litigation ( having to do with the impact of children of residents of BGII on Beall Elementary School). BUT MHP will want the Mayor and Council to sign a letter of support for BGII before they sign the MOA so they can get a funding agreement from the state This problem will be faced by the newly elected M&C sometime in December or January. From the comments of WECA representatives at this meeting it looks like Rockville is in for continuing disagreements in the search for affordable housing in the city.

Roald Schrack

If you would like to contribute a Reader Note or other piece of writing, please send submissons to [email protected]. The more community voices, the better Rockville Central will be. Please remember that the views of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the editors.

MHP Purchases Apartment Community in Twinbrook

>

On September 24, 2009, Montgomery Housing Partnership (MHP) purchased Halpine Hamlet, a 67-unit garden apartment community on Twinbrook Parkway (and across the street from Rockville city limits). MHP paid $5.9 million to the Slavin family of Bethesda and received financing from the M&T Bank, The Housing Partnership Network, NeighborWorks Capital and MHP equity.

With the planned development of the 2.2 million square foot Twinbrook Station, MHP was concerned that housing prices in this area would increase and force many low-and-moderate-income families out of the market. MHP will now be able to keep this affordable housing within walking distance of the Metro and retail stores.

In their press release, MHP describes their plans for the renovation of the buildings:

MHP is planning a two phase renovation. Phase 1 will begin in October with The Michael Group Contractors replacing 50% of the HVAC units with energy efficient units and replacing the roofs on all buildings. These improvements are expected to be completed in two to three months. The Montgomery County Department of Housing and Community Affairs is providing financing for this work.

Phase 2 renovations, which are anticipated to begin in 2011, will include new kitchens and baths, new windows and doors, and the balance of the HVAC units will be replaced. MHP will integrate many of Enterprise’s Green Communities Criteria into Halpine Hamlet’s buildings including energy efficient appliances and lighting to reduce electricity consumption, energy efficient windows and doors to reduce energy loss, low-flow toilets and plumbing fixtures to reduce water consumption, environmentally friendly paints and floor coverings, and landscaping with native plants.

In Rockville, MHP, a private nonprofit housing development organization, already owns Beall’s Grant on North Washington Street and has been planning a second building on the site amidst protest from some in the neighborhood. When I worked for them 17 years ago, we were concerned about preserving existing affordable apartment communities, so this is welcome news on the east side of Rockville.

MHP: Beall's Grant II Project Delayed

As >Rockville Central readers know, one issue that has been on the minds of many is Beall’s Grant II, a proposed affordable housing development on Beall Avenue. This project is in large part contingent on the developer, Montgomery Housing Partnership, receiving tax credits from the state to guarantee funding. These credits require a letter from the City in support of the development, and so some in the community have been anticipating a contentious Mayor and Council session when they need to make the decision on whether to issue such a letter or not.

Now we have received a note by MHP chief Rob Goldman, indicating that the project is on hold for now due to state budget issues:

For the past several weeks, MHP has been in conversation with State and County housing leaders about Beall’s Grant II. Unfortunately, these difficult economic times have directly affected this project. While the need for affordable housing is increasing, the tax credits that help finance it is even less available than usual. As a result of advice from these housing officials, MHP has decided to postpone its submission to the State for funding and will therefore not be seeking a letter from the Mayor and Council at this time. There is likely to be more funding available in the Spring of 2010. MHP plans to submit its plans for Beall’s Grant at that time. In the intervening months, we will continue our work on the amended plan with the Rockville Planning Commission and will be holding another neighborhood outreach meeting.

Planning Commission To Consider Victory Housing Wednesday

As many Rockville Central readers know, an affordable senior housing community named >Victory Court has been proposed for the property bordered by Maryland Avenue, Fleet Street, and Monroe Street. The owner, Montgomery County Department of Housing and Community Affairs, requires a Special Exception to be approved by the Planning Commission in order for Victory Housing, Inc. to build the 86-unit community.

The Planning Commission will consider the issue at their Wednesday, August 12, 2009 meeting at 7 PM in the Mayor and Council Chambers in City Hall. Rockville residents may speak to the Commission at this meeting.

The City of Rockville Planning Division Staff recommend the approval of the application for the Special Exemption subject to certain conditions, which you can read here. All the exhibits for the Planning Commission meeting are available on the City’s website.

As part of Rockville’s new zoning process, Victory Housing has held public meetings with the residents and responded with changes to their design. Some controversy involving the development has been expressed. I have previously described the first meeting with the public and the current design.

If you have any questions before the meeting, you can contact Mr. Cas Chasten at the City’s Community Planning and Development Services Department at 240-314-8223.

Rockville Housing Enterprises Waiting List To Open This Week

>[NOTE: We are getting traffic from searches looking for current information. If you are looking for information for 2010, see this post.]

Our friends at Rockville Housing Enterprises have let us know that the waiting list for 3- and 4-bedroom public housing units will be opening this week from 8:30 am on July28 until 5:00 pm July 30.

The full notice can be found here. You can apply in-person, online, or by mail.

Rockville Housing Enterprises owns and operates 105 public housing units in Rockville, at David Scull Courts, First Street and at various single-family sites throughout the city. Through a nonprofit subsidiary, RELP ONE, LLP, it also owns and operates 56 units of low housing tax credit housing in scattered sites primarily in King Farm and Fallsgrove.

Thanks, friends at RHE, for this important work that makes Rockville a more welcoming place to live.