|
Becker Property Update
The original development plan for the 89-acre Becker property, proposed in 2003, contained 20 lots. Several days of testimony before then-Deputy Zoning Commissioner/Hearing Officer John Murphy resulted in
a March 12, 2004 order in which Mr. Murphy addressed many neighborhood and FRCA concerns about traffic safety and the environmental
impact of the proposal. His order asked for substantial re-design of the development
plan before he would reconsider approval. For more than a year there was little
action taken to modify the plan.
In October 2005, a representative from Gaylord Brooks, not the original developer, contacted FRCA to ask that we try
to work with them in designing an acceptable development proposal. Their modified plan proposed only 10 lots: one lot on Wally Court, eight lots on an extension of Ridgemont Road (off Broadway), and one lot containing
Mr. Becker’s home and 76 acres around it on Falls Road near Applecroft. For
nearly a year, FRCA and their environmental experts worked with the developers and their engineers, and representatives from
DEPRM, to design a storm water management system different from the one storm management pond originally proposed on the Ridgemont
Road portion of the plan.
According to the new plan, approved December 11, 2006 by Mr. Murphy, storm water will be dispersed by an environmentally
sensitive system of level spreaders, infiltration trenches, rooftop leaders and grass swales built on individual lots and
throughout the development. Shortening the street leading to the cul-de-sac and
allowing porous paving for the panhandle driveways is an improvement also designed to enhance storm water management in the
area.
No development is currently proposed on Lot 10, the 76 acres surrounding Mr. Becker’s home. However, 10 homes were proposed there on the 2003 plan. Because
neighborhood and FRCA concerns about traffic safety and the environmental impact of that portion of the development was the
subject of much testimony during the 2004 hearing officer’s hearing, and because Mr. Murphy addressed those concerns
in the 2004 order, future development of Lot 10 is subject to the findings of the original hearing and March 12, 2004 order,
as well as the December 11, 2006 ruling by Mr. Murphy.
Burns and Smyth Update
October 2005 - Here is the update on our fight against the proposed
Burns and Smyth developments along Padonia Road east of Falls Road:
Smyth
Here’s
an update on the Smyth development on the south side of Padonia Road, east of Falls Road:
As previously
discussed, The Court of Special Appeals dismissed our appeal without hearing its merits.
The Court ruled that the FRCA lacked standing to continue the appeal by itself, now that the three neighbors who had
been participating in the appeal with us, and who are themselves FRCA members, have dropped out.
We strongly
disagreed, and petitioned Maryland’s highest court,
the Court of Appeals, to review the standing ruling. The Court of Appeals recently
declined to review it, stating that review was not desirable or in the public interest.
We believe the question of community association standing in these situations presents an important issue of law and
public policy, and are disappointed that the Court did not agree.
So this case is now concluded. We lost not on the merits, but rather because
we lost standing when the neighbors dropped out of the case.
Burns
The FRCA and surrounding neighbors recently reached agreement with the Burns
developer on measures it would take before and while developing the property. These measures address the environmental
concerns (stormwater discharge & reforestation) we raised in our appeal of the County’s approval of the development.
The measures include:
• SWM improvements including increased capacity and sand filters
for infiltration, amounting to 1.6 times County requirements, plus additional shade trees (20 foot canopy going in) overhanging
the detention pond. Note that except for the additional shade trees, the improvements have already been registered with
the County as part of the Phase II approval process.
• 120 additional native deciduous shade trees,
at least 1" caliper. These trees have been distributed judiciously throughout the property - around the SWM to provide
additional shade, along the borders of the property, and in the interior of the property. The trees cannot be cut down
or otherwise removed without prior FRCA approval - and that's in the covenants, so it binds future lot owners as well.
• Inspections
and reports by an environmental engineer we will approve but the developer will pay for. The engineer will inspect the
SWM as it is built (at times weekly), plus the landscape plan and the overall construction.
• Covenants,
modeled after the Belmont Farms covenants but with significantly greater enforcement "teeth". The developer or his successors/assigns
(eventually, the lot owners) will pay our attorney fees and other costs for any action we bring in good faith to enforce the
covenants, win or lose. Other aspects of the covenants include limits on exterior lighting and mandatory extra tree
planting by lot owners.
The agreement we reached is a good one, and will ensure that the natural resources
surrounding the property are protected now and in the future.
Many thanks to all who have contributed money and effort towards these
important development oppositions. While the Burns opposition has successfully concluded and the Smyth opposition
has simply concluded – we continue to need and accept contributions.
|
