Parents Coalition has learned that the “swap’ property is still owned by Pulte, the land developer of the proposed subdivision. While the property is owned by Pulte, the title change could occur as late as two years after the subdivision plan has been approved; or within a month or two from now. Grading and site preparation for the new residential construction has already begun, however, no actual construction can occur until the plats are recorded.
Regarding the actual MCPS/M-NCPPC (Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission) swap, both parties are meeting now to work out the terms and conditions. According to Parks staff, MCPS has agreed to pay for the demolition of the existing school building; M-NCPPC also expects MCPS to pay for demolition of the extra parking lot areas, which M-NCPPC will not want on the public park. However, they now plan to retain the existing ball fields, which Parks would want in a public park. The exchange would be ‘like for like’ including MCPS adding appropriate topsoil and seed mixture on the proposed swap property; and MCPS would be required to remove all of the demolished material. That is, MCPS would not be allowed to demolish, leave the debris, and bulldoze over it to use as subsurface of the park property. All the demolished material would be removed.
A stream buffer will be in place and of course MCPS cannot do anything within the stream buffer.
Once the terms and conditions are worked out, Parks staff will bring them to the Planning Board for discussion and approval or changes or denial. The terms and conditions must also be approved by the entire M-NCPPC, not just our county Planning Board.
While the terms and conditions meetings are now taking place at the staff level, I am curious as to whether anyone in the neighborhood has been attending these meetings. These meetings of course are open to anyone; anyone can attend. Have you attended? Comments here please!
Our invite must have been lost in the mail.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure Mr. Song will say that was already "in the budget" as he did at the joint meeting on the 3rd of January. This was despite repeated questioning by those in attendance and the fact that it, well, isn't in the budget. (See pages 23 and 24 of the released Feasibility Study.)
ReplyDeleteAnonymous@11:19 AM, you are the taxpayer and the employer of everyone at MCPS and everyone at the Park Dep't. Don't wait for an invitation. Call the planner in charge of this project and tell him/her you are planning to go to these meetings and ask, where will they be held and what time will they be. Don't wait for an invitation.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous@11:51 AM, when I spoke to Park staff I asked if Parks would require that MCPS put the demolition and debris removal and site repair money Into an escrow account so we could be sure they will fulfill those requirements. I was told that Parks is not planning to ask MCPS to have an escrow account as part of the 'terms and conditions,' as Parks assumes MCPS will do it. This seems like something that the neighbors might be interested in, as well as the members of the Planning Board and the entire M-NCPPC. Please update us here if you do push for that. Thanks. This is up to the Planning Board. Have you spoken to them?
ReplyDeleteActually, the parents are very interested in ensuring that the existing school is demolished when the new school opens. We don't want a vacant building there any more than the neighbors do. Are such escrow accounts used between govt departments? If not, the demolition appropriation could be made directly from the Council to Parks, bypassing MCPS completely.
ReplyDeleteThe "appropriation" to Parks would mean it would come out of the Parks budget. There's no extra money floating around. MCPS would love for the money to come from the Parks budget. That's the same as MCPS not demolishing the building.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 7:10 PM, Park and Planning do not have any money. Staff there had a one-week furlough in December. Similarly, then other county departments are hurting badly. MCPS will be required to pay for demolition of the building and parking areas as well as the soil amendments to make sure the new park is 'like for like.' Council does not have the money and I am not sure if they have the authority to do a deal as you are suggesting. The money has to come from the existing MCPS budget. MCPS is a quasi-independent agency. It is not a county agency. Money should not come from other county agencies to pay for something MCPS needs.
ReplyDeleteThe building will come down as promised, just like the proposed swap parcel was to be preserved "in perpetuity"...
ReplyDeleteVacant building? Right. It would either be a Parks Administration building or a holding facility.
There will be a new administration by then, all of today's promises might as well be thrown out the door.
Has anyone at MCPS had the foresight to ask why Parks is so willing to do this deal?
ReplyDeleteMCPS is getting taking to the cleaners. They put the "swap" out as an option before it was close to being vetted and now they are too far along to do what actually makes sense for fear of reprisal from the parents.
They are getting a school site:
- Without direct access to Batchellors Forest (Without an additional entrance it doesn't allow for the required separation of bus and parent traffic and the "proposed" bus entrance is unsafe based upon site distance.)
- That has 6 acres less usable acres than called for in their own policy (20 acres vs 14.2 (17.1, less the 2.9 of Forest Conservation already in place for the Batchellors Forest Subdivision)
- With grading issues and retaining walls
- Based on a budget that already has major holes in it before the first shovel hits the ground
- Based on a timeline that continues to move and which they have no control over.
Enough already!
Go back to the Board and tell them you are scrapping the swap and will be doing the on-site renovation while the existing building is in operation and without busing to Tilden (Option 3).
Granted, this option appeared to be more expensive at the time of the Feasibility Study. But, given that MCPS would now be required to demo the existing school and provide additional site work, the grading issues and the legal issues that have popped up, an updated budget would surely show this to be the more cost effective alternative.
The BOE controls the land and therefore controls the timeline. A previously developed site is a known entity with very limited development risk. (MCPS has soils reports on this property. The statement made, by Mr. Song, during the 1/3/12 meeting that the tests on the existing site (developed) versus on the "swap" parcel (undeveloped) would be the same were irresponsible.)
Not sure who the loser is in this scenario?
- The new school would be pushed back from the road and appease the residents of Batchellors Forest.
- The parents and the kids don't have the fear of busing.
- The BOE owns the property and could work off of a known timeline.
- The MCPS facility staff would be working with a previously developed site and wouldn't have nearly the same level of budgetary risk as new development.
- Parks receives the property they were supposed to receive in the first place.
- Old Vic extended will be constructed and handle the bus traffic as it was designed to do.
- The Master Plan and Rustic Roads guidelines are upheld.
If the budgets were to be updated, there is a 100% chance that Option 3 would be the most cost effective option.
Let's start spending the taxpayers money on a solution that can be achieved and appeases all stakeholders.
Don't forget these bullets for the scenario above:
ReplyDelete- Turns Farquhar into an active construction site for 3 years, not 2 as currently planned
- Creates construction noise 20 feet away from existing classrooms for 3 years, and puts students in danger at an active construction site that can't be separated from the school.
- Farquhar sports fields are lost for community use for 3 years, versus none for the land-swap
- No outdoor activities for Farquhar students for 3 years.
- The new Park doesn't even get started for 10 more years.
This is clearly not beneficial for the community.
The land-swap site is consistent with MCPS policy for middle schools - because it will have Park facilities next door that the school and the community can use. The Olney Master Plan supports this.
The timeline for construction will be fine as well. Pulte is starting construction imminently, so plat recordation and transfer of land to M-NCPPC shouldn't take much longer.
Rustic Road guidelines are upheld - as no new curb cuts will be created. The road will have a park and a school anyway, so Rustic Road considerations are moot here.
10 months of meetings and community input have led to the land-swap recommendation by the BoE and now the Parks Department. This has not been done in a vacuum.
10 months of the parents and MCPS meeting in a vacuum would be a more accurate representation.
ReplyDeleteAs to the curb cuts, did you miss the meeting on the 3rd? MCPS most definitely showed a curb cut onto Batchellors Forest for the bus traffic. (I'm sure you can review the video tape.) I'm sure this was based on the requirement 2.1.A.1.
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/construction/publications/PDF/FacGuide/Book2/VOL2/DIV2/MCPS%20Civil%20Site%20Design%20Guidelines.pdf
Once again, they are making a site concession to appease and address a two or three year concern versus designing the right site and building for the 25 years.
It's just a movement of an existing curb cut. The Farquhar land-swap will bring no increase in curb cuts on the road. How is that a problem? The approved site plan to the north adds two new curb cuts on BFR - and I'm sure the 70 new homes on the Polinger property will put a few more. This is another non-issue that's trying to be puffed into a showstopper.
ReplyDeleteOther than the location of that cut being unsafe...Buses stacking to make the right onto Old Vic and not visible from the crest of the hill.
ReplyDeleteThanks for all the interesting and helpful discussion. Are any of you anons going to the 'terms and conditions' meetings? Any updates? Please post.
ReplyDeleteI know that residents had concerns about the suitability of the soil and Mr.Song promised they would test it in short order. Has anyone heard anything about these since? I haven't noticed any equipment on-site when I drive by in the morning.
ReplyDelete