Question: If the land that the Board of Education wants to swap for the new Farquhar Middle School is never transferred to M-NCPPC (Parks Department), what would be the name of the middle school that the Board wants to build on that land?
On March 1, 2012, the Montgomery County Planning Board's new Agenda Item #14 was a Reconsideration Request and Item #3 was the Site Plan concerning the parcel of land that the Board of Education wants to swap for the new Farquhar Middle School.
Below is a memo for the March 1st discussion from the Planning Board's attorney, Carol Rubin.
According to the documents in the Planning Board's packet, the land in question is owned by the developer and the developer will grant an easement or covenant to M-NCPPC* that the land be Rural Open Space in perpetuity.
Nowhere does it say in the packet that this land will ever be deeded in fee simple to the Parks Department. Hard for the Parks department to swap what they don't own, isn't it?
03012012 Planning Board
*Updated March 3, 2012
This is exactly what the proponents of the Rural Open Space and other opponents of the swap have been saying since the day the suggestion was first made in May of last year to pursue this option. The rationale has been laid out in great detail as part of the opposition to the feasibilty study, as part of the appeal the State Board of Education and as part of the recent zoning approvals.
ReplyDeleteThis property was never going to be owned by MNCPPC and, even if it was, a covenant is to be placed on it that would prevent any further development not already contemplated by the Site Plan approvals.
The ownership issue was brought directly to Mr. Barclay's attention as part of the Feasibilty discussion at the BOE on 9/13/11. Staff was misinformed as to who had title at that time and a decision was made based upon bad information.
When Dr. Starr found out about the error and wrote a letter of correction to the BOE on 9/16/11. He made two interesting comments in that letter. First, he stated that "After the approval of the plats, the title of the land will officially transfer to MNCPPC.". Even if he believed that to be true in September, I don't know how he could say it today after listening to Thursday's Planning Board discussion. Second, he stated "The design process will commence once MNCPPC makes its decision on this matter.". That was a wise statement given the complex land use issues at hand, to bad it doesn't appear he listened to his own advice.
On 11/8/11, by Action 5.2.1, the BOE engaged Hord Coplan Macht to continue design work to the tune of $1,700,000.
On 2/4/12, by Action 4.2.13, the BOE approved a contract for pre-construction services with Dustin Construction in the amount of $115,000.
The dollar amounts above don't even take into consideration the original HCM contract or the 100's, if not 1000's, of staff hours spent pursuing an option that was doomed the day it started.
It is time to stop this wild goose chase and focus on either the on-site construction of a new facility while the existing school remains operational or maybe look at a short delay in the modernization schedule which would allow for the utilization of the to be reopened Broome Holding Facility.
Please recall that the Board's resolution, which supported the swap, also established the fall back position that if the swap was not a viable alternative that the modernization should move forward assuming the use of Tilden as a Holding Facility.
If the goal of the PTAs is to prevent the bus ride to Bethesda, then maybe it is time to refocus their efforts on those options that might actually provide a solution to their problem. Given the status of the swap, and the fall back position of the BOE resolution, any further effort as it relates to the proposed swap might actually be to the detriment of their original objectives.
Well, "proponents of the rural open space" covers a LOT of people - as the parents certainly have no desire to get rid of any. The land-swap actually increases the rural open space - turning the old Farquhar site into the new park - more specifically, an "active recreation park" that the Olney Master Plan calls for.
ReplyDeleteThe opposition to the land swap started with visceral reactions - not unexpectedly. Batchellors Forest residents love their road, with good reason. As local residents learned more about the land swap, many of their concerns were laid to rest. There would be no new curb cuts (just a moving of the existing ones), Old Vic blvd would remain as planned, there would be no building left on the old Farquhar site (despite what some told the Rustic Roads Advisory Committee) and on and on.
The real opposition here is the Hyde family - who don't want a school next to their new development, er, I mean "family homestead." They've spent gobs and gobs of money on a $4000 a day lawyer to oppose a great idea for the community, simply because it doesn't enrich them. It won't affect their property values a bit, but they want empty land next door in perpetuity paid for by someone else.
"Rural Open Space advocates?" The Hydes only advocate for this when it's on property that they can't turn a profit on. They tried to cram 50 houses on their remaining property after selling half of it to Good Counsel High School. 50 houses on 50 acres in the RNC zone? How? By "transferring density" from land that they just put a 1200 person high school on. It sounds ridiculous, but they made sure to retain all residential development rights from the Good Counsel property in the deed. The Planning Board didn't allow such a scheme, but the Hydes tried and tried for years.
The real tragedy here is the amount of money and time MCPS and MNCPPC (meaning the public) and Pulte now have to spend on defending against the Hydes' nuisance appeals. It's sad in Montgomery County when a single well-heeled and lawyered family can delay a plan as good for the community as the land-swap.
@ Anon. Please explain how M-NCPPC can "swap" what they don't own? How did this "swap" idea get this far when M-NCPPC will not ever own this land? "Waste" would be that any taxpayer dollars were spent on a plan that can't legally be executed. If you have some insider information that explains how MCPS can build on Pulte property that is reserved as ROS, please explain. None of this was discussed by the Board of Education. They were told that M-NCPPC already owned the land.
Delete(And just a side note, $4,000 a day? Really? The Board of Education pays $5,000-$6,000 for their outside lawyer.)
The fix must be in. Why else would the Brooke Grove PTA have been in favor of the language?
ReplyDeleteIf this is really no big deal, why doesn't Pulte just dedicate the site for the school? Sure seems like that would make things easier.
ReplyDeleteThe land has an easement or covenant for Rural Open Space that goes to M-NCPPC as part of the subdivision approval. Pulte owns it, M-NCPPC has an easement or covenant. If you are interested in land use issues, then watch the Planning Board hearing where this was all discussed.
DeleteI'm still don't understand how this swap happens.
ReplyDeleteI was hoping the second commenter, or maybe someone from MCPS, would enlighten us.
http://www.montgomeryplanningboard.org/agenda/2012/documents/20120531_Records_Plats_Batchellors_REVISED_000.pdf
ReplyDeleteThe plat for the parcel was just approved this morning and references the above Deed of Dedication.
Furthermore, it limits any development to that already contemplated by the Site Plan.
And MCPS's reaction??? Well, they're going to hold another design meeting this evening for the swap parcel!!
And again, this is despite MCPS and the BOE being aware of the fact that MNCPPC did not own the parcel dating back to September of 2011 and Dr. Starr stating specifically that no design would commence until MNCPPC had made a final decision on the swap.
Who is overseeing this and letting it move forward? Is there no accountability for the series of misrepresentations on behalf of MCPS staff?
http://www.pulte.com/OLA/OLA.aspx?community=/communities/md/olney/batchellors-forest/AV_OLA
ReplyDeleteAs much as I think Pulte Middle School is a great name, seems like the marketing folks at Pulte don't agree.
Pull up their illustrative Site Plan from their website and Pulte Middle is replaced by a nice forested area, green space and the designation of Rural Open Space.
At least there is the public notice/sign on the property! Oh wait, it has never been posted and still shows the Pulte subdivision application number.
Future residents, or the existing residents for that matter, would have no way of knowing the school is proposed at the new location.