Meeting
minutes of Citizens Advisory Board Meeting on September 9, 2003
As reviewed, approved, and accepted by the
Citizens Advisory Board
on October 14 , 2003
CITIZENS
ADVISORY BOARD COMMITTEE
3RD
MEETING
SEPTEMBER
9, 2003
The meeting was opened at
7:30 pm. Dubby Barber, Leah Cecere,
Brendan Deyo, Francis Hewitt, Margaret Pollock, Pete Stadler, Merritt Techter,
Kim Tucker, Eric Wenger, and Tom Wilkinson were present. Dubby moved that the Minutes of the 2nd
Meeting on August 12, 2003 be accepted and Tom seconded; the Minutes were
adopted unanimously. Gina Eckenrode and
Dave Preusch arrived late.
Route 108 By-Pass
The meeting began where the
last one ended, with a discussion of a Route 108 by-pass. It is clear that the amount of traffic
through the middle of town is of major concern to this committee, as well as to
many residents in town. There was
strong feeling that we stand in jeopardy of losing the character of town if we
don’t do something. Leah pointed out
the twin realities of more houses coming to Laytonsville vicinity and the small
roads within Laytonsville.
Eric pointed out that what
happens in Olney will impact us, especially since the Draft of the Olney Master
Plan shows Route 108 north of Olney as a 4-lane divided highway up to the
Laytonsville town limits. This raises
the alarming question for us of what happens to all the traffic. At this point, a by-pass as far away as
possible from existing homes seems to be the best way to relieve the situation.
Historically, some sort of
western by-pass has been on various planning books for a long time. Our 1989 Master Plan shows a proposed
by-pass completely within town limits, leaving the path of the present Route
108 close to the Fire Station, heading northwest, swinging just west of the
Historic Zone, then heading northeast, joining the existing Route 108 at the
northern apex of town. The 1992
Montgomery County Plan of Highways shows a shorter by-pass, but one further
east, leaving the current Route 108 near the Fire Station, curving up through
the middle of the Natelli property, going between the Prasher/Eckenrode and
Wilkinson homes, crossing Brink Road, going between the Ruspi and White homes,
then curving back towards Route 108 north of town. The problem with this option is that the county has no
jurisdiction within the town. At our
last meeting, David and Tom suggested three possible routes for a by-pass. Route A is similar to the 1989 Master Plan
proposal, having been changed a bit at the suggestion of the state because it’s
too close to the pond behind the Jones House.
Routes B and C are further south and west, running along a ridge before
crossing Brink and heading west then north of the Jones Historic Home. A problem with both of these is the fact
that the northwest portions of both routes are outside the Town Limits. Route B runs too close to the historic Jones
House. The committee agreed that Option
C looks best right now, but that this option necessitates doing something about
the Jones property, possibly working with the county to assure future alignment
of the southwest and northwest segments of a future by-pass or looking into
annexing part of the Jones property so that all the wished-for by-pass is
inside the town limits. Either way, an
easement for any by-pass route needs to be set aside prior to any more
development, in order words, now!
Tom explained his
understanding of the situation of the Jones property; Gina provided a plat of
the property. Most of the Jones
property is under the jurisdiction of Montgomery County, and is zoned
agricultural; 25 acres are within the town limits. In the County portion, nine lots have been approved for building,
set to start any time. That leaves
undeveloped 25 acres in the county and 25 acres in town. The developer, Elm Street, has put the
development of a tenth lot within the county on hold. Additionally, Elm Street would like to develop the 25 acres
inside Laytonsville, which have yet to be placed under R-3 zoning. There are a number of issues that have to be
addressed before proceeding. The Jones
house is an historic house surrounded by 25 acres; these 25 acres are fixed by
the County Historical Society. There
are wetlands on the undeveloped area.
Well and septic systems need to be addressed for each home. And then there’s the by-pass. The ultimate solution will most likely
involve negotiation among the Historical Commission, Elm Street Developers,
Laytonsville, and the County Permitting Agency.
For now, the individual
parties are going their own ways. There
was some feeling that John Clark, of Elm Street Developers, is moving ahead
with his plans, and has gone the Park and Planning in an effort to change the
boundaries around the Jones House. It
was rumored that this cannot be done because the existing boundaries were drawn
by a Historical Society rule that was passed by the County Council. There was some thought that were a buyer to
be found for the historic property and were this buyer to be open to the wishes
of the town with regard to a by-pass, it would become a happy solution for both
Elm Street Developers and Laytonsville.
There was also the thought that possibly the 25 undeveloped acres
outside of town could be annexed. Elm
Street Developers might have a problem building on the county property as it is
now, because there have been some problems with perc tests on these 25 acres;
Elm Street may be willing to consider annexation, with the expectation that
these 25 acres could also be zoned R-3.
However, once a property is annexed, there is a 5 year wait prior to any
re-zone, so this property would have to stay agricultural for 5 years; this
seems there may be no immediate benefit to the developers for us to annex those
25 acres. Regardless, it may be
worthwhile to explore this option with John Clark to see if a win-win situation
can be found.
Since there is no clear
solution at this time for a western by-pass, the question then turned to an
eastern by-pass. A proposed
southeastern segment appears in the Land Use Map of the 1989 Comprehensive
Plan. The route of this is between the
Stadler Nursery and the Wenger property.
There is no northeastern segment because the route of the once-proposed
northwest segment goes through wetlands and is entirely in the county. Brendan pointed out that wetlands will put a
total stop to a road, unless there can be an agreeable swap-out.
Any solution to the problem
of traffic through Laytonsville will ultimately end up out of our hands, since
Route 108 is a state road. Dave
suggested that we try to mobilize the county.
A necessary step is to keep the by-pass in our Master Plan. By correlating our Master Plan with those of
Olney, Damascus, and the County, our concern about traffic will become
obvious. A traffic survey will provide
more information. Merritt says that one
was done 10-15 years ago, by a developer who has since gone bankrupt. A current traffic study would help. Further concern was expressed that the
county has been allowing construction up to the northwest of us. Since this development is worsening our already
bad traffic situation, the county should contribute to the solution. We need to go to the county with all of our
ammunition.
Vision Statement
Having exhausted the
previous topic, we addressed developing a vision of and for Laytonsville. Page 9 of the 1989 Comprehensive Plan is
about “Goals and Objectives,” which are physical and tangible. A vision is more intangible. Brendan presented a statement:
“A vision is a guiding image of success formed in terms of
a contribution to society. If a
strategic plan is the “blueprint” for an organization’s work, then the vision
is the “artist’s rendering” of the achievement of that plan. It is a description in words that conjures
up a similar picture for each member of the group of the destination of the
group’s work together.”
Brendan then went on to
offer the following as a preliminary vision statement:
“Laytonsville is
a family oriented residential community, with the feel of the county, whose
residents have pride in and respect their town, heritage, government, neighbor,
and environment.”
The 1997 Revision (second
page after the Table of Contents) of the Comprehensive Plan did indeed address
visions, as dictated by the Code of Maryland.
They include concentration of development, protection of sensitive
areas, etc. Our committee seemed to be
searching for the uniqueness of Laytonsville.
Historically, Laytonsville was a crossroads, and the Mobley Family
introduced a spirit of commerce into town.
It was suggested that Brendan’s statement include something about small
commercial enterprises being in town.
Margaret wishfully brought up the by-pass again, commenting that with a
by-pass, the center of town would be more peaceful.
Then it was commented that
in Laytonsville,
“we remember the
past, honor it in historical places, but are still developing as a residential
community.”
Water and Septic
On September 4, Kim and Gina
visited Harry Sandburg at the Department of Permitting Services in Rockville to
learn more about on-site well and septic limitations on development. They briefly presented a summary of their
visit. They learned that we are subject
to standards requiring 3 well sites, and a minimum area for septic of 10,000 sq
ft. Given appropriate contours for
locating these systems, this may allow
2-3 bedroom ramblers, maybe 20 ft x 40 ft to be built on a 35,000 sq ft
lot; porches, decks, and pools simply will not fit. Kim and Gina also stopped by the Department of Environmental
Protection and talked with Alan Soukup to learn more about the process for WSSC
bringing water to Laytonsville. There
is a lot of interest in having representatives from both departments visit one
of our meetings, possibly in November, December or January. Gina presented a print-out from the WSSC web
site; the Laytonsville Project Description is “water extensions to serve 60
proposed houses” on the Fulks Property.
There was no mention of bringing water to houses already here in the
Southeast quadrant of town. Eric felt
that this needed to be looked into.
Eric wrapped up discussion
at the meeting telling us that he feels we need to refocus. Assignments to be achieved for the next
meeting are to:
1) contact the
County about the Jones property, including the Historical Committee and Parks
& Planning – Tom
2) find out about
the statement in the WSSC web site.
Our next meeting will be on
Tuesday, October 14, 2003. The meeting
was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Virginia Eckenrode
Secretary
October