ezStorage Preliminary Plan Hearing Results
“…if the people had
applied the law, we
would not be looking
at the historic
significance of this
very area.
The law is
the law. But what we
know about this area
is that people chose
to look and say ‘no,
this law [slavery]
is wrong’.”
Commissioner
Jean Cryor, January
8, 2009
The ezStorage
Preliminary Plan
hearing was held
before the Planning
Board on January 8.
The purpose of the
hearing was to
determine if the
current ezStorage
Preliminary Plan is
consistent with the
zoning laws for
Sandy Spring.
The Site Plan
process (which
follows the
Preliminary Plan
approval) determines
the compatibility of
the then current
plan to the
Sandy Spring/Ashton
Master Plan and
the
Rural Village
Overlay Zone.
The final vote on
the Preliminary Plan
was three to two in
support of the staff
recommendation for
approval.
The vote
indicates only that
the law says that a
storage facility can
be built in the
designated area.
The vote is
based on the zoning
laws, not the
important
discussions that
occurred during the
deliberations.
Sound recordings
of the five parts of
the hearing are
available.
The community, both
Sandy Spring and
Ashton, came forward
with many reasons to
oppose the
Preliminary Plan.
There are
35 letters in
opposition on our
web site (the County
may have received
more), with no
letters received by
us in favor of the
development.
There were 21
people in the
community who gave
testimony opposing
the proposal and
none in favor.
Some
represented groups,
such as SSARPC, the
Sandy Spring Civic
Association, the
Auburn Village Home
Owners Association
and the Bentley Road
Civic Association.
As
written testimony
is collected it will
be added to our web
site.
If you have
testimony to submit,
please send it to
feedback@ssarpc.org.
Miche Booz,
Architect and
Painter, said you “…
can’t have a village
without an edge,
reduced density and
forestation, a green
edge…
[the current]
procession of
increasing density
into the town, sets
a good rhythm of
residential
construction and
development. …
The Rural
Legacy Trail is part
of this area, and it
is meant to be the
place where people
experience the
Underground
Railroad.
The gateway
site is not just for
cars but for
tourists as well.
And the first
thing that tourists
would see is the
rear part of the
building. …
It will
destroy the entrance
to Sandy Spring.”
As the Planning Board commissioners’ comments show,
they listened
carefully to the
testimony (see
partial transcripts
at the end of this
article).
For example,
Commissioner Cryor
said “Everyone
sitting at this
table and in this
room knows that this
is inappropriate and
wrong for this
particular area.”
Chairman
Hanson had a very
difficult time
breaking the tie and
voting for passage
of the Preliminary
Plan: “I
think that this is
just an awful
proposal…. I am
going to vote for
the motion.
I do it with
the most
extraordinary
reluctance.
I do it
because I think that
it is necessary, in
this case, to
separate the
approval of the
subdivision and the
use from the
standards of
development that
will apply at site
plan.”
The comments by the applicant’s lawyer, C. Robert
Dalrymple, Partner,
Linowes and Blocher
LLP, were:
“While I don’t agree with the testimony we just heard,
I do respect the
civil nature in
which it was given
and its obvious
passionate testimony
and I think that the
community has done
an admirable job of
stating their
position. …
In all due respect,
all of the testimony
you have heard today
is not relevant to
your consideration
to the matter and
all we asking you to
do is to apply the
law.”
Sound
recordings of the
applicant’s initial
presentation and the
applicant’s rebuttal
of the citizen
testimonies are
available
here.
The
following is a
transcript of some
of the comments made
by the commissioners
during the
deliberations.
A sound
recording of the
entire
commissioner’s
deliberations 22
minutes) is
available
here.
Commissioner John
Robinson:
“…the
Preliminary Plan,
all we are doing is
approving the use.
… Scale is a
matter for the site
plan.”
“If I
were here for the
site plan came in,
based on what I have
seen so far, you
wouldn’t have a
chance.
You wouldn’t
have a chance for
three reasons.
First of all
it’s not pedestrian
oriented, it doesn’t
provide windows in
the site of
architectural design
that we were
concerned about when
we did the Ashton
Meeting Place
project, and it’s
way too massive. …
If I vote yes on the
use, I want the
community to
understand clearly
from my point of
view I am voting
only on the use. … I
consider the design
and the scale to be
unacceptable.”
Commissioner Joe
Alfandre:
Sandy Spring and Ashton is
holding on by a
thread …
It’s getting
chewed up bite by
bite … this was a
heartache for me 20
years ago … and it’s
a heartache for me
again today, because
we haven’t done much
to solve the
underlying problem
…
it’s all of
our faults … partly
a fault of plans
that are not
specific enough and
expectations that
may come with those
plans, … continuing
fault of developers
and their lack of
outreach, which
creates a threat to
the community and a
lack of trust, which
is what you
demonstrated today.
….The
original landowners
in Ashton/Sandy
Spring that kinda
got out of line,
which is the truth.
More
collaboration - that
is what we should
do. …
C2 [zoning]
is C2 … and it is a
dull dull weapon
that we have……”
“I certainly don’t want to vote
in favor of a
Preliminary Plan
with a building mass
on it, if we have to
do that and are
stuck with that
scale of building, I
can’t vote for that.
...”
“So we
are not tied to the
mass, the size of
that building.
I am going to
be here at site
plan. … I don’t know
what we can do yet
but it certainly
isn’t going to be to
approve this.”
More About the
Preliminary Plan
Hearing
More ezStorage News
ezStorage Documents
More News |
