Thomas Building
Development Plan Amendment Hearings
continued, p. 3
After the applicant’s presentation,
eight people from the community
testified:
-
Michelle Layton and Miche Booz
presented for the SSARPC Steering
Committee:
-
Michelle Layton’s
presentation recommended
that the Planning Board not
approve the Development Plan
Amendment because of three
concerns:
(1)
the plan is not consistent with
the purpose clause of the Rural
Village Overlay Zone (i.e., the
buildings are too massive);
(2) the plan does not
comply with the Master Plan
(i.e., the structure does not
fit into a rural, small scale
area);
(3) the proposal is not
compatible with the existing
land uses around it (again
because of the massiveness of
the structures).
-
Miche Booz’s
presentation gave some
historical context for the area,
using pictures.
He also had a sketch
showing how a less massive
building could work on the site.
It would meet the
requirements of the school, but
have fewer offices and parking
spaces.
He also pointed out that
the proposed development would
be the first in the Sandy Spring
area in quite some time and thus
it would be very useful for the
Planning Board to support a
thorough design study of the
Sandy Spring area.
-
Alan Wright, who lives behind the
lot, testified about the large size
of the parking garage and the
negative impact it will have on the
houses that abut the garage.
-
Doug Farquhar talked about the
massiveness of the structure.
-
Jennifer Fajman discussed the
complete removal of the trees near
Norwood Road and referenced the
Master Plan, which calls for
retaining trees as development
occurs in rural areas, such as Sandy
Spring.
She also suggested that a
smaller building could allow for
keeping the trees.
Her
presentation is available
online.
-
Jim Castagna, President of the Sandy
Spring Village Homeowners
Association, a townhouse development
that abuts the lot to the west,
described the severe negative impact
that the proposed development,
especially the parking garage, would
have on the neighbors.
-
Barry Newton expressed concern about
increased traffic, especially since
there are already two schools
nearby.
He also pointed out that the
developer was adding office space to
the project in order to generate
revenue to pay for the necessary
underground parking garage.
More about the Development Plan
Amendment Hearings
More Thomas Building News
Thomas
Building Documents
|
