AMP does not conform to master plan

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

For more of your opinions, go to www.gazette.net/letters.

Five letters

The Sandy Spring Ashton Rural Preservation Consortium has gone to great lengths to work with the developers of the so-called Ashton Meeting Place to influence the proposed design of the project.

These efforts have been given short shrift by the developers who are bent on proceeding with their plan, in spite of the fact that the proposed development does not conform to the master plan for this region and is in violation of the mixed use zoning restrictions.

We do not wish to stifle development in this area, but to drive a stake in the ground that says to the developers that business as usual will be opposed at every turn. There are many alternatives to the developer’s plans that meet with community approval. Let’s work together for a safe and sane intersection that will really preserve our village.

Richard L. Coffman, Ashton

What is going to happen to the Route 108 and New Hampshire Avenue intersection?

To educate the community, the AMP developer held an open house and, at another meeting, SSARPC gave a presentation. I attended both events.

At the AMP open house, people walked around, talked to people one-on-one, and looked at drawings. In contrast, SSARPC’s presentation included history of the issues, information from SSARPC’s lawyer, a slide slow of a possible plan for the area by architect Stuart Sirota, a summary of what citizens can do, and a very active Q&A session.

SSARPC’s plan, developed by architect Sirota with input from SSARPC, is the type of plan I would like to see. I want a ‘‘town of Ashton,” not more suburban sprawl. AMP’s plan is stark, uninviting, and very tall. The long back of the grocery store (brick wall with fake windows) along Route 108 is cold. The ideas presented by Sirota were welcoming, friendly and with a community feeling.

The development, most likely the first on the four corners, can be an inviting, town area. Please, AMP developers, consider alternatives that most people in the community will find more to their liking.

Jennifer Fajman, Ashton

Compromise was the clear message repeated by the SSARPC’s June 22 community meeting. The evening was cordial, thought-provoking and clearly showcased the sincere determination of this group to work toward a compromise plan with the developers and investors of Ashton Meeting Place.

SSARPC’s expert planner Stu Sirota’s featured presentation of ‘‘one of many alternative plans for a village center featuring a more rural style which brings together all four quadrants rather than separating them by a highway” sounded very appealing. Improving traffic safety, reducing congestion and improving walkability all seemed to be possible in the big picture SSARPC is encouraging us to visualize.

More importantly, the audience was asked to consider Ashton crossroads as a whole entity. Development on the AMP site will set a precedent for all future redevelopment at this intersection as well as in historic Sandy Spring. The SSARPC alternative plan made it seem possible to hold onto our past was we face the future.

Linda Delaney, Brookeville

It was heartening to see such a strong turnout at PreserveAshton’s recent meeting concerning the future of the Ashton intersection at Routes 108 and 650. The number of people combined with the beautiful and historic setting at the Sandy Spring Meeting House created the atmosphere of a genuine town meeting.

As a former member of the Citizen Advisory Committee for the Sandy Spring Ashton Master Plan, I was particularly interested in the legal concerns presented by lawyer David Brown. The latest plan for the proposed development, which has been submitted to the Park and Planning Board has a long way to go before it complies with the requirements of the current master plan and the Rural Village Overlay Zone.

Ellen Hartge, Brookeville

I live at the edge of Rockville and Olney, just off of Muncaster Mill Road. I drive through Sandy Spring and Ashton quite often, and patronize the businesses in the area that is being examined for development.

I’ve read the coverage in The Gazette and noted the pro and con signs along the road. I recently attended the meeting held by the SSARPC- PreserveAshton.net group. It was a well-run, thoughtful presentation.

The importance of bringing alternative visions to the attention of the general public, residents and the developer was underscored by the historical site of the meeting, which was held in the historical Sandy Spring Friends Meeting House. As a citizen, I hope that the SSARPC can influence the Montgomery County Planning Board and the developer to proceed with a careful decision making process. And I hope that there is a future for this very interesting community with a sense of history.

I appreciate and share the frustration of everyone who works and travels the roads in this region. However, I also value what was referred to as ‘‘a sense of place,” and the aesthetics of development where a community retains an identity that people appreciate, and is an inviting destination.

The buildings along Route 108 in the Sandy Spring-Ashton corridor are of a scale that is inviting and the area retains a sense of uniqueness that is lacking in nearby Olney, Cloverly and the suburban region in general. It would be a shame to erase the history of the area in question by allowing development to define the community, rather then stipulating that development follow the Sandy Spring-Ashton Master Plan. This document is a directive to development to promote the scale and style of a ‘‘Main Street,” with shops that open to the street, rather then to allow shopping centers where buildings sit behind 20-foot walls, and other walled fortresses that barricade people and the street.

The Underground Railroad ran through here. Several citizens have erected their own private museums to preserve history. The Sandy Spring Museum sits on Route 108. The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission recently spent $1 million to purchase Uncle Tom’s Cabin in Rockville. History has value. It is unconscionable that developers and their investors are permitted to wipe out a historical area, rather then work to bring improvements that emphasize what is special about the community.

There is a lot of pride in the identity of this community. The citizens who make up the SSARPC group should be applauded for acting responsibly by presenting alternative ideas to public forums, and imploring the Planning Board to require development along the Sandy Spring- Ashton corridor to follow the vision laid out in the Sandy Spring-Ashton Master Plan.

I am appalled that the developer refuses to have a meaningful dialogue with the citizens’ group. Thus far, the developers’ design changes, such as lowering the peak of a tower some 10 feet are empty gestures when you consider that the proposal is to erect a 20-foot high wall (the back of a supermarket), that will effectively be a visual barricade for travelers along Route 108.

Communities all over the country are facing similar problems. An article in the Wall Street Journal recently focused on a community in the Carolinas that has done a successful job of controlling development pertinent to a thriving main street and town center.

Donald Trump developers, et al, who have traditionally focused on urban regions are looking to invest in small towns and regions that will net a higher profit. Trump wants to drop a high-rise luxury condominium into a beautiful, small, but upscale town. The developers can’t understand why the community is against them.

Laurel Chiat, Rockville