Glenn Dale
Citizens Association
3. Rex Hodgson, of community planning division, of MNCPPC. He will be leading the Lanham area sector revised master plan. Just here to say “hello”. We will be able to sit down with him. He is not the “area planner”. He will be on the team. The boundary for the planning area is not set. It presumably will not include East Glenn Dale, which was recently examined. Email: rex.hodgson@ppd.mncppc.org
Old Business.
1. Glenn Dale Commons. Detailed site plan passed the planning board, with inclusion of amendment that if townhouses are built before single family homes, the builder will provided a townhouse for recreation, at least temporarily. It will conform to the disabilities act. It would have an elevator so it would be accessible. (Recall that a few meetings ago, officials implied that the need to be ADA-compliant would lead them to oppose this additional facility.)
2. East Glenn Dale Sector plan appeal. There is an appeal to the circuit court, which has been stayed, concerning the Patell property.
We discussed whether to take a position. Henry said that there is nothing they will offer that would make the increased density worthwhile. Titus said that higher density on a strip of land between the railroad and a state highway makes more sense than developing land next to a stream valley, so if the owner would buy a few acres of developable land along a stream or purchase a nondevelopment easement from a farmer, then it could be good for the community. As a practical matter it is unnecessary for us to take a position because (a) we clearly do not support the increased density that the owner is seeking and (b) county is opposing it—and we would be assumed to be opposing it. Henry said that if we endorsed the up-zoning, it would probably be approved.
3. Zoglio Property (the little triangle opposite Frank’s nursery). Developer wants to impinge onto the stream. They would be taking down trees in wetlands. There is a protected area nearby. Their proposal is take down all trees and have nothing but a parking lot and a building. The general consensus was that we need to send some strong letters opposing what they are proposing to do. There appears to be a plan for purifying their runoff. It will look terrible. Owner had previously told Henry that this would be unbuildable, when owner was seeking existing building. Owner said this parcel was not developable. “The first thing we fought Chesley on was the proposal for a shopping center, which was first thing he ever lost.”
Henry will send everyone information on the addresses to whom letters need to be sent. Reference number 4-07-51. Motion to send letter carried without objection.
Adjourn 9:05 for Christmas cookies.