Sandy Spring-Ashton Rural Preservation Consortium

The SSARPC (PreserveAshton.net)

supports development in Sandy Spring and Ashton that conforms to the Master Plan.

We are pro-Master Plan, not anti-development.

Background and Process

Nichols Development, LLC, has proposed to build a large school and office building, called the Thomas Building, on the west (Olney) side of the Sandy Spring Bank in downtown Sandy Spring, on Route 108, adjacent to the “insurance complex” of buildings, and across from the Sandy Spring Post Office (see map and annotated site plan).   The proposal includes a franchise of the Goddard School, a day care for young children, from 6 weeks through 6 years, as well as before and after school services for school-age children.  The day care, along with a small retail store, would be housed on the ground floor and there would be commercial offices on one or two floors above the school.  The total floor space would be 40,837 square feet.  The proposal also includes a two level parking garage (302 spaces) behind the building.  More information about the proposal can be found on the SSARPC web site.

The first part of the planning process is a Development Plan Amendment, proposing that the new use be allowed on the site.  The process includes a hearing before the Planning Board, which forwards its recommendation to a County Hearing Examiner, who also holds a public hearing.  The Hearing Examiner in turn forwards his recommendation to the County Council for its consideration. 

Planning Board Hearing Summary

The first part of the Development Plan Amendment process, the hearing before the Planning Board, took place on November 13.  The Planning Board, concerned about the massiveness of the proposed building, voted 4-1 to recommend to the County Hearing Examiner that the building not exceed 35,000 square feet of floor space, be not more than 30 feet high, and be two and one-half stories, by design.  Commissioner John Robinson said that, during the site plan review, the floor space would probably be limited to between 30,000 and 35,000 square feet.  This represents a 15 to 25 percent decrease compared to the applicant’s proposal. 

The Planning Board will forward its recommendation to the County Hearing Examiner, who will hold another public hearing on November 21 (see below for more information) and make a further recommendation to the County Council.

If you would like to listen to the Planning Board hearing, the sound recording is available online (three very large files).  The Thomas Building Hearing starts at about 11 minutes into the first file and ends a few minutes into the third file.)

Planning Board Hearing Presentations and Discussions

The hearing began by a presentation by Elsabett Tesfaye, Park and Planning Planner-Coordinator, summarizing the findings of the Planning Staff’s review of the plan.  The staff recommendation was:

“Approval of the Proposed Schematic Plan Amendment DPA 08-2, for the following reasons:

1. The schematic development plan amendment is in substantial compliance with the 1998 Sandy Spring/Ashton Master Plan and conforms to the Master Plan’s land use, zoning and transportation recommendations.
2. The schematic development plan amendment is consistent with the purpose of the O-M Zone.
3. The schematic development plan amendment is consistent with the development standards of the more restrictive C-T zone and the standards and regulations of the Sandy Spring Rural Village Overlay.
4. The schematic development plan is appropriate for the location and proposes a development that will be compatible with existing and future land uses in the surrounding area.”

The complete report is available online.

The applicant, Nichols Development, LLC, presented its schematic plan, including pictures of the buildings in the local vicinity.  The Goddard School would occupy 12,000 square feet on the first floor.  At the east end of the school, on the first floor, there would also be an approximately 1,700 square-foot retail store.  Above the school would be offices, some consisting of two stories above the school (thus resulting in a three story building) and another area with one story above the school.  The total floor space would be 40,837 square feet.  There would be a two-level parking garage, with the underground level under all the buildings, under the ground level parking, and under play space for the school.  Parts of the lower level would show above ground, more in some areas than others, due to the grade on the land.  The total number of parking spaces would be 302, including six motorcycle spaces.  The Schematic Development Plan is available online.  

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. 

The Planning Board members then deliberated.  Chairman Hanson said that, if this proposal were for an urban area, it very likely would be approved, but that it doesn’t fit into rural Sandy Spring.  The members were concerned about the massiveness of the structure and felt that, if that problem were resolved, then a number of other problems might also be resolved.  The Planning Board voted 4-1 to recommend to the County Hearing Examiner that the building not exceed 35,000 square feet of floor space (as opposed to 40,837 square feet in the application), be not more than 30 feet high, and be two and one-half stories, by design.  Commissioner John Robinson said that, during the site plan review, the floor space would probably be limited to between 30,000 and 35,000 square feet.

The next day, the Planning Board sent a letter of transmittal forwarding the Development Plan Amendment to the County Hearing Examiner.

County Hearing

The County hearing, will be held on Friday, November 21, 9:30 AM, at the

Office of Zoning and Administrative Hearings

Stella B. Werner Council Office Building

100 Maryland Avenue, Room 200

Rockville, MD 20850

Phone:  240-777-6660

Email:  ozah@montgomerycountymd.gov

Citizens may testify; there is no requirement to sign up in advance except for someone who is representing a group or is represented by counsel.  The hearing examiner will recommend approval or disapproval of the Development Plan Amendment to the County Council, taking into consideration the recommendations from the Planning Board, the Planning Staff report, the presentation from the applicant, and testimony from citizens.  If the Development Plan Amendment is approved by the County Council, then the applicant will be free to submit a Preliminary Plan and a Site Plan to the Planning Board for approval (as is done for other new developments).