MVF Board Votes Against Residents – Again.

This evening the MVF Board of Directors voted 7-1 to approve the “Concept Plan” for development of the Montgomery Village Golf Course. 

They voted despite hearing from 33 speakers during resident’s time, with 26 (78%) against the project and 7 in favor.  Despite hearing from several real estate agents that live in the village call this plan bad for all of the Village's existing home owners.  Despite hearing about the need for the upcoming master plan process to consider all development options in the village.  Despite hearing that putting homes on the green space instead of the village Center will limit development options for WRIT on the Village Center property, possibly encouraging big-box retail like Walmart instead.  Despite hearing that the increased traffic would add pressure for widening area roads and building other highway projects.  Despite hearing about canceled realty purchase contracts and lowered prices already happening because of this plan.  Despite hearing from a resident that moved here from Bethesda because of the open green space.  Despite a call from the Patton Ridge HC to reduce the size of the project by about 50% to preserve the property investments of the abutting home owners and community.   Despite hearing about the need to execute their responsibilities to protect the community's property values and potential legal covenant issues involved with any fairway development.   Despite hearing that the planned density would bring an estimate of 2,500 to 3,500 more car trips onto Montgomery Village Ave and Watkins Mill Road each day.

What swayed the board?  Speakers in favor of the project spoke about the benefits of a new dog park, the fact that the plan was well designed, that the development team was so friendly, that the new homes would look great, that the golf course was getting so shabby, and that the project was exciting and would bring new vitality to the village.  Maybe the 20 minute presentation on the project by the developer, Monument Realty, swayed the board as well.   They even unveiled a new plan that would reduce the project scope from 550 down to about 370 to 400 residential units by adding 70 more townhomes and getting rid of the large multi-unit building, which was the only part of the project that was strongly supported by the Vision-2030 process.  Apparently that swap was a reaction to the Thomas Choice Condo Association inputs on traffic, although it seems odd that instead of removing the roadway, parking lot, and 34 townhouses directly behind the Thomas Choice and Maryland Place neighborhoods the developer instead removed 180 residential units across the street.  The developer once again spent most of the presentation time showing views of the 80 acres of parks they plan to create on the property, although the fact that 80 acres of the property is unbuildable wetlands and ponds leaves them with little choice and this part of the sales-job only seemed to insult and irritate the audience.

When the board discussed the plans, several board members asked good questions about the proposed development, whether the multi-family building was going to be apartments or condos, what would happen if the resolution was sent back to committee, what the value of a concept plan was, and how the issues of governance would be resolved.  The answers all seemed to revolve around moving forward with this plan, instead of negotiating changes now from strength and with leverage.  Despite strongly advocating for the project, Mr. Young pointed out that the vote was only for approval of the concept plan, and had nothing to do with changes to the community’s Town Sector Zoning, and that the board would never have full community support for its actions anyway.  Mr. Hydorn discussed the sad plight of a development in Prince Georges County where a golf course closed, and how the Monument Realty team was much more friendly and cooperative than previous development partners proposed by Mr. Doser.

None of the board members discussed why they felt it necessary to support this concept for the development, about 370 units sprawled out all over the fairways, that would enrich the developer at the direct expense of 440 existing residents that live on the fairways and who paid premium home prices for those locations.  None of the board members discussed the option to put 350 units on the “Area 1” part of the property and preserve the home values of the 440 surrounding properties.  None of the board members discussed the impact of a $20,000 price drop on 440 homes, which is about $8M, or why those residents should all face that loss now when the MVF Board might have purchased the property 2 years ago for about $1.9M and sold development rights immediately for Area 1 at a profit while preserving the open spaces and property values.  None of the board members discussed the benefits of having a 140 acre park instead of an 80 acre park, or how clustering the development on Area-1 of the property provided a smarter concept plan.  None of the board members talked about the fairness in asking 440 residences to give up their views and peace, despite collecting user fees from those homeowners for years to support the new pools, lakes, and green spaces in the other parts of the community, all of which "lose money" each year. 

The impression of MVF’s cooperation was confirmed after the meeting when one of the development company employees commented offhand that it had been an easy meeting and a "win".  Maybe as a part of the new "discussion" process the developer will take the opportunity to digest what it was told last night and develop a plan that most residents actually support.  It would probably save  everyone 2 years of time if they did. 

The board’s vote authorized the MVF EVP, Mr. Humpton, to draft a letter to the Montgomery County Council that expresses support for the developer’s plans.  That may make the developers feel positive about their project, but does little to help move it forward since the first step needed to build more than 110 apartments is a county council action to amend the Town Sector Zoning density cap of 15.0 people per acre.  Since the board did not discuss the Town Sector Zone last night (which would have been hard given the inadequate public notice about such a significant discussion), that may have to wait for another letter from the EVP after another stormy public meeting.  Perhaps the MVF Board will listen to resident inputs more carefully next time.  We’ll see.