During the process of rewriting the Potomac Master Plan, a large chunk of land, actually four abutting parcels with four property owners, had its fate decided. That was two years ago.
Now some area residents are suing the Montgomery County Planning board over the way that decision was applied.
The area, which contains a globally rare geologic formation known as serpentine barrens (see sidebar), had four different property owners.
In a deal among these owners (Semmes, Tipton, Weihe and Piney Grove), development on the property is planned to be clustered in one area and the remainder and the barrens would be turned into a conservation park.
The Greenbriar project is made up of two developments, Greenbriar Preserve and The Estates of Greenbriar Preserve, each consisting of 31 detached, single-family houses.
One is being developed by the Michael T. Rose Land Company, the other by Greenbriar Investments.
By breaking the parcel into two, the developer does not meet the 35 unit threshold which would mandate including affordable housing in the project.
The site plan for the development was approved by the Planning Board on Oct. 18.
Under this type of zone, houses are placed on smaller lots and clustered together in order to preserve more open space.
The zone’s application becomes more difficult when it is being placed next to already existing houses, raising questions of compatibility with established lot sizes. Neighbors complain that the new lots are too small compared to theirs and detract from the character of their already established neighborhood.
The existing neighborhood lots are in a one-house-per-two-acre (80,000 square feet) zone. The perimeter lots in the new development are approximately 33,000 square feet.
The smallest lots, which are placed in the internal part of the development are about 11,000 square feet, while the largest placed in the areas abutting the existing property, are about 42,000 square feet.
The new houses are expected to cost between $1.5 million and $3 million.
A piece of property with cluster zoning will often place larger lots on perimeter properties which abut the existing houses, offering a buffer zone.
“We worked with the staff and the developers and some mitigation was provided,” said Steve Taylor, one of the residents in the suit.
That mitigation included a tree buffer and the construction of earthen berms.
But Taylor and his neighbors say that they haven’t actually gotten the proof that the agreed-upon mitigation will happen.
“What we got was a mixture of some paper and some verbal statements,” Taylor said. “We haven’t seen a site plan that reflects those changes.”
Park and Planning’s legal staff did not return The Almanac’s calls by presstime.
One of Taylor’s biggest complaints is timing.
“We were not provided copies of the signature documents until after the date our appeal was due,” he said.
“We are trying to further explore mitigation with the developers at this point,” Taylor said. If the developers and neighbors can reach an agreement, the suit may be dropped, Taylor said.
The suit came as a surprise to Harry Lerch, attorney for the developer.
“We understood we had satisfied the neighbor’s concerns,” Lerch said. “We hope to meet with them in the next week or so and we hope to resolve any remaining issues.”