Untitled - Montgomery County Planning Department

Transcription

or
war
d
ger
mant
ownF
Pl
anni
ngBoar
dDr
af
t
F
ebr
uar
y 2009
T
echni
cal
Appendi
ces
Technical Appendices
Sector Plan for the Germantown Employment Area:
An Amendment to the Germantown Master Plan
Source of copies:
The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
8787 Georgia Avenue
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910-3760
Online version:
Germantown Forward
http://mcparkandplanning.org/germantown/GermantownForward.shtm
montgomery county planning department
The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
Technical Appendices
Sector Plan for the Germantown Employment Area:
An Amendment to the Germantown Master Plan
Prepared by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
8787 Georgia Avenue
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910-3760
SECTOR PLAN FOR THE GERMANTOWN EMPLOYMENT AREA:
AN AMENDMENT TO THE GERMANTOWN MASTER PLAN
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1:
PLANNING FRAMEWORK .................................................................................................................................................................................. 3
APPENDIX 2:
GERMANTOWN PLANNING AREA DEMOGRAPHICS ......................................................................................................................................... 9
APPENDIX 3:
SCHOOL CAPACITY ANALYSIS ..........................................................................................................................................................................15
APPENDIX 4:
GERMANTOWN HOUSING REPORT.................................................................................................................................................................17
APPENDIX 5:
CHURCHILL TOWN SECTOR .............................................................................................................................................................................35
APPENDIX 6:
TOP 100 GERMANTOWN BUSINESSES (RANKED BY EMPLOYMENT)..............................................................................................................49
APPENDIX 7:
MAJOR RETAILERS IN GERMANTOWN (RANKED BY EMPLOYMENT) .............................................................................................................53
APPENDIX 8:
WATER AND SEWER CAPACITY .......................................................................................................................................................................55
APPENDIX 9:
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................................................57
APPENDIX 10:
CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES TABLE ................................................................................................................................................65
APPENDIX 11:
GERMANTOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES .........................................................................................................................................................69
APPENDIX 12:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION ELEMENTS .............................................................................................................................................................83
APPENDIX 13:
DENSITY DISTRIBUTION...................................................................................................................................................................................97
APPENDIX 14:
CONNECTIONS: TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................................99
APPENDIX 15:
STATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CORRIDOR CITIES TRANSITWAY (CCT) STATIONS........................................................................................113
APPENDIX 16:
BIKEWAYS......................................................................................................................................................................................................115
APPENDIX 17:
TRAIL CONNECTIONS ....................................................................................................................................................................................117
APPENDIX 18:
RECREATION NEEDS ......................................................................................................................................................................................119
APPENDIX 19:
PARKS AND OPEN SPACES.............................................................................................................................................................................121
APPENDIX 20:
GERMANTOWN AMENITY FUND PROJECTS..................................................................................................................................................129
APPENDIX 21:
PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ...........................................................................................................................................131
APPENDIX 22:
URBAN SERVICE DISTRICT LEGISLATION .......................................................................................................................................................135
APPENDIX 23:
TRANSIT MIXED-USE ZONE ...........................................................................................................................................................................161
GERMANTOWN EMPLOYMENT AREA SECTOR PLAN: AN AMENDMENT TO THE GERMANTOWN MASTER PLAN
PLANNING BOARD DRAFT – FEBRUARY 2009
TECHNICAL APPENDICES 1
APPENDIX 1:
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
From the Germantown Master Plan, 1989
The Germantown Planning Area is located in
residential transitions from the more densely
that Germantown develop into a ―new community‖
Montgomery County, Maryland, some 25 miles
developed corridors. Gaithersburg, Germantown,
similar to new communities such as Reston and
northwest of Washington, D.C., along Interstate
and Clarksburg are the three corridor cities
Columbia. Unlike these new communities,
Highway I-270. It contains approximately 11,000
designated by the General Plan along I-270.
however, Germantown could not be developed by
acres within a three-by-five mile area. This planning
Diagrammatically, a ―corridor city‖ as originally
a single developer, because the land ownership
area is bisected by I-270 and is bounded by Great
envisioned in the General Plan was to have a
was fragmented among many different parcel
and Little Seneca Creeks and their tributaries.
single center of employment and shopping
holders. To offset this problem, a new community
activities surrounded by residential development.
was proposed where the County government
The General Plan for Montgomery County, known
The residential area decreased from high-density,
would seek to coordinate the efforts of many
generally as ―On Wedges and Corridors,‖ was
adjacent to the core, to low-density, at the edge of
individual landowners to create as cohesive a
adopted by the Maryland-National Capital Park
the corridor city.
―new town‖ as could be achieved within the
and Planning Commission in 1964 and approved
existing powers available. This approach was a
by the Montgomery County Council in 1969. Its
Several events have occurred since the late
―first‖ in the United States. Local government was
purpose is to help establish overall policies for
1960‘s to alter this idealized concept for a corridor
going to attempt to guide and stage development
development of the Maryland-Washington
city. The rapid rail transit system envisioned in the
through its planning, zoning, subdivision and
Regional District and to relate these policies to the
General Plan has not been extended through the
capital programming processes.
metropolitan framework.
Corridor Cities and the roadway network proposed
in the General Plan has been modified. These
The major objectives of the 1974 Master Plan
The General Plan envisioned development
changes, plus the land use policies of the City of
were to:
radiating outward from Washington, D.C., in a
Gaithersburg, have resulted in a multi-nodal
series of corridor cities along the major
Corridor City development pattern. Despite these
support the development of Germantown as a
transportation corridors, with wedges of lower
events, the principal purposes and objectives of
distinct community having its own identity;
density between them. The basic concept of the
the ―wedges and corridors‖ concept are still valid
General Plan is to focus growth along the I-270
and remain the basic policy guide for the County.
and I-95 corridors and to prevent urbanization of
surround Germantown with a greenbelt of
parks;
the wedges between these radial corridors. The
The intent of the 1974 Master Plan was to fulfill
intent is to preserve those areas for agriculture
the objectives of the General Plan. More
establish a Village Center and Town Center
and open space uses and to provide low-density
specifically, the 1974 Master Plan recommended
Concept;
concentrate employment areas along I-270
very small portion of the existing and approved
Current development in Germantown, to a large
and the B&O railroad;
housing stock.
extent, is a response to the economic forces that
were present during its early years of growth, the
balance traffic generated by the land uses
Some development has occurred in
late 1970‘s and early 1980‘s. During the late
with the capacity of the transportation system;
Germantown that is not consistent with the
1970‘s and early 1980‘s, the energy crises
intent of the 1974 Master Plan; therefore,
affected the entire housing market, and sewage
provide a broad range of housing types and
more detailed development guidelines are
treatment capacity limitations restricted the local
prices; and
needed to assure that the objectives of the
market for development approvals. Housing prices
1974 Master Plan are achieved.
throughout the County escalated rapidly. Interest
provide policies for staged development,
rates rose so high that the market rate exceeded the
based on the provision of additional sewer
Experience now indicates that a new
legal limit in Maryland. In order to bring down interest
service and transportation capacity.
community, encompassing land in many
rates, builders further increased housing prices.
ownerships and evolving over several years,
This Plan confirms the spirit and intent of the
requires stronger implementation measures
The high interest rates and rising prices, coupled
1974 Master Plan while recommending
than those of the 1974 Master Plan in order
with Germantown‘s location on the suburban
modifications that respond to a series of changes
to assure that the objectives of this kind of
fringe, resulted in a strong market for townhouses.
that have evolved during the past thirteen years:
community can be realized.
Housing at the developing edge of a metropolitan
area is generally less expensive as the purchaser
The population characteristics of those now
Two supermarket-anchored convenience retail
is trading price for a longer trip to and from work.
living in Germantown are significantly different
centers have been built in the Town Center.
Townhouses met the needs of first home buyers
from those projected during the development
These shopping centers have absorbed the
for a relatively affordable house. Thus, there was a
of the 1974 Master Plan.
market for retail uses in the Churchill Village
strong market for townhouses during the period of
Center and have delayed the development of
Germantown‘s early growth. The duration of these
the Gunners Lake Village Center.
economic conditions contributed to the existing
The lifestyle and composition of Germantown
households are different from those
anticipated in the 1974 Master Plan.
predominance of townhouses in Germantown.
One significant objective of this Master Plan is to
Townhouses and other single-family attached
improve the appearance of Germantown, which
The economic uncertainties during Germantown‘s
units have become the predominant housing
includes the predominance of attached homes, as
early growth created significant financial problems
type for reasons primarily related to the
well as the lack of landscaping and other visual
in the building industry generally, and in
private sector market that produces the
amenities. It is important to understand the
Germantown in particular – builders were
housing stock; as a consequence, single-
background of Germantown‘s recent development
concerned about their survival. Builders‘ attention
family detached units currently represent a
in order to put this objective into perspective.
focused on producing a readily marketable
product. Builders‘ concern about quality and
diversity of product were not considered as
important when they were defaulting on their
loans and declaring bankruptcy.
As a result, several subdivisions in
Germantown were built by a succession of
builders. Each successive turnover decreased
commitment to and awareness of amenity
features shown on site plans. In response to
this condition, the Planning Board and County
Council ultimately established requirements
for site plan enforcement agreements signed
by the developer and created staff positions
for urban designers responsible for
compliance with site plans.
Another factor affecting Germantown‘s
present appearance is a result of its
agricultural heritage. The extensive farming
activities in Germantown have created bare
fields with mature trees only in the stream
valleys. As a result, the only vegetation in
most subdivisions is that planted by the
builders and the residents. It will take a few
more years yet before these trees make a
significant contribution to Germantown‘s
appearance, but ultimately they will make a
difference.
Many objectives expressed in the 1974 Master
This Plan modifies the 1974 Master Plan in the
appearance of Germantown is also reflected in the
Plan have been achieved, particularly in terms of
following four areas:
guidelines in that chapter.
the combined efforts of the community
Housing Mix: The intent of this Plan is to promote a
In addition, each of the Village Centers, with the
organizations, the Planning Board, the County
mix of housing types that can accommodate
exception of Neelsville Village, is recommended to
Council, the County Executive, and the actions of
families of varying ages and income levels and
be developed under the Planned Development
the responsible agencies. The Germantown
allow opportunities for them to continue living in
Zone. The requirement for both development plan
Campus of Montgomery College has been
Germantown as their needs and tastes change. At
and site plan review will provide detailed review of
established; police and fire stations have been
present, Germantown lacks an adequate supply of
Village Center development. The Neelsville Village
built; and the public ownership of the greenbelt of
detached homes. The land use and zoning
Center is recommended for a new RMX
parks has increased. The Planning Board‘s staging
recommendations proposed in this Plan respond
(Residential Mixed-Use) Zone, which will also
of development has deferred development on land
to this concern.
provide for a detailed review of development plans
public facilities. These successes are the result of
where public facilities were not programmed, or
through project plan and site plan reviews. The
where premature development would preclude the
Specifically this Plan recommends reduced
zones recommended for use in the Town Center
development of the Mixed-Use Center. Because of
residential densities in several environmentally
are zones which require site plan review prior to
this previous withholding of zoning in a staged
sensitive areas to densities that result primarily in
development. The zones recommended for the
manner, the recommendations of this Plan to
single-family detached units. Further, a range of
Mixed-Use Center, the Retail and Service Park and
reduce residential densities in certain areas can
lower densities are recommended so that a variety
the potential Regional Shopping Mall require site
still be implemented with a minimum of rezoning.
of lot sizes can be achieved. The Plan also
plan review.
Also, the designation of highway alignments in the
recommends that the percentage of attached
master plan has enabled rights-of-way to be
homes in most subdivisions be lower than
Community Facilities: The intent of this Plan is to
preserved by the Planning Board through the
currently permitted.
provide appropriate locations for community
subdivision process.
facilities. Since the adoption of the 1974 Master
Community Identity: The intent of this Plan is to
Plan, there have been significant demographic
On balance, it does not seem wrong to conclude
develop a greater sense of community identity.
changes, as well as changes in the nature and
that Germantown today is a qualified success, in
(See Figure 3.) A positive sense of ―place‖ at the
scale of community facilities desired by residents.
terms of the Master Plan‘s objectives, but that it
Village and Town levels is very important. To date,
For these reasons, the number, location, and
can and should be improved as it moves further
community identity is focused on individual and
nature of community facilities have been re-
towards completion. It is the intent of this Plan,
fragmented subdivisions. The development
examined to assure that the recommendations of
through its various recommendations and
guidelines and the recommendations of the
this Plan meet the existing and anticipated needs
development guidelines, to improve the visual and
Townscape Design chapter of this Plan respond to
of Germantown residents.
functional quality of Germantown.
this concern. The importance of the visual
This Plan proposes the construction of six new
Balance Between Housing and Employment
In addition, the internal roadway system is
elementary schools, two new middle schools, and
Opportunities: The intent of this Plan is to provide
designed to facilitate intra-Germantown travel
a new high school. The total number of elementary
greater opportunity for people to both live and
which, in turn, will reduce work trip miles for those
schools recommended in Germantown has been
work in Germantown. A reasonable objective is
living and working in Germantown.
reduced from 28 to 12. This reduction is a result
that expressed in the 1974 Master Plan: 25
of the reduced average number of school-age
percent of the resident work force of Germantown
The comprehensive development of a new
children per household, and the increase in the
should also work there. The 1987 Census Update
community is a complex undertaking at any time
enrollment capacity at the new schools. The
Survey1,
or place. It is particularly difficult in Germantown
number of senior high and junior/intermediate
the resident work force works in
because of the fragmented land ownership
schools also has been reduced from three to two
Germantown....This is due primarily to the fact that
pattern. With multiple developers, and limited
of each. Because of the increased size of new
residential development has occurred at a faster
police powers, it is not easy for government to
elementary schools, the minimum size of the
pace than employment development. The
ensure that a single, coherent development
school sites is recommended to be increased from
transportation analysis done for this Plan has
program for the entire 11,000-acre area can be
10 acres to 12 acres, including 10 acres usable
estimated that about 30 percent of the resident
achieved. It is certainly more difficult than if
for school buildings, parking and recreation
work force will be working in Germantown by the
Germantown had been developed by a single
facilities.
time development is built out.
owner as in other new communities. In those
The reduction in the number of school sites could
Although there is no direct means by which
adversely affect the adequacy of community
government in a free society can ensure the
recreation facilities because the estimates of the
achievement of this objective, the
Furthermore, the sense of long-term commitment
1974 Master Plan of local park needs took into
recommendations expressed in this Plan will at
and accountability are inherently stronger in a new
account the recreational opportunities of school
least provide the opportunity for its realization.
community built by a single developer instead of
fields and courts. This Plan addresses this
Furthermore, the recommended increase in the
by a series of smaller developers. Smaller
increase in local park requirements.
percentage of single-family detached housing and
developers are generally more focused on the
the provision of a broad mix of housing types and
marketing needs of their individual subdivisions
prices will increase the opportunity for more
than on elements that would improve the quality of
Germantown employees to live in the community.
Germantown as a whole. The Germantown
however, indicates that only 10 percent of
instances adjustments to the development
program can occur on almost a daily basis.
situation creates the need for an extra special
public commitment to orchestrate the coordination
of private development within well-defined public
1Research
Division, Montgomery County Planning Board
policy guidelines.
There are several factors beyond the control of the
County government that could influence the
outcome of this Master Plan. The likelihood and
effects of these influential external factors are
difficult to predict because they would result from
actions or factors not subject to County
government control, such as the actions of the
Federal government, changes in energy supplies,
and changes in lifestyle. In addition, technological
research and invention are capable of changing
patterns of everyday life but are also beyond the
control of County government.
These larger political, environmental, economic,
and technological factors are global or national in
nature. While beyond the scope of this Master
Plan, they would nonetheless significantly impact
the County.
The Comprehensive Growth Policy Study considers
several broad County-wide trends that are beyond
the control and time frame of this Master Plan.
The results of this Study may be useful in
suggesting future modifications to the
recommendations expressed in this Master Plan.
APPENDIX 2:
GERMANTOWN PLANNING AREA DEMOGRAPHICS
Research & Technology Center (RTC)
2005 Census Update Survey
Planning Area # 19
SINGLE-
Population Density: 4,658 people/sq. mi.
Est. Land Area: 17.1 sq. miles
Household Population
P
% Female
O
FAMILY
TOWN-
GARDEN
HIGH-
ALL
DETACHED
HOUSE
APT.
RISE
TYPES
26,365
36,940
16,275
0
79,580
50.1%
52.5%
54.7%
52.2%
Age Distribution:
P
% 0-4 Years Old
8.3%
9.0%
7.8%
8.5%
U
% 5-17 Years Old
25.1%
19.9%
14.0%
20.4%
L
% 18-29 Years Old
8.8%
14.7%
22.1%
14.3%
A
% 30-44 Years Old
27.3%
31.3%
27.2%
29.1%
T
% 45-64 Years Old
26.7%
21.0%
23.8%
23.4%
I
% 65-74 Years Old
2.6%
2.5%
3.2%
2.7%
O
% Over 74 Years Old
1.2%
1.5%
1.9%
1.5%
31.9
31.5
33.5
% White
59.5%
51.7%
56.8%
55.3%
% Black
9.4%
27.0%
25.3%
20.7%
28.0%
15.3%
8.1%
18.2%
3.1%
6.0%
9.8%
5.8%
% Hispanic or Latino 1
9.1%
15.9%
24.4%
15.4%
% Not Hispanic White
52.0%
41.4%
43.1%
45.3%
N
Average Age (years)
N/A
32.0
Race:
% Asian or Pacific Islander
% Other
Hispanic or Latino and
1
Race1
Those of Hispanic orgin may be of any race.
Planning Area # 19 (continued)
SINGLEFAMILY
TOWN-
GARDEN
HIGH-
ALL
DETACHED
HOUSE
APT.
RISE
TYPES
72,800
33,610
0
15,015
Language Spoken at Home
P
Persons 5 Years and Older
24,175
O
% Speak Language Other than English
36.3%
41.2%
44.7%
40.3%
P
% Speak English less than "Very Well"
10.3%
10.8%
19.6%
12.4%
15,570
23,620
11,600
U
L
Educational Attainment:
Persons 25 Years and Older
A
% Less than High School Diploma
T
% High School Graduate
I
% Associate or Trade School
O
N
8.0%
6.1%
20.2%
34.0%
33.1%
29.6%
6.0%
9.8%
9.6%
8.6%
% Bachelor's Degree
34.5%
27.0%
29.9%
29.9%
% Grad, Professional or Doctoral
35.4%
22.6%
19.4%
25.8%
14,790
22,500
10,450
72.0%
78.9%
72.3%
Residents2
% Females Who Are
Employed2
Women with Children Under Age 6
% Employed 2
A
50,790
6.6%
Number of Employed
L
0
3.8%
0
47,740
75.3%
2,270
3,270
1,460
57.5%
64.5%
*
0
61.5%
7,000
72.6%
70.7%
78.0%
72.9%
Work Location:
B
% Montgomery County
O
% Prince George's County
3.0%
3.2%
3.2%
3.2%
R
% Elsewhere in Maryland
5.0%
3.6%
5.6%
4.4%
12.2%
13.0%
8.6%
11.8%
% Virginia
6.8%
8.5%
4.3%
7.1%
% Outside MD-VA-DC
0.4%
0.9%
0.4%
0.7%
84.6%
83.7%
82.4%
83.7%
76.8%
73.4%
77.1%
75.3%
7.8%
10.3%
5.3%
8.4%
% Washington, D.C.
F
O
R
Work Trip:
% Driving
C
% Alone
E
% Carpool
2
Ages 16 and older and employed full-or part-time.
SINGLEFAMILY
TOWN-
GARDEN
HIGH-
ALL
DETACHED
HOUSE
APT.
RISE
TYPES
% Public Transit or Rail
10.1%
13.0%
13.5%
12.3%
% Walk/Bicycle/Other
1.2%
1.0%
2.2%
1.3%
% Work at Home
4.1%
2.3%
1.9%
2.8%
Overall
32.8
33.7
31.1
N/A
32.9
By Car
30.0
30.2
27.1
N/A
29.5
Average Commuting Time to Work (minutes)
57.5
58.6
59.0
N/A
58.4
Households by Structure Type
By Public Transit
7,590
13,100
8,355
0
29,045
% Total Households by Structure Type
26.1%
45.1%
28.8%
100.0%
3.48
2.82
1.95
2.74
1.2%
8.0%
57.1%
N/A
20.4%
$2,023
$1,349
$1,027
N/A
$1,507
*
*
$1,010
N/A
$1,034
Average Household Size
Tenure:
% Rental
Average Monthly Costs:
H
O
U
Homeowner
Renter
Residence in April 2000:
S
% in Same Home
58.9%
50.1%
28.0%
46.2%
I
% Elsewhere in County
29.2%
30.0%
37.2%
31.9%
N
% Elsewhere in Maryland
2.4%
5.7%
7.3%
5.3%
G
% D.C or Northern Virginia
2.8%
3.0%
2.6%
2.9%
% Outside Metro Area
6.6%
11.2%
24.8%
13.8%
6
5
2
N/A
N/A
Median Years in Same Home
Average Age of Household Head
% Households with Foreign Born Head or Spouse
% Households Speaking Spanish
4
46.9
43.4
43.3
43.7%
36.8%
33.8%
37.7%
9.3%
14.8%
19.5%
14.7%
44.3
SINGLEFAMILY
TOWN-
GARDEN
HIGH-
ALL
DETACHED
HOUSE
APT.
RISE
TYPES
% Family Households
93.8%
77.2%
57.2%
75.8%
% Married-Couple
87.3%
62.6%
33.9%
60.8%
5.3%
12.4%
18.0%
12.2%
6.2%
22.8%
42.8%
24.2%
Households by Type:
% Single-Parent
% Nonfamily Households
% Householder Living Alone
6.1%
21.1%
39.0%
22.3%
21.1%
14.2%
2.3%
12.6%
2.4
1.9
1.4
98.1%
93.8%
86.8%
92.9%
36.9%
28.6%
24.7%
29.8%
% Under $15,000
1.0%
3.8%
6.5%
3.8%
% $15,000 to $29,999
0.5%
4.5%
13.8%
6.2%
I
% $30,000 to $49,999
4.8%
12.2%
32.0%
16.0%
N
% $50,000 to $69,999
5.6%
25.4%
20.3%
18.9%
C
% $70,000 to $99,999
24.2%
27.3%
18.0%
23.8%
O
% $100,000 to 149,999
38.4%
21.7%
8.2%
22.1%
M
% $150,000 to 199,999
18.2%
4.3%
1.2%
7.0%
E
% $200,000+
7.3%
0.7%
0.0%
2.2%
$116,560
$75,495
$48,765
N/A
$76,655
*14.6%
21.8%
18.0%
N/A
19.0%
*
*
35.3%
% 5+ Persons
Average Number of Cars
% of Households with Computers
% of these visiting M-NCPPC website
N/A
1.9
2004 Household Income Distribution:
2004 Median Household Income
% of Households Spending More Than
30% of Income on Housing Costs:
% Homeowners
% Renters
38.9%
*Insufficient data for reliable estimates.
Montgomery County Planning Department, M-NCPPC June 2006.
GERMANTOWN POPULATION PYRAMIDS, 2005-2030
Round 7.1 Cooperative Forecast
New units by type
Student generation by level
Cluster
Single detached
Townhouse
Mid-rise
Total units
K–5
6–8
9 - 12
Clarksburg
0
73
1,208
1,281
66
55
47
Northwest
0
0
1,413
1,413
59
55
47
Seneca Valley
0
80
5.995
6,075
269
243
206
New development total
0
153
8.616
8,769
394
353
300
-95
-35
-50
-70
-25
-40
Deductions for redevelopment
-165
-60
-90
Total Master Plan student generation
229
293
210
Redevelopment of Rolling Hills
Apartments* (Northwest cluster)
Redevelopment of Middlebrook Mobile
Home Park* (Clarksburg cluster)
*The Master Plan (MP) total subtracts students currently residing in Rolling Hills Apartments (468 garden apartments) and Middlebrook Mobile Home Park (200
homes). These communities are replaced in the Master Plan by lower yielding, mid-rise units included in the units shown for the Clarksburg and Northwest
clusters.
APPENDIX 3:
SCHOOL CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Montgomery County Public Schools, December 12, 2008
Enrollment at elementary schools in the three
future development. In addition to elementary
Again, there are no capacity projects currently
clusters affected by the Germantown Employment
school enrollment growth, planning has begun for
planned to address these space deficits.
Area Sector Plan is projected to exceed capacity at
an addition at Clarksburg High School and a new
most schools. Middle school enrollment is
middle school to serve the Clarksburg community.
projected to remain within capacity at most cluster
Dates for the opening of these projects will be
schools, with the exception of Kingsview Middle
determined in the future. In the southern portion
In the Seneca Valley cluster all elementary schools
School in the Northwest cluster, and Neelsville and
of the Clarksburg cluster an addition to Fox Chapel
are projected to be over capacity in the next few
Rocky Hill middle schools in the Clarksburg cluster.
Elementary School will relieve over enrollment at
years. Planning is beginning next year on an
High school enrollments are projected to remain
that school when it opens in August 2011.
addition to either Lake Seneca Elementary School
within capacity at Northwest and Seneca Valley
high schools, but exceed capacity at Clarksburg
Seneca Valley Cluster
or Waters Landing Elementary School. At the
Northwest Cluster
High School. Following is more detailed
middle school level Roberto Clemente Middle
School (shared with the Northwest cluster) is
information on school capacity in the three
In the Northwest cluster Spark Matsunaga
projected to remain within capacity, as is Martin
clusters that serve the Germantown Sector Plan.
Elementary School faces the greatest over-
Luther King Jr. Middle School. At the high school
enrollment, followed by Great Seneca Creek
level, Seneca Valley High School is projected to
Elementary School. In addition, most other cluster
remain within capacity. In the Seneca Valley
Clarksburg Cluster
elementary schools are over capacity to some
cluster a future elementary school site, named
In the Clarksburg cluster new development is
degree. Only Germantown Elementary School is
―Waring Station ES,‖ is located on Waring Station
increasing enrollment far more than in the other
projected to remain within capacity. At the present
Road, directly across from Roberto Clemente
two clusters. In August 2009 a new elementary
time there are no capital projects proposed to
Middle School.
school, located in the Milestone community, is
address over-enrollment at these elementary
scheduled to open. This will relieve some of the
schools. At the middle school level Roberto
Most of the additional residential development
pressure at Cedar Grove, Clarksburg, and Little
Clemente Middle School is within capacity, but
foreseen in the Germantown Employment Area
Bennett elementary schools. However, additional
Kingsview Middle School is projected to being
Sector Plan falls within the Seneca Valley cluster.
elementary schools will be needed in the coming
exceeding capacity in 2012. At the high school
The presence of the Waring Station ES school site
years to accommodate build-out of the Clarksburg
level, Northwest High School is within capacity, but
in this cluster provides the option of a new
Master Plan. The Clarksburg Master Plan includes
is projected to begin exceeding capacity in 2014.
elementary school in the future, if needed by build-
four additional elementary school sites for this
out of the master plan development.
Figure 1, left: Germantown Employment Area Sector Plan
Figure 2, above: Parking lots and large blocks within the
Sector Plan area
APPENDIX 4:
GERMANTOWN HOUSING REPORT
Research & Technology Center (RTC), 2008
Germantown 2009 and Beyond – Housing to
create a Vibrant, Sustainable, Mixed-Use
Corridor City
the Town Center is key to the future vitality of
There is very little residential development within
Germantown, workforce housing can also be
the study area, due to past reliance on the
placed along the new transit corridor or near the
Euclidean zoning.
MARC station.
Adding commercial uses that incorporates
Planning and development over the last 40 years
Accommodate the anticipated large increase in
residential under mixed-use zoning will greatly
have changed Germantown from a farming
the number of residents and workers 55 years of
increase the vitality of this corridor city, while
community to a developing corridor city with
age and older, who wish to age in place.
offering convenient living opportunities for a
housing, employment, and a town center. Future
Preserve existing subsidized rentals and MPDUs
variety of household types.
development will create a more vibrant, high-
(sale and rental).
density, mixed-use urban center, fully integrating
Encourage employers to participate in State and
Figure 2 illustrates the vast amounts of parking
residential uses into the retail, office, and
County purchase assistance programs, such as
and large-block commercial development within
commercial uses in the town center using a variety
the House Keys for Employees program, which
the study area, as well as the distribution of most
of housing types.
provides State matching funds for employer
residential uses to areas outside the commercial
contributions for down-payment and closing-cost
and office areas. There is opportunity for
assistance.
additional mixed-use development within the study
Germantown is a working community, with housing
area.
affordable to the workforce. In addition to
integrating residential uses into the town center,
The Study Area
future development must provide affordable
The Germantown population is younger than that
housing for new workers as well as residents aging
The study area for this update to the 1989
of the overall County, with an average age of 32
in place.
Germantown Master Plan comprises 2,450 acres
years in Germantown compared to 36.9 years for
of the 11,000-acre Germantown planning area.
the County as revealed by the 2005 Census
Shown in light red on Figure 1, it contains the
Update Survey for the entire planning area. Over
Town Center, two employment areas, and all or
72 percent of Germantown residents are younger
Add residential uses on top or among office and
part of the areas known as Milestone, Neelsville,
than 45 years of age, compared to just over 61
commercial uses in the Town Center.
Montgomery College, and Middlebrook.
percent of the County population. Less than five
Housing Recommendations
Build transit-oriented workforce housing—reduce
percent of Germantown residents are older than
the costs associated with getting to work. While
Figure 3: Age Distribution
Figure 5: Structure types
Figure 4: Germantown Labor Force Profile
Figure 6: Planned, approved and existing housing types
Mix of Housing Types in Germantown
1974 Master Plan + Existing + Approved Dwelling Units
Percent of Total Units
Existing + Approved Dwelling Units (January 1, 1987)
1989 Master Plan + Existing + Approved Dwelling Units
Existing + Approved Dwelling Units (April 2006)
Change from 1987 Existing + Approved Dwelling Units
SFD
SFA
MF
5,775
17,183
9,053
18.0%
53.7%
28.3%
3,545
9,843
5,811
18.5%
51.3%
30.3%
10,735
11,258
14,790
29.2%
30.6%
40.2%
8,026
13,618
10,214
25.2%
42.7%
32.1%
4,481
3,775
4,403
Total
32,011
19,199
36,783
31,858
12,659
65 years of age, compared to more than 10
the Germantown Master Planning
percent of the residents, countywide (Figure 3).
Area (see Appendix 2).
Forecasts and surveys indicate that the population
Households in single-family
in Germantown will age, but the elongation of the
detached homes are larger with
workforce curve shown in Figure 4 indicates that
3.48 persons per household,
many more residents will be staying in the
compared to 2.82 for
workforce during their 50s, 60s and 70s as
households in townhouses, and
compared to past generations. As discussed later
1.95 for households in garden
in the ―Workforce Housing‖ section of this report,
apartments/condominiums.
the expectation of a prolonged work life is
One-person households occupy
consistent with the findings in the 55+ Housing
nearly 40 percent of garden
Preference Survey, which indicated that many
apartments/condos, but only
workers do not plan to retire early, if at
all.4
Mobile
Homes
193
21 percent of townhouses, and
Figure 7: Planned housing types – comparing Germantown to the
only 6 percent of single-family
Sector Plan area
Townhouses account for most of the housing in
detached homes. Married
Germantown, followed by garden apartments and
couples occupy over 87 percent of single-family-
single-family detached homes. About 80 percent
detached homes, compared to about 63 percent
are homeowners, compared to 77 percent for the
of townhouses, and 34 percent of garden
County. By structure type, nearly 99 percent of
apartments/condos.
households in single-family detached homes own
Two-person households occupy over 38 percent
the homes, as do 92 percent of households in
of garden apartments/condos, but only 28
townhouses, and 43 percent of households in
percent of townhouses and 19 percent of single-
garden apartments/condominiums.
family detached homes.
There are some distinct differences between
households living in different structure types,
Sector Plan
Area
All age groups can be found in each of the
housing structure types:
according to the 2005 Census Update Survey for
o The median age of nearly 47 years of age for
heads of households living in single-family
homes is about four years older than the
median age heads of households in
townhouses (43.4) or gardens (43.3).
o Overall, however, the median age for persons
in Germantown living in single-family detached
homes is 31.9 years of age and 31.5 for those
living in townhouses. The median age for
those living in garden apartments/condos is
only slightly higher, at 33.5 years of age.
o The portion of those persons 18-29 years of
age is highest in garden apartments/condos
4RTC,
M-NCPPC. 55+ HOUSING PREFERENCE SURVEY (2006).
http://www.mc-m-ncppc.org/housing/studies/
housing%20_55.pdf
and lowest in single-family detached homes.
Figure 8: Planned, approved and existing housing types
Policy Area
Town Center
Village Name
TAZ
Town Center
Employment Corridor (West)
Germantown
West
Kingsview Village
Churchill Village
Clopper Village
Gunners Lake Village
Employment Corridor (East)
Germantown
East
Middlebrook Village
Neelsville Village
282
283
284
248
249
250
252
253
251
255
256
254
286
287
288
285
292
289
290
291
Single-Family
Detached
1
2
0
0
0
0
596
1,703
826
374
846
358
2
71
0
342
725
639
65
1,215
Single-Family
Attached
193
22
0
0
0
410
1,630
478
2,177
2,193
1,016
2,296
84
0
386
464
1,851
0
121
59
Multi-Family (Garden
Apts/Condos)
362
484
0
0
0
28
6
106
2,389
222
1,749
2,269
524
0
568
204
403
0
397
0
7,765
13,380
9,711
Totals by structure type:
Mobile Home
Totals by TAZ
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
193
0
0
0
556
508
0
0
0
438
2,232
2,287
5,392
2,789
3,611
4,923
610
71
954
1,010
3,172
639
583
1,274
193
31,049
Figure 9: Residential units in the pipeline for Germantown
Approved Units
Remaining Units in Pipeline by Type
Detached
Attached
Multi-family (Garden
Single Family
Single Family
Apts. & Condos)
Germantown East
5
192
0
197
1
147
Germantown West
1162
217
491
1870
221
0
0
0
0
1167
409
91
2067
Policy Area
Germantown Town Center
Germantown Area Total
Total
Detached
Attached
Multi-family
Single Family
Single Family
(Garden
Total
168
Apts. & 0
Condos)
179
568
0
0
0
0
222
315
179
716
The median income of households is starkly
Germantown increased to nearly 31,000 housing
Germantown Master Planning Area. Most of the
different. The 2004 median household income
units.
units in the Plan area are multifamily units,
is $116,560 for single-family detached homes,
followed by townhouses, and then detached units.
$75,495 for townhouses, and for garden
On average, about 836 units have been built each
apartments/condos, $48,765. This difference in
year since 1970. This pace of residential
The only housing type not represented in
income is partially explained by the difference in
development has created some problems:
Germantown is high-rise multifamily. This type
the number of workers in each household.
Existing Housing Stock
A tendency to identify more with one‘s
would be very appropriate in the Town Center. and
subdivision than with ―Germantown.‖
would round-out the unit mix in the study area.
Difficulty in establishing an overall Germantown
Furthermore, because high-rise multi-family
community identity.
structures are elevatored, these units will provide
The 1989 plan called for an eventual build-out of
All the houses, infrastructure, and public
accessible living quarters for a broad mix of ages,
36,783 residential units—approximately 15
amenities in the same neighborhood are aging,
capacities, and incomes---especially when
percent more units than the 1974 plan, and it
and possibly deteriorating, at the same time.
partnered with public transportation and a
proposed a different mix of unit types:
walkable mix of retail, employment, and
It increased multifamily housing to over 40
As shown on Figure 8, more than two-thirds of the
percent.
housing stock in Germantown is single-family
It increased single-family detached units to 29.2
detached and attached housing, while one-third is
Units that have been approved but are not yet built
percent, and
multi-family housing. As of April 2006, the
are included in the development pipeline; 716
It reduced single-family attached units to fewer
percentage of single-family detached units
units remain in the pipeline for future completion
than 31 percent.
increased to over 25 percent, just short of the
in the study area. The Germantown Town Center
1989 Master Plan goal of 29 percent. Although
has no units in the construction pipeline. Most of
By 2006, Germantown‘s existing and approved
townhouses remain the predominant type of
the new units to be constructed will be multifamily
housing stock included nearly 32,000 units
housing unit, the proportion of townhouses has
units.
comprising:
been reduced from nearly 54 percent to less than
32 percent multifamily
43 percent of the housing stock. This mix of
Nearly 43 percent single-family attached
housing provides choices to a range of household
Over 25 percent single-family detached.
types.
educational and recreational opportunities.
Housing Prices
The median prices for homes in the Germantown
planning area are typically lower than for
Until 1970, there were just a few hundred homes
The Sector Plan area combines the Town Center
comparable homes elsewhere in the County,
in the Germantown area and by the end of the first
and the East and West Employment Corridors. This
largely due to the age and size of the housing
half of 2007, the number of housing units in
area contains approximately 10 percent (about
stock. Germantown has experienced slight
3,140 units) of the housing stock in the entire
decreases in median sales prices among all
structure types during the period between 2005
Germantown is a location of ―naturally occurring‖
single-family attached home (townhouses and
and the first half of 2007, except for the median
workforce housing. That is to say, households
plexes).
sales price of existing single-family attached
earning workforce incomes5 can afford the median
A median-priced (about $255,000) new
homes (townhouses and plexes), which increased
priced single-family home or condominium in
condominium during the same period would
from $323,000 in 2005 to $333,000 in the first
Germantown.
have been affordable to a household earning
half of 2007. The cost of a single-family detached
In the Germantown planning area during the first
about $64,200. At slightly more than $263,900,
home in Germantown had a median sales price of
half of 2007, purchase of a new single-family
the median sales price of existing
$769,125 in 2005 and $664,575 in the first half
detached home at the median price ($664,575)
condominiums requires a household income of
of 2007. The median sales prices for new single-
required an annual household income of more
about $66,500.
family attached homes in Germantown in 2005
than $167,000 and purchasing an existing
In the Germantown planning area, the median
was very low, because it included sales of
single-family detached home at the median
sales price of existing condominiums has been
moderately-priced dwelling units.
price ($545,000) required an annual household
slightly higher than the median price of new
income of more than $137,300.
condos since 2006. This indicates that the
An annual household income of less than
existing condominiums are a desired housing
$84,000 could afford the median-priced existing
option for workforce families.
Figure 10: Home sales by structure type
Median Sales Prices
2005
Germantown
2006
County
Germantown
1st Half of 2007
County
Germantown
County
New single family detached
$769,125
$775,218
$806,850
$881,600
$664,575
$1,159,695
Existing single family detached
$580,000
$530,000
$610,000
$552,500
$545,000
$557,875
New single family attached
$138,696
$499,375
$450,000
$526,680
Existing single family attached
$323,000
$340,000
$337,000
$356,750
$333,000
$365,000
$353,645
$254,900
$391,900
$254,900
$429,500
$279,900
$267,550
$296,595
$263,902
$295,000
New Condos
Existing Condos
$265,000
$491,353
5
Montgomery County defines workforce incomes as those
between 80 percent and 120 percent of Washington DC Metro’s
Area Median Income (AMI). The Washington Metro AMI was
$94,500 for a 4-person household in Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 (HUD,
2007).
New & Used Single Family Detached
& Attached Homes
New & Used Condos - Combined
New Single Family Detached Homes
Existing Single Family Detached
Homes
New Single Family Attached Homes
Existing Single Family Attached
Homes
New Condos
Existing Condos
Germantown
Countywide
Germantown
Countywide
Germantown
North Bethesda
Wheaton
Silver Spring
Takoma Park
Countywide
Germantown
North Bethesda
Wheaton
Silver Spring
Takoma Park
Countywide
Germantown
North Bethesda
Wheaton
Silver Spring
Takoma Park
Countywide
Germantown
North Bethesda
Wheaton
Silver Spring
Takoma Park
Countywide
Germantown
North Bethesda
Wheaton
Silver Spring
Takoma Park
Countywide
Germantown
North Bethesda
Wheaton
Silver Spring
Takoma Park
Countywide
2005 Median
Sales Price
$350,000
$460,003
$265,000
$280,900
$769,125
$1,175,000
$737,424
$939,463
$538,500
$775,218
$580,000
$620,000
$419,000
$535,000
$415,500
$530,000
$138,696
$648,041
$539,920
#Units
2,094
16,731
816
6,029
75
5
16
2
2
751
512
332
1,411
275
340
9,757
19
9
35
2006 Median
Sales Price
$355,000
$485,000
$265,000
$302,950
$806,850
$1,272,100
$1,020,000
# Units
1,507
12,490
840
4,750
30
10
17
$1,055,000
$881,600
$610,000
$591,250
$450,000
$540,000
$450,000
$552,500
$450,000
2
520
363
266
1,072
245
276
7,497
4
$609,465
3
First Half
of 2007 Median
Sales Price
$350,000
$489,900
$263,900
$307,500
$664,575
$1,295,500
$885,000
Units
626
5,228
387
2,404
2
4
7
Approx. HH
income req'd. in
2007
$88,200
$123,455
$66,503
$77,490
$167,473
$326,466
$223,020
$650,000
$1,159,695
$545,000
$619,500
$448,000
$575,000
$465,000
$557,875
1
157
155
126
421
99
103
3,234
$163,800
$292,243
$137,340
$156,114
$112,896
$144,900
$117,180
$140,585
$854,805
10
$215,411
$499,375
$323,000
$645,750
$339,950
$520,750
$290,500
$340,000
507
1,488
100
216
18
26
5,716
$526,680
$337,000
$630,000
$385,200
$550,000
$320,000
$356,750
$254,900
92
1,110
59
172
21
34
4,134
94
$491,353
$333,000
$622,500
$427,000
$579,700
$340,000
$365,000
$254,900
$440,000
107
469
50
79
12
9
1,730
17
153
$123,821
$83,916
$156,870
$107,604
$146,084
$85,680
$91,980
$64,235
$110,880
$284,886
$269,000
$353,645
$265,000
$329,900
$260,000
$272,500
$205,500
$279,900
33
4
340
816
1,060
180
116
52
5,689
$350,450
$241,750
$377,378
$267,550
$334,950
$270,000
$320,985
$239,500
$296,595
136
2
500
746
558
143
287
24
4,250
$334,033
63
$84,176
$429,500
$263,902
$332,950
$287,500
$329,950
$241,400
$295,000
348
370
274
50
186
30
2,056
$108,234
$66,503
$83,903
$72,450
$83,147
$60,833
$74,340
Figure 11: Incomes required for median-priced homes
Figure 12, far left: Rental market
areas
Figure 13, left: Location of rental
properties and group homes
Figure 14, below: Rental properties
within Sector Plan area
1-Bedroom Units
Name
The Hamptons
Middlebrook Square
Oak Mill II
Pinnacle at Town Center
Fox Run
Elms at Germantown
Milestone
Rolling Hills Apartments
Oak Mill Apartments
Totals
Type
Garden
Towns
Garden
Garden
Garden
Garden
Garden
Garden
Garden
Year
built
1980
1973
2001
2001
1991
2005
1998
1985
2001
Number
496
0
48
76
56
42
252
0
68
1,038
Low
Rent
$915
NA
$860
$1,170
$1,129
$1,225
$1,115
NA
$860
2-Bedroom Units
High
Rent
$915
NA
$1,140
$1,400
$1,149
$1,445
$1,200
NA
$1,140
Number
272
75
75
176
118
207
264
440
140
1,692
Low
Rent
$1,140
BMR
$1,140
$1,380
$1,299
$1,340
$1,300
$1,100
$1,140
3-Bedroom Units
High
Rent
$1,220
BMR
$1,395
$1,810
$1,319
$1,780
$1,400
$1,200
$1,395
Number
0
0
0
31
0
11
60
0
0
Low
Rent
NA
NA
NA
$1,700
$0
$1,660
$1,575
NA
NA
High
Rent
NA
NA
NA
$1,755
$0
$1,940
$1,595
NA
NA
102
Rentals
the below-market-rent units in Middlebrook can be
amount translate into significant rent increases.
targeted for protection, the units in the Hamptons
For example, the average turnover rate for
The Montgomery County Department of Housing
are more vulnerable to pressure for higher rents,
efficiency apartments in Germantown increased at
and Community Affairs (DHCA) licenses rental
condo conversion, or other redevelopment
an annual rate of approximately four percent,
apartments and conducts annual surveys to
schemes.
which increased the monthly rent from $644 in
7
determine rental vacancy rates and turnover rents
2000 to $844 in 2007. The Department of
for the various market areas and produces the
While the Housing Opportunities Commission
Housing and Community Affairs (DHCA) sets rent
annual DHCA Rental Apartment Vacancy Report.
(HOC) has the right of first refusal for any
increase ―guidance,‖ only.
The study area is within the larger Germantown-
multifamily property built before 1981, there is no
Gaithersburg Market area.
guarantee that the HOC will be able to purchase
Income Needed
units when they become available. For this
Rental Supply
reason, a policy of no net loss of affordable units is
In 2007, the average turnover rents in the
needed to ensure that the Germantown planning
Germantown market area remained relatively
Nine rental complexes are within the Sector Plan
area maintains a stock of affordable rental units
affordable to moderate income households.8 For
area providing a total of 2,832 units: 1,038 one-
for the years to come.
example a three-bedroom apartment in this area
bedroom units, 1,692 two--bedroom units, and
102 three-bedroom units. In the Rental Properties
rented for an average of $1,429, monthly, which is
Turnover Rents
table, Figure 14, the rent ranges are given for the
affordable to households earning approximately
$56,200, annually. During the same period, a 4-
apartments in the study area. Only Middlebrook
―Turnover rents‖ are the rents charged to new
bedroom apartment rented for an average of
Square‘s exact rents are unknown, because all 75
tenants after an apartment has been vacated and
$1,566, which is affordable to a household
are subsidized and are referred to only as below-
rerented (turned over). The average turnover rents
earning approximately $62,640 annually. Many
in the Germantown market area are lower than the
rents include utilities, but when the rents do not
countywide turnover rents for apartments with the
include utilities, housing costs may be too
On average, Germantown rents are more
same number of bedrooms. This has been true
expensive for these income levels. Figure 16
affordable than Countywide, primarily due to the
since 2000.
shows the impact on affordability, with and without
market-rent
units.6
age of the units. Approximately 45 percent of the
utilities.
properties were built before 1981. Age is also an
The industry standard is a 3.5 percent rent
indication that these same units may be ripe for
increase annually. Even small increases over that
substantial rehabilitation or redevelopment. While
8
7
6For
the purpose of this report, the units in Middlebrook Square
are assumed to have two bedrooms.
The ―year built‖ data in Figure 3 should be considered to be
approximate, because the date information sometimes reflects
the date of substantial rehabilitation or modification, instead of
the date of the original building construction.
Generally, an apartment is considered affordable if the cost of
monthly rent and utilities, annualized, do not exceed 30 percent of
the (gross) annual household income. (HUD,
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/)
Figure 15: Germantown turnover market rents
Household Size
Maximum Income
1
$43,000
2
$49,000
3
$55,500
4
$61,500
5
$66,500
Number of
Bedrooms (BR) in
Unit
Rent
Approximate Income
Needed if Rent
includes Utilities
Approximate Income
Needed if Utilities
are Extra
Efficiency
$844
$33,760
$36,461
1-BR
$1,051
$42,040
$45,403
2-BR
$1,224
$48,960
$52,877
3-BR
$1,429
$57,160
$61,733
4 or More BRs
$1,566
$62,640
$67,651
Figure 16: Minimum income required for rents to be affordable in Germantown
Figure 17: MPDU income limits for renters, 2007
Figure 18: Germantown-Gaithersburg Market area vacancy rates
2000 to 2007
The ―incomes needed‖ from Figure 16 are within
efficiency apartments and one-bedroom
senior housing9 rental units, while all units at
the income ranges of the MPDU program, shown in
apartments, but was relatively loose for three- and
Kings Crossing are for-sale age-restricted MPDU
Figure 17. Additionally, in 2007, to qualify for
four-bedroom apartments. This indicates that one-
condos. The senior housing projects consist of two
MPDU rental units, a household‘s income must be
bedroom units and efficiencies are in demand,
rental facilities that provide a total of 223
at least $30,000, annually, and the maximum
and that one- and two-person households are
independent living units and four group homes
incomes are based on numbers of persons in the
attracted to rentals in Germantown. On the other
that provide a total of 24 assisted-living beds.
household.
hand, three and four-bedroom units in
Currently, there are no senior living facilities for
Germantown had relatively high vacancy rates at
sale or for rent within the study area proper. One
Vacancy and Turnover Rates
6.1 percent and 8.9 percent, respectively.
project however is approved but not built.
Vacancy rates are the percentage of time out of a
One of the factors affecting the vacancy rates for
Senior-living ownership opportunities in
given year that an apartment did not bring in rent.
the large apartments is the high amount of rent
Germantown include 110 age-restricted MPDU
Generally, a 5-percent vacancy rate indicates a
being charged for those units. Households that
condominiums in the Kings Crossing facility, where
relatively tight rental market. Countywide, the
need three or four bedrooms may not want to
one-, two-, and three-bedroom garden
vacancy rate remained tight (4.7 percent) in 2007
spend as much or more on rent than they would
condominiums range in price from $149,900 to
(DHCA 2007 5). The Germantown-Gaithersburg
on a mortgage. Another factor affecting the
$169,900. Assuming that homeowners put at least
market area had a higher vacancy rate than the
vacancy rates for large units is the much larger
ten percent down, the annual household income
County (6.0 percent and 4.7 percent, respectively).
demand for smaller units in the Germantown area.
needed to afford a senior condominium at King‘s
Over a third of apartments in Germantown ―turned
In other words, the market for smaller units does
Crossing is between $40,000 and $50,000.
over‖ in 2006 to 2007.
not offer any ―spillover‖ demand for larger units. If
Properties that offer independent living
a household is in the market for a one- or two-
opportunities are subject to the MPDU ordinance,
DHCA reported that the Germantown–
bedroom unit, it is unlikely that it would be willing
and all three of the independent living facilities
Gaithersburg market area had the highest
to pay for a three- or four-bedroom unit, just
listed in Figure 23 meet or exceed the MPDU
turnover rate in the County, with 35.7 percent of
because it was vacant.
requirement.
the rental units changing tenants from April 1,
2006, through March 31, 2007. The County
Senior Housing
turnover rate during the same period was 31.2
percent.
Existing Situation
Churchill Village and Clopper Mill Village provide
Of the various unit sizes (numbers of bedrooms),
the 2007 Germantown market area was tight for
9
Senior housing is a term that covers housing that is age-restricted and
serves those persons either 55 or 62 years of age and older. Agerestricted independent living properties, often called "Active Adult
Communities," serve households with at least one adult over 55 years
of age. Many other senior housing facilities serve only those over 62
years of age. See Appendix A for a glossary of senior housing terms.
Facility Name
New Covenant Village**
Willow Manor at Clopper‘s Mill
Foreman‘s Place
Warm Heart Family Assisted Living
Golden Age Retirement Home
R & W Eldercare Services
Type
Independent Living
Independent Living *
Assisted Living *
Independent Living
Independent Living
Assisted Living
Assisted Living
Assisted Living
Assisted Living
King‘s Crossing
Independent Living - MPDU
Churchill Senior Living
Totals
Number of Units/Beds
Rental
Ownership
121
133
46
88
102
4
5
7
8
Figure 19, above: Germantown
population, 2005 and 2030
Figure 20, left: Senior housing in
Germantown
110
514
110
*Approved July 17, 2008; unbuilt
**2007/2008 construction, now being leased
Senior Housing Definitions
Active Adult Communities
These age-restricted communities comprise a variety of housing types, including a sizable number of single-family units, for
healthy and mobile residents over the age of 55. They include recreational facilities, such as swimming pools, tennis courts,
a clubhouse or golf courses, though some may feature business centers.
Aging in place
Older residents remain in the same non-age-restricted homes and communities of their younger-adult years and rely on
services delivered to the home, if required. Such services may include Meals on Wheels, help with housekeeping and
shopping, home health aides, visiting nurses, and similar supportive options.
Assisted living
Designed for adults who need help with the basic activities of daily living, such as bathing, dressing, and mobility. Most
facilities offer three meals per day, assistance with personal care, and a variety of activities.
Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC)
CCRCs offer more than one level of care with the expectation that residents will move freely from one level
to another as their needs change. CCRCs facilitate moves between levels of care if space is available at another level. (See
―Life Care,‖ below.)
Group home
A residence for up to 15 people designated as disabled or senior. Residents typically have rooms rather than full dwelling
units and receive care similar to assisted living.
Household
A household may consist of a single person or two or more persons sharing living quarters.
Independent living facilities
Designed for healthy older adults, independent living communities vary in the amount of service offered, with some providing
primarily maintenance, lawn care, security, some social or wellness programs, and transportation. Most buildings are
constructed to accommodate physical disabilities.
Life Care
is a term used interchangeably with CCRC. In life care, residents are guaranteed the ability to move from one level of care to
another as necessary, often with little change in financial arrangements. (See ―CCRC‖, above.)
Naturally Occurring Retirement Community (NORC)
In the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service‘s 2004 report, Supportive Services Programs
in Naturally Occurring Retirement Communities, NORCs are defined as communities or buildings not designed specifically for
older people, but which naturally ―evolved in such a way that a large proportion of residents are older.‖
Nursing home
A facility that offers skilled nursing care. Residents have ―beds‖ rather than apartments. There are fewer private rooms than
in other forms of housing. Nursing homes are rarely age-restricted, although a large percentage of residents are 65 and
older.
The 2005 population of the Germantown area
residents age 55 and over plan to remain in their
enable residents to stay in their own homes as
included about 10,000 residents 55 years of age
current residence for the rest of their lives.‖
they age.
or older—only about 11 percent of the population.
Another important finding was that most of the
Provide assisted-living facilities and nursing
By 2030, the forecast is for over 25,000 residents
residents 55 years of age or older who are working
homes. Currently there are only 24 assisted-
55 years of age and older, and that will be about
do not plan to retire. The Senior Housing Update
living beds in four different facilities in or near
27 percent of the population. The number of
(2006)11 inventoried the existing supply of senior
the study area (Figure 20).
persons 65 years of age and older will swell from
housing and compared the supply by type. Since
Ensure that new residential construction
3,329 in 2005 to 14,130 in 2030. The number of
2000, there has been a countywide increase in
includes efficiencies and 1-- and 2-bedroom
persons 75 years of age and older will increase to
independent-living units, while there has been a
rental units with elevators, sited within
about 4.5 times its 2005 level, from 1,231 in
net loss of affordable assisted-living units.
walkable mixed-use community, with services
2005 to 5,477 in 2030. The vast majority want to
to ensure that workers of varying ages and
stay in their own homes, according to recent
To allow Germantown‘s aging residents to stay as
abilities can live independently as long as
studies.
independent as they wish for as long as possible,
possible.
they will need assisted-living options, such as the
Naturally occurring retirement communities
following:
Moderately Priced Dwelling Units (MPDUs)
(NORCs) evolve when clusters of seniors stay at
home and age in place. Staff analysis revealed
Ensure that all new multifamily housing
Since the MPDU program began in earnest in
that 495 properties have been in the same
construction offers first-floor at-grade ingress
1976, over 12,400 MPDUs have been produced,
ownership for 20 years or longer. Three relatively
and egress, together with other accessibility
with over one-fourth of them built in Germantown.
large clusters of such properties appear outside
features.
MPDUs constructed before 1995 have expired,
the study area: Churchill, Gunners Lake Village,
Decentralize supportive services. Visiting
unless the County, HOC, or another not-for-profit
and Fox Chapel. One cluster appears within the
nurses, grocery and pharmacy home
housing provider purchased the units and kept
study area in Meadowbrook Estates.
deliveries, etc., are another example of
them affordable. 12 MPDUs tend to remain
community supportive services that can
relatively affordable after the control period
Research Findings
expires, largely because these units are typically
smaller than market-rate units. Since 1983,
The 55+ Housing Preference Survey (2005) 10
revealed that a ―majority of Montgomery County
10
http://www.mcparkandplanning.org/housing/
studies/housing%20_55.pdf. The survey, conducted by REDA,
International, was conducted in 2004, and published in 2005.
The telephone survey was designed to determine the housing
needs and wants of those 55 and older in Montgomery County.
Over 16,000 random telephone calls yielded over 1,200
completed interviews. The over 200 variables in the survey
have been compiled into a database by Research & Technology
Center staff to be used in planning and policy analysis.
11 http://www.mcparkandplanning.org/research/
documents/SeniorHousing-Final.pdf.
12Many
of the MPDUs built in Germantown have expired,
because the control periods were very short (10 years or less)
for the first 25 years of the program. In 2001, the 10 year
control period was modified to reset if an MPDU was sold within
the control period. It was not until April 1, 2005, that the 30year and 99-year control periods went into effect for ownership
and rental MPDUs, respectively.
Figure 22, above left: MPDUs built since 1985 in Germantown
Figure 23, above: Expiration profile of MPDUs
Figure 24, below left: HOC MPDUs in Germantown by structure type
Figure 25, below: MPDU income limits, March 2008
Household
Size
Structure Type
1
2
Single-Family Detached
3
4
5
Totals
5
37
1
43
24
Townhouse
6
53
195
Garden Apartment
3
53
11
High Rise
Totals
278
67
5
5
9
111
211
61
1
2.3%
28.2%
53.7%
15.5%
0.3%
1
2
3
4
5
Maximum Income
MPDU Rentals MPDUs For Sale
$45,000
$48,500
$51,500
$55,500
$58,000
$62,500
$64,500
$69,500
$69,500
$75,000
393
approximately 1,100 MPDUs have expired in the
In Germantown, affordable workforce housing
employees. Employers in Germantown should be
Germantown area. At the end of 2007, there were
should be in the Town Center for many reasons,
urged to participate in such programs.
still 1,181 MPDUs in control periods: 788 MPDUs
including the fruition of a vision for the community
in DHCA control periods and 393 permanently
that spans four decades. However, any site in the
controlled by HOC.
study area that offers easy access to public transit,
employment opportunities, and community
About 54 percent of HOC‘s MPDUs are 3-bedroom
services should be considered for workforce
units, about 28 percent are 2-bedroom units,
housing.
about 16 percent are 4-bedroom units or larger,
and the remainder are 1-bedroom units. This mix
Because the workforce includes a wide spectrum
generally reflects the market-rate mix, as well as
of ages, abilities, and household types, units
the MPDUs in DHCA control periods.
should be accessible. In the past only buildings
The income limits for the MPDU program are now
with more than four stories were required to have
reset annually by the County Executive. MPDU
elevators, but for housing to meet the needs of
sales prices and rents are not to exceed 30
workers of all ages and abilities, elevators become
percent of the annual income of eligible
critically important, regardless of the number of
households.
floors.
Workforce Housing
Home Purchase Assistance
Germantown may have the most affordable
In addition to the MPDU and Workforce Housing
workforce housing within Montgomery County, and
Programs, Montgomery County offers households
preserving and increasing affordable workforce
the opportunity to participate in a variety of
housing will be key to Germantown‘s future. In
financial programs to assist with housing
addition to its affordability, a primary assumption
affordability. Special attention is given to the
behind the concept of workforce housing in
―House Keys for Employees‖ program, in which
Montgomery County is that it can help households
The Maryland Department of Housing and
save money by reducing dependence on personal
Community Development offers a dollar-for-dollar
automobiles through proximity to transit or one‘s
match for an employer‘s contribution for down-
employer.
payment or closing-cost assistance to eligible
RENTAL PROGRAMS
HOUSEHOLD INCOME LEVELS SERVED
HOME-Funded Rental Housing
At a minimum: 20% HOME units – HHs up to 50% AMI
2008 AMI FOR WASHINGTON
DC METRO
$99,000
$49,500
70% HOME units – HHs up to 60% AMI
$59,400
$79,200
At a minimum: 90% HOME units – HHs up to 60% AMI
$89,100
$79,200
Public Housing
HHs up to 50% AMI
$49,500
Housing Choice Vouchers
At a minimum: 75% vouchers – HHs up to 30% AMI
$29,700
25% vouchers – HHs up to 50% AMI
$49,500
Tenant Based Rental Assistance
Home Ownership Programs
Household Income Levels Served
American Dream Down Payment
Households up to 80% AMI
$79,200
HOC Closing Cost Assistance
1 and 2 person HHs may earn up to 100% AMI
$99,000
3+ person HHs may earn up to 115% AMI
$113,850
1 and 2 person HHs may earn up to 100% AMI
$99,000
3+ person HHs may earn up to 115% AMI
$113,850
Moderately-Priced Dwelling Units
Households up to approximately 60% of AMI
$59,400
Low-Income Housing Tax Credits
At a minimum: 20% units – HHs up to 50% AMI, or
$49,500
40% units – HHs up to 60% AMI
$59,400
CDBG-Funded Homeowner Rehab
Households up to 80% AMI
$79,200
House Keys for Employees 13
$5,000 from state and $5,000 from participating employer.14 1 or 2 person HHs up to $94,500; $94,500 to $108,675
HOC Mortgage Purchase Program
3+ HH up to $108,675. Other limits apply.
13
Maryland‘s House Keys for Employees program is
administered by More House for Less and the State
Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD).
Through the program, the State DHCD will match contributions
dollar-for-dollar, up to $5,000, toward down payment and
closing costs from participating employers. The match is in the
form of a zero percent deferred loan, which is repayable upon
sale or transfer of the home or at the time of payoff or
refinancing.
14 Maryland Department of Housing and Community
Development (DHCD). www.morehouse4less.com.
Churchill Town Sector
APPENDIX 5:
CHURCHILL TOWN SECTOR
About 300 acres of the Germantown Employment
towns shall contain… all the residential,
Many provisions of the town sector zone are
Area Sector Plan falls within the 1,554-acre
commercial, community and industrial facilities
unique. For example, a minimum of 1,500 acres is
Churchill town sector area (see map, opposite),
needed to make possible a town that is reasonably
required for any application for the zone; all uses
Because of the comprehensive nature of the town
self-sufficient for all purposes, except major
are permitted; there are no FAR maximums; and
sector (TS) zone, recommendations for TS-zoned
employment and central business district
there are no minimum lot sizes, setbacks or height
properties within the Sector Plan area must
shopping‖ (Sec. 59-C-7.21). The following are
limits.
include consideration of the entire Churchill town
considered ―mutually interdependent
sector community. Additionally, staff has reviewed
requirements‖:
the 2,435-acre town sector in Montgomery Village
for potential impacts, as the Village is the only
Constraints include limits on the total area for
certain specified uses and on population:
Self-sufficiency (to include all desirable and
commercial uses are permitted to occupy up to ten
other place in the County where the town sector
a.
necessary commercial, employment, cultural
percent of the area; industrial and major
zone has been applied.
and recreational facilities)
employment facilities are permitted up to six
Diversity (to provide a variety of residential
percent; and not less than ten percent open space
This section includes an updated accounting of the
structure types, layouts, and rental and
is required. Population constraints are based on
current land uses and population in the Churchill
purchase prices)
calculations included in the zone, rather than by
Density (to be urban rather than rural in order
the resident population. No application for
recommendations for the part of the Churchill
to facilitate travel and efficient use of public
rezoning is to be granted until 50 years after the
town sector that falls within the Sector Plan area,
utilities, but with large amounts of open land
grant of the town sector zone.
and a discussion of potential amendments to the
for recreational and scenic purposes)
b.
and Montgomery Village town sector areas,
town sector zone that have been considered
c.
d.
during the preparation of this Plan.
e.
The Town Sector Zone
Transportation facilities (to be sufficient to
The population calculations and limits are unlike
serve the anticipated total population)
those found in other zones. The overall population
Public utilities (to have existing or planned
is limited to 15 persons per acre based upon the
sewer and water)
total area of the town sector zone, and is
calculated based upon dwelling types; actual
The town sector zone was initially approved on
The application of the zone is only appropriate for
(census) population is not considered. The factors
May 18, 1965 (C-1522), to facilitate the creation
land in identified corridor cities.
used for calculating the population for each
of the New Towns described in the General Plan.
dwelling type as described in the zone are:
As described in the Zoning Ordinance, ―(s)uch
count 3.7 persons per one-family detached
based upon the total area within the town sector
dwelling;
zone; except, that such planned population may
EXAMPLES
count 3.0 persons per townhouse;
be increased by an amount equal to the
POPULATION CALCULATION
count 3.0 persons per multi-family dwelling
population to be housed in moderately priced
that is less than five stories tall; and
dwelling units included in the development plan in
One-family
count 2.0 persons per multi-family dwelling
accordance with chapter 25A of this Code, as
that is five or more stories tall.
DUs
Factor
Pop.
detached
1,000
3.7
3,700
amended, provided that the total increase in
Townhouses
3,000
3.0
9,000
population does not exceed 22 percent of the
MF less than 5
For example, given a Corridor City of 1,500 acres,
population that would otherwise be permitted
stories
2,000
3.0
6,000
the total allowable population is first calculated by
(Sec. 59-C-7.25).
MF 5 or more
multiplying the total acreage (1,500) by the
stories
1,900
2.0
3,800
maximum allowed, 15 persons per acre, for a total
This differs from Chapter 25A (Housing,
Total
7,900
---
22,500
allowable population of 22,500. This 22,500 could
Moderately Priced) calculations where the
CALCULATION OF MPDUs
then be arranged in an unlimited number of ways
minimum required 12.5 percent MPDUs are
Market
MPDUs
Total
with various mixes of housing types, and the
included in the total (base) density. The sidebar,
units
(12.5%)
units
number of possible units can range from 6,081 (if
Calculations of MPDUs, shows the difference in
1,000 base
875
125
1,000
all units were single-family detached dwellings) to
1,000 base density units and 1,000 market units,
density units
11,250 (if they were all multi-family dwellings, five
each with 12.5 percent MPDUs.
1,000 market
1,000
143
1,143
or more stories tall). The Population Calculation
units
sidebar shows the calculations for one way the
Chapter 25A states that 12.5 percent of the total
allowable population could be arranged.
units must be MPDUs. Therefore, if 1,000 market
units are permitted, 143 MPDUs are required, for
The town sector zone includes a provision allowing
a total of 1,143 units.
up to 22 percent moderately priced dwelling units
(MPDUs) in excess of the 15 persons per acre
The town sector zone MPDU provision differs in
maximum; as the provision is written, it is
one other way. In most zones, a market rate bonus
calculated differently than the 22 percent bonus
density is offered when more than the minimum
density that is offered in other zones:
12.5 percent MPDUs are provided; the town sector
zone does not include this provision (see excerpt
The population of the town sector zone must be
from Sec. 59-C-7.25, above, and Calculation of
planned so as not to exceed 15 persons per acre
In a 1,500-acre Corridor City, a population of 22,500
(1,500 X 15) is permitted. If all homes are townhouses
(3.0 persons per townhouse), 7,500 market units are
allowed. With the required 12.5% (1,072) MPDUs, a
total of 8,572 units are built.
CALCULATION OF BONUS MPDUs
Market
MPDUs
Total
7,500
1,650
9,150
8,888
1,569
10,457
units
Town sector with
units
22% MPDUs
Non-town sector
with MPDU bonus
Bonus MPDUs, sidebar). The charts below show
a higher number of MPDUs
the difference in this provision with more detail.
a lower number of market and total units
Initial town sector zoning, F-148,
a lower population per acre, and
approved October 1968
a lower density.
1,554 acres (just slightly above the
In comparing the town sector MPDU provisions to
most other zones, the town sector 22 percent
bonus results in:
Churchill:
1,500-acre minimum required)
The town sector contains no apparent incentive for
A mixed residential-public-commercial
providing bonus MPDUs, though projects with
character
bonus MPDUs (in at least one case in excess of 22
In the Germantown corridor city and part
percent) have been approved in both Montgomery
of the I-270 employment corridor
Village and Churchill.
Developed by numerous entities
Represented by numerous landowners
Two Town Sector Communities:
and home owner associations.
Montgomery Village and Churchill
The table below, Comparing Zoning Maximums,
The town sector zone applies to almost 4,000
shows the greater commercial area in Churchill,
acres within two areas of the County: Montgomery
and the Research and Development use that is
Village and Churchill. The two areas are similar in
approved on the development plan; this reflects
some respects, but they differ in others.
Churchill‘s proximity to the Employment Corridor
Chart: Town Sector with 22 Percent MPDUs
and Montgomery Village‘s slight removal from it.
Montgomery Village:
Initial town sector zoning, E-327,
Churchill‘s larger percentage of open area is
largely due to the surface area of Lake Churchill.
approved August 1965
Chart: Non-Town Sector MPDUs with 22
Percent Bonus
2,435 acres
The second table below, Comparing Populations,
A mixed residential character
updates and compares the existing and approved
Partly within the Gaithersburg corridor
housing types and populations of Montgomery
city; adjacent to commercial and
Village and Churchill. The existing population
employment areas near MD 355 and I-
density in both Montgomery Village and Churchill
270
has been debated and examined at length. In
Developed by one entity
2005 and 2006, Montgomery Village residents did
Represented by the Montgomery Village
an extensive study of their population and
Foundation
provided it to the community, staff and interested
developers. Staff used these corrections in their
Comparing the two communities, staff observes
findings for a proposed mixed-use project
about five percent more single-family detached
(820060400), but the corrections will not appear
units and almost 15 percent more townhouses in
on a Development Plan until the plan in amended
Montgomery Village than in Churchill, and about
14 percent more low-rise apartments in Churchill.
In Churchill, staff conducted an inventory of all
Because none of the recommended high-rise units
land uses as part of the Germantown Employment
have been built in Churchill, a comparison is
Area Sector Plan update, and found errors in the
unequal; 4.8 percent exist in Montgomery Village
total acreage, land uses and population; this staff
and 10.5 percent have been recommended in
inventory is being used in this report, above and
Churchill, but none exist today.
below, but as noted previously, they differ from
past Development Plans. Staff is including MPDUs
as a separate item in this calculation, which was
done for the first time by Montgomery Village
residents as part of their study, and has not been
done for Churchill until now.
Comparing Zoning Maximums, Montgomery Village and Churchill
Montgomery Village – existing *
- Approved, unbuilt
Acres
Commercial (10% max)
Industrial/Major employment (6% max)
Open space (10% min)
2,434.8
43.1
0
696.8
0
0
0
-
Percent
1.8%
0.0%
28.6%
-
Max allowed (min req)
243.5
146.1
(243.5)
-
Remaining (above min)
200.4
146.1
(453.3)
75.8
0
745.2
Churchill – existing **
- Approved, unbuilt
1,554.0
0
75
0
-
Percent
4.9%
4.8%
48.0%***
-
Max allowed (min req)
155.4
93.2
(155.4)
-
Remaining (above min)
18.2
(356.5)
79.6
*From Montgomery Village DPA 02-2, corrected April 7, 2006
** Staff calculations; several errors found in current and past Churchill DPAs
***Includes Lake Churchill ( 17.3% belongs to WSSC)
Comparing Populations:
Montgomery Village and Churchill
Total
Market units
Population
MPDUs
Population
Total units
Population
Montgomery Village:
2,434.8 acres X 15 persons per acre = 36,522 total permitted population*
36,522 – 36,285 = 237 remaining population
- One-family detached (X 3.7)
2,102
7,778****
0
0
2,102
7,778
-
Townhouses (X 3.0)
5,736
17,208
745
2235
6,481
19,443
-
Multiple family < 5 stories (X 3.0)
3,387
10,161
26
78
3,413
10,239
-
Multiple family 5 or more stories (X 2.0)
569
1,138
32
64
601
1,202
11,794
36,285
803
2,377
12,597
38,662
Montgomery Village (total existing, recommended, approved)
Churchill:
1554.0 acres X 15 persons per acre = 23,310 total permitted population**
23,310 – 19,395 = 3,915 remaining population
827
3,060****
0
0
827
3,060
-
Townhouses (X 3.0)
2,314
6,942
299
897
2,613
7,839
-
2,697
8,091
241
723
2,938
8,814
-
Multiple family 5 or more stories (X 2.0)***
651
1,302
94
188
745
1,490
6,489
19,395
634*****
1,808
7,123
21,203
Churchill (total existing, recommended***, approved)
*Source: MVF and residents calculations; confirmation should made at time of next DPA
** Source: Staff inventory and HOC GIS data files; confirmation should be made at time of next DPA.
***1989 Germantown Master Plan and 1992 Town Center Design Study; unbuilt
****Rounding differences noted from previous calculations
*****HOC data indicate that about 308 of these units expired between 1985 and July 2008
Churchill Town Sector
As approved in 1968 (F-148), Churchill would
development, and the minimum requirement for
include a broad mix of housing types, schools and
green area has been generously met. The current
Part of the Churchill town sector area falls within
recreational areas, plus 109 acres of commercial
land use mix is summarized in the table below,
the current Sector Plan area, and part falls outside
uses, 75 acres of industrial uses, and a 100-acre
Churchill Town Sector Land Use Mix, 2008.
of it (see map at the start of this section); the latter
University Science Center. Under that original
area is largely developed with residential uses,
approval, Churchill met the self-sufficiency goal of
This table includes details of the acreage of each
and will continue to be guided by the 1989
the zone, but much of that proposal has never
housing type as a percentage of the area, rather
Germantown Master Plan. Below, a brief history
been realized—there is no University Science
than by unit count; this information appears on
and summary of the entire Churchill area is
Center, industrial park or dense Central Business
each development plan. Since its inception, an
followed by detailed information about the town
District with high-rise housing. (Some of the details
important goal of the town sector zone has been to
sector properties that fall within the current Sector
of the zoning cases, along with earlier master plan
provide a mix of dwelling types; Churchill has
Plan area. Calculations that include the Draft Plan
recommendations, from 1966, 1974 and 1989,
struggled to attain this mix. The following table,
recommendations are shown in the latter section
and development plan approvals will be included
Comparing Germantown Housing, 1968 and 2008,
only.
in discussions of individual properties, where they
shows the housing types proposed in 1968 and
are pertinent to current recommendations.)
the housing that now exists.
The 1,554.00413-acre Churchill town sector area
Today, the Churchill town sector area has a mixed
Since 1968, developers have built fewer dwelling
has been created through three zoning cases:
residential, public and commercial character; it
units than was approved in the original zoning
includes the Germantown Town Center, with
case, and they have built housing types that have
F-148
shopping, restaurants and offices, plus BlackRock
a lower density per acre. As a result, there is little
October 1968
Center for the Arts, the Germantown Library, the
remaining land intended for residential use. In
1,504.0923 acres
Upcounty Services Center, and the Churchill Village
addition, none of the 2,600 proposed high-rise
residential area, as designated in the 1989
multi-family units have been built. Because the
F-923
Germantown Master Plan. About 76 of the 109
population formula assumes a lower population
September 1974
acres of original commercial uses have been
count for high-rise multi-family dwellings, the
25.17183 acres
realized, and a 75-acre industrial area now
remaining population is lower than it would have
appears as a Research and Development Campus
been under the original mix. These market forces
G-742
on Churchill‘s approved development plan, though
have resulted in a lower-than anticipated number
October 1997
it has not been built. The maximum percentage
of homes, a more sprawling character and a
24.74 acres
limits for commercial, industrial and major
narrower mix of unit types than envisioned. It is
History and Summary
employment uses are not constraining
Churchill Town Sector Land Use Mix, 2008
Land Use
Residential
Private owners
Quasi-public,
(acres)
non-profit
Public owners
Acres
411.204
Percentage
411.204
Max % (min %)
26.5%
Subtotals: SFD
167.624
167.624
10.8%
SFA
97.195
97.195
6.3%
MF – low-rise
146.385
146.385
9.4%
MF – high-rise
0.0%
Commercial
75.782
75.782
4.9%
10%
Industrial/Major empl.*
75
75
4.8%
6%
10.998
0.7%
Churches
10.998
Public Uses
7.729
Subtotals: Utilities
55.321
63.05
4.1%
7.729
7.729
0.5%
Schools
40.013
40.013
2.6%
BlackRock Center for the Arts
1.13
1.13
0.1%
Upcounty Services Center
5.451
5.451
0.4%
Library and future park
8.727
8.727
0.6%
Open Space
233.25
269.409
242.54
Subtotals: Parks
242.54
Lake Churchill (WSSC)
269.409
HOA, private rec, open space
233.25
Major Roads**
Totals
745.199
795.236
288.136
48.0%
(10% min)
242.54
15.6%
269.409
17.3%
233.25
15.0%
172.77113
172.77113
11.1%
470.63213
1,554.00413
100.0%
*Approved, unbuilt
** No SDAT information available. Based on total TS acres minus total SDAT and/or GIS acres.
Comparing Churchill Housing: 1968 and 2008
1968 proposal (DUs)
1968 percentage
2008 existing (DUs)
2008 percentage
One-family detached
800
9.8%
827
13.0%
Townhouses
2,500
30.5%
2,613
41.0%
Multiple family < 5 stories
2,300
28.0%
2,938
46.1%
Multiple family 5 or more stories
2,600
31.7%
0
0.0%
Total
8,200
100.0%
6,378
100.1%*
*Rounding results distort total
Churchill Housing Details: Existing, approved and master planned*
Market units
Percentage
MPDUs
Percentage
Total units
Total Percentage
One-family detached
827
11.4%
0
0.0%
827
11.4%
Townhouses
2,314
32.0%
299
4.1%
2,613
36.1%
Multiple family < 5 stories
2,697
37.3%
241
3.3%
2,938
40.6%
Multiple family 5 or more stories**
745
10.3%
107
1.5%
852
11.8%
Total existing, recommended**, approved
6,583
91.1
647***
8.9%
7,230
100.0%
* Source: Staff inventory and HOC GIS data files; confirmation should be made at time of next DPA.
**Recommended (1989 Germantown Master Plan and 1992 Town Center Design Study) but unbuilt
***HOC data indicate that about 308 of these units expired between 1985 and July 2008
also creating pressure to allow housing in areas
Churchill Town Sector Properties within the
Town Center and West End
Germantown Employment Area Sector Plan
Properties in the Town Center and West End were
planned for major employment uses.
added to the town sector zone in 1968, 1974, and
About 300 acres of the Churchill town sector is
1997. In 1968, most of this area was designated
The second housing table, Churchill Housing
included in the current Sector Plan. The properties
as the central business district (CBD) area of the
Details, provides a breakdown by type of dwelling
will be described in the order in which they appear
Churchill town sector, encompassing the main
units and by MPDUs that are approved, built or in
in the Draft Plan: the Town Center and West End
commercial uses together with some of the
the 1989 and 1992 Germantown plans, by
followed by the North End.
recommended high-rise residential units. The
percentage of unit type. Almost half of the MPDUs
1974 and 1997 zoning additions have been
shown are no longer controlled.
consistent with this vision, but the construction
has been more modest than the vision.
Area 1 (see numbered map, below), is the site of
for employment. As part of the transit area, these
rise market rate housing units remain, with MPDUs
the future Town Center CCT stop. This area, which
two blocks are now recommended for further
added, as above.
currently contains a commuter parking lot and
development of mixed commercial uses,
several pad sites, is planned for a mix of office,
entertainment and housing up to 2.0 FAR with
Area 4, included in the 1968 zoning approval,
retail and residential uses at 2.0 FAR, with
structured parking. As above, the area will remain
contains the Upcounty Services Center,
commuter parking moving into a structure on the
as commercial acreage, with 100 units of high-rise
Germantown Commons Shopping Center, several
site. In 1997, at the time of rezoning, a proposal
market-rate housing plus MPDUs.
pad sites and across Germantown Road, the
that is similar to the current recommendations
Germantown Square Park and part of a car wash.
was included for review, but not approved. Under
Area 3, part of the 1968 and 1974 zoning
Redevelopment of the shopping center at 0.5 FAR
the town sector zone limits, this area is expected
approvals, contains the Germantown Library,
with up to 40 percent housing is recommended.
to remain counted as commercial acreage with
several hundred townhouses and apartments,
Staff recommends up to 135 low-rise multi-family
500 units of high-rise market-rate housing, and
Safeway, Euromotors and other retail and office
market-rate units, plus MPDUs, for this area.
12.5 to 22 percent MPDUs.
uses. In the 1974 Germantown Master Plan, this
area was designated as a regional and office
Area 5, also part of the 1968 rezoning, contains a
Area 2, also part of the 1997 zoning application,
commercial area with a library and a common
church, housing, offices and warehouse
currently contains a hotel and cinemas with
green. A 1997 development plan amendment
commercial uses. The area contains smaller
surface parking. Prior to the rezoning, the 1989
changed this area to mixed use; current
properties and has a limited amount of vacant
Germantown Master Plan recommended this area
recommendations continue to reflect mixed use.
land. The 16.5 acres of commercial properties are
2
5
3
1
4
Fewer jobs and high-rise housing
expected to remain as commercial uses; partial
units have been developed in this
redevelopment up to 0.5 FAR is recommended.
area than have been planned.
The church and housing is expected to remain. A
When the commercial portion of
past approval for 124 market-rate housing units
this area redevelops, higher
plus MPDUs on the church property has been
densities, to 1.0 FAR, are
retained.
recommended. Under the town
sector limits, this area remains
North End
counted partially as commercial
The Far North Village property was included in the
and partially as residential. From
town sector application in 1968, with 75 acres
past recommendations, 245 high-
recommended for industrial uses. A 1973
Churchill Town Sector Properties in the Town Center and West End
development plan amendment, reflected
Since 1968, the property has not been developed;
in the 1974 Master Plan, changed the
it currently contains a driving range. Staff
uses in this area to residential (179
continues to recommend that up to 75 acres of
single-family detached units and 225
the property be developed, and as it is adjacent to
townhouses) with a school and a park.
both a future transit stop and I-270, considers this
Subsequently, DPA 83-3 again changed
an important site for employment in Germantown.
the 75 acres to a 2.7 million square foot
This recommendation includes 1.5 million square
Research and Development Park, but
feet of R&D and major employment, with the
traffic was limited to the prior residential
potential for that to include a hotel and a limited
approval. With DPA 89-3, the proposal
amount of retail. To allow a broader mix of uses at
was modified to permit only 1.3 million
transit and for compatibility with the adjacent
square feet of R&D development on 75
residential community, an allowance for 570
acres; this appears on the current
market-rate multi-family units has been added to
development plan. In 1994, about 63
the site; half should be high-rise and half should
acres of stream valley was dedicated, to
be low-rise units.
become part of Black Hill Regional Park,
leaving about 110 acres of property.
North End Properties: Far North Village
Churchill Housing Details: Adding proposed units to existing units
Existing
Existing
Total existing
Prop
Prop MPDUs
Total
Ex + prop
Ex + prop
Ex + prop
market units
MPDUs
units
market units
(12.5%)*
Prop
market units
MPDUs
total
One-family detached
827
0
827
827
0
827
Townhouses
2,314
299
2,613
Multiple family < 5
2,697
241
2,938
2,314
299
2,613
544
78
622
3,241
319
3,560
1,130
162
1,292
1,130
162
1,292
1,674
240
1,914
7,512
780
8,292
stories
Multiple family 5 or
more stories
Total
5,838
540**
6,387
Note that the 1989 and 1992 recommended units have been moved into the Proposed columns
* RTC MPDU calculator used
** HOC data indicate that about 308 of these units expired between 1985 and July 2008
The remaining approximately 35 acres of this
Town Sector Land Use Mix, 2008, but they will
redevelopment are possible. Extinguishing all
property contains forest identified for preservation.
change the housing and population calculations.
or nearly all further rights to develop should
As the zone states: ―it is the purpose of this zone
The table, Churchill Housing Details, shows the
only be considered when the area is part of a
to preserve and take the greatest possible
addition of the proposed housing. The table,
master plan amendment. Until such an
aesthetic advantage of trees‖ (Purpose, 59-C-
Proposed Churchill Population, shows the
amendment is undertaken and the entire
7.21). In the event the retention of this forest is in
population details by housing type, and its impact
Churchill Town Sector is engaged, no further
conflict with the additional housing
on the overall population.
density should be assigned to the Sector Plan
recommendation, high-rise units may be
area.
substituted for the recommended low-rise units
It is not recommended that the full 15 person per
and the population allowance of 1,425 converted
acre density be allotted to this area; a permitted
Second, if more than 12.5 percent MPDUs
to reflect the high-rise units.
population of 1,325 is projected to remain. This
were provided on a site, the bonus market
recommendation is based upon two
density provisions of Chapter 25A would not
considerations:
apply because the town sector zone does not
At the time that a Development Plan Amendment
is submitted for these or any other Churchill town
reflect this provision. However, a slight
sector properties, detailed tables showing the land
First, more than 1,200 acres (about 81
amendment to either the town sector zone or
use mix, housing and population should be
percent) of the Churchill town sector zone is
Chapter 25A could change this, and such an
provided.
outside of the Sector Plan area, and an
amendment would increase the potential
allowance should remain for changes in that
number of units up to 22 percent. Such a
These recommendations will not change the land
much larger area. Although that area is largely
change could have a significant impact on the
use mix shown in the previous table, Churchill
developed, infill development and
character of Churchill and Montgomery Village,
Proposed Churchill population
Market units
Population
MPDUs
Population
Total units
Total Population
Churchill:
1554.0 acres X 15 persons per acre = 23,310 total permitted population
23,310 – 21,985 = 1,325 remaining population
827
3,060
0
0
827
3,060
-
Townhouses (X 3.0)
2,314
6,942
299
897
2,613
7,839
-
3,241
9,723
319
957
3,560
10,680
-
Multiple family 5 or more stories (X 2.0)
1,130
2.260
162
324
1,292
2,584
Churchill (total existing, recommended, approved)
7,512
21,985
780
2,178
8,292
24,163
and is not being recommended.
and the actual commercial area was
zone are required to provide 65 percent green
determined to be substantially lower than is
area. To compare the town sector zone with
Consideration of Amendments to the Town Sector
shown. Staff sees no need for a change to this
other mixed use zones, the TOMX and TMX
Zone
limit.
zones have a 75 percent coverage maximum,
Several property owners and interested parties
Should the industrial and major employment
green area within the commercial portion of
have discussed amending the town sector zone,
area maximum of six percent be increased?
the site and 20 to 50 percent green area in
and in reviewing the zone, staff has also
(59-C-7.243). This maximum has already
the residential portion.
considered revisions and clarifications. The
increased; until 1999, the maximum was five
following changes have been considered; they
percent. There has been no industrial or major
Because there is a limited amount of
appear in the order in which the existing provisions
employment built in the zone. Should this
undeveloped land in the town sector zone, a
appear in the Zoning Ordinance.
allowance be removed? Staff supports
change to the total open space requirement
retaining the use as it supports self-sufficiency
would have minimal impact. The bulk of the
in the area.
open space was designated during the initial
and the RMX zones require ten to 20 percent
Area requirements (59-C-7.24):
Should the town sector zone area minimum of
development plan approvals; much smaller
1,500 acres be changed? (59-C-7.241) Staff
Should the open area minimum of ten percent
amounts (by acreage and percentage) have
discussed the potential for removing a
be changed? (59-C-7.244) Currently, about
been provided during more recent approvals.
property from the Churchill town sector zone,
29 percent of the area in Montgomery Village
which would have reduced the total area
and 48 percent of the area in Churchill is held
Since both town sector communities exceed
below 1,500 acres. This would have reduced
as open space. In analyzing the Churchill open
the overall requirement for open space, there
the number of zones in transit areas, but
space, staff notes that only about one-third is
is a risk that future projects could be approved
would also have reduced the self-sufficiency of
held in public parks (15.6 percent); the
without any open space within the new
the zone. Staff does not recommend reducing
balance is owned privately (mostly by HOAs)
neighborhood. Staff has discussed a potential
the minimum acreage requirement.
and by WSSC.
requirement for open space for individual sites
Should the commercial area maximum of ten
To compare to other residential areas, homes
Alternatively, staff considered minimum sizes
percent of the total area be increased? (59-C-
are usually restricted by coverage maximums
or dimensions of open spaces, to avoid small,
7.242) According to Churchill‘s last approved
(e.g., 15-40 percent is common) or by green
unusable open spaces. Staff recommends
development plan, the limit was being
space requirements (e.g., 30-50 percent); the
that the open space requirements be reviewed
approached. However, in reviewing the
largest developments (above 750 acres) in
more broadly, perhaps as part of the
development plan, several errors were found,
the Planned Retirement Community (PRC)
to avoid areas without open space.
comprehensive revision of the Zoning
In considering the second recommendation,
Procedures for application and approval (59-C-
Ordinance.
staff concludes that adding a category for
7.28):
senior housing would be inconsistent with the
Should the limits on reclassification be
current formula which is based on dwelling
changed? Once the town sector zone is
Should the population density provision be
types, not on resident types. Staff notes that
granted, properties cannot be reclassified for
changed? As described above, the population
facilities which will support an aging
50 years. The town sector zone was granted in
density in the town sector zone cannot exceed
population, such as nursing facilities, are
Montgomery Village in 1965, and in Churchill
15 persons per acre. Two recommendations
considered services and are not limited by any
in 1968; those properties become eligible for
have been made to staff: that more
percentage in the zone.
reclassification in 2015 and 2018,
Density of population (59-C-7.25):
population should be permitted because
respectively. The consequences of such
census information indicates that we do not
Should the MPDU provision be changed? In
reclassifications have not been examined. For
have an actual population of 15 persons per
the town sector zone, the MPDU provision
instance, if some properties are reclassified, it
acre; and because we have an aging
differs markedly from those in Chapter 25A. In
could reduce the allowed commercial and
population, and seniors have smaller
the town sector zone, all MPDU population is
major employment acreage, possibly taking
household sizes, a new category for
in excess of the stated maximum population,
other properties out of compliance with the
calculating senior housing should be added.
whereas elsewhere, the required 12.5 percent
zone.
is considered to be part of the maximum
Staff is unable to address the first argument
density. In addition, the 22 percent maximum
During the review of the open area and
because this agency does not have any
MPDU calculation contains no market rate
population standards noted above, staff
authority over the number of people living in a
bonus. Last, the 22 percent cap is calculated
recommends that the policies and procedures
dwelling unit. A trend toward smaller
on the entire acreage of the area, rather than
for reclassification be made explicit. Both
household sizes has been observed since
site-by-site. These differences can reasonably
should be part of the comprehensive zoning
1965, so further study may be appropriate. If
be expected to cause ongoing confusion.
revision.
the Planning Board wishes to examine the
However, standardizing the zone to reflect
standards used to calculate the population in
Chapter 25A could result in excess population
Because the zone dates to the 1960s, the town
the zone, staff recommends doing it
as described in the previous section.
sector contains no provision for using transferable
comprehensively, rather than as part of the
Clarification is recommended, but should be
development rights (TDRs) or building lot
current Germantown Employment Area Sector
mindful of this result.
termination rights (BLTs).
Plan.
Staff is not making land use recommendations in
the Germantown Employment Area Sector Plan
that require amending the town sector zone, but
staff does find several sections of the zone where
clarification is desirable. An amendment should be
done as part of the comprehensive revision of the
Zoning Ordinance or a study of the complete town
sector area, rather than as part of this Sector Plan.
The two town sector communities, Montgomery
Village and Churchill, should be included in the
discussions of any amendments.
Summary
The town sector zone is a flexible, mixed use zone
that has been in place in Germantown for 40
years. It is a very workable tool for developing the
Employment Corridor as envisioned in the Sector
Plan, with concentrated, mixed-use transit nodes.
Staff recommends retaining the elements of major
employment and open space that have appeared
consistently over the years, and recommends
increasing the mix of uses, as has been proposed
in the Draft Plan. This can create the kind of selfsufficient community described by the zone since
its inception in 1965.
APPENDIX 6:
TOP 100 GERMANTOWN BUSINESSES (RANKED BY EMPLOYMENT)
Company
United States Dept of Energy
Hughes Network Systems LLC
Acterna LLC
Energy Enterprise Solutions
Library Systems & Services LLC
Wal-Mart
WABTEC Railway Electronics
Address
19901 Germantown Rd
11717 Exploration Ln
1 Milestone Center Ct
20440 Century Blvd # 150
12850 Middlebrook Rd
20910 Frederick Rd
21200 Dorsey Mill Rd
Location Type
Single Location
Headquarters
Headquarters
Single Location
Single Location
Branch Store Location
Headquarters
GE Aviation Systems
NCR Government Systems LLC
Science Applications International
Corporation
A W S Convergence Technologies
Home Depot Inc
Montgomery Community College
Target
Giant Food
Qiagen Sciences Inc
Current Group LLC
Universata
20511 Seneca Meadows Pkwy
Branch Office
Single Location
250
250
20201 Century Blvd #200
12410 Milestone Center Dr
21010 Frederick Rd
20200 Observation Dr
20908 Frederick Rd
19721 Frederick Rd
19300 Germantown Rd
20420 Century Blvd
Branch Office
Single Location
Branch Campus
Single Location
Single Location
Single Location
223
205
200
200
200
170
170
167
150
Telkonet
Giant Food
Kohl‘s
Shoppers Food Warehouse
Best Buy
Current Technologies LLC
American Marketing Services
20918 Frederick Rd
18066 Mateny Rd
20914 Frederick Rd
20420 Century Blvd
12900 Cloverleaf Center Dr A
Single Location
Single Location
Single Location
141
130
120
101
100
100
90
15
Jobs
1,700
900
700
400
400
400
300
Industry Description
Federal Facility15
Telecommunications Resellers
Communications Manufacturing
Computer Programming
General Management Consulting
Discount Department Store
Instrument Testing and Manufacturing
Aerospace Products and Parts
Manufacturing
Computer Systems Design
Computer Programming & Integrated
Systems Design
Internet Service Provider
Home Centers
Universities & Colleges
Supermarket
Testing Laboratory
Telecommunications
Web Search Portal
Other Telecommunications Services
(networking)
Supermarket
Supermarket
Electronics stores
Electronic parts
Newspaper Publishers
RTC estimate based on survey of federal facilities in Montgomery County
Company
Axiom Systems Inc
Telogy Networks Inc
Outback Steakhouse
Accuvia Consulting Inc
Roberts Home Medical Inc
Address
20300 Century Blvd Ste 120
20450 Century Blvd
12609 Wisteria Dr
20250 Century Blvd
Location Type
Single Location
Single Location
Single Location
Headquarters
Wilcoxon Research Inc
Rodgers Consulting Inc
Single Location
Single Location
75
70
Full Service Restaurant
Computer Systems Design Services
Medical Equipment & Supplies
Other Measuring & Controlling Device
Manufacturing
Engineering Services
Safeway
Counter Technology Inc
Egan Enterprises Inc
Red Robin America's Gourmet
Systematic Management Services
EKA Systems Inc
Montrose Motors Inc
Defense Contract Audit Agency
National Institute of Vehicle Dynamics
Pc-Tel Inc
Samuel Asare
Avalon Pharmaceuticals Inc
Ruby Tuesday
Amarex LLC
Optelecom-Nkf Inc
Trident Tek Inc
Carrabba‘s Italian Grill
Gcat LLC
Germantown Electrical Contracting
Imatek Inc
Michael S Schindler MD
RE Max Professional Inc
Asbury Group Integrated Technologies
Borders Books & Music
19718 Germantown Rd
17001 Germantown Rd
20001 Century Blvd
19560 Frederick Rd
17802 Black Stallion Way
19800 Century Blvd
20201 Century Blvd
12920 Cloverleaf Center Dr
12900 Cloverleaf Center Dr B
19935 Century Blvd
19560 Amaranth Dr
19120 Mateny Hill Rd
19568 Amaranth Dr
20528 Boland Farm Rd
20270 Goldenrod Ln # 200
20926 Frederick Rd
Single Location
Single Location
Single Location
Headquarters
Single Location
Single Location
Branch Office
Single Location
Single Location
Single Location
Single Location
Single Location
Headquarters
Single Location
Single Location
Single Location
Single Location
Single Location
Single Location
Single Location
70
67
65
65
65
62
62
60
60
60
60
56
55
53
53
52
50
50
50
50
50
50
45
45
Supermarket
Consulting Services
Caterers
Full-Service Restaurant
Remediation Services
Telecommunications
New Car Dealers
National Security
Auto Driving School
Communications Equipment
Business Services
Research & Development
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Computer Storage Manufacturing
Electronic Parts & Equipment
Electrical Contractors
Software Publishers
Physicians Offices
Real Estate Agents
Information Technology
Book Stores
Jobs
87
85
80
75
75
Company
Planet Technologies Inc
Project Enhancement Corp
The Butler School
Vika Inc
Atteloir Inc
Advanced Technologies Labs
Circle School Seneca Academy
Pep Boys
Petsmart
Genesis Security Systems LLC
Carlos Painting & Decorating
Aztek Enterprise Inc
Datalab USA LLC
Advantage Point Catering
Fitness First Health Club
Mantaro Networks Inc
O B A Bank
Paramed Medical Transportation
Geomet Technologies LLC
Executive Drywall Inc
Global Credit Network LLC
Love My Car Carwash LLC
Pelican Pete's
Germantown Veterinary Clinic
Green Hill
Medispec Ltd
Visual Aids Electronics Corp
Multispectral Solutions Inc
Domino‘s Pizza
Microlog Corp of Maryland
Proxy Aviation Systems Inc
S G S Light Science Services
Address
15951 Germantown Rd
15601 Germantown Rd
20900 Frederick Rd
20924 Frederick Rd
14413 Cervantes Ave
19104 Jamieson Dr
20261 Goldenrod Ln
11717 Exploration Ln
19757 Frederick Rd
23230 Ridge Rd
20251 Century Blvd Ste 300
23208 Ridge Rd
19600 Walter Johnson Rd
12941 Wisteria Dr
19911 Father Hurley Blvd
12910 Clover Leaf Center Dr
20300 Century Blvd
20270 Goldenrod Ln # 100
12850 Middlebrook Rd 406
Location Type
Single Location
Single Location
Single Location
Branch Office
Single Location
Single Location
Single Location
Single Location
Single Location
Single Location
Single Location
Single Location
Single Location
Single Location
Headquarters
Single Location
Headquarters
Single Location
Single Location
Single Location
Single Location
Single Location
Single Location
Single Location
Headquarters
Single Location
Single Location
Single Location
Single Location
Jobs
45
45
45
45
42
40
40
40
40
39
38
36
36
35
35
35
35
35
33
30
30
30
30
28
28
28
28
27
25
25
25
25
Computer Systems
Management Consulting
Elementary & Secondary Schools
Computer Training
Management Consulting
Elementary & Secondary Schools
Automotive Services
Pet supplies & pet care
Security Systems
Contractors
Janitorial Services
Data Processing
Caterers
Fitness & Recreation
Banking
Transit & Transportation
Scientific & Technical Consulting
Contractors
Collection Agencies
Car Washes
Restaurant
Veterinary Services
Software Publishers
Medical Equipment
Consumer Goods Rental
Quick-Service Restaurant
Aircraft Manufacturing
Social Sciences Research
Company
Tetra Tech NUS
Woodside Deli
Address
Location Type
Branch Office
Single Location
Jobs
25
23
Restaurant
Sensors for Medicine & Science
Single Location
22
Measuring and Controlling Devices
Comtech Mobile Datacom
Dermatology & Clinical Skin
Greenhorne & O‘Mara
Histoserv Inc
O'Connor Plumbing & Heating
Middlebrook Pharmaceuticals
Vanguard Management Associates
Minkoff Development
Pinnacle Communications
20430 Century Blvd
19735 Germantown Rd #210
19526 Amaranth Dr
19301 Mateny Hill Rd
19538 Amaranth
19821 Executive Park Circle
Headquarters
Single Location
Branch Office
Single Location
Single Location
Single Location
Single Location
Single Location
Headquarters
20
20
20
20
20
18
17
16
15
Physicians Offices
Medical Laboratories
Contractors
Pharmaceutical Preparation
Real Estate Agents
Real Estate Broker, Land Subdivision
Source: Dunn & Bradstreet Selectory Online database. Download December 2, 2008
Note: This list represents the top 100 of 2,360 companies with headquarter, single location and branch offices located in Germantown.
APPENDIX 7: MAJOR RETAILERS IN GERMANTOWN (RANKED BY EMPLOYMENT)
Company
Address
Location Type
Jobs
Wal-Mart
Home Depot Inc
Target
Giant Food
Giant Food
Kohl‘s
Shoppers Food Warehouse
Best Buy
Outback Steakhouse
20910 Frederick Rd
21010 Frederick Rd
20908 Frederick Rd
19721 Frederick Rd
20918 Frederick Rd
18066 Mateny Rd
20914 Frederick Rd
12609 Wisteria Dr
400
200
200
170
130
120
101
100
80
Home Centers
Supermarket
Supermarket
Supermarket
Electronics stores
Full Service Restaurant
Safeway
Red Robin America's Gourmet
Ruby Tuesday
Carrabba‘s Italian Grill
Borders Books & Music
Pep Boys
Petsmart
Love My Car Carwash LLC
Pelican Pete's
Domino‘s Pizza
Woodside Deli
19718 Germantown Rd
20001 Century Blvd
19800 Century Blvd
19935 Century Blvd
20926 Frederick Rd
20900 Frederick Rd
20924 Frederick Rd
19600 Walter Johnson Rd
12941 Wisteria Dr
Single Location
Single Location
Single Location
Single Location
70
65
55
50
45
40
40
30
30
25
23
Supermarket
Book Stores
Automotive Services
Pet supplies & pet care
Car Washes
Restaurant
Quick-Service Restaurant
Restaurant
Source: Dunn & Bradstreet Selectory Online database. Download December 2, 2008.
Little Seneca Lake, March 30, 2008
APPENDIX 8:
WATER AND SEWER CAPACITY
From the Germantown Master Plan, 1989
The Germantown planning area is intended to use
public water and sewer systems consistent with
the planning and policies established in the
Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage
Systems Plan. WSSC provides community water
and sewer service in the Master Plan area. A few
properties in the planning area still use individual
on-site wells and septic systems. This Master Plan
recommends that the entire study area be
included in the public water and sewer service
envelope.
A substantial portion of the planning area lies
within the Little Seneca Creek watershed and
drains directly to Little Seneca Lake. Protect the
lake as an emergency drinking water source.
Figure 1: Watersheds
APPENDIX 9:
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS
Environmental Planning Division, 2008
Vision
Watersheds). This section includes a description
costs associated with stormwater management,
and evaluation of the environmental features
and increase property values.16
The Germantown Employment Area Sector Plan
included in these two watersheds and includes
consists of well designed and strategically located
recommendations for their protection and
In the Sector Plan area, forests cover about 340
open spaces connected by tree-shaded walks,
restoration. For more detailed information on the
acres, or approximately 14 percent of the total
streets and greenways. Green design is integrated
existing conditions and environmental policy
study area.
into the built environment, making Germantown a
affecting the environmental features discussed,
desirable and sustainable community in which to
readers are encouraged to review the Seneca
Urban Tree Canopy
live, work, and shop. Stormwater impacts are
Creek Environmental Resources Inventory (April
Individual trees or landscaped areas consisting of
mitigated through vegetated riparian buffers,
2007).
large trees can play a vital role in urban areas by
green roofs, bioretention areas, and urban tree
canopy. Developed areas are framed and
reducing urban heat island effect, mitigating
Forest Resources and Urban Tree Canopy
supported by an environmental infrastructure
stormwater runoff, and improving air quality. And
while a forested buffer 100 feet in width along a
comprising an interconnected system of public
As with any urbanized community, the
stream is of greater value than individual trees
and private lands that contain significant areas of
environmental and economic value of natural
interspersed along the same stream, the
forest, wetlands, water supply reservoirs, wildlife
resources such as forests is often overlooked.
importance that individual trees play should not be
habitat, prime agricultural lands, and other
Forests improve air and water quality, provide
ignored.
sensitive areas with minimal intrusions from land
wildlife habitat, moderate summer temperatures
development, light and noise pollution.
and buffer winter winds, afford recreational
Approximately 172 acres of urban tree canopy
opportunities, and improve community aesthetics.
exists within the study area that does not meet the
From an economic point of view, urban tree
definition of forests. If the forest and tree areas
canopy can decrease heating and cooling costs,
are combined, the total amount of forest and
The Germantown Employment Area Sector Plan is
decrease costs related to clearing, grading and
urban tree canopy within the planning area is 512
located in upper central Montgomery County,
maintaining lawns of large developments, reduce
Background
Maryland, and falls within two watersheds: the
Great Seneca Creek watershed and the Little
Seneca Creek watershed (see Figure 1,
Cappiella, K., Schueler, T., and T. Wright. 2005. Urban
Watershed Forestry Manual Part 1: Methods for Increasing
Forest Cover in a Watershed. USDA Forest Service, Newtown
Square, PA. Also available
online at: www.cwp.org/forestry/index.htm.
16
acres; about 20 percent of the Sector Plan area is
Recommendations:
Wetland Resources
covered by trees.
Protect existing forest resources on
In a 2003 study of Montgomery County, Goetz and
developable properties to prevent
Wetlands occur where the ground is regularly
others determined that watershed tree cover
fragmentation of upland forests particularly on
saturated by surface water or groundwater,
greater than 45 percent was correlated with good
the Montgomery College Germantown Campus
resulting in vegetation that is adapted for life in
and excellent stream health, as measured by
and in the northern part of the study area.
saturated soil conditions. Some common types of
biological indicators. American Forests, a national
Increase overall forest and urban tree canopy
wetlands include springs, seeps, marshes,
nonprofit that specializes in urban forestry,
to between 30 and 40 percent over the next
swamps, bogs, and wet meadows. Often, they are
suggests that a goal of 40 percent canopy cover in
30 years for the Sector Plan area.
located in close proximity to streams. The location
urban areas is achievable.
o
Identify opportunities for forest restoration
of wetlands, coupled with their unique physical,
along streams and wetlands and target
chemical, and biological processes, allows them to
Staff analyzed the potential to achieve 30-40
mitigation efforts to these areas during
provide important water quality and flood control
percent tree canopy coverage in the Sector Plan
the development review process, with an
functions, as well as valuable wildlife habitat.
area. Thirty percent tree canopy coverage equates
emphasis on connectivity to other
to 790 acres of tree canopy. Assumptions used in
forested buffers.
As part of the Seneca Creek Environmental
this analysis are: (1) stream buffers will be
Enhance the natural environment in
Resources Inventory conducted in 2007,
forested; (2) existing forest conservation
Germantown by creating green open
Commission staff performed a wetland inventory
easements will remain forested; (3) road sections
spaces as part of landscaping and forest
and functional assessment within the boundaries
(other than freeways such as Father Hurley
requirements and encourage tree
of the Germantown Employment Area Sector Plan.
Boulevard and Great Seneca Highway) can have
plantings in such areas. Require tree
Most of the wetlands in the study area are
street trees planted along currently unplanted
protection plans, including soil
concentrated in the headwaters (i.e., the
segments; and (4) substantial areas of existing
enhancement and other techniques, to
uppermost part of a stream or the area just above
forest and neighborhood trees will be preserved.
maximize planting success.
the beginning of a stream) and floodplains of
Target unforested road sections for street
Middle Great Seneca and in many of the feeder
tree plantings.
tributaries along the eastern portion of the Little
The analysis shows that canopy coverage of at
least 31.3 percent is achievable. Achieving this
o
o
goal does depend on retaining substantial areas of
Restore forested stream and wetland buffers
Seneca watershed. In total, it was found that
remaining existing forest, including most of the
on public properties and target public land
wetlands account for approximately 88 acres, or
forest on the Lerner and Montgomery College
acquisition programs to preserve, enhance or
just below four percent of the total acreage of the
properties.
restore riparian buffers and special habitat
study area. Surveyed wetlands include the
areas.
Germantown Bog, which is a Wetland of Special
good candidates for wetland restoration or
conditions have been monitored as part of the
State Concern.
mitigation projects, and have been documented in
Montgomery County Countywide Stream
the Seneca Creek Environmental Resources
Protections Strategy (CSPS). Baseline monitoring
Inventory.
done in the 1990s indicated largely good to fair
Commission staff conducted a functional
assessment of each wetland‘s ability to perform
five different wetland functions: attenuation of
water quality in subwatersheds within the Sector
Recommendations:
flood flows; reduction in sediment and nutrient
Plan area. Subsequent CSPS monitoring
conducted in 2006 indicates declining water
loads; groundwater discharge; provision of aquatic
Protect wetlands and their associated
quality, with good subwatersheds now ranking as
habitat; and provision of terrestrial habitat. Each
buffers – including springs and seeps –
fair, and many fair subwatersheds slipping to poor
wetland was then rated as ―high, medium, or low‖
through the application of conservation
water quality.
in terms of their ability to perform the five wetland
easements during the development
functions. The highest quality wetlands within the
review process.
A 2003 CSPS report produced by Montgomery
study area are within or adjacent to large tracts of
Restore and/or enhance such wetlands by
County‘s Department of Environmental Protection
protected mature forested parkland. Although
fencing, creating natural buffers, or other
identified increasing impervious surfaces,
impacts from growth and other factors are
techniques whenever possible.
inadequate stormwater management facilities,
contributing to biological and chemical changes,
Direct wetland mitigation within the Sector
and piped headwater streams as the greatest
the overall functional ranking was determined to
Plan area using the criteria identified in
impairments to stream conditions in urbanized
be high within these protected park corridors.
the Seneca Creek Environmental
areas such as the Sector Plan area. Roads,
Resources Inventory.
parking areas, buildings, and surrounding lawns
Also located throughout the study area are many
stormwater management ponds that were
are all examples of impervious surfaces because
Water Quality and Stormwater Management
constructed for the purposes of controlling
they inhibit rainwater‘s ability to soak into the
ground. As a result, additional impervious surface
stormwater runoff, as well as ‗converted areas‘
increases stormwater runoff and decreases
that were natural or historic wetlands that are now
falls within the Great Seneca Creek and the Little
groundwater replenishment.
tilled, grazed, or planted. These areas may be
Seneca Creek watersheds. Water quality
Increased stormwater runoff not only makes
such as nitrogen, phosphorous, sediments, heavy
events also increase stream bank erosion and can
streams more susceptible to flooding during storm
metals, and toxins into our stream systems.
destabilize streams. Development and
events, but it also increases the flow of pollutants
Higher and faster water volumes during storm
redevelopment efforts within the study area
present opportunities to incorporate stormwater
management with today‘s more stringent
standards; it also provides opportunities for
stream restoration work in the Great Seneca Creek
and Little Seneca Creek watersheds. In addition,
development and redevelopment efforts provide
the opportunity for the incorporation of
environmentally sensitive design techniques that
reduce impervious surface and provide for on-site
treatment of stormwater runoff.
Recommendations:
Use environmental site design and lowimpact development techniques such as
green roofs, rain gardens, innovative
stormwater outfalls, green streets,
cisterns, rain barrels, grass swales, and
stream restoration to the fullest extent
possible during the development review
process.
Figure 2: Great Seneca and Muddy Branch Watershed Study
Landscape existing stormwater
concrete, to allow some water from
Implement recommendations from the
management facilities with native
these areas to infiltrate. These
county‘s Great Seneca Creek and Muddy
materials to enhance water quality, cool
methods should take into account the
Branch watershed study (see Figure 2,
water, and improve aesthetics. The
soil conditions and the need for
Great Seneca and Muddy Branch
Department of Environmental Protection
maintenance to assure that they
Watershed Study) to restore the
must review and approve landscaping of
continue to function properly.
headwater stream reaches of Gunners
facilities they maintain. Dam safety,
Wherever possible, conserve existing
Branch on the east side and south of the
functionality, and maintenance should all
forest and urban tree canopy to lessen
Montgomery College property, and to
be considered.
the deterioration of watershed health
retrofit the stormwater management pond
State and local stormwater management
from the impacts of urbanization.
near the Hughes property.
approaches and regulations are
Target street tree plantings where the
Upon completion, implement
constantly being upgraded. New
addition of tree canopy may help slow
recommendations of the Water Quality
regulations may supersede
down peak runoff flows, and mitigate
Functional Master Plan for Montgomery
recommendations made in this and other
temperature effects of runoff traversing
County. Due to the fact that the Water
master plans.
hot impervious surfaces before entering
Quality plan implements measures
Minimize the number of parking spaces
natural stream environments.
required by state legislation,
and provide for alternative parking
Implement stormwater retrofit and stream
recommendations of the Water Quality
methods that reduce the area of
restoration projects to help manage or
plan may supercede recommendations of
impervious surfaces.
remediate impacts of uncontrolled
this and other Master Plans.
Reduce the area of impervious surfaces
impervious areas.
during redevelopment projects.
Encourage the application of innovative
o
Greening the Built Environment
Where development proposals
stormwater control measures in reducing
contain extensive areas of impervious
new development and redevelopment
In 2006, the Montgomery County Council
surfaces (e.g., parking lots, pavement,
impacts on streams. Seek ways to further
approved legislation requiring county-built or
buildings), reduce the amount of
reduce losses of natural vegetation and
funded nonresidential buildings to achieve a LEED
imperviousness by using higher
topsoil and reduce impervious or
(Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design)
buildings, clustering uses and putting
compacted land surfaces that result from
silver rating, and private nonresidential or
parking underground or in structures.
current land development standards for
multifamily buildings to achieve a LEED certified
Where paving is necessary, use
subdivisions, roads and sidewalks,
rating. In order to achieve a LEED rating, buildings
innovative methods or technologies,
utilities, parking lots, and individual
must incorporate certain criteria that positively
such as porous pavement and
buildings.
impact the energy and environmental
characteristics of a building, including
Minimize the development of open space by
in the presence of sunlight and heat. Exposure to
sustainability of a site, water efficiency, energy
taking advantage of existing brownfields,
excessive levels of ground-level ozone and fine
efficiency, materials and resources. This law
developing previously disturbed lands, and
particulate matter can pose health risks to
applies to any newly constructed or extensively
retrofitting existing buildings.
vulnerable populations such as children, the
modified nonresidential or multifamily residential
Minimize habitat disturbances and improve
elderly, people with chronic upper respiratory
building with at least 10,000 square feet of gross
the habitat for indigenous species through
ailments such as asthma and bronchitis, and
floor area.
restoring stream systems and riparian stream
those with existing heart and lung conditions. The
buffers, and controlling erosion through
primary sources of these pollutants are (coal-fired)
In addition to green building design, building a
improved landscape practices.
power plants and other industries, motor vehicles,
greener urban community requires better
Reduce the transportation energy intensity of
small gasoline-powered engines, and small
understanding and integration of the natural and
buildings through transit-oriented
businesses using solvents, cleaning solutions,
built environments by ensuring that parks, trails,
development that also improves walkability
paints, and insecticides. Motor vehicles alone
forests, green spaces, and other important
and bicycle accessibility, traffic calming, and
account for 30 percent to 40 percent of the
environmental features are included in growth
connectivity.
pollutants that cause ground-level ozone in the
management strategies for the Germantown study
When completed, implement
metropolitan region.
area.
recommendations of the Green Infrastructure
Functional Master Plan.
Recommendations:
Redevelop Germantown using green community
recommendations of the Energy and
Design development and redevelopment
Environment Functional Master Plan.
projects to minimize the need for motor
principles.
Encourage the addition of new and expansion
Recommendations:
When completed, implement
vehicle trips and to prevent conditions that
Air Quality
of existing green spaces, including trees to
may create local air pollution nuisances.
Provide an improved, continuous network of
shade paved surfaces and stormwater
The Washington Metropolitan region, including the
sidewalks and bikeways throughout the
management practices such as green roofs,
Germantown study area, has been identified as a
Germantown study planning area, and in
rain gardens, bioswales and cisterns that
non-attainment area for ground-level ozone and
particular between the MARC Station and
encourage groundwater recharge.
fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Ground-level ozone
Town Center. This should be designed to avoid
Encourage green building practices, including
has been a persistent problem in the region for
disturbance of natural resources.
the use of recyclable materials, solar power
many decades. It is an invisible gas formed on hot
Provide transit incentives to minimize single-
and other forms of energy efficiency.
summer days when volatile organic compounds
occupant vehicle travel.
(VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) react chemically
Enhance bus services by including new routes,
Board uses master plans and regulatory review to
increasing bus frequency, improving
implement noise reduction strategies and protect
pedestrian access to transit stops, and more
residential properties from mobile sources.
bus shelters.
Strategies to reduce adverse noise impacts from
Provide park-and-ride lots along major roads
new development and redevelopment include
for carpools, vanpools, and transit users.
compatible land uses, buffers, and external and
internal mitigation techniques.
Noise
Recommendations:
Noise is generally defined as any form of
unwanted sound. Excessive noise is an
Support noise-compatible site design for
environmental health problem that can interfere
projects located adjacent to existing and
with sleep, disrupt speech, cause psychological
proposed noise generators and roadways of
stress, and degrade the quality of life. The amount
arterial classification or greater.
of noise transmitted can vary considerably due to
Place new residential uses farther away from
elevation, the existence of barriers, and project
areas of excessive noise.
design. Mobile sources of noise in the study area
Incorporate compliance with the Adopted
include traffic-generated noise along major
County Noise Control Ordinance (Chapter 31B
roadways such as I-270, MD 118, MD 117,
of the County Code).
Frederick Road, and the CSX railway. The proposed
Require compliance with the Planning Board‘s
Corridor Cities Transitway will also contribute noise
Staff Guidelines for the Consideration of
to surrounding areas.
Transportation Noise Impacts in Land Use
Planning and Development.
Local government agencies are responsible for
Evaluate development and redevelopment
controlling noise in Montgomery County. The
proposals using Phase I noise studies and
Montgomery County Department of Environmental
noise models.
Protection (DEP) enforces the Noise Ordinance,
Provide for the use of approved attenuation
which regulates stationary sources such as
measures when noise issues are identified.
heating and air conditioning units, construction
activities, noise producing land uses, and
neighborhood annoyances, while the Planning
19/3 Foundation, William Waters, Jr. House
APPENDIX 10: CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES TABLE
Park Planning and Stewardship, Department of Parks, and Historic Preservation, Planning Department
This table shows the status and location of cultural
Appendix 11 contains information on
Appendix 12 contains information on
and historic resources in the Germantown Master
cultural resources in county and state
resources supervised by the Historic
Plan area. The resources are further described in
parks; these resources are managed by
Preservation Section of the Planning
Appendices 11 and 12:
the Parks Cultural Resources Stewardship
Department.
Section.
Resource
Resource Name
Number
Atomic Energy Building
Address
Associated Park
Route 118 and I-270
Master Plan
Further
Designation Status
References
Not on Locational
Appendix 12
Atlas
Black Hill Gold Mine
Black Rock Mill
Boyd-Maughlin House
Calico Crab House
Cider Barrel
24/6
18/8
18MO363
19/33
20926 Lake Ridge Drive, Boyds
Black Hill Regional
Not on Locational
(park address)
Park
Atlas
16500 Black Rock Road
Seneca Creek State
Master Plan for
Park
Historic Preservation
Black Hill Regional
Master Plan for
Park
15215 Darnestown Road, Boyds
Archaeological site*
Appendix 11
Appendix 11
Appendix 11
Appendix 11
20410 Frederick Road
Master Plan for
Appendix 12
Clopper Mill Ruins
19/21
Near Clopper Road and Waring Station
Seneca Creek State
Master Plan for
Appendices 11
Road, Seneca Creek State Park,
Park
and 12
Great Seneca Stream
Not on Locational
Appendix 11
(park address)
Valley Park
Atlas
Gaithersburg
Davis Mill Ruins
Germantown Historic District
14/54
19/13
Liberty Mill Road and B&O Railroad
Master Plan for
vicinity
Appendix 12
Resource
Resource Name
Grusendorf Log House
Master Plan
Number
19/19
Address
Associated Park
Designation Status
Further
References
Near Visitor Center, Seneca Creek State
Seneca Creek State
Master Plan for
Appendices 11
Park, 11950 Clopper Road,
Park
and 12
Hoyles Mill
Not on Locational
Appendix 11
Conservation Park
Atlas
Gaithersburg
Hoyles Mill Ruins
John H. Gassaway Farm
14000 Schaeffer Road
19/27
17200 Riffle Ford Road
Master Plan for
Appendix 12
Kavanaugh II Historical
18MO181
Appendix 11
18MO182
Appendix 11
18MO183
Appendix 11
18MO184
Appendix 11
18MO185
Appendix 11
18MO186
Appendix 11
18MO187
Appendix 11
Archaeological Site
Kavanaugh III Prehistoric
Archaeological Site
Kavanaugh IV Prehistoric
Archaeological Site
Kavanaugh V Prehistoric
Archaeological Site
Kavanaugh VI Prehistoric
Archaeological Site
Kavanaugh VII Prehistoric
Archaeological Site
Kavanaugh VIII Historical
Archaeological Site
King Farm Dairy Mooseum
Little Seneca Creek Viaduct, B&O
18028 Central Park Circle
18/44
Wisteria Drive vicinity (WSSC property)
Metropolitan Branch Railroad Bed
Madeline V. Waters House Site
19/13-1
South Germantown
Not on Locational
Recreational Park
Atlas
Black Hill Regional
Master Plan for
Appendices 11
Park
and 12
Master Plan for
Appendix 12
12900 Wisteria Drive
Appendix 11
Middlebrook
18MO362
Neelsville Presbyterian Church
19/5
Appendix 11
Master Plan for
Appendix 12
Resource
Resource Name
Number
Address
Associated Park
Master Plan
Further
Designation Status
References
Parcel EC-1 Stone House
18MO205
Appendix 11
Pleasant Field
18MO408
Appendix 11
Pleasant Fields/ Basil Waters House
19/1
21200 Waters Road
Pumphrey-Mateny House
19/13-5
Waters House Special
Master Plan for
Appendices 11
Park
and 12
Master Plan for
Appendix 12
19401 Walter Johnson Road
Rabbit
18MO175
Appendix 11
Site 6
18MO472
Appendix 11
Stone Culverts and Railroad Bed
19/40
Harvest Glen Way Vicinity
Master Plan for
Appendix 12
Upton Bowman House
19/13-6
19219 Liberty Mill Road
Master Plan for
Appendix 12
Wallich-Heimer House
19/13-7
19120 Mateny Road
Master Plan for
Appendix 12
Waring Viaduct
19/10
B&O tracks at Great Seneca Creek
Master Plan for
Appendix 12
Waring-Crawford Farm
19/11
19212 Forest Brook Road
Master Plan for
Appendix 12
Waters Mill and House
18MO461
Waters Mill Ruins, Chimney Ruins,
18MO461
Various locations in Black Hill Regional
Black Hill Regional
Not on Locational
Park, 20926 Lake Ridge Drive, Boyds
Park
Atlas
Great Seneca Stream
Not on Locational
(park address)
Valley Park
Atlas
and W&M Boundary Marker
Watkins Mill Ruins
William Waters, Jr. House Site
19/7
19/3
Appendix 11
Appendix 11
Appendix 11
Between 20511 and 20533 Shadyside
Master Plan for
Appendices 11
Way
and 12
Wisteria
18MO594
Appendix 11
355-1
18MO361
Appendix 11
*No addresses given for archaeological sites.
Map, graphic or photo???
Clopper Mill Ruins
APPENDIX 11: GERMANTOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES
Park Planning and Stewardship Division, Department of Parks, 2008
From Artifact to Attraction: A Strategic Plan for
Planning, Housing, and Economic Development
identified in the section titled ―Historic Resources.‖
Cultural Resources in Parks, provides a blueprint
(PHED) Committee of the County Council. The
Therefore, certain sites may be included in both
for stewarding cultural resources and making
document is not a master plan, but rather a
this chapter on Parks as well as in the Historic
them more visible to the public. The Cultural
strategic plan.
Resources material within this Plan.
Resources Stewardship Section of the Park
Planning and Stewardship Division uses the Plan
Plan Objectives
as the foundation for its evolving work stewarding
upwards of 150 park-based cultural resources.
includes two types of information pertaining to
This section reflects new park planning emphasis
cultural resources in parks: 1) a series of themes
on historical and cultural interpretation and
relating to Germantown; and 2) archaeological and
outreach. Historic interpretation is an important
historical resources on local, public parkland. The
element of this plan and will be emphasized in the
objective of this Sector Plan is to highlight
parkland and through the public amenity process.
opportunities to develop historic interpretation on
The interpretation of cultural and historic
local parkland, whether that is
resources will support the vision of a sense of
through future capital improvements
place that reflects Germantown‘s unique
by the Department of Parks or by
character.
developer amenity. Cultural resources
on parkland are all those resources
Policy Guidance
that help tell the story of the County‘s
history, whether they are designated
From Artifact to Attraction: A Strategic Plan for
or not. Note that all sites that are
Cultural Resources in Parks arose from the County
designated on the Master Plan for
Council‘s interest in understanding stewardship
Historic Preservation or on the
objectives and recommendations concerning Park-
Locational Atlas and Inventory of
owned historical and archaeological sites. The
Historic Sites in the Germantown
plan was presented to the Historic Preservation
vicinity, regardless of whether they are
Commission, the Planning Board, and the
in public or private ownership, are
Cultural Resources Interpretive Themes
and Opportunities
The Germans Behind Germantown (1830s -
o
The creation of sculptures.
1870s). Early German settlers built log
o
The use of ―ghosting‖ of historic images
structures and ran many mercantile
Five themes are identified for interpretation as
follows:
1. Native American Hunting and Gathering
operations. Their community became known
as ―Log Town.‖
5. A Settlement that Followed Transportation
on current building facades.
o
The fixed telescoping of historic views that
can be compared with current views, etc.
A historical marker trail along the Seneca
Grounds (10,000 B.C. – 1607 A.D.). The area
(Pre-1600 – Present). Transportation changes
Greenway Corridor that parallels Seneca
around Germantown served as a hunting and
from water routes to foot trails, trails to dirt
Creek.
gathering grounds for various prehistoric
roads, roads to rail lines, and rail lines to
An improved trailhead at the Waters House
peoples through the centuries.
paved roads and highways resulted in the
Special Park where it accesses the Upcounty
movement of Germantown‘s core area from
Corridor, or North Greenbelt.
Founders (18th Century – Early 20th Century).
one place to the next over the centuries.
Possible installation of a signed or brochure-
Germantown contains several historic
(Historical photo of Seneca Viaduct below.)
guided cultural walk along the proposed
2. The Waters Family and Early Agrarian
buildings and sites associated with this
Crystal Rock Greenway, culminating at the
prominent family who helped shape the
Germantown‘s history can be conveyed through
agricultural tradition of Germantown. The sites
cultural resources in parks in the following ways:
Black Hill Regional Park Visitors‘ Center.
are part of the farming legacy of the county.
Public Art Interpretation in one or more of the
The opportunity exists for the Department of
(Photo of the Waters House-Pleasant Fields
urban parks proposed near transit stops.
Parks, private developers, and the Arts and
previous page.)
Historic and cultural interpretation can be
Humanities Council of Montgomery County to
implemented within urban open space
create exciting and meaningful works of art that
Century - 1920s). Milling operations utilizing
nodules via collaboration with local artists in
interpret Germantown‘s history. Within this
natural water resources eventually were
the following ways:
context, opportunities also should be explored to
3. Water and Steam Powered Mills (mid-18th
converted to steam.
4.
creatively make use of some of the large local
boulders from a dismantled Germantown railroad
culvert, since these boulders still exist in storage
at Black Hill Regional Park.
Each of the themes in this Plan could be
interpreted with signage complete with text and
illustrations.
The history of the Waters Family and other early
Content of the Interpretive Themes
agrarian founders should be told when a new
of the Late Archaic Period, can be definitely placed
in Germantown.
trailhead can be constructed at the rear of the
Boldface in text highlights extant resources which
Waters House property. (Photo, opposite page, of
include the following:
1. Historic sites designated on the Master Plan
for Historic Preservation (identifiable by
resource number with /, e.g. 19/13).
2. Cultural resources found in county parkland,
not designated on the MPHP.
3. Archeological resource (identified with MO
number, e.g. 18MO461).
These were the Late Archaic broad-blade users
Theme 1: Native American Hunting and
Gathering Grounds (10,000 B.C. to 1607 A.D.)
Late Archaic Period was the height of the seasonal
For thousands of years the Germantown region
creeks and streams. Broad-blade implements are
the trailhead location at the Waters House Barn at
near left.)
The Montgomery County Historical Society and the
Heritage Tourism Alliance of Montgomery County
have partnered with the Conference and Visitors‘
Bureau of Montgomery County and the Arts and
Humanities Council of Montgomery County to
study a proposed conversion of the bank barn at
the Waters House Special Park into a Heritage and
Visitor‘s Center. This barn, like all the buildings at
Waters House Special Park, is owned by the
Commission. If successful, the proposed project
will create an additional destination point within
Waters House Special Park that will offer
information on local heritage, the Agricultural
Reserve, park and recreational activities, hotels
and dining, heritage tours and functions, wineries,
local historical societies, etc.
hosted a variety of prehistoric peoples. Although
no Paleo-Indian sites (10,000 B.C. to 9000 B.C.)
are particular to the area, a few locations along
the Potomac River and one in the Sandy Spring
region have been associated with these Ice Age
hunters who are identified by their fluted Clovislike points and mega-fauna hunting practices. The
Sector Plan area would surely have been traversed
who made the Savannah River and Susquehanna
Broadspear points found in the Kavanaugh III
(18MO182) and Site 6 (18MO472) sites. The new
side-notched shapes have been attributed to the
introduction of the new atlatl, or spear thrower,
which allowed for more force and distance. The
hunting and foraging pattern that would have
focused more particularly on the resources of local
thought to be specialized harpoons for fishing
such as would have occurred in Seneca Creek.
However, their users would also have gathered the
starchy seeds and tubers of the wetlands and
hunted the deer and other fauna that came there
to feed.
Small mobile bands of between 50 and 100
and known to these nomads.
people would most likely have visited the Sector
After 9000 B.C., a warming and drying trend
and gathering would have been at its best. Such
brought on the beginning of more modern
environmental changes associated with the
Holocene era. A different prehistoric hunting and
gathering tradition, called the Archaic Period,
arose in the temperate climate and more modern
flora and fauna which now covered the region.
These Indians, too, were nomadic and, by the end
Plan area in the summer and fall when hunting
Indians would have located their sites to exploit
nut harvests, turkeys, and various vegetable foods,
in addition to deer. Archaeologists have never
discovered what type of structures these Archaic
peoples made, but they were probably similar to
the small round huts of later periods, usually
covered with skins or woven reeds.
Late Archaic semi-permanent macro-band camps
Woodland villages have been discovered only in
stable agrarian culture began much earlier.
(100+ people) would have been located in areas
the Potomac Valley region of Montgomery County
Europeans first took out land patents in the late
of higher resource potential, mostly along the Fall
and its associated islands. However, earlier
17th century. The earliest patents for the
Line, the geological break between the Coastal
Indians would have also made use of the
Germantown area were mostly in the mid-18th
Plain (Prince George‘s County) and Montgomery
Germantown area solely to hunt and gather
century. What had been the "old Sinequa"
County‘s Piedmont uplands. Their seasonal round
seasonal flora. Because such villages were
(Seneca) Indian path now led settlers west along
would have taken them from such winter camps to
abandoned about 100 years before European
what they called the "Great Road" (Route 355).
springtime harvests in southern Maryland and
contact, archaeologists have no knowledge of any
They used the old Indian trail to roll their
back up into the western foothills again for the
of their tribal affiliations, linguistic stocks, or even
hogsheads (large barrels) of tobacco from their
summer and fall.
migration destinations.
farms to the port of Georgetown.
The only evidence of Woodland or Agricultural
When John Smith sailed up the Potomac in 1609,
The British settlers established the farming
Indians (1000 B.C. to 1607 A.D.) in the greater
the Germantown area, along with the rest of
practices used in southern Maryland; a soil-
Germantown area comes from known Indian
Montgomery County, had become a sort of
depleting, slave-oriented tobacco culture. Most
paths. Modern Route 355, was part of the old
prehistoric no-man‘s-land, buffering the
Montgomery County tobacco farms averaged only
―Sinequa‖ Indian trail that eventually wound its
Algonquians of southern Maryland against the
about three or four enslaved people, but some
way to Point-of-Rocks. Seneca Creek was also
northern Iroquois (Seneca) and Susquehannocks
were larger. In the 1790s, upon their marriages,
named for the northern Seneca Indians who used
and western Siouan and Shawnee tribes. The
the three Waters brothers, Zachariah, William, Jr.,
that stream valley as a way south.
Susquehannocks and the Seneca were especially
and Basil, all were given land in what is now
territorial about their rights to hunt in the region.
Germantown by their father, William, Sr. A stone
It was the Susquehannocks who created the path
boundary marker with the initials W & M (for the
that shows up on a 1716 map as the ―Tehoggee
William and Mary Waters tract, photo, left) is
Trail‖, a rugged thoroughfare we now know as
located in the Black Hill Regional Park west of
River Road. By this time, the Indians of
Germantown. The combined Waters property
Germantown and Montgomery County had long
covered all of present northeast Germantown,
disappeared into prehistory.
comprising about 1,500 acres, and included a
tobacco plantation worked by 22 slaves. The
Theme 2: The Waters Family and Early
Agrarian Founders (18th-20th Centuries)
fourth Waters brother, Ignatius, inherited their
father‘s estate in Brookeville. The stone
foundations of the William Waters, Jr. House
Although Montgomery County was formed out of
(19/3) are all that remain of a substantial brick
Frederick County in 1776, the establishment of a
residence built in the late 1700s.
Around 1810, Zachariah Waters also established a
mill along Little Seneca Creek with three milling
Theme 3: Water and Steam Powered Mills
(mid-18th century through 1920s)
operations producing flour, lumber, and flaxseed
needs with grain and lumber processing, but also
provided important social and political functions
as community gathering and voting places. The
oil. The mill ceased operation in c. 1895. Today
From 1820 to 1900, a booming economy emerged
mills‘ names pay tribute to the early residents who
the Waters Mill ruins are still visible, and they are
in the Germantown area. This new prosperity was
lived near Germantown: Benson, Crowe, Clopper,
interpreted by an historic marker in Black Hill
made possible by the development of agricultural
Davis, Watkins, Waters, Magruder, and Hoyle.
Regional Park.
diversification and new fertilizers, as well as the
advent of the railroad in the area by the 1870s.
Mill ruins known as the Clopper Mill (19/21) are
While the Zachariah and William, Jr. Waters homes
The change from a folk-oriented tobacco culture to
located in Seneca Creek State Park. A mill was
no longer stand, the Basil Waters House, dating
a more nationally-focused industrial economy
built on this site in the 1770s by Nicholas Sibert.
from the late 18th century, does. Basil Waters
brought Montgomery County into the larger
About 1795, Zacchariah MacCubbin rebuilt the
developed his property into a large tobacco
American pattern of development.
mill in stone. Francis C. Clopper, a prosperous
plantation known as Pleasant Fields (19/1,
owner of woolen factory and mills, expanded the
18MO408). In the mid-1800s Basil‘s nephew, Dr.
Along the waterways of Great Seneca Creek and
mill with brick. The mansion house for Clopper‘s
William A. Waters, lived in the house and had his
Little Seneca Creek, grist and saw mills had
estate, called Woodlands, was located near the
doctor‘s office there. The house gained its present
appeared by the mid-18th century. The
park‘s visitor center.
Italianate appearance under ownership of Charles
establishment of Waters Mill (18MO461) in Black
Waters, son of William. Charles built or expanded
Hill Regional Park, and other
the frame section and compatibly redesigned the
milling operations along
existing house. The new large central hall was
Seneca Creek in the
outfitted with an elegant curved staircase. Charles
Germantown area, reflect the
Waters bred racehorses on the property, one of
growth of water-powered
which set the East Coast trotting record in 1898.
manufacturing technology in
The property, which remained in the Waters family
the Piedmont region, where
until 1932, includes a bank barn and double
streams run swiftly. Early
corncrib. A small Waters family burial plot is
maps of the area identify mills
nearby on Hawk‘s Nest Lane. The restored house
as ―G&S mills‖ for the water-
and barn are owned by the M-NCPPC, open for
powered grist and sawing
community events, and operated in part by the
activities located along these
Montgomery County Historical Society.
streams. These local
businesses not only served
the community‘s commercial
It is difficult to determine exact construction dates
building a small dam or ―mill pond‖ upstream from
A list of some of the water-powered mills located
of many of the early mills. Some burned or
the mill. Water was diverted from the pond through
on public parkland near the Germantown
deteriorated, and their foundation stones were
a ditch called a ―mill race‖ or ―head race.‖ The mill
Employment Area Sector Plan is located at the end
reused to build new mills on the same site. Early
race contained a grate to filter debris before
of this document. Of the mill ruins cited, one of
documents record ownership transfers that often
reaching the water wheel. Upon turning the large
the most intact ruins, and an example of a mill
meant a change in the name of the mill and the
wheel, the water then flowed through the ―tail
constructed using the local black rock, is Black
road where it was located.
race‖ and was diverted back to the main stream.
Rock Mill (24/6), now part of Seneca Creek State
The Waters Mill ruin in Black Hill Regional Park
Park (photo previous page).
Early water mills were located along a steady
contains remnants of these races.
stream of water and were constructed using local
Water power fueled the mills until the advent of
stone and timber. Mill structures ranged in size
The large water wheel turned a shaft that powered
steam power in the 1850s. Later milling
from two- to three-story masonry or clapboard
a series of cogged wheels inside the mill structure,
operations ventured away from the streams and
structures, and some even utilized two water
transferring power by moving from large to small
towards steam power, locating near the railroad
wheels. Early water-powered mills were located
gears and ultimately turning the mill stone for
line for transportation purposes. In 1888, the
along steady, fast-moving streams and were
grinding. Two stones were used for grinding. The
Bowman Brothers' Liberty Mill was built next to the
constructed using local stone and timber.
top stone, called the runner, rotated over the
present-day Germantown depot, along the
stationary bottom runner, or bed stone. Both
Metropolitan Branch Railway line of the Baltimore
Mills from the 18th and early 19th century were
stones were cut with furrows to grind and channel
& Ohio (B&O) Railroad. The wooden flour mill
usually powered by undershot wheels, where the
the grain to the stone‘s edge. Grain was poured
burned in 1914 but was rebuilt and modernized in
force of the water against the lower blades turned
into the center of the top stone and moved out
1916 with six huge silos. In 1918 Augustus Selby
the wheel. As the population and agricultural
through the furrows where the ground flour or
and his four partners bought the mill and operated
production increased, the need for reliable water
meal was collected at the edges.
it until 1963. A grain elevator and grain dryer were
power for milling and milling operations grew.
part of the operation in the 1920s and 30s, but
Experiments using different types of wheel designs
Early grist mills used locally-quarried stones for
burned in 1972 after the mill had closed. Still
were used, with the overshot wheel being the most
grinding rye, buckwheat, and cornmeal producing
standing, and located in the Germantown Historic
popular. In this design, the water struck the upper
a coarsely ground flour or ―country custom‖ flour.
District (19/13), is a grain scale housed in a small
blades on top of the wheel and moved it down by
Stones were also imported from France and
metal shed on Mateny Hill Road, southwest of
the force of gravity.
Germany and produced more finely ground flour.
Blunt Avenue. The Liberty Mill was at one time the
―Cullin‖ stones were a blue-black lava stone and
second largest mill in the state.
At least an eight foot drop in elevation was
―French burrs‖ were freshwater quartz stones
necessary for locating a mill along a waterway. In
quarried in Northern France.
addition, an ample supply of water was created by
Theme 4: The Germans Behind Germantown
(1830s – 1870s)
house has been relocated to Seneca Creek State
During the late 19th century, with the
Park, southeast of Germantown.
establishment of the railroad, farmers were able to
ship their produce, grain, and milk to Washington,
The first German settlers in the area came from
old Frederick County, and they established small
Theme 5: A Settlement that Followed
Transportation (pre-1600s – Present)
farms growing grains and cereals. In the 1830s
and also receive fertilizers to enrich the soil for
larger yields. The railroad continued to provide a
strong economic link for Germantown, especially
and 1840s, Pennsylvania Germans, as well as
The settlements at Germantown have undergone
to the expanding metropolitan regions of Baltimore
immigrants from Germany and Slavic countries,
five significant changes, from 1) Native American
and Washington.
settled at the crossroads of Germantown (now
temporary settlements along the waterways in the
called Liberty Mill Road) and Clopper (Route 117)
pre-1600 period to 2) a small Germanic
In 1878, the first Germantown railroad depot was
Roads. Some of the first settlers were the families
crossroads settlement at Germantown and
constructed. In 1891, it was replaced with a larger
of Domenicus Stang, a blacksmith; Franz
Clopper Roads in the 1830s, to 3) a vital railroad
frame building. This depot burned in 1978 and
Grusendorf, a stonemason; and Asher Rosenmeier
stop in the 1880s and 90s, to 4) a ―Corridor City‖
was reconstructed following the same Victorian-
and Charles Adler, who ran the community‘s store.
aligned with Frederick Road (Route 355) by the
era architectural details. Another railroad
20th century, to 5) part of the technology corridor
transportation component is the massive
in the 1970s, defined primarily by Interstate-270.
stonework of the Waring Viaduct (19/10) and its
Other early families included the Metzes and the
Richters. Many immigrants were millers and
larger twin over the Little Monocacy River (near
farmers who tilled small plots of corn and tobacco.
The initial movement of people and
During this period, when farmers from the
industry was away from the waters
surrounding area came into town and heard more
and towards the roads. After the
German than English, the area became known as
Germans settled along east-west-
―Germantown.‖ The name Germantown first
running Clopper Road, the
occurred in print in the mid-19th century, on a land
settlement kept shifting
deed. The settlement was also sometimes called
northwards: first with the coming
―log town‖ because the Germans brought log
of the B & O Railroad, next to
construction to the area. Today only one of the
better surface transportation with
known German-built dwellings associated with the
the paving of Frederick Road and
original cluster of homes and shops from this
then, with the construction of
particular time of settlement survives. The sole
Interstate 270. Present-day Liberty
remaining structure is the Grusendorf Log House
Mill and Walter Johnson Roads
(19/19, photo right), which originally stood on the
were the original Germantown
east side of Clopper Road, near Route 118. The
Road.
Dickerson, MD). The 350 foot-long, three-arch
List of Park-Based Cultural Resources
Both the Kavanaugh III and Site 6 sites uncovered
viaduct of roughly dressed granite supports the
projectile points which dated to the Late Archaic
tracks that are about 70 feet above the Great
Known Prehistoric Archaeological Sites
Period, circa 3000 to 1000 B.C. The Kavanaugh III
Seneca Creek. A granite abutment and piers also
There are seven prehistoric archaeological sites
site contained the base fragment of a
remain from the Little Seneca Creek Viaduct
within and adjacent to the Germantown Sector
Susquehanna Broadspear-like point. Named for
(18/44), a single-track railroad bridge.
Plan area. All of them consist of lithic scatter; i.e.,
the Susquehanna site where it was first identified,
they contain flakes and chips that were knocked
it is triangular shaped, broad–based and side-
As the automobile became the preferred method
off to manufacture tools and projectile points.
notched, dating from 1750 B. C. to 700 B. C. The
of transportation in the area, accommodations
Except for the Kavanaugh III (18MO182) and Site
Site 6 point was a quartz Savannah River-like
arose for motorists along Frederick Road. The
6 (18MO472) sites, no diagnostic artifacts were
projectile. Again, named after its original
Cider Barrel (19/33) was constructed in 1926 by
discovered which would relate the other Indian
Savannah River location, this point was triangular-
Andrew Baker to sell cider and apples from his
sites to definite time periods.
based and side-notched with a broad triangular
orchard. Located east of Germantown, this once-
stem. Such spear points date from 3000 B.C. to
popular road-side stand still stands today.
1000 B.C.
The mid-20th century saw the growth of the area
continue with the location of the main
headquarters for the Atomic Energy Commission
(now U.S. Department of Energy) in Germantown.
The completion of the I-270 ―Technology Corridor‖
during the 1970s provided for further commercial,
TABLE 1: Known Prehistoric Archeological Sites
Site Number
Site Name
Site type
Period
18MO182
Kavanaugh III
Archaic Lithic Scatter
Prehistoric
18MO183
Kavanaugh IV
Lithic Scatter
Prehistoric
18MO184
Kavanaugh V
Lithic Scatter
Prehistoric
18MO185
Kavanaugh VI
Lithic Scatter
Prehistoric
develop along this transportation corridor with
18MO186
Kavanaugh VII
Lithic Scatter
Prehistoric
three major intersections providing access to the
18MO472
Site 6
Archaic Lithic Scatter
Prehistoric
surrounding community.
18MO594
Wisteria
Lithic Scatter
Prehistoric
business, and educational development. During
this time period, a satellite campus for
Montgomery Community College started in
Germantown. Today, the area continues to
Known Historical Archaeological Sites
There are nine historical archaeological sites near
Table 2: Known Historical Archaeological Sites
Site Number
Site Name
Site type
Period
18MO175
Rabbit
Farm
19th century
18MO181
Kavanaugh II
Frame Structure
Historic
18MO187
Kavanaugh VIII
Masonry Structure
19th century
18MO205
Parcel EC-1 Stone House
Farmstead
19th/20th century
18MO361
355-1
Farm
----------------
Additional Cultural Resources in Parks
18MO362
Middlebrook
Farm
18th-20th century
18MO363
Calico Crab House
Farm
19th century
19/1 Pleasant Fields/Basil Waters House
(c 1790s-early 1800s; 1890s)
18MO408
Pleasant Field
Farmstead
18th century
18MO461
Waters Mill & House
Mill
18th-20th century
21200 Waters Road, Waters House Special Park
Today, the restored house is open to the public
In c. 1810, Zachariah Waters also established a
and contains offices for non-profit groups and
mill along Little Seneca Creek with three milling
provides public meeting space. Now called the
operations—flour grinding, flax-seed oil pressing,
Waters House Special Park, the property includes
and lumber cutting. The mills ceased operation c.
a large bank barn, a corncrib, and carriage house
1895. An 1865 Martenet and Bond map, labels
the Germantown Employment Area Sector Plan.
Seven of these are farmsteads; one is a masonry
structure, and the other is a mill complex. They
span a time from the late 18th to the early/middle
20th century.
Master Plan for Historic Preservation
The Waters family inhabited Pleasant Fields for
more than a century. Basil Waters established the
large tobacco plantation about 1790. The brick
sections of the house (center and left) are the
earliest, dating from the late 1700s or early
1800s. During the mid-19th century, Basil‘s
nephew, Dr. William Waters, owned the property
and located his doctor‘s office in a back room on
the first floor. Dr. Waters served as the general
practitioner for the community and also continued
wheat and corn on the farm. In 1907, Dr. Waters‘
son, Charles, inherited the house and farm.
Charles redesigned and expanded the house to its
current Italianate-style appearance. The property
was used for breeding racehorses and remained in
the family until 1932.
and is adjacent to the North
Germantown Greenway Stream
Valley Park. The family burial
ground of all three brothers‘
families is preserved near the
Pleasant Fields property on
Hawks Nest Lane.
Waters Mill Ruins, Chimney
Ruins, and Boundary
Marker
Black Hill Regional Park
Not Designated
the mill site as ―Mrs. Waters Mill,‖ for Eleanor
19/7 Watkins Mill Ruins
connected to the barn. In 2001-2002, the
(Ellen) Waters, who was Zachariah‘s daughter-in-
Great Seneca Stream Valley Park
Department of Parks restored the exterior of the
law. Ellen operated the mills after her husband,
Not Designated
barn and added missing roofs to the silos. The
Tilghman Waters, died in 1864. The Waters‘ grist
barn is open to the public as the King Farm Dairy
and saw-mill ruins are visible from the Black Hill
The Watkins Mill site is located along the Great
trail and interpreted by a historic marker in Black
Seneca Creek at Watkins Mill Road. Originally built
Mooseum (photo below).
Hill Regional Park. Foundations from the late
by Aden Grey, a grist mill has been at this site
Hoyles Mill Ruins
18th-century miller‘s house are in the vicinity. The
since 1783. From 1791 to 1846, the Dorsey
Hoyles Mill Conservation Park
site provides a good example of the head race and
family owned the property and ran a grist and saw
tail race used to direct water to and from the
milling operation. From 1859 to 1877, it was
milling operation. Also located along the trail is a
owned and operated by Susan Ann and Remus
The Hoyles Mill site is located along Hoyles Mill
remaining ―W&M‖ stone boundary marker
Snyder. At that time, the mill road was also called
Road in the Hoyles Mill Conservation Park. This
indicating the William and Mary Waters land tract.
―Snyder‘s Mill Road.‖ Levi Watkins purchased the
19th century mill was operated by the Hoyle family
Near the park‘s picnic area and playground are
mill at auction and operated the grist mill. By the
on part of their farm land along Little Seneca
two stone chimneys and a foundation from a
1880s, the mill produced 600 barrels of wheat
Creek. The 1850 Census of Manufacturers lists it
former tenant house owned by the Waters family.
flour, 10,000 pounds of buckwheat flour, and
as a grist and a saw mill. It operated until 1914
185,000 pounds of cornmeal a year. The mill
when the Hoyles moved their milling operation to
14/54 Davis Mill Ruins
burned in 1908. Part of the mill foundation
Boyds to be closer to the railroad. The mill ruins
Great Seneca Stream Valley Park
remains along the creek bank, and portions of the
still contain remains of the water-powered turbine
Not Designated
mill race are visible. A radio tower is located near
that replaced the mill wheel in the second half of
the former mill pond. The miller‘s house burned in
the 19th century.
The Davis Mill, located along Davis Mill Road near
1920. An interpretive historical marker is located
Great Seneca Creek, was purchased by John
at the mill site.
Samuel Davis in the 1880s. A mill was at this site
as early as 1783. During the time Davis operated
King Farm Dairy Mooseum
the grist mill, it was a three-story, clapboard, frame
South Germantown Regional Park
building with a stone foundation. Davis‘
Not Designated
homestead was nearby and overlooked the mill.
The mill burned in the 1940s. An interpretive
The c. 1930s James and Macie King Dairy barn is
historical marker is located at the mill site.
part of the 650 acre South Germantown Regional
Park. The large concrete block barn features a
gambrel roof. Two original concrete silos are
18/44 Little Seneca Creek Viaduct, B&O
Metropolitan Branch Railroad Bed
arranged into four towers and one stand-alone
18/8 Boyd-Maughlin House
Black Hill Regional Park and WSSC Property
closed to the public.
bent.
In 1980, a dam was constructed to create the
15215 Darnestown Road
Little Seneca Lake reservoir. Construction
(Black Hill Regional Park)
This resource consists of the remains of the 1896
occurred in the center of the viaduct site; the
viaduct that traversed Little Seneca Creek and an
western section of the viaduct and its stone piers
abandoned c. 1865 railroad bed located
were either removed or buried.
approximately midway between Boyds and
One of the earliest structures in the Boyds Historic
District, is the David Maughlin House also known
Germantown. These structures were once part of
The rest of the viaduct remains are located along
as the Boyd-Maughlin house that dates from
the c. 1860s Metropolitan Branch of the B&O
the former eastern slope of Little Seneca Creek. It
1866. The two-story, frame, clapboard house is a
Railroad, a 43-mile link between Washington, D.C.
consists of one large granite-end abutment and
good example of the rural Gothic Revival
and the Main Line of the B&O at Point of Rocks,
four stone piers. The abutment is approximately
influenced vernacular architecture. Features
MD. Upon its completion in 1873, an economic
31 feet wide and 12 feet long. The structure
include a cross-gabled roof, bracketed porch
boom began for the communities located near its
stands some 12 feet above grade at its exposed
posts, and a central front gable with a small
route; consequently, the former crossroads
end. Two dates are chiseled in the structure,
arched window. The property is now part of the
community of Germantown moved its commercial
―6.17.96‖ and ―10.13.96‖ (photo below), and,
Black Hill Regional Park and rented as a
development to the northeast, creating ―New
probably represent the periods of construction. At
residence.
Germantown‖ along this railroad.
the base of the stone abutment stand four stone
piers. The 1896 viaduct replaced an early
The remaining masonry structures once supported
1870s wooden trestle. Visible remains from this
a single-tracked metal railroad bridge in operation
earlier bridge are the stone retaining walls that
until 1928. The bridge was abandoned when the
the B&O Railroad used as rip-rap for the base of
railroad was double-tracked, straightened, and
the fill on the east bank of the creek. The viaduct
rerouted farther south. The bridge was built on a
structures are located on WSSC property.
four-degree curve with a total span of about 480
feet and approximately 105 feet above water at its
The remaining B&O Metropolitan Branch Railroad
midpoint. The bridge was designed by John E.
Bed is a significant landscape feature that is cut
Greiner (1859-1942), an engineer with the B&O
into the hillside and leads from Wisteria Drive to
Railroad, using a relatively standard bridge design
the Little Seneca dam. It is now part of Black Hill
with the track supported by deck-type girder spans
Regional Park and is currently being used as an
which were, in turn, supported by nine bents,
access road to service the dam. The road is
Black Hill Gold Mine
Not Designated
Remnants of mining pits from the Black Hill Gold
Mine are located in the Black Hill Regional Park.
Starting around 1850, miners used picks and
shovels in open-pit extraction in attempts to find
gold. However, results were disappointing since
ore containing gold was rarely found. In 1947,
George A. Chadwick purchased the property and
later converted the mine to a bomb shelter. An
interpretive historical marker is located at this site.
Photos: Black Rock Mill
Map 1: Historic Resources
APPENDIX 12: HISTORIC PRESERVATION ELEMENTS
Historic Preservation, Planning Department, 2008
Objective
As a result of these master plan processes, a total
Designation of historic sites and districts serves to
of 15 individual sites and one historic district have
highlight the values that are important in
The intent of the County‘s preservation program is
been designated on the Master Plan for Historic
maintaining the individual character of the County
to provide a rational system for evaluating,
Preservation.
and its communities. It is the intent of the
protecting, and enhancing the County‘s historic
County's preservation program to provide a
and architectural heritage for the benefit of
Table 1 (below) provides a summary of
rational system for evaluating, protecting, and
present and future generations. It serves to
Germantown‘s historic resources and Map 1
enhancing the County's historic and architectural
highlight the values that are important in
(opposite) gives the general location of these
heritage for the benefit of present and future
maintaining the individual character of the County
properties. This section contains a description and
generations. The accompanying challenge is to
and its communities.
a photograph or map of each master plan site,
weave protection of this heritage into the County's
organized chronologically by date of construction.
planning program to maximize community support
The section also includes an explanation of the
for preservation and minimize infringement on
historic preservation designation process and the
private property rights.
Summary
Historic resources within the boundaries of this
Germantown Plan were designated in 1989 in the
Approved and Adopted Germantown Master Plan.
Other historic resources in the Germantown
Planning Area were designated in the following
documents:
effects of historic site designation.
The following criteria, as stated in Section 24A-3 of
Montgomery County Historic Preservation
Program
The Master Plan for Historic Preservation and the
the December 2008 Amendment to the
Historic Preservation Ordinance, Chapter 24A of
Historic Preservation Master Plan;
the Montgomery County Code, are designed to
Individual Historic Resources in the
protect and preserve Montgomery County‘s
1989 Germantown Master Plan; and
historic and architectural heritage. Placement on
the 1979 Master Plan for Historic
the Master Plan for Historic Preservation officially
Preservation.
designates a property as a historic site or historic
district and subjects it to further procedural
requirements of the ordinance.
the Historic Preservation Ordinance, shall apply
when historic resources are evaluated for
designation in the Master Plan for Historic
Preservation.
(1) Historical and cultural significance:
The historic resource:
Has character, interest, or value as part of
the development, heritage or cultural
characteristics of the County, State, or
Nation;
Is the site of a significant historic event;
Is identified with a person or a group of
otherwise specified in the amendment, the
of historic resources should be sensitive to and
persons who influenced society; or
environmental setting for each site, as defined in
maintain the character of the area. Specific
Exemplifies the cultural, economic, social,
Section 24A-2 of the Ordinance, is the entire
design considerations should be reflected as part
political or historic heritage of the County
parcel on which the resource is located as of the
of the Mandatory Referral review processes.
and its communities; or
date it is designated on the master plan.
(2) Architectural and design significance:
The historic resource:
In the majority of cases, decisions regarding
Designating the entire parcel provides the County
preservation alternatives are made at the time of
Embodies the distinctive characteristics of
adequate review authority to preserve historic
public facility implementation within the process
a type, period, or method of construction;
sites in the event of development. It also ensures
established in Section 24A of the Ordinance. This
Represents the work of a master;
that, from the beginning of the development
method provides for adequate review by the public
Possesses high artistic values;
process, important features of these sites are
and governing agencies. To provide guidance in
Represents a significant and
recognized and incorporated in the future
the event of future public facility implementation,
distinguishable entity whose components
development of designated properties. In the case
the amendment addresses potential conflicts
may lack individual distinction; or
of large acreage parcels, the amendment will
existing at each site and suggests alternatives and
Represents an established and familiar
provide general guidance for the refinement of the
recommendations to assist in balancing
visual feature of the neighborhood,
setting by indicating when the setting is subject to
preservation with community needs.
Community, or County due to its singular
reduction in the event of development; by
In addition to protecting designated resources
physical characteristic or landscape.
describing an appropriate area to preserve the
from unsympathetic alteration and insensitive
integrity of the resource; and by identifying
redevelopment, the County's Preservation
buildings and features associated with the site
Ordinance also empowers the County's
that should be protected as part of the setting. It
Department of Permitting Services and the HPC to
is anticipated that for a majority of the sites desig-
prevent the demolition of historic buildings
nated, the appropriate point at which to refine the
through neglect.
Implementing the Master Plan for Historic
Preservation
Once designated on the Master Plan for Historic
Preservation, historic resources are subject to the
protection of the County‘s Historic Preservation
Ordinance, Chapter 24A. Any substantial changes
to the exterior of a resource or its environmental
setting must be reviewed by the Historic
Preservation Commission (HPC) and a historic area
work permit issued under the provisions of the
Ordinance, Section 24A-6. In accordance with the
Master Plan for Historic Preservation and unless
environmental setting will be when the property is
subdivided.
The Montgomery County Council passed legislation
in September 1984 to provide for a tax credit
Public improvements can profoundly affect the
against County real property taxes in order to
integrity of a historic area. Section 24A-6 of the
encourage the restoration and preservation of
Ordinance states that a Historic Area Work Permit
privately owned structures located in the County.
for public or private property must be issued prior
The credit applies to all properties designated on
to altering a historic resource or its environmental
the Master Plan for Historic Preservation (Chapter
setting. The design of public facilities in the vicinity
52, Art. VI). Furthermore, the HPC maintains up-to-
date information on the status of preservation
incentives including tax credits, tax benefits
possible through the granting of easements on historic properties, outright grants, and low interest
loan programs.
Table 1: Germantown Historic Resources Historic Sites Designated on the Master Plan for Historic Preservation
Resource #
Resource Name
Address
Date
18/44
Little Seneca Viaduct
Wisteria Drive Vicinity, Germantown
19/1
Pleasant Fields/Basil Waters House
21200 Waters Road/Milestone Manor Lane
19/3
William Waters Jr. House Site
Between 20511 & 20553 Shadyside Way
c1785
19/5
Neelsville Presbyterian Church
1877
19/10
Waring Viaduct
1906
19/11
Waring-Crawford Farm
19/13
Germantown Historic District
Liberty Mill Road & B&O Railroad Vicinity
19/13-1
Madeline V. Waters House
12900 Wisteria Drive
19/13-5
Pumphrey-Mateney House
c1883
19/13-6
Upton Bowman House
19219 Liberty Mill Road
c1901
19/13-7
Wallich-Heimer House
19120 Mateny Road
1913
19/19
Grusendorf Log House
Seneca State Park near Visitor Center
c1841
19/21
Clopper Mill Ruins
Seneca State Park near Clopper Road-Waring Station Road
19/27
John H. Gassaway
c1815; c1840; 1904
19/33
Cider Barrel
1926
19/40
Stone Culverts & Railroad Bed
c1873
c1865; 1873; 1896
c1790;1890
c1850; c1885
c1878+
1899-1902
c1795;1834
GERMANTOWN HISTORIC SITES
19/13 Germantown Historic District
required two telegraph operators to control the
grain scale housed in a small metal shed on
(c1878+)
switches to double tracks south of town.
Mateny Hill Road, southwest of Blunt Avenue.
The Germantown community became the center of
Germantown‘s commercial district grew along
commercial activity when the Bowman Brothers
Mateny Hill Road between the train station and
German farmers settled the Germantown area in
built a new steam-driven flour and corn mill next to
Liberty Mill Road. In the late 1800s and early
the early 1800s. The initial Germantown
the new railroad depot, making obsolete the
1900s, Germantown had two general stores, a
settlement clustered around the intersection of
earlier water-driven mills in the area. Bowman
post office, three churches, a bank, doctor's office,
Clopper and Liberty Mill Roads. After the
Brothers' Liberty Mill was built in l888 at the south
barber shop, and school. The Germantown Bank
introduction of the Metropolitan Branch of the
side of Liberty Mill Road along the railroad tracks.
(1922)(below, left), 19330 Mateny Hill Road, was
B&O Railroad, the community known as
The wooden flour mill burned in l914, but was
funded through sale of shares to residents who
Germantown Station grew about one mile north of
rebuilt and modernized in l916 with six huge silos.
wanted to cash their mill paychecks without being
the original crossroads community. Present-day
In 1918 Augustus Selby and his four partners
charged 15 cents that the General Store
Liberty Mill and Walter Johnson Roads were the
bought the mill, and operated it until l963. A grain
demanded for the service. This one-and-a half
original Germantown Road. The railroad enabled
elevator and grain dryer were part of the operation
story brick building has a simple classical facade,
farmers to ship their produce, grain, and milk to
in the l920s and 30s, but burned in l972 after the
and iron bars on its triple windows. At the
Washington, as well as receive fertilizers to enrich
mill had closed. Still standing is a
Vicinity of Liberty Mill Road, B&O Railroad, and
Mateny Hill Road
the soil for larger yields.
Germantown Station, built
in 1891, replaced an earlier
small railroad station
located there in l878. The
frame structure was rebuilt,
following a 1978 fire, and
serves modern-day
commuters traveling to jobs
downcounty and in
Washington, D.C. (photo, far
right). The original single
track at Germantown once
southern corner of Blunt Avenue and Mateny Hill
parcels of land. Bank President A. H. Baker lived
Road, a small, board and batten shop with a gable
in a large estate on Liberty Mill Road where Liberty
roof, was used at various times as a harness shop,
Heights is now located.
barber shop and post office before it was
converted into a house. Numerous other service
Bowman Brother's or Liberty Mill was at one time
businesses in this vicinity included a feed store,
the second largest mill in the state. In the 1950s,
several warehouses, and a stockyard.
dairy products replaced grain as the state‘s
primary agricultural output, leading to a decline in
The houses built within this period have strong
the milling business. Popularity of the automobile
uniformity and similar architectural details in the
enabled residents to shop in more distant
simple rural tradition of 19th century Maryland.
shopping centers, people became less dependent
The homes were built for mill and railroad
on the railroad, and growth of the county's
employees as well as shopkeepers and ministers.
population turned cornfields into cul-de-sacs.
Many houses in the historic district still have
Commercial businesses are now concentrated
dependencies such as stables, wash houses, and
closer to I-270. The Germantown Historic District,
smokehouses; some with louvered cupolas,
designated in l989, preserves the heritage of
contrasting trim, or other architectural details. The
Germantown as a flourishing farming and mill
generous front and side yards allowed for family
community, while continuing to focus on the B&O
gatherings, gardens, and perhaps a few animals,
Station as a center for today‘s MARC train
while shade trees and porches helped residents
commuters.
escape the heat of summer. One of the oldest
houses in the district is the c1870 Harris-Allnutt
House, 19390 Mateny Mill Road, which was
originally the home of R. E. and Alice Harris who
ran a store here. The Anderson-Johnson House
(1898), 19310 Mateny Mill Road, was first the
home of a railroad agent and later Germantown's
postmaster. Rev. Rayfield House (c1890s), 9215
Blunt Avenue, was the residence of the Baptist
Church minister. The homes of influential
community leaders (e.g. mill owners, banker, store
owners) lined Old Germantown Road on large
Individual Sites (listed chronologically)
son of William. Charles built or expanded the
19/3 William Waters Jr. House Site
frame section (right) and compatibly redesigned
(Late 1700s-Early 1800s)
19/1 Pleasant Fields/Basil Waters House
the existing house. The new large central hall was
Demolished Resource—Site Between 20511 &
(c1790s-early 1800s;1890s)
outfitted with an elegant curved staircase. Charles
20553 Shadyside Way
21200 Waters Road/Milestone Manor Lane
Waters was a successful breeder of racehorses,
(drawing below, right)
(photo below, left)
one of whom set the east coast trotting record
(1898). The property, which remained in the
A designated historic site since 1979, the William
The Waters family inhabited Pleasant Fields for
Waters family until 1932, includes a bank barn
Waters House no longer stands. The five-bay
more than a century. About 1790, Basil Waters
and double corncrib. A small Waters family burial
dwelling was one of the earliest substantial brick
established a large tobacco plantation, supported
plot is on Hawk‘s Nest Lane. The restored house
residences in the Germantown area. The one-
by as many as 22 slaves. The brick sections
and barn, owned by M-NCPPC, are scheduled to be
room deep, center-passage house featured
(center and left) are the earliest, dating from the
open for community events, run in part by the
recessed 9/6 sash windows with jack arches, a
late 1700s or early 1800s. In the late 1800s,
Montgomery County Historical Society.
round-arched doorframe with keystone and
Basil‘s nephew, Dr. William A. Waters, a general
cornerblocks, and fanlight transom. According to
practitioner, had a doctor‘s office in the house.
tradition, William Waters, Jr. (1751-1817) built the
The house gained its present Italianate
house after acquiring the property from his father
appearance under ownership of Charles Waters,
in 1785. William was the brother of Basil Waters
who built Pleasant Fields. In the late 1800s, the
house was updated with a Gothic-inspired center
cross gable, a pointed-arch window and shingle
siding. The property, also
known as the Horace Waters
House, remained in the
family until 1962. The
foundations of the house
have been preserved in the
Waters Landing Park.
19/21
Clopper Mill Ruins (c1795; 1834)
These ruins are significant as one of the few
powered Bowman Brothers Mill opened in 1888, in
Clopper Road at Waring Station Road
remaining distinguishable mills in the county,
Germantown. Clopper‘s Mill was heavily damaged
(photo, below left)
representing an industry once essential to
by fire in 1947. The ruins consist of stone and
economic development. Nicholas Sibert built the
brick walls with no roof. Local fieldstone on the
Located within Seneca Creek State Park, the
original mill on this site in the 1770s. About 1795,
basement and first floor levels has corner quoins
Clopper Mill Ruins are remnants of the extensive
Zachariah MacCubbin rebuilt the mill, constructing
and heavy stone lintels.
property of Francis C. Clopper, influential
a two-level stone structure. Clopper renovated
businessman in Montgomery County in the mid-
and expanded the mill in 1834, adding a third
19/11 Waring-Crawford Farm
1800s. A prosperous owner of a woolen factory
story of bricks made at a manufactory on his
(Log section: Mid 1800s; Enlarged Late 19th
and mills, Clopper was a principle backer of the
estate. A stone in the mill‘s gable read ―F C C
Century - Early 20th Century)
Metropolitan Branch in the 1850s, and was
1834.‖ An undershot water wheel used water
instrumental in persuading the B&O to take over
from the Great Seneca Creek to turn the millstone.
(photo, below right)
construction of the railroad branch after the
Business at the mill declined after the steam-
original company failed. Clopper donated land
both for a nearby railroad station, named in his
honor, and for St. Rose of Lima Catholic Church.
Clopper‘s mansion, known as Woodlands, was
located near the Visitors Center at Seneca Creek
State Park.
This distinctive log and frame residence
1880s, and was railroad agent at Germantown
pairs. Typical of higher style Montgomery County
represents an evolution of construction materials.
Station where he operated a fertilizer and grain
houses of this era (late 1800s-early 1900s), the
The original log house is a two-story side gable
store in Germantown Station. This H-shaped
first level windows allow access to the front porch,
structure, which had two rooms on each level. The
house was built in three main sections. The
in this case with jib-door panels.
Waring family (or Warring) probably built the log
original part is the south section (left), oriented
dwelling. From the heirs of John P. Waring, George
toward Seneca Creek. John Gassaway‘s father is
The older section was made compatible with the
Leslie Crawford, in 1881, bought the 214-acre
believed to have built in the early 1800s the
1904 section, updated with looped bargeboard
farm with a two-story house and log outbuildings.
steeply pitched roof house. Wallpaper bears the
and 2/2 sash windows. Front parlor mantels of
A wheat and dairy farmer, Crawford expanded the
date of 1815. The center section was built about
dark green marble were stolen by vandals.
house with a hipped-roof polygonal front ell, with a
1840. About 1904, John Gassaway reoriented the
Electricity was first installed in 1948, replacing gas
fanciful turret over the front entry. After George‘s
house when he built the north section, with front
lighting. The farmstead includes a log
death in 1925, his descendants continued to run
porch facing north toward Riffle Ford Road.
smokehouse with vertical plank siding, corncrib,
the farm. Besides the house, only a smokehouse
and a wind pump. The Maryland Historical Trust
remains of the farmstead that once included a
The elaborately detailed north section of the house
holds interior and exterior easements on the
bank barn, double corncrib, slave quarters, and a
incorporates both Gothic Revival and Italianate
property.
detached kitchen. The main house was built to
elements. The north
face the original Waring Station Road, which ran
center cross gable and
from Clopper Road to Frederick Road but was
looped bargeboard in all
redirected with construction of I-270.
main gables are Gothic
Revival in nature, while
19/27 John H. Gassaway Farm
bracketed door hood,
(Early 19th Century; c1904)
scrolled porch bracket
pairs, and window
(photo right)
treatments are Italianate.
First and second level
This novel frame residence, home of a prosperous
windows have prominent
farmer and merchant, shows the late acceptance
cornices and footed sills,
of Romantic Revival architecture found 20-30
and attic windows are
years earlier in less remote parts of the Eastern
round-arched lunettes.
Seaboard. John Hanson Gassaway (1829-1911)
Rare in the county are
was president of the Montgomery County
cast-iron panels
Agricultural Society in the late 1870s and early
connecting wooden post
19/19 Grusendorf Log House
(Mid-1800s)
19/40 Stone Culverts and Railroad Bed
Seneca Creek State Park
(c1865-73)
(below, left)
(photo, above right; environmental setting, below
The Grusendorf Log House was originally located
right)
on Clopper Road near Great Seneca Highway. The
house represents a wave of German immigrants
This resource reflects the history and
who settled in Montgomery County in the mid
technology of the B&O Railroad.
1800s. Frantz and Hanna Grusendorf, natives of
Germany, were among the first to settle in
The abandoned railroad bed was the
Germantown, buying the property in 1841. Frantz
original alignment of the railroad and
Grusendorf was a stonemason who helped build
was in use from 1873 until 1927, when
many Germantown area houses, and Hanna was
it was double tracked and straightened.
a midwife. The house, which remained in the
The resource includes two stone
Grusendorf family for nearly a century, was moved
culverts of granite and Black Rock stone
two miles to Seneca Creek State Park in 1989 to
that carried water tributaries under the
protect it from development.
tracks. The northwest culvert was
relocated and reconstructed for the
construction of a stormwater
management pond. Salvaged stones
not used in the reconstruction are in
storage will be used at the new
Darnestown Heritage Park, and more
are available for the Germantown Town
Center.
18/44 Little Seneca Viaduct (c1865-73)
design of the viaduct, with deck-type girder spans
the original single-track width railroad bed, cut into
Wisteria Drive Vicinity
supported by nine bents, arranged in four towers
the hillside. Now used as an access road to service
(photo, right; environmental setting, below)
and one stand-alone bent, is highly representative
the dam, the road is closed to the public.
of its time. Unusual was the sharp four-degree
This resource consists of three elements: a c1865
curve of the structure. The 480-foot span stood
abandoned railroad bed, c1872 stone rip-rap wall
105 feet above water at its mid-point. The
from the foot of the original wood trestle bridge
remaining stone abutment is incised with the
that traversed Little Seneca Creek, and the
dates 6-17-96 and 10-13-96. The bridge was
remains of the 1896 viaduct that replaced the
designed by John E. Greiner (1859-1942), an
wooden one. The Little Seneca Viaduct was a
accomplished engineer for the B&O Railroad—his
single-tracked iron bridge that served from 1896
later projects included the Havre de Grace bridge
until 1928. During this period of service, the
over the Susquehanna River.
viaduct supported a railroad that gave a powerful
surge to Montgomery County‘s economy. The
A wooden trestle bridge predated the metal
bridge was abandoned with the advent of double-
viaduct. A stone riprap wall located on the east
tracking, and the railroad was rerouted further
bank of Little Seneca Creek was constructed for
south when the rail line was straightened. The
this first bridge. The resource includes a section of
WSSC
Recommended: Little Seneca Viaduct
VIADUCT
DAM
RIPRAP
WALL
RAILROAD
BED
19/5 Neelsville Presbyterian Church (1877)
(photo, right)
The congregation of the Neelsville Church played
an important role in the development of
Presbyterianism in Montgomery County.
Conservative Presbyterians organized in 1845,
and soon built a log church, south of the present
church. The present Gothic Revival church dates
from 1877. Typical of the style are pointed-arch
windows, which have stained glass panes, a king
post truss embellishing the front gable, and
wooden buttresses, on each facade. The frame
church, which faces west, has a patterned slate
shingle roof and brick foundation. An entry
vestibule and a neon cross in the gable peak were
added in the 1930s. A north wing, completed in
1933 to provide a meeting room, is compatible in
massing and also has wooden buttresses. A large
cemetery lies behind the church, to the east. The
congregation, which now holds services in a 1975
brick church to the north, has restored the historic
church, which is used for Sunday School classes
and community meetings.
19/13-5 Pumphrey-Mateney House (c1883)
time dwelling of Madeline Waters, daughter of
Horace. The residence was the most elaborate
(photo, above right)
house in Germantown, featuring a three-story
projecting pavilion with palladian windows, a broad
After purchasing this property in 1883, Robert H.
hipped roof with dormers, cornice with dentil
Pumphrey lived here where he ran a store until a
molding, and pedimented
separate building was built next door (no longer
wrap-around porch with
standing) in the early l900s. Judging by the
classical columns.
asymmetrical five-bay side elevation and by the
older nature of the stone foundation, Pumphrey
may have substantially rebuilt and/or added onto
an earlier structure to create the building seen
today. Typical details of the 1880s era include
decorative Gothic Revival-influenced trusswork in
the gables, window cornices and footed sills, and
round-arched third-level windows. Robert‘s
daughter and husband, Henry ―Mac‖ Mateney (ma
TEE nee), resided here in the early and mid 1900s.
19/13-1 Madeline V. Waters House
(1899-1902)
Demolished Resource—Site at 12900 Wisteria
Drive
(drawing, below right)
A linear park along Wisteria Drive, at Rt. 118,
commemorates the Madeline Waters House that
was destroyed by arson in 1986. Built in
1899-1902, this roomy frame Colonial Revival
house belonged to the owner of Germantown's
general store, Horace D. Waters. His stepson
Lloyd Dorsey built the house, which was the longGERMANTOWN EMPLOYMENT AREA SECTOR PLAN: AN AMENDMENT TO THE GERMANTOWN MASTER PLAN
19/13-6 Upton Bowman House
19/10 Waring Viaduct (1906)
(c1901) 19219 Liberty Mill Road
(photo, upper left)
(photo, lower left)
Located near the Germantown Historic
Located about 1,000 feet east of Waring Station
District, this frame residence was the
Road, this stone viaduct was built to carry the
home of Upton Bowman, who helped
Metropolitan Branch of the B&O Railroad over the
establish the Bowman Brothers' Mill,
Great Seneca Creek. It was the product of a
later known as Liberty Mill. In 1888,
massive modernization campaign of Pennsylvania
Upton and his brothers Charles and
Railroad‘s Leonor Loree when he took charge of
Eldridge opened the steam-powered
the B&O in 1901. For its first 30 years of
gristmill, which flourished with its location
operation, the railroad crossed the waterway on a
adjacent to the railroad station. The
wooden trestle bridge that was dangerous and
success of the milling operation led to an
expensive to maintain. The stone viaduct was
economic boom in the
erected in 1906 when the railroad line between
Germantown
Gaithersburg and Germantown was straightened
community and the
and a second track installed. The massive
obsolescence of local
stonework of the Waring Viaduct, and its larger
water-powered mills.
twin over the Little Monocacy, are uncommon on
The Upton Bowman
B&O lines yet more typically found on the
House was probably
Pennsylvania Railroad, evidence of Loree‘s
built about 1901 when
influence. The 350 foot-long, three-arch viaduct of
the family purchased
roughly dressed granite supports the tracks that
the property. The
are about 70 feet above the Great Seneca Creek.
frame house, now
Early trains stopped at Waring Station to pick up
covered with stucco,
passengers and freight, and to take on water
has decorative
pumped up from Seneca Creek via a hydraulic
bargeboards with
ram.
cross bracing, a twostory polygonal bay on
the east side, and a
wraparound porch.
19/13-7 Wallich-Heimer House (1913)
Germantown Elementary School (north side).
19120 Mateny Road
Residents recalled autumns when dozens of
(photo, upper right)
farmers with 4-horse team wagons loaded with
apples were waiting in line at the cider press
John Wallich, a local carpenter, built this frame
located behind Baker‘s house. The
house for his own residence, in 1913. A well-
Cider Barrel provided the retail outlet
preserved Colonial Revival house typical of the late
for both the cider and for Baker‘s
1800s and early 1900s, the dwelling has a second
own fresh apples.
story corner turret with polygonal hipped roof. The
full-width porch has a pedimented entrance and
The barrel is actually a partial
Doric columns. The house has clapboard siding on
cylinder applied to the front of a one-
the first level and shingle siding on the second and
story front-gable building. A
attic levels. The residence is named in part for
bracketed hood shelters an inset
Glenn and Midge Heimer who lived here from
counter opening in the barrel facade.
1959-1981.
Horizontal stripes capping the head
and base of the barrel lend a
19/33 Cider Barrel (1926)
Streamline Moderne effect
accentuated by an adjacent curved
(photo, lower right)
c1931 apple stand hidden behind a
sliding door.
The Cider Barrel is a well-loved local landmark and
Andrew Baker built the structure in 1926 as a
The Atomic Energy Commission
Building (1958)
retail outlet for his cider and fresh apples. The
19901 Germantown Road
a distinctive example of roadside architecture.
Cider Barrel first became a favorite place for
refreshment in the early days of automobile
This resource has not been
tourism. Baker was a prominent Germantown
designated on the Master Plan for
entrepreneur who spearheaded the move to build
Historic Preservation. The Maryland
the Germantown Bank (1922) and served as one
Historical Trust has determined this
of its first trustees. Baker owned a large house
resource is eligible for listing on the
and farm on Liberty Mill Road (near Liberty Heights
National Register of Historic Places.
Court) with an apple orchard next to the
APPENDIX 13: DENSITY DISTRIBUTION
Figure 1
APPENDIX 14: CONNECTIONS: TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
Transportation Planning, 2008
Germantown has various options of transportation
land use and
for citizens in the community. There are major
transportation
highways, buses, MARC, bicycle facilities, and
changes outside of
sidewalks to facilitate travel to and from locations
the Germantown
across the study area. These forms of
Employment Area
transportation provide mobility and access in a
Sector Plan. A
safe manner and shape the community‘s
second level, the
character in conjunction with land use pattern and
Local Area Model
urban design. This Appendix will be subject to
(LAM), refine the
revision pending publication of the Planning Board
forecasts at the
Draft Plan depending upon the recommendations
local level, using
in the Plan.
quick-response
Figure 2
methodologies
Analysis
from NCHRP
Report 255 to
The roadway system is analyzed with the current
convert system-
conditions and its ability to serve the study area‘s
level forecasts to
travel desires based on existing and future travel
project-level forecasts. Both the TRAVEL/3 and
programs that reflect a non-auto driver mode split
patterns. The system was analyzed using two
LAM use the four step process of trip generation,
goal specific to Germantown, and higher than that
different levels of analysis. The Department‘s
trip distribution, mode split, and traffic
which would be reflected at a larger scale analysis.
travel demand model (TRAVEL/3) was applied to
assignment.
The LAM analyzed the existing conditions in
test local land use proposals in conjunction with
Germantown and analyzes four future year (2030)
the Metropolitan Washington Council of
The LAM was used to create a finer-grain analysis
land use scenarios created by planners and the
Governments (COG) adopted land use forecasts
based on the planned Germantown
community. The land use scenarios were assigned
for the region. The TRAVEL/3 model results
neighborhoods, a more refined road network, and
into traffic analysis zones as seen in Figure 1. An
develop baseline conditions reflecting planned
localized Travel Demand Management (TDM)
assumption was made in the LAM to allow transit
access and travel demand management
improvements based on the type of land use
Table 1
Commercial
Dwelling Units
proposed. With the CCT and a continuing focus on
Scenario
SF
DU
sustainable transportation initiatives an average
Existing
8,062,334
6,591
24,954
Alternative 2B
21,025,408
13,442
44,472
Alternative 2C
23,004,920
15,101
49,512
areawide achievement of a 25 percent non-auto
driver mode share for employees (compared to 16
percent today) was used in the LAM. The land use
scenarios generate a number of trips and attract
trips from outside of Germantown, which is trip
Outbound PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips
Figure 3
generation and distribution. Those trips were
spread out over the network based on destinations
using the Local Area Transportation Review (LATR)
guidelines, which is trip assignment. The trips
assigned to the roads allow planners to determine
how much congestion occurs at intersections.
The scenarios generally result in more traffic
volume from the existing conditions than the 1989
Master Plan. There is a significant increase in
traffic volumes into the area and out of the area as
seen in Figure 2. Several land scenarios were
modeled and can be seen in Table 1 showing the
differences in the amount of development for each
proposal.
Capacity Considerations
From a Policy Area Mobility Review (PAMR)
perspective, the end-state analysis of Land Use
Alternative shows that the proposed land use and
transportation system can be found to be in
balance, due in large part to implementation of
regional facilities already in the sector plan
including I-270 widening, the CCT, M-83, and MD
355 widening. Figure 3 shows the results of the
PAMR analysis, comparing conditions for 2005,
2011, and Alternative 3. The staff recommended
land use is commensurate with that tested as
Alternative 3.
As shown in Figure 4, there are several locations
where we forecast localized congestion problems
that are generally either related to I-270 access
points or locations where major highways
intersect.
Figure 4
Legend
Several new master planned streets break up the
superblocks, with additional connectivity
supporting both the distribution of vehicular traffic
Table 2
Intersection Volume/Capacity (V/C) Ratios
Map
Intersection
Existing
2030 Sector Plan
Crystal Rock Dr & Cloverleaf Center
0.44
1.04
intermodal transfer where the CCT crosses I-270
Crystal Rock Dr & Father Hurley Blvd
0.69
1.12
via Dorsey Mill Road; this access could also
Crystal Rock Dr & Germantown Rd (MD 118)*
0.92
1.05
Crystal Rock Dr & Kinster Dr
0.39
0.74
Father Hurley Blvd & Middlebrook Rd*
0.45
0.60
The localized congestion problems shown in Figure
Frederick Rd (MD 355) & Germantown Rd (MD 118)
1.10
1.32
4 reflect the current growth policy intersection
Frederick Rd (MD 355) & Henderson Corner Rd
0.76
0.99
Frederick Rd (MD 355) & Middlebrook Rd
0.96
1.39
full pedestrian accommodation needs to be
Frederick Rd (MD 355) & Ridge Rd (MD 27)
1.05
1.11
incorporated within any proposed reconstruction.
Frederick Rd (MD 355) & Shakespeare Dr
0.89
1.09
Germantown Rd (MD 118) & Aircraft Blvd*
0.68
0.97
congestion. In the Plan‘s urban areas and transit
Great Seneca Hwy (MD 119) & Middlebrook Rd
0.69
1.11
station areas, intersection widening should be
Great Seneca Hwy (MD 119) & Wisteria Dr
0.62
0.95
Middlebrook Rd & Crystal Rock Dr*
0.51
1.00
Middlebrook Rd & Germantown Rd (MD 118)*
0.81
1.03
Middlebrook Rd & Waring Station Dr
0.73
0.91
Observation Dr & Germantown Rd (MD 118)
0.61
0.91
Observation Dr & Ridge Rd (MD 27)
1.00
1.08
Wisteria Dr & Germantown Rd (MD 118)*
0.85
0.68
and accessibility by non-auto modes. The Plan
recommends an expansion of the I-270/Father
Hurley Boulevard interchange to facilitate
alleviate the localized congestion problem at
Father Hurley Boulevard and Crystal Rock Drive.
congestion standards. For those intersections
where future interchanges are not recommended,
Travel demand management measures should be
considered as the first priority for addressing
considered a last resort to best preserve a transitoriented development planned along the CCT.
Symbol
*Capacities based on a 1600 CLV congestion standard.
Once the scenarios are added to the local network,
an at-grade solution is expected to be the most
local intersections are evaluated based on the
practical.
policy standard of congestion for the area where
the intersection is located. Critical lane volumes
(CLV) is an analysis used for existing signalized
I-270 Intermodal Access at Dorsey Mill
Incorporation of direct access to the Dorsey Mill
Changes to the 1989 Master Plan of
Highways
intersections in the area to determine the highest
transit station to and from the north along I-270 is
desirable. This access can be provided by either
direct access ramps at the Dorsey Mill Road
amount of volume a through lane can hold. CLV is
The following paragraphs summarize the changes
interchange or a revision to the Father Hurley
a calculation for intersections that uses through
between the 1989 Germantown Master Plan and
Boulevard interchange. The new access would
traffic and traffic turning left against oncoming
the recommendations expected to be included in
facilitate intermodal connections between future
traffic. For the Germantown area, there are two
the Planning Board Draft of the 2009 Germantown
managed lanes and bus services on I-270 and the
different policy standards of congestion. The
Employment Area Sector Plan at time of Appendix
transit service along the Corridor Cities Transitway.
Germantown Town Center area has a congestion
production.
This access would also reduce congestion at the
standard of 1600, while the rest of Germantown
has a congestion standard of 1425. Existing
junction of Father Hurley Boulevard with Crystal
I-270 Improvements
conditions are represented by traffic volumes
Rock Drive, reduce commercial traffic use of
Kinster Drive, and provide better access to
observed between 2002 and 2006. The CLVs are
This Plan supports the widening of I-270 to a
businesses along Century Boulevard. The access
converted into a volume over capacity ratio that
twelve-lane facility with some managed lane
would need to be coordinated with State Highway
can be seen in Table 2 and in Figure 4 with a star
component to provide preferential treatment to
Administration and Federal Highway
noting capacities based on a 1600 CLV congestion
transit vehicles and high-occupancy vehicles. The
Administration. Staff has determined that a fully
standard. The existing conditions columns have
Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) is
separated interchange at Dorsey Mill Road would
three intersections currently failing. The 2030
studying options that include express toll lanes;
likely not meet Interstate Access Point Approval
Sector Plan column represents CLVs with
this Sector Plan does not set policy regarding
requirements as it would not be needed to
recommended improvements includes new roads,
whether or not tolling should be provided on I-270
facilitate freeway flow. However, a future
extra lanes, and turn lanes at the intersections
but notes that value pricing is a useful demand
reconstruction of the Father Hurley Boulevard
shows seven failing intersections. At three of
management tool. The SHA is also examining
interchange to connect to the CCT crossing in the
these locations (along MD 355), the Plan
limited interchange reconstruction in Germantown
vicinity of Dorsey Mill Road could provide both the
recommends grade-separated interchanges to
including the provision of some direct access
intermodal connection and facilitate local access.
address traffic congestion at Plan buildout. At
ramps to and from express toll lanes.
Development of a split urban diamond
three other intersections, the forecast V/C ratio is
configuration, similar to the I-270 Spur
less than 10 percent over capacity, a level where
interchange with Old Georgetown Road (MD 187)
and Rockledge Drive, would be one means to
achieve this objective.
Target Speeds
MD 355 Corridor Considerations
fully evaluate alternatives to M-83. Staff
Along the MD 355 corridor, forecast traffic
recommends a 250‘ wide right-of-way for MD 355
congestion is severe at locations where MD 355
in the draft Plan with a staging element that would
intersects east-west major highways such as Ridge
link the ultimate right-of-way width to a County
Road (MD 27). The 1989 Master Plan
Council decision regarding the M-83 study in
recommends a grade-separated interchange at
2010. The wider right-of-way would also provide
identifies target speeds for non-residential
this location. This Plan also recommends grade
the ability to study bus rapid transit concepts
roadways classified in the Sector Plan, following
separated interchanges at the MD 355
further during the same staging period.
the guidance in the County Code and Executive
intersections with Middlebrook Road and MD 118.
Regulation 31-08.
Controlled Major Highway
Staff has also explored the development of what
The DPWT study of Midcounty Highway Extended
Peter Calthorpe terms an ―urban network‖; the
(M-83) is expected to be completed in early 2010,
provision of at-grade, one-way couplets where
after the Germantown Plan adoption. The master
major highways meet. This concept could be
A controlled major highway is defined in the 2007
plan alignment for M-83 is outside of the
applied at each of the MD 355 intersections with
road code as ―a road meant exclusively for the
Germantown Plan study area. The master-planned
MD 27, MD 118, and Middlebrook Road.
through movement of vehicles at lower speeds
alignment is in both the Master Plan of Highways
Preliminary analyses indicate that this approach
than a freeway. Access must be limited to grade-
and the regional Constrained Long Range Plan and
(the replacement of a single wide intersection with
separated interchanges or at-grade intersections
has been assumed as part of the network of
four intersections of one-way streets around a
with public roads.‖ Three roads in the Plan area;
regional transportation improvements for the
town square type of feature) could provide mobility
Father Hurley Boulevard/Ridge Road (MD 27),
purposes of Sector Plan analysis.
levels commensurate with that achieved by the
Frederick Road (MD 355), and Great Seneca
proposed grade-separated interchanges. The
Highway (MD 119) either meet the definition for a
DPWT has studied an alternative to building M-83
urban network would also have a lower capital
controlled major highway or should be classified
by improving MD 355. Their preliminary findings
cost, but requires a substantial and coordinated
as such for mobility and access management
are that a MD 355 alternative that generally
redevelopment to implement. The Plan
purposes. Classification implementation for these
respected the current 150‘ wide right-of-way and
recommends that the urban network concept be
roads does not mean that existing driveway cuts
existing development in the corridor would not
studied further, either as a supplemental study to
should be closed. These roads in the 1989
meet the study purpose and need. Staff concurs
the Plan (should budgetary constraints permit) or
Germantown Master Plan were classified as major
with that finding, but has worked with DPWT to
as an alternative within any project planning study
highways.
expand their study to include an alternative that
of interchange construction.
does meet the purpose and need, in order to more
Father Hurley Boulevard
Observation Drive – MD 118 to
The number of travel lanes on the portion of
Middlebrook Road
Crystal Rock Drive – MD 118 to
Father Hurley Boulevard west of Wisteria
A parallel route to I-270 and MD 355 from a
Middlebrook Road
Drive should be reduced from six lanes to
regional standpoint is needed, which is
The portion of Crystal Rock Drive that
four lanes, based on confirmation of travel
achieved by a southerly extension of
connects Middlebrook Road to Germantown
demand volumes examined during the
Observation Drive across the Montgomery
Road is being reclassified as a minor
Facility Planning study in 2003.
College campus to Middlebrook Road, with
arterial roadway with a local bicycle facility.
a roadway connection eastward to MD 355
Great Seneca Highway
at Cider Press Lane and a potential second
Kinster Drive
Great Seneca Highway today meets the
easterly connection to MD 355 north of the
Kinster Drive was classified as a four-lane,
definition for a controlled major highway,
Boys and Girls Club property. This
divided arterial in the 1989 Germantown
with one exception. This road in the 1989
connection will facilitate access within and
Master Plan. Based on public comment and
Germantown Master Plan was classified as
across the campus, reducing local trip
staff discussions, Kinster Drive will be
a major highway.
lengths. This Plan adds a new extension of
changed in the Sector Plan to remain as a
Observation Drive to the east of the campus
two lane divided, minor arterial road with
along the stream valley buffers as a four
on-street parking. Staff forecasts that with
Crystal Rock Drive – Father Hurley
lane, undivided road to serve both local and
the I-270 Dorsey Mill Road access and the
Boulevard to MD 118
regional transportation needs.
Public Hearing Draft Plan land use, Kinster
Arterials
Crystal Rock Drive has several
classifications throughout its entire length.
Drive will carry approximately 7,000
Minor Arterials
vehicles per day, within the capacity of a
From Kinster Drive to Aircraft Drive, Crystal
Cider Press Place
Rock Drive is classified as a four lane,
This is an extension of an existing two lane
two-lane roadway.
divided arterial. This particular section of
residential road one block in length on the
Business Streets
Crystal Rock Drive has a recreational
west side of MD 355. This roadway
Any street in this Plan boundary that was classified
greenway proposed adjacent to the eastern
extension will connect to the new extension
as an industrial street in the 1989 Germantown
edge of the right-of-way.
of Observation Drive on the Montgomery
Master Plan was reclassified as a business street.
College campus to MD 355. This particular
alignment is preferred based on the
relatively limited stream buffer crossing at
the eastern edge of the campus.
Blunt Road
Crystal Rock Drive
Middlebrook Road – MD 118 to Father
Blunt Road is classified as a two lane
Crystal Rock Drive has several
Hurley Boulevard
business street. The cul-de-sac will be
classifications. This road is classified as a
Middlebrook Road was classified as a major
removed and the road will connect to MD
four lane business street from the proposed
highway in the 1989 Germantown Master
355. At Middlebrook Road, further study is
Dorsey Mill Road extension to Kinster Drive
Plan. Based on its proposed function
needed to determine if this newly created
and from Middlebrook Road to Wisteria
serving a re-orientation of proposed Town
intersection will be a right-in or right-out
Drive. A portion of this road from Black Hill
Center development, Middlebrook Road
design or whether a full movement
Park to Kinster Drive will have a
from Germantown Road to Father Hurley
intersection or left-turn in treatment can be
recreational greenway proposed on the
Boulevard is reclassified as a four lane,
designed to meet both traffic control and
eastern portion of the road. However, the
divided business street. This road from
sight distance requirements.
entire length of Crystal Rock Drive has a
Germantown Road to Frederick Road (MD
proposed local bicycle facility.
355) will maintain the classification set in
Century Boulevard
the 1989 Germantown Master Plan of a six
Century Boulevard is designated as a four
Goldenrod Lane
lane, divided major highway. Middlebrook
lane divided business street with a shared-
Goldenrod Lane is reclassified as a four
Road will continue to have a shared-use
use bicycle path from the proposed Dorsey
lane business street. This extension will
path alongside the entire length of the road.
Mill Road extension to Crystal Rock Drive.
connect to Observation Drive, skirting along
From Crystal Rock Drive to Wisteria Drive,
the edge of the forest. This road should be
Waterford Hills Boulevard
Century Boulevard is classified as a two
provided in conjunction with the
Waterford Hills Boulevard is a new addition
lane business street. Century Boulevard is
development plans for the Technology Park.
to the Germantown Employment Area
proposed to be extended from Wisteria
The connection will allow students to
Sector Plan. The existing road that
Drive to the proposed Waters Road
access the Technology Park and will give
intersects Father Hurley Boulevard will be
extension. This extension will facilitate
other employees access to the Technology
extended to the proposed Century
connections between the Town Center and
Park through Observation Drive and the
Boulevard extension. Waterford Hills
the West End (including to the MARC
new connection via Cider Press Place
Boulevard will be a four lane, divided
station) without traveling on Germantown
Extended to MD 355.
business street with a local bicycle facility.
Road.
Waters Road
Waters Road is a new two lane business
street that connects Wisteria Drive to
Germantown Road.
New, Unnamed Business Streets
There are three proposed new unnamed
business streets in the Germantown
Employment Area Sector Plan. There are
two new two lane roads that connect
Century Boulevard to Crystal Rock Drive (B17 and B-19). The third new business street
is a two lane road from Seneca Meadows
Parkway to Milestone Center Drive called B25 that will pass over Ridge Road adjacent
to the eastern leg of the CCT.
Figure 5
The following are roads that were not
classified in the 1989 Germantown Master
Plan, but are classified as business streets
in this Plan that did not have changes to
them.
o
Bowman Mill Road
o
Cloverleaf Center Drive
o
Seneca Meadows Road (formerly
Goldenrod Lane)
o
Walter Johnson Drive
Public Transportation
Germantown has several forms of public
transportation for the community. MARC and Ride
On buses give residents options for traveling
throughout the County.
The Brunswick line of the MARC commuter rail
service has a train station located in Germantown
between Middlebrook Road and Dawson Farm
Road as seen in Figure 6. There are nine MARC
trains that stop at Germantown. Currently, there is
a free paved parking lot to either side of the
railroad tracks allowing riders to park their cars all
day. From April 2005 to April 2006 there were 729
people on an average daily basis board MARC at
the Germantown station.
Figure 6.
MARC and Transit stations.
Table 3
Public Transportation Facilities & Segments
Trains per
Average Daily
Facility
From
To
Type
day
Riders
MARC Brunswick Line
Martinsburg, WV
Washington D.C.
Commuter Rail
9
7,122
MARC Brunswick Line
Germantown stop
Commuter Rail
9
729
Ride On Route 55
Rockville
Germantown Transit Center
Bus
N/A
6,890
Ride On Route 61
Shady Grove
Bus
N/A
2,639
Ride On Route 70 Express
Milestone Park and Ride
Bethesda
Bus
N/A
593
Ride On Route 74
Shady Grove
Bus
N/A
751
Ride On Route 75
Clarksburg Correctional Facility/Urbana
Bus
N/A
233
Ride On Route 79
Shady Grove
Germantown
Bus
N/A
133
Ride On Route 82
Clarksburg Town Center
Bus
N/A
77
Ride On Route 83
Bus
N/A
696
Ride On Route 90
Shady Grove
Damacus
Bus
N/A
843
Ride On Route 90
Damascus
Bus
N/A
843
Ride On Route 97
Gunners Lake
Bus
N/A
703
Ride On Route 98
Seabreeze Court
Bus
N/A
360
Ride On Route 100 Express
Shady Grove
Bus
N/A
1,632
Corridor Cities Transitway
Shady Grove
Clarksburg
Proposed
N/A
This is one of several stops along the Brunswick
station to accommodate some of these
Grove, Germantown, and Clarksburg. The western
line providing weekday commuters the ability to
commuters.
alignment of the CCT within Germantown is under
travel from Germantown to Silver Spring or to
current study by the Maryland Transit
Washington D.C. to work. Some commuters use
The Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT) as seen in
Administration (MTA), as shown in Figure 6. At the
the MARC train to transfer to the Rockville Metro
Figure 7 is a master-planned public transportation
time of this Plan draft, the MTA draft
Station or the Silver Spring Metro Station and
system that will either be light rail transit or bus
Environmental Assessment was not yet released
continue their commute by Metro. By 2015, MARC
rapid transit between the Shady Grove Metro
nor had a decision been made regarding the mode
plans to add 3,800 new seats to the Brunswick
Station and Frederick County by way of
of the CCT. As part of this sector plan, the
Line and build a parking garage near the MARC
Washingtonian, Quince Orchard, Metropolitan
Middlebrook Road CCT transit station is being
removed. This proposed station serves a limited
commercial area, which is not suitable for transitoriented development due in part to its size,
shape, and topographic constraints. Removing a
low-priority and low-volume station from the CCT
Master Plan Alignment would improve overall
transit line speeds, and therefore boost ridership.
Germantown Stations
Multi-modal accessibility is paramount in ensuring
that the CCT is a viable facility with ridership levels
competitive for federal funding. This Plan makes
the following recommendations regarding CCT
station facilities:
Development at the Germantown Town Center
station should accommodate 9 bus bays to
facilitate the pulse-type of transfer currently
associated with Ride-On Route 100 service.
The Cloverleaf and Observation Drive/Seneca
Meadow stations should be planned to have
adjacent on-street bus stops.
Development at the Dorsey Mill and Manekin
stations, adjacent to the proposed new I-270
access ramps should each be planned to
accommodate 500 parking spaces, 10 kissand-ride spaces, and 4 bus bays.
Figure 7:
Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT)
Source: MTA and SHA, I-270/US15 Multimodal
Transitway Study Area, September 2006
Germantown Town Center has a transit station
located along Crystal Rock Road with a free paved
parking lot behind the transit center. The County‘s
Ride On bus services allow commuters to travel
from Germantown to Bethesda, Shady Grove,
Gaithersburg, and Rockville. Currently, there are
eleven Ride On bus routes that travel throughout
the area with six routes having a final stop at the
Transit Center. Additional parking is currently
needed near the transit center and will be needed
in the future with the future CCT. Table 3 contains
more details about ridership on each route that
travels in the study area.
As stated in the report, explore the feasibility,
funding, and proposed route for a circulator bus
with DOT and initiate this service between the
Town Center, MARC station, and transit
neighborhoods.
The future Germantown Town Center Station
APPENDIX 15: STATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CORRIDOR CITIES TRANSITWAY (CCT) STATIONS
This section presents assumptions and
Middlebrook Station
EA/AA:
Same as Baker Study
recommendations related to the Germantown
(Noted in EA/AA as Future Station – Beyond 2025)
Sector Plan:
Retain Baker recommendations.
Corridor Cities Transitway station areas on land
Baker Study:
area, bus and kiss & ride access, and parking.
A 1.3-acre station with two bus
bays, eight kiss & ride spaces
Manekin Station
and 50 parking spaces
(Noted in EA/AA as Future Station – Beyond 2025)
The information is taken from two prior sources –
EA/AA:
Same as Baker Study
Baker Study:
the Shady Grove – Clarksburg Transitway Study
Sector Plan:
Station not recommended
A 1.9-acre station with an onstreet bus stop, ten kiss & ride
Final Report (or ―Baker Study‖) of November 1997
spaces and 500 parking spaces.
and the I-270 / US 15 Multi-Modal Corridor Study
Germantown Town Center Station
EA/AA:
Essentially same as Baker Study
Draft Environmental Impact Study of May 2002.
Baker Study:
Sector Plan:
Retain Baker recommendations
At 5.6 acres, this is the largest
The latter study is currently being updated by the
station recommended in this
Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT).
study. Nine bus bays, 20 kiss &
Seneca Meadows Station
The update is referred to as an Environmental
ride spaces and 600 parking
(Not in MDOT Study)
Assessment / Alternatives Analysis (EA/AA) and it is
spaces recommended.
Baker Study:
A 1.9-acre station with an on-
scheduled to be completed later this spring. A
EA/AA:
Same as Baker Study
street bus stop, ten kiss & ride
―Locally Preferred Alternative‖ for the CCT is
Sector Plan:
Promote pedestrian access and
spaces and 500 parking spaces.
expected to be selected by the Governor after the
shared parking. Reduce
EA/AA:
Not Applicable
update is completed and the comment period has
auto/pedestrian conflicts. If built
Sector Plan:
ended.
concurrently, permit some of the
The MDOT studies included the CCT alignment
600 spaces to shift to adjacent
Dorsey Mill Station
blocks.
Baker Study:
west of I-270 and do not include the alignment
bays, ten kiss & ride spaces and
east of I-270 south of the Dorsey Mill Station. As a
Cloverleaf Station
result there is no assumption in the EA/AA for the
Baker Study:
Seneca Meadows station.
A 3.3-acre station with four bus
500 parking spaces.
A 0.6-acre station with an on-
EA/AA:
Walk up station
street bus stop, ten on-street kiss
Sector Plan:
& ride spaces, and 50 parking
spaces.
APPENDIX 16: BIKEWAYS
have the natural surface trail extended. A hard
is an important part of connectivity in the area to
includes a network of existing and planned bicycle
surface trail should be provided connecting from
transit stations, residential, and commercial areas.
facilities, including shared use paths, shared use
the trailhead parking lot on MD 355 to the
One connection that is of particular interest is a
roads, and park trails. A hard surface trail system
proposed Upcounty Corridor. The access roadway
missing connection from Pinnacle Drive to
along Great Seneca Creek is proposed to allow
from Century Boulevard to Black Hill Regional Park
Celebration Way. As part of the Road Construction
recreational cyclists and walkers to travel from
should be removed due to environmental
Code, design elements should foster pedestrian-
Seneca Greenway to Damascus using the
concerns, although an unpaved trail connection
oriented design, particularly in the urban areas of
Magruder Trail via the North Germantown
should be retained.
the Plan. In certain neighborhoods, specific
Greenbelt and through Clarksburg per Countywide
pedestrian pathways are recommended to
Park Trails Plan, July 1998. This Plan also
Although this Sector Plan does not explicitly
facilitate access to the town center and transit
proposes that the existing Seneca Greenway Trail
recommend sidewalks and pedestrian facilities, it
station areas.
APPENDIX 17: TRAIL CONNECTIONS
Park Planning and Stewardship, Department of Parks, 2008
Trails are integral to the Germantown pedestrian
connectivity between urban centers, parks,
network. Connect trails, bikeways and sidewalks
community facilities, and local and regional
Policy Guidance
through all districts promoting an alternative to
bikeways. The proposed pedestrian and bike
The 1998 Countywide Park Trails Plan proposed a
vehicle use and improving access to destinations
system will support the plan‘s vision of a
250-mile interconnected system of hard surface
such as transit stations, schools, commercial
pedestrian-oriented environment, with linkages
and natural surface trails in eight greenway
services, parks and natural areas. The trail
into open spaces, regional trail systems, and other
corridors throughout Montgomery County. The
recommendations in this document will update the
destinations. (See also Appendices 17, 19 and 20,
Germantown Planning Area is located in two of the
2005 Park, Recreation, & Open Space (PROS)
Bikeways, Recreation Needs and Parks and Open
eight corridors:
Plan.
Spaces.)
Corridor 2: Seneca Greenway Corridor, a
Key Park Trail Planning Issues
.
natural surface trail corridor that stretches
Assure connectivity by creating a park trail
from the Potomac to the Patuxent and utilizes
New visions for the Germantown study area
system that in combination with the bike paths
a portion of the Germantown Greenbelt.
include a more compact and walkable
provides an integrated, interconnected
environment within each of several distinct mixed-
pedestrian network throughout the
Corridor 8: Upcounty Corridor, a hard surface
use neighborhoods that are clustered around the
community, and links neighborhoods to the
trail corridor that features a proposed hiker-
transit stations of the Corridor Cities Transitway.
larger community by trails, sidewalks, and bike
paths
biker trail to link the communities of
The key issue for trail connections will be to assure
Germantown, Clarksburg and Damascus.
Table 1 Summary of Proposed Trail Recommendations, Germantown Corridor Area
Facility
Status
Issues
Recommendations
M-83 Segment of Germantown
Countywide Park Trails
Road might not be built due
Identify alternate alignment(s)
Bicycle Beltway
Plan
to environmental issues
Crystal Rock Greenway
In existing ROW
Create linear recreation corridor between Town Center
and Black Hill Park, with hiker/biker path, seating,
landscaping.
As recommended by the Countywide Park
Trail Recommendations
Trails Plan we have developed an extensive
natural surface trail system that will surround
The Trail Concept both links the study area to
the Planning Area and will have a hard surface
nature, parks, and community destinations and to
bicycle beltway with connections to the north
regional trail systems. Specifically the Plan
and south. The Countywide Park Trails Plan
proposes to:
identifies the need for a more comprehensive
look at how park trails and bike paths can be
Link the Town Center to the greenbelt parks to:
integrated in the upcounty area and stresses
the need for a ―well-thought out trail concept
Create a ―greenway‖ that integrates the Town
to guide both private and public
Center entertainment district, public parks,
development‖. Both the Germantown
and private open space and features easy
Employment Area Sector Plan and the larger
access from transit This is a linear green
MD 355 corridor study will help assure
space that connects Black Hill to the Town
enhanced connectivity along the entire length
Center (via Crystal Rock Drive road narrowing).
of the I-270 Corridor.
If possible and through work with private
developers, this plan proposes a cultural walk
Trail Connection Needs
that could build upon one or more of the
historical themes identified in this Plan.
Connectivity to park trails, existing and proposed
parks, and community facilities is essential.
Provide a Bicycle Beltway that connects the
Closing the gap in the North Greenbelt proposed
Study Area to the north, south and east to
trail is important between Seneca Crossing Local
parks and trails. If M-83, Midcounty Highway,
Park and Great Seneca Stream Valley Park. The M-
and its related bikeway are not built, an
83 segment of the Germantown Bicycle Beltway
alternate bikeway alignment must be
will provide this function, however if M-83 is not
identified.
built, an alternate alignment must be provided.
Trail head parking is needed at the Waters house.
New trails planned for Black Hill Regional Park will
add to recreational opportunities.
APPENDIX 18: RECREATION NEEDS
Department of Recreation, Montgomery County, December 2007
Currently, the Germantown area is served by
Facilities would generally take the form of a
several public recreation facilities. The
multipurpose building blending community service
Germantown Community Recreation Center and
with active and passive recreation/leisure
Germantown Outdoor Pool were built on a single
activities. Service populations include all ages –
site in combination with the Kings View Middle
Preschool thru Senior from a surrounding 30,000
School. The site includes outdoor recreation
minimum resident area. By taking advantage of
facilities and is located southwest and outside of
the future development it may be possible to
the study area. The Germantown Indoor Pool,
integrate facilities into the initial conceptual
located at South Germantown Regional Park is a
design of some mixed use parcels. It may even be
large full service aquatic facility drawing from a
possible to conceive of a full service facility
regional audience. The last facility is the Plum Gar
including outdoor features at the eastern edge of
Neighborhood Recreation Center situated at the
the Germantown community and a ―downtown
farthest southeast corner of the study area. An
annex‖ in the Milestone/I-270 area that would
additional small facility is also operated near the
provide residents of the higher density central
intersection of MD 355 & Middlebrook Road by the
sections with smaller facility focused on basic key
Boys and Girls Club.
recreational elements.
Based on the population of Germantown as well as
RECOMMENDATION: M-NCPPC should work
the increased development of the mixed use ―town
closely with the Department of Recreation to
center‖ areas, there is a significant need to locate
incorporate community recreational facilities into a
additional community serving recreation facilities
detailed land use plan for the further development
in this vicinity. Geographically, sites in the central
of Germantown.
and northeastern sections of Germantown would
be most complimentary to the existing facilities
and serve both the ―in-town‖ urban center
residents in the vicinity of the Transit Corridor and
those in growth areas north and east of the core
study area.
Figure 1
Urban Open Spaces and Trails Concept
Legend
Existing Public Parks
Proposed Urban Open Space
Proposed Green Commons
Proposed Public Park
Proposed Transit Sidewalk Network
Proposed Bicycle Beltway
Proposed Black Hill Greenway
Proposed Observation Drive Pathway
Germantown Planning Area
Germantown Employment Area Sector Plan
Proposed Corridor Cities Transitway and Stations
Commuter Train
PLANNING BOARD DRAFT – JANUARY 2009
APPENDIX 19: PARKS AND OPEN SPACES
Park Planning and Stewardship, Department of Parks, 2008
Public parkland, open space and pathways play an
Plan‘s suburban land use proposals for
will provide a great deal of recreation and
important role in the well-being of a community. In
Germantown. New visions for the study area
open space in Germantown.
urban areas, parkland enhances citizens‘ quality
include a more compact and walkable
of life by providing visual relief from the built
environment within each of several distinct mixed-
3. Assuring active and nature oriented recreation
environment, a sense of place and identity, an
use neighborhoods that are clustered around the
opportunities are available to existing and
opportunity to connect with nature, and space to
transit stations of the Corridor Cities Transitway.
future residents of the Germantown area. The
gather, play and celebrate community life. In
The existing patterns and proposals for parks need
ability of parks, both within the Sector Plan
addition, open space contributes to the natural
to be reevaluated to support this new vision.
area and also in the greater Germantown
environment by providing wildlife habitat,
improving air quality, and preserving water quality.
area, to meet the needs in the area have been
The key park planning issues that are addressed in
assessed in light of potential increasing
this plan are highlighted below:
density.
Master plans in future urbanizing areas, like the
Germantown Employment Area Sector Plan, refine
1. Providing adequate urban parks and open
4. Assuring connectivity between urban centers,
and customize parks and private open spaces to
space in the areas of highest density and near
parks, community facilities, and local and
reflect the particular needs of a community. They
transit stations. Recreation proposals in this
regional bikeways. Appendices 16 and 17,
also help implement land use planning goals and
plan reflect increased density in the proposed
Bikeways and Park Trail Connections, show
objectives established in the Countywide Park,
mixed-use ―urban villages‖ around transit
these connections in detail.
Recreation and Open Space Plan (PROS) for
stations, and the changing land use patterns
Montgomery County which gives guidance on the
and population forecasts.
countywide pattern of parkland and recreation
needs. The park and trail related
5. Reflecting new park planning emphasis on
historical and cultural interpretation and
2. Creating a cohesive, usable, pattern of open
recommendations in this document will update the
space by utilizing public amenity space as well
2005 PROS Plan.
as parkland. The new plan considers a series
outreach. This information is in Appendix 11,
Cultural Resources.
of public open spaces near transit and mixed
Key Park Planning Issues
use centers. Not all open space can or should
be publicly owned and managed parkland.
The existing pattern of parks in Germantown and
Public amenity spaces in new developments
the surrounding area reflects the 1989 Master
Plan Recommendations to Address Key
Planning Issues
recognizes that urban open spaces are a
An Entertainment District Meeting Place: A
critical feature in higher density
plaza with landscaping and seating across the
neighborhoods; and
street from the cinemas, next to the police
The following planning recommendations will
promotes the vitality of the centers by
station.
address key issues and implement the Urban
providing spaces for the meeting of residents
Open Spaces and Trails Concept (Figure 1).
and employees.
1. Provide urban parks and open spaces in high
density areas and near transit Stations.
For Each Mixed Use, Transit-Served Neighborhood:
In order to assure that new mixed use areas are
A Meeting Place: a space to wait for transit or
livable areas with open spaces and recreation, the
meet people, near each transit stop.
Plan recommends specifically:
A Family Oriented Active Play Park: a flexible
open space with places to run, climb, play,
For the Town Center:
and relax.
supports smart growth by proposing high density,
Create a series of public open spaces, linked by a
mixed uses near transit areas. Public urban
promenade, a linear pedestrian system along
Urban open spaces tend to be more expensive to
amenity open spaces serve high-activity areas.
Century Boulevard, the Town Center‘s ―Main
build, manage, and maintain than suburban parks.
Suitable locations include transit station areas,
Street.‖ The locations of these spaces would help
To develop, manage, and maintain these urban
large employment centers, commercial areas, and
to enliven and complement the retail and
open space areas in an attractive, usable manner
high density residential areas. They can provide
entertainment district of the Town Center, and
without impact on other public facilities, it will be
landscaped sitting areas, walkways, and flexible
include:
important to explore funding mechanisms such as
active recreational opportunities. Urban amenity
The Town Commons: A civic space at the
a maintenance district.
open spaces adjacent to large employment
heart of Germantown with flexible seating in
centers provide a place for workers to eat lunch,
front of BlackRock Center for the Arts. This
read, socialize, and relax. In addition, they provide
space is currently owned by the County and
space, by utilizing public amenity space as
the perfect opportunity for cultural resource
maintained by DOT.
well as parkland.
interpretation of a more progressive nature, such
Town Center Urban Park: A strolling and
as public art.
reflective park, located behind the library. This
Recreation and open space needs in Germantown
park has already been approved as a facility
will be met by a combination of public parks and
The Urban Open Spaces and Trails concept in this
plan.
private open spaces. The role of public parks in
Plan provides adequate open spaces and urban
A Family-Oriented Active Play Park: An active
this recommendation will be explored as part of
parks in the areas of highest density in that it:
2. Provide a cohesive, usable, pattern of open
park with places to run, climb, play, and relax,
the implementation process. Depending on their
reflects the need for more parks and open
near the Upcountry Regional Services Center
scale and function, ―neighborhood green‖ areas
space in the core area;
on the M & T Bank site.
may best be provided and managed by the private
sector. Park trails will be integrated into the
overall pedestrian circulation concept to enhance
shape the public realm and serve employees and
renovated or new light industry emerges, open
connectivity.
residents.
spaces should be added to supplement public
parks. Landscaping, seating areas, and public
Policy Guidance for Urban Open Space
Consideration should be given to the following
art can improve the area‘s appearance and
guidelines in location and development of urban
Open Space in Urban Environments: Parks for
park and amenity open spaces:
Tomorrow (1998) indicates that urban residential
a.
areas such as Germantown need several types of
recreation facilities including hiker/biker paths
b.
and community connectors, neighborhood
improve the working environment.
i.
Environmental function should be designed
They should be within five to ten minutes of
into park facilities, such as fountains with
walking time for users.
storm water functions, or that mask noise.
They should include sitting areas, walkways,
j.
In residential developments, a key to providing
and landscaping.
adequate, close-to-home recreation is
Playground equipment and other small-scale
ensuring that opportunities are incorporated
recreation and open space for existing and
active recreation facilities, such as multi-
into plans for new development, which should
proposed businesses and mixed use development.
purpose courts, should be considered in areas
provide private recreation areas for all age
serving a significant number of children.
groups, as appropriate. Private development
Special consideration should be given to the
should include:
recreation for new residential areas, and urban
Planning and Design
This plan‘s recommendations recognize that urban
c.
d.
level grass areas for leisure and informal
Urban amenity open spaces located on the
play to serve people of all ages
areas present distinct challenges and
periphery of high-intensity non-residential
adult recreation areas
opportunities to provide park and recreation
areas should include facilities to serve nearby
walking and bicycling paths.
resources and strive to incorporate and create
residents.
playgrounds for young children
those resources with redevelopment. The location,
e.
needs of the elderly and the handicapped.
Design should provide crime prevention
multi-use courts for children, teens, and
size, and type of open spaces appropriate to an
through environmental design by maximizing
young adults
urban setting are unique. As shown on the Urban
visibility and natural surveillance.
Open Space and Trails Concept (Figure 1), this
f.
Amenity open spaces should be of a sufficient
In high-rise housing and transit station areas
plan recommends a series of open spaces at a
size to support appropriate use by residents,
indoor recreation areas will be essential. Project
smaller scale than is typical of less densely
workers and the public.
development should explore innovative
Consideration should be given to the
approaches to providing these facilities, including
appropriate amount of funding necessary to
rooftops and indoor facilities such as playgrounds
support both the initial cost of the
and gyms.
populated areas, provided through a combination
of public and private efforts.
g.
h.
Both residential and employment redevelopment
development and the long-term maintenance
projects should provide a mixture of recreational
of the amenity space. In commercial and
facilities, open spaces, and trail connections that
mixed use developments, as businesses are
3. Assure recreation needs, both active and
picnicking. These parks will continue to serve a
nature oriented, are met for future residents
large population area because of their unique
of the Germantown area.
facilities.
Parks and Recreation Opportunities
Undeveloped Parkland: There are several
undeveloped local parks in the Germantown
It is critical for master plans to address the active
In the last 10 years the Parks Department has
Area that should be used to meet the needs of
and passive recreational needs of the area and
developed six new local parks that have provided
future residents of both the Transit Study area
determine whether there are any available and
nine new fields, seven tennis courts, seven new
and the Germantown Planning Area. These
appropriate sites for parkland acquisition to meet
playgrounds, and five basketball courts. The
include: Kingsview and Seneca Crossing.
long range future needs. Although new urban
Recreation Department has opened a
Additionally, the Hondros property which is
parks and open spaces are recommended near
Germantown Recreation Center adjacent to
part of South Germantown Recreational Park
transit stations, most opportunities for larger scale
Kingsview Middle School and a world class aquatic
may be used to provide future recreation
active and nature-oriented recreation will be met
facility at South Germantown Recreational Park.
facilities. Specific recommendations for these
in the greater Germantown area, beyond the study
area.
parks are found in Table 2.
Parks and Recreation Needs
Additional Facilities in Existing Parks:
Existing Parks
One purpose of a master plan update is to assess
Opportunities to provide recreation facilities
whether the existing recreational facilities are
include a proposal for a large public/private
The Germantown Planning Area has nearly 2,000
adequate and whether new resources should be
indoor tennis- racquet ball facility in South
acres of parkland, which includes approximately
provided for existing and future users. The PROS
Germantown Recreational Park.
300 acres of local parkland and around 1,700 in
Plan projects recreational needs by planning and
Conservation, Stream Valley, Regional and
community based team area, and specific needs
Private Recreation Facilities: As residential or
Recreational Parks. (See Table 1) This parkland
for sub-areas such as the study area are not
mixed use neighborhoods are built, their
forms a greenbelt around Germantown, providing
available. According to the 2005 PROS Plan the
required private recreation facilities will be
residents with easy access to parkland. Black Hill
Planning Area will need an additional six
developed to help meet recreation needs in
Regional Park provides water oriented recreation
playgrounds, but needs for tennis and basketball
new residential communities.
and picnic/playground facilities, Ridge Road
courts can be met by existing facilities at parks
and schools. In terms of new fields, the entire I-
Recreational Park has athletic fields, in-line hockey
270 Corridor will need 33 additional fields, many
and picnicking, and South Germantown
of which will be provided by parks and schools in
Recreational Park has many active recreation
the rapidly growing Clarksburg Area.
facilities including a soccer complex, an adventure
playground, splash park, heart smart trail, and
TABLE 1: EXISTING PARKLAND IN THE GERMANTOWN AREA
Inventory of all Facilities & Parkland Owned, Leased and/or Maintained by M-NCPPC
Park
Code
Park
Status
URBAN PARKS
A25
D
Park Name
Tennis
Court
Football
Soccer
Overlay
1
2
1
1
2
10.1
28.9823
7.3774
8.0954
65.4044
8.9398
16.09
10.0072
8.0001
8
8.48
14.9927
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
16.457
11.6874
222.6137
1
1
10
Playground
Soft Ball
Field
1
74.0856
Acreage
GERMANTOWN SQUARE URBAN
PARK
GERMANTOWN TOWN COMMONS
URBAN PARK
0.7684
Subtotal
NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
B17
D
FOX CHAPEL NEIGHBORHOOD
PARK
C33
U
GUNNER'S VILLAGE
NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION
AREA
C15
U
MIDDLEBROOK HILL
NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION
AREA
Subtotal
LOCAL PARKS
E64
D
CEDAR CREEK LOCAL PARK
D27
D
CLEARSPRING LOCAL PARK
E71
D
FOUNTAIN HILLS LOCAL PARK
D45
U
GERMANTOWN EAST LOCAL PARK
D52
D
GUNNER'S BRANCH LOCAL PARK
D53
D
GUNNER'S LAKE LOCAL PARK
E68
P
HOYLES MILL LOCAL PARK
E69
P
KINGS CROSSING LOCAL PARK
D83
U
KINGSVIEW LOCAL PARK
D46
D
LEAMAN LOCAL PARK
D91
D
PLUMGAR LOCAL PARK
E02
D
SOUTH GUNNER'S BRANCH
LOCAL PARK
D73
D
WARING STATION LOCAL PARK
E61
D
WATERS LANDING LOCAL PARK
Subtotal
STREAM VALLEYS
P78
U
GREAT SENECA STREAM VALLEY
UNIT #1
P79
U
GREAT SENECA STREAM VALLEY
UNIT #2
Subtotal
1.2286
A28
U
Baseball
Field
Basketball/
Multi-Use
Lighted
Basketball
Court
Football
Soccer
Field
Picnic
Shelters
Open
Shelter
Restroom
1
1
6
1
1
6
0.4602
15.696
46.8461
11.5435
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
6
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
7
2
10
1
1
11
3
2
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
7
436.6804
392.2122
828.893
TABLE 1 (continued): EXISTING PARKLAND IN THE GERMANTOWN AREA
Inventory of all Facilities & Parkland Owned, Leased and/or Maintained by M-NCPPC
Community Recreation Center and Aquatic
Park
Park
FacilityStatus
Needs
Code
Soft Ball
Field
Baseball
Field
74.7189
1
2
1
700.4416
2
2
2
1
2
775.1605
3
4
3
1
3
Acreage
RECREATIONAL PARKS
H07
U
RIDGE ROAD RECREATIONAL
PARK
G11
D
SOUTH GERMANTOWN
RECREATIONAL PARK
Subtotal
SPECIAL PARKS
N30
D
WATERS HOUSE SPECIAL PARK
H08
SOCCERPLEX OF SOUTH
GERMANTOWN
Subtotal
Total
Basketball/
Multi-Use
Lighted
Basketball
Court
Playground
Park Name
Tennis
Court
Football
Soccer
Overlay
Football
Soccer
Field
Picnic
Shelters
1
3
2
2
2
4
1
2
3
7
3
1
Open
Shelter
Restroom
3.9
3.9
1920.6571
Community Recreation Center and Aquatic
Facility Needs
14
11
3
8
3
15
5
24
24
24
24
38
9
4
40
intersection of Rt. 355 & Middlebrook Road by the
activities. Service populations include all ages,
Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Washington.
preschool through senior, from a surrounding
30,000 minimum-resident area. By taking
Currently, the Germantown area is served by
Based on the population of Germantown as well as
advantage of the future development it may be
several public community centers and aquatic
the increased development of the mixed use ―town
possible to integrate facilities into the initial
facilities. The Germantown Community Recreation
center‖ areas, there is a significant need to locate
conceptual design of some mixed use projects. It
Center and Germantown Outdoor Pool were built
additional community serving recreation facilities
may even be possible to conceive of a full service
on a single site in combination with the Kingsview
in this vicinity. Geographically, sites in the central
facility including outdoor features at the eastern
Middle School. The site includes outdoor
and northeastern sections of Germantown would
edge of the Germantown community and a
recreation facilities and is located southwest and
be most complementary to the existing facilities
―downtown annex‖ in the Milestone/I-270 area
outside of the study area. The Germantown Indoor
and serve both the ―in-town‖ urban center
that would provide residents of the higher density
Pool, located at South Germantown Regional Park
residents in the vicinity of the Transit Corridor and
central sections with a smaller facility focused on
is a large full-service aquatic facility drawing from
those in growth areas north and east of the core
basic key recreational elements.
a regional audience. Plum Gar Neighborhood
study area.
Recreation Center, situated at the farthest
southeast corner of the study area, will be
Facilities would generally take the form of a
renovated by the Recreation Department. Last, an
multipurpose building blending community service
additional small facility is operated near the
with active and passive recreation/leisure
Table 2: Summary of Park and Trail Recommendations Corridor Area
Proposed Parks and Open Space Germantown Study Area
Park
Status
Issues
Opportunities or Recommendations
Town Center Commons, BlackRock
Owned by Montgomery County
Poorly maintained
Encourage DOT to develop a plan for better
Center for the Arts front lawn
Family-oriented play park near
public use with seating, landscaping, etc.
M&T Bank site
Upcounty Regional Services Center
Exchange for Germantown
Family oriented seating and playground.
Square Urban Park. Need to
anchor south end of Century
Boulevard Promenade.
Transit Neighborhood Parks :
Cloverleaf Park
Developer owned, could be public
Urban open spaces needed near
Flexible, level grassy area for variety of active
or private
future transit stops.
pickup sports, seating, play structures,
Far North Park
skateboarding spot. Possible location of cultural
Seneca Meadow Park
public art/artistic interpretive elements. Seneca
Milestone Green
Meadows Park could be combined with an urban
recreation center on east side of I-270.
Town Center Urban Park
Proposed for construction in the
Lack of play facilities for children
Capital Improvements Program
Germantown Square Local Park
Existing
Explore installing climbable art either in the park
or next to the library.
Underused, inaccessible.
Swap for M&T Bank site near Town Center
(Century Boulevard at Middlebrook Road).
Germantown Boys & Girls Clubs site
Existing building provides
Poor views into site from the
Design, install, maintain streetscape, possibly
(Germantown East Local Park)
recreation programming space.
street
partnering with Boys & Girls Clubs. Work with DOT
to install safe pedestrian crossings.
Parks Beyond Study Area (To be used by residents of the study area)
Kingsview Local Park
Facility Planning Priority Project
Needs program
Facilities for youth and teens, such as skate park
or plaza, open play area, playground
Seneca Crossing Local Park
20-acre Facility Planning Priority
Needs program
Project in the FY07-12 CIP
Expansion of Black Hill Regional Park
Under study
Provide needed fields, possibly cricket and other
active recreation facilities
Valuable forest needs protection
Protect through easements or dedication
It is recommended that the M-NCPPC work closely
Natural Resource Recommendations:
with the Department of Recreation to incorporate
community recreational facilities into a detailed
Develop all parks and open spaces in an
land use plan for the further development of
environmentally sensitive manner.
Germantown.
Examine feasibility of park acquisition of any
Stewardship of Natural Resources and
Nature Oriented Recreation Facilities
properties that include outstanding natural
resources if they become available,
particularly those adjacent to Black Hill
The M-NCPPC made an early commitment to
Regional Park or Great Seneca Stream Valley
environmental stewardship and conservation
Park.
when it was first formed in 1927 and began
acquiring land surrounding the stream valley
parks. This commitment has become an important
principle that guides a wide range of planning and
regulatory programs and projects.
As indicated on the Existing Parks Table, the
Germantown area has over 800 acres of nature
oriented stream valley parkland. The Great Seneca
Stream Valley Park offers opportunities for natural
oriented recreation such as enjoying nature,
hiking, nature photography, bird watching, etc. The
Black Hill Regional Park provides opportunities for
water oriented recreation, picnicking, and hiking.
APPENDIX 20: GERMANTOWN AMENITY FUND PROJECTS
Purpose
Germantown‘s transformation into a more urbane
place must have a significant level of amenity to
help enhance and establish identity and character
incorporate artwork such as special seating,
identified historic themes relating to
paving and lighting, where appropriate.
Germantown‘s past. Consider incorporating
2. Create special artwork integrated into all
interactive play equipment such as
in new public and private development. Amenities
transit shelters similar to the artwork provided
trampolines set at grade level, musical chimes
will provide residents and workers greater
at the bus transfer station along Aircraft Drive.
or other interactive facilities.
enjoyment of new development, open spaces and
special areas such as the Town Commons in front
of the BlackRock Center for the Arts. A greater
3. Create a brochure for walking tour of historic
3. Renovate the Town Commons in front of
sites.
BlackRock Center for the Arts to create a more
4. Create and install public art at urban parks
useable and attractive gathering place.
number of amenities will help establish the Town
and transit stops. Partner with the
Include sculpture making use of existing
Center as the upcounty Cultural Arts district, and
Montgomery Council on the Arts and
―black rock‖ that is in storage and provide
complement the entertainment uses and
Humanities to find local artists.
more interactive artwork.
restaurants that are coming to this area.
5. Paint ―ghost images‖ of historic Germantown
4. Provide streetscaping that includes artwork in
buildings that have been lost on newer
the paving and along the sidewalks to help
A placemaking approach to providing amenities is
facades and identify images as to what they
establish the special character of Century
recommended integrating historic-, cultural- and
were.
Boulevard as the main promenade in the
nature-oriented themes. Design character should
range from sophisticated to fun and playful.
Participatory elements are encouraged such as
movable artwork, splash fountains and musical
Town Center.
District Amenities
conceived as an afterthought.
Area Wide Amenities
1. Provide improvements to public streets with
along Century Boulevard, exact location to be
Town Center
chimes. Most importantly, amenities should be
integral to the design of the space and not
5. Add a statue of baseball great Walter Johnson
determined.
6. Design the Crystal Rock Greenway cultural
1. Dedicate, design and build the new Urban
walk with signed or brochure-guided
Park after land exchange based on the
interpretive experience highlighting themes of
Department of Parks‘ Concept and Facility
Germantown‘s history.
Planning protocol.
2. Create a vibrant interactive art/play feature
West End
for Town Center to be located in new Urban
streetscaping in accordance with the
Park. Consider using patterns or symbols in
Germantown Streetscape Plan and
paving or structures that reflect any of the
1.
Design transit station park improvements
such as seating, special paving and lighting,
landscaping and transit themed artwork. Such
2. Improve the trailhead at the Waters House
art work could feature historic photographs of
Special Park with a kiosk, an interpretive
the B&O Railroad or the train crossing the
exhibit on the Waters Family, and potentially
viaduct.
restrooms in the retrofitted carriage house.
2. Employ then and now photographs around the
MARC train station to show the historic
Seneca Meadows/Milestone
character of that area. Use 3-D stereoptics
side by side (where you look through
1. Provide artwork in the provision of the
telescopes) to see an image of what the area
Recreation Center to achieve a place specific
used to look like versus today.
center that reflects Germantown‘s history and
3. Restore the scale at Liberty Mill.
culture.
4. Designate the farmers‘ market near the
historic district.
Gateway
Montgomery College District
1. Consider the adaptive reuse of the Cider
Barrel. New uses could include a local wine
1. Start the interpretation of Germantown‘s
themes in the neighborhood, then lead to
retailers‘ consortium, farmers‘ market
concession, or local crafts and foods stand.
Seneca Creek trail signage, again highlighting
the cultural and natural history of the area.
Cloverleaf
Fox Chapel
1. Provide seating, special paving, landscaping
and pedestrian scaled lighting incorporated
1. Provide artwork into the green common
into the design of the shopping center.
provided as an integral part of the community.
North End
1. Work with the American Indian Heritage
Education Association to interpret the Native
American role in the establishment of the
master plan area through a public art project.
APPENDIX 21: PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
The Capital Improvements Program (CIP) funded
two years when regional advisory committees and
The land use and staging recommendations
by the County Council and implemented by County
the M-NCPPC hold forums to discuss proposed
contained in the Planning Board Draft of the
agencies, establishes how and when construction
items for the six-year CIP.
Sector Plan for the Germantown Employment will
projects are completed. The CIP cycle starts every
Phase*
Project Name
require the following capital improvement projects:
Project Limit
Category
Road
Lead Agency
Number
Coordinating
Agency/Group
Controlled Major Highway
1
Father Hurley Blvd
CSX
Wisteria
Transp
CM-27
MSHA
MCDOT
Major Highways
2
CSX
Middlebrook Rd
Transp
M-90
MSHA
MCDOT
2
MD 118
Millennium Dr
MD 355
Transp
M-61
MSHA
MCDOT
2
Observation Dr
Little Seneca Creek
Dorsey Mill Rd
Transp
A-19
MCDOT
Private Sector
2
Observation Dr
Germantown Rd
1000‘ S of
Transp
A-19
Private Sector
MCDOT
Middlebrook Rd
Transp
A-19
Private Sector
MCDOT
Arterials
Germantown Rd
2
Observation Dr
1000‘ S of
2
Waring Station Rd
Clopper Rd
Wisteria Dr
Transp
A-289
MCDOT
Private Sector
2
Wisteria Dr
Crystal Rock Dr
Transp
A-74
MCDOT
Private Sector
Observation Dr
End of Existing Road
Transp
MA-4
Private Sector
End of Existing Road
MD 355
Transp
MA-4
Private Sector
Germantown Rd
Minor Arterials
2
Cider Press Pl
Extension
2
Cider Press Pl
Business Streets
2
Blunt Road
cul-de-sac
Middlebrook Rd
Transp
B-8
Private Sector
1
Bowman Mill Rd
Germantown Rd
Waters Rd
Transp
B-16
Private Sector
1
Century Blvd
Dorsey Mill Rd
Kinster Dr
Transp
B-10
MCDOT
MCDOT
MSHA
Phase*
Project Name
Project Limit
Category
Road
Lead Agency
Number
Coordinating
Agency/Group
Extension
1
Century Blvd
Kinster Dr
Cloverleaf Center Dr
Transp
B-10
MCDOT
Private Sector
2
Century Blvd
Cloverleaf Center Dr
Aircraft Dr
Transp
B-10
Private Sector
2
Century Blvd
Aircraft Dr
Crystal Rock Dr
Transp
B-10
Private Sector
2
Century Blvd
Middlebrook Rd
Wisteria Dr
Transp
B-10
Private Sector
2
Century Blvd
Wisteria Dr
Waters Rd
Transp
B-10
Private Sector
2
Crystal Rock Dr
Dorsey Mill Rd
Black Hill Park Access
Transp
B-11
Private Sector
M-NCPPC/ MCDOT
Extension
2
Crystal Rock Dr
Black Hill Park Access
Kinster Dr
Transp
B-11
MCDOT
Private Sector
2
Crystal Rock Dr
Middlebrook Rd
Wisteria Dr
Transp
B-11
MCDOT
Private Sector
2
Dorsey Mill Rd
Crystal Rock Dr
Observation Dr
Transp
B-14
MCDOT
Private Sector
Extension
Extension
Germantown Rd
1000‘ S of
Transp
B-4
Private Sector
Transp
B-4
Private Sector
2
Goldenrod Ln
Germantown Rd
2
Goldenrod Ln
1000‘ S of
Observation Dr
Germantown Rd
Extension
2
Scenery Dr
Germantown Rd
Middlebrook Rd
Transp
B-13
Private Sector
2
Walter Johnson Dr
Bowman Mill Rd
Wisteria Dr
Transp
B-3
MCDOT
2
Waters Rd
Germantown Rd
Wisteria Dr
Transp
B-5
Private Sector
2
Waterford Hills Blvd
cul-de-sac
Germantown Rd
Transp
B-22
Private Sector
2
Wisteria Dr
Father Hurley Blvd
Germantown Rd
Transp
B-2
MCDOT
Private Sector
2
Wisteria Dr
Germantown Rd
Crystal Rock Dr
Transp
B-2
MCDOT
Private Sector
2
New Road
Crystal Rock Dr
Century Blvd
Transp
B-18
Private Sector
2
New Road
Century Blvd
New Road (B-19)
Transp
B-18
Private Sector
2
New Road
Century Blvd
Crystal Rock Dr
Transp
B-19
Private Sector
2
New Road
Ridge Rd
Milestone Center Dr
Transp
B-25
Private Sector
Cider Barrel Rd
Frederick Rd
Transp
P-3
Private Sector
Primary Residential Streets
2
Oxbridge Rd
Other Roadway/Transit-related Improvements
Phase*
Project Name
Project Limit
Category
Road
Lead Agency
Coordinating
1
MARC Station Parking
Transit
MTA
MSHA
2
I-270 Access to Dorsey Mill
Transp
MSHA
MTA/MCDOT
Transp
MSHA
MCDOT
Transp
MSHA
MCDOT
Number
Agency/Group
CCT Station
2
MD 355 Interchanges @ Ridge
Road, MD 118, and
Middlebrook Road
2
MD 27/Observation Dr
Interchange
Public Facilities including Parks and Open Space
2
Crystal Rock Drive Greenway
Aircraft Drive
Park
N/A
M-NCPPC
MCDOT
1
Town Commons
Front of BlackRock
--
Park
N/A
M-NCPPC
MCGSA
1
Family Park
Town Center location
--
Park
N/A
M-NCPPC
Private sector
--
Housing
N/A
DHCA
MC Public Safety
--
Community
N/A
MC Recreation
TBD
1
Workforce Housing
Police and Fire
Station property
2
Urban Recreation Center
Seneca Meadows
transit station area
facility
Germantown Town Center
APPENDIX 22: URBAN SERVICE DISTRICT LEGISLATION
Chapter 68 of the Montgomery County, Maryland
§ 68A-2. Findings; general intent.
Code relates to the administrative and financial
framework for the creation of Urban Districts as
§ 68A-3. Creation of urban districts; purposes.
special taxing districts to enhance intensely
developed communities containing diversified
For purposes of this Chapter, the following
terms have the meanings indicated:
§ 68A-4. Funding.
(a) Board of directors means the board of
directors of an urban district corporation.
commercial, institutional, and residential
development.
§ 68A-5. Advisory committee.
Portions of this Code must be amended to address
§ 68A-6. Maintenance agreements.
an urban district proposed for Germantown which
is not, by definition, a Central Business District.
Sections which must be modified include:
68A-3
Creation of urban districts; purposes
68A-5
Advisory committee
68A-8
Urban district boundaries
A working group has been formed consisting of
representatives from the MC Department of
Finance, County Council, Upcounty Regional
Services Center, the M-NCPPC, GaithersburgGermantown Chamber of Commerce, and other
interested parties.
Chapter 68A: Montgomery County Urban Districts
(b) Corporation means an urban district
corporation.
(c)
§ 68A-7. Budget preparation.
Department means a County department,
principal office, or other office that the County
Executive designates to perform functions under
§ 68A-8. Urban district boundaries.
this Chapter. Department does not include an
urban district corporation.
§ 68A-9. Urban District Corporations.
(d)
§ 68A-10. Board of Directors of Corporation;
Employees; Other Organizational Matters.
§ 68A-11. Urban District Corporation-Powers.
§ 68A-12. Urban District Corporations-Budget,
Finances, and Administration.
§ 68A-13. Termination of Urban District
Corporation; Dissolution.
Maintaining streetscape amenities means
cleaning, repairing rehabilitating, or replacing
streetscape amenities.
(e)
Maintaining the streetscape includes
cleaning sidewalks, driveways, streets, and other
public areas; collecting trash; and caring for trees
and other plantings. Maintaining the streetscape
includes streetscaping of the medians and street
sweeping, but does not include maintaining the
road or the curbs.
Sec. 68A-1. Definitions.
§ 68A-1. Definitions.
(f)
Off-site amenity means a streetscape
amenity installed by an optional method developer
on a public right-of-way.
(g)
On-site amenity means a streetscape
(j)
Urban district corporation means a
corporation created under Section 68A-9. (1987
L.M.C., ch. 2, § 2; 1993 L.M.C., ch. 16, § 1.)
Sec. 68A-2. Findings; general intent.
Sec. 68A-3. Creation of urban districts; purposes.
(a)
Urban districts are created in the
business districts of Wheaton, Bethesda and Silver
Spring as described in Section 68A-8.
amenity installed by an optional method developer
on property owned by the optional method
developer or on private property not owned by an
optional method developer.
(a)
Certain areas of Montgomery County have
(h)
Optional method development means
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning
Except as provided in subsection (c), the
department may provide the public services and
developed communities containing diversified
facilities necessary to implement the following
purposes of an urban district:
commercial, institutional, and residential
property for which the owner has agreed with the
(b)
become, or may in the future become, intensely
development. In order to maintain and enhance
these areas as prosperous, livable urban centers,
and to avoid blight, the County should:
(1) maintaining the streetscape and
streetscape amenities on:
Commission to be responsible for installing and
maintaining both on-site and off-site
improvements.
(i)
(2)
Streetscape amenity includes such items
as bulletin boards and electronic displays;
communication systems; containers for growing
provide additional public amenities
such as plantings, seating, shelters, and works of
art;
restrooms; seating and other street furniture;
(3) promote the commercial and
residential interests of these areas; and
shelters for pedestrians and persons using public
transportation; non-standard paving; sidewalks;
trees and other plantings; trash containers;
(4) program cultural and community
activities.
vending booths and kiosks; works of art; any
outdoor item that an optional method developer
public rights-of-way; and
(B) any property that is used by the
general public;
(2)
promoting and programming public
interest activities that benefit both residential and
things; fountains and pools; drinking fountains;
functional and decorative lighting; outdoor seating;
(A)
(1) increase the maintenance of the
streetscape and its amenities;
(b)
commercial interests of an urban district (and
which may incidentally benefit neighboring
communities);
(3) providing additional streetscape
amenities and facade improvements;
Urban districts are created as special
agreed to install and maintain as a condition of
taxing districts to provide an administrative and
site plan approval; and other items of a similar
character or purpose.
financial framework through which to accomplish
these goals. (1987 L.M.C., ch. 2, § 2; 1993 L.M.C.,
ch. 16, § 1.)
(4)
monitoring activities to enhance the
safety and security of persons and property in
public areas; and
(5)
providing any capital project that
promotes the economic stability and growth of the
district.
1997 L.M.C., ch. 7, §§ 1 and 2; 1998 L.M.C., ch.
14, §1; 1999 L.M.C., ch. 22, § 1.)
(A)
The County Council may transfer
revenue from parking fees to the fund of the urban
district in which the fees are collected.
Sec. 68A-4. Funding.
(c)
In an urban district with an urban district
corporation, the department is not responsible for
streetscaping of the medians and streetsweeping
(B)
(a) General. Each urban district is funded
through:
The amount of revenue from
parking fees transferred to an urban district must
not exceed the amount calculated by multiplying:
inside the curbs. The department is responsible
for other maintenance inside, and including, the
(1)
Urban District Tax.
curbs. Outside of the curbs, the department is
(A)
only responsible for repair of standard concrete
Each tax year the County Council
sidewalks. The urban district corporation is
may levy against all the assessable real and
responsible for brick or other non-standard
personal property in an urban district a sum not
sidewalk maintenance. This allocation of
greater than 30 cents on each $100 of assessable
property.
functions may be altered by written agreement
between the department and the corporation.
(B)
(d) Urban districts are created to provide
public services and facilities that are:
(1)
persons within the urban district rather than to the
County as a whole; and
(2) in addition to services and facilities
that the County provides generally.
(e)
The urban district tax is levied and
collected as other county taxes are levied and
collected by law.
(C)
primarily of benefit to the property and
The urban district tax has the same
priority, bears the same interest and penalties,
and in every respect must be treated the same as
other county taxes.
(ii) The number of enforcement
hours per year by
(iii)
(C)
20 cents.
The amount of revenue from
parking fees may differ from one urban district to
another.
(3) Maintenance charge on optional
method developments.
(A)
The County Executive may charge
each optional method development for the cost of
(D) The urban district tax rate may
differ from one urban district to another.
The Department may provide a service or
facility outside the boundaries of an urban district
(i) The number of parking spaces in
the urban district by
(2)
maintaining off-site amenities for that
development, including the County's cost of
liability insurance.
Parking Lot District fees.
if the service or facility will primarily benefit
businesses or residents in the urban district.
(1987 L.M.C., ch. 2, § 2; 1993 L.M.C., ch. 16, § 1;
(B)
The County Executive may collect a
maintenance charge under this section in the
same way that the County collects taxes.
(C)
A maintenance charge under this
section has the same priority and bears the same
interest and penalties as county taxes.
funding the budget of that urban district in later
years.
(c)
(4)
Additional funding restrictions.
The proceeds from either the urban district tax or
general fund to an urban district. The transfer may
parking fees transferred into an urban district fund
be subject to repayment as specified in the
must not exceed 90 percent of their combined
total.
Council resolution approving the district's annual
operating budget.
Miscellaneous Revenue. All other
charges for services and private contributions,
must remain in the respective urban district fund,
(1) for the urban district in which they are
obtained; and
(2)
for the purposes of an urban district
specified in Section 68A-3. (1987 L.M.C., ch. 2, §
Urban district fund; surplus balances.
(1) The Director of Finance must establish
a separate fund for each urban district.
Monies in an urban district fund and
2; 1993 L.M.C., ch. 16, § 1; 1997 L.M.C., ch. 7, §§
1 and 2; 1998 L.M.C., ch. 14, §1.)
Sec. 68A-5. Advisory committees.
(a)
Composition. Each urban district must
not appropriated for use by an urban district
have an advisory committee, or an urban district
corporation under Section 68A-11 may be
corporation board of directors, whose members
appropriated by the County Council for use by
are appointed by the County Executive and
confirmed by the County Council.
County departments, subject to the limitations of
subsection (d). If in any fiscal year a balance
remains in an urban district fund, the Director of
Finance must maintain this balance for use in
(A) two members represent the
Wheaton-Kensington Chamber of Commerce;
(B) two members represent businesses
that employ fewer than 10 individuals;
(C)
four members represent residential
communities in the urban district or within 2 miles
of the urban district;
(D)
and, subject to appropriation, may be used to fund
the urban district budget.
(2)
developments. The Executive must strive to
appoint the members so that:
(d) Use of funds. The County government
must use funds obtained under this section only:
revenues collected by an urban district, including
(b)
and 11 members if there are no optional method
Transfer from the General Fund. The
Council may transfer revenues from the County
(5)
there is only one optional method development;
(1)
one member represents a
residential community in or outside of the urban
district and is a member of the Mid County Citizens
Advisory Board;
(E) two members represent businesses
that employ 10 or more individuals; and
(F) the remaining members represent
optional method developers.
(2)
The Bethesda Urban District Advisory
Committee has 8 members. The County Executive
must strive to appoint the members so that:
The Wheaton Urban District Advisory
Committee has 13 members if there are 2 or more
optional method developments; 12 members if
(A)
two members are persons
nominated by the Bethesda Chamber of
Commerce;
(D) two members represent a
residential community in the urban district; and
Duties.
(1)
(E)
(B) three members represent optional
method developers;
(c)
district and is a member of the Silver Spring
Citizens Advisory Board.
(C) one member represents a business
that employs fewer than 10 employees;
(4)
The County Executive may reject a
An urban district advisory committee
may advise the County government on all aspects
of the program, management, and finances of the
urban district.
(2)
should:
An urban district advisory committee
person nominated to serve on an advisory
(D) one member represents a
residential community in the urban district; and
(E)
committee and request additional nominations
from the same source.
(b)
a.
department on the program and budget of the
urban district;
Term.
district and is a member of the Western
Montgomery County Citizens Advisory Board.
(3)
The Silver Spring Urban District
b.
(1)
Committee members serve for a period
of 3 years beginning July 1. However, when an
a. one member nominated by the
Chamber of Commerce;
c.
two members are persons
nominated by the Greater Silver Spring Chamber
of Commerce;
(B) three members represent optional
method developers;
(C) three members represent a
business that employs fewer than 25 employees;
b. one member who represents the
optional method developers; and
c. one member who represents a
business that employs fewer than 10 persons.
Compensation.
(1)
The County does not compensate
members of urban district advisory committees for
their services.
(2)
(2) The County Executive may reappoint
committee members.
by October 1 each year, meet with
the head of the department to resolve areas of
disagreement regarding the budget.
(d)
(A)
by September 15 each year, review
the urban district budget and submit comments to
the department; and
advisory committee is first formed, the following
members serve for only 2 years:
Advisory Committee has 11 members. The County
Executive must strive to appoint the members so
that:
by July 15 each year, advise the
Committee members are exempt from
the requirements of the County Financial
Disclosure Law, Sections 19A-17 through 19A-20.
(e)
Procedures and attendance. An urban
district advisory committee may establish its own
appropriate urban district advisory committee by
August 15 of each year.
rules of procedure. A committee may adopt a rule
that provides for removal of a member because of
failure to attend meetings.
(f)
Termination. When an urban district
corporation is created in a district, the advisory
L.M.C., ch. 14, § 1; 2005 L.M.C., ch. 24, § 1; 2006
L.M.C., ch. 33, § 1.)
Sec. 68A-6. Maintenance agreements.
(b)
Except for the first budget, the head of the
recorded January 9, 1939, among the land records
department must submit the proposed budget for
of Montgomery County, Maryland, which is also the
review to the urban district advisory committee
north line of Block 1 of the Rosedale Park
and meet with the committee to attempt to resolve
any areas of disagreement.
subdivision, as recorded August 5, 1908, in Plat
(c)
Book 1, Plat 92, among the land records of
Montgomery County, Maryland;
The department must include the budget
of each urban district in its departmental budget
(3)
north line of Block 1 in the Rosedale Park
Budget. The County Executive must include the
subdivision to the northeast corner of Lot 5, Block
budget of each urban district as modified by the
1, Rosedale Park, as shown in Plat Book 1, Plat
Executive in the budget recommended to the
92, recorded August 5, 1908, among the land
records of Montgomery County, Maryland;
County Council. (1987 L.M.C., ch. 2, § 2; 1993
L.M.C., ch. 16, § 1.)
(1) the County to maintain streetscape
amenities on private property; or
Sec. 68A-8. Urban district boundaries.
(4)
maintain streetscape amenities on public rightsof-way. (1987 L.M.C., ch. 2, § 2; 1993 L.M.C., ch.
16, § 1.)
(a)
For each urban district where an urban
Bethesda Urban District. The Bethesda
its intersection with the north right-of-way line of
Chestnut Street, as shown in Plat Book 1, Plat 92,
district of the county within the area described as
follows:
recorded August 5, 1908, among the land records
of Montgomery County, Maryland;
Beginning at a point on the east right-
(5)
Then crossing Chestnut Street to the
of-way line of Wisconsin Avenue at the northwest
northwest corner of Lot 7, Block 3, Rosedale Park,
corner of Lot 47, Block 1, in the Resubdivision of
as shown in Plat Book 1, Plat 92, recorded August
Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Rosedale Park, as recorded
5, 1908, among the land records of Montgomery
County, Maryland;
district corporation has not been created, the
January 9, 1939, in Plat Book 16, Plat 1038,
department must prepare a budget and, except for
among the land records of Montgomery County,
Maryland;
the first budget, should submit the budget to the
common lot line, which is the east line of Lot 5 and
Urban District is all land in the seventh election
(1)
Sec. 68A-7. Budget preparation.
Then in a southerly direction along the
the west line of Lot 6, Block 1, Rosedale Park, to
(a)
an optional method developer to
Then in an easterly direction along the
submission to the Office of Management and
The County and an optional method developer
may enter into an agreement for:
(2)
of Lot 48 as shown in Plat Book 16, Plat 1038,
committee for that district ceases to exist. (1987
L.M.C., ch. 2, § 2; 1993 L.M.C., ch. 16, § 1; 1999
(2)
north line of Lot 47 and 48 to the northeast corner
(6)
(12)
Then in a southerly direction along
(16)
west line of Lot 7, Block 3, Rosedale Park, to the
the west right-of-way line of Tilbury Street, crossing
the common lot line, which is the east line of Lot
northwest corner of Lot 16, Block 3, Rosedale
Maple Avenue and Highland Avenue to the south
line of Highland Avenue;
18 and the west line of Lot 19, Block 5, to its
Park, as shown in Plat Book 1, Plat 92, recorded
August 5, 1908, among the land records of
Virginia Avenue, as shown in Plat Book 2, Plat 186,
(13)
Then in a westerly direction along the
south right-of-way line of Highland Avenue to its
(7)
Then along the west line of Lot 16,
Block 3, Rosedale Park, to its intersection with the
north right-of-way line of Rosedale Avenue;
(8)
Then crossing Rosedale Avenue to the
County, Maryland;
Block 5, West Chevy Chase Heights subdivision, as
(17)
Then in an easterly direction along
recorded April 31, 1916, in Plat Book 2, Plat 186,
the north right-of-way line of West Virginia Avenue
Maryland;
to its intersection with a northern extension of the
west lot line of Lot 15, Block 9, West Chevy Chase
heights subdivision, as shown in Plat 2, Plat 186,
(14)
the common lot line, which is the east line of Lot 8
recorded April 31, 1916, among the land records
and the west line of Lot 9, Block 5, West Chevy
Chase Heights subdivision, as shown in Plat Book
(9)
intersection with the northeast corner of Lot 8,
northwest corner of Lot 7, Block 7, Rosedale Park,
as shown in Plat Book 1, Plat 92, recorded August
intersection with the north right-of-way line of West
(18)
2, Plat 186, recorded April 31, 1916, among the
that extension, crossing West Virginia Avenue to
west line of Lot 7, Block 7, Rosedale Park, to the
land records of Montgomery County, Maryland,
the northwest corner of Lot 15, Block 9, West
northwest corner of Lot 15, Block 7, Rosedale
crossing a public alley to the northwest corner of
Chevy Chase Heights, as shown in Plat Book 2,
Park, as shown in Plat Book 1, Plat 92, recorded
Lot 18, Block 5, West Chevy Chase Heights
August 5, 1908, among the land records of
subdivision, as shown in Plat Book 2, Plat 186,
Plat 186, recorded April 31, 1916, among the land
(10)
the west line of Lot 15, Block 7, Rosedale Park, to
Maple Avenue;
(11)
Then along the north right-of-way line
of Maple Avenue to its intersection with the west
right-of-way line of Tilbury Street;
(19)
the common lot line, which is the west line of Lot
(15)
15 and the east line of Lot 14, to the southwest
the north line of Lot 18, Block 5, to the northeast
corner of Lot 15, Block 9, West Chevy Chase
Heights subdivision, as shown in Plat Book 2, Plat
186, recorded April 31, 1916, among the land
(20)
Then crossing a 10-foot-wide alley
(24)
common lot line, which is the east line of Lot 2 and
that is dedicated in Plat Book 2, Plat 186,
the north right-of-way line of Cheltenham Drive to
the west line of Lot 3, Mae S. Middleton's
its intersection with the west right-of-way line of
Tilbury Street;
Subdivision, as recorded December 31, 1935, in
of Montgomery County, Maryland, to the northeast
(25)
Plat Book 8, Plat 639, among the land records of
the west right-of-way line of Tilbury Street crossing
(29)
Cheltenham Drive and along an extension of that
the common lot line between Lot 2 and Lot 3,
right-of-way line of Tilbury Street to its intersection
Middleton's Subdivision, as shown in Plat Book 8,
with the north line of Rabner's Subdivision, as
Plat 639, recorded December 31, 1935, among
the common lot line, which is the east line of Lot
recorded May 11, 1936, in Plat Book 9, Plat 675,
the land records of Montgomery County, Maryland,
22 and Lot 23, Block 9, West Chevy Chase Heights
Maryland;
to its intersection with the north line of the George
(21)
subdivision, to its intersection with the north rightof-way line of Chase Avenue, as shown in Plat
Book 2, Plat 186, recorded April 31, 1916, among
the land records of Montgomery County, Maryland;
(26)
Then crossing Chase Avenue to the
northwest corner of Outlot "A," Block 1, Westboro
subdivision, as recorded July 12, 1937, in Plat
1935, in Plat Book 8, Plat 635, among the land
the north line of Rabner's Subdivision to the
northeast corner of Lot 6, Rabner's Subdivision, as
(22)
G. Bradley Subdivision, as recorded December 31,
(30)
shown in Plat Book 9, Plat 675, recorded May 11,
north line of the George G. Bradley Subdivision to
1936, among the land records of Montgomery
County, Maryland;
the northwest corner of Lot 5, George G. Bradley
Subdivision;
(27)
(31)
the west line of Lot 5, George G. Bradley
and the west line of Lot 7, Rabner's Subdivision, to
Subdivision, to its intersection with the north right-
the common line, which is the east line of a 20-
of-way line of Avondale Street, as shown in Plat
foot public alley and the west line of Outlot "A,"
Middleton Lane, as shown in Plat Book 9, Plat
Book 8, Plat 635, recorded December 31, 1935,
Block 1, Westboro subdivision, to its intersection
675, recorded May 11, 1936, among the land
Maryland;
(23)
with the north right-of-way line of Cheltenham
Drive, as shown in Plat Book 12, Plat 839,
recorded July 12, 1937, among the land records of
(28)
(32)
Then crossing Avondale Street to the
north right-of-way line of Middleton Lane to its
northwest corner of Lot 22, George G. Bradley
intersection with a northern extension of the
Subdivision, as shown in Plat Book 8, Plat 635,
recorded December 31, 1935, among the land
intersection with the east right-of-way line of Pearl
Street;
(41)
the north line of Lot 1 of the East-West Apartment
site to its northeast corner, as shown in Plat Book
(33)
(37)
Then in a northerly direction along
60, Plat 4987, recorded August 10, 1957, among
the west line of Lot 22 to its intersection with the
the east right-of-way line of Pearl Street to its
southern line of the George G. Bradley Subdivision,
intersection with the northwest corner of Lot 1,
as shown in Plat Book 8, Plat 635, recorded
Block A, subdivision of part of Charles W. Pafflow's
December 31, 1935, among the land records of
property, as recorded April 24, 1926, in Plat Book
the east line of Lot 1 of the East-West Apartment
4, Plat 329, among the land records of
site to its intersection with the north right-of-way
(34)
the south line of the George G. Bradley Subdivision
the north lot line of Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 to its
Bradley Subdivision, which is also the intersection
intersection with the east line of Block A, as shown
of the east and south lines of the George G.
in Plat Book 4, Plat 329, recorded April 24, 1926,
Bradley Subdivision as shown in Plat Book 8, Plat
Maryland;
and also the northeast corner of Parcel A, Waverly
(39)
House, as recorded November 12, 1976, in Plat
the east line of Block A to the northeast corner of
Block A, as shown in Plat Book 4, Plat 329,
(35)
line of East-West Highway, crossing East-West
Highway along a southerly extension of that lot line
(38)
to the southeast corner of Lot 14, George G.
635, recorded December 31, 1935, among the
(42)
to its intersection with the south right-of-way line of
East-West Highway;
(43)
the south right-of-way line of East-West Highway
crossing Montgomery Avenue to its intersection
with the north right-of-way line of the B & O
Railroad;
(44)
Then in a southwesterly direction with
the north right-of-way line of the B & O Railroad to
its intersection with the east line of Pearl Street;
the east line of Parcel A, Waverly House, as shown
(40)
(45)
Then in a southerly direction crossing
in Plat Book 101, Plat 11383, recorded November
the north line of the lot recorded by deed dated
the B & O Railroad right-of-way along an extension
July 1, 1919, which is part of the boundary of the
of the east right-of-way line of Pearl Street to its
County, Maryland, to its intersection with the north
right-of-way line of East-West Highway;
Bethesda Chevy Chase High School property, to
intersection with the south right-of-way line of the
B & O Railroad;
the northwest corner of Lot 1, East-West
Apartment site, as recorded August 10, 1957, in
(36)
the north line of East-West Highway to its
Plat Book 60, Plat 4987, among the land records
(46)
south right-of-way line of the B & O Railroad rightTECHNICAL APPENDICES 143
of-way to its intersection with the northwest corner
(51)
(57)
of Lot 2, Block L, Section 8-B, Chevy Chase
the west right-of-way line of 46th Street, crossing
the east right-of-way line of Strathmore Street,
Subdivision, as recorded July 29, 1926, in Plat
Leland Street and Walsh Street to its intersection
with the south right-of-way line of Walsh Street;
crossing Leland Street to the north right-of-way line
Block 1, Plat of Section One, George P. Sack's
(52)
(47)
the common lot line, which is the west line of Lot 2
and the east line of Lot 1, Block L, Section 8-B,
the south right-of-way line of Walsh Street to its
intersection with the west right-of-way line of West
Avenue;
Chevy Chase Subdivision, as shown in Plat Book 4,
Plat 336, recorded July 29, 1926, among the land
of Leland Street at the southwest corner of Lot 2,
Subdivision Bethesda, as recorded November 24,
(58)
(53)
the common lot line, which is the west line of Lot 2
records of Montgomery County, Maryland, to its
the west right-of-way line of West Avenue, crossing
and the east line of Lot 3, Block 1, George P.
intersection with the north right-of-way line of Elm
Street;
Standford Street, to its intersection with the north
right-of-way line of Bradley Lane;
Sack's Subdivision, to its intersection with the
north line of George P. Sack's Subdivision as
shown in Plat Book 5, Plat 435, recorded
(48)
(54)
north right-of-way line of Elm Street to its
north right-of-way line of Bradley Lane to its
intersection with a northerly extension of the west
right-of-way line of 47th Street;
intersection with the east right-of-way line of
Wisconsin Avenue;
November 24, 1931, among the land records of
(59)
north line of George P. Sack's Subdivision to the
(49)
(55)
Then crossing Wisconsin Avenue to
northwest corner of Lot 11, Block 1, George P.
that extension crossing Elm Street and continuing
the southeast corner of Lot 3, Block 2, Section 1,
Sack's Subdivision, as shown in Plat Book 5, Plat
in a southerly direction along the west right-of-way
Bradley Hills - Bethesda Subdivision, as recorded
line of 47th Street, crossing Willow Lane to the
south right-of-way line of Willow Lane;
August 10, 1957, in Plat Book 60, Plat 4990,
435, recorded November 24, 1931, among the
land records of Montgomery County, Maryland;
(50)
Maryland;
the south right-of-way line of Willow Lane to its
intersection with the west right-of-way line of 46th
Street;
(60)
north line of George P. Sack's Subdivision to its
(56)
Then in a northwesterly direction
along the north right-of-way line of Bradley
Boulevard to its intersection with a southern
intersection with the south right-of-way line of the
Metropolitan and Southern Branch of the
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad;
extension of the east right-of-way line of
Strathmore Street;
(61)
(65)
(69)
extension of that subdivision line to its intersection
the west line of Parcel B, Bradley Hills Subdivision,
that east line of Lot Pt 6, Block D, Miller's Addition
with the north right-of-way line of the Metropolitan
to Bethesda Subdivision, as recorded by deed
and Southern Branch of the Baltimore & Ohio
Railroad;
December 30, 1948, among the land records of
dated September 2, 1948, and described as
Montgomery County, Maryland, to its intersection
Parcel No. 2 in Liber 1185, Folio 513, among the
with the southern boundary of Miller's Addition to
land records of Montgomery County, Maryland, to
Bethesda Subdivision, as recorded October 23,
its intersection with the south line of another Lot
Pt 6, Block D, Miller's Addition to Bethesda
(62)
the north line of the Metropolitan and Southern
Branch of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad right-ofway, crossing Bradley Boulevard, to its intersection
with a southern extension of the west line of Parcel
(66)
Subdivision, as recorded by deed dated July 14,
1949, in Liber 1274, Folio 367, among the land
"EYE," Bradley Hills, Section 2, as recorded
southern boundary of Miller's Addition to Bethesda
December 16, 1954, in Plat Book 50, Plat 3893,
Subdivision to its intersection with the east line of
Maryland;
Lot Pt 6, Block E, Miller's Addition to Bethesda
the south line of the same Lot Pt 6, Block D,
Subdivision, as recorded by deed dated
Miller's Addition to Bethesda Subdivision, as
September 2, 1948, and described as Parcel No. 1
recorded by deed dated July 14, 1949, in Liber
in Liber 1185, Folio 513, among the land records
1274, Folio 367, among the land records of
(63)
the west line of Parcel "EYE," Bradley Hills Section
2 Subdivision, to its intersection with the south
right-of-way line of Bradley Boulevard, as shown in
(70)
Montgomery County, Maryland to the southwest
corner of Lot Pt 8, Block D, as recorded by deed
(67)
Plat Book 50, Plat 3893, recorded December 16,
the east line of Lot Pt 6, Block E, to its intersection
County, Maryland;
with the south right-of-way line of Bethesda
Avenue;
dated July 14, 1949, in Liber 1274, Folio 367,
Maryland;
(71)
(64)
Then in a northerly direction, crossing
(68)
Then crossing Bethesda Avenue to
the south line of the same Lot Pt 8, Block D, to the
southeast corner of the same Lot Pt 8, Block D;
Bradley Boulevard, to the southwest corner of
the intersection of the north right-of-way line of
Parcel B, Bradley Hills Subdivision, as recorded
Bethesda Avenue and the east line of Lot Pt 6,
December 30, 1948, in Plat Book 25, Plat 1582,
Block D, Miller's Addition to Bethesda Subdivision,
Maryland;
as recorded by deed dated September 2, 1948,
the east line of the same Lot Pt 8, Block D, to its
and described as Parcel No. 2 in Liber 1185, Folio
intersection with the south right-of-way line of Elm
Street;
County, Maryland;
(72)
(73)
(78)
(84)
the south right-of-way line of Elm Street, crossing
the west right-of-way line of Woodmont Avenue,
the west right-of-way line of Cordell Avenue to its
Arlington Road, to its intersection with the east
right-of-way line of Arlington Road;
crossing North Lane and Edgemoor Lane to the
south right-of-way line of Middlesex Lane;
intersection with the common lot line, which is the
north line of Lot 5 and the south line of Lot 4,
Block L, Section 2, Battery Park Subdivision, as
(74)
(79)
Then in a westerly and northwesterly
the east right-of-way line of Arlington Road,
direction along the south right-of-way line of
crossing Elm Street and Hampden Lane, to its
Middlesex Lane to its intersection with the south
right-of-way line of Moorland Lane;
intersection with the north right-of-way line of
Hampden Lane;
the north right-of-way line of Hampden Lane to the
southeast corner of Lot 9, Block 24D, Edgemoor
Book 4, Plat 304, recorded July 24, 1925, among
the west line of a public alley running between
intersection with the southwest right-of-way line of
Old Georgetown Road;
(76)
the west line of that alley to its intersection with
the south right-of-way line of Montgomery Lane;
(77)
Then crossing Montgomery Lane to
to its intersection with the east line of Lot 6, Block
L, Section 2, Battery Park Subdivision, as shown in
(81)
the east right-of-way line of Arlington Road to its
the proposed western right-of-way line for
Woodmont Avenue;
common lot line of Lots 4 and 5 as shown in Plat
Arlington Road;
Montgomery County, Maryland, which is also on
Hampden Lane and Montgomery Lane, and also
south right-of-way line of Moorland Lane to its
Subdivision, as recorded June 4, 1935, in Plat
Maryland;
(85)
(80)
(75)
recorded July 24, 1925, in Plat Book 4, Plat 304,
Plat Book 4, Plat 304, recorded July 24, 1925,
Maryland;
(86)
(82)
the east line of Lot 6 to the southernmost corner
along the southwest right-of-way line of Old
of Lot 21, Block L, Section 2, Battery Park
Georgetown Road, crossing Arlington Road, to its
Subdivision, as recorded November 30, 1951, in
intersection with the north right-of-way line of
Wilson Lane;
(83)
(87)
the intersection of the north right-of-way line of
north right-of-way line of Wilson Lane, crossing
along the southwest lines of Lots 21, 20 and 1,
Montgomery Lane and the west right-of-way line of
Woodmont Avenue;
Cordell Avenue, to its intersection with the west
right-of-way line of Cordell Avenue;
Block L, Section 2, Battery Park Subdivision, as
shown in Plat Book 41, Plat 2973, recorded
November 30, 1951, among the land records of
with the south right-of-way line of Del Ray Avenue;
(88)
shown in Plat Book 3, Plat 261, recorded August
Samuel T. Robertsons Addition to Bethesda
County, Maryland;
Subdivision, to its intersection with the southeast
south right-of-way line of Del Ray Avenue to its
boundary line for Samuel T. Robertsons Addition to
Bethesda Subdivision, as shown in Plat Book 5,
(92)
Plat 407, recorded January 9, 1930, among the
intersection with the common lot line dividing Lot
along the southern line of Lot 35, Block K, Section
16 and Lot 17, Block L, Section 2, Battery Park
2, Battery Park Subdivision, to its intersection with
which is also being the common subdivision
Subdivision, as recorded August 24, 1923, in Plat
the southern right-of-way line of Glenbrook Road,
boundary with Woodmont Subdivision as recorded
as recorded June 6, 1980, in Plat Book 111, Plat
November 13, 1894, in Plat Book 1, Plat 4, among
(89)
County, Maryland;
Then crossing Del Ray Avenue to the
southwest corner of Lot 8, Block K, Section 2,
(97)
(93)
Then in a northeasterly direction
along the common subdivision boundary line
Battery Park Subdivision, as recorded February 26,
along the southern right-of-way line of Glenbrook
between Samuel T. Robertsons Addition to
Road to the southwest right-of-way line of Old
Georgetown Road;
Bethesda and Woodmont Subdivisions to its
(90)
(94)
Then crossing Old Georgetown Road
the west line of Lot 8, Block K, Section 2, Battery
to the intersection of the northeast right-of- way
Park Subdivision to the southwest corner of Lot
line of Old Georgetown Road and the southeast
right-of-way line of Glenbrook Road;
29, Block K, Section 2, Battery Park Subdivision,
February 26, 1962, among the land records of
(91)
Samuel T. Robertsons Addition to Bethesda and
its intersection with the southern boundary line of
Northwest Park Subdivision, as recorded October
Road to the northeast corner of Lot 1, Block A,
10, 1910, in Plat Book 2, Plat 134, among the
Samuel T. Robertsons Addition to Bethesda
Block K, Section 2, Battery Park Subdivision, as
5, Block K, Section 2, Battery Park Subdivision, as
along the southeast right-of-way line of Glenbrook
Subdivision, as recorded January 9, 1930, in Plat
County, Maryland, to the southwest corner of Lot
(98)
the common subdivision boundary line between
Woodmont Subdivisions, crossing Rugby Avenue to
(95)
along the southern lot lines of Lots 7, 6, and 5,
recorded August 24, 1923, in Plat Book 3, Plat
intersection with the southwest right-of-way line of
Norfolk Avenue;
(99)
the common subdivision boundary line between
Northwest Park and Woodmont Subdivisions to its
(96)
Then in a southeasterly direction
along the northeast line of Lots 1 and 2, Block A,
intersection with the westernmost line of Lot 633,
Woodmont Subdivision, as recorded October 8,
1982, in Plat Book 119, Plat 14027, among the
(100)
the westernmost line of Lot 633, Woodmont
Plat Book 1, Plat 4, among the land records of
Block 2, Northwest Park Subdivision, to its
intersection with the northern boundary line for the
with the west line of the Montgomery County
Northwest Park Subdivision, as shown in Plat Book
Public Parking Facility No. 35 site as recorded in
Liber 2388, Folio 521;
2, Plat 134, recorded October 10, 1910, among
Subdivision, to its intersection with the
northernmost line of Lot 633, Woodmont
(104)
(109)
Subdivision, as shown in Plat Book 119, Plat
the west line of Public Parking Facility No. 35 to its
the northern boundary line of the Northwest Park
14027, recorded October 8, 1982, among the
intersection with the north line of Public Parking
Facility No. 35;
Subdivision to its intersection with the west rightof-way line of Wisconsin Avenue;
(101)
(105)
the northernmost line of Lot 633, Woodmont
the north line of Public Parking Facility No. 35 to
Subdivision, to its intersection with the east line of
its intersection with the western right-of-way line of
Woodmont Avenue;
Lot 633, Woodmont Subdivision, which is also the
(110)
crossing Wisconsin Avenue, to the point of
beginning; and
(111)
west line of Lot 45, Block 1, Northwest Park
Subdivision, as recorded October 10, 1910, in Plat
(102)
(106)
the western right-of-way line of Woodmont Avenue
to its intersection with the southern right-of-way
line of Battery Lane;
Any lot that is partially within and
partially outside of the areas under paragraphs (1)
through (110).
(b)
Silver Spring Urban District. The Silver
Spring Urban District is all land in the thirteenth
the common lot line of Lot 633, Woodmont
Then in an easterly direction,
(107)
Then in a northerly direction,
election district of the county within the area
described as follows:
Subdivision and Lot 45, Block 1, Northwest Park
crossing Battery Lane, to the northern right-of-way
Subdivision, to its intersection with the northern
line of Battery Lane at the southeast corner of Lot
boundary line of the Woodmont Subdivision as
47, Block 2, Northwest Park Subdivision, as
shown in Plat Book 2, Plat 134, recorded October
recorded October 10, 1910, in Plat Book 2, Plat
District of Columbia boundary line at the
County, Maryland;
County, Maryland;
intersection of the west right-of-way of Georgia
(1)
Beginning at a point on the Maryland-
Avenue with the Maryland-District of Columbia
boundary line, and running in a northwesterly
(103)
(108)
direction along the Maryland-District of Columbia
the northern boundary of the Woodmont
the east line of Lot 47, Block 2, Northwest Park
boundary line, and crossing Sixteenth Street along
Subdivision as recorded November 13, 1894, in
Subdivision, which is also the west line of Lot 20,
an extension of that boundary line to its
intersection with the west right-of-way line of
Sixteenth Street;
(2)
Lots 1 and 2, Block B, Section 4, Woodside Park,
County, Maryland, crossing Pershing Drive along
to its intersection with the southwest right-of-way
line of Noyes Drive;
an extension of that line to its intersection with the
southeast right-of-way line of Pershing Drive;
Then in a northerly direction along the
west right-of-way line of Sixteenth Street, crossing
(7)
Then in a southeasterly direction along
East-West Highway to its intersection with a
the southwest right-of-way line of Noyes Drive to its
southwesterly extension of the northerly right-ofway line of Spring Street;
intersection with the northwest right-of-way line of
Colesville Road;
(12)
along the southeast right-of-way line of Cedar
Street;
(13)
(3)
Then in a northeasterly direction along
(8)
Then crossing Colesville Road in a
Then in a southwesterly direction
along the northeast right-of-way line of Cedar
that extension crossing Sixteenth Street to its
southeasterly direction to the intersection of the
Street, crossing Wayne Avenue, to its intersection
Sixteenth Street;
southeast right-of-way line of Colesville Road and
with the southeast right-of-way line of Wayne
Avenue;
(4)
the southwest line of the Silver Spring Public
Library site, Parcel No. P959;
Then in a northeasterly direction along
the northern right-of-way line of Spring Street,
crossing Second Avenue, First Avenue, Georgia
(14)
(9) Then along that line to the southeast
right-of-way line of Ellsworth Drive;
Avenue, and Alton Parkway, then southeasterly to
its intersection with the northwest right-of-way line
of Fairview Road;
(5)
Drive to its intersection with the common line of
Plat 301, among the land records of Montgomery
County, Maryland;
the Academy of the Holy Names site and the
also shown as the common lot line of Lot 9 and
the westward extension of the southwest line of
Lot 10, Evanswood Section One, as recorded
Lots 1 and 2, Block B, Section 4, Woodside Park,
March 2, 1932, in Plat Book 5, Plat 439 among
Then crossing Fairview Road in a
southeasterly direction along the southwest line of
4, in Jordan's and Smith's Addition to Silver Spring
Park, as recorded June 2, 1925, in Plat Book 4,
of-way line of Fairview Road to its intersection with
(6)
Avenue for approximately 750 feet, to its
along the southeast right-of-way line of Ellsworth
northeast line of Evanswood Sec. 1 Subdivision,
County, Maryland;
along the southeast right-of-way line of Wayne
intersection with the east lot line of Lot 24, Block
(10)
approximately 390 feet along the northwest right-
as recorded January 30, 1923, in Plat Book 3, Plat
(15)
along the east line of Lot 24 to the southeast
corner of Lot 24;
(16)
(11)
approximately 15 feet to the northeast corner of
along the northeast lot lines of Lots 1 through 9 as
Lot 14, Block 4, Jordan's and Smith's Addition to
shown in Plat Book 5, Plat 439, recorded March 2,
Silver Spring Park, as shown in Plat Book 4, Plat
301, recorded June 2, 1925, among the land
common lot line, which is the west line of Lot 7
and the east lot line of Lot 28, Block P, Silver
Lot 5, Block H, as shown on the "Map of Building
Sites for Sale at Silver Spring;"
Spring Park, as shown in Plat Book 1, Plat 99,
(17)
along the east line of Lot 14, as shown in Plat
recorded April 4, 1909, among the land records of
Book 4, Plat 301, recorded June 2, 1925, among
to the northwest right-of-way line of Bonifant
Street;
(18)
its intersection with the northern right-of-way line
of Silver Spring Avenue;
the common line of Lot 7 and Lot 28, Block P and
the common line of Lot 18 and Lot 19, Block P,
(25)
Then crossing Silver Spring Avenue to
Silver Spring Park, as shown in Plat Book 1, Plat
the intersection of the southern right-of- way line of
Silver Spring Avenue and the common lot line,
Bonifant Street to the intersection of the
records of Montgomery County, Maryland, crossing
which is the east line of Lot 4 and the west line of
southeastern right-of-way line of Bonifant Street
Thayer Avenue to the intersection of the south
and the northeast corner of Lot 5, Block U, Silver
right-of-way line of Thayer Avenue and the
Lot 5, Block I, as shown on the "Map of Building
Spring Park, as shown in Plat Book 1, Plat 99,
common lot line which is the east lot line of Lot 5
recorded April 4, 1909, among the land records of
and the west lot line of Lot 6, Block G, as shown
Montgomery County, Maryland, which is also the
on a "Map of Building Sites for Sale at Silver
the common lot line of Lot 4 and Lot 5, Block I,
same as the northeast corner of Montgomery
County Public Parking Facility 29;
Spring," as recorded May 23, 1904, in Plat Book 1,
crossing a 20-foot alley dividing Block I and Block
Plat 54, among the land records of Montgomery
County, Maryland;
J, as shown on the "Map of Building Sites for Sale
(19)
Then in a southerly direction crossing
(21)
(24)
the common lot line of Lot 4 and Lot 5, Block H, to
(22)
the common lot line of Lot 5 and Lot 6, Block G,
Plat 99, recorded April 4, 1909, among the land
and with an extension of that line to the south
records of Montgomery County, Maryland, crossing
right-of-way line of a 20-foot alley dividing Block G
Easley Street along the southern extension of that
and Block H, as shown on the "Map of Building
(23)
(20)
at Silver Spring," to its intersection with the south
right-of-way line of that alley and the common lot
and the west line of Lot 6 as shown in Plat Book 1,
line to its intersection with the south right-of-way
line of Easley Street;
(26)
Then in a westerly direction
line, which is the east line of Lot 4 and the west
line of Lot 5, Block J, as shown on the "Map of
Building Sites for Sale at Silver Spring;"
(27)
the common lot line of Lot 4 and Lot 5, Block J, to
its intersection with the northern right-of-way line
of Sligo Avenue;
approximately 50 feet along the south line of that
south right-of-way line of Easley Street
alley to its intersection with the common lot line,
approximately 50 feet to its intersection with the
which is the east line of Lot 4 and the west line of
(28)
Then along a southern extension of
that common lot line of Lot 4 and Lot 5, Block J, to
its intersection with the southern right-of-way line
of Sligo Avenue;
(29)
(34)
southern right-of-way line of Gist Avenue to its
intersection with the eastern right-of-way line of
Fenton Street;
along the southern right-of-way line of Sligo
Avenue to its intersection with the northeast
(35)
corner of Lot 19, Block A, shown on a plat of Blair
the eastern right-of-way line of Fenton Street
Section 1, recorded June 7, 1922, in Plat Book 3,
crossing Philadelphia Avenue, Isington Street, and
Plat 229 among the land records of Montgomery
County, Maryland;
New York Avenue to its intersection with the
corporated limit line of the City of Takoma Park;
(30)
northeast line of Eastern Avenue, which is also the
Maryland-District of Columbia boundary line;
(36)
Then in a southwesterly direction with
(40)
along the Maryland-District of Columbia boundary
line to the point of beginning; and
(41)
through (40).
(c)
Wheaton Urban District. The Wheaton
the east line of Lot 19, Block A, to its intersection
the corporate limit line of the City of Takoma Park
Urban District is all land in the thirteenth election
with the remainder of Lot 25, Block A, as shown on
crossing the northeast right-of-way line of the B &
the plat of Blair Section 1, recorded June 7, 1922,
O Railroad to its intersection with the southwest
right-of-way line of the B & O Railroad;
district of the county within the area described as
follows:
in Plat Book 3, Plat 229, among the land records
(1)
(37)
(31)
Then in an easterly direction
approximately 15 feet to its intersection with the
northwest corner of Lot 51, Block A, as shown on a
Then in a southeasterly direction with
Beginning on the west right-of-way line
of Amherst Avenue at the southeast corner of
the southwest right-of-way line of the B & O
Parcel A, Wheaton Place, as recorded February 26,
Railroad to its intersection with the northeast rightof-way line of Blair Road;
plat of Blair Section 1, recorded November 16,
(32)
the west line of that Lot 51 to its intersection with
the northern right-of-way line of Gist Avenue;
(33)
(38)
along the northeast right-of-way line of Blair Road
south line of the same Parcel A to its intersection
to its intersection with an extension of the
with the east right-of-way line of Georgia Avenue,
southeast line of Parcel One, Yost's Addition to
Silver Spring, as shown in Plat Book 85, Plat 8874,
February 26, 1965, among the land records of
recorded March 13, 1968, among the land records
(3)
Then along a southerly extension of
the west line of that Lot 51 to the southern rightof-way line of Gist Avenue;
(2)
(39)
Then crossing Georgia Avenue along a
westerly extension of the south line of the same
along that line to its intersection with the
Parcel A to its intersection with the west right-ofway line of Georgia Avenue;
(4)
Kensington View, to its intersection with the west
Blueridge Avenue, which is also the P.T. of Fillet
line of East Avenue, as shown in Plat Book 4, Plat
curve No. 4 and generally the northwest corner of
303, recorded July 10, 1925, among the land
Lot 1, Block 44, as shown on Plat No. 9, Wheaton
west right-of-way line of Georgia Avenue to its
intersection with the southern line of Parcel 4,
(9)
Wheaton Plaza, as recorded August 11, 1960, in
west line of East Avenue, crossing Upton Drive and
Kensington Boulevard to the north line of
Kensington Boulevard;
(5)
Then in a westerly and then northerly
(10)
direction along the southern and western lines of
the north line of Kensington Boulevard, including
Parcel 4, Wheaton Plaza, to its intersection with
its planned extension, to its intersection with the
west line of Viers Mill Road;
the south right-of-way line of University Boulevard
West, as shown in Plat Book 66, Plat 6037,
recorded August 11, 1960, among the land
Then crossing University Boulevard
West to the southwest corner of Lot Pt 8, Block G,
Then crossing Viers Mill Road to the
west corner of Lot 1, Block B, Triangle Park as
recorded among the land records of Montgomery
County, Maryland;
Kensington View subdivision, as recorded July 10,
Maryland;
(14)
Then with the southerly side of
Blueridge Avenue, with the arc of a curve to the
left in a general easterly direction, to the east side
of Grandview Avenue;
(15)
Then with the east side of Grandview
Avenue north to the common front corner of Lots
19 and 20, Block 27, as shown on Plat No. 9,
(11)
shown in Plat Book No. 4, on Plat No. 338,
(6)
Hills, recorded in Plat Book 32, on Plat 2058,
Wheaton Hills, recorded in Plat Book 32, on Plat
County, Maryland;
(16)
Then leaving the east side of
Grandview Avenue and running with the dividing
(12)
Then with the southerly side of
line of the same Lots 19 and 20, and Lots 9 and
records of Montgomery County, Maryland, which is
Kensington Boulevard in an easterly direction and
10, Block 27, as shown on Plat No. 9, Wheaton
also the northeast intersection of University
Boulevard West and Midvale Road;
crossing Wheaton Hill Road to a point on the
Hills, recorded in Plat Book 32, on Plat 2058,
easterly side of the same Wheaton Hill Road,
Maryland, east to the west side of Georgia Avenue;
which is also the north corner of Lot 16, Block A,
(7)
west line of the same Lot Pt 8 to its intersection
with the north line of the same Lot Pt 8;
(8)
north lines of Lots 1 through 8, Block G,
as shown on the plat of Triangle Park in PlatBook
4, on Plat No. 338, recorded among the land
(13)
(17)
Then with the west side of Georgia
Avenue and running south, approximately 200
feet;
Then running with the easterly side of
Wheaton Hill Road northeast to the south side of
(18)
Then leaving the west side of Georgia
(23)
extent not inconsistent with this Section or Article
Avenue, crossing Georgia Avenue, and running
that easterly line of Lot 3, Block 1 to the
25A, Section 5(FF) of the Maryland Code, an urban
east with the northerly subdivision limits of Villa
intersection of the extension of that line with the
district corporation may exercise all powers and is
Verde Subdivision as shown in Plat Book No. 4, on
southerly line of University Boulevard West
(formerly Old Bladensburg Road);
subject to all requirements applicable to non-stock
Plat No. 388, recorded among the land records of
Montgomery County, Maryland, to the northeast
corner of Lot 8, Villa Verde;
Associations Article of the Maryland Code. An
(24)
along that southerly line of University Boulevard
(19)
the east line of the same Lot 8, Villa Verde, and
West to its intersection with the west line of
Amherst Avenue (formerly Vernosia Place);
crossing Blueridge Avenue to the intersection of
the extension of the east line of Lot 8, Villa Verde
and the south line of Blueridge Avenue;
(20)
Then along the south line of
that west line of Amherst Avenue, crossing Reedie
Drive and Prichard Road to the point of beginning;
and
(26)
of the east line of Amherst Avenue, which is a
Wheaton Manor, and the property occupied by
urban district corporation performs tasks of
benefit to the government.
(b)
Services. An urban district corporation
may provide the following services to benefit
(25)
Blueridge Avenue to approximately 125 feet east
point on the dividing line between Lot 1, Block 1,
corporations under the Corporations and
residents and businesses in the district (and which
may incidentally benefit neighboring communities):
(1) promotion, organization, and support
of cultural, recreational, and business activities;
through (25). (1987 L.M.C., ch. 2, § 2.)
(2) specialized transportation services,
including jitney service;
Columbia Broadcasting Company as shown in Plat
Book 45, on Plat No. 3390, recorded among the
Sec. 68A-9. Urban District Corporations.
(a)
(21)
that line to its intersection with the northerly line of
Lot 3, Block 1, Wheaton Manor;
(3)
subject to Section 68A-3,
enhancement and maintenance of streetscape
General. An urban district corporation may
be created under this Section for the benefit of
and provision of additional streetscape amenities;
and
each urban district. An urban district corporation
created under this Section is a public
(4)
other initiatives to advance the
instrumentality of the County and is a commercial
business and residential environment and sense
district management authority for that urban
of community through such measures as
that northerly line of Lot 3, Block 1, Wheaton
district. An urban district corporation is not within
enhanced security, coordination of retail marketing
Manor, to its intersection with the easterly line of
the same Lot 3, Block 1;
the Executive or Legislative branches of County
and signage, facade improvements, business
government, is separate and distinct from the
retention services, community initiatives, and
similar activities.
(22)
County, and is an independent entity. To the
A Corporation may provide a service outside
e.
powers of the corporation, subject to
the boundaries of an urban district if the service
the restrictions or limitations on the powers of the
will primarily benefit businesses or residents in the
corporation in this Section and in Article 25A,
Section 5(FF) of the Maryland Code.
urban district. A Corporation may also provide any
authorized service to another Corporation or urban
district.
(2)
Creation.
(1)
for the corporation that include provisions required
under Section 68A-10(h).
An urban district corporation may be
created by the adoption of a resolution by the
Sec. 68A-10. Board of Directors of Corporation;
Employees; Other Organizational Matters.
The resolution adopted under
paragraph (1) must also approve proposed by-laws
(c)
ch. 16, § 1; 1999 L.M.C., ch. 22, § 1; 2000 L.M.C.,
ch. 26, § 1.)
(a)
Appointment and Confirmation of Board
of Directors. Except as otherwise provided in the
resolution creating an urban district corporation,
the board of directors of the corporation has 11
(3)
The County Executive, or any other
members. Members are appointed by the County
County Council that is approved by the County
person designated in the resolution adopted under
Executive and confirmed by the County Council.
Executive or, if disapproved by the Executive, is
paragraph (1), must execute and file the articles of
readopted by a vote of 6 Councilmembers. The
incorporation for recording with the State
The County Executive must appoint the members
of the board of directors so that:
public must be given at least 30 days to comment
Department of Assessments and Taxation. When
on the proposed articles of incorporation and by-
the articles of incorporation are accepted for
laws before the Council adopts the resolution. The
recording by the Department of Assessments and
resolution must approve articles of incorporation
that state the:
Taxation, the corporation becomes a body
a.
corporate, lawfully and properly created and
authorized to exercise its powers.
(1) an ex-officio, nonvoting member is the
County Executive or the Executive's designee;
(2) 2 members are persons nominated by
the chamber of commerce of that urban district;
name of the corporation;
(4)
b. names, addresses, and terms of
office of the first directors of the corporation;
The County Council may amend the
articles of incorporation by adopting a resolution
approved by the County Executive or, if the
resolution is disapproved by the Executive,
c. location of the principal office of the
corporation;
readopting it by a vote of 6 Councilmembers. Any
amendment must be filed and recorded with the
State Department of Assessments and Taxation. A
d. purposes for which the corporation is
formed; and
(3) 3 members are, or represent, owners
of an optional method development;
copy of the articles of incorporation and any
amendment must be filed with the County
Executive. (1987 L.M.C., ch. 2, § 2; 1993 L.M.C.,
(4) one member is an owner, partner,
proprietor, or corporate officer of a small business;
(5)
one member lives in the urban district;
(6)
one member lives in a residential
community outside of, but in close proximity to, the
urban district, who must be appointed by the
County Executive from among three candidates
nominated by the County Council;
(7)
one member lives in a residential
(2)
The County Executive may reappoint a
member to the board of directors for one
recommendation of the board, because of failure
to attend meetings or other reasons.
additional term, but a member must not serve
more than 2 consecutive terms on the board.
community within the planning area in which the
(2)
A member of the board of directors is
not subject to Chapter 19A (Ethics) but must
urban district is located and is nominated by the
(3)
The County Executive may remove a
comply with all bylaws pertaining to ethical
citizens advisory board serving that area after the
member of the board of directors for malfeasance,
conduct by the board of directors approved by the
board has solicited interest from the public and
interviewed potential nominees; and
misfeasance, or nonfeasance or other reason
specified in the bylaws for the corporation.
County Council and County Executive under
subsection (g).
(8)
one member is a resident member of
the citizen advisory board who is nominated by the
board, or if no member of the board is able to
(d)
Duties. The board of directors directs all
aspects of the program, management, and
finances of the corporation.
Bylaws.
(1)
At the organization meeting of the
board of directors required under Section 2- 109
serve, a resident of the planning area in which the
urban district is located who is nominated by the
citizens advisory board.
(g)
(e) Compensation; Relation to County
retirement system.
of the Corporations and Associations Article of the
Maryland Code, the board must adopt the bylaws
approved by the County Council and Executive
(b)
Rejection of nominations to board of
directors. The County Executive may reject any
(1) A member of the board of directors
serves without compensation.
person nominated to serve on the board of
directors and request additional nominations from
the body that nominated the person.
(c)
Term; Removal.
(1)
Each member of the board of directors
bylaws must be submitted to the County Council
and County Executive for approval at least 60 days
(2)
A member of the board of directors is
before the board of directors takes final action on
not eligible to receive benefits under the County
the amendment. All bylaws must be filed with the
retirement system for service rendered as a board
member.
County Executive within 5 working days of
adoption.
(f)
Procedures, attendance, and ethics.
serves for a period of 3 years. However, when the
board of directors is first formed, any member of
under Section 68A-9. Any later amendment to the
(2)
The bylaws may contain any provision
not inconsistent with law or the articles of
(1)
The board of directors may establish
the district's Urban District Advisory Committee
its own rules of procedure. These rules may be
who consents to do so serves as a member of the
board for the remainder of that person's term.
included in the bylaws of the corporation. The
incorporation of the corporation to regulate and
manage the affairs of the corporation. The bylaws
must contain provisions that:
board may adopt a rule that allows for removal of
a member by the County Executive, upon
a.
protect against any conflict of
interest or similar impropriety by members of the
e. specify how the corporation will
comply with the state public records law.
board of directors or the Executive Director or any
other employees, including self-dealing and
(h)
Committees. The board of directors
collusive practices. This requirement includes a
provision for the disclosure of a financial or similar
by a board member, which oversee the
interest of any person in any matter before the
management and other functions of the
corporation and the establishment of conditions
corporation. Membership on committees must be
open to persons other than board members.
participating in decisions or other actions in which
there is a conflict between the person's official
(i)
Executive director; agents and employees.
duties and private interests. Appropriate remedies
The board of directors should engage an executive
against violation, including removal or termination
must be provided;
director with substantial experience managing
b.
provide for competitive procurement
for goods and services with reasonable public
notice;
provide for surety bonds or similar
Powers. To further its statutory purposes,
but subject to the limitations in subsection (b), an
urban district corporation may:
(1)
acquire, hold, and use both real and
necessary to achieve its purposes, including
acquisition by purchase or lease;
assist in carrying out the corporation's functions.
An employee of the corporation is not a County
employee under Chapter 33 (Personnel) nor a
(2) make contracts, including employment
contracts and contracts for goods and services;
(Ethics). An employee must not participate in or
funds by employees of the corporation responsible
for the handling of corporation funds;
system for service as an employee with the
corporation.
comply with the state open meetings law and, in
(a)
may employ, or contract with, other persons to
receive benefits from the County retirement
specify how the corporation will
Sec. 68A-11. Urban District Corporation-Powers.
personal property and other property rights
instruments to protect against misappropriation of
d.
publications. (1987 L.M.C., ch. 2, § 2; 1993
L.M.C., ch. 16, § 1.)
downtown districts or in a related field. The board
public employee for purposes of Chapter 19A
c.
Publicity. An urban district corporation
other media. It may sell advertising in its
should be supported by committees, each chaired
under which that person is disqualified from
(k)
may publicize its activities through newsletters or
(j)
(3)
sue and be sued;
(4) accept grants, gifts, or other
contributions;
Insurance. An urban district corporation
must secure reasonable and appropriate
addition, provide that all meetings of the board of
insurance for its activities. The corporation and its
directors must be open to the public except when
employees are eligible to participate in the
closed on a recorded vote of the board for a
reason expressly listed in the bylaws; and
County's comprehensive insurance and self
insurance programs in accordance with Section
20-37.
(5)
establish commercial bank accounts,
with any earnings on funds inuring to the
corporation; and
(6)
actions.
take other necessary or convenient
(b) Limitations. An urban district corporation
must not:
(1)
County;
(2)
(2)
(e)
County not liable; Suits by corporation
against County prohibited; styling of suits by or
against the corporation; County Attorney.
pledge the full faith and credit of the
(d) Applicability of County Procurement
Policies.
issue bonds or notes;
exercise any police or general power of
the County, except those expressly authorized by
law;
(1)
The County is not liable, in contract or
tort, for any obligation, act, or omission of an
urban district corporation or its agents or
(1)
(3)
an optional method developer to
maintain streetscape amenities on public rightsof-way.
The requirements of Chapter 11B
employees. Any contract executed by an urban
(Procurement) do not apply to procurement by an
district corporation must state that the County is
urban district corporation. However, the
not liable for any obligation of the corporation
under the contract.
corporation must make a good faith effort to meet
the minority, female, and disabled business
(4)
exercise the power of eminent domain;
(5)
lease any property as tenant for a term
procurement goals that apply to County
government under Chapter 11B. Similarly, the
of years beyond the date of termination of the
corporation;
(6) purchase, sell, construct, or, as a
landlord, lease office or retail space; or
(7) except as otherwise authorized under
this Chapter, compete with the private sector.
(c)
Maintenance agreements. An urban
district corporation and an optional method
developer may enter into an agreement for:
(1)
the corporation to maintain
streetscape amenities on private or public
property; or
(2) An urban district corporation must not
sue the County as plaintiff.
corporation must make a good faith effort to
achieve procurement goals for the purchase of
(3)
As a commercial district management
recycled goods that apply to County government
authority, each corporation is a "local government"
under Chapter 11B. The corporation must submit
as that phrase is used in the Local Government
a report to the Chief Administrative Officer by
Tort Claims Act. A lawsuit brought by or against an
September 1 of each year describing achievement
of those goals in the prior fiscal year.
urban district corporation must name the urban
district and the corporation as follows:
"(geographic area)
(2)
An urban district corporation should
Urban District Corporation for
the benefit of the (geographic area) urban district,
participate in the County cooperative purchasing
a special taxing district of Montgomery County,
program to the fullest extent possible. To the
Maryland." The special taxing district should be
extent practicable and cost effective, the
considered the real party in interest under
corporation must utilize the County's centralized
Maryland Rules of Procedure and for purposes of
the Local Government Tort Claims Act.
purchasing system by purchasing goods under
County requirement contracts with vendors or
using existing County inventories.
(4)
The County Attorney is the legal advisor
to each urban district corporation and must be
notified of any legal action brought by or against
the corporation. This paragraph does not prohibit
a corporation from hiring additional legal counsel
must be applied to the next annual corporation
budget approved by the Council.
approved by the County Attorney. (1987 L.M.C., ch.
2, § 2; 1993 L.M.C., ch. 16, § 1; 1993 L.M.C., ch.
24, § 1.)
(b)
in accordance with its articles of
Distribution; use of urban district funds.
(3)
(1)
Sec. 68A-12. Urban District Corporations-Budget,
Finances, and Administration.
c.
incorporation and bylaws and the agreement
between the corporation and the County.
After the County Council has approved
the urban district's budget, the Director of Finance
must transfer those monies appropriated for use
The agreement between the County
and the urban district corporation may provide for
the County to provide goods or services to the
corporation.
by an urban district corporation to the corporation
(a)
Budget preparation, review, and action.
(1)
Each urban district corporation must
in accordance with Section 11B-42(d)*. The
(c)
Start-up funding. Any start-up funding that
transfer of funds to, and expenditure of funds by,
cannot be accommodated in the normal County
the corporation is subject each year to the
budget cycle may be funded by a supplemental or
emergency appropriation in accordance with law.
annually prepare and submit a budget to the Office
execution of an agreement between the County
of Management and Budget for review in
and the urban district corporation. This Chapter
accordance with the procedures and schedule
and any agreement executed under this
established by the Office of Management and
Budget.
subsection do not create or imply any continuing
corporation must maintain its books, accounts,
right of a corporation to public funding. The
and records and file with the Director of Finance
County in its discretion may terminate or refuse to
an annual report. The books, accounts, and
renew any such agreement at the end of any fiscal
year.
records must be open to inspection by the County
(2)
The Office of Management and Budget
should meet with the board of directors to attempt
to resolve any area of disagreement.
(3)
The County Council considers and acts
with the budget adoption procedures of the County
* Editor‘s note—Chapter 11B was amended.
See Sec. 11B-14(a)(4).
amount of County funding to approve.
(2) An urban district corporation must use
funds transferred under this Section only:
a. for the urban district from which they
are obtained;
Unencumbered County funds estimated to remain
in the corporation at the end of the fiscal year
during reasonable working hours. The corporation
independent audit by a certified public accountant,
including a copy of any accompanying
management letter. The time for submission of
Charter. The Council may consider any non-County
funding available to the corporation in deciding the
Annual report and audit. An urban district
must also provide the County an annual
on the County Executive's recommended budget
for the urban district corporation in accordance
(d)
the annual report and audit must be stated in the
agreement between the urban district corporation
and the County.
(e)
Evaluation. At least one year before an
urban district corporation is scheduled to
b. for the purposes of the urban district
as set forth in this Chapter; and
terminate under Section 68A-12, the Office of
Legislative Oversight must evaluate the
performance of the corporation. This evaluation
should include a survey of property owners,
maintain any property it would otherwise maintain
but for the existence of the corporation.
businesses, and residents located in and around
the urban district served by the corporation. (1987
L.M.C., ch. 2, § 2; 1993 L.M.C., ch. 16, § 1; 1993
L.M.C., ch. 24, § 1.)
(d)
Dissolution of an urban district
corporation is governed by Section 5-208 of the
Corporations and Associations Article of the
Maryland Code. Any assets remaining after all
Sec. 68A-13. Termination of Urban District
Corporation; Dissolution.
(a)
Except as provided in subsection (b), an
liabilities and obligations of the corporation are
satisfied must be distributed to the County.
(e)
Notwithstanding subsection (a) or (b), an
urban district corporation exists for 5 years after
urban district corporation may be terminated at
its articles of incorporation are accepted for
any time after adoption of a resolution by the
recording by the State Department of Assessments
and Taxation.
County Council that is approved by the County
Executive or, if disapproved by the Executive, is
readopted by a vote of 6 Councilmembers if the
(b)
The existence of an urban district
urban district corporation has been operated in an
corporation may be extended for an unlimited
ultra vires manner, or in the event of misfeasance,
number of additional 5-year terms by a resolution
malfeasance, or nonfeasance by the board of
adopted by the County Council and approved by
directors. Termination and dissolution is governed
the County Executive or, if disapproved by the
by subsections (c) and (d). (1987 L.M.C., ch. 2, §
Executive, by a vote of 6 Councilmembers.
2; 1993 L.M.C., ch. 16, § 1; 1993 L.M.C., ch. 24, §
1.)
Amended articles of incorporation must be filed
and recorded with the State Department of
Assessments and Taxation. A copy of the
amended articles of incorporation must be filed
with the County Executive.
(c)
When an urban district corporation
terminates, all contracts and services must
terminate unless expressly assumed and
maintained by the County. The County must then
Transit in Germantown as envisioned in 1966
APPENDIX 23: TRANSIT MIXED-USE ZONE
Ordinance No: 16-29
By amending the following section of the
Zoning Text Amendment No: 08-14
Montgomery County Zoning
EXPLANATION:
Concerning: Transit Mixed-Use (TMX) Zone -
Ordinance, Chapter 59 of the Montgomery County
Boldface indicates a heading or a defined term
Establishment
Code:
Underlining indicates text that is added to existing
Draft No. & Date: 4 -11/18/08
laws by the original text amendment.
Introduced: June 24, 2008
DIVISION 59-A-2 ―DEFINITIONS‖
[Single boldface brackets] indicate text that is
Public Hearing: July 29, 2008
Section 59-A-2.1 ―Definitions‖
deleted from existing law by the original text
Adopted: November 25, 2008
DIVISION 59-D-2 ―PROJECT PLAN FOR OPTIONAL
amendment.
Effective: December 15, 2008
METHOD OF DEVELOPMENT IN CBD, TOMX, AND
Double underlining indicates text that is added to
RMX ZONES.
the text amendment by amendment.
Section 59-D-2.0 ―Zones enumerated‖
[[Double boldface brackets]] indicate text that is
COUNTY COUNCIL FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY,
MARYLAND
SITTING AS THE DISTRICT COUNCIL FOR THAT
PORTION OF
THE MARYLAND-WASHINGTON REGIONAL
deleted from the text amendment by amendment.
And by adding the following Division to the
* * * indicates existing law unaffected by the text
Montgomery County Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 59
amendment.
of the Montgomery County Code:
DISTRICT WITHIN
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
DIVISION 59-C-14 ―TRANSIT MIXED-USE ZONES
(TMX)‖
By: District Council at Request of the Planning
Board
Sections 59-C-14.1 through 59-C-14.[[32]]27
OPINION
Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) 08-14, sponsored
by the District Council at the request of the
Planning Board, was introduced on June 24, 2008.
AN AMENDMENT to the Montgomery County
The Planning Board recommends using a new
Zoning Ordinance to:
Transit Mixed-Use (TMX) zone proposed in ZTA 0814 instead of amending the Transit-Oriented
-
establish a Transit Mixed-Use (TMX) Zone; and
Mixed-Use zone in Transit Station Development
-
establish allowable land uses, development
Areas. ZTA 08-14 would establish the TMX zone.
standards, use of buildable transferable
development rights, and approval procedures
for development under the Transit Mixed-Use
Zone.
In its report to the Council, the Montgomery County
workforce housing, and considering bonus density
Development Area. Representatives of auto
Planning Board recommended that the zoning text
for the purchase of BLTs, instead of requiring their
dealerships requested an expansion of the land
amendment be approved with amendments. In
purchase for all density above the standard
uses that would be allowed in the TMX zone. The
light of the findings of the Research and
method of development.
text amendment was referred to the Planning,
Technology Division, and because of the testimony
Housing, and Economic Development Committee
provided by the public, the Planning Board
The Council held a public hearing on ZTA 08-14 on
for review and recommendation.
recommended certain adjustments to the TMX
July 29, 2008. Testimony was received in favor of
The Planning, Housing, and Economic
zone as introduced: (1) exempt residential
and in opposition to the BLT program. Several
Development Committee held worksessions to
development from the Building Lot Termination
speakers who represented landowners favored the
review the amendment on September 8,
(BLT) requirement where the workforce housing
general direction of the amendments proposed by
September 22, and October 6, 2008. After careful
requirement applies; (2) increase the maximum
the Planning Board‘s testimony: 1) reducing the
review of the materials of record, and for the
optional method density from 3.0 to 4.0; (3) allow
financial burden of purchasing BLTs; 2) increasing
reasons described in the memorandum presented
development under a development plan approved
the allowable density; and 3) grandfathering
to Council on October 28 concerning ZTA 08-14,
for the TS-R and TS-M zones to remain valid and
approved projects. The Planning Board‘s
the Committee recommended approving ZTA 08-
construction to continue subject to applicable
testimony responded to some of the major
14 with the following amendments:
approvals (FAR above the approved development
concerns found in the Council‘s public hearing
plan limit would be subject to the TMX standards);
testimony, other than dropping the requirement for
and (4) allow development under a preliminary
the purchase of BLTs. Opponents to the TMX zone
should have:
plan to remain valid and construction to continue
characterized the BLT requirement as a tax on
a) a maximum floor area ratio (FAR)
subject to applicable approvals (a preliminary plan
desirable development. The agricultural
approved before the applicable SMA adoption date
community supported a privately financed BLT
may be amended after the SMA adoption date
program, as did the League of Woman Voters and
under the standards of the previous zone or under
the Sierra Club.
the TMX zone standards). The Planning Board also
1) Standard method of development in TMX zone
of .5 with increases for MPDUs
and workforce housing;
b) a maximum building height of 42
feet; and
c)
streetscaping should be required
recommended amending the TMX zone so that the
The Housing Opportunities Commission expressed
immediately in front of the
County Executive would determine the cost of a
concern about the economic impact of requiring
development.
single BLT.
BLTs, and recommended finding ways to reduce
2) Optional method of development in
development costs. The Sierra Club also spoke in
the TMX zone should have:
The County Executive recommended not allowing a
favor of reducing the parking requirements to
a) a maximum FAR of 4 with
master plan or sector plan to limit density from the
offset the costs of BLTs. In addition, the Sierra
increases for MPDUs and
maximum in the TMX zone. He also recommended
Club requested the exclusion of proposed transit
workforce housing;
amendments to allow more residential density for
stations from the definition of a Transit Station
b) criteria for height and density but
c)
should leave the sending property standard
the name of the zone created was changed to
no maximum height in the zone;
method density unless the sending site is
TMX-2 with the expectation that additional
design principles to implement
recommended for open space in the master or
zones may be created under the TMX
the sector plan recommendations
sector plan.
requirements;
for optional method development
adopted by the Planning Board;
d) a requirement for acquiring BLTs
excluding residential projects that
7) The grandfather provision should include all
reduced for certain retail uses, reflecting the
preliminary plans, including amendments to
recommendations of the Urban Land Institute;
those plans.
the criteria for determining height and density
are required to provide workforce
housing;
the minimum number of parking spaces was
approved development plans and all approved
were amended to reflect comments from the
The rationale for imposing a BLT obligation is
Planning Board;
directly related to the impacts created by the
the setback standard was changed under
application if the project also
proposed development. All development in the
certain circumstances; and
requires subdivision approval;
County increases the development pressure in the
the requirement for development ―to follow‖
and
Rural Density Transfer (RDT) area. Residential
Planning Board adopted design guidelines was
payments instead of providing on-
development increases the demand for
changed to ―consistent with‖.
site amenities used in the same
commercial development. Increased employment
Transit Station Development
increases the demand for residential
For these reasons and because to approve this
Area.
development. More than 60 percent of people
amendment will assist in the coordinated,
who work in the County also live in the County.
comprehensive, adjusted and systematic
TOMX zone and all the uses allowed in the
The BLT removes development pressure in the
development of the Maryland-Washington
Central Business District (CBD) zone should be
RDT area.
Regional District located in Montgomery County,
e) an option to bypass a project plan
f)
3) The land uses in the previously proposed
added to the list of permitted uses, including
automobile repair.
4) The minimum parking requirements should be
Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-14 will be
The District Council reviewed Zoning Text
Amendment No.08-14 at worksessions held on
reduced from the current requirement in
October 28 and November 18, 2008, and agreed
Division 59-E.
with the recommendations of the Planning,
5) Require TMX development to be ―consistent‖
with the applicable master or sector plan.
6) The transfer of density provision should
approved as amended.
ORDINANCE
Housing, and Economic Development Committee
The County Council for Montgomery County,
except as follows;
Maryland, sitting as the District Council for that
the maximum optional method of
portion of the Maryland-Washington Regional
require 18,000 square feet of land at a
development FAR was changed to 2 plus
District in Montgomery County, Maryland,
minimum, unless otherwise recommended by
density required for MPDUs and workforce
approves the following ordinance:
a master or sector plan, and the transfer
housing;
Sec. 1. Division 59-A- is amended as follows:
(d)
Division 59-A-2. Definitions and Interpretation.
could be transferred by a BLT Easement
The TMX zone is for use in a transit station
under this Chapter.
development area.
59-A-2.1. Definitions
When a BLT easement is recorded in the land
S EC . 59-C-14.2. T RANSIT M IXED -U SE (TMX)
*
records, the easement extinguishes the right to
Z ONE .
[[Building Lot Termination Easement Program: A
build a dwelling unit in the RDT zone; this attribute
59-C-14.21. Description, purpose, and general
program by which a BLT is purchased or donated
distinguishes a BLT from other TDRs.
requirements
*
*
in exchange for terminating some or all of the
59-C-14. 21.1. Description.
residential building lots. A transferable
Buildable Lot Termination Easement. A form of an
The TMX Zone permits moderate through intensive
development right that is eligible for transfer into a
agricultural easement that runs with the land in
mixed-use development in a Transit Station
designated TDR receiving area that is not a
perpetuity and extinguishes the right to construct a
Development Area. The TMX zone must be shown
residential building lot on a parcel in the RDT Zone
residential dwelling unit on land located in the
on a master or sector plan and applied by
is not eligible for use under the Building Lot
Agricultural Reserve and zoned Rural Density
Sectional Map Amendment. The zone establishes
Termination Easement Program.
Transfer.
density, uses, and standards, for standard and
*
*
*
optional methods of development which may be
Buildable lot Termination (BLT) Transferable
[[Transferable Development Right (TDR): The right
limited by the recommendations of the applicable
Development Right: A transferable development
to transfer the residential buildable capacity in the
master or sector plan.
right in the Rural Density Transfer (RDT) Zone that
Rural Density Transfer (RDT) Zone to other
59-C-14.2.2. Purpose.
can be used for building one dwelling for each 25
designated zones at the rate of one transferable
The TMX zone fosters transit-oriented
acres in that zone; distinguished from a
development right (TDR) for each full five acres
development by permitting increased density and
transferable development right that is in excess of
owned in the RDT Zone.]]
height consistent with the recommendations of an
the density allowed in the RDT zone.]]
approved and adopted master plan or sector plan.
Transfer of development rights: The conveyance of
The purpose of the TMX zone is to:
Building Lot Termination (BLT): A transferable
development rights by deed, easement, or other
(a)
development right (TDR) created from land that:
legal instrument authorized by local law to another
recommendations of approved and adopted
(a)
consists of at least 25 acres;
parcel of land and the recordation of that
master or sector plans for Transit Station
(b)
is capable of being served by an individual
conveyance among the land records of
Development Areas by:
sewage treatment unit which meets the
Montgomery County, Maryland.
(1) facilitating mixed-use development with
requirements of Chapter 27A and applicable
(c)
Implement the land use and density
a compatible network of interconnecting
regulations issued under that Chapter;
Sec. 2. Division 59-C- is amended as follows:
streets, open squares, plazas, defined
is located in the Rural Density Transfer
*
streetscapes, and civic and community
(RDT) zone; and
[[DIVISION 59-C-14. TRANSIT MIXED-USE (TMX) ZONE
*
*
oriented uses ; and
59-C-14.1. Zone permitted.
(2) providing incentives and flexible
review is required under section 59-D-3. If
under the Optional Method of Development. If
development standards that foster
residential uses are included in a
residential uses are included in a
innovative design and technology.
development, Moderately Priced Dwelling
development, Moderately Priced Dwelling
Encourage land assembly in a compact and
Units must be provided as required under
Units must be provided as required under
efficient form.
Chapter 25A and workforce housing units
Chapter 25A and workforce housing units
Provide a variety of housing opportunities,
must be provided as required under Section
must be provided as required under Section
including affordable housing, near transit
59-A-6.18 and Chapter 25B. The maximum
59-A-6.18 and Chapter 25B. The maximum
stations.
dwelling unit density or residential FAR may be
dwelling unit density or residential FAR may be
(d)
Encourage sustainable and efficient design.
increased in proportion to any MPDU density
increased in proportion to any MPDU density
(e)
Improve multi-modal access to transit from
bonus provided on-site.
bonus provided on site. The procedure for the
(b)
(c)
the communities surrounding transit station
development areas.
(f)
(b) Optional Method of Development:
Provide receiving capacity for buildable lot
The Optional Method of Development allows
terminations (BLT).
greater densities and encourages innovative
design and building technologies to create
59-C-14.22. Location.
pedestrian-oriented and mixed-use
Land classified in the TMX Zone must be located in
development patterns and an environment
a Transit Station Development Area.
capable of supporting the greater densities.
59-C-14.23. Methods of development. Two
Approval of the Optional Method of
methods of development are available.
Development is dependent upon providing
(a) Standard Method of Development: The
required public use space, public amenities
standard method requires compliance with a
and facilities, and participation in the BLT
specific set of development standards and
program. Public use space and public
permits a range of uses and a density
facilities and amenities are required to
compatible with these standards. Site plan
support the additional densities permitted
approval of the Optional Method of
Development is under Section 59-D-2. Site
plans review is required under Section 59-D-3.
59-C-14.24. Land uses.
No use is allowed except as indicated in the
following table:
- Permitted Uses. Uses designated by the letter "P"
are permitted on any lot in the zones indicated,
subject to all applicable regulations.
- Special Exception Uses. Uses designated by the
letters "SE" may be authorized as special
exceptions under Article 59-G.
TMX
(a)
Standard
Optional
Dwellings.
P
P
Group home, small.
P
P
Group home, large.
P
P
Hotel or motel.
P
P
Residential:
TMX
(b)
Standard
Optional
Housing and related facilities for senior adults or persons with disabilities.
P
P
Life care facility.
P
P
Personal living quarters.
P
P
Parking garages, automobile.
P
P
Public utility buildings, structures, and underground facilities.
P
P
Radio and television broadcasting studio.
P
P
Rooftop mounted antennas and related unmanned equipment building, equipment cabinet or equipment
P
P
P
P
Antique shops, handicrafts or art sales and supplies.
P
P
Automobile sales, retail showroom.
P
P
Book store.
P
P
Convenience food and beverage store, without fuel sales.
P
P
Transportation, communication and utilities:
room.
Taxicab stand, not including storage while not in use.
(c)
Commercial:
Department stores.
P
Drug store.
P
P
Eating and drinking establishment, excluding drive-in.
P
P
Florist shop.
P
P
Furniture store, carpet, or related furnishing sales or service.
P
P
Gift shop.
P
P
Grocery store.
P
P
Hardware store.
P
P
Office supply store.
P
P
Office, general.
P
P
Office, professional including banks and financial institutions (excluding check cashing stores).
P
P
Standard
Optional
Offices for companies principally engaged in health services, research and development.
P
P
Newsstand.
P
P
TMX
(d)
Standard
Optional
Photographic and art supply store.
P
P
Pet sales and supply store.
P
P
Specialty shop.
P
P
Adult foster care homes.
P
P
Ambulance or rescue squad, public supported.
P
P
Animal boarding place.
SE
SE
Art, music and photographic studios.
P
P
Automobile filling station.
SE
SE
Automobile rental services, excluding automobile storage and supplies.
P
P
Barber and beauty shop.
P
P
Charitable and philanthropic institutions.
P
P
Clinic.
P
P
- Family day care.
P
P
- Group day care.
P
P
- Child day care center.
P
P
Daycare facility for not more than 4 senior adults and persons with disabilities.
P
P
Domiciliary care for no more than 16 senior adults.
P
P
Dry cleaning and laundry pick-up station.
P
P
Duplicating services.
P
P
Educational, private institution.
P
P
Home occupation, no impact.
P
P
Home occupation, registered.
P
P
Home occupation, major.
SE
SE
Hospice care facility.
P
P
Hospitals, veterinary.
SE
SE
International public organization.
P
P
Services:
Child daycare facility
TMX
(e)
Standard
Optional
Place of religious worship.
P
P
Publicly owned or publicly operated uses.
P
P
Shoe repair shop.
P
P
Tailoring or dressmaking shop.
P
P
Universities and colleges teaching and research facilities.
P
P
Research and Development and Biotechnology
P
P
Laboratories.
P
P
Advanced Technology and Biotechnology.
P
P
Manufacturing, compounding, processing or packaging of cosmetics, drugs, perfumes, pharmaceuticals,
P
P
Manufacturing and assembly of medical, scientific or technical instruments, devices and equipment.
P
P
Research, development, and related activities.
P
P
Auditoriums or convention halls.
P
P
Billiard parlor.
P
P
Bowling alley.
P
P
Health clubs and gyms.
P
P
Libraries and museums.
P
P
Park and playgrounds.
P
P
Private clubs and service organizations.
P
P
Recreational or entertainment establishments, commercial.
P
P
Theater, legitimate.
P
P
Theater, indoor.
P
P
toiletries, and products resulting from biotechnical and biogenetic research and development.
(f)
Cultural, entertainment and recreational:
59-C-14.25. Development standards.
The development standards applicable to the Standard
Method and Optional Method of Development are
established in this section. In addition to the requirements
specified in this table, all Optional Method of Development
projects must be consistent with the recommendations of
the applicable master plan or sector plan.
TMX
Standard
59-C-14.25.1. Minimum net lot area required for any development (in square
feet):17
Optional
18,000
59-C-14.25.2. Maximum Building Coverage (percent of net lot area):
75
59-C-14.25.3. Minimum Public Use Space (percent of net lot area):
1018
59-C-14.25.44. Maximum Building Height (in feet):
28
2019
- If adjoining or directly across the street from land recommended for or developed in a residential zone with a
maximum of 15 dwelling units per acre or less (in feet)
35
59-C-14.25.5. Minimum Setbacks (in feet):
- From an adjacent TMX Zone20
15
- From an adjacent commercial or industrial zone
20
- From an adjacent single family residential zone
25
- From a public right-of-way
10
17
A smaller lot may be approved if the lot is located adjacent to or confronting another lot either classified in or under application for the same zone, or the combined lots are subject
to a single project plan. The minimum area requirement does not prohibit a lot of less than 18,000 square feet for purposes of subdivision or record plat approval.
18
The required standard method public use space may be reduced to 5% if the Planning Board finds that the reduction is necessary to accommodate the construction of MPDU‘s,
including any bonus units, on-site.
19
The required optional method public use space may be reduced or eliminated on-site, if an equivalent amount of public use space is provided off-site in the same transit station
development area within a reasonable time. A payment instead of all or some of the required public use space may be made if approved under Division 59-D-2.
20
If the proposed building or the adjacent building has windows or apertures facing the lot line that provides light, access, or ventilation to a habitable space, the setback shall be 15
feet. If the adjacent building does not have windows or apertures, no setback is required.
TMX
Standard
59-C-14.25.6. Minimum and Maximum Density of
Development 21
(floor area ratio)
.25 -
.522
Optional
3.06
12.5% of any density above the maximum of the standard method, as set in the applicable master or sector plan, must
be through the purchase of BLTs or through a contribution to the BLT Land trust, as described in Section 59-C-14.30.
21
The maximum dwelling unit density or residential FAR may be increased in proportion to any MPDU density bonus provided on-site.
22
Master or sector plan recommendations may limit the maximum density within these ranges.
59-C-14.26. Special standards for development
retail, residential entrances, office
under the TMX zone.
lobbies, and restaurants;
(a)
Public facilities and amenities. Public
facilities and amenities are required for
(6)
approval of a standard or optional method
development project.
(b)
Design Principles. Site plans submitted for
projects in the TMX zone must follow general
(7)
(14) enhance crosswalk areas with
accessible curb ramps.
promote pedestrian safety with safety-
59-C-14. 27.Off-street parking. As required under
oriented environmental design and
Article 59-E.
clearly designated crosswalks and
59-C-14.28. Special Standards for Optional
sidewalks;
Method of Development projects.
include street trees and landscaping on
(a)
mix of uses and the proposed densities, the
all streets;
design principles recommended by the
Planning Board must consider the size of the
provide continuous, direct and
parcel, and the relationship of the existing
guidelines adopted by the Planning Board to
convenient connections to transit
and proposed building or buildings to its
implement the applicable master or sector
stations for pedestrians and bicyclists;
surrounding uses. The mix of uses and the
locate and screen service and loading
proposed densities must substantially
design guidelines recommend otherwise, or
areas to reduce visibility from any
conform to the recommendations of an
the Planning Board finds that it is infeasible
street;
approved and adopted master plan or sector
applicable master or sector plan and design
plan. Unless those general principles or
to follow the design principles due to site
constraints or other reasons, any project
developed in the TMX zone should:
(8)
Density and mix of uses. In approving the
(9)
plan.
(10) for any building other than a one-family
residential building, locate mechanical
(b)
Building height and setbacks. The maximum
equipment within buildings or within a
height permitted for any building and the
(1)
use sustainable design principles;
mechanical equipment penthouse;
minimum building setback requirements
(2)
orient all buildings to streets;
however if mechanical equipment is
must be determined during project plan
locate off-street parking to the side,
located on a roof or is freestanding, it
review. In approving height limits or setback
(3)
must be effectively screened;
requirements, the Planning Board must
rear, or below grade;
(4)
create a continuous building line to
accentuate open space and building
entrances; blank building facades must
be avoided or minimized;
(5)
provide pedestrian-oriented activity at
street level with uses such as storefront
(11) design street lighting to avoid an
adverse impact on surrounding uses,
while also providing a sufficient level of
illumination for access and security;
(12) provide tree canopy along each street;
(13) provide street furniture such as
benches, trash receptacles and
planters;
consider the size of the lot or parcel, the
relationship of existing and proposed
buildings to surrounding uses, the need to
preserve light and air for the residents of the
development and residents of surrounding
properties, and any other factors relevant to
the height or setback of the building. The
proposed building height and the proposed
setbacks must substantially conform to the
(c)
recommendations of an approved and
more than 10 percent of the gross floor area or
purchase an easement, or if the amount of
adopted master plan or sector plan.
7,500 square feet or construction of a new
density to be attributed to BLT easement is
building must comply with the standards of the
a fraction of the applicable floor area
TMX Zone.
equivalent, the Planning Board must
59-C-14.30. Special regulations for use of a
require the applicant to pay the Agricultural
Buildable Lot Termination (BLT) Development
Land Preservation Fund an amount equal
Right.
to the average annual market rent for class
Transfer of public use space, density, and
mix of uses. The Planning Board may
approve the transfer of density, the mix of
uses, and the public use space, between
parcels classified in the TMX zone in the
same transit station development area. The
(a)
transfer of density must not result in an
increase of density or height on parcels that
abut or confront properties recommended
for one-family residential development by
an approved and adopted master plan or
sector plan. Any transfer of public use
space, density, or mix of uses must not
result in a change in the total combined
amount of public use space, density, or mix
of uses otherwise attributable to the
(b)
A office space or multi-family residential
maximum allowed under the standard
space in the applicable master or sector
method of development, as recommended
plan area for the amount of floor area
in the applicable master or sector plan,
required to be supported by buildable rights
must be supported through the purchase by
termination.
the applicant of a BLT or through a
59-C-14.31. Development approval procedures
contribution to the Agricultural Land
under the standard and optional method of
Preservation Fund under Chapter 2B for
development.
purchase of an easement on real property to
(a)
be approved as part of a combined project
plan for all relevant parcels under Section
determined at subdivision or at site plan if
One BLT must be required for 9,000 square
subdivision is not required.
(b)
In the optional method, APF validity will be
feet of non-residential space for the amount
determined at the time of project plan if
of floor area supported through the
subdivision is not required.
purchase of BLTs .
(c)
In the standard method, APF validity will be
preserve agricultural land in the County.
feet of residential space, and 7,500 square
relevant parcels , and such transfers must
59-D-2 and Section 59-D-3.
12.5 percent of any floor area above the
A BLT must be created, transferred and
(c)
Under both standard and optional method, if
subdivision is not required, the applicant
59-C-14.29. Existing buildings and uses.
extinguished only by means of a recordable
Any lawful structure, building or established use
easement in perpetuity approved by the
that existed before the applicable Section Map
Planning Board, including appropriate
Amendment adoption date, is a conforming
releases. The BLT easement must
proposed development:
structure or use and may be continued,
extinguish the right to construct a dwelling
structurally altered, repaired, renovated, or
(1) satisfies the provisions of this chapter;
unit on each 25 acres in the RDT zone
enlarged up to 10 percent of the gross building
(2) substantially conforms to any numeric
subject to the easement.
limits recommended in the applicable
If the applicant for optional method of
master or sector plan concerning floor
development under the TMX zone cannot
area ratio, dwelling units per acre,
floor area or 7,500 square feet, whichever is less.
However, any enlargement of the building that is
(d)
must record a plat under Sec. 50-35A.
(d)
The Planning Board must find that the
building heights, and setbacks; and is in
recommendations of the applicable
59-C-14.1. Zone permitted.
master or sector plan; and
The TMX zone is permitted only in a Transit Station
desirable relationship among individual
encouraging designs that produce a
buildings, the circulation system, public
zone and its identifying symbol is as follows:
spaces, and adjacent areas, and that
surrounding existing development, and
TMX-2---Transit Mixed-Use, 2
foster use of non-auto forms of
anticipated future development.
S EC . 59-C-14.2. T RANSIT M IXED -U SE (TMX)
transportation, including pedestrian,
development.
In making the determination as to the final
density, the Planning Board must consider
whether the proposal:
(d)
(3)
Development Area. The Transit Station Mixed-Use
the standard and optional method of
(c)
standards; and
compatible with site conditions,
59-C-14.32. Development standards applicable to
(b)
providing flexible development
DIVISION 59-C-14. TRANSIT MIXED-USE (TMX) ZONE
(3) achieves a desirable development
(a)
(2)
substantial conformance with the
Z ONE .
bicycle, and public transit.
59-C-14.21. Description, purpose, and general
(b)
Encourage land assembly.
requirements
(c)
Provide a variety of housing opportunities.
59-C-14.211. Description.
(d)
Promote the effective use of transit facilities.
All of the references to the TMX zone in Chapter
(e)
Provide for building lot terminations (BLTs).
59 apply to the TMX-2 zone. The TMX zone must
59-C-14.213. General requirements
be recommended in a master or sector plan. The
(a)
Master plan or sector plan conformance.
substantially conforms to any numeric limits
zone permits moderate through intensive mixed-
Development under the TMX zone must be
recommended in the applicable master or
use development in a Transit Station Development
consistent with the recommendations of the
sector plan concerning floor area ratio,
Area. The zone establishes densities, land uses,
applicable master or sector plan.
dwelling units per acre, building heights,
and standards for the standard and optional
and setbacks; and substantially conforms
methods of development.
uses are included in a development,
with the recommendations in the applicable
59-C-14.212. Purpose.
Moderately Priced Dwelling Units must be
approved master or sector plan;
The purposes of the TMX zone are to:
provided under Chapter 25A, and workforce
preserves environmentally sensitive and
(a)
(b)
MPDUs and workforce housing. If residential
Implement the recommendations of
housing units must be provided under
priority forest areas, and mitigates
approved and adopted master or sector
Section 59-A-6.18 and Chapter 25B. The
unavoidable impacts on the natural
plans for Transit Station Development Areas
maximum residential FAR may be increased
environment;
by:
in proportion to any MPDU density bonus and
facilitates good transit serviceability and
(1)
facilitating mixed-use development with
workforce housing units provided on-site.
creates a desirable and safe pedestrian
a compatible network of
Site plan review under section 59-D-3 is
environment; and
interconnecting streets, open squares,
is compatible with surrounding land uses
plazas, and civic and community
59-C-14.214. Off-street parking. Off-street
and promotes harmonious development of
oriented uses;
parking must satisfy Article 59-E except:
required.
the planning area.]]
(a)
(b)
the minimum number of parking spaces for
Standard Method of Development: The
Planning Board, to implement the
every residential unit, without regard to the
standard method requires compliance with a
applicable master or sector plan.
number of bedrooms in each unit, is 1 space
specific set of development standards and
for every market rate unit and .5 space for
permits a range of uses and a density
every MPDU and workforce housing unit;
compatible with these standards. Site Plan
the minimum number of parking spaces
is required under Section 59-D-3. If
required for office development in the
streetscaping on the right-of-way
Southern Area must be used to determine
immediately fronting the development is
the minimum number of spaces required for
needed, then development may only be
office development in the South Central Area;
approved on the condition that the
however, for office space under a lease to
development will provide that streetscaping.
any government agency or entity for a
duration of 20 years or more, the minimum
number of spaces required is 1.5 spaces for
(c)
(a)
(b)
Optional Method of Development:
(1) Under the optional method, greater
every 1,000 square feet of gross floor area;
densities may be permitted and there
and
are fewer specific standards, but
the minimum number of parking spaces
additional public facilities and
required for general retail and restaurant use
amenities must be provided by the
is 4 spaces for every 1,000 square feet of
developer. The procedure for the
gross leasable area, if less than 20 percent
approval of an optional method of
of the leasable area is devoted to restaurant
development project is under Section
use.
59-D-2. Site plan review is required
59-C-14.215. Location.
under Section 59-D-3. Site plans
Land classified in the TMX zone must be located in
submitted for optional method projects
a Transit Station Development Area.
must be consistent with general design
59-C-14.22. Methods of development. Two
principles recommended by the
methods of development are available under the
applicable master or sector plan, and
TMX zone.
design guidelines adopted by the
(2) Projects that are subject to subdivision
under Chapter 50 have the option of
submitting a Division 59-D-2 Project
Plan. If the applicant chooses not to
submit a Project Plan, the Planning
Board must find that the proposed
subdivision will satisfy the standards of
59-D-2.42 and 59-D-2.43 in order to
approve the preliminary plan of
subdivision.
59-C-14.23. Land uses.
No use is allowed except as indicated below:
-Permitted Uses. Uses designated by the letter "P"
are permitted, subject to all applicable regulations.
-Special Exception Uses. Uses designated by the
letters "SE" may be authorized as special
exceptions under Article 59-G.
TMX L AND U SES
(a)
Residential:
Dwellings.
P
TMX L AND U SES
(b)
(c)
Group home, small.
P
Group home, large.
P
Hotel or motel.
P
Housing and related facilities for senior adults or persons with disabilities.
P
Life care facility.
P
Personal living quarters.
P
Transportation, communication, and utilities:
Bus terminal, non-public.
P
Parking garages, automobile.
P
Public utility buildings, structures, and underground facilities.
P
Radio and television broadcasting studio.
P
Rooftop mounted antennas and related unmanned equipment building, equipment cabinet, or equipment room.
P
Taxicab stand, not including storage while not in use.
P
Commercial:
Antique shops, handicrafts or art sales and supplies.
P
Appliance store.
P
Automobile sales, indoors and outdoors.
P
Automobile sales, retail showroom.
P
Book store.
P
Convenience food and beverage store, without fuel sales.
P
Department stores.
P
Drug store.
P
Eating and drinking establishment, excluding drive-in.
P
Florist shop.
P
Furniture store, carpet, or related furnishing sales or service.
P
Gift shop.
P
Grocery store.
P
Hardware store.
P
Office supply store.
P
TMX L AND U SES
(d)
Office, general.
P
Office, professional including banks and financial institutions (excluding check cashing stores).
P
Offices for companies principally engaged in health services, research and development.
P
Newsstand.
P
Photographic and art supply store.
P
Pet sales and supply store.
P
Specialty shop.
P
Services:
Adult foster care homes.
P
Ambulance or rescue squad, public supported.
P
Animal boarding place.
SE
Art, music, and photographic studios.
P
Automobile filling station.
P
Automobile rental services, excluding automobile storage and supplies.
P
Automobile repair and service.
P
Barber and beauty shop.
P
Charitable and philanthropic institutions.
P
Clinic.
P
Child daycare facility.
- Family day care.
P
- Group day care.
P
- Child day care center.
P
Daycare facility for not more than 4 senior adults and persons with disabilities.
P
Domiciliary care for no more than 16 senior adults.
P
Dry cleaning and laundry pick-up station.
P
Duplicating services.
P
Educational, private institution.
P
Home occupation, no impact.
P
Home occupation, registered.
P
TMX L AND U SES
(e)
Home occupation, major.
SE
Hospice care facility.
P
Hospitals, veterinary.
SE
International public organization.
P
Place of worship.
P
Publicly owned or publicly operated uses.
P
Shoe repair shop.
P
Tailoring or dressmaking shop.
P
Universities and colleges teaching and research facilities.
P
Research and Development and Biotechnology
Laboratories.
P
Advanced Technology and Biotechnology.
P
Manufacturing, compounding, processing, or packaging of cosmetics, drugs, perfumes, pharmaceuticals, toiletries, and products
P
resulting from biotechnical and biogenetic research and development.
(f)
(g)
Manufacturing and assembly of medical, scientific, or technical instruments, devices, and equipment.
P
Research, development, and related activities.
P
Cultural, entertainment and recreational:
Auditoriums or convention halls.
P
Billiard parlor.
P
Bowling alley.
P
Health clubs and gyms.
P
Libraries and museums.
P
Park and playgrounds.
P
Private clubs and service organizations.
P
Recreational or entertainment establishments, commercial.
P
Theater, indoor.
P
Theater, legitimate.
P
Miscellaneous uses
Accessory buildings and uses.
P
59-C-14.24. Development standards.
Standard method and optional method of development projects must satisfy the following development standards.
TMX-2
Standard
59-C-14.241. Minimum net lot area required
Optional
Special Provisions
18,000
A lot smaller than 18,000 s.f. may be approved if it abuts or confronts another
for any development (in square feet):
lot classified in or recommended for TMX zone, and the combined lots are
subject to a single project plan.
59-C-14.242. Maximum Building Coverage
75
(percent of net lot area):
59-C-14.243. Minimum Public Use Space
Determined at
project plan
10
20
(percent of net lot area):
The required public use space for a standard method project may be reduced
to 5% if the Planning Board finds that the reduction is necessary to
accommodate the construction of MPDU‘s, including any bonus units, on-site.
59-C-14.244. Maximum Building Height (in
42
Determined at
feet):
project plan
- If adjoining or confronting lot is
Determined at
recommended for or in a residential zone
35
See Section 59-C-14.26
project plan
with a maximum of 15 dwelling units per acre
or less
59-C-14.245. Minimum Setbacks (in feet):
Determined at
project plan
- From an adjacent building on a separate lot
15
Determined at
[[No]] A setback is not required for any building if the proposed building [[or
project plan
the]] and any building on an abutting lot has no windows or apertures facing
the lot line. The setback must be 15 feet in the optional method if the
proposed building or [[the]] any building on an abutting lot has windows or
apertures facing the lot line that provide light, access, or ventilation to a
habitable space.
- From an adjacent commercial or industrial
20
zone
- From an adjacent single family residential
25
25
zone
- From a public right-of-way
10
TMX-2
59-C-14.246. Maximum Density of
Standard
Optional
Special Provisions
0.5
2
The maximum residential FAR may be increased in proportion to any MPDU
Development (floor area ratio):
59-C-14.246 BLT Requirement:
density bonus and workforce housing units provided on-site.
12.5% of any
See Section 59-C-14.28
density above
0.5 FAR
59-C-14.25. Additional provisions for optional
(3) Buildings should be sited to
(a)
authorize a payment instead of all or some of
method of development projects.
minimize the impact of shadows
the required public facilities and amenities,
(a) In approving an optional method project, the
on single family neighborhoods
or any required public use space; or
Planning Board must find that the project
meets the requirements of Section 59-D-2.
outside the TMX zone;
(4) Building heights may be
The Planning Board must also find, in the
adjusted to avoid or minimize
context of development in the Transit Station
environmental impacts; and
Development Area or on the site of the
(5) The project meets all standards
(b)
permit any required public use space to be
provided off-site in the same Transit Station
Development Area.
59-C-14.252. Transfer of Density. The Planning
Board may approve an optional method of
application, that the project satisfies the
and requirements of the TMX
development project for two or more TMX-zoned
following criteria:
zone.
parcels in the same Transit Station Development
(1) Density and building height
should generally decrease as
the distance from a transit
facility increases;
(2) Density and building height
should generally be lower as the
distance to single family homes
Area that are not adjacent to each other, but when
59-C-14.251. Public facilities and amenities or
combined, total gross tract area is a minimum of
public use space. The presence of certain public
18,000 square feet. A transfer of density may also
facilities and amenities is intended to create an
be approved when the combined gross tract area
environment capable of supporting the greater
is less than 18,000 square feet if it is
densities and intensities of development. The
recommended in an approved and adopted
Planning Board may, under Division 59-D-2.31:
master plan or sector plan. The project must
decreases;
comply with Section 59-C-6.2355; however, if an
approved and adopted master plan or sector plan
recommends open space or recommends that less
(c)
Development under a preliminary plan
space, or for each 7,500 square feet of non-
than the standard method of development density
approved before adoption of the applicable
residential space. The BLT requirement does
be retained on the site transferring density, then
Sectional Map Amendment remains valid,
not apply to residential development in areas
the maximum gross square feet of future
and construction may proceed subject to
subject to the workforce housing program
development on the site transferring density may
applicable approvals. A preliminary plan
be reduced below the standard method of
approved before adoption of the applicable
development density consistent with the
Sectional Map Amendment may be amended
development under the TMX zone cannot
recommendations of the master plan or sector
after the adoption of the applicable Sectional
purchase an easement, or if the amount of
plan. Any transfer of density must satisfy the
Map Amendment under the standards of the
density to be attributed to BLT easement is a
approval requirements of Section 59-D-2.42(g).
previous zone or under the TMX zone
fraction of the applicable floor area
59-C-14.26. Existing buildings and uses.
standards.
equivalent, the Planning Board must require
(a)
(b)
under Section 59-A-6.18 and Chapter 25B.
(b)
Any lawful structure, building, or established
If the applicant for optional method of
the applicant to pay the Agricultural Land
use that existed before the applicable
59-C-14.27. Special regulations for use of a
Preservation Fund an amount set annually by
Sectional Map Amendment adoption date is
Building Lot Termination (BLT) Development Right.
Executive Regulation.
a conforming structure or use, and may be
Except for residential development subject to the
*
continued, structurally altered, repaired,
requirement of workforce housing under Section
Sec. 3. Article 59-D is amended as follows:
renovated, or enlarged up to 10 percent of
59-A-6.18, the approval of an application for any
the gross building floor area or 7,500 square
gross floor area in an optional method of
feet, whichever is less. However, any
development project must be subject to the
enlargement of the building that is more than
following requirements:
10 percent of the gross floor area or 7,500
(a)
12.5 percent of any floor area above the
square feet of construction of a new building
maximum allowed under the standard
must comply with the standards of the TMX
method of development, as recommended in
Zone.
the applicable master or sector plan, must be
In the TS-R and TS-M zones, development
supported through the purchase by the
under a development plan approved before
applicant of a BLT easement or through a
adoption of the applicable Sectional Map
contribution to the Agricultural Land
Amendment remains valid, and construction
Preservation Fund under Chapter 2B, for
may proceed subject to applicable approvals.
purchase of a BLT easement on real property
Any increase in density above the approved
to preserve agricultural land in the County.
development plan limit must be subject to
One Buildable RDT lot must be extinguished
the standards of the TMX zone.
for each 9,000 square feet of residential
*
*
ARTICLE 59-D. ZONING DISTRICTS—APPROVAL
PROCEDURES.
INTRODUCTION
*
*
*
The following table is provided for the convenience
of the public, citing the appropriate sections of
article 59-C and indicating the types of plans
required in each zone. In the event of any conflict
between this table and the provisions of article 59C, the latter must govern.
Plan Approvals Required
Zone
Section Number
Development Plan
Project Plan Optional
Site Plan (Division 59-
Diagrammatic Plan
(Division 59-D-1)
Method (Division 59-D-
D-3)
(Division 59-D-4)
2)
* * *
Standard Method
* * *
TMX-2
X
* * *
Optional Method
* * *
TMX-2
X*
X
*Projects that require subdivision plan approval are required to satisfy §59-C-14.23(b)(2).
*
*
*
Sec. 3. Division 59-D-2 is amended as follows:
The Planning Board is authorized to approve
TMX-Transit Mixed-Use
* * *
development under the optional method of
[TOMX-1-Transit Oriented Mixed-Use, 1.0]
Division 59-D-2. Project plan for optional method
development procedures described in Section 59-
* * *
of development in CBD, TOMX, TMX, AND RMX
C-6.2 of the CBD zones, Section 59-C-10 of the
[TOMX-1/TDR-Transit Oriented Mixed-
ZONES.
RMX [[Zones]] zones, Section 59-C-13 of the
Use/Transferable Development Rights, 1.0]
TOMX [[Zones]] zones, Section 59-C-14 of the
Sec. 59-D-2.0. Zones enumerated.
TMX zone, and the approval procedure set forth in
* * *
this Division, for the following zones:
* * *
Sec. 4. Effective date. This ordinance becomes
This is a correct copy of Council action.
effective 20 days after the date of Council
________________________________
adoption.
Linda M. Lauer, Clerk of the Council
THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION
8787 Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
www.MontgomeryPlanning.org

Untitled - Montgomery County Planning Department

Transcription

Similar documents

November 2015

PDF - Bryn Mawr Film Institute

Layout 1-10 - Chestnut Hill Local

Shelby County Republican Women`s Club

September 2015

News in Germantown - Germantown Newspapers

feast of st. bartholomew - St. George`s Episcopal Church

Nardi Brochure Large 09-12-07

16-022890 (Unknown)