Attendees Voice Divided Opinions at Sector Plan Hearing
The County Council heard from supporters and opponents of the proposed plan for Kensington.
Photos
Pdfs
Supporters and opponents of Kensington's sector plan voiced their opinions at a County Council public hearing last night, debating whether the majority of residents support the plan's vision for the town.
About 30 people testified before the Council in its Rockville chambers, some praising the plan, some proposing slight changes to density and zoning, and some saying it should be scrapped outright. Earlier in the day, the Council passed new zoning designations that would be used in the plan.
Claudia Caplan, who lives in Kensington, said the town is one of the only small communities left downcounty, and that the plan would transform it into yet another urban center.
"I want to live in Kensington, not Kentlands," she said. "I’ve seen the destruction of downtown Silver Spring and downtown Bethesda, and I don’t want that in Kensington."
Former Kensington Town Council candidate Julie O'Malley said that most town residents support aspects of the plan, but that the residential densities it allows don't fit the spirit of the community. She brought to the meeting a petition, signed by 530 residents, asking the Council to scale back the plan's proposed densities and building heights.
The proposed plan allows for buildings as tall as 75 feet along Connecticut Avenue, and O'Malley suggested the limit be lowered to 45 feet.
"Kensington was just named the No. 2 perfect suburb by CNBC," O'Malley said. "How much do we want to mess with success?"
But supporters argued that the plan has the backing of the majority of Kensingtonians, and Mayor Peter Fosselman pointed out that, in the town's June election, the two pro-sector plan Council candidates beat their opponents who favored slower growth.
Sharon Scott, a former member of the Town Council, said the election results speak volumes about the plan's support in the community.
"The election was a referendum on the sector plan," she said. "The people who voted chose to support the sector plan by the candidates they elected."
Town Councilwoman Lydia Sullivan pointed out that Barry Peoples, who opposes the plan, lost his Council race by only 56 votes, and said that there are many in the town who believe the plan is too far-reaching.
But Sullivan said the plan doesn't need to be thrown out — just scaled back.
"It’s a flawed but fixable document," she said. "With a few tweaks, Kensington could be a successful example of what the county did right."
The Council took no legislative action at the hearing and will later hold a work session on the plan, which has yet to be scheduled, according to the Council office.
Do you support the sector plan? Vote in our poll below and let us know why or why not in the comments section.
Correction: An earlier version of this story misidentified Julie O'Malley. The sentence has been fixed.
Judy Higgins
6:37 am on Thursday, October 13, 2011
Sharon Scott, a former member of the Town Council, said the election results speak volumes about the plan's support in the community.
"The election was a referendum on the sector plan," she said. "The people who voted chose to support the sector plan by the candidates they elected."
The problem is: The planning area includes more residents than those voters in the 'incorporated Town of Kensington' and many residents in the surrounding Kensington neighborhoods feel largely uniformed or involved, yet will be greatly impacted. Let's get it right, the TOK is only a percentage of the area slated for redevelopment and those elected officials do not represent all...
Jerry
9:52 am on Thursday, October 13, 2011
Claudia Caplan hit a resonant chord when she compared the prospects for Kensington with the transformation of the town centers for Bethesda and Silver Spring into urban behemoths. As a County resident since 1954, I've lived in both of those locations and thankfully fled to a more rural area of the County. One has to ask, Who benefits from such transformations? The obvious answer is the greedy developers who construct them and lease commercial properties, and perhaps the County officials who get too cozy with those developers and receive massive support from them for election campaigns. I've never heard one longtime resident sing the praises of urbanization. To the contrary, urban areas are never self sustaining with respect to infrastructure, and as a result, the rest of us get hit with higher taxes to support them.
Al Veerhoff
9:45 pm on Thursday, October 13, 2011
Am I to understand that, if adopted, his new sector plan will unleash a ravenous herd of greedy developers out to defile Kensington? Bear in mind that the development plans for Bethesda and Silver Spring were intended to do what they did -- intensify an urban core while leaving untouched the residential areas outside that core. That is not the plan for Kensington. Also, the proposal for Kensington is in many places more restrictive than the existing plan.
I don't know what urban areas should have for them to be "self-sustaining." Farms, artesian wells, neighborhood power and sewer plants, bicycle racks, schools as well as stores and offices within high high-rises, mints for making money? Since the first ones were established about 10,000 years ago, cities have never been able to "sustain" themselves within their boundaries. Their principal functions were to provide safe (and later, healthy) places to live and to encourage commerce.