Hillmead Divided Over Plan For Land
Some Residents Say Homes May Harm Wetlands

By Miranda S. Spivack
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 30, 2006

For Phyllis T. Piotrow, a retired college professor, the sloping, tree-shrouded lot in Bethesda's Hillmead neighborhood is her retirement nest egg. She wants to sell her property -- about an acre and a third off Bradley Boulevard -- to a developer who plans to build four luxury homes.

For Sue Ghosh Stricklett and Harriet Kuhn, two of Piotrow's neighbors, the land would be a perfect addition to the neighborhood park that abuts it. They say the property is unsuitable for development because at least part of it sits on a flood plain and may include wetlands, which are by law supposed to be protected.

Those claims were initially dismissed by the planning staff when the case came to the Planning Board in May. But Piotrow and her attorney, Steven A. Robins, who hired more experts to investigate those claims, now acknowledge that some of the neighbors' assertions were correct. There is, they agree, a flood plain on at least part of the property, but they do not believe it is in the sections slated for development.

Today, Montgomery County's Planning Board is slated to discuss, and likely vote on, whether Piotrow should be allowed to proceed with her plans, which have been on hold for more than six months. The Planning Board, a five-member panel appointed by the County Council, usually is required to evaluate developments that involve subdividing property, and so even though the land is Piotrow's, it is subject to county, state and federal land-use regulations.

The planning staff has acknowledged that some of Kuhn and Stricklett's concerns were well founded but said they have been addressed by Piotrow and her team of experts. The staff recommends that the Planning Board approve the development.

"We committed to address each and every technical issue that was raised, and that is exactly what we have done," Robins said in an interview this week. Now that the flood plain has been identified (though on less land than the neighborhood activists assert), that portion of the property will be left undeveloped, he said. The development also will include a buffer to protect the park and its trees.

Like so many neighborhood disputes that come to the Planning Board, the debate has become extremely heated. The neighborhood association has dissociated itself from the complaints of Kuhn and Stricklett.

"If they are hiding something or if Phyllis is really not doing something, then share it with the rest of us and we can figure out who is right and who is wrong," said Alana Dzurek, president of the Hillmead Citizens Association. She said several neighbors plan to attend the hearing to support Piotrow.

Kuhn and Stricklett in turn point out that until recently, the association was headed by a resident who sells houses in the neighborhood and may have a vested interest in seeing more development nearby.

Kuhn and Stricklett assert that the maps Piotrow's experts showed the Planning Board were inaccurate the first time around, and that some of the documents she is now submitting do not accurately depict the property, the flood plain and the sizes of trees. Robins said the documents are correct.

Planners usually rely on maps and other documents from property owners and developers seeking approvals and assume they are accurate because most are certified by licensed professionals.

Kuhn and Stricklett initially lodged their complaints at the May hearing, and they asserted that the planning staff had done little to ensure the proposal was accurately submitted. The issue was raised during a sensitive time in the annals of Montgomery County's planning agency. Then-Chairman Derick P. Berlage, stung by critics who said he was a weak leader and had helped foster a lax regulatory atmosphere that led to building irregularities at Clarksburg Town Center, was still hoping to be appointed to a second four-year term. After hearing Kuhn and Stricklett's claims, Berlage ordered a probe by the agency's attorneys and delayed a decision on Piotrow's petition. (Berlage eventually decided to step aside and did not seek reappointment.)

That probe was conducted by Robert J. Hickey, an auditor for the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, the parent agency for the Montgomery County Department of Park and Planning. He found no intentional wrongdoing.

"Our investigation found that while most of the allegations contain factual information, when these facts are placed in the overall development review context, there is no evidence that there has been a deliberate effort to evade the law or break the law by any . . . staff member," the report said.

"Moreover, we conclude that a number of the inadequacies in the development review process that the citizens encountered have been previously identified in a recent management commission independent study as systemic problems that need to be improved."

Kuhn and Stricklett say the internal investigation is incomplete.

"The burden is not on us to prove they are messing up. We should not have to spend money and time to prove there are violations," Stricklett said. "The burden is on them to do it right in the first place. They are the public trustee."

If the property is compelled to meet all regulations it should meet, she said, it should be divided only into two lots. Otherwise, the development will be built on a flood plain and will lead to the destruction of several large trees that county rules protect, she said.

In a 70-page staff report about the case submitted to the Planning Board, staff member Richard Weaver acknowledged deficiencies in the planning agency's initial evaluation of the proposal.

"The previous staff review of this application was deficient in its analysis of the development's impact to and the protection of steep slopes. The previous review also failed to document the existence of a . . . floodplain affecting one of the proposed lots," Weaver said. He said revised plans submitted by Piotrow's team have taken care of those concerns.