Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council presses county on GEICO site, says binding elements should limit redevelopment
Summary
Council member John Conlow told residents the village has sued over how the GEICO site will be redeveloped and approved a letter to the Montgomery County Planning Board objecting to preliminary sector-plan recommendations that would allow taller buildings than past binding elements permitted.
A long-running dispute over the future of the GEICO parcel was a central focus of the Friendship Heights Village Council meeting, where council member John Conlow summarized the village's legal stance and urged the county planning board to address the village's written objections.
Conlow recounted a 1998 set of "binding elements" that, he said, constrain what can be built on the site and were intended to protect surrounding neighborhoods. "That set of binding elements which exists in perpetuity according to its terms..." Conlow said, arguing that a developer, EYA, has advanced preliminary plans inconsistent with those elements. He said EYA has responded in filings asserting the binding elements do not apply for several reasons; the village disagrees and has filed suit to preserve the binding elements' force.
Council members and residents also raised environmental concerns about demolition and potential asbestos remediation; Conlow said county and state environmental agencies and permitting divisions have been notified and are overseeing the process. He described debris observed during demolition and said the village's litigation concerns are about what follows demolition rather than the act of demolition itself.
The council unanimously approved sending a letter to the Montgomery County Planning Board documenting the village's objections to preliminary sector-plan recommendations that would allow ten- to fifteen-story high-rises on parcels the village says should remain low- or mid-rise. Council members debated whether to add explicit language opposing both "mid-rise" and "high-rise" proposals and directed Conlow to revise the letter for prompt distribution if necessary. Conlow also announced a rally organized by neighbors and said a filing response in the lawsuit was due on June 18.
Next steps: the planning board's upcoming recommendations and any replies to the village's letter will determine whether the village pursues an appeal to the County Council or continues litigation.
