Twinbrook plan held for revisions

Rockville Planning Commission said divided community needs more time to work on document

The Twinbrook community has been divided over elements of the draft plan since before the advisory group that wrote the plan narrowly approved it late last year.

Opponents of the proposed revisions to the 20-year neighborhood planning document have pushed for a pause in the city’s approval process, saying they do not know what they are getting until zoning terms included in the plan are defined by the Rockville Zoning Ordinance Review (RORZOR) Committee. RORZOR is undertaking a citywide zoning review.

Leaders of the Twinbrook Citizens Association and Burgundy Estates Civic Association have recommended deferring consideration of the neighborhood plan until RORZOR completes its work on mixed-use and floating zones.

Many plan opponents speaking at the public hearing agreed.

‘‘The lack of clear definition is going to be an unbelievable temptation to developers,” Twinbrook resident Deborah Schmiel said.

William Neil, who rents in Twinbrook, wanted specific development densities better outlined.

‘‘We don’t have numbers or even ranges about what you’re envisioning with this tremendous flexibility that you’re handing the developers through these fl zones and overlay zone concepts,” Neil said. ‘‘If you’re really for mixed use and higher density as a way to reduce traffic, stop global warming, enrich life, meaning you’re going to bring shopping, work and home closer together, then don’t be defensive about what you’re pushing. Put numbers on it.”

Supporters of the plan asked the commission to move forward, saying the public has had ample opportunity to weigh in after two years of planning.

The plan is a good guide for what Twinbrook should look like in the face of development that will inevitably occur, said Cambridge Walk I Housing Association President Tracy Pakulniewicz-Chidiac.

‘‘I would not want to hold my community hostage, to fall behind the trends, thereby making my neighborhood less appealing,” she added.

Support from Pakulniewicz-Chidiac and Joseph McClane, president of Cambridge Walk II Homeowners Association, illustrates the division in the Twinbrook community about the plan.

Cambridge Walk is located on the southern edge of the Twinbrook community, adjacent to the Metro station.

Disagreement exists within the Twinbrook Citizen’s Association itself. John Tyner and Harry W. Thomas, both former association presidents, support the plan, while current President Christina Ginsberg is arguably its most visible opponent.

‘‘This plan has problems,” Ginsberg said during the public hearing.

Even the City Council is split about Twinbrook’s draft plan.

Mayor Larry Giammo and Councilwoman Susan R. Hoffmann contend the plan is meant to be a vision of the neighborhood’s future and should move forward before the lengthy RORZOR process is completed.

But Councilwoman Phyllis R. Marcuccio has questioned the wisdom of approving a plan that includes undefined terms.

Marcuccio, Councilwoman Anne M. Robbins and Councilman Robert E. Dorsey sided with opponents of the plan earlier this month, voting to recommend delaying the Planning Commission’s Feb. 21 public hearing.

Giammo was absent from the vote. Hoffmann abstained, saying later there is a great deal of misunderstanding about the plan.

The council’s unusual recommendation left the Planning Commission to consider if it should even hold the public hearing last week.

The commissioners all expressed interest in hearing objections to the plan firsthand and agreed to go forward with public input.

The conflicting testimony they subsequently heard appeared to leave them with one clear impression the impression — the community is far from agreement.

‘‘I think there is a gap in the detail or the vision of the residents in this plan,” Commissioner David Hill said.

‘‘It does need a lot more work,” Commissioner John Britton said. ‘‘There are a lot of gaps in it.”

The chair agreed.

‘‘It’s pretty clear that the neighborhood needs to get together,” Johnson said.

Staff is directed to check with civic and homeowners associations before returning to the commission on March 28 with an organizational plan to revise the draft.

The idea is to increase the breadth of community participation.

It is unclear what role the draft advisory group, which had gone from 22 active members in March 2005 to eight when the vote on the plan was taken late last year, will play.