Agenda Item 5
March 2, 2010
Action
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
County Council
Michael Faden, Senior Legislative Attorney
Glenn Orlin, Deputy Council Staff Director
Action:
Expedited Bill 3-10, Streets and roads
requirement
SUBJECT:
Sidewalks
Public hearing
Transportation,
Infrastructure,
Energy
and
Environment
Committee
recommendation
(2-1,
Councilmember Berliner dissenting): enact with amendments.
Expedited Bill 3-10, Streets and roads - Sidewalks
Public hearing requirement,
sponsored by Council President Floreen, Council member Leventhal, Councilmember Berliner,
and Council Vice President Ervin, was introduced on January 19, 2010. Councilmember
Berliner later withdrew his sponsorship. A public hearing was held on February 9 and a
Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment Committee worksession was held on
February 18.
Summarylbackground
Bill 3-10 would waive the required public hearing under certain circumstances before
certain sidewalks or shared use paths are approved. Its purpose is to expedite the administrative
approval process to allow quicker construction of sidewalks and hiker-biker paths that are
noncontroversial, have substantial community support, would be placed entirely in the public
right-of-way, and don't require a detailed engineering design.
The Transportation,
Infrastructure, Energy, and Environment Committee considered this issue on December 7 and
assigned Council staff to draft this bill.
Councilmember Ervin originally asked the Committee to explore means to expedite the
decision-making process regarding sidewalks built under the Annual Sidewalk Program. She
noted concerns raised by residents about how long this process has taken, and she encouraged
expediting the process in order to deliver these sidewalks more quickly.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
The
Annual Sidewalk Program
is a capital project which funds the design and
construction of smaller, simpler sidewalks, primarily in residential neighborhoods. The Council
programmed $13.3 million for this project in the FY09-14 CIP period, $2.55 million in FYlO
alone. The sidewalk projects that either have had or are awaiting a public hearing are on ©14­
15, and those either under investigation or pending investigation are on ©8-13.
The Annual Sidewalk Program is not the only capital project that funds sidewalks. Some
sidewalk projects are sufficiently complex and costly to warrant their own project description
forms: Dale Drive ($4.9 million); Greentree Road ($3.3 million); US 29 ($5.6 million); plus
several others currently in facility planning. In addition some hiker-biker trails double as
sidewalks and bikeways, and sidewalks are built as part of projects that build or widen roads.
However, as a result of their cost and complexity, these other sidewalks receive a public and
Council review commensurate with their scope. The question is whether the law requires too
much process for smaller, simpler sidewalks and shared use paths (hiker-biker paths)l.
Current sidewalk approval process
The County Department of Transportation's (DOT)
evaluation criteria and process, as well as its decision-making process, is described on ©7. On
©6 are timelines for two sidewalks built under the Annual Sidewalk Program, one representing
the shortest duration (88 work days, or about 18 weeks) and the second representing the longest
duration (321 days, or about 64 weeks). These timelines
do not
represent the time between the
DOT's first field visit and its decision to proceed with a sidewalk; given the time needed to work
with affected property owners, this period is not likely to be shortened. These time lines
do
represent, however, the duration between DOT's decision to proceed and when the sidewalk is
completed -- what is referred to here as the "administrative process".
These timelines are instructive in two ways. First note that the period of construction was
5 days for the simplest sidewalk and 30 days for the most complex, representing only 6% and 9%
of their respective administrative processes. Second, the public hearing portion of the
administrative process -- from the scheduling of the hearing to the receipt of the hearing officer's
recommendation -- was 70 days for the simplest sidewalk and 260 days for the most complex,
representing in both cases about 80% of the administrative process. Therefore, the public
hearing requirement is, by far, the largest contributor to the length of the administrative process.
Executive public hearing requirement
The current law (County Code §49-53) directs
the Executive to hold a public hearing before any road construction or cost assessment is
authorized. At the direction of the County Attorney about a decade ago, sidewalks and hiker­
biker paths are treated like roads under this provision. During deliberation over the road code
bill in 2007, Executive staff recommended that the Executive be required to hold a public
hearing only if a cost assessment is authorized, which historically was the reason for the legal
requirement in the first place. Because any road (or sidewalk or path) to be constructed will have
been the subject of at least one Council public hearing before it is included in a Capital
Improvements Program, Council staff concurred that another Executive hearing is unnecessary.
Staff pointed out that these hearings rarely, if ever, result in a decision not to proceed with the
project or even a material change to it. Nevertheless, when the then-President of the County
Civic Federation argued against repealing the hearing requirement as an infringement of the
lIn the rest ofthis memo, shared use paths are included in the term "sidewalks".
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
public's opportunity to comment, the Council decided not to remove the requirement for an
Executive hearing.
Alternative proposal
Rather than the 2007 proposal to repeal the hearing requirement for
all transportation projects (unless a cost assessment is involved), DOT staff proposed to exempt
only a certain sidewalk or shared use path project that is:
(1)
entirely in the County right-of-way,
and (2) either is within a school's official "walking area" or, if not, at least has the support of the
applicable civic or homeowner's association. Council staff concurred that DOT's approach
would be a reasonable compromise that would allow smaller neighborhood sidewalks and paths
to be built months sooner without a real loss of due process. At its December 7 worksession, this
Committee modified DOT's proposal by deleting the reference to schools, and directed Council
staff to draft the attached bilL
As noted in the fiscal impact statement on ©5, another advantage of this proposal is that
it would save the County money and time. DOT recently reduced its advertising costs associated
with small sidewalk projects by consolidating several hearings into one day-long set of hearings,
with an ad for each set. Nevertheless, for each public hearing an ad must appear at least twice in
each of two newspapers with a general circulation. The cost of an ad in the
Washington Post
is
$700-725, and the cost of a similar ad in
The Examiner
is $625-650. The overall advertising cost
for a large hearing, therefore, is about $2,700, or $450 per sidewalk. The more significant use of
resources, of course, is staff time consumed by these hearings: time to draft and buy the ads,
staffing the hearings, and the hearing officer's time to write a report on each sidewalk.
The cost and staff time for these hearings would be worthwhile if they were meaningful
means for public input. But nearly all those who testify at these hearings -- when any persons do
testify -- are affected property owners with whom DOT has already engaged. Whether they
support the project as designed or oppose all or some aspect of it, those testifying generally have
already had sufficient communication and coordination with DOT.
Fiscal impact: savings of $38,000 plus staff time. See fiscal impact statement, ©5.
Economic impact: not discussed, but probably minimaL
Issues/Committee recommendations
How to measure community support? Bill 3-10 (see ©2, lines 4-24) would allow the
Executive to proceed without holding the required public hearing if:
• the sidewalk can be built in one or more existing public rights-of-way without a
detailed engineering design;
• significant community support is shown, either by a notice of support from a civic or
homeowners' association or other neighborhood organization, or a petition from
property owners who would be benefited by the sidewalk; and
• the Executive finds no significant issues would require a public hearing to be held.
The most controversial criterion has been the second element regarding community
support. (See selected letters, ©26-34.) DOT staff say they intend to use this provision, if it is
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
enacted, sparingly and waive the required hearing only in cases where the sidewalk is not
controversial and no germane issues have been raised. However, some civic commenters,
particularly several from the Bethesda neighborhood of Springfield, read the Bill's language
more broadly and worry that it would give Executive staff too much leeway.
The questions raised about the community support element can be broken down into:
1) What is a "substantial number of property owners", the term used on ©2, lines 10-11
and IS? Is this term quantifiable? If so, how much is enough? Should anyone's support be
mandatory (i.e. would any property owner have a veto)?
2) Which property owners' support should count? Those who would be affected by the
sidewalk, or only those actually on its route?
3) What kind of notice to neighborhood property owners, if any, should be given before
the decision to waive the hearing is made?
The Committee reviewed each of these issues:
1)
What is a "substantial number of property owners"? Is this term quantifiable?
If
so, how much is enough?
Should anyone's support be mandatory (i.e. would any
property owner have a veto)?
In the Bill as introduced, this standard applies to both the homeowners' association or
other organization which submits a letter of support, and to the petition signed by property
owners if no such letter is filed with the Executive (see ©2, lines 9-20). In Council staffs view,
the term need not be quantified further because it is part of an overall qualitative standard: is the
proposed sidewalk non-controversial? In Justice Stewart's famous phrase, this is a "you know it
when you see it" situation, where a bright-line eligibility test would not add anything.
If, however, some quantitative standard is needed, then several options exist:
• support from 100% of the immediate property owners. This was recommended
by the Civic Federation (see ©25).
It
would effectively allow a single property
owner to demand a hearing on each proposed sidewalk.
• support from 80% or a similar super-majority of the affected homeowners. This
was suggested by Bethesda resident James Coffman (see ©26-28), who likened
this "requirement to the 80% standard in current County regulations for
neighborhood approval of speed humps.
• support from a majority of the property owners on the proposed route. This was
suggested by one of the commenters on the County PTA's email string collected
by Councilmember Ervin's office (see ©37).
Council staff recommendation: retain "substantial number of property owners". If a
quantitative standard is necessary, require a show of support from a majority of the property
owners on the proposed route. (In any case, the Executive could still hold a hearing if significant
opposition or issues arise.)
4
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Committee recommendation:
require the homeowners' or civic association to include a
substantial number of owners of property located on the proposed route of the sidewalk. Require
the petition filed when no homeowners' or civic association has filed a notice of support to be
signed by a majority of owners of property on the proposed route.
2) Which property owners' support should count? Those who would be affected by
the sidewalk, or only those actually on its route?
As the last discussion indicates, one issue is which property owners should have a say in
whether a hearing must be held on each proposed sidewalk. Bill 3-10 refers to "property owners
who would be benefited by construction of the sidewalk", repeating the term used in the current
law for those properties that would be subject to an assessment for the costs' of construction?
This means the properties along the route of the sidewalk, rather than also (as some commenters
assumed) those in the surrounding neighborhood whose occupants could use the sidewalk.
The 2 options to define which property owners have a say in this decision (whether to
hold a hearing) are;
• only property owners on the proposed route; or
• also property owners in the surrounding area, who would reasonably be expected to
use the sidewalk.
Council staff recommendation:
limit this term to property owners on the proposed
route, who would lose some of their front yard and become obligated to clear snow from the
sidewalk.
Committee recommendation:
as noted in Issue
1,
limit this term to property owners on
the proposed route.
3) What kind of notice to neighborhood property owners, if any, should be given
before the decision to waive the hearing is made?
The Planning Board (see ©24) supported this Bill but recommended that the Executive
be required to notify the public of upcoming sidewalk projects for which a hearing would not be
held unless a request is made. The Board did not specify the form of notice.
As previously noted, by this point in the process DOT staff will have already reviewed
the proposed sidewalk with neighborhood residents and associations. However, assuming that
some further notice is needed, we see at least 4 options for the type of notice:
• newspaper advertisement, as when a hearing is held;
• notice published in the monthly County Register;
• County press release; or
2See, e.g., County Code §49-53(b)(6):
(b)
Each notice issued under this Section must contain:
(6)
The location of the real property that will be benefited by the construction.
However, the County has not used front-foot assessments to pay for roads or sidewalks for several decades.
*
*
*
5
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
notice mailed or delivered to each house on the proposed route.
Council staff recommendation:
publish the notice in the County Register and send a
press release to civic and homeowners' associations in the area who are on the Planning Board's
list of civic organizations. Newspaper ads cost too much, and direct mail or personal delivery
could also be costly, depending on the length of the sidewalk or path.
Committee recommendation:
require the Executive's designee to have given notice to
and met with residents of the area before the Executive finds that no significant controversy has
arisen that would require a public hearing. The form of notice is not specified.
Overall Committee recommendation:
(Councilmember Berliner dissenting).
enact
Bill
3-10
with
amendments
This packet contains:
Expedited Bill 3-10 with Committee amendments
Legislative Request Report
Fiscal impact statement
Sidewalk construction administrative process/timeline
Lists of proposed sidewalks
Planning Board recommendation
Civic Federation recommendation
Selected correspondence
Pedestrian and traffic Safety Advisory Committee letter
Circle
#
1
4
5
6
8
24
25
26
39
F:\LAW\BILLS\] 003 Streets And Roads- Sidewalks\Action Memo.Doc
6
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Expedited Bill No.
_---:3~-..:..!10~
_ __
Concerning: Streets and
roads
Sidewalks
Public
hearing
requirement
Revised:
2/18/10
Draft No. 3
Introduced:
January 19. 2010
Expires:
July 19. 2011
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Effective: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Sunset Date:
-!..:.No~n..!!:e::..._._
_ _ _ _ __
Ch. _ _, Laws of Mont. Co. _ __
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
By: Council President Floreen, [[Councilmembers]] Councilmember Leventhal [[and Berliner]],
and Council Vice President Ervin
AN EXPEDITED ACT
to:
(1)
(2)
waive the required public hearing under certain circumstances before certain
sidewalks or shared use paths are approved; and
generally amend the law governing sidewalk and shared use path approval and
construction.
By amending
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 49, Streets and Roads
Sections 49-53 and 49-54
Boldface
Underlining
[Single boldface brackets]
Double underlining
[[Double boldface brackets]]
* * *
Heading or defined term.
Added to existing law
by
original
bill.
Deletedfrom existing law
by
original
bill.
Added
by
amendment.
Deletedfrom existing law or the
bill by
amendment.
Existing law unaffected
by
hill.
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves the following Act:
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
EXPEDITED BILL
No. 3-10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Sec. 1. Sections 49-53 and 49-54 are amended as follows:
49-53.
Public hearing; notice.
*
*
@
or shared use path is constructed if:
*
A public hearing need not be held under this Section before
f!
sidewalk
ill
the sidewalk or path can be constructed entirely in one or more
existing public rights-of-way without
f!
detailed engmeenng
design;
8
9
10
11
ill
(A)
a CIVIC association, homeowner's association, or other
organization, which includes
Hproperty]]
§:
substantial number of
owners [[who would be benefited
Qy
12
construction]] of property located on the proposed route of
the sidewalk or path, has filed
f!
notice of its support for the
sidewalk or path with the Executive or
f!
designee; or
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
ill)
if no such organization has filed
f!
notice of support,
f!
petition signed
Qy
f!
[[substantial number]] majority of
[[property]]
owners [[who would be benefited
Qy
construction]] of property located on the proposed route of
the sidewalk or path has been filed with the Executive or
f!
designee; and
ill
the
Executive finds,,=after
th~
Executive's designee has gIven
notice to and met with residents of the area, that no significant
[[issues have not]] controversy has arisen that would require
f!
public hearing to be held.
49-54. Authorization of construction; recommendation of assessments to
Council.
(a)
If, after the hearing,. [provided for
in]
if any, required
Qy
Section 49-53
8-
F:\Li\W\BILLS\lO03 Streets And Roads- Sidewalks\lO03 8i113.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
EXPEDITED BILL No.
3-10
28
29
is held, the County Executive finds that the public interest requires all or
part of any road construction project under consideration to be carried
out, the Executive must authorize the road to be built as required in this
Chapter.
(b)
As soon as practicable after the Executive authorizes the road under this
Section, and after the hearing.1 if required, is held under Section 49-53,
the County Executive must forward to the County Council a written
report recommending any proposed assessments based on the estimated
cost of building the road. The report must describe the work to be done
and state, with particularity, what portion of the cost of the construction,
,
if any, should be paid by the adjacent properties and what portion, if
any, of the cost should be paid by the County under this Chapter.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
*
Sec. 2.
*
*
41
42
Expedited Effective Date.
The Council declares that this Act is necessary for the immediate protection of
the public interest. This Act takes effect on the date when
it
becomes law.
43
44
45
Approved:
Nancy Floreen, President, County Council
46
Date
Approved:
47
Isiah Leggett, County Executive
48
49
Date
This is a correct copy ofCouncil action.
Linda M. Lauer, Clerk ofthe Council
Date
0-
F:\LAW\BILLS\\003 Streets And Roads- Sidewalks\\ 003 Bill 3.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
LEGISLATIVE REQUEST REPORT
Expedited Bill 3-1 0
Streets and roads
Sidewalks
Public hearing requirement
DESCRIPTION:
Expedited Bill 3-10 would waive the required administrative public
hearing for sidewalks and hiker-biker paths that are noncontroversial,
have substantial community support, would be placed entirely in the
public right-of-way, and don't require a detailed engineering design.
The administrative approval process for smaller, simpler sidewalks
and hiker-biker paths is unnecessarily long.
To waive the administrative public hearing before certain sidewalks
and shared use paths are approved.
Department of Transportation
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be researched.
Michael Faden, Senior Legislative Attorney, 240-777-7905
Glenn Orlin, Deputy Staff Director, 240-777-7936
Applies only to County-built sidewalks and shared use paths.
PROBLEM:
GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES:
COORDINATION:
FISCAL IMPACT:
ECONOMIC
IMPACT:
EVALUATION:
EXPERIENCE
ELSEWHERE:
SOURCE OF
INFORMA TION:
APPLICATION
WITHIN
MUNICIPALITIES:
PENALTIES:
Not applicable
F:\LA w\BILLS\ 1003 Streets And Roads- Sidewalks\Legislative Request Report.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BL'DGET
Isiah Leggett
County Executive
Joseph
F.
Beach
Director
MEMORANDUM
February 9, 2010
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Nancy Floreen, President, County Council
.g.tJoseph F. Beach, Director
Council Bill 3-10, Streets and Roads-Sidewalks - Public - Hearing Requirement
8,f.d.L~
The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit a fiscal and economic impact statement
to the Council on the subject legislation.
LEGISLATION SUMMARY
The proposed bill would waive the required administrative public hearing for sidewalks
and hiker-biker paths that are non-controversial, have substantial community support, would be placed
entirely in the public right-of-way, and do not require a detailed engineering design.
FISCAL AND ECONOMIC SUMMARY
There will be no fiscal impact on County expenditures. The Department of
Transportation (DOT), through the Annual Sidewalk: CIP, will build anywhere between 20 to 30 sidewalk
projects each year. It is estimated that about half of these projects will qualifY for the public hearing
waiver. There are savings associated with this legislation, though most will not result in budgetary
savings as much as savings in staff time. The budgetary savings that can be redirected to sidewalk design
and construction would be for the cost of preparing the transcripts and advertisement. DOT will not have
to pay a transcription firm to prepare 10-15 transcripts, as well as the advertisement costs for newspaper
ads. At an average cost of $3,000 per transcript and advertisement, approximately $38,000 can be
redirected for design and construction costs. Substantial
staff
time is required to prepare and present at
public hearings. This legislation will result in fractional workyear savings that will allow staff to focus on
other tasks, and improve the implementation rate ofthese sidewalk projects.
The following contributed to and concurred with this analysis: Adam Damin, Office of
Management and Budget, and William Selby, Department of Transportation.
JFB:ad
c: Kathleen Boucher, Assistant ChiefAdministrative Officer
Dee Gonzalez, Offices of the County Executive
Arthur Holmes, Director, Department of Transportation
William Selby, Department of Transportation
John Cuff, Office of Management and Budget
Office of the Director
101 Monroe Street, 14th Floor' Rockville, Maryland 20850 • 240-777-2800
\vww.montgomerycountymd.gov
~----------~~--~--~----~~~~-------------------------
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Annual Sidewalk Program
Administrative Process
Task
Shortest
Duration
Longest
Duration
Schedule Public Hearing
Prepare Executive Order # 1 to hold PH
County Attorney review EO#I/PH
Director's Office review/approve EO#lIPH
A-CAO review/approve EO#lIPH
Send EO# 1/PH advertisements to Post/Examiner
Send notices to residents
Public Hearing advertised
Public Hearing
Record held open
Hearing officer's recommendation
Prepare Executive Order #2 for construction
County Attorney review EO#2/Construction
Director's Office review/approve EO#2/const.
A-CAO review/approve EO#2/const.
Notice sent to residents with EO#2/const.
Schedule construction/work with residents
Construct sidewalk
TOTAL
1 day
1 day
3 days
1 day
3 days
1 day
1
day
14 days
1 day
14 days
30 days
1 day
5 days
1 day
3 days
1 day
2 days
5 days
88 days
:::018 weeks
2 day
3 day
5-7 days
4-5 days
7-8 days
1 day
2 days
21 days
1 day
30 days
180 days
2 days
7-8 days
4-5 days
7-8 days
2 days
5 days*
30 days
321 days
:::064 weeks
*Duration varies depending on properties impacted and complexity of the project:
removal or relocation of trees, and landscaping, retaining walls, etc.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
EVALVATION CRITERIA
To provide safer access throughout Montgomery County for pedestrians and the handicap by retro-fitting
new sidewalks in communities and other areas that have already been developed.
Will installation of a sidewalk meet a purpose and provide a public need for the community-at-Iarge?
Is there available public right-of-way?
Can the sidewalk be constructed without engineering design?
Do associated costs fall within the program's criteria?
EVALUATION PROCESS
Evaluation:
DOT evaluates all requests and conducts an on-site investigation to determine the following factors:
Will installation of a sidewalk meet a purpose and provide a public need for the community-at-Iarge?
Is there available public right-of-way?
Can the sidewalk be constructed without engineering design?
Do associated costs fall within the program's criteria?
Notification:
DOT limits notification for a requested sidewalk project to property owners residing adjacent to the
proposed construction and to a HOA (if applicable). A letter is sentto residents with the following
information included:
• Location Map to identify the proposed project
• Construction Impacts details construction impacts to the public right-of-way for sidewalk installation
• Comments
&
Feedback Survey Form to be returned to MCDOT to address any concerns regarding
the proposed construction
FINAL DECISION
A public hearing is required by law if DOT determines that the proposed sidewalk meets the program's
criteria and appears to serve a public need.
• DOT will notify residents and HOAICA (if applicable) of the scheduled public hearing
date/time/location.
• The hearing allows citizens an opportunity to present oral and written testimony to a Public Hearing
Officer for support or opposition to the proposed project. The Hearing Officer considers all the
information presented and recommends to the County Executive whether or not the project should be
authorized for construction.
Notification to community of final decision by the Public Hearing Officer.
• DOT will promptly notify the community of the Hearing Officer's recommendation. If construction is
authorized by the County Executive, MCDOT will inform residents of the pending construction.
DOT will coordinate the sidewalk installation with property owners.
• DOT will send notification to property owners regarding the scheduled sidewalk construction.
• DOT will post notification on-site of upcoming construction.
• A construction inspector will be available on-site throughout the construction phase to resolve any
concerns that may arise with the sidewalk installation.
(j)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
PROJECTS AWAITING CONSTRUCTION
541
995
1047
Drive
Gold Mine
Road
Century
Blvd
N/A
James Creek
Court
at Gennantown
south
ALL SIDEWALK REQUESTS
295
296
297
321
325
328
329
330
331
Dayton Street
Amherst
Avenue
Plyers Mill
Road
Tuckerman
Lane
Windsor View
Drive
Query Mill
Road
Esquire Court
Derwood Road
Derwood
Street
Le VelIe Drive
New Castle St.
Linden Lane
Farmland Dr
Hitching Post
Lane
Daniel Road
Georgia
Avenue
Dayton Street
Amherst
Avenue
existing path
@Hoover
MS
Bells Mill
Road
Amherst
Avenue
Plyers Mill
Road
Georgia
Avenue
Falls Rd.
(MDI89)
Gainsborough
Pending
Pending
Pending
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Pending
Investi
Pending
Pending
Pending
363
408
409
415
416
425
Forsyth Drive
Forest Glen
Rd
Linden Lane
Old Club
Road
Farmland
Drive
WestemAve
Parallel to
Creek
Beech Dr.
Georgetown
Bike Trail
Old Stage
Road
Old Gate Road
Wyndale
Road
Pending
Investi
Pending
Pending
Pending
Pending
Pending
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
REOUEST
NO
432
446
447
448
449
517
523
530
533
STREET
NAME
Pauline Drive
Morgan Drive
Offutt Street
Madison Street
Hartsdale
Avenue
Abbey Manor
Drive
Milstead
&
Lindale Drives
rights-of-way
Windmill Lane
Spring
Meadows
Drive
Good Hope
Road
Hopefield
Road
Thompson
Road
Oakmont
Avenue
Panorama
Drive
Grande Vista
Drive
Muncaster Mill
Road
Peach Orchard
Road
Sweepstakes
Road
MD 124
FROM
3218 Pauline
Drive
4800 block
Morgan Drive
Garfield
Street
Madison
Street
Civitan Club
Place
9519-9517
Milstead
Drive
Good Hope
Drive
Darnestown
Road
Rt. 198
(Spencerville
road)
Kingshouse
Road
Peach
Orchard Road
entire length
Redland Road
Redland Road
7800
Muncaster
Mill Rd
MD198
Showbam
Circle
GueRoad
TO
3220 Pauline
Drive
STATUS
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
De Russey
Parkway
Hempstead
Street
Hempstead
Avenue
Abbey Manor
Circle
9504-9502
Lindale Drive
Windmill
Terrace
Seneca Road
Bridge@
Hopefield
Road
Good Hope
Road/existing
s/w
existing s/w
540
542
543
546
549
550
551
553
554
555
Wick Lane
Needwood
Road
Seibel Drive
Horsebarn
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
REQUEST
NO
558
559
560
STREET
NAME
Sweepstakes
Road
lI.S
r.
FROM
Club View Dr
St. Paul St
TO
Woodfield (Rt.
124)
St. Margaret St
STATUS
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Under
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
-
W
r...
Entire~
MD 124
(Woodfield)
Fieldcrest Rd.
Murdoch Rd
MD28
(Darnestown
Rd)
MD28
(Darnestown
Rd)
Entire Length
Founders
Place
Jewitt Lane
Story Dr.
Glengalen
Lane
Sandringham
Ct
Massachusett
sAve
@Glen
Haven Park
@park
I
entrance
entire length
East-West
Hwy
BCCH.S.
MD 108
(Olney-
Laytonsville
Road)
Sweet
Meadow La.
Einstein HS
Chestnut Oak
Drive
Ancient Oak
Drive
Martin L King
Park
Tot lot /
Community
field
Sligo Creek
Park
Muddy Branch
Rd.
Beach Drive
Circle Dr.
Madawaska
Rd
leading into
park
577
Fieldcrest
Road
Belle Chase Dr
Kensington
Blvd
WyeOak
Drive
Chestnut Oak
Drive
Downs Drive
Founders Way
Wheaton Lane
Diamondback
Drive
MD 410 (East-
West
Highway)
Glen Mill
Road
Sangamore
Road
Windham Lane
Lindale Drive
Dubarry Lane
Pearl Street
578
592
607
608
610
611
615
616
630
633
635
638
639
642
643
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
REOUEST
NO
644
645
646
654
668
I
STREET
NAME
Brierly Road
Oak Drive
Garland
Avenue
Neelsville
Church Road
Emory Lane
Decatur
Avenue
Grubb Road
Needwood
Road
Persimmon
Tree Lane
Travilah Road
Bedfordshire
Road
Forest Glen
Road
Schaeffer Road
MD97
(Georgia Ave)
Tuckerman
Lane
LayhiIl Road
MD547
(Strathmore
Avenue)
Windsor Lane
16th Street
MD28
(Darnestown
Road)
FROM
Dundee Dr
entire length
Piney Branch
Rd
MD355
Norbeck
Road
3900 block
Ashboro
Drive
"
Deer Lake
Road
Persimmon
Tree Rd
Piney
Meetinghouse
Rd
Glen Road
Glen Avenue
Leaman Farm
Rd
Prince Phillip
Drive
Post Oak
Road
Baughman
Drive
AHC
entire length
@East-West
Highway
Shady Grove
Road
TO
Woodhollow
Rd
STATUS
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Under
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Under
Investigation
Under
Investigation
Under
Investigation
Under
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
In vestigation
Domer Ave
Church Bend
Ct
cul-de-sac
6,87
800
876
892
902
913
Washington
Ave.
Redland Road
Carderock
Springs Elem.
Darnestown
Road (MD28)
Broadgreen
Road
Rosensteel
Avenue
Clopper Rd
Tidewater
Court
Falls Road
Longmeade
Crossing Drive
Garrett Park
I
914
915
918
919
920
921
922
923
927
1 mile
Glen Mill
Road
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
REOUEST
NO
928
929
930
931
932
933
935
936
937
938
939
941
943
947
974
975
979
STREET
NAME
MD97
(Georgia
Avenue)
Old Columbia
Pike
Kings Valley
Road
Dunrobbin
Drive
Warfield Road
MD 190 (River
Road)
Needwood
Road
Timberwood
Avenue
Pierce Drive
Lexinton Drive
Fernwood
Road
Brightview
Street
DuFief Drive
Blackburn
Road
Lovejoy Street
Hyde Road
MD 118
(Germantown
Road)
First Avenue
Sidney Road
Kings Valley
Road
FROM
MD 108
Fairland Road
Foundes Way
Church of the
Redeemer
Apollo Lane
Riverwood
Drive
Deer Lake
Road
University
Blvd.
University
Blvd.
University
Blvd.
Tusculum
Road
entire length
missing
section
Old
Columbi~
Pike to
Tolson Place
existing
walks
existing
walks
Charity Lane
Ballard Street
missing
section
Rt. 27
TO
Oher Shalom
Torah
Synagoue
Briggs Chaney
Road
Damascus
Regional Park
Barr Road
Park entrance
Norton Road
Redland Road
Colesville
Road
Colesville
Road
Colesville
Road
Democracy
Blvd.
STATUS
Under
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Under
Investigation
Under
Investigation
Under
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Under
Investigation
Under
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Under
Investigation
Under
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Under
Investigation
Under
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
US29
Lamberton·
Drive
Lovejoy
Richter Farm
Road
Noyes Street
I
982
1000
1078
Kings Valley
Park
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
REOUEST
NO
1079
1080
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
STREET
NAME
Manchester
Road
Liberty Lane
Gracefield
Road
Holman
Avenue
MacArthur
Boulevard
Washington
Avenue
Edgewood
Road
Radnor Road
MD410 East
West Highway
Dimona Drive
FROM
at Piney
Branch Rd
Falls Rd
Cherry Hill
Road
Rosensteel
near Ridge
Drive
entire length?
Drumm
Old Chester
Beach Drive
Olney Mill
Road
Grant
TO
STATUS
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Pending
Investigation
Under
Investigation
Coldstream Dr
ex. Walk on
Gracefield Rd
Hollow Glen
Goldsboro
Brookville
Road
Goldmine
Road
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
DOT Annual Sidewalk Program CIP 506747
PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE
FYI 0
STREET NAME
Liberty La
Franklin Avenue
Elm Street
Parkwood Drive
Democracy Lane
MD 547 (Knowles Avenue)
West Old Baltimore Rd
Vital Way
Manchester Road
Catoctin Drive
Locust Avenue
College View Drive
Brightview Street
Jones Lane
Keystone Ave
Quinton Road
Noyes Dr
Dimona Drive
MD 190 (River Road)
Nolan Dr
FROM
Coldstream Dr
Edgefield Road
Clarendon Road
Franklin Avenue
8ells Mill Rd
Summit Avenue
12700 W Old Baltimore Rd
Randolph Rd
Piney Branch Road
Bonifant Road
Acacia Avenue
Newport Mill Road
entire length
Damestown Road
North Brooke Lane
Sundale Drive
First Ave
Olney Mill Road
River Oaks Lane
Travilah Rd
TO
FallsRd
Beach DrivelPark En!.
Arlington Road/Freedland
Cedar Street
Democracy BLVD
4210 Knowles Avenue
Rt355
New Hampshire Avenue
Bradford Road
Catoctin Court
West Cedar Lane
Gall Street
COST
$74,250.00
$34,685.04
$40,324.80
$103,589.40
$155,049.24
$76,039.00
$163,027.80
$35,647.20
$76,630.26
$23,094.00
$28,581.77
$99,672.30
$17,450.00
PUBliC HEARNG DATE
8/19/2009
6/19/2009
8/1912009
8125/2009
8125/2009
STATUS
Awaiting Hearing Examiners Reco
Awaiting Hearing Examiners Reco
Awaiting Hearing Examiners Reco
Awaiting Hearing Examiners Reco
Awaiting Hearing Examiners Reco
Received Hearing Examiners Rec
Public Hearing Scheduled
Public Hearing Scheduled
Public Hearing Scheduled
Public Hearing Scheduled
Public Hearing Scheduled
Public Hearing Scheduled
Public Hearing Scheduled
Public Hearing Scheduled
Public Hearing Scheduled
Public Hearing Scheduled
Public Hearing Scheduled
Public Hearing Scheduled
Public Hearing Scheduled
Public Hearing Scheduled
812512009
12114/2009
12114/2009
12/14/2009
1211412009
12114/2009
12114/2009
12/16/2009
Doe La
Battery Lane
Maywood Avenue
Second Ave
Goldmine Road
Rlverwood Drive
Existing SW on Nolan Dr
$156,796.80
$24,619.50
$11,275.92
$48,926.94
$51,093.00
$31,478.00
$55,137.60
12/1612009
12116/2009
12116/2009
12116/2009
12116/2009
1/26/2010
1/26/2010
....
ii'\~~':" :.;.;;:~:':':::;':::::=;-:;-;::;"
__
~
.....
~_
•.
"";=~~~s:::::.::-:;::.o:_""""""._:::.1':::'.:::-:::;"_·."
..
,~,.,_,I
Page
1
0/2
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
STREET NAME
Log House Road
Marywood RdlKirkdale Road
MD 614 (Goldsboro Road)
MD 26 (Darnestown Road)
FROM
Woodfield Road
Fernwood Rd
Goldsboro Court
Shady Grove Road
TO
Bush Hill Road
WilmettRoad
MD191 (Bradley Blvd.)
Key West Hwy
COST
$103,540.00
$58,149.60
$23,000.00
$55,104.96
PUBLIC HEARNG DATE
112612010
1126/2010
1126/2010
1/26/2010
STATUS
Public Hearing Scheduled
Public Hearing Scheduled
Public Hearing Scheduled
Public Hearing Scheduled
TOTAL COST:
$1,547,163.13
~
Pagel
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
DOT Annual Sidewalk Program CIP 506747
Open Request List
STREET NAME
Roosevelt Street
Beech Ave
Hermleigh Road
16 th Street
MD 410 (East West Highway)
Ambleside DR
Old Columbia Pike
Musgrove Road
Darby Road
Neelsville Church Road
MD355
Second Avenue
Old Baltimore Road
Decatur Avenue
Emory Lane
Boswell Lane
Garland Avenue
513 Forest Glen Road
Brierly Road
Gardiner Avenue
Pearl Street
Dubarry Lane
FROM
#5418 Roosevelt 5t
Old Georgetown Rd
Kemp Mill Road
2nd Ave
RoctonAve.
Glen Rd
@ entrances of Paint Branch HS
Fairland Rd
entire length
MD355
Monaco Circle
Glen RossRd
MD355
3900 block
Norbeck Road
Piney Meetinghouse Rd
Piney Branch Rd
Lorain Avenue
Dundee Dr
entire length
East-West Hwy
entire length
TO
eXisting park path
Page Ave
Auth Street
Spring St
Brookville Road
StJames Rd
STATUS
Investigation Complete
Investigation Complete
Investigation Complete
Investigation Complete
Investigation Complete
Investigation Complete
Pending Investigation
Marlow
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Church Bend Ct
Wood Road
Sixteenth St
Diller La
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
cul-de-sac
Glen Mill Rd.
Domer Ave
Sutherland Road
Woodhollow Rd
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
BCCH.S.
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
@)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
STREET NAME
lindale Drive
Windham Lane
Sangamore Road
Glen Mill Road
Oak Drive
MD 547 (Strathmore Avenue)
Dayton Street
Needwood Road
MD 190 (River Road)
Warfield Road
Dunrobbin Drive
Kings Valley Road
Old Columbia Pike
MD 28 (Darnestown Road)
Blackburn Road
Grubb Road
Windsor Lane
Capitol View Avenue
Layhlll Road
Tuckerman Lane
MD 97 (Georgia Ave)
Hampden Lane
Persimmon Tree Lane
Bells Mill Road
Founders Way
FROM
@park entrance
@Glen Haven Park
Massachusetts Ave
Sandringham Ct
entire length
AHC
Georgia Avenue
Deer Lake Road
Riverwood Drive
Apollo Lane
Church
of
the Redeemer
FoundesWay
Fairland Road
Shady Grove Road
Graybill Drive
Ashboro Drive
entire length
Georgia Avenue
Baughman Drive
Post Oak Road
Prince Phillip Drive
7405 Denton
Persimmon Tree Rd
Gainsborough Road
Founders Place
TO
leading into park
Madawaska Rd
Circle Dr.
STATUS
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Garrett Park
Amherst Avenue
Redland Road
Norton Road
Park entrance
Barr Road
Damascus Regional Park
Briggs Chaney Road
Glen Mill Road
US 29
Washington Ave.
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Connecticut Avenue
Longmeade Crossing Drive
Falls Road
Tidewater Court
5109 Hampden
Carderock Springs Elem.
Pebble Brooke Lane
Tot lot
I
Community field
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
@)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
STREET NAME
Newcastle Avenue
Sangamore Road
16th Street
Levelle Drive
Abbey Manor Drive
Hartsdale Avenue
Madison Street
Offut Street
Morgan Drive
Pauline Drive
Daniel Road
Hitching Post Lane
Farmland Dr
Diamondback Drive
New Castle SI.
Windmill Lane
Derwood Street
Derwood Road
Esquire Court
Query Mill Road
Windsor View Drive
Club View Drive
Tuckerman Lane
Plyers Mill Road2
Amherst Avenue
FROM
Linden Lane
Massachusetts Ave
@East-West Highway
Forsyth Drive
Civitan Club Place
Madison Street
Garfield Street
Morgan Drive
4800 block
3218 Pauline Drive
WestemAve
Farmland Drive
Old Club Road
Story Dr.
Forest GlenRd.
Good Hope Drive
TO
Forsythe Avenue
Madawaska Rd
1 mIle
Parallel to Creek
Abbey Manor Circle
Hempstead Avenue
Hempstead Street
Derussey
STATUS
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending InVestigation
3220 Pauline Drive
Wynd ale Road
Old Gate Road
Old Stage Road
Muddy Branch Rd.
Beech Dr.
Windmill Terrace
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Bells Mill Road
Bush Hill Rd.
existing path @ Hoover M.S.
Amherst Avenue
Dayton Street
Gainsborough
Log House Rd.
Falls Rd. (MD189)
Georgia Avenue
Plyers Mill Road
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending InVestigation
Pending Investigation
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
STREET NAME
Unden Lane
Sweepstakes Road
Fernwood Road
Wheaton Lane
DuFief Drive
Chestnut Oak Drive
Wye Oak Drive
Kensington Blvd
Belle Chase Dr
Fieldcrest Road
Wyngate Drive
Milstead/Lindale Drives right­
MD 124 (Woodfield Road)
Tulip Hill Terrace
Peach Orchard Road
Muncaster Mill Road
Grande Vista Drive
Panorama Drive
Oakmont Avenue
Thompson Road
Hopefield Road
Good Hope Road
Spring Meadows Drive
MD 410 (East-West Highway)
Sweepstakes Road
FROM
Unden Lane
Showbarn Circle
Tusculum Road
Jewitt Lane
missing section
MD 28 (Darnestown Rd)
MD 28 (Darnestown Rd)
Murdoch Rd
Fieldcrest Rd.
MD 124 (Woodfield)
Entire Length
9519-9517 Milstead Drive
Gue Road
Bent Branch Rd.
MD198
7800 Muncaster Mill Rd
Redland Road
Redland Road
entire length
Peach Orchard Road
Kingshouse Road
Rt. 198 (Spencerville road)
Darnestown Road
Glengalen Lane
Club View Dr
TO
Geo. Town Bke. Tr.
STATUS
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Democracy Blvd.
Sligo Creek Park
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Ancient Oak Drive
Chestnut Oak Drive
Einstein HS
Sweet Meadow La.
MD 108 (Olney-Laytonsville Road)
Pending Investigatfon
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
9504-9502 Lindale Drive
Horsebam
Goldsboro Rd.
Seibel Drive
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Needwood Road
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Wick
Lane
existing
sIw
Good Hope Road/existing s/w
Bridge
@
Hopefield Road
Seneca Road
Beach Drive
Woodfield (Rt. 124)
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
~
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
STREET NAME
Powder Mill Road
Coldchester Drive
Windsor Lane
Fernwood Road
Eggert Drive
Walnut Hill Rd
North Westland Drive
Woodbine Street
New Hampshire Avenue
Leland Street
South Westland Drive
Hlldarose Drive
Merrifields Drive
Delano Street
Muncaster Mill Road
Brandy Hall Lane
Stratford Road
Bruce Drive
MD 28 (Darnestown Road)
Fairland Road
Cornish Road
Veirs Mill Road
Vein; Mill Road
Ridge Road
Norbeck Road
FROM
1712 Powder Mill Road
Ewell Street
Wisconsin Avenue
Michaels Road
Persimmon tree Road
North Westland Drive
Frederick Avenue
Brookville Rd
Tanley Road
Brookville Rd
Frederick Avenue
Greeley Ave
TO
Naval Base
Parkwood Road
Lynwood Road
Marywood Road
MacArthur Boulveard
South Westland Drive
Chestnut Street
Beach Dr
Quaint Acres Drive
Rollingwood Dr
Chestnut Street
Gardiner Street
STATUS
Pending InvestlgaUon
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Foley Street
bus stop
DufiefDrive
DeRussey Pkwy
St Andrews Way
Riffleford Road
Cedar Creek Lane
Burling Terrace
Turkey Branch Parkway
Norris Street
Ridge Place
Baltimore Road
Connecticut Avenue
Woodfield Rorad
Dufief Drive
Norwood Drive
Grandview Drive
Jones Lane
Serpentine Way
Glenbrook Road
Havard Street
Newport Mill Rp
Valley Road
Bauer Drive
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
~
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
STREETNAME
Forsythe Avenue
Tanterra Circle
MD 410 East West Highway
Roseland Drive
Fairland Road
16th Street
Ashburton Lane
Old Columbia Pike
Kingswood Road
Rolling Road
Strathmore Avenue
Ridge Road
Cornflower Road
Howard Avenue
Cheshire Drive
Falis Bridge Lane
Glen Mill Road
MD 97 Georgia Avenue
West Old Baltimore Road
Massachusetts Avenue
Eastern Avenue
Norwood Road
MD 118 (Germantown Road)
Landon Lane
MD 28 (Darnestown Road)
FROM
Jones Mill Rd
TO
Woodstock Ave-Unden
La
STATUS
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Beach Drive
Old Georgetown Road
at bridge east of Tamarack
2nd Avenue
Bells Mill Road
Industrial Pkwy
Hurst St
Leland St
Rockville Pike
Hillmead Park
@18402CornflowerRoad
Summitt Ave
entire length
Falls Road
Cavanaugh Drlve
queen Elizabeth Drive
Frederick Road
@Onondaga Road
8250 block
Blake H.S.
Charity Lane
Brookville Road
Tilden Lane
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Hanover Street
Loan Oak Drive
Cllftondale Drive
Broad St
Rollingwood Dr
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Ridge Place
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Knowles Ave
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Logan Drive
Veirs Road
MD108
Ivy Leaf Drive
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
New Hampshire Avenue/MD650
Richter Farm Road
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Key West Avenue
Great Seneca Highway
Pending Investigation
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
STREETNAME
Aspen Hill Road
Southwick Street
MD 108 (Olney-Sandy Spring
Burnt Mills Road
Blackburn Road
Kings Valley Road
Manchester Road
Liberty Lane
Gracefield Road
Holman Avenue
MacArthur Boulevard
Washington Avenue
Edgewood Road
Radnor Road
Columbia Pike
MD 547 (Knowles Avenue
Brixton Lane
Old Columbia Pike
MD 410 (East West Highway)
Congressional Prky
Pershing Dr
Brunswick Avenue
MD 650 (New Hampshire Ave
Bruce Drive
Jone Mill Rd
FROM
Near Iris Street
5600 Southwick St
@SHS
US 29
Old Columbia Pike to Tolson Place
TO
Garfield Steet
STATUS
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Wheeler Drive
US29
Kings Valley Park
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
RI.27
at Piney Branch Rd
Falls Rd
Cherry Hill Road
Rosensteel
near Ridge Drive
entire length?
Drumm
Old Chester
Eastwood Avenue
at Library
Femwood Road
Industrial Prky
Brookville Road
Coldstream Dr
ex. Walk on Gracefield Rd
Hollow Glen
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Grant
Goldsboro
WSSCbldg.
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Pending Investigation
Under Investigation
Greyswood Road
Amberston Ct
Curtis Street
Under Investigation
Under Investigation
Under Investigation
Under Investigation
Dale Dr
Plyers Mill Road
near Norwood Road
St Andrews Way
W Coquolin Ter
Existing SIW/@Private School
Jennings Road
Briggs Chaney Rd
Granville Dr
East West Hwy
Under Investigation
Under Investigation
Under Investigation
Under Investigation
Under Investigation
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
STREETNAME
Travilah Road
Hyde Road
Pierce Drive
1st Avenue
Sidney Road
Greenbrier Drive
Hotboro S
Kershey Rd
Warren St
Spring Meadows Dr
Venice Dr
Stateside Drive
Forest Glen Road
Clopper Road
Drumm Ave
Langley Drive
Seven Locks Rd
Epping Road
Spring Valley Road extended
Stonegate DR
Johnson Avenue
Lexinton Drive
Downs Drive
Kings Valley Rd
Schaeffer Road
FROM
Piney Meetinghouse Rd
existing walks
University Blvd.
Ballard Street
missing section
Dale Dr
FulhamST
Fulham St
Brookville Rd
Rt28
New Hampshire Ave
Avenel Road
Glen Avenue
Kingsview Road
Fayette Rd
University Boulevard
Rose Hill Dr
Georgia Ave
crosswalk
@
Rec Cntr
Whitegate Rd
5500 block
University Blvd.
Entire Length
Hailey Dr
Leaman Farm Rd
TO
Darnestown Road (MD28)
Lovejoy
Colesville Road
Noyes Street
STATUS
Under Investigatlon
Under Investigation
Under Investigation
Under Investigation
Under Investigation
Wayne Ave
N Belgrade RD
Arcola Ave
Montgomery St
SenecaRd
Downs Dr
Stateside Court
Rosensteel Avenue
Steeple Road
Blueford Rd
Miles Street
Bradley Blvd
Flack Street
Under Investigation
Under Investigation
Under Investigation
Under Investigation
Under Investigation
Under Investigation
Under Investigation
Under Investigation
Under Investigation
Under Investigation
Under Investigation
Under Investigation
Under Investigation
Under Investigation
New Hampshire Ave
5800 block
Colesville Road
Martin L King Park
Red Blaze DR
Clopper Rd
Under Investigatlon
Under Investigation
Under Investigation
Under Investigation
Under Investigation
Under Investigation
©
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MONTGOMERY COlJNTY PtANNING BOARD
OFFICE
OF
THE
CHAIRMAN
February 9,2010
Council President Nancy Floreen
Montgomery County Council
County Office Building
100 Maryland Avenue, 6
th
Floor
Rockville, Maryland 20850
RE:
Expedited Bill No. 3-10
Streets and Roads - Sidewalks
Public Hearing Requirement
Dear Ms. Floreen:
The Planning Board would like to express our support for Expedited Bill No. 3-10, intended
to waive the public hearing requirement for certain sidewalks and/or shared use paths under
certain circumstances. We believe that this bill will help facilitate the construction of needed
sidewalks and paths, providing better service to our community, and saving the cost and delay
of unneeded hearing..c;.
In an effort to refine the determination of when a public hearing does not need to be held, we
recommend that Section 49-53(d) be amended to include a public notice by the Executive of
those upcoming sidewalk and path projects intended to be covered by this bill, stating that a
public hearing will not be held unless
a
request is received by a certain date. We believe that
this extra measure of notification will ensure that we do not unintentionally overlook
potentially significant issues.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. If you have any questions about this
letter, please contact Mr. Larry Cole
at
301~495~4528,
or you may call me at 301-495-4605.
__
--8in~rely,
/((~W~
Royce Htnson
Chairman
H71:'-:
c,cort~ja
Avc:nuc, Silver Spring.
20') I0
Phone:.W
l.
(f
t
)5.ri60)
Fax::')O 1.4')".13 20
www.MCParkandPlanning.orgE-M.lil: mcp-chairmafi@mncppc.org
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Page 1 of 1
Faden, Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
Jim Humphrey [theelms518@earthlink.net]
Wednesday, February 10,20104:45 PM
Floreen's Office, Councilmember; Ervin's Office, Councilmember; Andrews' Office, Councilmember;
Berliner's Office, Councilmember; Eirich's Office, Councilmember; Knapp's Office, Council member;
Leventhal's Office, Councilmember; Navarro's Office, Councilmember; Trachtenberg's Office,
Council member
Montgomery County CounCil; Orlin, Glenn; Faden, Michael
Cc:
Subject: Civic Fed testimony for Feb.9 hearing on Expedited Bill 3-10, Sidewalks - hearings
February 9, 20
I
0
5104 Elm St., Bethesda MD 20814
(301)652-6359
email -theelms518@earthlink.net
Civic Federation testimony on Expedited Bill 3-10, Sidewalks - public bearings
I am Jim Humphrey, representing the Montgomery County Civic Federation as chair of the Planning and Land
Use Committee. The following position on Expedited Bill 3-10 was adopted unanimously by the members of
the MCCF Executive Committee at their meeting on January 20. A resolution on the matter was scheduled for
a vote of the full delegate assembly at the February 8 meeting of the Federation; but that meeting was cancelled
due to the snow. If and when that vote takes place, we will inform the Council.
We believe Expedited BilI3-tO in its introduced form would allow an unwise limitation on the rights of
citizens--in this case property owners who would be most directly impacted by a proposed public sidewalk or
path project--to weigh in on government decisions that affect them.
We therefore strongly suggest that Sections 49-53(d)(2)(A) and (B), appearing on lines 9 through 17 of the
introduced bill, be deleted and replaced with a new Section 49-53(d)(2) to read as follows:
(2) one hundred percent ofthe property owners whose properties abut or confront a proposed
sidewalk or path have signed a petition of support for the project which has been filed with the
Executive or a designee; and
In addition to our support for the other two conditions imposed by the introduced bill (the sidewalk can be
constructed entirely in the public right-of-way without a detailed engineering design, and the Executive finds
no significant issue has arisen that would require a public hearing), we believe it is only appropriate to waive
the requirement for a public hearing ifall ofthe owners whose properties abut or confront a proposed public
sidewalk or path support the project. We ask the members ofthe County Council to give serious consideration
to the Federation's suggested amendment to this legislation. Thank you
2/16/2010
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
November 3,2010
Nancy Floreen, President
Montgomery County Council
100 Maryland Ave.
Rockville, MD 20850
Dear Ms. Floreen,
A number of us in the Springfield community in Bethesda recently learned that you and
several of your fellow council members are sponsoring Expedited Bm3-l0 in an effort to
eliminate delays in the county's response to applications for the installation of sidewalks
in situations where to application is not controversial. As you know, such applications
are often controversial, pitting neighbor against neighbor and citizen's against civic and
homeowner associations. We are now in the midst of such a controversy here in
Springfield, but because affected homeowners learned of the effort before an applications
was submitted, the community has been able to attempt to resolve the matter in a manner
acceptable to alL We may not succeed in that effort, but no such effort could have been
made had the affected homeowners hot learned of the proposed application before it was
filed.
I understand the Expedited Bill 3-10 is intended to apply only in situations where the
sidewalk application is "noncontroversial, [and has] ... substantial community support".
In such cases, the county could process the application without holding a public hearing.
The problem is that the there is no procedure spelled out to determine whether the
proposal is noncontroversial and has widespread community support. Often, affected
households do not learn of the application until a hearing is scheduled because the
proponents of sidewalks do not notify them of the application. Such "stealth
applications" are not unusual, whether initiated by a group of citizens or a non­
representative civic association. The controversy in Wheaton is a good example.
The
Bill
should be amended to prevent "stealth applications" and to provide an objective
means for resolving disputes over sidewalk applications that are controversiaL At
present, there is no mechanism to prevent "stealth applications". And where a
controversy exists, it is resolved by a hearing examiner who, at least in practice, is more
interested in pouring concrete than carefully analyzing the arguments of the various sides.
According to Bruce Johnston, DOT Chief of Engineering, no hearing examiner has ever
ruled against sidewalks supported by a civic association. I have no reason to doubt his
statement. And I have no reason to believe that every application for sidewalks is more
meritorious than the arguments of those who oppose sidewalks. The pending Expedited
Bill can be amended to prevent both problems from arising in the future.
To prevent "stealth applications", the party filing the application should be required to
swear under oath and subject to notarization that they have provided written notice and
spoken to everyone on the affected streets to determine whether any affected
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
homeowners oppose the application. Where there is no controversy, there is no need for
a hearing. Once the installation of sidewalks is scheduled, the applicant should be
required to provide written and verbal notice to each affected household informing them
that construction is imminent and that they should contact the County Engineer if they
oppose the installation of sidewalks.
In
instances where it is determined that the
applicant's sworn statement about having provided notice to all affected households was
false, the application should be dismissed with prejudice and the applicant (individual
and organization) should be prohibited from filing another application for a period of
years. This type ofprocedure places the burden on the applicant, not the county, to
determine whether the application is controversial. If the applicant abuses the process
provided, the application would be dismissed. Hence, there is a powerful incentive for
the application process to be open and fair. In addition, where all affected homeowners
are aware of the application, there is a much better chance for the community to work
together to find a solution that is acceptable to all parties.
The second proposed amendment would change the process for resolving applications
that are controversial. As noted above, the law currently provides that the controversy
will be resolved by a hearing examiner that, in practice, always votes in favor of
sidewalks. While this is a process in theory, it is hardly fair in practice. A better process
would be to provide the affected homeowners with the same process that is followed
when they or their neighbors apply for the installation of speed humps to slow traffic.
Currently, 80% of affected homeowners, i.e. those who live on the affected streets, must
vote in favor of speed humps before the county will install them. Whether 80% is the
right number isn't the issue. But it should be some reasonable super-majority of affected
homeowners. After all, sidewalks are more disruptive, costly in terms of dollars, damage
to the environment and neighborhood character, than speed humps. I know because I
have a speed hump in front of my house that I voted for.
Some will argue that the decision on sidewalks should not be left to affected homeowners
when safety is at issue. But safety is always the mantra of those who seek sidewalks,
whether or not there is a reasonable basis for their purported safety concerns. But there is
every reason to expect affected homeowners to be as concerned about safety as their
neighbors. After all, they live on the street, often are raising or have raised their children
there and have more encounters with traffic than others in the community.
It
is not
rational to assume that they would sacrifice their own safety to oppose sidewalks. When
it is controversial, the issue should be left to the affected homeowners. After all, it is too
easy to vote for sidewalks in someone else's yard. And in the final analysis, the sidewalk
proponents chose to move to a neighborhood that lacked sidewalks, at least on certain
streets.
Please understand, I appreciate the effort to streamline process when process isn't
necessary. I support the spirit of Expedited Bill 3-10 insofar as it is intended to reduce
unnecessary process. But as drafted, it has the unintended consequence of inviting
"stealth applications" for sidewalks. And the existing process for resolving controversies
is, as a practical matter, one-sided and injects hearing examiners into matters that can and
should be resolved at the neighborhood level. The proposed amendments would reduce
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
county process, save dollars, encourage neighbors to resolve issues at the neighborhood
level and allow council members to focus on the important issues that face the county
rather than being dragged into every neighborhood dispute about sidewalks.
Thank you for your attention to this issue. Please enter this letter into the public record of
the T and E Committee hearing currently scheduled for February 9, 20lO, as I may not be
able to testify in person.
Sincerely,
James T. Coffman
5908
Springfield Dr.
Bethesda, MD
20816
301
2292168
jtcoffman@verizon.net
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
\S\\.....L
~-\D
y
Nancy Floreen, President
Montgomery COtulty Council
100 Maryland Avenue
Rockviile, Md. 20850
Feb.!,2010
Re: Expedited Bill 03-10
"' 0;
i
n9
I••X
053986
Dear Ms Floreen:
This bill, as vvritten, should not be enacted, for the following reasons;
49-53 Public Hearing Notice
1. "Substantial number" is too subjective and needs to be defined- is it 3 property
O'Wllers, or a percentage of the community like 50%, or 80% property owners?
2. If# 1 above is a small number, it seems a few property owners could file an
Application without letting anyone know of it. Since the application is not known,
there would be no opposition submitted, and the application approved. The
neighbors would only know of the sidewalk installation when the construction
crew arrives at their front yard.
3. How does this bill advise the property owners, not on the application, that the
sidewalk is pending?
49-54 Authorization of Construction; Recommendation of assessments
1.
It
appears that that this bill also includes the ability to assess the property
owners for the construction cost of the proposed sidewalk. This has not been the
case to date and is a BIG CHANGE. This part must be removed as written.
This bill would install sidewalks without due notice, and on top of that, assess
the cost to the homeowners - very bad.
=
=
~;;CgnjiC
/C/
5"";::'-0
{)
If the intent of this bill is to eliminate hearings, where no one attends or has not
objected to the application, it can be done in a better manner, such as notifying, by letter,
all
property owners living on the affected streets that an application has been submitted
and offering a 60 day comment period. That way, all are aware of the pending request
and all have a fair time to respond. If no one responds, then no advertising and no public
hearing is needed. A
win- win
solution.
You and the Council must know that sidewalk installation can be a very divisive
issue to a community. I live in Springfield -a mature single family community of 50+_
years with very large trees in the right-of-way creating a lovely canopy of shade and
protection from the River Road pollutants. We are in the middle of a sidewalk issue
currently.
If
this Bill would have been enacted, and sidewalks suddenly were to be
installed with out waxning, this community would explode and the COtulcil would be
barraged with very angry complaints from homeowners.
As
COtulcil President and Member-at-Large, I strongly urge you to either
withdraw this bill, or
si~~revise
it, to be FAIR to all homeowners.
Sincerely
~~
_
I
OJ
/ /
,
e
::r/
K--
t
A3~M~..!pC/~
/-/,d.
;?~IJ/.,b
tp..
r'~/d
Pp-ad
e-~h//
-
/?':J?~~Cc;
orc//c.
3(7/-
229-
7/2/
e
yer/zon ..
~el
.
,J-
l!!J;
~
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Nancy Floreen, President
Montgomery County Council
. 100 Maryland Avenue
Rockville, MD 20850
Jan. 28,2010
054:107
w
_.-
­
-
.
-<
Dear Ms. Floreen,
It
has just come to my attention that a new bill was introduced last week without much
fanfare, on an expedited basis. Bill 03-10 seems to be exactly the wrong way for the
county to have an open, transparent, and fair system for installing sidewalks. \Vhile
we realize that sidewalks are in the public right-of-way, it is nevertheless the single most
intrusive and disruptive thing the county could do to individual homeowners. Without a
Public Hearing, no notice is given that an application is pending, and therefore this bill
provides no way for the citizens involved in a given neighborhood to speak. up and let our
elected officials know about the scope of the project and its ramifications on the affected
homeowners and the community at large. Sidewalks are not always necessary, or needed,
or wanted, and many other solutions to exist if there is a warranted safety issue.
The fact that it is expedited is proof of the problem.
It
gives unprecedented power to any
small group of individuals who may want sidewalks.
It
also gives unprecedented power
to the Dept. of Transportation who may chose to decide there is "not enough opposition"
and they elect to go forward at will. Who makes the determination under the provision of
this bill that
it
is a "controversial" project?
Without providing notification to the surrounding community, (currently the law only
gives two weeks notice and only to those directly affected) homeowners may not even
know of such an application, so they could not write or speak in opposition. Therefore,
the clause exempting the bill in case of controversy is useless, since there is no
provision for notification. If this bill passes, homeowners may oilly find out about the
imminent project when the chain saws are buzzing outside taking down trees and the
cement trucks are not far behind.
The current process is woefully flawed and needs to be strengthened, not weakened,
since the installation of sidewalks is one of the county's most divisive issues year after
year, neighborhood after neighborhood. You cannot be proud of the divisions it has
caused. After one terribly acrimonious battle on Mary knoll in Bethesda, lasting several
years, this current process was set up for public hearings and the County Executive
approval. This current process, although better than before, is still a paper sham since
according to Bruce Johnston, DOT Chief of Engineering, "no Hearing Examiner
has
ever
ruled against sidewalks". Apparently the Hearing Examiners are not all that
independent...they seem to get their direction from the people who pay their salary, not
the public that they are hearing. Obviously the system needs to be better, if the county
cares about its homeowners whose property taxes pay the bills.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
I urge you and your colleagues to not support this bill. I urge you instead to
acknowledge that we need a better system and to
set
up a Task Force to come up
with a better process
that is fair to both opponents and proponents of sidewalks. The
process must include a way for the community to comment on a proposed project, and to
comment they must be notified. At least a 30 day notification period and a 60 day
comment period seems fair. This process should also include a favorable vote of 80% of
households who are directly impacted by sidewalks, which is the county process for
speed humps. Speed humps are far less invasive to the property owners and far less
destructive to the environment than sidewalks, so the speed hump concurrence of 80%
should be the minimum for sidewalks.
It
also makes the community the deciding factor,
not the politicians or the Dept. of Transportation.
To expedite a bill that takes away the only way people have to comment on such a huge
issue, "in their own back yards", is an abuse ofpower by the Council in my opinion. The
bill states
it
is 'expedited in the interest ofpublic safety''' but to those watching the
sidewalk process,
it
seems like a way for the DOT to use up their sidewalk budget as
quickly as they can, so they can ask for more "needed" money next year.
In these lean
fmancial times, sidewalks need much more scrutiny as to their merits, not much less.
With all departments being considered for budget cuts, perhaps the Sidewalk
Program is the place to look, not the Hearing Examiner's Office.
I
urge you to thoughtfully consider the unfortunate ramifications of the bill in its present
form. Please do not pass this bill, unless other protections are put in place
as
. amendments, to be fair to your constituents. As our new Council President,
I
would hope
this would not be one ofthe first bills to pass, which takes away the rights and due
process currently allowed to the homeowners in Montgomery County.
e~~~
Carol
Bowis
5500 Ridgefield Road
Bethesda MD 20816
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
p
/,
... ,\0
'"
')
Marin, Sandra
From:
Sent:
To:
Floreen's Office, Councilmember
Tuesday, February
09; 2010 12:23
PM
Montgomery County Council
Subject: FW: Bill No.
3-10
Sidewalks and Pathways
0541.71
-----Original Message----­
From:
debbie. michaels@att.net [mailto:debbie.michaels@att.net]
Sent:
Monday, February
08
1
2010 2:14 PM
To:
Floreen's Office, Councilmember; Berliner's Office
l
Councilmember
Subject:
Bill No. 3-10 Sidewalks and Pathways
Dear Ms. Floreen and Mr. Berliner,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed bill with a tentative hearing on February 9, 2010 at 1:30 ,
PM.
As a Community Leader in District one I have great concerns
in
the passing of the proposed bill. They are as follows:
1. There is no clear definition of right-of-way.
It
appears that with any public right-of-way it could be Federal, State,
County, Utility or even an adjoining property right-of-way. This could severely impact neighborhoods without giving
them the opportunity to be advised or comment on the process.
.
2.
It
is not specific in the bill, that the HOA, Civic Association or other organization that has filed support for a
specific sidewalk or path is actually owner or connected to the right-of-way the sidewalk or path would be installed on.
This would be an unfair situation for small Communities, living near larger Communities.
3. Designating possible costs to adjacent properties when those property owners have no notice, indication or formal
avenue to comment or understand the project in it's entirety seems unduly harmful to such homeowners.
4. A main concern is that this bill has been brought forward right when Montgomery County DOT is involved in a
sidewalk and pathway study around the BRAC impacted area in Bethesda. Is this just a means to do the cheap and
quick? Will they follow Park and Plannings guideline'S and recommendations? Would this mean they could go ahead
with projects around NIH and NNMC without their coordination.
5. For our Community this would be a negative impact in the laws of Montgomery County.
It
has the potential of
negatively impacting our Community without any recourse on oUr part.
It
also has the potential to violate our Site Plan
Agreement with Park and Planning.
I urge you to look at this bill with all of these issues in mind and either dismiss it or correct the langUage to protect all
the residents of Montgomery County.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Deborah Michaels
President,
Glenbrook Village HOA
8619 Terrace Garden Way,
Bethesda, MD 20814
debbie.michaels@att.net
damichs@verizon.net
@
2/9/2010
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
~~LL
~-
\D
Floreen's Office, Councilmember
Tuesday, February 02, 2010 2:07 PM
Montgomery County Council
FW: Expedited bill 3-10
Delgado, Annette
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
053987
-----Original Message----­
From: Krishna Murthy [mailto:Krishna.Murthy@nrucfc.coop]
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 12:47 PM
To: Floreen's Office, Councilmember
Subject: Expedited bill 3-10
I understand that you are sponsoring an amendment to do away with public comment and hearings
concerning side walk building .. I respectfully request you to withdraw the sponsorship. I am a
resident in a neighborhood which is being torn apart by the issue where one or two sponsors are
attempting to petition for a side walk and they have sought endorsement from the Home Owners
Association. The sponsors failed to convince the neighborhood of the benefits of the side
walks.
It is very clear that the HOA is not going to endorse the request. Based on the timing
of this amendment I wonder, along with many residents in my neighborhood, if the proposed'
amendment is advanced based on the approach by and influence from the very few sponsors I
referred to above.
PLEASE say NO to individuals who want to advance their selfish cause at the expense of the
community. Please withdraw the amendment.
This may contain information that
is
confidential or privileged. If you are not the addressee
indicated
in
this message (or responsible for delivery of this message to such person), you
should not copy or deliver this message to anyone or make any other use of the information set
forth herein. In such case, you should destroy this message and notify the sender by
telephone or e-mail.
."
..
'
'_.­
,....
,,­
-
......
'
_i
-"­
vJ
1
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
/OU..l..
3-10
Delgado, Annette
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Rich Reis [rreis@verizon.net]
Wednesday, January 20,20102:45
PM
Montgomery County Council
Expedited Bill 3-10 Streets and Roads - Sidewalks
Dear County Council Members,
Please accept this testimony for the proposed bill.
053628
I support a faster process to approve construction of sidewalks and
hiker-biker trails. These facilities can only improve the ability of
pedestrians, bicyclists, and persons with handicaps to travel about our
county safely and in an environmentally friendly way. Too often streets and
roads are only designed and built for motor vehicles - not giving
bicyclists and pedestrians a safe way to get from one location to another.
This access is especially important for residents without a motor vehicle
which includes some of our poorer residents. It would also provide a way
for children to travel to and from school, activities, and friends without
depending upon their parents to give them rides. In this way it would also
give these children a natural way to gain exercise as they go about their
everyday activities, in turn making them better fit and helping them to
maintain a healthy weight.
On a separate but related topic, I am disappointed about the frequency with
which sidewalks are closed or made impassible. Sidewalks are often closed
for constructing access ramps or for correcting minor pavement
imperfections. This forces pedestrians to cross major streets or in many
cases no real alternative but walking around the barriers - contractors
should work to allow continuous access on at least a portion of the
sidewalk at all times. Also, snow was not cleared from the sidewalks during
the major snowstorm of this season. Rather it was piled high from the
adjoining streets and driveways - forcing high school students and others
to walk upon treacherous mounds of snow as they made their way to and from
high school. In asking these students to walk to school, the county has an
obligation to provide safe sidewalks. The county should do its part in
ensuring that sidewalks are cleared and insist that property owners do the
same.
Sincerely,
Richard Reis
711 Copley Lane
Silver Spring, MD 20904-1312
N
co
1
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Page 1 of 4
Faden, Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Romer, Richard
Wednesday, January 20,201010:47 AM
Orlin, Glenn; Dunckel, Jeff; Johnston, Bruce; Roshdieh, AI; Faden, Michael
Healy, Sonya
Subject: MCCPTA Input on Proposed Sidewalk Legislation
FYI -Input from the MCCPTA on Expedited Bill 3-10.
-----Original Message----­
From: kay2898@aol.com [mailto:kay2898@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 4:46 PM
To: Romer, Richard
Cc: Guerrero, Amparo; Healy, Sonya
Subject:
Re: Input on Proposed Sidewalk Legislation
Please see the included comments below.
Sincerely,
Kay Romero, MCCPTA
SIDEWALK PROCESS-INPUT FROM MCCPTA BOARD MEMBERS
Generally, I was OK with eliminating the hearing, provided the language was tightened up to ensure the
project is truly non-controversial. I also recommended reinstatement of a provision expediting school­
related sidewalks from the T&E worksession (again, with edits. In this case, requiring the school
PT
A/PTSA
to express support for the project). I questioned the unsupported assertion from the T &E
memo that hearings "rarely resulted in changes to the proposal." Seems to me that, consistent with our
interest in ensuring adequate public input, this assertion should be verified. Finally, as a catch-all, I
suggested a provision requiring the hearing examiner (or other decisionmaker) to consider any public
comments provided, whether a hearing was held or.not.
I don't think "expediting" the hearing will work, given the time and cost of publishing notices in the Post
and Examiner. Almost all of the delay was in scheduling and publicizing the hearing. See the T&E
memo for further discussion.
I'm not sure that removing the hearing completely is a good idea. When they use words like
"substantial", that leaves
it
up to interpretation. I think they should have a way to "Fast Track" a hearing
when the conditions, as described in the proposal, are met. Can they do the hearing in less than 30 days?
I think the citizens should have some formal notice and a period to express their thoughts before action
is taken.
I think this proposal puts too much power in the hands of the Executive. I also don't know what rules
are in place in notifYing the public about a proposed sidewalk. If the public doesn't know about plans to
install a sidewalk, how individuals have a chance to voice their opinion? I am concerned that this will
@
1120/2010
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Page 2 of 4
also put too much emphasis on civic associations and not on individuals who may be affected by a
sidewalk addition. For example, if one road in a neighborhood is planned for a sidewalk and 15 houses
are going to have part of their yard made into a sidewalk, the rest of the neighborhood would probably
be in favor of it but the 15 homes affected may not and these neighbors should have a chance to speak at
hearings. Also, the executive can decide what the meaning of "substantial" is.
It
should be defined
more clearly. Will the petition and letters from civic associations be made available for the public to
view? How will the public know about the letters and petitions?
I also support the proposed change. I also want to congratulate the folks who initiated the review of the
proposal and hope they are able to enact similar time and money saving efforts elsewhere.
I can tell you that the our neighborhood has been fighting for sidewalks for a long time. I live on Central
Avenue in Gaithersburg. We understand we are on the "list" for future projects but that it will be a
while before we actually get them. I would support legislation that expedited this process. I live very
close my children's school, but
it
is a dangerous walk because there are no sidewalks.
From my end the proposal looks good. We recently had sidewalks installed as we lost our high school
bus transportation, but it took at least 18 months. Anything to speed things up can only improve
pedestrian safety.
As a Cluster Coordinator and a past Board Member for years of my Neighborhood Association, I am in
favor of this proposed change to the sidewalk legislation. Anything that can be done to reduce the time
to get projects completed within this county while still maintaining some citizen participation when
necessary is productive.
I have not thought about this issue before reading the attached, so take that into account in considering
my views. Generally, I think MCCPTA should support efforts to construct more sidewalks, especially
those that lead to safer access to schools. The hearing requirement does seem to be an unnecessary
burden, but I will note that the key element of that assertion is unsupported here. Specifically, there is
an assertion (at p.2) that, "these hearings rarely, if ever, result in a decision not to proceed with the
project, or even a material change to it." I'd prefer to review a representative sample ofthe hearing
examiner reports before accepting that claim.
My biggest concern is that the T&E Committee packet had a proposal that hearings could be dispensed
with if the sidewalk was within a school's official walking zone. See p. 18 of the T&E packet. Rich
Romer's email omits this consideration. I think MCCPT A should support some exception if the
sidewalk will improve pedestrian access or safety. To fit within the structure of the proposal, I would
add a provision (C) to clause (2).
It
should read:
(C) The proposed project is located within the "walking area" of a school and the school's PTAJPTSA
has filed a notice of support for the sidewalk or path with the Executive or a designee.
Finally, we should be concerned with the broader issue of adequate public input. Generally, we should
1/20/2010
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Page 3 of4
oppose disposing of hearings when a truly controversial project is proposed. With that in mind, I have
the following further comments to refine the exception:
1. I found the alternative (2)(B) too vague. What is a "substantial number" of property owners who
would be benefited by the construction? 50%? 25%? I would recommend that if you don't have a
HOA or civic association supporting the project, then you should have statements of support from
property owners on at least 50% of the proposed route. Note: I think using the length of the sidewalk is
a fairer measure.
If
one or two property owners make up a substantial portion of the sidewalk, they
should have a proportionate say.
2. I think (2)(B) this intends to refer to property owners affected by the project, not just those benefited.
If 2 owners were benefited, but 50 were adversely affected, could you skip a hearing ifthe two
benefited owners wrote in support?
3. Line (3) requires a finding by the Executive in all instances. Is that what is truly meant? An
alternative would be to allow for the exemption if (1) and (2) are met, unless the Executive determines
that significant public issues have arisen that should be considered in a public hearing. That way, the
Executive's order is only required when a project is controversial.
4. I would add a final provision that says that, if a public hearing is exempted under these provisions,
the DOT (assuming that is the one who grants final approval to the project) must consider any written
comments it receives prior to the date of the approval of the project. This is consistent with Rich
Romer's sentiment that the bill is not doing away with public input, but only is streamlining procedures
for non-controversial projects.
I agree with this legislation of decreasing the administrative time which might decrease costs but
increase efficiency and productivity. My opinion is always sidewalks equal safety for all.
My very own neighborhood had sidewalks installed this past summer through this program. We had
backing of our citizens association/hoa and at first it looked like we might get the sidewalks installed
within six months after our initial consultation; no hearing, just installation on the right-of-way that is
the first ten feet of all of our front yards.
Enough noise was raised by the people impacted (the homeowners on whose lots the sidewalks were to
be installed) that we wound up going through the hearing process.
The hearing process gave the noisy folks their day to be heard.
I'd have to say that since were arguing for safety, (in particular since our HS students walk) and had the
backing of
2/3
of the residents responding to a survey, and the backing of our hoa executive board, it
was pretty much a lead pipe cinch.
The noisy folks were pretty much all 'not in my front yard' oriented. Now that they are in, there is not so
much noise, some of the folks originally opposed have confessed that they think they are a big
improvement for our quality of life.
That being said, even if you concede that the hearings were mostly theater, it seems very un­
Montgomery like to just leave the matter to a
DOTlexec
decision, but I can support that. We certainly
can say that sidewalks just about anywhere improve quality of life and safety, and I certainly have less
1120/2010
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Page40f4
regard for my opposed neighbors who pulled every underhanded trick they could to undermine the
whole process ... to hell with 'em, they had almost no legitimate reason among the lot of them.
The one point that was hard to argue against in our hearings was that the sidewalks do impose an extra
burden during the winter, if you interpret the county regulations strictly about shoveling the snow within
24 hrs. In reality the police do not enforce these regs on homeowners, they are typically only used in
high density settings like downtown BethesdaiSS. Our homeowners association is, however,
contemplating raising our dues to cover the expense of shoveling the walks (because less than 1/3 of the
homeowners actually shoveled them in our last blast).
1/20/2010
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
PEDESTRIAN
A~D
TRAFFIC
SAFETY
ADVISORY
CO\-IMrlTEE
February 19,2010
The Honorable Nancy Floreen, Council President
County Office Building
100 Maryland Avenue, 6
th
Floor
Rockville, Maryland 20850
Dear County Council President Nancy Floreen:
Thank you for discussing with me last week the Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Advisory
Committee's (PTSAC) support of Expedited Bill 3-10. As we discussed. our committee is
concerned about the length of time it takes to build sidewalks, even when there is community
support of the project and no opposition from property owners. We are encouraged that the
County Council is proposing this legislation to modifY the requirement for public hearings so
that such universally supported sidewalk projects can proceed without a hearing process that
often delays such community-supported projects for over a year.
I was intending to testify in support of Bill 3-10 at the scheduled hearing on February 9,
2010. Unfortunately, the Blizzard of 2010 prevented me from being able to attend this hearing.
Your rescheduled hearing on February 18 was at a time that I was out-of-state, and therefore I
was also unable to attend this hearing either. This letter is intended to express our committee's
support in writing, as we discussed over the phone on February 11,2010. You requested I send
you an email expressing the PTSAC position on Bill 3-10.
The PTSAC discussed this proposed legislation at our last meeting on January 7, 2010.
Attached for your infonnation and consideration are the draft minutes from this meeting
regarding this item of "New Business," recording the committee's unanimous support of the
proposed legislation that is now County Council Expedited Bill 3·10. We understand the
importance of holding public hearings when there is controversy over public projects. However,
to delay sidewalk projects when there is no such controversy is to delay the construction of
vitally important facilities that often make significant improvements to public safety.
Bill 3-10 wisely differentiates such projects, requiring public hearings when there is such
controversy, but allowing immediate construction ofprojects that have universal community
support, without such controversy. The PTSAC strongly supports this legislation and applauds
the County Council for recognizing that sidewalks requested by the communities. and
universally supported by the communities, should not be unduly delayed by administrative
processes that serve little purpose and can result in significant delays to vitally important, public
supported projects.
WI Monroe Str<:.;-t •
RllCk,iHe,
Marylantl20850 • 240-777-7170 •
14n-777-2544 rTY •
240-777-7178
FAX
www,m\lntgol11crycmmtymd.gnv/walk
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Council President Floreen
February 19,2010
Page 2 of2
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony in writing following the
rescheduled public hearing held on February 18,2010. We look forward to
Bm3-tO
rece.iving
full support from those in the County Council that support the efficient, prompt construction of
sidewalks that are universally supported by their communities.
Sincerely,
Erwin Mack
Chairman
cc: Councilmember Andrews
Councilmember Berliner
Councilmember EIrich
Councilmember Ervin
Councilmember Knapp
Councilmember Leventhal
Council member Navarro
Councilmember Trachtenberg
Arthur Holmes. Jr., Director, MCOOT
At Roshdieh, Deputy Director, MCDOT
Bruce Johnston, Chief, OTE
Glen Orlin, Deputy Council StaffDirector
leffDunckel, Pedestrian Safety Coordinator, MCDOT
Michael Faden, Senior Legislative Attorney, County Council
Richard Romer, Legislative Analyst, County Council
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MINUTES FOR JANUARY 7, 2010
MEETING OF THE PEDESTRIAN AND TRAFFIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Members Present: Ramin Assa; John Britton; Justin Clarke, MNCPPC ; James D'Andrea, MCPS; Richard
Romer representing Councilmember Ervin; Steve Friedman; Ken Hartman, BCC Regional Service Center;
Al
Roshdieh, representing Arthur Holmes, MCDOT Director: U. James Humphries, MCPD; Elwin Mack. Chair;
Alan Migdall; Colleen Mitchell; Alyce
Ortuzar.
Jack Strausman
Members Absent: Doris
Depaz;
Peter Moe, MSHA; Bill Bronrott, Vice-Chair
County Staff: Tom Pogue, Community Outreach, MCOOT; Jeff Dunckel, Pedestrian Safety Coordinator,
MCDOT; Fred Lees, MCOOT-DTEO; Brett Linkletter, MCDOT-DHS; Sara Navid, MCDPS;
Lynn,
McCreary,
DHCA Code Enforcement; Mike Clemens, Asst Chief FRS; Mike Love, Chief FRS; Ed Radcliffe, Assistant
Chief. DFRS
Guests: George Sauer, Resident; Richard Hoye, ACT; Debbie Nixon, Resident (via Conference Call)
6. New Business/Committee Comments:
Council Proposalfor Modified Sidewalk Hearing Process
The County Council has proposed changes to the hearing process for sidewalks. Mr. Roshdieh explained that under
the County Executive's Pedestrian Safety Initiative, MCDOT has been working to construct more sidewalks. This
is taking time in part because ofthe lengthy process of public hearings having to be held, even when there was
universal support for a sidewalk, or it involves just a short section ofsidewalk connecting two previously built links.
Every project has been put through this hearing process without exception. Mr. Pogue noted the Executive's
Initiative called for streamlining of this process. Mr. Roshdieh said MCDOT works on the front end
to
propose
sidewalk projects that minimize community impacts and have thecommunity's support. Therefore, MCOOT
has
proposed to the Council that under certain circumstances, the hearing process should
be
by-passed so
that
projects
universally supported by the community can be built faster. These circumstances are: the sidewalk can
be
totally
built within the existing Public ROW; that no detailed engineering design work will be required; and that MCnoT
obtains community concurrence that the sidewalk should be
built
by notifying the community prior to beginning
construction.
If
opposition is expressed during this notification process, then a hearing process would
be
conducted.
But
if
no opposition is expressed. then the sidewalk can be constructed without the hearing process, reducing delays
to actually starting construction.
Rich Romer, Legislative Aide to Valerie Ervin, explained the proposal from the Council's perspective.
In
the
uni
verse of sidewalks
to
construct, there is known to be a subset of sidewalks
that
do not involve controversy and
have community and property owner support. The Council wants
to
make it possible to build these sidewalks more
quickly without the requirement for a lengthy hearing process.
Mr. Mack explained that the Council and the County Executive would like to know ifthere was support from the
PTSAC on this proposed change to the hearing process for sidewalks. Mr. Roshdieh stated that if this passes the
Council, MCnoT will be able to immediately construct 6 new sidewalks segments. The County builds many
sidewalks that will continue to have hearings: if there is significant disagreement,
if
there is detailed design
involving things like retaining walls or utility relocations, or ifthere is a need to acquire ROW - - these type of
projects would continue
to
have hearings. However, this change is focused on being able to build sidewalks that
can be built quickly, and inexpensively, with community support.
Motion: A motion was made and seconded to support tbe County Council's proposed cbange oftbe
requirement to bold public bearings for
aD
sidewalk projects. enabling tbe County to build sidewallts
that
bave community support, do not require purcbasing ROW, and do not need detailed design, without holding
public bearings. Tbe motion passed unanimously.