BCC Middle School Site Selction number 2 - 2012 version -

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is NCC Park a serious possibility? Has anyone ever sat on that section of Jones Bridge Road between the hours of 7am and 6pm? While I'm totally prepared to believe that the park is underutilized, I can't imagine that adding a zillion school bus trips each day is really going to be viable given BRAC and the existing beltway traffic.

No, it is not a serious possibility, even though some misguided and uninformed SSAC reps are trying to build consensus for it. I suppose they over estimate their importance and think that if a site is large enough, it won't matter that it has restrictions due to tree conservation issues. You can disagree with that concept but if there are restrictions that prevent the site from being a quick slam dunk, which is what MCPS is looking for, then it is foolish for SSAC folks to pick it as a viable site.

I would support properties that MCPS already owns or has a right to reclaim. It makes good sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kids are out of this race- having finished Bethesda Elementary/Westland/BCC - but Lynnbrook is a mystery. My dentist's mother worked there in an adminstrative role and he joked about 'a dozen old ladies roaming the halls' of the part that wasn't the day care center. What is MCPS doing with that place?

Shhhhh….The Day care and after-school is a hidden gem. It's part of the Montgomery Childcare Associations family of centers, which means that its quasi-independent, but benefits from the larger organization's organization and definitely benefits from the MCPS bus transportation to and from school. My wife and I couldn’t get by without it. This Urban Dad says leggo my DayCare! 8)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's silly to make a decision between, say, Lynnbrook, Coffield, and RCH on the basis of whether MCPS or the Parks Department currently owns the land. There may be real reasons why one or more of those works better as school, or as a park, than the others, but the decision ought to be made on that basis, and not on whether the Parks dept. "refuses" to give up the land.

Quite right, but if the owner refuses to sell, than it is a No Go. Lynnbrook is a GO, because the owner is MCPS and Parks might agreel. Coffield (rightful name, Rosemary Hills Lyttonsville Local Park, is a No Go, for a variety or reasons, RCH is a Go because MCPS has a reclaim clause, but the location stinks).

But the point is, if the "owner" is Montgomery County, and after considering the alternatives it makes more sense to locate a school there and preserve parkland elsewhere, it's absurd to say that we can't do it because the owner refuses to sell.

Also there is no way that Lynnbrook Park is 10 acres-- the enthusiasm/misinformation makes me think there's someone on here trying to avoid having the new MS sited near them.

[Anonymous]

Also there is no way that Lynnbrook Park is 10 acres-- the enthusiasm/misinformation makes me think there's someone on here trying to avoid having the new MS sited near them.

It is according to the list of sites here: http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/facilities/REM/pdf/Meeting%20No.1%20Agenda%20and%20Materials.pdf - go down to the last page.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is NCC Park a serious possibility? Has anyone ever sat on that section of Jones Bridge Road between the hours of 7am and 6pm? While I'm totally prepared to believe that the park is underutilized, I can't imagine that adding a zillion school bus trips each day is really going to be viable given BRAC and the existing beltway traffic.

No, it is not a serious possibility, even though some misguided and uninformed SSAC reps are trying to build consensus for it. I suppose they over estimate their importance and think that if a site is large enough, it won't matter that it has restrictions due to tree conservation issues. You can disagree with that concept but if there are restrictions that prevent the site from being a quick slam dunk, which is what MCPS is looking for, then it is foolish for SSAC folks to pick it as a viable site.

I would support properties that MCPS already owns or has a right to reclaim. It makes good sense.

I agree that NCC would not be a good choice and that there are tree conservation issues. But since when does MoCo really follow its own regulations on tree conservation? They are getting ready to mow down 20 acres of trees to put down a light rail system. Also, once that is in and they redevelop the area where Chevy Chase Market sits, I cannot imagine how much additional traffic there will be. How many lights will the bus have to sit through to cross Connecticut Avenue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is NCC Park a serious possibility? Has anyone ever sat on that section of Jones Bridge Road between the hours of 7am and 6pm? While I'm totally prepared to believe that the park is underutilized, I can't imagine that adding a zillion school bus trips each day is really going to be viable given BRAC and the existing beltway traffic.

No, it is not a serious possibility, even though some misguided and uninformed SSAC reps are trying to build consensus for it. I suppose they over estimate their importance and think that if a site is large enough, it won't matter that it has restrictions due to tree conservation issues. You can disagree with that concept but if there are restrictions that prevent the site from being a quick slam dunk, which is what MCPS is looking for, then it is foolish for SSAC folks to pick it as a viable site.

I would support properties that MCPS already owns or has a right to reclaim. It makes good sense.

I agree that NCC would not be a good choice and that there are tree conservation issues. But since when does MoCo really follow its own regulations on tree conservation? They are getting ready to mow down 20 acres of trees to put down a light rail system. Also, once that is in and they redevelop the area where Chevy Chase Market sits, I cannot imagine how much additional traffic there will be. How many lights will the bus have to sit through to cross Connecticut Avenue?

There's no perfect choice, and there is a lot to be said for using that space. The Lynnbrook site isn't that far from NCC (a little south of Jones Bridge, instead of north), so it would be interesting to see whether putting it at NCC substantially changes the traffic load at nearby intersections vs. putting it at Lynnbrook.

The point is I am glad the SSAC is looking at all these sites-- crossing any of them off the list too quickly would be a mistake.

[Anonymous]

Let's hope all sites are given a fair and accurate consideration. I hope this process isn't predetermined already.

I keep hearing from people that have attended the meetings that the MCPS representatives keep raising objections to many of the sites proposed. Which makes me wonder why they are on the list to begin with.

[Anonymous]

Montgomery County has a lot of forest rentention oversight, but that doesn't mean you can never build on a site that has trees. It does mean you need to build in a way that retains the most trees, but if that isn't possible you can replace trees at the site once construction is finished or even in a totally different area. The ICC took out trees, and there are new trees growing at the 495/Connecticut Avenue and 270/Route 121 interchanges, which are nowhere near the ICC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lynnbrook is the no brainer obvious choice. The MCPS already owns the property, the current buildings are already falling apart and will very soon need major renovation (or tear down). Parks has already said they will WORK with MCPS on Lynnbrook, thereby not losing any rectangular fields. Lynnbrook has a minimal amount of administrative employees, they are largely leased out to a PRIVATE day care center, and already big MCPS buses ride up and down those streets with several routes taking daycare students to and from 4 MCPS elementary schools. And we could have a terrific middle school that MANY OF US COULD WALK TO. A real community middle school, and it would be a wonderful asset for us, so no, we are NOT nimbys.

Parks has made it very clear that they are not willing to give up one square foot of unencumbered park land (sorry RCH, you are considered encumbered with reclaim clause) and so when I hear that the second SSAC is building consensus to recommend NCC Park...I just think they are setting themselves up for failure. If those families in RCH want to not end up as "The Top Pick", they should start lobbying for a good hard look at Lynnbrook, because that is the fiscally responsible and smart choice.

OMG! NCC Park?! Really? You mean the one off of Jones Bridge Rd. near Connecticut? The traffic along Ct. Ave. from East West to the Beltway is already a nightmare at rush hour. The Jones Bridge/Conn. Av. intersection is no left turn at all four approaches. Entering/exiting NCC Park for school buses (and parents picking their children up before/after school) would be a nightmare.

The neighborhood is already up in arms about the traffic problems that the nearby Purple Line and additional Chevy Chase Land Company development will bring along this part of Ct. Ave. adding a middle school at that location seems unwise.

If one wanted a middle school in that area, the SSAC ought to also be looking at the privately held Chevy Chase Land Company property and see if some kind of deal could be made for middle school land in a better location as a trade for CCLC development along CT. Ave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lynnbrook is the no brainer obvious choice. The MCPS already owns the property, the current buildings are already falling apart and will very soon need major renovation (or tear down). Parks has already said they will WORK with MCPS on Lynnbrook, thereby not losing any rectangular fields. Lynnbrook has a minimal amount of administrative employees, they are largely leased out to a PRIVATE day care center, and already big MCPS buses ride up and down those streets with several routes taking daycare students to and from 4 MCPS elementary schools. And we could have a terrific middle school that MANY OF US COULD WALK TO. A real community middle school, and it would be a wonderful asset for us, so no, we are NOT nimbys.

Parks has made it very clear that they are not willing to give up one square foot of unencumbered park land (sorry RCH, you are considered encumbered with reclaim clause) and so when I hear that the second SSAC is building consensus to recommend NCC Park...I just think they are setting themselves up for failure. If those families in RCH want to not end up as "The Top Pick", they should start lobbying for a good hard look at Lynnbrook, because that is the fiscally responsible and smart choice.

OMG! NCC Park?! Really? You mean the one off of Jones Bridge Rd. near Connecticut? The traffic along Ct. Ave. from East West to the Beltway is already a nightmare at rush hour. The Jones Bridge/Conn. Av. intersection is no left turn at all four approaches. Entering/exiting NCC Park for school buses (and parents picking their children up before/after school) would be a nightmare.

The neighborhood is already up in arms about the traffic problems that the nearby Purple Line and additional Chevy Chase Land Company development will bring along this part of Ct. Ave. adding a middle school at that location seems unwise.

If one wanted a middle school in that area, the SSAC ought to also be looking at the privately held Chevy Chase Land Company property and see if some kind of deal could be made for middle school land in a better location as a trade for CCLC development along CT. Ave.

CCLC basically owns the county in terms of what they want to do. they will not give up anything and thy are rolling the dice big time on the purple linne who do you think paid to have the railroad bridge on the trail to be renovated to hold trains???

[Anonymous]

But the point is, if the "owner" is Montgomery County, and after considering the alternatives it makes more sense to locate a school there and preserve parkland elsewhere, it's absurd to say that we can't do it because the owner refuses to sell.

Well, I don't think Montgomery County owns the parks. The "owner" of the parks is Maryland National Capitol Park and Planning Commission which is a bi-county agency. Their mission statement is on their website and it is pretty clear that they don't consider parks to be the vacant lands that MCPS consider them to be.

I also think it is perfectly reasonable to ask the Chevy Chase Lake Land Development Co (?) to work a middle school into their plans. White Flint redevelopment will be integrating a school into their new CR zone, and since the developers are the drivers behind all the explosive growth, then they should be responsible for helping ease the crowding.

I just can't support MCPS taking land from Parks because of their own shortsightedness in long range planning. How many school properties have been basically given away through sweetheart suspicious deals (Montgomery Hills Junior High) on leases etc...

Why should Parks or all the people who enjoy and need parks have to pay for their lack of foresight?

If MNCPPC refuses to give up precious park land for MCPS use, I applaud them and I will support them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Montgomery County has a lot of forest rentention oversight, but that doesn't mean you can never build on a site that has trees. It does mean you need to build in a way that retains the most trees, but if that isn't possible you can replace trees at the site once construction is finished or even in a totally different area. The ICC took out trees, and there are new trees growing at the 495/Connecticut Avenue and 270/Route 121 interchanges, which are nowhere near the ICC.

That's hardly forest retenion, although I realize MoCo loves that term (are you on Nancy Floreen's staff?). Taking out acres and acres of original 100 year old forest trees and replacing them with saplings, and as you said even in a totally different area is not forest retension. Furthermore, they often put new trees too close to concrete so they have difficulty thriving anyway. I think the county will keep moving toward creating a concrete jungle though since most of their reelection campaigns depend on clearing a path for developers.

[Anonymous]

I'm not on Nancy Floreen's staff, but I think it's hilarious that you think I am. And I didn't say that was forest retention, I just said that there are ways around the laws as written. And I'm not fond of the North Chevy Chase Park site for many reasons, but it is one of the largest sites on the committee's table and so has a chance of housing a middle school, retaining the rectangular fields which the area sorely lacks for the use of the community, AND retaining a huge amount of forest. That's not possible on some of the smaller sites.

[Anonymous]

Why not build at Lynbrook but also develop and set aside NCC Park for use by those two schools -- it is close to Lynbrook and BCC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why not build at Lynbrook but also develop and set aside NCC Park for use by those two schools -- it is close to Lynbrook and BCC.

that is a great idea! It also makes sense from an economic point of view. MCPS owns Lynnbrook, the buildings are falling apart so sooner or later moneys will be spent on that. How about sooner than later and build a new middle school there.

And NCC could keep all their trees and all the critters that live there!