Bottom Line: Lynbrook makes the most sense and avoids this mess.

Well...I think you are right. And no, I do not live in Kensington, but if you want a quick resolution, then Lynnbrook is the site to go for. It already belongs to MCPS. And as far as obliterating the co-located Lynnbrook Park...Not very likely. Parks has already called it "the best case scenario".

Anonymous wrote:One of the problems with Lynnbrook is that it is right at the BARE minimum acreage of the smallest middle school site that MCPS can imagine. Another problem is that teams from B-CC are already using all the fields there in the afternoons, so that leaves B-CC looking for different fields if the MS is built there and MS kids start using the fields.

Actually, RCH is the smallest when you consider the feasibility study findings. 5.1 Acres of trees will have to be removed from the slopes so that the school can be built where they are. If Parks doesn't allow those trees to get wiped out (still a possibility), then the site is too small. MCPS said that, at a minimum, it needs 10.1 acres (excluding sidewalks and buffers) to build a school. RCH is 13.33 acres. If the 5.1 acres aren't available, the footprint for building is just over 8 acres. BTW, even if MCPS receives permission to remove the 5.1 acres of trees, the feasibility study says that the entire site will be lowered by four feet to allow proper siting of the school. This is not what one might call the cost-efficient option.

As for the reclaim right, MCPS is whistling past the graveyard on that issue. It took one letter in a stream of communication and made it the conclusion on the matter. The reality is that DNR allowed the land to be encumbered with funds (federal or state; it refuses to provide documentation) that carry onerous restrictions on the conversion of the land. DNR is in the difficult position of either admitting that it encumbered the land (and now owes MCPS 13.33 acres) or asserting a practice that is used in connection with development funding for years that could expose it to enormous liability. It likely is banking on the hope that the crazies in RCH will cave, but given their tree-hugging tendancies, I suspect this site will be in court long before one shovel hits the ground.

Bottom Line: Lynbrook makes the most sense and avoids this mess.

I'm not sure why the neighbors of any of these sites are being demonized for speaking out instead of the people who created this problem. The county has given up many school sites in the BCC cluster (Kensington Jr. High is now a retirement home housing 200 people and Grace Episcopal was sold 10 years ago for $2 million). Now, MCPS says simply that there is nowhere to build except parks. After the middle school site is selected, there will be a site selection for a high school. That is when Norwood and/or NCC Park will be on the chopping block. Then all of us in the downcounty will be on I-270 driving to find places to play soccer, football, lacrosse, field hockey, etc.

I think it is rotten to take parks away from any community. Where do you think they should build?

Anonymous wrote:

My guess is that if they put the school there they will need every inch of that site, and will have to regrade the entire site.

Your guess is correct, in my opinion.

After the middle school site is selected, there will be a site selection for a high school.

Says who?

We have been told that Pyle kids will probably go to Westland once the new school is built.

What the hell? That is baseless. Who is telling you this?

Not the poster you're responding to, but re: creating split articulation B-CC/Whitman for Westland, I don't think that's baseless. Pyle is overcrowded and cannot be expanded. Westland sits in Whitman's catchment area. Redistricting some kids to Westland is a solution that's come up before.

My guess is that if they put the school there they will need every inch of that site, and will have to regrade the entire site.

Your guess is correct, in my opinion.

After the middle school site is selected, there will be a site selection for a high school.

Says who?

We have been told that Pyle kids will probably go to Westland once the new school is built.

What the hell? That is baseless. Who is telling you this?

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]One of the problems with Lynnbrook is that it is right at the BARE minimum acreage of the smallest middle school site that MCPS can imagine. Another problem is that teams from B-CC are already using all the fields there in the afternoons, so that leaves B-CC looking for different fields if the MS is built there and MS kids start using the fields.[/quote]

There are already some middle schools in the county that are on small parcels. Here are some MS in MoCo that are under 10 acres: Lakelands Park (Northwest cluster), Newport Mills (DC Consortium), Earle Wood (Rockville), Parkland (DC Consortium). Even Pyle is on fewer than 15 acres. What is it about the 4 MS on small parcels that made it workable, and why would those same conditions not apply to BCC MS #2? I believe Newport Mills abuts Einstein and they share the fields. Why can't the MS field be shared with BCC if such a plan works elsewhere?
[/quote]

I don't think RCH or Lynnbrook are good sites for the middle school. Neither is large enough to accommodate the school and athletic fields. And, both parks host BCC athletic teams. As for the other middle schools in the county that are "under 10 acres," they all sit adjacent to parks. Under an agreement with the City of Gaithersburg, Lakelands Park Middle School uses the fields for PE and after-school athletics (total acreage: 19 acres). We have been told that Pyle kids will probably go to Westland once the new school is built. What other plans does MCPS have for the new middle school?

Their track record for building adequate capacity at new and/or modernized schools is deplorable. Kensington-Parkwood is now undergoing a feasibility study for an addition, five years after it re-opened (the portables arrived shortly after opeening). And, the McKinney Hills (which hasn't even opened yet) was supposed to relieve overcrowding at two schools: Oakland Terrace and Woodlin, but now they've discovered that it can only accommodate Oakland Terrace. Woodlin will get portables instead.

I'm not sure why the neighbors of any of these sites are being demonized for speaking out instead of the people who created this problem. The county has given up many school sites in the BCC cluster (Kensington Jr. High is now a retirement home housing 200 people and Grace Episcopal was sold 10 years ago for $2 million). Now, MCPS says simply that there is nowhere to build except parks. After the middle school site is selected, there will be a site selection for a high school. That is when Norwood and/or NCC Park will be on the chopping block. Then all of us in the downcounty will be on I-270 driving to find places to play soccer, football, lacrosse, field hockey, etc.

We need to make smart, forward-thinking decisions in the face of huge development in CC Lake, Kensington, Wheaton and White Flint. Why can't a deal be made with these developers for land? Why are we adding more people if we can't take care of the ones who already live here?

Because it's a 30+ acre site that (as far as I can tell) gets very little use. You could leave half the site as a park and still have a school site bigger than almost any other on the list (and I do think if you're going to build a school you should build one with decently-sized facilities that either won't be overcrowded the day it open or has some potential for expansion).

I have heard that language "won't be overcrowded from the day it opens" used by some in the Rock Creek Hills community to illustrate why their site is unworkable. Unfortunately, some of these folks now are fixed on NCC Park. I am not saying that the poster is from that group. However, that they protest the use of their park and yet are ok with taking parkland elsewhere, makes me very doubtful about any of their arguments or motivations.

While I am personally sorry to see any park land taken for non park purposes, the fact remains that RCH was a former school site, with reclaim rights. But size should be no deterrent, in light of the PP regarding smaller MS in the county. Also, the BoE recognizes the fact that especially down county, they have to be realistic and build vertical schools that are not land hungry. So, I agree, that a very close and careful look at Lynnbrook is warranted.

Anonymous wrote:One of the problems with Lynnbrook is that it is right at the BARE minimum acreage of the smallest middle school site that MCPS can imagine. Another problem is that teams from B-CC are already using all the fields there in the afternoons, so that leaves B-CC looking for different fields if the MS is built there and MS kids start using the fields.

There are already some middle schools in the county that are on small parcels. Here are some MS in MoCo that are under 10 acres: Lakelands Park (Northwest cluster), Newport Mills (DC Consortium), Earle Wood (Rockville), Parkland (DC Consortium). Even Pyle is on fewer than 15 acres. What is it about the 4 MS on small parcels that made it workable, and why would those same conditions not apply to BCC MS #2? I believe Newport Mills abuts Einstein and they share the fields. Why can't the MS field be shared with BCC if such a plan works elsewhere?

Because it's a 30+ acre site that (as far as I can tell) gets very little use. You could leave half the site as a park and still have a school site bigger than almost any other on the list (and I do think if you're going to build a school you should build one with decently-sized facilities that either won't be overcrowded the day it open or has some potential for expansion).

Unless I am mistaken, the only park that was a former MCPS property, is Rock Creek Hills. All the other pars have no recalls, or otherwise claims on them. So while conceding the Rock Creek Hills Park, all other parks should not be considered. From what I understood the lady from Parks to say, the Lynnbrook local park could be maintained as a park, with the exception of the parcel which now houses the closed activity building, the former Lynnbrook elementary school already belongs to the MCPS system, and could easily be used for construction. That would be the least loss of open green space, and the best use of tax payer money.

Why do you think North Chevy Chase Park is such a good site?

It seems to me MCPS' policy is to turn schools into parks when it thinks it doesn't need them, and then look at parks when it needs to build a school. Maybe they need to do a better job of long range planning but at its core I don't see why that is such a bad approach (leaving aside the people who don't want to ever give up the park-that-was-a-school).

I'm sure I'll get flamed but, leaving traffic concerns aside, I think putting a school at NCC park would be a better use of that site.

It also seems odd to suggest that selecting Lynnbrook would mean "allowing a school to be built next to Lynnbrook park". My guess is that if they put the school there they will need every inch of that site, and will have to regrade the entire site.

I completely agree with PP. Though non park sites are on the list, MCPS seems to be herding the SSAC towards park sites as opposed to non park sites. At the first SSAC meeting, I noticed they were very quick to throw caveats up when a non park site was being discussed, but seem to completely be oblivious to the very real obstacles in the way when discussing parks. Sadly, many on the SSAC seem to accept "the facts" as presented by MCPS.

MCPS cannot be allowed to continue their failed policy of giving/leasing away schools/real estate when population dips, then looking to take the most expedient and in their mind cheap option by taking away our remaining parks.

If they are not stopped now, all our parks will be in peril eventually. This should not be about schools vs. parks.

Anonymous wrote:

why is MCPS taking community parks instead of looking at their own inventory?

If you read the whole thread, they are considering both.

The List includes MCPS properties and parks, but I question if MCPS will allow the site selection committee to consider non-park sites. Even very recently, school staff have referred to parks as 'vacant land'. Not a good sign of respect for a fellow agency.

In an effort to correct that kind of thinking and to avoid the failure of the first committee (picking a property that was not for sale- Rosemary Hills park), MCPS and M-NCPPC formed a Work Group. The group has met about a half-dozen times to form a better working relationship. The is group expects to release it's results publicly in late February- before the second SSAC makes its recommendation. Consider what policies or guidelines will be issued.

To avoid egg on face, this second SSAC should be looking at all the info that parks has put out. The April 27 and December 22(?) letters from Frances Carrier are saying that giving up parks for school construction is not going to happen. My read... 1) NCC is a big park- but it will not be for sale. Taking down trees and developing that park is against every statement parks has made in writing and in the SSAC meetings. 2) - RCH has the bulls-eye on its back, but Park is limited in its ability to stop school constitution there and the loss of an important playing field. 3) allowing a school to be built next door to Lynnbrook local park would have the least impact on parks and playing fields in the cluster area being considered.

To avoid wasting Wednesday nights and running into extra innings, this SSAC cannot afford to be naive or arrogant when considering the facts. Remember, A stand for Advisory - MCPS/M-NCPPC does not have to accept the committee's sites. If a park is not for sale- it will not be sold. Ask the tough questions next week- what is available, what are the facts surrounding the real contenders for this middle school.

This is a process where no site is perfect. What is the best site to make the best use of our current resources and preserve options for the future?

why is MCPS taking community parks instead of looking at their own inventory?

If you read the whole thread, they are considering both.

why is MCPS taking community parks instead of looking at their own inventory? Taking parks from communities is just plain wrong. I don't think Parks will let them
have parks without a fight, which would slow down the whole process, which mcps does not want to do.

I 100% support MNCPPC not to be forced or coerced to give up park land to a county entity that has shown itself to be incompetent long range planners. Our community needs parks and schools and the two should not be pitted against each other.

And by the way, if Lynnbrook is a decaying property that would benefit from redevelopment, then I would also support that site as a good choice.

The previous poster who refers to the parking lot/black top as being well used struck me oddly. Take someone else's green space but leave my parking lot intact?