Regency rumored to be
considering senior housing for
Westwood II site
The Maryland Court of Appeals has rejected the final appeal petition in the lawsuit by Bethesda residents vs. Montgomery County over illegal actions by the County Planning Board and County Council in their approval of the 2016 Westbard sector plan. This ends this particular legal action, which led to a downsizing of the original redevelopment plan by developer Regency Centers for 22 acres of property along Westbard Avenue, Ridgefield Road and River Road.
By reducing the density of the plan and filing under the standard method of approval, Regency asserted it could then move forward with its new plan regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit. That eliminated a large amount of the originally-planned low-income housing in the project, but also reduced the extra density that such units would have allowed above the legal limit.
A further trim for the multiproperty redevelopment of two retail centers, a parking lot, a gas station and a vacant assisted living building is rumored to be in the works. Regency is said to be considering switching the mixed-use residential building originally proposed for the Westwood Center II mini-mall and Citgo gas station properties to senior housing. A pre-submittal meeting on the proposed plan amendment could be announced later this month if Regency decides to proceed with senior housing. If true, the change would significantly reduce the impact of Regency's portion of the Westbard redevelopment on public school classroom space.
Another shoe that still hasn't dropped is the fight over three easements the Kenwood Place condominiums owns across Regency's Westwood Shopping Center parking lot. Negotiations between the parties have paused. Should Kenwood Place residents stick to their guns, Regency would have to relocate the small Springfield Neighborhood Park proposed for the parking lot with the standalone ATM building, which is located directly behind new homes that were built on land where Montgomery County previously - and falsely - claimed it would build a neighborhood park in 1982.
This article contains some speculative/questionable statements by Dyer. One is that this particular legal action, led to a downsizing of the original redevelopment plan by developer Regency Centers. The initial plan was developed by Equity One, which was acquired by Regency. Equity One’s plan had a lot of retail, which is not doing well in Montgomery County as Dyer has noted elsewhere, or nationally for that matter. Regency reviewed and reconsidered the Equity One plan. In a major change, Regency cut out a lot of retail and reconfigured the planned development. Numerous organizations and individuals had advocated for less density among other things.
ReplyDeleteA second is that reducing the density of the plan and filing under the standard method of approval, Regency asserted it could then move forward with its new plan regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit. Regency had a broader legal theory based largely on zoning adopted by the County Council rather than the Westbard sector plan and Regency’s new site plan purportedly (per Regency) but not accurately, satisfied the sector plan as well as zoning.
Are they still proposing that cool super-secret, high-speed maglev aerial bullet train from downtown Bethesda to downtown Westbard, and over the Potomac to the CIA and a Tysons? Like the one in the Hunger Games.
ReplyDelete"the fight over three easements the Kenwood Place condominiums owns across Regency's Westwood Shopping Center parking lot."
ReplyDeleteWhere exactly are these easements? Are all three of them in the area of the proposed Springfield Neighborhood Park? Do all of these three easements actually pertain to Kenwood Place, or to other properties adjacent to the shopping center?
5:58: Your assessment could be described as "questionable," as well. No one was asking for less retail; in fact, there was almost universal approval of providing a new retail center. It was the downscaling of the residential portion of the project that was a win delivered by the lawsuit.
ReplyDeleteYes, many asked for lower density since 2014 (or 2009) - but Equity One never agreed to do so, and had the sector plan they needed to deliver the larger project. But Equity/Regency never downsized it until the legal action by Save Westbard and the residents. What a coincidence!
Regency's representatives were very upfront in January 2018 that their new plan could move forward regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit. That is a fact not in dispute.
6:17: Nope, just slow light rail. But definitely in the Hunger Games-esque future the MoCo cartel is plotting - bad schools and high crime in every neighborhood! Total gridlock on the roads!
1:37: All of the relevant easements are within the boundaries of Regency's property, and belong to Kenwood Place.
We dont want low income duh....
ReplyDeleteBRING IN THE BULLDOZERS!
ReplyDeleteLooking forward to it!
Delete"If true, the change would significantly reduce the impact of Regency's portion of the Westbard redevelopment on public school classroom space."
ReplyDeleteBecause what Bethesda really needs to cure its moribundity is MORE OLD PEOPLE!
I guess the developers and MoCo cartel must control the MD Court of Appeals as well.
ReplyDelete@ 12:41 PM - Since Dyer can't be bothered to provide such basic information to his readers, this is your answer: Just one of the three easements pertains to the area of the proposed Springfield Neighborhood Park. The other easements are an access easement on the south side of the shopping center, and "certain common access parking spaces" in the parking lot in front of the Giant.
ReplyDeleteBottom of page 37-top of page 38:
https://montgomeryplanningboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Westwood-Shopping-Center-Preliminary-Plan-No.-120170170-and-Site-Plan-No.-820180190.pdf
"Kenwood Place Condominium (KPC), abutting the Site Plan Property to the west, is party to certain private easements on the Westwood Shopping Center site. These include an access easement located between Westbard Avenue and the KPC site, running through the area designated by the Sector Plan as the Springfield Neighborhood Urban Park, and certain common access parking spaces in the existing supermarket parking lot. As private agreements to which M-NCPPC is not party, these easements are not within the scope of the Planning Department’s review.
"For the private access easement, the Site Plan provides separate vehicular access from Westbard Avenue to KPC through the new private street network that connects at the northern and southern ends of the site. Staff has encouraged the KPC board and the Applicant to work together to remove the superfluous easement so that the neighborhood park may be implemented as recommended in the Sector Plan."