pulte $86m complaint
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/10/2019 Pulte $86M Complaint
1/73
IN
MONTGOMERY
COUNTYCIRCUIT
COURT,
MARYLAND
PULTEHOME
CORPORATION
ANDSHILOH
I'ARM
INVESTMENTS LLC
10600 r r o ~ ~ ~ h e a d
Drive
S u i t e 225
F a i r f a x ,
VA
2030
(703)934-9382
P l a i n t i f f s ,
MONTGOMERY
COUNTY,
ARYLAND
101
Monroe t .
R o c k v i l l e ,
MD
0850
S e r v e : County
t t o r n e y
MARYLAND-NATIONALCAPITAL
PARK AND
PLANNING
COMMISSION
661
Kenilworth
Ave.
R i v e r d a l e ,
MD
0737
S e r v e :
General
Counsel,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
INTRODUCTION
Cas e No.
This Complaint
a r i s e s
from
Defendants'
Montgomery
Co~mty ( County )
and
t h e
Maryland
- N a t i o n a l
C a p i t a l
P a t-
k
and
Planning Commission( MNCPPC
r Planning Board
r
Commissi on )
( c o l l e c t i v e l y ,
Defendants )
ongoing
i l l e g a l
and
u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l
a c C i o n s
p r e v e n t i n g
any r e a s o n a b l e economic
u s e and
development of
approximately
5~
a c r e s
of
a n d
( s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y
o r p r o j e c t
s i t e ) o wn e d
and
under
c o n t r a c t
by u l t e Home
o r p o r a t i o f l and
S h i l o h F a rm
I n v e s t m e n t s LLC
c o l l e c t i v e l y ,
P u l e
r
P l a i n t i f f s )
i n
C l a r k s b u r g ,
Maryland.
-
8/10/2019 Pulte $86M Complaint
2/73
P u l t e o t i v n s
approximately 404
c e e s and
s
under o n t r a c t t o purchase h e
remaining
approximate
136 c r e s .
U n t i l
t h e
s p r i n g
and
s u m m e r
of
2014,
h e
p r o j e c t
s i t e ,
w h i c h
holds
s i g n i f i c a n t
economic
p o t e f ~ t i a l , w a s
planned and zoned f o r
r e s i d e n t i a l
development
i n t h e
range
of
954
o
1,007 u n i t s
under Defenda nts'
1994 Clarksburg
MasCer
Plan
( 1994
MasCer P lan or
Master Plan ) nd RE-
1/TDR-2 r e s i d e n t i a l
zone.
T h e
Master-
Plan s t r u c k a
c a r e f u l balance
bet ween
e n v i r o t u n e n t a l
p r o t e c t i o n
and
t h e need f o r
communi ty b u i l d i n g and
h o ~ ~ s i n g
i n
t h e
County o r t h e s i t e ,
w h ich
i s
l o c a t e d
i n
t h e
~ ~ e w
town
of Clarksburg,
Maryland along t l ~ e
I-270
c o r r i d o r , west of M a i y l a i ~ d
Route
~ ~
Road
and
n o r t h
of West Old
Baltimore
Road.
Defendants,
through
a
p a t t e r n
of
conduct
spanning
s e v e r a l
y e a r s
and
c o n t i n u i n g ,
l a v e
p r e v e n t e d P u l t e
f rom u s i n g and
developing
t s
p r o p e r t y
pursuant o
p r o p e r , r e a s o n a b l e , and
l e g a l
a p p l i c a t i o n s ,
c o n t r a r y
t o P u l t e ' s
r e l i a n c e
on h e 1994
Master Plan,
o n t r a r y ~ o
P u l t e ' s
compliance
w i t h
t h e s u b j e c t
p r o p e t - ~ y ' s
RE-1/TDR-2
e s i d e n t i a l zoning, and
c o n t r a r y C o
P u l t e ' s compliance
w i t h
a l l
F e d e r a l ,
S t a t e ,
and
County
d e v e l o p i l ~ e n t a l
and
e n v i t r o n m e n t a l
r e g ~ ~ l a t i o n s .
P u r p o r t i n g
t o
p r o t e c t
t h e
water
q u a l i t y of T e n Mile
Cr e ek
i n
C l a r k s b u t g ,
Defendants
h a v e
s i n g l e d out and
t a r g e t e d t h e
s u b j e c t
p r o p e r t y
w i t h
e x t r a o r d i n a r y l a n d
use e x a c t i o n s
by
1)
h ~ ~ ~ r ~ i n g
i n d e f i n i t e l y
planned
water
end
s e w e r e r v i c e t o
t h e s u b j e c t
p r o p e r t y ,
2) ownzoning
t
f r o t h a
r e s i d e n t i a l
t o
a n
a g r i c u l t u r a l zone, 3)
mposing
a n
exteemely l o w and
a r b i t r a r y
impervious
l i m i t
of
6
e r c e n t
f o r development
on
t h e
p r o p e r t y w h e ~ 1
s i m i l a r l y
s i t u a t e d
p r o p e r t y
d e v e l o p e r ' s i n
C h e s a m e
watershed
a r e s u b j e c t t o a
15
p e r c e n t
impervious
l i m i t ,
4 )
imposing
a n e x t r e i u e l y
h i g h and
a r b i t r a r y
open space
requirement
of 80 p e r c e n t
on t h e
p r o p e r t y ,
5)
imposing through
implementation of efendants'
2014
Clarksburg
Master Plan
Amendment
2014
Amen d m e nt )
a d d i t i o n a l
c o n f i s c a t o r y
de v e lopment
r e s t r i c t i o n s
beyond
w h a t
i s
r e q u i r e d f o r
any o t h e r
2
-
8/10/2019 Pulte $86M Complaint
3/73
a p p l i c a t i o n under Defendants'
laws and
r e g u l a t i o n s , and 6)
r e q u i r i n g
t h a t P u l t e
d e d i c a t e
s i g n i f i c a n t
p o r t i o n s of
t s
l a n d
t o t h e Commission's
Department
of
arks
or otherwise
l e a v e
i t s
l a n d untouched
under
any
development
p p l i c a t i o n t h a t P u l t e
may
t t e m p t .
Defendants
adopted
t h e s e
e x t r a o r d i n a r y r e s t r i c t i o n s ,
a i m e d
s o l e l y a t P l ~ l t e ,
w i t h
no
v a l i d
s c i e n t i f i c
support
and by
i g n o r i n g
e x p e r t
testimony
i n d i c a t i n g t h a C
t h e
1994
Master
Plan
a s
w e l l
a s l a w s and
r e g u l a t i o n s a r e
mo r e
k h a n
s u f f i c i e n t l y p r o t e c t i v e
of h e
T e n
Mile
Cre ek
watershed.
Of u l t e ' s
approximaCely
541 a c r e s ,
t
can now nly develop
up
o 9 3
c r e s ,
a
m e r e
17
e r c e n t
of
i t s
p r o p e r t y .
Defendants'
a c t i o n s
a r e
n o d an
e x e r c i s e of udgment
on
proper l a n d use
p l a n n i n g
and zoning guided
by
e g a l s t a n d a r d s . P u l t e
has
s u f f e r e d and
i s
s u f f e r i n g
s u b s t a n t i a l d a m a g e s s
a
e s u l t
of efendants'
n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a c t i o n s .
By
e f u s i n g t o
allow P u l t e any
r e a s o n a b l e
and
e c o n o i ~ l i c a l l y
v i a b l e
use of t s p r o p e r t y ,
Defendants
h a ve
v i o l a t e d
and
a r e v i o l a t i n g
P u l t e ' s S t a t e
and
Federal
c o n s t i t u C i o n a l
r i g h t s
t o
s u b s t a n t i v e
d u e p r o c e s s ,
p r o c e d u r a l
due
p r o c e s s , and
equal
p r o t e c t i o n of t h e
l a w , and have
e f f e c t e d a
t a k i n g of
u l t e ' s p r o p e r t y
f o r p u b l i c
use w ithout
u s t
compensation i n
v i o l a t i o n of h e
Maryland
C o n s t i t u t i o n .
Defendants
h a v e
l s o
~ ~
P l a i n t i f f s
of
h e i r r i g h t t o
a p p r o p r i a t e
and
j u s t
r e me di e s
f o r
t h e i r
i n j u r y
C o
P l a i n t i f f s '
p r o p e r t y
i n
v i o l a t i o n of
h e
Maryland
C o n s t i t u t i o n .
F i r s t ,
Defendants
h a v e a c t e d
a r b i t r a r i l y ,
c a p r i c i o u s l y ,
or
unreasonably by
i g n o r i n b
r e l e v a n t
evidence
r e g a r d i n g t h e
s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y
submi~~ed t o t h e
r e c o r d
of h e
2014
Am en d m e n t and
subsequent
zoning a c t i o n s ,
a l l
i t l
o r d e r t o thwart
u l t e ' s
pending
and
complete Water
and
S e w e r
a p p l i c a t i o n
and
i t s
l a w f u l l y
planned
development.
Second,
Defendants
h a v e
t r e a t e d
P u l C e
d i f f e r e n t l y
f rom
s i m i l a r l y
s i t u a t e d
p r i v a t e
p r o p e r t y
owners
i n
t h e
s a m e
watershed t h a t
h a v e been
s u b j e c C e d t o
f a r l e s s
r e s t r i c t i v e
development
l i m i t s ,
environmental s t a n d a r d s ,
and
zoning
r e q u i r e m e n t s .
Third,
as
a
r e s u l t
of Defendants'
a c t i o n s ,
P u l t e ' s
d i s t i n c t
investment
-backed
3
-
8/10/2019 Pulte $86M Complaint
4/73
e x p e c t a t i o n s h a v e been
d e s t r o y e d , and t h e County's r e f u s a l t o a c t on
P u l t e ' s y e a r s -pending
Water
and S e w e r
Category
Ch ange
a p p l i c a t i o n
has
e f f e c t e d
a ~ ' e
facto moratorium on
1 1 e use
of
i t s
p r o p e r t y , r e n d e r i n g
a t a k i n g of h e l a n d f o r
p u b l i c
use wi thout u s t
compensation. o u r t h ,
t h e
County
h a s
v i o l a t e d
P u l t e s p r o c e d u r a l
due
p r o c e s s r i g h t s by
s o l i c i t i n g
e x t e n s i v e n e w , a r e f u l l y
choreographed,
i f l - i n f o r m e d
testimony
from
n e w
governmental
w i t n e s s e s
b e f o r e
t h e
County
Council
i n Master
l a ~ ~ w o r k
e s s i o n s a f t e r
t h e
c l o s e of h e p u b l i c h e a r i n g r e c o r d on
h e
Master
Plan Am e n d m e n t ,
thereby p r o v i d i n g
P u l t e
no
o p p o r t u n i t y
t o
t e s t i f y i n
r e s p o n s e . And f i f t h ,
Defendants
h a v e
deprived
P u l t e of
t s
r i g h t t o a p p r o p r i a t e ~ j u s t rem ed ies f o r
t h e i r
i n j u r y
t o
P l a i n t i f f s '
p r o p e r t y
i n v i o l a t i o n
of
r t i c l e
19
of h e
D e c l a r a t i o n of
Rights
of
h e
C o n s t i t u t i o n
of
Maryland.
P u l t e
seeks d a m a g e s and u s t compensation
i n t h e
a mount
of
$86
m i l l i o n or an
amount
~ o be
determined
a t t r i a l ,
d e c l a r a t o r y
m a n d a m u s ,
and i n j u n c t i v e
r e l i e f
a s a
r e s u l t
of
Defendants' l l e g a l and
u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l
a c t i o n s .
P u l t e ,
through
t s
a t t o r n e y s ,
f u r t h e r
s t a t e s :
FACTS
COMMON
TO
ALL
COUNTS
Parties
a n d
J u r i s c l i c ~ i o n
1 . P l a i n t i f f s
P u l t e Home
Corporation
and
Shiloh Fi r m lnvestmeuts LLC
t o g e t h e r ,
Pulte ) i l e d
w i t h
t h e
County
on
May 12, 2009, a
Water
and
S e w e r S e r v i c e
Area
Category Ch ange Request
a p p l i c a t i o n
( Water
and
S e w e r Category Ch ange
R e q u e s t ' ' ) a i d f i l e d with MNCPPC
n
D e c e m b e r
19,
2012
a
Concept Pre- P r e l i m i n a r y
Plan A p p l i c a t i o n
( Pre
- P r e l i m i n a r y
Application )
( t o g e t h e r ,
D e v e l o p m en t
A p p l i c a t i o n s ) f o r
t h e s u b j e c t
p r o p e r t y . P u l t e
H o i ~ ~ e Corporation purchas ed a l l
of h e
4
-
8/10/2019 Pulte $86M Complaint
5/73
m e m b e r s h i p
i n t e r e s t s i n S h i l o h
F a r m
Investments
LLC i n
t 1 1 e
a mount
of
approximately
402
a c r e s ,
s e p a r a t e l y o wn s
about 1 . 6
a c r e s , and i s
under c o n t r a c t d o
purchase f rom
John
R. King, r . , Anita
Kig
Ko w a l s k i ( f o r i T l e r l y
kno w n a s Anita
King H e l l e r ) ,
and
Florence
Sipes t o g e t h e r ,
K i ng
family ) r 1 a d j o i i ~ i r l g
approximate
136 a c r e s ( Kig t r a c t ) ,
a l l
of
w h i c h
m a k e
up f l e
s u b j e c t
p r o p e r t y
i n
Clarksburg,
Maryland.
2.
Def end ant Montgomery
County,
w ho s e
governing
body
i s compos e d
of
h e
County
Council and County
Executive,
i s
e m p o w e r e d by t h e
S t a t e of
Maryland t o approve
Master-
Plans and
enact
zoning
and
o t h e r l a n d
use
po w e r s
pursuant
t o
t h e Land
Us e
A r t i c l e and t h e
Express Powers Act
( A r t i c l e
25A) of
t h e
Annotated C o d e
of
M a 1 y l a n d .
T h e
County
Council, w h e n
c t i n g i n i t s
planning and
zoning a u t h o r i t y ,
s i t s
a s
t h e
D i s t r i c t Council f o r t h e
Montgomery
County
p o r t i o n
of t h e
Maryland-
Washington
Regional ~
~
t h e
Land Us e
A r t i c l e .
3 . D e f e n d a ~ l t
MNCPPC,
b i - c o u n t y
agency
t h a t
a d m i n i s t e r s parks
and
planning
i n
Montgomer}~
a t l d Prince
George's
Counties
i n Maryland,
i s
e m p o w e r e d t o a c q u i r e
and
man age l a n d s
f o r
p u b l i c
p a r k s , d r a f t
and adopt
Master
Plans,
d t
-
a f t
zoning
a nd
s u b d i v i s i o n
o r d i n a n c e s ,
adopt
de v e lopment
r e g u l a t i o n s ,
a c t on
l a n d
d e v e l o p i l ~ e n t
a p p l i c a t i o n s , and
r e c o n l ~ I l e n d
o t h e r l a n d
use
p o l i c i e s t o
Montgomery
County p u r s u a n t
t o
t h e Land
U s e
A r t i c l e
of h e AnnoCated
C o d e
of
Mar}land.
4.
T hi s Court
has
j u r i s d i c t i o n
over
t h i s
a c t i o n ,
and
venue l i e s
i n
t h i s
Court
under
t h e
p r o v i s i o n s
of S e c t i o n s
1-501, 3-40~,
3-8B-01,
6-102, and
6-201
of
h e
Courts
and
J u d i c i a l
Proceedings
A r t i c l e of h e
Annotated G o d e
of
Maryland
and
28 United
S t a t e s
5
-
8/10/2019 Pulte $86M Complaint
6/73
C o d e ~
1331 and 1 3 4 3 ( a ) .
T hi s Court
has
u r i s d i c t i o n pursuant
t o
Md.
o d e
Ann.,
C t s .
&
ud.
Proc.
- 5 0 1 because none
of h e
causes
of c t i o n
a l l e g e d
h e r e i n
h a v e
been, by
l a w j u r i s d i c t i o n ,
l i m i t e d or
c o n f e r r e d
e x c l u s i v e l y u p o ~ l
a n o t h e r
t r i b u n a l . Pursuant t o Md. o d e
Ann.,
C t s .
& ud.
Proc.
~
3-403,
t
i s w i t h i n
t h i s
C o u r t ' s
j u r i s d i c t i o n
t o provide
d e c l a r a t o r y
r e l i e f . Pursuant
o
Md. o d e
Ann.,
t s .&
J ~ i d . Proc.
3-8B-01, t h i s
C o u l t
a l s o
has
j u r i s d i c t i o n i n
a ~ 1
a c t i o n
f o r
m a n d a m u s .
D e f e n d a l ~ t s a r e s u b j e c t
t o t h e
p e r s o n a l
j u r i s d i c t i o n
of
h i s
Court
p u r s ~ i a n t
t o
Md.
o d e
Ann.,
t s .
&
ud. Proc.
6-102
because
Defendants
w e r e s e r v e d
w i t h
p r o c e s s
i n ,
a r e
organized
under t h e
l a w s
o f ,
and
m a i n t a i n
p l a c e s
of b u s i n e s s
i n t h e
S t a t e of
Maryland.
Venue i s
p r o p e r
i n
t h i s
County
pursuant
t o
Md.
o d e Ann., t s .
&
ud.
Proc. 6-201 because
Defendants
e a r l y on
r e g u l a r
b u s i n e s s
i n
Montbon~ery
County. Venu e i s
a l s o proper
i n
t h i s
County
because P l a i n t i f f s '
causes of a c t i o n
a r o s e
i n
Montgomery
County.
Factual
Summary
Subject
Property
5 .
T h e s u b j e c t
p r o p e r t y
c o n s i s t s
of
approximately 541 a c r e s
of
undeveloped
l a n d
i n
Clarksburg,
Maryland.
B et w e en M a r c h
2005
and
January
2006,
with
development
o p t i o n s
d e f i n e d
by t h e
1994
Master
Plan
and
RE-I/TDR-2
zone,
P u l t e
Home
Corporation
purchased
a l l of
h e
m e m b e r s h i p i n t e r e s t s
i n
Shiloh
F a r m
Investments
LLC
n
t h e
amount
of
approximately
402
c r e s
and
s e p a r a t e l y
o w n s
about
1 . 6
a c r e s
of h e
s u b j e c t
p r o p e r t y .
On
o v e m b e r 1 ,
2004,
u l t e Home
orporation
e n t e r e d i n t o a
c o n t r a c t
with
t h e
King
family
o
purchase
a n
a d j o i n i n g
approximate 136 c r e s .
r ~
-
8/10/2019 Pulte $86M Complaint
7/73
6. T h e
u b j e c t
p r o p e r t y
i s
bordered o
t h e
e a s t by
Maryland
Route
121/Clarksburg
Road,
t o
t l ~ e
south
by
West
O l d
Baltimore Road, o t l ~ e
~ l o r t h
by
h e County B u s
Depot
i t e ,
and t o
t h e w es t
and northwest by
woods. A
i t e
g r a p h i c i s
a t t a c h e d a s
a n
E x h i b i t .
1994 Clarksburg Master
Plan
and
Rezonin
7 .
T h e
s u b j e c t
p r o p e r t y
w a s ,
u n t i l Defendants'
approval and
adoption of t h e 2014
Amendment
n A p r i l
and
J u l y of 014, governed by h e
1994
Maser lan, w h i c h w a s
approved by t h e County
Cotmcil,
s i t t i n g
a s
t h e D i s t r i c t
Council, and adopted
by
MNCPPC
n
1994.
8 . T h e
Master
Plan
d i v i d e d
Clarksburg
de v e lopment n t o
four
e q u e n t ia l s t a g e s (Stage
1 ,
Stage 2,
Stage
3, and SCage
4 ) ,
and provided
f o r
p r o p e r t i e s i n
Stage
4,
n c l u d i n g
t l ~ e
s u b j e c t
p r o p e r t y , t o be
developed a t
s p e c i f i c
r e s i d e n t i a l
d e n s i t i e s
based
on
t h e zoning
a f f i x e d t o p r o p e r t i e s by h e
County 1994.
9 .
T h e
M a s t e r
Plan
d i r e c t e d
t h a t
t h e
s u b j e c t
p r o p e r t y
be zoned
f o r
r e s i d e n t i a l
de v e lopment
under t h e
RE-1/TDR-2 c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ,
w h i c h t h e
C o l ~ n t y
so
zoned i ~ 1
1994.
T h e
Master
Plan d e s i g n a t e d
t h e s u b j e c t
p r o p e r t y a s a
County
T r a n s f e e a b l e
D e v e l o p m en t
Rights
( TDR )
e c e i v i n g a r e a ( i . e . ,
RE-1/TDR-2 zone),
nducing u l t e
t o
adhere t o
t h e County's
long
- t o u t e d
a g r i c u l t u r a l
p r e s e r v a t i o n program by
purchasing
f rom
County
- d e s i g n a t e d
sending a r e a s
t h e TDRs a l l e d
f o r by
t h e zone
a p p l i e d
t o
t h e s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y .
T h e
RE-UTDR-2
oning
d e s i g n a t i o n
of
l ~ e
s u b j e c t
p r o p e r t y
allows
f o r
de v e lopment
a t
one
dwelling
u n i t p e r a c r e but
s t r o n g l y
encourages
two
u n i t s p e r
a c r e
through
t h e
purchase
of
TDRs.
u l t e
i n good f a i t h
r e l i e d
on
t h i s
zoning
d e s i g n a t i o n
and
t h e
County's
TDR
o l i c i e s
i n
purchasing
and
7
-
8/10/2019 Pulte $86M Complaint
8/73
c o n t r a c t i n g
f o r t h e s u b j e c t
p r o p e r t y
and purchasing 323
TDRs
rom
M o n t g o i ~ n e r y
County farmers, w h i c h
TDRs
e r e e c o r d e d
between
J u l y 2004
and February
2006 n
t h e
County a n d
r e c o r d s .
Under h e
Master
Plan and
RE-1/TDR-2 oning, u l t e could
b u i l d
between
954
and 1,007
detached h o m e s
and t o w n l l o n l e s on t h e
s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y ,
t h e range being dependent
i ~
t h e
~ T ~ o d e r a t e l y p r i c e d
housing u n i t s b u i l t p u r s u a n t t o
t h e County's
Moderately
r i c e d
Dwelling U ~ 1 i t
( MPDU )
r d i n a n c e .
1 0 . T h e
1994
Master
Plan m a d e
recommendations t o
enable
Clarksburg
t o
develop
a s
a
town
along t h e I-270
c o r r i d o r
and
imp l em ented
m ea s u res o
p r o t e c t t h e
water
q u a l i t y
of
t s
environment.
n p a r t i c u l a r ,
t h e Master Plan
r e q u i r e d
g h a t
s e v e r a l t r i g g e r s be me t
b e f o r e de v e lopment of r o p e r t i e s
w i t h i n
Stage
4
ould
proceed:
Baseline
Monitoring:
B e ~ i r ~ n i n g
i n
J u l y
1994,
t h e
County
Depa rtment of
Environmental
P r o t e c t i o n
( DE P ) performed a
t h r e e - y e a r
[ b ] a s e l i n e
b i o l o g i c a l
assessment of h e
a q u a t i c
ecosystem
of he
i t t l e
Seneca
Cr e ek
and
T e n
Mile Cr e ek
~ ~ a t e r s h e d s .
Co m m un i t y
Building
Defendant
County i s s u e d
2,000
b u i l d i n g p e r m i t s
i n
t h e
Newcut Road and
T o v ~ ~ n
Center
a r e a s (Stages
2 nd
3) o
provide
a
c r i t i c a l
m a s s o f
e v e lopment a s t
of
n t e r s t a t e
270.
E a s t s i d e Best
M~n a~em ent
r a c t i c e s
(BMPs~Mon ito r e d and
Evaluated: DEP
r e l e a s e d
i t s
~ i s t
Anual
Report
on t h e
Water Q u a l i t y
Re v i e w
Process
following
t h e
i s s u a n c e of h e 2,000
b u i l d i n g permits
i n t h e
Newcut Road
and
Town
e n t e f ~
a r e a s .
T l 1 e r e p o r t
e v a l u a t e d
t h e
water
q u a l i t y
b e s t
manageme~lt
p r a c t i c e s
(`BMPs )
nd
o t h e r
m i t i g a t i o n
techniques
s s o c i a t e d
w i t h t h e
Town
-
8/10/2019 Pulte $86M Complaint
9/73
Genter/Newcut
Road
development and
o t h e r
s i m i l a r
i ~ l
s u b s t a n t i a l l y
s i m i l a r
watersheds
w h e r e BMP's
a v e
been
monitored.
(1994
Master Plan
a t
1 9 7 - 9 9 ) .
1 1 .
7 ' h e
Master Plan f u r t h e r d i r e c t e d t h a t
[o]nce
l l
of h e
above
o n d i t i o n s
h a v e
been
met, h e County
Council w i 1 1 c o n s i d e r
Wafe r and
Sewer' lan a m e n d m e n t s
h a C would
permit 1 1 e
e x t e n s i o n of u b l i c f a c i l i t i e s t o
t h e T e n Mile
Cr e ek r e a .
(1994
Master
Plan
a t l 9 8 ) .
1 2 . T h e r i g g e r s f o r
allowing t h e
development of tage
4
r o p e r t i e s
i u i d e r f h e
Master
Plan
w e r e
a t i s f i e d by 2009
aud,
c c o r d i n g l y ,
P u ( t e
p r o p e r l y
f i l e d
i t s
Water
a nd
S e ~ e t
Category C h a n g e Request
p p l i c a t i o n on May
2, 2009
wiCh DEP.
e s p i t e t h e
s a t i s f a c t i o n of l l
p t e r e q u i s i t e s
t o
Stage 4
evelopment
e t f o r t h
i
t h e
l
994
Master
Plan, efendants,
o
d a t e ,
h a v e e f u s e d t o
a c t on
u l t e ' s
l o n g - s t a n d i n g
a p p l i c a t i o n .
1 3 .
T h e
Master Plan
d e f i n e d
t h e
e n v i r o n m e 1 1 t a 1
f a c t o r s
t h e
County
must
r e l y
on w h e n
c o n s i d e r i n g water and s e w e r
category
~
t o
extend
p u b l i c
f a c i l i t i e s
i n
t h e T e n
Mile
Cre ek a r e a .
S p e c i f i c a l l y ,
i t
d i r e c t e d t h a t i n
undertaking
an e v a l u a t i o n of
t h e
impact
of
such r e q u e s t s
o t ~
~ ~ ~ a t e r
q u a l i t y , t h e
County
s h a l l
d r a w
upon t h e
s t a n d a r d s
e s t a b l i s h e d
by
f e d e r a l , s t a t e ,
and
County
l a w s an d
r e g u l a t i o n s and
determine
i f t h e
methods,
a c i l i t i e s ,
and
p r a c t i c e s
t h e n
being
u t i l i z e d
by
a p p l i c a n t s a s
p a r C
of
h e
water
q u a l i t y
r e v i e w
p r o c e s s t h e n
i n
p l a c e a r e
s u f f i c i e n t t o p r o C e c t
T e n
Mile
Creek.
1994 Master
Ilan a t
199
(emphasi s
a d d e d ) ) .
Despite
t h e
mand at es
i n
t h e
Master Plan,
h e
County has
never
analyzed
and
a c t e d
upon P u l t e ' s
d e t a i l e d , s i C e -
E
-
8/10/2019 Pulte $86M Complaint
10/73
s p e c i f i c w a t e r
q u a l i t y
measures
f o r t h e
s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y ,
w h i c h
complied
w i t h a l (
s t a n d a r d s
e s t a b l i s h e d by
e d e r a l , S t a t e ,
and
County
Iaws a nd
r e g u l a t i o n s .
1 4 .
T l ~ e
Master Plan
a l s o d i r e c t e d
t h e
County
t o
c o n s i d e r
a l l
voluntary measures
t a k e n
by
p r o p e r t y
owners
i n
t h e
Stage
4 r e a t o
p r o t e c t
water
q u a l i t y a s a m e a n s
of
determining
w h i c h
a n a l y s i s
f o a p p l y .
(1994
Master
Plan
a t
1 9 9 ) .
T h e County has
never analyzed and
a c t e d u p o f l
P u l t e ' s
proposed
v o l u n t a r y
mea s u res
f o r
i C s
l a ~ ~ f u l l y
Manne d
development.
P u l t e ' s D e v e l o p m en t
lan
I 5 . I r e l i a n c e
on t h e
Master
Plan,
on
t h e
County's
a g r i c u l t u r a l
p r e s e r v a t i o n TDR
program, nd
pursuant
o t h e
residentiaUTDR
zoning
on t h e
s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y ,
bet ween
J u l y
2004
and
February 2006
P u l t e
p a i d $12,206,386
t o
purchase 323
TDRs
r om
Montgomery
County
f a r m e r s .
Because
TDRs
e g a l l y r e s t r i c t
one
landowner's u s e
of
i t s
l a n d
and
provide a
c o r ~ e s p o n d i n g
b e n e f i t
t o
a n o t h e r ,
TDRs
a r e
t r e a t e d
a s
easements
and
r e s t r i c t i v e
covenants.
u l t e ' s TDRs
e r e
duly recorded
i n
t l ~ e County
l a n d
r e c o r d s
between
J u l y 2004
and
February 2006.
1 6 .
B et w e en
March 2005
and
January 2006,
P u l t e p a i d
$46,600,000
t o
purchase
approximately
404 a c r e s of h e
s u b j e c t
p r o p e r t y
a t ~ d
$3,200,000 i n a
n o n r e f i ~ n d a b l e
d e p o s i t
t o
purchase
h e
a d j o i n i n g
approximate 136
c r e s
K i ng r a c t ,
w h i c h o p t i o n w a s
extended
r e c e n t l y f o r
$600,000.
1 7 .
On
May
2,
2009,
pursuant
o
t h e
Master
Plan and
a f t e r i t s
Stage 4
r i g g e r s
h a d been
met,
u l t e
p r o p e r l y f i l e d
i C s
e a t e r and
S e w e r
Category
Ch ange
Request
a p p l i c a t i o ,
m
-
8/10/2019 Pulte $86M Complaint
11/73
along
w i t h
a $10,000 i l i n g f e e , w i t h
t h e County
a s t h e
n e c e s s a r y
f i r s t s t e p
t o i t s by-
r i g h t
development
of
h e
s u b j e c t
p r o p e t
-
f y . T h e
County
DEP cknowledged r e c e i p t
of
P u l t e ' s
a p p l i c a t i o n
and
i l i n g f e e i n June
2009.
p p l i c a t i o n s
a r e put e f o r e t h e County
Council
o r p u b l i c h e a r i n g and a c t i o n a t l e a s t twice
a
y e a r .
1 8 .
By
e t t e r
d a t e d
September 17, 2010, h e
County
DEP
e t u r n e d
t o
P u l t e
t h e
$10,000
Water
and
S e w e r
Category Change
Request
f e e
but
d i d not
r e t u r n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n .
DEP t a t e d t h a t P u l t e ' s 2009
a p p l i c a t i o n would
not
be
p r o c e s s e d
u n t i l
e a r l y Spring
2011.
T h e
County,
ho w e v e r ,
c o n t i n u e d
t o
t a k e
no
a c t i o n
on
P u l t e ' s
r e q u e s t
throughout
2011.
1 9 .
By
e t t e r
d a t e d
August
28,
2012, u l t e
r e s u b m i t t e d
i t s
W a t e r
and
S e w e r
Category
Ch ange
Request
a p p l i c a t i o n ,
o r i g i n a l l y
s u b m i t t e d i n May
009,
u s i n g t h e
County's
n e w updated
a p p l i c a t i o n form
t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e $10,000
i l i n g f e e .
On
h e
s a m e a t e ,
P u l t e a l s o submitted a
comprehensive
water u a l i t y
p l a n and d a t a ~ o
County DEP
nd
DPS
h a t
s h o w e d
how
u l t e
planned
t o e f f e c t i v e l y
develop
t h e
s u b j e c t
p r o p e r t y i n
conformance
w i t h t h e Master
Plan
and l l
environmental
e g u l a t i o n s .
20.
Meanwhile,
on
September
18,
2012, t h e County
Council
approved
S u b d i v i s i o n
R e g u l a t i o n
Am e n d m e n t
( SRA )
12-01,
p u r s u a n t
t o
t h e
Maryland S u s t a i n a b l e
G ro wth and
A g r i c u l t u r a l
P r e s e r v a t i o n
Act
of
2012, p l a c i n g
t h e s u b j e c t
p r o p e r t y
i n
development
c a t e g o r y
T i e r
IL
T i e r
I I
p r o p e r t i e s
under
t h e
S t a k e
Act
a r e t o r e c e i v e
p u b l i c
se w e r
i n
o r d e r
t o
s e r v e planned
development.
e s p i t e
t h e
County's
enactment
of h e
r e g u l a t i o n
p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e
s u b j e c t
p r o p e r t y , t h e
County
continued t o
r e f u s e t o
a c t
on u l t e ' s
p r o p e r l y
f i l e d
Water
and
Sew er
Category
Change
Request
p p l i c a t i o n .
-
8/10/2019 Pulte $86M Complaint
12/73
21. On D e c e m b e r 18,
2012,
Robert
H a r r i s , l e g a l counsel f o r
P u l t e , wrote a
l e t t e r
t o
Francoise C a r r i e r ,
Chair of
MNCPPC's Montgomery
County
Planning
Board ,
informing
t h e Clair of
P u l t e ' s
f i l i n g
of
a Pre
- A p p l i c a t i o n Concept P 1 a 1 1
f o r
development of he u b j e c t
p r o p e r t y . T h e e t t e r provided
a
a r r a t i v e
d e s c r i p t i o n
of
h e
n a t u r e of
u l t e ' s
a p p l i c a t i o n
p u r s u a n C Y o
i t s
zoning and t h e terns
of
h e Master
l a n ,
a s
w e l l
a s
provided e x C e r l s i v e
i n f o r m a t i o n ,
p l a n s ,
and
c a l c u l a t i o n s demonstrating
h o ~ ~ ~
P u l t e ' s
development
p l a n
me t a l l a p p l i c a b l e
water
q u a l i t y
and sediment c o n t r o l
requirements and p r o t e c t e d
T e n Mile
Creek. Despite
t h e e x C e n s i v e
i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t
P u l t e provided, Defendants
never
analyzed
P u l t e ' s
d e t a i l e d ,
s i t e - s p e c i f 7 c measures t o
develop
t h e
s u b j e c t
p r o p e r t y
and
p r o t e c t T e n
Mile
Cre ek
pursuant
t o S t a t e and
County environmental laws.
22.
On
D e c e m b e r
19,
2012, pursuant t o
S e c t i o n s 50-33 and
50-33A
of
t h e
County
Subdivision Ordinance,
P u l t e ' s
p l a n n i n g and
e n g i n e e r i n g
firm,
Loide rman
S o l t e s z
A s s o c i a t e s , now
known
a s
S o l t e s z ( h e r e i n a f t e r
LSA or S o l t e s z ) ,
f i l e d
w i t h
MNCPPC
Pre-Application Concept Plan on
b e h a l f of
P u l e , seeking
review
of
t s
p l a n f o r t h e s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y .
S e c t i o n s 50-33
and
50-33A
provide
an i n f o r m a l p r e -
a p p l i c a t i o n
p r o c e s s
f o r p r o p e r t y owners
and
o t h e r a p p l i c a n t s t o
o b t a i n review of
a n t i c i p a t e d
de v e lopment p l a n s
by
t h e
Planning
Boar d
and i t s
s t a f f .
T h e Ordinance
allows
t h e
submission of
u c 1 1
p r e
- a p p l i c a t i o n s
~ t
any time
and
with no
p r e l e q u i s i t e
~ ~
r i p e n e s s . Despite
t h i s ,
by
e t t e r d a t e d
January 17,
2013,
M a r k f e f f e r l e ,
Chief
of
t h e
Montgomery
County
D e v e l o p m en t
A p p l i c a t i o n s
and
Regulatory
Coordination
D i v i s i o n ( DARC )
t MNCPPC,
r e j e c t e d
P u l t e ' s
a p p l i c a t i o n
a s s e r t i n g
i t
~ ~ ~ ~ a s not i p e
f o r review.
12
-
8/10/2019 Pulte $86M Complaint
13/73
23.
On
D e c e m b e r 20, 2012, F u l t e s u b n ~ i ~ t e d
a
r e q u e s t
t o t h e
County
D e p a r t r T l e n t of
P e r m i t t i n g S e r v i c e s
( D PS )
f o r
a
meeting
concerning P u l t e ' s P r e- A p p l i c a t i o n
Cocept
l a ~ ~
and
t s
P r e l i m i n a r y W a t e f Q u a l i t y
Plan r e l a t e d
t o
developing
t h e
s ~ i b j e c t
p r o p e r t y .
A f t e r r e c e i v i n g
comm ent s
from DPS
t a f f ,
P u l t e
r e f o r m a t t e d i C s
submission
and r e q u e s t on January 9, 2013.
By
- m a i l of January
25,
2013,
DPS
nformed P u l t e
t h a t
i t w a s
` t o o e a r l y t o
g e t
i n t o having
p r e
- a p p l i c a t i o n s
meetings on i t e s
i n
t h e Stage
4
rea e s p i t e t h e t a c t
t h a t
Defendants' Master
Plan
Stage
4 r i g g e r s f o r development
had been
m et
pproximately two
y e a r s
b e f o r e .
24. By
e t t e r
d a t e d January
28, 2013,
Robert H a r r i s ,
l e g a l counsel f o r P u l t e , r e s u b ~ l ~ i t t e d
P u l t e ' s
Pre
- A p p l i c a t i o n
Concept
Plan
and
f i l i n g f e e
t o
Fran~oise
C a r r i e r , t h e
Chair
of
t h e Planning B o a f d .
T h e
l e t t e r
r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e Boar d
consider P u l t c ' s
a p p l i c a t i o n
and
r e v i e w i t
under
t h e
s t a n d a r d s and
procedures i n S e c t i o n 50-33 and
S e c t i o n
50-
33A
f
l ~ e
County S ~ i b d i v i s i o n
Ordinance. T h e
e t t e r s t a t e d t h a t :
` S e c t i o n s
50-33 and
50-33A
p c o v i d e
an
e x p r e s s , informal
p r e
a p p l i c a t i o n
p r o c e s s
f o r p r o p e r t y owners and
o t h e r
a p p l i c a n t s
t o o b t a i n
review
of
a n t i c i p a t e d development
p l a n s by
Commiss ion S t a f f ,
o t h e r agencies a i l d t h e
Planning
Board.
T h e
p r o v i s i o n s of
T h e s e S e c t i o n s
allow
t h e
submission
of
such
p r e
a p p l i c a t i o n s a t
any
time
and
w i t h
no
p r e r e q u i s i t e
concerning
` r i p e n e s s . '
Nothing
i n
t h e Master
Plan
says
t h a t
P r e A p p l i c a t i o n
Concept
P l a n s
cannot
be
f i l e d
and w i l t
not
be
c o n s i d e r e d once t h e
s t a g i n g
t r i g g e r s
a l l h a v e been
met,
or even
i f they
h a d not
been met.
13
-
8/10/2019 Pulte $86M Complaint
14/73
P u l t e ' s
P r e A p p l i c a t i o n
Concept
Plan
c o n t a i n s
e x t e n s i v e
i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h
r e s p e c t
t o
t h e [ s u b j e c t
p r o p e r t y ] ,
t h e proposed de v e lopment p l a n s ,
and
water
q u a l i t y
p r o t e c t i o n
measures
contemplated f o r
t h e p r o j e c t .
~ T h e Commi s s i on
S t a f f
asked P u l t e
t o submit
h i s
vefy
type
of
n f o r m a t i o n t o
t h e m
so
they could
e v a l ~ i a t e
water
q u a l i t y
i s s u e s
i n
t h e i r master
p l a n
~ ~ o r k
~ ~ h i l e ,
i r o n i c a l l } ~ ,
r e j e c t i n g t 1 1 i s very
a p p l i c a t i o n
t h a t
c o n t a i n e d t h a t
i n f o r m a t i o n .
25. On ebruary 15,
2013,
Robert H a r r i s ,
l e g a l counsel f o r P u l t e ,
wrote
a
l e t t e r
t o
Diane
Schwartz Jones, D i r e c t o r of DPS, gain
r e q u e s t i n g
aPre -Applica tion meefi ng w i t h
h e r s t a f f and
f o r
DPS eview of
u l t e ' s submitted Preliminary
Water Q u a l i t y Plan
f o r
t h e s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y .
T h e e t t e r p o i n t e d
o u t ,
i n t e r
c z l i a ,
t h a t :
T h e e n g i n e e r i n g f i r m
LSA,
ow
known
a s
S o l t e s z , h a d
been
working
w i t h
P u l t e f o r
a
u l 7 ~ b e r of
e a r s
i n t e r i l l s
of lanning o f
t h e f u t u r e development of
[ t h e s u b j e c t ] p r o p e r t y ,
and more
s p e c i f i c a l l y ,
e v a l u a t i n g e n g i n e e r i n g
f e a t ~ z r e s
of
h e
p r o p e r t y t o ensure
p r o j e c t i o n
of T e n Mife
G r e e k
and
t h a t LSA h a d
f i r s t
submitted
l ~ e r e q u e s t
f o r such a
n e e f i n g on
~
20,
01?.
Even
a f t e r
LSA
e s u b m i t t e d
t h e
submission
and
r e q u e s t on
January
9,
2013,
t h a t
LSA
w a s informed t h a t DPS
t a f f
bel ieved ]
t [ w a s ]
t o o
e a r l y
t o g e f
i n t o
having p r e
- a p p l i c a t i o n ~ e e t i n g s
on
i t e s
i n
t h e
Stage
4
r e a '
...
d e s p i t e
t h e f a c t t h a t ] a p r e
a p p l i c a t i o n
meeting ...
~ ~ a s ]
p a r t i c u l a r l y
a p p r o p r i a t e
..
given t h e
County's
r e v i e w of
water
q u a l i t y i s s u e s
i n
connection
w i t 1 1 [ t h e
f i i t u r e
2014 Amendment and
t h a t ]
t h e p r o v i s i o n s
of
Chapter 19
of t h e
14
-
8/10/2019 Pulte $86M Complaint
15/73
Mont~omely
County C o d e and
Chapter 19 of t h e
C o d e of
Montgomery
County Regulations
s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o v i d e
f o r
t L 1 e
r e v i e w of
a
P r e l i m i n a r y
Water
Q u a l i t y Plan and any e c e s s a r y p r e - a p p l i c a t i o n
meeting.
T h e purpose
of
r e l i m i ~ ~ ~ r y Water
Q u a l i t y
Pl an s t o
enable
e a r l y
r e v i e w of
i s s u e s
t h a t
w i l l be
encountered i n
a mo r e
form a l
de v e lopment review a nd
g h a t [ i ] t would be
p a r t i c u l a r l y
u s e f u l
t o
P u ( t e ,
[MNCPPC] nd t h o s e
reviewing t h e [M]aster [ P ] l a n
t o
Hav e
a
r e v i e w of t h e
P l e l i m i n a r y
Water
Q u a l i t y Plan
by
your
e p a i f i n e n C .
No
esponse
o t h i s
l e t t e r
w a s
v e r
~
26. On
p r i l
3, 2013,
Robert a r r i s ,
l e g a l counsel o r P u l t e ,
wrote
a
e t t e r t o Carol
Rubin,
A s s o c i a t e General
Counsel
of
MNCPCC, to
c 1 a 1 i f y c e r t a i n a s p e c t s of P u l t e ' s
submitted
Pte- A p p l i c a t i o n
Concept
P l a n . T h e l e t C e r addressed,
i n t e ~ ~ a l i a , P u l t e ' s
response
t o q u e s t i o n s r a i s e d
by
Ms.
Rubin concerning t h e
density requested
a nd
the l o c a t i o n of
[ P u l t e ' s ~
proposed
de v e lopment
on
t h e
s u b j e c t
p r o p e r t y .
S p e c i f i c a l l y ,
t h e
l e t t e r informed MNCPPC h a t :
P u l t e would w o r k w i t h
P ack
and
Planning
S t a f f and o t h e r agencies on
a ny
i s s u e s
r e l a t e d
t o de v e lopment
of C h e
s u b j e c t ] p r o p e r t y
i n
t o ensure t h a t
i t s
de v e lopment meets
l l Commun ity
Planning
an d ]
n v i r o n m e i z t a l l a n d u s e
p o l i c i e s .
T h e M a s t e r P l a ~ z
~
p r i v a t e
c o n s e r v a t i o n
a r e a s
along
s o m e
of
h e
stream
a r e a s ,
extending beyond t h e
d e s i g a t e d
s e n s i t i v e
a r e a s t o
be
p r o t e c t e d
15
-
8/10/2019 Pulte $86M Complaint
16/73
by
stream
b u f f e r s
a s development o c c u r s ,
and
P u l t e ' s
submitted Pr e-
A p p l i c a t i o n
Concept
Plan
responds
p e c i f i ca l l y t o t h a t r e c o m t l ~ e n d a C i o n and
c o n f o r ~ T ~ s
w i t h
t h e s e n s i t iv e a r e a s
i d e n t i f i e d
f o r
p r o t e c t i o n
i n
t h e Master
P l a n .
P u l t e ' s development p l a n i s ~ conformity
w i t h r e g u l a t o r y
~ ~ ~
i n c l u d i n g
t h e
County's
f o r e s t c o n s e r v a t i o n r e g u l a t i o n s
and
environmental
g u i d e l i n e s .
No
esponse
o
t h i s
l e t t e r
w a s
ever
e c e i v e d .
27.
On
p r i l 4,
013,
u s
B a u m a n , e g a l counsel
o r
P u l t e ,
~ ~ r o t e a l e t t e r
t o
RoberC Hoyt,
D i r e c t o r of DEP, nd t o D i ane
Schwartz
J o t l e s
of DFS,
n q u i r i n g
about b o t h
DepartmenCs'
r o c e s s i n g
of Pre-Application
Concept
Plan and
i t s
Water and S e w e r
Category Ch ange
r e q u e s t .
T h e
l e t t e r n o t e d
t h a t
MNCPPC's e v e l o p m en t
Review
Committe e (`'DRC ) r o c e s s
f o r reviewing
aPre-Application Concept
Plan
i n c l u d e s
r e q u i r e d
review
by
a f l
p e r t i n e n t p u b l i c
agencies and u t i l i t i e s ,
i n c l u d i n g
DEP
nd
DPS, i
d
t h a t P u ( t e w a s concerned
about
DEP nd
DPS'
e c u l i a r
d e c i s i o n
not t o
c o m m e n t
on C h e f i l e d
p l a n . T h e e t t e r n o t e d t h a t
we s sume t h i s
has
something
t o
d o
with
t h e
pending
Master
Plan review,
but
no r e a s o n [ w a s ]
given o
j u s t i f y DEP
nd
DPS' e c i s i o n .
T h e
e t t e r
p o i n t e d
out
o
County
DEP nd DPS,
n t e ~ ~ a l i a , t h a t :
P u l t e i s
e n t i t l e d
t o
a
t i m e l y
and
f a i r
review
of i t s
a p p l i c a t i o n
under
a p p l i c a b l e
r e g u l a t i o n s and
p o l i c i e s .
f [ ~
-
8/10/2019 Pulte $86M Complaint
17/73
DPS nd DEP hould
r e c o n s i d e r [ t h e i r ] d e c i s i o n not o
c o m m e n t ..and
..
p i o ~ ~ i d e
f i l l
and
c c ~ ~ ~ p l e t e
comme nts
w i t h
r e s p e c t
t o
t h e
W a t e t
Q u a l i f y
P lan
and
o t h e r '
a s p e c t s
of
h e Pr e
- A p p l i c a t i o n
Concept
Plan
t o
t h e DRC.
DEP
nd DPS hould
r e s u m e
...processing [ P u f t e ' s ~
and S e w e r
Category
Ch ange ]
e q u e s t because
the
Council's d e c i s i o n t o
review
th e
approved and adopted
Master
Plan
[ d i d not
p l e c l u d e ]
t h e
continued
p r o c e s s i n g of
h e
Water
&Sewer
ategory
Ch ange
a p p l i c a t i o n ,
nor
...
did]
anything
i n t h e r e g u l a t i o n s
o r p o l i c i e s
a p p l i c a b l e t o such a p p l i c a t i o n s
[preclude] eview.
No
esponse
o
t h i s
l e t t e r
w a s
ever e c e i v e d .
28. On
May ,
2013, u l t e ,
e x e r c i s i n g i t s r i g h t t o a
h e a r i n g
under t h e
County S u b d i v i s i o n
Ordinance,
r e s e n t e d i C s
P re
- P r e l i m i n a r y
Concept Plan
t o t h e
Planning Boar d showing
i t s
proposal f o r de v e lopment of h e
s u b j e c t
p r o p e e t y
i n
conformance
with t h e
Master
Plan,
RE-1/TDR-2
zoning
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , and
a l l
f e d e r a l , S t a t e ,
C o u n t } ~
developmental
and
environmental
r e g u l a t i o n s . T h e
Planning
Board
r e f u s e d
t o support
P u l t e ' s
submitted
p l a n .
29.
On
ebruary 28, 2014, Robert
H a r r i s ,
P u l t e ' s
l e g a l
counsel,
wrote ~ o Alan Soukup
of
County
DEP
g a i n
r e q u e s t i n g
t h a t
t h e County
a c t
upon u l t e ' s
long-sanding
Water
and
S e w e r
Category
Ch ange
Request
a p p l i c a t i o n ,
i n i t i a l l y
f i l e d
on
May
12,
2009,
t
t h e
e a r l i e s t p o s s i b l e
d a t e .
T h e l e t t e r
informed t h e
County t h a C t h e
MasCer
Plan
e s t a b l i s h e d v a r i o u s
` t r i g g e r s '
b e f o r e
de v e lopment
i n t h e
Stage 4
r e a
.could
proceed
~ 1 d
t h a C
those
t r i g g e r s w e r e m e t
y e a r s ago
w h i c h should
h a v e
r e s u l t e d i n
17
-
8/10/2019 Pulte $86M Complaint
18/73
[ t h e ]
r e q u e s t
being
a c t e d
upon b e f o r e now. No
response
t o
t h i s
l e t t e r
w a s ever
r e c e i v e d .
30. On A p r i l 1 , 2014, t h e
s a m e
d a y
t l ~ e
County
Council approved t h e
Master
, P l a n
A m e n d m e n t
v i s c e r a t i n g
P u l t e ' s p r o p e r t y
r i g h t s ,
t h e
Council i n s t r u c t e d County s t a f f
t h a t
any pending W a t e r
and S e w e r
a p p l i c a t i o n s
i n
Clarksburg a r e t o be
r e v i e we d
a nd
h e a r d
not
i n d i v i d u a l l y
but
a l l t o g e t h e r
a t
s o m e
i n d e f i n i t e
time
i n t h e f u t u r e .
Whi le
i n d i v i d u a l cate;ory change
a p p l i c a t i o n s
a r e
t y p i c a l l y
h e a r d by
t h e
Council t w i c e
a n n u a l l y
i n
t h e
s p r i n g
and
f a l l the Council's i n s t r u c t i o n
i n d e f i n i t e l y
suspends
P u l t e ' s
r i g h E t o
a
h e a r i n g
on i t s
y e a r s
-pending Water and S e w e r
a p p l i c a t i o n
a nd
thereby p r e v e n t s and m a k e s u t i l e a
Planning Boar d
h e a r i n g on any
de v e lopment p l a n
P u l t e might
ubmit.
New t o r u ~ w a t e r
Man agem ent
Requirements
31.
I n
2007,
t h e
S t a t e
of Maryland e n a c t e d
s i g n i f i c a n t changes
t o
i t s
Stormwater
Man agem ent Law
by
adding
t h e
requirement t h a t
developers
use
s t a t e - o f - t h e - a r t
Environmental S i t e
Design ( ESD ) techniques
i n
developing p r o p e r t y . Se e
Stormwater
Man agem ent Act of
007,
MD.
CODEANN.,
n v i r .
-201-215 2007).
Under t h e s e
n e w
1 e q u i r e m e n t s ,
developers must
use ESD,
c o l l e c t i o n
of
t o r l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a t e t
-
man age me nt techniques
h a t
slow
and
m a n a g e
runoff nd
allow f o r
slower
7 l t e r i n g
of
water during
de v e lopment and
t h e r e a f t e r .
32. I n 2008,
ollowing Maryland's
Stormwater
Man agem ent AcC
of 2007,
Montgomery
County a m e n d e d i t s
r e g u l a t i o n s
t o
r e q u i r e v a r i o u s
ESD
r a c t i c e s ,
measures,
a nd
t i e c h n i q u e s of
e v e l o p e r s . See
COMCOR
9 . 0 0 . 0 1 (2014).
-
8/10/2019 Pulte $86M Complaint
19/73
33.
I n
May
2009,
t h e
r e v i s e d
Maryland
Stormwater Design
Manua l
w a s
p u b l i s h e d ,
implementing ESD
lanning s t r a t e g i e s and
p r a c t i c e s t o
be used by
d e v e l o p e r s .
T h e
r e s u l t
of
t h e s e
r e g ~ ~ l a t o r y
changes w a s a s h i f t
i n
t h e
stormwater
man age me nt
pa ra d igm t o a mo r e h o l i s t i c and
c o t n p r e l ~ e n s i v e
approach
t h a t
b e t t e r conserves a
p r o j e c t
s i t e ' s
n a t u r a l f e a t u r e s ,
minimizes t h e
impact
of
development, and m i r r o r s
n a t u r a l
hydrology.
34. I n May
2010,
ESD r e g u l a t i o n s
f o r
t h e
de v e lopment
of l a n d
took e f f e c t i n
Montgomery
County.
35. I n a r e p o r t d a t e d
No v e m b e r
9,
2010, c o n s u l t a n t
B i o h a b i t a t s ,
I n c . , i n
c o l l a b o r a t i o
w i t h
o t h e r
groups, prepared a
r e p o r t f o r County
DEP on
Implementing
Environmental
S i t e
Design
i n
Montgomery
County.
Th is r e p o r t s t a t e s ,
i n t e r c z l i a ,
t h a t :
T h e
ESD
approach
t o
development,
redevelopment
and
r e t r o f i t t i n g
i s
p r e f e r r e d because
i t
conserves
n a t u r a l f e a t u r e s
and
runoff a t t e r n s
on
a s i t e
and reduces
p o l l u t a n t s
e n t e r i n g
t h e storm
d r a i n s ,
stormwater
man ab e me nt
f a c i l i t i e s , and
l o c a l streams and
o t h e r
waterways.
ESD
s a
comp~ehensive d e s i g n
s t r a t e g y
f o r maintaining
p r e d e v e l o p i n e n t
runoff
h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
and p r o t e c t i n g
n a t u r a l
r e s o u r c e s .
DEP
i l l c o o r d i n a t e
w i t h t l ~ e
l e a d
agencies
f o r
each
Montgomery County
C o d e h a p t e r
t o
promote and
allow
t h e
use
of
ESD
hroughout
h e
County.
-
8/10/2019 Pulte $86M Complaint
20/73
B i o h a b i t a t s ,
I n c ,
wo u l d
l a t e r
be h i r e d
by MNCPPC
o r
t h e
Master
Plan
Am e n d m e n t
w o r k
and thereupon would r e v e r s e
course and be d i s m i s s i v e
of ESD s a p p l i e d t o t h e
s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y .
2014 Master
Plan
Amendment
nd
Downzonin~; nd R e l a t e d Actions
36. On
ctober 9,
2012,
h e
County
Council,
under p r e s s u l e f r o t h
e n v i i o n n ~ e n t a l
i n t e r e s t s
and
f u l l y
a w a r e
of P u l t e ' s
f i l e d
Water
and
S e w e r
a p p l i c a t i o n , r e q u e s t e d
t h a t t h e
P l a ~ ~ n i n g
Boar d study
t h e
T e n
Mile
Cre ek watershed by r e
-opening t h e
Clarksburg
Master
Plan
and
p r e p a r i n g
an
a m e n d m e n t
t h e t e t o .
T h e
m a t t e r
of
looking
i n t o
t h e
environmental s t a t u s of
h e
watersh ed could
h a v e been s t u d i e d without t h e extreme
me asur e
of e-opening a County M a s t e r
Plan
r e l i e d
upon by r o p e r t y
owners
and t h e n
prejudging t h e
r e s u l t
by a l s o
d i r e c t i ~ l g an a n ~ e n d n 7 e n t be
p r e p a r e d . T h e C o u n c i l ' s
d e c i s i o n
t o r e
-open
t h e
Master
Plan
f u r t h e r delayed any
c o n s i d e r a t i o n
by Defendants
of
u l t e ' s May
009
Water
and
S e w e r a t e ~ o l y
C h a n g e Request.
37.
On o v e m b e r
19,
2012,
Robert a r r i s ,
l e g a l c o u ~ Is e l
f o r P u l t e , wrote a l e t t e r t o Rose
K r a s n o w ,
h e n
t h e
I n t e r i m
Planning D i r e c t o r of MNCPPC,
b j e c t i n g t o t h e
Planning
B o a r ' d ' s m o v e t o d r a f t
a i l
a m e n d m e n t
t o
t h e
Master
F l a n .
T h e
l e t t e r
informed
MNCPPC
h a t :
MNCPPC a d no
b a s i s t o
a m e n d
t h e
Master
Plan
bas ed
on a v a r i e t y
of
f a c t o r s ,
i n c l u d i n g P u l t e ' s
a b i l i t y t o
address
any
environmental concerns
through t s s p e c i f i c
developfnent l a n s .
20
-
8/10/2019 Pulte $86M Complaint
21/73
P u l t e
purchased
t h e s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y
[ i ] n r e l i a p c e
on
t h e
adopted
Master
Plan but
a l s o
a c q u i r e d f h e
TDRs
e c e s s a r y
f o r
i t s
d e v e l o p t n e n ~ ,
c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e
Master
Plan
recommendations
and
zoning, a t a
[combined]
o s t
i n excess of 60
m i l l i o n .
T h e
housing
u n i t s
p l a t l n e d
f o r
[ t h e
s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y ]
form a
c r i t i c a l
component
of t h e
o v e r a l l
housing
s t o c k planned f o r
Clarksburg
and
t h e
County
a s
a
~ ~ h o l e ,
and
a ~
-e
important t o
support
d e s i r e d
r e C a i l
a nd
e mp loyme nt
e r v i c e s i n
t h e
Town
e n t e r ,
[ S ] i n c e
t h e
[ s u b j e c t ]
p r o p e r t y w a s rezoned
f o t
- housing
de v e lopment
under
t h e
RE
- [ 1
]/TDR(2)
zone, water
q u a l i t y
p r o t e c t i o n mea s u res
h a ve ad vanced
c o n s i d e r a b l y
and
r e g u l a t o r y
requirements h a v e
beco~e
s u b s t a n C i a l l y
mo r e
s t r i n g e n t . As a r e s u l t ,
water
q u a l i t y
f ~ i o d e l i n g
r e f l e c t i n g
t h e planned
de v e lopment
of
t h e s u b j e c t
p r o p e r t y ]
s h o w s a
r e d u c t i o n
i n
t o t a l suspended
s o l i d s ,
phosphorus
and
n i t r o g e n ,
compared
t o
c u r ~ e n t
c o n d i t i o n s .
T h e
r e s u l t
w i l l
be
u n - o f f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
b e t t e r
t h a n
`woods
n good
c o n d i t i o n . '
No
esponse
t o t h i s
l e t t e r
w a s
ever e c e i v e d .
38.
On
e c e m b e r 26, 012,
tephen
C o l l i n s , P u l t e ' s
D i r e c t o r
of n t i t l e m e n t ,
wroCe a
e t t e r
t o
Robert Hoyt,
i r e c t o r of County
DEP,
x p r e s s i n g h i s
s e r i o u s
concerns
surrounding
a proposed
a m e n d m e n t
o
t h e
Master
l a n .
T h e
e t t e r
p o i n t e d
out
h a t :
P u k e
h a d
i n v e s t e d
s u b s t a n t i a l l y
i n t h e s u b j e c t
p r o p e r t y
' ` b a s e d
on
t h e
zoning
of
h e
p r o p e r t y and t h e
Master Plan
recommendations
f o r
water and
21
-
8/10/2019 Pulte $86M Complaint
22/73
s e w e r s e r v i c e and t h a t i t
p o s s e s s e d
c e r t a i n
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l
r i g h t s
.
i n c l u d i n g
r i g h t s
t o due p r o c e s s
of
aw, qual p r o t e c t i o n
of
h e
l a w ,
nd
not o
h a v e
t s
p r o p e r t y
t a k e n f o r
p u b l i c use without
u s t
compensation.
T h e County's continued
f a i l u r e t o
a c t
on
P u l t e ' s
Water and
S e w e r
S e r v i c e
Category
Ch ange
Request
` h a s
e f f e c t i v e l y
p l a c e d ...
t h e s u b j e c t ] p r o p e r t y i n
a developme~lt moratorium, w h i c h
c o m m e n c e d
w h e n
t h e
County f a i l e d t o
p r o c e s s
t h e Category
Ch ange
Request
i l e d
on
May
2, 2009,
n
v i o l a t i o n of
P u l t e ' s
p r o p e r t y
r i g h t s .
No
esponse
o t h i s l e t t e r w a s
ver
e c e i v e d .
39.
On une
7,
2013,
Robert
H a r r i s ,
P u l t e ' s
l e g a l c o u n s e l , wrote
a n o t h e r l e t t e r
t o
Robert
Hoyt,
i r e c t o r
of DEP, nd Di ane
Schwartz Jones,
D i r e c t o r
of
DPS,
oncerning
t h e
e f f e c t i v e n e s s
of ESD.
h e
e t t e r p o i n t e d
out
h a t :
[A]s
r e q u i r e d
by Maryland
S t o r ~ n w a C e r
Man agem ent
Regulations
and
t h o s e
adopted by t h e County
pursuant t o s t a t e
requirements,
P u l t e
has
proposed
ESD e a t u r e s
i n
connection w i t h de v e lopment
of t h e s u b j e c t
p r o p e r t y ] .
[ A ] f t e r e x t e n s i v e
e n g i n e e r i n g
work, P ~ a l t e ]
submitted
a
d e t a i l e d
P r e l i m i n a r y
Water Q u a l i t y Plan
t o
b o t h
t h e
Maryland
- N a t i o n a l
C a p i t a l Pa rk
and
P l a n n i ~ l g
Commission and
t o
t h e [County]
D epartment
of
P e r m i t C i n g S e r v i c e s
f o r
review
i n connection
w i t h
t h e
Pre
- A p p l i c a t i o n
Concept
l a n .
Th at
lan
s h o w s
how
ESD
mea s u res
would be
i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e
p r o j e c t
and how
water
q u a l i t y
would
be
p r o t e c t e d .
22
-
8/10/2019 Pulte $86M Complaint
23/73
Despite
t h e S t a t e
mandate and
t h e
ongoing
use
of
ESD
n
numerous p r o j e c t s
Throughout
h e County
a i l d S t a t e t o
p r o t e c t
water q u a l i t y ,
m e m b e r s of[DEP
and
D PS]...
s t i l l ] q u e s t i o n e d t h e
e f f e c t i v e n e s s
of
ESD
nd
e v en
s t a t e d
t h a t
t h e County
i s not
equipped t o a d m i n i s t e r
ESD e g u l a t i o n s pursuant
t o s t a t e
r e g u l a t i o n s .
P u l t e w a s t r o u b l e d t h a t
[County] government
t a f f would
q u e s t i o n t h e v a l u e
of ESD, 1 1 e a b i l i t y
t o
m a i n t a i n
ESD e a t u r e s
and t h e County's
a b i l i t y
t o
a d m i n i s t e r t h e
r e g u l a t i o n s
[and t h a t ] none
of
h e s e
claims
w e r e
m a d e w h e n
t h e
[Maryland S t o r i m ~ ~ a t e r
Manage me nt]
r e g u l a t i o n s
w e r e
adopted. To
h e
c o n t r a r y ,
environmental p r e s e r v a t i o n i s t s
p r a i s e d
t h e
n e w
r e g u l a t i o n s a s being
a
h i g h l y
e f f e c t i v e
w a y o
c o n t r o l
stormwater
u n o f f .
No esponse
o
t h i s
l e t t e r
w a s
ver
e c e i v e d .
40.
On
une
1 7 , 2013,
Robert
H a r r i s , P u l t e ' s
l e g a l
counsel,
wrote
a
l e t t e r
t o
F r a n c o i s e
C a r r i e r ,
Chair
of h e
County
Planning
Board , o
inform the
B o a r c l t h a t :
T h e
Master
P(an
r e c o m m e n d e d de v e lopment
a t t e r n s
f o r t h e
T e n
Mile
C reek
watershed
w h i c h w e r e
designed
t o
p r o t e c t the
water
q u a l i t y of T e n
Mile
Creek. T h o s e
w e r e
based
on
compreh ens ive
environmental
and
l a n d
use
s t u d i e s
done over a
p e t i o d
of
y e a r s
p r i o r
t o
t h e
Master Plan
adoption.
T h e
s t a g i ~ l g ~
i n c l u d e d i n t 1 1 e
Mister
Plan
( w e t ~ e ]
i n t e n d e d f o
e v a l ~ ~ a t e
C h e
water
q u a l i t y
p r o t e c t i o n
mea s u res a t a l a t e r
d a t e
t o
r e c o n f i r m
23
-
8/10/2019 Pulte $86M Complaint
24/73
t h e i r a b i l i t y
t o
p r o t e c t
water
q u a l i t y
and t h a t
[n]one
of
t h e
s t u d i e s
p e r f o r ~ l ~ e d
by
[MNCPPC
t a f f o r
c o n s u l t a n t s
h a d ]
n any way
emonstrated
t h a t
water p t-
o t e c t i o n
measures
( l a v e
d e c l i n e d
s i n c e
t h e n
or b e come l e s s
e f f e c t i v e .
T h e
Planning Board's p o s s i b l e
r e c o m m e n d e d
downzoning and
p o s s i b l e
r e d u c t i o n
i n
de v e lopment f o r
t h e s u b j e c t
p r o p e r t y , while
a l l o w i f l g
o t h e r
p r i v a t e
p r o p e r t i e s
i n
t h e
s a m e watershed
t o develop
a t m u c h
h i g h e r i n t e n s i t y ,
would be
d i s p a r a t e
Y c e a t m e n f
because
[ r ] e d u c i n g
t h e
de v e lopment
p o C e n t i a l
o f ~ t h e
[ s u b j e c t ]
p r o p e r t } t
i n o r d e r f o
enable
[ o t h e r ]
p r o p e r t i e s
[ i n t h e s a m e
T e n
Mile
Cre ek
watershed] o
be rezoned
f o r mo r e
i n t e n s i v e uses
[would
be]
`robbing e t e r t o pay
a u l . '
No
esponse
o
t h i s
l e t t e r
w a s
ever
e c e i v e d .
41. On
J u l y
22,
2013, Robert
H a r r i s ,
P u l t e ' s l e g a l
c o u n s e l ,
wrote
another
I e C t e c
t o
Francoise C a r r i e r ,
C h a i r
of
h e
Planning
Board ,
gain
o b j e c t i n g
t o the
methodology
of
s o m e of
[MNCPPC's
o n s u l t a n t s ' ]
a n a l y s e s , t h e
assumptions
...made
nd t h e
conclusions
. . . r e a c h e d
r e g a r d i n g
t h e
p o t e n t i a l
environmental
impacts of u l t e ' s
de v e lopment
of
t h e
s u b j e c t
p r o p e r t y
and f h e
Planning
Board's
r e c o m t n e n d a t i o t l s
r e g a r d i n g
t h e
2014 Amen d m ent.
- I a r r i s
p o i n t e d
out
h a t :
T h e
Master
Plan
w a s
l r e a d y
a
c a r e f u l
balance
between
community
b u i l d i n g
i n t e r e s C s ,
County
housing
p o l i c i e s ,
economic
de v e lopment
o b j e c t i v e s and
environmental
p r o t e c t i o n g o a l s ,
and
t h e
Planning
Boar d
ignored
o t h e r
24
-
8/10/2019 Pulte $86M Complaint
25/73
e n v i r o i l m e n ~ a l
p r o t e c t i o n
measures of l ~ e
Master
P l a ~ l
because
of t s
n e a r l y
s i n g u l a r
focus
on
water
u a l i t y
c l a i m s .
MNCPPC's c o n s u l t a n t s
themselves
acknowle dge d
t h a t b u i l d
- o u t
[ of
p r o p e r e i e s p u r s u a n t t o ] C h e
...Master Plan would r e s u l t
i n an
o v e r a l l
`good'
water
u a l i t y
f o r
t h e
T e n Mile
Creek,
i t s s t a t u s
t o d a y ] .
P u l t e ' s e n g i n e e r s
and s c i e n t i s t s
h a v e
provided
d e t a i l e d
comme nts
c h a l l e n g i n g
m u l t i p l e
assumptions
and
c o n c l u s i o n s o f f e r e d
by S t a f f and i t s
c o n s u l t a n t s ... and
t h a t ]
[ t ] h e
u l t i m a t e
conclusion based
on
h e
comm ent s
.
a t l d t h e s t u d i e s and d a t a
being submitted . . .
s
t h a t
t h e r e i s
no
s u p p o r t a b l e
j u s t i f i c a t i o n
t o
change l ~ e M a s t e r Play
recommendations.
No
esponse
o t h i s
l e t t e r w a s
ver
e c e i v e d .
42. On
u l y
22,
013,
Marcus
Quigley,
n expert
on
water
u a l i t y i s s u e s
of
a t i o n a l l y
renowned
Geosyntec
o n s u l t a t l t s ,
wrote
a
l e t t e r
t o
t h e
Planning
Boar d
h i g h l i g h t i n g
key
r r o r s i n
MNCPPC's
o n s u l t a n t s ' s t u d i e s of
h e
impact
of
h e
s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y ' s
de v e lopment
on I ' e n
Mile
Creek.
u l t e
1 1 a d engaged
Geosyntec
o
provide a C h i r d
p a r t y
e v a l u a t i o n
of
h e p o t e n t i a l
environmental
impacCs
of
u l t e ' s
planned
development.
Quigley
o i n t e d out
h e
following
r e g a r d i n g MNCPPC's
o n s u l t a n t s '
s t u d i e s :
Full compliance
w i t h
~ i ~ a t e r
q u a l i t y and
channel
p r o t e c t i o n
r e q u i r e ~ r ~ e n t s
a s
well
a s
environmental
p r o t e c t i o n and
improvement
of
e n
Mile Cre ek
over
e x i s t i n g
c o n d i t i o n s
can be
achieved u s i n g
Environmental S i t e
Design(ESD)
25
-
8/10/2019 Pulte $86M Complaint
26/73
approaches; mo r e e t a i l e d
a n a l y s i s i s
r e q u i r e d t o
p r o p e r l y
e v a l u a t e t h e w e l l -
e s t a b l i s h e d b e n e f i t s
of i s t r i b u t e d
ESD ea s u res
n
a
e c h n i c a l l y r i g o r o u s
manner.
I t
appears
h a t
i n
f h e
l i m i t e d
modeling
f f o r t s
conducted t o d a t e by
h e
County's
o n s u l t a n t s ,
d e s i g n
r e l a t e d
u n i t
p r o c e s s e s
and
i n t i l h a t i o n r a t e s a r e
noC
adequately r e p r e s e n t e d
t o e v a l u a t e s i t e
s p e c i f i c
d e s i g n r e l a t e d
i m p a c t s .
Current
e s u l t s
provided
by h e
County's
o n s u l t a n t s
l i k e l y over- e s t i m a t e t 1 1 e
pe ak flows and
volumes
n C h e
proposed
b u i l d
- o u t .
Geosyntec
concluded
t h a t
[ t ] h e
study
by h e
County's
o n s u l t a n t s , a
o i n t
v e n t u r e of i o h a b i t a t s
and
B r o w n
and
Caldwell and t h e
Center o r
W a t e r s h e d
P r o t e c t i o n ] ,
i s
done
t a
planning
e v e l
of
e t a i l [ r a t h e r than a
i t e
-
s p e c i f i c i n q u i r y ] ,
w h i c h
r e q u i r e s
m a n y
assumptions
~ i t h r e s p e c t ~ o
t h e
de v e lopment
of h e
v a r i o u s
p r o p e r t i e s
i n t h e
watershed.
No
esponse o
t h i s l e t t e r
w a s ever
e c e i v e d .
43.
On
u l y 24, 2013,
William
(K.C.) Reed
of
LSA
rote a ~
t o
C h r e e of
h e f i v e
P l a n r ~ i n ~ Boar d
members
(Cas ey
Anderson, No r m a n
D r e y f u s ,
Amy
r e s l e y ) ~ v h o
h a d
r a i s e d s o m e
q u e s t i o n s a t
t h e
p r i o r
Planning
Boar d
wo r k
s e s s i o n
on
p r e p a r i n g an
a m e n d m e n t
t o t h e
Master Plan.
P u l t e h a d
e ~ l g a g e d
LSA
t o
p l a n a t l d
e n g i n e e r
de v e lopment
of
h e s u b j e c t
p r o p e r t y a s
well s
provide a
t h i r d
p a r t y e v a l u a t i o n
of
h e
~
environmental
impacts
of u ( t e ' s
development.
In
t s
l e t t e r ,
LSA
rovided a
d e t a i l e d
e x p l a n a t i o n
on
information . . . t h a t
should
be
taken i n t o
c o n s i d e r a t i o n
26
-
8/10/2019 Pulte $86M Complaint
27/73
during t h e Planning Board's d e c i s i o ~ l
1 ~ ~ a k i n g
p r o c e s s .
I n
p a r t i c u l a r ,
t h e
l e t t e r
i n f o i t T ~ e d t h e Planning
Boar d
h a t :
[T]h e
S t a f f ' s
and
t h e i r
C o n s u l t a n t ' s
conclusions
and recommendations
r e l a t i v e
t o t h e Master
Plan
A m e n d m e n t
f f o r t s
...
a r e ] not
u b s t a n t i a t e d by
t h e
a n a l y s i s and i n d i n g s .
In a l l [ l a n d
use]
c e n a r i o s , t h e
[d evelopment]
mo d e l
p r e d i c t s t h a t
t h e water
q u a l i t y
of 1 1 e T e n
Mile
Cre ek
stem
wo u l d
remain
c l a s s i f i e d
a s `Good. '
T h e
Planning Boar d
has
not been
sho wn
i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t j u s t i f i e s a
s i g n i f i c a n t
d e v i a t i o n from t h e
...Master l a n .
44.
On
August 30,
2413,
Ke v in K e nne dy
and Timothy
D ugan,
e g a l counsel f o r
P u l t e ,
wrote a l e t t e r
t o Adrian
Gardner, ~
Counsel
f o r MNCPPC,
nd
I s i a h (Ike)
L e g g e t t ,
Montgomery County
Executive,
r e s e r v i n g
P u l t e ' s
r i g h t s and
remedies
a r i s i n g
f rom
t h e
ongoing
mistreatment
of
ulte
i n
connection
wiCh
t h e
ongoing
d e
facto
moratorium
on
t h e Water
and
S e w e r
Category C h a n g e
Request
and t h e
proposed
downzonitlg
of
and
s e v e r e
impervious
l i m i t s
on
the
s u b j e c t p t ~ o p e r f y .
T 1 1 e
l e t t e r put MNCPPC nd t h e
County
on n o t i c e C h a t
t h e i r
a c t i o n s w e r e
v i o l a t i n g P u l t e ' s
l e g a l r i g h t s .
I n
p a 1 t i c u l a r ,
t h e
l e t t e r
informed Def endanCs,
n t e r c r l i a , t h a t :
P u l t e ' s
r i g h t s
t o
d u e p r o c e s s
uder
t h e S t a t e
and
Federal c o n s t i t u t i o n s ]
d i c t a t e
Y h a t P u l t e not
be
a r b i t r a r i l y
or
c a p r i c i o u s l y deprived
of i t s
de v e lopment
i g h t s .
27
-
8/10/2019 Pulte $86M Complaint
28/73
[ T ] h e
e n v i r o n m e n t a l / e n g i n e e r i n g
a n a l y s e s r e l i e d
upon t o support
[MNCPPC's
c o n s u l t a n t s ' ] .
recommendations
r e g a r d i n g
supposedly
necessary
down
-zoning
a n d / o r
unreasonably
low
i i Y l p e r v i o u s
caps
a r e
based
on f a u l t y
a n a l y s i s ,
assumptions and
arguments
r e g a r d i n b
both
t h e
supposed
` e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n s '
of T e n
Mile G~eek, s
well
a s
v a r i o u s
u n t e n a b l e
impact
p r o j e c t i o n s
t h a t P u l t e ' s by
- r i g h t
development
under
t h e 1994
M a s t e r Plan
(TDR
e n s i t y
n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g )
w i l l
supposedly h a v e
on
t h e
g r e a t e r
T e n
Mile
Creek.
Pufte has
s h o w n
...that
u l t e ' s
a s
-planned
~
W a t e r q u a n t i t y
and
q u a l i t y
m a n a g e m e n t
r o p o s a l s ... wou l d
a c t u a l l y
reduce
p o t e n t i a l l y
harmful r u n - o f f
w11en
compared t o
e x i s t i n g
u s e s ,
and
s t a y
w e l l
w i t h i n
any
~
allowable impacts t o
t h e
o v e r a l l
watershed
and
T e n
Mile
Ct
eek
water
q u a l i t y
under h e 1994
Master Plan.
Despite
t h e
f a c t t h a t
P u l t e ' s
proposed
v o l u n t a r y
r n e a s u r -
es
a r e r e q u i r e d
t o
inform
t h e
a p p l i c a b l e / p r e s e f i b e d
a n a l y s i s ,
t h o s e f a c t o t s
h a v e
not been
c o n s i d e r e d
by
[MNCPPC],
e s p i t e beig
s p e c i f i c a l l y
r e q u i r e d by
t h e 1994
Master
l a n .
In
c o n t e x t , t h e
i n d e f i n i C e l y
delayed
s e w e r an d
water
category
change
e q u e s t
s m acks
of
n exaggerated
and
unsupported
p r e t e x t
f o r
t h w a r t i n g development
... t
b o t t o i l ~ ,
t h e
County
i s
bound
by
t s
o ~ ~ ~ n
c r i t e r i a and
cannot b o o t s t r a p
i t s
d e s i r e t o
r e t a r d o r
thwart
development.
28
-
8/10/2019 Pulte $86M Complaint
29/73
T h e
unlawful
n a t u r e of h e
ongoing
d e
acto
moratorium
on se we r and
water
category
changes
o r
t h e
P u l t e Property s
p a r t i c u l a r l y
...because t
has
not
been
formally e n a c t e d and
because i t s purpose i s not t o
a d d r e s s a
p r e s s i n g
h e a l t h
or
s a f e t y
emergency, s
of imprecise
d t a r a t i o n and
i n v o l v e s
t r e a t i n g
s i m i l a r l } ~
s i t u a t e d
landowners u n f a i r l y and
d i f f e r e n t l y
t h a n
o t h e r s .
~
T h e
ongoing mistreatment
of u l t e
seeks
t o
~
d i s p r o p o r t i o n a l b u ~ d e n s
and
c o s t upon
t h e [ s u b j e c t
p r o p e r t y ]
...cle ar ly
i n excess
of any
p u t a t i v e
impact
t h a t P u l t e ' s a s -planned by
- r i g h t
de v e fopmept x p r e s s l y contemplated
i n t l Z e
1994 Mastee Plan
might
cause o t h e
T e n
Mile
Cr e ek watershed.
[B]ecause t h e
propose d d own-zoni~lg
a ~ 1 d
impervious caps
would s i n g l e ou t
and u n f a i r l y
d i s c r i m i n a t e a g a i n s t t h e P u l t e
p r o p e r t y ,
any
such
proposed
Master
Plan a m e n d m e n t
a n d / o r follow
on
governmental a c t i o n s
a g a i n s t t h e
[ s u b j e c t
p r o p e r t y ]
wo u l d a l s o
c o n s t i t u t e an
unlawful s p o t
zoning. '
No
esponse C o t h i s
l e t t e r w a s
ever
e c e i v e d .
45.
On August 30, 2013,
Kevin
Kennedy,
e g a l
counsel f o r
P u l t e ,
a l s o
wrote a l e t t e r t o
MNCPPC's
o n s u l t a n t s
B i o h a b i ta t s , I n c .
and
B r o w n and
Caldwell
(two
of t h e
o r g a n i z a t i o n s
t h a t
m a d e up t h e
J o i n t
VenCure )
e g a r d i n g
v a r i o ~ ~ s
u n C e n a b l e e t h i c s
v i o l a t i o n s
committed by
t h e i r
o r g a n i z a t i o