pulte $86m complaint

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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


( 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


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


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


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


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 ~


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


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


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


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


8/73

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


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


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


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


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


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


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 .


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


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 -


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


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 s s e r t i n g

i t

~ ~ ~ ~ a s not i p e

f o r review.

12


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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 [ ~


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


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


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


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


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 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).


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.


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


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


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


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


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


[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]


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


...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

pulte $86m complaint

Documents