Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1950-03-12
Rap Road Code
In Montgomery
Proposed Ordinance
Called Confiscotoy
At Council Hearing
By Malcolm Lomborne

~ Nt0fSOtHt 61WDUtUS
Builders and some hometown
ers yesterday blasted Montgomery
County's proposed road construc-
ton code for eight hours before
the County Council.
Thrity-three of the nearly 500
persons attending the session got
an opportunity to present their
views before the hearing was re-
cessed until Oils am. Tuesday.
So large was the crowd that the
council was forced to shift the
hearing from the Rockville Court
house to the Rockville High School
gymnasium.
A majority of those heard
during the day strongly opposed
the ordinance which was de-
scribed as unconstitutional, con-
fiscatory and i'll advised"
Fears for Small Builder.
Strongest opposition came from
Washington Area Home Builders
Association, led by the recently
formed Montgomery Home Own
ers Protective Association. One
county builder summed up the
proposal by saying it might "give
us gold-plated roads but it will
force the small builder out OF
business.
The ordinance calls for con-
struction of 28-foot-wide paved
streets on secondary roads and
sidewalks. curbs, cutters, trees
and street signs in new subdi-
visions.
Support of the new code came
from individual property owners,
several of whom praised the coun-
Gil for proposing the change "in
the face of certain opposition. 5"
Civic groups, however, we're di-
vided in their opinions.
More Study Urged.
There were repeated suggestions
that the council give the code
more study.
| A proposal that the council re-
turn the ordinance to a commit
tee for reconsideration came from
Blair Lee III, vice chairman OF
the Maryland National Capital
Park and Planning Commission.
He suggested a committee made
up of representatives of the COM
mission. the State Roads Commits
sion, the county Public Works De.
partment and the Washington
Suburban Sanitary Commission tt
iron out the kinks and come bach
with a code that would be fair
to all parties.
At the outset of his testimony
Mr.. Lee said the commission wa.
neither for nor against the ordi.
nance. although it was in accore
with its broad aims. =
But he pointed out that the code
conflicted with the planning
groups operations in some in
stances. He also declared there
had been no consultation between
the county and the planning com
mission.
Burrage Is Blunt.
Mr.. Lee submitted a five-page
memorandum from the commits
sion's planning engineer, William
c. Burrage. who was blunt in ex-
pressing his opinion of the pro-
posed code.
Mr.. Burrage said he felt the
code was restrictive to the point
of being confiscatory" and that
there were specific defects in the
standards set up"
The county's position was ex-
planned by George Papageorge,
head of the Public Works Depart
ment. He stressed repeatedly the
eventual saving to taxpayers in
lower road maintenance costs.
County Official Booed.
The county official was booed
and a charge of "filibuster" was
made when he said a child's life
might have been saved if the
new rules were in effect. He
wound up his testimony with:
"You are building for the future
not the past"
Mr.. Papageorge was critical >of
some builders who, he charged,
had abused the present road ordi-
nance. Literally hundreds OF
kids are forced to ride their bikes
in the streets for lack of side
walks" he said f..
Clarke Daniel. president of the
Washington Area Home Builders
Association, testified that builders
could provide an extra bedroom OF
other added features to a home for
the cost of putting in the items
stipulated in the proposed code.
AS for the problem of children,
Mr.. Daniel observed that "home
is the safest place for children
homes, back yards or play
grounds"
The builders case was directed
by David E. Belts. attorney for
the protective association. He in
troduced these witnesses: Page
Hopkins, president of the Mont
gomery-Prince Georges Engineers
Club; Thomas G. Oyster, Silver
Spring engineer and land sur
lveyor; Wilson T. Ballard, former
State Roads Commission official,
and James c. Wilkes, attorney for
the HomeeBuilders Association.
Mr.. Belts said he had three
more witnesses, to appear at the
windup of the hearing Tuesday.
Other witnesses testifying yes
terday included:
William H. Dyer. representing
the District Building and Loan
League. Herbert N. Eaton, Mont
gomery County Civic Federation;
Robert Snure, Allied Civic Group