Evening star., 1950-03-15
Ruling Expected
In Three Weeks
On Road Code
Council Hearings
End on Montgomery
Street Proposals

A Montgomery County Council
decision on its controversial pro-
posed new road code, which has
drawn the fire of county builders
and engineers, is expected in about
three weeks.
This was announced yesterday
by Acting Council President
Thomas c. Kelley at the conclu-
sion of a hearing. Yesterdays
session was a continuation of an
eight-hour hearing last Saturday,
atteded by approximately 500 per-
sons. Only about 20 persons ap-
peared at yesterdays meeting,
however.
New Code Proposals.
The proposed code would re-
quire builders to:
/. Build sidewalks and vertical
curbs in all new subdivisions.
Q. Install subdivision streets 28
feet wide instead of 26 feet wide,
as now required.
3. Grade the entire right-of-
way which would be so feet in
stead of so feet, on all new streets.
4. Post bonds guaranteeing COM
pletion of road construction.
S Extend road code provisions,
now confined to the suburban
area, to all new subdivisions.
Yesterdays hearing was marked
by a dispute between George P.
Papageorge, director of the Pub
lie Works Department, who helped
draft the proposed code, and OPP
ponents, over estimates of in
creased costs resulting from its
adoption.
Puts Costs at 3.2eo
Mr. Papageorge said the in
creased costs, based on a $4,000
home and lot, would be 80 per
cent, or 1918.
He told the council that if the
code were put into effect in the
District, the increased cost to a
new home owner would be seven
tenths of one percent; in Alex
andria. nine-tenths of one per-
cent, and in Arlington. Ia percent.
Sharp issue was taken with
these estimates, however, by Da-
vid Belts, Rockville attorney. Mr..
Belts read a letter from the Wash
ington chapter of the American
Institute of Architects in which
the increased cost was figured at
SLIGO for an average sized lot
- amounting to virtual con-
fiscatior."
Sees Building Discouraged.
The chapter also stated in the
letter that approval of the pro-
posed code in its present form
would discourage new construc-
ton and result in loss of revenue
to the county.
| Another opponent, Page Hop
kins, president of the Prince
Georges Montgomery County En-
gineers Club, contended there is
no need for sidewalks in subdivi-
sions where homes are located
on very large lots.
In reply, Mr.. Papageorge de-
clared that in every county and
municipality in the Washington
area except Montgomery and
Prince Georges Counties, side
walks are required in new SUBJ
divisions.
Donal Chamberlain. who de-
veloped the Kenwood subdivision.
near Bethesda, charged the pro-
posed ordinance is unavoidable
and would result in virtual con-
fiscation of property because Of
excessive costs.
IF your maintenance costs
under the present code are high"
he told the council, "90 per cent
of it is due to improper filling Of
public utility trenches, little or no
county inspection and chiseling on
requirements"
Hardship on Builders.
He also argued that the re-
quirement would work particular
hardship on small builders.
IF you want to do something
for the county," he said, get a
committee together to draft a
workable ordinance and increase
your engineering and inspection
staff"
Also speaking in opposition to
the proposed code were Irwin I.
Kaplan, former chief engineer Of
the Maryland-National Capital
Park and Planning Commission;
Thomas G. Oyster, Wheaton en-
gineer, and Gilbert Ball, county
civil engineer.
Summing up for the opposition,
Mr.. Belts urged that the rural
area be excluded from the codes
provisions, except in cases where
the builder wants the county to
take over and maintain roads.
He also recommended that the
provision for sidewalks be made
more flexible and that the coun-
Gil reconsider it's requirement for
performance bonds.
HyuttsviIIe PTA to Meet
The Hyattsville (Md.) High