Montgomery County sentinel., 1962-06-28
Annexation
Issue Stirs
City-County

uClC5dLAOIl Illdy get d IlOL
potato to handle next ses-
sion, as a result of county
pl a nners dissatisfaction
with the way Incorporated
towns are annexing county
land.
The county Planning Board
is preparing to ask the County
Council to back legislation re-
stricting planning and zoning
powers of municipalities over
future annexations.
Though it is uncertain how
much acceptance this move will
find among Council members,
one thing was certain as the
dust settled this week on one
of the county's noisiest plan
ming disputes-neit the plan
ners nor cities such as Rock
vile, which was most severely
criticized for it's annexation
ambitions, appear willing to
give an inch.
Chief County Planner Ar
thur K. Stellhorn, who started
the ruckus last week with a
complaint that land-taking poll
cies of incorporated municipali-
ties pose a threat to orderly
county land development, said
after a week of self-defense and
denials by the towns that he's
sticking by his guns.
1--WE said my piece" he de.
cIared. "Now well see what
happens on the basis of Off
cial action"
Stellhorn, however, confirmed
a report that his office had ask
ed Rockville planning officials
for an up-to-date picture of the
city's annexation history sew
eral days after his original blast
at the city.
1--WE just wanted to get
freshened up on the actual
status of annexation, including
some applications now pend
ing" he explained.
Rockyille's annexation poll
cies have been vigorously de-
Tended in many quarters during
the past week, by not only pres
ent and past planning officials
but the president of the County
Council-David L. Cahoon, who
was the city's attorney when
its master plan was submitted
to both county officials and the
MaryIand-N National Capital Park
and Planning Commission in
1857.
CahoOn said he could con.
firm Rockville Planning Com.
mission chairman Robert b.
PrestemOn's statement that
the city had alawys had a
good, cooperative relation
ship with the County COun-
Gil i'm its annexation actions.
He also pointed out that the
city's master plan, which pres
ented ultimate boundaries for
future growth, was reviewed
without opposition by both the
old Upper Montgomery County
Planning Commission and the
bi-county planning group before
it's adoption.
Leslie Morgan Able, a mem.
Der of the Rockville Board OF
Appeals who served on the
city's Planning Commission
from its inception until last
year, also rose to the city's de-
fense.
He termed Stellhorn's criti
cism hardly warranted" and
"unsupported by any facts"
Able credited the Plalning
Commissions attack with poll
tical implication" calling 1t
"red herring to cover up the
shortcomings of the commits
sion"
"This general plan Of theirs
for the county has had a
longer CESSATION period than
is known to elephants
which, Is incidentally, three
years-and it's my impression
that they hope by making
enough noise about others
shortcomings they Will dis
tract attention from their
own"
The former city planner said
Rockville's future limits "are
strictly tied to watersheds with
in which sewerage Is feasible
and no further. There was q
sound reason for these linita
tions, and so far as 1 know
there is no intent today or ir
the future to go beyond them"
Rockville Planning Commits
sion chairman Prestemor
stressed that Rockville has con
sistently refused to annex
property outside the boundaries
established in the 1860 master
plan.
Echoing Abbe's counter crit
cism, Prestemon pointed out
that while Rockville's master
plan was adopted within foul
years of creation of the plan
ming commission by Rockville'i
tContinued on Page ABB