Montgomery County Residents Clash Over University Boulevard Corridor Plan at Packed Public Hearing

Overwhelming Opposition Meets Support for Transit-Oriented Development Along Three-Mile Stretch

September 16, 2025 – AI-assisted article based on YouTube transcript of Montgomery County Council meeting

SILVER SPRING, MD – In a contentious public hearing that stretched late into the evening of September 10, 2025, at Montgomery Blair High School, Montgomery County residents delivered passionate testimony both for and against the proposed University Boulevard Corridor (UBC) Plan, with opposition voices dominating the proceedings. The second hearing is today, September 16.

The plan, which covers a three-mile stretch of University Boulevard (MD 193) between I-495 and Wheaton, proposes significant rezoning, dedicated bus lanes, and infrastructure changes aimed at creating a more walkable, transit-oriented corridor. However, the proposal has deeply divided communities along the route.

County Executive Expresses Concerns

County Executive Marc Elrich opened the hearing with notable skepticism about the plan’s premises. Speaking at 2:27, Elrich challenged the fundamental justification for the rezoning:

“Our existing master plans, which this council in previous councils have passed over time, contained enough zoning for over 120,000 units and more than 300,000 residents. The County Forecast Project just 200,000 new residents over the next 25 years… That means we have more zoning capacity than we need.”

Elrich warned that the plan would shift development away from designated centers like Wheaton and Silver Spring, potentially worsening economic segregation and threatening affordability by increasing land values. He specifically criticized the lack of infrastructure planning, noting at 5:13 that the plan “assumes reliance on the future BRT transit line that is not even funded for planning or construction.”

Planning Board Chair Defends Extensive Outreach

Planning Board Chair Artie Harris defended the plan at 6:46, emphasizing the extensive community engagement process:

“Since 2022, the planning staff held more than 20 community meetings, participated in over 20 neighborhood events and festivals, and shared information through bilingual letters and postcards. Staff also organized small group conversations and knocked on 1,000 doors, which led to nearly 250 conversations in 6 different languages.”

However, this claim of robust outreach would later be challenged by residents who said they were never informed about the plan until recently.

Community Divisions Emerge

Opposition Voices

The overwhelming majority of speakers opposed the plan, citing concerns about traffic congestion, neighborhood character, and lack of genuine community input.

Jeff Schneider, representing the Woodmoor-Pinecrest Citizens Association at 34:04, stated: “The plan proposes removal of one to two travel lanes in each direction along the corridor… Our neighborhood is concerned that the reduction will divert backed-up traffic to already crowded neighborhood streets, making it less safe.”

Tal Kerem from Kemp Mill delivered one of the evening’s most forceful rejections at 40:06, announcing that nearly 1,000 local residents had signed a pledge to vote against any council member who supports the plan:

“Every member of the planning board should be dismissed over the self-evident failure… As an elected official in a representative democracy, each of you should be personally offended by the breach of trust the planning board engaged in to produce a plan overwhelmingly rejected by residents.”

Brit Simon-Tov challenged the planning board’s outreach claims at 55:45, revealing she had filed a Maryland Public Information Act request about the community meetings: “I was told it would cost over $1,100 and over 16 hours of staff time to get the answers. That is unacceptable… This is why Kemp Mill never heard about this plan.”

Voices of Support

A smaller but vocal group of residents supported the plan’s vision for improved safety and housing diversity.

Bridget Schwiesow, living near University Boulevard, testified at 12:12: “University Boulevard is a state highway and has been deadly for far too many pedestrians and cyclists. Anything we can do to engineer this road to recognize that its users are not only drivers but pedestrians, cyclists and transit riders is needed.”

Michael McKee, a former South Four Corners resident now studying at UMD, provided economic context at 1:38:59: “The only way to bring down market rate unit costs to match the population growth, which we’re going to get whether we pass this plan or not, is to build more houses.”

Carrie Kisicki from the Coalition for Smarter Growth emphasized at 1:34:59: “We do not have to be a traffic engineer to understand that being a pedestrian on University Boulevard does not feel good… This plan outlines clear steps that bridge the gaps between the challenges that our communities have identified today and what they would like to see in the future.”

Key Points of Contention

1. The Dedicated Bus Lane Controversy

Multiple speakers criticized the underutilized dedicated bus lanes already implemented as a pilot program. Jonathan Agwu testified at 49:14 that “530 average bus riders pass per week on University Boulevard” compared to “116,000 vehicles [that] use University or Arcola on a typical weekday.”

2. The Woodmoor Shopping Center

Councilmember Natali Fani-Gonzalez was repeatedly praised for her advocacy to remove the Woodmoor Shopping Center from redevelopment plans. Multiple speakers emphasized the center’s 85-year history and vital role as a community resource.

3. Traffic and Safety Concerns

Residents expressed deep concerns about cut-through traffic in residential neighborhoods. Jonathan Stephanoff warned at 1:18:17 about plans to create a street grid at Four Corners: “Sutherland Road, my home, it’s the first street off Colesville south of Four Corners… We’d be plugged in for vehicle traffic.”

4. Environmental Impact

John Holden cited at 31:45 an August memo from the Department of Environmental Protection warning that “increasing allowed density of development along University Boulevard corridor will almost certainly result in a decrease in tree canopy and an increase in impervious surfaces.”

Religious Community Concerns

Members of Kemp Mill’s Orthodox Jewish community expressed unique concerns about the plan’s impact on their walkable religious lifestyle. Paul Werner testified at 1:57:27: “It’s really unique, not just to Montgomery County, not just to Maryland, but really to the East Coast… that community relies on the locally owned businesses that exist in the Kemp Mill shopping center.”

Calls for Delay and Further Study

Many speakers urged the council to send the plan back for further analysis. Harriet Quinn, with 20 years of volunteer experience in planning issues, stated at 37:15: “This plan is flawed and should be returned to the planning board… There’s an urgent need for professional impact analysis of the planning board’s one-size-fits-all approach.”

Looking Ahead

Council President Kate Stewart maintained order throughout the sometimes raucous hearing, having to pause proceedings multiple times to ask the audience to allow speakers to testify without interruption. At 8:31, she reminded the crowd: “We are here tonight to hear from everyone… I am asking everyone to allow people to speak.”

The council announced a second public hearing scheduled for September 16, 2025, at 7:00 PM at the Council Office Building, followed by a Planning, Housing and Parks Committee work session on September 29.

As the hearing concluded after more than two hours of testimony, the deep divisions within the community were clear. While supporters see the plan as a necessary step toward sustainable, equitable development and improved safety, opponents view it as an unwanted imposition that ignores community character and resident concerns. The council now faces the challenge of reconciling these divergent visions for one of Montgomery County’s major transportation corridors.

---

Disclaimer

Note: This article was created using AI assistance based on YouTube transcripts from the Montgomery County Council public hearing on September 10, 2024. Automated transcription and AI interpretation may contain errors. For corrections or concerns about accuracy, please contact us or leave a comment on the page below. For official records, consult the Montgomery County government website.

---