Every claim on this site traces to a public record. These are the key filings and datasets, grouped by topic, with what each one shows. County planning filings are posted on Montgomery Planning's DAIC pages for cases 120260020, 820260020, and F20250430.
The opening filing. Brian Gallagher signed but left all three capacity boxes (sole owner, authorized representative, contract purchaser) blank, and checked both Yes and No on three questions: the Historic Preservation master plan, the school-cluster moratorium, and deed transfers.
The certification box checked "the sole owner of the subject property." The application's own owner section, two pages earlier, names "Harry H Burdette Et Al," and state land records agree the Burdette heirs own the property.
All three capacity boxes left blank. The owner signature reads "Brian Gallasher" (sic). The form references "Preliminary Plan 120250070," a different case number than the 120260020 it belongs to.
The applicant's written case for the project. Both state the sewer category as S-1; every plan cover sheet says S-3. County reviewers later demanded all mentions of "Mixed-Income Housing" be removed, saying the project does not meet the zoning definition.
The form meant to certify that drivers can see safely out of the driveway onto Route 27. Filed completely blank: no plan number, no project name, no signature, no seal.
The unit mix as filed: 36 one-bedroom, 63 two-bedroom, and 8 three-bedroom units, all proposed as income-restricted at or below 60% of area median income. County housing staff noted the units must meet minimum size standards.
Fifty-four pages. Trip counts taken 9/26/2024. The main table computes trips for 107 units, but the text states three times that the capacity analysis used "up to 123 units" without showing those numbers, and treats the occupied site as "vacant" when adding trips to the network.
Signed by county planning, transportation, and state highway staff. Names the developer as "Brian Kim; AGC - Damascus, LLC," not Olympus Real Estate LLC. States "up to 123" units, against the applications' 107.
Notes a $2,000 TIS review fee owed, calls the traffic analysis incomplete, flags parking too close to the driveway access, and records 16.5-foot spaces against the 18-foot standard. No approval, revised study, or fee receipt appears in the public record afterward.
Seven sheets: a four-story, 55-foot apartment bar with double-loaded corridors, brick and fiber-cement siding, flat parapet roofs, Juliet balconies, and surface parking facing Ridge Road. The title block names the developer as "ACC - Damascus, LLC" of Fulton and the project as "Damascus Apartments": a third variant of the AGC name found elsewhere in the file, and whether it is a typo or a separate entity is unverified.
The county's design reviewer flagged long-facade articulation and materials, asked for parking spaces to be removed where they obstruct circulation, and wrote that staff has concerns the proposed public use space onsite "does not meet the intent and purpose" of the code. Montgomery Parks staff said they were willing to explore a payment in lieu of on-site open space, while noting concerns about finding a suitable park to receive it.
Eight items: hydrant spacing and dimensions, building count and lobby locations, truck-access elevation as the height measurement point, a fire lane order, 15-foot walkable grade along all walls, 450-foot maximum walking distance, and 100-foot FDC-to-hydrant distance.
The first request, approved 5-0 by the Planning Board on April 30, 2026, extending the hearing deadline to October 1, 2026. Lists the outstanding issues the applicant had to address: fire access, stormwater, open space, parking, landscaping, architecture.
The applicant's own signed form. It checks "Owner" for Olympus Real Estate LLC while listing its affiliation as "Contract Purchaser," and states the applicant needs time "to develop design changes that are intended to achieve better master plan compliance and compatibility, as well as to provide the required open space on site."
Recommends the second extension, granted October 1, 2026, extending review to January 28, 2027. Enumerates every outstanding issue in the case. Transportation is not mentioned.
Lists $3.5 million in projected gap financing for the project, with estimated closing in April 2027. The report carries the standard disclaimer that the listing "is not a reservation or commitment of funds."
Proposes up to $33 million in private-activity bonds, naming AGC Ridge Road LP as the owner-operator. No bond issuance has been found in any public record since.
A building permit for the address declaring a $30,739,440 construction value, filed before the preliminary plan, site plan, or forest conservation plan had been approved.
The school system's own facilities plan: Damascus Elementary at about 126% of program capacity (338 students / 269 seats); John T. Baker Middle at about 111% (819 / 741, with 2 relocatables); Damascus High at 94% now, projected to 106.5%, with a replacement high school in the plan.
The county's capacity test shows no Utilization Premium Payment surcharge triggered for the Damascus cluster. The same test shows a cushion of only 7 seats at Damascus Elementary against about 13 projected new elementary students.
258 business establishments employing 2,155 people in the Damascus ZIP code, an average of about 8.4 workers each, with no anchor employer. A cross-check against the county's 2,500 at-place-jobs figure, which covers the larger Damascus policy area.
The county's land-use forecast puts about 2,500 at-place jobs in the larger Damascus policy area against nearly 9,850 working residents: roughly one local job for every four workers.
Commuting data: 62% of workers drive alone, 1.5% use transit, mean travel time 37.6 minutes. Ride On Route 90 runs weekdays only, roughly every half hour from about 5:15 AM, with no Saturday service.
The town's governing land-use plan. Key provisions: residential density guidance of 15 to 20 dwelling units per acre in the town center (printed p. 97); "compact town-scale intensity" with buildings oriented toward streets (pp. 14-22); Planning Board authority to limit development below the zoning maximum for compatibility of scale, height, and proportion (p. 22); new development near single-family areas reviewed for scale, height, and proportion (pp. 23-26).