Editing Leisure World, Maryland (section)

===Changes in plans===
Leisure World asked Montgomery County for approval to reduce its resident age minimum from 50 to 40 years old, but Montgomery County disapproved the change.<ref>Rovner, Sandy. "Leisure World's Bid Is Rejected: Montgomery Refuses To Allow Format Change". ''The Baltimore Sun''. November 17, 1967. p. C13.</ref> On August 12, 1968, Leisure World asked Montgomery County Planning Board to remove the age limit altogether, but the Montgomery County Planning Board disapproved the change.<ref name= newowner>Hundt, Reed. "New Owner Seeks To Change Age Limit On Rossmoor Tracts". ''The Washington Post''. August 13, 1968. p. B1.</ref> On August 23, 1968, Leisure World made another request to drop the age limit for almost half the land, and Montgomery County Planning Board disapproved the request again.<ref name= plea>"Rossmoor Plea Again Is Denied". ''The Washington Post''. August 23, 1968. p. D15.</ref><ref name= acts>Feinberg, Lawrence. "Montgomery Acts to Delay Threat to Negro Community". ''The Washington Post''. September 11, 1968. p. B2.</ref> Montgomery County Planning Board had agreed to change the land's zoning from low density to higher density on the condition that all residents would be of age 50 or older and, in a vote of 4–1, Montgomery County Planning Board would not let Leisure World out of its agreement.<ref name= plea/> On December 31, 1968, the Montgomery County Council voted to allow the change to the age limit for about 40 percent of the land, despite the objections by the Montgomery County Planning Board.<ref name= eased>"Zoning Eased in Rossmoor: Montgomery Moves To Aid Community For Retired". ''The Baltimore Sun''. January 1, 1969. p. A9.</ref> A part of the negotiation, Leisure World agreed to develop the unrestricted portion of land as a separate development.<ref name= relaxed>Edwards, Paul G. "Rossmoor Zoning Plan Is Relaxed by Council". ''The Washington Post''. January 1, 1969. p. B2.</ref> In February 1971, three families living nearby filed a lawsuit to prevent construction of about 2,500 homes.<ref name= suit/> The plaintiffs contended that the population of the 2,500 homes without age restrictions would be much larger than originally intended because many of the units would be occupied by families.<ref name= suit/> The plaintiffs said that the additional residents would cause an increase in public service costs and a decrease in their property values.<ref name= suit/>