Chestertown Town Manager Bill Ingersoll presented a last minute zoning change request from Washington College President Mitchell Reiss–to help the college expedite the sale of the old LaMotte property at the corner of 291 and 213 in Chestertown. WC bought the property in 2006.
Ingersoll told the Town Council last night they had two options to deal with the zoning change request.
“You could do nothing with the request and refer it back to the planning commission,” Ingersoll said. He said the council could also simply approve the zoning request because it was in line with the comprehensive plan. Doing nothing would default the property back to a “light industrial” designation, Ingersoll said.
Mayor Margo Bailey, Councilman Jim Gatto, and Marty Stetson expressed they did not want the property to go to commercial development. “Nobody wants that,” Bailey said.
The council then passed a motion to designate the property for professional offices and residential.
Immediately after the motion, Ingersoll moved to adopt the new zoning ordinance, but Stetson and Gatto said they could not vote on the zoning ordinance until they saw a hard copy.
The council agreed to put the ordinance on the agenda in the first week in January.
Gatto told the Spy he’s been reluctant to vote on the ordinance due to lack of documentation available to the council and the public.
Jack Offett says
“Nobody wants that,” Bailey said.
Another amazing comment from an elected official who either is completely blind to economic development or intentionally works to limit economic opportunity . . . particularly for working families.
And I am sure the wrong answer for Washington college, which may very well have a buyer that needs commercial, not office/professional zoning.
Jack Dorsey says
Professional offices and residential development? Isn’t there enough vacant office space and residences already in town? Who are the elected officials speaking for? Themselves? Downtown merchants? Certainly not for the people that they are supposed to represent. Are they going to have another showdown with the college, and if so will the town need a monetary sweetener to go along, like with the armory?
eliott fuhrman says
first price; county paid was twice value then paid $20,000 for a use plan. The county then put out offer to buy, NOBODY came to table, and that was in good time.We would of done deal untill found out plans not only had to be appoved by town but also “chester river association” and “ducks unllimited”.The ideal use was a wellness center health club, which was built ,but not in as good as this location .Now only way to do it is a land lease from college and use it as a bank pad using eb-5 equity and do a b/d/l {build, lease] to a bank.
kevin walsh says
ACME had a Philadelphia Developer Firm, that wanted to buy that property, six years ago. It would have been the same design, as in Centreville.
Their bid, as well as one made by a builder, representing RiteAid, and both were rejected.
,
Our Kent County Commissioners, held the property for a year, and then made a deal at a monetary loss, to Washington College.
Kent County sold it for a loss, less than the Real Estate Tax Value of the property.
Now the college will sell the property, and make a profit. As for those six years they claimed it was Institution Property.
Steve Cades says
People with better memories than mine will weigh in, I’m sure, but my recollection is that around a decade ago, Washington College bought this property because it had been put up for sale and the community (or at least a quite vocal part of it) was concerned that it would be bought for commercial purposes–perhaps as a strip mall. The fear then was that a prime intersection in Chestertown would simply become the intersection of Strip-Mall Avenue and Strip-Mall Road. Views change with time, of course, but it would appear that this proposal is a response to the concerns that led to the College’s having bought the parcel in the first place.
The site plan presented here is, I believe, simply the one already adopted by the town; see its title at the top of the drawing. I vaguely recall also that the proposal to redesign the area to the northeast of the 291–213 intersection has its origins in an earlier plan developed–perhaps in a charette process–in response to the unattractiveness of Kent Plaza.
So Mayor Bailey’s remark has its origins, perhaps, with her recollection of the reactions people had then to the prospect of more commercial development of that parcel and the neighboring areas. Times change, and we live in different economic times than the one in which the comprehensive plan was developed, but with so much unused retail space in town, additional professional offices may have greater appeal in the real estate market than more commercial space. Consider that the brand-new commercial building on the old Black-Eyed Susan site on Washington Ave. remains unoccupied nearly two years after it was completed.
It may be useful also to see what it was that the Mayor said “nobody wants….” She was referring, if Mr. Menefee is reporting accurately, to the site’s reversion to Light Industrial zoning. I think most would agree that a production facility would be an unfortunate use of that corner; there is much land already carrying that zoning that remains unoccupied.
Keith Thompson says
For economic development…what you say “yes” to isn’t always as important as what you don’t say “no” to.
Steve Payne says
That property would be very attractive to commercial buyers that are users. Pad sites. These are a different animal than those who would be looking at the available retail spaces that exist. Unfortunately many of these types of users are considered undesirable. Someone will want it if some flexibility in it’s use is allowed. It really is a great location.
The see thru building on the Black Eyed Susan site has other issues I understand but much it’s retail or quasi retail value was lost when they put the parking in the back.
Jack Offett says
Risking censorship by the editor, it is bad enough when the federal or state government says “yes” or “no” to any specific project. It is more serious when local officials exercise that authority, particularly, as in Chestertown, where not one of these people have ever run a business that took the risk to buy property, development the building, and that hope it flies. There is a word from such a thought process and generally promoted by people who are not the risk takers, but the naysayers.
I am not sure that the Newsstand is really comparable experience.
The opportunity to “protect” the gateway came and went with ownership by the county commissioners. The college has no duty. If the town does not want the corner developed, keep it as industrial. The town has proven time and again its ability to scare away the real job creators.
eliott fuhrman says
You are right about pad sites are built for users and only users for corners are ,gas station, fast food,drug stores all of which are already in place.Also site is very difficult to develope because deep drop off . There is an obvious user that has to take it. Cheasapeake bank, in order to be competative in future needs a better site then now has and needs two lane drive in.The college then should use the bank for their pay roll.This could be done as a build to their spects and net leased.If they do not take it bet “t.b.bank north” will come to town
James Herron says
How many real estate deals has the college been involved with in the last two years with the town? I want to be their realtor.
Steve Payne says
“eliott fuhrman says:
You are right about pad sites are built for users and only users for corners are ,gas station, fast food,drug stores all of which are already in place.Also site is very difficult to develope because deep drop off . “”
There are now many more user types other than those. Some of the uses you mention are also seeking to upgrade or go to a new format. The frontage of the property shouldn’t be hard to develop at all and thats where the value is.
Michael Troup says
@Jack – I think the Mayor’s use of absolutes here clouds the discussion of economic development. People do want economic development. It’s like saying you are for the environment, for educating people, or for quality health care. What isn’t good for the town is sprawl-style development with so many existing vacancies. But filling said vacancies means having people who can take part in commerce, which means relevant jobs, which means….It’s all connected. We just have to find the starting point and move forward. Perhaps the waterfront is that point (not trying to go off-topic)
Jack Offett says
Mike – I believe you miss the point. The college is attempting to unload the corner property, trying to make up for lost time on a bad decision. I suggest that any potential buyer isn’t a dentist or attorney so “offices” aren’t the object of the buyer. More likely the buyer will be a traditional commercial buyer. If you want to stop sprawl, buy the property and put it in preservation. Short of that, leave it industrial and nothing will happen. The county had that opportunity and did not act. The town does not have enough juice to buy the armory on its own. It does not have enough juice to buy the corner. The economic development argument is a huge red herring. Neither the county nor the town is interested in real economic development. It means more people, more services, more schools, etc. We are in a post-growth period of leadership. If they did, we would not be saddled with the mediocre county economic development team. Maybe we should collectively vote to scrap that failed venture and put those resources towards paying off the corner. That is an idea worth debating.
I am concerned that we are confusing upscale commercial at the waterfront (which is very limited in space) with real economic development that creates real jobs for the working people. A factory rather than a factory outlet.
Ken Noble says
The map pictured above is an excerpt from the “Chestertown Comprehensive Plan” General Land Use Element and is not a “site plan”. A site plan incorporates all construction elements to achieve use and conservation goals. The express purpose of that visual in the Comprehensive Plan was to clarify intention between plan, code and ZONING map if anyone ever ended up in court. Other than that, Dr. Cades provides a good historical summary of the parcel.
Margo perhaps should have said that nobody WANTED it. That does not mean that there may not be an investor, as Kevin detailed, who may want it later. Margo doesn’t have the power to turn this economy around by herself, I don’t think. I DO think that she and the council could have lit a fire under that Planning Commission about 5 years ago so that there was not nearly a 7 years lag between the completion of a Comprehensive Plan and the a new zoning code and map. The smartest time to get that done IS during a recession when the development pressure is low. Well, the recession is still on, I guess…so they can still “git her done”, Jim Gatto’s perpetual need for more information not with standing…..(Jim, what YOU want is in a SITE PLAN…..not an MOU, btw.)
During our Planning Commission discussion of this site when we drew those lines around the interior of the site that say “Resource Conservation Area” and “Office/Professional/Institutional” the idea was to leave the door a bit open in one corner while clearly showing any future land use policy decision makers OR land investors that the low land is a critical part of the storm water management plan in that area which is also frequented by our migratory feathered friends. To be fair, even though the Chester River Association or Ducks Unlimited never were in the room for the development of the Chestertown Comprehensive Plan, their goals were shared by and influenced decision makers in the room. We also frequently had a State MDP “circuit rider” planner reminding us that of our pledge to be stewards of the Chesapeake Bay.
It is also interesting to note that some would call the development of that site “SPRAWL” when the site is clearly well within Chestertown’s growth envelope. It would not technically be “sprawl”, but HOW it would be developed could encourage or discourage BEHAVIORS of sprawl…like driving alone where ever you go…or driving at all, for that matter. PLANMARYLAND would encourage the sensitive development of that site, not restrict it. Ideas contained in PLANMARYLAND, like “transportation demand management” can reduce the behaviors of sprawl.
With appropriate design guidelines that site could be a great place to live AND work. Americans are way too accustomed to having vehicular access to EVERYTHING and with a bridge and a tunnel that would not be necessary. We could have a high tech business park and dense residential apartments with bicycle access to other sites. But the College is not in the business of performing the social engineering it would take to put a mini-Portland, Oregon on that site. So just fo your information, someone could build a fifteen story office building on that property (if it weren’t in Chestertown) and generate 400 cars per HOUR and the Maryland Department of Planning and “PlanMaryland” would be FINE with that. That’s why I say, “PlanMaryland” is not a plan….This process, by the way, was done with assistance of a competent Maryland Department of Planning PLANNER provided by the State. His position was cut and there are not plans, in PLANMARYLAND, to provide more planners to local rural areas in Maryland…but that is another topic.
So, in the end, maybe Margo is right….first we need to run out of petroleum THEN that site can be developed in a cool way…like in 2125, but you know what….there will be acknowledgement of a “Resource Conservation Area”, because somebody raised their hand and SAID THAT THE MAP SHOULD SAY THAT…thank you.
Ken Noble, AICP
Chestertown PC (1991-2005)