Question A
For the uninitiated, Question A’s success or failure in referendum on November 6th represents opposing philosophies in how Queen Anne’s County should plan for growth.
Behind one of the most contentious ordinances fights in recent QAC history is a fairly simple question: Do QAC residents want mandatory infrastructure improvements when schools reach 100 percent of capacity, as per current law, or when they reach 125 percent of capacity?
A law passed in QAC last year would reduce the county’s Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance by raising the bar for infrastructure improvements when student populations are at least 25 percent over capacity.
The law also raises the number of units per new subdivision from five to nineteen before an impact study would be required to determine future infrastructure needs.
The new ordinance was blocked from taking effect when petitioners successfully put the law to referendum on the November ballot. Opponents of the law argue that school capacity has already been reached, pointing to road problems and the temporary trailers that were installed nearly a decade ago.
QAC Commissioner Phil Dumenil, author of the law to reduce the growth standard, insists that raising the student population limit to 125 percent of capacity will trigger state dollars to cover the cost of road improvements and increased school capacity. But opponents say the state contribution is just over half the cost.
The QAC commissioners would still need to find additional revenue through tax hikes, budget cuts, and reductions in services elsewhere to match state support.
It is important for voters to know that there has not been one development project so far that has been adversely impacted by the current law, but Question A is still an important question, even conceptually, for voters to decide.
In short, should the county be marginally prepared for growth–or should QAC voters set weaker standards that will further overcrowd the schools and make the county’s roads more dangerous?
With so much still unknown about QAC’s long term development capacity and population growth, the truly reasonable response for the county should be one of caution.
The current test for infrastructure improvement is an important firewall of protection to ensure that Queen Anne’s preserves its current quality of life and its exceptional public school system.
Question A should be rejected by voters.
Question B
A second tricky question for QAC voters is whether or not to eliminate the existing cap of 65,000 in gross square footage for retail use in suburban commercial (SC) zoning. Better known as the “big box” referendum; it was created several years ago by former County Commissioners, who, in a good faith effort, wanted to protect the county from poorly planned chain superstores like Walmart in the 1990s.
On the face of it, a square footage safeguard against big box stores in suburban commercial zones seems to be a sensible one. The consequences of large, poorly designed shopping centers have already taken a toll on Queen Anne’s residents’ quality of life and landscape, which is painfully obvious on Route 50.
Protecting the County from further damage via these eyesores through a cap on size had great appeal when QAC set this policy.
And yet, as society learns more about the importance and benefits of mixed-use development, and the benefits of regionalization as a conservation strategy, the concept of limiting the size of retail spaces is seen as an outdated solution for managing growth.
While big box stores like Walmart and Kmart are used by those in favor of limitation to illustrate the worst kind of commercial use, it is also important to point out that a Whole Foods store (their Annapolis store is approximately 70,000 sq feet) or an employee-friendly COSTCO boasts an even larger footprint.
The government and the conservation community need to be sensitive to consumer needs as well, particularly in light of the huge environmental and social consequences of current, endless shopping trips to Annapolis by Upper Shore residents.
Finally, and more importantly, there is unfair discrimination in building size for the suburban commercial zoning ordinance. Under current law, there is no limitation for other high impact uses. For example, there would be no restriction on a million square foot Amazon distribution center nor a 200,000 sq foot Gore-Tex light manufacturing plant. It is only retail use that is capped, which unfairly treats private landowners of suburban commercial zones who are not able to fully compete in the market place.
At the heart of this debate is the question of where growth takes place. The conservation community is correct in wanting development located in priority growth zones, as outlined in the county’s comprehensive plan, instead of commercial-suburban zones, which generally border on the county’s very limited open space and agricultural zones.
In a perfect world, all development for QAC would take place in these pre-designated locations. If the county does not want expansion elsewhere, they should eliminate the commercial-suburban category altogether.
As every voter knows, the world is not perfect, or certainly not a static one. Answers to growth challenges are complex and evolving. The County would serve future generations well by evaluating the best solutions through the lens of the aggregate environmental and social impact of development rather than drawing an arbitrary line in the sand for retail building size on a case by case basis.
Question B should be approved by the voters.
Joseph Coyle says
Voting YES on Question B, thereby allowing a Walmart to be built on 291 within 2 miles of Chestertown, would suck the economic life out of the locally owned stores of Chestertown. I am surprised that the Spy has endorsed this proposal, given the valiant and successful fight of CTowners against a prior Walmart initiative. Walmart has a history of placing stores, snuffing out the competition, then closing the store down and building a more distant mega-store.
JTC
Keith Thompson says
There are legitimate reasons to vote against Question B but the argument that allowing big box stores to suck the economic life out of Chestertown isn’t one of them. The reason is simple; the economic life has already been sucked out of Chestertown as it is impossible for a vacant storefront to lose business to a big box store. The harsh truth here is that Chestertown’s efforts to snuff out Wal-Mart wasn’t successful, it just got built 20 miles up the road and Chestertown residents are spending their money there. Instead of focusing efforts on what you’re keeping out, focus your efforts on getting people to spend their money here. Chestertown is already competing against big box stores, so what will Chestertown do to compete against them? Focus efforts on competing rather than fighting back.
FRANK FROHN says
We can have a perfect world here in Queen Anne’s County by voting AGAINST Question B. Any large scale commercial development should be in one of the County’s 8 incorporated municipalities. For example, the Centreville and Queenstown Comprehensive Plans have designated growth areas for this type of major development.
Keith Thompson says
The problem with the QAC Comp Plan is that it is focusing on putting commercial development in places that isn’t the most profitable for commercial developers. Commercial developers want to go where the traffic is but the traffic patterns in QAC are bypassed around the municipalities rather than traveling through them. The best commercial development for the municipalities are small scale businesses that serve the residents of these municipalities. Large scale commercial development should either go in the high traffic areas (along Rt. 50 and 301) where it can easily attract non-municipal residents from the county or to attract customers from outside the county, or it shouldn’t be allowed at all. Unless you can make it inconvenient to travel Rt. 50 and 301 and re-direct traffic to Rt. 213 and Rt. 18 to get the traffic back to the municipalities, it makes little sense to push commercial development there. The developers are going to go elsewhere.
Nicholas Stoer says
Your editorial published on October 30 advocated voting for Question B on the November 6 ballot to allow Big Box stores in QAC. Unfortunately, there are major flaws in the rationale included in the Spy’s editorial which actually invalidate and contradict your conclusions and recommendation. Here are the reasons why you may wish to consider retracting your editorial and to reverse your recommendation.
You used as a hypothetical example that the 65,000 square foot limit would bar construction of a Gore-Tex garment factory or an Amazon distribution center in QAC. Those are incorrect and exceedingly misleading examples. First of all, factories and distribution centers do not even comply with the QAC criteria for Suburban Commercial zoning which is merely a fancy planning term for shopping centers. A distribution center or light factory would, however, fit within the Suburban Industrial Business Enterprise zoning classification governing areas like the Chesapeake Bay Business Park in Stevensville.
The 65,000 sq. ft. restriction covered by Question B was not created out of thin air. It enables many retail categories, but not Big Box style buildings. It is focused deliberately on tailoring retail business which generates and concentrates far more traffic than do manufacturing and distribution facilities. The 65,000 limit exists in many jurisdictions including Talbot County and the Town of Easton. Many studies, including several by the Maryland Department of Planning and independent experts, quantify how Big Box stores disrupt and often bankrupt traditional local businesses, especially in smaller towns. Boarded up storefronts are often a result. Using some of your other examples it is clear that The Spy has a hankering for a Whole Foods, or perhaps a Trader Joe’s, like those in Annapolis. Well, as a benchmark, you’ll be happy to know that the large Safeway in Chester is just within the 65,000 square foot cap. It would not be difficult at all to adapt a Whole Foods into a building around the size of the Safeway. The only folks who would fear a Whole Foods would be the corporate planners at Safeway, Food Lion and ACME.
As another benchmark, to protect its local businesses Talbot County places a 65,000 size cap on retail buildings in the entire unincorporated areas of that county. About 10 years ago Home Depot wanted to build a large store near the Easton Airport on land zoned as industrial. The county concluded that Home Depot is clearly commercial retail so a Home Depot did not go forward. What has evolved over the last decade is that Target, Kohl’s and Lowe’s are the only Big Box stores in Talbot County because they are actually within the corporate limits of the Town of Easton. To enable these stores Easton annexed the two parcels that now include the Big Box stores. The stores function under Easton zoning rules, not Talbot County zoning. This was a grand strategy worked out between the county and the town.
One of Easton’s central planning themes is to nurture its historic downtown as a cultural, dining and local retail destination. To maintain a shopping and land use balance, Easton has tight rules on its three Big Box stores which could only be built in the two shopping centers where they are now located. Kohl’s reused the “old” Lowe’s building which was grandfathered by the Town. The barely accessible Wal-Mart on the east side of Easton is actually two smaller buildings built next to each other to comply with zoning limits. Easton has tightened controls over the whole Waterside Village Shopping Center where Target was built. No additional Big Box stores are planned in Easton or anywhere else in Talbot County.
Your editorial also mentioned COSTCO as a non-sequitur example. COSTCO is a large so-called warehouse retail store. Over 500 have been built in the US and overseas. COSTCO has disciplined site selection criteria based on population density and related demographics. They are almost always close to very large regional shopping centers like Arundel Mills in Maryland and Christiana Mall in Delaware. COSTCO needs to make money seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. For business reasons, the semi-rural Eastern Shore is the last place that COSTCO would build.
As you know, there are several thousand Queen Anne’s County residents just across the Chester River from Chestertown. They shop in and around Chestertown. They read The Spy, one presumes. They use the Chestertown Post Office. They go to the Farmers Market at Fountain Square as do thousands of Kent County residents. A Big Box store in northern QAC will bring traffic congestion Routes 213 and 544 for everyone. It has the prospect of further stressing small businesses in Chestertown.
As a co-author of the Op Ed piece in yesterday’s Spy entitled Keep Big Box Stores out of Queen Anne’s County I am appalled at the misinformation and misunderstandings in your Editorial. One expects broader thinking from a newspaper like the Spy.
Brenda Jvoice says
When I travel to a big box store, I buy a great deal. Why would I ever shop in MD when I am so close to Middletown, DE and no taxes? The retailers think this way. I strategically picked the Northern part of QAC to make my home because of the fact that MD shoppers will always opt for no sales taxes. The big box operations that popped up in my former Prince Georges and Montgomery Counties will not happen here in my lifetime.