The request for annexation of 13 acres of property along Rt. 33 close to Rt. 322 had a strange and questionable beginning: on February 18the Easton Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed an application to annex this property. That group of five commissioners, minus one who left the meeting early, voted 2-2 on the annexation. Generally, this would mean the motion failed. However, the vote was taken up again at the next meeting. The missing commissioner voted, one commissioner changed his vote, and this time, the annexation was forwarded to the Town Council with a positive 3-2 recommendation.
Critical in consideration of the application is a plan for the property. The applicants requested GC (General Commercial) zoning and the Planning Commission recommended the BC (Business Commercial) zoning classification for the annexation properties. That may be all well and good, because this zoning is somewhat controlled, but shouldn’t the Town expect a plan for what will be built? Shouldn’t the Town need to know that whatever is built will benefit the Town? What is the point of considering an annexation without this knowledge?
It is troubling that the adjacent Waterside Village, through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process could easily expand into this adjacent property. Is this the reason for the annexation request? Easton’s Comprehensive Plan states that Easton is not to become a “regional shopping destination”. We are already headed in that direction with Target, Dick’s, BJ’s, Harris Teeter and lots of chain stores. It is interesting to note that Waterside Village itself was developed through the PUD process. The plans initially proposed in that PUD were impressive: walkable, tree-lined streets featuring two-story buildings with shops on the street level and apartments on the upper level. Whatever happened to those plans?
So back to the “regional shopping destination” concept: why did the citizens of Easton who created the Comprehensive Plan eschew that designation? Traffic would be one reason. And in the case of the annexation proposal now on the table, traffic at the intersection of Rt. 33 and 322, already a problem, could only become worse. Consider that intersection now and add BJ’s (not fully up to speed) and the yet to be opened Harris Teeter; and then add new residents to come in the approved but as yet unbuilt residential units: 60 apartments planned in Waterside Village and 170 homes expected in Easton Village. Do we want to annex without knowing what else we would add?
What about the jobs that come with more retail development? Let’s consider what kinds of jobs they would be. It is unlikely that such employment would support a family even with two wage earners. And would profit from these stores go to our local banks, and thus benefit our community? Again, unlikely.
Back to planning, it is interesting that there are two sizable parcels within the Waterside Village location right now that could accommodate commercial or light industrial growth. The Economic Development Strategic Plan by the Sage Policy Group, Inc. in 2013 indicates that Easton needs more light industrial zoning. This kind of growth produces more in Town taxes and provides better-paying jobs. So why annex property when good opportunities exist nearby the adjacent Waterside Village development.
Consideration should also be given to the many vacant stores both in downtown Easton and along Marlboro Road. Without a clear plan for the proposed annexation, we could see more retail that would further diminish the likelihood of these vacant stores being occupied.
Crucial in this decision is that the benefit of annexation to the Town must be clear before this annexation is approved. This requires careful consideration of exactly what is planned. The Town has the right – indeed an obligation – to expect a plan from the applicant before it approves this annexation request. The citizens have the right to expect this degree of scrutiny by the Town Council. The annexation may be an excellent course of action, but only if there is a clear and acceptable plan before approval. The Town Council will consider the annexation application on Monday, April 18 at 7:15 pm. Public comment is encouraged.
David Lloyd says
My concern is two-fold: (1) why did the one member change his/her vote? and(2) why was the second vote taken so soon after the first one. Given the current abundance of available space for responsible development, why add this extra? I think we need much more than a couple of days to have deeper discussions about this. If we want to preserve the best of Talbot County, we need to give much more serious thought to proposals like this one.
David Lloyd
St. Michaels
Doug Davies says
Whatever did happen to those plans? This is once again prototypical big box retail design. There isn’t an ounce of walkability on this site much less in any future plans of it. Every building is set back behind hundreds of parking spaces, enough for over 75% of the residents . Lets think about who would be walking… you really going to walk to Target back from BJ’s with your metric ton of cheeseballs? Its about 1/2 mile. Even in cities a walkable distance is typically only set at that distance, and that’s with shops, stores, pedestrians, and other street life accompanying a walker on that journey. This is snake oil walkability. There is nothing about this project that even begins to touch placemaking. Placemaking is downtown Easton where there are shops, on street parking, street trees, restaurants, benches, crosswalks, cross pollination, and activity. Watergate Village is an auto-centric wasteland that is dead in the evenings and car dominated during the day. Have you ever seen anyone walk from the Target to Acme happily? Would it surprise you that its the same distance as Brasserie to The Pub? How much tax revenue is being generated between these two different walking trips? Which one do you enjoy more? Which would you like to see more of?