The town council will be taking written comments until Monday, Feb. 1, on a proposed zoning text amendment that would allow home improvement centers to exceed 65,000 square feet.
The 65,000-square-foot size limit for major retail uses does not include stores that expand, redevelop, or are adjacent to shopping centers approved before Aug. 25, 2004. Ordinance No. 756 would add “home improvement centers” as a use that is not subject to the size limit.
The Easton Planning and Zoning Commission considered the proposed text amendment at its November meeting and unanimously recommended the town council deny the request. Changes to the town’s size limit on retail stores should only be considered during the upcoming comprehensive plan review, the commission urged.
The town will start its review and update of the comprehensive plan this year, with the update expected to be complete by 2023.
The zoning text amendment, sought by the Gannon Family Limited Partnership, has prompted speculation that Home Depot is again interested in building a store in Easton.
During the town’s Jan. 19 hearing on Ordinance 756, a representative for the family partnership, said a home improvement center was interested in purchasing property at U.S. Route 50 and Chapel Road, but would want to build a store larger than the current 65,000-square-foot limit. The partnership then applied for a zoning text amendment to allow for a larger size for home improvement centers.
Attorney Zach Smith said there are no existing sites in town that would readily work for the home improvement center and the store also would like to be on the east side of U.S. Route 50 where future growth is planned.
Approving the ordinance, Smith said, would simply allow the home improvement center to “proceed with a design, bring that design forward to the town council, the town council can lay it out to the public and we can have a robust discussion in the context of an actual concrete plan about the pros and cons of a home improvement center.
“I guess if you are of the mind that ‘no way, no how, we don’t want another home improvement center in Easton,’ then there’s no point in making that change as it is not necessary,” he said. “And certainly I suspect there are folks in our community that have that opinion. I also think there are probably folks in our community who would say, ‘it can’t get here soon enough, open the door, let’s bring ’em in.'”
Tom Alspach of the Talbot Preservation Alliance said the proposed text amendment “raises what has been over the last 20, 25 years probably the most contentious, controversial issue regarding development that the town of Easton has faced.”
Alspach said the issue started in the late 1990s when the town adopted a moratorium on big box developments. Big box stores were addressed in the 2004 and 2010 comprehensive plans and subsequent zoning ordinances.
“This is not some minor matter that we are being asked to tweak in the town ordinance,” Alspach said. “This is something that goes to the very heart of how this town should develop in terms of its commercial enterprises ….”
Written comments on Ordinance 756 may be emailed to the town council at mayor&council@EastonMD.gov.
DraftOrd756
Jane Bollman says
This excellent report explains exactly why this proposed “text change” is inappropriate: 1)It would make a major change in Easton’s land use philosophy and is better handled in the upcoming Comprehensive Plan and 2) The Planning Commission voted it down unanimously — that should weigh heavily as the Town Council makes its decision.
Steve Shimko says
Here’s what I sent to the Easton Town Council.
While I do not reside in Easton, I feel that the proposed text change the Comprehensive Plan (removing the 65,000 square feet maximum size limitation for a stand-alone home improvement center) is not in the best interest of Easton or Talbot County. Citizens of Easton have spoken loudly and clearly their opposition to such a development going as far back as the early 2000’s.
Make no mistake about it. No matter how Gannon et al and their attorney Zachary Smith cast it, this is in effect an out-of-cycle zoning change request. These types of changes should NEVER be granted unless one of the two legal basis for such a change – mistake (in fact) during the previous rezoning process, or a change in the character of the neighborhood – have been met. Petitioner has not asserted either.
I also should not have to remind the Council that the purpose of zoning is NOT to provide an economic benefit to one party or the other, and that the purpose of zoning is NOT to pick winners and losers. Yet this seems to be what Attorney Smith means when he argued that waiting would kill the opportunity for his client (Ganon) to lease land to a potential Home Depot.
This change request needs to be denied.
Ross Benincasa says
Steve Shimko hit the nail on the head. This is not a discussion of whether Easton needs another home improvement center, Home Depot vs. Lowes, etc. The ordinance should be struck down immediately because it is an out-of-cycle zoning request that benefits a singular industry.
While some like to imagine the benefits of having the Big Orange box store in Easton, the precedent this would set far exceeds what HD may or may not bring. Any industry that builds or desires to build in excess of 65,000 sq. ft. would now have an argument to amend the zoning ordinance in their favor, in defiance of the Planning Commission’s recommendation. Data centers, fulfillment centers, mega strips, etc. would all ostensibly be welcomed. Welcome to Middletown West.
Changes to zoning, especially those regarding size, require long-range study that should only be done during a comp. plan review to ensure the added allowable size will lead to an increase in year-over-year tax revenue to justify the increase in resources and infrastructure.