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.
Write a Letter to the Editor on this Article
We encourage readers to offer their point of view on this article by submitting the following form. Editing is sometimes necessary and is done at the discretion of the editorial staff.