MENU

Sections

More

September 19, 2021

The Talbot Spy

The nonprofit e-newspaper for the Talbot County Community

News News Homepage

Hearing Tonight on Easton Draft Zoning Code

by

The Easton Planning and Zoning Commission recently completed a comprehensive examination and revision to the town’s zoning code.

The Easton Town Council will have a public hearing on the draft zoning code at 5:35 p.m. Tuesday, July 6, in the council meeting room at 14 S. Harrison St. in Easton.

The planning commission has highlighted the following as “the most significant proposed changes” in the proposed zoning code:

1. A revised Planned Unit Development (PUD) Chapter. Currently there is one process and set of standards/criteria for any proposed PUD, regardless of type or context of the development proposal. The new DRAFT Code proposes to distinguish three types of PUDs, with standards unique to each development scenario. The three PUD subtypes are PUD – General, PUD – Infill, and PUD – Redevelopment. The intent of this change is to move away from a “one size fits all” PUD for any development type to three slightly different types corresponding to specific development scenarios, with corresponding review processes and development standards believed to be more appropriate to each scenario. A primary goal of this change is to facilitate more infill and redevelopment projects.

2. A revised Sign Regulations Chapter. In addition to a general reformatting of this chapter, provisions for temporary signs are extensively and significantly revised to comply with a recent Supreme Court ruling and window signs are proposed to be regulated for the first time.

3. The Critical Area Chapter is revised as required by a mandated update of our Critical Area Program. The chapter follows the latest State model for this chapter of our Code with a few local modifications carried forward from the existing Ordinance.

4. A number of measures are proposed to promote the general theme of increasing housing options and opportunities, especially in the general area “in and around Downtown” and with a particular focus on affordable housing options. Such measures include increased density in some contexts/locations, the identification of new housing types (e.g., so-called Middle Housing types including triplexes, fourplexes, cottage courts, mansion apartments, and courtyard buildings), and a simpler review process for certain housing types in certain locations.

5. The rezoning of parcels currently zoned CG (General Commercial) located in relatively close proximity to Downtown from CG to CBD (Central Business District) in recognition that such parcels are more like Downtown in their development characteristics than they are the commercial areas along Route 50, Elliott Road, or Marlboro Avenue, which are also zoned CG.

6. The elimination of the I-1 and I-2 Zoning Districts and the rezoning of any properties zoned as such to either BC (Business Commercial) or I (Industrial). This was done in recognition of the fact that many of the Town’s industrially-zoned areas have transitioned to more of an office/service/light industrial area as opposed to traditional industrial uses. The BC Zoning District was created in part to reflect this land use. The I Zoning District is proposed to reserve lands for the more traditional industrial uses.

 7. A number of proposed changes for Port Street between the Parkway and Washington Street focused on infill and redevelopment consistent with the Port Street Small Area Plan, with the intent to insure that this corridor serves as an important link between the Waterfront and Downtown.

Split Easton Council OKs Zoning Change Allowing Home Improvement Centers to Seek Larger Size

by

A split town council approved a zoning text change that will allow home improvement centers to propose stores larger than 65,000 square feet.

The Easton Town Council voted 3-2 Monday night to approve Ordinance 756, which amends the town zoning ordinance to add a definition of home improvement center and excludes those stores from the town’s size limit on major retail.

Councilmen Alan Silverstein, Ron Engle, and Rev. Elmer Davis Jr. voted to approve the ordinance; Council President Megan Cook and Member Don Abbatiello voted against.

Supporters said the zoning text change does not approve any specific project, but allows a home improvement center to seek approval from the town council for a particular project.

Opponents said the amendment should be considered during the coming update to the town’s comprehensive plan.

Engle, speaking before the vote, said many of those commenting on the amendment were confused about its effect.

“The purpose of this ordinance is to propose a pen and ink change to create a definition for home improvement center,” he said. “If passed, it would only allow the council to review, through the PUD process, a proposal for a new home improvement center is larger than the maximum 65,000.”

Engle said the current comprehensive plan was started in 2007, approved in 2010, and was intended to cover a 6-year period. The state later extended the plans to ten years and Easton is set to begin updating its plan this year, a process that could take two years.

“It’s too late. We’re already a regional shopping destination,” Engle said of concerns about allowing big box stores.

He said the current plan encourages new retail development in or near existing shopping centers, but “we should then look to existing commercially zoned properties in town. Not to non-commercially zoned properties or properties not in town that we would have to annex.

“There are only two parcels where this can occur,” he said. “The commercial area between Route 50, U-Haul, and Olive Garden clearly is the most attractive commercial area in town.”

Abbatiello agreed Easton was a commercial hub, but said any change involving big box retail stores should wait until after the comprehensive plan is updated.

“Those of you who want to think the town of Easton is still the quaint small town from the past are ignoring reality,” Abbatiello said. “Easton is growing and becoming a hub for commerce on the Mid-Shore.

“The question therefore isn’t whether or not development will come to Easton, the question is what form will it take,” he said. “(W)e currently have a mechanism for answering that question through the comprehensive plan.

“As a result, I think any current proposal should follow the comprehensive plan that is in place,” Abbatiello said. “And I believe that the new comprehensive plan, beginning to take shape this year, should look seriously at where a large home improvement store can go.”

Cook agreed that the comprehensive plan update should come first and said the majority of those who emailed comments supported that idea.

“During the last rewrite, there were roughly 850 people involved which shows that the comprehensive plan process is the correct venue for the community to consider, not just this proposal, … but for the general idea of big box stores within the town of Easton,” Cook said.

Davis noted the comprehensive plan has been amended since its last update in 2010.

“So it is not a plan … that was etched in stone and no one went contrary to what was written. I am of the feeling that this ordinance does not guarantee any business being built in the city of Easton,” he said. “This is just to change some verbiage and language, and I would hope and pray that this be considered, because from an economic point of view, that if it came to fruition, it will afford minorities, people who look like me and other people in the community a job, and I think that’s essential. Economic development is essential.”

Two people spoke Monday night against approving the zoning text change.

Pete Lesher, a former town councilman, said the zoning code should not be changed,

“Easton has a sound rule. And there are good reasons for that rule concerning the location of big boxes in our community,” Lesher said. “I said in my written commentary that the colocation of big boxes with with smaller retailers necessarily has a beneficial effect to those smaller retailers and linking those two in the rule requiring them to be co located, is something that does help our smaller businesses and I’d hate to see that advantage lost in a rule change here.

“The second is really that principle of encouraging redevelopment. I think we do have a sense that Easton is overbuilt with retail space, and while … we don’t have an empty big box, there are … retail spaces in this community that are ripe for redevelopment,” he said. “The rule as it stands encourages redevelopment into those spaces rather than the breaking of new ground for new development.

“We shouldn’t change the rulebook for one potential applicant — that smacks of picking winners and losers,” Lesher said. “And that just doesn’t seem the right way to govern.”

Laurie Forster, a resident of Mulberry Station, urged the council to “stick to the plan.”

“We have a process called the comprehensive plan. I just read the one from 2010 I never thought I’d be doing that,” she said. “And I understand a lot more about the comprehensive plan now that it’s community involvement that really is to drive that plan.

“And we have a saying in our house, stick to the plan. And so I guess I’m asking you to stick to the plan,” Forster said. “The plan does not allow for this size or this type of business in that spot. I won’t debate the effects that it might have on our neighborhood because I know that’s not the issue at hand tonight but I am concerned.”

The town’s current 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 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.

DraftOrd756

Comment Period Closes Feb. 1 on Proposal to Allow Home Improvement Centers to Exceed Easton’s Size Limit

by

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

Zoning Change Denied for Eastern Shore Salmon Farm

by

A Norwegian company’s plans to bring land-based salmon farming to Maryland’s Eastern Shore hit a snag Thursday night when one of the sites it had chosen for raising the commercially valuable fish failed to gain needed local approval.

The Dorchester County Board of Appeals denied AquaCon Maryland LLC a special zoning exception that would have allowed it to build a massive indoor hatchery and fish grow-out facility on a defunct golf course bordering the Choptank River.

The board’s decision came at the end of a 3.5-hour meeting where neighboring residents and others suggested the industrial-scale aquaculture operation would be unsuitable in the still largely rural area just west of Cambridge. Some also voiced concerns that its wastewater discharges, though treated to a high level, might hurt the Choptank River’s water quality, undermining recent signs of improvement.

“Is there a better location?” Choptank Riverkeeper Matt Pluta asked at one point.

The 114-acre site, formerly home to the Cambridge Country Club, is one of four locations AquaCon has selected for its planned facilities on the Shore, each expected to produce up to 15,000 metric tons of salmon annually.

AquaCon had previously declared its plans to build a facility on the outskirts of Federalsburg, a small town in Caroline County on a tributary of the Nanticoke River. The other two sites are in Cambridge and Denton, also in Caroline County, company representatives told the board.

Ryan Showalter, an Easton lawyer representing AquaCon, said it is pursuing multiple sites at the same time with the intent to start construction next year on whichever one first receives regulatory approvals. AquaCon is one of several mostly European companies rushing to build land-based salmon farms in the United States that use new developments in recirculating aquaculture technology.

Showalter touted the economic benefits for largely rural Dorchester County, noting that the company plans to invest $300 million in each facility and that each would create 150 jobs, a number of them high-paying profession and technical positions.

“When constructed, this will be an industry-changing, world-leading facility,” he said.

Bob Rauch, the company’s Easton-based engineering consultant, stressed that each would be an “all-green” facility. Unlike most open-water salmon farming operations in Europe, these fish would be raised indoors in tanks, with nearly all of the water recirculated and filtered to remove waste. They would not be fed antibiotics or be at risk of escape into the wild, two issues with pen-reared fish.

Solar panels would be placed on the rooftop of the massive 27.5-acre buildings to help offset the facilities’ energy needs. The solid waste produced by raising 3 million fish a year would be converted to energy-generating biogas via anaerobic digestion.

Showalter acknowledged that the size of the building — the largest on the Shore — was daunting. But he said the company pledged to plant a thick buffer of trees around it that in about 12 years should have grown tall enough to hide it from view from the road or neighboring properties.

Several of those attending the meeting praised the company’s efforts to minimize environmental impacts, but they voiced concerns about the wastewater it would generate. The facility would use 70,000–80,000 gallons of groundwater daily and pump an equivalent amount of pretreated wastewater to Cambridge’s sewage treatment plant.

The proposed Dorchester facility would also have withdrawn up to 2.3 million gallons of water daily from the Choptank and discharged the same amount back into the river. That water would cycle through tanks where the salmon would be held just before being harvested so they can be purged of naturally occurring microbes that can give their flesh an unappetizing musty odor and taste.

Rauch said the Choptank water would be treated before being returned to the river, with the discharge meeting the state’s limits for nitrogen and phosphorus.

Tom Fisher, a professor at the Horn Point laboratory of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, which is next door to the proposed country club site, expressed some concerns about the potential impact on the lower Choptank. The river is suffering from excess nutrients from agricultural runoff and wastewater, but Fisher said it has shown water quality improvements recently in the wake of an upgrade of the treatment plant in Cambridge.

While the added wastewater coming from the municipal plant and the aquaculture facility’s direct discharge to the river would be treated to reduce nutrient levels, Fisher said he was concerned that the Choptank’s recovery might be undermined by the amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus remaining in those additional discharges.

“Even if there’s a tiny concentration of something in that water, it’s going to contribute to the impairment,” warned Fred Pomeroy of Dorchester Citizens for Planned Growth.

Pomeroy suggested the company focus first on developing its site in Cambridge, which has industrial land in need of redevelopment. Showalter, the company lawyer, said the city site isn’t suitable at this time because it doesn’t have access to the Choptank for purge water. The company is working on a way to eliminate the musty odor in the fish without needing river water, but that’s not ready yet.

Alan Girard of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation questioned how the facility would manage the stormwater runoff coming off the 27.5-acre rooftop. Rauch said the company has at least at least three different approaches in mind, including possibly using the old golf course’s irrigation system to cycle the runoff back into the ground. That portion of the property borders the river, though, where land use is strictly controlled by the state’s Critical Area law, and company representatives said they were still working out how to meet those requirements.

County appeals board members voiced some doubts about the stormwater and the municipal treatment plant’s ability to handle the aquaculture facility’s wastewater, even though company representatives said it had ample capacity to do so.

In the end, though, the appeals board decision seemed influenced most heavily by nearby residents’ complaints about the impacts on their quality of life of such an operation.

“It’s quiet, it’s peaceful, and that’s the way we’d like to keep it,” said David Rineholt, who said he and his wife Kathleen had built a home next to the old country club 25 years ago.

The site is accessed by a narrow two-lane road, which company representatives acknowledged might need some upgrading to handle 30-35 trucks per week. Otherwise, they said, the traffic generated by the 150-person workforce would be roughly equivalent to what the country club had experienced.

“It will tax traffic,” said board member Charles Dayton, Jr., a sentiment echoed by the rest of the board.

He and a couple of other board members seemed to suggest they might reach a different conclusion if presented with additional information and studies to address concerns raised at the meeting.

Afterward, though, AquaCon representatives indicated they wouldn’t try to win the board over but instead focus on getting regulatory approvals to go forward in Federalsburg and Denton.

“We have other sites,” said Showalter. “We redirect.”

By Timothy B. Wheeler