To anyone paying attention it should be clear that the standard operating procedure for developers, with the apparent acquiescence of P&Z, is to submit low-ball project proposals to gain planning approval and public acceptance.
The reality is that this is a bait and switch tactic – promise one thing and deliver something much different.
We are seeing project proposals that initially appear reasonable, only to be supersized when they get to the project stage. This also changes all of the traffic assumptions. Traffic and all of the associated problems will increase. There is no accountability to the public. The bias is always in support of the developers. Isn’t it past time for this bias to change?
We must look to electing new administrations at all levels of government who put the public first. At the very least, all elected officials, appointees, and city employees must be required to disclose all business relations and all interactions with developers and the items discussed.
AYC, SAYC, Crystal Spring and the suggested Watergate Point proposals all interact with each other. The net result is an overall diminished community lifestyle and quality of life. These particular projects may not have a direct impact on you, but the next one, or the one after that might. We all need to get engaged before waking up one morning to look at a solid brick wall at our property line, or having to deal with noise or other environmental insults from a project.
My own ‘right in your face’ view:
The Annapolis Yacht Club sent an update to their members that announces their soon-to-start expansion project which is a lot different than what we were shown at the public hearing months ago. Seems the exit onto Burnside is not a “fire lane” at all (have to say we told you so). And, the 16,000 square foot (that’s BIG) activity center has a full blown restaurant, not just a snack bar to service the pool.
There is also the supply and demand concern that should raise serious questions throughout the local restaurant community. If we assume that the demand for restaurant tables is finite, the population seeking out restaurant services is relatively set, especially for mid and up markets. If we keep adding supply, we are just reducing the market share for each particular restaurant. It can also be asked if all the restaurants are playing in the same economic and taxation field. Will the AYC restaurant benefit from its tax-exempt status? Advantage ‘them,’ disadvantage the rest of you.
As we’ve written in earlier posts, we who are residents in this part of Eastport are truly caught in the middle between 2 projects (AYC and SAYC) set to begin this year and continue into 2018, with all the related noise and traffic of construction, and that’s just during the ‘tearing down and building up’ stages. The noise and traffic, both boats and restaurants (from both projects) are something residents will be stuck with for as long as we live in this community.
Have we abandoned any realistic hope of achieving sustainable growth? Is it possible we already have enough examples of oversized projects being executed to worry that the countdown clock for limits on growth is approaching midnight? Are we at the limit of the community being able to absorb more growth?
What a thought!
If you’re not already involved in caring about and determining your own future and that of your community, exactly what are you waiting for?
eastport defined 
I’m not quite sure why you think there is a “bait and switch” situation with regard to AYC’s Eastport development. What was presented to Eastport residents is almost exactly what is being built according to documents on the City’s eTrakit site. The Family Activity Center has always included casual dining (your “full-blown restaurant”) as well as a poolside snack bar. The building includes two floors as well as a full basement which explains the 16,000 square footage, but it might not look that large from the outside given the sloping roofline on the second floor. Again, all this info including renderings of the exterior is on the eTrakit site. From what I can tell any revisions to the original plan are either due to City requirements or residents’ objections to the Burnside entrance. With regard to the latter, the plans now show the Burnside entrance to be gated at all times, with restrictions on access. It won’t be used as a regular entrance and construction, delivery, and trash trucks will be prohibited from using it. It appears the main entrance/exit will be on 6th Street with the current alley behind Long& Foster used as a secondary route. For what it’s worth, AYC says in the posted document “Terms for Burnside Street Access” that it remains committed to working with residents to minimize traffic on Burnside. So again I ask, what is the “bait and switch” here?
Finally, as to musings about supply and demand for restaurants in Annapolis, isn’t it true that that AYC’s dining facilities have always been open only to members and their guests? It’s not a public facility. From my perspective, there’s not going to be much if any change in demand for restaurant seats after this development is completed because the number of AYC members isn’t changing (their bylaws cap the number of members and the club’s leadership has promised the community the cap won’t be raised). What really changes market share for a restaurant in Annapolis is population growth and the restaurant’s own reputation for quality and service — not a neighboring private club’s facility improvement.
Bait and Switch is alive and well at P&Z.
For the latest installment check out the development going on at 110 Chester. If you take the time to look at the eTrackit web site you will see a plan that is vastly different than what P&Z ultimately approved without any community input. P&Z has demonstrated a total disregard for the process and seems to be willing to let non-resident investor developers take president over existing residents’ wellbeing.
In the case of 110 Chester, P&Z let the developer put forth an incomplete and patently false preliminary plan during the allotted community review period. Months later P&Z approved a plan that neither the community or ECA had ever had chance to see. The original false plan continues to be the only plan promoted on the City’s eTrackit web site.
The extent of the change from the initial proposed plan to what was finally approved is far from minor in both scale and location. When you review P&Z’s time line for making this decision, it is stunning that P&Z allowed the project to be posted when they did and then failed to seek out further community input when it changed. In many respects this is worse than making changes to an approved plan and sets a terrible precedent for circumventing the community’s and P&Z’s own review processes. I am in no way suggesting this was done on purpose and I am not against development, but the net effect was to rob the community of an opportunity to see, understand and intelligently comment on the actual plan for development.
Once again, existing residence are put in the awkward position of having to defend our rites after the fact.
David,
Thanks for your thoughtful response.
Yes, in Annapolis the Planning and Zoning process is seriously flawed, and the example you provided clearly describes that. Unfortunately, the experience you reported is not a one-off. It may be a growing norm.
Sure, it is easy to offer a blanket criticism of P&Z and just walk away. However, there are specific weaknesses that show the extent of the deficiencies. Whether you argue that planning and zoning is a separate process or you describe them as part of a greater continuum, you have to agree that improvements are necessary.
In Planning, the Comprehensive plan is out of date and incomplete. The incomplete portion is a credible traffic study. Since traffic is a ‘stick in the eye” for us, no thought of the future of our community can result in action without one.
On the Zoning side, there is confusion, inconsistency of application, waivers and exceptions are provided along with work-arounds accepted by the Office of Planning and Zoning. With the problems associated with Zoning, enforcement is either lacking or unevenly applied. Some favored few get a pass, others who ignore the specifics of their approved projects suffer no penalty.
Developers understand the way the way the game is played, and the game does not favor the community.
Again, thanks for helping shine a light on this continuing thorn in the operation of local government.