Golden Oldies

Here’s an excerpt from a reader after a post on Development Concerns.  The comment was received 25 June 2015.  It is very relevant to our current development concerns with so many projects proposed, some to them approved, and others still looming despite avid community participation and opposition.  Since that time we have, of course, been keeping our visitors informed about community announcements:

Time to get organized? With the growing popularity of this site and the increase in concerns over the proposed projects, do you think it’s time to get organized and keep everyone informed about the when and where of the city council or other meetings we could attend to voice our concerns to the appropriate officials? I have been to several of these meetings regarding the Crystal Spring project due to notifications received on Facebook. There are too many projects in the works for Eastport that will negatively impact the community and I feel its time for us to be heard and not just write about it. If you agree, let’s get together and try to make a difference.

Before I moved to Annapolis I was a resident of Arlington, VA since the 1990’s and I watched that once quiet suburb turn into something unrecognizable. The effect of such changes have long term effects. One being the more popular a place becomes, the more expensive, to the point where I and a large number of other families had to flee because it just was not affordable anymore. I would hate for the same thing to happen here in Eastport and with all of these proposed projects in development, that is the direction this is going. It may not seem like it if you look at these projects one at a time, but the overall affect is the area will become so exclusive and so expensive that anyone with a mid-level income will just not be able to afford to live here anymore. I know from first-hand experience. I can see the writing on the wall at this point and would like to join the effort to stop it if that is still possible.

Affirmation

It’s good to see the posts we’ve been publishing for some time affirmed.

Ward 8 and Friends

I have asked the Mayor to come up with a date that he and the Planning Staff can attend a Town Hall at the Eastport Fire Station devoted solely to the Shopping Center process for the community to hear from the Mayor and planning staff and provide their input back to Mayor and staff on this application.

When we have that date, I will send it out as well as the date on which the public may give testimony on this application.

I believe, and have conveyed to the Planning Department that we have a seriously flawed Planned Development process, and that the flaws start at the beginning of the process when the issues are not properly framed for the Planning Commission.

Taking the Eastport shopping center as the most recent example of a Planned Development project, I feel that the Planning Department and the Commission should start with the principles set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. That Plan is predicated on the principle of Community Character, so an initial question to ask of a proposed project should be, “does it fit with the community character and meet community needs.”

I also feel that we need to look at the purpose of the underlying zoning, which is B2 retail business. In my view, the project proposes to subdivide the parcel, something that normally would require an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals. It then proposes to de facto rezone the new parcel from B2 zoning to an R4 zone. Under normal rules a zoning change requires proof of either a zoning mistake or a change in the character on the surrounding area.

Eastport has already experienced a de facto zoning change at Sailor’s Quay where a B1 zone was converted into R2 and that community serving retail potential was forever lost through a planned development process. This brings up the concept of “Eastport as a Village.” That is, the community desire to be able to satisfy as much of its shopping requirements as possible without leaving the neighborhood. This desire has become even more compelling with increased flooding downtown that cuts off that means of travel out of Eastport, and increased traffic on Forest Drive that frustrates leaving Eastport via that exit to shop elsewhere.

One more point on the zoning change, many have voiced the view that Eastport needs more residential space for young people, those who cannot afford an $850,000 single family home. While it is debatable about who will be able to rent in the proposed new apartments, it is the case that there exists a properly zoned R4 area right next to the shopping center. The owners of that property have indicated that they want to greatly expand the number of rental units at Watergate Pointe. They are properly zoned for that use, and some of their development rights may be precluded, because of adequate public facilities requirements, from fully developing at their site if some of those facilities are used by the shopping development proposal.

It is indisputable that the new project will come with parking pressures, both within the property and in the surrounding neighborhood. Further, the surrounding neighborhood is already under some parking pressure because of changes at the adjacent post office building where all of the employee parking is now being used by postal trucks, leaving the employees to park on the street. In addition it is undeniable that the apartment dwellers will create more traffic in an already congested area, one that is already at category D and projected in the Eastport Traffic Study to deteriorate to category E by 2020 — even without new development.

So back to framing the issue, we have a developer who is asking to use the planned development process to subdivide their lot, change the zoning, add non-permitted uses (structured parking), use first floor space in a B2 zone for non-retail uses, add to parking and traffic problems, and supplant other property owners’ potential development rights. Properly framed and under the planned development process, the developer starts with a “no rights position” and negotiates with the community for what they can develop starting from a zero point. The Planning Commission adjudicates the negotiation. In this scheme, what does the community get? Where is the negotiation process that allows residents to say, “We will accept this or that, but in return, we want such and such?” I submit that the place for community negotiations are before the Planning Commission, but that the issue has not been properly framed nor is there provision in the process for such dialogue.

I am currently working on legislation to “fix” some of these issues…but for this project the current process is the one we have.

Ross Arnett, Alderman, Ward 8

Continuing to Evolve

The 02 March 2017 Planning Commission Meeting had a few light moments as well as some serious discussion about the Rocky Gorge (RG) and Eastport Shopping Center projects.

The light moments were provided by the RG project proponents.  During their request for access to Aris T. Allen Blvd, they took the opportunity to instruct the Planning Commission on how to do their jobs, and inferred the Commissioners were not being open-minded and failing to use facts to make their decisions.

The RG request was denied.

The Commission had detailed reasons, based on facts, for denying the proposal.  An interesting display of hubris on the part of the proponents, and of professionalism on the part of the Planning Commission.

As an additional thought, why was the project proponent permitted to level the forest at that site?  The project seems to be in limbo, so how can anyone justify the destruction of this valuable and irreplaceable natural resource?  Let’s ask ourselves who tilted toward the developer, and who stood in defense of the environment and the community at large.

The other project on the Agenda was the Eastport Shopping Center.  The format for the discussion was as a work session, which is a forum to present information to the Planning Commission.  Emphasis:  Information.  This is not a formal session, in that there is no testimony/documentation and no input from the community.  You had to be there to fully appreciate the dynamics of the work session.

Shortly after the project proponent began the presentation to the Planning Commission, the audience began to move from their seats to the work group.  The audience gathered closer and closer to the proponent’s presentation materials.  You could feel the community’s rapt interest, and positive reception of the information being provided.

You could feel that the project plans have, and are continuing, to evolve.  They even indicated that they took many of the recent Ward 8 ‘Quality of Life’ Town Meeting comments into consideration.  They also stated they will continue to work with the community to address any concerns and make this a project that adds to, rather than detracts, from the community.

The takeaway:  The evolution of the project is, in large part, due to all our efforts to stay engaged.  We should be proud of our efforts to express our community interests and to demand something that could turn out to be more than just acceptable.

Of course, the project proponent deserves credit for being willing to listen and to respond with community-focused replies.  This really should become a model for community and developer cooperation.   

Please Attend

Remember, there is a Planning Commission meeting tonight at 7 PM on the Eastport Shopping Center at City Hall on Duke of Gloucester.

I know there have been a lot of meetings lately and we’re all busy.  But Please Attend!  This is where the developers speak about their proposed project. We need to show the numbers who are opposed.

Share this:

On a lighter note, you can find the MRE calendar of events in SHARE:  COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS