Calvert Coalition for Smart Growth

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED AT THE JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
RE: ARMORY SQUARE ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGES

 

Several citizens went to the public hearing armed with questions they wanted answered, but the Commissioners refused to allow any questions. The Coalition has done extensive research and is providing its answers below, with links to the supporting documents when available.

 

1. The proposed amendments will have a major impact on transportation.  The Calvert County Transportation Plan was adopted in 1998. Have there been any updates to it since?  Are there any plans to update it?

   • Answer: NO: The Dept. of Community Planning & Building confirmed this.  See 1998 Transportation Plan here.
      

2. The summary of the Charrette that’s available online states that the following is recommended: “A range of retailing options - from specialty retailer to medium box and possibly one large box.” Yet your presentation indicates, “A range of retailing options - from small, specialty retailers to large box retailers.”  Which is it?  

   • Answer: PRESENTATION IS INCORRECT and very misleading! See Charrette Results vs. Staff's Slide here.
      

3. Is there currently a Development Agreement in effect?

   • Answer: NO (according to the Commissioners’ Clerk via email dated June 9, 2016).
      

4. The Prince Frederick Master Plan was adopted in 1989.  Are there any plans to update it anytime in the future?

   • Answer: NO: (according to Dept. of Community Planning & Building, via email dated June 9, 2016).
      

5. Are there any plans to allow similar development in other areas of the Prince Frederick Town Center?

   • Answer: NO (which bolsters the allegation that this is definitely a clear case of Spot Zoning).
      

6. (a)Who owns the properties that will be affected by these changes?  (b) How many properties in the New Town District are not part of the proposed Armory Square development?  (c) Were the owners of those properties notified of this hearing?

   • Answers: (a) The BoCC and Bargo, LLC; (b) At least 9 other properties are not part of the Armory Square development (another case for Spot Zoning); and (c) None of the owners were properly notified because that is not required for a text amendment.  However, with a development of this magnitude proposed by our own Commissioners, it would’ve have been common courtesy to reach out to those property owners.
      

7. Are some of the dwellings that will be allowed with the increased density to be located above the retail stores?

   • Answer: We still don’t know this because no plan has been presented.
      

8. What is the purpose of the proposed reduction in setbacks?

   • Answer: To take more power away from the Planning Commission, who is already authorized by the Prince Frederick Zoning Ordinance to reduce setbacks on a case-by-case basis. See Excerpt from Prince Frederick Z.O. here.
      

9. Under the proposed changes that will allow buildings hat are 60' in height, will those buildings conform to the height of other buildings in the New Town District and nearby developments?

   • Answer:  NO (another inconsistency with the Prince Frederick Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance).  
      

10. For the proposed residential development, is a mix of low- or mid-income and/or elderly proposed?

    • Answer: UNKNOWN. To be consistent with the Calvert Comprehensive Plan, this should be made a condition if the development is to be approved.
       

11. What is the status of the traffic study submitted by the applicants? What is the status of the 2013 SHA study that was scheduled to be updated?

    • Answer: INCOMPLETE. How can the Commissioners make a decision of this magnitude without knowing what impact it will have on traffic?  The traffic study submitted by BARGO indicated 31,638 NEW TRIPS PER DAY. Specific plans to accommodate the increased traffic should be developed and evidence of who will pay for road improvements (and how) should be shared with the public. The 2013 SHA study has yet to be updated. See the 2013 SHA Traffic Report here. Please note the Conclusions on page 38, which addres the negative impacts development of the old Middle School property will have on area traffic.
       

12. How many new traffic lights and new entrances onto Route 2/4 are proposed as part of the Armory Square development?  Where will they be located?

    • Answer: The rendering of Armory Square available online shows at least one new traffic signal at a new entrance; which conflicts with both the Prince Frederick Master Plan and the County Comprehensive Plan.
       

13. How many trips per day will be added to the road system if the property is fully developed as proposed?

    • Answer: According to our calculations from Bargo’s own traffic study, 31,638 new trips per day; however, the accuracy of that traffic study is questionable, and the latest traffic study has not been shared with the public.
       

14. If the proposed changes and development result in the need to improve/build roads, schools, and water & sewer facilities, who will pay for it?

    • Answer: If the County is to pay ANY PART of the improvements, a fiscal analysis is REQUIRED by the Comprehensive Plan and should have been done BEFORE the text changes were proposed.
       

15. Has the adequacy of local schools been evaluated?

    • Answer: NO.  The proposed increase in density has not be included in the latest Adequate Public Facilities Report.
       

16. Where is the location of the Baltimore & Drum Point Railroad Trail in relation to the Armory Square development?  Are there plans in place to preserve the Railroad Trail?

    • Answer: UNKNOWN.  If there are no plans to preserve the Railroad Trail, it should be made a condition of approval.  Otherwise, the development is in direct conflict with the Prince Frederick Master Plan and the County Open Space Plan.
       

17. Have the Prince Frederick water and sewer facilities been evaluated as to whether they are adequate to handle the development allowed by the proposed changes?

    • Answer: NO.  No such improvements/expansions are included in the latest Capital Improvements Plan.  Specific plans to accommodate this development should be developed and evidence of who will pay for water and sewer improvements (and how) should be shared with the public.