September 11, 2003
TOWN OF EASTON, MARYLAND
Workshop
Draft Comprehensive Plan
Councilmember Maureen Scott-Taylor Councilmember Moonyene Jackson-Amis
Also in attendance were Town Engineer Mr. Tim Glass, Town Planner Mr. Tom Hamilton, Assistant Town Planner Mr. Matt Davis, Town Attorney Chris Kehoe and Town Clerk Robert Karge.
The Mayor and Council met in a workshop session at 7:00 p.m. in the Council’s Chambers. In honor of September 11, Mr. Ford asked to share a moment of silence. Officer Smith was present from Easton Police Department to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. Chief Russell Miles was also present from Easton Volunteer Fire Department.
WORKSHOP MEETING
The President of the Council, Mr. Ford, called the meeting to order. Mr. Ford discussed the format for the evening. He stated that this is a workshop and not a public hearing as the purpose of tonight’s meeting is to give the members of the Council, the Mayor and staff, the opportunity to talk about concerns and work towards a consensus on the issues that have been raised. He stated that tonight’s agenda will focus on three main topics; transportation, growth rate and growth boundary/greenbelt. Mr. Ford stated that affordable housing will not be a main topic tonight as he thinks that the concerns regarding affordable housing will be implemented into the Comprehensive Plan due to the consensus of the Council. Mr. Ford stated that this will not be the final workshop and suggested scheduling a workshop with the County Council to talk about suggested changes. Mr. Ford scheduled an additional workshop for October 16 at 7:00 p.m.
The Town Engineer, Mr. Glass, gave an overview of the eastside collector road. He discussed the intention and design of the road. He discussed funds allocated for traffic calming measures. Mr. Glass stated that he hopes to implement these measures on Fisher Ranger Road.
Mr. Glass discussed using proactive planning when reviewing subdivision applications which would connect and tie-in neighborhoods and developments to one another with a 25 to 30 M.P.H. speed limit. He discussed collector road as defined in the subdivision regulations; a roadway that has intersections with roads of lesser standards and no primary driveway accesses.
Mr. Hamilton, the Town Planner stated that the most misconception he has heard is that the eastside collector road will be another parkway. He stated that this is a neighborhood street that connects one neighborhood with another and it is planning so when the holes in between develop, there will be a way to get from one neighborhood to the other and will not be anywhere close or resemble the parkway.
Mr. Glass discussed the necessity to alleviate some of the traffic weaving through downtown. He displayed an overhead showing some ways to calm traffic. He stated that Fisher Ranger Road has been identified as needing traffic calming measures and displayed options. Mr. Glass stated that he prefers raised walkways like on Goldsborough Street at the Rails-to-Trails.
Mr. Hamilton stated that the collector road will be a series of roads and smaller collector streets to move traffic north and south on the eastside of town.
Mr. Jensen stated that he is opposed to the road and he has some serious concerns.
The Town Planner discussed teaching the developers to change their development patterns.
Mr. Jensen stated that he does not think one road can handle the projected developments and traffic.
Mr. Hamilton stated that they are trying to build the grid system and make sure they have the roads planned out to make sure they have the roads planned out where the residents are not forced to go to Route 50.
Mr. Ford discussed the concept of using Fisher Range Road as a drive-thru. He stated that drivers en route to Route 50 would probably use the road of less resistance.
Ms. Scott-Taylor asked where the road would start and where it would end.
Mr. Ford stated that what he would be reluctant to give up the focus on connectivity between neighborhoods.
Mr. Jensen discussed alternatives.
Mr. Wendowski asked if any of this proposed road is a county road. Mr. Glass stated that it is. He stated that as development comes through, we can participate in building a segment to connect it or wait until development activity occurs and make the developer pay for it as he lays out streets in the development.
Mr. Jensen stated that it is helpful to discuss the possibilities but he has a concern regarding how to pay for the road.
Mr. Glass stated that the traffic calming measures such as speed humps, crosswalks, four-way stops, can be accomplished now with the money already in the budget.
Mr. Ford asked the Council to consider what they’ve heard this evening and discuss further in another workshop.
Ms. Scott-Taylor asked if this was all they have for a grid for roads right now. She asked if there are any other proposals for connector or eastside roads.
Mr. Hamilton stated that they do not have plans that show roads but the Plan insinuates and says that we should start building neighborhoods that have a grid in them. He stated that we could go further and deal with this further.
Mr. Glass stated that the next step would be to do land development design and he is not sure if it is appropriate for the Town of Easton to take on itself.
Ms. Scott-Taylor discussed a possible bypass. She clarified that the connector road discussed this evening is a totally different road and she wanted to clarify that to the general public. She stated that the two different roads need to be considered simultaneously so the connector road does not become a bypass.
Mr. Hamilton discussed the cloverleaf and stated that it will be Route 309 and Route 50 and this road will simply intersect into Route 309.
Mr. Glass stated that the design standards of the connector road will be a major factor for the collector road.
Mr. Hamilton discussed the Talbot County draft plan on the transportation element. He stated it refers to a Maryland’s first limited access toll road originating at the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and terminating at Ocean City area.
Mr. Wendowski asked the Town Planner to sketch the links on how everything will be connected.
Mr. Jensen asked if someone could sketch what is being considered tonight in order to digest everything.
Mr. Ford discussed the growth rate. He stated that there are those that do not think that there are growth rate controls in the Plan. He discussed some of the things the Plan suggests such as no annexations through the Planning period until there is a significant reduction in the already available plotted lots in the existing town boundaries and the Priority One areas.
Mr. Jensen asked for clarification on how to quantify what Mr. Ford suggests in the Priority Two areas.
Mr. Hamilton stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission did not want to dictate the market although the building permits average is around 200 per year.
Mr. Hamilton discussed language in the Plan to enable or prohibit the Council from annexing land through this planning period.
The Town Attorney discussed problems with putting quantitative targets in a document such as the Comprehensive Plan.
Mayor Willey referred to Glenwood Avenue and Easton Point. Mr. Ford clarified that they are Priority One.
Mr. Davis, Assistant Town Planner read an excerpt from page 41 of the Draft Comprehensive Plan that states “there will be no need to annex any land of any classification into the Town except for the purpose of cleaning up Town boundaries or health and safety reasons before the next Comprehensive Plan update.” The Town Planner stated that this could be put in bold. Mr. Ford suggested substituting Priority One areas for the language.
Mr. Jensen suggested wording in the Plan that states that regarding Priority Three areas, it is envisioned that these will not be needed until well beyond 2015.
Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that she supports the language as it exists. She stated that she does not think that in any case, the Mayor and Town Council should be put into a position where they cannot use discretion. She stated that we have had the opportunity to decide whether to annex several pieces of property and she stated that it is up to the Council to exercise a thoughtful planning process, a managing process, as exercised by vote. Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that the Council has to vote and decline the request for annexation and at the same time, have the opportunity to vote for annexation if the Council feels it is in the best interest of the Town. Ms. Jackson-Amis stated that she feels that language should be in a suggested program which the Comprehensive Plan is; open enough to exercise the kind of responsible decision making that the Council is elected to do. She stated that this is not to suggest that we should annex any land outside the priority area.
Mr. Jensen discussed Mr. Ross’s statements at the Mayor’s Task Force regarding the Town of Easton needing to decide what we want to be when they grow up which he thinks has to be clear when someone looks at the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Jensen stated that in his view, the less ambiguity we can offer, the better.
Ms. Jackson-Amis encouraged the Council to leave the flexibility that should be in any document other than an ordinance.
Ms. Scott-Taylor asked for clarification on the process to re-visit the Comprehensive Plan if the Council decides to consider Priority One areas for annexation.
The Town Attorney stated that the Comprehensive Plan is a guide and does not bind anybody although it would be a very unusual step for the Town Council to make.
Mr. Ford stated that regarding Ms. Jackson-Amis’ comments, there will be two town elections before the next Planning period and the members and the will of this council could change and he suggests raising the Plan’s bar a little higher in need for amendment by future council. Mr. Ford stated that the focus on development until 2009 should be in the grey and Priority One areas.
Mr. Wendowski stated that he agrees but he does not agree with restricting to a certain limit. He suggests staying within Priority One. He discussed language where someone has property in Priority Two and Priority Three; they can make it all Priority Two and stated that it is a huge loophole.
Ms. Scott-Taylor agreed with Mr. Wendowski and referred to unacceptable language on page 182 where it is noted as an exception. She stated that in favor of just the Priority One annexation, it allows the Council the opportunity to look more closely at infill development which she believes is the key to the future. Ms. Scott-Taylor discussed the character of the Town and the Town Center. She stated that a priority needs to be made of infill development, both residentially and commercially with upgrade in the existing residential and commercial properties within the town limits.
The Town Planner discussed the growth boundary and the eastside collector road. He stated that the Planning Commission needs to readdress this issue. He stated that the property lines need to be looked at and then come up with some logical growth areas.
Mr. Ford stated that he does not want to go into Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance at the moment except to suggest that the Council familiarize themselves with this document.
Ms. Jackson-Amis asked the Town Planner to address how the Town is handling the growth rate issue that constantly comes forward and why the Planning Department feels it is adequately set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Hamilton stated that the Planning Department and Planning Commission has reviewed the history of growth in the Town of Easton and the policies the Town has followed historically. He stated that the developer carries 100% of the cost of development which does not burden the town or taxpayers to pickup infrastructure improvements because the development is happening in town. Mr. Hamilton stated that the number of permits issued historically and the activity on growth has been at a rate that is a manageable, constant rate.
Mr. Wendowski stated that the growth is market place driven.
Mr. Hamilton stated that the rate has not changed.
Mr. Ford stated that the market driven growth will not be geographically outward; it will be contained within those existing boundaries which is a very important distinction.
Mr. Ford discussed the rules for public comments.
Ms. Deborah Miller, 8350 Colony Circle, stated that she is in favor of the park area and would love to see the speed limit reduced to 25 mph. Ms. Miller discussed the necessity of the connector road. She suggested going to the State for funds for Route 50 improvements.
Ms. Judy McClellan, 27833 Waverly Road, asked the Council to explain the purple comment area.
Mr. Hamilton stated that this idea came from the Planning Commission members. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan states that this should not be considered for annexation, however; everything on the map is on a septic system and that system drains into the river system. Mr. Hamilton stated that this is set up so that if those people had failing septic systems or their problem got so great they needed to be on our sewer system, their issue could be addressed and consider the annexation although the plan does not suggest annexation.
Ms. McClellan asked who initiates the annexation process.
Mr. Hamilton stated that the history of the annexation is that the property owner asks the town for annexation but it can work either way.
Mr. Ford stated that the Plan suggests that the residents would petition for annexation.
Ms. Ruth Meier Donnelly, 29695 Lakeview Court, Waylands, questioned whether trucks would be banned from traveling on the connector roads that are planned to connect developments.
The Town Engineer stated that there would be restrictions as in residential neighborhoods.
Mr. Bob Mueller, 29839 Standish Street, stated that he has no problem driving down Dover Road to Canvasback or to Elliott Road then coming around on Matthewstown Road to get home. He stated that he is wondering what the purpose of the extension is.
Mr. Ford stated that the main intent is to connect neighborhoods through a grid problem and it may benefit some of the residents in Matthewstown. He encouraged residents to let the Council give out some more concrete idea about how that might look and then it will be discussed more.
Miss Lexie Cherbonnier, 8379 Pilgrim Road, Matthewstown Run, stated that she is ten years old with a lot of friends in the neighborhood. She urged the Council not to place a highway near her house.
Mr. Harry Will, 7302 Waverly Island Road, stated that he has heard that single entrance developments have much less experience with violent crime and property crime. He stated that typically, people with bad intentions do not like to go into those developments due to the fact that they have trouble getting back out past police. Mr. Will stated that he was not sure that people in developments would want their development used as a thoroughfare. Mr. Will stated that he thinks that security would be a problem.
Mr. Tim Knotts, 8312 Colony Circle, stated that he thought the four-way stop sign is a great idea and he would like to see that happen. He stated that the developer constructed the road wrong and he would like to see that rectified. Mr. Knotts discussed the problem of speeding and trash already in the development. He suggested finding a new way to get across town. Mr. Knotts stated that he supports Mr. Jensen’s support for their neighborhood.
Mr. Jeffrey Adelman, 4755 Sailors Retreat Road, stated that the Town of Easton and the future of the town is very important to him and his family. Mr. Adelman questioned the growth rate in relation to approved building permits.
Mr. Jensen discussed the building sites proposed.
The Town Planner stated that it will take quite a while to eat through the supply of approved building lots. He discussed historical trends.
Mr. Jensen stated that we could see an increase in the size of growth due to the size of subdivisions coming on line.
Ms. Cecily Snyder, 7316 Waverly Island Road, stated that she is confused by the comment area and has some concern due to her house bordering the comment area.
The Town Planner read from the Comprehensive Plan an excerpt regarding the comment area. He stated that the Town has no intention of actively pursuing annexation of any part of this area. Mr. Hamilton stated that inclusion of this in the growth area is that we will allow for potential of homes already there to go on our sewer system if it becomes necessary.
Mr. Tom Hughes, 9284 Chenar Farm Road, asked everyone to think about the County Plan regarding a dedicated toll road. He stated that this was in the Vision Statement for the Transportation Chapter for the County Plan. Mr. Hughes clarified that the steering committee for the County Plan realized that the biggest problem with traffic in Talbot County is beach traffic and if there was a wish list, they would like to see a dedicated toll road outside of Talbot County like Route 1 in Delaware that parallels Route 13. Mr. Hughes stated that there is a conflict between the size of the Town of Easton’s growth area and the draft of the growth area for Talbot County’s Plan which is quite smaller and doesn’t include any of the pale yellow areas and the purple comment area is half the size and doesn’t extend out to the river. Mr. Hughes asked the Council to be careful about the proposed growth rate of 3%. He stated that Easton has never grown at 3% a year using an analysis of US Census data, but 2.49% over the decade of the 90’s. Mr. Hughes stated that if Easton grew at a growth rate of 3%, Easton would double in population in 24 years. He asked the Council to think about the prescribed growth area for the next 30 years which he stated would accommodate 25,000 people.
The Town Planner discussed the County’s growth area in their Comprehensive Plan and stated that it is identical to the Town’s proposed growth area in our Comprehensive Plan.
The President of the Council stated that there will be another workshop with the County Council to go over the two plans.
Ms. Janet Roe, Waverly Island Road, stated that she does not want to be part of the Town of Easton’s growth program. She stated that she thinks property owners should be consulted. She asked if future workshops would be publicized. Mr. Jensen answered that they will be publicized.
Mr. John Schroeder, Neavitt, stated that he has been a Talbot County resident for 25 years and recently purchased property on Port Street in Easton. He commended everyone on their great work. Mr. Schroeder stated that he purchased the property as an investment and to use as an office. He stated that it has become apparent how important the waterfront has become to the Town of Easton. Mr. Schroeder stated that he is stunned the Town of Easton has let that property go. He discussed Community Legacy funds available to give Easton waterfront. Mr. Schroeder stated that he has met the river people and is concerned that the barges are disrupting the bottom and polluting the waters. Mr. Schroeder stated that he is for growth if it is smart.
Ms. Scott-Taylor thanked Mr. Schroeder for his comments regarding Easton Point.
Ms. Linda James, 7402 Patrick Road, off Stoney Ridge, begged the Council to approve the improvements on Dutchman’s Lane intersection. She discussed traffic concerns with oversized vehicles. Ms. James stated that the corner needs to be cleaned up. Ms. James stated that when school is in session, it is nearly impassable. She asked when the property would be transferred to the Town from the County.
The Town Engineer stated that Dutchman’s Lane is a County road and the Town of Easton tries to work with State Highway Administration on Route 50 intersections. Mr. Glass stated that improvements are going to be triggered by the development activity with Royal Farms.
Ms. James asked that a No Parking sign be erected near GM Giant to prohibit car carriers from parking. Mr. Glass stated that he will direct the request to State Highway Administration.
Ms. Starlen Adams, 8561 Swann Haven, discussed the connector road between Black Dog Alley and Swann Haven. She asked why the Town would want to put a road there when it is not annexed in Town limits but directs to the Two Oaks project. She stated that it goes directly into the proposed project of Two Oaks.
Mr. Jensen stated that if a development goes there, we need to have more than one access. It is part if the plan that has been presented but not yet approved.
Mr. Ford reminded everyone of another workshop scheduled for Thursday, October 16, 7:00 p.m. in the Council’s Chambers.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further discussion, the President of the Council adjourned the workshop.
______________________________________
Town Clerk