This is the proposed map overlay presented by Save Our County. Dark areas are approved growth areas and other high-density growth districts. Light areas are the Kent Island Preservation Overlay Zone, which includes properties where virtually all high-density mixed-use developments are currently proposed.

CENTREVILLE - A proposal that could greatly change development patterns on Kent Island was outlined by representatives of Save Our County to the Queen Anne's County Planning Commission. 

Called the Kent Island Preservation Overlay Zone by Richard Altman, founder of Save Our County, the proposal drew little comment from the planners because the presentation was intended as a listening session during the regular March meeting.

While the overlay zone is the key element of Altman's proposal, his concept also combines annual building permit caps, the current revision of Title 18 and some changes in the public review process.

He said he offered this proposal in an attempt to stabilize the county's growth rate even though he recognizes there is increased development pressure on the Eastern Shore as growth has slowed on the I-95 corridor because of new regulation and lack of available land.

He also noted his concept echoes resolutions now under consideration by the newly-elected county commission. Although he gave no examples, he also said these concepts have been used in other jurisdictions and can survive legal challenges.

Planning Commission member Loring Hawes, often a maverick on certain issues, questioned Altman's version of the map overlay, saying, "Your plan brings to a halt large-scale mixed-use projects on Kent Island. I see legal problems."

Member Patti Miller also was skeptical of Altman's concept, and was rebuffed by Altman and Jim Campbell - the leaders of Save Our County - when she asked questions about the organization's membership and financial activities.

"It is a matter of public record," Campbell said, but he would not reveal where in the public record the information would be found.

Altman said the organization acts as both a political action committee (PAC) and an advocacy group and membership is by "invitation only." Campbell said the organization is funded by "individual contributions," but offered no details.

Altman, who is a planning consultant by profession, said he wants growth management issues imbedded in Title 18 (Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance) rather than a separate growth management ordinance and adequate public facilities ordinance that are currently proposed and mandated by the new comprehensive plan update.

"And the sewer plant (expansion) does have a bearing, but we can begin to act now," he said of possible changes to Title 18, which is going through a revision process after being repealed by the new county commission. From a county standpoint, he pointed out that only the sewer district for Kent Island-Grasonville is controlled by the county, while the other systems are creatures of incorporated municipalities.

The overlay zone that should replace the current Title 18 zoning map, according to Altman, is the first step in revisiting the growth area plans for Stevensville, Chester, Grasonville and Queenstown.

From a practical standpoint, Altman advocates that growth be steered away from Kent Island, but growth management tools should minimize rural sprawl. He said he would like to see two-thirds of county growth away from Kent Island. Current figures show 50 percent of new growth in the county is projected for Kent Island.

The primary change for the "public review pipeline" proposed by Altman is what he calls an "initial finding" by the planning commission that would let the developer know whether it is practical to move ahead after sketch plan approval. "We need control over the entire process that is more efficient for the resources available and be fair to builders."

He also said the current demand on Critical Area growth allocations is greater than what is available.

"Right now everybody is queuing up for growth allocation, and some will not be approved," he said. He said development should only be allowed on parcels with S-1 and W-1 status, meaning service is available.

Building permit caps should be permanent so 80 percent of growth (an estimated 320 permits annually) can be directed to growth areas, he said. Altman also suggests recorded lots have priority through a quarterly allocation and a single builder can receive a maximum of 10 percent of the annual total.

He said a rate of growth based on the historic rate of 400 permits annually for 20 years is what citizens want so the heritage and rural resources are protected. He would also like to see changes in transfer of development rights from rural regions that would promote higher-density areas.

He also suggests a mechanism to recognize the capacity of municipalities, which have their own infrastructure.

"A large annexation would reflect the entire county's growth," he said in reference to proposals in Queenstown and Trappe in Talbot County. "Would the county be at the mercy of municipalities?" he asked at another point. In Maryland, incorporated towns and cities may annex independently of county control.

He said his proposal leaves ample opportunity for development and only slightly modifies the growth rate. "This is not a no-growth strategy ... it is far from it," he said.

Altman said the final step to bring his tools of growth management into reality is "bringing it all together and make it convincing to the development community and the public."

In noting that the Eastern Shore is one of several regions near the I-95 corridor that is experiencing new development pressure, Altman said it appears this trend is very recent and well after the process that created the growth areas and process that resulted in the recent comprehensive plan update.

But many factors remain the same, he said. "As inboard counties have erected barriers to growth, the market will continue to take the opportunity to build in whatever way they can find and as long as developers can outbid farming (land values)." 

© The Star Democrat  2003