Read more at the MD DHCD blog

Read more at the HUD Blog

If I receive a letter that is not signed but is threatening me or my place of business, I report it to the Police, and let law enforcement take care of it. Deleting e-mails, or handing over such documents to authorities, is the best course of action in such instances, and it is something needed now.

In every society, there are cowards, and it seems that Centreville has a share of them. These are people who like to spread malicious gossip verbally or in written form to hurt an individual or a group, and yet they never sign their name. These “NO NAME, NO BODIES” are cowards, and they have lost their voice by such actions. They feel that intimidation is the best course of action to stop anything they don’t happen to agree with.

But they could not be more wrong. If anything, it gives those they oppose an even stronger incentive to fight harder.

This form of intimidation has been happening to those who are opposed to subsidized low income housing in Centreville and have put their signatures on an e-mailed petition.

In a democracy, everyone has a say, but when you use bogus e-mail accounts to send profane comments on such a petition, and do not have the guts to sign your name, then the “delete” button comes in handy.

But when you send a letter to a person’s place of work in the hopes of getting them fired because they oppose subsidized housing, then that is libel, not to mention the trampling of that person’s First Amendment rights. This needs to be addressed, and investigated.

In the meantime, if you are opposed to the planned subsidized low income housing, and have not signed the petition, I encourage you to do so. Don’t let these no-name cowards have the final word.

Mary James
Centreville

· Following the Pledge of Allegiance, Mr. McCluskey made a motion to approve the March 17, 2011 meeting minutes. Mr. Ogens seconded the motion which passed unanimously.

Announcement of Closed Sessions

i) The Town Council met in closed session on March 31, 2011, at 5:30 p.m., at the Town Annex, to discuss personnel issues and consult with counsel to obtain legal advice in accordance with the Maryland Open Meetings Act. (ii) All three members of the Town Council voted to close the session. (iii) The authority to close the session is found in Section 10-508 of the State Government Article. (iv) The Town Council discussed the following topics:
· Development Lawsuit update (Legal Advice)
· Management Staff Performance Evaluations: Chief of Police and Town Manager (Personnel)
No actions were taken.

The following members and staff were present: Norman P. Pinder, Jr., President; Timothy E. McCluskey, Vice President; Frank C. Ogens, Member; and Steve Kehoe, Town Attorney.

ii) The Town Council met in closed session on April 5, 2011, at 4:00 p.m., at the Town Annex, to discuss personnel issues and consult with counsel to obtain legal advice in accordance with the Maryland Open Meetings Act. (ii) All three members of the Town Council voted to close the session. (iii) The authority to close the session is found in Section 10-508 of the State Government Article. (iv) The Town Council discussed the following topics:
· Board and Commission Appointments (Personnel)
· Management Staff Performance Evaluations: Town Manager (Personnel)
No actions were taken.

The following members and staff were present: Norman P. Pinder, Jr., President; Timothy E. McCluskey, Vice President; Frank C. Ogens, Member; and Steve Kehoe, Town Attorney. Bob McGrory, Town Manager, attended a portion of the meeting.

iii) The Town Council met in closed session on April 7, 2011, at 6:00 p.m., at the Town Annex, to discuss personnel issues and consult with counsel to obtain legal advice in accordance with the Maryland Open Meetings Act. (ii) All three members of the Town Council voted to close the session. (iii) The authority to close the session is found in Section 10-508 of the State Government Article. (iv) The Town Council discussed the following topics:
· Management Staff Performance Evaluations: Chief of Police (Personnel)
No actions were taken.

The following members and staff were present: Norman P. Pinder, Jr., President; Timothy E. McCluskey, Vice President; Frank C. Ogens, Member; Bob McGrory, Town Manager; Chief Charlie Rhodes; and Steve Kehoe, Town Attorney.

Citizens Forum

Ms. Doris Pullman, Opera Court; Ms. Mary Margaret Goodwin, North Commerce Street; Ms Aileen Minor, South Liberty Street; Caroline Huddleston, South Liberty Street; Ms. Mary Roby, South Liberty Street; Mr. Andrew Hanson, North Brook; Mr. Pete Scanlon, Queen Anne’s County Housing Authority; offered comments.

Appearances

Mr. McGrory introduced Ms. Carolyn Brinkley who has been hired to fill the position of Town Clerk.

a. Personnel Review Board Appointments
· Mr. McGrory described the newly-created Personnel Review Board which legislatively becomes effective tonight with the appointment of its members, as follows. Robert Joy, Kerry Brandt, Sandy Davis, Lynne Knight and Larry Cook.
· Mr. McCluskey made a motion to approve the appointment of Lynne Knight to a three year term on the Personnel Review Board. Mr. Pinder seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
· Mr. McCluskey made a motion to approve the appointment of Robert Joy to a three year term on the Personnel Review Board. Mr. Ogens seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
· Mr. McCluskey made a motion to approve the appointment of Sandy Davis to a two year term on the Personnel Review Board. Mr. Ogens seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
· Mr. McCluskey made a motion to approve the appointment of Larry Cook to a two year term on the Personnel Review Board. Mr. Ogens seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
· Mr. McCluskey made a motion to approve the appointment of Kerry Brandt to a one year term on the Personnel Review Board. Mr. Ogens seconded the motion which passed unanimously.

b. Farmer’s Market Manager Appointment
· Mr. Pinder introduced Ms. Gretchen Holtman who applied for the position of Farmers Market Manager for the coming year.
· Mr. McCluskey made a motion to approve the appointment of Gretchen Holtman as Farmers Market Manager for the coming year. Mr. Ogens seconded the motion which passed unanimously.

c. Tom Davis, DMS – Concept Plan for DPW Bioswale
· Mr. Davis of DMS & Associates described the concept plan to address drainage behind the Centreville Police Department and the Public Works yard which drains into Gravel Run. The goal is to create positive drainage with the use of filters and grading into a landscaped swale which will make use of the nutrients that would otherwise wind up in the stream. The proposed bioswale is being reviewed by local and state agencies, including the Critical Area Commission.

Old Business

a. Ordinance No 02-2011, Amending FY-2011 Budget – Second Reading
· Mr. McGrory described the amendment to the FY 2011 Budget. It will cover the purchase of a police vehicle and reduce the amount budgeted for paving Millstream Trail and Railroad Avenue.
· Mr. Ogens made a motion to approved Ordinance No. 02-2011 amending the FY-2011 budget. Mr. McCluskey seconded the motion which passed unanimously.

b. Ordinance No. 03-2011, Amending Chapter 154, Vehicles and Traffic – Second Reading
· Mr. McGrory described the proposed amendments to Chapter 154 of the Town Code which governs parking, parking fines, and installation of meters. Changes on state roads would be deferred to the State Highway Administration.
· Mr. McCluskey made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 03-2011 amending Chapter 154, Vehicles and Traffic of the Town Code, with no change in fees until July 1, 2011. Mr. Ogens seconded the motion which passed unanimously.

c. Resolution No. 01-2011
· Mr. McGrory described Resolution No. 01-2011, which approves the development of a rental housing project comprised of 59 units, known as Riverwoods on Spring Street, to be financed by the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development or through the Department’s Community Development Administration.
· Mr. Kehoe read Resolution No. 01-2011 aloud.
· Mr. McCluskey explained that the resolution will enable the developer to apply for grants for the project but that the project must be approved by the Centreville Planning Commission. Acceptance of Resolution No. 01-2011 is acknowledgment by the Town Council that they understand the need for work force housing.
· Mr. McCluskey made a motion to approve Resolution No. 01-2011 as written. Mr. Ogens seconded the motion which passed unanimously.

New Business

a. 60″ Mower Purchase – Deferred
b. Draft Parking Study
· Ms. Kerchner reported on the draft parking study prepared by Environmental Resources Management. She reported that there are 1235 parking spaces available but that more signage is needed to identify the location of available parking. Ms. Kerchner reported that this report will be presented to the Planning Commission at its April 20th meeting.
c. Proposed Change Order for Wharf Project
· Ms. Kerchner reported on the proposed change order in the amount of $75,750 for work being done at the wharf. It is necessitated by the need for 750 cubic yards of additional stone for fill on the living shoreline side of the project.
· Mr. Pinder asked if any of the old cement being removed from the site is being used for fill. Ms. Kerchner reported that 150 cubic yards of rubble is being used.
· Mr. McCluskey made a motion to approve the change order for the Wharf Project, not to exceed $75,750. Mr. Ogens seconded the motion which passed unanimously.

Announcements
· Mr. Pinder read the announcements for the information of the Council, staff, and public.

Report of Department Heads
a. Town Manager
· Mr. McGrory requested that Ms. Peddicord, Finance Officer, describe the proposed pre-purchase of energy through an energy trust.
· Ms. Peddicord described her conversations with an energy trust consultant who has recommended a fixed contract for the Town’s purchase of electricity. The cost of the contract is minimal; it will work towards improving the environment, and will generate more jobs. The deadline for contracting with the program is May 6, 2011. Mr. McCluskey reported that the difference in cost is minimal and the risk is small. He made a motion to approve the staff moving forward with the program recommended by the energy trust consultant for a two year period. Mr. Ogens seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
· Mr. McGrory reported that the Personnel Review Board becomes effective today with the appointment of its members; Salon Heberto is celebrating its first anniversary in business; Wye River Upper School has a display on Lawyer’s Row; a line item in the amount of $95,000 will be proposed for stormwater management activities in the next budget; Mr. George “Smokey” Sigler was congratulated for his election to the Town Council; and Mr. Pinder was thanked for his years of service on the Town Council.

b. Chief of Police
Chief Rhodes read the Police Department’s March statistics for the record.

c. Town Attorney
· Mr. Kehoe reported that he began working for Centreville seven years ago and that it has been a pleasure working with Mr. Pinder.

Citizens Forum
· Mr. Bob Pino, Water Street, offered comments.

Council Roundtable

Mr. McCluskey thanked Mr. Pino for his work with Centreville Alive! He added that he always answers his telephone and guarantees that he will get the answer for any citizen who contacts him. He congratulated Mr. Sigler for his election to the Town Council and told Mr. Pinder he had learned a lot from him.

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Ogens made a motion to adjourn the April 7, 2011 Town Council meeting. Mr. McCluskey seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:26 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Jane Saulsbury
Administrative Aide

In case you are wondering where the down payment will come from, Queen Anne’s County has a critical workforce program (CWP). for teachers, law enforcement officers and EMTs employed by the County or the Municipal Governments.  The program also includes volunteer firefighters. The program provides a 0% deferred-payment loan up the lesser of $50,000 or 33% of the purchase price.

Area Median Household income (AMI):  $82,200 / yr

80% of AMI (limit for CWP ): $65,760 / yr

30% of AMI max  income: $19,728 or $1,644 / month

Other monthly expenses (utilities/taxes/fees) $700 / month

Available for Mortgage: $944.00 / month

BTW, a 30 year mortgage on $200,000 house at 5% APR and $50,000 down is $805.23

—————

Here are some links to the salaries for some critical workforce professions:

Teachers: http://www.teachersalaryinfo.com/maryland/teacher-salary-in-queen-anne-s-county-public-schools/

Deputy Sheriff: http://www.queenannessheriff.org/applicants.html#salary

(CTA is incorporated as a citizen?focused non?profit entity to disseminate and share information that impacts the quality of life, stability and prosperity of our community. Members of the Steering Committee are: Liz Draper Brice, Fred McNeil, Mary Roby, Sarah Berlin, Michael Olson, Donald Braden and Dick Smith.)

LET US RECOGNIZE GOOD WORKS OF PRO?BUSINESS ADVOCATES!

As has been proven many times in many communities across America, the health and success of local businesses translate to the health and success of the residents in those communities. As our businesses grow and prosper, jobs are created; tax receipts for local jurisdictions increase; municipal services expand and improve; and residents find increasing opportunities to buy locally and support their neighborhood businesses.

In that spirit, hats off to Centreville Alive! for its work in our community to make our local businesses more visible and stimulate more utilization of our own business enterprises. This group, in tandem with the American Legion, is organizing a Memorial Day parade for Centreville on May 28. They are also arranging for a celebration of July 4, including fireworks and special activities. We encourage all our readers to support both these events. Check the website, http://centrevillealive.org, for up to the minute plans and locations.

SUBSIDIZED HOUSING PROJECT OPPOSITION ON RECEIVING END OF DIRTY TRICKS

In CTA’s last Bulletin, links to a website offered an opportunity to sign an e?petition opposing a recent council? and county? approved low income 59?unit housing development for Centreville’s Spring Street. Nearly 200 persons had signed the petition as of last week, many with strong comments supporting their opposition.

Now we have seen anonymous posting of letters on the web, attacking some of those citizens who have signed the petition. Without knowing the source of these anonymous attacks, they are clearly from those in support of the project, whether in government, development or simply other citizens. In one instance, an anonymous letter has been sent to the employer of a signer, suggesting the employer should know of the anti?development sentiments of his employee. The employer, as you may have guessed by now, is a firm specializing in commercial property development and ownership.

These anonymous writers have named and attacked one signer because he is currently unemployed, another who experienced financial difficulties, another for personal problems of another nature. One writer stated, “You are a bunch of snobs. Stop attacking Council members who actually try to make things better.”

One Centreville resident, Mary James, responded to these attacks as follows:

“I don’t know about anyone else, but when someone sends me something that is slanderous or vengeful by email, I simply hit ‘delete.’ If I receive a letter that is not signed but is threatening me or my place of business, I report it to the police, and let law enforcement take care of it. Deleting emails or handing over such documents to authorities is the best course of action in such instances and it is something needed now.

“In every society”, states Mary, “there are cowards, and it seems Centreville has a share of them. These are people who like to spread malicious gossip verbally or in written form to hurt an individual or a group, and yet they never sign their name. These ‘no?name, no?bodies’ are cowards and they have lost their voice by such action. They feel that intimidation is the best course of action to stop anything they don’t happen to agree with. But they could not be more wrong. If anything, it gives those they oppose an even stronger incentive to fight harder.

“This form of intimidation has been happening to those who are opposed to subsidized low income housing in Centreville and have put their signatures on an email on?line petition. In a democracy, everyone has a say, but when you use bogus email accounts to sign your name, then the ‘delete’ button comes in handy. But when you send a letter to a person’s place of work in the hope of getting them fired because they oppose subsidized housing, then that is libel, not to mention the trampling of that person’s First Amendment rights…

“…If you are opposed to the planned subsidized housing project, and have not signed the petition, I encourage you to do so. Don’t let those ‘no?name’ cowards have the final word.”

IS THE CONTRACT TIME?SPECIFIC OR OPEN?

Centreville Town Council recently renewed contracts for the town manager, town director of finance and town attorney. Not having the contracts to review, we have been told they are all for one?year periods. Our Town Code, Section 601, states with respect to our town manager and his/her contract:

“The Council shall appoint a town manager who shall serve for an indefinite period at its pleasure.”

It would seem that a time?specific contract is in violation of our town code. Any town employee whose contract by code requires service at the “pleasure” of the council seemingly should not have a time?specific agreement. Perhaps the council has been advised to state a time period for the latest renewal but it does seem it would violate the town code.

ANOTHER COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED LOW INCOME HOUSING PROJECTS

One recipient of the Bulletin has sent the following message regarding the proposed project:

“Queen Anne’s County Resolution 11?07 cites Section 7?506.1 of the Maryland Tax?Property Article as the authority for granting a partial real estate tax exemption for the total of 184 proposed low income apartments. This Section of the law is entitled “Governmentally subsidized housing outside of Baltimore City.” The developers and owners of the two projects are requesting that their annual real estate tax bill be $36,000 less than the landowners of Queen Anne’s County whose home ownership is not subsidized by the government. This means the General Fund of the County will receive $36,000 less than what it should from these subsidized apartments. The result? The revenue shortfall will be made up or paid by the Queen Anne’s County
homeowners whose annual real property tax bills receive no exemptions.

“Some might interpret this law as requiring either a full exemption or none, rather than this proposed partial exemption. Should that be the case, the loss of tax revenue would be about $580,000.”

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CLOSING IN ON FINAL BUDGET DECISIONS

No one suggests this is a great time to be an elected politician at any level of government. And our county commissioners are confronting a Gordian knot of a dilemma in matching expected expenses with needed revenues for the new fiscal year starting July 1. Most attention lately has been on the directive to the QAC Board of Education to reduce their annual budget request by $4.5 million, which by all accounts will involve some level of staff and teacher positions being eliminated. Commissioners have now put a possible property tax increase on the table, seeking comments and input on what amount that should be. Obviously, there is the potential compromise of a smaller than anticipated property tax hike with a smaller than anticipated cut in the BOE budget.

Commissioners are working overtime with county staff, as are BOE members with BOE staff in doing everything possible to reconcile the anticipated deficit of over $11 million for next fiscal year. They deserve our appreciation for their efforts and their attempts to reflect fairness and balance in their final budget decisions.

CENTREVILLE TOWN EMPLOYEE FIRING RAISES COMMENTS

Again, a Bulletin reader sends the following to CTA:

“Until he was arbitrarily terminated by the Town Manager, Tony Mansfield was a Centreville Public Works employee with a clean record and satisfactory
performance reviews. Prior to his termination he had never been the subject of any disciplinary action.

“What led to his termination was his service to the Goodwill Fire Company. Most Eastern Shore towns do not dock their employees’ pay when they respond to fire calls during working hours. In this case, Tony even went to the trouble of having a written agreement with his supervisor authorizing responding to emergency calls during working hours.

“Tony’s dedication to public safety and protection of property was not the only basis for the termination. He rented a striping machine from Price & Gannon Hardware. With donated paint, after town work hours and on his own time, Tony painted the lines in the Goodwill Fire Company’s parking lot. Yes, the same parking lot for citizens and visitors to use free of charge when nothing else is available. And, yes, where the town council members and citizens park for free when they attend a Centreville Town Council meeting.

“The story has a bitter ending. The former Citizens’ Review Board (replaced by a new personnel review body with less authority) ordered Tony’s reinstatement when the above facts were presented at an open hearing. The Town later settled the matter without reinstatement and confidentiality between the two parties. Why was it in the town’s best interest to keep this confidential and what did it cost our town to close this issue?”

IN CLOSING

Our governments at the local, county and state levels have done much to continually improve our living conditions, our town services and the overall environment of our area. This is a town chosen by nearly all who live here as their home. An informed electorate is an influential electorate. Citizen involvement and participation are hallmarks of our community and our nation.

In addition to his dealings in the District of Columbia, Madeoy also owned an aging, 10-unit apartment building in Silver Spring near two schools and a liquor store. He had bought the property in 2004 for $1 million.

Two years later, Madeoy told Montgomery County that he had a contract to sell the property to a company that was planning to convert it into condominiums. The sales price was $1.45 million — almost 50 percent more than what Madeoy had paid two years earlier.

By law, the county has the right to match offers on rental properties. Housing officials decided to buy the complex using affordable-housing money from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Local homeowners at the time questioned why the county would do business with Madeoy, who was convicted of housing fraud in the late 1980s and had been banned for a dozen years from doing business with the federal government. They also criticized the purchase price.

Read more in the Washington Post

I. Convene – Council President McCluskey
II. Pledge of Allegiance
III. Review of Minutes from Past Meetings

a. May 5, 2011 (Regular Meeting)

IV. Announcement of Closed Sessions

a. May 5, 2011

V. Citizens Forum (Citizens are requested to keep their comments to three minutes.)
VI. Appearances

a. Lynn Knight, Personnel Review Board – Oath of Office
b. Ann Jacobs, Main Street Manager, Downtown Denton Main Street, Inc.
c. Kathy Cook, BENECON – MD Local Government Health Cooperative

VII. Old Business
VIII. New Business

a. No Outlet Sign – Providence Lane north of Little Kidwell
b. Speed Enforcement
c. 2nd of July – “Centreville Day”
d. Memorial Day Parade
e. Resolution 03-2011
f. FY12 Budget

IX. Announcements
X. Correspondence
XI. Reports of Department Heads

a. Town Manager b. Chief of Police c. Town Attorney

XII. Citizens Forum – (Citizens are requested to keep their comments to three minutes.)
XIII. Council Roundtable
XIV. Motion to Adjourn – Council President McCluskey

[Subject to change -- please visit the Town's web site updates]

A nonprofit developer promised to spend millions renovating three rotting apartment complexes in some of the most blighted neighborhoods of Southeast Washington. It would be one of the largest redevelopment projects in years east of the Anacostia River, helping dozens of low-income renters suffering through roof leaks and winters without heat.

In late 2007, then-Mayor Adrian Fenty sent a letter to the D.C. Council touting the developer’s experience, construction team and financing. The council swiftly approved the deal, lending $3.5 million in federal funds to help pay for the renovation of 98 units priced for the poor.

But the project died before a shovel ever hit dirt.

Read more in the Washington Post

Nationwide, nearly 700 projects awarded $400 million have been idling for years, a Washington Post investigation found. Some have languished for a decade or longer even as much of the country struggles with record-high foreclosures and a dramatic loss of affordable housing.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which oversees the nation’s housing fund, has largely looked the other way: It does not track the pace of construction and often fails to spot defunct deals, instead trusting local agencies to police projects.

The result is a trail of failed developments in every corner of the country. Fields where apartment complexes were promised are empty and neglected. Houses that were supposed to be renovated are boarded up and crumbling, eyesores in decaying neighborhoods.

Read more in the Washington Post

On a typical school day a handful of students would come to school crying or full or rage because of the things they have to wake up to on a daily basis in their neighborhoods: gunfire, prostitution, physical altercations and drugs deals. Can you imagine being raised in a neighborhood where one of these terrible events occur at least once a week? I can’t and I don’t think any child deserves to either.

As a community we have a responsibility to put our foot down and say this is not an acceptable way to allow our children to be raised. But this is the reality of many children every day in “affordable housing projects.” Yes, I am a proponent of everyone having an affordable place to live but not 59 “low income families in a concentrated area. This strategy doesn’t work. A short 27 miles away in Annapolis is living proof of failing “lower-income communities”: Robin Wood, Newtowne, and Eastport Terrace to mention a few.

If a developer is acting in a socially responsible capacity and genuinely wantes to give back to a community and its lower income families then an approach that is sustainable and beneficial to help them to become productive members of society should be researched and implemented.

Don’t hide behind politics and play bureaucratic games and build a complex of rental units. Build a series of single-family homes that can be purchased for reduced prices throughout good neighborhoods allowing good morals and values to be instilled in the children.

Personally, I love our county’s schools and that is one of the reasons my family lives here. Research shows that in 2010 the middle schools within the areas of the other Osprey Communities were not meeting Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in reading and mathematics.

This should be compared with Centreville Middle School, which met every aspect of AYP in 2010. I feel we are setting families and children up for failure if we continue to build complexes such as Riverwoods anywhere, especially Centreville. It is a terrible approach and not justification for helping people.

JOE ROSE
Centreville

Spring Street dead ends on the property, which is boot shaped. Across Spring Street to the west of the Property is the Clarence W. Wilson Post 21 American Legion facility (“American Legion Property”), to the north of the property are single family and multifamily residential lots. To the east of the property, are lands belonging to the Queen Anne’s County Board of Education (“BOE”), where the Kennard Elementary School is located. And to the south are unimproved lands that slope into the Mill Stream. (See Plat of the Property attached hereto as Exhibit I.) The Applicant proposes to build 23 three bedroom single family residence town homes and 36 condominium units. the Town homes would be in three blocks of six units and one block of five units forming a square around a parking area. The condominium units would be in three three story units, two of which would front Spring Street.

POSTURE OF THE CASE

On April 21, 2010 the Centreville Planning Commission sent the Town Council a letter (a copy of the Planning Commission’s recommendation is attached hereto as Exhibit 2) stating that it recommended approval of the Application subject to the following findings and suggested conditions:

1. The Planning Commission is satisfied with the proposed number of parking spaces and the configuration of the parking spaces as indicated on the information provided by the applicant at the March 17, 2010 meeting including the revised Preliminary Site Plan.
2. The Planning Commission is satisfied with the Bulk Standards as indicated on the revised Site Statistics and the revised Preliminary Site Plan as provided by the applicant at the March 17, 2010 meeting.
3. Improvements should be provided by the developer to the open space based on recommendations from the Park Advisory Board.
4. Easements should be provided on the subject property to allow for a public road extension from Spring Street to the east to the Kennard Elementary School property.
5. The subject development should be configured to allow for a future public road extension from Spring Street to the west across the lands of the American Legion directly opposite the road to the east.
6. Comments should be received from the County Board of Education regarding the projected school population anticipated from the subject development per Section 138-46 of the Town Subdivision Regulations.
7. A Forest Stand Delineation should be provided by the applicant the indicates Priority Retention Areas per the Town Forest Conservation Regulations and which indicates the extent to which existing trees are suitable to provide buffers to the adjacent properties.
8. Comments should be provided on the Preliminary Site Plan by the County Department of Emergency Services.
9. The Town Council should determine the acceptability of the use of private streets in the subject development per Section 138-17.H. of the Town Subdivision Regulations.
10. An easement and/or right-of-way should be provided along the west side of Spring Street to allow for a sidewalk to be extended to the townhouse parking lot sidewalk(s).

APPLICANT’S CASE

Kevin M. Shearon, P.E. presented the Application to the Town Council. Mr. Shearon explained the project involved 59 units of which 23 would be fee simple town houses and 36 would be part of a condominium regime. The property would be served by a total of 138 parking spaces, 126 of which would be on site. The remaining 12 parking spaces would be parallel spaces along a newly improved portion of Spring Street. Mr. Shearon recognized that any grant of approval by the Town Council would be subject to the Applicant’s obtaining a variance from the parking requirements to of on site parking spaces from reduced the required number 136 to 126.2 He stated that with the on street parking there would be two spaces for each dwelling unit, which he felt was more than sufficient. The on street parking spaces would be open to the public. He noted that the topography of the property which, on its south end, slopes to the Mill Stream, limited the area that could be used for parking.

The BOE has sent a letter stating that the proposed development would mean a deficiency in the schools, but stated that Centreville had no mechanism to mitigate such a deficiency.

He said that the proposed park would be consistent with the recommendations of the Park Advisory Board for a park in the southeast comer of the Property. This park would have links to pedestrian paths and cover a 60′ x 60′ lawn area. It would contain benches and picnic tables and provide passive recreation.

Mr. Shearon explained that an easement had been outlined that would create a public road to the BOE property to the East in case the Town would want to connect the two properties. In addition, Spring Street could be extended as a public road. He said that a cut is shown on the plat to indicate a possible public road to the west, but, since the Applicant does not own that property, no easement is shown.

Mr. Shearon state that easements would be executed for the sidewalks along Spring Street. He stated that a forest delineation plan had been prepared.

Mr. Shearon submitted a letter” that outlined the Applicant’s arguments as to why the Application and proposed development meets the conditions set forth in § 170-26.B of the Code of the Town of Centreville (“Code”).

Mary Margaret Goodwin of 221 North Commerce Street spoke in favor of the Application. She stated that the proposed development would be an improvement to the area.

No one else spoke in favor of the Application.

OPPOSITION

No one presented evidence in opposition to the Application.

COUNCIL’S FINDINGS OF FACT

Pursuant to Chapter 170, § 170-26.B of the Code, the Town Council makes the following specific findings of fact

The granting of PRA overlay zone is not subject to the change mistake-rule for rezoning. Beall v. Montgomery County, 240 Md. 77, 95, 212 A.2d 571 (1963). Instead, the Town Council must consider the compatibility of the proposed project to the surrounding neighborhood. Id. Section 170-26.B of the Code sets for the criteria by which the Council must consider the redevelopment proposal.

a) The development or redevelopment potential for the subject property is consistent with the purpose and intent of this overlay classification and designated as such in the Town’s Comprehensive Plan

The Council finds that the proposed redevelopment is consistent with the 2009 Town of Centreville Community Plan (“Community Plan”). Chapter 4 of the Community Plan identifies the Property as Redevelopment Area 6. Figure 12 of the Community Plan also indicates that the Property is an appropriate Planned Redevelopment Area.

b) The proposed development or redevelopment of the subject property is compatible with adjoining land uses.

The Council finds that Spring Street, as a dead end, is a neighborhood unto itself. There are residential properties, which abut the Property to the north, and front on Little Kidwell Lane. The American Legion property to the west is commercial. The BOE property to the East is institutional. The property to the south is open space. The remaining property in the area is multifamily dwellings. The Council finds that this proposed mixed residential development is compatible with the adjoining land uses. The PRA-R-3 overlay district will allow for the townhouses and condominium units because §170-21 A(2) and (5) respectively permit “Two-family dwellings and townhouses” and “Multifamily dwellings.” The proposed site plan will be compatible with the mix of uses in the
area.

c) The general standards and limitations set forth in this chapter can be met at the subject property.

On May 6, 2010, the Town Council approved Ordinance No. 03-2010, which amended Chapter 170, § 170-26 with the addition of an new subsection E, which reads:

E. Bulk Standards. The Town Council may authorize reductions to the “Minimum Lot Area Dimensions” and the “Minimum Yard Requirements” listed in the Schedule of Zone Regulations, and may authorize an increase of up to 100% Density /Intensity Minimum (Dwelling Unit! Acre) in the Schedule of Zone Regulations after finding that these modifications are consistent with the purpose of this Section.

With this amendment to §170-26, the proposed redevelopment meets the general standards and limitations set forth in the Planned Redevelopment chapter can be met. The Council also finds that the modifications that are permitted by the new §170-26.E because it would not be economically
feasible for the Applicant to be limited to continue to have vacant property or to be limited to those uses for the R-2 Zone set forth in §170-20.A of the Code. This text amendment will allow for the proposed development of the property with sufficient space for road connections to adjoining properties and for a passive park. The Applicant will have to obtain a variance from the parking standards set forth in §170-32.A(l) of the Code, to reduce the required number of parking spaces from 136 to 126.

d) The granting of the PRA classification will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the town

The development proposes to reconstruct Spring Street to a full width Town street. This will provide better. access for vehicles including emergency equipment. In addition, the Town Council finds that this development will take a positive step of cleaning up an underutilized area of town by creating an attractive affordable housing alternative for town residents.

e) The granting of the PRA classification will promote the general welfare of the inhabitants of the town as a whole.

The addition of 59 dwelling units to the Town of Centreville’s tax base will be realized through a development that occurs within the existing Town limits. The proposed development makes good use of redeveloping an infill area that has been designated for redevelopment by the Community Plan. (Community Plan, p. 4-14 and Figure 12). The affordable housing, with its park area that will connected to other town parks through the Town’s trail system will be a benefit to the Town. In the context of the general welfare, the Town Council believes that the Applicant and Town should explore the possibility of adding amenities for children to the pocket park area and to dedicate the proposed open space area as open space. The Council also believes that a trail head that would allow access from the Property to the BOE property would be appropriate. Mr. Shearon indicated that the Applicant would dedicate the open areas, including the proposed pocket park to the Town. The substance of that dedication would have to be resolved through a public works agreement.

Pursuant to §170-26.B(3), the granting of the PRA overlay zone is, however, subject to the following conditions, which the Council believes to be consistent with the information presented to it and which enures to the general welfare of the Town of Centreville:

1. The Applicant will have to seek a variance from the Board of Appeals from the strict application of §170-32.A(1) of the Code to reduce to total number of parking spaces on the property from 136 to 126. In addition, the Applicant will have to repave Spring Street to be consistent with Town road standards and supply 12 parallel parking spaces on its east side.
2. The Applicant shall provide those improvements to the open space that have been recommended by the Park Advisory Board. The Applicant shall designate trails and open space to be dedicated to the Town and consistent with the recommendations of the Park Advisory Board.
3. Easements should be provided on the subject property to allow for a public road extension from Spring Street to the east to the Kennard Elementary School property.
4. The subject development should be configured to allow for a future public road extension from Spring Street to the west across the lands of the American Legion directly opposite the road to the east.
5. A Forest Stand Delineation should be provided by the applicant the indicates Priority Retention Areas per the Town Forest Conservation Regulations and which indicates the extent to which existing trees are suitable to provide buffers to the adjacent properties. The landscape plan shall indicate compliance with the Town’s Tree Canopy Ordinance (Chapter 145 of the Code).
6. Any final site plan shall be consistent with the recommendations of the County Department of Emergency Services.
7. The Applicant shall reserve the right to dedicate the streets within the development to the Town upon the Town Council’s determination that those streets should be dedicated and accepted by the Town.
8. The easement and/or right-of-way should be provided along the both sides of Spring Street to allow for a sidewalk to be extended to the townhouse parking lot sidewalk(s).
9. The Applicant is to enter into a public works agreement with the Town Council to address pertinent issues related to water, sewer, streets, sidewalks, buffers, open space, parks etc.
10. All conditions stated herein run with the land and are the obligation of the Applicant, its successors or assigns.

The Town Council, therefore, finds that, if the preceding conditions are met, then the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Centreville should be amended so that Parcels 586 and 587, on Tax Map 301 are as designated as PRA R-3. The grant of this floating redevelopment are zone does not change the underlying zoning. If the Applicant cannot meet the conditions specified herein within three years of the date on which the Ordinance granting the PRA becomes effective, then the Property’s zoning designation shall revert to R-2.

Details can be found here:

http://timmccluskey.blogspot.com/2011/05/rt-213-is-now-25-mph-from-bridge-to.html

Along with the parade, please join us on Lawyer’s Row for local vendors, food, music, corn hole tournaments, classic cars, and a special Civil War re-enactment. Those wishing to participate in the parade are requested to submit their applications c/o Centreville Town Hall, 101 Lawyer’s Row, no later than Friday, May 20th. If you need additional information or an application, please email TownHall@TownofCentreville.org or call Town Hall at 410-758-1180.

1. The link to the low-income housing presentation from the citizen's meeting is:
   http://cgc.centreville-md.net/Housing/Presentation20110425rev4.pdf
2. Although Queen Anne's County has few section-8 vouchers remaining, voucher holders from other jurisdictions can move to these proposed projects. Or the voucher holders can be literally bused in as was done in Crisfield.
3. Developments should pay for themselves and not be subsidized by taxpayers. This includes the cost to review a project to see if it is compliance with zoning regulations. However, I do agree that these costs seem excessive. URS has held the contract for engineering and planning services for the Town for over a decade. Maybe it is time to put it out on the street again to see if we can get a better deal from some other firm.

]
———-
(CTA is incorporated as a citizen?focused non?profit entity to disseminate and share information that impacts the quality of life, stability and prosperity of our community. Members of the Steering Committee are: Liz Draper Brice, Fred McNeil, Mary Roby, Sarah Berlin, Michael Olson, Donald Braden and Dick Smith.

TOWN COUNCIL ADDRESSES NEW FY BUDGET

At an open town meeting tomorrow evening, Thursday, at 7:00 p.m., the Centreville town council will review a proposed town operating budget for the new fiscal year which begins July 1. Residents are encouraged to attend and, as usually the case, will have a chance to offer comments at an appropriate time.

PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY HOUSING PROJECTS STIRS RESIDENTS
(The complete slide show prepared by organizers of the community meeting may be accessed at: (suggest copying to your web browser address line)

http://CentrevillePPT_NewVersionRev1.pdf?auth=co&loc=en_US&id=368280&part

=

CTA has reported in previous bulletins on the Osprey Riverwood and Delaware Valley Development Company projects planned for Spring Street and behind the Acme shopping center. This past week several area residents organized a town meeting to discuss the projects and better understand how they might impact our community. An estimated 70 citizens attended and had the chance to ask questions of representatives of the Riverwood development and Centreville town council member Tim McCluskey, who during the meeting indicated he was in support of the projects.

The slideshow above references “Section 8” housing although developers have several times said that is an incorrect description, given the small number of Section 8 housing vouchers remaining for use in QAC. The project has also been called “subsidized”, “low income”, “workforce” and “private/public partnership” housing. Some of the attendees at the town meeting have prepared a citizens’ petition, seeking on?line signatures to the petition opposing both proposed developments.

The petition may be accessed at: (copy to your web browser address line)

www.ipetitions.com/petition/centreville_low_income_housing/

A ROCKY ROAD FOR LOCAL COUPLE

Area residents Bill and Polly Newell set out to do something positive in Centreville and commenced a project that would both improve an existing site as well as infuse new property and income taxes into local coffers. The site they purchased on Turpins Lane in Centreville has two dilapidated older houses that they proposed to remove to make way for a new multi?use structure of apartments and commercial space.

With Bill’s background in professional engineering, the couple set out working with town officials to be sure they complied with all local and state ordinances impacting such a construction project. They have spent over $30,000 to date for architectural renderings and independent engineering services. All required documents, properly certified in compliance with state law, were submitted to local officials for approval.

What happened next is what other local projects have encountered as well. The town hired its own engineering firm, URS Engineering, to review what the Newell’s architect and engineers had already provided, costing over $7,200 and then submitted that bill to the Newells for payment. These taxpayers met local requirements, they verified compliance with all technical and structural issues and they offered our community a new housing and business complex to improve the site and offer new tax revenue streams to our government.

It has now been over 2 and ½ years since the Newells started this project. The town has yet to approve the Newell’s project. While there are always two sides to an issue such as this, it is difficult to imagine 1) why so much time has elapsed; 2) why the town is requiring a duplication of the applicants’ own architectural and engineering work; and 3) why our local officials aren’t reaching out to assist and support community improvement projects such as this one.

CHECK OUT YOUR NEWEST TOWN BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT

After years of task force and committee meetings (the original study group was chaired by Liz Draper Brice) , planning and development approvals, funding and grant sourcing, and steadfast commitment, the Town of Centreville’s new wharf project is taking shape and making a statement. If you haven’t taken a walk or driven down to the wharf area off Watson Road, you should do so this weekend. One major part of the project, on the west side of the boat slips, involving planting of trees and ground cover with a gazebo and relaxation area is already done while the larger, more ambitious part of the project on the east side of the boat slips is in the middle of construction. Costing the town $2 million to secure the wharf property, the project will soon be ready to attract residents and visitors alike and provide a safe and enjoyable recreation area for our children.

IN CLOSING

Our governments at the local, county and state levels have done much to continually improve our living conditions, our town services and the overall environment of our area. This is a town chosen by nearly all who live here as their home. An informed electorate is an influential electorate. Citizen involvement and participation are hallmarks of our community and our nation.

SUBJECT TO CHANGE – Always check the Town Website for the latest

I. Convene – Council President McCluskey
II. Pledge of Allegiance
III. Review of Minutes from Past Meetings

a. April 7, 2011 (Regular Meeting)
b. April 7, 2011 (Public Hearing Ordinance 02-2011)
c. April 7, 2011 (Public Hearing Ordinance 03-2011)
d. April 14, 2011 (Reorganizational Meeting)

IV. Announcement of Closed Sessions

a. May 5, 2011

V. Citizens Forum (Citizens are requested to keep their comments to three minutes.)
VI. Appearances

a. Board and Commission Appointments – Oath of Office
b. Elizabeth Vares and Andrew Newell, Washington College Interns

VII. Old Business
VIII. New Business

a. 60” Mower Purchase
b. Memorial Day Events
c. 4th of July Events
d. FY 2012 Budget – Timeline and Revenue

IX. Announcements
X. Correspondence
XI. Reports of Department Heads

a. Town Manager b. Chief of Police c. Town Attorney

XII. Citizens Forum – (Citizens are requested to keep their comments to three minutes.)
XIII. Council Roundtable
XIV. Motion to Adjourn – Council President McCluskey

The Centreville Town Council will hold a closed session on Thursday, May 5, 2011, at 6:00 p.m., at the Town Annex, 105 Liberty Street, to discuss personnel issues, consider the acquisition of real property, and consult with counsel to obtain legal advice in accordance with the Maryland Open Meetings Act, State Government Article, Section 10-508.