Queen Anne Comprehensive Plan

Exactly as extracted, unformatted — for checking against the original. The readable version is easier to read.

Volume 1:
County Profile
2002 Comprehensive Plan
Queen Anne’s County, Maryland
Adopted by the Queen Anne’s County Commissioners on May 21, 2002
Queen Anne’s County 2002 Comprehensive Plan

Volume 1
County Profile
2002 Comprehensive Plan
Queen Anne’s County, Maryland
Recommended for Adoption by the
Queen Anne’s County Planning Commission
on January 10, 2002
Adopted by the
Commissioners of Queen Anne’s County
on May 21, 2002
Website
www.qac.org
Prepared by:
LDR International, an HNTB Company
Columbia, MD
Department of Planning and Zoning
Queen Anne’s County
A publication of the Maryland
Coastal Zone Management
In Association with: Program, Department of
Natural Resources pursuant to
Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle
National Oceanic and
O’Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
Atmospheric Administration
The Parsons Transportation Group
Award No. NA87OZ0236
Queen Anne’s County 2002 Comprehensive Plan

Preface
This is the first volume of the two volume Queen Anne’s County
Comprehensive Plan. This first volume provides a detailed overview of
existing conditions, trends and issues. The second volume provides the Plan’s
policy direction, implementing strategies and priorities. These two volumes
are supplemented by a technical appendix that provides the details of the
alternative scenarios analysis and infrastructure assessment completed during
the planning process.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Acknowledgements
Page - i

Acknowledgement
County Commissioners
George M. O’Donnell, President
Marlene F. Davis
John T. McQueeney, Jr.
Planning Commissioners
Dr. James C. Foor, Chairman
John T. McQueeney, Jr. Ex- Officio Member
Loring E Hawes, Secretary
Rodger Weese
David Clark
Patti Miller
Peter Lee
Karen Oertel, Former PC Member
E.M. Pusey, Jr., Former PC Member
Citizen Advisory Committee
Peter B. Lee, Chairperson
Angie DiDonato
Douglan W. Stubee
Edward L. Delaney
Evan Miles
Gloria Ferguson
Harold E. Walters
Lea F. Brooks
Michael J. Dahle
Patricia Rhodes
Pichada Honick
Randy Esty
Richard A. Smith
Steve Moore
T. Alvin Kepley
William I. Mason, Jr.
John McQueeney, Jr., County Commissioner, Liaison
James C. Foor, Planning Commission, Liaison
Loring E. Hawes, Planning Commission, Liaison
Wayne W. Fallin, Economic Development Commission, Liaison
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Acknowledgements
Page - ii

Technical Advisory committee
Mark Belton, County Administrator
Bernie Sadusky, Board of Education
Charles F. Crossley, Jr. Sheriff, Sheriff’s Department
Joe Zimmerman, Director, Department of Finance
Katherine Magruder, Director, Department of Business and Tourism
Pete Scanlon, Director, Department of Housing and Community Services
Philmont Taylor, Director, Department of Emergency Services
Sue Leager, Director, Department of Aging
Wes Johnson, Director, Department of Parks and Recreation
Steve Walls, Director, Department of Public Works
Todd Mohn, Deputy Director, Department of Public Works
Bob Burns, Department of Public Works
Eva Kerchner, Department of Public Works
Garth Jones, Department of Public Works
Alan Quimby, Sanitary District
John Nickerson, Department of Environmental Health
James H. Barton, Zoning Administrator
Planning Staff
Steve Kaii-Ziegler, Director
Faith Elliott Rossing, Principal Planner
Steve Cohoon, Development Review Chief
Joy Levy, Planner
Radhika Sakhamuri, Planner
Kevin Clark, GIS Specialist
Megan DelGaudio, GIS Specialist
The Queen Anne’s County Department of Planning and Zoning wishes to thank all the County agencies,
adjacent jurisdictions, and the citizens who participated in the public process for their participation and
helpful advice.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Acknowledgements
Page - iii

Table of Contents
1111....0000 TTTThhhheeee PPPPuuuurrrrppppoooosssseeee ooooffff tttthhhhiiiissss CCCCoooouuuunnnnttttyyyy PPPPrrrrooooffffiiiilllleeee............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1111
Setting the Stage for Planning..........................................................................................................1
• Context....................................................................................................................................1
2222....0000 TTTThhhheeee PPPPllllaaaannnnnnnniiiinnnngggg PPPPrrrroooocccceeeessssssss aaaannnndddd PPPPrrrroooodddduuuuccccttttssss........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................3333
(cid:1)
Introduction..............................................................................................................................3
(cid:1)
Public Participation in the Comprehensive Plan........................................................................4
(cid:1)
Comprehensive Plan Process Timeline.....................................................................................5
3333....0000 PPPPllllaaaannnnnnnniiiinnnngggg RRRReeeegggguuuullllaaaattttoooorrrryyyy FFFFrrrraaaammmmeeeewwwwoooorrrrkkkk............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................6666
(cid:1)
Introduction..............................................................................................................................6
(cid:1)
Article 66B and the 1992 Economic Growth, Resource Protection and Planning Act................6
(cid:1)
1997 Smart Growth Initiatives..................................................................................................6
(cid:1)
Queen Anne’s County Planning Background............................................................................7
(cid:1)
Growth Management Tools......................................................................................................9
• Cluster Development...............................................................................................................9
• Agricultural Operations............................................................................................................9
• Growth Areas...........................................................................................................................9
• Enhancements/New Tools........................................................................................................9
4444....0000 GGGGrrrroooowwwwtttthhhh TTTTrrrreeeennnnddddssss////IIIIssssssssuuuueeeessss....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................11113333
(cid:1)
Overview.................................................................................................................................13
• CAC and TAC Identify Issues.................................................................................................13
(cid:1)
Rate of Population and Housing Growth.................................................................................14
• Population and Household Trends.........................................................................................14
• Projections.............................................................................................................................15
• Age Distribution.....................................................................................................................16
• Housing Unit Tenure..............................................................................................................16
• Household Size......................................................................................................................17
• Units in Structure...................................................................................................................17
• Affordable and Elderly Housing Needs...................................................................................17
(cid:1)
Employment, Income and Economic Development................................................................18
• Jobs in the County..................................................................................................................18
• Labor Force Participation........................................................................................................18
• Employed Residents by Industry............................................................................................19
• Employed Residents by Occupation.......................................................................................20
• Income...................................................................................................................................21
• Business and Tourism Readiness...........................................................................................21
(cid:1)
Location and Rate of Growth...................................................................................................22
• Existing Development............................................................................................................22
• Location and Growth Areas....................................................................................................27
• Residential Building Permits...................................................................................................27
• Recently Developed and Preserved Lands..............................................................................28
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Table of Contents
Page - i

(cid:1)
Capacity for Growth................................................................................................................30
• Introduction...........................................................................................................................30
• Development Acres Available.................................................................................................31
• Potential Buildout...................................................................................................................31
• Buildout Timeframe...............................................................................................................32
• Constraints on Growth...........................................................................................................32
• Southern Kent Island Development Potential.........................................................................32
(cid:1)
Groundwater Protection..........................................................................................................33
• Problem Areas........................................................................................................................34
(cid:1)
Water Distribution and Treatment..........................................................................................36
• Infrastructure.........................................................................................................................36
• Northern Kent Island Service Area.........................................................................................36
• Grasonville Service Area.........................................................................................................37
• Southern Kent Island Service Area.........................................................................................37
(cid:1)
Wastewater Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies.......................................................................37
• Southern Kent Island Wastewater Subdistrict........................................................................37
• Kent Narrows/Stevensville/Grasonville Wastewater Subdistrict-Dominion/Marling Farms....37
• Towns/Other Areas................................................................................................................38
• Upgrades to Existing Collection/Transmission System...........................................................38
(cid:1)
Transportation.........................................................................................................................40
• Highway System Characteristics and Usage...........................................................................40
• Existing Deficiencies and Problems........................................................................................42
• Roadway Funding and SHA Expenditures in Queen Anne’s County.......................................44
• Transit/ Commuting Alternatives............................................................................................45
• Bay Bridge Airport..................................................................................................................46
(cid:1)
Schools....................................................................................................................................46
(cid:1)
Fiscal Health............................................................................................................................49
• Revenues and Expenditures....................................................................................................49
• Property Tax Rate and Total Assessable Base.........................................................................50
• Income Taxes and Revenues..................................................................................................51
• Transfer Taxes........................................................................................................................51
• Impact Fees............................................................................................................................51
• Bond Ratings and Bond Debt.................................................................................................52
(cid:1)
Historic Resources..................................................................................................................52
• Setting....................................................................................................................................52
• Historic and Cultural Sites.....................................................................................................53
• Status of Preservation Measures in Queen Anne’s County....................................................54
(cid:1)
Agriculture..............................................................................................................................58
(cid:1)
Conservation Lands.................................................................................................................62
• Rural Preservation..................................................................................................................62
• Voluntary Preservation/ Conservation Options......................................................................63
(cid:1)
Parks & Recreation..................................................................................................................66
• Park Lands..............................................................................................................................66
• Parks Programming................................................................................................................67
• Cross Island Trail Update.......................................................................................................67
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Table of Contents
Page - ii

(cid:1)
Emergency Services.................................................................................................................70
• Law Enforcement Services......................................................................................................70
• County Detention Services.....................................................................................................71
• Fire and Rescue......................................................................................................................71
• Emergency Medical Services (EMS)........................................................................................71
• Emergency Services................................................................................................................73
(cid:1)
Sensitive Areas........................................................................................................................73
• Chesapeake Bay Critical Area.................................................................................................73
• Critical Area Growth Allocation..............................................................................................75
• Endangered Species and Habitat Areas..................................................................................75
• Forest Protection....................................................................................................................76
• Forest and Woodland Protection Implementation.................................................................76
• Wetlands................................................................................................................................76
• Other Sensitive Areas.............................................................................................................77
(cid:1)
Mineral Resources...................................................................................................................77
Attachment A: State-of-the-Art Growth Management and Planning Techniques
Attachment B: Plan Issues and Opportunities
Attachment C: Building Permit Data by Election District
Attachment D: Buildout Potential – Worksheets
Attachment E: Maryland Population and Housing Units Growth by County and Region 1990 to 2000
Acronym Glossary
List of Maps
Map 1: Regional Location......................................................................................................................1
Map 2: Growth Areas: Generalized Land Use Plans.............................................................................11
Map 3: Growth Areas: Generalized Transportation Improvements.......................................................12
Map 4: Existing Land Use/Land Cover, 1997........................................................................................25
Map 5: Generalized Zoning Districts/ Election Districts........................................................................26
Map 6: Growth Areas and Priority Funding Areas.................................................................................29
Map 7: Water Planning Issues..............................................................................................................35
Map 8: Sewer Planning Issues..............................................................................................................39
Map 9: Transportation Issues...............................................................................................................43
Map 10: Existing Public School Facilities..............................................................................................48
Map 11: Historic Resources.................................................................................................................56
Map 12: Conservation Lands...............................................................................................................65
Map 13: Existing Public Recreation Facilities........................................................................................68
Map 14: Fire Districts and Station Locations........................................................................................72
Map 15: Critical Area...........................................................................................................................74
Map 16: Sensitive Areas.......................................................................................................................78
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Table of Contents
Page - iii

List of Tables
Table 1: Top CAC and TAC-identified Growth/Development Issues & Opportunities...........................14
Table 2: Population Change, 1970-2000..............................................................................................14
Table 3: Household Change.................................................................................................................15
Table 4: Population Projections, 2000-2020........................................................................................15
Table 5: Household Projections, 2000-2020........................................................................................15
Table 6: Age Distribution.....................................................................................................................16
Table 7: Housing Tenure, 1990...........................................................................................................17
Table 8: Estimated 1999 Existing Development....................................................................................23
Table 9: Queen Anne's County Land Use Change, 1973-1997.............................................................23
Table 10: Existing Zoning by Election District........................................................................................24
Table 11: Growth Area vs. Non Growth Area Development Approvals.................................................30
Table 12: Buildout Capacity.................................................................................................................31
Table 13: Queen Anne's County: Schools Analysis...............................................................................47
Table 14: Queen Anne's County General Fund Revenues....................................................................49
Table 15: Queen Anne's County General Fund Expenditures...............................................................50
Table 16: Historic and Cultural Resources............................................................................................57
Table 17: Number of Farms.................................................................................................................58
Table 18: Farms...................................................................................................................................58
Table 19: Operators by Principal Occupation......................................................................................59
Table 20: Farm Ownership..................................................................................................................59
Table 21: Farm Sales of 10K or More...................................................................................................59
Table 22: Market Value of Agricultural Products Sold...........................................................................60
Table 23: Production Expenses Per Farm.............................................................................................60
Table 24: Net Cash Gains and Losses...................................................................................................61
Table 25: Acres of Agrucultural Land....................................................................................................61
Table 26: Regional Comparison of Agriculture.....................................................................................61
Table 27: Conservation Lands..............................................................................................................62
Table 28: Queen Anne’s County Exisiting Parks and Recreational Facilities..........................................69
Table 29: Parkland Classification System Guidelines............................................................................70
List of Figures
Figure 1: Comprehensive Plan Progress Timeline...................................................................................5
Figure 2: Queen Anne's County Residential Units in Structure.............................................................17
Figure 3: Percent Change in Total Jobs by Sector, 1990-1997..............................................................19
Figure 4: Employed Residents by Industry, 1990..................................................................................20
Figure 6: Queen Anne’s County, 1989-2000 Residential Building Permits...........................................27
Figure 7: Queen Anne’s County, 1989-2000 Building Permits Data by Election District.......................28
Figure 7: Commuting Patterns, 1990....................................................................................................41
Figure 8: Means of Transport to Work, 1990........................................................................................42
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Table of Contents
Page - iv

1.0 The Purpose of this County Profile
(cid:1)(cid:2) Setting the Stage for Planning agricultural legacy is a result of these fertile
lands.
This County Profile provides the context for the
Queen Anne’s County Comprehensive Plan by
identifying recent trends and key issues that
impact development and growth in the County.
The document is both descriptive and analytical
and seeks to provide a common knowledge base
for participants and stakeholders in the planning
process. The County Profile is an important
precursor to the Plan’s policies and
recommendations found in Volume 2 of the
Plan.
There are many determinants of where and how
much growth and development should occur in
the County. These include public infrastructure
such as sanitary sewer and water services and
road access and capacity. Other determinants Map 1: Regional Location
include natural and environmental features, Source: Queen Anne’s County Department of
zoning and other land development regulations, Business and Tourism
plans and policies, market dynamics, the
location and extent of vacant land; and regional The County is bounded on the north by the
location. These and other issues and trends are Chester River and Kent County Maryland; on the
discussed in this Profile. east by Caroline County, Maryland and Kent
County, Delaware; on the south by the Wye
Context River and Talbot County and the west by the
Chester River and the Chesapeake Bay.
Queen Anne’s County, Maryland is located on
the Eastern Shore of the Chesapeake Bay across Three primary land areas describe the land
the bay from Annapolis. It is part of the adjacent to the Queen Anne’s County borders:
Washington - Baltimore Metropolitan Area and Agricultural/Resource Conservation Areas, low-
is connected to this area by the Chesapeake Bay density, rural residential areas, and Priority
Bridge. The County has 373 square miles or Funding Areas.
238,720 acres and has 258 miles of shoreline.
Map 1 provides the regional context for the In Kent County, Maryland, along the Chester
County. River border of Queen Anne’s County, the
majority of land is designated Resource
The County’s plentiful tidewater bays and Conservation and Agricultural Preservation Areas
estuaries have provided recreation and a with low-density residential (1 dwelling unit per
livelihood for many generations. In addition to 20 acres) permitted. Two Priority Funding Areas
these water resources, Queen Anne’s County exist along the border, Chestertown and
has the highest number of acres of prime soils of Millington. Development is encouraged in
any county in the State. The County’s Priority Funding Areas in Kent County while
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County The Purpose of this County Profile
Page - 1

growth is restricted outside of their boundaries. inappropriate placement of residential
Two other areas, one outside of Millington and subdivisions in sensitive areas.
the other south of Chestertown, are
undeveloped with no existing or planned water In Talbot County, the northeastern border with
and sewer, but have unrestrictive zoning, and Queen Anne’s County is primarily cropland in
therefore development potential. The Kent agricultural preservation, with a small portion
County Comprehensive Plan indicates that designated as Agricultural/Resource
residential development has increased in recent Conservation with restrictive zoning, limiting
years in rural, agricultural, and resource development. The Wye Mills Town Center is
conservation areas with 51 percent of total lots designated a Priority Funding Area. The Village
created since 1990 in the Resource of Queen Anne is the only other developed area
Conservation and Agricultural Districts and 21 on the border with Queen Anne’s County. In
percent in the Rural Residential and Critical Area general, Wye Mills and Queen Anne tend to be
Residential Districts. residential in character, with higher densities
than the surrounding areas, and provide basic
In Kent County, Delaware, the land bordering business and commercial services for the local
Queen Anne’s County is zoned Agriculture- residents. These village centers are planned to
Residential. Farm and resource preservation is remain small in scale and provide local services
encouraged and single-family rural residential is and limited employment opportunities.
permitted up to 2 dwelling units per acre. A
portion of the western boundary of Kent County,
Delaware is a protected forest and wildlife
management area.
The land bordering Queen Anne’s County in
Caroline County is primarily Rural and Rural
Residential with the exception of Bridgetown
Rural Village and Hillsboro, both Priority Funding
Areas. Bridgetown has low-density residential
supplied with water only and has limited
expansion planned. Hillsboro is also a low-
density residential area but has no existing or
planned water and sewer. The area is largely
undeveloped but has unrestrictive zoning. The
rural lands include publicly-owned parks and
recreation facilities and Maryland Environmental
Trust lands. Subdivisions are permitted in the
Rural and Single-Family Residential zoning areas,
which comprise the majority of the border with
Queen Anne’s County.
Caroline County recognizes the significant
impact of subdivisions and residential
development on its rural land. The Caroline
County Planning Commission has recommended
actions to correct the adverse land use impacts
of the consumption of agricultural land and the
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County The Purpose of this County Profile
Page - 2

2.0 The Planning Process and Products
(cid:1)(cid:2) Introduction development and environmentally sensitive
areas protection. The 1993 Comprehensive Plan
During the fall of 1998, the Department of was amended to include the adopted growth
Planning and Zoning developed a preliminary area plans for Stevensville, Chester, Grasonville,
scope of work and timetable for the Queenstown and Centreville.
Comprehensive Plan. The draft work program
and schedule were then reviewed and approved This 2002 Comprehensive Plan is based on the
by the County Planning Commission. The same general growth management principles
County Commissioners reviewed the project and adopted in the 1993 Comprehensive Plan and
gave their approval to begin in January, 1999. the subsequent growth area plans. Since the
County’s existing plans are consistent with the
After reaching agreement on the general scope State’s “Smart Growth“ initiatives, as outlined in
of the project, the County solicited detailed Section 3 of this document, this Plan represents
proposals and bids from qualified consultant a fine-tuning of existing policy. For example,
teams who would assist County staff and bring growth areas are not expanded with this plan.
outside expertise to the project. A multi-
disciplined consultant team of planners, land use The legal responsibility for preparing and
attorneys and engineers was hired by the County recommending the Comprehensive Plan for
in April 1999. adoption by the County Commissioners rests
with the County Planning Commission. The
The project, as approved by the County Planning Commission is specifically charged with
Commissioners, actually consists of several this responsibility under Maryland’s planning
interrelated parts. The major components of the and zoning legislation, Article 66B of the
project are an updated Comprehensive Plan, Annotated Code. The County Commissioners
updated Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Program, ultimately maintain responsibility for adoption of
development of a Consolidated Development the Comprehensive Plan.
Ordinance, revision of Zoning and Critical Area
Maps, and a strategic assessment of (cid:1)(cid:2) Plan Development Process
infrastructure. These are discussed in the
following paragraphs. In March of 1999, the County Commissioners
appointed a 21-person Citizen Advisory
(cid:1)(cid:2) County’s 1993 Comprehensive Plan Committee (CAC) to work with the consultants
and staff to provide input and feedback during
The Comprehensive Plan, last updated in 1993, the preparation of the Comprehensive Plan.
outlines how the County intends to manage CAC members were nominated by the County
growth over the next 20 years. It is a policy Commissioners and the County Planning
document that is required by the State to be Commission. The appointed CAC members
reviewed and updated every six years. State law represent many diverse interests and geographic
mandates that the Comprehensive Plan address locations within the County. A Technical
specific topics including but not limited to land Advisory Committee (TAC) consisting of
use, transportation, community facilities, the representatives from various County agencies
development review process, economic
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County The Planning Process and Products
Page - 3

was also formed to assist the consultants and existing development regulations into a more
Planning Department staff. user-friendly format.
(cid:1)(cid:2) Strategic Assessment of Infrastructure (cid:1)(cid:2) Comprehensive Review/Revision of
Zoning and Critical Area Maps
The ability to accommodate projected
development within designated growth areas is Both Zoning and Critical Area regulations cross-
the key to smart growth. The adequate reference separate map sets that designate
provision of infrastructure for sewer, water, zoning district and Critical Area classification
roads and schools is essential to direct projected boundaries. These maps need to be reviewed
growth to the County’s designated growth areas. and updated once the plans and regulations are
A focused assessment of infrastructure needs updated to ensure consistency. Property owners
and associated costs was conducted in will have an opportunity to request changes to
conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan. their zoning district designations during this
Without adequate infrastructure in growth areas, process. According to State law, all changes to
the County will not be able to manage the zoning maps must be consistent with land
development in accordance with State use policies contained in the Comprehensive
mandated “Smart Growth” legislation. Plan.
(cid:1)(cid:2) Update of the County’s 1996 Chesapeake (cid:1)(cid:2) Public Participation in the
Bay Critical Area Program Comprehensive Plan
This program addresses land management and Throughout the preparation of the
environmental protection policy for specific Comprehensive Plan, there were numerous and
sections of the County that are part of the varied opportunities for public participation. It
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area – generally all was the objective of the County Commissioners
lands within 1,000 feet of the Bay and its tidal to solicit public involvement in the Plan as it was
rivers and creeks. The State requires that this prepared so that all points of view were
program be reviewed and updated every four considered before the document was drafted
years. The content and policy of the County’s and finalized. All CAC, Planning Commission
Critical Area Program is largely dictated by State and County Commissioner meetings on the Plan
law. This program update which will be were open meetings. In addition, several public
completed after the Comprehensive Plan’s forums and focus group sessions were held at
adoption, will consist mostly of fine-tuning. key points in the process to solicit ideas and
feedback. Public forums were held in different
(cid:1)(cid:2) Update of Zoning, Subdivision, Critical locations around the County. Focus group
Area and other existing development
sessions were also open to the public, and were
regulations into a more streamlined and
specifically directed at soliciting input from a
effective set of land development
particular interest group on topics that directly
ordinances
affected them.
After the Comprehensive Plan and Critical Area
As the Plan moved closer to adoption, the
Programs are updated, the various development
Planning Commission held work sessions and a
regulations and ordinances that implement those
formal public hearing. The County
documents also need to be reviewed and
Commissioners also held a formal public hearing
updated to ensure consistency. The intent is to
to receive and review the public input prior to
make consistent the many and often overlapping
Plan adoption.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County The Planning Process and Products
Page - 4

All public meetings on the Plan were advertised report represents the culmination of work in the
in the local paper and posted on the Internet at Analysis of the Issues and Trends phase. The
www.qac.org. In addition, a variety of outreach next phase involved a review of planning
alternatives including radio announcements, alternatives and the selection of a preferred
maps and flyers in community areas such as option. This alternatives analysis is discussed in
grocery stores, post offices, banks, and libraries, detail in the Appendix to the Plan. Following
flyers sent home to parents in elementary school that, the Comprehensive Plan was drafted. The
bags, and flyers sent with weekend pizza Planning Commission review of the draft Plan
deliveries were used to generate interest and occurred concurrently with the consultant’s
participation. preparation of the draft development ordinance.
It is important that the plan and the ordinance
(cid:1)(cid:2) Comprehensive Plan Process Timeline are developed together to ensure consistency
between the documents. The schedule shows
Figure 1 shows the sequence of the Plan process an anticipated adoption date of May 2002 for
timeline. It outlines the major phases and the Comprehensive Plan and October 2002 for
timeframe for the overall project, including the the revised development ordinance and zoning
Comprehensive Plan. This “County Profile” remapping.
Figure 1: Comprehensive Plan Progress Timeline
May-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02
Start-Up
Analysis of Issues & Trends
Plan Options
Draft Plan Development
Infrastructure Assessment
Plan Review & Adoption
Draft Ordinance
Zoning Review & Adoption
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County The Planning Process and Products
Page - 5

3.0 Planning Regulatory Framework
(cid:1)(cid:2)
Introduction
(cid:1)(cid:2) Development is concentrated in suitable
How Queen Anne’s County manages growth is areas;
heavily influenced by State legislation, judicial
(cid:1)(cid:2) Sensitive Areas are protected;
precedent, and past planning decisions. State
laws to some degree influence how the County (cid:1)(cid:2) In rural areas, growth is directed to existing
can grow and develop, either through legislative population centers and resource areas are
mandates or strings attached to State funding. protected;
National, State and local court rulings over the (cid:1)(cid:2) Stewardship of the Chesapeake Bay and the
years have further defined local government
land is a universal ethic;
authority. Previously adopted County plans and
(cid:1)(cid:2) Conservation of resources, including a
ordinances, combined with past infrastructure
reduction in resource consumption, is
investments in roads, sewer and water, have
practiced;
established growth patterns and property owner
expectations, which are not easily changed. (cid:1)(cid:2) To assure the achievement of the above-
mentioned visions, economic growth is
It is important to understand that this planning encouraged and regulatory mechanisms are
process did not begin with a “clean slate” or streamlined,
absolute local discretion. Planning is a process
(cid:1)(cid:2) Adequate public facilities and infrastructure
that should begin with a realistic understanding
under the control of the county or
and acknowledgment that there are practical,
municipal corporation are available or
legal and fiscal considerations that must be taken
planned where growth is to occur; and,
into account.
(cid:1)(cid:2) Funding mechanisms are addressed to
(cid:1)(cid:2) Article 66B and the 1992 Economic achieve these visions.
Growth, Resource Protection and
In short, the Planning Act requires local
Planning Act
governments to reduce sprawl development,
concentrate growth in and around existing
Article 66 B of the Annotated Code of Maryland
developed areas, promote economic
sets the standards for all jurisdictions that
development and protect sensitive natural
chooses to exercise Planning and Zoning
resources. The Act also requires that all State
Authority. While Article 66B delegates certain
and local government investments in
planning and zoning powers to the county, it
infrastructure (roads, sewer, water, schools, etc.)
also mandates specific items to be included in
are consistent with adopted local growth
the county’s plans and ordinances.
management plans.
In 1992, Maryland adopted the Economic
(cid:1)(cid:2)
1997 Smart Growth Initiatives
Growth, Resource Protection and Planning Act
(the 1992 Planning Act) as an amendment to
Article 66B. The Planning Act mandated that, In 1997, the State of Maryland enacted “Smart
by July of 1997, all local governments in the Growth” legislation. Whereas the 1992 Planning
State adopt plans and implementation strategies Act provides the framework to foster growth
that achieve seven general “visions:” management at the local government level, the
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Planning Regulatory Framework
Page - 6

Smart Growth legislation gives the State Estates, Harbor View and Chester River Beach).
programmatic and fiscal authority to encourage Much of the land along the US 50/301 corridor
local jurisdictions to implement “smart growth” from Stevensville to Grasonville was zoned for
planning. commercial development. Rural and waterfront
areas were typically zoned for one house per
The Smart Growth legislative package consists of every one or two acres. There were only
several key aspects, the centerpiece of which is minimal environmental protection standards in
the “Priority Funding Areas” law. This law limits the early plan and ordinance.
State funding for infrastructure and economic
development to locations that meet specific A major Plan was adopted in 1987 followed by
State criteria as “priority funding areas.” This the adoption of a new set of zoning and
approach affects Queen Anne’s County in two subdivision regulations. The new performance-
ways. First, State fiscal support is only provided based zoning ordinance was a radical departure
to areas planned for development and those from the County’s original zoning regulations.
already developed. Second, it ensures that the Inland agricultural areas were “down zoned” to
State will not fund infrastructure in rural areas one house per every eight acres with a condition
where growth is not encouraged. State funding that the homes be clustered on 15 percent of
through grants, loads or governmental transfers is the site with 85 percent to remain as open
critical to the County’s ability to serve both its space. Waterfront areas were “down zoned” to
existing and future residents and businesses. one house per every five acres with similar
State funding helps the County build new school cluster and open space restrictions. In general,
facilities, purchase parkland and open space, zoning for residential development and
preserve agricultural lands, and maintain and commercial/ industrial development was
build new roads. In addition, State funds can concentrated in areas the plan identified as
also be used to help the County rebuild or “growth nodes.” These areas included
replace existing sewer and water facilities to Stevensville, Chester, Kent Narrows, Grasonville,
serve that do not meet current federal and State Queenstown, and Centreville. Significant
regulations or that are beyond their design life. environmental protection standards were
Additional Smart Growth programs like “Rural included in the 1987 plan and ordinance.
Legacy” and “Live Near Your Work” contribute
to the overall goal of preserving rural resources In 1989, the County adopted its Chesapeake
and at the same time making our cities and Bay Critical Area program and regulations in
towns more livable. accordance with State law. The Critical Area is
generally defined as all lands within 1,000 feet
(cid:1)(cid:2) Queen Anne’s County Planning of the shoreline or head of tidal waters for the
Background Bay proper and its tidal tributaries. Under the
Critical Area Program, development of rural
The first modern day comprehensive plan and waterfront areas is restricted to a gross density of
zoning regulations for Queen Anne’s County one house per every 20 acres. The law also
were adopted in 1964 at a time when establishes additional environmental protection
development pressure was increasing as a result standards.
of the opening of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge in
1952. By 1964, land speculators had already State law governing the Chesapeake Bay Critical
subdivided numerous large-scale, small-lot Area regulations does not provide much
residential subdivisions in the western part of the discretion for local governments to change
County (i.e., Cloverfields, Bay City, Kent Island environmental protection standards. The
county’s local Critical Area regulations are
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Planning Regulatory Framework
Page - 7

essentially prescribed by the State. However, In
accordance with State law, the county does have In 1993, Queen Anne’s County adopted a
the ability to change a limited amount of Critical second major Comprehensive Plan. The 1993
Area mapping in order to facilitate local growth Plan reaffirmed the guiding principles of the
management objectives. This process is called 1987 Plan and added policies to confirm
“growth allocation.” compliance with the mandates of the 1992
Planning Act. One of the major
Taken together, the 1987 Comprehensive Plan recommendations of the 1993 Plan was that
and the 1989 Critical Area Program specific development plans should be prepared
accomplished three significant growth for each of the County’s six designated growth
management objectives: areas: Stevensville, Chester, Kent Narrows,
Grasonville, Queenstown and Centreville. The
(cid:1)(cid:2) The overall development potential of the Kent Narrows Plan and its associated zoning
County is significantly reduced as a result of changes were previously adopted in 1990 as
development restrictions on agricultural and part of the implementation of the 1987 Plan.
waterfront lands. This was accomplished at
a time when the County’s population was Each plan was intended to address land use,
relatively small and the vast majority of its transportation, infrastructure and community
land was undeveloped. Unlike the design issues. Each growth area plan, once
suburban Western Shore counties, Queen adopted, became a part of the Comprehensive
Anne’s adopted substantial growth controls Plan. The 1993 Plan was followed in 1994 by a
before development pressures could Comprehensive Rezoning, which resulted in a
significantly impact much of the County’s few zoning map changes (mostly in the growth
rural lands. areas) and some limited changes to the 1987
Zoning Ordinance.
(cid:1)(cid:2) Zoning districting and Critical Area mapping
are arranged in such a way as to direct the In 1995, the County began preparation of
majority of new development to within and growth area (community) plans for Queenstown,
around existing communities that have Centreville and Chester. The plans for
infrastructure or have the potential for Queenstown and Centreville involved County
infrastructure expansion. Vacant lands coordination with the governments of each
within and on the perimeter of existing incorporated municipality. The County and
communities are generally planned for towns, with help from appointed citizen advisory
future development. Rural areas are committees, consultants and County Planning
generally planned to stay rural. This is the Department staff, prepared draft community
same approach that was later endorsed plans that were ultimately adopted in 1997. The
statewide in the 1992 Planning Act. County is currently assisting each town with
zoning changes related to the adopted plans.
(cid:1)(cid:2) Environmental protection standards for The County Commissioners also adopted the
sensitive areas such as tidal wetlands, non- Chester Community Plan and the associated
tidal wetlands, forests and habitat areas are comprehensive zoning changes needed to
now firmly ingrained into development implement that plan in 1997.
regulations. A combination of local and
State regulations ensures that new Community plans for Grasonville and
development projects are reviewed for their Stevensville were begun in 1997. These plans
impact on the environment. This was not were also prepared with assistance from
the case up until the late 1980s. appointed citizen advisory committees,
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Planning Regulatory Framework
Page - 8

consultants and Planning Department staff. Both preservation of open space, improved quality of
plans were adopted in 1998 with follow-up development, and flexibility in development
comprehensive zoning changes occurring in design. Approximately 19,840.844 acres of land
1999. are now restricted as open space via cluster
subdivisions.
Each growth area now has an adopted plan.
Aside from the incorporated towns of Agricultural Operations
Queenstown and Centreville, each growth area
also now has zoning that is consistent with those The County’s farmland protection tools are state-
plans. According to State law, each adopted of-the-art. Objectives to encourage the
growth area plan must be reviewed and revised continuation of agriculture have been
as necessary and at least once every six years. implemented by continued support of MALPF
program through certification, encouragement of
Map 2 presents generalized land use participation in other preservation programs,
recommendations from each of the growth area agricultural deed restricted open space created
plans. Map 3 shows the generalized through clustering and housing provisions for
transportation improvements for the same area. family and farm employees. Agricultural best
For the first time since the growth area plans management practices (BMP’s) are required and
were adopted, these maps allow the reader to are incorporated in the Environmental Code.
see (at a glance) the land use and transportation
recommendations for the growth areas Growth Areas
altogether.
The 1993 Plan included policies to shift
(cid:1)(cid:2) Growth Management Tools development to designated growth areas and the
subsequently adopted growth area plans provide
This section of the Profile provides a quick additional guidance and policies. However, at
review of growth management tools currently in- present, the County lacks one of the basic tools
place in the County and highlights a few to encourage growth in these areas:
potential enhancements to these techniques or infrastructure. Implementation of the County’s
other tools that are used in other jurisdictions. A growth area policy (which is consistent with and
matrix of State-of-the-art planning and growth to a large measure required by State smart
management tools and techniques is included in growth initiatives) has been stymied by a severe
Attachment A. Each technique is described lack of available water and sewer infrastructure
along with its objective, purpose and relation to to serve the growth areas and the lack of a
the Comprehensive Plan. Techniques in place sufficient funding mechanisms to implement the
in Queen Anne’s County are indicated with the needed improvements. This issue must be
appropriate Code or Plan reference. addressed to provide the necessary “carrot” or
incentive for development to occur in the
Cluster Development growth areas rather than in other areas of the
County.
Cluster Development is a technique that allows
for flexibility in the location of dwelling units on Enhancements/New Tools
a site so long as the total number of dwelling
units does not exceed the amount permitted by Other tools that could be considered to redirect
the zoning district and they are within a growth, coordinate the timing and phasing of
prescribed percentage of the overall site area. growth, or determine who pays for growth
The benefits of cluster development are include the following items.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Planning Regulatory Framework
Page - 9

Infill Development Regulations and Incentives.
Interim Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances Incentives for growth in infill areas may be
(IAPFO)/ Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances created through fast-track permitting, incentives
(APFO). In March 2001 the County for redevelopment financing (e.g., tax increment
Commissioners adopted an Interim Adequate financing (TIF) or tax abatement), and density
Public Facilities Ordinance. The IAPFO is a bonus systems. In addition, the availability of
growth management tool that links approvals sewer and water infrastructure, as discussed
from new development to the available capacity above, would be an incentive to development
of several essential public facilities (specifically within the growth areas.
schools, roads, sewer and water). This is one
way that local governments can manage the Paying for Growth: Impact Fees. The County
timing and sequencing of infrastructure. It currently levies impact fees on all new
establishes threshold levels (called levels of residential development for schools and public
service) for infrastructure as a precondition of safety. In 2001, with assistance from fiscal
development approvals. If the proposed new economic and planning consultants, Tischler and
development will cause an established level of Associates, and legal counsel, Freilich, Leitner
service to fall below pre-determined standards, and Carlisle, the County has completed and
then the developer must either pay for or build updated analysis of justifiable impact fees and
the essential public facility improvements or draft ordinance.
postpone development until the government
plans for and provides the facilities. The interim The proposed revised ordinance considers
ordinance is in effect for nine months and may impact fees for other infrastructure as well,
be extended for an additional nine months or namely, Community Parks, Fire Stations and
until the completion and adoption of an Apparatus.
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO)
which ever is earlier. It is anticipated the new Impact Fee Ordinance
will be adopted in the near future.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Planning Regulatory Framework
Page - 10

Map 2: Growth Areas: Generalized Land Use Plans
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Planning Regulatory Framework
Page - 11

Map 3: Growth Areas: Generalized Transportation Improvements
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Planning Regulatory Framework
Page - 12

4.0 Growth Trends/Issues
(cid:1)(cid:2) Overview The result was a set of high priority issues and
opportunities. Table 1 shows the importance
This section includes a review of existing trends placed on various items and the degree to which
on a number of topic areas that have relevance the views of the two groups converge/diverge.
to the County’s future growth and development. The exercise was done at the outset of the
The discussion provides the basis for the process to help understand what the key issues
development and assessment of alternatives for and opportunities are perceived to be and is not
the County’s growth and the ultimate meant to exclude any items from consideration
recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. during the planning process.
The topic areas that are reviewed include
population and housing trends, employment and On the issues side, it is clear that the County and
economic development, the location and rate of other agency staff members on the TAC are
growth, the County’s buildout potential, sewer concerned with how to provide and pay for
and water service and related issues, infrastructure and with improving the quality of
transportation, historic preservation, schools, life in the County. This is not surprising given
parks, fiscal health, and conservation and their responsibilities for providing services to a
agricultural preservation. This section begins growing population base. The CAC also found
with a discussion of a preliminary identification that providing infrastructure was a top issue. In
of issues by the citizens and technical advisory addition, they thought that protecting the
committees. environment and agriculture were also very
important.
CAC and TAC Identify Issues
On the opportunities side, both groups
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and identified the same core items having to do with
the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) for the capitalizing on the rural lifestyle and natural
Comprehensive Plan both met separately with amenities, building on the County’s location to
County staff and consultants in June 1999 for capture more tourism dollars, the opportunity to
their respective kick-off meetings. As part of provide more employment, and to enhance the
each meeting, the committee members were development regulations as the County is
asked to review a list of preliminary issues and beginning to see large-scale developers who are
opportunities facing the County with respect to accustomed to growth management regulations
growth and development. Members were asked on the Western Shore. In addition, the TAC felt
to suggest additional issues and opportunities that there was an opportunity to build on the
and then to rank in terms of their importance. new political leadership and momentum as the
result of the recent County Commissioner
elections and the appointment of a new County
Administrator.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Growth Trends/ Issues
Page - 13

Table 1: Top CAC and TAC-identified Growth/Development Issues & Opportunities
Citizens Advisory Technical Advisory
Priority Issues & Opportunities Committee Committee
Issues
Providing infrastructure to serve growth areas and relieve
(cid:1) (cid:1)
growth pressures on rural areas
Paying for growth (cid:1)
Maintaining/improving the quality of life – leisure time
activities, parks & recreation, schools, health & human (cid:1)
services, activities for youth
Protecting and improving agriculture & the seafood industry (cid:1)
Protecting the environment, rivers and streams (cid:1)
Opportunities
Capitalize on rural lifestyle, natural amenities and environment (cid:1) (cid:1)
Strategic location to capture more tourism dollars (cid:1) (cid:1)
Identify and preserve lands for employment and bay access (cid:1) (cid:1)
Establish new rules of the game for larger-scale corporate (cid:1) (cid:1)
developers
Take advantage of new political leadership and momentum (cid:1)
Compiled by LDR International, Inc. based on June 8, 1999 CAC and TAC meetings.
(cid:1) Priority issues and opportunities
A list of all the CAC- and TAC-identified same period. Tables 2 and 3 show the
preliminary issues and opportunities is included population and household change from 1970 to
in Attachment B. 2000 for the County as compared to Upper
Eastern Shore and the State of Maryland.
(cid:1)(cid:2)
Rate of Population and Housing
The Maryland Department of Planning estimates
Growth
show household formation increasing at a similar
Population and Household Trends rate. In 1990, there were 12,489 households in
the County. This number reached 15,315 in the
The 1990 U.S. Census population for Queen
year 2000, representing an annual average
Anne’s County was 33,953. The 2000 U.S.
growth rate of 2.06 percent compared with 1.80
Census population for Queen Anne’s County is
percent for the Upper Eastern Shore and 1.25
40,563, a 1.79 percent compound annual
percent for the State. Attachment E provides
growth rate. This rate of annual growth is
population and household growth rates from
outpacing the Upper Eastern Shore with a 1.48
1990-2000 by County and Region.
percent rate of growth and the State of Maryland
with a 1.03 percent rate of growth during the
Table 2: Population Change, 1970-2000
Queen Anne’s County, Upper Eastern Shore and Maryland
Compound Annual Growth Rate
1970 1980 1990 2000 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000
Queen Anne's County 18,422 25,508 33,953 40,563 3.3% 2.9% 1.8%
Upper Eastern Shore 1 131,322 151,380 180,726 209,295 1.4% 1.8% 1.5%
Maryland 3,923,897 4,216,933 4,780,753 5,296,486 0.7% 1.3% 1.0%
Source: Maryland Department of Planning
1 Caroline, Cecil, Kent, Queen Anne's & Talbot Counties
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Growth Trends/ Issues
Page - 14

Table 3 Household Change, 1970-2000
Queen Anne’s County, Upper Eastern Shore and Maryland
Compound Annual Growth Rate
1970 1980 1990 2000 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000
Queen Anne's County 5,795 8,850 12,489 15,315 4.3% 3.5% 2.1%
Upper Eastern Shore1 39,420 52,500 66,576 79,608 2.9% 2.4% 1.8%
Maryland 1,178,933 1,460,865 1,748,991 1,980,859 2.2% 1.8% 1.3%
Source: Maryland Department of Planning
1 Caroline, Cecil, Kent, Queen Anne's & Talbot Counties
Projections for the County that is substantially lower than
historic trend levels – less than 300 households
Current and projected population and per year verses a more than 10 year trend of
household data for 2000 to 2020 prepared by approximately 400 household units coming on
the Maryland Department of Planning show that line per year. This may suggest that the State’s
by 2020 the County’s population will grow to projections for Queen Anne’s County are quite
about 56,000 and households to 21,475. The conservative (low). As a part of the Plan
County’s compound annual growth is projected development process, alternative projections
to continue to be higher than either the Upper were developed to understand what might
Eastern Shore or the State. Tables 4 and 5 show happened if growth exceeded MDP’s
these projections. The Maryland Department of projections.
Planning’s projections assume a rate of growth
Table 4: Current and Projected Population, 2000-2020
Queen Anne’s County Upper Eastern Shore and Maryland
Compound Annual
Growth Rate
2000 2010 2020 2000-2010 2010-2020
Queen Anne's County 40,563 48,500 55,800 1.8% 1.4%
Upper Eastern Shore 1 209,295 231,800 251,125 1.0% 0.8%
Maryland 5,296,486 5,722,800 6,083,125 0.8% 0.6%
Source: Maryland Department of Planning
1 Caroline, Cecil, Kent, Queen Anne's & Talbot Counties
Table 5: Current and Projected Households, 2000-2020
Queen Anne’s County, Upper Eastern Shore and Maryland
Compound Annual
Growth Rate
2000 2010 2020 2000-2010 2010-2020
Queen Anne's County 15,315 18,725 21,850 2.1% 1.3%
Upper Eastern Shore 1 79,608 90,925 101,125 1.3% 1.0%
Maryland 1,980,859 2,200,371 2,402,700 1.0% 0.9%
Source: Maryland Department of Planning
1 Caroline, Cecil, Kent, Queen Anne's & Talbot Counties
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Growth Trends/ Issues
Page - 15

Age Distribution slightly higher percentages of middle-aged (45 to
64 years) and older persons (65 years and older).
Table 6 shows the age distribution of Queen By 2020, these same trends are evident but a bit
Anne’s population in 1990, 2000 and projection more pronounced. As the County’s elderly
for 2020 and compares these to the State of population continues to grow, the County may
Maryland. In 1990, the County had similar have to place more emphasis on senior housing
proportions of pre-school and school age and alternative housing types to the currently
children, lower percentages of persons in the predominant single-family detached unit.
family formation years (ages 20 to 44) and
Table 6: Age Distribution (Share by Age Cohort)
Queen Anne’s County and Maryland
Queen Anne's Maryland
Cohort 1990 2000 2020 1990 2000 2020
0-4 7.4 6.4 5.9 7.6 6.7 6.1
5-19 19.6 21.1 16.4 19.7 21.5 18.3
20-44 38.4 33.8 28.9 42.8 37.4 32.8
45-64 21.7 25.9 29.3 19.1 23.1 26.9
65+ 12.8 12.9 19.5 10.8 11.3 15.9
Source: Maryland Department of Planning, compiled by LDR International, Inc.
The Queen Anne’s County Department of Aging, is prepared for this project and may be reviewed
which functions as the local area agency on aging at the Department of aging or the Queen Anne’s
as authorized by the Older Americans Act, County Department of Planning and Zoning. A
complies an annual Area Plan for services to complete study of transportation needs is
persons over age sixty. This comprehensive updated every five; the most recent
document provides an inventory of services for Transportation Development Plan Completed in
senior citizens, details expected growth and 1999 by the firm of KFH is on file in both the
service improvements, and presents the annual Department of Aging and the Department of
budget for the Department. Planning and Zoning.
The Department of Aging manages the County In addition, Department of Aging prepares an
Ride Transit System for the county. This system Area Plan that outlines strategies to meet both
provides fixed-route service fifteen hours per day current and expected needs of the elderly
on five established deviated fixed routes; the population, as mandated by the funding
routes serve the entire county with emphasis on authority, the Maryland Department of Aging.
transit in the Kent Island area; destinations such The complete Plan may be reviewed at the
as shopping areas, businesses; senior centers and Department of Aging.
other public locations. In additions, Assisted
Transportation is provided to individuals unable Housing Unit Tenure
to utilize the County Ride routes. Fares are
charged on the County Ride System; funding is Table 7 shows the total number of housing units
from four state and federal grants with County as well as the vacancy rate and relationship of
funding supporting the program. An annual plan owner- and renter- occupied housing units. It
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Growth Trends/ Issues
Page - 16

shows the 2000 figures for the County as Eastern Shore at 75.4 percent and the State at
compared to the consolidated figures for the 67.7 percent.
Upper Eastern Shore and the State. Of the
Household Size
16,674 units in Queen Anne’s County in 2000,
15,315 were occupied representing a 8.2
Since 1970, the household size in Queen Anne’s
percent vacancy rate. This rate is slightly higher
County has declined from a high of 3.13 in 1970
than the vacancy rate of 7.7 percent for
to 2.62 in 2000. These numbers mirror similar
Maryland. This is due, in part, to the second
declines in the region, State, and nation as
home market in the area. Of the total occupied
household formation has shifted from families to
units, 83.4 percent are owner occupied. This
other household structures such as more people
ownership rate is higher than both the Upper
living alone or within smaller households.
Table 7: Housing Tenure, 2000
Queen Anne’s County, Upper Eastern Shore and Maryland
Total Owner Renter
Total Occupied Vacancy Occupied Occupied
Units Units Rate Rate Rate
Queen Anne's County 16,674 15,315 8.2% 83.4% 16.6%
Upper Eastern Shore1 89,073 79,608 10.6% 75.4% 24.6%
Maryland 2,145,283 1,980,859 7.7% 67.1% 32.3%
Source: Maryland Department of Planning; compiled by LDR International, Inc.
1 Caroline, Cecil, Kent, Queen Anne's & Talbot Counties
Units in Structure A recent study completed by Morton Hoffman
and Company, Inc. examined affordable housing
In 1990, Queen Anne’s County had 12,024
needs in Queen Anne’s County. The study
single-family housing units representing 86
found that in 1998, there were approximately
percent of the total number of residential units in
6,050 low and moderate income households in
the County. This is substantially higher than the
the County and of this number, 1,110 or 18
State rate of 70 percent. Figure 2 depicts this
percent were in need of affordable housing. This
information.
represents 4.7 percent of all households. By
2008, this projected need is estimated to
Figure 2: Queen Anne’s County
increase by an additional 135 households.
Residential Units in Structure, 1990
5 or more units in
The study also examined needs for elderly
structure Mobile home,
3% trailer, other housing indicating a future need of
2 to 4 units in 8% approximately 280 additional assisted living
structure units. Over half of the housing needs were
3%
expected to be concentrated in the Centreville,
Grasonville, and Chester areas.
1 Unit in structure
86%
Source: US Census
Affordable and Elderly Housing Needs
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Growth Trends/ Issues
Page - 17

employment data for both full and part-time
(cid:1)(cid:2) Employment, Income and Economic employees. This trend information is important
Development to examine the overall shifts in employment
sectors especially when compared to a larger
Employment is analyzed by looking at data from area such as the State of Maryland. Figure 3
two different viewpoints. The first examination indicates the rate of change in employment by
looks at the job base of the County itself to sector in Queen Anne’s County and compares it
understand what type of employment is available to the State of Maryland between 1990 and
within Queen Anne’s County. The “Jobs in the 1997.
County” section examines this viewpoint for
employment analysis. The second perspective is The total number of jobs (full- and part-time) in
an examination of the residents of Queen Anne’s Queen Anne’s County increased from 12,828 to
County to understand the types of jobs they hold 15,402 between 1990 and 1997, a 20 percent
regardless of the location of these jobs. increase. This compares to an increase of only
5.5 percent during the same period for the State
Jobs in the County of Maryland.
Total full-time employment in Queen Anne’s The sectors that enjoyed the most substantial
County is estimated at 8,000 jobs (1990). Based growth were retail trade and finance/insurance/
on the estimated 12,500 households in the real estate, which increased by over 50 percent
County (1990), the jobs to households ratio is each compared to increases of slightly over four
0.6. This rather low rate is an indication that the percent for the same sectors statewide.
County is still more of a bedroom community
with residents commuting to other jurisdictions The job increases in Queen Anne’s County are
for employment. Queen Anne’s County has one due to the rapid growth of population, which has
of the lowest jobs to housing ratios in the State. stimulated the growth of the job base. The
A balanced jobs to household ratio is somewhere apparent large rate of increase is due also to the
between 0.80 and 1.20. Increasing the number relatively low number of jobs in the County to
of jobs in the County is important to the County begin with. Consequently, even a relatively small
and its residents for a number of reasons. A increase in certain sectors results in a substantial
more balanced mix of jobs and households will percentage rate increase.
reduce the amount of out-commuting by
providing more opportunities for County Construction and farm jobs declined in the
residents to work within the County. In addition County corresponding, to a lesser degree, with
to time-savings, this can result in decreased declines statewide. Manufacturing jobs
transportation costs and a reduction in air increased in the County, while declining
pollution based on a decrease in vehicle miles of throughout Maryland.
travel. Another benefit of increased employment
opportunities in the County is the positive impact Labor Force Participation
this can have on the County’s fiscal health. More
information on commuting patterns can be found To examine labor force participation, the
in the transportation section of this profile. employment age population of Queen Anne’s
County is used as a base line. This is calculated
Where as the previous paragraph presented an as the total number of people over the age of 16.
estimate of full time jobs in the County, the In 1995, the most recent year available, that
federal government tracks combined population was 29,220. Of that total number,
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Growth Trends/ Issues
Page - 18

20,070 people or 68.7 percent of the population For men there was a 75.5 percent labor force
were participating in the labor force. This is participation rate; for women the rate was 62.1
defined as those employed or looking for work. percent.
Figure 3: Percent Change in Total Jobs by Sector 1990-1997
Queen Anne’s Countyy and Myaryland
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Growth Trends/ Issues
Page - 19
%8-
%31-
%02 %02
%53-
%11-
%8-
%8
%31-
%33
%9
%21
%1
%45
%4
%56
%4
%71 %81
%7
%0
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
-20.0%
-40.0%
Ag.
Se
F
r
a
v
r
,
m forestry, fis hi ng Mi ning Co nstr ucti o n M
p o
a
r
n
ta
u
t
f
i
a
o
c
n
t u
a
r
n
in
d
g p u blic utiliti
W
es holesale tra de
Q
Re
u
ta
e
il
e
tr
n
a d
A
e
nne's
F
C
.I.
o
R
u
.E
n
.
ty
Services G ov
M
er n
a
m
ry
e
l
n
a
t
nd
Trans
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
%0

Employed Residents by Industry Employed Residents by Occupation
In 1990, the largest proportion of Queen Anne’s Figure 5 shows the breakdown of employed
County residents were in employed in the residents by occupation. In 1990, over a quarter
services industries that included education, of the population of Queen Anne’s County was
health, entertainment, repair, and personal employed in managerial professional
services. Figure 4 reflects the breakout for occupations. This is significantly higher than the
employment industries in Queen Anne’s County. State’s figure of 16 percent. Private household,
The services industry was followed by technical, and farming/forestry occupations each
employment in the wholesale and retail trade had less than five percent of the employed
industry. Slightly over 49 percent of the population. The trends for private household
population were employed in the service and and technical occupations are consistent with
trade industries in 1990. This number is those of the State, which had less than one
consistent with that witnessed by the State, percent and five percent respectively employed
which had 55 percent of the population in those occupations. Queen Anne’s County
employed in these industries. These large does have a significantly higher percentage of the
percentages are likely related to overall shifts population employed in agriculture (five percent)
toward service and trade. Other categories as compared to the State with only one percent
(F.I.R.E., Transportation/ Communications/ engaged in the occupation.
Utilities, Manufacturing, and Administration)
exhibited similar percentages with the State.
Agriculture and Finance/Insurance/Real Estate
sectors have the least number of employees with
about 6 percent and 5 percent respectively.
Figure 4: Employed Residents by
Industry, 1990
Figure 5: Queen Anne’s County
Resident Employment by Occupation
Transportation/
Communication/
Private HH
Utilities
Services
7%
<1%
Manufacturing Admin. Support Other Services
10% 17% 9%
Trade
21% Farming/
Construction Forestry
12% 5%
Sales
Craft and Repair
Ag riculture/
12%
14%
F.I.R.E.
Mi ning
6%
5%
Technical
3%
Operator/Mover
Administration /Laborer
11% 12%
Services Managerial
28% Professional
28%
Source: U.S. Census
Source: Bureau of the Census
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Growth Trends/ Issues
Page - 20

Income optic communication capabilities have
increasingly become a prerequisite for the
The median household income for Queen growing high-tech industrial sector. Economic
Anne’s County was $48,400 in 1997. This is development officials nationwide have been
higher than the Baltimore region and about the fielding more frequent requests from prospects
same as the Maryland median household income about the availability of fiber optic
of $48,900. The median household income communications networks. Queen Anne’s
trends in the County have mirrored those of the County is no exception.
region and the State with general declines from
1989 through 1995 and increases since that In 1998, Maryland House Bill 847 created a High
time. Speed Networking Task Force to perform several
important functions for identifying and
The median per capita income in 1997 was developing a statewide fiber optic network. The
$26,455. This figure exceeded the State median task force identified more definitive engineering
of $25,288 and ranked Queen Anne’s County and technology details needed for the network,
sixth out of twenty-four counties within budgetary estimates, identification of private
Maryland. sector uses, and several cash flow alternatives.
Currently, a portion of the fiber backbone is to
Business and Tourism Readiness be extended across the Bay Bridge where Queen
Anne’s County will be able to tie into the State
In 1999, the County merged its formerly separate system. The State will provide the fiber,
departments of tourism and economic equipment, and service to establish a “Point of
development into a new agency that coordinates Presence” (PoP). It will be the County’s
both efforts: the Department of Business and responsibility to fund the connection of their
Tourism. This coordinated emphasis places the users to the PoP. One of the major advantages
County in a good position to direct its limited to this system is that once users are tied to the
resources to both traditional forms of economic State system the cost will be the same regardless
development, including business retention, of the distance to the PoP site.
expansion and attraction, as well as the
increasing importance of tourism shopping and In addition to this State funded project, Verizon
dinning dollars. officials indicate that they are placing additional
lines in Queen Anne’s County. Verizon has
An analysis of undeveloped lands with non- already installed fiber optics diversity routing to
residential potential inside the designated growth the new Department of Emergency Services
areas anticipated to be served by public water Building for the 911 Trunks. Through a
and sewer, as well as undeveloped lands outside cooperative arrangement with the State of
the growth areas currently zoned for commercial Maryland, the Safety Drive Public Services
or industrial uses are provided in Attachment D. buildings have been linked with fiber optics.
The County must maintain sufficient lands served These buildings include Maryland State Highway
by public sewer and water, primary roads and Administration Maintenance Garage, Maryland
rail to be able to attract businesses. State Police Barracks, Maryland State Police
Helicopter Hanger, Queen Anne's County
Telecommunications. The County must have Department of Public Works, Queen Anne's
the requisite communications infrastructure to County Department of Emergency Services and
compete in this telecommunications age. Fiber the Safety Drive Transmission Tower Equipment
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Growth Trends/ Issues
Page - 21

Building. Queen Anne's County has begun to resort communities. Queen Anne’s own natural
utilize this fiber link by connecting the DPW and beauty and its waterfront environment make it a
Public Services buildings for wide area network potential destination for increased tourism and
access. visitation. Tourism in the County is currently
driven by outdoor recreation attractions,
In addition to this cooperative arrangement, especially golf and the boating and marine
Queen Anne's County was instrumental in the industries.
first Telecommunications Infrastructure
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Located close to US 50/301 on the Kent Narrows
various Maryland State Agencies and Talbot Channel, the Chesapeake Bay Exploration Center
County. This MOU places Queen Anne's County opened in the spring of 1998. This facility
as a partner with the State of Maryland's state currently serves as the main visitor information
wide wireless communication backbone through center for the County and also offers an
the use of our microwave network. Plans for interpretive exhibit showcasing the natural and
future telecommunications advances in Queen cultural heritage of the Eastern Shore. The
Anne's County include further development of Department of Business and Tourism also has its
our wireless capabilities, fiber optics network and offices in this facility.
other telecommunications systems.
The County has several annual events that attract
Chesapeake Bay Business Park. To assist in a number of people to County. These events
encouraging economic development, the County include (2001 attendance): Church Hill Theatre
has developed the Chesapeake Bay Business (3,037), Bridge Walk Rendezvous (43,000), Kent
Park. Located on Kent Island, this park offers Island Days (2,000), Chesapeake Challenge
159-acres devoted to business and industrial (3,000 land; 15,000 water), Thunder on the
uses. As of Fall 2001, there are approximately Narrows (5,200), Queen Anne’s County Fair
26 vacant acres remaining. Designed to offer a (23,000), Waterman’s Festival (3,500),
campus-style setting, this park is adjacent to the Centreville Rotary Artisans Festival (3,000), and
Chesapeake Bay and Terrapin Park. the Parade of Lights (5,500).
Tourism. The County has and is planning for (cid:1)(cid:2) Location and Rate of Growth
additional attractive hotels, recreation and visitor
attractions to increase its share of the tourism Existing Development
market. Currently, the County has 454 visitor
rooms. Fifty-nine or 11 percent of these are bed As of 1999, existing non-residential development
and breakfast accommodations. The most – commercial, industrial, and office uses – were
recently completed hotel was a 76-room Holiday roughly estimated at 4,900,000 square feet. Of
Inn Express, which is slated for a future 16-room this amount about 2,700,000 square feet or 56
expansion. Other hotel properties are older than percent is located in the County’s growth areas.
five years and several are small older motel On the residential side, it is estimated that the
properties. Continued growth of the tourism County had 17,825 dwelling units in July 2001.
infrastructure such as hotel rooms will provide a Table 8 shows the estimated existing County
basis for expanded tourism. development. The non-residential estimate is
derived from a calculation of all the improved
Queen Anne’s County is located along an
important tourist thoroughfare to the oceanfront
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Growth Trends/ Issues
Page - 22

non-residential lands in the County using the 1997. Table 9 shows the change in these
State’s land use/land cover analysis. categories from 1973 to 1997. The result of this
analysis shows the significant increase in
development over this 24-year time period and
the loss of forest, wetlands, and agricultural
Table 8: Estimated 1999 Existing Development
lands.
Non-
Growth Growth Table 10 shows the acres of existing zoning in
Areas Areas Total the County by zoning district. Approximately 88
Non-Residential SF 2,650,000 2,200,000 4,850,000
percent of the County is zoned for agricultural or
Dwelling Units * * 17,775 countryside use. An additional 10 percent is
Source: Queen Anne’s County Dept. of Planning & zoned for residential uses and about two percent
Zoning, Maryland Department of Planning; is zoned for mixed use and non-residential
Compiled by LDR International, Inc.
development. Map 5 shows the geographical
* information not available
distribution of the generalized zoning categories
Map 4 shows the Maryland Department of and the County’s Election District boundaries.
Planning’s existing land use/land cover as of
Table 9: Queen Anne's County Land Use/Land Cover Change, 1973-1997
Land Use in Acres Land Use Change
1973 1981 1985 1990 1997 1973-1997 1990-1997
Land Use Acres Percent Acres Percent
Low Density Residential 5,058 7,355 7,978 10,100 10,471 5,413 52% 371 4%
Med/High Density Residential 634 762 794 957 4,124 3,490 85% 3,167 77%
Commercial/Industrial 966 966 979 1,214 1,758 792 45% 544 31%
Institutional/Open 747 939 933 988 2,206 1,459 66% 1,218 55%
Bare Ground 97 97 363 541 75 -22 -29% -466 -619%
Total Development 7,502 10,119 11,047 13,800 18,634 11,132 4,834
Agriculture 156,061 154,851 154,390 152,762 151,257 -4,804 -3% -1,505 -1%
Forest 71,078 69,658 69,223 68,077 63,663 -7,415 -12% -4,414 -7%
Extractive/Barren 129 129 135 122 248 119 48% 126 51%
Wetland 4,334 4,347 4,309 4,216 3,760 -574 -15% -456 -12%
Total Resources 231,602 228,985 228,057 225,177 218,928 -12,674 -6% -6,249 -3%
Total Land 239,104 239,104 239,104 238,977 237,562 -1,542 -1,415
Water 87,494 87,494 87,494 87,621 88,261 767 1% 640 1%
Total Area 326,598 326,598 326,598 326,598 325,823 -775 -775
Source: Maryland Department of Planning
Note: The Total Area acreage has changed between the 1990 and 1997. Prior to 1997 the shorelineboundary was extracted from aerial
photographs. In 1997 the Maryland Department of Planning adjusted the shoreline boundary by using more accurate digital information from
the State Highway Administration.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Growth Trends/ Issues
Page - 23

Table 10: Existing Zoning by Election District (2000)
Election District
Zoning District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Acres % of Total
Agricultural and Countryside
Agricultural (AG) 45,155 26,942 32,366 9,111 33,213 14,526 161,313 68.3%
Countryside (CS) 6 3,970 10,340 10,126 17,210 1,754 3,948 47,354 20.1%
Subtotal 45,161 30,912 42,706 10,126 26,321 34,967 18,474 208,667 88.4%
Residential
Chester Master Planed Community (CMPD) 689 689 0.3%
Estate (E) 33 264 50 144 491 0.2%
Grasonville Planned Res'l Neighborhood (GPRN) 619 619 0.3%
Neighborhood Conservation (NC1, NC1T) 279 1,802 2,039 6,339 4,971 513 1,663 17,606 7.5%
Stevensville Master Planned Develpmt (SMPD) 1,153 1,153 0.5%
Suburban Estate (SE) 56 346 246 391 590 34 153 1,816 0.8%
Suburban Residential (SR) 49 790 839 0.4%
Urban Residential (UR) 107 107 0.0%
Subtotal 335 2,182 2,549 8,778 7,114 547 1,816 23,321 9.9%
Non-Residential and Mixed Use 0.0%
Airport District (AD) 82 82 0.0%
Stevensville Historic Village Center (SHVC) 45 45 0.0%
Grasonville Neighborhood Commercial (GNC) 75 75 0.0%
Grasonville Neighbrhd Village Center (GVC) 65 65 0.0%
Light Industiral Highway Service (LIHS) 100 100 0.0%
Suburban Commercial (SC) 2 209 145 48 129 59 87 679 0.3%
Suburban Industrial (SI) 24 71 302 366 267 2 385 1,417 0.6%
Town Center (TC) 383 383 0.2%
Urban Commercial (UC) 272 263 535 0.2%
Village Center (VC) 58 57 78 27 62 20 80 382 0.2%
Waterfront Village Center (WVC) 217 206 423 0.2%
Subtotal 84 336 625 1,440 1,067 81 552 4,185 1.8%
TOTALS 45,580 33,430 45,880 20,344 34,502 35,595 20,842 236,173 100.0%
Source: Queen Anne's County Planning & Zoning; Compiled by LDR International, Inc. an HNTB company
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Growth Trends/ Issues
Page - 24

Map 4: Existing Land Use/Land Cover, 1997
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Growth Trends/ Issues
Page - 25

Map 5: Generalized Zoning Districts and Election Districts
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Growth Trends/ Issues
Page - 26

Location and Growth Areas Residential Building Permits
Queen Anne’s location on the eastern edge of New residential construction in Queen Anne’s
the Chesapeake Bay makes it a convenient County has maintained a steady pace of growth
location for commuters to live. It is within an over the past decade. Since 1989, 390
hour’s drive of the urban centers of Washington residential units per year on average have been
and Baltimore and is convenient to jobs in constructed in Queen Anne’s County. This
Annapolis and Anne Arundel County. It also number has varied only slightly with declines
borders Delaware, making it close to Dover, during the recession years of 1990 and 1991 and
Middletown and Wilmington. The rich natural a high of 527 units in 1994. Figure 6 shows the
environment and expansive shoreline add to the number of residential unit permits issued per
County’s appeal for those seeking a more relaxed year in Queen Anne’s County for the last 11
quality of life than is available in the region’s years.
urban areas.
Nearly half of the residential growth over the last
Map 6 shows the location of the six designated ten years has occurred in Election District Four,
growth areas of the County. Stevensville, which includes the area west of the Kent
Chester, Kent Narrows, and Grasonville have had Narrows. Figure 7 shows the breakout of
the most pronounced growth in recent years as a residential permits by election district.
result of their location as the first communities Attachment C includes detailed building permit
once the Bay Bridge “touches down” on the information by election district.
Eastern Shore. Centreville and Queenstown
growth areas have not experienced the same Figure 6: Queen Anne’s County, 1989-2000
development pressure or trends. The northern Residential Building Permits
portions of the County remain substantially rural
in nature. This is by design. The County’s long
600
standing policies and development regulations
seek to preserve agricultural and rural 527
development in the north County outside 500
457 451
designated growth areas. 435
413 415
398 396
400
The challenge for the future is to ensure that 336 336
307
sewer and water infrastructure and roadway
300
capacity can be planned and implemented in the
232
growth areas to accommodate growth to these
200
areas and preserve rural areas.
100
0
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Source: Queen Anne’s County Department of Planning & Zoning
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Growth Trends/ Issues
Page - 27

Figure 7: Queen Anne’s County 1989 – 2000 Building Permit Data by Election District
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
ED1 ED2 ED3 ED4 ED5 ED6 ED7
Source: Queen Anne’s County Department of Planning and Zoning
Recently Developed and Preserved Lands Table 11 shows the approvals for the last three
years.
Between the beginning of 1997 and the end of
June, 2001, there were a total of 14,370 acres of During the same period, approximately 1,827
land preserved via deed restrictions, acquisition acres of undeveloped land were deed restricted
of parkland or easements compared to a total of as open space as a condition of residential
1,145.5 acres approved for development. That development approval. A certain amount of
is a little over twelve times more land protected open space preservation is required for each
from development than approved for approved residential lot. Also during this period,
development. Sixty-five percent of the another 6,190 acres were deed restricted as
residential lots and seventy-two percent of the open space either through the donation of
non-residential development were approved in voluntary conservation easements, the purchase
the growth areas. This represents a large of agricultural conservation easements, or the
proportion given that the growth areas comprise acquisition of property for parkland.
only six percent of the County’s area.
Since 1997, the majority of proposed new
During this three-year period, 516 new development is located within designated growth
residential building lots totaling 1,046 acres were areas. This trend is very positive for meeting
created and the County approved approximately growth management objectives, but cannot be
49 acres of non-residential impervious coverage maintained if adequate infrastructure is not
including building footprints and parking areas. available.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Growth Trends/ Issues
Page - 28

Map 6: Growth Areas and Priority Funding Areas
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Growth Trends/ Issues
Page - 29

(cid:1)(cid:2) Capacity for Growth residential floor area, all located within
designated growth areas. In addition to pending
Introduction development applications, the County
anticipates receiving additional development
A “buildout” analysis calculates the potential
proposals in the near future consisting of
development of all lands available for
approximately 3,000 additional lots all located
development given existing zoning. “Buildout” is
within designated growth areas.
a theoretical exercise that simply multiplies
undeveloped acreage by the applicable density
Assuming that the amount of residential growth
or floor area maximums. It does not account for
occurring outside of growth areas remains
development variables or constraints that limit or
relatively consistent into the future, and that the
prevent development on individual tracts of land.
majority of pending/anticipated residential
Nevertheless, it is a helpful measure to see if the
projects are approved, it can be assumed that
County has too few or too many acres of
approximately 85-90% of all new residential lots
developable/zoned land to meet future demand.
will be created in growth areas over the next 10
This section discusses the process used to
years. While it is more difficult to forecast non-
understand and quantify the County’s
residential development into the future, the
development potential. As is frequently the case,
amount of pending non-residential development
this analysis is made with less than perfect
proposed within growth areas is a prime
information and thus is based on certain
indicator that the County will be able to retain its
assumptions. To the extent assumptions are
current amount of non-residential growth in
made, they are explicitly stated.
growth areas at a figure of at least its current rate
of 79%.
At the present time, the vast majority of
proposed new development is located within
This trend is very positive for meeting long-term
designated growth areas. The County is
growth management objectives, but cannot be
currently reviewing development applications
achieved if adequate infrastructure is not
consisting of at least, 2,500 new residential lots
available.
and approximately 500,000 sq. ft. of non-
Table 11: Growth Area vs. Non-Growth Area Development Approvals1 (1997 – 2001)
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total
Residential Lots in Growth Area 83 162 20 183 126 265
Residential Acres2 25.4 ac. 68.9 ac. 6.6 ac. 65.2 64.5 100.9 ac.
Average Lot Size 0.32 ac. 0.43 ac. 0.33 ac. .36 ac. .51 ac. 0.38 ac.
Residential Lots Outside of Growth Area 141 52 51 46 24 251
Residential Acres2 388 ac. 146.3 ac. 150 ac. 125.3 44.3 944.7 ac.
Average Lot Size 2.8 ac. 2.8 ac. 3 ac. 2.7 ac. 1.8 ac. 3.8 ac.
Percent Residential Lots in Growth Area 37% 76% 28% 80% 84% 51%
Percent Residential Lots Outside Growth Area 63% 24% 72% 20% 16% 49%
Non-Residential Development in Growth Area3 26.7 ac. 8.3 ac. 3.9 ac. 1.6 ac. 3.5 ac. 38.9 ac.
Non Residential Development Outside of Growth Area 4.3 ac. 0.7 ac. 4.9 ac. 3.5 ac. 3.5 ac. 9.9 ac
Percent Non-Residential in Growth Area 86% 92% 44% 31% 50% 76%
Percent Non-Residential Outside Growth Area 14% 8% 56% 69% 50% 24%
Source: Queen Anne’s County Department of Planning and Zoning
1 Includes minor and major subdivision lots less than 20 acres and non-residential impervious coverage granted final approval by the Department
of Planning and Zoning or the Planning Commission. Does not include building permit or other construction permit data. Areas outside of
Growth Areas include rural areas and existing neighborhoods and villages, which are not designated as Growth Areas.
2 Includes subdivision lot and road area. Does not include open space.
3 Includes impervious coverage (i.e., building footprints, parking areas and circulation areas). Does not include landscape areas.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1 County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Growth Trends/ Issues
Page - 30

Development Acres Available variability of development yields, given the
County’s agricultural preservation policies and
To assess the buildout potential of the County flexible development yields under the cluster
under existing regulations, the vacant or and other provisions of the zoning ordinance.
undeveloped lands within the County’s growth However, using densities based on existing
areas were identified using the County’s GIS. zoning and critical area designations, the
The existing zoning category for each vacant/ residential buildout of the non growth area was
undeveloped parcel was also identified to calculated and is included in Table 12.
calculate the total available acreage by zoning
category within the growth areas. Potential Buildout
Within the growth areas there are approximately For each zoning district, the maximum yields
6,400 acres of lands available for development – were used to calculate the ”theoretical
residential and non-residential. These areas maximum” amount of development. This
represent 3% of the land area in the County. amount was then decreased to account for
Outside the growth areas, there are sensitive areas, natural resources and other site
approximately 700 acres designated for non- conditions. For residential development, this
residential development. probable development potential was calculated
at both 50 percent and 75 percent of the
There are also a significant number of acres theoretical maximum. For employment lands,
available for residential development outside the 50 percent of the maximum theoretical was
growth areas. The potential buildout of these assumed. Table 12 shows the yields of this
areas is more difficult to calculate due to the development potential.
Table 12: Buildout Capacity
Dwelling Units Non-Residential Sq Ft
Probable Probable Probable
Theoretical (75% of (50% of Theoretical (50% of
Maximum Maximum) Maximum) Maximum Maximum)
Growth Areas 20,000 15,000 10,000 13,050,000 6,525,000
Non-Growth Areas 19,000 14,250 9,500 11,250,000 5,625,000
Total Potential Buildout 39,000 29,250 19,500 24,300,000 12,150,000
Buildout vs. Existing 2.2 times 1.6 times 1.1 times 5.8 times 2.9 times
existing existing existing existing existing
Source: Queen Anne’s County Department of Planning & Zoning; Compiled by LDR International, Inc.
The result of this “probable maximum” times the amount of residential development
development analysis provides an estimate of today. Of the non-residential development
the potential buildout of the County, based on potential, approximately 54 percent is located
existing zoning. The County can accommodate within the growth areas. Attachment D includes
an additional 12 million square feet of non- the detailed worksheets that were used to
residential development and another 20,000 to calculate buildout capacity for the growth areas.
30,000 dwelling units. These estimates equate
to almost three times the amount of existing
non- residential development and 1.1 to 1.6
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1 County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Growth Trends/ Issues
Page - 31

Buildout Timeframe Southern Kent Island Development Potential
Based on the last eleven years of County There are almost 1,500 vacant lots of record in
residential building permit data, approximately existing subdivisions on Southern Kent Island.
400 dwelling units are built each year. If this However, the great majority of these lots are
rate is assumed to continue, the residential lands “paper lots” that were subdivided more than 40
Countywide would all be built out within years ago. They have not developed because of
approximately 50 to 75 years based on recent the poor soils for septic tank function and the
trends. In the growth areas the buildout period high water table in this area. Some of the lots
would be between 38 and 54 years, whereas the that have developed are experiencing septic
non growth areas would buildout in 75 to 102 system problems. This issue is discussed in more
years. The County does not currently track non- detail in the Sewer and Water sections later in
residential development in a way that absorption this Profile.
rates can be calculated, so a parallel timeframe
for the non-residential development cannot be During the timeframe of the Comprehensive
calculated. Plan process, the County is assessing options for
addressing the septic system problems and
Constraints on Growth associated threats to the ground water supply on
Southern Kent Island. One option would be to
There are many factors that can act to constrain extend sewer service to the Southern Kent
development. In addition to zoning and other Island. If this option was to be adopted and all
regulations, some of the most important the existing lots of record, both vacant and
determinants of growth are access to improved, in these subdivisions were served, the
transportation (roads or rail), access to sewer and total would be close to 3,000 lots served.
water infrastructure, and natural resource However, because of existing ownership
constraints also cost of land and patterns where one owner controls adjacent
zoning/engineering approvals. In Queen Anne’s parcels, the County estimates that number of
County, available sewer, and to a lesser degree potential lots could be significantly reduced if
water, capacity has been a constraint on lots were consolidated.
development. In the analysis and infrastructure
assessment phase of the Comprehensive Plan, This analysis does not take into consideration the
alternative future land use and utility extension by-right development potential of the lands
options were developed. After analysis and outside of these subdivisions under current
public review, a preferred option was selected zoning and critical area designations. If these
upon which the Plan is based. A detailed lands were included, the development potential
description of the Plan alternatives is included in increases by 1,000 additional lots.
a separate appendix to the Plan. It is available at
the Planning Department. The decision whether or not to extend sewer
service to this area is complex since the majority
of the area is outside established growth area
boundaries. In addition, MD 8 is already over its
design capacity for traffic volumes and additional
homes would increase traffic congestion
substantially as well as impact the school system.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Growth Trends/ Issues
Page - 32

objectives. The first was to assess and evaluate
(cid:1)(cid:2) Groundwater Protection available groundwater resources and review past
well and onsite septic system construction
As early as 1970, the County’s Master Water and practices. The second was to develop specific
Sewer Plans documented saltwater intrusion at on-site waste disposal management strategies to
Love Point on Northern Kent Island. Brackish protect surficial or confined groundwater.
water intrusion has been identified along the
western shore of Kent Island by subsequent The County designated two zones as part of the
Master Water and Sewer Plans. management strategy. Management Area A was
designated as that area requiring the highest
In 1988, the State of Maryland Department of degree of protection where the unconfined
Natural Resources, Water Resources aquifer is used as a water supply. This area was
Administration began implementation of the defined as Love Point and Queen Anne’s County
Kent Island Water Management Strategy to east of the Queenstown Creek/Wye River.
protect the Aquia Aquifer from further saltwater Management Area B consisted of the remaining
intrusion. The strategy required that after August County, the Grasonville/Bennett Point Peninsula
1988 no new water appropriations on Kent and Kent Island excluding Love Point.
Island from the Aquia Aquifer would be Management Area B was characterized by those
approved. areas where the shallow unconfined aquifer had
been routinely penetrated with sewage effluent
In addition, the strategy requires that for the from septic systems. This shallow aquifer is not
portion of Queen Anne’s County east of Kent used as a water supply. The concern in this area
Narrows and west of Queenstown Creek/Wye is not protecting the shallow, unconfined aquifer
River, no new water appropriations over 1,000 but instituting control and management
gallons per day (gpd) will be approved from the strategies that give a high degree of protection
Aquia Aquifer. As a reference point, the County against contaminating deeper, underlying
uses a standard of 100 gpd per person for water confined aquifers. Map 7 shows the existing
use. This equates to approximately 250-300 gpd water system features . Map 8 shows the ground
per household. Thus, the restriction of 1,000 water protection areas A and B.
gpd does not impact individual homes, but does
impact new, larger developments. Most wells in the County are drilled into the
nearest confined aquifer, which is the Aquia, the
East of Queenstown Creek/Wye River to the predominant aquifer in Management Areas A
Corsica River/Centreville/Tred Avon River, large and B. Aquia water quality is good in those
Aquia Aquifer appropriations requests are areas where it is not experiencing salt or
scrutinized for potential to contribute to the salt- brackish water intrusion and requires little or no
water intrusion problem. treatment. This aquifer is a very desirable
ground water resource to be managed and
As part of the 1990 Sewer and Water Master protected. Because of restrictions on the Aquia
Plan, the County’s Environmental Health appropriations, the next nearest and highest
Department prepared a Groundwater Protection yielding aquifer, the Magothy Aquifer, is
Report in 1989. The report was subsequently becoming the primary water source in areas with
updated in 1995, in response to COMAR restricted Aquia withdraws.
26.04.02, regulations “Governing Sewage
Disposal and Certain Water Systems for Homes The Magothy Aquifer is high yielding in certain
and Other Establishments.” The report had two areas of the County but has excessive iron levels
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Growth Trends/ Issues
Page - 33

(16-35 mg/l) on Kent Island. Water treatment is Problem Areas
required to provide usable water. The Federal
has defined desirable iron levels as less than 0.3 Love Point: This area is experiencing salt water
mg/l. In the northern end of Queen Anne’s intrusion into the Aquia. Residents continue to
County, the Magothy is not as high yielding but replace Aquia wells by abandonment and sealing
has significantly lower iron levels than 0.3 mg/l. of existing wells and drilling new wells into the
In addition, the central/north area of the County Magothy Aquifer and treating the water to
uses the Monmouth Aquifer, which exists reduce iron levels.
between the Aquia and Magothy Aquifers.
The Raritan-Patapsco Aquifer has not been used Southern Kent Island: There is a threat of
in Queen Anne’s County until recently because brackish water intrusion into the Aquia south of
the overlying Aquia and Magothy Aquifers are Batts Neck Road. Drillers report that the
shallower and less costly to drill and have met deepest part of Aquia is contaminated.
historic needs. The County has recently drilled a Maryland Geological Survey Report No. 51
production well into the lower Patapsco indicates that barring major changes in usage,
formation of this aquifer at Stevensville with iron the middle and upper parts will be impacted in
levels between 3 to 4 mg/l. Water quality within time. Although the recently released Report of
the Patapsco formation is variable. Iron levels in Investigation 72 indicated the rate of intrusion is
the Lower Patapsco are reported to range from not accelerating. Options include extending a
4.5 to 30 mg/l. transmission line from Matapeake Tower along
Route 8 to Tower Gardens on the Bay to relieve
The Groundwater Protection Report identified demand on Aquia and building a new central
final management strategies for on-site sewage water supply system.
disposal systems for Areas A and B for
implementation, establishing criteria and Kingstown-Chester Harbor: Approximately five
categories. Management Area B was specifically to ten percent of the wells have nitrate levels
focused on as an area of need. This area above 10 mg/l. This is the result of highly
contains some concentrations of thousands of permeable soils and septic systems and/or
very small lots with poor to very poor subsurface agricultural fertilizer contamination. Impacted
drainage. Waste disposal systems have routinely water supplies have private treatment systems
directly penetrated groundwater with septic tank for each home. Identification of the source of
effluent, creating a heavy sewage loading on the nitrates will dictate monitoring for other
unconfined groundwater aquifer. These older contaminants. Routine groundwater monitoring
subdivisions particularly on Southern Kent Island should be undertaken. The on-site remediation
represent the greatest contamination threat to currently in use appears to be a cost-effective
deeper confined aquifers because of the high solution.
density of septic systems and sewage loadings
and the uncertainty of the imperviousness of the
intervening layers between the surface aquifer
and the deeper aquifer.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Growth Trends/ Issues
Page - 34

Map 7: Water Planning Issues
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Growth Trends/ Issues
Page - 35

(cid:1)(cid:2) Water Distribution and Treatment being disinfection. Centreville currently uses
wells in the Monmouth Aquifer; its Aquia
Infrastructure Aquifer wells are not in current use.
Seventeen separate significant community or Northern Kent Island Service Area
multi-user water systems are in operation
between Stevensville and Grasonville in the The County operates three water treatment
Route 50/301 corridor. Eleven of these facilities plants for the Stevensville Area and five for the
are operated by the Queen Anne’s County Chester Area. The Stevensville plants are all
Sanitary District. Five of the County systems use interconnected. Two of the five Chester plants,
the Aquia Aquifer. Five use the Magothy and Bayside and Queen’s Landing, are already
one uses Patapsco Aquifer. Having this many interconnected. The Sanitary District has also
separate plants, many inherited from developers, interconnected two of the three plants south of
creates significant operation and maintenance Route 50/301, Kent Island Village and
(O&M) costs and issues for the County. Many of Bridgepointe, since they serve a relatively small
the water treatment plants are in close proximity customer base. It is anticipated the Stevensville
to each other. plants will be connected to North Chester at
some point in the future.
Current analyses by the Sanitary District of the
cost of water treatment varies significantly The Riverside plant will not be interconnected
between the Aquia and Magothy Aquifers. since it serves only 25 dwellings and is relatively
Capital costs for water treatment plants for water distant from the other plants. Subsequently, the
from the Aquia are reported to be $1,500 to Kent Island Village/Bridgepointe systems would
$2,000 per gallons per minute (gpm). Capital be interconnected with the Bayside/Queen’s
costs for water treatment plants for water from Landing system north of Route 50/301. This
the Magothy are reported to be $5,000 to final phase would effect the consolidation of
$6,000 per gpm. The difference is due primarily these facilities into the Northern Kent Island
to iron removal requirements. The cost to treat Service Area. The Kent Island Village and
water from the Aquia is estimated to be $1.46 Bridgepointe water treatment plants, using the
per 1,000 gallons versus $4.31 per 1,000 gallons Aquia and Magothy Aquifers respectively as
of water from the Magothy. A new production sources would then be abandoned. Thompson’s
well into the Patapsco Aquifer was installed Creek water treatment plant, using the Aquia
recently for the Stevensville water plant. Iron Aquifer, and the Queen’s Landing water
levels were approximately 3 to 4 mg/l. treatment plant, using the Aquia, would serve
summer peak demands or as a backup to the
To address the O&M issues and to relieve primary Stevensville water treatment plant. This
demands on the Aquia Aquifer, the Sanitary plan is predicated on satisfactory water quality
District has proposed to further consolidate from the Stevensville Patapsco wells, particularly
existing water treatment plants. The six iron less than 5 mg/l. Initial results indicate iron
significant private water treatment plants are is less than 5 mg/l. If this plan can be
operated in the Route 50/301 corridor and all implemented as noted, Queen Anne’s County
use the Aquia Aquifer as the source of supply. will have consolidated the multi-user water
Major water plants and systems are owned and supply systems, eliminated their demand on the
operated by the Towns of Queenstown and Aquia Aquifer.
Centreville. Water quality and supply are
reported to be good with the only treatment
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Growth Trends/ Issues
Page - 36

Grasonville Service Area Romancoke on the Bay. The southern boundary
of the sub-district may be extended to Tower
The County operates two water treatment plants Gardens in the future. Uncorrectable septic
in the Grasonville Area; the three other systems system failures or site conditions leading to
are community systems. The Grasonville Area is problems have been reported in communities in
proposed to be split into two areas, East and this area since the 1970’s. Approximately 3,000
West. Subsequently, the system could be recorded lots exist within this sub-district.
interconnected with the Fox Run Uncorrectable septic system failures are defined
Condominiums, taking a privately-owned water as those that can only be remedied on-site by
treatment plant off-line. In the Grasonville West implementing a holding tank and not by
Area, the Oyster Cove water treatment plant repairing the septic system in a manner that
could be expanded to serve the east side of Kent allows direct groundwater penetration by the
Narrows if MDE approves additional wastewater discharge. Because of lot sizes, soil
groundwater appropriations. conditions and high ground water table, on-site
correction and clustered or shared systems are
Southern Kent Island Service Area not considered viable options. The two major
options previously identified by the County are:
Southern Kent Island (SKI) currently has no
existing water treatment system. Given the (cid:1)(cid:2) Construction of a new central wastewater
recent analysis by the Maryland Geological treatment plant at Southern Kent Island and
Survey on impending contamination of the a new effluent outfall to the Bay, or
upper and middle parts of the Aquia Aquifer, (cid:1)(cid:2) Pump the wastewater to an expanded Kent
drillers’ reports on contamination in the lower Narrows/Stevensville/Grasonville (KN/S/G)
Aquia Aquifer, and the need to decrease plant at Stevensville
demands on the Aquia, it is likely that water
service will need to be provided to this area. Currently, the Sanitary District is proceeding
Currently, Kent Island Estates and Romancoke with upgrading/expanding of the KN/S/G
on the Bay have been identified as water wastewater treatment plant to 3 MGD, and
problem areas and could be served by a central ultimately to 5 MGD in the future. The plant’s
system. This system would have wells into the current capacity is 2 MGD. This approach will
Patapsco Aquifer, a water treatment plant, and a centralize and consolidate wastewater treatment
distribution system with water storage. This operations and eliminate the need for a second
system could be expanded to include Tower effluent outfall into the Bay. From a wastewater
Gardens of the Bay, Queen Anne Colony, treatment perspective, it is a cost-effective
Kentmorr, Sunny Isle of Kent, and Chesapeake approach. Map 8 shows the existing sewer
Estates, since they are nearby. service system features and issues.
(cid:1)(cid:2) Wastewater Infrastructure Kent Narrows/Stevensville/Grasonville
Needs/Deficiencies Wastewater Subdistrict-Dominion/Marling
Farms
Southern Kent Island Wastewater Subdistrict
Dominion and Marling Farms are two
This subdistrict is comprised of the area west of communities located south of Chester on Route
Route 8 (old/new) from and including the 552 on Crab Alley Bay. Dominion has 225
communities from Batts Neck to Romancoke parcels of which 200 contain homes; Marling
and also including Kent Island Estates and Farms contains 406 parcels of which 310 contain
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Growth Trends/ Issues
Page - 37

homes. Small lot sizes, seasonally high water Upgrades to Existing Collection/Transmission
tables and poor soil permeability create severe System
limitations for long-term septic system waste
disposal. Dominion does not have space for The current infrastructure associated with the
growth. Marling Farms, if served by a KN/S/G system is approaching its design life of
centralized sewer, has approximately 100 20 years for many components. The system,
parcels to accommodate growth. The Health which went on-line in 1982, has undergone
Department continues to study and monitor this upgrades to accommodate growth.
area. Service to this area has been considered in Subsequently, the vacuum collection systems
several planning documents since 1984. were expanded by extension to adjacent areas
Historically, this area has been assigned a lower where feasible and new systems were built to
priority for service than Southern Kent Island. accommodate problem areas such as
Cloverfields and Bay City. Mechanical/electrical
Towns/Other Areas modifications/upgrades to the vacuum collection
stations were necessary to accommodate system
Other areas within Queen Anne’s County served extensions in many cases. The two transmission
by on-site septic systems have reported septic system pumping stations constructed nearly 20
system failures or potential problem septic years ago are being upgraded to accommodate
system areas. These areas include: Prospect Bay flows. These modifications include
pump and control system replacement at both
Barclay: The Town has a significant rate of septic stations.
system failure. The Town has planned a central
gravity septic tank effluent collection/subsurface An upgrade to the transmission system may be
drainfield, but the system has not been required in the future. Currently, corrosion
implemented. problems are occurring in several sections of the
system in Grasonville and on Kent Island. These
Crumpton: This area has highly permeable soils problems have been attributed to corrosive soils.
so there are very few problems. However, it
should be monitored for groundwater
contamination problems.
Queen Anne: Small lot sizes result in conditions
that are unsuitable for long-term septic system
use.
Templeville: Some reported septic system
failures due to high water tables are currently
being studied by Caroline County.
Matapeake Multi-use Field Station/Bay Model:
On-site mound system is malfunctioning and
inadequate for expansion of site activities.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Growth Trends/ Issues
Page - 38

Map 8: Sewer Planning Issues
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Growth Trends/ Issues
Page - 39

(cid:1)(cid:2) Transportation 14,325 vehicles on MD 213 between US 301
and Centreville. In the Kingstown area just south
Highway System Characteristics and Usage of Chestertown, they peak again at 11,975
vehicles. Volumes on MD 18 generally range
System Characteristics. US 50 and US 301 are from 2,000 to 4,000 vehicles.
the principal highways in Queen Anne’s County.
Both routes enter the County via the Maryland Route 8 is also an important route,
Chesapeake Bay Bridge at the western end of which serves Southern Kent Island. Maryland
Kent Island and split at Queenstown with Routes 300 and 302 are east-west routes in the
roughly two-thirds of the traffic continuing east northern part of the County that link the US 301
on US 50 and one-third turning north on US corridor with the Dover metropolitan area in
301. Between the Bay Bridge and Queenstown, Delaware. Their highest 1998 AADTs were
US 50/301 is a six-lane, access-controlled 3,125 vehicles on MD 300 and 4,650 vehicles
expressway. East of the split, both are four-lane on MD 302.
divided highways with at-grade intersections,
except for the US 301 interchange with Beyond the State’s primary and secondary road
Maryland Route (MD) 213. US 50 and US 301 systems, Queen Anne’s County maintains over
are the only multilane, divided highways in the 500 miles of County roads. Some of these roads
County. The only other State primary system in the County’s growth areas, such as
route in the County is MD 404, a two-lane Greenspring Road in the vicinity of the
highway extending east from US 50 along the Queenstown retail center and Castle Marina
Talbot County line. Road in Chester, are becoming increasingly
important traffic carriers.
As the primary access route to Delaware and
Maryland beaches, US 50/301 carries some of Traffic Growth Characteristics. The SHA
the highest traffic volumes on the Eastern Shore. provided AADT data for all state routes in the
Annual average daily traffic (AADT) in the County for each of the five years from 1994-98.
corridor reached almost 80,000 vehicles on Kent These data indicate a broad range in the rate of
Island near the Bay Bridge in 1999, and peak traffic growth over the last five years for different
summer weekend travel exceeds this level. parts of the County. The highest traffic growth
Most of the beach traffic remains on US 50 after rates have been on US 50, where 1998 volumes
the split with US 301, and much of the traffic are 60 to 73 percent higher than in 1994. This
destined to Delaware beaches subsequently reflects an annual growth rate of 10 to 12
turns east onto MD 404. percent. From 1998 – 2000 US 50 has shown a
modest increase in traffic. In contrast, US 301
The State secondary system covers an extensive north of the split with US 50 has experienced
network of two-lane highways that are generally only modest traffic growth, except in the
in good to excellent condition, but with some immediate vicinity of the Queenstown growth
needing shoulder development. The two most area. In the northern part of the County US 301
important routes in the secondary system are traffic has grown at a rate of one percent or less
MD 213, a north-south route across the County per year, while in the central section near
serving the County seat at Centreville, and MD Centreville, annual traffic growth has been
18, which parallels US 50/301 across Kent Island between two and three percent.
and links the communities of Stevensville,
Chester, Grasonville, Queenstown, and
Centreville. Traffic volumes reach a high of
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Growth Trends/ Issues
Page - 40

Traffic growth on the secondary system has been secondary highways is highest in the Kent Island,
highest in the Queenstown, Centreville, and Queenstown, and Centreville areas, as well as
Kent Island areas. Volumes have doubled on on MD 300 and MD 302 into Delaware.
MD 213 and MD 304 between Centreville and
US 301 because of increasing local Commuting Patterns: More than 57 percent of
development. Traffic on MD 8 south of US 50 the County’s employed residents (or a total of
on Kent Island has grown by 37 percent since almost 10,000 residents) commute out of the
1994. While their 1994 base year AADTs were County for work. This percentage is the fourth
relatively low, MD 300 and MD302, which serve highest rate of all counties in Maryland. Most of
the Dover area and central Delaware, have the out commutation is to destinations within
experienced significant annual growth rates of the Baltimore region. As Figure 7 shows, of
eight to 15 percent in the last five years. those out-commuters, the most travel to Anne
Arundel County and to Kent County, Maryland.
In summary, US 50 remains the most rapidly There is a less significant amount (about 3,000
growing traffic corridor in Queen Anne's County in-commuters) of non-residents driving to
with 1999 AADTs ranging from 40,000 to Queen Anne’s to fill county-based jobs. Most of
80,000 vehicles. Volumes in the US 301 these drive from Upper Eastern Shore Counties
corridor range from a high of 26,525 vehicles including Caroline, Kent and Talbot and from
just north of the US 50 split to a low of 12,000 Anne Arundel County on the Western Shore.
vehicles north of MD 305. Traffic growth on
Figure 7: Commuting Patterns, 1990
Source: Maryland Department of Planning
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Growth Trends/ Issues
Page - 41

Figure 8 shows that most County residents (76 cost $174 million to upgrade US 301 between
percent) drive to work alone. A significant US 50 and the Kent County line to access-
number carpool but very few report using other controlled standards with interchanges.
means.
The extent and timing of US 301 improvements
in Queen Anne's County may be affected by
actions outside the County. Delaware is
Carpooled
17% currently conducting a major study of future
Walked needs along its portion of the US 301 corridor.
2%
If it is upgraded to expressway standards in
Worked at Delaware, that will put more pressure on making
home
improvements in Maryland. US 301 is also seen
4%
as an alternative corridor to I-95 for north-south
Drove alone travel through the middle Atlantic States,
77%
especially as a bypass of the Baltimore-
Washington urban region, particularly by
Figure 8: Means of Transport to Work, 1990
truckers. Improvements to US 301 in Maryland
Source: US Census
west of the Chesapeake Bay and in Virginia
Existing Deficiencies and Problems
could enhance its appeal as an interstate route
and increase its volumes in Queen Anne's
Map 9 shows the following transportation issues.
County.
US 50 Corridor: The rapid traffic growth in this
The need for properly designed service roads in
corridor underscores the need to expedite the
conjunction with proposed overpasses is a
SHA's planned improvement of the section east
critical issue for local residents and businesses on
of US 301 to a six-lane, access-controlled
US 50 and 301.
facility. This $220 million project is funded for
right-of-way acquisition, but not construction,
Maryland 404 : In conjunction with the rapid
which means its implementation is likely beyond
growth identified within the US 50 corridor and
2003.
regional traffic growth destined for resort areas,
MD 404 has been identified by SHA as a
US 301 Corridor: The most significant problem
candidate for dualization. This project was
in this corridor (north of US 50) is the conflict
originally planned and canceled in the early
between high-speed traffic on US 301 and
1990’s has received interest from local residents
increasing cross route traffic on secondary
in Caroline, Talbot and Queen Anne’s County is
highways, such as MD 300, 304, and 305, as
now being reevaluated by SHA officials.
well as MD 18 and Greenspring Road in
Queenstown. The SHA has made traffic
engineering improvements at most of the cross
routes, but they remain hazardous locations
because of the speed differentials between US
301 traffic and traffic stopping, entering, or
crossing from local routes. The interchange that
was built at MD 213 will likely have to be
duplicated throughout the corridor, as both local
and through traffic grows in the corridor. The
SHA's Highway Needs Inventory estimates it will
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Growth Trends/ Issues
Page - 42

Map 9: Transportation Issues
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Growth Trends/ Issues
Page - 43

Kent Island Traffic Improvement Needs: The
SHA has the two-lane reconstruction of MD 18 Just north of US 301 near Centreville, volumes
(Main Street) from Stevensville to Queenstown on MD 213 have reached 14,000 vehicles.
in its Highway Needs Inventory. The Widening for turn lanes and driveway controls
reconstruction of the Cox Creek Bridge and MD should be employed in this section. The volume
18 improvements in Stevensville was completed on MD 304 between Centreville and US 301
in 1999 and the planned reconstruction of MD was 5,250 vehicles in 1998, which is well below
18 is underway. The reconstruction of MD 18 warrants for four lanes but high enough to
has been needed since the upgrading of US 50 exacerbate traffic conditions at its hazardous
through this area, and its implementation should intersection with US 301. This intersection is
improve both the safety and efficiency of local the next likely candidate for an interchange on
traffic movement and US 50 access. US 301. Although the traffic volumes do not
currently warrant any capacity improvements,
Another emerging problem is MD 8 from the caution should be taken to ensure that the
Kent Island High school on the northern side of scenic qualities of MD 213 are not diminished.
US 50 to Batts Neck road on the south side of
US 50. The 1998 AADT on two-lane MD 8 just Remainder of the County: There are no other
south of US 50 was approximately 16,500 areas of the County where existing volumes or
vehicles, which is higher than the volume on traffic conditions warrant four-lane
some sections of US 301 and at the threshold of improvements. The SHA proposed the
warranting four lanes. The area south of US construction of a bypass for MD 213 around the
50/301 to Bay City is proposed for significant east side of Chestertown in Kent County that
new development and MD 8 is the only route in would have its southern terminus in Queen
the corridor. Anne’s County near the intersection of MD 213
and MD 544. However, this project has been
A comprehensive analysis and access plan was dropped from the State’s program because of
undertaken by the County and State officials in local concerns about its possible impact on
May of 2000 to forecast and plan for roadway residential development, especially in the
improvements along MD 8. This “Corridor Plan” Kingstown area, and because they did not meet
will be used to stage improvements along MD 8 the Governor’s Smart Growth initiatives.
as growth occurs and will assist with targeting
MD 8 as an important transportation needs Roadway Funding and SHA Expenditures in
project with MD SHA. Queen Anne’s County
More growth is projected north of US 50 on Almost all road construction and repairs are paid
Kent Island. New development in the for out of the Transportation Trust Fund, which
Stevensville-Chester area will require careful is funded through gas taxes and multiple other
consideration of its traffic impacts. sources but does not include local general
revenue funds. Through the early 1990s, the
Queenstown and Centreville Traffic SHA made very substantial highway investments
Improvement Needs: In the Queenstown area in Queen Anne’s County in the upgrading of US
the improvement of Greenspring Road between 50/301 to expressway standards and the
US 301 and US 50 is a key proposal from the construction of the Kent Narrows Bridge. As
County’s growth area plans, and it will provide a might be expected, recent capital expenditures
critical link across the east edge of this growth for road improvements have been considerably
area. smaller. Over the last three years, the SHA has
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Growth Trends/ Issues
Page - 44

spent approximately $18.3 million on roadway connectivity for the MTA commuter shuttles at
improvements in the County, including several the Kent Island Park and Ride.
resurfacing projects. Another $2.8 million is
currently being spent on the MD 18/Cox Creek A North County Route offers service to residents
Bridge reconstruction and $2.5 Million has been north of State Route 19 in Crumpton,
allocated for the MD 18 project in Grasonville. Sudlersville, Barclay and Millington with daily
trips to Chestertown. Other routes in service are
It is not unusual for SHA expenditures in the in the Grasonville and Centreville areas. Under
County to follow erratic patterns because the development is a Kent Island Shuttle which will
cost of one major project, such as the Kent cover only Kent Island and a Saturday Shuttle,
Narrows Bridge, can result in expenditures well also for Kent Island. These four routes have
above normal levels for the three to five years regular passengers for the senior centers in the
required to design and build the project. There areas but are also transporting a growing number
have been no “big ticket” SHA projects in the of general public passengers.
County since the US 50/301 widening and
bridge construction of the early 1990s. The next In addition to the five public transit routes, an
big SHA project will likely be the upgrading of Assisted Transportation service provides
US 50 to a six-lane expressway between US 301 passengers with access to medical facilities in
and the Talbot County line. The SHA has Easton, Chestertown, Baltimore, Annapolis and
already spent $18.6 million on planning, design, other areas. Many of these passengers are wheel
and right-of-way acquisition to date. Although chair bound and require special assistance in
no funds have been programmed for order to receive care. Trips to dialysis centers,
construction, the project is of strategic cancer treatments, physical therapists, and other
importance to the State as part of its efforts to specialized services are covered under this
improve ocean access for recreational travelers. component. The system also is the contractual
The County has been working with SHA to provider for Medical Assistance recipients in the
review design options. county.
Transit/ Commuting Alternatives In FY 2001, the entire system provided over
44,000 trips to residents of Queen Anne’s
The County Ride Public Transit System was County. Growth of regular routed service is
established in 1998 as the first fixed route hampered by the fact that there are few
system on the Eastern Shore outside of Ocean concentrations of passengers as occur in urban
City. Regular service on the principle route areas. For that reason, a deviated fixed route
beings at 5:00 a.m. daily in Centreville with a service has been employed since the inception
route encompassing southern Queen Anne’s of service. A regular clientele now takes
County. Among areas served by County Ride advantage of the service with a majority of
are the Chesapeake Bay Business Park, the Kent public route passengers utilizing the service to
Island Park and Ride (for connections with MTA travel to and from work and shopping.
vehicles to Annapolis, Baltimore, and
Washington), Chesapeake College, and other As additional funding is made available through
shopping and business areas along the route. the Governor’s Transportation Initiative, routes
The route also offers extensions to Chestertown will be expanded to include connecting service
and Easton one day each week. The route runs to Chestertown and Easton and coordination
until 8:00 p.m. each weekday in order to offer with existing routes to Annapolis, Washington
and Baltimore will be expanded. Under
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Growth Trends/ Issues
Page - 45

consideration are plans for route coordination FTE is thus a more accurate depiction of
through Chesapeake College and improved capacity needs and utilization than an actual
service to medical centers in the metropolitan student count.
areas. A need expressed at public hearings is for
Saturday Service; this will also be attempted on Although the Capital Improvement Plan calls for
the Kent Island route. a new elementary school and a new middle
school to be in place by 2004, the Board of
Bay Bridge Airport Education projections shown in Table 13 do not
incorporate this new capacity (600 elementary
The Bay Bridge Airport located in Stevensville is school places, 800 middle school places). One
a transportation and economic development reason is that the locations of these proposed
asset for the County. The airport is well-used schools are not fixed. Consequently, any
and currently has approximately 76,000 annual attempted redistribution of students among the
take-offs and landings. There is little, if any, new and existing schools at this time would not
capacity for airport expansion because of be an accurate planning guide. The projections
surrounding existing development. The do assume that all planned expansions of
Stevensville Community Plan recommends that existing facilities will be completed.
height limitations for new surrounding
development may be necessary to ensure flight As the table shows, the pressure on elementary
safety during take-offs and landings. schools in the Kent Island-Grasonville areas is
not likely to lessen and will also increase in
Centreville. The proposed new elementary
school will absorb much of the projected
demand in the Kent Island-Grasonville area.
Centreville will not benefit from this expansion.
In the more rural Church Hill and Sudlersville
areas, enrollment is projected to decline.
Today, middle school capacity is still good. By
2008, however, the two middle schools serving
The Bay Bridge Airport has 76,000 annual take-offs and landings the designated growth areas will essentially be at
capacity. The more rural Sudlersville Middle
(cid:1)(cid:2) Schools School is planned to be upgraded and
expanded, which will increase capacity by 2008.
Map 10 shows the location of the County’s 12
If perpetuated, current trends would begin to
existing public schools. Table 13 shows the
strain the capacity of the Kent Island High
current enrollment and relation of enrollment to
School by 2004. In contrast, Queen Anne's High
capacity of the 12 schools. The figures are for
School would continue to easily absorb an
Full Time Equivalent (FTE) enrollment. The table
increasing enrollment.
also shows Board of Education projected FTE
enrollment and relation to school capacity for
As these projections indicate, reliance on
the year 2010 as distributed among the existing
relocatable classrooms to relieve overcrowding
12 schools. FTE accounts for 1/2-day pre-
of elementary schools may still be required ten
kindergarten and kindergarten children as part of
years from now. Opening of the new
the total enrollment by equating each morning
and afternoon slot with one full time student.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Growth Trends/ Issues
Page - 46

elementary school could diminish the scale of Comprehensive Plan. These are included in the
such need, but may not entirely eliminate it. Appendix to the Plan, which is available from
the County’s Planning Department.
Additional school projections were undertaken
as part of the alternatives analysis portion of this
Table 13: Queen Anne’s County Schools Analysis, 2001-2010
2001 2010
Map School Name Capacity FTE Relocatable Surplus/ % of Projected Projected Surplus/ % of
# Enrollment Units (shortage) CapacityCapacity Enrollment (shortage) Capacity
Capacity Capacity
Existing Elementary Schools
2 Bayside 695 740 6 (45) 109% 695 900 (205) 137%
3 Kent Island 445 591 11 (146) 133% 445 825 (380) 185%
5 Grasonville 500 344 0 156 67% 500 411 (89) 62%
6 Centreville 369 360 6 9 97% 450 584 (134) 95%
8 Kennard 450 376 0 74 93% 450 519 (69) 95%
10 Church Hill 407 288 0 119 66% 407 417 (10) 75%
12 Sudlersville 450 383 0 67 110% 450 430 20 96%
Proposed Elementary Schools
Kent Island – Kentmoor (600 Capacity)
Subtotal 3316 3082 23 234 97% 3397 4059 (662) 109%
Existing Middle School
4 Stevensville 757 799 3 (42) 93% 757 940 (183) 119%
7 Centreville 695 640 3 55 82% 695 675 20 83%
11 Sudlersville 359 347 5 12 87% 450 392 58 73%
Proposed Middle Schools
Kent Island – Grasonville (800 Capacity)
Subtotal 1811 1786 11 25 88% 1902 2007 (105) 95%
Existing High Schools
1 Kent Island 1135 1140 0 (35) 77% 1335 1459 (124) 114%
9 Queen Anne’s 1179 918 22 251 78% 1269 1122 124 114%
Subtotal 2314 2058 22 216 78% 2604 2581 23 99%
Total 7441 6926 56 475 88% 7903 8647 (744) 102%
Notes:
1. All enrollment figures are for FTE and include Pre-K enrollment.
2. 2010 projections are distributed among the 12 existing schools. No new schools are assumed. 2010 projects do not assume all planned
expansions are completed.
3. Bayside elementary School capacity was increased by permanent attachment of four relocatables.
4. Relocatables at Queen Anne’s High School will be removed when construction of facilities/expansion is finished.
5. Relocatables when used for classrooms accommodate 20-25 students.
6. The location of relocatables are not projected for 2009 as their use is determined on an as needed basis.
*Subtotals do not count planned schools. Capacity of planned schools listed only for information
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Growth Trends/ Issues
Page - 47

Map 10: Existing Public School Facilities
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Planning Regulatory Framework
Page - 48

(cid:1)(cid:2)
Fiscal Health safety at 14 percent, general government at 8
percent, and transfers to pay for capital projects
Revenues and Expenditures at four percent. The FY 2002 budget shows
education funding remaining steady at 56
In FY 2001, the County received 52 percent of percent. The largest portion of the increase in
its general fund revenues from property taxes cost from 2000 to 2002 is debt service on bonds
and an additional 35 percent from income taxes. sold to renovate school facilities. Debt service
All other sources represented a small proportion on school buildings increased by 57 percent
of overall revenues with the next highest source from $2.7 million to $4.3 million.
being other local taxes, which includes
recordation and sales taxes for a total of five Tables 14 and 15 show the breakdown of FY
percent. 2000 through FY 2002 general fund revenues
and expenditures by category. FY 2001 and
In FY 2001, general fund moneys spent on 2002 figures are actual revenues and
expenditures, FY 2002 are per the adopted
education represented more than 56 percent of
budget.
the county’s expenditures, followed by public
Table 14: Queen Anne’s County General Fund Revenues, FY 2000 – FY 2002
FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
FY 2000 Percent of FY 2001 Percent of FY 2002 Percent of
Revenue Sources Actual Total Actual Total Adopted Total
General property taxes 26,879,315 49.9% 31,470,442 51.7% 32,772,850 50.4%
Local income taxes 19,373,084 35.9% 21,498,495 35.3% 23,250,000 35.8%
Other Local Taxes 3,000,709 5.6% 2,961,474 4.9% 2,655,000 4.1%
Licenses & permits 569,553 1.1% 639,363 1.1% 572,400 0.9%
Intergovernmental 1,249,775 2.3% 1,214,307 2.0% 1,365,812 2.1%
Charges for services 992,283 1.8% 1,099,645 1.8% 972,900 1.5%
Interest 591,824 1.1% 757,051 1.2% 550,000 .8%
Rents 43,535 0.1% 49,112 1% 46,000 0.1%
Miscellaneous 327,674 0.6% 327,726 0.5% 686,275 1.1%
Appropriated Fund Balance 1,227,000 1.8%
Transfers from other funds 882,504 1.6% 850,738 1.4% 870,918 1.4%
Total 53,910,256 100.0% 60,868,353 100.0% 64,969,155 100.0%
Source: Department of Finance
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Planning Regulatory Framework
Page - 49

Table 15: Queen Anne’s County General Fund Expenditures, FY 2000 – FY 2002
FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
FY 2000 Percent of FY 2001 Percent of FY 2002 Percent of
Expenditures Actual Total Actual Total Adopted Total
General Government 4,184,904 7.8% 5,135,886 8.4% 5,618,753 8.6%
Public Safety 7,491,702 13.9% 8,655,002 14.2% 9,625,836 14.9%
Public Works 2,267,797 4.2% 2,477,744 4.1% 2,977,308 4.6%
Public Health 879,277 1.6% 931,775 1.5% 1,125,724 1.7%
Social Services 648,475 1.2% 913,496 1.5% 868,274 1.3%
Education* 30,985,706 57.5% 34,627,436 56.7% 36,497,040 56.2%
Parks & Recreation 1,517,391 2.8% 1,697,205 2.8% 1,818,381 2.8%
Libraries 852,183 1.6% 904,151 1.5% 935,439 1.4%
Conservation of Nat'l Resources 298,586 0.6% 331,020 0.5% 349,371 0.5%
Economic & Community Devlpmt 878,577 1.6% 903,200 1.5% 1,215,069 1.9%
Insurance & Local Allocations 489,544 .9% 470,037 .8% 440,025 .7%
Intergovernmental 127,070 0.2% 138,994 0.2% 132,636 0.2%
Debt Service 620,670 1.2% 1,296,413 2.1% 1,300,799 2.1%
Contingency 110,564 0.2% 56,520 0.1% 150,000 0.2%
Transfers to other funds 2,524,413 4.7% 2,583,331 4.1% 1,914,500 2.9%
Total 53,876,859 100.0% 61,122,210 100.0% 64,969,155 100.0%
Source: Queen Anne’s County Department of Finance
*Includes debt service on school facilities.
Property Tax Rate and Total Assessable Base was the construction of Centreville Middle
School in the late 1970s. In 1997, the county
For FY 2002, Queen Anne’s County property tax raised the tax rate only to reduce it again to a
rate is $0.976 per $100 of assessed (market) level just above the previous level rate for fiscal
value. This is in the middle of property tax rates 1999 and 2000. This has placed a substantial
in the State. Ten counties have lower rates burden on the County agencies as they try to
while thirteen are higher. Each one penny tax provide services and facilities to County
rate increase will generate approximately an residents and businesses. It has also forced the
additional $335,000 in revenues. From Fiscal county to carry a high tax rate of indebtedness.
Year 1989 to 1996, the County kept its tax rate In 2001, the County increased the tax rate by
unchanged despite a period of significant $.25 to $2.44. Prior to FY 2002, the rate was
population growth and the concomitant growth based on 40% of assessed (market) value.
in necessary facilities and services to serve this
growth. For many years, some needed capital The County had the sixth lowest total assessable
expenditures were delayed such as renovation base in the state during FY 2001. Assessable
and construction of new schools and others base is the total assessed value of all taxable real
were undertaken using borrowed funds. For estate and personal property in the County.
instance, prior to the 1991 opening of Bayside Only Caroline, Dorchester, Garrett, Kent, and
Elementary School, the last major school project Somerset have lower assessable base totals. The
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Planning Regulatory Framework
Page - 50

County’s low base is due mainly to the relatively Transfer Taxes
low amount of non-residential development.
Job-rich communities on the Western Shore Seventeen counties including Baltimore City
such as Montgomery and Baltimore County have exercise their authority to levy a transfer tax on
a much larger tax base. The County’s real real property transactions. This is a local levy in
property assessed values have been increasing at addition to the state’s 0.5 percent transfer tax.
an average rate of about 4 percent from FY1999 The local rate is imposed as a percentage of
to FY2001 and have increased by almost 85 each property transaction’s total value. Queen
percent since 1992. Anne’s County levies a 0.5 percent transfer tax.
By way of comparison, of those counties that
Income Taxes and Revenues impose a transfer tax only Allegany, Caroline,
Kent, and Worchester assess at the same or a
Local income tax, formerly known as the “piggy- lower rate as does Queen Anne’s County. All
back income tax” is calculated as a percentage the remaining assess a higher rate including
of state taxable income. Talbot, St Mary’s Howard, Garrett, Baltimore
County, Baltimore City, Montgomery, and Anne
Beginning in calendar year 1999 the local Arundel counties. The County does not
income tax was “decoupled” from the State currently have the authority to levy a transfer tax
income tax. This legislation substantially altered above 0.5 percent.
the nature of the Maryland local income tax.
For tax years 1999 and beyond, the taxes are Impact Fees
calculated using a flat percentage of Maryland
taxable income. This modification required Queen Anne’s County levies impact fees for
each county’s tax rates to be restated and schools and public safety on each new dwelling
adjusted to reflect the new tax structure. In unit and a public safety impact fee only on new
essence, the “piggyback” tax was abolished and non-residential development on a per square
replaced with a simpler flat rate tax. foot basis.
State law requires that a county adopt a tax rate
for 2001 that is not less than 1.01% and not Based on the impact fee study undertaken at the
more than 3.04%. Queen Anne’s tax rate for county’s request by Tischler & Associates (1996
2001 is 2.8% of Maryland taxable income. to 1997), the County’s impact fee structure was
Seven counties (Alleganey, Charles, Frederick, found to be inadequate to address the costs
Montgomery, Prince George’s, St. Mary’s, and borne by the County to pay for school costs
Wicomico) have adopted income tax rates associated with new development. This analysis
higher than Queen Anne’s County. Queen found that current impact fees covered only 36
Anne’s County ranks 17th out of the 23 percent of capital cost related to providing
Maryland counties plus Baltimore City in total schools to service new development. Revisions
net taxable income based on the 2000 filing to the impact fee ordinance are in progress as of
year. June 30, 2001.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Planning Regulatory Framework
Page - 51

Bond Ratings and Bond Debt calls for the issuance of $48.2 million of bonds in
the years 2002 to 2007.
Bonds are the mechanism used to finance long-
(cid:1)(cid:2)
term improvements. Ratings range from “AAA” Historic Resources
for the best quality and smallest investment risk,
to “C” for the poorest risk. Bonds with ratings of Setting
A and above are considered investment grade.
The unique heritage of Queen Anne’s County is
A lower bond rating will require the payment of
evident in its historic urban centers, rural
higher interest rates which in turn raises the cost
agricultural land, and maritime ports.
of borrowing to the jurisdiction. For counties,
Preservation of the region’s quality of life will not
key indicators in determining the bond rating are
only strengthen community ties, but also spur
size and growth of the tax base and evidence of development of the tourism industry and
good fiscal management and planning. increase private investment into the area. The
following section documents the history of
Queen Anne’s County is rated A by Standard Queen Anne’s County and provides a summary
and Poor’s and A+ by Moody’s. This is the of the County’s historic and cultural assets.
same bond rating as Baltimore City and similar
Overview of Queen Anne’s County History.
to those of St. Mary’s, Wicomico, Cecil, and
Documented inhabitants have resided on the
Washington counties. Of all the counties with
Eastern Shore for over 11,000 years. In 1608
bond ratings, Allegany, Caroline, and Dorchester
and 1609, Captain John Smith was the first
Counties have lower ratings. This is indicative of
European to explore the Eastern Shore. The first
the overall high quality of Maryland credits as
documented maps of the Chesapeake region
viewed by the rating agencies. were produced as a result of these voyages. A
Virginia colonist by the name of William
At the end of fiscal 2001, the County’s ratio of Claiborne attempted a settlement on the mouth
bonded debt to assessed value was 4.5. This is a of the Chester River on Kent Island in 1631.
This settlement, Fort Kent Manor, was intended
substantial increase over the ratio 1.7 in 1992.
to serve as a trading post for the Virginia colony.
Total net bonded debt at June 30, 2001 was
However, Cecil Calvert (the second Lord
$58.7 million. Expressed in another way, this
Baltimore) claimed that the island was a portion
net bonded debt was more than $1,440 per
of the land grant given to his family by royal
capita. This is four times higher than it was in
charter and thus established it as part of
1992 when the figure was about $350 per
Maryland.
capita. The high level of debt is a result of
insufficient revenues to finance needed capital Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, tobacco
projects. cultivation dominated the way of life of these
Eastern Shore residents. The wide dispersion of
In FY 2001, the County issued bonds in the tobacco plantations throughout the countryside
coupled with the availability of wharves at these
amount of $32.9 million. The resulting debt
plantations slowed the development of towns
service required that the real property tax rate
and created a landscape dependent on water
be increased to provide adequate funding for
transportation. In 1706, Queen Anne’s County
necessary services. This level of bonding is
was formally established with Queenstown
expected to continue. The adopted Capital Plan
serving as its County seat.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Planning Regulatory Framework
Page - 52

Historic and Cultural Sites
With fluctuating demands for tobacco during the
pre-industrial era, many plantations switched The following paragraphs document some of the
production to grain. The widespread cultivation major historic and cultural resources in Queen
of grain is credited for the landscape prevalent Anne’s County. These resources are shown on
throughout the County today. Many of the Map 11 and listed in Table 16.
earlier tobacco fields were small, irregular, and
geared toward manual methods of cultivation. Kent Island: As the site of the first English
The cultivation of grain resulted in an orderly settlement in Maryland, Kent Island has a history
arrangement of larger farms. Due to the dating back to the 16th century. With the
demand for grain from urban areas in the establishment of the first English settlement in
northeast, the Eastern Shore developed a strong Maryland, Kent Island evolved into a major
link with northern markets. residential and commercial area. Stevensville,
the island’s unincorporated center, was
The landscape of the Eastern Shore was established in 1850. Listed on the National
beginning to feel the impact of numerous years Register of Historic Places, Stevensville’s Historic
of colonial and pre-industrial cultivation in the District provides numerous examples of the
19th century. It became necessary for farmers to County’s unique cultural heritage. Historic
implement crop rotation practices and use resources on the island range from architectural
natural and chemical fertilizers. Technological (Cray House, Stevensville Bank Building) to
advances such as steam-powered vessels, farm religious centers (Methodist Protestant Church,
machinery, and the railroad dramatically Christ Church) to historic economic and civic
increased production and led to the uses (Stevensville Train Depot, Stevensville Post
development of new markets such as fruits, Office).
fishing, and oystering. The emancipation of the
slaves created new communities in the later Queenstown: Established in 1707 from 100
1800s and further added to the productivity of acres of the Bowlingly plantation, Queenstown
the region. (originally referred to as Queen Anne’s Town)
served as the original County seat. Its proximity
The completion of the gradual shift in primary to the Chester River allowed the town to flourish
transportation and freight movement throughout and serve as home to a large fleet of commercial
the region completed itself in the 20th century fishing vessels for the region during the 18th
with the introduction of the automobile and the century. Importance of this port to the Eastern
development of the interstate highway system. Shore was most notably realized during the War
The automobile led to the creation of a more of 1812 when the British launched several land
connected transportation system and opened up and sea attacks on Queenstown. Historic
areas of the County that were previously resources include a colonial courthouse, several
inaccessible to residents. The completion of the churches, and several private residences.
Chesapeake Bay Bridge in 1952 released a wave
of business, industrial, and residential Centreville: As the current County seat,
development on the Eastern Shore, which Centreville has enjoyed a long history dating
stimulated substantial new development in the back to 1692 with the establishment of St. Paul’s
western portion of the County. Parish. In response to the demand for a more
centrally located courthouse, the Maryland State
legislature relocated the courthouse and
government center from Queenstown to a 400-
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Planning Regulatory Framework
Page - 53

acre tract known as “Chesterfield” in 1792. served as a popular crossing for travelers during
Officially incorporated in 1794, Centreville lies the winter months due to the swift current of the
at the head of the Corsica River and is centrally Chester River, which slowed the development of
located within the County and the Eastern ice.
Shore. The historic character of the town is
evident in the numerous architectural examples Status of Preservation Measures in Queen
from the austere federal period and the Anne’s County
Victorian era. Centreville is also home to the
Queen Anne’s Museum Of Eastern Shore Life. The County’s community plans for Centreville,
This museum actively promotes the agricultural Chester, Grasonville, Stevensville, and
and maritime heritage of the region through Queenstown developed in 1997 and 1998
exhibits and displays of artifacts, agricultural address streetscape issues, community character,
tools, household goods and other cultural relics. and historic resources. Several studies also have
addressed the need for regional cooperation for
Wye Mills: This area of Queen Anne’s County the preservation of the entire Eastern Shore.
was named after the Wye Grist Mill, the Eastern Two of these studies as well as current planning
Shore’s oldest frame grist mill, and is listed on efforts are highlighted below.
the National Register of Historic Places. Mill
operations were so successful that during the Countryside Stewardship Exchange Program.
1706 survey of the border between Queen In 1994, the County participated in the
Anne’s and Talbot County the mill served as a Countryside Stewardship Exchange Program
reference point. The State of Maryland acquired performed in the Chesapeake Bay region. This
the mill in 1953 in order to convert the millpond program provided an opportunity for
into a community fishery and flood-control professionals from the U.S. and abroad to make
project. recommendations on future courses of action for
the community in order to preserve unique
Wye Island: Wye Island was originally referred cultural, historic and natural resources. As a
to as the “Great Island in the Wye River.” The component of this program, three separate
island was predominantly occupied by a handful studies were conducted along the Eastern Shore
of farms until the 1970’s when pressure to from Pennsylvania to Virginia. Queen Anne’s
develop the area as a planned community County was studied in conjunction with Kent
occurred. Due to local opposition, development County. Recommendations from this report
plans were halted and the State of Maryland include: raising public awareness about the
purchased 2,450 acres for the creation of the region’s heritage, developing industries that
Wye Island Natural Resources Management promote the traditional lifestyle and quality life
Area. of the area, creating a shared vision among
neighboring communities and counties and
Other Historic Sites: There are several other developing adequate mechanisms for
areas within the County with historic or cultural communication.
resources. Several historic churches are located
in the town of Church Hill. Sudlersville is the Heritage Planning Initiative. Officials and
site of Dudley’s Chapel, the first Methodist private groups from Maryland’s Eastern Shore
meeting house in Queen Anne’s County, and (Queen Anne’s, Kent, Talbot, and Caroline
was the childhood home to baseball great Jimmy Counties) initiated a proposal to develop a
Foxx. Developed in the 19th century around Heritage Area for the Upper Eastern Shore in
McCallister’s Ferry, the town of Crumpton 1999. Established by the Maryland General
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Planning Regulatory Framework
Page - 54

Assembly in 1996, the Maryland System of Chesapeake Country Scenic Byway: The
Heritage Areas is intended to promote historic Planning and the Business and Tourism
preservation and stimulate the economy through Development Departments of Queen Anne’s
the generation of sales, tax revenues and County, in conjunction with Kent and Cecil
income. A feasibility study, prepared for the Counties and the State Highway Administration
Heritage Partnerships for Maryland’s Upper (SHA), have prepared a Corridor Management
Eastern Shore, outlined the region’s historical Plan (CMP) for the state-designated Chesapeake
resources and developed a process for managing Country Scenic Byway. This 90-mile corridor
the Heritage Area, which is now officially runs primarily along MD 213 and MD18
recognized by the State. Work is underway to between the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal
develop a management plan for the Area. and the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, with a branch
on MD 20 and MD 445, which extends from
Current Preservation Efforts: Queen Anne’s Chestertown through Rock Hall to the Eastern
County is actively involved in efforts to preserve Neck Wildlife Refuge. The Maryland SHA
the distinct quality of life and heritage of the designated the Chesapeake Country route as a
County. In 1995, the County created the Scenic Byway in 1998 for its scenic, cultural,
Historic Sites Consortium (HSC) to assist in site historical, recreational, and environmental
management organizations with promotion, qualities. The vast majority of the route consists
increase public access to historic sites, increase of wide vistas of farmland, interspersed with
the knowledge and application of museum small towns, most with extensive historical
standards, develop exhibits and obtain funding assets. Views of local hydrological features are
assistance. The HSC consists of 11 organizations common along the route as creek, river, and bay
and 15 historic sites within the County. A part- crossings occur throughout the corridor. In early
time coordinator was hired in 1997 to manage 2000, the County hired a consultant to assist the
the program. Since its creation, the HSC has cooperating counties with the planning process,
held open house events, designed a “History & prepare the CMP, and complete the National
Heritage Explorer” Tour Map, held a docent Scenic Byways application.
training program and been involved with the Now that the CMP is complete, the Chesapeake
Heritage Area Planning Initiative. The Country Scenic Byway team is eligible to apply
consortium is currently working on developing a for project grant funding, and to submit an
Youth Heritage Initiative designed to provide application for National Scenic Byway
educational materials and field trips to third and designation. Both efforts are currently
fourth graders from County schools. underway.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Planning Regulatory Framework
Page - 55

Map 11: Historic Resources
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Planning Regulatory Framework
Page - 56

Table 16: Historic and Cultural Resources in Queen Anne’s County
Map # Area / Site Status Description
Kent Island
1 Christ Church N Founded in 1631, this site houses the oldest established congregation in the state and is
home to a Gothic church. (C. 1880)
2 Cray House N, Q A rare example of "post and plank" construction, gambled roofed house. (C. 1839)
3 Kent Fort Manor Marker Stone marker identifying the general location of the trading post established by William
Claibourne. (1631).
4 Kent Manor Inn Large county inn located in the middle of a 226 acre tract once called Smithfield. (1820s).
5 Kent Narrows Historically a bustling commercial center for seafood processing and packing houses, the
area now boasts numerous restaurants and the Chesapeake Exploration Center.
6 Lowery Hotel A historic private residence altered to accommodate travelers. (C. 1860).
7 Methodist Protestant Church Brick church constructed near the end of the Civil War. (C. 1864)
8 Stevensville Bank Building N The first banking enterprise located on the island. (1902-1907).
9 Stevensville Post Office Q Site served as the Stevensville Post Office for the first half of 20th century. (C. 1877).
10 Stevensville Train Depot Q Original station house at Stevensville for the Queen Anne's railroad system. (c.1902)
Queenstown
11 Bloomingdale N Federal style, 2-story brick mansion listed. (1792).
12 Bowlingly N Georgian style private residence. (1733).
13 Colonial Courthouse Q First courthouse in the county. (C.1708)
14 My Lord's Gift Large tract of land given as a gift by Charles Calvert, Third Lord Baltimore. (1658).
15 St. Luke's Episcopal Church Small county church. (1840-1841).
16 St. Peter's Catholic Church N Romanesque and Victorian architecture adorn this church. (1823-27, 1877).
Centreville
17 Kennard School First and only secondary school for blacks in Queen Anne's County. (1936).
18 Queen Anne's Courthouse Q Oldest continuously used courthouse in Maryland. (1792-94).
19 Queen Anne's Museum of Eastern Q Exhibits focusing on Queen Anne's rural lifestyle.
Shore Life
20 St. Paul's Episcopal Church Stained glass windows and a herb garden adorn this church. (1834).
21 Tucker House Q Federal style private residence. (C. 1794).
22 Wright's Chance Q Frame style plantation house from the mid-to late-18th century. (C. 1744).
Wye Mills / Wye Island
23 Wye Island Historical island currently the Wye Island Natural Resources Management Area.
24 Wye Mill N, Q Eastern Shore's oldest frame grist mill. (late 18th century).
25 Wye Oak 16th century white oak tree recorded as one of the oldest specimen eastern U.S.
26 Wye School One-room schoolhouse with Flemish influences. (C. 1800s).
Churchill
27 Church Hill Theatre Q Originally used as town hall, theatre still brings performing arts to the county.(1929).
28 St. Luke's Episcopal Church N Oldest brickchurch in MD. (C. 1732)
Sudlersville
29 Dudley's Chapel N, Q First Methodist meeting house in Queen Anne's County. (C. 1783).
30 Jimmy Foxx Memorial Statue Lifesize bronze statue of Baseball Hall of Fame member Jimmy Foxx.
31 Sudlersville Train Station Q Only remaining Queen Anne's County station surviving on its original site. (C. 1885).
N = National Register of Historic Places, Q = Historic Sites Consortium of Queen Anne's County
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Planning Regulatory Framework
Page - 57

(cid:1)(cid:2) Agriculture Table 17: Number of Farms
The County has some of the most productive % Change
soils in Maryland. According to the Agriculture 1987 1992 1997 (87-97)
in Maryland Summary for 1998 prepared by the Farms 457 413 419 -8%
Maryland Department of Agriculture, Queen Farm Acres 170,677 165,349 167,957 -2%
Anne’s County is the largest producer of corn, Source: 1987, 1992, and 1997 Census of Agriculture
soybeans, and wheat in Maryland. Of the total
yield for various crops within the State, Queen Table 18: Farms by Size
Anne’s County produces three percent of the
total output for corn used as silage, 16 percent %
Change
of the total output for soybeans, 16 percent of
1987 1992 1997 (87-97)
the total output for wheat and 11 percent of the
1 to 9 acres 32 26 30 -6%
total output for barley. Conserving agricultural
10 to 49 acres 69 90 88 28%
resources within the County will be paramount
50 to 179 acres 115 90 97 -16%
not only to protecting a segment of the County’s
180 to 499 acres 131 95 89 -32%
economic base, but preserving the historic
500 to 999 acres 59 63 61 3%
heritage and culture of the region.
1,000 acres or more 51 49 54 6%
Source: 1987, 1992, and 1997 Census of Agriculture
Further analysis of the Agricultural Census finds
that the average size of farms has stayed
constant at about 400 acres but the number of
farmers reporting farming as their principal
occupation declined by approximately five
percent. The average age of farmers also
increased from 52 to 54 years during this time.
The County has some of the most productive soils in Maryland. These figures reveal that farmers are staying on
and fewer are transferring farms to the next
Farm Numbers, Size, Operation, and
generation, a potential threat to the long-term
Ownership. An analysis of the Agricultural
viability of the County’s agricultural economy
Census from 1987, 1992, and 1997 showed that
and way of life.
the number of farms declined by eight percent
during this time period as shown within Table
In 1997, a majority of all farms within Queen
17. Mid-sized farms (50 to 499 acres)
Anne’s County were owned and operated by the
experienced the largest decline while farms
same individual. During the 10-year period
between 10 and 49 acres and those over 1,000
from 1987 to 1997, the County experienced a
acres increased slightly. These figures, shown in
decline in the number of farms operating under
Table 18, demonstrate that mid-sized farms are
full and partial ownership status. These figures
more likely to face development pressure and
are presented in Tables 19 and 20.
are often subdivided for residential and farmette
uses or are absorbed into large farms.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Planning Regulatory Framework
Page - 58

Table 19: Operators by Principal Occupation
1987 1992 1997
All Farms % All Farms % All Farms %
Farming 281 61% 266 64% 268 64%
Other 176 39% 147 36% 151 36%
Total 457 100% 413 100% 419 100%
Source: 1987, 1992 and 1997 Census of Agriculture
Table 20: Farm Ownership
1987 1992 1997
Farms % Acres % Farms % Acres % Farms % Acres %
Full Owner 244 53% 46,878 27% 220 53% 44,090 27% 229 55% 54,612 33%
Part Owner 139 30% 93,235 55% 111 27% 89,984 54% 115 27% 83,555 50%
Tenant 74 16% 30,564 18% 82 20% 31,275 19% 75 18% 29,790 18%
Total 457 100% 170,677 100% 413 100% 165,349 100% 419 100% 167,957 100%
Source: 1987, 1992, and 1997 Census of Agriculture
Farms with Sales Over $10,000. Market Value of Crops and Production.
Further analysis of the Agriculture Census found
One of the key indicators of the vitality of an that the market value of products sold from
agriculture system is farms with sales of more the 1987 to 1997 increased by 54 percent after
$10,000 per year. These farms demonstrate adjusting for inflation. These figures, shown in
those with substantial agribusiness operations Table 22, only represent the value of the goods
and remove those with part-time or “hobby” sold and do not represent those goods produced
farming functions. Over the ten-year period for livestock or poultry feed. Due to the 22
from 1987 to 1997, the number of farms percent rise in the number of chicken farms and
achieving sales of greater than $10,000 stayed the 75 percent increase the number of chickens
fairly constant as did the total acreage consumed sold between 1987 and 1997, there is a growing
by these farms. These figures are shown in Table use of crops produced that are unmeasured in
21. the determination of the total market value.
Table 21: Farms Sales of 10K or More Although the number of farms producing the
County’s major crops of corn, wheat, soybeans,
% Change and barley have decreased by 18 percent, the
1987 1992 1997 87-97) total acres in production increased by 37
Farms 288 308 293 2% percent and the total bushels produced
increased by 107 percent. These figures suggest
Total Acres 155,643 161,321 161,078 3%
that farms operating today utilize more efficient
Total Sales ($1,000) 30,706 54,849 68,358 123%
production methods.
Avg. Sales per Farm 106,619 178,083 233,304 119%
Source: 1987, 1992, 1997 Census of Agriculture
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Planning Regulatory Framework
Page - 59

Table 22: Market Value of Agricultural Products Sold, 1987-1997
(in constant 1997 dollars)
%
Change
1987 1992 1997 (87-97)
Total Sales
Total ($1,000) 44,732 46,344 68,736 54%
Avg/Farm 97,882 112,215 164,047 68%
Sales by Commodity
Crops Farms 384 361 338 -12%
Total ($1,000) 14,259 35,075 43,607 206%
Grains Farms 359 329 292 -19%
Total ($1,000) 12,009 29,576 36,167 201%
Corn for Grain Farms 295 240 219 -26%
Total ($1,000) 5,418 13,591 13,108 142%
Wheat Farms 216 220 212 -2%
Total ($1,000) 1,938 4,727 6,725 247%
Soybeans Farms 307 291 272 -11%
Total ($1,000) 4,201 10,564 15,506 269%
Livestock/Poultry Farms 145 127 121 -17%
Total ($1,000) 17,022 20,097 25,129 48%
Source: 1987, 1992, and 1997 Census of Agriculture
Expenses and Net Value Cash Return. Table the total operating expenses. In 1997, 50
23 shows that production expenses increased by percent of the farms within Queen Anne’s
47 percent from 1987 to 1997 for all farms County had net gains averaging $74,562.
within the County and 35 percent for farms with Average losses in 1997 were $17,799. Over the
sales of $10,000 or more after adjusting for ten-year period from 1987 to 1997, the number
inflation. This increase in expenses is the result of farms with net gains increased from 33
of rising costs associated with petroleum, feed, percent to 50 percent. These figures are shown
seed, repairs and interest rates. The Census of in Table 24.
Agriculture also reports the “net cash return from
agricultural sales for farm units," which details
the gross market value of products sold minus
Table 23: Production Expenses Per Farm (Constant 1997 Dollars)
% Change
1987 1992 1997 (87-97)
All Farms 93,626 94,657 137,230 47%
Farms with $10K or more sales 141,914 127,036 191,553 35%
Source: 1987, 1992, and 1997 Census of Agriculture
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Planning Regulatory Framework
Page - 60

Table 24: Net Cash Gains and Losses
1987 1992 1997
Number of Farms with Gains 150 279 209
% of Farms with Gains 33 67 50
Avg. $ per Farm 48,294 63,865 74,562
Number of Farms with Loss 307 135 211
% of Farms with Loss 67 33 50
Avg. $ per Farm 21,230 10,494 17,799
Source: 1987, 1992, and 1997 Census of Agriculture
* Constant 1997 dollars
Regional Context. When compared with production expenses than its Eastern Shore
Maryland’s other Upper Eastern Shore Counties counterparts.
(Caroline, Cecil, Kent, and Talbot), Queen
Anne’s agricultural industry is experiencing less The County recognizes the need for the
farmland conversion and higher productivity. continued viability of its strong agricultural base
These relationships are shown in Tables 25 and and the importance of the integral agricultural
26. According to the 1997 Census of support system that exists throughout the Eastern
Agriculture, Queen Anne’s County had eight Shore. The County is committed to maintaining
percent of the farmland within the State as the low densities in agricultural areas while
compared to the five percent average exhibited encouraging cluster development and the
by the other Upper Eastern Shore counties. On protection of natural resources and sensitive
average, the County’s farms are experiencing a areas to maintain the maximum amount of
higher market value for products sold and lower productive soils for agricultural use.
Table 25: Acres of Agricultural Land
% Change
1987 1992 1997 (87-97)
Cecil 86,861 80,241 85,702 -1%
Caroline 132,804 126,981 111,316 -16%
Kent 133,597 131,283 117,526 -12%
QUEEN ANNE'S 170,677 165,349 167,957 -2%
Talbot 109,032 109,108 109,572 0%
Source: 1987, 1992, 1997 Census of Agriculture
Table 26: Regional Comparison of Agriculture on the Upper Eastern Shore, 1997
Total Market Value Market Value of Average
% of State Average of Products Sold Products Sold Production
Farms Acres Total Size of Farm (1,000) (per farm) Expenses
Caroline 525 111,316 5% 212 95,120 181,181 167,878
Cecil 464 85,702 4% 185 59,052 127,267 108,392
Kent 314 117,526 5% 374 60,957 194,131 176,303
QUEEN ANNE'S 419 167,957 8% 401 68,736 164,047 137,230
Talbot 240 109,572 5% 457 48,530 202,208 164,057
Source: 1997 Census of Agriculture
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Planning Regulatory Framework
Page - 61

(cid:1)(cid:2) Conservation Lands preservation techniques are applicable in the AG
and CS Zoning Districts.
Map 12 shows all lands within Queen Anne’s
County (as of November 2001) that are currently Large Lot Subdivision: requires a 20-acre
preserved, conserved, deed restricted as open minimum lot size while meeting all other
space as a result of cluster subdivisions or standards as outlined in the Code with regard to
Transfer Development Rights (TDR) projects. In bulk standards in addition to a mandatory 35'
addition, publicly owned lands (State and frontage on a public or private road.
County) are shown. Table 27 shows the amount
of lands conserved by preservation programs or Sliding Scale Subdivision: the number of lots
tools. (including the residual parcel) may not exceed
two lots for the first one hundred acres of a
Total permanently protected acreage is 54,813 parcel and one lot for each additional hundred
(67,783 minus 12,970 in MALPF districts, which acres or part thereof. (Minimum lot size is
are not permanent) or 23% of the County’s total 20,000 sq. ft.) The technique was specifically
acreage. Publicly owned lands account for an incorporated to allow rural landowners a
additional 6,900 acres or 3% of the County’s simpler, less expensive option of subdividing
total acreage. their land.
Table 27: Conservation Lands Cluster Subdivision: maximizes the
development potential of the property with one
MALPF Easements* 19,114 acres dwelling unit per eight acres permitted on 15
MALPF Districts* 12,970 acres percent of the property with the remaining 85
MALPF/Greenprint Easements 222 acres percent of the property deed restricted via open
MET Easements 6,774 acres space covenants. (Minimum lot size is 20,000
Rural Legacy Easements 5,013 acres sq. ft., 15 percent net buildable includes all lots,
Private Conservation Easements 1,378 acres roads, etc.)
TDR Program 2,471 acres
Deed restricted open space 19,841 acres The 19,841 acres of open space listed in Table
(as a result of cluster subdivisions) 27 represents 85 percent (or the minimum
amount of open space required) of the total
Total 67,783 acres
acreage involved in the cluster subdivision
process. Although most subdivisions do not
Source: Queen Anne’s County
Department of Planning & Zoning maximize their development potential,
ultimately they have the option to develop up to
* The Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation 15 percent of their properties. There is no
Foundation (MALPF) program is explained on the
requirement that the deed restriction for
next page.
agriculture use be “tillable” land. The “open
space” usually includes natural resources that are
Rural Preservation
required to be protected by State or Federal
regulations such as woodlands, wetlands or
Approximately 209,000 acres or 88 percent of
habitat protection areas.
Queen Anne’s County is zoned Agricultural (AG)
or Countryside (CS). The following rural
The following options are alternative
development techniques and are also available:
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Planning Regulatory Framework
Page - 62

increase in floor area and impervious area by 25
Non-contiguous development: Allows a percent and a decrease in landscaping surface
landowner or group of landowners whose area by 25 percent on the project.
properties are in the same zoning district but not
contiguous to file a development plan as if the
lands were one parcel. Although no density
bonus is derived from using the technique, it
does allow the reduction of open space to 50
percent on the “developed” parcel to
concentrate the development while maintaining
the 85 percent open space overall. Several of
the larger subdivisions in the Ag. districts within
the last two years have employed this technique
resulting in approximately 500 acres of Preserving agriculture and rural character.
additional open space being created.
The transfer of development rights is regarded as
Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs). a private market transaction between willing
Queen Anne’s County TDR program has been in buyers and sellers. To date, the County has not
place since 1987, when agriculturally zoned been involved in the process, with the exception
lands were downzoned from one dwelling unit of reviewing the necessary legal documents for
per acre to one dwelling unit per eight acres. consistency with the Code and other regulations
Modifications to the TDR program concurrent and to receive them once they are “set down.”
with the 1994 Zoning Ordinance update As indicated on Table 27, there are 2,471 acres
permitted four acres of AG land and five acres of deed restricted acres as a result of the TDR
non-Critical Area CS land respectively to be program. Of all the preservation/conservation
deed restricted per one development right. options, this program has been the least effective
and plagued with legal appeals by property
Current regulations also require non Critical Area owners near the receiving parcels.
TDRs to be placed down within the boundaries
of designated growth areas. As a result of the Voluntary Preservation/ Conservation Options
recent completion and adoption of five growth
area plans, receiving parcels for TDRs have been 1. Private organizations such as the Maryland
identified. In some cases, the transferor or Environmental Trust (MET), the Eastern
sending parcels have been restricted to those Shore Land Conservancy, The Conservation
lands within the same election district. To date, Fund and The Nature Conservancy work
development proposals in the growth areas have with landowners who voluntarily
not opted to take advantage of TDRs to protect/deed restrict their land and as a
maximize development yield. result are eligible to receive tax benefits.
Approximately 6,774 acres of the currently
As an additional incentive for TDR use, there is preserved lands are attributable to the ESLC
also a conversion provided for non-residential and MET easements. Four properties
uses. Deed restricting the standard acreage of encompassing 739 acres were deed
AG and non-Critical Area CS land is the restricted in 2000.
equivalent of 200 sq. ft. of floor area and 500 sq.
ft. of impervious surfaces on the receiving parcel.
Incorporating the use of TDRs allows an overall
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Planning Regulatory Framework
Page - 63

2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Planning Regulatory Framework
Page - 64

Map 12: Conservation Lands
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Planning Regulatory Framework
Page - 65

2. Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation 3. Rural Legacy – In 1998, Queen Anne’s
Foundation (MALPF) – This State program County participated in the Rural Legacy
has had the greatest impact on land Program and as a result, with the assistance
preservation and the effort to create a solid and funding from Rural Legacy, The
base for productive agriculture in Queen Conservation Fund, and Program Open
Anne’s County. Currently there are 80 Space, the County was able to purchase
district properties preserving 12,970 acres almost 682 acres bordering the Chester and
and 113 easement properties accounting for Corsica Rivers. The property will be
an additional 19,436 acres. The combined managed by the Queen Anne’s County
acreage of MALPF district and easement Department of Parks and Recreation as a
properties accounts for 47% of the total passive recreational and wildlife preserve
deed restricted lands in the county. (MALPF facility.
Districts are formed when landowners sign a In 2000, Queen Anne’s County again
voluntary agreement that states that the land partnered with the Conservation Fund and
will be maintained in agricultural uses for a submitted a successful application to
minimum of five years and that the land will establish a Rural Legacy Area in the northern
not be subdivided for non-agricultural uses part of the County, encompassing 5,000
while under district status. Once land is acres of the Chino Farms property, plus
designated as a district, the owners are some additional acreage on adjacent farms.
eligible to apply to sell an agricultural land The total area to be protected is 6,880 acres.
preservation easement to the State. Grant awards in 2000 and 2001 have placed
Easements provide for the permanent under easement the vast majority of the
protection of agricultural land). Chino Farms property. Future applications
will seek funding to protect the remainder of
In 1999, Queen Anne’s County‘s local the Chino Farms Rural Legacy Area.
agricultural preservation program was
certified by MALPF and the Maryland (cid:1)(cid:2) Parks & Recreation
Department of Planning. Certification allows
the County to retain 75 percent of the Park Lands
agricultural transfer tax collected and
dedicate this revenue to the matching funds There are a wide variety of park and recreation
program available through MALPF. The facilities in Queen Anne's County. They range in
result is anticipated to double the amount of size from small County-owned boat launch areas
funds available to purchase easements. In and waterfront access sites to large County and
FY01, the County committed at “full match”, State parks. Map 13 shows the location of these
which is $666,667. This amount was various sites. Table 28 lists by different
matched with $1 million by the State. categories the specific sites and their acreage
that make up this current system. In addition,
In Fiscal Year 2000, the first year of the the adopted growth area plans contain park and
County’s certification, the County recreation recommendations for each
committed more than four times as much to community. The County has a separate Park
the County match as the previous year and and Recreation Plan.
was able to purchase twice as many
easements. The largest single parks category is the State
facilities. This group totals approximately 4,695
acres, more than half of which comprise the
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Planning Regulatory Framework
Page - 66

Wye Island Natural Resource Management Area. The Horsehead Wetlands Center, a 500-acre
This is followed by approximately 1,474 acres in environmental education facility, is located on
countywide special use areas (such as Conquest Prospect Bay, near Grasonville. The Center is
Farm and Terrapin Park), 300 acres at school privately owned, and offers many nature tourism
sites, 353 acres in community parks and 70 opportunities. There is a Visitor Center with
acres in neighborhood parks. The smallest exhibits, and educational programs are provided
category is for waterfront access and public for the public. Hiking and canoeing trails exist
landings – 22 properties totaling approximately throughout the property.
27 acres.
Terrapin Park is one of the Queen Anne’s largest County-owned parks. Children enjoy programs geared toward their needs.
Parks Programming
The total county-owned parks and open space
plus the schools used for public recreation
The County’s Department of Parks and
equals approximately 2,235 acres or almost 55
Recreation offers a wide range of programs from
acres per 1,000 population. The County is
organized sports leagues to winter ski trips. The
currently well positioned with its ratio of
department offerings include activities for all
parkland per capita. (Generally, accepted
County residents with specialized programming
national standards recommend 30 acres per
for seniors, adults, and children. Activities are
1,000 people of locally provided parks and
offered year-round at parks sites and at various
recreational facilities.) The total parks and
County school facilities.
recreation holdings is approximately 6,930 acres.
Cross Island Trail Update
Community parks and neighborhood parks,
those most likely to meet immediate local
One mile of the Cross Island Trail (using a former
recreation needs, total less than 425 acres. With
railroad right-of-way from Castle Marina Road to
a current population of approximately 40,500,
Old Love Point Park) opened to the public in the
this total breaks down to less than 11 acres per
fall of 1998. In the fall of 2001, the Trail was
1,000 population for these two categories of
extended east to the Kent Narrows, and west to
parks. Based on this analysis, there may be a
Terrapin Park. Including the walking trails in and
need to create more community and
around the Kent Narrows area, the Cross Island
neighborhood parks to increase the active
Trail is now over 6 miles in length. Future
recreation facilities available to County residents.
sections to Long Point Park, and extensions
Table 29 defines the neighborhood, community
down MD 8, are in the planning stages.
and special use parks and their service areas.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Planning Regulatory Framework
Page - 67

Map 13: Existing Public Recreation Facilities
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Planning Regulatory Framework
Page - 68

Table 28: Queen Anne’s County Existing Parks and Recreation Facilities
Map Size Map Size
# Park Name Acres Main Uses # Park Name Acres Main Uses
Neighborhood Parks Water Access/Public Landings (cont.)
1 Crumpton Park 7.00 Ballfields 38 Kent Narrows Ramp 1.00 Boat launching
2 Kingstown Park 1.50 Picnic 39 Reed's Creek 0.10 Water access w/o ramp
3 Mowbray Park 23.50 Tennis, ballfield, picnic 40 Romancoke Pier 2.50 Fishing Pier
4 Pinkney Park 12.50 Basketball, ballfield, picnic 41 Shipping Creek 2.50 Boat launching
5 Long Point Park 7.30 Tot lot, trail 42 Southeast Creek 0.25 Boat launching
6 Grasonville School Pond Park 18.50 Open Space 43 Thompson Creek 1.00 Boat launching
Subtotal 70.30 44 Warehouse Creek 0.10 Water access w/o ramp
45 Well's Cove 2.00 Water access w/o ramp
Community Parks Subtotal 27.40
7 Batts Neck Park 45.00 Roller blade rind &ballfields
8 Church Hill Park 41.00 Open Space Town Parks
9 4-H Park 27.00 Equestrian, picnic pavillion 46 Gravel Run Park 0.10
10 Grasonville Park 39.00 Tennis courts, ballfield 47 Millstream Park 6.00
11 Old Love Point Park 30.50 Ballfields 48 Queenstown Park 2.00
12 Roundtop Park 75.00 Basketball, tennis, ballfield Subtotal 8.10
13 Roosevelt Park 7.75 Multiple use trail & ballfield
14 Route 18 Park 51.60 Ballfields, picnic, trail Privately Owned Parks
Wildfowl Trust of North
15 Sudlersville Park 36.50 Ballfields, trails, tot lot 49 America 462.40
Subtotal 353.35
State Facilities
Countywide Special Use Areas 50 Chesapeake College 170.00
16 Blue Heron Golf Course 94.10 Golf 51 Tuckahoe State Park 1,842.00
17 Conquest Preserve 682.00 Fishing, swimming 52 Unicorn Lakes Fish Mgmt. Area 69.00
18 Cross Island Trail 24.50 Trail 53 Wye Island NRMA 2,514.00
19 Chesapeake Exploration Center 1.60 Visitor Information 54 Wye Mills Lake 66.00
20 Matapeake Park 70.00 Trail, nature studies 55 DNR Police 3.00
21 Price Creek Conservation area 300.00 Open Space Kent Island Research Center 31.00
22 Slaby Property 26.60 Open Space Subtotal 4,695.00
23 Stevensville Pocket Park 0.30 Passive
24 Terrapin Park 275.00 Beach, trail, nature School Grounds
Subtotal ,474.10 56 Bayside ES 16.00
57 Board of Education HQ 13.00
Water Access/Public Landings 58 Centreville ES 14.20
25 Bennett Point 1.50 Water access w/o ramp 59 Centreville MS 54.00
26 Browns Landing 0.10 Water access w/o ramp 60 Grasonville ES 9.40
27 Bryantown 0.50 Water access w/o ramp 61 Kennard Annex 14.20
28 Cabin Creek 2.60 Water access w/o ramp 62 Kent Island ES 13.70
29 Centreville Landing 1.00 Boat slip, ramp 63 Kent Island HS 46.00
30 Crumpton 0.30 Boat launching 64 Queen Anne's HS 80.00
31 Deep Landing 0.65 Boat launching 65 Stevensville MS 11.70
32 Goodhand's Creek 1.50 Boat launching 66 Church Hill ES 6.10
33 Jackson Creek 1.50 Water access w/o ramp 67 Sudlersville MS 10.70
34 Kent Narrows Boat Basin 1.70 Boat slip 68 Sudlersville ES 10.40
35 Little Creek/ Dominion 1.00 Boat launching, water access Subtotal 299.40
36 Matapeake Pier 5.00 Boat launching, fishing
37 Piney Creek 0.10 Water access w/o ramp Total 7,390.05
Map #’s refer to Map 13
Source: Department of Parks & Recreation; Department of Planning & Zoning; Compiled by LDR International, Inc.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Planning Regulatory Framework
Page - 69

Table 29: Parkland Classification System Guidelines
Type Service Area Desirable Size Acres/1000 Desirable Site Characteristics and
Residents Facilities
Neighborhood ¼ to ½ Mile 5-15 Acres 1-2 Acres Areas that serve the surrounding
Parks neighborhoods with facilities such as
basketball courts, children’s play
equipment and picnic tables.
Community 1-3 Miles 25-60 Acres 5-8 Acres May include areas suited for intense
Parks recreation facilities, such as athletic
facilities, ball fields, and large
swimming pools. Easily accessible to
nearby neighborhoods and other
neighborhoods.
Special Use No Variable Variable Area for specialized or single purpose
Areas Applicable Depending on recreation activities, such as golf
Standard Desired Size courses, campgrounds, water
recreation areas, and other centers for
natural, historic and cultural
interpretation.
Source: Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines, National Recreation & Parks Association, 1983.
(cid:1)(cid:2) Emergency Services as well as approximately 375 active volunteer
fire/ambulance company members.
The delivery of emergency services in Queen
Anne’s County is provided by several County Law Enforcement Services
agencies, nine volunteer fire companies and one
volunteer ambulance company. County The Sheriff, who is elected by the voters, directs
agencies include the Queen Anne’s County law enforcement services and is responsible for
Sheriff’s Office, which provides law enforcement policy development, administration, and
and Court security services; Department of maintaining liaison with other State and County
Corrections, which oversees the County Law enforcement and related agencies. A Chief
Detention Center; Department of Emergency Deputy, who oversees the internal operations of
Services, which is responsible for 9-1-1 services the department, assists the Sheriff in managing
and emergency communications, emergency the operations of the Sheriff’s Department. The
management services and supplements Chief Deputy supervises several units within the
emergency medical services provided by Department: the Patrol Division; the Criminal
volunteer fire/ambulance organizations. The Investigations Unit; the Community Policing
volunteer fire and ambulance companies, which Unit; and the Support Services Unit, which
are independent organizations, provide fire consists of the Court Security Detail, the Warrant
services and emergency medical transport Service Detail and the Civil Processing Detail.
services to defined service areas within the The Sheriff's Office occupies a portion of a
County. There are more than 100 full-time building that also houses several other State and
County employees providing emergency services County offices in Centreville. The current
Sheriff's Department office is inadequate to meet
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Planning Regulatory Framework
Page - 70

the needs of a modern law enforcement receipts. The fire companies are identified by
department. name and station number, below:
The Sheriff's Department responds to Station 1 Kent Island
approximately 12,500 incidents each year. The Station 2 Grasonville
number of incidents are expected to increase as Station 3 Queenstown
population growth occurs. Station 4 Centreville
Station 5 Churchhill
County Detention Services Station 6 Sudlersville
Station 7 Crumpton
The Queen Anne's County Detention Center is Station 8 Queen Anne-Hillsboro
located in Centreville and houses pre-trial and Station 9 United Communities
sentenced inmates. The current facility opened
in 1988. The County Detention Center has two Each fire company has several major pieces of
missions. Its primary mission is pre-trial housing apparatus and together they collectively operate
and in this capacity it functions as a maximum- a fleet of 43 pumpers, aerial ladders, tankers and
security facility. The Detention Center's brush trucks. In calendar year 2000, fire
secondary mission is for post-trial incarceration companies responded to 1,525 fire and
of those found guilty of offenses resulting in emergency calls.
relatively short sentences. There is also a
contractual arrangement with the U.S. Marshall's Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
Office to house some federal pre-trial inmates at
the Detention Center. The Detention Center, The delivery of Emergency Medical Services
which houses between 80 and 90 inmates, (EMS) in Queen Anne's County is through a
needs to be expanded. This expansion is bifurcated system supported by the volunteer
currently in the planning stages. fire departments and full-time and part-time staff
employed by the County (Department of
Fire and Rescue Emergency Services). Volunteers from the fire
departments staff ambulances and provide
Delivery of fire, rescue and emergency medical patient transportation to a hospital. Patient care
calls in Queen Anne's County is the is provided by both EMS-trained volunteers and
responsibility of nine volunteer fire company Department of Emergency Services personnel at
organizations, housed in strategically located fire the scene. Personnel from the Department of
stations throughout the County. While fire Emergency Services respond to EMS incidents in
stations are generally well located for emergency non-transporting chase cars.
response purposes, some fire stations are not
fully adequate to meet modern needs. Kent and During calendar year 2000, there were 3,632
Caroline County fire units provide mutual requests for medical assistance. For each of
support on the initial alarm in three small these requests for assistance, at least one
northern portions of the County. volunteer ambulance responded. County EMS
personnel responded to 3,470 of these requests
Fire companies are coordinated on a in a chase car. Volunteer ambulances
countywide basis though the Fire Chiefs transported patients to regional hospitals on
Association. The companies are supported by 2,429 occasions.
means of their own fund raising efforts, County
financial support, and some ambulance billing
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Planning Regulatory Framework
Page - 71

Map 14: Fire Districts and Station Locations
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Planning Regulatory Framework
Page - 72

Eight volunteer fire companies are organized as the underlying rationale for the passage of the
joint fire and EMS providers. One company, State’s Critical Area legislation and the County’s
Grasonville, has a separate EMS division within Critical Area Program and Chesapeake Bay
their organization. Ambulances are generally Critical Area Ordinance. The ordinance
staffed with State of Maryland certified Basic Life regulates development activities and land use in
Support (BLS EMT-B) volunteer providers and, in the Critical Area, defined as land within 1,000
some instances, State of Maryland certified feet of the tidal influence of the Chesapeake
Advanced Life Support (ALS EMT-P) volunteer Bay.
providers will staff an ambulance. The number
and level of training of emergency medical Approximately 40,000 acres or 17 percent of the
personnel varies among each company, but most County’s overall 237,990 acres are in the Critical
companies have members trained to the first Area. These lands are divided into three types
responder level, while others have received of development areas: Intensely Developed
advanced training. Areas, Limited Development Areas, and
Resource Conservation Areas. Map 14 shows
Emergency Services the location of the County’s Critical Area.
County emergency services are coordinated and Within the Critical Area there is a minimum
integrated by its communication system. The 100-foot buffer protected area from tidal waters,
Department of Emergency Services operates the streams and tidal wetlands where no new
911 and radio communications systems of development activities are allowed. In some
Queen Anne's County. The County Emergency cases, County regulations require the buffer to
Operations Center and 911 Center is a well be expanded to 300 feet.
designed, recently opened facility. There is a
state-of-the-art 800 MHz digital radio system. Intensely Developed Areas (IDA) comprise 765
Emergency communications are provided from a acres or less than one percent of the County’s
newly constructed emergency operations center. total acreage and about two percent of the
The center handles all E-911 calls for the County County’s Critical Area. These areas are
and provides communications and dispatch predominantly located in the Fourth Election
services to the Sheriff's Department, the District. IDA’s consist of 20 or more contiguous
Centreville Police Department, each fire acres and are characterized by residential,
department and the County's emergency commercial, industrial and/or institutional
medical units. development with relatively little natural habitat.
IDA lands also have one of the following
(cid:1)(cid:2)
Sensitive Areas characteristics:
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area (cid:1)(cid:2) Housing density equal to or greater than
four dwelling units per acre;
The Chesapeake Bay is North America’s largest (cid:1)(cid:2) Industrial, institutional or commercial uses
estuary and is home to more than 3,000 species concentrated in the areas; or
of plants and animals. The bay holds more than (cid:1)(cid:2) Public water distribution and sewer
15 trillion gallons of water. Half is saltwater from collection systems currently serving the
the Atlantic Ocean and the rest is freshwater that areas and housing density greater than three
drains into the bay from some 150 major dwelling units per acre.
streams and rivers. Preserving the Chesapeake
Bay and its tributaries by managing land use is
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Planning Regulatory Framework
Page - 73

Map 15: Critical Area
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Planning Regulatory Framework\
Page - 74

Limited Development Areas (LDA) comprise Critical Area Growth Allocation
approximately 8,825 acres or about two percent
of the total County acreage and 22 percent of The State’s Critical Area Criteria provide for
the County’s Critical Area. LDA includes any some lands that were originally designated as
area developed in low and moderate intensity RCA to be re-designated to LDA or IDA. This is
that also contains areas of natural plant and called “Growth Allocation” and is limited to five
wildlife habitat and where the quality of run-off percent of the County’s RCA. The County’s
from these areas has not been substantially general policy is to assign its Growth Allocation
altered or degraded. In addition, LDA has at in designated growth areas within and adjacent
least one of the following characteristics: to its municipalities. The County has “pre-
mapped” potential areas for growth allocation
(cid:1)(cid:2) Housing density between one unit per five within the Stevensville, Chester and Grasonville
acres up to four dwelling units per acre; growth areas. The incorporated Towns of
(cid:1)(cid:2) Not dominated by agriculture, wetland, Centreville and Queenstown are also allotted a
forest, barren land, surface water or open specified acreage for potential growth allocation.
space; “Pre-mapped” sites are typically adjacent to
(cid:1)(cid:2) Areas having the characteristics of the IDA, developed lands and are zoned to
but less than 20 acres in extent; accommodate future development. “Pre-
(cid:1)(cid:2) Public water or sewer or both. mapping” of growth allocation in conjunction
with the growth area plans is consistent with
Most of the LDA is located on Kent Island and State and County objectives to concentrate
along the County’s northern edge along the growth and direct it to existing communities. As
Chester River. of July 2001, the County has awarded 129 acres
of its Growth Allocation for development,
Resource Conservation Area (RCA) comprises leaving a balance of about 1,247 acres.
approximately 30,500 acres or 13 percent of the
County’s total acreage and 76 percent of the Endangered Species and Habitat Areas
Critical Area. These lands are distributed around
the County. RCA lands are characterized by the The location of State-designated threatened and
predominance of wetlands, forests, and forestry endangered species and their habitats as well as
activities, abandoned fields, agriculture, and other habitat areas that need special protection
fishery activities. In addition, RCA lands have at within Queen Anne’s County, according to the
least one of the following features: Maryland Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), are identified on Map 15. These species
(cid:1)(cid:2) Housing density less than one dwelling unit include:
per five acres;
(cid:1)(cid:2) Bald Eagle nesting sites
(cid:1)(cid:2) The dominant land use is agriculture, (cid:1)(cid:2) Delmarva Fox Squirrels
wetland, forest, barren land, surface water (cid:1)(cid:2) Various waterbird nesting sites and
or open space. waterfowl staging areas
(cid:1)(cid:2) Oyster bars
RCA does not include State tidal wetlands. (cid:1)(cid:2) Anadromous fish spawning areas
(anadromous fish are those that primarily
live in the ocean but travel upstream to
fresh waters to spawn and are an important
part of the County’s natural heritage)
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Planning Regulatory Framework
Page - 75

gum, and sweet gum. Some Virginia pine is also
present.
Forest and Woodland Protection
Implementation
Maryland’s Forest Conservation Act established
standards for local authorities to enforce during
land development. The intent of the Queen
Anne’s County Forest Conservation Ordinance is
Bird-watching at Horsehead Wetland Center
to ensure high quality forested areas are retained
and appropriate areas afforested in areas outside
Not mapped, but also protected are submerged the Critical Area. In addition to the County’s
aquatic vegetation (i.e., areas that provide Forest Conservation regulations, the Zoning
nursery areas and habitat for a range of Ordinance and the Critical Area Ordinance
Chesapeake Bay species). regulate the County’s forest conservation.
The County, State and Federal governments Wetlands
regulate development in these areas to reduce
impacts on these species and habitats. Restrictions on disturbance, dredging and filling
Techniques used to minimize impacts include activities in wetlands are regulated by federal
the sensitive locating of structures, timing and and State law. As a result, development
extent of clearing and grading, and the location potential in wetland areas is severely limited.
of stormwater management outfalls. The County Queen Anne’s County has almost 8,000 acres of
closely coordinates with DNR regarding tidal wetlands including shrub swamp, fresh
protection of State threatened and endangered marsh, brackish marsh, open waters sandbars,
species. The County cannot regulate or enforce mudflats and submerged aquatic vegetation.
the Federal Endangered Species Act. The County’s non-tidal wetlands are typically
hydric soils (these are saturated soils or periodic
Forest Protection high ground water levels). These lands are
subject to flooding. The County has
Approximately 63,660 acres or 20 percent of the approximately 86,000 acres of hydric soils or 36
County is forested. Of this amount, almost percent of the County lands.
7,000 acres are within the Critical Area. These
areas provide for wildlife habitat, water quality
and watershed protection, air quality
improvements, recreation and a small
commercial timber harvesting industry. State
and local laws govern clearing and are applicable
based on whether the site is within or outside of
the Critical Area. Most of the County’s forests
are comprised of various kinds of trees in the
oak-hickory association and to a lesser extent
The County has almost 8,000 acres of tidal wetlands.
oak-gum and oak-pine associations. Other
prevalent trees are elm, ash, red maple, black
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Planning Regulatory Framework
Page - 76

Other Sensitive Areas montmorillonitic clay), and the Columbia (or
Wicomico) Formation of the Pleistocene age
Other valuable natural resource areas not (glacial sedimentation).
mentioned above are protected via numerous
federal, State and local regulations. The Impact of Water Bodies on County’s Geology.
County’s coastal and riverine floodplains are The changing course of the Susquehanna River
regulated via the County’s Floodplain and the subsequent creation of new rivers
Management Ordinance as well as other County greatly influenced the geologic character of the
regulations. Streams and their buffers are County and created the Talbot Formation.
regulated and protected by the County’s Consisting of reworked sediments from the
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Ordinance and Wimomico Formation, the Talbot Formation
Zoning Ordinance. The County’s few steep masks the outcrop of Aquia and Calvert
slopes are regulated and protected by the Formations are present along the Chester River.
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Ordinance as well. Presently, new formations are forming in
estuaries, rivers, and streams from erosion.
(cid:1)(cid:2)
Mineral Resources Since the establishment of human settlement
and agriculture practices, the rate of
The development of extraction industries and accumulation has dramatically increased.
the identification of future resources are an
important component to the economic
development of some counties. However, the
only useable mineral resource within Queen
Anne’s County is sand and gravel. Due to the
extensive cost of transporting these materials,
excavations are predominantly used for local
needs. No shortage of these resources is
projected and the location of deposits does not
conflict with any current or future development
centers.
Geology of Queen Anne’s County. Lying
within the Coastal Plain physiographic province,
mineral formations within Queen Anne’s County
consist of sediments ranging from the Cretaceous
Period (175 million years ago) to the present.
The crystalline rocks on which these sediments
were deposited lie about 2,000 feet beneath the
surface of Queen Anne’s County. Due to the
gradual erosion of the Piermont physiographic
region to the west, the deposits form
overlapping, gently southward dipping beds.
Only three of the Coastal Plain sediments are
present at the surface of the County: the Aquia
Formation of the Eocene age (fine-grained
quartz and glauconite), the Calvert Formation of
the Miocene age (fossilifernous sand and
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Planning Regulatory Framework
Page - 77

Map 16: Sensitive Areas
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Planning Regulatory Framework
Page - 78

Attachment A
(cid:1)(cid:2)
State-of-the-Art Growth Management and Planning Techniques
This matrix includes a listing of planning and growth management tools and techniques. Each technique is described along with its objective, purpose
and how it relates to the Comprehensive Plan document. Techniques in place or partially in place in Queen Anne’s County are indicated and noted
(cid:2)
with the Code or Plan reference and with a “ ”.
Technique Description General Purposes Objective Relation of Plan to Tool
1. Public Acquisition
Fee simple acquisition Acquisition of full title to property for a control development of new areas to ensure coordination type; location; amount of Plan should specify areas to be
public purpose such as a park, open with existing and proposed capital facilities; avoid development acquired
space or school environmental problems; preserve open space; preserve
historic/cultural resources; prevent sprawl; provide
flexibility to meet future needs
Land banking Advance public acquisition of land control development of new areas to ensure coordination rate/timing; type; location of Plan should specify areas to be
where urban expansion or infill is with existing and proposed capital facilities; preserve development acquired and priorities. Capital
expected or where retention of the land open space; prevent sprawl; provide flexibility to meet program should specify funding
for an appropriate public or private future needs sources and amounts needed
sector use is necessary
Compensable regulation Combination of restrictive zoning with preserve neighborhood character; address environmental type; location; density/intensity of Plan should specify appropriate
payment of compensation at less than problems; preserve open space; preserve historic/ cultural development areas and allowable densities
full value resources
Less than fee simple Developmental easements and the conserve agricultural land; protect environmental type; location; density/intensity of Plan should specify appropriate
acquisition purchase of development rights; allow resources; preserve open space; preserve historic/ cultural development areas for use; allowable
landowner certain restricted uses of the resources; prevent sprawl densities/intensities; capital program
property or prevent certain uses on the should specify funding sources and
property; primarily used to protect open amounts needed
space and environmental resources
2. Public Improvements
Facility location Choosing the location of facilities (e.g., avoid inefficiencies and economic burdens of dispersed location; timing; rate; amount; Plan should include a capital
(cid:2) not in Code, but growth roads, sewer and water) to influence the growth; control location of development to ensure density/intensity of development improvements element and
areas have been location of development; success coordination with existing and proposed capital facilities; individual elements for each major
designated in depends on the necessity of the maintain or improve the level of community service; capital facility type. Plan should
accordance with State facilities to support development of reduce traffic congestion; avoid facilities overload specify Level of Service (LOS)
law certain types and/or densities/ standards for each facility type
intensities
Access to facilities regulating access to such public facilities control location of development to ensure coordination location; density/intensity of Plan should specify access
(cid:2) limited application with as sewer or water lines; limiting curb with existing and proposed capital facilities; maintain or development requirements for each facility; and
access management cuts on major streets or highways improve the level of community service; reduce traffic conditions of access
polices, ∋ 18-1-117 through a permit-issuing process congestion; avoid facilities overload
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Attachment A
Page -1

Attachment A
Technique Description General Purposes Objective Relation of Plan to Tool
Capital programming timed and sequenced provisions of provide local fiscal responsibility and security; avoid rate/timing; type; location; Plan should include a capital
(cid:2) not in Code, but County public infrastructure investments inefficiencies; maintain or improve the level of density/intensity of development improvements element and a CIP
maintains and updates a through which the community meets its community service; reduce traffic congestion; prevent
CIP projected capital facilities needs; also sprawl; provide for flexibility to meet future needs; avoid
specifies the costs of the improvements, facilities overload
and details the sources and methods of
financing
Adequate Public Facilities requires that all necessary public to insure that development does not cause a reduction in location and timing of Plan should include facility
Ordinance/Concurrency facilities are available and adequate at level of service standards; to insure that facilities are development requirements and level of service
Management the time of development adequate when the impacts of the development will be standards
felt
Utility Phasing Phase and sequence utilities consistent Avoids over consumption of facility capacity and provides Location and timing of Need to ensure that extension policy
with land use, timing and sequencing incentives and disincentives for development development; adequate public does not violate any duty-to-service
policies of Comprehensive Plan facilities principles.
Official Mapping Allows County to withhold building put developers on notice of planned improvements and adequate public facilities Plan should include location of
permits in public facility corridors so commits County to new facilities planned streets and public areas
that it may commence condemnation based on physical or aerial surveys
proceedings
Impact Fees Fees charged to ensure that new to shift the capital facilities costs associated with new location of development; fiscal Plan should include facility level of
(cid:2) ∋ 18-1-305 - charged development pays its fair, pro rata share development to that development; fiscal responsibility; impact development; adequate service standards; designate impact
only for public schools and of facilities costs necessary to avoid economic burdens of growth public facilities fee districts and subdistricts; project
emergency services accommodate such development at growth and development Capital
established level of service standards program should specify public
facilities to be provided with impact
fee funds.
3. Environmental Controls
Performance zoning Protection of natural processes such as prevent environmental degradation; promote public amount; type; location of Plan should designate
environmentally sensitive flooding, stormwater runoff, and health, safety and welfare development environmentally- sensitive lands and
lands groundwater recharge; prevent designate permissible development
(cid:2) ∋ 18-1-078 development on sensitive lands and in by type, density/intensity; etc.
sensitive resource areas
Critical areas designation Environmentally sensitive areas where prevent environmental degradation; promote public amount; type; location of Plan should designate
(cid:2) Title 14 the public interest extends beyond the health, safety and welfare; preserve open space; provide development environmentally-sensitive lands and
local jurisdiction; such areas are natural areas and greenbelts designate permissible development
typically regulated and controlled by a by type, density/intensity; etc.
higher governmental authority, usually
the State
Best Management Practices Prescribes structural and nonstructural Prevent environmental degradation; public health, safety Performance Plan should designate
(BMP’s) approaches for reducing pollution and welfare environmentally sensitive areas and
(cid:2) required by Title 14 for any BMP’s needed beyond existing
agriculture and requirements. BMP requirements
stormwater management should be consistent with State
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Attachment A
Page -2

Attachment A
Technique Description General Purposes Objective Relation of Plan to Tool
stormwater management environmental standards.
Stream, shore or wetland Undisturbed areas designed to filter and Prevent environmental degradation; public health, safety Location; Performance Plan should designate
buffers cleanse stormwater runoff and welfare environmentally sensitive areas and
(cid:2) ∋ 18-1-081, -084 any required buffers.
Steep slope protection Requirement that development avoid Prevent environmental degradation; public health, safety Location; performance Plan should inventory steep slope
(cid:2) ∋ 18-1-080 construction on steep slopes and welfare areas, describe consequences of
development on steep slopes, and
recommend levels of protection
Environmental Threshold Establishes the maximum amount of Prevent environmental degradation; public health. Amount; location of development The Comprehensive Plan should
Standards/Carrying development that may occur without identify the designated
Capacity Zoning degrading an environmental resource. environmental resources, as well as
the carrying capacity thresholds.
Purchase of Development Legal restrictions on title which prohibit Prevent environmental degradation; protect open space Amount and location of The Comprehensive Plan should
Rights; Conservation development on all or part of the development identify conservation and agricultural
Easements property. resources, and prioritize these for
(cid:2) MALPF Program acquisition or purchase of
conservation easements.
Forest Preservation Where it requires preservation or Prevent environmental degradation; storm water Amount of development; The plan should provide a
(cid:2) ∋ 18-201 et seq. conservation of trees on a development management. performance justification for preservation and
site. describe the types of resources that
need to be protected.
Landscape Ordinances These ordinances require landscaping Prevent environmental degradation; appearance. Performance The plan should set forth policies for
(cid:2) ∋18-1-089 et seq. of a portion of the property in a continuation or modification of the
designated location. existing landscaping provisions.
Conservation subdivisions Requires development to retain open Establishes standards for site design to preserve open Type and location of The Comprehensive Plan could
space or designated environmental spacing and environmental resources. development; performance establish policies for site design
resources; typically more visually
accessible than performance standards.
Mitigation of development Requires developers to identify and Insures that the new development does not degrade Physical impact; adequate public The types of resources that should
impacts mitigate impacts for infrastructure, existing or planned resources. facilities be protected, as well as a
environment, and/or housing. justification for mitigation standards,
should be provided in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Pollution controls air and water pollution standards; to prevent environmental degradation; to protect the location; type; rate/timing; Plan should reference key federal
stormwater management standards public health, safety and welfare density/intensity of development and State standards and
requirements and provide ways to
implement
4. Flexible Zoning Techniques
Bonus/incentive zoning allows the local government to grant enhance character of community; promote infill amount; density/intensity of Plan should establish locations and
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Attachment A
Page -3

Attachment A
Technique Description General Purposes Objective Relation of Plan to Tool
(cid:2) ∋18-1-162 to –166 low- bonuses, usually in the form of density development; improve housing opportunity, diversity and development areas in which bonus/incentives can
income housing. or floor area ratio, in exchange for choice; preserve open space; protect tax base; be offered; set limits on the amounts
developer-provided amenities not historic/cultural preservation by which normal standards can be
normally obtainable via zoning exceeded; and establish conditions
regulations as needed to protect areas adjacent
to or in the vicinity of areas receiving
bonuses/ incentives
Conditional or contract contract zoning requires a landowner to enhance community character; maintain or improve level amount; density/intensity; quality Plan should State generally where
zoning enter into an agreement with the of community service; protect tax base and economy; of development conditional zoning should be
(note: contract zoning is of municipality which subjects the reduce traffic congestion; avoid facilities overload available
dubious legality in property to restrictions in exchange for
Maryland) a desired rezoning; conditional zoning
allows the governmental unit, without
committing itself, to place conditions on
the use of the property
Planned unit development combines some elements of both improve housing opportunity, diversity and choice; amount; rate/timing; type; Plan should State generally where
(PUD) zoning and subdivision regulation and promote community identity; promote aesthetics, urban density/intensity; location; quality planned unit development should
(cid:2) Subtitles 5, 7 & 8 permits large-scale developments to be design and quality of development; prevent sprawl; of development be available/must be used. Plan
planned and built as a unit with flexible provide for flexibility to meet future needs; avoid facilities should establish minimum size for
design and development phasing overload use of PUD
Mixed Use Development a zoning technique which allows a Reduces traffic congestion by providing internal capture of Type, density and quality of Plan should provide policies for
(cid:2) ∋18-401, Waterfront developer to incorporate 2 or more trips; improves appearance of development and sense of development. mixing uses as well as locations (only
Village Center District; uses (including residential and non- community. locational standards) for designating
18-1-501, Chester residential) within a single development new mixed-use communities.
Master-Planned
Development District
Flexible zoning cluster and average density are preserve open space; promote aesthetics, urban design quality; location of development Plan should State generally where
(cid:2) Title 18 techniques which allow for an and quality of development; provide flexibility in flexible zoning may be used
adjustment in the location of dwelling development design
units on a site so long as the total
number of dwelling units does not
exceed the number otherwise
permitted by the zoning district
Sliding scale subdivisions Restricts the number of lots in Protect environmental or agricultural resources while The amount and type of Plan should provide policies for
(cid:2) ∋18-1-041 subdivisions in certain locations. providing housing opportunities and economic return for development. continuation or modification of a
landowners sliding scale subdivision provisions.
Performance standards Specification of acceptable levels of to maintain or improve level of community service; quality; fiscal impact of Plan should establish the bases and
nuisance or side effects rather than promote community identity; preserve open space; development documentation for the performance
specification of acceptable uses, e.g., protect tax base; promote aesthetics, urban design and standards included in the zoning
amount of glare, smoke, or emissions quality of development; reduce traffic congestion; ordinance
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Attachment A
Page -4

Attachment A
Technique Description General Purposes Objective Relation of Plan to Tool
acceptable from an industrial use promote public safety; prevent sprawl; avoid facilities
overload
Floating zones zones which are identified in the zoning to provide flexibility to meet future needs location; type of development Plan should specify areas or types of
(cid:2) ∋18-1-124 et seq. UR ordinance text but which are not yet development which would be
zone only shown on the zoning map because it is susceptible to use of floating zone
uncertain as to where the zone should
be applied absent a specific
development proposal
Conditional use permit used in those instances where particular to provide flexibility to address land uses with special type; quality of development Plan should specify types of uses
(cid:2) ∋18-1-024, -025, -129 et land uses should be permissible in a requirements or impact and/or areas in which special permits
seq. zoning district, but, where due to the should/must be used
nature or impacts of the use, special
controls are required
Site plan approval requires the developer to present to preserve character of the community; control type; quality of development Plan should establish uses and/or
(cid:2) ∋18-1-207 et seq.) detailed information on project design development of new areas to ensure coordination with areas in which site plan approval
features, open space, layout, public existing and proposed capital facilities; avoid should/must be required
access, parking, landscaping, buffering environmental problems; promote aesthetics, urban
and other requirements as a condition design, and quality of development; preserve historic or
of development approval cultural resources
Development Rights the transfer of unused development conserve agricultural land; protect environmentally- Amount; location; density/ Plan should specify "sending" and
Transfer rights from one parcel to another sensitive lands; preserve open space; preserve historic/ intensity of development "receiving" areas or zones and
(cid:2) ∋18-1-145 et seq. through purchase and resale via a cultural resources establish a mechanism and
development rights bank or through procedures to value the rights
direct purchase/resale between property transferred
owners
5. Subdivision Regulations
Off-site facilities linking police power controls of zoning, avoid economic burden of growth; control development Location; fiscal impact of Plan should specify off-site facility
requirements subdivision and environmental of new areas to ensure coordination with existing and development standards and requirements. Capital
regulations to ensure that development proposed capital facilities; maintain or improve the level program should specify off-site
does not prematurely or permanently of community service; protect the tax base and economy; facility needs
burden facilities and services that are reduce traffic congestion; prevent sprawl; avoid facilities
impacted by the proposed development overload
Exactions requirement of on-site land dedication, avoid economic burdens of growth; control development location; fiscal impact; quality of Plan should specify off-site facility
payment of money in-lieu thereof, of new areas to ensure coordination with existing and development standards and requirements. Capital
where such dedication is inappropriate, proposed capital facilities; maintain or improve the level program should specify off-site
impact fees, or construction and of community service; promote community identity; facility needs
dedication of public facilities preserve open space; provide flexibility to meet future
needs; avoid facilities overload
6. Permanent Controls & Design Standards
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Attachment A
Page -5

Attachment A
Technique Description General Purposes Objective Relation of Plan to Tool
Exclusive agriculture or zones which exclude residential uses to conserve agricultural land; preserve open space; prevent type; location; density/intensity; Plan should identify appropriate
non-residential zones reduce the land area of the community sprawl; provide flexibility to meet future needs amount of development amounts of land to meet projected
available for housing and, therefore, population and associated housing
limiting population needs
Buffer yards Requires undisturbed or vegetated areas Prevent incompatible development. Buffer yards can Performance The Plan should provide policies for
(cid:2) ∋18-1-096 et seq. between designated uses. interfere with the development of community centers or uses which require buffering, as well
workable neighborhoods by segregating uses which as modification or elimination of
should be functionally connected. buffer requirements where needed
to promote mixed-use or workable
neighborhoods.
Minimum lot size used to control development density in avoid overcrowding; preserve open space density/intensity; quality of Plan should identify appropriate
areas designated in the comprehensive development areas for low density development
plan for rural or low density and rural development
development; limits demand for
facilities and services
7. Urban Design Standards
Maximum lot size / Establishes a minimum number of Prevents degradation of agricultural or environmental Type, density/intensity of The Plan should provide a
minimum densities dwelling units/FAR or a maximum lot resources from incompatible large-lot development, and development justification for the densities needed
size that may be platted. provides adequate densities where pedestrian activity or in given areas, as well as the
public transit is needed. situations where minimum density
should occur.
Maximum densities Establishes a maximum density or Protects agricultural or open space, restricts human Density/intensity of development The Plan should provide maximum
(cid:2) Title 18 minimum lot size for a development activities at a given location densities given agricultural or
site. environmental resources, or other
restraints on development
Apartments above retail Allows apartments for other residential Promotes a traditional style of living. Type, density/intensity of The Plan should provide a
(cid:2) ∋18-1-025 “commercial uses to be located above ground-level, development justification for promoting traditional
apartments” commercially or other non-residential neighborhood development
uses. patterns.
Maximum parking Establishes the maximum number of Prevents automobile dependency by restricting parking Performance The Plan should provide justification
restriction reduced parking parking spaces or impervious coverage opportunities and avoiding conflict between pedestrians for such restrictions, as well as a
ratios. devoted to parking uses and parking areas. description of how parking
(cid:2) Subpart 6 contributes to traffic congestion.
Traditional Neighborhood The zoning district classification which Promotes a sense of community and provides for more Type, density/intensity of The Plan should document any
Development (TND) provides for development focused on a compact development patterns; produces less traffic than development problems with conventional
districts town center with an interconnected conventional traffic development styles. development patterns, and provide a
(cid:2) ∋18-601, Town Center street system consistent with pre-WW2 justification for TND development
District development patterns. standards.
8. Street & Parking Standards
Narrower streets rights-of Provides for street widths smaller than Provide opportunities for pedestrian activity and avoid Performance The Plan should provide suggested
way conventional streets in order to increases in traffic (but not necessarily traffic congestion) rights-of-way and cartway widths, as
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Attachment A
Page -6

Attachment A
Technique Description General Purposes Objective Relation of Plan to Tool
(cid:2) Subtitles 5, 7 & 8 promote pedestrian activity, provide for well as a justification from departing
street trees and other pedestrian from existing standards.
amenities, and to provide traffic
calming.
Tighter horizontal curve Restricts open, gentle curves in roads Protects health and safety and promotes a more Performance The Plan should suggest revised
radii which encourage speeding traditional pattern of development horizontal curb radii with
justifications.
Tighter corner radii Subdivision regulations may define a Provides traffic calming and promotes pedestrian activity Performance The Plan should suggest revised curb
smaller curb radii which narrows the through shorter intersection crossings. radi with justifications
distance between intersections.
Traffic calming Provides for speed bumps/humps, Reduces traffic speeds and empowers pedestrians to Performance The Plan should suggest traffic
speed tables, chokers, round- utilize roadways combing measures that may be
abouts/traffic circles to slow vehicular incorporated into new or existing
movement roadways
New Towns and Rural Provides for a mixing of various land Promotes a mixing of development uses at a scale Type, location and performance The Plan should lay out policies for
Village zoning uses on greenfield sites. compatible with surrounding development of development designating sites for new towns or
establishing rural village overlay
districts.
Cash-Out Parking Permits developers to provide cash in Improves the quality of development by allowing the Performance The Plan should provide policies for
lieu of compliance with parking County to locate central parking facilities rather than County involvement in the financing
requirements surrounding each building with separate parking of new parking facilities.
Shared Parking Allows uses which generate peak Reduces the amount of surface area devoted to parking. Appearance and performance of The Plan policy should require
(cid:2) Subpart 7 parking at different times of the day to development. continuation or a modification of
combine required minimum parking existing shared parking standards.
spaces.
Structured Parking Provides incentives for provision of Allows smaller amounts of surface area to be devoted to Appearance and performance of The Plan should provide some policy
structured parking in lieu of surface parking uses development guidance on appearance and
parking performance of new parking
facilities.
Connectivity requirements Requires secondary access and/or a Promotes an interconnected street system Appearance and performance of The Plan should provide a suggested
(cid:2) Subtitles 5, 7 & 8 ratio street notes to links development; addresses traffic connectivity ratio or other policies to
concerns address the connectivity issues.
9. Tax and Fee Systems
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Attachment A
Page -7

Attachment A
Technique Description General Purposes Objective Relation of Plan to Tool
Differential taxation distinguish between areas, e.g., urban v. preserve open space; prevent sprawl; maintain a amount; type; location; fiscal Plan should identify urban v. rural
rural, by level of service provided and greenbelt; ensure efficient provision of facilities and impact of development demarcation and differential levels
therefore the level of taxation that will services of facility/service provision and
be imposed to fund the provision of taxation
facilities and services
User and benefit fees charges imposed by a local government avoid economic burdens of growth; maintain or improve rate/timing; location; type; fiscal Plan and capital improvements
for the provision of a service to users the level of community service; protect tax base; promote impact of development program should specify facilities and
public safety; avoid facilities overload services to be provided/funded by
user fees
Special assessment allocation of the cost of a facility (e.g., to avoid placing economic burdens of growth or public serviceability/facilities; fiscal Plan should specify the types of
(cid:2) used in Kent Narrows, road improvement, sewer line, water facilities provision on existing residents or those not impact of development public facilities and circumstances in
Cloverfields & Bay City line) partially or fully against benefited specifically benefiting from the improvement; maintain or which special assessment financing
property based upon a reasonable improve the level of community service; protect tax base; would be appropriate. CIP should
measure of the benefit received reduce traffic congestion; promote public safety; avoid include it, as appropriate, in funding
facilities overload sources
Preferential taxation taxation of agricultural land at a more to promote the conservation of agricultural land; preserve amount; type; location; fiscal Plan should indicate where
(cid:2) MD law provides for favorable rate than other land in the open space; prevent sprawl impact of development preferential assessment would be
preferential assessments for community most useful in fulfilling plan
agricultural use objectives
Tax Increment Financing allows real estate taxes attributable to Promotes redevelopment or development in compact Location and timing of The Plan should describe priorities
increases in value of redevelopment centers development for allocation of fiscal resources and
area to be allocated to infrastructure in in growth areas
those areas
10. Annexation
(cid:2) Centreville and boundary adjustment to include land to maintain or improve the level of community service; amount; location; Plan should specify logical areas and
Queenstown Growth Area previously outside of the territorial limits preserve open space; prevent sprawl; avoid facilities serviceability/facilities; fiscal time frames for future annexations;
Plans of a municipal corporation overload impact of development and methods by which public
facilities and services would be
extended and funded
11. Geographic Restraints
Urban growth boundaries; perimeter or boundary beyond which to encourage full utilization of existing public facilities; to location of development Plan must delineate the growth limit
Permanent growth limit no urban density development shall protect environmental resources; to promote community line and establish the justification
line occur identity; to prevent sprawl and rationale for it; in addition, Plan
(cid:2) All growth area plans must indicate available use/
development opportunities for areas
outside of the permanent growth
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Attachment A
Page -8

Attachment A
Technique Description General Purposes Objective Relation of Plan to Tool
limit line
Short-term growth limit line identification of areas not to be serviced to control the development of new areas to ensure rate/timing; location; fiscal impact Plan should establish the short-term
within the next five (5) to ten (10) years coordination with existing and proposed capital facilities; of development limit line and justification therefore;
based on the capital program and the to preserve open space; to prevent sprawl; to provide timing of removal of the limit; short-
comprehensive plan flexibility to meet future needs term development and use
opportunities
Intergovernmental Contract between County and Provides for more orderly development and transition Location and timing of The Plan could provide clear policies
agreements municipalities governing the extension between incorporated and unincorporated areas; avoids development for approaching incorporated areas
(cid:2) Centreville and of infrastructure, regulation of incompatible uses resulting from different zoning and negotiating compatibility
Queenstown Planning development or other matters regulations; can be used to avoid sprawl. between land use and infrastructure
Agreements policies.
Tiers establishment of area boundaries (e.g., to preserve rural areas; to conserve agricultural land; to density/intensity; rate/ timing; Plan should establish and
urban, urbanizing, future urbanizing control the development of new areas to ensure serviceability/provision of facilities incorporate tier delineations and tier
areas, rural) and a framework for coordination with existing and proposed capital facilities; in support of development boundaries, as well as key goals and
determining growth management to preserve open space; to prevent sprawl; to provide objectives to be achieved in each
policies to be applied in each of the flexibility to meet future needs tier
areas
12. Numerical Restraints or Quota Systems
Total population cap absolute limit placed on community's to avoid overcrowding; avoid facilities overload to limit the total amount of Plan should establish the bases and
total population holding capacity development documentation for maximum
carrying capacity
Permit limits restriction on growth by establishing a to avoid overcrowding; avoid facilities overload amount; quality; timing; rate of Plan should establish the bases and
numerical limitation on the number of development documentation for the number of
building permits that can be issued in a permits that will be available in given
designated period time periods
Jobs/Housing Balance attempt to ensure a better balance to attract selected land use types; to avoid facilities amount; rate/timing; type; Plan should establish population,
between homes and jobs for the overload; to promote fiscal responsibility; to avoid traffic location of development dwelling unit and jobs target based
purposes of reducing air pollution congestion on economic/fiscal analysis
attributable to automobile travel and
ensuring that job opportunities are
proximate to housing
13. Vested Rights Techniques
Interim zoning and prevention or restriction on to preserve the character of the community; to avoid amount; rate/timing; Mechanism to protect the planning
moratoria development until planning has been economic burdens of growth; to prevent sprawl; to density/intensity; fiscal impact of process
(cid:2) Permitted under MD law completed or until permanent controls provide flexibility to meet future needs. Requires legal development
necessary to implement the plan have justification.
been developed and adopted
Plat Vacation allows County to terminate antiquated reassembles parcels for future development and protects the planning process
subdivisions that have not been terminates antiquated plats
improved
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Attachment A
Page -9

Attachment A
Technique Description General Purposes Objective Relation of Plan to Tool
Use-it-or-lose-it provisions provides for expiration of permits, Protects the planning process by allowing community to Vested rights The Plan should describe typical
subdivision plats and other zoning identify which developments are likely to be completed build-out period for developments
approvals after designated time period of various types and sizes
Vested Rights Requires developers to assert vested Protects the planning process by allowing community to Vested rights The Plan should describe typical
Determination Ordinance rights claims when regulations change in identify those projects which are likely to be completed. build-out period for developments
such a manner as to preclude of various types and sizes
development in the determining
pipeline.
Certification of non- Requires a certification from the County Protects the planning process by allowing community to Vested rights The Plan should describe typical
conforming use in order to continue a non-conforming identify those projects which are likely to be completed. build-out period for developments
(cid:2) ∋18-1-188 use of various types and sizes.
Amortization of Non- allows the local government to to preserve community character; promote aesthetics and type; quality; use; Plan should establish need for
Conforming Uses eliminate, over time, uses and structures urban design; protect investments in land uses and density/intensity of development amortization and reasonable
(cid:2) Title 18 which no longer conform to new developments amortization periods
planning and zoning standards
14. Variety of Housing Choices
Affordable Housing Establishes a variety of funding sources Actively involves the County in the process of providing Amount and type of housing The Plan should provide an
Program or institutional mechanisms for affordable housing overview of housing costs, cost
providing affordable housing. burdens, and housing needs. The
Plan should clearly prioritize housing
needs for the County.
Linkage Programs Requires developers to pay a fee to be Provides a resource for the provision of affordable housing Mitigation The Plan should identify the need
applied to a housing trust fund for the and mitigates development impacts for new affordable houses created by
provision of affordable housing the development of non-affordable
housing.
Zoning for Manufactured Permits manufactured housing as of Provides for a form of low-cost, single family shelters Type of housing The Plan should provide clear policy
Housing right in residential zoning districts. direction as to the types of housing
(cid:2) ∋18-1-025 that may be used to provide for
affordable housing needs.
Zero-lot line and flexible Allows units to adjoin on common Reduces development costs by providing for the flexible Type of housing The Plan should provide clear policy
lotting patterns property lines or to be arranged in arrangement of housing units and minimizing direction for the situations where
(cid:2) ∋18-1-044 flexible lotting patterns infrastructure costs development standards must be
modified in order to provide
affordable housing
Farm worker dwellings
(cid:2) ∋18-1-156 to –159
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Attachment A
Page -10

Attachment A
Technique Description General Purposes Objective Relation of Plan to Tool
Density bonus (optional Permits higher densities in exchange for Mitigates development impacts and provides additional Location of housing The Plan should provide clear policy
inclusionary zoning) the provision of housing for designated affordable housing, offsetting the increased costs of direction as well a discussion for the
(cid:2) ∋18-1-162 et seq. income groups affordable housing to the developer. need for affordable housing which is
generated by new-affordable
housing.
Mandatory Inclusionary Requires developments to set aside a Mitigation development impacts and provides a source for Type and location of housing The plan should provide clear policy
Housing Requirements designated percentage of housing for the provision of affordable housing direction as to whether inclusionary
household and designated income zoning may be mandatory or
groups optional.
Source: Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Attachment A
Page -11

Attachment B
Plan Issues and Opportunities (identified by Comprehensive Plan TAC
and CAC in June 1999)
Issues
(cid:1)(cid:2) Providing infrastructure (schools, roads, sewer and water) to serve growth areas and relieve
growth pressures on the rural areas.
(cid:1)(cid:2) Incentives/disincentives to steer growth into growth areas & away from rural areas.
(cid:1)(cid:2) Increasing the County’s employment base
(cid:1)(cid:2) Designate areas for economic development, some with rail access
(cid:1)(cid:2) Paying for growth
(cid:1)(cid:2) Need to revisit/review impact fees study by County consultant Tischler & Associates
(cid:1)(cid:2) Protecting the environment, rivers and streams
(cid:1)(cid:2) Beautification
(cid:1)(cid:2) Protecting and improving agriculture and the seafood industry
(cid:1)(cid:2) Addressing future commercial needs outside the growth corridor
(cid:1)(cid:2) Need to look at the regional context
(cid:1)(cid:2) Streamlining County Development Ordinances
(cid:1)(cid:2) Maintaining/improving the quality of life – leisure time activities, parks & recreation, schools,
health and human services, activities for young people
(cid:1)(cid:2) Need for supply of affordable housing and for senior housing
(cid:1)(cid:2) Preserving rural character and open space
(cid:1)(cid:2) Need/desire to designate a northern growth area?
(cid:1)(cid:2) Long term viability of an all- volunteer E.M.S./Fire
(cid:1)(cid:2) Need to address/revisit storm drainage districts and stormwater management
Opportunities
(cid:1)(cid:2) Capitalize on rural lifestyle, natural amenities and environment
(cid:1)(cid:2) Strategic location to capture more tourism dollars
(cid:1)(cid:2) Increase 2nd home market/retirees
(cid:1)(cid:2) Identify and preserve lands for employment and bay access
(cid:1)(cid:2) Increase share of higher end housing
(cid:1)(cid:2) Establish new rules of the game for larger-scale corporate developers
(cid:1)(cid:2) Take advantage of new political leadership and momentum
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Attachment B
Page - 1

Attachment C
Queen Anne’s County Building Permit Data 1989-2000
% of
Total
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Totals Homes
ED1 12 22 18 30 16 13 19 23 15 11 16 15 210 4.5
Single Family 6 17 9 22 8 11 9 14 10 7 12 9 134
Mobile Home 6 5 9 8 8 2 10 9 5 4 4 6 76
ED2 20 26 25 18 22 26 28 31 14 23 35 32 300 6.4
Single Family 18 26 23 18 20 25 25 28 14 21 32 31 281
Mobile Home 2 0 2 0 2 1 3 3 2 3 1 19
ED3 34 29 46 45 29 35 35 42 51 56 46 49 497 10.6
Single Family 32 26 44 42 27 30 34 40 49 52 43 49 468
Mobile Home 2 3 2 3 2 5 1 2 2 4 3 0 29
ED4 261 62 111 102 130 266 259 231 208 191 209 195 2225 47.3
Single Family 135 61 88 71 66 198 241 176 164 116 156 155 1627
Multi-Family 122 0 20 28 63 65 17 55 44 70 50 39 573
Mobile Home 4 1 3 3 1 3 1 5 3 1 25
ED5 73 51 65 85 85 130 75 47 54 50 70 77 862 18.3
Single Family 64 42 45 47 60 74 67 36 51 46 67 69 668
Multi-Family 2 16 34 20 51 0 0 123
Mobile Home 9 7 4 4 5 5 8 11 3 4 3 8 71
ED6 10 12 13 25 33 19 16 17 19 28 24 21 237 5.0
Single Family 8 9 11 25 31 17 15 17 19 25 22 19 218
Mobile Home 2 3 2 0 2 2 1 3 2 2 19
ED7 43 30 29 31 21 38 19 22 37 37 35 26 368 7.8
Single Family 27 19 16 18 11 19 8 12 23 21 25 17 216
Mobile Home 16 11 13 13 10 19 11 10 14 16 10 9 152
Total SF 290 200 236 243 223 374 399 323 330 288 357 349 3612
Total MF 126 2 36 62 83 116 17 55 44 70 50 39 700
Total MH 41 30 35 31 30 37 35 35 24 38 28 27 391
Total by Year 457 232 307 336 336 527 451 413 398 396 435 415 4703
Source: Queen Anne’s County, Department of Planning & Zoning
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Attachment C
Page - 1

Attachment D
Buildout Potential – Work Sheets
Total Potential New Non-Residential Development
In Non-Growth Areas
Queen Anne's County, Maryland
Probable Sq Ft
Undeveloped Gross Maximum Potential
Zoning District Potential (50% of
Acres Density Sq Ft
Maximum)
Suburban Industrial 375.08 0.40 6,535,394 3,267,697
Light Industrial Highway
Service 100.00 0.40 1,742,400 871,200
Village Center 68.80 0.30 899,078 449,539
Suburban Commercial 158.94 0.30 2,070,625 1,035,313
Totals 702.33 11,247,497 5,623,749
Source: Queen Anne's County Department of Planning and Zoning and MD Property View 2000
Compiled by LDR International, Inc.
Notes:
1. Totals are calculated for all undeveloped lands outside the growth areas of Queen
Anne's County
2. Non-residential includes retail, office, industrial and institutional uses.
3. Probable maximums are based on estimated yields after consideration of natural
resource constraints, critical area designations, and market factors that reduce the
maximum yield permitted under the zoning ordinance.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Attachment D
Page - 1

Attachment D
Buildout Potential – Work Sheets
Chester Growth Area
Undeveloped Land Buildout Analysis
Residential Non-Residential
Probable Unit Probable Unit Probable Sq Ft
Undeveloped Gross Maximum Res. Non- Gross Maximum Sq
Zoning District Res% Potential (75% of Potential (50% Potential (50%
Acres Density Unit Potential Res% Density Ft Potential
Maximum) of Maximum) of Maximum )
Existing Res. Infill - NC-8 2 100% 5.45 11 8 5 0% - -
Existing Res. Infill - NC-20 18 100% 2.18 39 29 20 0% - -
Existing Res. Infill - 1 8 100% 1 8 6 4 0% - -
Existing Res. Infill - SE 15 100% 1.5 23 17 11 0% - -
CMPD* 573 90% 6 3,094 2,321 1,719 10% 0.25 623,997 311,999
Town Center** 154 25% 4.5 173 130 86 75% 0.4 2,012,472 1,006,236
Totals 770 3,348 2,511 1,845 2,636,469 1,318,235
Source: Queen Anne's County Department of Planning and Zoning, Compiled by LDR International, Inc.
Notes:
1. Non-residential includes retail, office, industrial as well as institutional uses.
2. Maximum yields are based on the acreage times the zoning density/intensity.
3. Probable maximums are based on estimated yields after consideration of natural resource
constraints, critical area designations, and market factors that reduce the maximum yield permitted
under the zoning ordinance.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Attachment D
Page - 2

Attachment D
Buildout Potential – Work Sheets
Centreville Growth Area
Undeveloped Land Buildout Analysis
Residential Non-Residential
Probable Unit Probable Unit Probable Sq Ft
Undeveloped Gross Maximum Res. Non- Gross Maximum Sq
Zoning District Res% Potential (75% Potential (50% Potential (50%
Acres Density Unit Potential Res% Density Ft Potential
of Maximum) of Maximum) of Maximum )
Town Single Family Res. 87.42 100% 3 262 197 131 0% - -
Town PUD (in town)
R-1 137.3 100% 3 412 309 206 0% - -
R-2 47.7 100% 5 239 179 119 0% - -
R-3 53.04 100% 7 371 278 186 0% - -
Town PUD (outside town) 1382.86 100% 3.5 4,840 3,630 2,420 0% - -
Town Planned Bus. Park 119.46 0% - - - 100% 0.25 1,300,919 650,460
County Planned Unit Dev 681.8 100% 3.5 2,386 1,790 1,193 0% - -
County Planned Bus. Park 257.5 0% - - - 100% 0.25 2,804,175 1,402,088
Totals 2767.08 8,510 6,383 4,255 4,105,094 2,052,547
Source: Queen Anne's County Department of Planning and Zoning, Compiled by LDR International, Inc.
Notes:
1. Non-residential includes retail, office, industrial as well as institutional uses.
2. Maximum yields are based on the acreage times the zoning density/intensity.
3. Probable maximums are based on estimated yields after consideration of natural resource
constraints, critical area designations, and market factors that reduce the maximum yield
permitted under the zoning ordinance.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Attachment D
Page - 3

Attachment D
Buildout Potential – Work Sheets
Grasonville Growth Area
Undeveloped Land Buildout Analysis
Residential Non-Residential
Probable Unit Probable Unit Probable Sq Ft
Undeveloped Gross Maximum Res. Non- Gross Maximum Sq
Zoning District Res% Potential (75% Potential (50% Potential (50%
Acres Density Unit Potential Res% Density Ft Potential
of Maximum) of Maximum) of Maximum )
Existing Res. Infill - NC-15 6.01 100% 2.9 17 13 9 0% - -
Existing Res. Infill - NC-20 33.77 100% 2.18 74 55 37 0% - -
Existing Res. Infill - SR 6.65 100% 1.45 10 7 5 0% - -
Existing Res. Infill - The Woods* 75 75 75 - -
GPRN** 473.2 90% 3.5 1,491 1,118 745 10% 0.25 515,315 257,657
GNC*** 13.31 90% 3.2 38 29 19 10% 0.3 17,394 8,697
GVC 3.2 - - - 0.5 - -
Ex. Commercial/Infill - UC 29.99 0% - - - 100% 0.4 522,546 261,273
Commercial/Inst. Dev - UC 50.82 0% - - - 100% 0.4 885,488 442,744
Low Density Residential - Homeport 16 16 16 - -
Totals 613.75 1,721 1,313 906 1,940,742 970,371
Source: Queen Anne's County Department of Planning and Zoning, Compiled by LDR International, Inc.
Notes:
1. Non-residential includes retail, office, industrial as well as institutional uses.
2. Maximum yields are based on the acreage times the zoning density/intensity.
3. Probable maximums are based on estimated yields after consideration of natural resource constraints, critical area designations, and market factors that
reduce the maximum yield permitted under the zoning ordinance.
* The Woods expects a full build-out of 75 additional units.
** GPRN - allows only for institutional non-residential uses - not commercial and is expected to have 10% of institutional uses to support residential
*** GNC - assumes maximum of 10% of total acreage will be used for commercial uses to support the
residential component of the area.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Attachment D
Page - 4

Attachment D
Buildout Potential – Work Sheets
Kent Narrow Growth Area
Undeveloped Land Buildout Analysis
Residential Non-Residential
Maximum Probable Unit Probable Unit Probable Sq Ft
Undeveloped Gross Non- Gross Maximum Sq Ft
Zoning District Res% Res. Unit Potential (75% of Potential (50% of Potential (50% of
Acres* Density Res% Density Potential
Potential Maximum) Maximum) Maximum )
0 0% - - - 0% - -
0 0% - - - 0% - -
Totals 0 - - - - -
Source: Queen Anne's County Department of Planning and Zoning, Compiled by LDR International, Inc.
* There are very limited undeveloped lands in the Kent Narrows Growth Area
1. Non-residential includes retail, office, industrial as well as institutional uses.
2. Maximum yields are based on the acreage times the zoning density/intensity.
3. Probable maximums are based on estimated yields after consideration of natural resource constraints, critical area designations, and market factors that
reduce the maximum yield permitted under the zoning ordinance.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Attachment D
Page - 5

Attachment D
Buildout Potential – Work Sheets
Queenstown Growth Area
Undeveloped Land Buildout Analysis
Residential Non-Residential
Probable Sq
Probable Unit Probable Unit Maximum
Undeveloped Gross Maximum Res. Gross Ft Potential
Zoning District Res% Potential (75% of Potential (50% Non-Res% Sq Ft
Acres Density Unit Potential Density (50% of
Maximum) of Maximum) Potential
Maximum )
Town Center
Town Low Density Res. 22.8100% 0% - -
R-1 6.34100% 3.5 22 17 11 0% - -
R-2 9.27100% 6 56 42 28 0% - -
Town Medium Density Res. 3.6100% 6 22 16 11 0% - -
Town Reg. Comm. - Outlet Expansion* 67.71 0% - - - 100% 400,000 400,000
Town Bus. Park - SR 74.01 0% - - - 100% - -
Town Comm./Ind. Mixed Use - SI 11.2 0% - - - 100% 0.25 121,968 60,984
Suburban Infill
Suburban Planned Dev.** 857.5 95% 4 3,259 2,444 1,629 5% 0.25 466,909 233,454
Suburban Bus. Park 48.41 0% - - - 100% - -
Suburban Regional Commercial 3.8 0% - - - 100% - -
SI 0% - - - 100% - -
Resort Development 42.11 0% - - - 100% - -
Totals 1146.75 3,358 2,518 1,679 988,877 694,438
Source: Queen Anne's County Department of Planning and Zoning, Compiled by LDR International, Inc.
Notes:
1. Non-residential includes retail, office, industrial as well as institutional uses.
2. Maximum yields are based on the acreage times the zoning density/intensity.
3. Probable maximums are based on estimated yields after consideration of natural resource constraints, critical area
designations, and market factors that reduce the maximum yield permitted under the zoning ordinance.
* Outlet Mall expansion is an established square footage of 400,000.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Attachment D
Page - 6

Attachment D
Buildout Potential – Work Sheets
** Suburban Planned Development - assumes maximum of 5% of total acreage will be used for commercial uses to
support the residential component of the area.
Stevensville Growth Area
Undeveloped Land Buildout Analysis
Residential Non-Residential
Probable Sq
Maximum Probable Unit Probable Unit
Undeveloped Gross Non- Gross Maximum Sq Ft Potential
Zoning District Res% Res. Unit Potential (75% Potential (50%
Acres Density Res% Density Ft Potential (50% of
Potential of Maximum) of Maximum)
Maximum )
SHVC* 7 90% 3.2 20 15 10 10% 0.4 12,197 6,098
Existing Res. Infill - SE 40 100% 1.5 60 45 30 0% - -
Existing Res. Infill - E 33 100% 0.5 17 12 8 0% - -
Existing Res. Infill - NC-20 6 100% 2.18 13 10 7 0% - -
Existing Res. Infill - NC-8 3 100% 5.45 16 12 8 0% - -
Existing Res. Infill - White Pines** 100% 74 74 74 0% - -
Existing Res. Infill - CS 3 100% 0.2 1 0 0 0% - -
SMPD* 863 90% 3.5 2,718 2,039 1,359 10% 0.25 939,807 469,904
Comm - UC 48 0% - - - 100% 0.4 836,352 418,176
Bus/Employment - SI 91 0% - - - 100% 0.4 1,585,584 792,792
Public/Inst. - KISC 15 0% - - - 100% - -
Totals 1109 2,919 2,208 1,497 3,373,940 1,686,970
Source: Queen Anne's County Department of Planning and Zoning, Compiled by LDR International, Inc.
1. Non-residential includes retail, office, industrial as well as institutional uses.
2. Maximum yields are based on the acreage times the zoning density/intensity.
3. Probable maximums are based on estimated yields after consideration of natural resource constraints, critical
area designations, and market factors that reduce the maximum yield permitted under the zoning ordinance.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Attachment D
Page - 7

Attachment E
Maryland Population And Housing Unit Growth By County 1990 To 2000
1990 2000
1990 2000 Absolute Percent Housing Housing Absolute Percent
County Population Population Change Change Units Units Change Change
Allegany 74,946 74,930 -16 0% 32,513 32,984 471 1%
Anne Arundel 427,239 489,656 62,417 15% 157,194 186,937 23,743 19%
Baltimore 692,134 754,292 62,158 9% 281,553 313,734 32,181 11%
Calvert 51,372 74,563 23,191 45% 18,974 27,576 8,602 45%
Caroline 27,035 29,772 2,737 10% 10,745 12,028 1,283 12%
Carroll 123,372 150,897 27,525 22% 43,553 54,260 10,707 25%
Cecil 71,347 85,951 14,604 20% 27,656 34,487 6,805 25%
Charles 101,154 120,546 19,392 19% 34,487 43,903 9,416 27%
Dorchester 30,236 30,674 438 1% 14,269 14,681 412 3%
Frederick 150,208 195,277 45,069 30% 54,872 73,017 18,145 33%
Garrett 28,138 29,846 1,708 6% 14,119 16,761 2,642 19%
Harford 182,132 218,590 36,458 20% 66,446 83,146 16,700 25%
Howard 187,328 247,842 60,514 32% 72,583 92,818 20,235 28%
Kent 17,842 19,197 1,355 8% 8,181 9,410 1,229 15%
Montgomery 757,027 873,341 116,314 15% 295,723 334,632 38,909 13%`
Prince George’s 729,268 801,515 72,247 10% 270,090 302,378 32,288 12%
QUEEN ANNE’S 33,953 40,563 6,610 19% 13,944 16,674 2,730 20%
St Mary’s 75,974 86,211 10,237 13% 27,863 34,081 6,218 22%
Somerset 23,440 24,747 1,307 6% 9,393 10,092 699 7%`
Talbot 30,549 33,812 3,263 11% 14,697 16,500 1,803 12%
Washington 121,393 131,923 10,530 9% 47,448 52,972 5,524 12%
Wicomico 74,339 84,644 10,305 14% 30,108 34,401 4,293 14%
Worchester 35,028 46,543 11,515 33% 41,800 47,360 5,560 13%
Baltimore City 736,014 651,154 -84,860 12% 303,706 300,477 -3,229 -1%
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Attachment E
Page - 1

Attachment E
Maryland Population And Housing Unit Growth By Region 1990 To 2000
Population Housing Units
Change 1990 to 2000 Change 1990 to 2000
Region/County Number Percent Number Percent
Baltimore Region
Baltimore City -84,860 12% -3,229 -1%
Howard 60,514 32% 20,235 28%
Anne Arundel 62,417 15% 23,743 19%
Baltimore 62,158 9% 32,181 11%
Carroll 27,525 22% 10,707 25%
Harford 36,458 20% 16,700 25%
Washington Suburban Region
Montgomery 116,314 15% 38,909 13%`
Frederick 45,069 30% 18,145 33%
Prince George’s 72,247 10% 32,288 12%
Southern Maryland Region
St Mary’s 10,237 13% 6,218 22%
Charles 19,392 19% 9,416 27%
Calvert 23,191 45% 8,602 45%
Western Maryland Region
Garrett 1,708 6% 2,642 19%
Washington 10,530 9% 5,524 12%
Allegany -16 0% 471 1%
Upper Eastern Shore Region
Talbot 3,263 11% 1,803 12%
Kent 1,355 8% 1,229 15%
Caroline 2,737 10% 1,283 12%
QUEEN ANNE’S 6,610 19% 2,730 20%
Cecil 14,604 20% 6,805 25%
Lower Eastern Shore Region
Worchester 11,515 33% 5,560 13%
Wicomico 10,305 14% 4,293 14%
Dorchester 438 1% 412 3%
Somerset 1,307 6% 699 7%`
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Attachment E
Page - 2

Acronym Glossary
AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic
AG Agricultural Zoning
APFO Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
CAC Citizen Advisory Committee
CDBG Community Development Block Grant
CMP Corridor Management Plan
CS Countryside Zoning
ESLC Eastern Shore Land Conservancy
FTE Full-Time Equivalent
FY Fiscal Year
HSC Historic Sites Consortium
IDA Intense Development Area
KN/S/G Kent Narrows, Stevensville and Grasonville Sewer
Treatment Plant
LDA Limited Development Area
LDR/HNTB Consultants assisting with Comprehensive Plan
LOS Level of Service
MALPF Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation
MDE Maryland Department of Environment
MDP Maryland Department of Planning
MET Maryland Environmental Trust
MTA Maryland Transportation Authority
MWSP Master Water and Sewer Plan
RCA Resource Conservation Area
SHA State Highway Administration
TAC Technical Advisory Committee
TDR Transfer of Development Rights
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for 21st Century
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Acronym Glossary
Page - 1

2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: County Profile
Queen Anne’s County Acronym Glossary
Page - 2

Volume 2:
Policies, Implementing Strategies
and Priorities
2002 Comprehensive Plan
Queen Anne’s County, Maryland
Adopted by the Queen Anne’s County Commissioners on May 21, 2002
Queen Anne’s County 2002 Comprehensive Plan

Volume 2
Policies, Implementing Strategies
and Priorities
2002 Comprehensive Plan
Queen Anne’s County, Maryland
Recommended for Adoption by the
Queen Anne’s County Planning Commission
on January 10, 2002
Adopted by the
Commissioners of Queen Anne’s County
on May 21, 2002
Website
www.qac.org
Prepared by:
LDR International, an HNTB Company
Columbia, Maryland
Department of Planning and Zoning
Queen Anne’s County A publication of the Maryland
Coastal Zone Management
Program, Department of Natural
Resources pursuant to National
In Association with:
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle
Administration Award No.
O’Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
NA87OZ0236
The Parsons Transportation Group
Queen Anne’s County 2002 Comprehensive Plan

Preface
This is Volume 2 of the two-volume Queen Anne’s County Comprehensive Plan. It
provides the Plan’s policy direction, implementing strategies and priorities. Volume 1
provides a detailed overview of existing conditions, trends and issues. A technical
appendix that provides the details of the alternative scenarios analysis and infrastructure
assessment completed during the plan update process supplements these two volumes.
This appendix material is available at the County’s Department of Planning and Zoning.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Preface
Page - i

Acknowledgements
County Commissioners
George M. O’Donnell, President
Marlene F. Davis
John T. McQueeney, Jr.
Planning Commissioners
Dr. James C. Foor, Chairman
John T. McQueeney, Jr. Ex- Officio Member
Loring E Hawes, Secretary
Rodger Weese
David Clark
Patti Miller
Peter Lee
Karen Oertel, Former PC Member
E.M. Pusey, Jr., Former PC Member
Citizen Advisory Committee
Peter B. Lee, Chairperson
Angie DiDonato
Douglan W. Stubee
Edward L. Delaney
Evan Miles
Gloria Ferguson
Harold E. Walters
Lea F. Brooks
Michael J. Dahle
Patricia Rhodes
Pichada Honick
Randy Esty
Richard A. Smith
Steve Moore
T. Alvin Kepley
William I. Mason, Jr.
John McQueeney, Jr., County Commissioner, Liaison
James C. Foor, Planning Commission, Liaison
Loring E. Hawes, Planning Commission, Liaison
Wayne W. Fallin, Economic Development Commission, Liaison
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Acknowledgements
Page - ii

Technical Advisory committee
Mark Belton, County Administrator
Bernie Sadusky, Board of Education
Charles F. Crossley, Jr. Sheriff, Sheriff’s Department
Joe Zimmerman, Director, Department of Finance
Katherine Magruder, Director, Department of Business and Tourism
Pete Scanlon, Director, Department of Housing and Community Services
Philmont Taylor, Director, Department of Emergency Services
Sue Leager, Director, Department of Aging
Wes Johnson, Director, Department of Parks and Recreation
Steve Walls, Director, Department of Public Works
Todd Mohn, Deputy Director, Department of Public Works
Bob Burns, Department of Public Works
Eva Kerchner, Department of Public Works
Garth Jones, Department of Public Works
Alan Quimby, Sanitary District
John Nickerson, Department of Environmental Health
James H. Barton, Zoning Administrator
Planning Staff
Steve Kaii-Ziegler, Director
Faith Elliott Rossing, Principal Planner
Steve Cohoon, Development Review Chief
Joy Levy, Planner
Radhika Sakhamuri, Planner
Kevin Clark, GIS Specialist
Megan DelGaudio, GIS Specialist
The Queen Anne’s County Department of Planning and Zoning wishes to thank all the
County agencies, adjacent jurisdictions, and the citizens who participated in the public
process for their participation and helpful advice.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Acknowledgements
Page - iii

Table of Contents
1.0 Plan Purpose and Major Issues............................................................................1
(cid:1)(cid:2)Role and Purpose of the Plan............................................................................1
(cid:1)(cid:2)Legal Basis........................................................................................................1
(cid:1)(cid:2)Major Issues This Plan Seeks To Address........................................................2
(cid:1)(cid:2)How This Plan is Organized.............................................................................6
2.0 Historical Overview and Projections...................................................................7
(cid:1)(cid:2)Historical Planning Perspective........................................................................7
(cid:1)(cid:2)An Analysis of the 1993 vs. 2002 Growth Area Boundaries .........................15
(cid:1)(cid:2)Growth Projections Assumed for the 2002 Plan.............................................17
3.0 Land Use Element................................................................................................18
4.0 Transportation Element......................................................................................36
5.0 Community Facilities Element...........................................................................51
(cid:1)(cid:2)Sanitary Sewer System...................................................................................51
(cid:1)(cid:2)Water Distribution System.............................................................................56
(cid:1)(cid:2)Public Schools................................................................................................59
(cid:1)(cid:2)Parks and Recreation......................................................................................61
(cid:1)(cid:2)Stormwater Management................................................................................64
(cid:1)(cid:2)Solid Waste Management...............................................................................65
(cid:1)(cid:2)Emergency Services........................................................................................65
(cid:1)(cid:2)Public Facilities Management.........................................................................70
6.0 Fiscal Health Element..........................................................................................71
7.0 Business Development and Tourism Element...................................................73
8.0 Sensitive Areas and Mineral Resources Element..............................................78
(cid:1)(cid:2)Sensitive Areas...............................................................................................78
(cid:1)(cid:2)Mineral Resources..........................................................................................83
Attachment 1: Plan Implementation and Streamlining Element............................84
Attachment 2: Review and Relationship of 1993 to 2002 Plan..............................108
Acronym Glossary......................................................................................................134
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Table of Contents
Page - iv

List of Maps
Map LU-1: Comprehensive Plan Map: Countywide.....................................................21
Map LU-2: Comprehensive Plan Map: Growth Areas..................................................22
Map LU-3: Commercial Finfish & Shellfish Operations...............................................30
Map TC-1: Thoroughfare Plan Map...............................................................................37
Map CF-1: Recommended Sewer Service Phasing.......................................................54
Map CF-2: Recommended Water Service Phasing.......................................................57
Map CF-3: Existing Public Recreation Facilities...............................................................63
List of Tables
Table 1: Change in Growth Area Boundaries................................................................16
Table 2: Thoroughfare Plan Network - Recommended Improvements
to the Existing Network...................................................................................38
Table 3: Projected New School Facilities and Anticipated Phasing..............................60
Table 4: Policy, Regulatory and Capital Improvements
Implementation Matrix....................................................................................85
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Table of Contents
Page - v

1.0 Plan Purpose and Major Issues
Role and Purpose of the Plan
The Comprehensive Plan is a guide for the location, character and extent of proposed public
and private development in Queen Anne’s County. The Plan’s policies and
recommendations will be implemented over time through many distinct decisions including
the rezoning and subdivision of land and the location and construction of public
improvements. The Plan provides the policy basis for the integration and coordination of
these decisions and actions. The County’s land use ordinances are to be amended to be
consistent with the Plan.
The County has been implementing the recommendations of the 1993 Comprehensive Plan
Update and those contained in the Community Plans for Stevensville, Chester, Grasonville,
Kent Narrows, Queenstown and Centreville. This 2002 Comprehensive Plan builds on the
policies and recommendations of the 1993 Plan. The recommendations of the Community
Plans (Growth Area Plans), as adopted, still remain valid and are included as a part of this
Plan except as superseded by any inconsistent recommendations of this 2002
Comprehensive Plan.
Under the State’s planning statutes (see below) the Plan and Community Plans must be
updated every six years. This revision and update is needed to respond to changing
conditions, unforeseen events and trends and changing objectives, which may include the
possible identification of additional Growth Areas.
Legal Basis
Under Maryland Law, the Planning Commission has the duty to make and approve a
Comprehensive Plan and then recommend its adoption to the County Commissioners. The
Plan is to “serve as a guide to public and private actions and decision to ensure the
development of public and private property in appropriate relationships.” The State law
(Article 66B) requires that the Plan “serve as a guide for the development and economic and
social-well being of the County.” The Plan is to be composed of a number of interrelated
elements that address the following areas: land use, transportation, community facilities,
sensitive areas, mineral resources, and plan implementation. The Planning Commission
may include other elements, as it deems necessary, such as economic development and
tourism, and parks and recreation.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Plan Purpose and Major Issues
Page - 1

In addition, the Plan must also designate areas on or in close proximity to tidal waters for
loading, unloading, and processing fish and shellfish as well as docking and mooring of
commercial fishing boats, vessels and storage area for oyster shells. This requirement is
meant to facilitate commercial fishing and reasonable access to waterways by commercial
watermen.
As a result of 2000 amendments, Article 66B now includes “Eight Visions” that must be
implemented through the plan’s recommendations. The “Eight Visions,” which are
incorporated in this Plan, are:
1. Development is concentrated in suitable areas.
2. Sensitive areas are protected.
3. In rural areas, growth is directed to existing population centers and resource areas are
protected.
4. Stewardship of the Chesapeake Bay and the land is a universal ethic.
5. Conservation of resources, including a reduction in resource consumption, is practiced.
6. To assure the achievement of items (1) through (5) of this section, economic growth is
encouraged and regulatory mechanisms are streamlined.
7. Adequate public facilities and infrastructure under the control of the county or municipal
corporation are available or planned in areas where growth is to occur and
8. Funding mechanisms are addressed to achieve these visions.
Major Issues This Plan Seeks To Address
The Plan seeks to continue to address and resolve two overarching themes, which reaffirm
the County’s long-standing growth management policies and recommendations in effect
since the 1987 Comprehensive Plan. These are framed as interrelated questions:
(cid:1)(cid:2) How can the County encourage and direct growth to existing communities and within
designated Growth Areas and,
(cid:1)(cid:2) How can the County continue to keep its rural areas rural and preserve agricultural
lands?
Some of the issues and concerns identified during the Plan development process are
provided below as they relate to the overarching themes. Other issues that are of a more
general nature are included under a separate listing. The lists are not prioritized.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Plan Purpose and Major Issues
Page - 2

HOW CAN THE COUNTY ENCOURAGE AND DIRECT MORE GROWTH TO
EXISTING COMMUNITIES AND WITHIN DESIGNATED GROWTH AREAS?
(cid:1)(cid:2) How should sanitary sewer, water and transportation systems be upgraded within the
Growth Areas? How much will these improvements cost?
(cid:1)(cid:2) What new schools are needed in the next 20 years and where are they needed?
(cid:1)(cid:2) How can the County reduce its dependence on relocatable classrooms? At what cost?
(cid:1)(cid:2) What can the County do to keep public facilities in step with development?
(cid:1)(cid:2) How much public and private recreation and open space is needed and where?
(cid:1)(cid:2) What can the County do to attract jobs so as to reduce out-commuting and increase the
County’s fiscal strength?
(cid:1)(cid:2) Where should the County develop its next business park? Should there be a focus on
“information based economy” businesses?
(cid:1)(cid:2) Should impact fees be re-vamped so that the impacts of new growth are borne by new
development and not existing residents? Can such fees be structured to encourage
development in the Growth Areas rather than in rural areas?
(cid:1)(cid:2) What should the County do to assess road capacity needs as it reviews development
proposals and their impacts?
(cid:1)(cid:2) How should the County determine an acceptable level of service standard for traffic
flow in Growth Areas without deflecting growth into rural areas?
(cid:1)(cid:2) To increase carpooling and express bus ridership to the Baltimore and Washington
areas, where should additional park and ride lots be located along the US 50/301
corridor? How can these needed facilities be incorporated into the development review
process so that as lands are developed, areas for the park and ride lots are reserved by
the developer?
(cid:1)(cid:2) What can be done to improve local circulation within the western Growth Areas, which
has been complicated by the “reach the beach” improvements to US 50/301?
(cid:1)(cid:2) How can parking standards be changed to reduce parking requirements or permit shared
or off-site parking?
(cid:1)(cid:2) Should the County consider relocation of the Bay Bridge Airport and
redevelopment/reservation of that prime land for employment uses long-term?
(cid:1)(cid:2) As older strip retail becomes obsolete along US 50/301 and SR 18, should the County
consider purchase and land banking of these for future employment uses?
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Plan Purpose and Major Issues
Page - 3

(cid:1)(cid:2) Even though the County plans and policies are in accord with the State’s smart growth
legislation, the County is not guaranteed nor is it “entitled” to State funding. It is
merely eligible to receive funding. What can be done to increase funding sources and
levels available to Queen Anne’s County?
HOW CAN THE COUNTY KEEP ITS RURAL AREAS RURAL AND PRESERVE
AGRICULTURAL LANDS?
(cid:1)(cid:2) How can the County increase funding for agricultural preservation efforts?
(cid:1)(cid:2) How can the Transfer of Development Rights and non-contiguous development
regulations be improved/honed to increase their effectiveness?
(cid:1)(cid:2) Should the County consider a Purchase of Development Rights program where the
County would buy development rights in agricultural areas to preserve these lands for
agricultural uses?
(cid:1)(cid:2) Can the permitted uses within the Agricultural zoning district be expanded to include
uses such as wineries and other uses to increase the flexibility of the zone and the
likelihood of sustaining agricultural use of the land?
(cid:1)(cid:2) Can areas such as Southern Kent Island, where there are serious private septic system
failures, be addressed through extension of public water and sanitary sewer service
without “opening up” these fragile areas to additional widespread development?
(cid:1)(cid:2) Can the road standards be amended to encourage road design dimensions in rural areas
that preserve and enhance the rural character?
(cid:1)(cid:2) How can design standards for subdivision and development be instituted that will
improve the quality of rural design and preserve rural character at the same time?
(cid:1)(cid:2) How can the zoning ordinance be changed to include a crossroads zoning district to
permit some development of commercial and business uses in non-incorporated rural
areas?
(cid:1)(cid:2) There is a need to provide for some economic and residential development in this
portion of the County and to proactively manage growth pressures from Delaware and
increasing traffic on US 301. Should a northern County growth area be established?
(cid:1)(cid:2) What should the County do to facilitate continuation of commercial fishing and to
maintain access by commercial fisherman to the County’s waterways?
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Plan Purpose and Major Issues
Page - 4

(cid:1)(cid:2) How can the buffering standards for new residential development adjacent to
agricultural-zone areas be augmented to protect agricultural operations from “nuisance”
complaints?
OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES
(cid:1)(cid:2) How is Queen Anne’s County impacted by regional development trends? What
pressures and trends are likely to impact the County’s future growth?
(cid:1)(cid:2) What can the County do to make sure that it is able to participate in the “information
based economy” by improving access to high-speed telecommunications networks?
(cid:1)(cid:2) What can the County do to increase telecommuting options for County residents such as
establishing a telecommunications center?
(cid:1)(cid:2) How can the County continue to build on its strong base and location to improve its
capture of tourism dollars?
(cid:1)(cid:2) What business/recreational facilities such as conference facilities are needed? Where
should they be encouraged?
(cid:1)(cid:2) What should the County do if rail lines are determined to be surplus by their current
owners? What policies should be in place to evaluate these opportunities?
(cid:1)(cid:2) To accommodate the need for new elementary schools, should the County consider
increasing the size of new and updated elementary schools to 600 students (from 500)?
(cid:1)(cid:2) How should the County improve stormwater management?
(cid:1)(cid:2) How should the County reassess the method used to determine public safety staffing
needs to ensure that the County has a satisfactory ratio of personnel to residents and
businesses?
(cid:1)(cid:2) Does the County need to enact coastal floodplain protection standards?
(cid:1)(cid:2) How should the County plan for the site identification of a staging area for trucks within
the US 50/301 corridor during bridge closings as a result of weather or other
emergencies?
The answers to these and other issues and questions related to growth are included in this
Plan.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Plan Purpose and Major Issues
Page - 5

How This Plan is Organized
This Plan is organized around two overarching themes: promoting growth in developed
areas and preserving the County’s rural character and agricultural lands. These themes were
used as a framework for developing the Plan because they encompass and reinforce major
concerns voiced by the citizens over the County’s future.
These themes are discussed through a series of plan elements including land use,
transportation, community facilities, fiscal health, business development and tourism,
sensitive areas and mineral resources. Tables, images and maps supplement the Plan’s text.
Each of the plan elements has the same general format. Issues the Plan seeks to address are
identified first. They are followed by interrelated policies and action strategies that address
the issue. The Attachment 1 on page 84, “Implementation Element” includes the action
agenda that identifies priorities for the Plan’s implementation. The Attachment 2 on page
108, “Review and Relationship of the 1993 to the 2002 Plan,” reviews the goals, objectives
and policies of the 1993 Comprehensive Plan, assesses whether they have been implemented
and how the issues raised in the 1993 Plan are addressed in this Comprehensive Plan 2002.
The Comprehensive Plan Elements mentioned above are preceded by this description of the
Plan and the section that follows, which highlights the history of planning in the County,
provides an overview of the designation of the County’s six Growth Areas, and summarized
the 20-year growth estimates assumed for this Comprehensive Plan.
The Plan is based on a substantial amount of supporting analysis and information. To make
it as reader-friendly as possible, much of this analysis and background data has been
separated from the Plan’s recommendations in this volume. The Plan’s Volume 1: “County
Profile” provides a detailed overview of existing conditions and issues. The Plan’s
Appendix, “Alternatives, Analysis, Projections” provides a summary of the rigorous
alternatives analysis that was undertaken as part of the plan update process.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Plan Purpose and Major Issues
Page - 6

2.0 Historical Overview and Projections
Historical Planning Perspective
The principal objective of planning is to anticipate, prepare for and plan for land use patterns
over the stated 20-year horizon of the Plan. Thus, land use planning is principally forward
thinking. However, an integral part of any comprehensive planning process must include a
historical perspective to provide insight into the existing land use conditions. The following
section is intended to provide an overview of Queen Anne’s County Comprehensive Plans to
date. Also included are specific dates and events that impacted or influenced the County’s
residential, commercial and industrial growth pattern.
This historical overview is supplemented by Attachment 2 on page 108 of this Plan, which
reviews the goals, objectives and policies of the 1993 Comprehensive Plan, assesses whether
they have been implemented and how the issues raised in the 1993 Plan are addressed in this
Comprehensive Plan 2002.
1965 Comprehensive Plan
The first Queen Anne’s County Comprehensive Master Plan was adopted in 1965.
Development pressure was increasing in the County in the 1960’s as a result of the opening
of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge in 1952. By 1964, land speculators had already subdivided
approximately 9,000 small lots. 80 percent of those lots were on Kent Island. The remaining
20 percent were on the Chester River. All of these lots were created prior to the existence of
any type of standards for soil performance to determine suitability for septic systems. Public
sewer did not exist nor were assurances or provisions for it considered at that time.
Furthermore, there were no sureties to ensure the construction of roads or provisions for
adequate drainage. The combination of small lot sizes, heavy clay soils, high water tables,
and poor surface drainage aggravated the on-site disposal problems.
In addition, by the 1960’s, much of the land along the US 50/301 corridor from Stevensville
to Grasonville was zoned for commercial development. The agricultural and waterfront
areas were typically zoned for one house per every one or two acres. Environmental
protection standards in this early plan and ordinance were minimal.
According to the 1965 Plan, heavier concentrations of the population were found in the
western and northern parts of the County. Sixty one percent of the total population in 1960
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Historical Overview and Projections
Page - 7

resided in Election Districts 3,4 and 5. Variations in the population trends within the County
were not determined to be significant except for Kent Island and Queenstown. Their close
proximity to the Bay Bridge was noted as the reason for higher population density there.
The Plan accurately projected that by 1980 the population in Queen Anne’s County would
reach 25,000 to 27,000. (The 1980 census number for Queen Anne’s County was 25,508).
It also anticipated that 40 percent of the 20-year growth would come from natural increases
and that about 60 percent would be from migration from elsewhere.
The 1965 Plan indicates there was evidence of the population “clustering” at many locations
along the County’s extensive shorelines. According to the 1965 Plan: “The shores of the
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries are proving to be an important factor in attracting people
to live and play in this County, and it is these areas in particular that will require close
watching and careful planning.”
The 1965 Plan proposed land use provisions and zoning categories that left approximately
16 percent of the County’s acreage in residential uses, approximately 2 percent in
commercial and industrial uses and the balance (around 82 percent) in agricultural/rural
uses. The maximum theoretical buildout of the County, based on the 1965 Plan, was
approximately 261,000 dwellings (the equivalent of 880,000 people based on 3.36 people
per household). However, with permitted densities of 1-2 dwellings per acre in the
agricultural district, conceivably 66 percent of the development (172,000 dwellings or
577,000 people) could have been located in this district. 3,300 acres of
commercial/industrial building coverage was theoretically possible under the proposals of
the 1965 Plan.
1973 Second Bay Bridge Completed
The completion of the second span of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge in 1973 was long awaited
by the many travelers anxious to “reach the beach.” The second span also played an
important role in the development of Kent Island as the commute became easier from job
centers on the Western Shore. As a result, the Kent Island/Grasonville areas became a much
more attractive bedroom community and provided the catalyst for additional development
pressures.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Historical Overview and Projections
Page - 8

1981 – Kent Narrows, Stevensville and Grasonville (KNSG) Sewer Treatment
Plant
Several factors contributed to the ultimate construction of the County’s sewer treatment
plant. They included the steadily increasing growth of year round-residents on Kent Island,
an increasing number of septic system failures, and the adverse impacts on shellfish in
waters contaminated by septic system discharges to groundwater. As a result, the County
was able to secure significant Federal and State grant funds to remedy these conditions.
The construction of a public sewerage system for the Chester, Stevensville, Kent Narrows
and Grasonville wastewater subdistricts was completed in 1981 utilizing EPA grants. The
initial facilities, which came on-line in 1982, consisted of a vacuum collection and force
main transmission systems for the US 50/301 corridor and an 0.8 mgd treatment plant. The
plant was re-rated to 1.0 mgd in May of 1986, and doubled to 2 mgd in 1990 at a cost of
$6.5 million.
The location of the treatment plant was based on the need to maximize the mixing zone of
the treated effluent and the waters receiving the treated effluent. Because the Chesapeake
Bay would provide the maximum dilution, a site adjacent to the Bay was the clear and
obvious choice. The current site was chosen because of its proximity to the area to be
served. In addition, the closer the proximity of the treatment plant to the receiving water,
the lower the cost of the plant construction.
The availability of sewer had a significant impact on the development potential of the Kent
Narrows, Stevensville, Grasonville area. The treatment facility addressed the failing septic
systems and allowed properties to be developed that, did not pass percolation tests under the
Wet Season Standards developed in 1973 or the On-site Construction Standards developed
in 1985.
1987 Comprehensive Plan
The next major Plan Update was adopted in 1987, fourteen years after the opening of the
second Bay Bridge and six years after the construction of the KNSG sewer treatment plant.
The Plan was divided into six chapters: Goals and Objectives, Principals, Policies and
Standards; Natural Resources; Community Character; The Land Use Plan; Transportation;
and Capital Planning and Community Facilities.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Historical Overview and Projections
Page - 9

The 1987 Plan’s primary goals and objectives were to preserve and protect the Chesapeake
Bay and its tributaries, to maintain the County’s existing rural character and to preserve and
protect large areas of the County for agricultural use. The Plan proposed to meet those
objectives by reducing the number of dwelling units in the agricultural and rural areas, to
improve the overall quality of housing stock, and to address the relative lack of affordable
housing.
The growth management component of the 1987 Plan intended to limit urban sprawl and
concentrate or direct new growth into areas designated as “growth nodes” where growth
could be adequately serviced by public infrastructure and directed away from
environmentally sensitive and rural areas.
After the Plan was adopted, the County completed a comprehensive down-zoning process
and adopted a new set of zoning and subdivision regulations. The new performance-based
zoning ordinance was a radical departure from the County’s original “Euclidean” zoning
regulations. Inland agricultural areas were “down zoned” to one house per every eight acres
with a condition that the homes be clustered on 15 percent of the site with 85 percent to
remain as open space. Waterfront areas were “down zoned” to one house per every five
acres with similar cluster and open space restrictions.
With the rezoning of the entire County, the new zoning classifications resulted in
approximately10 percent of the County dedicated to residential uses, 1 percent to
commercial and industrial and 89 percent to agricultural/rural uses. The 1987 down-zoning
reduced the maximum theoretical buildout in the County to 60,500 dwelling units or
161,000 people, only 44 percent of which could be located in the agriculture/rural areas. In
addition, the 3,300 acres of commercial/industrial acreage proposed in the 1965 Plan was
reduced to approximately 780 acres under the 1987 Plan.
When compared to the 1965 Comprehensive Plan, the 1987 Plan initiated an obvious and
significant overall decrease in the long-term development potential of the County.
1989 - Chesapeake Bay Critical Act
In 1989, the County adopted its Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Program, implementing
ordinance and maps in accordance with State law. The Critical Area is generally defined as
all lands within 1,000 feet of the shoreline or head of tidal waters for the Bay proper and its
tidal tributaries. The Critical Areas Program and Maps are considered as overlays to County
zoning regulations and maps.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Historical Overview and Projections
Page - 10

Land use designations of IDA (Intensely Developed Areas), LDA (Limited Development
Areas) and RCA (Resource Conservation Areas) were applied based on land use patterns as
of December 1, 1985.
IDA areas are those where residential, commercial, institutional and/or industrial developed
land uses predominate and where relatively little natural habitat occurs. IDA lands are
permitted to develop at the densities and intensities allowable under the County’s zoning
ordinance.
LDA lands are areas currently developed in low or moderate intensity uses that contain plant
and animal habitats. LDA lands are permitted to develop at the density permitted by the
County zoning ordinance, but are limited to 15 percent impervious coverage with a few
exceptions.
RCA lands are those characterized by nature-dominated environments (wetlands, forests,
abandoned fields, etc.) and resource utilization activities (agriculture, forestry, fisheries,
aquaculture, etc.) density is limited one (1) dwelling unit per 20 acres and no new land may
be zoned for institutional, industrial or commercial development.
State law governing the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area regulations provides little discretion
for local governments to change environmental protection standards. The County’s local
Critical Area regulations are essentially prescribed by the State.
However, in accordance with State law, the County does have the ability to change a limited
amount of Critical Area mapping in order to facilitate local growth management objectives.
This process is called “growth allocation” and is limited to 5 percent of the County’s overall
total Resource Conservation Area (RCA), less State tidal wetlands and Federally owned
lands. (“Growth allocation” permits RCA land to be remapped as LDA or IDA lands or
LDA land to be remapped as IDA lands). As a result, Queen Anne’s County had a total of
1,528 acres of Growth Allocation available initially. 153 acres were pre-mapped during the
initial program adoption.
In addition, the Critical Area criteria requires the County coordinate its use of Growth
Allocation with the municipalities. As a result, 186 acres were granted by the County to the
Town of Centreville and 160 acres to the Town of Queenstown for use within those
municipalities.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Historical Overview and Projections
Page - 11

The Growth Allocation process was established with the adoption of the Critical Area
Ordinance. Amendment of the development area classification is on a project-by-project
basis and all conversions count against the County’s total allocation.
Taken together, the 1987 Comprehensive Plan and the 1989 Critical Area Program
accomplished three significant growth management objectives:
(cid:1)(cid:2) The overall development potential of the County was significantly reduced as a result of
development restrictions on agricultural and waterfront lands. This was accomplished
at a time when the County’s population was relatively small and the vast majority of its
land was undeveloped. Unlike the suburban Western Shore counties, Queen Anne’s
County adopted substantial growth controls before market driven development
consumed much of the County’s rural and waterfront lands.
(cid:1)(cid:2) Zoning districts and Critical Area mapping were arranged in such a way as to direct the
majority of new development to within and around existing communities that had
infrastructure or had the potential for infrastructure expansion. Vacant lands within and
on the perimeter of existing communities were generally planned for future
development. Rural areas were generally planned to stay rural, an approach to land use
management later endorsed in the Statewide 1992 Planning Act.
(cid:1)(cid:2) Environmental protection standards for sensitive areas such as tidal wetlands, non-tidal
wetlands, forests and habitat areas were are now firmly integrated into development
regulations. A combination of local and State regulations ensured that new
development projects were reviewed for their impact on the environment.
1992 Economic Growth, Resource Protection and Planning Act
In, 1992, Maryland adopted the Economic Growth, Resource Protection and Planning Act as
an amendment to Article 66B. The Planning Act mandated that, by July of 1997, all local
governments in the State adopt plan and implementation strategies that achieve seven
general “visions”:
(cid:1)(cid:2) Development is concentrated in suitable areas;
(cid:1)(cid:2) Sensitive Areas are protected;
(cid:1)(cid:2) In rural areas, growth is directed to existing population centers and resource areas are
protected;
(cid:1)(cid:2) Stewardship of the Chesapeake Bay and the land is a universal ethic;
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Historical Overview and Projections
Page - 12

(cid:1)(cid:2) Conservation of resources, including a reduction in resource consumption, is practiced;
(cid:1)(cid:2) To assure the achievement of the above- mentioned visions, economic growth is
encouraged and regulatory mechanisms are streamlined; and
(cid:1)(cid:2) Funding mechanisms are addressed to achieve these visions.
In short, the Planning Act requires local governments to concentrate growth in and around
existing developed areas, promote economic development and protect sensitive natural
resources. The Act also requires that all State and local government investments in
infrastructure (roads, sewer, water, schools, etc.) are consistent with adopted local growth
management plans.
1993 Comprehensive Plan
In 1993, Queen Anne’s County adopted a second major Comprehensive Plan Update. The
1993 Plan reaffirmed the guiding principles of the 1987 Plan and added policies to assure
compliance with the mandates of the 1992 Planning Act. Queen Anne’s County was the
first county to adopt a plan consistent with the 1992 Planning Act.
One of the major recommendations of the 1993 Plan Update was that specific development
plans should be prepared for each of the County’s six designated Growth Areas:
Stevensville, Chester, Kent Narrows, Grasonville, Queenstown and Centreville. (The Kent
Narrows Plan and its associated zoning changes had been adopted in April of 1992 as part of
the implementation of the 1987 Plan.)
Each Growth Area plan was intended to address land use, transportation, infrastructure and
community design issues peculiar to that area of the County. Each growth area plan, once
adopted, was to become a part of the 1993 Comprehensive Plan.
The essential framework of the 1987 Plan and acreages dedicated to the specific uses
remained the same. The maximum theoretical buildout under the 1993 Plan and subsequent
1994 rezonings, taking into consideration Critical Area regulations, was 54,700 dwellings,
only 41 percent of which could be built in the agricultural/rural areas of the County.
In 1995, the County began preparation of growth area (community) plans for Queenstown,
Centreville and Chester. The County Commissioners adopted the Chester Community Plan
and the associated comprehensive zoning changes needed to implement that Plan in 1997.
The plans for Queenstown and Centreville involved County coordination with the
governments of each incorporated municipality. The County and Towns, with help from
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Historical Overview and Projections
Page - 13

appointed citizen advisory committees, consultants and County Planning Department staff,
prepared draft community plans that were adopted in 1998.
Community plans for Grasonville and Stevensville were begun in 1997. These plans were
also prepared with assistance from appointed citizen advisory committees, consultants and
Planning Department staff. Both plans were adopted in 1998 with follow-up comprehensive
zoning changes occurring in 1999.
A detailed review of 1993 Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives, Policies, and
Implementation status and their relationship to 2002 Draft Plan recommendations are
included here as Attachment 2 of this Plan.
1997 Smart Growth Initiatives
In 1997, the State of Maryland enacted “Smart Growth” legislation. Whereas the 1992
Planning Act was intended to encourage growth management and the protection of resources
at the local government level, the Smart Growth legislation gives the State programmatic
and fiscal authority to require local jurisdictions to implement “smart growth” planning.
The centerpiece of the Smart Growth legislative package is the “Priority Funding Areas”
law. This law limits State funding for infrastructure and economic development to locations
that meet specific State criteria. “Priority Funding Area” law effects Queen Anne’s County
in two ways. First, State fiscal support is only provided to areas planned for development
and to those already developed. Second, the law prevents the State from funding
infrastructure in rural areas where growth is not encouraged. Other Smart Growth programs,
like “Rural Legacy” and “Live Near Your Work,” contribute to the overall goal of
preserving rural resources and making cities and towns more attractive to live.
2000 - Eighth Vision Added to Article 66B
Amendments to Article 66B of the Annotated Code of Maryland enacted in 2000 included
the addition of an eighth vision for local governments to implement as part of their
Comprehensive Plans. The eighth vision states: “Adequate public facilities and
infrastructure under the control of the County or Municipal corporation are available or
planned in areas where growth is to occur.”
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Historical Overview and Projections
Page - 14

An Analysis of the 1993 vs. 2002 Growth Area Boundaries
Growth Areas 1993 vs. 2002
During the public process associated with the development of the draft Comprehensive Plan,
there has been significant discussion related to the size of the Growth Area boundaries in
1993 versus the boundaries shown on the 2002 Comprehensive Plan Maps.
According to the 1993 Plan, the accompanying Plan Maps showed only “highly generalized
boundaries for each of these sub-areas.” The generalized Growth Areas are for illustrative
purposes only and will be refined in subsequent stages of the planning process outlined …”
The planning process outlined involved prioritizing the areas and subsequent completion of
detailed sub-area master plans for those areas over the 20 year planning period. The detailed
sub-area or growth area plans were intended to provide the opportunity for a closer look at
specific places and a more finely tuned analysis of the generalized Growth Areas.
As a result of the adoption of the Community Plans outlined earlier in this Chapter, the
boundaries of the Growth Areas were revised to accurately reflect the decisions made during
those separate planning processes.
The 2002 Plan map reflects the changes made in all of the growth area boundaries as a result
of the Community Plan process between 1993 and 2002. In an effort to address the
concerns, the Queen Anne’s County GIS Department digitized the highly generalized
boundaries from the 1993 Plan map and compared them to the current boundaries of the six
designated Growth Areas. The following analysis summarizes the differences between the
1993 Plan map and the 2002 Plan map.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Historical Overview and Projections
Page - 15

Change in Growth Area Boundaries (in acres)
Percent Change
in size of the GA
from 1993 to
1993 2002 * Change * 2002 *
Centreville 1,552 3,909 2,357 151.9%
Queenstown 1,350 2,840 1,490 110.4%
Grasonville 1,901 1,939 38 2.0%
Stevensville 1,719 3,278 1,559 90.7%
Chester 2,053 1,908 (145) (7.06%)
Kent Narrows 415 415 0 0%
8,990 14,289 5,299 58.9%
* The 2002 Comprehensive Plan includes the growth area boundaries as defined in the growth area
(community) plans that were adopted from 1992 to 1998. Thus the changes shown between 1993 and
2002 are based on the changes adopted when the growth area plans were adopted and not because of any
changes this 2002 Plan includes or proposes.
Initial drafts of the 93 Plan indicated that based on the historical trends, Kent Island would
likely absorb more than 50 percent of new growth over the next 20 years. As a result of
significant citizen concern and input relating to this forecast, the 1993 Plan was modified
prior to adoption to include a policy objective that calls for Kent Island to absorb
approximately one-third of anticipated growth in the next 20 years, while shifting the other
two-thirds to Grasonville, Queenstown, and Centreville.
This policy objective was problematic for several reasons. With the adoption of the 1993
Plan and the identification of “generalized” Growth Areas, Kent Island received
approximately 44 percent of the total acreage located within the Growth Areas. While the
generalized Growth Areas located on Kent Island were reduced to some degree prior to the
adoption of the 1993 Plan, they were not reduced sufficiently to insure that the policy
objective could be met. The 1993 Plan did not include any other policies, strategies, zoning
or ordinance recommendations that would implement or achieve the policy of reducing the
percentage of new growth on Kent Island.
As noted in the table above, as a result of the individualized planning process associated
with the preparation and adoption of all six Growth Area Plans, the amount of land located
within the six designated Growth Areas is approximately 5,300 acres or 59 percent larger
than the generalized growth area boundaries contained in the 1993 Plan. In contrast, the
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Historical Overview and Projections
Page - 16

amount of land located within Kent Island’s two and one-half Growth Areas (Stevensville,
Chester and half of the Kent Narrows) is approximately 1,414 acres or 36 percent larger than
was reflected on the generalized growth area boundaries contained in the 1993 Plan.
With the adoption of all six Growth Area Plans, the size of the Kent Island Growth Areas
relative to the total size of all six Growth Areas has been reduced from 44 percent of the
total in 1993 to slightly less than 38 percent today. This reduction occurred because the size
of Kent Island’s Growth Areas grew at a rate of 36 percent, compared with the 81 percent
increase in size associated with the Centreville, Queenstown, and Grasonville Growth Areas
since 1993.
In addition, as a result of the zoning decisions associated with the adoption of all six Growth
Area Plans, an analysis of buildout potential (included in Attachment D of Volume 1),
indicates that the total maximum residential development potential of the Growth Areas
located on Kent Island is approximately 32 percent of the overall potential of all six Growth
Area Plans. Therefore, though the Kent Island Growth areas are somewhat larger than the
generalized areas shown in the 1993 Plan, the adoption of the detailed Growth Area Plans
has ensured the 1993 Plan objective that new growth on Kent Island be reduced to one-third
of the total anticipated in the County through 2013.
Growth Projections Assumed for the 2002 Plan
This Plan assumes that between 2000 and 2020, approximately 400 to 600 new housing
units will be built per year in Queen Anne’s County. The ten-year average from 1990 to
2000 was approximately 400 units per year, with a high of 527 units in 1994 and a low of
232 in 1990. At an average of 2.5 persons per household, the range of 400 to 600 new units
per year equates to 1,000-1,500 persons per year.
The County’s estimated jobs to housing ratio for 2000 is approximately 0.6. The
alternatives analysis completed assumed a jobs to housing ratio of 0.9 job for every new
housing unit. Subsequently, it was felt that this was probably too great a change from current
trends. Thus, the Comprehensive Plan assumes that over the next twenty years, new jobs are
anticipated to form at an average rate of 0.75 for each new housing unit with a lower rate
during the first ten years and a higher rate for the second ten-year period. That would
provide a range of 300 to 450 new jobs per year based on the estimate of 400 to 600 new
housing units a year.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Historical Overview and Projections
Page - 17

3.0 Land Use Element
This element focuses on what land use policies and actions the County should implement to
direct growth into the designated Growth Areas and keep the rural areas rural. Interrelated
issues, policies and action strategies are outlined below. For details on existing land use
conditions and trends, please refer to Volume 1: The County Profile of this Comprehensive
Plan.
Land Use Issues, Policies and Strategies
Land Use Issue 1: The Role and Use of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan text and maps contain detailed recommendations for development
and preservation including the appropriate location for various types of development, areas
appropriate for rural development and agriculture, the general character of roads, and the
extent of public water and sanitary sewer utilities. The Comprehensive Plan Maps (LU-1 on
page 21 and LU-2 on page 22), the Thoroughfare Plan Map (see Map T-1 on page 37 in the
Transportation Element), the Sewer and Water Service Phasing Maps (see Maps CF-1 on
page 54and CF-2 on page 57 in the Community Facilities Element) provide the foundation
of the Comprehensive Plan. These maps should be used in conjunction with one another as
well as the text of the Plan.
2002 Land Use Plan Maps
During the public review process, concerns were voiced over the visual impact of the
Growth Areas on the Land Use Plan Map (LU-1 on page 21). Many citizens indicated that
the growth areas appeared to have no open space or preserved land within their boundaries.
In an effort to address these concerns, a second Land Use Plan map has been included (LU-2
on page 22).
The Comprehensive Plan Map: Countywide (LU-1 on page 21) delineates:
• the existing growth area boundaries as a result of the individual community plan
processes completed and adopted during 1997 and 1998.;
• the limits of the incorporated town boundaries;
• existing rural business areas;
• established residential areas outside of the Growth Areas that include:
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Land Use Element
Page - 18

− lands served by public water and sewer (Prospect Bay)
− lands planned to be served by public water and sewer as they have been identified
as problem areas in the Master Water and Sewer Plan
− areas served by private well and septic
• deed restricted open space as a result of utilizing the cluster or non-contiguous
subdivision technique;
• permanently preserved lands (i.e. MALPF, MET, Rural Legacy, TDR sending parcels or
private conservation easements);
• the rural-agricultural lands of the County.
The land use allocation table at the top left of the map indicates the percentage of the County
land mass associated with each of the specific categories.
The Comprehensive Plan Map: Growth Areas (LU-2 on page 22), shown at a more detailed
scale, focuses on:
• the existing growth area boundaries shown are a result of the individual community plan
processes completed and adopted during 1997 and 1998;
• public lands;
• existing open space or preserved lands within the Growth Areas;
• existing development or infill areas;
• the minimum 25 percent open space requirement for the lands currently zoned for
planned development.
Although the planned development district for Queenstown has not been mapped yet, text
amendments are in process and it is anticipated the associated mapping will follow, both of
which are consistent with the Queenstown Community Plan.
In addition, the preserved lands outside the Growth Areas have been shown in an effort to
address the issue of separation between the existing Growth Areas. With the Stevensville,
Chester and west side of Kent Narrows Growth Areas immediately adjacent to one another
physical separation is not possible without creative visual techniques as the Growth Areas
continue to develop.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Land Use Element
Page - 19

The land use allocation table at the top left of the LU-2 Map (on page 22) indicates the
percentage associated with each of the specific categories based on the 6% of the County
within the Growth Area boundaries.
Land Use Policy 1A: Use the Comprehensive Plan Map to guide development and
preservation decisions and to promote public health, safety and welfare.
Implementation Strategies
1. Use the Comprehensive Plan Map (Map LU-1 on page 21) in conjunction with the other
Comprehensive Plan maps, policies and implementation strategies to guide decision-
making on development and preservation efforts and investments. The County’s Growth
Areas (Stevensville, Chester, Kent Narrows, Grasonville, Queenstown and Centreville)
are the focal points for residential, employment and mixed use development.
2. Beginning in fiscal year 2002-3, revise the Community Plans for Stevensville, Chester,
Grasonville, Kent Narrows, Queenstown and Centreville to be consistent with the
recommendations of this Comprehensive Plan.
3. Include the Comprehensive Plan Maps as part of a continuing County outreach program
to increase the public’s understanding of the County’s growth management framework.
4. Update the Priority Funding Area maps periodically to reflect amendments that are made
to the Master Water and Sewer Plan.
5. Review the criteria for Types of Areas Eligible for Priority Funding Area designation
(for example Rural Villages and Areas Principally Zoned for Employment) and update
the PFA maps to ensure all eligible areas are mapped appropriately. Explore the funding
opportunities that are available from the State through “Smart Growth” programs.
6. During the Comprehensive re-zoning update process, evaluate if there is a need or
justification to move or relocate any of the existing Suburban Industrial and Suburban
Commercial zoning on properties outside of the Growth Areas to properties more
consistent with the County’s long-term growth management goals.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Land Use Element
Page - 20

Comprehensive Plan Map: Countywide- LU-1
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Land Use Element
Page - 21

Comprehensive Plan Map: Growth Areas - LU-2
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Land Use Element
Page - 22

Land Use Policy 1B: Changes to the existing Growth Area boundaries.
Within the six existing designated Growth Areas, the maximum theoretical buildout would
permit approximately 20,000 dwelling units and 13,000,000 square foot of non-residential
floor area. Full buildout of these areas within the next 20 years is unrealistic. Nevertheless,
over time there will be pressure to modify or expand the existing boundaries for a variety of
reasons. This pressure could include the need to address new State land use initiatives, the
need to address/correct public health, safety and welfare issues, County policy objectives or
development pressure.
Implementation Strategies
1. During the next planning update period, the Stevensville, Chester, and west side of the
Kent Narrows growth area boundaries shall not be enlarged to accommodate new
growth.
2. During the next planning update period, the east side of the Kent Narrows, Grasonville,
Queenstown, and Centreville growth area boundaries shall be determined through their
respective individual community plan update process. Significant
enlargements/adjustments to a growth area boundary should be supported by a land
demand analysis that clearly provides necessary justification for the change.
3. Any of the Growth Areas may be altered, reconfigured, or enlarged to accommodate an
identified public service use or to address a public health, safety or welfare issue.
Land Use Policy 1C: The first Kent Narrows Community Plan was adopted in April of
1992, as part of the implementation of the 1987 Plan. With the subsequent adoption of
the 1993 Plan, it was amended and included as Chapter V of that Plan. Because the
Kent Narrows Plan is referenced and included in the 1993 Plan, there is a need to
retain that Community Plan as the current guidance for that area until such time as
the County revisits it.
Implementation Strategies
1. The Kent Narrows Community Plan will remain the County’s land use and development
policy direction for the Kent Narrows growth area and is included in this 2002
Comprehensive Plan in its entirety by reference.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Land Use Element
Page - 23

2. The County should revisit the recommendations of the Kent Narrows Community Plan
during the regular cycle of growth area community plan update process, which is
expected to occur in FY 2002.
Land Use Policy 1D: Continue to recognize the importance and benefits of maintaining
and developing relationships with jurisdictions within Queen Anne’s County as well as
with our neighboring counties.
Implementation Strategies
1. The County should continue to work cooperatively with the incorporated towns during
the review of updates and amendments of plans, programs, ordinances and/or maps and
provide the necessary technical assistance when required or requested.
2. The County should develop inter-jurisdictional cooperative agreements with the
incorporated Towns of Queenstown and Centreville to formalize the relationship
regarding development review of major projects located within these Growth Areas.
3. When appropriate, the County should continue to participate in regional planning efforts
and develop regional partners in issues related to planning, transportation, land
preservation and economic development.
4. Continue to work cooperatively with adjacent jurisdictions to develop regional
transportation priorities. (for example: MD 404)
Land Use Issue 2: Coordination of growth area development with public infrastructure
availability.
The County needs to better coordinate growth area development with public infrastructure
improvements.
Land Use Policy 2A: Provide public sewer and water in the Growth Areas in a phased
approach that maximizes the benefits of public infrastructure investment, relates the
pace of growth to the availability of infrastructure, and promotes contiguous
development.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Land Use Element
Page - 24

Implementation Strategies
1. Encourage all development (consistent with Master Water and Sewer Plan Guidelines)
within the Growth Areas to be on public water and sewer. If public systems are not yet
available, the developer may pay to extend and upgrade such facilities to the property or
wait until others have extended it.
2. Implement the upgrades to the Kent Narrows/Stevensville/Grasonville (KN/S/G)
wastewater treatment plant to a 3 or 4 Million Gallons Per Day (MGD) capacity to meet
identified needs.
3. Implement additional upgrades to the KN/S/G wastewater treatment plant to 5 MGD to
meet the development expected within the 20-year horizon of this plan.
4. Review, revise and reestablish a policy within the County’s Master Water and Sewer
Plan on how the County’s limited sanitary sewer treatment capacity is allocated among
potential users. Priorities should include redevelopment of existing properties, economic
development objectives, and the community and the public service oriented uses in
addition to the other priorities established by the Sanitary Commission.
5. Tie subdivision and site plan approvals to adequate public facilities standards.
6. Provide for a phasing of sewer and water infrastructure within the Growth Areas by
implementing a phasing plan that targets growth and investment in priority areas first.
The recommended water and sewer phasing maps are included in the Community
Facilities element of this Plan. Update the County’s Master Water and Sewer Plan to be
consistent with these service maps.
7. In cases where public infrastructure improvements may be planned but not immediately
implemented, define special assessment areas where the costs of capital improvement
directly benefiting properties within that area can be collected from the owners of both
new and existing developments.
8. Develop a master plan for water and sewer service lines and associated collection,
transmission, and treatment facilities necessary to serve the Growth Areas.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Land Use Element
Page - 25

Special Assessments
Special assessments are a revenue tool designed to recover capital improvement costs directly from
benefiting properties within a designated “benefit area.” They may be collected from owners of both new
and existing developments. Unlike impact fees and mandatory dedications, special assessments may be
used to pay for existing infrastructure deficiencies.
Land Use Issue 3: There is a need to promote the attractiveness of the Growth Areas
for development.
The County needs to establish policies and implement regulations that will enhance the
attractiveness of the Growth Areas for development and thus steer development into the
Growth Areas.
Land Use Policy 3A: Promote development within the Growth Areas by providing
incentives and improving the quality of life in the Growth Areas.
Implementation Strategies
1. To the extent feasible, co-locate public facilities such as parks, libraries, schools, and or
senior centers to provide for community activity centers.
2. Revise the County’s development codes to promote pedestrian and bicycle mobility.
3. Encourage pedestrian and bicycle connections between cul-de-sacs and adjacent streets.
4. Create incentives for retirement housing within the Growth Areas as retirees require no
additional schools and produce less peak hour traffic.
5. Formulate and establish a consistent, equitable and manageable developer
reimbursement policy for the incremental costs of oversizing sewer and water lines as
part of a development project that helps provide for future capacity for the service area.
6. Encourage a balance of public and private active recreation facilities to serve the Growth
Areas.
7. Take advantage of additional funding opportunities afforded by the Chesapeake Country
Scenic Byway, Heritage Area and SHA Neighborhood Conservation Programs to
implement projects that will facilitate community improvements in the Growth Areas.
8. The County should develop a historic preservation ordinance that allows eligible
enrolled propertied to voluntarily participate in historic rehabilitation tax credit programs
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Land Use Element
Page - 26

through Maryland Historical Trust. Within the Growth Areas, the incorporated towns of
Queenstown and Centreville maintain their separate jurisdictional control with respect to
developing their own ordinance.
Land Use Issue 4: There is a need to address affordable housing in and out of Growth
Areas.
The County’s lack of rental housing stock and multi-family development make it difficult
for some people who live and work in the County, particularly those in the service sector, to
find moderately-priced or affordable housing within the County. The lack of affordability is
compounded by a lack of availability, particularly in the rental market. The problem also
extends to the home buying market, because there are relatively few lower cost homes.
Land Use Policy 4A: Promote a variety of housing types within the County.
Implementation Strategies
1. Amend the County’s development regulations to include a provision that requiring
moderately priced dwelling units within new residential development above a certain
number of lots and providing a density bonus and/or other incentives to the developer to
make it economically feasible. (See Montgomery County, Maryland’s Moderately
Priced Dwelling Unit program as an example). Also, explore a system for prioritizing
the availability of the affordable units so that current residents and workers have access
to them first.
2. During the update of the development ordinance, consider provisions that would expand
existing accessory apartment provisions in residential zones to allow year-round rentals
to non-family members of the primary dwelling.
3. Encourage the redevelopment and improvement of existing buildings, particularly in
Growth Areas, and especially when these structures may be used for moderate or
affordable housing.
4. Review and consider incorporating the State’s new Smart Code provisions, also known
as the Maryland Building Rehabilitation Code, into the County’s building codes to
facilitate the rehabilitation of existing buildings.
5. See Business Development and Tourism Policy 5A implementation strategies 1 & 2 on
page 78.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Land Use Element
Page - 27

Land Use Issue 5: Agricultural Preservation.
The County has some of the most productive agricultural soils in the State and a long history
of agriculture productivity. The County needs to enhance and improve its existing tools to
further promote and protect agricultural lands and the agricultural economy.
In addition, the County’s regulations do not permit a full range of non-traditional
agricultural enterprises within the agricultural zoning district, which hinders some farm
owners from maintaining economic viability.
Land Use Policy 5A: Enhance the amount of the County’s lands outside the Growth
Areas that are preserved for agricultural production.
Implementation Strategies
1. During the ordinance update, reevaluate the TDR program and consider fine-tuning
implementation techniques that will enhance the program.
2. During the ordinance update and review of the TDR provisions, consider changing the
density on transferring properties from one unit per four acres to one unit per eight acres.
3. During the ordinance update process, consider fine-tuning the implementation
techniques of the non-contiguous program and then confirm or revise how non-
contiguous ownership is defined in the code.
4. Increase County funding for preservation easements through the Maryland Agricultural
Land Preservation Foundation (MAPLF) program and consider any changes necessary to
maximize available funding.
5. Consider implementing a purchase of development rights program to protect highly
productive agricultural lands from being developed. Consider the zero coupon bonds
program in Howard County as a model in addition to other strategies.
6. Continue to sponsor and/or support Rural Legacy applications and consider inter-
jurisdictional applications with adjacent counties in the future.
7. As a part of a public outreach program, consider a segment on preservation options.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Land Use Element
Page - 28

Land Use Policy 5B: Promote the economic viability of farming and of commercial
fishing.
Implementation Strategies
1. Expand the definition of agricultural uses permitted in the AG district to include non-
traditional farming-related enterprises such as wineries, cheese-making operations,
summer camps and farm related recreational uses.
2. During the ordinance update, review provisions for migrant labor housing and provide
standards within the AG district to include housing for seafood workers.
3. To facilitate the continuation of commercial fishing in the County, provide for adequate
water access to the County’s waterways. Adequate water access includes areas for
commercial fisherman for docking, mooring, and loading/unloading. These access and
support facility areas are shown on Map LU-3 on page 30. In addition, areas in close
proximity to some of these water access points should be available for fin- and shell-fish
processing.
4. Explore options to access waterways for aquaculture.
Land Use Policy 5C: Protect existing agriculture and commercial fishing areas from
development pressures and impacts.
Implementation Strategies
1. Consider augmenting the buffer requirements and/or distance setbacks of new non-
agricultural, residential development that is adjacent to AG zoned land to protect
continued agricultural uses from nuisance claims.
2. Allow commercial fisherman docking and processing facilities in appropriate waterfront
areas provided that conflicts with surrounding land use are minimized to the extent
feasible.
3. Consider developing “right to fish” language.
4. Complete a periodic review of the existing “right to farm” language.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Land Use Element
Page - 29

Commercial Finfish & Shellfish Operations - LU-3
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume : Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Land Use Element
Page - 30

Land Use Issue 6: Protect, Preserve, and Enhance Rural Lifestyle and Character.
In additional to agricultural preservation, the County needs to enhance its efforts to maintain
the County’s rural character and lifestyle, which are so important to the County’s image.
Only six percent of the County’s lands are in designated Growth Areas. The vast majority
of the County is left and should be left in a low density and rural development pattern.
Land Use Policy 6A: Protect and promote rural character and landscapes within non-
Growth Areas throughout the County.
Implementation Strategies
1. Modify development regulations to expand/revise the existing use table for the Village
Center zoning district that would allow for a variety of small businesses.
2. During the comprehensive re-zoning process, evaluate all existing Village Center zoning
and determine if there are appropriate places for expansion and possible identification of
new Village Center zoning districts.
3. Maintain the sliding scale subdivision technique that has been so successful.
4. Include design standards for subdivision and development to improve the quality of rural
design and preserve rural character, including buffering and maintenance of forest cover.
5. During the ordinance update process, create a waiver for MALPF easement properties
from road frontage requirements to allow access via an access easement.
6. During the ordinance update, review State regulation of mega-farms and their adequacy
to protect environmental and rural character in the County and determine if additional
County regulations are needed.
7. The County should develop a historic preservation ordinance that allows eligible
enrolled properties to voluntarily participate in historic rehabilitation tax credit programs
through Maryland Historical Trust.
Land Use Issue 7: There is a need to facilitate job development in the County.
The County is predominantly a bedroom community with approximately 60 percent of
working residents commuting outside the County for employment. The County’s jobs to
housing ratio is one of the lowest in the State. Although the growth area plans include
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Land Use Element
Page - 31

detailed land use recommendations that encourage a mixture of uses and the development of
community focus, there is a need to identify other ways the County can encourage business
formation through its land use policies and regulations.
Land Use Policy 7A: Earmark and reserve high quality employment lands with
highway and infrastructure access for future employment uses.
Implementation Strategies
1. The community growth area plan update process is projected to begin in Fiscal Year
2002. It will include the review and update the plans for Chester, Stevensville,
Grasonville, Kent Narrows, Queenstown and Centreville. During this growth area plan
update, identify those yet-to-be-developed lands that have good access to or frontage on
arterial roadways and consider planning them for employment uses including office and
light industrial uses.
2. As part of the development regulations update, review and update the permitted uses in
commercial and industrial zones to allow significant differentiation among zones and to
refine or augment the uses permitted.
3. Consider rezoning highly accessible locations near key intersections for office/business
park uses.
4. Undertake a study of the potential economic development spin-off and technology
transfer from Chesapeake College. Based on the results of the study, consider the
appropriate designation for the area (Growth Area, Priority Funding Area, Special
Economic Development District, etc.) to facilitate its eligibility for grants and special
funding.
5. Consider acquiring lands for employment as part of an overall land banking program so
that development options are not foreclosed. The County should hold the lands and
make them available for private sector development when market conditions are more
favorable to employment uses as the County matures from a predominately residential
county to a more balanced economy.
6. Undertake a study of potential sites for a new County business park. Review the sites
identified in the Centreville and Queenstown growth area plans as well as other potential
sites. Consider the needs of diverse potential users including “information” businesses
as well as more traditional industrial and employment users.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Land Use Element
Page - 32

Land Use Policy 7B: Encourage home-based businesses that are compatible with
residential and mixed-use areas in support of the County’s economic development
efforts.
Implementation Strategy
1. Establish appropriate standards for home occupations in the development code.
Land Use Issue 8: The County’s development ordinances need to be simplified,
updated, and streamlined.
The County’s existing development ordinances are cumbersome and complex to use and the
development review process for site plan review is time-consuming. In addition, it is
difficult for the developer or the community to understand the development potential of any
given site without substantial investment of time and detailed analysis.
Land Use Policy 8A: To regulate development in an efficient and streamlined manner
through a process that is more user-friendly and predictable.
Implementation Strategies
1. During the development ordinance update, consider a threshold for site plan to
distinguish between minor site plans approved administratively and major projects
requiring Planning Commission approval.
2. During the development ordinance update, consider requiring mandatory Planning
Commission recommendations to the Board of Appeals for industrial conditional uses
that may have significant community impacts.
3. Revise development regulations to move away from the heavy emphasis on
performance-based standards that are complicated to use and difficult to understand;
move to a simpler and more transparent system.
4. During the ordinance update, simplify the way density, net buildable, open space, and
impervious area and non-residential intensity are calculated.
5. Remove the Urban Residential (UR) floating zone.
6. Consider revising development codes to minimize the use of flag lots and double-
frontage lots.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Land Use Element
Page - 33

7. Develop and implement a policy and process that outlines how the County’s available
Critical Area growth allocation is to be apportioned.
8. During the ordinance update process, revise the code to include guidelines for the siting
of telecommunications towers.
9. Increase the County’s public education and outreach activities related to the County’s
land use policies and implementation of growth management strategies. Ensure
adequate resources are available to implement this strategy.
10. Consider developing and integrating a septic reserve area/ perc area/suitable soils
analysis as a component of the development review process. This analysis should be of
sufficient detail so that comprehensive layout planning could be done initially and prior
to design and phasing the development of the overall site.
11. During the ordinance update, review zoning standards for solid waste, landfills and
sludge storage.
12. During the ordinance update, review the requirements, process and procedures
associated with conditional uses, variances and appeals to ensure the most effective and
efficient processing of all applications and appeals.
13. Review and revise existing UC design standards and incorporate them as appropriate,
into zoning districts that permit commercial uses.
14. During the zoning ordinance update, consider establishing a threshold prior to requiring
a master plan for development be provided.
15. During the ordinance update, review and revise as necessary the appropriate
requirements associated with the approval and construction of a pier.
Land Use Issue 9: Clarification of “Open Space” Terminology.
The term “open space” is used to mean several different kinds of undeveloped lands. “Open
space” should be more clearly defined to mean either the lands that will remain undeveloped
in perpetuity, or lands that are now undeveloped but that are being held for future
development within subdivisions.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Land Use Element
Page - 34

Land Use Policy 9A: The County will clearly distinguish in its documents and
regulations whether land currently undeveloped is to remain so in perpetuity or may
be developed at some future date.
Implementation Strategy
1. Amend County development regulations to re-name the various types of “open space”
associated with development and subdivision techniques (for example agricultural open
space, private or public community space) to clarify the uses permitted and remaining
development potential.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Land Use Element
Page - 35

4.0 Transportation Element
This element includes transportation policies and recommendations. Interrelated issues,
policies and action strategies are outlined below. For details on current transportation
conditions and trends, please refer to Volume 1: The County Profile of this Comprehensive
Plan.
Thoroughfare Plan
This transportation element includes a Thoroughfare Plan. It is composed of a map (Map T-
1 on page 37) showing existing and planned roads by functional classification and an
associated table describing planned roadway improvements and the entity responsible for the
facility improvement (e.g., State, County -- private sector participation in these
improvements is expected based on new development-related impacts through the
development review and approval process). Recommended phasing of improvements is also
indicated. This phasing is a guide and may be adjusted based on changes in circumstances
and the pace of growth. Other roadway improvements will be needed to provide access to
development parcels in the Growth Areas as a result of anticipated development. Financial
participation by developers should also be sought in building or improving these roads and
intersections. The recommended functional road classification is defined below:
Recommended Functional Classification of Roadways
Roads are classified by their function: providing mobility or providing access to property. The five functional
roadway classifications recommended include principal arterial, minor arterial road, major collector, minor
collector road and local road. Traffic volumes, number of lanes, the quality of the alignment and the road’s
role within the network determine its place in the hierarchy. Map T-1 shows the recommended functional road
classification for Queen Anne’s County.
Principal Arterial: This type of facility provides for high volume travel. It is a controlled access facility.
Service to abutting land is subordinate to travel service.
Minor Arterial: This type of facility provides service for intra-area travel (between principal traffic generators
such as towns, employment nodes, Growth Areas). Service to abutting land is subordinate to travel service.
Major Collector: This type of facility provides access to both property and traffic circulation within residential
neighborhoods and commercial/industrial areas. The system collects traffic from minor collectors and local
roads, serves residential neighborhoods and disperses traffic to the arterial system.
Minor Collector: This type of facility provides access from local neighborhoods and rural communities to
developed areas and traffic generators.
Local Road: This type of facility includes all roads not included in other classifications. These roads facilitate
direct access to abutting land, connect to the higher order roadways, and offer the lowest level of mobility.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Transportation Element
Page - 36

Thoroughfare Plan Map - T-1
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Transportation Element
Page - 37

Table T-1: Thoroughfare Plan Network:
Recommended Improvements to the Existing Network
Priority Timing
Road Segment / Responsible
From To Recommended Improvement
Intersection Entity 2000- 2002- Beyond
2002 2005 2006
Widen to four lanes with left-turn lanes and
Kent Island High Chesapeake traffic signals at key intersections. Integrate
MD 8 & 18 State X X X
School Estates access controls to minimize conflicting
turning movements.
Kent Island High Old Love Point Improve 2-lane section, including left turn
MD 18 Stevensville State X
School Road lanes at key intersections.
New Love Pt. Rd Old Love Point 0.3 mile connector north of Kent Island
MD 18 County X
Connector Road High School.
Stevensville-
Thompson Creek New service road connector, alternative to
Chester Cox Neck Road State X
Road MD 18
New Service Road1
Upgraded two-lane cross-section with left-
MD 18/835 (Main
Old Love Point turn lanes at key intersections, sidewalks and
Street) Duke Street State X
Road streetscape amenities under SHA Urban
Stevensville
Revitalization Program.
New east-west connector road providing
Terminus of Castle Marina alternative route to the transportation
Benton Road County X
Benton Road Road network in vicinity of Kent Island High
School.
Upgrade existing two-lane road to an
Duke Street MD 18 US 50 County X
improved two-lane cross-section
Thompson Creek Fair Prospect Upgrade existing two-lane road to an
US 50 County X
Road Lane improved two-lane cross-section
Improve two-lane cross-section with left-
Dominion Road Interchange west turn lanes at key intersections, pavement
MD 18 Chester State X
(SR 552) of Kent Narrows reconstruction, intersection & driveway
improvements, signs, & signalization
Cox Neck Road Dominion Road X
Goodhand Creek
Dominion Road X
Road A two-lane cross-section with shoulders,
New Chester
Goodhand Creek including left-turn lanes at key intersections. County
Connector Shamrock Road X
Road New bridge over US 50/301.
Piney Creek
Shamrock Road X
Road
Construct overpass and associated service
US 50 & Shamrock/ County and
roads to provide alternative routes for local X
Dundee Overpass State
traffic.
Upgraded two-lane cross-section with left-
Queenstown
turn lanes at key intersections, sidewalks and
Chester River Growth Area
MD 18 Grasonville2 streetscape amenities under SHA Urban State X
Beach Road boundary @ US
Revitalization Program. Priority section:
50
Chester River Beach Rd to Nesbitt Rd
Interchange @ US
Construct Interchange to eliminate at-grade
301 State X
crossover
& Greenspring Rd
@ MD 18 @ MD 456 Close or possibly limited to right-turns in-
US 301
(Chesapeake (Del Rhodes and-out only to eliminate the safety hazard State X
Intersections
Village Road) Avenue) of crossing traffic. Detailed study needed.
Reconstruct as a controlled-access, four-
Greenspring Road US 301 MD 18 County X
lane, divided boulevard.
Realign Del Rhodes Ave to tie into
Del Rhodes Ave MD 456 US 50 Greenspring Road north of the US 50 State X
interchange.
Upgraded two-lane cross-section with left-
turn lanes at key intersections, sidewalks and
MD 18 Queenstown Town Limits State X
streetscape amenities under SHA Urban
Revitalization Program.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Transportation Element
Page - 38

Table T-1 (Continued)
Road Segment / Responsible Priority Timing
Intersection From To Recommended Improvement Entity 2000- 2002- Beyond
2002 2005 2006
Widen to six lanes. Construct north side
service road from Greenspring Road to
Carmichael Road. Construct south side
service road from Sportsman Neck Road to
US 50
Greenspring Road. Construct overpasses at
Improvements US 50/301 Split Carmichael Road State X X
SR 18, Greenspring & Carmichael Roads.
Section 1
Eliminate at-grade crossovers and provide
right in / right out access points for
Sportsman Neck, Greenspring/Del Rhodes,
Bloomingdale & Carmichael Roads.
Widen to six lanes. Construct service road
from MD 213 to Scottown Road & Rustic
US 50 Acres Lane. Construct interchange at US 50
Improvements Carmichael Road MD 213 & MD 213 with integrated park & ride lot. State X X
Section 2 Eliminate at-grade crossovers and provide
right in /right out access points at Scottown
Road, Price Farm lane & MD 662.
Widen to six lanes. Construct west side
service road from MD 404 to Lake Drive.
US 50
Construct interchange at MD 404 with
Improvements MD 213 MD 404 State X X
integrated park & ride. Eliminate at-grade
Section 3
crossovers and provide right in /right out
access point at Wye Ranch Farm Lane.
Extended north from MD 304 to a
connection with MD 213 to provide a north-
Rolling Bridge Rd
MD 304 MD 213 south cross-community route. New route County X
Extended
construction and 0.3-mile of existing road
reconstruction.
Taylor’s Mill Rd Rolling Bridge Upgrade existing two-lane road to an
MD 213 County X X X
Improvement Road improved two-lane cross-section
Little Kidwell Ln Taylor’s Mill 1.1 mile lane extension of new two-lane
Little Kidwell Ln County X
Extended Road construction
Just north of Widen to four-lanes with left-turn lanes;
MD 213 S of
US 301 Taylor’s Mill apply access control measures in this section State X
Centerville
Road to limit the proliferation of driveways.
Upgraded two-lane cross-section with left-
Spaniard Neck turn lanes at key intersections, sidewalks and
MD 213 Centreville MD 18 State X
Road streetscape amenities under SHA Urban
Revitalization Program.
Widen to four lanes with left-turn lanes at
MD 304 Centreville US 301 State X
key intersections
Construct interchange to ensure safe &
efficient traffic movement. Construct
US 301/304
service road to Rolling Bridge Road and State X
Interchange
eliminate at-grade crossover at Rolling
Bridge Road.
Upgrade existing two-lane road to an
improved two-lane cross-section. Post as
John Powell Road MD 213 MD 300 County X
by-pass route for truck traffic from MD 213
to US 301.
Upgraded two-lane cross-section with left-
turn lanes at key intersections, sidewalks and
MD 19 Church Hill MD 213 South MD 213 North State X
streetscape amenities under SHA Urban
Revitalization Program.
Improve key intersections & apply access
MD 213 (Kingstown
Chestertown Church Hill control measures to limit the proliferation of State X X X
Area)
driveways.
1 Amends the Stevensville Community Plan
2 Amends the Grasonville Community Plan
Source: Queen Anne’s County Department of Public Works
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Transportation Element
Page - 39

Transportation Issues, Policies and Strategies
Transportation Issue 1: There is a need to plan for, set priorities for and coordinate
transportation improvements.
The transportation element and Thoroughfare Plan (see Map T-1 on page 37) are based on
future residential and non-residential growth. There is a need to improve roadways and
build new facilities in accord with the Thoroughfare Plan and the recommended phasing
plan as outlined in Table T-1 on page 38.
Transportation Policy 1A: Use the Thoroughfare Plan in conjunction with the growth
area plans to implement and coordinate roadway improvement and usage.
Implementation Strategies
1. Maintain an aggressive but financially responsible capital budget for future roadway
improvements.
2. For County roads, new development should pay for needed new facilities or
improvements to existing facilities necessitated by new growth impacts.
3. Use Table T-1 on page 38 as a guide for the phasing of planned improvements. Update
this table annually or as necessary to reflect current County priorities.
4. Amend the road ordinance to reflect the recommended roadway classification.
5. Strive to coordinate the timing and implementation of transportation improvements such
as those outlined in the MD 8 Corridor Management Plan with other infrastructure
improvements.
6. In conjunction with the State Highway Administration, develop a comprehensive
regional corridor management plan for US 50 and MD 18. This plan should be broken
into two phases: (1) from the Chesapeake Bay Bridge to Kent Narrows and (2) from
Kent Narrows to Queenstown. The findings of this plan should be incorporated into
Table T-1 and Map T-1 as necessary to reflect current County priorities.
7. Continue to monitor and evaluate other roadway systems in the County for safety and
maintenance reasons.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Transportation Element
Page - 40

8. Recognize the recommendations of the MD 8 Corridor Management Plan and other
plans.
Transportation Issue 2: Paying for Needed Roadway Infrastructure.
There is a need to balance public sector and private sector responsibilities for roadway
infrastructure improvements. The County must also begin to assess developers a share of
transportation costs.
Transportation Policy 2A: Maintain an appropriate balance between public and
private sector responsibilities for roadway improvements.
Implementation Strategies
1. Establish a formal system to define how developers participation in the financing of
transportation costs. Costs shall be based on traffic impact studies acceptable to the
County and the State Highway Administration, even if acceptable County standards are
higher than the State requirements. Require the quantification of impacts, based on
assessment of projected traffic operations on the road network.
2. Require traffic impact studies for all developments that will significantly increase the
peak hour traffic on the adjacent area’s roadway system and create operational conflicts
(e.g., turning movements, driveway locations). These studies will determine the
magnitude of off-site roadway improvements required to accommodate the traffic
generated by the proposed development while maintaining service standards. Develop
guidelines for the impact studies including standards that establish a threshold for the
size of the development that will trigger the need for a traffic impact study. The
guidelines should define the requirements and procedures to be used as well as the
content of the submitted report.
3. Require development-related improvements to address the impacts of the development.
4. Regulate proposed development to maintain acceptable levels of service (see Policy 3A
on page 43).
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Transportation Element
Page - 41

Guidelines For Traffic Impact Studies
At a minimum, the traffic impact studies should consider:
(cid:1)(cid:2) Existing traffic volumes during the highest peak hour(s),
(cid:1)(cid:2) Normal traffic growth,
(cid:1)(cid:2) Traffic generated by pending and approved developments (within a reasonably anticipated influence
area around the site),
(cid:1)(cid:2) Programmed roadway improvements,
(cid:1)(cid:2) Traffic generated by the proposed development(s), magnitude of roadway improvements required to
maintain service standards, and
(cid:1)(cid:2) The share of the roadway improvements directly related to the proposed development (opening day,
phased and long-range impacts).
Transportation Issue 3: There is a need to establish Level of Service Standards.
Land use development and adequate road capacity need to be coordinated. To maintain its
attractiveness for residential and employment uses, the County needs to establish acceptable
Level of Service (LOS) or Congestion standards.
Roadway Level of Service
The concept of establishing a level of service (LOS) system is to adopt operational definitions for driving conditions
that motorists routinely experience and recognize. The LOS is a rating system for roadways that measures
operational conditions in traffic and the perceptions of the motorists involved. The individual LOS is characterized
by factors such as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions and comfort and convenience.
Six LOS categories are commonly defined. Each is given a letter designation from A to F, with LOS “A”
representing the best operating conditions and LOS “F” depicting the worst, as defined below.
“A” is the best operating condition with a free flow in which there is little or no restriction on speed or
maneuverability. At intersections there is little or no delay.
“B” represents a condition of stable traffic flow, but operating speed is beginning to be restricted. Short delays
occur at intersections.
“C” is still a condition of stable flow, but most drivers are becoming restricted in their freedom to select speed,
change lanes or pass other vehicles. Intersections experience average traffic delays.
“D” represents operating speed that are tolerable to the driver but are subject to considerable variation. Freedom to
maneuver is limited and driving comfort is low. Delays may be substantial during portions of the peak period when
long traffic delays are experienced at intersections. These are balanced by other times within the peak period with
lower demand that permits periodic clearance of developing queues, thus preventing excessive backups.
“E” represents a maximum roadway capacity for vehicles. It represents the most vehicles that any particular
intersection approach or roadway segment can accommodate. Operation in this category is unstable, speeds and
flow rates fluctuate, and there is little independence of speed selection or maneuverability. The distance between
vehicles is short and operating speeds are subject to rapid fluctuation. Very long traffic delays are experienced at
intersections.
“F” is the worst operating condition. Speed and rate of traffic flow may, for short time periods, drop to zero.
Extreme delays are experienced at intersections. This may cause severe congestion affecting other adjacent
roadways.
It should be noted that LOS D is a commonly accepted condition for peak hour travel periods and the one used by
the Maryland State Highway Administration.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Transportation Element
Page - 42

Transportation Policy 3A: Establish Level of Service (LOS) or Congestion standards
for peak hour conditions for roadways and or/roadway intersections within the
County.
Implementation Strategies
1. Establish and apply a roadway and or roadway intersection LOS or Congestion standard.
Phasing of development within specific timeframes may be acceptable.
2. Differentiate between LOS standards for Growth Areas and non-Growth Areas.
Standards for the non-growth area portions of the County should be higher, and set at
LOS B, than for Growth Areas, which should be set at the highest level practicable and
in no case less than D. Procedures for the determination of exception areas should be
included in the standards. A lower level LOS standard may be permitted for the
following reasons: (a) application of the standard to a specific roadway would be in
conflict with other recommendations of this Plan (including the protection and
enhancement of historic, environmental or cultural recourses) or (b) capacity
improvements are budgeted for construction within two years or the developer has made
a contractual commitment to make the improvement via a mitigation plan or other
regional improvements.
3. Require that approvals of new developments or significant expansions of existing
developments be contingent upon maintaining the LOS standards for that area.
4. Amend the County’s development regulations to require the LOS standards.
5. Amend the County’s development regulations to require that a transportation impact
study and mitigation plan be provided early in the development process at the
concept/sketch plan stage. Regulations should make provisions to exempt small
expansions to existing businesses, small businesses, affordable housing and some public
service uses from transportation impact studies.
6. Amend the County’s road ordinance to be consistent with the recommendations of this
Comprehensive Plan.
7. Undertake a transportation management plan of Kent Island to determine needed
improvements. Determine how the recommendations should be incorporated into this
Comprehensive Plan.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Transportation Element
Page - 43

Transportation Issue 4: Roadway and Parking Standards.
On local and neighborhood streets, excessive pavement width and overgenerous horizontal
curvature and curve radii can promote undesirable high-speed traffic in residential and rural
areas.
In addition, the County’s current parking standards may result in increased costs for
developers and extensive areas of impervious surface. On arterial roadways, inadequate
roadway pavement widths and horizontal and vertical alignment for anticipated traffic
volumes and speeds can impede traffic movement and reduce sight distances.
Transportation Policy 4A: Ensure that roadway design and capacity standards are
appropriately related to roadway function and classification.
Implementation Strategies
1. Review and amend existing standards for different types of roadways.
2. Amend design and capacity standards to ensure an appropriate relationship for function
and classification and update the Roads Ordinance appropriately.
3. Design paving widths for appropriate speeds on local streets to encourage pedestrian
safety and ambiance and also in the Critical Area to reduce impervious cover.
4. Reduce traffic speeds in neighborhoods via roadway design methods including traffic
controls, roadway design and layout.
5. During the update of the roads ordinance, review the County’s access management
controls to limit curb spacing and design based by roadway type.
Transportation Policy 4B: Implement parking standards that adequately serve specific
uses balanced with a desire to reduce unnecessary impervious surface cover and
reduce development related costs.
Implementation Strategy
1. Revise development regulations to reduce parking standards and to permit shared
parking agreements.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Transportation Element
Page - 44

Transportation Issue 5: Increase the connectivity of the roadway network.
A roadway network with numerous interconnections offers more direct routes and serves to
disperse traffic rather than to concentrate it at a few intersections. It also provides more
options and can keep local traffic off collector and arterial routes.
Transportation Policy 5A: Provide a roadway network with multiple connections
between routes and uses.
Implementation Strategies
1. Provide connections to several surrounding roadways within developments.
2. During the development review process, review the internal circulation pattern of
proposed developments for streets to ensure adequate linkages between major activity
areas within and abutting the development.
3. Require connections and internal cross-access easements between retail/commercial
developments to provide superior access for emergency services and to minimize traffic
on the public road network.
4. Require street connections wherever possible and particularly in the Growth Areas.
Transportation Issue 6: Alternatives to the single-occupant automobile commute.
There is a need to encourage and support increased park-and-ride and commuter bus service
for those residents who work outside the County. Commuter bus service should ideally be
extended east to include all of the Kent Island and Grasonville/Queenstown and Centreville
Growth Areas.
Transportation Policy 6A: Plan for and enhance commuter bus service to job centers
inside and outside the County.
Implementation Strategies
1. Identify locations for small park-and-ride lots near points of access to US 50/301 and
acquire land by various methods including via dedication or reservation during the
development review process.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Transportation Element
Page - 45

2. Partner with the SHA, MTA and private commuter bus operators to enhance existing
commuter bus service to the Baltimore and Washington metropolitan areas.
3. In addition to exploring more inter-County bus routes, consider strategies for interfacing
with adjacent counties.
4. Investigate current requirements and how they can be amended to allow the parking lot
located under the Kent Narrows bridge (built with Federal Enhancement monies) to be
used as a park-and-ride lot.
5. Take advantage of State vanpool subsidies to promote vanpooling.
Transportation Issue 7: Compatibility of road improvements and rural and
environmental character .
There is a need to ensure that road improvements in rural areas minimize disturbance and
adverse impacts on the rural landscape. Road widenings and other improvements can result
in the loss of roadside tree cover, hedgerows and much of the landscape that characterizes
the rural features.
Transportation Policy 7A: Ensure that road improvements in rural areas minimize
disturbance and adverse impacts on the rural landscape and environmentally sensitive
areas while maintaining safety in design.
Implementation Strategy
1. Modify road design standards (e.g., right-of-way, standard profile) for new development
in rural areas and environmentally sensitive areas to reduce impacts on the rural
landscape and on environmentally sensitive areas.
Transportation Issue 8: Future use of existing and surplus rail lines.
There is a need to evaluate the best alternative long-term use for surplus rail lines. A
process should be established to evaluate their potential for continued freight rail use (short
line), conversion to other non-commerce related facilities such as trails, or preservation for
long-term employment-related use or commuter service.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Transportation Element
Page - 46

Transportation Policy 8A: Carefully evaluate each rail opportunity to optimize the use
of these important transportation corridors and ensure that they are compatible with
existing land uses.
Implementation Strategies
1. Develop and implement a review process to evaluate surplus rail lines so that the County
has a process in place to help determine whether to purchase the track and right-of-way
for continued rail use and employment use, or alternative transportation and recreation,
or both.
2. Explore ways to maintain rail access to the future County industrial park site identified
in the Centreville Growth Area.
Transportation Issue 9: Pedestrian and Bicycle Mobility.
The County’s numerous rural roads with low traffic volumes and scenic views are a haven
for bicyclists. The implementation of the Cross Island Trail and the connection of this to
other on and off-road bicycle ways will greatly improve bicycling and pedestrian traffic
within the County. In more developed areas, the County should continue to improve
pedestrian and bicycle mobility.
Transportation Policy 9A: Promote bicycle and pedestrian mobility in the County.
Implementation Strategies
1. Develop a bicycle suitability map to highlight the most and least suitable routes for
biking based on traffic volume, shoulder width and functional classification. Identify
bicycle travel corridors to principal employment centers e.g., Chesapeake Business Park,
Kent Narrows, Chesapeake Community College.
2. Provide pedestrian linkages between cul-de-sacs and adjacent streets, recreation,
community facilities and shopping areas.
3. Review the recommendations regarding sidewalks in the County’s growth area
community plans and establish a policy for sidewalk installation.
4. Encourage development and construction of bike routes between towns and communities
especially along the Chesapeake Country Scenic Byway.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Transportation Element
Page - 47

5. Establish pedestrian stream valley connectors between population centers and major
public facilities.
6. Establish a working relationship with the Director of Bicycle and Pedestrian Access at
the Maryland Department of Transportation and assist in creating and developing the 20-
year plan.
7. Continue to use, to maximum extent possible, funding from the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21).
8. Identify County roads requiring improvements and upgrades for safe bicycle and
pedestrian travel.
9. Provide and seek funding sources for bicycle-parking facilities at all the community
facilities like libraries, schools, parks, churches, shopping centers and park and ride
spots.
Transportation Issue 10: Truck Traffic and Land Use Incompatibilities.
In some areas of the County, truck traffic may be incompatible with land uses along and
adjacent to County and State roads.
In times of inclement weather and high winds, trucks may not cross the Bay Bridge and thus
park temporarily at the approach to the Chesapeake Bay Bridge on Kent Island. This can
cause congestion and safety issues.
Transportation Policy 10A: Direct the flow of truck traffic and staging areas to those
facilities that are most suitable and away from other routes and areas where through
truck traffic and truck staging is incompatible with adjacent land uses or may cause
safety issues.
Implementation Strategies
1. Identify areas where through truck routing is incompatible with the long-term viability
of land uses adjacent to these roads and town streets. Coordinate with the State
Highway Administration to re-sign these roads to minimize through truck traffic and to
identify appropriate alternative routes.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Transportation Element
Page - 48

2. In coordination with the State Highway Administration, identify a staging area for trucks
during inclement weather and high winds. It is recommended that this area not be at the
approach to the Chesapeake Bay Bridge on Kent Island.
Transportation Issue 11: The Chesapeake Country Scenic Byway.
The State designated Chesapeake Country Scenic Byway, which in the County includes MD
18 from the Bay Bridge to Centreville and MD 213 from Centreville to the Chester River,
has been the subject of a year-long planning process. The resultant Corridor Management
Plan (CMP) includes recommendations for the Byway that cover a broad spectrum of issues.
Those associated with the management and improvement of conditions within the road and
right of way are discussed within the “Improving the Road” chapter of the CMP.
Transportation Policy 11A: Implement the relevant recommendations of the Corridor
Management Plan.
Implementation Strategies
1. Work with MD State Highway Administration in their efforts to use context-sensitive
design standards when improvements to road sections, bridges and guardrails are being
planned.
2. Support MD State Highway Administration’s Neighborhood Conservation projects,
since most of those projects will be in towns along the Byway.
3. Work in conjunction with Centreville and Queenstown to develop traffic calming plans
for Byway towns.
4. Support improvements to better accommodate multiple users: farm equipment,
bicyclists, trucks, etc.
Transportation Issue 12: The Bay Bridge Airport.
The Bay Bridge Airport is located in Stevensville and is a transportation and economic
development asset for the County. The airport is well-used and currently has approximately
76,000 annual take-offs and landings. There is little, if any, capacity for airport expansion
because of surrounding existing development. In addition, actual future
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Transportation Element
Page - 49

expansion/intensification of the facility will be limited by the size of the property and the
length and weight bearing capacity of the airstrip.
Transportation Policy 12A: As a result of the adoption of the Stevensville Community
Plan in October of 1998, the Bay Bridge Airport lands were rezoned “Airport Zoning
District” and regulations mirror those for the existing Suburban Industrial district.
This plan acknowledges the recommendations of the Stevensville Community Plan as
outline below.
Implementation Strategies
1. Consider the associated impacts of noise and glare when reviewing the development and
design of sites adjacent to the existing airport facilities.
2. Consider height controls for properties adjacent to the airport to ensure take-off and
landing safety.
3. As the Stevensville growth area matures, it will become increasingly important to
monitor take-off and landing patterns to ensure that noise impacts to nearby schools and
residential neighborhoods are minimized to the extent possible.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Transportation Element
Page - 50

5.0 Community Facilities Element
This element of the Comprehensive Plan focuses on the major public infrastructure and
community facilities that both serve and impact land uses and their location and arrangement
in the County. These include sanitary sewer collection and treatment; water treatment and
distribution; public schools; and public parks and open space. Policies that relate to other
public services such as stormwater management, solid waste management, emergency
management and facilities management are also included.
For additional background information, please refer to the separate appendix to this Plan
entitled “Alternative Analysis, Projections” based on an analysis undertaken in 1999.
Sanitary Sewer System
Sanitary Sewer System Issues, Policies and Strategies
Sanitary Sewer Issue 1: Sewer Service and Treatment Capacity.
Sewer service and treatment capacity are key variables in determining where and how much
growth occurs in a given location. If the County does not plan for the implementation of
sewer service to serve the Growth Areas, it will be difficult to fully implement Smart
Growth. The infrastructure associated with the Kent Narrows/Stevensville/Grasonville
treatment and collection system is approaching its design life of 20 years for many
components. An upgrade to the main transmission line extending from Grasonville to the
existing plant on Kent Island will be required in the future. Inter-jurisdictional cooperation,
particularly with Queenstown and Centreville, are critically important. The Growth Areas
that include the towns of Queenstown and Centreville constitute a large proportion of
developable lands within the County’s Growth Areas.
In addition to the policies and implementation strategies recommended below, see Policy 2A
on page 24 in the Land Use Element regarding public utility phasing and contiguous
development.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Community Facilities Element
Page - 51

Sanitary Sewer Policy 1A: To provide public sewer service to all mapped growth area
lands within the 20-year horizon of the Plan to steer the majority of the County’s
growth into its designated Growth Areas and away from sensitive, agricultural and
rural areas outside the Growth Areas and incorporated towns.
Implementation Strategies
1. The County’s Master Sewer and Water Master Plan should be updated to be consistent
with the recommended sewer service phasing map (see Map CF 1 on page 54) and the
other recommendations of this Comprehensive Plan. Recognizing that as a result of the
analysis completed to update the Master Water and Sewer Plan, Map CF-1 may need to
be revised in the future.
2. Expand and upgrade the Kent Narrows/Stevensville/Grasonville (KN/S/G) wastewater
treatment plant to a 3 or 4 Million Gallons Per Day (MGD) capacity to meet identified
needs.
3. When the KN/G/S plant is expanded, sewer service should be made available to all lands
within the Stevensville, Chester, Kent Narrows and Grasonville Growth Areas.
4. Further expand the KN/S/G plant to 5 MGD within the 20-year horizon of this Plan to
serve the County’s long term needs.
5. Replace/expand the sanitary sewer force main from Grasonville to the KN/S/G
wastewater treatment plant to increase its capacity to serve the Stevensville, Chester,
Kent Narrows and Grasonville Growth Areas and to potentially accommodate flows
from the Queenstown growth area (see Policy 1B below).
6. Consider evaluating and implementing a policy for mandatory connection of existing
homes/business into the sewer and water systems when services are available.
7. Develop a master plan for water and sewer service lines and associated collection,
transmission, and treatment facilities necessary to serve the Growth Areas.
Sanitary Sewer Policy 1B: Work cooperatively with the Towns of Queenstown and
Centreville to provide expanded sewer capacity to serve the towns and the adjacent
lands within these Growth Areas.
Implementation Strategies
1. Recognize and support the town of Queenstown’s current sewerage treatment plant
expansion and relocation efforts.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Community Facilities Element
Page - 52

2. Potentially implement a pumping station in the Queenstown growth area and a force
main to connect to the KN/S/G force main in Kent Narrows at Pump Station 1 to provide
sewer service to the Queenstown growth area including expanded service to the Town of
Queenstown.
3. Work with Centreville to implement the town’s planned spray irrigation wastewater
treatment system to ensure adequate capacity to serve the buildout of the Centreville
growth area through this technology.
4. When detailed design and engineering of the Centreville spray irrigation system is
complete, if the system does not provide for service to the entire growth area within the
20-year horizon of this Plan, the County should work cooperatively with the town to
augment the town’s capacity and spray irrigation system.
Sanitary Sewer Issue 2: Uncorrectable Septic System Failures on Kent Island.
There are uncorrectable septic system failures (see sidebar for definition) on Kent Island.
These problems have the potential to cause contamination of the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries. The County has identified two options to remedy the problem: construction of a
new southern Southern Kent Island treatment plant or pumping of the wastewater to an
expanded KN/S/G plant at Stevensville. After considerable study the latter was found to be
viable because a separate southern Kent Island treatment plant would require a new effluent
outfall to the Chesapeake Bay. State permits for a new outfall would be difficult, if not
impossible, to secure. These problem lots (some as small as 5,000 square feet) were
subdivided and recorded in the 1950’s during a period of significant land speculation and
prior to the implementation of any County subdivision or zoning regulations. It is an
unfortunate legacy that the County must now address.
Uncorrectable Septic System Failures
These are defined as those problems that can only be remedied on-site by implementing a holding tank
(for subsequent pump-out and haul-away) and by repairs to the septic system to allow direct groundwater
penetration by the wastewater discharge. These conditions exist because of small lot sizes (which predate
the County’s zoning and subdivision regulations), poor soil conditions and the high water table in the
area. Because of these factors, on-site correction or shared systems are not considered viable options.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Community Facilities Element
Page - 53

Recommended Sewer Service Phasing - CF 1
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Transportation Element
Page- 54

Sanitary Sewer Policy 2A: Provide sewer service to the Kent Island areas of Kent
Island Estates, Romancoke, Dominion, Marling Farms, Queen Anne Colony,
Kentmorr, Chesapeake Estates, Sunny Isle of Kent, Norman’s, and Matapeake Estates
as shown on Map CF-1 (on page 54) through implementation of a vacuum collection
system and force mains to connect these areas to the KN/S/G wastewater treatment
plant. The intent of this policy to protect the ground water supply and address long-
standing, uncorrectable septic failures in these areas.
Implementation Strategies
1. Hook-up rates for new service will be set based on the County’s costs of the
improvements necessary to provide service to the areas identified above in Policy 2A
and shown on Map CF-1 on page 54.
2. The County should pursue State and Federal funding opportunities for the
implementation of this project based on the need to protect the ground water supply and
safeguard the public’s health in these areas.
3. All existing lots within this area are assumed to gain sewer service to address these long-
standing and serious problems with failing septic systems and potential harm to the
ground water supply.
4. Require hook-up to the public sanitary sewer and water when service becomes available.
5. The wastewater lines installed to provide service to communities identified in the
County Master Water and Sewer Plan as ‘problem areas’ shall be considered denied
access facilities. Therefore, the lines planned to be installed along MD 8 will be to only
accommodate the existing communities of Kent Island Estates, Romancoke, Queen
Anne Colony, Kentmorr, Chesapeake Estates, Sunny Isle of Kent, Norman’s and
Matapeake Estates. Additional hook-ups in the adjacent rural areas along the force main
will be prohibited. A similar denied access facility planned to be installed along MD
552 will serve Dominion and Marling Farms.
6. Carefully evaluate the impacts of expanding sewer service to these areas including the
impacts on schools and roads within the framework of State and County growth
management policies.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Transportation Element
Page - 55

Water Distribution System
Water System Issues, Policies and Strategies
Water Issue 1: The existing water system that serves the County is a patchwork of
numerous separate systems.
Numerous public or multi-user (private) water systems are in operation in the Stevensville,
Chester and Grasonville areas in the US 50/301 corridor. Eleven of these facilities are
operated by the Queen Anne’s County Sanitary District. Of these 11, four use water from
the Aquia Aquifer, six use water from the Magothy Aquifer and one from the Pataspco.
Having this many separate plants, many inherited from developers, creates significant
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs and issues for the County. In addition, there are
water withdrawal restrictions from the Aquia Aquifer in the western part of the County.
Some of the County’s previously separate water treatment plants have already been
interconnected.
Water Policy 1A: Consolidate/interconnect/expand the existing separate water systems
serving Kent Island and Grasonville to the maximum extent feasible to provide more
efficient service and expanded water service to the Stevensville, Chester, Kent Narrows
and Grasonville Growth Areas to provide an incentive for growth in these Growth Areas
and to reduce development pressures on the County’s rural and agricultural areas.
Implementation Strategies
1. Interconnect the County-operated north Chester system to the Stevensville and south
Chester to north Chester system via a new water main.
2. Interconnect the Grasonville area’s existing private and public water treatment plants to
the extent feasible.
3. Expand the Grasonville water treatment plant to serve the west portion of the
Grasonville growth area.
4. Identify additional funding mechanism to pay for interconnection and expansion of the
water service system.
8. Implement water service improvements based on the recommended phasing plan
depicted on map CF-2 on page 57. Recognizing that as a result of the analysis
completed to update the Master Water and Sewer Plan, Map CF-2 may need to be
revised in the future.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Transportation Element
Page - 56

Recommended Water Service Phasing - CF-2
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Community Facilities Element
Page - 57

Water Issue 2: Water Service in Tandem with Sewer Service.
There are areas where the County plans to extend sewer service to address uncorrectable septic
system failures (see the Sanitary Sewer section of this Community Facilities Element on page
51). In these areas there should be coordinated water and sewer provision.
Water Policy 2A: Extend water service in tandem with sewer service when the County
provides sewer service for areas with uncorrectable septic system failures.
Implementation Strategies
1. Provide water treatment and service to Romancoke and Kent Island Estates when sewer
service is provided (see Sewer Service Policy 2A on page 58). This system would have wells
into the Patapsco Aquifer, a water treatment plant, elevated storage and a distribution system
with water storage. This water system could be expanded to include nearby Queen Anne
Colony, and Kentmorr.
2. Provide water treatment and service to Dominion and Marling Farms when sewer service is
provided (see Sewer Service Policy 2A on page 58). The anticipated water system needed to
serve this area will include an elevated storage tank and a distribution system.
3. When upgrading water and sewer service, improvements should be coordinated with roadway
construction projects for the same area to the greatest extent feasible.
Water Issue 3: Water Service for the Queenstown growth area.
The capacity of the Queenstown water treatment plant is not sufficient to provide water for the
Queenstown growth area.
Water Policy 3A: Substantially expand water service for the Queenstown growth area to
provide an incentive for growth to occur in this growth area and reduce development
pressures on the County’s rural and agricultural areas.
Implementation Strategies
1. Explore the possibility of drilling of new wells west of Queenstown to expand water service
to the growth area and to the Grasonville area.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Community Facilities Element
Page - 58

2. Potentially interconnect the Queenstown water system to the Kent Narrows east system via a
new water main to tie the water systems together.
Public Schools
Schools Issues, Policies and Strategies
School Issue 1: There is a need for new schools to meet the projected student population.
The County has two new schools and a number of school improvements/enhancements budgeted
for construction within the next five years. However, within the 20-year horizon of this Plan, a
number of additional facilities and renovations will be needed to meet the demand and to reduce
the County’s dependence on relocatable units, particularly at the elementary school level. The
recommendations below are based on the following assumptions for new school capacity: 600
students per elementary school, 800 students per middle school and 1,200 students per high
school.
School Policy 1A: To plan and budget for schools projected to be needed, reduce (but not
eliminate) the County’s dependence on relocatable units and acquire needed lands in
advance of the actual need.
Implementation Strategies
1. Elementary Schools: In addition to the third elementary school already programmed in the
County’s operating budget, the County is projected to need two new elementary schools for
the Kent Island District, one for the Grasonville district, one for Centreville and one for
Sudlersville for a total of five additional elementary schools within the 20-year Plan horizon.
2. Consider increasing the maximum potential capacity of all new elementary schools to 600
students to reduce County capital costs while maintaining school quality.
3. Where possible, when renovating existing elementary schools, increase the enrollment
capacity to 600 students.
4. Middle Schools: In addition to the new Middle School planned for the Kent Island-
Grasonville area already programmed in the County’s operating budget, the County is
projected to need one new middle school in the Centreville district.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Community Facilities Element
Page - 59

5. High Schools: One new high school is assumed for the Kent Island district. Although the
Queen Anne’s High School is projected to be over-enrolled by the end of this Plan’s 20-year
horizon, the projected enrollment can be met with the use of relocatables.
6. Co-locate schools with other public facilities such as parks, libraries, community or senior
centers to the extent possible to promote community centers and focal points and provide
pedestrian connection between these facilities whenever possible.
7. The County should continue to develop and enhance its land acquisition process for
identifying and reserving/acquiring school sites needed for projected population.
(See the table below for the estimated phasing of the projected new school facility needs based
on population projections by school district and existing excess capacity or shortages.)
Projected New School Facilities and Anticipated Phasing
Projected New Schools, 2000 - 2020
First 10-Years Second 10-Years
New New
School Districts Schools Relocatables Schools Relocatables
Elementary Schools
Kent Island 2 0 1 0
Grasonville 0 7 1 0
Centreville 1 0 0 0
Church Hill 0 0 0 2
Sudlersville 0 8 1 0
Elem. School Total 3 15 3 2
Middle Schools
Stevensville 1 0 0 0
Centreville 0 11 1 0
Sudlersville 0 0 0 3
Middle School Total 1 11 1 3
High Schools
Kent Island 0 10 1 0
Queen Anne's 0 0 0 11
High School Total 0 10 1 11
TOTAL 4 36 5 16
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Community Facilities Element
Page - 60

Parks and Recreation
Parks and Recreation Issues, Policies and Strategies
Parks Issue 1: Countywide parks and public open space lands.
The County has made a significant investment in park and public open space lands. Emphasizing
the County’s investment in its green infrastructure as part of the County’s image as a high quality
of life location is an important part of differentiating the County from other jurisdictions.
There is a wide variety of park and recreation facilities in Queen Anne’s County. They range in
size from small County-owned boat launch areas and waterfront access sites to large County and
State parks. The total County-owned parks and open space plus the schools used for public
recreation equals approximately 2,235 acres or almost 55 acres per 1,000 population. The
County is currently well positioned with its ratio of parkland per capita. (Generally, accepted
national standards recommend 30 acres per 1,000 people of locally provided parks and
recreational facilities.)
The great majority of the State-owned park and open space acres are comprised of conservation
areas for passive recreation and preservation of wildlife habitat and are not near the Growth
Areas.
Parks Policy 1A: Provide a range of activities and passive recreational opportunities for
residents and visitors alike to increase the overall quality of life of Queen Anne’s County.
Implementation Strategies
1. As a joint effort between the County’s Parks Department and its Department of Business and
Tourism, publicize and promote the County’s substantial publicly-accessible parks and open
space resources by developing a brochure and fold-out map that highlights the types of
facilities and activities that are available. Also include on the map, other protected lands such
as Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation (MALPF) easements and Maryland
Environmental Trust (MET) easements.
2. Focus new park acquisitions on resources that help link and supplement existing resources
including trails.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Community Facilities Element
Page - 61

3. Investigate the development of floating docks to support the growing interest in recreational
kayaking and canoeing and the County’s image as a destination for non-motorized boating.
4. Develop a bike suitability map as recommended in Transportation Policy 9A (on page 47) in
the Transportation Element of this Plan to facilitate recreational bicycling on many of the
County’s rural roads.
5. Promote and establish mapped land and water trails that connect parks and recreation
facilities to the communities being served and to each other wherever possible and if
possible, coordinate these trails with road improvements and provide inter-jurisdictional
connections when possible.
Parks Issue 2: Community-based active recreation opportunities are needed.
Much of the County and State-owned recreation areas are regional-serving and the majority of
these parcels are located some distance from the County’s Growth Areas. Map CF-3 on page 63
shows the County’s existing park and recreation sites. Service areas for neighborhood and
school sites are shown.
Parks Policy 2A: Provide adequate and accessible park and recreation facilities to
reasonably meet the needs and interests of all segments of the community.
Implementation Strategies
1. Obtain active recreation sites within and adjacent to the County’s Growth Areas by
dedication of land by new development and through fee purchase by the County.
2. Amend the development regulations to require dedication of usable land or provision of fee
in lieu of dedication by new residential development.
3. Amend the development regulations to require that private open space within new
developments (maintained by a private homeowner’s association) be centrally located and
accessible to all homes in the development.
4. Survey current residents to better understand what types of recreation facilities are desired
and periodically assess the residents’ needs and usage.
5. Review and consider implementation strategies from the Chesapeake Country Scenic Byway
Corridor Management Plan for the MD 213/18 corridor to protect the corridor’s special
scenic qualities.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Community Facilities Element
Page - 62

Existing Public Recreation Facilities (Showing Service Areas) - CF-3
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Community Facilities Element
Page - 63

Stormwater Management
Stormwater Management Issues, Policies and Strategies
Stormwater Management Issue 1: There is a need for stormwater management
enhancements.
The management of stormwater flow is important to the health and safety of County
residents. Effective stormwater management can reduce loss of property due to flooding,
protect the quality of ground and surface waters, maintain the habitat of fish and wildlife and
encourage the use of natural drainage systems.
Stormwater Management Policy 1A: Provide for the safe and efficient collection of
stormwater runoff.
Implementation Strategies
1. Explore the option of reactivating, revising as necessary and supporting existing tax
ditches in environmentally friendly ways throughout the County.
2. Establish priorities and explore alternatives to address long-standing drainage problems
when infill occurs within the existing developments.
3. Conduct a detailed review of the County’s regulations regarding stormwater
management and enhance the regulations to include up-to-date stormwater provisions,
standards and performance criteria. Require the siting and design of future stormwater
retention and detention facilities to blend in with the surrounding development and
function as attractive amenities.
4. Review the applicability of “low impact design standards” developed for other counties
in the State of Maryland and the new Maryland Department of Environment Stormwater
Management Design Manual Standards, which seek to retain water on site through
innovative water gardens, landscaping, and site design for possible inclusion into the
County Stromwater Management regulations or Zoning Ordinance.
5. Develop watershed management plans to identify and address specific concerns within
the County’s watershed areas.
6. Make stormwater management facilities part of the County beautification program.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Community Facilities Element
Page - 64

Solid Waste Management
Solid Waste Management Issues, Policies and Strategies
Solid Waste Issue 1: The solid waste payment system may contribute to the disposal of
trash through unauthorized avenues and the loss of revenue for the County.
There is no County curbside trash or recycling service. Approximately 1/3 of the County
households hire private contractors for curbside pick-up. The County operates a number of
centers where residents may deposit all solid waste after paying for a book of tickets. In
addition, 1/3 of the County households purchase ticket books rather than purchase private
curbside pickup. Together these households who purchase County permits and those who
contract for private service account for approximately 66 percent of all County households.
The remaining 1/3 of households dispose of their trash in some other way.
Solid Waste Policy 1A: Provide solid waste and recycling services that promote lawful
and environmentally-sound waste disposal by County residents.
Implementation Strategies
1. Update the County’s solid waste master plan.
2. Consider encouraging new private development to include curbside trash.
Emergency Services
Emergency Services Issues, Policies and Strategies
Emergency Services Issue 1: Systematic Improvement in Emergency Services
Facilities.
The County’s Emergency Services have grown to reflect the growth and development of the
County and the demand for more or different types of services. However, there is no
systematic plan for ensuring the facilities are appropriate to meet the services demanded.
Emergency services facility needs include facilities for law enforcement, corrections,
emergency management, fire and emergency medical services. There are emergency service
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Community Facilities Element
Page - 65

facility projects which, if planned in conjunction with one and other, would use resources in
an efficient manner.
Emergency Services Policy 1A: To provide a systematic approach to construction and
reconstruction of emergency services facilities.
Implementation Strategies
1. Determine the priorities for the construction of emergency service facilities. Use the
“Emergency Services Study”, dated December 2001 to guide in establishing these
priorities.
2. Determine the timeframe for construction of facilities and identify the costs for facilities.
Use the “Emergency Services Study”, dated December 2001 as a guide in establishing
the timeframe.
Emergency Services Issue 2: Sheriff’s Department Facility.
The Sheriff’s office occupies a portion of a building that also houses several administrative
agencies. The Sheriff’s facility does not meet modern law enforcement standards. It has
inadequate office space and insufficient meeting and interview rooms. Overall building
security is lacking and secure evidence storage rooms are needed. Any new facility should
include sufficient office space, meeting and interview rooms, locker rooms, and space for
storage and evidence storage.
Emergency Management Policy 2A: To provide a modern law enforcement facility
that will service the needs of the County for a 20 to 25 year period.
Implementation Strategies
1. Conduct a space needs study to identify the size and nature of Sheriff’s facilities
required and to allow for sufficient growth to meet anticipated staff increases. The new
facility should be secure and include sufficient office space, meeting and interview
rooms, locker rooms, and space for storage and evidence storage. Use the “Emergency
Management Study”, dated December 2001 as one guide for the projected increases in
law enforcement personnel to help assess office space needs.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Community Facilities Element
Page - 66

2. Identify costs for the new Sheriff’s facility. The cost estimate should separate out the
cost of a lock-up facility to determine whether it should be most efficiently co-located
with the Sheriff’s department or at a separate Detention Center facility. (See also Issue
#3 below).
3. Identify a suitable location for the law enforcement facility in the Centreville area to the
extent possible since Centreville is the County seat and is centrally located within the
County.
Emergency Services Issue 3: Incorporation of a Joint Booking Facility in the Expanded
Detention Facilities.
The County has just completed a study identifying the facility needs for the Detention
Center. In addition, consideration of the integration into the expansion plan for the
Detention Center is a joint booking facility. A booking facility in the Detention Center
would enable all law enforcement agencies in the County to bring persons in custody
directly to the Detention Center for booking. This is an efficient use of resources since there
would be no need to provide for a booking and lock up facility at the Sheriff’s Department,
or at the Centreville Police Department. Additionally, this would allow for more efficient
use of staff resources and ensure safety of personnel. Other law enforcement agencies that
also use the Detention Center would benefit from this efficiency.
Emergency Services Policy 3A: To develop an integrated booking process for all law
enforcement agencies operating in the County to provide a safe and cost effective
approach to the prisoner booking process.
Implementation Strategies
1. Coordinate with each law enforcement agency in the County to develop an integrated the
joint booking process.
2. Develop plans for the joint booking process and incorporate plans in the expansion of
the Detention Center.
3. Develop a process to ensure Detention Center personnel have authority to transport and
maintain custody of inmates.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Community Facilities Element
Page - 67

Emergency Services Issue 4: Fire Station Conditions Engineering Analysis.
There are nine fire stations in the County. The stations are strategically located throughout
the County and, from a countywide response perspective, are generally well located. Some
facilities are old, have limited space, and lack storage areas. The size of modern fire
apparatus also contributes to space constraints. Since the fire and emergency medical
response structure is dependent upon the effective location of apparatus, it is important to
conduct a thorough analysis of facilities to determine the condition of major systems and
needed improvements. Stations are owned by individual fire companies, however, the
County needs to ensure that response facilities allow for effective fire and emergency
medical response.
Emergency Services Policy 4A: To ensure that each fire company has adequate
building facilities.
Implementation Strategies
1. Coordinate with the Fire Chiefs Association to establish a systematic process for
conducting the analysis of each fire station facility.
2. Identify funding source(s) to conduct the engineering analysis of the nine fire stations.
3. Conduct the engineering analysis and develop criteria for prioritizing replacement and
rehabilitation of the fire station facilities.
4. Develop cost estimates and a capital plan that identifies when rehabilitation or
reconstruction should be accomplished.
Emergency Services Issue 5: Emergency Medical Service Facilities.
The “Emergency Services Study,” dated December 2001 recommends that four emergency
medical service response stations are necessary in the County. The facilities should be
located to provide emergency medical service by means of non-transport vehicle staffed
with paramedic level trained personnel. Ambulance transport would continue to come from
the volunteer fire and ambulance companies. County emergency medical services response
facilities would be distributed to provide Countywide response coverage. Each facility
requires a heated garage facility, appropriate storage for medical equipment and supplies,
and space and facilities for personnel.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Community Facilities Element
Page - 68

Emergency Services Policy 5A: To improve the delivery of emergency medical services
to the entire County by establishing strategically located emergency medical response
units.
Implementation Strategies
1. Develop a plan and acquire strategically located sites for emergency medical service
facilities.
2. Develop specific facility needs and cost estimates for construction of the emergency
medical services facilities.
3. Adopt a phased construction plan for construction of facilities.
Emergency Services Issue 6: Maintaining the Viability of Volunteer Fire and
Ambulance Companies.
Volunteer fire companies make the provision of fire and rescue services throughout Queen
Anne’s County possible. To maintain this system, the County will need to devote additional
resources to fire services and explore alternative funding sources. At the same time, the fire
companies may have to alter certain operational practices or coordinate efforts more closely,
to ensure the effective use of resources.
Emergency Services Policy 6A: To maintain the volunteer fire and ambulance
company service delivery arrangement and effectively integrate volunteer and County
resources.
Implementation Strategies
1. The County should continue to recognize the critical importance of the volunteer fire
and ambulance companies to the delivery of fire and emergency medical service
throughout the County and continue to support the fire and ambulance companies.
2. Evaluate strategies to encourage volunteer recruitment and retention.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Community Facilities Element
Page - 69

Public Facilities Management
Public Facilities Management Issues, Policies and Strategies
Public Facilities Management Issue 1: There is a need to plan for additional public
facilities/buildings to meet future needs.
The County needs to better understand its requirements and desired location for additional
public facilities/buildings for County employees. As the County grows, there will be
increases in County government employment and additional office space and other facilities
will be necessary.
Public Facilities Management Policy 1A: Provide public services to residents and
County businesses in an efficient and cost-effective manner.
Implementation Strategy
1. The County should undertake a facilities management plan to determine the future space
needs for County offices and other public buildings. As the Town of Centreville is also
the County Seat, every reasonable effort should be made to locate new or relocate
existing County facilities here.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Community Facilities Element
Page - 70

6.0 Fiscal Health Element
This element of the Comprehensive Plan includes policies and recommendations related to
improving the County’s fiscal health. For information on recent general fund revenue and
expenditure levels and other background information, please consult Volume One: The
County Profile of this Comprehensive Plan.
Fiscal Health Issues, Policies and Strategies
Fiscal Health Issue 1: Apportionment of Infrastructure and Public Service Costs.
The County needs to invest in public infrastructure to alleviate existing service deficiencies.
At the same time, it needs to ensure that the cost of the new facilities needed to support new
development are borne by that same new development to the greatest extent practicable
while still supporting the County’s Smart Growth initiatives.
Fiscal Health Policy 1A: Fairly apportion the costs of development between existing
residents/businesses and new development.
Implementation Strategies
1. Undertake a comprehensive review of impact fees to ensure that new development is
paying its proportional share for the costs of public facilities and services such as, but
not limited to, transportation, schools, sewer and water, parks, libraries and public safety
while ensuring that the fee structure promotes the County’s Smart Growth initiatives to
concentrate development within the Growth Areas.
2. Implement a revised impact fees program with appropriate annual review and adjustment
based on the study findings.
Fiscal Health Issue 2: Enhancing the County’s long-term fiscal health.
The County’s assessable tax base (total value of all taxable real estate) is one of the crucial
underpinnings of the community’s ability to provide services. Others include the County’s
ability to assess and collect fees from new development to off-set the impacts related to new
growth (see issue 1 above).
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Fiscal Health Element
Page - 71

Fiscal Health Policy 2A: Enhance the County’s assessable tax base.
Implementation Strategies
1. Continue and strengthen efforts to attract, retain, and expand business to generate more
employment opportunities and to provide the assessable base to support public services
and facilities.
2. To stay competitive, periodically review the hotel tax with adjacent jurisdictions.
3. See also, Business Development and Tourism Policy 1A Implementation Strategies 1-7
on pages 73 and 74.
Fiscal Health Issue 3: The County’s capacity to carry debt is tied to its level of
operating and capital expenditures and the availability of various sources of revenue.
Many other jurisdictions in Maryland have enhanced their ability to provide public services
and facilities and improve the quality of life by augmenting revenues from a number of
sources. Queen Anne’s County has a lower hotel tax, transfer tax, and piggy pack tax than
many other jurisdictions in the State. As an example, nearby Talbot and Anne Arundel both
have the authority to levy a higher transfer tax (the tax paid when real property is sold).
State authorization is required before the County can increase the transfer tax.
Fiscal Health Policy 3A: Seek alternative sources of revenue to fund public services
and facilities.
Implementation Strategies
1. Continue to pursue alternative revenue sources.
2. Secure increased funding for capital projects from State and developer contributions.
3. Continue to pursue the use of tax increment financing and other types of financing
districts (special assessment districts) to fund new growth-related services and facilities
and redevelopment initiatives as appropriate.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Fiscal Health Element
Page - 72

7.0 Business Development and Tourism Element
This element provides guidance on how the County should work to expand its economic
base, promote retention of existing businesses and further enrich its attractiveness for
tourism. Interrelated issues, policies and action strategies are outlined below.
Business Development and Tourism Issues, Policies and Strategies
Business Development and Tourism Issue 1: There is a need to broaden the County’s
economic base to include more office, industrial flex (combination industrial and office
space) and high tech jobs in addition to maintaining the County’s more traditional
industrial and service jobs.
The County has a relatively low number of jobs in relation to the number of households.
While the County’s “bedroom community” status is expected to continue for some time in
the future, the County will, within the 20-year horizon of this plan reach a population base
that can support a more varied economic base including more office and other higher-paying
jobs. Initiatives are needed to increase the County’s ability to promote and prepare for
expanded economic development opportunities.
Business Development and Tourism Policy 1A: Prepare and promote the County as a
prime business location with good access to transportation, community services and a
trained work force.
Implementation Strategies
1. Aggressively pursue opportunities to enhance the County’s telecommunications, fiber
optics and high speed Internet access to promote economic development.
2. Work with the State to implement Net Work Maryland in the County. This Statewide
communications network will encourage interconnection among government units,
educational institutions and private industry and will provide high speed Internet access
and connectivity.
3. Promote the extension of high speed telecommunications connectivity to businesses and
residents to better position the County to attract high tech businesses and enhance
telecommuting.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Business Development and Tourism
Page - 73

4. Seek out State grants and assistance to prepare a telecommunications assessment and
plan for the County.
5. Create an inventory of all undeveloped/improved but not currently used sites in the
County where employment uses are permitted and which have road or rail access, have
or are expected to have near-term sewer and water service. Update this inventory
annually.
6. Retain existing rail service in the County to provide shipping options for County
businesses and attract and maintain businesses that require rail service.
7. Actively work with current County businesses to ensure their retention and to help
address their expansion needs.
Business Development and Tourism Issue 2: Need for state-of-the art business facilities
and services.
The County will need to have the institutional capacity to support Information Based
businesses including a trained work force, conferencing and other support services as well as
sites and buildings for business formation.
Business Development and Tourism Policy 2A: Actively support the development of
business facilities that will attract and retain high tech companies to/in the County.
Implementation Strategies
1. Identify the site for a technology-centered industrial park.
2. Promote services that support information based businesses including conferencing
facilities and services.
3. Partner with the Chesapeake College to provide needed job training programs to
maintain a skilled work force.
4. Work with the schools to further promote technology instruction within the school
curriculum.
5. See also, Land Use Policy 7A, Implementation Strategy 4 on page 32.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Business Development and Tourism
Page - 74

Business Development and Tourism Issue 3: Need to recognize the importance of the
County’s resource based industries of agriculture and commercial fishing.
There is a need to recognize the importance of the County’s resource based industries of
agriculture and commercial fishing, and the issues affecting the long- term economic
viability of those industries. In addition to efforts to preserve the County’s agricultural land
base, as mentioned in the Land Use Element, it is essential to promote the businesses of
farming and fishing.
Business Development and Tourism Policy 3A: Recognize the importance of resource
based industries to the County’s economy, and take steps to support and expand them.
Implementation Strategies
1. Support efforts to assist interested farmers with product diversification.
2. Implement the recommendations of the Governor’s Eastern Shore Economic
Development Task Force Report, as it pertains to increasing the economic viability of
the agriculture and seafood industries.
3. The County should, in general, participate in regional efforts to expand resource based
economic opportunities, such as the Heartland Fields project in Queen Anne’s County
and Kent County’s Chesapeake Fields Initiative.
Business Development and Tourism Issue 4: There is a need to further promote the
County as a visitor destination by expanding the variety of facilities and attractions.
Queen Anne’s County’s popularity as a tourism destination has increased in recent years as
hotel stays, attendance at festivals and events, and inquiries about County visitor and
recreation facilities and activities have risen. Located within the Baltimore-Washington
region and serving as the gateway to the Eastern Shore, the County is in a favorable position
to capture more tourism dollars. The key to increasing tourism is providing destinations that
are attractive to visitors and residents alike. Although out-of-County visitors are and will
continue to be the primary market for the County’s cultural, recreational, historical and
nature-based assets, County residents also visit these destinations, and their support
enhances the viability of these venues.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Business Development and Tourism
Page - 75

Business Development and Tourism Policy 4A: Promote and expand facilities, services
and activities that support visitor-based economic development.
Implementation Strategies
1. Identify and develop year-round attractions that increase the County’s tourism-related
economic development potential including historic, cultural and arts-related activities
and venues.
2. Further promote the County as a destination of nature-based activities.
3. Continue to promote the County’s heritage resources and tie-in visitation to the county’s
historic sites and towns with other tourism attractions.
4. Identify potential additional hotel/motel sites within the County including at least one
facility with conferencing facilities.
5. Consider providing incentives to facilitate the development of hotel/conference/resort
facilities.
6. Continue to coordinate economic development and heritage tourism enhancement efforts
through the Eastern Shore Heritage, Inc. initiative with Caroline, Kent, and Talbot
counties. Formal certification of the four-county area by the Maryland Heritage Area
Authority will provide matching funds to develop a heritage tourism plan for the four-
county area and allow the County to leverage other funding and tax benefits.
7. Explore the potential of allowing public/private partnerships for appropriate professional
services related to outdoor activities on County and State owned parkland and at
recreational facilities.
8. The County should develop a historic preservation ordinance that allows eligible
enrolled properties to voluntarily participate in historic rehabilitation tax credit programs
through Maryland Historical Trust.
9. Support the Chesapeake Country Scenic Byway effort by implementing
recommendations provided in the “Experiencing the Byway” section of the Corridor
Management Plan, as time and funding allow.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Business Development and Tourism
Page - 76

Business Development and Tourism Issue 5: There is a need to have a mix of housing
types and price ranges in the County to attract and retain a diversified and high
quality work force.
The County’s lack of rental housing stock and multi-family development make it difficult
for some people who work in the County, particularly those in the service sector, to find
moderately-priced or affordable housing within the County. This lack of housing choice
promotes commuting and adds to vehicle miles and hours traveled to and from work.
At the same time, there is a need to increase the County’s tax base and attract higher end
households and executives to encourage higher-end business formation since jobs generally
follow households as communities develop.
Business Development and Tourism Policy 5A: Promote a variety of housing types
within the County to balance moderately priced housing needs and the need for a
resident labor pool with opportunities for higher-end housing.
Implementation Strategies
1. Promote the County as an attractive community with a high quality of life with
opportunities for upper end executive housing.
2. Promote the County as a second home and retirement location.
3. See Land Use Policy 4A for other implementation strategies on page 27.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Business Development and Tourism
Page - 77

8.0 Sensitive Areas and Mineral Resources Element
This element of the Comprehensive Plan provides guidance on how the County should
protect and enhance its natural resources and environmentally sensitive areas. This element
also includes information on the County’s mineral resources. Interrelated issues, policies
and action strategies are outlined below. For details on existing conditions pertaining to the
County’s sensitive areas and mineral resources, please refer to Volume One: The County
Profile of this Comprehensive Plan.
Sensitive Areas
Sensitive Area Issues, Policies and Strategies
Sensitive Area Issue 1: Threatened and endangered species and other habitat areas.
The location of State-designated threatened and endangered species and their habitats as
well as other habitat areas that need special protection within Queen Anne’s County,
according to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR), include:
(cid:1)(cid:2) Bald Eagle nesting sites
(cid:1)(cid:2) Delmarva Fox Squirrels
(cid:1)(cid:2) Various waterbird nesting sites and waterfowl staging areas
(cid:1)(cid:2) Oyster bars
(cid:1)(cid:2) Anadromous fish spawning areas (anadromous fish are those that primarily live in the
ocean but travel upstream to fresh waters to spawn and are an important part of the
County’s natural heritage)
(cid:1)(cid:2) Submerged aquatic vegetation (i.e., areas that provide nursery areas and habitat for a
range of Chesapeake Bay species).
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Sensitive Areas and Natural Resources
Page - 78

Sensitive Area Policy 1A: To protect the habitats of threatened and endangered species
and other habitat areas.
Implementation Strategies
1. Protect habitats of threatened and endangered species and other unique areas, following
both State and Federal species lists and protection guidelines.
2. The County should continue to work cooperatively with the State’s DNR and Federal
agencies under the Endangered Species Act.
3. The County should continue to work cooperatively with the Federal and the State
agencies and the Critical Area Commission with regard to identification and protection
of other habitat areas identified above.
Sensitive Area Issue 2: Forest and Woodland Protection.
Maryland’s Forest Conservation Act established the protection standards for local
authorities to enforce during land development outside the Critical Area. The County’s
Critical Area Program and Ordinance establish standards for lands developed within the
Critical Area. Additional standards are included in the County’s zoning ordinance and, in
some cases, there are overlapping regulations.
Sensitive Area Policy 2A: To retain and add to the County’s inventory of forested
areas.
Implementation Strategies
1. During the update to the County’s development regulations, consider streamlining
ordinance requirements and consistency with the overlapping forest conservation
regulations.
2. Consider the implementation of forest mitigation banking. Mitigation banking is the
intentional restoration (reforestation) or creation of forests (afforestation) undertaken to
provide credits for afforestation or reforestation requirements with enhanced
environmental benefits.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Sensitive Areas and Natural Resources
Page - 79

Sensitive Area Issue 3: Steep Slopes.
Because of the County’s relatively flat terrain, there are relatively few areas of steep slopes
within the County. The County’s Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Ordinance defines steep
slopes as slopes of 15 percent or greater. Outside the Critical Area, the County’s Floodplain
Management Ordinance, as well as other County regulations, regulate steep slopes.
Sensitive Area Policy 3A: Protect steep slopes to reduce erosion and to help safeguard
water quality.
Implementation Strategy
1. During the update of the County’s development ordinances, review all regulations
related to floodplain protection and revise, as necessary, to provide adequate protection
of steep slopes outside of the Critical Area.
Sensitive Area Issue 4: Shore Buffers.
Within the Critical Area there is a minimum 100-foot buffer protected area from tidal waters
and tidal wetlands. However, the County development regulations require a minimum
buffer of 300 feet for non-residential development and high density residential development
with provisions for reduction.
Sensitive Area Policy 4A: To provide standards for shore buffers consistent with
Critical Area law.
Implementation Strategy
1. During the update of the County’s development ordinances, revise the County’s shore
buffer standards to be compatible with the buffer standards in the Chesapeake Bay
Critical Area regulations.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Sensitive Areas and Natural Resources
Page - 80

Sensitive Area Issue 5: Floodplains.
Development within tidal and non-tidal floodplains is regulated adequately. However, there
are no County regulations governing coastal floodplains.
Sensitive Area Policy 5A: Protect floodplains.
Implementation Strategy
1. Communicate closely with the Federal and the State agencies to stay current on the tidal
and non-tidal floodplain issues and monitor changes in tidal and non-tidal floodplains.
Sensitive Area Issue 6: Groundwater Protection.
Saltwater intrusion into the groundwater supply has been documented at Love Point on
Northern Kent Island and along the western shore of portions of Kent Island. To protect the
groundwater supply, the State does not permit any new wells or water withdrawal from the
Aquia Aquifer on Kent Island and limits withdrawals from the Aquia Aquifer in other parts
of the County. Saltwater intrusion has occurred at Love Point, requiring sealing of wells and
drilling new deeper wells into the Magothy Aquifer; and on Southern Kent Island south of
Batts Neck Road.
There are also areas of the County (particularly those developed on older small lots with
poor subsurface drainage) where the shallow, unconfined aquifer (near to the surface) has
been penetrated with sewage effluent from septic systems. This presents a threat to drinking
water and to deeper aquifers in these areas.
Sensitive Area Policy 6A: Protect the County’s groundwater supply.
Implementation Strategy
1. To improve the maintenance of on-lot septic system tanks and reduce potential threats to
the groundwater supply, consider implementing a brochure to be distributed to all
current residents with septic systems and at the time of septic system approval that
outlines recommended maintenance procedures for all onlot septic systems.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Sensitive Areas and Natural Resources
Page - 81

Sensitive Area Issue 7: Mitigating the Loss of Non-tidal Wetlands.
The Bay City and Cloverfields subdivisions are experiencing renewed development pressure
following the decision to replace their failing septic systems with public sewer. Vacant and
formerly undevelopable lots, many of which contain small pockets of wetlands, are being
developed in these neighborhoods. As these wetlands are being disturbed, the County is
moving to mitigate the losses by constructing wetlands in other areas. At the same time,
development activity on scattered sites throughout the County is disturbing small wetlands,
but these mitigation efforts are not coordinated. The County ecosystem could benefit from a
comprehensive strategy that seeks to locate wetland mitigation areas adjacent to critical
areas, providing larger and more sustainable environments for waterfowl and other wild
species.
Sensitive Area Policy 7A: Develop a comprehensive strategy to bank Non-tidal wetland
mitigation areas.
Implementation Strategies
1. Develop a no net loss of non-tidal wetlands mitigation program for the County. Begin
by focusing on the current efforts in the Bay City and Cloverfields subdivisions.
2. Select suitable sites for non-tidal wetland mitigation banking, especially in sensitive
areas. Develop a process by which developers of private and public development
projects that disturb wetlands could pay into a system that would fund the construction
of mitigation areas.
3. Develop a campaign to inform the public on alternative site and subdivision designs that
minimize the disturbance of wetlands and other sensitive areas.
4. Continue efforts to identify restoration needs, concerns and opportunities throughout the
County.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Sensitive Areas and Natural Resources
Page - 82

Mineral Resources
Mineral Resources Issues, Policies and Strategies
Mineral Resources Issue 1: Sand and gravel mineral resources are plentiful in the
County.
The County’s predominant useable mineral resources are sand and gravel. These mineral
deposits are located mostly in the County’s eastern portion, away from designated Growth
Areas and areas of concentrated development. Due to the cost of transporting these
materials, excavation is predominantly used for local needs. The location of sand and gravel
deposits, in the County’s rural and agricultural eastern portion where intensive development
is not permitted, safeguards the County’s reserves of these resources.
Mineral Resources Policy 1A: To permit mineral extraction operations and ultimate
reclamation plans that minimize the effects on the surrounding environment.
Implementation Strategies
1. During the update of the County’s development regulations, the County should consider
expanding the width of the required vegetative buffer around newly permitted mining
operations.
2. During the update of the County’s development regulations, the County should consider
instituting noise and blasting restrictions to certain specified times of operation.
3. During the update of the County’s development regulations, the County should consider
enhancing the existing regulations regarding reclamation and end use planning to
prevent undesirable land and water conditions and promote the health, safety and beauty
of the surrounding area (see also Land Use Policy 8A, implementation strategy 2 on
page 33).
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Sensitive Areas and Natural Resources
Page - 83

Attachment 1: Plan Implementation and Streamlining Element
Introduction
The recommendations and implementation strategies identified in the proceeding plan
elements provide the basis for this implementation element. The Plan Implementation
Framework that follows this introduction provides a summary listing of the Plan’s
implementation and streamlining provisions. The priority of each of these items is
identified. Two levels of priority are set. The first is Priority 1: those items for which
implementation is recommended in the next 4 years (by the end of 2005). The next is
Priority 2: those items to be implemented after 2005. Priorities should be reviewed and
established annually.
The Implementation Framework also identifies the County agency or agencies that will be
chiefly responsible for implementation. Finally, it identifies which of the implementation
measures involve capital expenditures. This provides a connection between the Plan’s
recommendations and the capital budgeting process.
Following abbreviations are used under the “Responsibility” column of this chapter:
B&T Department of Business and Tourism
CC County Commissioners
DPW Department of Public Works
DTC Detention Center
ED Board of Education
EMS Emergency Medical Services
ES Emergency Services
FC Fire Companies
FIN Department of Finance
H&CS Department of Housing and Community Services
P&R Department of Parks and Recreation
P&Z Department of Planning and Zoning
SHRF Sheriff’s Department
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Implementation and Streamlining
Page - 84

Plan Implementation and Streamlining Element
Plan Implementation Framework
Policy, Regulatory and Capital Improvements Implementation Matrix
Capital
Item
Policies and Associated Implementation Strategies/Action Items Priority Responsibility (Y/N)
Land Use
Land Use Policy 1A: Use the Comprehensive Plan Map to guide
development and preservation decisions and to promote public health,
safety and welfare.
1. Use the Comprehensive Plan Map (Map LU-1) in conjunction with
the other Comprehensive Plan maps, policies and implementation
strategies to guide decision-making on development and preservation
efforts and investments. The County’s Growth Areas (Stevensville,
Chester, Kent Narrows, Grasonville, Queenstown and Centreville) are the
focal points for residential, employment and mixed use development. 1 COUNTY N
2. Beginning in fiscal year 2002-3, revise the Community Plans for
Stevensville, Chester, Grasonville, Kent Narrows, Queenstown and
Centreville to be consistent with the recommendations of this
Comprehensive Plan. 1 P&Z N
3. Include the Comprehensive Plan Map as part of a continuing County
outreach program to increase the public’s understanding of the County’s
growth management framework. 1 COUNTY N
4. Update the Priority Funding Area maps periodically to reflect ON
amendments that are made to the Master Water and Sewer Plan. GOING P&Z N
5. Review the criteria for Types of Areas Eligible for Priority Funding
Area designation (for example Rural Villages and Areas Principally Zoned
for Employment) and update the PFA maps to ensure all eligible areas are
mapped appropriately. Explore the funding opportunities that are
available from the State through “Smart Growth” programs. 1 P&Z N
6. During the Comprehensive re-zoning update process, evaluate if there
is a need or justification to move or relocate any of the existing Suburban
Industrial and Suburban Commercial zoning on properties outside of the
Growth Areas to properties more consistent with the County’s long-term
growth management goals. 1 P&Z N
Land Use Policy 1B: Changes to the existing Growth Area boundaries.
1. During the next planning update period, the Stevensville, Chester, and
west side of the Kent Narrows growth area boundaries shall not be
enlarged to accommodate new growth. P&Z N
2. During the next planning update period, the east side of the Kent
Narrows, Grasonville, Queenstown, and Centreville growth area
boundaries shall be determined through their respective individual
community plan update process. Significant enlargements/adjustments to P&Z N
a growth area boundary should be supported by a land demand analysis
that clearly provides necessary justification for the change.
3. Any of the Growth Areas may be altered, reconfigured, or enlarged P&Z n
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Implementation and Streamlining
Page - 85

Capital
Item
Policies and Associated Implementation Strategies/Action Items Priority Responsibility (Y/N)
to accommodate an identified public service use or to address a public
health, safety or welfare issue.
Land Use Policy 1C: The first Kent Narrows Community Plan was
adopted in April of 1992, as part of the implementation of the 1987
Plan. With the subsequent adoption of the 1993 Plan, it was amended
and included as Chapter V. Because the Kent Narrows Plan is
referenced and included in the 1993 Plan, there is a need to retain that
Community Plan as the current guidance for that area until such time
as the County revisits it.
The Kent Narrows Community Plan will remain the County’s land use and
development policy direction for the Kent Narrows growth area and is
included in this 2002 Comprehensive Plan in its entirety by reference.
1. The County should revisit the recommendations of the Kent Narrows
Community Plan during the regular cycle of growth area community plan
update process, which is expected to occur in FY 2002. 1 P&Z Y
Land Use Policy 1D: Continue to recognize the importance and
benefits of maintaining and developing relationships with jurisdictions
within Queen Anne’s County as well as with our neighboring counties.
1. The County should continue to work cooperatively with the
incorporated towns during the review of updates and amendments of
plans, programs, ordinances and/or maps and provide the necessary
technical assistance when required or requested. 1 P&Z N
2. The County should develop inter-jurisdictional cooperative
agreements with the incorporated Towns of Queenstown and Centreville
to formalize the relationship regarding development review of major
projects located within these Growth Areas. 1 P&Z N
3. When appropriate, the County should continue to participate in
regional planning efforts and develop regional partners in issues related to
planning, transportation, land preservation and economic development. 1 COUNTY N
4. Continue to work cooperatively with adjacent jurisdictions to develop
regional transportation priorities. (for example: MD 404) 1 P&Z, DPW N
Land Use Policy 2A: Provide public sewer and water in the Growth
Areas in a phased approach that maximizes the benefits of public
infrastructure investment, relates the pace of growth to the
availability of infrastructure, and promotes contiguous development.
1. Require all development (consistent with Master Water and Sewer
Plan Guidelines) within the Growth Areas to be on public water and
sewer. If public systems are not yet available, the developer may pay to
extend and upgrade such facilities to the property or wait until others
have extended it. 1 P&Z, DPW N
2. Implement the upgrades to the Kent Narrows/Stevensville/Grasonville
(KN/S/G) wastewater treatment plant to a 3 or 4 Million Gallons Per Day
(MGD) capacity to meet identified needs. 2 P&Z, DPW Y
3. Implement additional upgrades to the KN/S/G wastewater treatment
plant to 5 MGD to meet the development expected within the 20-year
horizon of this plan. 2 P&Z, DPW Y
4. Review, revise and reestablish a policy within the County’s Master 1 P&Z, DPW N
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Implementation and Streamlining
Page - 86

Capital
Item
Policies and Associated Implementation Strategies/Action Items Priority Responsibility (Y/N)
Water and Sewer Plan on how the County’s limited sanitary sewer
treatment capacity is allocated among potential users. Priorities should
include redevelopment of existing properties, economic development
objectives, and the community and the public services oriented uses in
addition to the other priorities established by the Sanitary Commission.
5. Tie subdivision and site plan approvals to adequate public facilities
standards. 1 P&Z N
Provide for a phasing of sewer and water infrastructure within the
Growth Areas by implementing a phasing plan that targets growth and
investment in priority areas first. The recommended water and sewer
phasing maps are included in the Community Facilities element of this
Plan. Update the County’s Master Water and Sewer Plan to be consistent 1 P&Z, DPW N
with these service maps.
6. In cases where public infrastructure improvements may be planned
but not immediately implemented, define special assessment areas where
the costs of capital improvement directly benefiting properties within that
area can be collected from the owners of both new and existing
developments. 1 P&Z, DPW N
7. Develop a master plan for water and sewer service lines and
associated collection, transmission, and treatment facilities necessary to
serve the Growth Areas. 1 DPW, P&Z N
Land Use Policy 3A: Promote development within the Growth Areas
by providing incentives and improving the quality of life in the
Growth Areas.
1. To the extent feasible, co-locate public facilities such as parks,
libraries, schools, and or senior centers to provide for community activity
centers. 1 P&Z N
2. Revise the County’s development codes to promote pedestrian and
bicycle mobility. 1 P&Z N
3. Encourage pedestrian and bicycle connections between cul-de-sacs
and adjacent streets. 1 P&Z, DPW N
4. Create incentives for retirement housing within the Growth Areas as
retirees require no additional schools and produce less peak hour traffic. 1 P&Z N
5. Formulate and establish a consistent, equitable and manageable
developer reimbursement policy for the incremental costs of oversizing
sewer and water lines as part of a development project that helps provide
for future capacity for the service area. 1 P&Z, DPW N
6. Encourage a balance of public and private active recreation facilities
to serve the Growth Areas. 2 P&Z, P&R N
7. Take advantage of additional funding opportunities afforded by the
Chesapeake Country Scenic Byway, Heritage Area and SHA
Neighborhood Conservation Programs to implement projects that will
facilitate community improvements in the Growth Areas. 1 P&Z, DPW N
8. The County should develop a historic preservation ordinance that
allows eligible enrolled properties to voluntarily participate in historic
rehabilitation tax credit programs through Maryland Historical Trust.
Recognizing within the Growth Areas, the incorporated towns of
Queenstown and Centreville maintain their separate jurisdictional control
with respect to developing their own ordinance. 1 P&Z, B&T N
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Implementation and Streamlining
Page - 87

Capital
Item
Policies and Associated Implementation Strategies/Action Items Priority Responsibility (Y/N)
Land Use Policy 4A: Promote a variety of housing types within the
County.
1. Amend the County’s development regulations to include a provision
requiring moderately priced dwelling units within new residential
development above a certain number of lots and providing a density bonus
and/or other incentives to the developer to make it economically feasible.
(See Montgomery County, Maryland’s Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit
program as an example). Also, explore a system for prioritizing the
availability of the affordable units so that current residents and workers
have access to them first. 1 H &CS, P&Z N
2. During the update of the development ordinance, consider provisions
that would expand existing accessory apartment provisions in residential
zones to allow year-round rentals to non-family members of the primary
dwelling. 1 P&Z N
3. Encourage the redevelopment and improvement of existing buildings,
particularly in Growth Areas, and especially when these structures may be
used for moderate or affordable housing. 1 H &CS, P&Z N
4. Review and consider incorporating the State’s new Smart Code
provisions, also known as the Maryland Building Rehabilitation Code,into
the County’s building codes to facilitate the rehabilitation of existing
buildings. 1 H &CS, P&Z N
Land Use Policy 5A: Enhance the amount of the County’s lands
outside the Growth Areas that are preserved for agricultural
production.
1. During the ordinance update, reevaluate the TDR program and
consider fine-tuning implementation techniques that will enhance the
program. 1 P&Z N
2. During the ordinance update and review of the TDR provisions,
consider changing the density on transferring properties from one unit per
four acres to one unit per eight acres. 1 P&Z N
3. During the ordinance update process, consider fine-tuning the
implementation techniques of the non-contiguous program and then
confirm or revise how non-contiguous ownership is defined in the code. 1 P&Z N
4. Increase County funding for preservation easements through the
Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation (MAPLF) program
and consider any changes necessary to maximize available funding. 2 CC N
5. Consider implementing a purchase of development rights program to
protect highly productive agricultural lands from being developed.
Consider the zero coupon bonds program in Howard County as a model in
addition to other strategies. 2 P&Z, CC N
6. Continue to sponsor and/or support Rural Legacy applications and
consider inter-jurisdictional applications with adjacent counties in the
future 1 P&Z N
7. As a part of a public outreach program, consider a segment on
preservation options. 1 P&Z N
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Implementation and Streamlining
Page - 88

Capital
Item
Policies and Associated Implementation Strategies/Action Items Priority Responsibility (Y/N)
Land Use Policy 5B: Promote the economic viability of farming and of
commercial fishing.
1. Expand the definition of agricultural uses permitted in the AG district
to include non-traditional farming-related enterprises such as wineries,
cheese-making operations, summer camps and farm related recreational
uses. 1 P&Z N
2. During the ordinance update, review provisions for migrant labor
housing and provide standards within the AG district to include housing
for seafood workers. 1 P&Z N
3. To facilitate the continuation of commercial fishing in the County,
provide for adequate water access to the County’s waterways. Adequate
water access includes areas for commercial fisherman for docking,
mooring, and loading/unloading. These access and support facility areas
are shown on Map LU-3. In addition, areas in close proximity to some of
these water access points should be available for fin- and shell-fish
processing. 1 P&Z N
4. Explore options to access waterways for aquaculture. 2 P&R N
Land Use Policy 5C: Protect existing agriculture and commercial
fishing areas from development pressures and impacts.
1. Consider augmenting the buffer requirements and/or distance setbacks
of new non-agricultural, residential development that is adjacent to AG
zoned land to protect continued agricultural uses from nuisance claims. 1 P&Z N
2. Allow commercial fisherman docking and processing facilities in
appropriate waterfront areas provided that conflicts with surrounding land
use are minimized to the extent feasible. 1 P&Z N
3. Consider developing “right to fish” language. 2 P&Z N
4. Complete a periodic review of the existing “right to farm” language. ON
GOING P&Z N
Land Use Policy 6A: Protect and promote rural character and
landscapes within non-Growth Areas throughout the County.
1. Modify development regulations to expand/revise the existing use
table for the Village Center zoning district that would allow for a variety
of small businesses. 1 P&Z N
2. During the comprehensive rezoning process, evaluate all existing
Village Center zoning and determine if there are appropriate places for
expansion and possible identification of new Village Center zoning
districts. 1 P&Z N
3. Maintain the sliding scale subdivision technique that has been so
successful. 1 P&Z N
4. Include design standards for subdivision and development to improve
the quality of rural design and preserve rural character, including buffering
and maintenance of forest cover. 1 P&Z N
5. During the ordinance update process, create a waiver for MALPF
easement properties from road frontage requirements to allow access via
an access easement. 1 P&Z N
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Implementation and Streamlining
Page - 89

Capital
Item
Policies and Associated Implementation Strategies/Action Items Priority Responsibility (Y/N)
6. During the ordinance update, review State regulation of mega-farms
and their adequacy to protect environmental and rural character in the
County and determine if additional County regulations are needed. 1 P&Z N
7. The County should develop a historic preservation ordinance that
allows eligible enrolled properties to voluntarily participate in historic
rehabilitation tax credit programs through Maryland Historical Trust. 1 P&Z, B&T N
Land Use Policy 7A: Earmark and reserve high quality employment
lands with highway and infrastructure access for future employment
uses.
1. The community growth area plan update process is projected to begin
in Fiscal Year 2002. It will include the review and update the plans for
Chester, Stevensville, Grasonville, Kent Narrows, Queenstown and
Centreville. During this growth area plan update, identify those yet-to-be-
developed lands that have good access to or frontage on arterial roadways
and consider planning them for employment uses including office and
light industrial uses. 2 P&Z N
2. As part of the development regulations update, review and update the
permitted uses in commercial and industrial zones to allow significant
differentiation among zones and to refine or augment the uses permitted. 1 P&Z N
3. Consider rezoning highly accessible locations near key intersections
for office/business park uses. 1 P&Z N
4. Undertake a study of the potential economic development spin-off and
technology transfer from Chesapeake College. Based on the results of the
study, consider the appropriate designation for the area (Growth Area,
Priority Funding Area, Special Economic Development District, etc.) to
facilitate its eligibility for grants and special funding. 1 P&Z, B&T N
5. Consider acquiring lands for employment as part of an overall land
banking program so that development options are not foreclosed. The
County should hold the lands and make them available for private sector
development when market conditions are more favorable to employment
uses as the County matures from a predominately residential county to a
more balanced economy. 2 CC N
6. Undertake a study of potential sites for a new County business park.
Review the sites identified in the Centreville and Queenstown growth area
plans as well as other potential sites. Consider the needs of diverse
potential users including “information” businesses as well as more
traditional industrial and employment users. 1 P&Z N
Land Use Policy 7B: Encourage home-based businesses that are
compatible with residential and mixed-use areas in support of the
County’s economic development efforts.
1. Establish appropriate standards for home occupations in the
development code. 1 P&Z N
Land Use Policy 8A: To regulate development in an efficient and
streamlined manner through a process that is more user-friendly and
predictable.
1. During the development ordinance update, consider a threshold for 1 P&Z N
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Implementation and Streamlining
Page - 90

Capital
Item
Policies and Associated Implementation Strategies/Action Items Priority Responsibility (Y/N)
site plan to distinguish between minor site plans approved
administratively and major projects requiring Planning Commission
approval.
2. During the development ordinance update, consider requiring
mandatory Planning Commission recommendations to the Board of
Appeals for industrial conditional uses that may have significant
community impacts. 1 P&Z N
3. Revise development regulations to move away from the heavy
emphasis on performance-based standards that are complicated to use
and difficult to understand; move to a simpler and more transparent
system. 1 P&Z N
4. During the ordinance update, simplify the way density, net buildable,
open space, and impervious area and non-residential intensity are
calculated. 1 P&Z N
5. Remove the Urban Residential (UR) floating zone. 1 P&Z N
6. Consider revising development codes to minimize the use of flag lots
and double-frontage lots. 1 P&Z N
7. Develop and implement a policy and process that outlines how the
County’s available Critical Area growth allocation is to be apportioned. 1 P&Z N
8. During the ordinance update process, revise the code to include
guidelines for the siting of telecommunications towers. 1 P&Z N
9. Increase the County’s public education and outreach activities
related to the County’s land use policies and implementation of growth
management strategies. Ensure adequate resources are available to
implement this strategy. 1 P&Z N
10. Consider developing and integrating a septic reserve area/ perc
area/suitable soils analysis as a component of the development review
process. This analysis should be of sufficient detail so that
comprehensive layout planning could be done initially and prior to
design and phasing the development of the overall site. 1 P&Z N
11. During the ordinance update, review zoning standards for solid
waste, landfills and sludge storage. 1 P&Z N
12. During the ordinance update, review the requirements, process and
procedures associated with conditional uses, variances and appeals to
ensure the most effective and efficient processing of all applications and
appeals. 1 P&Z N
13. Review and revise existing UC design standards and incorporate
them as appropriate, into zoning districts that permit commercial uses. 1 P&Z N
14. During the zoning ordinance update, consider establishing a
threshold prior to requiring a master plan for development be provided. 1 P&Z N
15. During the ordinance update, review and revise as necessary or
appropriate requirements associated with the approval and construction
of a pier. 1 P&Z N
Land Use Policy 9A: The County will clearly distinguish in its
documents and regulations whether land currently undeveloped is to
remain so in perpetuity or may be developed at some future date.
1. Amend County development regulations to re-name the various
types of “open space” associated with development and subdivision 1 P&Z N
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Implementation and Streamlining
Page - 91

Capital
Item
Policies and Associated Implementation Strategies/Action Items Priority Responsibility (Y/N)
techniques (for example agricultural open space, private or public
community space) to clarify the uses permitted and remaining
development potential.
Transportation
Transportation Policy 1A: Use the Thoroughfare Plan in conjunction
with the growth area plans to implement and coordinate roadway
improvement and usage.
1. Maintain an aggressive but financially responsible capital budget for
future roadway improvements. 1 CC, DPW N
2. For County roads, new development should pay for needed new
facilities or improvements to existing facilities necessitated by new
growth impacts. 1 CC, DPW, P&Z N
3. Use Table T-1 as a guide for the phasing of planned improvements.
Update this table as necessary to reflect current County priorities. 1 CC, DPW, P&Z N
4. Amend the road ordinance to reflect the recommended roadway
classification. 1 DPW, P&Z N
5. Strive to coordinate the timing and implementation of transportation
improvements such as those outlined in the MD 8 Corridor Management
Plan with other infrastructure improvements. 1 DPW, P&Z N
6. In conjunction with the State Highway Administration, develop a
comprehensive regional corridor management plan for US 50 and MD
18. This plan should be broken into two phases: (1) from the Chesapeake
Bay Bridge to Kent Narrows and (2) from Kent Narrows to Queenstown.
The findings of this plan should be incorporated into Table T-1 and Map
T-1 annually as necessary to reflect current County priorities. 1 DPW N
7. Continue to monitor and evaluate other roadway systems in the
County for safety and maintenance reasons. 1 DPW N
8. Recognize the recommendations of the MD 8 Corridor Management ON
Plan and other plans. GOING DPW N
Transportation Policy 2A: Maintain an appropriate balance between
public and private sector responsibilities for roadway improvements.
1. Establish a formal system to define how developers participation in
the financing of transportation costs. Costs shall be based on traffic
impact studies acceptable to the County and the State Highway
Administration, even if acceptable County standards are higher than the
State requirements. Require the quantification of impacts, based on
assessment of projected traffic operations on the road network. 1 P&Z N
2. Require traffic impact studies for all developments that will
significantly increase the peak hour traffic on the adjacent area’s
roadway system and create operational conflicts (e.g., turning
movements, driveway locations). These studies will determine the
magnitude of off-site roadway improvements required to accommodate
the traffic generated by the proposed development while maintaining
service standards. Develop guidelines for the impact studies including
standards that establish a threshold for the size of the development that 1 P&Z, DPW N
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Implementation and Streamlining
Page - 92

Capital
Item
Policies and Associated Implementation Strategies/Action Items Priority Responsibility (Y/N)
will trigger the need for a traffic impact study. The guidelines should
define the requirements and procedures to be used as well as the content
of the submitted report.
3. Require development-related improvements to address the impacts
of the development. 1 P&Z N
4. Regulate proposed development to maintain acceptable levels of
service (see Policy 3A below). 1 P&Z N
Transportation Policy 3A: Establish Level of Service (LOS) or
Congestion standards for roadways and or/roadway intersections
within the County.
1. Establish and apply a roadway and or roadway intersection LOS or
Congestion standard. Phasing of development within specific
timeframes may be acceptable. 1 P&Z N
2. Differentiate between LOS standards for Growth Areas and non-
Growth Areas. Standards for the non-growth area portions of the County
should be higher, and set at LOS B, than for Growth Areas, which should
be set at the highest level practicable and in no case less than D.
Procedures for the determination of exception areas should be included in
the standards. A lower level LOS standard may be permitted for the
following reasons: (a) application of the standard to a specific roadway
would be in conflict with other recommendations of this Plan (including
the protection and enhancement of historic, environmental or cultural
recourses) or (b) capacity improvements are budgeted for construction
within two years or the developer has made a contractual commitment to
make the improvement via a mitigation plan. 1 P&Z N
3. Require that approvals of new developments or significant
expansions of existing developments be contingent upon maintaining the
LOS standards for that area. 1 P&Z N
4. Amend the County’s development regulations to require the LOS
standards. 1 P&Z N
5. Amend the County’s development regulations to require that a
transportation impact study and mitigation plan be provided early in the
development process at the concept/sketch plan stage. Regulations
should make provisions to exempt small expansions to existing
businesses, small businesses, affordable housing and some public
services uses from transportation impact studies. 1 P&Z N
6. Amend the County’s road ordinance to be consistent with the
recommendations of this Comprehensive Plan. 1 P&Z, DPW N
7. Undertake a transportation management plan of Kent Island to
determine needed improvements and to help establish the LOS for the
Growth Areas. Determine how the recommendations should be
incorporated into this Comprehensive Plan. 1 DPW, P&Z N
Transportation Policy 4A: Ensure that roadway design and capacity
standards are appropriately related to roadway function and
classification.
1. Review and amend existing standards for different types of
roadways. 1 DPW, P&Z N
2. Amend design and capacity standards to ensure an appropriate 1 DPW, P&Z N
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Implementation and Streamlining
Page - 93

Capital
Item
Policies and Associated Implementation Strategies/Action Items Priority Responsibility (Y/N)
relationship for function and classification and update the Roads
Ordinance appropriately.
3. Design paving widths for appropriate speeds on local streets to
encourage pedestrian safety and ambiance and also in the Critical Area to
reduce impervious cover. 1 DPW, P&Z N
4. Reduce traffic speeds in neighborhoods via roadway design methods
including traffic controls, roadway design and layout. 1 DPW, P&Z N
5. During the update of the roads ordinance, review the County’s
access management controls to limit curb spacing and design based by
roadway type. 1 DPW, P&Z N
Transportation Policy 4B: Implement parking standards that
adequately serve specific uses balanced with a desire to reduce
unnecessary impervious surface cover and reduce development
related costs.
1. Revise development regulations to reduce parking standards and to
permit shared parking agreements. 1 DPW, P&Z N
Transportation Policy 5A: Provide a roadway network with multiple
connections between routes and uses.
1. Provide connections to several surrounding roadways within
developments. 2 DPW, P&Z N
2. During the development review process, review the internal
circulation pattern of proposed developments for streets to ensure
adequate linkages between major activity areas within and abutting the
development. 1 P&Z, DPW N
3. Require connections and internal cross-access easements between
retail/commercial developments to provide superior access for
emergency services and to minimize traffic on the public road network. 1 P&Z, DPW N
4. Require street connections wherever possible and particularly in the
Growth Areas. 1 P&Z, DPW N
Transportation Policy 6A: Plan for and enhance commuter bus
service to job centers inside and outside the County.
1. Identify locations for small park-and-ride lots near points of access
to U.S 50/301 and acquire land by various methods including via
dedication or reservation during the development review process. 1 P&Z, DPW N
2. Partner with the SHA, MTA and private commuter bus operators to
enhance existing commuter bus service to the Baltimore and Washington
metropolitan areas. 2 CC N
3. In addition to exploring more inter-County bus routes, consider Dept. of AGING,
strategies for interfacing with adjacent counties. 2 P&Z N
4. Investigate current requirements and how they can be amended to
allow the parking lot located under the Kent Narrows bridge (built with
Federal Enhancement monies) to be used as a park-and-ride lot. 2 P&Z, DPW N
5. Take advantage of State vanpool subsidies to promote vanpooling. 2 DPW N
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Implementation and Streamlining
Page - 94

Capital
Item
Policies and Associated Implementation Strategies/Action Items Priority Responsibility (Y/N)
Transportation Policy 7A: Ensure that road improvements in rural
areas minimize disturbance and adverse impacts on the rural
landscape and environmentally sensitive areas while maintaining
safety in design.
1. Modify road design standards (e.g., right-of-way, standard profile)
for new development in rural areas and environmentally sensitive areas
to reduce impacts on the rural landscape and on environmentally
sensitive areas. 1 DPW, P&Z N
Transportation Policy 8A: Carefully evaluate each rail opportunity to
optimize the use of these important transportation corridors and
ensure that they are compatible with existing land uses.
1. Develop and implement a review process to evaluate surplus rail
lines so that the County has a process in place to help determine whether
to purchase the track and right-of-way for continued rail use and
employment use, or alternative transportation and recreation, or both. 1 DPW N
2. Explore ways to maintain rail access to the future County industrial
park site identified in the Centreville Growth Area. 1 P&Z N
Transportation Policy 9A: Promote bicycle and pedestrian mobility in
the County.
1. Develop a bicycle suitability map to highlight the most and least
suitable routes for biking based on traffic volume, shoulder width and
functional classification. Identify bicycle travel corridors to principal
employment centers e.g, Chesapeake Business Park, Kent Narrows,
Chesapeake Community College. 1 DPW, P&Z N
2. Provide pedestrian linkages between cul-de-sacs and adjacent streets, DPW, P&Z,
recreation, community facilities and shopping areas. 1 P&R N
3. Review the recommendations regarding sidewalks in the County’s
growth area community plans and establish a policy for sidewalk B&T, DPW,
installation. 2 P&Z, P&R N
4. Encourage development and construction of bike routes between
towns and communities especially along the Chesapeake Country Scenic P&R, B&T,
Byway. 1 DPW, P&Z N
5. Establish pedestrian stream valley connectors between population P&R, DPW,
centers and major public facilities. 1 P&Z N
6. Establish a working relationship with the Director of Bicycle and
Pedestrian Access at the Maryland Department of Transportation and P&R, B&T,
assist in creating and developing the 20-year plan. 1 DPW, P&Z N
7. Continue to use, to maximum extent possible, funding from the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). 1 P&Z N
8. Identify County roads requiring improvements and upgrades for safe
bicycle and pedestrian travel. 1 DPW, P&Z N
9. Provide and seek funding sources for bicycle-parking facilities at all
the community facilities like libraries, schools, parks, churches, shopping
centers and park and ride spots. 1 DPW, P&Z N
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Implementation and Streamlining
Page - 95

Capital
Item
Policies and Associated Implementation Strategies/Action Items Priority Responsibility (Y/N)
Transportation Policy 10A: Direct the flow of truck traffic and staging
areas to those facilities that are most suitable and away from other
routes and areas where through truck traffic and truck staging is
incompatible with adjacent land uses or may cause safety issues.
1. Identify areas where through truck routing is incompatible with the
long-term viability of land uses adjacent to these roads and town streets.
Coordinate with the State Highway Administration to re-sign these roads
to minimize through truck traffic and to identify appropriate alternative
routes. 1 DPW N
2. In coordination with the State Highway Administration, identify a
staging area for trucks during inclement weather and high winds. It is
recommended that this area not be at the approach to the Chesapeake Bay
Bridge on Kent Island. 2 P&Z, DPW N
Transportation Policy 11A: Implement the relevant recommendations
of the Corridor Management Plan.
1. Work with MD State Highway Administration in their efforts to use
context-sensitive design standards when improvements to road sections,
bridges and guardrails are being planned. 1 P&Z, DPW N
2. Support MD State Highway Administration’s Neighborhood
Conservation projects, since most of those projects will be in towns along P&R, B&T,
the Byway. 1 P&Z, DPW N
3. Work in conjunction with Centreville and Queenstown to develop
traffic calming plans for Byway towns. 2 P&Z, DPW N
4. Support improvements to better accommodate multiple users: farm
equipment, bicyclists, trucks, etc. 1 P&Z, DPW N
Transportation Policy 12A: As a result of the adoption of the
Stevensville Community Plan in October of 1998, the Bay Bridge
Airport lands were rezoned “Airport Zoning District” and regulations
mirror those for the existing Suburban Industrial district. This plan
acknowledges the recommendations of the Stevensville Community
Plan as outline below.
1. Consider the associated impacts of noise and glare when reviewing
the development and design of sites adjacent to the existing airport
facilities. 1 P&Z N
2. Consider height controls for properties adjacent to the airport to
ensure take-off and landing safety. 1 P&Z N
3. As the Stevensville growth area matures, it will become increasingly
important to monitor take-off and landing patterns to ensure that noise
1 AIRPORT, P&Z N
impacts to nearby schools and residential neighborhoods are minimized
to the extent possible.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Implementation and Streamlining
Page - 96

Capital
Item
Policies and Associated Implementation Strategies/Action Items Priority Responsibility (Y/N)
Community Facilities
Sanitary Sewer System
Sanitary Sewer Policy 1A: To provide public sewer service to all
mapped growth area lands within the 20-year horizon of the Plan to
steer the majority of the County’s growth into its designated Growth
Areas and away from sensitive, agricultural and rural areas outside
the Growth Areas and incorporated towns.
1. The County’s Master Sewer and Water Master Plan should be
updated to be consistent with the recommended sewer service phasing
map (see Map CF 1) and the other recommendations of this
Comprehensive Plan. Recognizing that as a result of the analysis
completed to update the Master Water and Sewer Plan, Map CF-1 may
need to be revised in the future. 1 DPW, P&Z N
2. Expand and upgrade the Kent Narrows/Stevensville/Grasonville
(KN/S/G) wastewater treatment plant to a 3 or 4 Million Gallons Per Day
(MGD) capacity to meet identified needs. 1 DPW, CC Y
3. When the KN/G/S plant is expanded, sewer service should be made
available to all lands within the Stevensville, Chester, Kent Narrows and
Grasonville Growth Areas. 2 DPW, CC Y
4. Further expand the KN/S/G plant to 5 MGD within the 20-year
horizon of this Plan. 1 DPW, CC Y
5. Replace/expand the sanitary sewer force main from Grasonville to
the KN/S/G wastewater treatment plant to increase its capacity to serve
the Stevensville, Chester, Kent Narrows and Grasonville Growth Areas
and to potentially accommodate flows from the Queenstown growth area
(see Policy 1B below). 2 DPW, CC Y
6. Consider evaluating and implementing a policy for mandatory
connection of existing homes/business into the sewer and water systems
when services are available. 1 DPW N
7. Develop a master plan for water and sewer service lines and
associated collection, transmission, and treatment facilities necessary to
serve the Growth Areas. 1 DPW, P&Z N
Sanitary Sewer Policy 1B: Work cooperatively with the Towns of
Queenstown and Centreville to provide expanded sewer capacity to
serve the towns and the adjacent lands within these Growth Areas.
1. Recognize and support the town of Queenstown’s current sewerage
treatment plant expansion and relocation efforts. 1 County N
2. Potentially implement a pumping station in the Queenstown growth
area and a force main to connect to the KN/S/G force main in Kent
Narrows at Pump Station 1 to provide sewer service to the Queenstown
growth area including expanded service to the Town of Queenstown. 2 DPW, CC Y
3. Work with Centreville to implement the town’s planned spray
irrigation wastewater treatment system to ensure adequate capacity to
serve the buildout of the Centreville growth area through this technology. 1 DPW, CC N
4. When detailed design and engineering of the Centreville spray
irrigation system is complete, if the system does not provide for service
to the entire growth area within the 20-year horizon of this Plan, the 1 DPW, CC N
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Implementation and Streamlining
Page - 97

Capital
Item
Policies and Associated Implementation Strategies/Action Items Priority Responsibility (Y/N)
County should work cooperatively with the town to augment the town’s
capacity and spray irrigation system.
Sanitary Sewer Policy 2A: Provide sewer service to the Kent Island
areas of Kent Island Estates, Romancoke, Dominion, Marling Farms,
Queen Anne Colony, Kentmorr, Chesapeake Estates, Sunny Isle of
Kent, Norman’s, and Matapeake Estates as shown on Map CF-1
through implementation of a vacuum collection system and force
mains to connect these areas to the KN/S/G wastewater treatment
plant. The intent of this policy to protect the ground water supply and
address long-standing, uncorrectable septic failures in these areas.
1. Hook-up rates for new service will be set based on the County’s
costs of the improvements necessary to provide service to the areas
identified above in Policy 2A and shown on Map CF-1. 2 DPW N
2. The County should pursue State and Federal funding opportunities
for the implementation of this project based on the need to protect the
ground water supply and safeguard the public’s health in these areas. 1 P&Z, DPW, CC N
3. All existing lots within this area are assumed to gain sewer service to
address these long-standing and serious problems with failing septic
systems and potential harm to the ground water supply. 2 DPW Y
4. Require hook-up to the public sanitary sewer and water when service
becomes available. 2 DPW N
5. The wastewater lines installed to provide service to communities
identified in the County Master Water and Sewer Plan as ‘problem areas’
shall be considered denied access facilities. Therefore, the lines planned
to be installed along MD 8 will be to only accommodate the existing
communities of Kent Island Estates, Romancoke, Queen Anne Colony,
Kentmorr, Chesapeake Estates, Sunny Isle of Kent, Norman’s and
Matapeake Estates. Additional hook-ups in the adjacent rural areas along
the force main will be prohibited. A similar denied access facility
planned to be installed along MD 552 will serve Dominion and Marling
Farms. 2 DPW N
6. Carefully evaluate the impacts of expanding sewer service to these
areas including the impacts on schools and roads within the framework
of State and County growth management policies. 2 COUNTY N
Water Distribution System
Water Policy 1A: Consolidate/interconnect/expand the existing
separate water systems serving Kent Island and Grasonville to the
maximum extent feasible to provide more efficient service and
expanded water service to the Stevensville, Chester, Kent Narrows
and Grasonville Growth Areas to provide an incentive for growth in
these Growth Areas and to reduce development pressures on the
County’s rural and agricultural areas.
1. Interconnect the County-operated north Chester system to the
Stevensville and south Chester to north Chester system via a new water
main. 2 DPW, CC Y
2. Interconnect the Grasonville area’s existing private and public water
treatment plants to the extent feasible. 2 DPW, CC Y
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Implementation and Streamlining
Page - 98

Capital
Item
Policies and Associated Implementation Strategies/Action Items Priority Responsibility (Y/N)
3. Expand the Grasonville water treatment plant to serve the west
portion of the Grasonville growth area. 2 DPW, CC Y
4. Identify additional funding mechanism to pay for interconnection
and expansion of the water service system. 1 DPW, CC Y
5. Implement water service improvements based on the recommended
phasing plan depicted on map CF-2. Recognizing that as a result of the
analysis completed to updates the Master Water and Sewer Plan, Map
CF-2 may need to be revised in the future. 1 DPW, CC Y
Water Policy 2A: Extend water service in tandem with sewer service
when the County provides sewer service for areas with uncorrectable
septic system failures.
1. Provide water treatment and service to Romancoke and Kent Island
Estates when sewer service is provided (see Sewer Service Policy 2A).
This system would have wells into the Patapsco Aquifer, a water
treatment plant, elevated storage and a distribution system with water
storage. This water system could be expanded to include nearby Queen
Anne Colony, and Kentmorr. 2 DPW, CC Y
2. Provide water treatment and service to Dominion and Marling Farms
when sewer service is provided (see Sewer Service Policy 2A). The
anticipated water system needed to serve this area will include a elevated
storage tank and a distribution system. 2 DPW, CC Y
3. When upgrading water and sewer service, improvements should be
coordinated with roadway construction projects for the same area to the
greatest extent feasible. 2 DPW Y
Water Policy 3A: Substantially expand water service for the
Queenstown growth area to provide an incentive for growth to occur
in this growth area and reduce development pressures on the
County’s rural and agricultural areas.
1. Explore the possibility of drilling of new wells west of Queenstown
to expand water service to the growth area and to the Grasonville area. 2 DPW Y
2. Potentially interconnect the Queenstown water system to the Kent
Narrows east system via a new water main to tie the water systems
together. 2 DPW, CC Y
Public Schools
School Policy 1A: To plan and budget for schools projected to be
needed, reduce (but not eliminate) the County’s dependence on
relocatable units and acquire needed lands in advance of the actual
need.
1. Elementary Schools: In addition to the third elementary school
already programmed in the County’s operating budget, the County is
projected to need two new elementary schools for the Kent Island
District, one for the Grasonville district, one for Centreville and one for
Sudlersville for a total of five additional elementary schools within the
20-year Plan horizon. 1 ED, CC Y
2. Consider increasing the maximum potential capacity of all new
elementary schools to 600 students to reduce County capital costs while 1 ED, CC N
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Implementation and Streamlining
Page - 99

Capital
Item
Policies and Associated Implementation Strategies/Action Items Priority Responsibility (Y/N)
maintaining school quality.
3. Where possible, when renovating existing elementary schools,
increase the enrollment capacity to 600 students. 2 ED, CC N
4. Middle Schools: In addition to the new Middle School planned for
the Kent Island-Grasonville area already programmed in the County’s
operating budget, the County is projected to need one new middle school
in the Centreville district. 2 ED, CC Y
5. High Schools: One new high school is assumed for the Kent Island
district. Although the Queen Anne’s High School is projected to be
over-enrolled by the end of this Plan’s 20-year horizon, the projected
enrollment can be met with the use of relocatables. 2 ED, CC Y
6. Co-locate schools with other public facilities such as parks, libraries,
community or senior centers to the extent possible to promote
community centers and focal points and provide pedestrian connection
between these facilities whenever possible. 2 ED, CC N
7. The County should continue to develop and enhance its land
acquisition process for identifying and reserving/acquiring school sites
needed for projected population. 1 ED, CC N
Parks and Recreation
Parks Policy 1A: Provide a range of activities and passive recreational
opportunities for residents and visitors alike to increase the overall
quality of life of Queen Anne’s County.
1. As a joint effort between the County’s Parks Department and its
Department of Business and Tourism, publicize and promote the
County’s substantial publicly-accessible parks and open space resources
by developing a brochure and fold-out map that highlights the types of
facilities and activities that are available. Also include on the map, other
protected lands such as Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation
Foundation (MALPF) easements and Maryland Environmental Trust
(MET) easements. 2 P&R, B&T N
2. Focus new park acquisitions on resources that help link and
supplement existing resources including trails. 1 P&R, CC N
3. Investigate the development of floating docks to support the growing
interest in recreational kayaking and canoeing and the County’s image as
a destination for non-motorized boating . 2 P&R, CC N
4. Develop a bike suitability map as recommended in Transportation
Policy 9A in the Transportation Element of this Plan to facilitate DPW, P&R,
recreational bicycling on many of the County’s rural roads. 2 P&Z N
5. Promote and establish mapped land and water trails that connect
parks and recreation facilities to the communities being served and to
each other wherever possible and if possible, coordinate these trails with
road improvements and provide inter-jurisdictional connections when DPW, P&R,
possible. 2 P&Z N
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Implementation and Streamlining
Page - 100

Capital
Item
Policies and Associated Implementation Strategies/Action Items Priority Responsibility (Y/N)
Parks Policy 2A: Provide adequate and accessible park and recreation
facilities to reasonably meet the needs and interests of all segments of
the community.
1. Obtain active recreation sites within and adjacent to the County’s
Growth Areas by dedication of land by new development and through fee
2 P&R, P&Z N
purchase by the County.
2. Amend the development regulations to require dedication of usable
land or provision of fee in lieu of dedication by new residential
development. 1 P&Z N
3. Amend the development regulations to require that private open
space within new developments (maintained by a private homeowner’s
association) be centrally located and accessible to all homes in the
development. 1 P&Z N
4. Survey current residents to better understand what types of
recreation facilities are desired and periodically assess the residents’
needs and usage. 2 P&R N
5. Review and consider implementation strategies from the Chesapeake
Country Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan for the MD 213/18 DPW, B&T,
corridor to protect the corridor’s special scenic qualities. 1 P&R, P&Z N
Stormwater Management
Stormwater Management Policy 1A: Provide for the safe and efficient
collection of stormwater runoff.
1. Explore the option of reactivating, revising as necessary and
supporting existing tax ditches in environmentally friendly ways
throughout the County. 2 DPW N
2. Establish priorities and explore alternatives to address long-standing
drainage problems when infill occurs within the existing developments. 2 DPW Y
3. Conduct a detailed review of the County’s regulations regarding
stormwater management and enhance the regulations to include up-to-
date stormwater provisions, standards and performance criteria. Require
the siting and design of future stormwater retention and detention
facilities to blend in with the surrounding development and function as
attractive amenities. 2 DPW N
4. Review the applicability of “low impact design standards” developed
for other counties in the State of Maryland and the new Maryland
Department of Environment Stormwater Management Design Manual
Standards, which seek to retain water on site through innovative water
gardens, landscaping, and site design for possible inclusion into the
County Stromwater Management regulations or Zoning Ordinance. 2 DPW, P&Z N
5. Develop watershed management plans to identify and address
specific concerns within the County’s watershed areas. 2 DPW N
6. Make stormwater management facilities part of the County
beautification program.
1 DPW, P&Z N
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Implementation and Streamlining
Page - 101

Capital
Item
Policies and Associated Implementation Strategies/Action Items Priority Responsibility (Y/N)
Solid Waste Management
Solid Waste Policy 1A: Provide solid waste and recycling services that
promote lawful and environmentally-sound waste disposal by County
residents.
1. Update the County’s solid waste master plan. 2 DPW N
Consider encouraging new private development to include curbside trash. 1 DPW, P&Z N
Emergency Services
Emergency Services Policy 1A: To provide a systematic approach to
construction and reconstruction of emergency services facilities.
1. Determine the priorities for the construction of emergency service
facilities. Use the “Emergency Services Study”, dated December 2001 to
guide in establishing these priorities. 1 ES, DPW N
2. Determine the timeframe for construction of facilities and identify
the costs for facilities. Use the “Emergency Services Study”, dated
December 2001 as a guide in establishing the timeframe. 1 DPW, ES, FIN Y
Emergency Management Policy 2A: To provide a modern law
enforcement facility that will service the needs of the County for a 20-
to 25-year period.
1. Conduct a space needs study to identify the size and nature of
Sheriff’s facilities required and to allow for sufficient growth to meet
anticipated staff increases. The new facility should be secure and include
sufficient office space, meeting and interview rooms, locker rooms, and
space for storage and evidence storage. Use the “Emergency
Management Study”, dated December 2001 as one guide for the
projected increases in law enforcement personnel to help assess office
space needs. 1 DPW, SHRF N
2. Identify costs for the new Sheriff’s facility. The cost estimate should
separate out the cost of a lock-up facility to determine whether it should
be most efficiently co-located with the Sheriff’s department or at a SHRF, DPW,
separate Detention Center facility. (See also Issue #3 below). 1 FIN Y
3. Identify a suitable location for the law enforcement facility in the
Centreville area to the extent possible since Centreville is the County
Seat and is centrally located within the County. 2 DPW N
Emergency Services Policy 3A: To develop an integrated booking
process for all law enforcement agencies operating in the County to
provide a safe and cost effective approach to the prisoner booking
process.
1. Coordinate with each law enforcement agency in the County to SHRF, DTC, ES,
develop an integrated the joint booking process. 1 DPW N
2. Develop plans for the joint booking process and incorporate plans in
the expansion of the Detention Center. 1 SHRF, DPW N
3. Develop a process to ensure Detention Center personnel have
authority to transport and maintain custody of inmates. 1 SHRF, ES, DPW N
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Implementation and Streamlining
Page - 102

Capital
Item
Policies and Associated Implementation Strategies/Action Items Priority Responsibility (Y/N)
Emergency Services Policy 4A: To ensure that each fire company has
adequate building facilities.
1. Coordinate with the Fire Chiefs Association to establish a systematic
process for conducting the analysis of each fire station facility. 1 ES, FC N
2. Identify funding source(s) to conduct the engineering analysis of the
nine fire stations. 1 ES, FC N
3. Conduct the engineering analysis and develop criteria for prioritizing
replacement and rehabilitation of the fire station facilities. 1 ES, FC N
4. Develop cost estimates and a capital plan that identifies when
rehabilitation or reconstruction should be accomplished. 1 ES, FC, FIN Y
Emergency Services Policy 5A: To improve the delivery of emergency
medical services to the entire County by establishing strategically
located emergency medical response units.
1. Develop a plan and acquire strategically located sites for emergency
medical service facilities. 1 DPW, ES, EMS N
2. Develop specific facility needs and cost estimates for construction of
the emergency medical services facilities. 1 DPW, ES, EMS N
3. Adopt a phased construction plan for construction of facilities. 1 DPW, ES, EMS N
Emergency Services Policy 6A: To maintain the volunteer fire and
ambulance company service delivery arrangement and effectively
integrate volunteer and county resources.
1. The County should continue to recognize the critical importance of
the volunteer fire and ambulance companies to the delivery of fire and
emergency medical service throughout the County and continued to
support the fire and ambulance companies. 1 EMS, FC, ES N
2. Evaluate strategies to encourage volunteer recruitment and retention. 1 EMS, FC, ES N
Public Facilities Management
Public Facilities Management Policy 1A: Provide public services to
residents and County businesses in an efficient and cost-effective
manner.
1. The County should undertake a facilities management plan to
determine the future space needs for County offices and other public
buildings. As the Town of Centreville is also the County Seat, every
reasonable effort should be made to locate new or relocate existing
County facilities here. 2 DPW N
Fiscal Health
Fiscal Health Policy 1A: Fairly apportion the costs of development
between existing residents/businesses and new development.
1. Undertake a comprehensive review of impact fees to ensure that new
development is paying its proportional share for the costs of public
facilities and services such as, but not limited to, transportation, schools,
sewer and water, parks, libraries and public safety while ensuring that the 1 P&Z, FIN N
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Implementation and Streamlining
Page - 103

Capital
Item
Policies and Associated Implementation Strategies/Action Items Priority Responsibility (Y/N)
fee structure promotes the County’s Smart Growth initiatives to
concentrate development within the Growth Areas.
2. Implement a revised impact fees program with appropriate annual
review and adjustment based on the study findings. 1 P&Z, FIN N
Fiscal Health Policy 2A: Enhance the County’s assessable tax base.
1. Continue and strengthen efforts to attract, retain, and expand
business to generate more employment opportunities and to provide the
1 COUNTY N
assessable base to support public services and facilities.
2. To stay competitive, periodically review the hotel tax with adjacent
jurisdictions. 1 CC N
Fiscal Health Policy 3A: Seek alternative sources of revenue to fund
public services and facilities.
1. Continue to pursue alternative revenue sources. 1 FIN, CC N
2. Secure increased funding for capital projects from State and
developer contributions. 1 CC N
3. Continue to pursue the use tax increment financing and other types
of financing districts (special assessment districts) to fund new growth-
related services and facilities and redevelopment initiatives as
appropriate. 1 CC N
Business Development and Tourism
Business Development and Tourism Policy 1A: Prepare and promote
the County as a prime business location with good access to
transportation, community services and a trained work force.
1. Aggressively pursue opportunities to enhance the County’s
telecommunications, fiber optics and high speed Internet access to
promote economic development. 1 B&T N
2. Work with the State to implement Net.Work.Maryland in the
County. This Statewide communications network will encourage
interconnection among government units, educational institutions and
private industry and will provide high speed Internet access and
connectivity. 1 B&T N
3. Promote the extension of high speed telecommunications
connectivity to businesses and residents to better position the County to
attract high tech businesses and enhance telecommuting. 1 B&T N
4. Seek out State grants and assistance to prepare a telecommunications
assessment and plan for the County. 1 B&T N
5. Create an inventory of all undeveloped/improved but not currently
used sites in the County where employment uses are permitted and which
have road or rail access, have or are expected to have near-term sewer
and water service. Update this inventory annually. 1 P&Z, B&T N
6. Retain existing rail service in the County to provide shipping options
for County businesses and attract and maintain businesses that require
rail service. 1 DPW, B&T N
7. Actively work with current County businesses to ensure their
retention and to help address their expansion needs. 1 B&T N
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Implementation and Streamlining
Page - 104

Capital
Item
Policies and Associated Implementation Strategies/Action Items Priority Responsibility (Y/N)
Business Development and Tourism Policy 2A: Actively support the
development of business facilities that will attract and retain high tech
companies to/in the County.
1. Identify the site for a technology-centered industrial park. 1 B&T, P&Z N
2. Promote services that support information based businesses
including conferencing facilities and services. 2 B&T N
3. Partner with the Chesapeake College to provide needed job training
programs to maintain a skilled work force. 1 B&T N
4. Work with the schools to further promote technology instruction
within the school curriculum. 1 B&T, ED N
Business Development and Tourism Policy 3A: Recognize the
importance of resource based industries to the County’s economy, and
take steps to support and expand them.
1. Support efforts to assist interested farmers with product
diversification. 1 B&T N
2. Implement the recommendations of the Governor’s Eastern Shore
Economic Development Task Force Report, as it pertains to increasing
the economic viability of the agriculture and seafood industries. 1 B&T, P&Z N
3. The County should, in general, participate in regional efforts to
expand resource based economic opportunities, such as the Heartland
Fields project in Queen Anne’s County and Kent County’s Chesapeake
Fields Initiative. 1 B&T, P&Z N
Business Development and Tourism Policy 4A: Promote and expand
facilities, services and activities that support visitor-based economic
development.
1. Identify and develop year-round attractions that increase the
County’s tourism-related economic development potential including
historic, cultural and arts-related activities and venues. 1 B&T N
2. Further promote the County as a destination of nature-based
activities. 1 B&T, P&R N
3. Continue to promote the County’s heritage resources and tie-in
visitation to the County’s historic sites and towns with other tourism
attractions. 2 B&T N
4. Identify potential additional hotel/motel sites within the County
including at least one facility with conferencing facilities. 2 B&T N
5. Consider providing incentives to facilitate the development of
hotel/conference/resort facilities. 1 P&Z, B&T N
6. Continue to coordinate economic development and heritage tourism
enhancement efforts through the Eastern Shore Heritage, Inc. initiative
with Caroline, Kent, and Talbot counties. Formal certification of the
four-county area by the Maryland Heritage Area Authority will provide
matching funds to develop a heritage tourism plan for the four-county
area and allow the County to leverage other funding and tax benefits. 1 P&Z, B&T N
7. Explore the potential of allowing public/private partnerships for
appropriate professional services related to outdoor activities on County 1 B&T N
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Implementation and Streamlining
Page - 105

Capital
Item
Policies and Associated Implementation Strategies/Action Items Priority Responsibility (Y/N)
and State owned parkland and at recreational facilities.
8. The County should develop a historic preservation ordinance that
allows eligible enrolled properties to voluntarily participate in historic
rehabilitation tax credit programs through Maryland Historical Trust. 1 P&Z, B&T N
9. Support the Chesapeake Country Scenic Byway effort by
implementing recommendations provided in the “Experiencing the B&T, P&R,
2 N
Byway” section of the Corridor Management Plan, as time and funding DPW, P&Z
allow.
Business Development and Tourism Policy 5A: Promote a variety of
housing types within the County to balance moderately priced housing
needs and the need for a resident labor pool with opportunities for
higher-end housing.
1. Promote the County as an attractive community with a high quality of
life with opportunities for upper end executive housing. 1 B&T N
2. Promote the County as a second home and retirement location. 1 B&T N
Sensitive Areas
Sensitive Area Policy 1A: To protect the habitats of threatened and
endangered species and other habitat areas.
1. Protect habitats of threatened and endangered species and other
unique areas, following both State and Federal species lists and
protection guidelines. 1 COUNTY N
2. The County should continue to work cooperatively with the State’s
DNR and Federal agencies under the Endangered Species Act. 1 COUNTY N
3. The County should continue to work cooperatively with the Federal
and the State agencies and the Critical Area Commission with regard to
identification and protection of other habitat areas identified above. 1 COUNTY N
Sensitive Area Policy 2A: To retain and add to the County’s inventory
of forested areas.
1. During the update to the County’s development regulations, consider
streamlining ordinance requirements and consistency with the
overlapping forest conservation regulations. 1 P&Z N
2. Consider the implementation of forest mitigation banking.
Mitigation banking is the intentional restoration (reforestation) or
creation of forests (afforestation) undertaken to provide credits for
afforestation or reforestation requirements with enhanced environmental
benefits. 1 P&Z N
Sensitive Area Policy 3A: Protect steep slopes to reduce erosion and to
help safeguard water quality.
1. During the update of the County’s development ordinances, review
all regulations related to floodplain protection and revise, as necessary, to
provide adequate protection of steep slopes outside of the Critical Area. 1 P&Z, DPW N
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Implementation and Streamlining
Page - 106

Capital
Item
Policies and Associated Implementation Strategies/Action Items Priority Responsibility (Y/N)
Sensitive Area Policy 4A: To provide standards for shore buffers
consistent with Critical Area law.
1. During the update of the County’s development ordinances, revise
the County’s shore buffer standards to be compatible with the buffer
standards in the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area regulations. 1 P&Z, DPW N
Sensitive Area Policy 5A: Protect floodplains.
1. Communicate closely with the Federal and the State agencies to stay
current on the tidal and non-tidal floodplain issues and monitor changes ON
in tidal and non-tidal floodplains. GOING DPW, P&Z N
Sensitive Area Policy 6A: Protect the County’s groundwater supply.
1. To improve the maintenance of on-lot septic system tanks and
reduce potential threats to the groundwater supply, consider
implementing a brochure to be distributed to all current residents with
septic systems and at the time of septic system approval that outlines
recommended maintenance procedures for all onlot septic systems. 2 COUNTY N
Sensitive Area Policy 7A: Develop a comprehensive strategy to bank
Non-tidal wetland mitigation areas.
1. Develop a no net loss of non-tidal wetlands mitigation program for
the County. Begin by focusing on the current efforts in the Bay City and
Cloverfields subdivisions. 1 DPW N
2. Select suitable sites for non-tidal wetland mitigation banking,
especially in sensitive areas. Develop a process by which developers of
private and public development projects that disturb wetlands could pay
into a system that would fund the construction of mitigation areas. 2 DPW, P&Z N
3. Develop a campaign to inform the public on alternative site and
subdivision designs that minimize the disturbance of wetlands and other
sensitive areas. 2 DPW N
4. Continue efforts to identify restoration needs, concerns and
opportunities throughout the County. 2 DPW N
Mineral Resources
Mineral Resources Policy 1A: To permit mineral extraction
operations and ultimate reclamation plans that minimize the effects on
the surrounding environment.
1. During the update of the County’s development regulations, the
County should consider expanding the width of the required vegetative
buffer around newly permitted mining operations. 1 P&Z N
2. During the update of the County’s development regulations, the
County should consider instituting noise and blasting restrictions to
certain specified times of operation. 1 P&Z N
3. During the update of the County’s development regulations, the
County should consider enhancing the existing regulations regarding
reclamation and end use planning to prevent undesirable land and water
conditions and promote the health, safety and beauty of the surrounding
area (see also Land Use Policy 8A, implementation strategy 2). 1 P&Z N
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Implementation and Streamlining
Page - 107

Attachment 2: Review and Relationship of 1993 to 2002 Plan
Review of 1993 Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives, Policies, and
Implementation status and relationship to 2002 Draft Plan
recommendations.
This section of the Plan reviews the goals, objectives and policies included of the 1993
Comprehensive Plan and provides an assessment of whether they have been implemented
and how these issues raised in the 1993 Plan are addressed in this 2002 Comprehensive
Plan. Only those items included in the goals, objectives and policies statements for the
County-wide section of the plan are included in this review.
1993 Agricultural Preservation Goal, Objectives and Policies
1993 Plan -- Agricultural Preservation Goal: To preserve and protect large areas of the
County for agricultural use by limiting the number of dwelling units that can be built in such
areas and maintaining large areas of open space.
1993 Plan -- Agricultural Preservation Objectives
1993 Obj. 1: To maintain low densities in the Agricultural district (AG) at
approximately .12 dwellings per acre for cluster development and
providing for 85 percent of the parcel to remain in open space.
Status: Implemented
2002 Plan: Density for Agricultural and Rural areas remains at .12 du/ac (one
house per eight acres) with 85 percent of the development parcel
remaining undeveloped.
1993 Obj. 2: To encourage cluster development in order to maintain the maximum
amount of agricultural soils for agricultural use and open space.
Status: Cluster development is encouraged. There is a 15 percent cluster
requirement and a restriction of lots fronting on an existing County
road.
2002 Plan: Implementation Strategy 3 of Land Use Policy 6A: “Protect and
promote rural character and landscapes within non-Growth Areas
throughout the County”, recommends “Include design standards for
subdivision and development to improve the quality of rural design and
preserve rural character, including buffering and maintenance of forest
cover.”
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Relationship of 1993 to 2002 Plan
Page - 108

1993 Obj. 3: To achieve sustainable agriculture by encouraging environmentally
sensitive agricultural practices and mitigating the impacts of natural
resource and sensitive area restrictions on agricultural operations and to
ensure farmers’ continued “right to farm”.
Status: County right-to-farm legislation has been adopted. Participation in
State and Federal farm programs requires that all participating farms
have a BMP for soil conservation. All Critical Area farms are required
to have a BMP for soil conservation. The State Water Quality
Improvement Act of 1998 requires that all farms in the County using
commercial fertilizer must have Nutrient Management Plans
implemented by 2003. Farms using animal manure must have nitrogen
reduction plans implemented by 2003 and phosphorous reduction plans
implemented by July, 2005.
2002 Plan: Since this objective has been implemented, no specific action is
recommended. However, the 2002 Plan does include Land Use Policy
5C: “Protect existing agriculture and commercial fishing areas from
development pressures and impacts” and four implementation strategies
associated with this policy.
1993 Obj.4: To provide for housing for farm employees and farm owner’s family
members as part of the farm, exempting such housing from formal
subdivision review and approval procedures by providing that such
housing is not subdivided from the farm.
Status: Implemented for farm employee housing on a small scale. There are no
provisions for new migrant labor housing in the Agriculture (AG)
zoning district.
2002 Plan: Implementation Strategy 2 of Land Use Policy 5B “Promote the
economic viability of farming and of commercial fishing” recommends:
“During the ordinance update, review provisions for migrant labor
housing and provide standards within the AG district to include housing
for seafood workers.”
1993 Obj. 5: Provide for and encourage the use of a transfer of development rights
program.
Status: County has a TDR program however, there is an imbalance between
sending and receiving areas. There are more TDRs available to send
than there are an opportunities to use them. Growth area TDR
receiving areas already have enough density-by-right so there is little
incentive to use TDRs for density bonus. Election district restrictions,
which require TDR receiving areas to use TDRs from the same election
district, further limit their use. Very little prime agricultural land has
been preserved using TDRs. Most acreage preserved via TDRs is
resource protected land and preserved TDR acreage is often scattered
with no significant concentration of preserved land. The 1993 Plan and
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Relationship of 1993 to 2002 Plan
Page - 109

1994 Zoning Ordinance only required 4 acres of preserved land for each
TDR.
2002 Plan: The draft plan recognizes that the County needs to enhance and
improve its existing tools to further promote and protect agricultural
lands and the agricultural economy. Implementation Strategies 1-5
under Land Use Policy 5A, “Enhance the amount of the County’s lands
outside the Growth Areas that are preserved for agricultural production”
address TDR and other related strategies:
1. During the ordinance update, reevaluate the TDR program and consider fine-
tuning implementation techniques that enhance the program. (CAC
suggestion to increase the size of the sending parcel)
2. During the ordinance update and review of the TDR provisions, consider
changing the density on transferring properties from one unit per four acres to
one unit per eight acres.
3. During the ordinance update process, consider fine-tuning the
implementation techniques of the Non-contiguous program and then confirm
or revise how non-contiguous ownership is defined in the code.
4. Increase County funding for preservation easements through the Maryland
Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation (MAPLF) program and consider
any changes necessary to maximize available funding.
5. Consider implementing a purchase of development rights program to protect
highly productive agricultural lands from being developed. Consider the zero
coupon bonds program in Howard County as a model in addition to other
strategies.
6. Continue to sponsor and/or support Rural Legacy applications and consider
inter-jurisdictional applications with adjacent counties in the future
1993 Obj. 6: To provide that non-contiguous farms in the Agricultural (AG) district
owned by a single individual may be treated as a single contiguous
property owner for the purpose of applying development (i.e., zoning and
subdivision) standards to a component parcel.
Status: Implemented in part. Noncontiguous development has been interpreted
to allow multiple property owners to transfer density within the AG
District as if the properties were owned by a single individual.
2002 Plan: Implementation Strategy 3 under Land Use Policy 5A, During the
ordinance update process, consider fine-tuning the implementation
techniques of the Non-contiguous program and then confirm or revise
how non-contiguous ownership is defined in the code.
1993 Obj. 7: Limit the use of transferred development rights from the Agricultural
district to those areas designated to receive growth.
Status: This objective has been implemented. Non-Critical Area TDRs can
only be sent from AG and Countryside zones to Growth Areas.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Relationship of 1993 to 2002 Plan
Page - 110

However, Critical Area TDRs can move from one RCA parcel to any
other RCA parcel regardless of whether the sending area is in a growth
area or not. The Critical Area TDR program has been unsuccessfully
challenged in court as being inconsistent with the 1993 Plan. Non-
contiguous development allows development rights to be transferred
from one AG zoned parcel to another and this program is more widely
used than the named TDR program.
2002 Plan: See above language for 1993 Objective 5.
1993 Obj. 8: Provide for a zoning provision in the Agricultural district which allows
for the subdivision of a limited number of lots without having to meet
open space requirements.
Status: Implemented through the 1994 inclusion of the sliding-scale
subdivision technique.
2002 Plan: Implementation Strategy 2 under Land Use Policy 6A “Protect and
promote rural character and landscapes within non-Growth Areas
throughout the County” recommends that the County “Maintain the
sliding scale subdivision technique that has been so successful.”
1993 Plan -- Agricultural Preservation Policies
1993 Pol. 1: It is the policy of Queen Anne’s County that an agricultural operation (as
defined in the Annotated Code of Maryland § 5-308) shall not be deemed
a public or private nuisance provided such operation did not constitute a
nuisance from the date the operation began or the date the change in the
operation began. Nor may a private action be sustained on the grounds
that the agricultural operation interferes, or has interfered with, the use
or enjoyment of other property, whether public or private. Queen Anne’s
County farmers are, specifically, allowed to keep livestock, operate farm
machinery, apply agricultural chemicals and till the soil without nuisance
complaints from non-farm rural neighbors. The County Commissioners
shall adopt local right to farm ordinances to implement this policy.
Status: Implemented (see 1993 Objective 3 above).
2002 Plan: Implementation Strategy 4 under Land Use Policy 5C, “Complete a
periodic review of the existing “right to farm” language.”
1993 Pol. 2: The clustering provisions of the Zoning Ordinance shall be maintained to
allow for .12 unit per acre (1 du per 8 acres) and 85 percent open space.
Status: Implemented (see 1993 Objective 1 above)
2002 Plan: Since this objective has been implemented and no change in density or
open space requirements are proposed, no additional language is
included in the 2002 Plan.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Relationship of 1993 to 2002 Plan
Page - 111

1993 Pol. 3: The Zoning Ordinance shall allow for employees and family member
dwellings to be placed on any farm in the Agricultural or Countryside
districts without requiring subdivsion.
Status: Implemented (see 1993 Objective 4 above).
2002 Plan: See 1993 Objective 4 above.
1993 Pol. 4: The County will continue to actively participate in the Maryland
Agricultural Lands Preservation Program.
Status: Our participation has been enhanced by local certification of County
Agricultural Preservation Program in 1999.
2002 Plan: Implementation Strategy 4 under Land Use Policy 5A, “Increase
County funding for preservation easements through the Maryland
Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation (MAPLF) program and
consider any changes necessary to maximize available funding.”
1993 Pol. 5: The Zoning Ordinance shall allow for the transferable development
rights at a density of one dwelling unit for every four acres deed
restricted.
Status: Implemented for Non-Critical Area TDRs.
2002 Plan: Implementation Strategy 2 of Land Use Policy 5A “Enhance the
amount of the County’s lands outside the Growth Areas that are
preserved for agricultural production” recommends: “During the
ordinance update and review of the TDR provisions, consider changing
the density on transferring properties from one unit per four acres to
one unit per eight acres.”
1993 Pol. 6: Transferable development rights shall only be transferred to designated
Growth Areas.
Status: Implemented. See 1993 Obj. 7 above.
2002 Plan: Implementation Strategy 1 under Land Use Policy 5A “Enhance the
amount of the County’s lands outside the Growth Areas that are
preserved for agricultural production” recommends: “During the
ordinance update, consider fine-tuning implementation techniques of
existing Transfer of Development Rights and non-contiguous
programs.”
1993 Pol. 7: The Zoning Ordinance shall provide for the development of farms in the
Agricultural district owned by an individual to develop as if they were
one parcel.
Status: See 1993 Obj. 6 above. Non-contiguous development has been
interpreted to allow multiple property owners to transfer density within
the AG District as if the properties were owned by a single individual.
2002 Plan: Implementation Strategy 2 under Land Use Policy 5A “Enhance the
amount of the County’s lands outside the Growth Areas that are
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Relationship of 1993 to 2002 Plan
Page - 112

preserved for agricultural production” recommend: “During the
ordinance update, consider fine-tuning the implementation techniques
of the non-contiguous program and then confirm or revise how non-
contiguous ownership is defined.”
1993 Pol. 8: The County should work with the incorporated towns to explore the
possibility of TDR receiving areas within Town limits.
Status: Not implemented. This was explored during the preparation of growth
area plans for Queenstown and Centreville but was not adopted because
town zoning already provided enough density to satisfy market demand.
2002 Plan: No specific related language included in the 2002 Plan but may be
addressed under Land Use Policy 5 A, Implementation Strategy #1.
1993 Pol. 9: The existing TDR program for lands within the Chesapeake Bay Critical
Area and the Countryside zoning district shall be maintained.
Status: Implemented. County also amended the Critical Area TDR program to
lower the overall permitted density on the receiving parcel to be
consistent with the underlying zoning of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres.
2002 Plan: It is anticipated a TDR program will remain in effect as included in
Land Use Policy 5 A, Implementation Strategy #1.
1993 Pol. 10: The County will explore creating a method of development right transfer
which will allow increases in commercial and industrial floor area based
on development rights transferred from the agricultural district.
Status: Implemented but rarely used.
2002 Plan: It is anticipated a TDR program will remain in effect as included in
Land Use Policy 5 A, Implementation Strategy #1.
1993 Plan Sensitive Areas Protection Goal, Objectives and Policies
1993 Plan – Sensitive Areas Protection Goal: To preserve and protect the Chesapeake Bay
and its tributaries, sensitive areas and various other natural resources and physical quantities
of the tidewater landscape for the enjoyment of future generations by encouraging
everyone’s sense of stewardship of this valuable heritage and by adopting objectives,
policies and regulations which offer protection while allowing development, agriculture and
other essential economic activity to occur in an environmentally sensitive manner.
1993 Plan – Sensitive Areas Protection Objectives
1993 Obj.1: To establish policies in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan,
development implementing regulations and capital facilities programs
that provide for, encourage and facilitate development within designated
Growth Areas.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Relationship of 1993 to 2002 Plan
Page - 113

Status: The 1993 Plan included the growth area plan for Kent Narrows. The
plan was subsequently amended to include specific growth area plans
for Stevensville, Chester, Grasonville, Queenstown and Centreville.
Comprehensive rezonings have occurred in the unincorporated Growth
Areas of Stevensville, Chester and Grasonville. The growth area plans
and resulting zoning text and map amendments all encourage and
facilitate development in the Growth Areas. Capital improvements for
growth infrastructure are recommended in each growth area plan.
2002 Plan: The two main themes of the 2002 Plan are to encourage and facilitate
development within the Growth Areas and to preserve the County’s
rural and agricultural areas. Implementation Strategy 1 under Land Use
Policy 1 “Use the Comprehensive Plan Map to guide development and
preservation decisions and to promote public health, safety and
welfare” recommends that “The County’s Growth Areas (Stevensville,
Chester, Kent Narrows, Grasonville, Queenstown and Centreville) are
the focal points for residential, employment and mixed use
development.”
In addition, the Plan includes Land Use Policy 3A, which states:
“Promote development within the Growth Areas by providing
incentives and improving the quality of life in the Growth Areas in
order to protect the County’s rural and agricultural areas.”
1993 Obj. 2: To establish land use policies, development regulations and capital
facilities programs which discourage development in rural areas and
environmental sensitive areas not designated for growth.
Status: Zoning densities in rural areas were significantly decreased in 1987-
1989. Current low densities, combined with significant open space and
environmental protection regulations ensure that sensitive areas are
protected to the full extent mandated by State and Federal law. State
and Federal regulations protect disturbance to tidal and non-tidal
wetlands. The County has numerous local regulations that comply with
all State mandates for the protection of other environmentally sensitive
areas including the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area. Non-Critical Area
environmental protection regulations generally apply equally across the
board and do not differentiate between Growth Areas and non-Growth
Areas.
2002 Plan: The two main themes of the 2002 Plan are to encourage and facilitate
development within the Growth Areas and to preserve the County’s
rural and agricultural areas. The Plan includes numerous
implementation strategies aimed at further preserving the County’s
rural and agricultural legacy. See the associates implementation
strategies under Land Use Policy 3A, “Promote development within the
Growth Areas by providing incentives and improving the quality of life
in the Growth Areas in order to protect the County’s rural and
agricultural areas;” Land Use Policy 5A, “Enhance the amount of the
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Relationship of 1993 to 2002 Plan
Page - 114

County’s lands outside the Growth Areas that are preserved for
agricultural production;” Land Use Policy 5B “Promote the economic
viability of farming and of commercial fishing;” and Land Use Policy
5C: “Protect existing agriculture and commercial fishing areas from
development pressures and impacts.”
1993 Obj. 3: To weigh the value of natural resources and sensitive areas, and apply
corresponding environmental protection standards as appropriate for
each of the three broad locational classifications: (1) Chesapeake Bay
Critical Area, (2) all other, and (3) Agricultural and Countryside Areas.
The Chesapeake Bay Critical Area shall enjoy the most stringent
environmental controls.
Status: The performance zoning regulations currently in place use resource
protection ratios’ (see Section 18-1-053) as a factor within a residential
and non-residential site capacity calculation. Resource protection ratios
for different resources are influenced by whether the resource is in 1)
Critical Area, 2) Upland, or 3) Agricultural area. As an objective, this
approach to protecting sensitive areas initially made sense. However,
with the advent of the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area laws, other State
mandated environmental protection regulations and the State-mandated
concept of Growth Areas, the 1993 Plan objective has been superceded
by other regulations. The zoning regulation’s “resource protection
ratios” are often redundant or conflicting with other State mandated
regulations.
2002 Plan: The plan recommends that the development regulations be streamlined
during the ordinance update process. Implementation Strategies 3 and 4
under Land Use Policy 8A, “To regulate development in an efficient
and streamlined manner through a process that is more user-friendly
and predictable” recommend: “Revise development regulations to move
away from the heavy emphasis on performance-based standards that are
complicated to use and difficult to understand; move to a simpler and
more transparent system.” and “During the ordinance update, simplify
the way density, net buildable, open space, and impervious area and
non-residential intensity are calculated.”
1993 Obj. 4: To encourage, in the Agricultural Area of the County, mitigation of farm
runoff impacts through “best management practices.” Agricultural
activity is so critical to preserving the rural quality of Queen Anne’s
County that is it not to be sacrificed to other environmental protection
goals and objectives. The County might consider enacting a Nutrient and
Integrated Pest Management Ordinance that calls for responsible use of
fertilizer, sludge and pesticides and the services of nutrient management
consultants and might also encourage public education efforts by
nongovernmental groups with special expertise in this field.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Relationship of 1993 to 2002 Plan
Page - 115

Status: All Critical Area farms are required to have a BMP for soil
conservation. The State Water Quality Improvement Act of 1998
requires that all farms in the County using commercial fertilizer must
have Nutrient Management Plans implemented by 2002. Farms using
animal manure must have nitrogen reduction plans implemented by
2002 and phosphorous reduction plans implemented by July, 2005.
2002 Plan: Implementation Strategy 6 under Land Use Policy 6A: Protect and
promote rural character and landscapes within non-Growth Areas
throughout the County” recommends: “During the ordinance update,
review State regulation of mega-farms and their adequacy to protect
environmental and rural character in the County or if additional County
regulations are needed.”
1993 Obj. 5: To apply density controls, open space requirements, development review
process and selection of designated Growth Areas and TDR receiving
areas in a manner that maximizes the potential of these measures to
create residential land uses in a manner consistent with the County’s
environmental protection goals.
Status: Generally accomplished this broad objective.
2002 Plan: The 2002 plans seeks to build upon the actions already taken to protect
rural areas, preserve environmental resources and facilitate
development within the growth area. See the Land Use and Sensitive
Area elements of the 2002 Plan.
1993 Obj. 6: To preserve natural resources and sensitive areas including wildlife
habitats through performance controls which rely, to the greatest extent
possible, on natural controls (as distinguished for man-made). This
means maintaining a mix of farmland, hedgerows, woodland, non-tidal
wetland and wildlife, all of which play a role in protecting water quality,
Bay fisheries and characteristics of the Eastern Shore landscape.
Status: As a condition of cluster subdivision development, open space is
preserved at 85 percent in agricultural areas but there is no requirement
that prime agricultural farmland be preserved at any specific rate.
Hedgerows are not specifically protected but they are often preserved
via forest conservation regulations, which apply to all developments.
Woodlands are protected and enhanced via forest conservation and
afforestation regulations, which apply to all developments. Non-tidal
wetlands are protected via State and Federal regulations. Habitat
protection areas are protected by zoning regulations and State DNR
review of all development projects.
2002 Plan: The plan’s Sensitive Areas Element includes several policies and
recommendations that seek to protect environmental resources. See
Implementation Strategies 1 and 2 under Sensitive Area Policy 2A: To
retain and add to the County’s inventory of forested areas” that
recommend: “During the update to the County’s development
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Relationship of 1993 to 2002 Plan
Page - 116

regulations, consider streamlining and making consistent with the
overlapping forest conservation regulations.” And “Consider the
implementation of forest mitigation banking. Mitigation banking is the
intentional restoration (reforestation) or creation of forests
(afforestation) undertaken to provide credits for afforestation or
reforestation requirements with enhanced environmental benefits.”
Also Implementation Strategy 1 under Sensitive Area Policy 3A.
“Protect steep slopes to reduce erosion and to help safeguard water
quality” states that “During the update of the County’s development
ordinances, review all regulations related to floodplain protection and
revise as necessary to provide adequate protection of steep slopes
outside of the Critical Area.”
1993 Obj. 7: To protect Critical Habitats for endangered and threatened species as
defined by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, from loss,
reduction or destruction to the extent practicable.
Status: All development projects are reviewed by DNR for impact to habitat of
rare, threatened and endangered species. DNR comments and
suggestions are incorporated as conditions for development approval.
The County does not review compliance with the Federal Endangered
Species Act (ESA) nor does it have the authority to enforce it.
2002 Plan: Implementation Strategies 1-3 under Sensitive Area Policy 1A, “To
protect the habitats of threatened and endangered species and other
habitat areas: recommend:
1. “Protect habitats of threatened and endangered species and other unique
areas, following both State and Federal species lists and protection
guidelines.”
2. “The County should continue to work cooperatively with the State’s DNR
and Federal agencies under the Endangered Species Act.”
3. “The County should continue to work cooperatively with the Federal and the
State agencies and the Critical Area Commission with regard to identification
and protection of other habitat areas.”
1993 Obj. 8: To permit exploitation of Queen Anne’s sand and gravel deposits in a
manner that minimizes adverse impacts of extraction operations, avoids
harmful impacts on urbanized portions of the County and destruction of
other important environmental resource, and includes reclamation of
extraction sites for wildlife habitat, farming, or future development when
mining operations have finished.
Status: Implemented through the zoning code as either a permitted or
conditional use depending on the size of the operation and its location.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Relationship of 1993 to 2002 Plan
Page - 117

2002 Plan: Implementation Strategies 1-3 under Mineral Resources Policy 1A, “To
permit mineral extraction operations and ultimate reclamation plans that
minimize the effects on the surrounding environment” recommend:
1. “During the update of the County’s development regulations, the County
should consider expanding the width of the required vegetative buffer around
newly permitted mining operations.”
2. “During the update of the County’s development regulations, the County
should consider instituting noise and blasting restrictions to certain specified
times of operation.”
3. “During the update of the County’s development regulations, the County
should consider enhancing the existing regulations regarding reclamation and
end use planning to prevent undesirable land and water conditions and
promote the health, safety and beauty of the surrounding area.”
1993 Obj. 9: To realize the economic values of environmental preservation by
encouraging development of a tourism and recreation industry in Queen
Anne’s County that capitalizes on the Chesapeake way of life, its fisheries,
opportunities for boating and other outdoor activities associates for
centuries with the Chester, Corsica and Wye Rivers and Eastern Bay;
scenic views of town and country and the historic-cultural resources of
which the County is justly proud.
Status: The County does not require scenic view corridors as condition of
development approval although it does negotiate open space
dedications for community or public use in larger-scale developments.
County Parks and Recreation has actively acquiring waterfront
properties for public park and recreation uses. The County does not
have local historic preservation district zoning but it does require
sensitive treatment of historic resources on a site as part of development
review and approval.
2002 Plan: The 2002 Plan addresses and cross-references these issues in the Land
Use, Business Development and Tourism, and Community Facilities
elements. Specifically, the following policies address these issues, as
do numerous associated implementation strategies. Land Use Policy
3A, “Promote development within the Growth Areas by providing
incentives and improving the quality of life in the Growth Areas in
order to protect the County’s rural and agricultural areas.”
Land Use Policy 5B, “Promote the economic viability of farming and of
commercial fishing.” Land Use Policy 5C, “Protect existing agriculture
and commercial fishing areas from development pressures and
impacts.” Land Use Policy 3A and 6A, “Protect and promote rural
character and landscapes within non-Growth Areas throughout the
County.” Implementation Strategies 8 and 7 respectively specifically
recommend that “The County should develop a historic preservation
ordinance that allows eligible enrolled properties to voluntarily
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Relationship of 1993 to 2002 Plan
Page - 118

participate in historic rehabilitation tax credit programs through the
Maryland Historical Trust.” Parks Policy 1A, “Provide a range of
activities and passive recreational opportunities for residents and
visitors alike to increase the overall quality of life of Queen Anne’s
County.” Business Development and Tourism Policy 3A, “Recognize
the importance of resource based industries to the County’s economy,
and take steps to support and expand them.” Business Development
and Tourism Policy 4A, “Promote and expand facilities, services and
activities that support visitor-based economic development.”
1993 Plan – Sensitive Areas Protection Policies
1993 Pol. 1: The term Critical Area as used herein shall refer to the Critical Area as
defined by: Natural Resources, Article 8-1807(c), Annotated Code of
Maryland.
Status: This is a definition not a policy.
2002 Plan: No related language included in the 2002 Plan.
1993 Pol. 2: The Zoning Ordinance and development review process shall incorporate
provisions mandating the review of development impacts of Critical
Habitat for endangered species. These habitats shall be protected from
loss, reduction or destruction unless the Planning Commission finds that
there is no feasible alternative, and in such as case, only the minimal
impact needed to allow reasonable development shall be permitted.
Status: See comment under Objective # 7 above.
2002 Plan: See comment under Objective # 7 above.
1993 Pol. 3: The natural resources and sensitive areas of Queen Anne’s County shall
be protected by enforcing the protection levels set forth in Table 4 below.
Table 4 indicates the respective open space ratios that shall be required
for development in each natural resource area within each of the three
environmental areas of the County.
Status: See comment under Objective # 3 above.
2002 Plan: See comment under Objective # 3 above.
1993 Pol. 4: In both the Critical Area and Upland environments, there shall be very
substantial landscaping requirements which, in conjunction with both lot
and road frontage standards and required treatment of open spaces, shall
substantially reduce the total pollutant loadings from non-point sources.
Status: Implemented with the zoning, critical area and stormwater management
ordinances.
2002 Plan: Will continue to be addressed through the update and adoption of the
related ordinances.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Relationship of 1993 to 2002 Plan
Page - 119

1993 Pol. 5: In the Agricultural Area, the greatest protection level shall apply to
streams, their buffers and drainage ways. Performance standards shall
encourage stream profiles that enhance water quality in the artificial
channels.
Status: The zoning ordinance through the resource protection standards
requires stream buffers in agricultural districts.
2002 Plan: Land Use Policy 8A: To regulate development in an efficient and
streamlined manner through a process that is more user friendly,
addresses updates to the zoning ordinance and associated standards.
1993 Pol. 6: Mineral resource extraction operations shall be Conditional Uses in
agricultural districts or light industrial districts. The County should
consider making efforts in the future to identify more precisely the
locations of sand and gravel resources.
Status: Major extraction operations are conditional uses, as are minor
extraction operations in all zoning districts except for AG, CS, SI and
LIHS where they are permitted. The portion of the policy related to
more precisely identifying sand and gravel resources was not
implemented.
2002 Plan: The plan includes Implementation Strategies 1-3 Mineral Resources
Policy 1A, “To permit mineral extraction operations and ultimate
reclamation plans that minimize the effects on the surrounding
environment” as follows:
1. “During the update of the County’s development regulations, the County
should consider expanding the width of the required vegetative buffer around
newly permitted mining operations.”
2. “During the update of the County’s development regulations, the County
should consider instituting noise and blasting restrictions to certain specified
times of operation.”
3. “During the update of the County’s development regulations, the County
should consider enhancing the existing regulations regarding reclamation and
end use planning to prevent undesirable land and water conditions and
promote the health, safety and beauty of the surrounding area.”
1993 Pol. 7: Encourage the development of watershed management plans in those
areas of special environmental concerns. Watershed management plans
can be developed by either government agencies or interested
environmental groups in conjunction with government agencies.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Relationship of 1993 to 2002 Plan
Page - 120

Status: The County actively participates in the Upper Eastern Shore Tributary
Strategy Team
2002 Plan: No related language included in the 2002 Plan, however, it is
anticipated our participation in the Upper Eastern Shore Tributary
Strategy Team will continue.
1993 Pol. 8: Expand steep slope protection provisions of the Critical Area to apply to
all areas of the County.
Status: Title 18 does include a provision to protect steep slopes greater than 15
percent at 100 percent in the Upland and Agricultural areas.
2002 Plan: Implementation Strategy 1 under Sensitive Area Policy 3A, “Protect
steep slopes to reduce erosion and to help safeguard water quality”
recommends that “During the update of the County’s development
ordinances, review all regulations related to floodplain protection and
revise as necessary to provide adequate protection of steep slopes
outside of the Critical Area.”
1993 Pol. 9: Encourage large tracts of woodlands and other important habitat areas
be protected by identifying these areas and targeting them for
preservation efforts.
Status: Woodlands and forests are protected under Title 14 and 18. The
identification and protection of large tracts and targeting them for
preservation efforts has been partially addressed through State
programs.
2002 Plan: Several polices and their related implementation strategies address this
issue including Sensitive Area Policy 1A, “To protect the habitats of
threatened and endangered species and other habitat areas” and
Sensitive Area Policy 2A. “To retain and add to the County’s inventory
of forested areas.”
1993 Plan Affordable Housing Goals, Objectives and Policies
1993 Plan – Affordable Housing Goal: To improve the overall housing stock and provide
safe, sound and sanitary housing for all residents if the County within the means of the
County’s limited resources. (This goal recognizes that there must be a distinction between
policies aimed at providing affordable housing and those aimed at providing low income
housing. It is possible to enhance the availability for affordable housing through land use
policies and regulations. Low income housing, however, cannot reasonably be achieved
without the assistance of government or nonprofit organizations through subsidies, grants
and construction programs. The focus of these objectives and policies in this Plan and
implementing ordinances and regulations is to provide for affordable housing opportunities.)
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Relationship of 1993 to 2002 Plan
Page - 121

1993 Plan – Affordable Housing Objectives
1993 Obj. 1: Provide opportunities to build mobile homes and modular housing, by
right, in specific zoning districts, will be maintained.
Status: Implemented. Modulars and double-wide manufactured homes treated
the same as stick-built homes. Single-wide manufactured homes
allowed in certain Neighborhood Conservation zoning districts and as
agricultural employee housing.
2002 Plan: Since this objective has been implemented, no further action is
recommended.
1993 Obj. 2: The thrust of affordable housing efforts shall focus in those parts of the
County which are in designated Growth Areas with public services such
as sewer and water.
Status: Implemented. Higher density zoned lands are all within Growth Areas.
2002 Plan: This issue is addressed in the Land Use and Business Development and
Tourism Elements of the Plan. Implementation Strategy 1 under Land
Use Policy 4A, “Promote a variety of housing types within the County”
states: “Amend the County’s development regulations to include a
provision that requires moderately priced dwelling units within new
residential development above a certain number of lots, and provides a
density bonus and/or other incentives to the developer to make it
economically feasible. (See Montgomery County’s comparable
program.) Also, explore a system for prioritizing the availability of the
affordable units so that current residents and workers have access to
them first.”
1993 Obj. 3: Development regulations shall allow for accessory apartments in both
commercial and residential zoning districts where appropriate.
Status: Implemented. However, accessory apartments in residential zones are
limited to use by family and prohibit year-round rental to non-family.
2002 Plan: Implementation Strategy 2 under Land Use Policy 4A, “Promote a
variety of housing types within the County” states: “During the update
of the development ordinance, consider provisions that would expand
existing accessory apartment provisions in residential zones to allow
year-round rentals to non-family members of the primary dwelling.”
1993 Obj. 4: Development regulations shall allow for more infill development of multi-
family housing and for the conversion of existing structures into
apartments when appropriate.
Status: Partially implemented. Densities allow for multi-family housing within
Growth Areas. Apartment conversions are limited to a few specific
zones.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Relationship of 1993 to 2002 Plan
Page - 122

2002 Plan: See above under Objective 3. In addition under Implementation
Strategy 3 under Land Use Policy 4A, “Promote a variety of housing
types within the County” the Plan states: “Encourage the redevelopment
and improvement of existing buildings, particularly in Growth Areas,
and especially when these structures may be used for moderate or
affordable housing.”
1993 Obj. 5: Density bonus for affordable housing shall be available [for] planned
residential housing projects.
Status: Implemented.
2002 Plan: Implementation Strategy 1 under Land Use Policy 4A, “Amend the
County’s development regulations to include a provision that requiring
moderately priced dwelling units within new residential development
above a certain number of lots and providing a density bonus and/or
other incentives to the developer to make it economically feasible. (See
Montgomery County, Maryland’s Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit
program as an example). Also, explore a system for prioritizing the
availability of the affordable units so that current residents and workers
have access to them first.”
1993 Plan – Affordable Housing Policies
1993 Pol. 1: Single-wide mobile homes shall be permitted, by right, in any
Neighborhood Conservation district with a “T” designation.
Status: Implemented.
2002 Plan: Since this policy has been implemented, no further action is
recommended.
1993 Pol. 2: Planned mobile home parks shall be permitted, by right, in the Suburban
Residential and Urban Residential zoning districts.
Status: Much of the SR and UR zoning has been replaced by other growth area
zoning districts. Manufactured home parks are not a permitted use in
the new CMPD, SMPD and GPRN districts. However, a subdivision of
single-family detached double-wide manufactured homes would be a
permitted use in those districts.
2002 Plan: Since this policy has been implemented, no further action is
recommended.
1993 Pol. 3: Second and third floor commercial apartments shall be permitted, by
right, in all Commercial and Village Center zoning districts. First floor
commercial apartments shall be allowed as conditional uses in the
Commercial and Village Center zoning districts.
Status: Incorporated into some of the new growth area zoning districts.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Relationship of 1993 to 2002 Plan
Page - 123

2002 Plan: Since this policy has been implemented, no further action is
recommended.
1993 Pol. 4: Accessory apartment to single-family residential uses shall be permitted,
by right, in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
Status: See comment for 1993 objective # 3 above.
2002 Plan: Implementation Strategy 2 under Land Use Policy 4A, During the
update of the development ordinance, consider provisions that would
expand existing accessory apartment provisions in residential zones to
allow year-round rentals to non-family members of the primary
dwelling.
1993 Pol. 5: Density bonuses for affordable housing shall be available [for] planned
residential housing projects.
Status: Implemented (see development ordinance title 18-1-162-165)
2002 Plan: This issue is addressed in the Land Use and Business Development and
Tourism Elements of the Plan. Implementation Strategy 1 under Land
Use Policy 4A, “Promote a variety of housing types within the County”
states: “Amend the County’s development regulations to include a
provision that requires moderately priced dwelling units within new
residential development above a certain number of lots, and provides a
density bonus and/or other incentives to the developer to make it
economically feasible. (See Montgomery County’s comparable
program.) Also, explore a system for prioritizing the availability of the
affordable units so that current residents and workers have access to
them first.”
1993 Pol. 6: Town homes, apartment and other multi-family housing types shall be
permitted uses in residential zoning districts.
Status: Implemented.
2002 Plan: Since this policy has been implemented, no further action is
recommended.
1993 Pol. 7: Infrastructure such as public water and sewer systems must be planned
for on a regional or area wide basis in order to encourage median density
development in the Growth Areas, thereby minimizing costs of public
services.
Status: County is expanding the Kent Narrows, Stevensville, Grasonville
wastewater treatment plant.
2002 Plan: The 2002 Plan places substantial emphasis on planning for sanitary
sewer and water to serve the Growth Areas. Implementation Strategies
1-6 under Sanitary Sewer Policy 2A, “Provide sewer service to the Kent
Island areas of Kent Island Estates, Romancoke, Dominion, Marling
Farms, Queen Anne Colony, Kentmorr, Chesapeake Estates, Sunny Isle
of Kent, Norman’s, and Matapeake Estates as shown on Map CF-1 (on
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Relationship of 1993 to 2002 Plan
Page - 124

page 54) through implementation of a vacuum collection system and
force mains to connect these areas to the KN/S/G wastewater treatment
plant. The intent of this policy to protect the ground water supply and
address long-standing, uncorrectable septic failures in these areas:
1. Hook-up rates for new service will be set based on the County’s costs of the
improvements necessary to provide service to the areas identified above in
Policy 2A and shown on Map CF-1 on page 54.
2. The County should pursue State and Federal funding opportunities for this
project based on the need to protect the ground water supply and safeguard
the public’s health in these areas.
3. All existing lots within this area are assumed to gain sewer service to address
these long-standing and serious problems with failing septic systems and
potential harm to the ground water supply.
4. Require hook-up to the public sanitary sewer and water when service
becomes available.
5. The wastewater lines installed to provide service to communities identified in
the County Master Water and Sewer Plan as ‘problem areas’ shall be
considered denied access facilities. Therefore, the lines planned to be
installed along MD 8 will be to only accommodate the existing communities
of KIE, Romancoke, QA Colony, Kentmorr, Chesapeake Estates, Sunny Isle
of Kent, Norman’s and Matapeake Estates. Additional hook-ups in the
adjacent rural areas along the force main will be prohibited. A similar denied
access facility planned to be installed along MD 552 will serve Dominion and
Marling Farms.
6. Carefully evaluate the impacts of expanding sewer service to these areas
including the impacts on schools and roads within the framework of State and
County growth management policies.
1993 Pol. 8: The County shall encourage restoration and improvement of buildings in
towns, villages and rural areas, especially when these structures serve as a
form of affordable hosing while maintaining community character.
Status: Limited implementation through CDBG grants and other State/County
housing programs.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Relationship of 1993 to 2002 Plan
Page - 125

2002 Plan: Implementation Strategies 2 and 3 under Land Use Policy 4A,
“Promote a variety of housing types within the County” state:
Implementation Strategy 3: “Encourage the redevelopment and
improvement of existing buildings, particularly in Growth Areas, and
especially when these structures may be used for moderate or
affordable housing.”
Implementation Strategy 4: “Review and consider incorporating the
State’s new Smart Code provisions, also known as the Maryland
Building Rehabilitation Code, into the County’s building codes to
facilitate the rehabilitation of existing buildings.”
1993 Plan Community Character Goal, Objectives and Policies
1993 Plan – Community Character Goal: To maintain and enhance the character of Queen
Anne’s County by recognizing that its towns and rural and suburban landscapes are diverse
from one another, and to plan for each part of the County while recognizing its differences.
1993 Plan – Community Character Objectives
1993 Obj. 1: Encourage appropriate integration of growth that is targeted for the
County with the small towns and villages that have unique identities and
characters of their own.
Status: Growth area plans have been adopted and are being implemented. No
plans or provisions for small towns, villages, crossroads and other built-
up places that are not designated Growth Areas.
2002 Plan: Implementation Strategies 1 and 2 under Land Use Policy 6A, “Protect
and promote rural character and landscapes within non-Growth Areas
throughout the County” state: Modify the development regulations to
expand/revise the existing use table for the Village Center zoning
district that would allow for a variety of small businesses and During
the comprehensive mapping process, evaluate all existing Village
Center zoning and determine if there are appropriate places for
expansion and the possible identification of new Village Center zoning
districts.
1993 Obj. 2: Establish and maintain a clearly understandable and readily recognizable
image of a pattern of municipalities or village communities separated by
natural buffers of cultivated farms, woodlands and/or waterfront;
differentiation is important to help people know precisely where they are
as they move through the County.
Status: Implemented.
2002 Plan: The 2002 Comprehensive Plan Map shows the location of the Growth
Areas, established rural business areas and residential areas outside of
the Growth Areas, preserved lands and rural agricultural areas. A
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Relationship of 1993 to 2002 Plan
Page - 126

separate supporting map delineates the natural buffers, preserved lands,
park lands and features that help to provide a sense of identity for the
Growth Areas.
1993 Obj. 3: Foster an ethic of stewardship of the tidewater landscape by ensuring the
resident community and traveling public alike, ample access both to views
of the water and facilities for recreational use of the County’s waters.
Status: Partially implemented. The County does not have scenic view
easements but does require open space easements and dedications as
conditions of development approval. The County also has an active
campaign of park land acquisition.
2002 Plan: Addressed in Implementation Strategy 3 under Land Use Policy 5B,
“Promote the economic viability of farming and of commercial
fishing”, which states “To facilitate the continuation of commercial
fishing in the County, provide for adequate water access to the
County’s waterways. Adequate water access includes areas for
commercial fisherman for docking, mooring, and loading/unloading.
These access and support facility areas are shown on Map LU-2. In
addition, areas in close proximity to some of these water access points
should be available for fin- and shell-fish processing.”
1993 Obj. 4: Protect views of the land’s edge from the water, which also embody
community character.
Status: See above comment for objective 3 related to land acquisitions.
2002 Plan: No related language included in the 2002 Plan.
1993 Obj. 5: Enhance community appearance, in part, by protecting the County’s
historic and cultural resources.
Status: Local historic preservation district zoning is being considered for
Queenstown and Centreville and some historic preservation guidelines
have been incorporated into the County’s other growth area plans.
2002 Plan Includes land Use Policy 6A, Implementation Strategy 7 that reads
“The County should develop a historic preservation ordinance that
allows eligible enrolled properties to voluntarily participate in historic
rehabilitation tax credit programs through the Maryland Historical
Trust.”
1993 Plan -- Community Character Policies
1993 Pol. 1: Carefully consider the potential impact to the view from the road in
reviewing and approving development proposals.
Status: Implemented through design guidelines within Growth Areas and
development review process in general. However, no specific
regulations to protect view corridors exist.
2002 Plan: No related language included in the 2002 Plan.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Relationship of 1993 to 2002 Plan
Page - 127

1993 Pol. 2: Encourage citizens to prepare inventories of the specific community
features they most cherish and wish to preserve.
Status: Implemented through growth area planning process.
2002 Plan: No related language included in the 2002 Plan.
1993 Pol. 3: Work with developers to observe higher design standards for new
development (including signage ancillary to non-residential uses).
Status: Implemented through design guidelines for Growth Areas.
2002 Plan: Land Use Policy 8A, Implementation Strategy 13: Review and revise
existing Urban Commercial design standards and incorporate them as
appropriate, into zoning districts that permit commercial uses.
1993 Pol. 4: Foster in new development such practical features of typical Queen
Anne’s County communities, as tree-line, village-scale sidewalks linking
residential neighborhoods with the town or village center and community
facilities; densities somewhere in between those of cities and sprawling,
post-war U.S. suburbs; “downtown-style” centers with street-edged
buildings, mixed use (including a full range of every day convenience
goods and services) and open spaces; pedestrian-friendly, but bicycle- and
auto-accessible streets, scaled for moderate-rate movement; front porches
and modest front setbacks that enable close relationship between homes
and streets.
Status: Partially implemented through growth area zoning.
2002 Plan: Implementation Strategies 1, 2 ,3 and 7 under Land Use Policy 3A:
“Promote development within the Growth Areas by providing
incentives and improving the quality of life in the Growth Areas in
order to protect the County’s rural and agricultural areas” states
Implementation Strategy 1: To the extent feasible, co-locate public
facilities such as parks, libraries, schools, and or senior centers to
provide for community activity centers.
Implementation Strategy 2: Revise the County’s development codes to
promote pedestrian and bicycle mobility.
Implementation Strategy 3: Encourage pedestrian and bicycle
connections between cul-de-sacs and adjacent streets.
Implementation Strategy 7: Take advantage of additional funding
opportunities afforded by the Chesapeake Country Scenic Byway,
Heritage Area and SHA Neighborhood Conservation Programs to
implement projects that will facilitate community improvements in the
Growth Areas.
1993 Pol. 5: Develop a corridor plan for MD 18 “mainstreet” and US 50/301 corridors
in Queen Anne’s County. The plan should carefully consider competing
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Relationship of 1993 to 2002 Plan
Page - 128

interest between residential and commercial land uses as well as
community character issue inherent in a swiftly developing area.
Status: Not implemented. Instead, the County has adopted a node versus a
corridor approach along MD 18. There has been work with the citizens
and residents of Stevensville coordinated and assisted by the
Department of Business and Tourism, the Planning Office and
Department of Public Works.
2002 Plan: Implementation Strategy 7 under Land Use Policy 3A states “Take
advantage of funding opportunities afforded by the Chesapeake
Country Scenic Byway, Heritage Area and SHA Neighborhood
Conservation Programs to implement projects that will facilitate
community improvements in the Growth Areas.”
1993 Pol. 6: Encourage and assist private organizations and the Maryland Historical
Trust in their efforts to protect, preserve, and enhance the County’s
historic and cultural resources.
Status: The County worked with the MHT on the development of the
Queenstown and Centreville plans. Each plan recommends that the
town work with MHT to establish local historic preservation district
zoning.
2002 Plan: Implementation Strategy 8 under Land Use Policy 6A and 3A
respectively, “The County should develop a historic preservation
ordinance that allows eligible enrolled properties to voluntarily
participate in historic rehabilitation tax credit programs through the
Maryland Historical Trust.”
1993 Pol. 7: Prepare sub-area plans for Stevensville, Chester and Grasonville. The
sub-area plans shall be prepared in cooperation with the local
communities and business interests.
Status: Implemented. Growth area plans and the associated development
regulations have been adopted.
2002 Plan: Land Use Policy 1, Implementation Strategy 2 states “Beginning in
fiscal year 2002-3, revise the Growth Area Plans for Stevensville,
Chester, Grasonville, Kent Narrows, Queenstown, and Centreville to be
consistent with the recommendations of this Comprehensive Plan.”
1993 Plan – Capital Facilities Goal, Objectives and Policies
1993 Plan – Capital Facilities Goal: To implement the County Comprehensive Plan and
provide needed public facilities to the residents of Queen Anne’s County in a reasonable and
cost effective manner by using public facilities to channel development to those areas
targeted for growth.
1993 Plan – Capital Facilities Objectives:
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Relationship of 1993 to 2002 Plan
Page - 129

1993 Obj. 1 Update and amend all pertinent County plans to insure that those plans
are consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan and the Economic
Growth, Resource Protection and Planning Act of 1992.
Status: Implemented with the adoption of the 1993 Comprehensive Plan and
the subsequent adoption of the community plans.
2002 Plan: The 2002 Plan is consistent with article 66B of the Annotated Code of
Maryland, as amended by the Growth, Resource Protection and
Planning Act and the subsequent “Smart Growth legislation of 1997.
1993 Obj. 2 Continually refine the annual five-year CIP process to insure it accurately
represents capital facility needs for Queen Anne’s County and
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
Status: Updated annually.
2002 Plan: The 2002 Comprehensive Plan is based on a indepth analysis of
wastewater, water, school and road infrastructure needs and their
associated projected capital costs over the next 20 years. The analysis
is summarized in the Plan’s appendix. The Plan includes an
implementation element that highlights those plan recommendations
that require capital expenditures to be implemented as well as a
recommended timetable. This provides a link between the
Comprehensive Plan and the capital budgeting process.
1993 Obj. 3 Prepare detailed CIPs for each growth sub-area.
Status: Not implemented
2002 Plan: No related language included in the 2002 Plan.
1993 Obj. 4 Work closely with the incorporated towns to provide adequate
infrastructure for growth planned immediately outside of the municipal
boundaries.
Status: Staff works closely with the Towns of Queenstown and Centreville to
review development and annexation proposals.
2002 Plan: Implementation Strategy 8 under Land Use Policy 2A, “Provide public
sewer and water in the Growth Areas in a phased approach that
maximizes the benefits of public infrastructure investment, relates the
pace of growth to the availability of infrastructure, and promotes
contiguous development” states: “Develop a master plan for water and
sewer service lines and associated collection, transmission, and
treatment facilities necessary to serve the Growth Areas.”
Implementation Strategy 4 under Sanitary Sewer Policy 1A: “To
provide public sewer service to all mapped growth area lands within the
20-year horizon of the Plan to steer the majority of the County’s growth
into its designated Growth Areas and away from sensitive, agricultural
and rural areas outside the Growth Areas and incorporated towns”
states: “Replace/expand the sanitary sewer force main from Grasonville
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Relationship of 1993 to 2002 Plan
Page - 130

to the KN/S/G wastewater treatment plant to increase its capacity to
serve the Stevensville, Chester, Kent Narrows and Grasonville Growth
Areas and to potentially accommodate flows from the Queenstown
growth area (see Policy 1B below).”
Implementation Strategy 2 under Land Use Policy 1B, “Continue to
recognize the importance and benefits of maintaining and developing
relationships with jurisdictions within Queen Anne’s County as well as
with our neighboring counties” states: “The County should develop
inter-jurisdictional cooperative agreements with the incorporated
Towns of Queenstown and Centreville to formalize the relationship
regarding development review of major projects located within these
Growth Areas.”
1993 Plan – Capital Facilities Policies:
1993 Pol. 1 During the upcoming five-year planning period, 1994-1998, develop a
detailed CIP for the Chester and the Grasonville areas. The CIPs should
include a description of needed infrastructure, timing for implementation
and methods of paying for improvements.
Status: Not implemented
2002 Plan: No related language included in the 2002 Plan.
1993 Pol. 2: Update the sewer allocation policy to provide more guidance to the
Commissioners and development community regarding which projects
will be provided allocation.
Status: Sewer allocation policy, a part of the Master Water and Sewer Plan has
been updated/revised since the adoption of the 1993 Plan.
2002 Plan: Implementation Strategy 4 under Land Use Policy 2A, “Provide public
sewer and water in the Growth Areas in a phased approach that
maximizes the benefits of public infrastructure investment, relates the
pace of growth to the availability of infrastructure, and promotes
contiguous development,” states: “Review, revise and reestablish a
policy within the County’s Master Water and Sewer Plan on how the
County’s limited sanitary sewer treatment capacity is allocated among
potential users. Priorities should include redevelopment of existing
properties, economic development objectives, and the community and
the public services oriented uses in addition to the other priorities
established by the Sanitary Commission.”
1993 Pol. 3 Develop policies as part of the Master Water and Sewer Plan that create
incentives for developers to provide infrastructure sized to accommodate
growth sub-areas. These incentives include encouraging developers
within a single growth sub-area to pool their resources to create facilities
sized for projected new development within a growth sub-area and using
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Relationship of 1993 to 2002 Plan
Page - 131

methods for developers to recoup costs of providing capital facilities
beyond the needs created by their developments.
Status: Partially implemented.
2002 Plan: Implementation Strategy 5 under Land Use Policy 3A, “Promote
development within the Growth Areas by providing incentives and
improving the quality of life in the Growth Areas in order to protect the
County’s rural and agricultural areas” states: “Formulate and establish a
consistent, equitable and manageable developer reimbursement policy
for the incremental costs of oversizing sewer and water lines as part of a
development project that helps provide for future capacity for the
service area.”
1993 Pol. 4: Prepare and adopt a detailed transportation plan which describes needed
improvements to roads; costs and timing of improvements; and, policies
for paying the cost of these improvements such as developer contributions
to road improvements.
Status: Route 8 Corridor study has been completed in conjunction with DPW,
Planning Department and consultant. Initial funding for a US 50 study
is available.
2002 Plan: The 2002 Comprehensive Plan includes detailed transportation
recommendations ranging from specific roadway improvements, level
of service standards, parking, bicycle and pedestrian, truck routing, and
transit recommendations. Funding responsibilities are also included.
For more detail, see the 11 policies and 49 implementation strategies.
These are supplemented by a Thoroughfare Plan map and associated
table that describes planned roadway improvements and the entity
responsible for the facility improvement (e.g., State, County -- private
sector participation in these improvements is expected based on new
development-related impacts through the development review and
approval process). Recommended phasing of improvements is also
indicated.
1993 Pol. 5 Prepare and adopt an emergency facilities plan which describes needed
emergency facilities, costs and timing of those facilities, and policies for
paying the costs of these improvements such as developer contributions.
Status: An emergency facilities study is on-going as of December 2002. When
complete, recommendations of the emergency facilities study are to be
incorporated into an Emergency Facilities section of the 2002
Comprehensive Plan.
2002 Plan: When the on-going emergency services study now underway is
complete, recommendations of the emergency facilities study are to be
incorporated into an Emergency Facilities section of the 2002
Comprehensive Plan.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Relationship of 1993 to 2002 Plan
Page - 132

1993 Pol. 6: Continue to work closely with the County Board of Education to insure
that school capital facilities plans are consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Status: Partially implemented.
2002 Plan: The 2002 Comprehensive Plan is based on a in depth analysis of
wastewater, water, school and road infrastructure needs and their
associated projected capital costs over the next 20 years. The schools
analysis and forecast of future new schools was coordinated with the
Board of Education. The analysis is summarized in the Plan’s
appendix. The Plan includes an implementation element that highlights
those plan recommendations that require capital expenditures to be
implemented as well as a recommended timetable. This provides a link
between the Comprehensive Plan and the capital budgeting process.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Relationship of 1993 to 2002 Plan
Page - 133

Acronym Glossary
AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic
AG Agricultural Zoning
APFO Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
CAC Citizen Advisory Committee
CDBG Community Development Block Grant
CMP Corridor Management Plan
CS Countryside Zoning
ESLC Eastern Shore Land Conservancy
FTE Full-Time Equivalent
FY Fiscal Year
HSC Historic Sites Consortium
IDA Intense Development Area
KN/S/G Kent Narrows, Stevensville and Grasonville Sewer
Treatment Plant
LDA Limited Development Area
LDR/HNTB Consultants assisting with Comprehensive Plan
LOS Level of Service
MALPF Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation
Foundation
MDE Maryland Department of Environment
MDP Maryland Department of Planning
MET Maryland Environmental Trust
MTA Maryland Transportation Authority
MWSP Master Water and Sewer Plan
RCA Resource Conservation Area
SHA State Highway Administration
TAC Technical Advisory Committee
TDR Transfer of Development Rights
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for 21st Century
2002 Comprehensive Plan Volume 2: Policies, Implementing Strategies and Priorities
Queen Anne’s County Acronym Glossary
Page - 134

Appendix:
Alternatives Analysis, Projections
2002 Comprehensive Plan
Queen Anne’s County, Maryland
Adopted by the Queen Anne’s County Commissioners on May 21, 2002
Queen Anne’s County 2002 Comprehensive Plan

Appendix:
Alternatives Analysis, Projections
2002 Comprehensive Plan
Queen Anne’s County, Maryland
Recommended for Adoption by the
Queen Anne’s County Planning Commission
on January 10, 2002
Adopted by the
Commissioners of Queen Anne’s County
on May 21, 2002
Website
www.qac.org
Prepared by:
LDR International, an HNTB Company
Columbia, Maryland
Department of Planning and Zoning
A publication of the Maryland
Queen Anne’s County
Coastal Zone Management
Program, Department of
In Association with:
Natural Resources pursuant to
Freilich, Leitner & Carlisle National Oceanic and
O’Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. Atmospheric Administration
The Parsons Transportation Group Award No. NA87OZ0236
Queen Anne’s County Comprehensive Plan 2002

Acknowledgements
County Commissioners
George M. O’Donnell, President
Marlene F. Davis
John T. McQueeney, Jr.
Planning Commissioners
Dr. James C. Foor, Chairman
John T. McQueeney, Jr. Ex- Officio Member
Loring E Hawes, Secretary
Rodger Weese
David Clark
Patti Miller
Peter Lee
Karen Oertel, Former PC Member
E.M. Pusey, Jr., Former PC Member
Citizen Advisory Committee
Peter B. Lee, Chairperson
Angie DiDonato
Douglan W. Stubee
Edward L. Delaney
Evan Miles
Gloria Ferguson
Harold E. Walters
Lea F. Brooks
Michael J. Dahle
Patricia Rhodes
Pichada Honick
Randy Esty
Richard A. Smith
Steve Moore
T. Alvin Kepley
William I. Mason, Jr.
John McQueeney, Jr., County Commissioner, Liaison
James C. Foor, Planning Commission, Liaison
Loring E. Hawes, Planning Commission, Liaison
Wayne W. Fallin, Economic Development Commission, Liaison
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Acknowledgements
Page - i

Technical Advisory committee
Mark Belton, County Administrator
Bernie Sadusky, Board of Education
Charles F. Crossley, Jr. Sheriff, Sheriff’s Department
Joe Zimmerman, Director, Department of Finance
Katherine Magruder, Director, Department of Business and Tourism
Pete Scanlon, Director, Department of Housing and Community Services
Philmont Taylor, Director, Department of Emergency Services
Sue Leager, Director, Department of Aging
Wes Johnson, Director, Department of Parks and Recreation
Steve Walls, Director, Department of Public Works
Todd Mohn, Deputy Director, Department of Public Works
Bob Burns, Department of Public Works
Eva Kerchner, Department of Public Works
Garth Jones, Department of Public Works
Alan Quimby, Sanitary District
John Nickerson, Department of Environmental Health
James H. Barton, Zoning Administrator
Planning Staff
Steve Kaii-Ziegler, Director
Faith Elliott Rossing, Principal Planner
Steve Cohoon, Development Review Chief
Joy Levy, Planner
Radhika Sakhamuri, Planner
Kevin Clark, GIS Specialist
Megan DelGaudio, GIS Specialist
The Queen Anne’s County Department of Planning and Zoning wishes to thank all the
County agencies, adjacent jurisdictions, and the citizens who participated in the public
process for their participation and helpful advice.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Acknowledgements
Page - ii

Table of Contents
1.0 Moving to the Next Level of Planning..............................................................1
2.0 Why Define and Assess Plan Alternatives?.....................................................1
3.0 How the Plan Alternatives Were Developed....................................................2
4.0 Overview of Two Plan Alternatives..................................................................2
5.0 Housing and Employment Projections.............................................................5
6.0 Assessment of Plan Alternatives.......................................................................8
7.0 Preferred Plan Option.....................................................................................13
Attachment A..............................................................................................................16
Attachment B..............................................................................................................24
Attachment C..............................................................................................................30
Attachment D..............................................................................................................42
Attachment E..............................................................................................................54
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Table of Contents
Page - iii

1.0 Moving to the Next Level of Planning
After successfully laying the groundwork for rural preservation and designated Growth
Areas, Queen Anne’s County is faced with the challenge of moving to the next level of
plan implementation: matching its plans with infrastructure capacity/expansions and
evaluating the costs and benefits of these options. Rather than jumping straight to
developing a plan, the selected approach was to define distinct choices for the County's
future development by creating two different alternatives or options. These were then
tested and the results used to inform the County and its residents about trade-offs and
potential impacts and to ultimately select a preferred direction that provided the basis for
plan-making.
This Appendix to the Comprehensive Plan includes an overview of:
(cid:1)(cid:2)how and why plan alternatives were developed as part of the plan development
process,
(cid:1)(cid:2)how the 20-year housing and employment projections were developed,
(cid:1)(cid:2)the results of the alternatives assessment and their infrastructure impacts, and
(cid:1)(cid:2)why one alternative was selected as the preferred option for the County and the basis
for the comprehensive plan.
This discussion is supplemented by several attachments, which provide more detail on
the alternatives assessment.
2.0 Why Define and Assess Plan Alternatives?
The County is at a crossroads in implementing its plans. Over the last 15 years, the
County has implemented a number of regulations and policies aimed at preserving the
rural northern portion of the County and preserving its agricultural base and economy.
By 1997, the County had also designated and adopted plans for six Growth Areas
(Stevensville, Chester, Kent Narrows, Grasonville, Queenstown and Centreville), which
are the preferred locations for much of the County’s future growth. Since infrastructure
is one of the main determinants for where future growth occurs, the Comprehensive Plan
Update includes policy direction on how much, where, and when public infrastructure
(primarily sewer service, public water, roads and schools) will be provided. The
definition and assessment of plan options or alternatives helped the County decide which
strategies are preferred.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Page - 1

3.0 How the Plan Alternatives Were Developed
Based on the comments received about the major issues to be resolved from the CAC,
TAC, general public and the County’s Planning Staff, the County's comprehensive
planning consultant team developed two preliminary alternatives for the future
development of the County. After review and sign-off by the CAC and TAC, the
consultant team developed sub-county household and employment projections and
examined the alternatives for their impacts on sewer, water, schools and roads and their
relative public costs. The consultant team also reviewed their impacts on the County’s
ability to preserve and enhance agricultural uses and rural character.
4.0 Overview of Two Plan Alternatives
This section reviews the two plan alternatives that were developed and assessed.
Additional details are included in Attachment A.
Modest Investment: This option identifies the impacts if a modest investment approach is
continued. Based on current infrastructure improvement and investment policies (modest
investment in sewer and water to address problem areas and more immediate needs only,
continued school construction but coupled with a continued heavy reliance on school
relocatables to deal with crowding issues, etc.), growth is projected and allocated assuming
little deviation from current policies by the County. In this option, more development will
likely be “pushed” into rural areas by the lack of infrastructure availability in the Growth
Areas, increasing pressures on the County’s agricultural areas, rural and sensitive areas.
The main facets of this option are:
(cid:1)(cid:2)modest expansion of sewer service for Growth Areas, which will inhibit the growth
potential of these areas,
(cid:1)(cid:2)growth pressures will increase on rural areas resulting in a more dispersed, suburban
development pattern,
(cid:1)(cid:2)lack of public water and sewer service for the Growth Areas will increase the amount
of development on well and septic within the Growth Areas on larger lots. This will
reduce the development potential of the Growth Area and may place additional
development pressures elsewhere,
(cid:1)(cid:2)no large-scale improvements in water service,
(cid:1)(cid:2)minimal improvements to the roadways ,
(cid:1)(cid:2)continued heavy reliance on school relocatables to deal with school crowding, and
(cid:1)(cid:2)continuation of policies to protect agricultural lands but no increase in easement
funding.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Page - 2

Substantial Investment: This option seeks to plan for and implement the infrastructure
necessary to implement the Growth Areas. The County’s 1993 Comprehensive Plan
identifies these areas for development but heretofore the County has not planned for or
implemented the infrastructure necessary to permit their development. By investing in
infrastructure, the County can expect to accommodate more of its growth in existing
communities and thus decrease pressures on the County’s important but fragile
agricultural economy and way of life.
The main facets of this option are:
(cid:1)(cid:2)substantial expansion of sewer and water service for Growth Areas to provide an
incentive for growth to occur in the Growth Areas and reduce development pressures
on the County’s rural and agricultural areas,
(cid:1)(cid:2)implementation of the Growth Area plan recommendations for roadways as well as
other necessary road improvements,
(cid:1)(cid:2)phasing of growth with available road capacity through the use of level of service
standards,
(cid:1)(cid:2)re-assessment of school projections and reliance on trailers, and
(cid:1)(cid:2)additional funding for agricultural easements.
A Quick Comparison of the Options
Elements of the Plan Options
Options Modest Investment Substantial Investment
Economic Economic development is constrained by the Key lands identified & preserved for
Development lower level of sewer & water availability. employment/tourism development; new
industrial park site identified; conference
center site ear-marked; County actively
seeks retirement and 2nd home market.
Impacts on the Development pressures mount as Growth Growth Areas absorb a substantial portion
Rural North Areas cannot absorb sufficient development of the County's development.
because of infrastructure constraints. More Development in the north County is
prime agriculture areas developed and the directed to incorporated towns.
rural heritage of the County is diminished.
Growth Growth is more dispersed; rural lands Infrastructure provision in the Growth
Management developed in suburbanizing pattern; County Areas acts as an incentive to “steer”
Implications tax dollars stretched thin to provide “urban” growth to these areas; reduced
services throughout the County rather than development pressures on agricultural rural
focusing scarce dollars on Growth Areas and areas. Adequate Public Facilities
rural service levels elsewhere in terms of Ordinance allows County to phase
road construction and other infrastructure. development with the availability of
infrastructure.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Page - 3

Sewer Service Existing Kent Narrows/Stevensville/ Existing KN/S/G treatment plant expanded
Grasonville (KN/S/G) treatment plant (to 5 MGD capacity) to provide for the full
expanded (to 3 MGD capacity) to meet short development of the County’s western-most
term demand but not enough to provide Growth Areas. Collection system
adequate capacity to allow development of upgrades necessary to maintain system
the Growth Areas. Collection system functionality/quality. Queenstown area
upgrades necessary to maintain system tied into KN/S/G system. Centreville
functionality/quality. Only modest system upgraded to permit development of
enhancements to Queenstown & Centreville the Growth Area. Sewer service provided
treatment plants, hampering growth of these to some areas of Southern Kent Island to
areas. Sewer provided to some areas of correct septic failures.
Southern Kent Island to correct septic
failures
Water Service No major improvements made to existing Existing water system integrated &
patchwork system of small, separate plants. expanded. New wells may be drilled west
Provide water service to Southern Kent of Queenstown to provide expanded
Island in tandem with sewer service (see service. Provide water service to Southern
below). Kent Island in tandem with sewer service
(see below).
Transportation Limited road improvements to address More extensive road improvements. More
specific congested or dangerous conditions. substantial bicycle/pedestrian
Minimal bicycle/pedestrian improvements. improvements. Assess transit service.
Assess transit service.
Schools Continued reliance on relocatable Reduced reliance on relocatable
classrooms, redistricting to balance school classrooms. Revisit enrollment projections
capacity with enrollment to reduce new based on both existing trends &
school needs. accelerated growth rates.
Development of Modest infrastructure improvements made Infrastructure provided to support
Growth Areas that support additional development only in development of these areas.
the short-to mid-term but not enough to
absorb demand.
Southern Kent Sewer service provided to Romancoke and Sewer service provided to Romancoke &
Island (SKI) Kent Island Estates to address failing septic Kent Island Estates to address failing
problems. Water service provided in septic problems. Limited additional sewer
tandem. No additional sewer service service provided adjacent to this area.
provided on Southern Kent Island. MD 8 Water service provided in tandem. MD 8
widened at northern end. widened at the middle & northern portions.
Dominion & Sewer service provided address long- Sewer service provided address long-
Marling Farms standing failing septic problems. standing failing septic problems.
Parks & Focus on providing active & passive Focus on providing active & passive
Recreation recreation at the community level. Also recreation at the community level. Also
continue to provide other regional sites for continue to provide other regional sites for
tourism uses. tourism uses.
Stormwater Address Southern Kent Island & Assess stormwater tools Countywide
Management Cloverfields problems. including regional and on-site approaches.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Page - 4

5.0 Housing and Employment Projections
Introduction
For the purposes of testing the impacts of the two planning options for the County, the
comprehensive plan consultants developed 20-year housing unit and job projections.
This description explains the methodology and assumptions made for each plan option:
Modest Investment and Enhanced Investment.
For each of these two plan options, the consultant team developed two housing
projections: one assuming 400 new units coming on line per year (reflecting the ten-year
average) and one at an accelerated level of 600 units per year. The level of job creation is
varied by plan alternative reflecting the different emphasis of the two options.
A brief description of projection assumptions is including below followed by tables for
the 20-year projections. A detailed review of the projection methodology is included in
Attachment B including 20-year and annual projection tables.
Modest Investment
Trend Growth (Assumed 400 Units/Year)
The following information was used to make projections for this plan option:
(cid:1)(cid:2)previous trends based on 10-year housing permits for the allocation of units by
County sub-area,
(cid:1)(cid:2)projected capacity constraints of sanitary sewer treatment plants to serve Growth
Areas, and
(cid:1)(cid:2)total jobs projected using a job to housing ratio for new development, and sub-area
allocation based on the availability of vacant non-residentially zoned land.
Residential
The residential allocation is based largely on the past 10-year trend in residential building
permits by election district and the projected availability (or lack of) public utilities,
specifically public sewer service. Since sewer service under this plan option will be more
constrained, it is assumed that some development will be deflected to non-Growth Areas
and that within the Growth Areas, some residential development will occur on well and
septic on larger lots.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Page - 5

Non-Residential
For the non-residential development, this plan option assumes that Growth Area
infrastructure constraints will hamper employment growth in the County. An overall
County jobs to housing ratio of approximately 0.60 is assumed a rather low ratio
reflecting the County's continued development as a residential community with a large
proportion of the working population commuting to other jurisdictions for employment.
Jobs were then allocated at the sub-County level based on the relative proportion of total
available and undeveloped non-residentially zoned land within each election district and
Growth Area.
Accelerated Growth (Assuming 600 Units/Year)
Residential
The 600 units per year is based on the availability of public sewer and increased the
residential capture of the northern County election districts and the Queenstown and
Centreville Growth Areas to a greater extent than the Chester, Stevensville, Kent
Narrows and Grasonville Growth Areas.
Non-Residential
The overall County jobs to housing ratio was held at 0.60. At the sub-county level, job
allocations were assumed to be based on the proportional reservoir of available and
undeveloped employment lands.
Enhanced Investment
Trend Growth (Assuming 400 Units/Year)
Residential
Since this plan option assumes a more expansive public sewer system to serve the
Growth Areas, more development is assumed to occur in the Growth Areas than under
the Modest Investment option. In addition, all development within the Growth Areas is
assumed to occur on public sewer.
Non-Residential
As with the Modest Investment Plan option, an overall jobs to housing ratio is assumed
and then sub-County allocations are projected. However, in this option, a jobs to housing
ratio of approximately 0.90 is used since the County is assumed to be able to attract more
employment because of the availability of public infrastructure and intensified support
for business formation. At the sub-county level, the Growth Areas capture a larger
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Page - 6

proportion of the jobs. However, since there are more jobs overall then in the Modest
Investment option, a substantial number of jobs are also added to the County's other
areas.
Accelerated Growth (Assuming 600 Units/Year)
Residential
As the Stevensville, Chester, Kent Narrows and Grasonville Growth Areas mature, this
option assumes that Queenstown and Centreville will develop at an overall higher
proportional rate. Development also increases in the northern portion of the County and
other non-Growth Areas.
Non-Residential
The overall jobs to housing ratio of the new development is assumed to remain at 0.90
but because of the higher number of housing units, the job growth will be higher.
Tables 1 and 2 show the growth for the 20-year planning horizon by using sub-area and
the percent of the development assumed to be served by public sewer.
Table 1: 20-Year Projection, Trend Growth
Modest Investment, Trend Growth Enhanced Investment, Trend Growth
Units % Served Jobs % Served Units % Served Jobs % Served
by Sewer by Sewer by Sewer by Sewer
Stevensville, Chester,
Kent Narrows,
Grasonville 4,300 72% 1,400 100% 4,700 100% 4,600 100%
Queenstown 100 0% 300 0% 500 100% 500 100%
Centreville 500 80% 700 57% 900 100% 700 100%
Total Growth Areas 4,900 71% 2,400 75% 6,100 100% 5,800 100%
All Other Areas
ED 1 400 0% 200 0% 200 0% 200 0%
ED 2 400 0% 600 0% 200 0% 300 0%
ED 3 300 0% 400 0% 200 0% 300 0%
ED 4 800 65% 200 0% 500 100% 200 0%
ED 5 200 0% 400 0% 200 0% 100 0%
ED 6 400 0% 200 0% 200 0% 200 0%
ED 7 600 0% 600 0% 400 0% 400 0%
Total Other Areas 3,100 26% 2,600 0% 1,900 26% 1,700 0%
Total 8,000 54% 5,000 36% 8,000 83% 7,500 77%
% in Growth Areas 61% 48% 76% 77%
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Page - 7

Table 2: 20-Year Projection, Accelerated Growth
Modest Investment, Trend Growth Enhanced Investment, Trend Growth
Units % Served Jobs % Served Units % Served Jobs % Served
by Sewer by Sewer by Sewer by Sewer
Stevensville, Chester,
Kent Narrows,
Grasonville 5,200 60% 2,100 67% 5,900 100% 5,700 100%
Queenstown 200 0% 400 0% 1,000 100% 1,000 100%
Centreville 900 44% 1,100 36% 1,800 100% 1,400 100%
Total Growth Areas 6,300 56% 3,600 50% 8.700 100% 8.100 100%
All Other Areas
ED 1 700 0% 400 0% 400 0% 300 0%
ED 2 700 0% 800 0% 400 0% 600 0%
ED 3 600 0% 600 0% 400 0% 500 0%
ED 4 1,500 35% 400 0% 800 65% 200 0%
ED 5 400 0% 400 0% 200 0% 300 0%
ED 6 700 0% 400 0% 400 0% 300 0%
ED 7 1,100 0% 900 0% 700 0% 700 0%
Total Other Areas 5,700 26% 3,900 0% 3,300 24% 2,900 0%
Total 12,000 42% 7,500 24% 12,000 79% 11,000 74%
% in Growth Areas 53% 48% 73% 74%
6.0 Assessment of Plan Alternatives
This section provides a summary of the technical results of the infrastructure assessment
of the alternative Comprehensive Plan options. The County’s Comprehensive Plan
consultants conducted the assessment to determine what infrastructure (schools,
transportation and sanitary sewer and water systems) would be needed to serve the plan
alternatives and the costs associated with these improvements. This rigorous focus on
infrastructure was key because of its importance in directing and shaping the County’s
growth and development.
What are the Major Infrastructure Differences Among the Plan Options?
The table below provides a quick summary of the major infrastructure features and
differences among plan options. More details are included in Attachments C through E.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Page - 8

Major Elements by Plan Option
Infrastructure Modest Modest Enhanced Enhanced
Investment Growth Trend Accelerated Trend Accelerated
Schools (# of new)
Elementary Schools 3 5 4 5
Middle Schools 0 1 1 1
High Schools 0 1 1 1
Trailers 56 25 9 14
Transportation There are relatively small variations among the options including the improvements to MD
8 on Southern Kent Island and to MD 304 between Centreville and US 301.
Sanitary Sewer
Expansion to KN/S/G 3 MGD 3 MGD 4 MGD 4-5 MGD
Plant
Upgrade KN/S/G Yes Yes Yes Yes
Force Main
Kent Island Estates/ Service provided Service provided Service provided Service provided
Romancoke/Dominion
Marling Farms
Queenstown Growth No improvements No improvements Provided service Provided service via
Area Service via potential tie in potential tie in to
to Grasonville Grasonville system
system
Centreville Growth No improvements No improvements No improvements Provided service via
Area Service beyond Town beyond Town beyond Town potential tie in to
planned plan planned plan planned plan Grasonville system
expansion expansion expansion via Queenstown
Water
Northern Kent Island Northern Kent Northern Kent Northern Kent Northern Kent Island
Island water system Island water system Island water system water system
consolidation consolidation consolidation consolidation
Kent Island Estates / Service provided Service provided Service provided Service provided
Romancoke/Dominion/
Marling Farms
Chester No service No service Water service Water service
expansion expansion expansion & expansion &
interconnection to interconnection to
Kent Narrows Kent Narrows
Grasonville No service No service Water service Water service
expansion expansion expansion expansion
Queenstown No service No service Water service Water service
expansion expansion interconnection to interconnection to
Kent Narrows Kent Narrows
Centreville Current system is Current system is Current system is Current system is
adequate adequate adequate adequate
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Page - 9

Findings in a Nut Shell: How Do Plan Options Measure Up?
Earlier in the Plan Update process the TAC, CAC and citizens were asked to identify the
key issues and opportunities that the County faced with respect to growth and
development. The result was a set of high priority issues that the Plan Update should
address. How well, then, do the plan options address these issues? The chart below
shows if the plan option addresses the issues well, partially, or not at all.
Key Issues/Opportunities
(cid:1)(cid:2)Providing infrastructure to serve Growth Areas and relieve growth pressures on rural
areas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Paying for growth
(cid:1)(cid:2)Maintaining/improving the quality of life – leisure time activities, parks & recreation,
schools, health & human services, activities for youth
(cid:1)(cid:2)Protecting and improving agriculture & the seafood industry
(cid:1)(cid:2)Protecting the environment, rivers and streams
(cid:1)(cid:2)Capitalize on rural lifestyle, natural amenities and environment
(cid:1)(cid:2)Strategic location to capture more tourism dollars
(cid:1)(cid:2)Identify and preserve lands for employment
(cid:1)(cid:2)Establish new rules of the game for larger-scale corporate developers
(cid:1)(cid:2)Take advantage of new political leadership and momentum
Table 2: How the Plan Options Measure Up Against Key Issues
Key Issues Modest Investment Enhanced Investment
Infrastructure Improvements
◗ (cid:2)
Ability/Tools to pay for growth
◗ ◗
Improving quality of life
◗ (cid:2)
AG/Rural preservation
❍ (cid:2)
Environmental protection
◗ ◗
Job growth emphasis
❍ (cid:2)
Legend:
(cid:2) Addresses Issue Well
◗ Addresses Issue Partially
❍ Does Not Address Issue
What are the Capital Costs for Schools, Sewer, Water and Transportation
Infrastructure? What portion of these Estimated Costs will be borne by the County?
The following two tables show the total estimated capital costs and the estimated County
portion of those costs over twenty years. How these costs stack up against the County’s
historical expenditure is also presented.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Page - 10

Table 3: Estimated Infrastructure Needs by Plan Option (in $millions) 2000 – 2020
Plan Option by Growth Forecast
Infrastructure Modest Investment Enhanced Investment
Trend Accelerated Trend Accelerated
Schools $59 $109 $100 $109
Transportation $86 $100 $86 $92
Wastewater * $50 -$58 $50 -$58 $60-$70 $70-$85
Water * $16-$18 $16-$18 $24-$26 $26-$29
Total $211 -$221 $275-$285 $270-$282 $297-$315
* The upper end of the range of wastewater and water costs provides for more generous estimating
contingency
Table 4: Estimated County Portion of Infrastructure Needs (in $millions) 2000-2020
Plan Option by Growth Forecast
Infrastructure Modest Investment Enhanced Investment
Trend Accelerated Trend Accelerated
Schools $51 $86 $80 $85
Transportation $33 $33 $33 $33
Wastewater * $50 -$58 $50 -$58 $60-$70 $70-$85
Water * $16-$18 $16-$18 $24-$26 $26-$29
Total $150-$160 $185-$195 $197-$209 $214-$232
* The upper end of the range of wastewater and water costs provides for more generous estimating
contingency
Infrastructure Costs as Compared to Past County Investment
The following Figures 1 and 2 show the County’s historical investment in infrastructure.
Figures 3 and 4 show the estimated cost of the plan options versus the historical
investment levels.
Figure 1: County’s Historical Investment in Infrastructure (FY 1990-1999)
$16
$14
$12
$10
$8
$6
$4
$2
$0
FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY
90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
Fiscal Year
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Page - 11
)snoilliM
$
ni(
serutidnepxE
latipaC
Schools
Sewer
Roads
Water

Figure 2: County’s Average Annual Infrastructure Investment, FY 1990-1999 (in $
millions)
WATER
$0.86
11%
SEWER
$1.86
23%
SCHOOLS
$4.88
60%
ROADS
$0.50
6%
Figure 3: Historical Investment vs. Plan Option (in $millions)
$250
$200
$150
$100
$50
$0
Hist. Inv. Mod Mod Inv. Enh. Inv. Enh.
Inv. Accel. Trend Inv.
Trend Accel.
Plan Option by Growth Factor
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Page - 12
serutidnepxE
Water
Wastewater
Transportation
Schools

Figure 5: Per Capita Infrastructure Investment vs. Plan Options – Based on 2020
Projected Population (in constant dollars)
$250
$214
$200
$159
$148
$150
$131 $121 $128
$100
$50
$0
90-'99 Avr Hist Trend Mod Inv. Mod Inv. Enh. Inv. Enh. Inv.
Line Trend Accel. Trend Accel.
7.0 Preferred Plan Option
The County Commissioners and the Planning Commission reviewed the alternatives
analysis, assumptions and results to understand the trade-offs between plan options. In
the end, the Enhanced Investment option was selected. The Planning consultants and
County staff were directed to develop the draft comprehensive plan based on the
Enhanced Investment option.
Moving to the Next Level of Planning. After successfully laying the groundwork for
rural preservation and designated Growth Areas, the County now needs to move to the
next level of planning by implementing infrastructure to facilitate Growth Area
development and further protect rural character.
Coordinated Land Use and Infrastructure Planning. If the Enhanced Investment
option is pursued, the Comprehensive Plan - the County’s key policy document on land
use and development - will for the first time be linked with infrastructure planning. This
is a major accomplishment.
Commitment to Serve Existing Needs as the Basis for Requiring New Growth to Pay
its Fair Share. As the County continues to grow and attract both small and increasingly
larger-scale developments, it must have a plan in-place that outlines the County’s
commitment to infrastructure investment that serves existing needs and plans for how it
will deal with the impacts related to new growth. Increased investment is needed to serve
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Page - 13

the County’s existing residents and businesses - water service, sewer line replacement
and road enhancements to improve safety and mobility, etc. This is needed so the County
can establish a level of service standard for new growth and in the future, enact planning
tools and adjust impact fees so as to ensure that existing residents don’t pay for the costs
of new growth.
Conserving the Rural Portions of the County. The County must aggressively seek to
attract development to its Growth Areas so that the rural areas can be conserved. While
growth will certainly continue in the County’s rural areas (subject to zoning and Critical
Area laws) based on market forces and preferences, the County needs to provide
infrastructure in the Growth Areas as one way of relieving some of the development
pressures on the rural areas.
Economic Development. Until recent decades, the County’s economy was
predominantly agricultural and water-based. Today, the County is predominantly
residential-based with more than half of working residents commuting to other areas for
employment. The County’s jobs to housing ratio - an indicator of the relative
predominance of jobs versus households - is one of the lowest in the State (only Cecil and
Calvert have lower ratios). One of the key factors in the County’s ability to capture new
job growth will be the careful assessment and investment in infrastructure (sewer, water,
roads, telecommunications and schools) to promote businesses expansion and
development in the County.
Real Infrastructure Constraints Exist. Without increased investment in infrastructure
over the next 20 years, the County will not be able to implement its adopted Growth Area
community plans - there will just not be enough sewer, water or road capacity.
Fostering Inter-jurisdictional and Regional Planning. Growth does not recognize
political boundaries and so our focus on planning should always consider regional and
inter-jurisdictional impacts. The County must continue to work cooperatively with the
independent towns within its boundaries so that the Growth Areas of Centreville and
Queenstown can develop under the County’s smart growth plans. The Enhanced
Infrastructure investment option will foster and necessitate a close working relationship
between governments and their staffs to realize the development of these areas.
Quality of Life. The County must plan for and implement the infrastructure that is
necessary to support and enhance the quality of life that makes the County so attractive.
Amenities such as public gathering places and civic spaces that provide opportunities to
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Page - 14

enhance civic pride and interaction are also an important part of the mix. They can be
provided through joint public/private efforts as part of the development process.
Projections
It was assumed that between 2000-2020 that the County would have approximately 500
new housing units per year, the midpoint between the trend and accelerated growth
projections. At an average of 2.5 persons per household, this equals 1,250 persons per
year.
New jobs are anticipated to form at a rate of 0.9 for each new housing unit for a total of
450 new jobs per year on average.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Page - 15

Attachment A
Description of the Two Plan Alternatives
Two plan options are outlined: Modest Investment and Substantial Investment. Each one
is capsulized under the subheading “Main Premise” and then further described under
other subheadings specific to geographic sub-areas of the County as well as the related
land use, roads, sewer, water, schools and other assumptions.
Option A. Modest Investment
Main Premise
This option identifies the impacts if a current approach is continued. Based on current
infrastructure improvement investment and policies, growth is projected and allocated
assuming little deviation from current policies by the County. In this option, more
development will likely be “pushed” into rural areas by the lack of infrastructure
availability in the Growth Areas, increasing pressures on the County’s agricultural areas.
In addition, lack of public water and sewer service for the Growth Areas will increase the
amount of development on well and septic within the Growth Areas on larger lots. This
will reduce the development potential of the Growth Area and may place additional
development pressures elsewhere.
Rural Northern Portion of the County
(Note: The assumptions for the northern portion of the County are very similar for both
options as these are seen as critically important under any plan option for the County.
However, there are some differences in emphasis.)
Land Use Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)There is a need to provide for some economic and residential development in this
portion of the County and to proactively manage growth pressures from Delaware and
increasing traffic on US 301.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Focus growth in incorporated towns such as Church Hill, Sudlersville and Millington.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Zoning Ordinance is revised to include design standards for cluster developments as
Agricultural district zoning densities remain unchanged.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Zoning Ordinance revised to include a new rural cross-roads commercial zoning
district for unincorporated communities like Kingstown and Crumpton.
(cid:1)(cid:2)TDR and non-contiguous development techniques are revised to better facilitate
agricultural preservation and large contiguous blocks of the most tillable soils.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment A
Page - 16

Transportation Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Assume minimal County investment in improving roads in rural areas beyond routine
maintenance.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Actively pursue State-funded improvement of the dangerous US 301 intersections to
interchanges.
Sewer and Water Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)No expansion of public sewer and water facilities except limited town annexations to
the extent sewer and water capacity exists.
Schools Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Assume the current dependency on relocatable classrooms is maintained and that
School District lines are redrawn as necessary to balance out school capacity with
enrollment to reduce the need for new schools County-wide.
Stevensville, Chester, Kent Narrows and Grasonville Growth Areas
Land Use Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Assume these areas to capture the majority of Growth Area development.
Transportation Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Assume some improvements to congested intersections but not the extent of the
improvements recommended in the adopted community plans.
Sewer and Water Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Expand the Kent Narrows/Stevensville/Grasonville (KN/S/G) sewer treatment plant
from existing 2 MGD capacity to 3 MGD.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Upgrade the existing KN/S/G sanitary sewer collection system.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Extend sewer service in a phased approach within Growth Areas (some portions may
not be served in the short- or medium-term)
(cid:1)(cid:2)Water service where not present today is limited by Aquia Aquifer withdrawal limits
set by the State. Much of Grasonville is not currently served by public water. Water
from the Magothy Aquifer will cost substantially more to treat than water from Aquia
due to high iron levels.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Expansions to water service will continue in an ad hoc manner.
Schools Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Assume the current dependency of relocatable classrooms is maintained and that
School District lines are redrawn as necessary to balance out school capacity with
enrollment to reduce the need for new schools County-wide.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment A
Page - 17

Queenstown Growth Area
Land Use Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Assume only modest increases in development within Queenstown Growth Area
adjacent to existing sewer and water service based on a general lack of sewer and
water infrastructure availability and limited opportunity for capacity increase (see
sewer and water assumptions below).
Transportation Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Assume some improvements to unsafe or congested intersections but not the extent of
the improvements recommended in the adopted community plan.
Sewer and Water Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Sewer capacity is limited by existing facility size and only modest expansions are
planned. Any expansions of service will be to serve areas adjacent to existing
service.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Explore the possible use of spray irrigation as an alternative for County planned
development areas in the transition area between future town annexation areas and the
County.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Assume water service will continue in an ad hoc manner.
Schools Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Assume the current dependency of relocatable classrooms is maintained and that
School District lines are redrawn as necessary to balance out school capacity with
enrollment to reduce the need for new schools County-wide.
Centreville Growth Area
Land Use Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Market for growth in this Growth Area is not as strong as the western-most Growth
Areas.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Residential buildout calculations for the Centreville Growth Area show a potential of
4,200 to 6,400 additional units based on existing developable lands and zoning. The
current Town plans to expand the treatment plant will only accommodate
approximately 15% of the residential potential.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Show phasing of development out from the existing core Town service area.
Transportation Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Assume some improvements to congested intersections but not the extent of the
improvements recommended in the adopted community plan.
Sewer and Water Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Existing sewer and water capacity is limited. Current Centreville plans to expand the
sewer treatment plant from 375,000 to 500,000 gallons per day capacity will only
accommodate an additional 500 housing units.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment A
Page - 18

(cid:1)(cid:2)Explore the possible use of spray irrigation as an alternative for County planned
development areas in the transition area between future town annexation areas and the
County.
Schools Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Assume the current dependency of relocatable classrooms is maintained and that
School District lines are redrawn as necessary to balance out school capacity with
enrollment to reduce the need for new schools County-wide.
Southern Kent Island (SKI)
Land Use Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Assume the zoning and plan designations for this area will not change.
Transportation Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Improve MD 8 to 4-lanes in the northern portion of Southern Kent Island. Need to
identify funding sources.
Sewer and Water Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Address failing septic areas at Romancoke and Kent Island by extending public sewer
service to this area and very limited other areas to deal with failing septic issues but
do not serve any additional Southern Kent Island areas due to the resultant increase in
traffic volumes along MD 8.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Seek full-cost grant from MDE for access-controlled force main to serve areas of
failing septic and to safeguard water quality, otherwise, the costs will have to be
passed on to Southern Kent Island customers.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Assume water service provided in tandem with new sewer service.
Other Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Address drainage issues through regional stormwater management or a combination
of on-site and regional management approaches.
Dominion and Marling Farms
Land Use Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Assume the zoning and plan designations for this area will not change.
Sewer and Water Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Address failing septic areas in Dominion and Marling Farms South of Chester on MD
552 via connection to a pump station located to the north.
Option B. Substantial Investment Alternative
Main Premise
Plan for and implement the infrastructure necessary to implement the Growth Areas. The
County’s current Comprehensive Plan has identified these areas for development but
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment A
Page - 19

heretofore the County has not planned for or implemented the infrastructure necessary to
permit their development. By investing in infrastructure, the County can expect to
accommodate more of its growth in existing communities and thus decrease pressures on
the County’s important but fragile agricultural economy and way of life.
Rural Northern Portion of the County
(Note: The assumptions for the northern portion of the County are very similar for both
options as these are seen as critically important under any plan option for the County.
However, there are some differences in emphasis.)
Land Use Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)There is a need to provide for some economic and residential development in this
portion of the County and to proactively manage growth pressures from Delaware and
increasing traffic on US 301.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Focus growth in incorporated towns such as Church Hill, Sudlersville and Millington.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Zoning Ordinance is revised to include design standards for cluster developments as
agricultural district zoning densities remain unchanged.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Zoning Ordinance revised to include a new rural cross-roads commercial zoning
district for unincorporated communities like Kingstown and Crumpton.
(cid:1)(cid:2)TDR and non-contiguous development techniques are revised to better facilitate
agricultural preservation.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Additional County funding is earmarked to purchase easements on agricultural lands.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Scenic roadways and viewsheds designated and protected especially MD 213 and MD
18 north of US 301.
Transportation Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Assume minimal County investment in improving roads in rural areas beyond routine
maintenance.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Consider implementing a level of service requirement (at a higher level of service
than for more developed Growth Areas) for new subdivision approvals to reduce the
strain on State and County roads and phase development with available road capacity.
Sewer and Water Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)No expansion of public sewer and water facilities except limited town annexations to
the extent sewer and water capacity exists.
Schools Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Carefully scrutinized the location of new, currently unplanned schools in the northern
area so as to limit incentives for extensive rural area development.
Stevensville, Chester, Kent Narrows and Grasonville Growth Areas
Land Use Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Identify and preserve key areas for employment.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment A
Page - 20

(cid:1)(cid:2)Consider relocation of the Bay Bridge Airport and redevelopment/reservation of that
prime land for employment uses long-term.
(cid:1)(cid:2)As older strip retail becomes obsolete along US 50/301 and MD 18, consider County
purchase and land banking of these for future employment.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Consider the development of a conference center/hotel facility.
Transportation Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Implement the road improvements recommended in the adopted Growth Area plans
(cid:1)(cid:2)Establish level of service standards for Growth Areas and phase development with the
available road capacity, but ensure that development in Growth Areas is not made
prohibitively costly, resulting in leapfrogging to rural areas or to well and septic
development within Growth Areas.
Sewer and Water Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Expand the KN/S/G wastewater treatment plant capacity initially to 3 MGD then to 4
MGD and ultimately to 5 MGD.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Serve all of these Growth Areas with public sewer service.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Upgrade the existing KN/S/G sanitary sewer collection system.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Drill new deeper wells in Queenstown and tie-in to an upgraded and integrated
existing water system to provide enhanced water service to Queenstown, Grasonville,
Kent Narrows, Chester and Stevensville.
Schools Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Revisit enrollment projections based on both existing trends & accelerated growth
rates.
Queenstown Growth Area
Land Use Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Consider establishment of an enterprise zone in Queenstown.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Actively pursue a Federal telecommuting center for Queenstown or Centreville.
Transportation Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Implement the community plan road improvement recommendations.
Sewer and Water Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Drill new deeper wells in Queenstown and tie-in the existing water system to provide
enhanced water service to Queenstown, Grasonville, Kent Narrows, Chester and
Stevensville.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Connect Queenstown Growth Area into the KN/S/G sewer treatment plant.
Schools Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Revisit enrollment projections based on both existing trends & accelerated growth
rates.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment A
Page - 21

Centreville Growth Area
Land Use Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Actively pursue a Federal telecommuting center for Queenstown or Centreville.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Through agreement between the Town and County, plan for and implement a
substantial expansion to the town’s sewer treatment capacity to facilitate development
of this Growth Area.
Transportation Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Implement the community plan road improvement recommendations as well as others
deemed necessary.
Sewer and Water Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Expand the wastewater treatment plant capacity to 1 MGD and develop wells to serve
Growth Area in a phased approach.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Provide sewer service to the County facilities and employment uses at the US
301/MD 304 intersection.
Schools Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Revisit enrollment projections based on both existing trends & accelerated growth
rates.
Southern Kent Island (SKI)
Land Use Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Assume the zoning and plan designations for this area will not change but that
because of sewer service extensions to address failing septic systems, some additional
growth will occur.
Transportation Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Improve MD 8 to 4-lanes in the middle and northern portion of Southern Kent Island.
Identify funding sources.
Sewer and Water Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Address failing septic areas at Romancoke and Kent Island Estates on Southern Kent
Island by extending public sewer service to this area and perhaps some small
additional areas but do not “open up” the rest of the area.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Seek funding from MDE for access-restrained force main to serve areas of failing
septic and to safeguard water quality, otherwise cost will have to be passed on to
Southern Kent Island customers. Because of additional growth capacity, this cost to
residents will be somewhat less than in the Modest Investment option.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Assume water service provided in tandem with new sewer service.
Schools Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Revisit enrollment projections based on both existing trends & accelerated growth
rates.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment A
Page - 22

Dominion and Marling Farms
Land Use Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Assume the zoning and plan designations for this area will not change.
Sewer and Water Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)Address failing septic areas in Dominion and Marling Farms south of Chester on MD
552 via connection to a pump station located to the north.
Other Assumptions and Preliminary Implementation Ideas
(cid:1)(cid:2)County to consider subsidizing work force training courses at Chesapeake College for
employees of new or expanded businesses.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Identify a site and purchase land for a second County industrial park.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Aggressively participate in providing telecommunications infrastructure to make the
County more attractive for telecommuting and telecommunications-related
businesses.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Assess tools for stormwater management including on-site techniques such as low
impact development as well as regional approaches.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Review the method used to determine public safety staffing needs to ensure that the
County has a satisfactory ratio of personnel to residents and businesses.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Parks and recreation: focus efforts on providing local and community-level active and
passive recreation parks to serve existing and new residents. Also maintain regional
park and water access efforts for eco-tourism and economic development.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Need to establish a rail policy so if major rail lines are deemed excess by the rail
companies, the County will have a process in place to decide whether to purchase the
track and right-of-way for continued rail use or alternative transportation and
recreation or both.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment A
Page - 23

Attachment B
Projections for Queen Anne’s County
Introduction
For the purposes of testing the impacts of the two planning options for the County, the
Comprehensive Plan consultants developed 20-year housing unit and job projections.
This description explains the methodology and assumptions made for each plan option:
Modest Investment and Enhanced Investment.
For each of these two plan options, the consultant team developed two housing
projections: one assuming 400 new units coming on line per year (reflecting the ten-year
average) and one at an accelerated level of 600 units per year. The level of job creation is
varied by plan alternative reflecting the different emphasis of the two options.
The review of the projection methodology below first outlines the Modest Investment
alternative followed by the Enhanced Investment option. Tables for the annual and the
20-year projects follow these written descriptions.
Option A, Modest Investment
Trend Growth (400 Units/Year)
The following information was used to make projections for this plan option:
(cid:1)(cid:2)Previous trends based on 10-year housing permits for the allocation of units by
County sub-area.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Projected capacity constraints of sanitary sewer treatment plants to serve Growth
Areas.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Total jobs projected using a job to housing ratio for new development. Sub-area
allocation based on the availability of vacant non-residentially zoned land.
Residential
The residential allocation is based largely on the past 10-year trend in residential building
permits by election district and the projected availability (or lack of) public utilities,
specifically public sewer service. Within Election Districts 3, 4, and 5 the projected
residential development was allocated between the Growth Areas and non-Growth Area
portions of the Districts. Residential development for the other County Election Districts
was also projected. Table 1 shows the assumptions made about the capture for each
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment B
Page - 24

election district and the percentage and number split between Growth and non-Growth
Areas in Election Districts 3, 4, and 5.
Since sewer service under this plan option will be more constrained, it is assumed that
some development will be deflected to non-Growth Areas and that within the Growth
Areas, some residential development will occur on well and septic on larger lots.
All existing improved lots within Kent Island Estates and Romanoke are assumed to gain
sewer service to address long-standing and serious problems with failing septic systems
and potential harm to the ground water supply. In addition, another 475 additional
unimproved lots in this area are assumed to gain access to public sewer. This number is
based on the assumption of maximum lot consolidation based on existing patterns of
common ownership in the area.
Non-Residential
For the non-residential development, this plan option assumes that Growth Area
infrastructure constraints will hamper employment growth in the County. We assume an
overall County jobs to housing ratio of approximately 0.60 -- a rather low ratio reflecting
the County's continued development as a residential community with a large proportion
of the working population commuting to other jurisdictions for employment. Jobs were
then allocated at the sub-county level based on the relative proportion of total available
and undeveloped non-residentially zoned land within each election district and Growth
Area.
Accelerated Growth (600 Units/Year)
Residential
The 600 units per year were allocated based on the availability of public sewer and
increased the residential capture of the northern County election districts and the
Queenstown and Centreville Growth Areas to a greater extent than the Chester,
Stevensville, Kent Narrows and Grasonville Growth Areas. As with the trend growth
above, all existing improved lots within Kent Island Estates and Romanoke are assumed
to gain sewer service to address long-standing and serious problems with failing septic
systems and potential harm to the ground water supply. In addition, another 475
additional unimproved lots in this area are assumed to gain access to public sewer. This
number is based on the assumption of maximum lot consolidation based on existing
patterns of common ownership in the area.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment B
Page - 25

Non-Residential
The overall County jobs to housing ratio was held at 0.60. At the sub-county level, job
allocations were assumed to be based on the proportional reservoir of available and
undeveloped employment lands.
Option B, Enhanced Investment
Trend Growth (400 Units/year)
Residential
Since this plan option assumes a more expansive public sewer system to serve the
Growth Areas, more development is assumed to occur in the Growth Areas than under
the Modest Investment Option. In addition, all development within the Growth Areas is
assumed to occur on public sewer.
As with the Modest Investment Option, all existing improved lots within Kent Island
Estates and Romanoke are assumed to gain sewer service to address long-standing and
serious problems with failing septic systems and potential harm to the ground water
supply. In addition, another 475 additional unimproved lots in this area are assumed to
gain access to public sewer. This number is based on the assumption of maximum lot
consolidation based on existing patterns of common ownership in the area.
Non-Residential
As with the Modest Investment Option, an overall jobs to housing ratio is assumed and
then sub-County allocations are projected. However, in this option, a jobs to housing
ratio of approximately 0.90 is used since the County is assumed to be able to attract more
employment because of the availability of public infrastructure and intensified support
for business formation. Since there are more jobs overall then in the Modest Investment
Option, a substantial number of jobs are also added to the County's other areas.
Accelerated Growth (600 Units/Year)
Residential
As the Stevensville, Chester, Kent Narrows and Grasonville Growth Areas mature, this
option assumes that Queenstown and Centreville will develop at an overall higher
proportional rate. Development also increases in the northern portion of the County and
other non-Growth Areas.
As above, all existing improved lots within Kent Island Estates and Romancoke are
assumed to gain sewer service to address long-standing and serious problems with failing
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment B
Page - 26

septic systems and potential harm to the ground water supply. In addition, another 475
additional unimproved lots in this area are assumed to gain access to public sewer. This
number is based on the assumption of maximum lot consolidation based on existing
patterns of common ownership in the area.
Non-Residential
The overall jobs to housing ratio of the new development is assumed to remain at 0.90
but because of the higher number of housing units, the job growth will also be higher
than the Trend Growth option.
Tables 2 and 3 show the assumed annual housing unit and job growth by County sub-
area and the percentage of the growth occurring in the County's Growth Areas for both
plan options. Tables 4 and 5 show the growth for the 20-year planning horizon and the
percent of the development assumed to be served by public sewer.
Table 1: Sub-area Residential Allocation Assumption, Modest Investment
ED Annual Allocation by Number Allocated
Historic Permits Percent of 400 (Rounded)
Election District 4
Assumed Capture 190
Stevensville GA 35% 65
Chester GA 35% 65
Kent Narrows GA 10% 20
Assumed Part in Growth 80% 150
Areas
Assumed Part in Other 20% 40
Election District 5
Assumed Capture 80
Grasonville GA 80% 65
Queenstown GA 5% 5
Assumed Part in Growth 85% 70
Areas
Assumed Part in Other 15% 10
Election District 3
Assumed Capture 40
Centreville GA 50% 20
Assumed Part in Other 50% 20
Election District 1 20 100% 20
Election District 2 20 100% 20
Election District 6 20 100% 20
Election District 7 30 100% 30
Total 400 400
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment B
Page - 27

Table 2: Annual Projections, Trend Growth (400 Units/year)
Modest Investment, Enhanced Investment,
Trend Growth Trend Growth
Units Jobs Units Jobs
Stevensville, Chester,
Kent Narrows,
Grasonville 215 70 235 230
Queenstown 5 15 25 25
Centreville 25 35 45 35
Total Growth Areas 245 120 305 290
All Other Areas
ED 1 20 10 10 10
ED 2 20 30 10 15
ED 3 15 20 10 15
ED 4 40 10 25 10
ED 5 10 20 10 5
ED 6 20 10 10 10
ED 7 30 30 20 20
Total Other Areas 155 130 95 85
Total 400 250 400 375
% in Growth Areas 61% 48% 76% 77%
Table 3: Annual Projections, Accelerated Growth (600 Units/Year)
Modest Investment, Enhanced Investment,
Accelerated Growth Accelerated Growth
Units Jobs Units Jobs
Stevensville, Chester,
Kent Narrows,
Grasonville 260 105 295 285
Queenstown 10 20 50 50
Centreville 45 55 90 70
Total Growth Areas 315 180 435 405
All Other Areas
ED 1 35 20 20 15
ED 2 35 40 20 30
ED 3 30 30 20 25
ED 4 75 20 40 10
ED 5 20 20 10 15
ED 6 35 20 20 15
ED 7 55 45 35 35
Total Other Areas 285 195 165 145
Total 600 375 600 550
% in Growth Areas 53% 48% 73% 74%
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment B
Page - 28

Table 4: 20-Year Projections, Trend Growth
Modest Investment, Trend Growth Enhanced Investment, Trend Growth
Units % Served Jobs % Served Units % Served Jobs % Served
by Sewer by Sewer by Sewer by Sewer
Stevensville, Chester,
Kent Narrows,
Grasonville 4,300 72% 1,400 100% 4,700 100% 4,600 100%
Queenstown 100 0% 300 0% 500 100% 500 100%
Centreville 500 80% 700 57% 900 100% 700 100%
Total Growth Areas 4,900 71% 2,400 75% 6,100 100% 5,800 100%
All Other Areas
ED 1 400 0% 200 0% 200 0% 200 0%
ED 2 400 0% 600 0% 200 0% 300 0%
ED 3 300 0% 400 0% 200 0% 300 0%
ED 4 800 65% 200 0% 500 100% 200 0%
ED 5 200 0% 400 0% 200 0% 100 0%
ED 6 400 0% 200 0% 200 0% 200 0%
ED 7 600 0% 600 0% 400 0% 400 0%
Total Other Areas 3,100 26% 2,600 0% 1,900 26% 1,700 0%
Total 8,000 54% 5,000 36% 8,000 83% 7,500 77%
% in Growth Areas 61% 48% 76% 77%
Table 5: 20-Year Projection, Accelerated Growth
Modest Investment, Accelerated Enhanced Investment, Accelerated
Growth Growth
Units % Served Jobs % Served Units % Served Jobs % Served
by Sewer by Sewer by Sewer by Sewer
Stevensville, Chester,
Kent Narrows,
Grasonville 5,200 60% 2,100 67% 5,900 100% 5,700 100%
Queenstown 200 0% 400 0% 1,000 100% 1,000 100%
Centreville 900 44% 1,100 36% 1,800 100% 1,400 100%
Total Growth Areas 6,300 56% 3,600 50% 8.700 100% 8.100 100%
All Other Areas
ED 1 700 0% 400 0% 400 0% 300 0%
ED 2 700 0% 800 0% 400 0% 600 0%
ED 3 600 0% 600 0% 400 0% 500 0%
ED 4 1,500 35% 400 0% 800 65% 200 0%
ED 5 400 0% 400 0% 200 0% 300 0%
ED 6 700 0% 400 0% 400 0% 300 0%
ED 7 1,100 0% 900 0% 700 0% 700 0%
Total Other Areas 5,700 26% 3,900 0% 3,300 24% 2,900 0%
Total 12,000 42% 7,500 24% 12,000 79% 11,000 74%
% in Growth Areas 53% 48% 73% 74%
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment B
Page - 29

Attachment C
Schools Projections Methodology and Estimated Costs
The following narrative describes the methodology used to convert household projections
to public school enrollment projections and related capital expenditures. The first two
steps project the annual increase in public school pupil generation by Election District
(Tables 1, 2, & 3). In step 3, these projections were converted to School Districts to
complete the analysis.
1 The projected new housing units by Election District were disaggregated into single-
family and multi-family units. A split of approximately 15% multi-family and 85%
single-family was used. (In 1990, the split was 14% to 86%). All the multi-family
units were assumed to be in Election Districts 3, 4, and 5. Table 1 shows the annual
single-family and multi-family units by plan option. As the reader will recall, the
plan options are defined as: A. Modest Investment and B. Enhanced Investment.
For each option, two growth rates are assumed: Trend Growth (at 400 units per year)
and Accelerated Growth (600 units per year).
2 To project the pupil generation by type of dwelling unit, the plan consultants used
factors developed in 1996 by Tischler & Associates, Inc. as part of that firm's in-
depth analysis of the County's levels of service standards for a fiscal impact study
and recommendations. However, these factors were augmented by approximately
1.3 times the Tischler factors to more accurately reflect the County’s pupil
generation rates. These adjusted factors (see Table 2) were multiplied by the
projected new units to yield the new pupil generation. Table 3 shows the resulting
projected annual enrollment increase.
3 In this step the projections by Election District were assigned to School Districts.
Since there is only some convergence between election districts and School
Districts, a best fit was approximated. This is probably adequate given the level of
this analysis and the understanding that School Districts can and may change in the
future. Table 4 shows the assumed cross-tabulation between election and School
Districts. The School Districts are named for the school within the district.
4 Tables 5 through 8 show the projected new students, existing School District
capacity and projected surpluses or shortages. This analysis is completed under two
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment C
Page - 30

different assumptions. One assumes no change in the current use of relocatables and
one the other assumes no relocatables. For this analysis, it was assumed that
“existing” capacity and existing relocatable capacity include the currently
programmed improvements to several schools and two new schools: the third
elementary school on Kent Island and a Kent Island-Grasonville middle school.
Table 1: Annual Single Family & Multi-Family Units by Plan Option
Option A: Modest Investment, Trend Growth
Election District Total Units SF Units MF Units
1 20 20 0
2 20 20 0
3 40 33 7
4 200 166 34
5 70 58 12
6 20 20 0
7 30 30 0
Totals 400 347 53
Option A: Modest Investment, Accelerated Growth
1 35 35 0
2 35 35 0
3 75 62 14
4 270 221 49
5 95 78 17
6 35 35 0
7 55 55 0
Totals 600 521 79
Option B: Enhanced Investment, Trend Growth
1 10 10 0
2 10 10 0
3 55 47 8
4 25 21 4
5 270 229 41
6 10 10 0
7 20 20 0
Totals 400 347 53
Option B: Enhanced Investment, Accelerated Growth
1 20 20 0
2 20 20 0
3 110 92 18
4 40 34 6
5 355 298 57
6 20 20 0
7 35 35 0
Totals 600 520 80
Source: LDR International, Inc
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment C
Page - 31

Table 2: Pupil Generation Factor by Type of Dwelling Unit
Level SF MF
Elementary School 0.24518 0.16717
Middle School 0.12259 0.08918
High School 0.12259 0.08918
Total 0.5 0.3
Source: Tischler & Associates, Inc
Table 3: Projected Annual Enrollment Increase
Option A: Modest Investment, Trend Growth
Election District Elementary Middle High Total
School School School
1 5 2 2
2 5 2 2
3 9 5 5
4 46 23 23
5 16 8 8
6 5 2 2
7 7 4 4
Totals 94 47 47 189
Option A: Modest Investment, Accelerated Growth
1 9 4 4
2 9 4 4
3 17 9 9
4 62 31 31
5 22 11 11
6 9 4 4
7 13 7 7
Totals 141 71 71 283
Option B: Enhanced Investment, Trend Growth
1 2 1 1
2 2 1 1
3 13 6 6
4 47 24 24
5 22 11 11
6 2 1 1
7 5 2 2
Totals 94 47 47 189
Option B: Enhanced Investment, Accelerated Growth
1 5 2 2
2 5 2 2
3 26 13 13
4 61 31 31
5 31 16 16
6 5 2 2
7 9 4 4
Totals 141 71 71 283
Source: LDR International, Inc.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment C
Page - 32

Table 4: Election School District Cross-Tab
School District Election
District
Elementary School Districts
Kent Island 4
Grasonville 5
Centreville 3, 6
Church Hill 7
Sudlersville 1
Middle School Districts
Stevensville 4
Centreville 3, 5, 6
Sudlersville 1, 2, 7
High School Districts
Kent Island 4, 5
Queen Anne's 1, 2, 3, 6, 7
Source: LDR International, Inc.
Tables 5 through 8 show the need for new schools by plan option and growth. The
analysis uses the County’s specifications for new school capacity of 600 students for an
elementary school, 800 for a middle school and 1,200 students for a high school. This
analysis indicates where new schools are likely to be needed by school level and plan
option. The following summarizes the findings shown on the tables.
Elementary Schools
Option A: Modest Investment, Trend Growth
(cid:1)(cid:2)Need for one additional Kent Island elementary school within the 20-year horizon
assuming the retention of existing relocatable capacity (it would be two if relocatable
capacity were replaced). This is in addition to the already programmed third
elementary school on Kent Island.
(cid:1)(cid:2)The Grasonville District will be substantially over-capacity but can be handled with
relocatable units.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Centreville and Sudlersville Districts will both be substantially over-capacity.
(cid:1)(cid:2)The Church Hill District is projected to be just below capacity.
Summary: Therefore, our estimate includes three new schools to serve the needs of the
Kent Island, Centreville and Sudlersville Districts and relocatable units to serve the needs
of the Grasonville District.
Option A: Modest Investment, Accelerated Growth
(cid:1)(cid:2)Strong need for two additional Kent Island elementary schools within the 20-year
horizon. This is in addition to the already programmed third elementary school on
Kent Island.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment C
Page - 33

(cid:1)(cid:2)Need for an additional elementary school in the Grasonville District.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Need for an additional school in both the Centreville and Sudlersville School
Districts.
(cid:1)(cid:2)The Church Hill District is projected to have a slight capacity shortfall by the end of
the 20-year horizon.
Summary: Based on the above analysis, the new schools estimate includes two new
schools to serve Kent Island, one new school to serve the Grasonville District, one new
school for the Centreville District and one new school for the Sudlersville District. Two
relocatable units are assumed to serve the Church Hill District.
Option B: Enhanced Investment, Trend Growth
(cid:1)(cid:2)Two new schools in the Kent Island District assuming no use of relocatables. This is
in addition to the already programmed third elementary school on Kent Island.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Substantial capacity shortages in Grasonville and Centreville Districts, with less
severe capacity shortages in the Sudlersville District. Some surplus capacity
projected in the Church Hill District.
Summary: Based on the above analysis, two new schools are assumed for the Kent Island
District, one for the Grasonville District and one for the Centreville District. Relocatable
units are assumed to handle the need in the Sudlersville District.
Option B: Enhanced Investment, Accelerated Growth
(cid:1)(cid:2)Need for two new schools in the Kent Island District assuming no use of relocatables.
This is in addition to the already programmed third elementary school on Kent Island.
(cid:1)(cid:2)The Grasonville District will also have a substantial capacity shortfall, requiring a
new school.
(cid:1)(cid:2)New school is warranted for the Centreville District.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Substantial capacity shortfall is projected in the Sudlersville District, necessitating a
new school.
(cid:1)(cid:2)The Church Hill District is projected to have a slight capacity surplus.
Summary: Based on the above analysis, two new schools for the Kent Island District
(assuming no use of relocatables), one for the Grasonville District, one for the Centreville
District and one for the Sudlersville District.
Middle Schools
Option A: Modest Investment, Trend Growth
(cid:1)(cid:2)The Centreville District is projected to have a capacity shortfall, the Sudlersville
District will have a slight capacity shortfall, and the Kent Island District will have a
substantial capacity surplus because of the programmed Kent Island-Grasonville new
school.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment C
Page - 34

Summary: Given these projections, no new schools are anticipated. Relocatable units are
assumed to be used in the Centreville and Sudlersville Districts.
Option A: Modest Investment, Accelerated Growth
(cid:1)(cid:2)A substantial capacity shortfall is projected for the Centreville District.
(cid:1)(cid:2)The Sudlersville District is projected to have a less severe shortfall than the
Centreville District.
(cid:1)(cid:2)A substantial capacity surplus is projected in the Kent Island District.
Summary: Based on the above analysis, one new school to serve the Centreville District
is projected to be needed. Relocatables are assumed to be used in the Sudlersville
District.
Option B: Enhanced Investment, Trend Growth
(cid:1)(cid:2)Capacity shortfall projected in the Centreville District.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Substantial capacity surplus in the Kent Island District and a slight capacity surplus in
the Sudlersville District.
Summary: Based on the above analysis, one new school assumed for the Centreville
District.
Option B: Enhanced Investment, Accelerated Growth
(cid:1)(cid:2)Substantial capacity shortage is projected in the Centreville District.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Capacity surplus projected in the Kent Island District.
(cid:1)(cid:2)A slight capacity shortfall is projected in the Sudlersville District but not enough to
warrant a new school.
Summary: Based on the above analysis, one new school is projected for the Centreville
District. Relocatable units are assumed for the Sudlersville District.
High Schools
Option A: Modest Investment, Trend Growth
(cid:1)(cid:2)The Kent Island District is projected to have a capacity shortfall and Queen Anne's
District is projected to operate only slightly above capacity by the end of the
planning.
Summary: No new schools are projected; relocatable units are assumed to address
shortages at Kent Island and Queen Anne’s Districts.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment C
Page - 35

Option A: Modest Investment, Accelerated Growth
(cid:1)(cid:2)Kent Island District is projected to have a substantial capacity shortfall whereas the
Queen Anne’s District shortfall will be less severe.
Summary: One new school is assumed for the Kent Island District; relocatables are
assumed to address the Queen Anne’s District capacity shortfall.
Option B: Enhanced Investment, Trend Growth
(cid:1)(cid:2)Kent Island District is projected to have a capacity shortfall. The Queen Anne’s
District is projected to have a very slight capacity shortfall by the end of the planning
horizon.
Summary: One new school is projected for the Kent Island District.
Option B: Enhanced Investment, Accelerated Growth
(cid:1)(cid:2)The Kent Island District is projected to have a substantial capacity shortfall.
(cid:1)(cid:2)The Queen Anne’s District shortfall will be more minimal than the Kent Island
District.
Summary: One new high school is assumed for the Kent Island District; relocatable units
to address the shortfall in the Queen Anne’s District.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment C
Page - 36

Table 5: Option A – Modest Investment with Trend Growth
Projected Enrollment by School District
Annual Projected (Shortfall)/ New Schools
Increase 20 Year. Enrollment: Projected Existing Capacity Surplus New Schools Needed
in Increase in 1999 Increase + Existing (Shortfall) Relocatable w/out w/out Needed w/ w/out
Students Students Enrollment existing Capacity 1 / Surplus Capacity 2 Relocatables Relocatables Relocatables Relocatables
Elementary
School District
Kent Island 46 928 1,351 2,279 1,645 (634) 260 1,385 (894) 1.1 1.5
Grasonville 16 324 335 659 500 (159) 0 500 (159) 0.3 0.3
Centreville 14 284 776 1,060 819 (214) 0 819 (241) 0.4 0.4
Church Hill 5 98 264 362 399 37 0 399 37 (0.1) (0.1)
Sudlersville 12 245 383 628 349 (279) 0 349 (279) 0.5 0.5
Total 94 1,879 3,109 4,988 3,712 (1,276) 260 3,452 (1,536) 2.1 2.6
Middle School
District
Stevensville 23 468 747 1,215 1,600 385 0 1,600 385 (0.5) (0.5)
Centreville 15 306 591 897 725 (172) 40 685 (212) 0.2 0.3
Sudlersville 9 172 330 502 450 (52) 0 450 (52) 0.1 0.1
Total 47 946 1,668 2,614 2,775 161 40 2,735 121 (0.2) (0.2)
High School
District
Kent Island 32 631 929 1,560 1,200 (360) 0 1,200 (360) 0.3 0.3
Queen Anne’s 16 314 968 1,282 1,247 (35) 0 1,247 (35) 0.03 0.03
Total 47 946 1,897 2,843 2,447 (396) 0 2,447 (396) 0.3 0.3
Source: LDR International, Inc.
Notes:
Assumed Capacities of New Facilities:
600 Elementary School
800 Middle School
1,200 High School
1 Includes a third elementary school on Kent Island, a new MS (KI-Grasonville), and upgrades to Sudlersville ES and MS, Centreville ES which are programmed in CIP
2 Relocatables at Kennard & Sudlersville ES &MS and Queen Anne’s HS assumed to be removed when expansion completed.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment C
Page - 37

Table 6: Option A – Modest Investment with Accelerated Growth
Projected Enrollment by School District
Annual Projected (Shortfall)/ New Schools
Increase 20 Year. Enrollment: Projected Existing Capacity Surplus New Schools Needed
in Increase in 1999 Increase + Existing (Shortfall) Relocatable w/out w/out Needed w/ w/out
Students Students Enrollment existing Capacity 1 / Surplus Capacity 2 Relocatables Relocatables Relocatables Relocatables
Elementary
School District
Kent Island 62 1,248 1,351 2,599 1,645 (954) 260 1,385 (1,214) 1.6 2.0
Grasonville 22 439 335 774 500 (274) 0 500 (274) 0.5 0.5
Centreville 26 518 776 1,294 819 (475) 0 819 (475) 0.8 0.8
Church Hill 9 172 264 436 399 (37) 0 399 (37) 0.06 0.06
Sudlersville 22 441 383 824 349 (475) 0 349 (475) 0.8 0.8
Total 141 2,819 3,109 5,928 3,712 (2,216) 260 3,452 (2,476) 3.7 4.1
Middle School
District
Stevensville 31 630 747 1,377 1,600 223 0 1,600 223 (0.3) (0.3)
Centreville 24 482 591 1,073 725 (348) 40 685 (388) 0.4 0.49
Sudlersville 15 306 330 636 450 (186) 0 450 (186) 0.2 0.2
Total 71 1,418 1,668 3,086 2,775 (311) 40 2,735 (351) 0.4 0.4
High School
District
Kent Island 43 851 929 1,780 1,200 (580) 0 1,200 (580) 0.5 0.5
Queen Anne’s 28 567 968 1,535 1,247 (288) 0 1,247 (288) 0.24 0.24
Total 71 1,418 1,897 3,315 2,447 (868) 0 2,447 (868) 0.7 0.7
Source: LDR International, Inc.
Notes:
Assumed Capacities of New Facilities:
600 Elementary School
800 Middle School
1,200 High School
1 Includes a third elementary school on Kent Island, a new MS (KI-Grasonville), and upgrades to Sudlersville ES and MS, Centreville ES which are programmed in CIP
2 Relocatables at Kennard & Sudlersville ES &MS and Queen Anne’s HS assumed to be removed when expansion completed.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment C
Page - 38

Table 7: Option B – Enhanced Investment with Trend Growth
Projected Enrollment by School District
Annual Projected (Shortfall)/ New Schools
Increase 20 Year. Enrollment: Projected Existing Capacity Surplus New Schools Needed
in Increase in 1999 Increase + Existing (Shortfall) Relocatable w/out w/out Needed w/ w/out
Students Students Enrollment existing Capacity 1 / Surplus Capacity 2 Relocatables Relocatables Relocatables Relocatables
Elementary
School District
Kent Island 47 934 1,351 2,285 1,645 (640) 260 1,385 (900) 1.1 1.5
Grasonville 22 443 335 778 500 (278 0 500 (278) 0.5 0.5
Centreville 15 306 776 1,082 819 (263) 0 819 (263) 0.4 0.4
Church Hill 2 49 264 313 399 86 0 399 86 (0.1) (0.1)
Sudlersville 7 147 383 530 349 (181) 0 349 (181) 0.3 0.3
Total 94 1,880 3,109 4,989 3,712 (1,277) 260 3,452 (1,537) 2.1 2.6
Middle School
District
Stevensville 24 470 747 1,217 1,600 383 0 1,600 383 (0.5) (0.5)
Centreville 19 377 591 968 725 (243) 40 685 (283) 0.3 0.4
Sudlersville 5 98 330 428 450 22 0 450 22 (0.0) (0.0)
Total 47 946 1,668 2,614 2,775 161 40 2,735 121 (0.2) (0.2)
High School
District
Kent Island 35 694 929 1,623 1,200 (423) 0 1,200 (423) 0.4 0.4
Queen Anne’s 13 252 968 1,220 1,247 27 0 1,247 27 (0.02) (0.02)
Total 47 946 1,897 2,843 2,447 (396) 0 2,447 (396) 0.3 0.3
Source: LDR International, Inc.
Notes:
Assumed Capacities of New Facilities:
600 Elementary School
800 Middle School
1,200 High School
1 Includes a third elementary school on Kent Island, a new MS (KI-Grasonville), and upgrades to Sudlersville ES and MS, Centreville ES which are programmed in CIP
2 Relocatables at Kennard & Sudlersville ES &MS and Queen Anne’s HS assumed to be removed when expansion completed.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment C
Page - 39

Table 8: Option B – Enhanced Investment with Accelerated Growth
Projected Enrollment by School District
Annual Projected (Shortfall)/ New Schools
Increase 20 Year. Enrollment: Projected Existing Capacity Surplus New Schools Needed
in Increase in 1999 Increase + Existing (Shortfall) Relocatable w/out w/out Needed w/ w/out
Students Students Enrollment existing Capacity 1 / Surplus Capacity 2 Relocatables Relocatables Relocatables Relocatables
Elementary
School District
Kent Island 61 1,213 1,351 2,564 1,645 (919) 260 1,385 (1,179) 1.5 2.0
Grasonville 31 629 335 964 500 (464) 0 500 (464) 0.8 0.8
Centreville 31 610 776 1,386 819 (567) 0 819 (567) 0.9 0.9
Church Hill 5 98 264 362 399 37 0 399 37 (0.1) (0.1)
Sudlersville 13 270 383 653 349 (340) 0 349 (304) 0.5 0.5
Total 141 2,820 3,109 5,929 3,712 (2,217) 260 3,452 (2,477) 3.7 4.1
Middle School
District
Stevensville 31 611 747 1,358 1,600 242 0 1,600 242 (0.3) (0.3)
Centreville 31 624 591 1,215 725 (490) 40 685 (530) 0.6 0.7
Sudlersville 9 184 330 514 450 (64) 0 450 (64) 0.08 0.08
Total 71 1,419 1,668 3,087 2,775 (312) 40 2,735 (352) 0.4 0.4
High School
District
Kent Island 46 928 929 1,857 1,200 (657) 0 1,200 (657) 0.5 0.5
Queen Anne’s 25 491 968 1,459 1,247 (212) 0 1,247 (212) 0.2 0.2
Total 71 1,419 1,897 3,316 2,447 (869) 0 2,447 (869) 0.7 0.7
Source: LDR International, Inc.
Notes:
Assumed Capacities of New Facilities:
600 Elementary School
800 Middle School
1,200 High School
1 Includes a third elementary school on Kent Island, a new MS (KI-Grasonville), and upgrades to Sudlersville ES and MS, Centreville ES which are programmed in CIP
2 Relocatables at Kennard & Sudlersville ES &MS and Queen Anne’s HS assumed to be removed when expansion completed.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment C
Page - 40

Cost Estimates
Based on the above analysis and on information from the County’s Finance Office about
the capital costs associated with the construction of new schools, the following
preliminary cost estimates were developed. The following are the assumed per school
capital costs. Land costs, estimated by LDR, are also included. Also noted is the cost per
relocatable unit (or trailer), which each are assumed to accommodate approximately 20
students.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Elementary School: $8.04 million
(cid:1)(cid:2)Middle School: $12.07 million
(cid:1)(cid:2)High School: $24 million
(cid:1)(cid:2)Relocatable units: $60,000
Listed below are the budgeted capital expenditures for new schools and renovations to
existing facilities that are included in the County’s five-year budget:
(cid:1)(cid:2)Kennard renovation
(cid:1)(cid:2)Sudlersville Elementary School renovation
(cid:1)(cid:2)Queen Anne’s High School renovation
(cid:1)(cid:2)Centreville Elementary School Renovation
(cid:1)(cid:2)New Kent Island Elementary School
(cid:1)(cid:2)New Grasonville-Kent Island Middle School
Table 9 shows the cost estimates by Plan Option and growth rate.
Table 9: Preliminary Cost Estimates (in $ million) 2000 –2020
Modest Investment Enhanced Investment
Trend Growth Accelerated Growth Trend Growth Accelerated Growth
Schools Number Cost Number Cost Number Cost Number Cost
Elementary School 3 $24.1 5 $ 40.2 4 $ 32.1 5 $ 40.1
Middle School 0 $ - 1 $ 12.0 1 $ 12.0 1 $ 12.0
High School 0 $ - 1 $ 24.0 1 24.0 1 $ 24.0
Relocatable Units 56 $ 3.4 25 $ 1.5 9 $ 0.5 14 $ 0.8
Budgeted improvements $ 31.6 $ 31.6 $ 31.6 $ 31.6
Total Schools 3 $ 59.1 7 $ 109.3 6 $ 100.3 7 $ 108.6
* FY 2000 – 2005 budget improvements include: QAC High School, Centreville Elementary School, and
Sudlersville renovations & new Elementary School & new Middle School.
Source: LDR International, Inc.; budgeted improvements from QAC Finance Office
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment C
Page - 41

Attachment D
Transportation Assessment
MEMO TO: Jane Dembner
LDR International, Inc.
FROM: Harvey R. Joyner, P.E.
DATE: November 27, 1999
SUBJECT: Queen Anne’s County Transportation Improvement Needs Associated
With Alternative Planning Options and Growth Forecasts
This memo provides preliminary conclusions on transportation improvement needs for
Queen Anne’s County as related to the Option A (Modest Investment) and Option B
(Enhanced Investment) planning options and Trend and Accelerated growth forecasts for
each planning option. In effect, I assessed four scenarios representing combinations of
planning option and growth forecast:
(cid:1)(cid:2)Modest Investment / Trend Growth
(cid:1)(cid:2)Modest Investment / Accelerated Growth
(cid:1)(cid:2)Enhanced Investment / Trend Growth
(cid:1)(cid:2)Enhanced Investment / Accelerated Growth
The number of jobs added to the County over the next 20 years ranged from a low of
5,000 under the Modest Investment / Trend Growth scenario to 11,000 under the
Enhanced Investment / Accelerated Growth scenario. County growth in households
ranged from 8,000 for Trend Growth to 12,000 for Accelerated Growth with no
difference between planning options.
As a general observation and preview of the results of the needs analysis, transportation
improvements needs do not vary substantially among the four scenarios. In a few cases
the concentration of development under a particular scenario within a constrained area,
such as the southern part of the MD 8 corridor on Kent Island, produced the need for an
improvement uniquely associated with that scenario. However, in most cases the
differences among scenarios were not great enough to produce significantly different
conclusions as to needed transportation facilities.
I have not estimated future traffic on US 50 and US 301. Any future improvements to
these routes will clearly be the State’s responsibility, and because of their role as
important through traffic corridors, growth in through traffic will likely be as significant
(or more so) as the effects of new, local traffic on these routes. Queen Anne’s County
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment D
Page - 42

should ensure that effective alternatives to these routes are developed for local, intra-
county travel, especially during peak summer traffic periods. This is a major reason why
improvements to MD 18, which parallels critical sections of both US 50 and US 301, are
so important to the County.
My assessment also assumes that most of the trips by non-County residents that would be
attracted by retail growth in the Queenstown and Kent Island areas will use these two
primary routes. Thus, the County should pay particular attention to the local routes that
link the retail areas to interchanges on these routes.
Methodology and Basic Assumptions
A sketch planning approach was employed in estimating future transportation
improvement needs for each of the four planning/growth scenarios described above.
An average daily trip generation rate of ten vehicle trips per household was used to
translate growth in households to growth in vehicular travel. This is an average
household trip rate from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ handbook on trip
generation. I don’t know of any hard data on trip generation for Queen Anne’s County,
but I would say that if anything, this is erring on the high side, given my impressions of
the County’s demographics. Trip estimates were then boosted by another 10 percent to
account for non-household travel, such as travel by non-County residents.
Household trips were estimated for subareas, such as the County’s Growth Areas and
those parts of election Districts falling outside the Growth Areas. Trips were aggregated
by major traffic shed and assigned to appropriate routes. Estimated growth in vehicle
trips was added to the latest traffic counts provided by the SHA to produce an estimate of
total future traffic on major routes. Where appropriate, traffic generation from a sector of
the County was split among two or more routes that serve the sector.
After developing rough estimates of future traffic in major corridors, traffic level of
service threshold assumptions were applied to determine improvement needs. Based on
Highway Capacity Manual material and other sources, I used 16,000 ADT as the
threshold for warranting a four-lane cross-section on a State arterial route in developed or
developing areas and 12,000 ADT on a town or County route. Thus, an existing two-lane
State route would warrant widening to four lanes, if traffic growth over the next 20 years
will push its volume over 16,000 ADT. Underlying assumptions include a 60/40
directional split of peak period traffic and a peak hour volume that is 10 percent of the
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment D
Page - 43

ADT. The lower threshold was used for town or County routes because of the likelihood
of more frequent access points, greater roadside friction, and more constrained cross-
sections. These volume relationships reflect roughly level of service (LOS) D on a 2-lane
route, and their use assumes that the roadway system will be planned to operate at LOS D
or better.
The cost of needed improvements was estimated by applying per-mile unit costs to
different types of improvements:
(cid:1)(cid:2)Upgrade an existing substandard two-lane road to an improved cross-section with
shoulders or curb and gutter (as appropriate by area): $2 million/mile.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Widen an existing two-lane road to a four-lane undivided cross-section with
intersection left-turn lanes at roughly a quarter-mile interval: $4 million/mile.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Construct a new, two-lane road with shoulders or curb and gutter and intersection
left-turn lanes at roughly a quarter-mile interval: $3 million/mile.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Construct a new four-lane, undivided road with intersection left-turn lanes at roughly
a quarter-mile interval: $5 million/mile.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Construct a new, diamond interchange with a four-lane road bridging over a four-lane
divided road: $5 million/interchange.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Bridge construction over a stream or river: $160 per square foot of deck.
The above costs exclude right-of-way and environmental mitigation, but include all other
design and construction costs, as well as traffic signalization and signs. They are based
broadly upon SHA cost information, as modified by PTG experience.
The following discussion of transportation needs is broken into three geographic areas:
(cid:1)(cid:2)West County: election Districts 4 and 5.
(cid:1)(cid:2)Central County: election district 3
(cid:1)(cid:2)East County: election districts 1, 2, 6, and 7.
Within each of the three geographic areas, proposed improvements are described by
highway route or corridor, noting any differences in transportation improvements among
the four scenarios.
West County
MD 8 Corridor. The section of MD 8 just south of US 50 now carries 17,000 vehicles
per day, which suggests that it already warrants widening to four lanes. Under all future
scenarios, four-landing is warranted for the northern section of the corridor. I have
assumed that widening would extend 3.4 miles south to Batts Neck Road, which is an
important tributary road on the peninsula. This widening would cost $13.6 million.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment D
Page - 44

South of Batts Neck Road, widening to four lanes will be warranted only under the
Modest Investment / Accelerated Growth scenario, because of the higher growth in
households for this area under that scenario. I have assumed widening south to the
intersection of MD 8 and Kent Point Road, a distance of 3.6 miles, at a cost of $14.4
million.
For the other three scenarios, the existing two-lane road from Batts Neck Road south to
Romancoke should be adequate to meet future needs. The existing road has an excellent
cross-section with paved shoulders and should require only routine resurfacing.
Cost Summary: Modest Investment / Accelerated Growth - $28.0 million
All other scenarios - $13.6 million.
MD 18 (Stevensville Area). The Stevensville Community Plan calls for access and
intersection improvements on MD 18 (Business Parkway and Love Point Road) north of
US 50/301. The combination of MD 18 and Old Love Point Road should be adequate to
accommodate future traffic under any of the scenarios, if the improvements described in
the plan are implemented. It should not be necessary to widen any of these routes to four
lanes. MD 18 should be upgraded to an improved two-lane cross-section with left-turn
lanes at key intersections for the 0.9-mile section between Love Point Road and Old Love
Point Road at a cost of $1.8 million.
The community plan also calls for the construction of a new connector between MD 18
and Old Love Point Road just north of Kent Island High School. This new, 0.3-mile link
would improve circulation flexibility in this area and could be built for approximately
$0.9 million.
The Stevensville Community Plan also includes a proposed, new service road connection
between south Stevensville and south Chester for the purpose of the public health safety
and welfare. This facility would run along the south side of US 50/301 between
Thompson Creek Road and Cox Neck Road and would provide an alternative to MD 18
for local, east-west travel. At present traffic between south Stevensville and south
Chester must take a somewhat circuitous route that uses MD 18 and crosses US 50/301
twice, although the eastbound component of this traffic can also use US 50/301. MD 18
was recently improved between Stevensville and Chester, including the replacement of an
obsolete bridge over Cox Creek. It should be adequate to accommodate local, east-west
traffic for the next several years, however the service road proposal may be an alternative
to widening MD 18 later in the 20-year planning period.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment D
Page - 45

The Chester portion of the proposed service road would impact the existing Harborview
community and extensive involvement of local residents would be essential in pursuing
this project. Possibly one or two dwelling units and/or an unidentified commercial
building may have to be acquired on the east side of Cox Creek to provide a slot for
connecting the service drive to an improved Harborview street. Probably the best
candidate would be Sherman Road, which is immediately adjacent to US 50/301 and has
development (residential) only on its south side. If the Sherman Road alignment is used,
some right-of-way acquisition will also be required at the east end of the project at its
connection to Cox Neck Road. Excluding right-of-way, the project will cost
approximately $4.5 million for a 1.1-mile section between Thompson Creek Road and
Cox Neck Road, including a bridge over Cox Creek. It should be noted that this
improvement does not appear in the Chester Community Plan.
Cost Summary: All scenarios – $2.7 million without the service road connector.
$7.2 million with the service road connector.
MD 18 (Chester Area). As the “Main Street” of western Queen Anne’s County, MD 18
will require upgrading throughout the string of Growth Areas that it traverses. Widening
to four lanes should not be necessary; in fact, it is advantageous to develop, where
possible parallel sections of a limited grid street system that provide alternative routes for
local traffic and access to developing areas. However, during the 20-year planning
period, MD 18 between MD 552 (Dominion Road) and the expressway interchange just
west of Kent Narrows will require upgrading. This upgrading would include pavement
reconstruction, intersection and driveway improvements, signs, and signalization, while
retaining basically a two-lane cross-section with left-turn lanes at key intersections. This
section totals 1.4 miles in length, and the proposed improvements would cost
approximately $2.8 million.
Cost Summary: All scenarios - $2.8 million.
New Connector Road in Chester: The Chester Community Plan proposes a new
connector road that would provide relief to MD 18 and access to developing areas, as
well as a second overpass of US 50/301 to link the northern and southern sections of
Chester. It would begin at Cox Neck Road and extend east on a new alignment to
Dominion Road. East of Dominion, it would use a section of Goodhand Creek Road and
then turn north to connect to Shamrock Road. It would use Shamrock Road and a new
overpass of the expressway to reach Piney Creek Road. A two-lane cross-section with
shoulders would be adequate, including left-turn lanes at key intersections. It would
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment D
Page - 46

include 1.5 miles of new alignment, 0.7-mile of reconstructed roadway, and a bridge over
US 50/301 for a total cost of $8.0 million.
This is a useful project that addresses several long-term access and circulation needs in
Chester. It could be developed in stages and may present opportunities to partner with
developers in building portions of the route. Implementation priorities for sections of the
route will likely depend upon the timing and location of future development.
Cost Summary: All scenarios - $8.0 million.
MD 18 (Grasonville Area): It is proposed that a 3.4-mile section of MD 18 through
Grasonville be improved to an upgraded two-lane cross-section with left-turn lanes at key
intersections. The Grasonville Community Plan calls for improving the section from
approximately a half-mile west of Chester River Beach Road to Sawmill Lane. I would
suggest that the improvement be extended further east beyond Sawmill Lane to the
boundary of the Queenstown Growth Area at US 50. The cost of this improvement
would be approximately $6.8 million. It could be implemented in stages with the section
between Chester River Beach Road and Nesbitt Road receiving the earliest priority.
It may be necessary or desirable to develop a new connector paralleling MD 18 to the
south across Grasonville between Perry Corner Road and Grasonville Cemetery Road,
similar to the route discussed earlier for Chester. Such a route would provide relief for
MD 18 and access to a potential development area.
Cost Summary: All scenarios - $6.8 million.
Queenstown Area: The Queenstown Community Plan proposes significant changes and
improvements to the local road system. The two key features of these proposals are (1)
the elimination of at-grade crossings on US 50 and US 301, and (2) the creation of a
rational street network to serve the triangular Growth Area between these two major
arterials. I concur with the plan proposals, and if implemented, they should adequately
address traffic capacity and safety needs and objectives for the Growth Area.
The primary improvement proposals for this area include:
MD 18 Grade Separation at US 50: The SHA is planning to upgrade US 50 to a six-
lane expressway between the US 301 junction and Talbot County. As part of that effort,
MD 18 should be grade-separated from US 50 to provide continuity for local pedestrian
and vehicular traffic movement on MD 18. While it would be possible to develop ramps
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment D
Page - 47

to and from the south on US 50 at MD 18 (e.g. provide at least a partial interchange), this
is not proposed because of the preference to develop a full interchange between US 50
and Greenspring Road, a short distance to the south. The cost of the MD 18 overpass is
estimated at $2.0 million.
Greenspring Road: This route forms the eastern base of the Queenstown commercial
triangle and is proposed to have interchanges with both US 50 and US 301. The
community plan calls for its reconstruction as a controlled-access, four-lane, divided
boulevard. It would be straightened near its crossing of US 301 and its connection to MD
18 north of US 301. To facilitate the development of the Greenspring/US 50 interchange,
Del Rhodes Avenue would be realigned to tie into Greenspring Road north of the
interchange. The improvement of 0.9-mile of Greenspring Road would cost
approximately $3.6 million and the realignment of 0.3-mile of Del Rhodes Avenue as a
two-lane facility would add $0.6 million. The two interchanges with US 50 and US 301
would cost a total of $10 million.
Service Road on south side of US 50: A service road will be needed along the south
side of US 50 between MD 18 and the Greenspring Road interchange to provide local
access to Sportsman Neck Road and the development area on that side of US 50. A two-
lane road with left-turn lanes should be adequate. The road must include a short bridge
over the Wye River. The length of this project is 1.4 miles and its cost would be
approximately $5.2 million, including the river crossing.
Other roadway improvements will be needed to provide access to development parcels in
the Growth Area, but it is not possible at this time to say what facilities will be needed.
Financial participation by developers should be sought in building these roads.
With the construction of the Greenspring Road interchange at US 301, the existing at-
grade intersections at MD 18 (Chesapeake Village Road) and MD 456 (Del Rhodes
Avenue) should be closed or possibly limited to right-turns in-and-out only to eliminate
the safety hazard of crossing traffic. More detailed study of traffic operations on this
section of US 301 will be needed to determine an appropriate and safe design. MD 18
might then be re-routed through the Growth Area via Del Rhodes Avenue and
Greenspring Road.
Cost Summary: All scenarios - $21.4 million. The SHA’s US 50 project should cover the
costs of the MD 18 overpass, the Greenspring Road interchange, and the service road
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment D
Page - 48

($12.2 million), leaving $9.2 million in costs for the US 301 interchange and the
Greenspring Road and Del Rhodes Avenue improvements.
Central County
This sector of the County includes election district 3 and the Centreville Growth Area.
Within the Centreville Growth Area, the projected increase in households ranges from
500 under Modest Investment / Trend Growth to 1,800 under Enhanced Investment /
Accelerated Growth. Similarly, job growth ranges from 700 under the two Trend Growth
scenarios to 1,400 under the Enhanced Investment / Accelerated Growth scenario.
Outside the Centreville area, growth in the remainder of election district 3 will be more
modest: a maximum of 600 households and 600 jobs under the Enhanced Investment /
Trend Growth scenario.
Looking at the Centreville Growth Area, most future development is likely to occur
southeast of town between Centreville and US 301. Concentration of growth on this side
of the community will also focus growth in traffic upon this area, especially on MDs 213,
304, and 305. It also requires the development of street infrastructure to provide access
to potential development sites, and this underscores the importance of the new collector
routes that are proposed in the Centreville Community Plan. These proposals call for
Rolling Bridge Road to be extended north from MD 304 to a connection with MD 213
north of Centreville to provide a north-south cross-community route. This project will
relieve potential congestion in downtown Centreville by providing an alternative route to
US 301 and the new development areas for traffic from the north. This proposed route
measures 2.9 miles from MD 213 to US 301 with 2.6 miles of new route construction and
0.3-mile of existing road reconstruction. Total improvement cost is $8.4 million.
Other elements of new street infrastructure in the prime Growth Area include the
improvement of Taylor’s Mill Road as an east-west collector and the extension of Little
Kidwell Lane to Taylor’s Mill Road as an additional north-south collector. Future traffic
volumes on all three collectors are likely to be in the range of 4,000 to 7,000 vpd, which
is well within the capacity of a two-lane road with left-turn lanes at key intersections.
The Taylor’s Mill Road project includes 1.8 miles of upgrading an existing two-lane road
to an improved two-lane cross-section at a cost of $3.6 million. The Kidwell Lane
extension is 1.1 miles of new two-lane construction at a cost of $3.3 million.
In addition to these collector routes, other street infrastructure will be needed between
Centreville and US 301, especially east of the Rolling Bridge Road collector.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment D
Page - 49

Development of a rough grid system of routes in the Growth Area will offer the most
sustainable, long-term transportation investment.
MD 213 between Centreville and US 301 currently carries about 14,000 vpd, which is
nearing the warrants for a four-lane cross-section. Growth under any of the four
scenarios will push volumes on this route to at least 20,000 vpd in the vicinity of US 301,
requiring widening to four-lanes with left-turn lanes from just north of Taylor’s Mill
Road south to US 301. Improvements to this 0.6-mile section will cost $2.4 million.
Access control measures should be applied to limit the proliferation of driveways in this
section. Traffic volumes on MD 213 north of this point into Centreville will be
constrained by the capacity of streets in the town that feed this section of MD 213 and are
unlikely to warrant four lanes.
MD 304 will be significantly impacted by new growth. The current volume on MD 304
between Centreville and US 301 is approximately 6,000 vpd and is adequately served by
a good two-lane cross-section with paved shoulders. The projected growth in jobs and
households in the surrounding area will push volumes on this section of MD 304 to the
threshold of warranting four lanes during the 20-year planning period, especially under
the Enhanced Investment / Accelerated Growth scenario. I would recommend four lanes
with left-turn lanes at key intersections on MD 304 under that scenario from US 301 to
roughly the present town limits, which is a distance of about 1.8 miles. This
improvement would cost roughly $7.2 million. Access management measures should be
applied to control driveways and preserve route efficiency.
Under the other scenarios, the existing two-lane cross-section should be adequate with
modest improvements. I would recommend reserving right-of-way for an eventual four
lanes, applying access management measures, and making improvements to key
intersections. This level of improvement could cost roughly $1.5 million.
The growth in traffic on MD 304 will exacerbate the existing hazardous conditions at its
intersection with US 301. Under all of the scenarios, construction of an interchange at
this location will be desirable to ensure safe and efficient traffic movement. The
estimated cost of a diamond intersection here is roughly $5.0 million.
MD 305 currently carries about 2,000 vpd in the section between Centreville and US 301.
Its future volume may grow to 7,000 to 8,000 vpd. The existing route should be able to
accommodate the projected volumes.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment D
Page - 50

As noted earlier, Rolling Bridge Road is proposed to be developed as a north-south
collector. Eventually, as US 301 is upgraded by the SHA to a fully access-controlled
expressway with no at-grade intersections, Rolling Bridge Road should have an overpass,
but an interchange will not be warranted, especially given its proximity to interchanges at
MDs 213 and 304. The cost of the overpass would be part of the US 301 improvement
costs.
Outside the Centreville Growth Area, I do not foresee the need for other route widening
or major route upgrading beyond normal maintenance in election district 3. However,
one route section to watch under the higher growth scenario is the one-mile section of
MD 213 between US 301 and MD 309. This section currently has an ADT of about
6,000 vehicles, and depending upon how much growth spills south of US 301, it could
have future volumes in the range of 10,000 to 13,000 vehicles.
Cost Summary: All scenarios - $15.3 million for three collector routes.
$ 2.4 million for MD 213.
$ 5.0 million for MD 304 interchange.
Enhanced Investment / Accelerated Growth - $7.2 million for MD 304.
All scenarios except SI/AG - $1.5 million for MD 304.
East County
This sector is the most rural part of the County and consists of election districts 1, 2, 6,
and 7. The most growth for this sector would come under the Modest Investment /
Accelerated Growth scenario in which it would claim 26 percent of the growth in
households and 33 percent of the job growth. But, this growth would be spread over a
large area, which would also spread the resulting traffic over many routes. Only in
election districts 2 and 7 would the growth under this scenario begin to focus upon
certain routes and warrant consideration of possible improvements.
MD 213 currently has an ADT of 9,000 between Chestertown and Church Hill. Future
volumes on this section could approach 16,000 vpd, which falls within the warrants for a
four-lane cross-section in rural areas. However, volumes will also be constrained by
limited capacity to the north on MD 213, as it crosses the Chester River and passes
through Chestertown. The existing river bridge and approach into Chestertown is only
two lanes wide.
This is a borderline situation in terms of recommending future widening within the
planning period. The existing road is an excellent two-lane facility with wide, paved
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment D
Page - 51

shoulders, and its capacity could be further enhanced with modest improvements to a few
key intersections and the application of access control measures to limit the proliferation
of driveways.
Similar improvements on MD 544 near Kings Town and MD 213 may be warranted,
especially if some of the new development in that area relies upon that route for its
primary access.
Cost Summary: All scenarios - $2.0 million for intersection improvements on MD 213
and MD 544 in the Kings Town area.
Public Transportation
Under all of the planning/growth scenarios, the growth in households will be greater than
the in-County growth in jobs. Commuting to jobs outside the County will continue to
increase with continued emphasis on commuting westward across the Chesapeake Bay to
Annapolis, Baltimore, and Washington. The County should encourage and support
increased park-ride and commuter bus service for those residents who choose to work
outside the County. Commuter bus service should ideally be extended east to tap all of
the Kent Island and Grasonville/Queenstown Growth Areas, and locations for small park-
ride lots near points of access to US 50/301 should be developed. The SHA or MTA may
be willing partners in this effort along with the private commuter bus operator.
With the projected growth in jobs and housing in the western Growth Areas, there may be
a market for the development of a transit shuttle that would operate along MD 18 from
Centreville or Queenstown to Stevensville and perhaps even south toward Romancoke as
that peninsula develops. It would provide access for local residents to jobs, shopping,
recreation, and medical services. The potential for such service is enhanced by the
concentration of much of the development in these areas within walking distance of MD
18. The transit shuttle could employ small buses (20-25 passenger capacity), which
would be compatible with the scale of MD 18 and the land use along the route. Funding
to support such service could come from a special assessment district tax covering the
area served, contributions from local businesses and the County government, the MTA,
and farebox revenues from a modest fare. The fare should not be too high, because a
goal of the service should be to encourage transit ridership and reduce local vehicular
traffic.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment D
Page - 52

Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
The community growth plans have done a good job of identifying needed pedestrian and
bicycle facilities. Roadway improvements should incorporate provisions for bicycle use
through paved shoulders and wider curb lanes in sections with curb and gutter. Effective
signing of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and routes will be especially important for
recreational users.
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment D
Page - 53

Attachment E
Sewer and Water Assumptions and Cost Estimates
Option A: Modest Investment Trend Growth
Capital Cost Opinion
Area Infrastructure Element Low High
Kent Narrows/ Expand/ Upgrade WWTP to 3 $ 18,250,00 $ 22,250,000
Stevensville/ MGD for BNR
Grasonville Force Main Replacement / Expand $ 5,000,000 $ 5,500,000
from Grasonville to WWTP
Northern Kent Island Water Sub- $ 2,400,000 $ 2,700,000
district Consolidation
Southern Kent Serve Uncorrectable Septic System
Island (Kent Island Failures with Water/Wastewater
Estates/
Romancoke) Water System $ 9,000,000 $ 10,000,000
0.5 MGD WTP; 1.5 MG Elevation
Tank
2 Wells; Ground Storage/Booster
Station; Distribution System
Wastewater System $ 19,000,000 $ 21,000,000
Vacuum Collection System; 3
collection station; pumping station;
12” force main to KN/S/G WWTP
Dominion/Marling Serve uncorrectable septic system
Farms failures with water/wastewater
Water system $ 5,000,000 $ 5,500,000
0.25 MGD WTP; 0.5 MG elevation
tank; 1 well; ground
storage/booster station; distribution
system
Wastewater system $ 8,000,000 $ 9,000,000
Vacuum collection system;
2 collection stations; 6”
force mains to MD 522;
8”/10” force main to P.S. #2
Option A Trend $ 66,650,000 $ 75,950,000
Growth Total
Option A Trend Rounded $ 65,000,000 $ 75,000,000
Growth Total
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment E
Page - 54

Option A: Modest Investment Accelerated Growth
Capital Cost Opinion
Area Infrastructure Element Low High
Kent Narrows/ Expand/ Upgrade WWTP to 3 $ 18,250,000 $ 22,250,000
Stevensville/ MGD for BNR
Grasonville Force Main Replacement / Expand $ 5,000,000 $ 5,500,000
from Grasonville to WWTP
Northern Kent Island Water Sub- $ 2,400,000 $ 2,700,000
district Consolidation
Southern Kent Serve Uncorrectable Septic System
Island (Kent Island Failures with Water/Wastewater
Estates/
Romancoke) Water System $ 9,000,000 $ 10,000,000
0.5 MGD WTP; 1.5 MG Elevation
Tank
2 Wells; Ground Storage/Booster
Station; Distribution System
Wastewater System $ 19,000,000 $ 21,000,000
Vacuum Collection System; 3
collection station; pumping station;
12” force main to KN/S/G WWTP
Dominion/Marling Serve uncorrectable septic system
Farms failures with water/wastewater
Water system $ 5,000,000 $ 5,500,000
0.25 MGD WTP; 0.5 MG elevation
tank; 1 well; ground
storage/booster station; distribution
system
Wastewater system $ 8,000,000 $ 9,000,000
Vacuum collection system;
2 collection stations; 6”
force mains to MD 522;
8”/10” force main to P.S. #2
Option A $ 66,650,000 $ 75,950,000
Accelerated
Growth Total
Option A Rounded $ 65,000,000 $ 75,000,000
Accelerated
Growth Total
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment E
Page - 55

Option B: Enhanced Investment Trend Growth
Capital Cost Opinion
Area Infrastructure Element Low High
Kent Narrows/ Expand/ Upgrade WWTP to 3 MGD for BNR $ 18,250,00 $ 22,250,000
Stevensville/ Expand/Upgrade BNR WWTP from 3 MGD to 4 $ 6,900,000 $ 8.500,000
Grasonville MGD; Upgrade Effluent P.S./Outfall Diffusers
Force Main Replacement / Expand from $ 5,000,000 $ 5,500,000
Grasonville to WWTP
Northern Kent Island Water Sub-district $ 2,400,000 $ 2,700,000
Consolidation
Chester: Water Service Distribution
Water System interconnection (Chester to Kent $ 1,700,000 $ 1,900,000
Narrows West 16” Main)
Grasonville In-fill $ 2,700,000 $ 2,900,000
Water Distribution
Queenstown Queenstown Growth Area
Wastewater System $ 3,000,000 $ 3,400,000
Pumping Station; 8” force main to main force
main in Grasonville
Abandon WWTP and pump Flow new P.S.
Interconnect water system with Growth Area
system
Water interconnection (Queenstown to Kent $ 2,900,000 $ 3,200,000
Narrows East)
16” line to tie water systems together
Southern Kent Serve Uncorrectable Septic System Failures with
Island (Kent Island Water/Wastewater
Estates/ Water System $ 9,000,000 $ 10,000,000
Romancoke) 0.5 MGD WTP; 1.5 MG Elevation Tank
2 Wells; Ground Storage/Booster Station;
Distribution System
Wastewater System $ 19,000,000 $ 21,000,000
Vacuum Collection System; 3 collection station;
pumping station; 12” force main to KN/S/G
WWTP
Dominion/Marling Serve uncorrectable septic system failures with
Farms water/wastewater
Water system $ 5,000,000 $ 5,500,000
0.25 MGD WTP; 0.5 MG elevation tank; 1 well;
ground storage/booster station; distribution
system
Wastewater system $ 8,000,000 $ 9,000,000
Vacuum collection system;
2 collection stations; 6” force mains to MD 522;
8”/10” force main to P.S. #2
Option B Trend $ 83,850,000 $ 95,850,000
Growth Total
Option B Trend Rounded $ 85,000,000 $ 95,000,000
Growth Total
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment E
Page - 56

Option B: Enhanced Investment Accelerated Growth
Capital Cost Opinion
Area Infrastructure Element Low High
Kent Narrows/ Expand/ Upgrade WWTP to 3 MGD for BNR $ 18,250,00 $ 22,250,000
Stevensville/ Expand/Upgrade BNR WWTP from 3 MGD to 4 MGD; $ 6,900,000 $ 8.500,000
Grasonville Upgrade Effluent P.S./Outfall Diffusers
Expand/Upgrade BNR WWTP from 4 MGD to 5MGD $ 2,800,000 $ 2,800,000
New Bay Outfall at 5 MGD $ 5,000,000
Force Main Replacement / Expand from Grasonville to $ 6,300,000 $ 700,000
WWTP to receive Queenstown/Centreville flows
Northern Kent Island Water Sub-district Consolidation $ 2,400,000 $ 2,700,000
Chester: Water Service Distribution $ 2,500,000 $ 2,700,000
Water System interconnection (Chester to Kent Narrows $ 1,700,000 $ 1,900,000
West 16” Main)
Grasonville In-fill: Water Distribution $ 2,700,000 $ 2,900,000
Queenstown Queenstown Growth Area
Wastewater System $ 3,000,000 $ 3,400,000
Pumping Station; 8” force main to main force main in
Grasonville
Abandon WWTP and pump Flow new P.S.
Interconnect water system with Growth Area system
Water interconnection (Queenstown to Kent Narrows East) $ 2,900,000 $ 3,200,000
16” line to tie water systems together
Centreville Abandon Existing WWTP and Pump to KN/S/G BNR $ 5,000,000 $ 5,500,000
WWTP
Pumping station to pump to Queenstown pumping station;
12” force main
Southern Kent Island Serve Uncorrectable Septic System Failures with
(Kent Island Estates/ Water/Wastewater
Romancoke) Water System $ 9,000,000 $ 10,000,000
0.5 MGD WTP; 1.5 MG Elevation Tank
2 Wells; Ground Storage/Booster Station; Distribution
System
Wastewater System $ 19,000,000 $ 21,000,000
Vacuum Collection System; 3 collection station; pumping
station; 12” force main to KN/S/G WWTP
Dominion/Marling Serve uncorrectable septic system failures with
Farms water/wastewater
Water system $ 5,000,000 $ 5,500,000
0.25 MGD WTP; 0.5 MG elevation tank; 1 well; ground
storage/booster station; distribution system
Wastewater system $ 8,000,000 $ 9,000,000
Vacuum collection system;
2 collection stations; 6” force mains to MD 522; 8”/10” force
main to P.S. #2
Option B Accelerated $ 83,850,000 $ 95,850,000
Growth Total
Option B Accelerated Rounded $ 85,000,000 $ 95,000,000
Growth Total
2002 Comprehensive Plan Appendix: Alternatives Analysis, Projections
Queen Anne’s County Attachment E
Page - 57