Town Code & Ordinances Code — 2019-10-23

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

Version 10-23-19
2017 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Queenstown, Maryland
Adopted by Resolution No. 17-107
December 20, 2017
Revised by Resolution No. 19-104
October 23, 2019
i

Version 10-23-19
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Appreciation and recognition are extended to the Town of Queenstown elected and appointed
officials, staff and consultants for their work in authoring the 2017 Queenstown Comprehensive
Plan.
TOWN COMMISSIONERS
Thomas B. Willis, Jr., President
Hogie Schuster (former Planning Commission Chair)
Alton Hardee, Jr. (former Planning Commission Chair)
John M. (“Mike”) Bowell (former Commissioner)
George Plumbo (former Commissioner)
PLANNING COMMISSION
Matthew Reno (Chair)
Betty White (Secretary)
Phillip Snyder
Don Regenhardt (former Planning Commission member)
Willie Comegys (former Planning Commission member)
STAFF
Amy W. Moore, Town Manager/Clerk and Treasurer
Aaron R. Horney, Administrative Assistant
CONSULTANTS
Peter Johnston, AICP
Peter Johnston & Associates, LLC
Brynja Booth
Booth, Booth, Cropper and Marriner, P.C.
ii

Version 10-23-19
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1
Maryland Planning Laws and Policies........................................................................................ 1
The Land Use Article – Planning & Zoning Enabling Act ................................................. 1
Maryland’s Visions ............................................................................................................. 2
Sensitive Environmental Areas ........................................................................................... 3
Smart Growth Areas Act of 1997 ....................................................................................... 3
2006 Maryland House Bill 1141 ......................................................................................... 4
SECTION 1: QUEENSTOWN PROFILE ................................................................................. 6
Population ...................................................................................................................................... 6
Social Characteristics ................................................................................................................... 7
Age ...................................................................................................................................... 7
Sex....................................................................................................................................... 8
Race..................................................................................................................................... 9
Hispanic or Latino............................................................................................................. 10
Education .......................................................................................................................... 10
Households and Families .................................................................................................. 11
Housing Characteristics ............................................................................................................. 12
Economic Characteristics ........................................................................................................... 16
Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 19
SECTION 2: LAND USE PLAN ............................................................................................... 24
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 24
Goals, Objective and Policies ..................................................................................................... 24
Goal ................................................................................................................................... 24
Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 24
Policies .............................................................................................................................. 25
Existing Land Use ....................................................................................................................... 25
Current Zoning ........................................................................................................................... 26
Land Use Plan ............................................................................................................................. 33
Town Center...................................................................................................................... 33
iii

Version 10-23-19
Neighborhood Conservation ............................................................................................. 34
Highway Commercial ....................................................................................................... 34
Industrial ........................................................................................................................... 35
Resort Residential ............................................................................................................. 35
Regional Commercial ....................................................................................................... 35
Planned Regional Commercial ......................................................................................... 36
Institutional ....................................................................................................................... 36
Utility ................................................................................................................................ 37
Open Space ....................................................................................................................... 37
Planned Annexation .......................................................................................................... 37
Long Range Growth .......................................................................................................... 38
SECTION 3: COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES .............................................. 41
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 41
Goal, Objective and Policies....................................................................................................... 41
Goal ................................................................................................................................... 41
Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 41
Policies .............................................................................................................................. 41
Town Government ...................................................................................................................... 42
Public Safety ................................................................................................................................ 42
Fire and Rescue ................................................................................................................. 42
Emergency Medical .......................................................................................................... 44
Law Enforcement .............................................................................................................. 44
Library Facilities ......................................................................................................................... 44
Parks and Recreation ................................................................................................................. 44
Public Water Supply ................................................................................................................... 45
Wastewater Disposal ................................................................................................................... 46
SECTION 4: MUNICIPAL GROWTH .................................................................................... 47
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 47
Goal and Objectives .................................................................................................................... 48
Goal ................................................................................................................................... 48
Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 48
iv

Version 10-23-19
Projections ................................................................................................................................... 48
Development Capacity ................................................................................................................ 49
Infill and Redevelopment .................................................................................................. 50
Development Impacts ................................................................................................................. 50
Development Impacts - Town Services ............................................................................ 51
Development Impacts - County Services .......................................................................... 53
Funding Strategies ............................................................................................................ 55
Annexation Plan .......................................................................................................................... 57
Long Range Growth ................................................................................................................... 59
Growth Summary ....................................................................................................................... 59
SB 236 Growth Tiers .................................................................................................................. 59
Rural Buffer ................................................................................................................................ 62
Interjurisdictional Coordination ............................................................................................... 62
SECTION 5: NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION .................................................. 63
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 63
Goal, Objectives and Policies ..................................................................................................... 63
Goal ................................................................................................................................... 63
Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 63
Policies .............................................................................................................................. 64
Sensitive Areas Element ............................................................................................................. 64
Plan Assessment .......................................................................................................................... 64
Watersheds ........................................................................................................................ 64
Sensitive Areas.................................................................................................................. 65
Resource Land ............................................................................................................................. 70
Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................ 70
Protected Land ............................................................................................................................ 71
Growth Plan Impacts .................................................................................................................. 73
Existing Protection Measures .................................................................................................... 75
v

Version 10-23-19
Queenstown Zoning Code................................................................................................. 75
Queenstown Critical Area ................................................................................................. 76
Queenstown Floodplain Ordinance ................................................................................... 77
Queenstown Stormwater Management Ordinance ........................................................... 77
Forest Conservation Ordinance......................................................................................... 78
SECTION 6: WATER RESOURCES ....................................................................................... 79
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 79
Goal, Objectives and Policies ..................................................................................................... 79
Goal ................................................................................................................................... 79
Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 79
Policies .............................................................................................................................. 80
Hydrogeological Setting.............................................................................................................. 80
Geology ............................................................................................................................. 80
Ground Water Resources .................................................................................................. 81
Water Resource Assessment Assumptions ............................................................................... 84
Water Supply and Demand ........................................................................................................ 84
Current Water Supply and Demands ................................................................................ 84
Future water supplies ........................................................................................................ 85
Wastewater .................................................................................................................................. 87
Stormwater and Non-Point Source Assessment ....................................................................... 88
Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 90
Suitable Receiving Waters and Land Areas ...................................................................... 90
Water Supply .................................................................................................................... 91
Wastewater Treatment ...................................................................................................... 91
Stormwater Management .................................................................................................. 91
Missing Data ................................................................................................................................ 91
SECTION 7: TRANSPORTATION ......................................................................................... 93
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 93
Goal, Objective and Policies....................................................................................................... 93
Goal ................................................................................................................................... 93
Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 93
vi

Version 10-23-19
Policies .............................................................................................................................. 94
Highway System .......................................................................................................................... 94
Issues ............................................................................................................................................ 94
Responsible Agencies .................................................................................................................. 98
Highways, Road and Streets ............................................................................................. 98
Airport ............................................................................................................................... 99
Transit and Bus Service .................................................................................................... 99
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ...................................................................................... 99
Queen Anne’s County Water Trail ................................................................................. 100
Chesapeake Country National Scenic Byway................................................................. 100
Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 101
SECTION 8: IMPLEMENTATION ....................................................................................... 104
Municipal Growth and Land Use ............................................................................................ 104
Town Center.................................................................................................................... 104
Annexation and Long Range Growth Areas ................................................................... 105
Flood Hazard Management ..................................................................................................... 106
Community Design.................................................................................................................... 108
Design Guidelines ........................................................................................................... 108
Development Design Recommendations ........................................................................ 108
Town Gateways .............................................................................................................. 110
Historic Properties .................................................................................................................... 112
Parks and Recreation ............................................................................................................... 114
Water Resources ....................................................................................................................... 114
Natural Resources Conservation and Sensitive Areas Protection ........................................ 115
Interjurisdictional Coordination ............................................................................................. 115
List of Tables
Table 1-1: Population trends 2000-2014 – Queen Anne’s County and Queenstown .............. 6
vii

Version 10-23-19
Table 1-2: Queenstown population as share of County............................................................. 6
Table 1-3: Population Growth Rates .......................................................................................... 7
Table 1-4: Age Characteristics 2010 ........................................................................................... 7
Table 1-5: Sex distribution 2010 .................................................................................................. 8
Table 1-6: Select sex characteristics ............................................................................................ 9
Table 1-7: Race characteristics 2010 ........................................................................................... 9
Table 1-8: Hispanic or Latino population 2010 ....................................................................... 10
Table 1-9: Educational attainment 2010 ................................................................................... 10
Table 1-10: Average household and family size 2010 .............................................................. 11
Table 1-11: Households and families by type 2010 .................................................................. 11
Table 1-12: Year householder moved into unit 2010 ............................................................... 12
Table 1-13: Housing occupancy 2010 ........................................................................................ 12
Table 1-14: Units in structure 2010 ........................................................................................... 12
Table 1-15: Housing tenure 2010 Queenstown, Queen Anne’s County, Maryland .............. 13
Table 1-16: Rooms in housing units 2010 ................................................................................. 13
Table 1-17: Age of Structure ...................................................................................................... 14
Table 1-18: Housing values owner occupied units ................................................................... 14
Table 1-19: Gross Rent 2010 ...................................................................................................... 15
Table 1-20: Gross rent as a percentage of household income (grapi) .................................... 15
Table 1-21: Selected monthly owner costs (SMOC) ................................................................ 16
viii

Version 10-23-19
Table 1-22: Industry for civilian employed population over 16 years of age ........................ 17
Table 1-23: Occupation For the Civilian Employed Population 16 Years and Over ........... 18
Table 1-24: Work place of workers 16 years and over 2000 and 2010 .................................. 18
Table 1-25: Household Income and benefits (in 2014 inflation-adjusted dollars) ................ 18
Table 1-26: Family income and benefits (in 2014 inflation-adjusted dollars) ....................... 19
Table 2-1: Existing Land Use 2013 ............................................................................................ 26
Table 2-2: Existing Zoning ......................................................................................................... 28
Table 2-3: Vacant Land by Zoning Classification ................................................................... 30
Table 2-4: Land Use Plan Summary ......................................................................................... 33
Table 4-1: Projected Average Household Size ......................................................................... 49
Table 4-2: Population and Households Projections – Queenstown, Maryland..................... 49
Table 4-3: Development Capacity – Infill and Redevelopment .............................................. 50
Table 4-4: Level of Service Measures ....................................................................................... 51
Table 4-5: Existing and projected water supply and storage needs thru 2040 ..................... 52
Table 4-6: Existing and projected sewer treatment needs thru 20240 ................................... 52
Table 4-7: School Impacts .......................................................................................................... 54
Table 4-8:Public School Impacts ............................................................................................... 54
Table 4-9: Potential Funding Source to Address Municipal Growth Impacts ..................... 57
Table 4-10: Growth Summary ................................................................................................... 59
Table 5-1: Agriculture and Forest Land – Lower Chester River and Wye River Sub-
ix

Version 10-23-19
watersheds ................................................................................................................................... 70
Table 5-2: Growth Plan Impacts – Forest Land Converted to Urban Use ........................... 73
Table 5-3: Growth Plan Impacts – Agriculture Land Converted to Urban Use .................. 73
Table 5-4: Growth Plan Impacts – Targeted Habitat Protection Areas Disturbed .............. 75
Table 6-1: Existing, Committed and Projected Water Demand ............................................ 85
Table 6-2. Summary of water appropriations permits ........................................................... 86
Table 7-1: MD State Highway Administration Priorities for US 50/Ocean Gateway
Corridor Improvements ............................................................................................................. 95
Table 8-1: Queenstown Historic Places .................................................................................. 112
List of Maps
Map 2-1 Existing Land Use ........................................................................................................ 27
Map 2-2 Existing Zoning ............................................................................................................ 32
Map 2-3 Land Use Plan .............................................................................................................. 40
Map 3-1 Community Facilities .................................................................................................. 43
Map 4-1 SB236 Growth Tiers .................................................................................................... 61
Map 5-1 Watersheds ................................................................................................................... 67
Map 5-2 Compiled Habitat Protection Areas ........................................................................... 68
Map 5-3 Sub-watershed Resource Land ................................................................................... 72
Map 5-4 Sub-watershed Protected Land .................................................................................. 74
Map 7-1 Highway Functional Classification System ............................................................... 97
x

Version 10-23-19
Map 7-2 Transportation Plan .................................................................................................. 103
Map 8-1 Flood Inundation Zones ........................................................................................... 111
Map 8-2 Planned Growth Allocation ...................................................................................... 118
xi

Version 10-23-19
INTRODUCTION
The 2016 Queenstown Comprehensive Plan (the Plan) replaces the 2010 Queenstown Community
Plan. It establishes goals, objectives, and recommendations intended to promote the health, safety,
order, convenience, prosperity, and the general welfare, as well as efficiency and economy in the
development process. As a policy document, the Plan is general in nature, providing “big picture”
guidance as a framework and direction for all components of what may be considered the Town’s
planning program. The Plan is not a “stand-alone” document but is supported and in turn supports
related program documents such as the following:
• Zoning Ordinance;
• Subdivision Regulations;
• Capital Improvements Program;
• Water and Sewer Facilities Plans; and
• Other important Town ordinances such as Sediment and Erosion Control, Floodplain
Management, Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas, Stormwater Management, and Forest
Conservation.
The planning area for this document encompasses the corporate limits of the Queenstown and
surrounding areas that may be annexed into the Town at some future point. For this reason aspects
of the Town’s growth and development plans must be coordinated with Queen Anne’s County and
State agencies.
Maryland Planning Laws and Policies
Planning for Queenstown must be mindful of context. Town plans and program for the wellbeing
of citizens, land and water must be coordinated with those of the State and Queen Anne’s County.
The following briefly summarizes State laws intended to insure coordinated and effective growth
management and resource protection policies and programs at all levels of government.
The Land Use Article – Planning & Zoning Enabling Act
The Land Use Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland is the Planning and Zoning enabling
legislation from which the Queenstown derives its powers to regulate land use. Title 3, Subtitle 1
of the Land Use Article sets forth the minimum requirements for a comprehensive plan, which
shall include among other things:
• a community facilities element;
• an area of critical State concern element;
• a goals and objectives element;
• a land use element;
• a development regulations element;
1

Version 10-23-19
• a sensitive areas element;
• a transportation element;
• a municipal growth element;
• a water resources element; and
• if current geological information is available, the plan shall include a mineral resources
element.
Maryland’s Visions
Planning for Queenstown has been guided by the twelve components of Maryland’s visions
outlined in § 1-201 if the Land Use Article. Maryland’s “Visions” are as follows:
1. Quality of Life and Sustainability: A high quality of life is achieved through universal
stewardship of the land, water and air resulting in sustainable communities and protection
of the environment.
2. Public Participation: Citizens are active partners in the planning and implementation of
community initiatives and are sensitive to their responsibilities in achieving community
goals.
3. Growth Areas: Growth is concentrated in existing population and business centers, growth
areas adjacent to these centers, or strategically selected new centers.
4. Community Design: Compact, mixed-use, walkable design consistent with existing
community character and located near available or planned transit options is encouraged
to ensure efficient use of land and transportation resources and preservation and
enhancement of natural systems, open spaces, recreational areas, and historical, cultural,
and archeological resources.
5. Infrastructure: Growth areas have the water resources and infrastructure to accommodate
population and business expansion in an orderly, efficient, and environmentally sustainable
manner.
6. Transportation: A well-maintained, multimodal transportation system facilitates the safe,
convenient, affordable and efficient movement of people, goods and services within and
between population and business centers.
7. Housing: A range of housing densities, types, and sizes provide residential options for
citizens of all ages and incomes.
8. Economic Development: Economic development and natural resource-based businesses
that promote employment opportunities for all income levels within the capacity of the
State's natural resources, public services, and public facilities is encouraged.
2

Version 10-23-19
9. Environmental Protection: Land and water resources, including the Chesapeake Bay and
its coastal bays, are carefully managed to restore and maintain healthy air and water, natural
systems and living resources.
10. Resource Conservation: Waterways, forests, agricultural areas, open space, natural systems
and scenic areas are conserved.
11. Stewardship: Government, business entities, and residents are responsible for the creation
of sustainable communities by collaborating to balance efficient growth with resource
protection.
12. Implementation: Strategies, policies, programs and funding for growth and development,
resource conservation, infrastructure, and transportation are integrated across the local,
regional, State and interstate levels to achieve these visions.
Sensitive Environmental Areas
The Maryland Economic Growth, Resource Protection and Planning Act of 1992 added the
requirement that a comprehensive plan must contain a “Sensitive Areas Element,” which describes
how the jurisdiction will protect the following:
• Streams and stream buffers;
• 100-year floodplains;
• Endangered species habitats;
• Nontidal wetland;
• Steep slopes; and
• Other sensitive areas a jurisdiction wants to protect from the adverse impacts of
development.
Smart Growth Areas Act of 1997
The "Smart Growth" Areas Act of 1997, Chapter 759 of the Laws of Maryland of 1997, requires
the State to target funding for "growth-related" projects to Priority Funding Areas (PFAs)
beginning October 1, 1998. Growth related projects are defined in the legislation and include most
State programs which encourage or support growth and development such as highways, sewer and
water construction, economic development assistance, and State leases and construction of new
office facilities.
The intent of the legislation is to marshal the State’s financial resources to support growth in
Maryland’s communities and limit development in agricultural and other resource conservation
areas. At the heart of the Smart Growth concept are the “Priority Funding Areas” (PFAs), which
represent local growth areas targeted for State funding. PFAs include municipalities, rural villages,
3

Version 10-23-19
communities, industrial areas, and planned growth areas to be served by public water and
sewerage.
Local comprehensive plans must show designated “Growth Areas” including areas planned for
annexation by municipalities. Land within local growth boundaries may be designated as a Priority
Funding Area (PFA) provided sewer service is planned in a 10-Year Water and Sewerage Plan and
provided such designation is a long-term and planned development policy that promotes efficient
land use and public infrastructure. Plans must include areas considered as PFAs, such as planned
water and sewerage service areas, residential development areas, industrial development areas,
economic development areas, and parks.
2006 Maryland House Bill 1141
In 2006, the Maryland State Legislature passed House Bill 1141 (HB 1141), which provides for
Amendments to the Land Use Article and Article 23A: “Municipal Annexation Act” of the
Annotated Code of Maryland. Amendments include provisions for the inclusion of a “Water
Resources Element” and “Municipal Growth Element” in local comprehensive plans.
HB 1141 establishes additional substantive and procedural requirements for municipalities
preparing comprehensive plans. This includes inter-governmental coordination for land use and
growth management planning.
Information developed under the provisions of HB 1141 will be reviewed and evaluated by State
agencies including the Maryland Departments of the Environment, Natural Resources, and
Planning. Some provisions of the Bill are not effective until October 2009. Substantive procedural
requirements include the following:
• The Town must include in its Comprehensive Plan a “Municipal Growth Element” that
specifies where Queenstown intends to grow, if at all, outside its existing corporate limits.
It also must discuss how the Town intends to address services, infrastructure, and
environmental protection needs for the Growth Area.
• The Town must develop the “Municipal Growth Element” in coordination with Queen
Anne’s County. Prior to approving a Growth Element, the Town must provide a copy to
the County, accept their comments, meet and confer with the County, and, on request from
either entity, engage in mediation to facilitate the Growth Element.
• The Town and County must include in their respective comprehensive plans a “Water
Resource Plan Element” that identifies drinking water and other water resources to meet
current and future demands. It also must identify suitable water and land areas to receive
stormwater and wastewater derived from development.
4

Version 10-23-19
• In order for land annexed after September 2006 to qualify for State assistance as a Priority
Funding Area-PFA, the Town must complete an analysis of land capacity available for
development. This includes infill and redevelopment. It also includes an analysis of land
as needed to satisfy demand for development.
• House Bill 1141 gives affected local governments until October 1, 2009 to update their
comprehensive plans to include the Water Resources Element, now required by existing
law. There is the possibility of one to two six month extensions for good cause. Local
governments that have not updated their plans by that time may not change the zoning
classification of a property until their updates are complete.
• The Town must develop and share with other planning agencies an “Annexation Plan” that
is consistent with its Growth Element in the Comprehensive Plan.
HB 1141 requires the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) to provide technical
assistance to local governments regarding the development of a Water Resources Element. The
Maryland Department of Planning (MDP) also is required to provide technical assistance to a
municipality regarding the “Municipal Growth Element.”
Sustainable Growth & Agricultural Preservation Act of 2012
The Maryland General Assembly approved the Sustainable Growth & Agricultural Preservation
Act of 2012, also known as the septic law, during the 2012 General Assembly session. Mapping
the Growth Tiers (Tiers) is intended to be a straight-forward exercise based on existing local
government plans and goals for growth and land preservation. Tier mapping is expected to reflect
existing zoning, comprehensive plans and sewer service. The law applies only to residential
subdivisions, not to commercial, industrial, or other non-residential subdivisions.
Four Tiers of land use categories are created to identify where major and minor residential
subdivisions may be located in a jurisdiction and what type of sewerage system will serve them.
Tier I areas are currently served by sewerage systems. Tier II areas are planned to be served by
sewerage systems. Tier III areas are not planned to be served by sewerage systems. These are areas
where growth on septic systems can occur Tier IV areas are planned for preservation and
conservation and prohibit residential major subdivision. Queenstown adopted its Tier Map in 2012.
This update included a revised Queenstown Tier Map reflecting the Town’s current growth plans.
Other Changes
Since 2006 other changes in Maryland planning requirements have been instituted. Local
Jurisdictional Annual Reporting Requirements include quantitative measures and indicators. Five-
Year Mid Cycle Reporting is required. Planning Commissioners must complete training, and
comprehensive plans must be updated at least every 10 years.
5

Version 10-23-19
SECTION 1: QUEENSTOWN PROFILE
A demographic and socio-economic profile of who is living in Queenstown helps understanding
of the Town’s live/work environment as compared with the surrounding areas – information that
may suggest strategies local officials can employ to improve conditions or address anomalies.
Population
Population trends track a community’s growth, and along with data on social, housing and
economic characteristics can reveal patterns that may affect future conditions. Population growth
in the surrounding area also is indicative of potentially important trends that affect growth of the
community.
Both Queenstown and Queen Anne’s County experienced positive population growth in the period
2000 to 2010 albeit at substantially different rates. Queen Anne’s County’s population grew by
7,235, an annualized increase of 1.65 percent. Queenstown’s population grew by 47, an annualized
increase of 0.74%.
A more recent estimate, the period 2010 to 2014, indicates Queen Anne’s County’s population is
continuing to increase albeit at a slower rate.1 During the same period it was estimated that
Queenstown’s population decreased (see Table 1-1).
Table 1-1: Population trends 2000-2014 – Queen Anne’s County and Queenstown
2000 2014 Chg. % Chg. 2014 Chg. % Chg.
Queen Anne's County 40,563 47,798 7,235 17.8% 48,439 641 1.3%
Queenstown 617 664 47 7.6% 656 -8 -1.2%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
It also is useful to consider how Queen Anne’s County’s historic population growth patterns have
affected growth in Queenstown. The Town's share of County population growth has steadily
declined over that last 40 years (see Table 1-2). The 2014 estimates reinforce this observation.
Any number of reasons could explain Queenstown’s generally declining share of County
population growth including lack of land available for residential development, limited water
and/or sewer capacity, and/or factors related to consumer preferences. The uptick recorded in the
2000 Census was undoubtedly due to infill development at Queenstown Harbor and Queenstown
Village.
Table 1-2: Queenstown population as share of County
Population Town as a Percentage
Year Queenstown Queen Anne's County of the County Population
1 Source: Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau, release date March 26, 2015, Prepared by the Maryland
Department of Planning, March 2015
6

Version 10-23-19
1970 387 18,422 2.10%
1980 491 25,508 1.92%
1990 453 33,953 1.33%
2000 617 40,563 1.56%
2010 664 47,798 1.39%
Source: Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau
Relative to the State, Queenstown and Queen Anne’s County have experienced substantially
different population growth. With the exception of the period 1980 to 1990 Queen Anne’s
County’s and Queenstown’s population growth rate regularly kept pace with or exceeded that of
the State over of the last forty years (See Table 1-3). However, Queenstown’s growth rates over
the last 40 years have been erratic. While the State and County experienced positive population
growth rates in the period 1980 to 1990 Queenstown lost population. In the period 1990 to 2000
Queenstown’s growth rate far exceeded that of the County and State in large part due to
development of Queenstown Harbor and Queenstown Village. In the period 2000 to 2010
Queenstown’s growth rate fell well below that of the County and below that of the State.
Table 1-3: Population Growth Rates
Year Queenstown Queen Anne's County Maryland
1970-1980 2.41% 3.31% 0.72%
1980-1990 -0.80% 2.90% 1.26%
1990-2000 3.14% 1.79% 1.03%
2000-2010 0.74% 1.65% 0.87%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Maryland Department of Planning, Peter Johnston &
Associates, LLC
Social Characteristics
Age
The age distribution of Queenstown’s population was similar to that of the County and State in
2010. Despite a slightly higher percentage 65 and over, Queenstown’s median age recoded in the
2010 Census was lower than that of the County and slightly higher than that of the State (See Table
1-4). Queenstown had a higher percentage of population in the age groups under five years and 25
through 39 than that of the County.
Table 1-4: Age Characteristics 2010
Queenstown Queen Anne’s County Maryland
Total population 664 47,798 5,773,552
Under 5 years 8.3% 5.7% 6.3%
7

Version 10-23-19
5 to 9 years 7.1% 6.8% 6.4%
10 to 14 years 5.6% 7.0% 6.6%
15 to 19 years 5.1% 6.7% 7.0%
20 to 24 years 3.8% 4.7% 6.8%
25 to 29 years 6.5% 4.5% 6.8%
30 to 34 years 6.6% 4.6% 6.4%
35 to 39 years 6.8% 6.0% 6.5%
40 to 44 years 8.0% 8.0% 7.2%
45 to 49 years 8.1% 9.2% 8.0%
50 to 54 years 6.3% 8.5% 7.6%
55 to 59 years 6.0% 7.0% 6.5%
60 to 64 years 6.6% 6.4% 5.5%
65 to 69 years 5.6% 5.4% 3.9%
70 to 74 years 4.1% 3.5% 2.8%
75 to 79 years 2.1% 2.7% 2.2%
80 to 84 years 2.0% 1.7% 1.7%
85 years and over 1.5% 1.6% 1.7%
Median age (years) 40.2 42.6 38.0
16 years and over 77.41% 79.1% 79.4%
18 years and over 75.00% 76.2% 76.6%
21 years and over 72.89% 72.9% 72.3%
62 years and over 19.58% 18.8% 15.4%
65 years and over 15.21% 14.9% 12.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census.
Sex
Queenstown had a slightly higher ratio of females to males in 2010 (45.1 percent male versus 54.9
percent female) as compared to the County. Queenstown’s male to female ratio was comparable
to that of the State (see Table 1-5).
Table 1-5: Sex distribution 2010
Queenstown Queens Anne's County Maryland
Male population 48.5% 49.7% 48.4%
Female population 51.5% 50.3% 51.6%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census.
The male to female ratio for the population segment 18 years and over was comparable to the State
but compared to the County the ratio of females was higher. The ratio of males to females in the
8

Version 10-23-19
population segment 65 years and over was comparable to that of the State and County (see Table
1-6) with a slightly higher percentage of males.
Table 1-6: Select sex characteristics
Queenstown Queen Anne’s County Maryland
18 years and over 498 36,424 4,420,588
Male 47.4% 49.3% 47.5%
Female 52.6% 50.7% 52.5%
65 years and over
Male 47.5% 47.1% 42.3%
Female 52.5% 52.9% 57.7%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census.
Race
The population of one race was comparable to that of the County and State (see Table 1-7). The
percentage classified as white was slightly higher than the County and significantly higher than
the State. The percentage of population in the other race categories was lower than that of the
County and State.
Table 1-7: Race characteristics 2010
Queenstown Queen Anne's Maryland
County
Total population 664 47,798 5,773,552
One Race 98.49% 98.28% 97.15%
White 92.92% 88.70% 58.18%
Black or African American 3.16% 6.90% 29.45%
American Indian and Alaska Native 0.15% 0.31% 0.35%
Asian 0.90% 0.98% 5.52%
Asian Indian 0.00% 0.20% 1.37%
Chinese 0.45% 0.18% 1.20%
Filipino 0.30% 0.15% 0.76%
Japanese 0.00% 0.03% 0.12%
Korean 0.00% 0.17% 0.84%
Vietnamese 0.15% 0.08% 0.41%
Other Asian 0.00% 0.18% 0.82%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.45% 0.03% 0.05%
Native Hawaiian 0.00% 0.01% 0.01%
Guamanian or Chamorro 0.00% 0.00% 0.02%
Samoan 0.00% 0.00% 0.01%
Other Pacific Islander 0.45% 0.01% 0.02%
Some Other Race 0.90% 1.36% 3.58%
Two or More Races 1.51% 1.72% 2.85%
9

Version 10-23-19
Table 1-7: Race characteristics 2010
Queenstown Queen Anne's Maryland
County
White; American Indian and Alaska Native 0.00% 0.31% 0.26%
White; Asian 0.30% 0.39% 0.56%
White; Black or African American 1.05% 0.63% 0.81%
White; Some Other Race 0.15% 0.18% 0.35%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census.
Hispanic or Latino
The percentage of Hispanic or Latino population in Queenstown in 2010 was slightly higher than
that of County, and significantly lower than that of the State (see Table 1-8).
Table 1-8: Hispanic or Latino population 2010
Queenstown Queen Anne’s County Maryland
Total population 664 47,798 5,773,552
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 3.8% 3.0% 8.15%
Mexican 1.2% 0.9% 1.52%
Puerto Rican 0.0% 0.4% 0.74%
Cuban 0.0% 0.1% 0.18%
Other Hispanic or Latino 2.6% 1.6% 5.71%
Not Hispanic or Latino 96.2% 97.0% 91.85%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census
Education
In 2010, a slightly smaller percentage (88.4 percent) of the population 25 years and over were high
school graduates or higher and bachelor’s degree or higher than that of the County or State. A
slightly higher percentage of the population 25 years and over were high school graduates than
that of the County and a slightly higher percentage of the population 25 years and over had an
associate’s degree than that of the County and State (see Table 1-9).
Table 1-9: Educational attainment 2010
Queenstown Queen Anne’s County Maryland
Population 25 years and over 502 33,691 3,789,931
Less than 9th grade 5.20% 2.00% 4.40%
9th to 12th grade, no diploma 6.40% 6.20% 7.80%
High school graduate (includes equivalency) 39.00% 29.80% 26.40%
Some college, no degree 15.70% 20.30% 19.30%
Associate's degree 8.80% 7.60% 6.30%
Bachelor's degree 12.20% 20.90% 19.80%
Graduate or professional degree 12.70% 13.30% 16.00%
10

Version 10-23-19
Percent high school graduate or higher 88.40% 91.80% 87.80%
Percent bachelor's degree or higher 24.90% 34.10% 35.70%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey
Households and Families
The average household and average family size in Queenstown in 2010 was less than that of the
County and the State (see Table 1-10). Smaller household and family size translated into more
housing units required to accommodate the same number of persons as the County and State.
Projections prepared by the Maryland Department of Planning suggest that Queen Anne’s
County’s average household size will decrease from 2.63 to 2.47 in 2040, approximately a six
percent decrease. If Queenstown’s average household size decreases proportionately, the average
household size in 2040 could be as low as 2.3 persons per household. This trend will figure in the
calculation of future demand for services and programs related to projected population and housing
growth.
Table 1-10: Average household and family size 2010
Queenstown QA County Maryland
Average household size 2.45 2.63 2.61
Average family size 2.92 3.04 3.15
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census.
Family households were the dominant type in Queenstown in 2010 and on average were larger
than other households. However, compared to the County and State the Town’s percentage of
family households was lower. Compared to the County the percentage of married couple
households was lower in the 2010 but higher than that of the State (see Table 1-11) and female
households, nonfamily households and householders living alone was slightly higher.
Table 1-11: Households and families by type 2010
Queenstown Queen Anne’s County Maryland
Total households 271 18,016 2,156,411
Family households (families) 68.3% 73.90% 67.10%
Married-couple family 50.9% 60.29% 47.61%
Male householder, no wife present, family 3.3% 4.42% 4.84%
Female householder, no husband present, 14.0% 9.19% 14.65%
family
Nonfamily households 31.7% 26.10% 32.90%
Householder living alone 26.6% 20.58% 26.11%
65 years and over 10.3% 28.07% 23.95%
11

Version 10-23-19
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census
It was estimated that during the period 2006 to 2010 households living in Queenstown were more
likely to have moved into their housing unit before 2000 than was the case in the County or State
indicating a somewhat longer residency (see Table 1-12).
Table 1-12: Year householder moved into unit 2010
Queenstown Queens Anne's County Maryland
Occupied housing units 283 17,188 2,121,047
Moved in 2005 or later 22.30% 21.60% 32.50%
Moved in 2000 to 2004 15.50% 27.10% 24.60%
Moved in 1990 to 1999 37.80% 26.60% 21.20%
Moved in 1980 to 1989 14.10% 15.70% 10.30%
Moved in 1970 to 1979 7.80% 5.80% 6.00%
Moved in 1969 or earlier 2.50% 3.20% 5.40%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey
Housing Characteristics
Estimated housing occupancy characteristics for Queenstown were similar to that of Queen Anne’s
County and the State in the period 2006 to 2010. Of total housing units in Queenstown the Census
Bureau estimated 86.5 percent were occupied (see Table 1-13). Housing vacancy rates in the
County and Town was higher than that of the State.
Table 1-13: Housing occupancy 2010
Queenstown Queen Anne's County Maryland
Total housing units 327 19,824 2,354,870
Occupied housing units 86.50% 86.70% 90.10%
Vacant housing units 13.50% 13.30% 9.90%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey
A significantly higher percentage of housing units were classified as 1-unit detached in
Queenstown than the State (See Table 1-14). The percentage classified as 2 units was much higher
than that of the County and State. Queenstown had no units classified as 3 units or more.
Table 1-14: Units in structure 2010
Queenstown Queen Anne’s County Maryland
Total housing units 327 19,824 2,354,870
1-unit, detached 82.9% 84.0% 51.6%
1-unit, attached (includes townhouses) 4.9% 6.1% 21.1%
12

Version 10-23-19
2 units 12.2% 1.2% 1.8%
3 or 4 units 0.0% 0.5% 2.4%
5 to 9 units 0.0% 2.5% 5.3%
10 to 19 units 0.0% 0.7% 8.5%
20 or more units 0.0% 1.3% 7.7%
Mobile home 0.0% 3.7% 1.7%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey
Housing tenure in Queenstown was comparable to that of the County with a slightly higher
percentage of occupied housing and a slightly higher percentage renter occupied units in 2010 (see
Table 1-15).
Table 1-15: Housing tenure 2010 Queenstown, Queen Anne’s County, Maryland
Queenstown Queen Anne’s County
Percent Percent
Total housing units 100.0% 100.0%
Occupied housing units 92.2% 89.5%
Owner-occupied housing units 71.1% 74.1%
Renter-occupied housing units 21.1% 15.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census
According to estimates, housing units in Queenstown tended to be smaller in terms of rooms and
bedrooms than that to the County and State. This may be a determining factor in the smaller
average household and family sizes recorded for Queenstown in 2010. The figures indicated the
Town had a higher percentage of two, five and six room units and a higher percentage of one and
two bedroom units than that of the County and State (see Table 1-16).
Table 1-16: Rooms in housing units 2010
Queenstown Queen Anne’s County Maryland
Total housing units 327 19,824 2,354,870
1 room 0.00% 0.20% 0.90%
2 rooms 8.00% 0.60% 1.90%
3 rooms 1.20% 3.40% 7.80%
4 rooms 7.60% 7.70% 13.00%
5 rooms 26.00% 16.90% 15.20%
6 rooms 26.90% 21.50% 17.30%
7 rooms 17.10% 16.90% 14.10%
8 rooms 9.50% 14.20% 11.40%
9 rooms or more 3.70% 18.60% 18.30%
Median rooms 5.8 6.5 6.1
13

Version 10-23-19
Table 1-16: Rooms in housing units 2010
Queenstown Queen Anne’s County Maryland
Total housing units 327 19,824 2,354,870
No bedroom 0.00% 0.20% 1.10%
1 bedroom 11.00% 4.70% 10.50%
2 bedrooms 23.20% 15.10% 22.70%
3 bedrooms 48.90% 51.20% 37.90%
4 bedrooms 15.60% 22.10% 20.90%
5 or more bedrooms 1.20% 6.60% 7.00%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey
According U.S Census estimates the housing stock in Queenstown tends to be older than that of
the County or State. Over 30 percent of housing units were built prior to 1939 and none were listed
as being built in 2005 or later (see Table 1-17). A significant percentage of housing units were
built in the period 1990 to 1999 (Queenstown Harbor and Queenstown Village) and 1970 to 1979
(Friel subdivisions). Over 60 percent of the housing stock in 2010 was 35 years old or older.
Table 1-17: Age of Structure
Queenstown Queen Anne’s County Maryland
Total housing units 327 19,824 2,354,870
Built 2005 or later 0.00% 4.40% 3.30%
Built 2000 to 2004 8.00% 12.40% 7.60%
Built 1990 to 1999 25.40% 18.40% 14.30%
Built 1980 to 1989 4.90% 22.30% 15.90%
Built 1970 to 1979 19.90% 15.80% 15.30%
Built 1960 to 1969 2.80% 7.60% 12.60%
Built 1950 to 1959 5.80% 6.60% 12.50%
Built 1940 to 1949 2.40% 2.60% 6.50%
Built 1939 or earlier 30.90% 10.00% 12.00%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey
The median value in dollars of owner-occupied housing in Queenstown was estimated to be
approximately 87 percent of the median value of owner-occupied housing units in the County and
nearly comparable to that of the State (see Table 1-18). Compared to the County and State
Queenstown had a higher percentage of units valued more than $200,000 and less than $499,999
with significant drop off points $149,000 or less and $500,000 or greater. Both Queenstown and
Queen Anne’s County fell below the State percentages in occupied units of $199,999 or less.
Table 1-18: Housing values owner occupied units
Queenstown Queen Anne’s County Maryland
Owner-occupied units 236 14,580 1,464,162
Less than $50,000 0.00% 1.40% 2.50%
14

Version 10-23-19
$50,000 to $99,999 0.00% 1.40% 3.70%
$100,000 to $149,999 0.00% 3.60% 5.60%
$150,000 to $199,999 2.10% 4.50% 8.80%
$200,000 to $299,999 35.60% 20.30% 23.20%
$300,000 to $499,999 51.70% 41.10% 34.20%
$500,000 to $999,999 8.50% 20.00% 18.80%
$1,000,000 or more 2.10% 7.60% 3.20%
Median (dollars) 328,200 375,700 329,400
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey
Estimated median gross rents in 2010 were substantially higher (20 and 17 percent respectively)
than that of the County and State (see Table 1-19). These relative costs may change with the new
water and sewer rate structure.
Table 1-19: Gross Rent 2010
Queenstown Queen Anne’s County Maryland
Occupied units paying rent
Less than $200 0.0% 0.8% 2.5%
$200 to $299 0.0% 8.2% 2.5%
$300 to $499 0.0% 11.3% 4.5%
$500 to $749 0.0% 7.2% 10.8%
$750 to $999 11.6% 19.5% 21.7%
$1,000 to $1,499 58.1% 24.9% 37.7%
$1,500 or more 30.2% 28.1% 20.3%
Median (dollars) 1,307 1,050 1,091
No rent paid 9.3% 14.5% 4.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey
Estimates indicate that renter costs as a percentage of household income in Queenstown were
generally lower than that of the County (see Table 1-20) except for the percent of renters paying
rents 35 percent or more of income, which were slightly higher.
Table 1-20: Gross rent as a percentage of household income (grapi)
Queenstown Queen Anne's County
Occupied units paying rent (excluding units 100.0% 100.00%
where GRAPI cannot be computed)
Less than 15.0 percent 41.9% 11.26%
15.0 to 19.9 percent 4.7% 8.39%
20.0 to 24.9 percent 0.0% 12.50%
25.0 to 29.9 percent 7.0% 16.30%
30.0 to 34.9 percent 7.0% 12.94%
35.0 percent or more 39.5% 38.60%
Not computed 4 344
15

Version 10-23-19
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey
Selected monthly owner costs are calculated from the sum of payment for mortgages, real estate
taxes, various insurances, utilities, fuels, mobile home costs, and condominium fees. Estimated
selected monthly owner costs for housing units with and without a mortgage were somewhat lower
in Queenstown than that of the County (see Table 1-21). Again, these relative costs may change
with the new water and sewer rate structure.
Table 1-21: Selected monthly owner costs (SMOC)
Queenstown Queen Anne’s County
Housing units with a mortgage 100.0% 100.0%
Less than $300 0.0% 0.1%
$300 to $499 0.0% 0.7%
$500 to $699 0.0% 1.6%
$700 to $999 4.3% 5.1%
$1,000 to $1,499 39.6% 19.0%
$1,500 to $1,999 16.5% 22.9%
$2,000 or more 39.6% 50.6%
Median (dollars) 1,601 2,014
Queenstown Queen Anne’s County
Housing units without a mortgage 100.0% 100.0%
Less than $100 0.0% 0.1%
$100 to $199 9.3% 1.9%
$200 to $299 0.0% 6.9%
$300 to $399 34.0% 14.1%
$400 or more 56.7% 77.1%
Median (dollars) 424 545
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey
Economic Characteristics
Recent estimates for Queen Anne’s County indicate the leading industries of employment (66
percent) for County residents are educational services, and health care and social assistance,
professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services,
retail trade, health care and social assistance and public administration. For the Town over 73
percent of civilian population 16 years and over were employed in the educational services, and
health care and social assistance, public administration, retail trade, health care and social
assistance and construction industries (see Table 1-22).
16

Version 10-23-19
Table 1-22: Industry for civilian employed population over 16 years of age
Queen Anne's
Queenstown County Maryland
Civilian employed population 16 years and over 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and 1.1% 2.7% 0.5%
mining:
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting 1.1% 2.7% 0.5%
Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Construction 11.0% 8.7% 6.7%
Manufacturing 3.8% 6.8% 4.8%
Wholesale trade 1.4% 3.2% 2.0%
Retail trade 14.0% 12.4% 9.8%
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities: 6.0% 4.1% 4.3%
Transportation and warehousing 6.0% 3.2% 3.6%
Utilities 0.0% 0.9% 0.7%
Information 0.0% 1.7% 2.2%
Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental 3.6% 4.7% 6.2%
and leasing:
Finance and insurance 1.6% 3.1% 4.1%
Real estate and rental and leasing 1.9% 1.5% 2.1%
Professional, scientific, and management, and 6.3% 12.7% 15.0%
administrative and waste management services:
Professional, scientific, and technical services 4.9% 8.2% 10.5%
Management of companies and enterprises 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Administrative and support and waste management 1.4% 4.5% 4.4%
services
Educational services, and health care and social 21.2% 20.2% 23.6%
assistance:
Educational services 8.5% 8.6% 10.0%
Health care and social assistance 12.6% 11.6% 13.6%
Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and 8.5% 8.5% 8.1%
accommodation and food services:
Arts, entertainment, and recreation 4.1% 1.7% 1.8%
Accommodation and food services 4.4% 6.8% 6.3%
Other services, except public administration 8.8% 4.7% 5.4%
Public administration 14.3% 9.6% 11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Like the County and State, 2010-2014 data estimates management, business, science, and arts
occupations and sales and office work were the leading occupations for over one half the civilian
employed population 16 years and over in Queenstown (see Table 1-23).
17

Version 10-23-19
Table 1-23: Occupation For the Civilian Employed Population 16 Years and Over
Queenstown Queen Anne’s Maryland
County
Management, business, science, and arts 33.5% 40.1% 44.5%
occupations
Service occupations 14.6% 15.6% 17.0%
Sales and office occupations 25.8% 26.6% 22.9%
Natural resources, construction, and 9.9% 9.0% 7.9%
maintenance occupations
Production, transportation, and material 16.2% 8.8% 7.8%
moving occupations
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
According to Bureau of Economic Analysis data the average annual payroll per employee in Queen
Anne’s County for establishments across all industries in 2013 was $31,998 and the highest paid
employees worked for establishments classified as manufacturing.2 The average annual payroll
for the Queenstown zip code (21658) was $26,374.
Less than a fifth of Queenstown’s labor force 16 years and over worked in Queenstown (see Table
1-24) in 2010. About one quarter worked at jobs located outside of Queenstown and in Queen
Anne’s County. Over half worked at jobs outside of Queen Anne’s County.
Table 1-24: Work place of workers 16 years and over 2000 and
2010
2000 Percent 2010 Percent
Workers 16 years and over 343 100% 399 100%
Worked in place of residence 51 15% 79 20%
Worked in county of residence* 128 37% 99 25%
Worked outside county of residence 139 41% 205 51%
Worked outside state of residence 25 7% 16 4%
* Less worked in place of residence
Source: Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau
Estimates of average household and family income for Queenstown were nearly equal to those of
the County and State. The estimated average per capita income for Queenstown was slightly higher
than that of the County and State (see Tables 1-25 and 1-26).
Table 1-25: Household Income and benefits (in 2014 inflation-adjusted dollars)
Queenstown Queen Anne's County Maryland
Total households 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Less than $10,000 5.1% 3.2% 5.2%
2 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 County Business Patterns
18

Version 10-23-19
$10,000 to $14,999 0.7% 2.3% 3.3%
$15,000 to $24,999 1.8% 5.5% 6.9%
$25,000 to $34,999 0.7% 6.2% 7.3%
$35,000 to $49,999 13.9% 9.0% 10.7%
$50,000 to $74,999 18.6% 17.7% 17.2%
$75,000 to $99,999 16.1% 13.2% 13.4%
$100,000 to $149,999 25.2% 23.7% 18.1%
$150,000 to $199,999 11.3% 9.9% 8.9%
$200,000 or more 6.6% 9.4% 9.1%
Median household income (dollars) 82,083 86406 74,149
Mean household income (dollars) 98,898 103775 97,135
Per capita income (dollars) 41,080 38,392 36,670
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Table 1-26: Family income and benefits (in 2014 inflation-adjusted dollars)
Queenstown Queen Anne's County Maryland
Families 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Less than $10,000 1.1% 2.1% 3.1%
$10,000 to $14,999 0.0% 1.2% 1.9%
$15,000 to $24,999 2.7% 3.4% 4.7%
$25,000 to $34,999 1.1% 5.1% 6.0%
$35,000 to $49,999 12.8% 7.5% 9.5%
$50,000 to $74,999 18.6% 17.4% 16.3%
$75,000 to $99,999 23.4% 13.9% 14.2%
$100,000 to $149,999 14.4% 27.0% 21.1%
$150,000 to $199,999 16.5% 11.6% 11.2%
$200,000 or more 9.6% 10.8% 12.0%
Median family income (dollars) 85,714 98,798 89,416
Mean family income (dollars) 108,828 113,662 112,955
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Conclusions
Examining the causes of population change offers insight into the dynamics underlying growth or
decline and highlights potential areas of inquiry. Local government policies can be crafted to
respond to these dynamics, to reinforce the positive and address the negative aspects of change to
the extent possible.
Population growth or decline is a result of natural increases (births versus deaths) and in-migration
to the jurisdiction. Recent estimates indicate that Queen Anne’s County’s population growth
between 2000 and 2012 was largely the result of in-migration (80 percent) as opposed to natural
19

Version 10-23-19
increase.3 If a large portion of population growth is from in-migration, as is the case in Queen
Anne’s County, it would be helpful to understand what is causing this trend, e.g., whether people
are moving to the area for jobs, cost of living factors, quality of life, or a combination of reasons.
There was a net in-migration to Queen Anne’s County of 3,809 persons in the period 1995 to
2000.4 Of this total, 3,391 were intra-state migrants, 91 were inter-state migrants and 327 were
from aboard. Slightly more than 80 percent of the net intra-state in-migration in this period was
from the Baltimore region with Anne Arundel and Baltimore counties being the primary sources
(70 percent plus).
Estimates for the period 2006-2010 indicate the rate of in-migration to the County has slowed
dramatically since 2000 but the trans-location trends remain similar. The estimates indicate that
over 85 percent of in-migration is intra-state, over 85 percent of the intra-state migration was from
the Baltimore Region, and Anne Arundel, Baltimore and Prince George’s County accounted for
over 93 percent of the migrants5. Net inter-state migration was primarily from Delaware. So we
conclude that population growth in Queenstown in large part is due to in-migration from the
Baltimore and Washington regions of people, many who commute to the Western Shore for
employment.
Data would indicate that moving to reduce commute time to work does not appear to be a leading
factor in the decision to move to Queens Anne’s County or Queenstown. In 2000 the majority of
workers commuting from Queen Anne’s county for employment were journeying to the Baltimore
and Washington regions, primarily Anne Arundel and Prince Georges Counties. Of the 426
Queenstown residents in the labor force in 2010, not including those that walked to work, over 93
percent commuted to work with an average commute time of 29.9 minutes.6 The mean travel time
for commuting workers in Anne Arundel, Baltimore and Prince George’s Counties in 2010 were
comparable to those of Queenstown’s workers who commute to places of employment.
An encouraging trend is the differences in the number of people that worked in their place of
residence which may be due to telecommunication technologies beginning to blur the distinction
between the locus of work and the place of domicile. Compared to 2000 Census figures, more
workers 16 years and over worked at home, substantially less worked in Queen Anne’s County,
and slightly less worked outside the State (see Table 25). The change in worked in the county of
residence figures may be the result of more and better employment opportunities located outside
3 Data Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, 2012, Census Bureau, Population Division, Washington, D.C., A
Profile of Socioeconomic Measures, Selected Geographies: Queen Anne's County MD, Benchmark Geographies:
United States, Economic Profile System-Human Dimensions Toolkit, EPS-HDT, January 17, 2014
4 Source: Maryland Department of Planning, Planning Data Services, from Census 2000 Migration Tabulations
5 Source: Maryland Department of Planning, based on 2006 to 2010 American Community Survey.
6 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey
20

Version 10-23-19
of the County. Key policy areas for local governments involve the quality of telecommunications
infrastructure.
Data also indicates that relative housing cost may not have been a factor in the decisions to move
to Queenstown or Queen Anne’s County. The median value of housing in Queenstown in the
period 2006 to 2010 was reported as $328,200 (See Table 18). The Town’s median value was
approximately 87 percent of the median value of owner occupied housing units in the County and
nearly comparable to that of the State. Median value of owner occupied housing units in Anne
Arundel and Baltimore Counties during the same period was $370,100 and $269,900 respectively.
Median housing values in Baltimore County were 21 percent less indicating lower housing costs
was not a motive for these migrants.7 Median housing costs in Anne Arundel were about 11 percent
higher indicating that lower housing costs may have been a motive but the savings were relatively
marginal.
Concerning lower cost rental housing the strongest incentive to migrate appears to be for
individuals and households from Anne Arundel County. Recent Census Bureau estimates indicate
that median gross rents in Queenstown were ten to more than fifteen percent higher than that of
Baltimore or Princess George’s County but nearly half of the figure recorded for Anne Arundel
County.8
Considering all of the preceding it seems reasonable to assume that people migrating to
Queenstown:
• were mostly from in-state areas, primarily metropolitan areas on the Western Shore;
• did not move in order to reduce travel time to their place of employment; and
• not strongly motivated by relative housing costs.
This leaves quality of life as a potentially key consideration for those deciding to move to Queen
Anne’s County, and by inference Queenstown. Obviously Queenstown has little direct control over
many of the government services that figure into “quality of life”, e.g., education facilities and
services, public safety, health care and employment opportunities. Town policies can have an
impact on quality of life factors such as neighborhood quality, social and civic engagement,
recreation, housing affordability and a limited and indirect impact on overall environmental
quality.
Queen Anne’s County’s population growth has slowed in large part due to a decrease in the number
of people migrating to the County. Population growth in Queenstown has slowed even more, is
stagnate or even declining. This is understandable considering the limited amount of developable
land for residential growth within the corporate limits. Consequently a key factor affecting
7 Ibid
8 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
21

Version 10-23-19
potential population growth in Queenstown in the short term will be infill and redevelopment. The
22 unit duplex development the recently approved Steamboat Landing subdivision is an example
if infill development. The recent projects approved at 7001 Marin Street and 310 and 312 Del
Rhodes Avenue are examples of redevelopment that increases housing stock. Another short term
factor will be occupying vacant units. There were 327 reported housing units in Queenstown in
2010. Of this total 44 units were listed as vacant. Long term the Town’s annexation plan should
include areas for residential growth.
The existing housing stock in Queenstown tends to be older than that of the County and State
indicating the need for policies that encourage investment in maintenance and up keep. Generally
households have lived in housing units in Queenstown a little longer than households in the County
and State. Coupled with the high percentage of owner occupied units and family households this
data may be indicate a stable population who have chosen Queenstown as a final settlement
location. However, increasing housing costs, including property tax, utilities, etc., may increase
the number of household and families with disproportionate housing cost to income ratios. Ways
to reduce housing costs for existing and future residents includes increasing the user base on public
utilities, and for new residents, compact development at increased density to reduce infrastructure
costs.
Queenstown’s housing stock exclusively consists of one and two family units. This data indicates
the need for more housing variety especially as relates to affordable housing objectives and
considering the relative high cost of production for these types of housing units as compared with
multi-family units. This is particularly true considering Queenstown’s higher median gross rents
and the percent of renters paying 35 percent or more of income for housing.
In general, it appears that economic conditions affecting Queenstown residents are very similar to
those affecting the County and State. So grows the region’s economy so grows Queenstown’s.
Before the recent annexation of the Waterman Family Partnership, LLC property (Waterman site)
the Town had limited land capacity for development projects with the potential for positive
economic benefits for the Town and County. Annexation of the Waterman property along with
increased wastewater treatment plant capacity greatly expands opportunities for economic
development within the Town.
Prospects for substantial regional commercial development on the Waterman site in the immediate
future appear limited and focusing on development and reinforcement of small-scale local
businesses should continue. A regional shopping center of between 300,000 to 750,000 square feet
requires a trade area of 8 to 15 miles and a trade area population in the range of 100,000 to
250,0009. A trade area of approximately eight to ten miles surrounding Queenstown had a 2000
population of approximately 26,500, well below the threshold requirement for a regional shopping
center. This is not to say that commercial development on the Waterman site is not feasible. Market
9 Source: Urban Land Institute, Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers, Property Counselors
22

Version 10-23-19
area requirements for commercial centers such as the existing Premium Outlets Center may not fit
the Urban Land Institute’s standard model. Perhaps it would be better to consider the types and
intensity of development on the Waterman site as square feet of potential economic activity since
the site is located adjacent to an existing commercial outlet center and the Planned Regional
Floating Zone permits a broad range of potential uses, including office, medical, service, lodging,
institutional care facilities and entertainment in addition to retail.
23

Version 10-23-19
SECTION 2: LAND USE PLAN
Introduction
Under the provisions of the Maryland’s Economic Growth, Resource Protection, and Planning Act
of 1992 (Planning Act of 1992), all policies, programs and regulations (e.g., zoning, subdivision
regulations, annexations) that implement the comprehensive plan must be consistent with the
recommendations and policies of the plan. In addition, State and local funding decisions must be
consistent with the local plan as well as the twelve State visions.
The Land Use Plan element defines the “most appropriate and desirable” land use pattern for the
Town. It reflects what the Town considers as “smart growth” within the guidance provided by the
State and tempered by the other factors that influence land use. As stated in the Land Use Article,
the plan should contain, among other minimum elements, a land use plan which “on a schedule
that extends as far into the future as is reasonable propose the most appropriate and desirable
patterns for the general location, character, extent, and interrelationship of the uses of public and
private land.”10 The Land Use Plan also must reflect careful consideration of factors that influence
how land is used to insure minimal conflict at all jurisdictional levels. Public policy concerning
municipal growth, community facilities and services, transportation infrastructure, resource
conservation, housing, community design, and fiscal management must be balanced against such
things as existing land use, expectations created by existing zoning, existing and future private
investment trends, market forces, and the plans of surrounding jurisdictions.
Goals, Objective and Policies
Goal
Ensure the orderly growth and development of Queenstown through the wise allocation of land to
the various uses based on the anticipated needs of the current and expected population, with
attention in planning and implementation to protection of the existing man-made environment,
conservation of natural resources, transportation accessibility, the availability of utilities and
public facilities, and financial resources.
Objectives
• Objective 1: Promote appropriate infill development and redevelopment.
• Objective 2: Protect existing residential neighborhoods from incompatible uses.
10 Land Use Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, § 3-111(a).
24

Version 10-23-19
• Objective 3: Encourage and provide for mixed-use development with a variety of housing
types, densities, nonresidential uses, open spaces, and recreational amenities in annexed
areas that blends appropriately with existing land uses.
Policies
• The Land Use Plan represents Queenstown’s official policy for land use, development, and
growth and shall be the basis for zoning and other implementation tools;
• Development shall avoid designated sensitive areas and employ best management practices to
minimize adverse impacts on water quality.
• Water and sewer service, transportation and other community facilities will be designed to
support the planned land use pattern and the timing and pace of new development will be
managed to be compatible with the Town’s ability to provide adequate public services and to
ensure that the character of the Town is protected.
• The Town will discourage inefficient use of land planned for development and will encourage
the County to prevent sprawl residential development and resource-consuming patterns of
growth surrounding the Town.
Existing Land Use
Existing land use is a basic component of the Town’s community character (See Map 2-1). The
way land is being used, the geographic distribution of the various land uses, and how one use at a
given location relates with other uses and community infrastructure affect how the community is
perceived and used by residents, customers and guests. The established pattern of land use is an
indicator for determining the most appropriate and desirable future land use.
Queenstown’s existing land use pattern can be generally described as follows:
• large lot residential fronting Queenstown Creek;
• established neighborhoods within a comfortable walking distance of and surrounding the
town center;
• limited highway oriented commercial uses situated along the north side of US 301;
• linear commercial and industrial uses situated along the south side of Del Rhodes Avenue
south of US 301;
• a small residential enclave situated along the south side of Del Rhodes Avenue south of
US 301;
• a cluster of regional commercial located adjacent to US 50 and separated from the old town
by the US 301 corridor; and
25

Version 10-23-19
• a large golf course/open space area to the west.
Queenstown’s corporate area encompasses approximately 1,217 acres. Queenstown Harbor Resort
and portions of Queenstown Creek that are within the town limits make up approximately 69
percent of the corporate area (see Table 2-1). Eliminate these two categories and the predominant
land uses are almost evenly divided between single family residential, vacant agriculture and open
space. The Waterman Family Limited Partnership property (aka Wheatland Farm) dominates the
latter two, vacant agriculture land and open space. Within what may be considered the old town
portion of Queenstown, single family residential is the dominant existing land category. Although
classified as a “commercial” land use, Queenstown Harbor Resort functions as a character defining
feature more like “open space”.
Table 2-1: Existing Land Use 2013
Land Use Description Acres Percent
Single Family Residential 94 7.7%
Attached Residential 2 0.2%
Multifamily Residential 1 0.1%
Commercial 46 3.8%
Resort Commercial 685 56.2%
Industrial 5 0.4%
Institutional 4 0.3%
Town Owned 1 0.1%
Public Works 3 0.3%
Open Space 77 6.3%
Agriculture/Vacant 84 6.9%
Vacant 31 2.5%
Under Water 157 12.9%
Right of Ways 27 2.2%
Total Area 1,217 100.0%
Source: Maryland Department of Assessment and Taxation, Peter Johnston & Associates, LLC
Current Zoning
Zoning can both reflect existing land use and expectations for future land use. Queenstown is
divided into ten separate zoning classifications (see Map 2-2). As was the case of existing land
use, Queenstown Harbor Resort property dominates, accounting for over 60 percent of all zoned
land. The category is followed by the Planned Regional Commercial classification, about 14
percent of all zoned land. The significance of this category is somewhat misleading as
approximately 59 acres or about 40 percent of the site will be dedicated open space (see Table 2-
2).
26

Version 10-23-19
Map 2-1 Existing Land Use
27

Version 10-23-19
Table 2-2: Existing Zoning
Zoning Classification Acres Percent
Base Zones
R-1 Residential 73 7.1%
R-2 Residential 47 4.6%
Town Center 11 1.1%
Highway Commercial 15 1.5%
Regional Commercial 29 2.8%
Industrial 21 2.0%
QRD Queenstown Resort 114 11.1%
QCS Queenstown Countryside 577 55.9%
Floating Zones
Planned Regional Commercial 146 14.1%
Planned Neighborhood Development 0 0%
Sources: Maryland Department of Assessment and Taxation, Peter
Johnston & Associates, LLC
The stated purpose of each of the base zoning districts is as follows:
R-1 Residential: Provide for a pleasant, quiet, hazard-free residential environment in which
residential and related uses are permitted.
R-2: Residential: Allow a diversity of housing types and densities within neighborhoods in
suitable locations in Queenstown, to broaden the housing types and configurations; to
provide desirable open space and recreational lands close to residences; to create visual
interest and relate development more sensitively to environmental features; and to establish
reasonable controls and standards of design for the dwelling types allowed in this district.
TC: Town Center: Encourage the revitalization of Queenstown's town core, while at the
same time reinforcing its historic, mixed-use and pedestrian-oriented character.
HC- Highway Commercial: Provide appropriate locations and standards for commercial
uses which are primarily oriented to highway travelers, which require large floor area in
their operations, and which are likely to generate high volumes of automobile traffic.
RC- Regional Commercial: Recognize and provide for the continuation of existing
regional retail shopping establishments located adjacent to U.S. Routes 50 or 301.
I-Industrial: Provide appropriate locations and standards for industrial uses which are
compatible with adjacent uses to the extent that adverse effects on health, safety, welfare
or the environment are avoided. The uses are limited to light manufacturing, fabricating,
warehousing, wholesale distributing and certain types of commercial uses.
28

Version 10-23-19
QRD - Queenstown Resort Development: Provide for recreation, hotel, conference center,
food and lodging, dining and associated uses in a waterfront and golf course environment
within the Town and to encourage commercial adaptive reuse of historic properties
consistent with an Eastern Shore historic village. The district provides for flexible
development concepts, good site design, and architectural integration in the configuration
and style of buildings as part of a unified and coherent plan of development.
CS - Countryside: The Queenstown Countryside District: Preserve and protect rural,
agricultural and recreational areas of the Town that generally lie within the Chesapeake
Bay Critical Area and contain sensitive natural resource. This district shall be
predominantly characterized by open space, golf courses and very low-density uses with
significant associated open space.
The stated purpose of each of the floating zoning districts is as follows:
PN - Planned Neighborhood Floating Zone District: Permit master planned, mixed-use
developments of large tracts of land.
PRC - Planned Regional Commercial District: Establish an area for master-planned
regional commercial and integrated residential uses in accordance with the Queenstown
Comprehensive Plan.
In addition to the base and floating zoning districts previously outlined the Queenstown Zoning
Code includes two overlay zoning districts, the CA Critical Area Overlay District and the CR
Community Redevelopment Overlay District. These overlay districts supplement the standards in
the underlying zoning district.
The purpose of the CA Critical Area Overlay District is to:
• Minimize adverse impacts on water quality that result from pollutants that are discharged
from structures or run off from surrounding lands;
• Conserve fish, wildlife, and plant habitat; and
• Establish land use policies for development in the Critical Area which accommodate
growth as well as address the environmental impacts that the number, movement, and
activities of people may have on the area.
The purpose of the CR Community Redevelopment Overlay District is
• Accommodate growth in Queenstown by encouraging and facilitating new development
and redevelopment on vacant, bypassed and underutilized land where such development is
29

Version 10-23-19
found to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and adequate public facilities
and services exist;
• Encourage efficient use of land and public services;
• Stimulate re-investment and development in the Town Center and portions of older
established neighborhoods;
• Provide developers and property owners flexibility that achieves high quality design and
result in infill and redevelopment projects that strengthen existing neighborhoods;
• Stabilize existing neighborhoods; and
• Implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the Queenstown Community Plan.
The CR overlay district has proven useful since its inception, resulting in new infill residential
units on several properties in and around the town center.
Not including the vacant agriculture land which is being considered for regional commercial
development, approximately 2.5 percent of the town land area is vacant. Of the total approximately
15 acres is zoned for residential development, all of which is considered infill development (see
Table 2-3). Slightly more than 11 acres are zoned for industrial use. Slightly less than five acres
are zoned for commercial use.
Table 2-3: Vacant Land by Zoning Classification
Zoning Classification Acres
Industrial 12
Highway Commercial 5
R-1 Residential 4
R-2 Residential 11
Planned Regional Commercial 145
Total 177
Source: Peter Johnston & Associates, LLC
The distribution of vacant land within each of the town’s zoning districts has implications for
nature and form of future development. There is very little vacant residentially zoned land within
the old town portion of Queenstown. Most of what remains has already been subdivided into
building lots, the largest area being Steamboat Village.
30

Version 10-23-19
The approximately five acres of vacant Highway Commercial land is located at the intersection of
Main Street and US 301 cannot be developed. A portion of this property is dedicated open space.
Development on the remainder is severely limited by the presence of a large area of nontidal
wetlands.
Development also is limited on the 1.8 acres of vacant industrial property located adjacent to a
tributary feeding to the Wye River and owned by the State Highway Administration (SHA) due to
presence of environmentally sensitive areas. About three of the approximately 7.8 acres located
on the northeast side of Del Rhodes Avenue, south of US 301, is within the Chesapeake Bay
Critical Area and is classified Resource Conservation Area (RCA). The Town and the Chesapeake
Bay Critical Area Commission would have to approve growth allocation to change the Critical
Area classification of this land in order for it to be developed.
Approximately 146 vacant acres have been given a Planned Regional Commercial (RPC) floating
zone classification. Of this total, approximately 83 acres can be developed. The remainder of the
property is dedicated open space. Any development of the property is currently pending approval
of growth allocation under the terms of the Town’s Critical Area Program and Town
Commissioner approval of a master plan as per the Planned Development provisions of the
Queenstown Zoning code.
31

Version 10-23-19
Map 2-2 Existing Zoning
32

Version 10-23-19
Land Use Plan
The “Land Use Plan” is a primary component of the Queenstown’s Comprehensive Plan. It
describes the preferred land use characteristics deemed to be consistent with the Town’s vision. It
is intended to provide adequate land to accommodate population and economic growth consistent
with Queenstown’s land use and municipal growth goals, objectives and policies. In addition, these
land use planning areas provide the basis for public decisions concerning such things as land use
regulations and public facilities programming.
The Town’s Land Use Plan (Map 2-3) includes 12 distinct land use categories. Table 2-4
summarizes the acreage in each land use category. The Land Use Plan includes the following areas:
Town Center
The Town Center planning area encompasses 49 parcels. It is characterized as a mix of residential,
office, commercial, public, and semi-public uses and includes a store and a restaurant, two offices,
a post office, the fire department, a church, apartments and the Town office.
Table 2-4: Land Use Plan Summary
Land Use Category Acres Percent of Total
Town Center 10 0.5%
Neighborhood Conservation 101 5.5%
Highway Commercial 16 0.9%
Industrial 22 1.2%
Resort Residential 234 12.7%
Regional Commercial 26 1.4%
Planned Regional Commercial 86 4.7%
Institutional 5 0.3%
Utility 3 0.2%
Open Space 528 28.7%
Planned Annexation 351 19.1%
Long Range Growth 458 24.9%
Total 1,840 100.0%
Source: Peter Johnston & Associates, LLC
This current mix of uses and the traditional scale and type of architecture reflects the essential
existing character of the Town deemed important to retain. The Town wants keep the commercial
and services uses and would like to add more compatible town-scale, neighborhood commercial
as these businesses. Development regulations and ordinances for the Town center will emphasize
flexible development standards that support reinvestments and encourage infill and
redevelopment.
33

Version 10-23-19
Neighborhood Conservation
The Neighborhood Conservation land use planning area is made up of the Town’s established
residential neighborhoods. This plan area encompasses 291 parcels and is primarily characterized
by detached single family dwellings at low densities. Average lot size is about 15,500 square feet
or slightly less more than third of an acres and the net residential density is approximately 2.7
dwelling units per acre.
Approximately 215 or about three quarters of the properties located in this planning area are within
a comfortable (five minute) walking distance of the Town Center (1/4 mile). Of course, whether
or not residents actually walk to the Town center is a function of pedestrian qualities (sidewalks,
safety, etc.), the land uses or activities that attract, and the quality of the walking experience (e.g.,
shade, interesting textures, street level social interaction opportunities). Transportation and
community design objectives should include development of alternative modes of travel within
the Town. Strategies for improving pedestrian and bike access to the Town Center, municipal and
recreation facilities and other places where residents may travel may include sidewalk
improvements and street tree planting to enhance the pedestrian experience.
A primary objective for Neighborhood Conservation areas is to maintain the existing stable
residential character and property values. Development regulations for these residential areas
should reflect the existing development pattern in the neighborhoods, e. g., lot sizes, yards, parking
arrangements, and architectural styles, and ensure that infill and redevelopment is consistent with
this existing character. At the same time, development standards should be established to
minimize non-conforming situations. Context sensitive infill and redevelopment on vacant and
underutilized properties should be encouraged.
The Town will employ tools, such as the Community Redevelopment Overlay District and
administrative variances to encourage and facilitate new development and redevelopment on
vacant, bypassed and underutilized land where such development is found to be compatible with
the surrounding neighborhood.
Highway Commercial
The Highway Commercial land use area encompasses a little more than 26 acres. Most of the
usable portions of the land use category are already developed. Properties located north of US 301
and adjacent to Del Rhodes Avenue are currently developed with two convenience commercial
fueling stations and a business office with storage.
The approximately five acres located north of US 301 at the intersection with Main Street is part
of the Queenstown Harbor Links Golf Course. As mentioned earlier, these properties are either
dedicated open space or nontidal wetlands and cannot be developed.
34

Version 10-23-19
The obvious intent for these areas is provide appropriate locations for commercial uses primarily
oriented to highway travelers but at the same time serve local residents. Of major concern for any
development on these properties is ensuring compatibility with adjacent residential uses and
addressing potential traffic safety issues, noise, and air pollution impacts as they affect adjacent
residential areas.
Industrial
There are approximately 22 acres in this land use category, 12 acres of which are vacant and zoned
for industrial use. However, much of the vacant land is unsuited for development. The area along
Del Rhodes Avenue Road on the east side of US 301 is currently within Town limits and contains
a few small-scale industrial uses located among some single-family homes. The corporate
boundary cuts through portions of properties in this area and it is recommended that the Town
annex the balance of these properties into the corporate limits.
Existing uses here include a portion of the Friel Lumber property. It is recommended that this
entire property be annexed into the Town and rezoned Highway Commercial since it is already
benefitting from Town services and functioning as a highway commercial use.
Approximately five acres of industrial property are located on the north side of Del Rhodes
Avenue, southeast of US 301. This land is part of the Dudley South property. Development of this
property should be held in abeyance until the property is annexed and a master development plan
for the entire Dudley South property approved. It is recommended that the Town portion of this
Dudley South property be zoned R-1 Residential until the entire property is annexed.
Resort Residential
The Queenstown Harbor Golf Course plans to add a resort component to the golf course offers
many benefits to the Town and region. Among them are more customers for Town Center
businesses, regional business, and more visitors to spread the word about the Town’s attributes.
Recent decreases in rounds played on the golf course have prompted the owners to begin exploring
additional uses to ensure continuing profitability for the facilities. The Town will work with the
owners of the golf course by being open to a variety compatible uses complementary to the Town’s
character including residential units. The development of appropriately configured walking trails
connected to the Town is highly desirable.
Regional Commercial
This land use area is primarily occupied by the Prime Retail Outlet, a regional center of
approximately 300,000 square feet of retail commercial uses. It is the intent of the Town to limit
the extent of this zoning district to parcels currently zoned RC Regional Commercial. The Town
35

Version 10-23-19
may consider expanding the extent of the RC Regional Commercial district to permit expansion
of an existing regional commercial use onto contiguous parcels.
Planned Regional Commercial
The Planned Regional Commercial land use area is intended for development of master-planned
mixed-use development projects including a wide range of commercial and retail trades and uses,
as well as offices, business and personal services that will serve local and regional commercial
markets. PRC may include residential uses that are appropriately integrated into the overall design.
Through the negotiated processes involved in both the Planned Development processes Town
officials will seek to ensure the master development plan for this area accomplishes the following
objectives to maximum extent possible:
• provide appropriate transitions to residential neighborhoods, safety and maintaining
pedestrian access with links to neighborhoods, and other commercial developments where
feasible;
• allow for new mixed-use development that is compatible with and contributes to the
character of the Town through use of appropriate building materials, architectural detail,
color range, massing, lighting, and landscaping criteria to soften the visual impact of
commercial building sites and parking areas and to accentuate the relationship to streets
and pedestrian ways;
• discourage typical strip forms of development;
• provide landscape buffers and appropriate transitions between commercial uses and arterial
highways to improve the visual character along the highway corridor; and
• permit design flexibility in order to achieve an appropriate integration of more intense
commercial uses into the community and minimize its impact on adjacent areas.
Institutional
Institutional uses are primarily located in or near the Town Center and include three churches, the
town hall, and the fire station. A primary objective for the Town Center is to add neighborhood
commercial and service uses. Redevelopment of the fire station would support this objective.
Moving the Volunteer Fire Department from its present location to a new facility would free up
new commercial space downtown and operate as a catalyst for revitalization. Reuse of the Fire
Station complex could add 6,500 square feet, would double the amount of retail, and help create a
more viable critical mass of shops. New retail uses could fill the ground floor street front space
36

Version 10-23-19
and apartments or offices could use the second floor space and the building in the rear. A potential
location for new “Queenstown Public Service and Safety Center” is the Dudley North property.
Utility
This land use area is the site of the Queenstown wastewater treatment plant. In addition to serving
the community’s sewer waste treatment and disposal needs the property currently includes a small
craft boat launch. The Town’s objectives for this property should include maintaining the existing
boat launch site for community use while ensuring maximum protection from adverse impacts for
adjacent residential areas. In addition, the Town should investigate the feasibility and desirability
for the development of waterfront improvements that increase public access to and enjoyment of
Queenstown Creek.
Open Space
Nearly half of the incorporated area of the Queenstown (+/-528 acres) is within this land use area.
The Queenstown Countryside zoning district constitutes over 88 percent of this land use area. It is
the Town’s intent that this zoning district continue to be predominantly characterized by open
space, golf courses and very low-density uses with significant associated open space and that
sensitive natural resource located here are protected.
Small areas of open space at the water’s edge are located at the end of Second Avenue and Old
Wharf Lane Street. A two acre town park with tot lot is located near the intersection of Main Street
and Old Wharf Lane. This latter facility has ample room for additional improvements.
The Town will require preservation/creation of open space in new residential developments. Open
space should be located and designed to add to the visual amenities of neighborhoods and to the
surrounding area. Where appropriate, greenbelt open space should be designated to provide buffers
and to protect scenic views as seen from existing roadways and from public parks. Civic greens or
squares should be distributed throughout new neighborhood so as to be located within 1,500 feet
of ninety (90) percent of all residential units.
Planned Annexation
The Planned Annexation area represents the Town’s first priorities for incorporation. This planning
area includes the Dudley North property and portions of the Dudley Home Farm as well as existing
highway commercial uses (Friel Lumber) located south of US 301 between Greenspring Road to
the east and Friel Road to the south.
The Dudley North property was envisioned as 130 residential units of a Town-like mix of types
and lot sizes including town homes, live work units, duplexes, and single-family in the 2010
Community Plan. The mix of uses included approximately 25,000 square feet of office and retail
37

Version 10-23-19
uses and approximately 22 acres of preserved land. This development program is not intended to
limit or define a specific pattern for development of the property but simply to gauge potential
capacity within the context of this plan’s goal and objectives. In this case, if developed as
envisioned, the property will accommodate the Town’s projected housing needs through 2040 of
either population growth scenario considered (see projections in Section 4: Municipal Growth).
The Dudley Home Farm and other properties owned by Salthouse, LLC, allows for the continued
expansion of the Town on the north side of US 301. With approximately 113 acres fronting on
Salthouse Cove these properties present a unique opportunity to increase access to navigable
portions of Queenstown Creek and develop a mix of public and private uses along the shoreline,
including a waterfront park, water oriented resort commercial and residential living.
Long Range Growth
Queenstown’s opportunities for significant growth and new development beyond the 2040
planning horizon are limited to properties located to the east including the Dudley South property
and the Callahan Farm. This is described as a long range growth planning area for Queenstown
that the Town does not expect to annex within the planning period. The Long Range Growth Area
encompasses approximately 597 acres. For the purpose of gauging potential capacity the 2010
Community Plan suggested a build out development scenario for these properties of approximately
370 residential units and over one half a million square feet of retail and office use (see Table 2-
5).
Until major improvements at the Greenspring Road intersection with US 301 are installed,
specifically a highway overpass that accommodates vehicles, bikes and pedestrians as envisioned
in the 2010 Community Plan, these properties should not be considered as priority annexation
areas.
Of greatest concern is these properties will be developed under County zoning therein preventing
future growth of the Town when and should the need occur. The Town would like Queen Anne’s
County to discourage premature subdivision of these properties by designating them Tier II
properties under the terms of the Sustainable Growth and Agricultural Preservation Act of 2012.
Table 2-5: Growth Summary
Parcels Dwelling Units Commercial/Office (sq. ft.)
Current Town Area
Infill 30
Golf Resort 0 185,000
Town Center 0 15,000
Waterman Family Limited Partnership 500,000
Town Sub-Total 30 700,000
Growth Areas (2040)
38

Version 10-23-19
Table 2-5: Growth Summary
Parcels Dwelling Units Commercial/Office (sq. ft.)
Annexation Areas
Dudley North 130 25,000
Dudley Home Farm 290 0
Growth Areas (Long term)
Long Range Growth Areas
Callahan 240 0
Dudley South 130 550,000
Growth Areas sub-total 790 575,000
Town & Growth Areas total 820 1,275,000
Source: Peter Johnston & Associates, LLC
39

Version 10-23-19
Map 2-3 Land Use Plan
40

Version 10-23-19
SECTION 3: COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Introduction
Community facilities and services are provided by the Queenstown and other government agencies
to ensure the health, safety and welfare of existing and future populations. This is the primary
responsibility of local government (see Map 3-1). To be effective, the Town must anticipate
demand to the extent possible in order to insure that adequate community facilities and services
are available when needed.
Preparation of a Community Facilities element in the Comprehensive Plan is a preliminary step in
addressing supply and demand for community facilities and services including education and
recreation facilities, police and emergency services, and water and sewer services. Facilities related
to transportation are discussed in Section 5 Transportation. Section 3, Municipal Growth addresses
demand for facilities and services associated with potential growth scenarios in an attempt to
identify when and how much addition facility and service capacity may be required.
Goal, Objective and Policies
Goal
Provide adequate public facilities and services to ensure the health, safety and welfare of Town
residents.
Objectives
• Objective: Ensure that all current residences and businesses have adequate public services
and facilities necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare to promote an
attractive environment in which to live and work.
• Objective: Plan for the appropriate expansion of the Town’s facilities and services to
accommodate population and economic growth.
Policies
▪ The Town will encourage and facilitate development in existing water and sewer service areas
and on vacant and underutilized parcels through regulatory innovation, flexibility and
streamlining.
▪ Redevelopment and re-use of vacant buildings will be encouraged and facilitated.
41

Version 10-23-19
▪ New development and economic growth will be directed to lands served by or programmed
for water and sewer service.
▪ The location, timing and pace of new development shall be compatible with the Town’s
ability to secure and program capital funds to maintain and provide sewer, water,
transportation and community services.
▪ Subdivision applications and other development requests will be reviewed for adequacy of
sewer and water infrastructure. Approvals may be deferred, phased in, or conditioned upon
the availability if adequate infrastructure and treatment capacity.
▪ Developer-constructed infrastructure shall meet Town standards and be inspected and
approved by the Town prior to final acceptance.
Town Government
Queenstown is governed by three elected Commissioners who hold office for a term of three
(3) years or until the succeeding Commissioner takes office. Official town business is
conducted at town offices located at 7013 Main Street. The 3,120 square foot facility built in 2002
includes meeting space and offices for town staff and officials.
Public Safety
Fire and Rescue
The Queenstown Volunteer Fire Department is Station 3 of the Queen Anne’s County Fire
Departments serves the Town and surrounding areas. The Fire Department facilities are located at
7110 Main Street in a 6,249 square foot building. The current facility level of service is
approximately 9 square feet per capita. There are seven line officers, 57 volunteers, and four
administrative officers. Equipment includes two 1,000 pumper engines, a heavy duty rescue truck,
a brush truck, chief’s truck, ambulance, 3,000 gallon tanker truck and boat. Station 3’s service area
encompasses 1,245 properties, an estimated 773 dwelling units with a population of approximately
1,900. The 2010 level of service was 3.3 square feet of building per capita and one volunteer per
0.032 volunteers per capita.
42

Version 10-23-19
Map 3-1 Community Facilities
43

Version 10-23-19
The 2010 Community Plan recommended that the fire department facilities be relocated to a new
larger facility with better access to US 50 and US 301, a recommendation endorsed in this Plan. A
recommended relocation site was the eastern end of the Dudley North property where ten acres
could be set aside for a “Queenstown Public Service and Safety Center”. The Plan suggested the
existing structure could be preserved for adaptive reuse. Alternative uses for the building included
retail or a community center available for use by local youth organizations and other non-profit
groups.
Emergency Medical
Shore Regional Health’s Emergency Services are provided at the UM Shore Emergency Center at
Queenstown located at Shoreway Drive off Nesbit Road. This facility is equipped to handle nearly
any emergency situation, and is staffed by Board-certified doctors, nurses and technicians who
have received advanced training in emergency care for patients with a wide array of serious injuries
and illnesses. On occasion when a patient’s condition is so critical as to warrant more advanced,
tertiary care they are transferred to another larger hospital, such as the University of Maryland,
once the initial stabilization and management of life threatening emergencies has occurred.
Law Enforcement
Police matters in the Queenstown currently handled by the County Sheriff’s Department and the
Maryland State Police. The Queen Anne’s County Sheriff’s Department includes 54 sworn officers
and five command positions.
Library Facilities
There are no library facilities in Queenstown. Residents may use the two public libraries in Queen
Anne’s County: the Centreville Branch and the Kent Island Branch. The library system is governed
by a Board of Library Trustees composed of twelve members who address the educational,
informational and learning-recreational needs of County residents.
Parks and Recreation
The Town maintains a launching ramp on the wastewater treatment site and has a small public
waterfront access at the end of Old Wharf Lane. Plans for improvements at this location are
currently under consideration. In addition the Town has an approximately two acre park with tot
lot facilities located on the northeast side of Old Wharf Lane.
44

Version 10-23-19
Public Water Supply
The U.S. Census estimated Queenstown’s population in 2007 to be 633. The Town presently serves
water to approximately 645 people plus daytime commercial use, through approximately 265
residential and 30 commercial building connections.
Queenstown had three well locations in the Town for many years. The three wells were located
on Wall Street, Del Rhodes Avenue, and at the Queenstown Outlets Shopping Center. The Wall
Street well was shut down and capped due to pollution created by petroleum seepage from an old
repair garage into the well and evidence of arsenic. The original well located at the Outlet Shopping
Center was constructed in the Aquia aquifer. Arsenic concentrations of 12 ppb have been recorded
in this well. A new Mattawan well was constructed adjacent to the Outlet Center Aquia well. The
Outlet Center Mattawan well was the only primary source of potable water until July 2014. The
Outlet Center Aquia well (QA1979G010 (03) remains in service but is used only in emergency
due to the high arsenic concentration. The Aquia well on Del Rhodes was placed into idle status
shortly after the completion of the Outlet Center's Mattawan well. MDE recommended that the
Town should have two wells with separate points of connection to the distribution system in
operation. The ground water appropriation permit (QA2008G018 (02) was modified to permit the
construction of a new 4.5” well to replace the Del Rhodes Avenue Aquia well. The Del Rhodes
Avenue Mattawan well operates in conjunction with the Outlet Center Mattawan well under the
modified 70,000 gallon per day (100,000 gallons per day in the month of maximum use)
groundwater allocation permit. The Del Rhodes Avenue Mattawan well was put into service in
July of 2014. The existing Del Rhodes Avenue Aquia well was abandoned as part of the new well
project. The total groundwater withdraw permitted for the two wells in the Mattawan aquifer is
70,000 gallons per day. Current water demand in the Town of Queenstown ranges from 60,000
gpd to 68,000 gpd.
The water distribution system, which contains approximately 27,228 feet of pipe ranging in size
from 1" up to 10" in diameter, was originally installed around 1935.
The Town has installed water meters in 2014 for all users. The meters are expected to significantly
improve the conservation and management of the Town’s drinking water resource.
Two elevated storage tanks serve the Town. One is located by the abandoned Wall Street well
which has a capacity of 50,000 gallons. The other one is located by the Outlet Center Well and has
a capacity of 100,000 gallons. Both tanks are inspected and serviced on a regular basis.
Queenstown is currently undertaking studies to address issues with the water system. These
include:
• Storage - Repair or replacement of the existing Wall Street tower. The Wall Street water
tower is over 84 years old and is due for painting and maintenance at a cost of $200,000
45

Version 10-23-19
and the limited 50,000-gallon capacity of this tower will no longer adequately serve the
town needs.
• Water main improvements - The water distribution network has several sections of
undersized galvanized steel pipe that do not provide fire flows to the areas that they serve.
The system also has sections of fiberglass mains that should be replaced.
• Fire Flow demand - The network has several dead-end lengths of pipe that do not provide
full 1,000 GPM residential fire flow.
• In-Town Service Requirements – The Town is obligated to provide adequate water services
to all properties located within the Town limits. Water service demands and service
requirements are being investigated for properties within the Town limits that do not have
direct water service from the Town water system.
Wastewater Disposal
The Town’s new WWTP was constructed in 2015 to meet Chesapeake Bay nitrogen and phosphorus
discharge limitations. The new plant can reduce nutrient loadings significantly and increase the plant’s
treatment capacity from 85,000 gallons/day to as much as 400,000 gallons/day. The new WWTP is
bio-reactor plant that contains the latest equipment and technology and has a capacity of 200,000
gallons a day. The facility was approved by the Maryland Department of the Environment under
the terms of NPDES discharge permit number MD0023370.
Special requirements for the plant include an 85 percent reduction in Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and enhanced nutrient removal (ENR). Based on an
annual average flow of 0.200 million gallons per day (mgd) the NPDES permit limits the plants
annual loading to 183 pounds of total phosphorus (P) and 2,435 pounds of total nitrogen (N).
46

Version 10-23-19
SECTION 4: MUNICIPAL GROWTH
Introduction
The Land Use Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland requires all municipalities to:
• Include a Municipal Growth Element (MGE) in their Comprehensive Plans that specifies
where the municipality intends to grow, including areas outside its existing corporate
limits;
• Complete an analysis of land capacity available for development including infill and
redevelopment and an analysis of the land area needed to satisfy demand for development
at densities consistent with its land use plan; and
• Share with other planning agencies an annexation plan that is consistent with any proposed
growth element in the comprehensive plan.
Queenstown’s Municipal Growth Element (MGE) examines the interrelationships among land use,
anticipated population and housing growth and the related impacts on public facilities and services.
The intent of preparing this element of the Comprehensive Plan is to give Queenstown officials a
sound basis for setting land use and growth management policies through a better understanding
of the multi-dimensional implications of anticipated growth.
The MGE is based on projections and assumptions concerning population and housing growth
which may or may not occur at the rate and in the exact year anticipated. The Town recognizes
this possibility. When new or significant trends or events are counter to basic assumptions
underlying the conclusions of the MGE, e.g., population growth exceeding capacity and requiring
new growth strategies, the Town will revise the Comprehensive Plan as necessary and appropriate.
With this caveat in mind, the overall objectives of the MGE are to:
• Evaluate potential growth in Queenstown;
• Assess the impacts of this growth on Town services, facilities, and infrastructure;
• Identify strategies to address projected facility and/or service needs;
• Improve inter-jurisdictional coordination with Queen Anne’s County; and
• Recommend policies, processes, and regulations to encourage appropriate infill and
redevelopment.
47

Version 10-23-19
Goal and Objectives
Goal
Ensure development is consistent with the overall growth goals, objectives and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Objectives
• Grow the Town in accordance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan, particularly with
regards to plans for municipal annexation and implementation.
• Promote controlled and compact development patterns that reflect good design practices,
make efficient use of available land, and locate development where public facilities,
services, and amenities can be provided in the most efficient manner.
• Analyze the impacts of growth and development on Town services and facilities and insure
a positive return on any public investment.
• Maintain good inter-jurisdictional coordination and cooperation with Queen Anne’s
County.
• Update the Town’s development regulations as required to implement recommendations
of this Plan.
Projections
Population projections are a best guess estimate of future conditions. Projections provide a
theoretical basis to evaluate future demand for land and the demand for services for town residents.
The 2010 Community Plan assumed the Town’s population could increase from 617 in 2000 to a
low value of 933 and high value of 1,075. The low value was derived from the “historic average
annual growth rate” between 1960 and 2000 of 1.39%. The high value was based on a historic
“average share” of county population, about 1.74%.
The population and household projections for Queenstown for this plan are similar to those
predicted in the 2010 Community Plan except extended out ten years to reflect a slowing reginal
growth trend. The two population projections for 2040 are characterized as a high and a low growth
scenario. These scenarios incorporate assumptions concerning household size trends, as
anticipated households are used as a surrogate for housing units when estimating new dwelling
units, growth capacity and impacts (see Table 4-1).
48

Version 10-23-19
Table 4-1: Projected Average Household Size
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Maryland 2.61 2.61 2.57 2.54 2.51 2.49 2.48
Queen Anne's 2.63 2.60 2.55 2.52 2.50 2.47 2.47
County
Queenstown 2.45 2.43 2.40 2.38 2.36 2.34 2.31
Source: Maryland Department of Planning, Planning Data Services, PJA, LLC
The two development scenarios summarized in Table 4-2 are described as follows:
• Scenario 1, Low Value – Assumes Queenstown’s population will grow at the 0.74 percent
annual rate experienced in the period 2000 to 2010.
• Scenario 2, High Value – Assumes Queenstown’s population growth will maintain pace
with that of Queens Anne’s County and remain at about 1.39 percent of the County total.
Table 4-2: Population and Households Projections – Queenstown, Maryland
201 201 202 202 203 203 204 Chg %
0 5 0 5 0 5 0 . Chg.
Population
Scenario 1 664 689 715 742 769 798 828 164 24.70%
Scenario 2 664 697 745 797 838 877 913 249 37.60%
Households/Dwelling
Units
Scenario 1 271 284 297 312 326 342 358 87 32.07%
Scenario 2 271 287 310 335 355 375 395 124 45.62%
Source: Maryland Department of Planning, PJA, LLC
Development Capacity
Development capacity examines in simple terms the relationship between projected population
growth and resulting housing demand. It asks does the Town have or will the Town have adequate
developable land for new housing to accommodate expected population increase and housing
need? This assessment first examines infill and redevelopment capacity within the current
corporate limits to determine if there is enough developable land to accommodate projected
population increases and housing demand. It then assesses the capacity of planned annexation
areas.
49

Version 10-23-19
Infill and Redevelopment
A key factor for the short-term population growth is Queenstown’s infill and redevelopment
capacity summarized in Table 4-3. The 22 duplex units recently approved (Steamboat Village
subdivision) is an example of infill development on vacant, underutilized land. Infill potential
includes two vacant lots and room for 4 to 6 townhouse units in Queenstown Harbor and six vacant
lots scattered throughout the Town. Infill development on these properties could accommodate up
to nine addition dwelling units. Projects approved at 7001 Marin Street and 310 and 312 Del
Rhodes Avenue are examples of redevelopment that increases housing stock, and the capacity for
population increase. Assuming all of these properties builds-out during the planning period and
vacancy rates remain at approximately 13 percent, as many as 73 new residents could be
accommodated within the existing corporate area.
Nonresidential development capacity is more than sufficient to meet the needs of future
population. The Waterman Family Limited Partnership (Waterman property) property is expected
to develop as a mix of retail, office and residential uses. Conceptual plans for the Queenstown
Harbor Resort include a number of resort cottages, event center and restaurant.
Table 4-3: Development Capacity – Infill and Redevelopment
Use Description Dwelling Units Gross Floor Area
Vacant lots 17
Steamboat Village subdivision 22
Town Center NA 15,000
Queenstown Harbor Resort NA 185,000
Waterman property Planned Regional Commercial 200+/- 250,000
Total Capacity 239 450,000
Source: Peter Johnston & Associates, LLC
Development Impacts
Growth of the Town will impact demand for public services and facilities provided by
Queenstown, Queen Anne’s County and others. Impacts include increased demand for municipal
water and sewer service provided by the Town and other public facilities and services such as
schools, libraries, police, and parks as well emergency services provided by the volunteer fire
department.
The following impact estimates are derived using multipliers (service measures) that represent
assumptions about the level of service that will be provided in the future. New households or new
population are the “service units” representing demand. Projected households are used as a
surrogate for dwelling units in the analysis. Service measures for measuring an anticipated level
of service are summarized in Table 4-4.
50

Version 10-23-19
Table 4-4: Level of Service Measures
Facility/service Multiplier Service unit
Elementary School
- Students 0.22 Per Household
- Teachers 1:14 Student Teacher Ratio
Middle School
- Students 0.11 Per Household
- Teachers 1:14 Student Teacher Ratio
High School
- Students 0.15 Per Household
- Teachers 1:15 Student Teacher Ratio
Town administration/meeting
- Personnel 3.00 Per 1,000 population
- Facilities Gross Floor Area (GFA) 4.70 Per Capita
Police (sworn officers) 1.10 Per 1000 population
Recreation land (acres) 30.00 Acres per 1,000 pop.
Fire & rescue
- Personnel 0.032 Per Capita
- Facilities (GFA) 5 Per Capita
Water & Sewer - Residential
- Sewer 250 Gallon per day (gpd) per dwelling unit
- Water 250 gpd per dwelling unit
Water & Sewer – Commercial Gross Floor Area
- Sewer 180 gpd per 1,000 sq. ft. gross floor area
- Water 180 gpd per 1,000 sq. ft. gross floor area
Source: Peter Johnston & Associates, LLC
Development Impacts - Town Services
Town Administration - The current facility level of service for building space is approximately
4.7 square feet per capita. Staff including public works personnel is approximately three persons
per 1,000 residents. In order to maintain the current level of service approximately 400 square feet
of additional building space would be required. No additional personnel would be needed.
Sewer and Water - Estimating impacts on Queenstown water and sewer systems through the
planning period takes into account projected demand from residential and nonresidential uses.
Projected residential demand is based on household (surrogate for housing units) projections
through 2040 and a multiplier of 250 gpd per dwelling unit. Nonresidential demand is based on a
multiplier for nonresidential of 180 gpd per 1,000 square foot of gross floor area.
Queenstown’s two operating Mattawan wells have a total allowable groundwater allocation of
70,000gallons per day. The well pumps have pumping capacities that can increase the flow with
51

Version 10-23-19
the approval of an increase in the MDE groundwater allocation for the 2 wells. The current average
water demand in the Town of Queenstown is between 65,000 gpd and 68,000 gpd. The town’s
two elevated storage tanks have a total capacity of 150,000 gallons. Queenstown’s new WWTP
has a capacity of 200,000 gallons a day. Current average daily flow at the WWTP is approximately
88,000 gpd.
Based on these estimates of existing conditions Queenstown will not have an adequate water
supply to meet projected demand in either growth scenario. An addition of approximately 75,000
to 85,000 gallons per day of water supply and an additional storage capacity of approximately
100,000 gallons will be required to meet demand through the end of the planning period factoring
in fire flow requirements (see Table 4-5).
As shown in Table 4-6 Queenstown will not have adequate WWTP capacity to meet demand from
either growth scenario with existing capacity. As per MDE policy, planning for additional capacity
will need to commence when demand reaches 85 percent of capacity or when average daily flows
reach 170,000 gpd. The WWTP capacity can be increased to 0.4 million gallons per day (mgd)
with the addition of specific components of the storage and biological treatment system which will
be more than adequate to meet demand through 2040.
Table 4-5: Existing and projected water supply and storage needs thru 2040
Water Supply and Storage Demand Scenario 1 (gpd) Scenario 2 (gpd)
Existing Average Daily Flows 68,000 68,000
New Dwelling Units 21,725 30,911
New Non-residential Floor Area 126,000 126,000
Total Demand 215,725 224,911
Capacity
Supple 140,000 140,000
Storage 150,000 150,000
Surplus/Deficit
Supply -75,725 -84,911
Storage -65,725 -74,911
Source: Peter Johnston & Associates, LLC
Table 4-6: Existing and projected sewer treatment needs thru 20240
Scenario 1 (gpd) Scenario 2 (gpd)
Sewer Demand Sources
Existing Average Daily Flows 88,000 88,000
New Dwelling Units 21,725 30,911
New Retail Commercial Floor Area 126,000 126,000
Total Demand 235,725 244,911
Capacity 200,000 200,000
Surplus/Deficit -35,725 -44,911
52

Version 10-23-19
Table 4-6: Existing and projected sewer treatment needs thru 20240
Scenario 1 (gpd) Scenario 2 (gpd)
Source: Peter Johnston & Associates, LLC
Parks and Open Space - Providing parks and open space and related facilities and services to
town residents is a responsibility shared between the Town and Queen Anne’s County. Maryland’s
Program Open Space (POS) land goal for each county is 30.0 acres of local recreation acreage for
every 1,000 County residents. According to the Queen Anne’s County Comprehensive Plan 2010
the County provides 35.13 acres/1,000 persons for the County’s 2008 population of 47,091. The
County calculations include the two acre Queenstown Park. The County plan goes on to state that
this acreage will continue to exceed the POS goal for the County’s projected population through
2010, but when the County’s population exceeds 49,620 additional eligible acreage may need to
be acquired. Current population estimates put Queen Anne’s County’s population at approximately
48,90411.
The projected population growth in the two scenarios outlined in the section will require an
additional three to four acres in order to meet the POS land goal of 30 acres per 1,000 population.
Queenstown will require new residential developments dedicate land for park and recreation
facilities. Where appropriate, these land set asides will be developed as public park facilities and
developers will be required to install improvements and facilities.
Development Impacts - County Services
Schools - School impacts as a result of projected growth in Queenstown are summarized in Table
4-7. Based on current information concerning public school capacity, student enrollment increases
associated with both of Queenstown’s population growth scenarios can be accommodated without
having to add facility capacity or staff (see Table 4-8). Teacher impacts are based maintaining
student teacher ratios of one teacher per 20 students in grades K-3 and one teacher per 25 students
in grades 4-12.
Consideration of school capacity must be caveated by noting that population growth impacts
related to school facility capacity and teacher staffing are only for Queenstown and do not take
into account other growth in the school districts that may result in additional students and teacher
demand.
11 http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/24035,00
53

Version 10-23-19
Table 4-7: School Impacts
Additional facility/service demand Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Elementary School
- New Students 19 27
- Additional Teachers 1 2
Middle School
- New Students 9 13
- Additional Teachers 1 1
High School
- Students 13 19
- Teachers 1 1
Source: Peter Johnston & Associates, LLC
Table 4-8:Public School Impacts
Current Conditions Growth Impacts
State Rated Enrollment Excess Percent of Excess
School Facility Capa city 201 4 Capa city Capacity
Scenario Scenario
1 2
Centreville 550 515 35 26% 38%
Elementary
Kennard 595 513 82 11% 16%
Elementary
Centreville Middle 659 537 122 8% 11%
Queen Anne's 1263 1104 159 8% 12%
County High
Source: Educational Facilities Master Plan, Queen Anne’s County Board of Education 2015,
Peter Johnston & Associates, LLC
Police - Police matters in the Town are primarily handled by the County Sheriff’s Department with
some addressed by the Maryland State Police. The Queen Anne’s County Sheriff’s Department
current consists of approximately 48 sworn officers and five command officers. Collectively, the
level of service is 1.1 personnel per 1,000 population. Neither growth scenario will have a
significant impact of police services, requiring less than one sworn officer.
Other Services and Facilities
Fire and Rescue - Both scenarios considered in the section will not have a significant impact on
fire and rescue service. Although additional personnel and facility space are indicated based in
current local level of service measures, the impacts are small enough that they can likely be
54

Version 10-23-19
accommodated with existing facilities and volunteer numbers when one considers that current
personnel and facility levels of service are well above national standards.12
Funding Strategies
Growth will require the Town and County fund the public facilities and services necessary to serve
new residents and businesses. Revenues from property and income taxes will not likely be
sufficient to meet all expenditures for public services and goods. In some instances, State and/or
Federal grants and loans may be available to assist local governments.
Impact fees may be negotiated in an annexation agreement and/or when a developer’s rights and
responsibilities agreement is executed upon approval of a planned development. For example, in
the annexation agreement for the Waterman property, the owner agreed to impose an emergency
service fees for fire and ambulance service for each unit of residential and commercial use. The
owner also agreed to conduct a fiscal impact study and be responsible for the cost of all additional
facilities and/or services required to be provided by the Town as a result of the development.
Queen Anne’s County imposes a development impact fees on new residential and nonresidential
development. These fees are intended to insure new residential and nonresidential development
contribute their fair and proportionate share towards the costs of capital improvements reasonably
necessitated by such new development and provide a means of financing public facilities needed
to accommodate new development in a safe and timely manner. Impact fees are imposed to offset
the capital costs of schools, fire service and parks and recreation facilities. The County’s fee
schedule could be used as the basis for negotiating impact offsets with developers of large-scale
projects approved through the floating zone process.
Other forms of revenue to address growth impacts may need to be considered (see Table 4-9 for
examples). Funding mechanisms the Town may want to consider include:
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) – The Town could adopt an APFO. An APFO ties
development approvals to the existing and planned capacity of infrastructure based on quantifiable
levels of service for public facilities and services. APFO level of service standards also can be
used when negotiating a developer responsibilities in an annexation agreement or a Developers
Rights and Responsibility Agreement (DRRA) as well.
Fiscal Impacts/Impact Fees - Major development projects should be required to identify and
address fiscal impacts to the Town. These impacts could be addressed in a DRRA executed prior
to development approval. As an alternative the Town can adopt an impact fee ordinance. Impact
fees, also known as exactions, extractions, contributions, and proffers, are the financial
responsibilities which a municipality places upon a developer to provide some or all of the physical
12 International City Council Management Association multiplier for demand for fire personnel; and National
Planning Standard square footage multiplier for need for firehouse facilities.
55

Version 10-23-19
improvements (from sewers and streets to parks and schools) necessitated by the development.
Impact fees are levied as a condition for the approval of plat or building plans and subsequent
permission to proceed with development. They are direct contributions by developers and may
include dedication of land, construction of facilities, or payment of fees in lieu of these facilities.
They can be levied through written provisions in ordinances or through negotiations.13 For
example, a fee could be levied to offset the cost of additional Town administration and meeting
space, land can be dedicated for parks or schools and trails can be constructed to satisfy recreation
land requirements.
Municipal Priority Funding Area - The Town should ensure that annexation areas are included
within its municipal Priority Funding Area (PFA) so that these areas are eligible for State
assistance for funding of infrastructure. In order to satisfy the requirements for “certification”
annexed areas (for residential development) must be zoned to permit an average density of at least
3.5 dwelling units per acre and the area must be served or planned for service by public or
community sewer. In addition, the Queen Anne’s County Master Water and Sewer Plan must be
amended to reflect any proposed new service areas.
The County is the appropriate level of government to adopt some of these funding mechanisms,
e.g., school impact fees or excise tax.
13 Miles, Mike E., Emil E. Malizia, Marc A. Weiss, Gayle L. Berens, and Ginger Travis. 1991. Real Estate
Development: Principles and Process. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute.
56

Version 10-23-19
Table 4-9: Potential Funding Source to Address Municipal Growth Impacts
Facility/Service Potential Funding Sources
Property tax, Excise Tax, Impact Fee, Federal/State School Construction
School Facilities Funds
Administration
- Facilities Property Tax, DRRA, Impact fee, grants and loans
Property tax, Service fees (e.g., zoning certificate fee, inspection fees),
- Personnel grants
Public Works
DRRA, Impact fee, Connection fees, User fees, Public works agreement,
- Facilities grants, loans
- Personnel Property tax, service fees (e.g., water and sewer charges)
Library Facilities Property tax, excise tax, impact fee, Grants and loans
Police
- Facilities Property tax, DRRA, Impact fee
- Personnel Property tax, fines and fees
Recreation Land DRRA, Land dedication, State Program Open Space (POS)
Fire and Rescue - Nonprofit
- Facilities DRRA, grant, public and private contributions
County-Provided Fire
and Rescue
Property tax, excise tax, impact fee, special tax (e.g., fire districts tax),
- Facilities grants
- Personnel Property tax, special tax (e.g., fire district tax)
Water and Sewer Facilities DRRA, Public Works Agreements, connection fees, user charges
Annexation Plan
Infill and redevelopment within the Town could accommodate projected growth late into the
planning period in either growth scenario considered in this section. Additional land zoned for
residential development would have to be added to accommodate the build out of either scenario.
The 2010 Community Plan as amended envisioned population and economic growth would take
place in a number of adjoining properties that would be annexed. The following build-out scenarios
for these properties are used here to gauge potential impacts but are not intended to limit the type
and intensity of development that may be approved for any given property.
57

Version 10-23-19
• Callahan: Approximately 240 dwelling units including apartments, townhomes, duplexes,
and single-family units on lots ranging from 2000 sq. ft. to 1.5 acres. Approximately 174
acres of land preservation.
• Dudley Home Farm: Approximately 290 residential units including town homes, duplexes,
and single-family units. 209 acres in agricultural and open space preservation.
• Dudley North: Approximately 130 residential units of a Town-like mix of types and lot
sizes including town homes, live work units, duplexes, and single-family. Approximately
25,000 sq. ft. of office and retail uses. Approximately 22 acres of preserved land.
• Dudley South: Approximately 150,000 sq. ft. office space. Approximately 400,000 sq. ft.
retail space. Approximately 130 residential units including apartments, town homes, and
live work units. Approximately 73 acres of land preservation.
Although important to long range growth of Queenstown, the population and household
projections in Table 4-2 indicate that there will be no need to annex all of these properties during
the planning period. Servicing land on the other side of US 301, i.e., Dudley South and the Callahan
Farm is feasible, albeit with significant and costly upgrades to increase water and sewer service
capacity.
From a community design perspective, making areas south of US 301 truly “connected” and a part
of the physical and social fabric of the Town will be challenging. Without major intersection
improvements at Cherry Lane the US 301 corridor presents a formable physical barrier for
convenient vehicle connection and an almost absolute barrier to pedestrian and bike connection.
Maintaining Queenstown's unique character and small-town atmosphere is difficult when islands
of new residential neighborhoods are physically cut off from the existing Queenstown
neighborhoods and town center by a major highway.
The land use concept for the Dudley South property in the 2010 Community Plan is for a mix of
550,000 square feet of commercial (400,000 square feet) and office use (150,000 square feet).
Retail uses would have to compete for market share with the existing Premium Outlets Center and
any regional commercial uses that might be built on the Waterman property.
Considering the challenges and limitations for servicing properties south of US 301 and integrating
their uses into the community fabric, the Town’s priority is for annexation and phased build-out
of the Dudley North property. This property presents the best opportunity to create a “connected”
neighborhood. Next to Queenstown Harbor golf course, this property may be the easiest and most
cost effective for expansion of the water and sewer systems. Either population growth scenario
could be accommodated on the Dudley North property in a development with the 130 dwelling
units as was envisioned on the 2010 Community Plan or developed to its estimated maximum
capacity of 190 units.
58

Version 10-23-19
Long Range Growth
The areas shown as “Long Range Growth” on the Land Use Plan area is not planned for annexation
but could be important expansion areas for the Town in the future. These properties represent
opportunities for significant Town growth beyond the 2040 planning horizon. This land use
category includes 490 acres on properties identified as the Dudley Home Farm, Dudley South and
the Callahan Farm in the 2010 Community Plan and planned for approximately 530 residential
units and over half a million square feet of retail and office use. The long term development of
these properties at higher densities is a preferable smart growth alternative for both the Town and
County. Consequently, planning for the future of these properties should reflect closely
coordinated Town and County policies.
Growth Summary
Build out of Queenstown envisioned in this Plan would result in an increase of approximately 820
residential units and over 1.2 million square feet of nonresidential land uses (see Table 4-10).
Table 4-10: Growth Summary
2040 Growth Dwelling Units Commercial/Office (sq. ft.)
Town
Infill 30
Golf Resort 0 185,000
Town Center 0 15,000
Waterman property 200 250,000
Town Sub-Total 230 450,000
Annexation
Dudley North 130 25,000
Dudley Home Farm 290 0
Long Term Growth
Long Range Growth
Callahan 240 0
Dudley South 130 550,000
Growth Sub-total 790 575,000
Town & Growth Areas Total 1,020 1,025,000
Source: Peter Johnston & Associates, LLC
SB 236 Growth Tiers
Title I, Subtitle 5 of the Land Use Article ("LU") of the Annotated Code of Maryland established
the standards for designating growth tiers. Queenstown prepared its first Growth Tiers map in 2013
with revisions adopted in 2014. The Tier I and II designations shown on Map 4-1 reflect
59

Version 10-23-19
Queenstown’s current planned growth including priority areas planned for annexation and long
range growth areas where annexation is not currently anticipated but expected at some point in the
future. As required by LU § 1-505 of the Annotated Code Map 4-1 is hereby incorporated as an
element of the comprehensive plan.
60

Version 10-23-19
Map 4-1 SB236 Growth Tiers
61

Version 10-23-19
Rural Buffer
The rural buffer shown on Map 2-3 encompasses approximately 1,575 acres of land. Most is zoned
either Agriculture or Countryside under the Queen Anne’s County zoning system. The one
exception is the Rhodes Farm which is zoned Suburban Estate. The Agriculture and Countryside
zoning classifications only permit very low density residential development permitted with
substantial open space requirements.
In addition to limits on development density and significant open space requirements, Queen
Anne’s County zoning establishes resource protection standards for the floodplain, streams,
wetlands, steep slopes, erosion hazard areas, and woodlands. Significantly, the County requires
100-foot buffer from all perennial streams and a 50-foot from all intermittent streams. Disturbance
to woodlands is limited to 40 percent under the County Zoning Code. Under the Forest
Conservation Ordinance the conservation threshold is 50 percent of existing forest. Properties with
less than 20 percent forest must be afforested up to this level. In addition the Queen Anne’s County
Zoning Ordinance provides that no disturbance of the habitat of threatened and endangered species
is allowed except as permitted by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services or Maryland Department of the
Environment or Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
Queen Anne’s County’s zoning performance standards help to insure that land use in the rural
buffer is consistent with the objective of maintaining a distinct rural transect around the Town and
sensitive features that help define the character of this area are regulated to require best
management practices.
Interjurisdictional Coordination
The Economic Development, Planning and Resource Protection Act of 1992, as well as recent
updates, directs local governments and the State to coordinate their planning and development
efforts to achieve the State’s “Visions.” Under the Act, local governments must adopt
comprehensive plans which include the twelve “Visions”. Zoning and other planning
implementation mechanisms must be consistent with these plans. Local comprehensive plans must
include recommendations for improving planning and development processes to encourage
economic expansion and to direct future growth to appropriate areas. Such development and
economic growth often have inter-jurisdictional impacts, including impacts on transportation,
infrastructure, environment, and other areas of concern. For this reason, it is necessary for
planning, growth strategies, and policies to promote and encourage cooperation among adjacent
jurisdictions.
62

Version 10-23-19
SECTION 5: NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION
Introduction
Three of the State’s Vision statements are relevant to the discussion of natural resource
conservation. These are:
• Environmental Protection – Land and water resources, including the Chesapeake Bay and
Coastal Bays, are carefully managed to restore and maintain healthy air and water, natural
systems and living resources.
• Resource Conservation – Waterways, forest, agricultural areas, open space, natural systems
and scenic areas are conserved.
• Stewardship – Government, business entities, and residents are responsible for the creation
of sustainablecommunitiesbycollaboratingtobalanceefficientgrowthwith resource
protection.
•
Concern for the conservation of agriculture land, forest and mineral resources and protection of
sensitive environmental areas transcends arbitrary boundaries. Issues such as the loss of forest,
sedimentation of streams, degradation of receiving waters and loss of wildlife habitat in the
surrounding watersheds and beyond are of concern for all levels of government. Queenstown and
Queen Anne’s County share responsibility for conserving natural resources and protecting
sensitive environmental areas and must be mindful of potential negative impacts on sensitive and
important natural features when planning for future growth, redevelopment and infill.
Goal, Objectives and Policies
Goal
Preserve and protect natural resources and sensitive environmental areas from the adverse impacts
of land use change.
Objectives
• Minimize adverse impacts on water quality in receiving waters.
• Work with Queen Anne’s County and the State of Maryland to develop appropriate
strategies for the enhancement and protection of green infrastructure in order to conserve
fish, wildlife, and plant habitats.
63

Version 10-23-19
Policies
• Queenstown will require development design be done in a manner that will maximize
preservation of significant natural features and protect sensitive environmental areas.
• Land use changes in Queenstown will result in a no net loss of wetlands, forests, and stream
buffers to the maximum extent practical.
Sensitive Areas Element
The Maryland Economic Growth, Resource Protection and Planning Act of 1992 added a
requirement to the Land Use Article that comprehensive plans contain a Sensitive Areas Element.
In 2006 the Maryland Legislature passed House Bill 1141 expanded the list of sensitive areas to
be addressed in comprehensive plans, adding wetlands, agricultural lands, and forest resource
protection/conservation areas. As a result, sensitive areas now include the following:
• Streams and stream buffers,
• 100-year floodplain,
• Endangered species habitats,
• Steep slopes,
• Other sensitive areas, such as wetlands or forested areas, that a jurisdiction wants to protect
from the adverse impacts of development; and
• Agriculture and forest lands intended for resource protection or conservation
How these features are managed affects the quality of fish and wildlife habitat, biodiversity and
water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Land use and growth scenarios should be
judged on their potential impact on these areas and development standards should require
avoidance or minimization of adverse impacts.
Plan Assessment
Watersheds
Parts of Queenstown’s corporate area are located in the Lower Chester River and Wye River sub-
watersheds both of which are part of the Chester River Watershed (See Map 5-1). Potential
impacts on natural resources including sensitive environmental areas implied in this plan are
assessed based on how planned land use changes may result in the loss of or disturbance to resource
lands and sensitive environmental areas in the context of these surrounding sub-watersheds.
The Lower Chester River sub-watershed encompasses approximately 82,245 acres, 17,509 acres
or about 21 percent of which are uplands and the balance tidal water. The Queenstown portion (+/-
790 acres) is about 4.5 percent of the land area of this sub-watershed. The Planned Annexation
area shown on Map 1-3 would increase the percentage of town land in the sub-watershed to slightly
64

Version 10-23-19
less than five percent of the total. Annexation of the Long Range Growth areas shown on Map 1-
3 would increase the town land in the sub-watershed to about six percent of the land area of the
Lower Chester River sub-watershed.
The Wye River sub-watershed is 75,706 acres, approximately 50,252 of which is uplands and the
balance tidal water. Approximately 261acres or about one half of one percent of the Queenstown
incorporated area is located in the Wye River sub-watershed. The Planned Annexation area shown
on Map 1-3 would increase the percentage of town land in the sub-watershed to slightly more than
one half percent of the total land area. Annexation of the Long Range Growth areas shown on Map
1-3 would increase the town land in the sub-watershed to slightly more than 1.5 percent of the total
land area.
Sensitive Areas
The Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has developed several GIS data bases that
cover priority resource conservation and habitat protection areas (See Map 5-2). The Queenstown
annexation and long range growth plan was overlain on these sensitive areas coverages in order to
evaluate how land use changes in Queenstown may affect sensitive habitats. Changes in land use
that result in the loss of resource land, i.e., forest, agriculture land, and mineral resources are
assessed because of their potential effect on stormwater runoff characteristics and water quality in
receiving waters. A more specific assessment of the impacts of Queenstown’s growth plan on
water quality in receiving waters is addressed in Section 6, the Water Resources Element.
Coverages used to assess potential impacts of Queenstown’s growth plans on natural resources
and sensitive areas include Maryland DNR’s Green Infrastructure, Biodiversity Assessment
Network (BioNet), Sensitive Species Project Review Areas (SSPRA), Forest Interior Dwelling
Bird Species (FIDS) habitat, and Targeted Ecological Areas (TEAs). The areas included in these
coverages have been combined to create a comprehensive layer depicting what are here termed
“targeted habitat protection areas” (see Map 5-2). The geographic extent of this combined
coverage encompasses most sensitive environmental areas, including nontidal wetlands, streams
and stream buffers, the habitat of rare, threaten and endangered species and species in need of
conservation, forest interior dwelling bird species and the majority of the 100-year floodplain.
Layer characteristics and purpose of each of these components are briefly described as follows:
Green Infrastructure: Maryland's green infrastructure is a network of undeveloped lands
that provide the bulk of the state's natural support system. “Ecosystem services, such as
cleaning the air, filtering water, storing and cycling nutrients, conserving soils, regulating
climate, and maintaining hydrologic function, are all provided by the existing expanses of
forests, wetlands, and other natural lands. These ecologically valuable lands also provide
marketable goods and services, like forest products, fish and wildlife, and recreation. The
65

Version 10-23-19
Green Infrastructure serves as vital habitat for wild species and contributes in many ways
to the health and quality of life for Maryland residents.”14
Biodiversity Conservation Network (BioNet): “The BioNet of Maryland layer
systematically identifies and prioritizes ecologically important lands to conserve
Maryland’s biodiversity (i.e., plants, animals, habitats, and landscapes). This dataset
aggregates numerous separate data layers hierarchically according to the BioNet Criteria
Matrix. These data were needed to maximize the influence and effectiveness of public and
private conservation investments; promote shared responsibilities for land conservation
between public and private sectors; and guide and encourage compatible land uses and land
management practices.”15
Sensitive Species Project Review Areas (SSPRA): “The statewide vector file shows
buffered areas that primarily contain habitat for rare, threatened, and endangered species
and rare natural community types. It was created over USGS 7.5 minute topographic
quadrangle maps and it generally includes, but does not specifically delineate, such
regulated areas as Natural Heritage Areas, Wetlands of Special State Concern, Colonial
Waterbird Colonies, and Habitat Protection Areas. This data layer was originally created
to provide information to local jurisdictions and state agencies to assist with assessing
environmental impacts and reviewing potential development projects or land use
changes.”16
Forest Interior Dwelling Bird Species (FIDS) Habitat: Potential habitat layer for Forest
Interior Dwelling Species in the State of Maryland. These data are only the results of a
model depicting where FIDS habitat might occur based on certain criteria.
This file was created for the purposes of planning and analysis for the conservation of a
group of species, called Forest Interior Dwelling Species (FIDS), known to require habitat
conditions in the interior of forests for optimal reproduction and survival.
Targeted Ecological Areas (TEAs): “TEAs are lands and watersheds of high ecological
value that have been identified as conservation priorities by the Maryland Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) for natural resource protection. These areas represent the most
ecologically valuable areas in the State: they are the "best of the best". TEAs are preferred
for conservation funding through Stateside Program Open Space.
14 http://dnrweb.dnr.state.md.us/gis/data/data.asp
15 Ibid
16 Ibid
66

Version 10-23-19
Map 5-1 Watersheds
67

Version 10-23-19
Map 5-2 Compiled Habitat Protection Areas 68

Version 10-23-19
The first component is the updated Green Infrastructure Assessment (circa 2010) which
identifies large, contiguous blocks (hubs) of significant forests and wetlands and their
connecting corridors. The Green Infrastructure’s hub and corridor network of habitat
allows plant and animal migration, reduces forest fragmentation if protected, and provides
important ecosystem services, such as biodiversity, cleaning air and water, storing
nutrients, and protecting areas against storm and flood damage.
The rare species and wildlife habitat component identifies areas that support Rare,
Threatened, and Endangered Species, rare plant and animal communities, species of
Greatest Conservation Need, and wildlife concentrations.
The aquatic life hotspots component identifies watersheds supporting freshwater stream
ecosystems where conservation is needed to protect and restore areas of high aquatic
biodiversity, Tier II regulated streams, and brook trout streams.
The water quality protection component identifies sensitive lands such as forests, wetlands,
and steep slopes where preservation is important for water quality.
The coastal ecosystems component identifies Blue Infrastructure shoreline and watershed
protection priorities. These are areas important for sustaining coastal and tidal ecosystems
and also identify land areas important for sustaining spawning and nursery areas for
important commercial and recreational fisheries.
The climate change adaptation component identifies areas important for sustaining
wetlands ecosystems that are changing and moving landward in response to sea level rise.
The purpose of TEAs is to define areas that present opportunities for multiple land
conservation efforts to work together by leveraging Stateside Program Open Space (POS)
resources. Land trusts, conservancy organizations and other government programs can use
this map to identify cooperative projects that meet Stateside POS ecological criteria. TEAs
can help local governments identify areas suitable for resource conservation that support
state land conservation investments and complement these designations with suitable
zoning. Since TEAs represent the most ecologically valuable areas in the state, additional
consideration should be given to avoiding environmental impacts within these areas.”17
The existing Town boundary includes three protected habitats, the Great Blue Heron rookery, a
bald eagle nesting site, and Delmarva Fox Squirrel habitat, all on the golf course property. Steep
slopes, one of the legislated sensitive areas, are not an important issue in the watershed which is
relatively flat. Some localized important steep slopes are found adjacent to streams which are
captured in stream buffers within the Targeted Habitat Protection Area overlay shown on Map 5-
2.
17 Ibid
69

Version 10-23-19
Resource Land
Agriculture and forest land use dominate in the Lower Chester River and Wye River watersheds
(see Table 5-1 and Map 5-3). Retaining or increasing forest cover in the watersheds is basic to the
State’s vision for environmental protection, resource conservation and stewardship as is protection
for sensitive environmental areas and water quality in the receiving streams and conservation of
wildlife habitat. Land conversion from vegetated or forested conditions can result in a reduction
of functioning soils resources which increases rates of stormwater run-off. At a comprehensive
planning level growth scenarios are evaluated based on the extent forest lands are converted to less
protective uses. At the site development level, regulations require best management practices that
include environmental site design and mitigation to minimize adverse impacts of land use changes
to sensitive areas and receiving streams.
Minimizing conversion of agriculture land by concentrating growth is central to Queen Anne’s
County’s vision which is to “protect and sustain a primarily agricultural, forested and maritime
community within the limits of natural resources by concentrated future growth in existing towns
and population centers, and preserves the County’s natural beauty and resources for future
generations.” 18 At a comprehensive planning level growth scenarios are evaluated based on the
extent land use changes results in the loss of productive agriculture lands in the watersheds keeping
in mind that Queenstown’s role as a growth center takes precedence.
Table 5-1: Agriculture and Forest Land – Lower Chester River and Wye River Sub-
watersheds
Acres Percent of Total
Lower Chester River Watershed land Area 17,509 100%
Agriculture Land 9,691 55%
Forest 4,889 28%
Percent of Watershed 14,580 83%
Wye River Watershed land Area 50,252 100%
Agriculture Land 32,341 64%
Forest 12,568 25%
Percent of Watershed 44,909 89%
Source: 2010 Land Use Land Cover, Maryland Department of Planning, Peter Johnston & Associates,
LLC
Mineral Resources
According to the Queens Anne’s County Comprehensive Plan 2010 potential areas of sand and
gravel deposits in the County are found in the QU Upland Deposits (Eastern Shore) as shown on
Map ESA-7. As concerns Queenstown, mineral resources extraction is not permitted in the
corporate limits. The Town’s planned growth areas will not substantially reduce the area of
18 Queen Anne’s County Comprehensive Plan 2010, Section 1-0 Land Use, pg. 1-5
70

Version 10-23-19
potential mineral resources which the County concluded are located outside of the Lower Chester
River and Wye River sub-watersheds.19
Protected Land
Map 5-4 shows portions of the sub-watersheds that are already afforded some level of protection
under existing programs designed to conserve natural resources and protect sensitive
environmental area. Collectively these programs encompass approximately 14,174 acres and
include slightly more than a fifth of the agriculture and a fifth of the forest resource land in the
Lower Chester River and Wye River watersheds. These programs include the following:
Maryland Environmental Trust Land: The Maryland Environmental Trust (MET) is a
statewide local land trust governed by a citizen Board of Trustees. Since its creation by the
General Assembly in 1967, MET's main goal is the preservation of open land, such as
farmland, forest land, and significant natural resources. The primary tool for doing this is
the conservation easement, a voluntary agreement between a landowner and the MET
Board of Trustees. MET Conservation Easements promote growth management, the
protection of significant natural resources and rural areas, and discourage sprawling
development patterns. A Conservation Easement is a perpetual legal agreement between a
landowner (grantor) and the Trust (grantee) ensuring that a property shall not be developed
beyond a limit agreed upon by both parties. The land is thereby protected and preserved
without detriment to the rights of ownership, occupancy, or privacy, while the agreement
provides for significant income, estate, and property tax benefits.
Department of Natural Resources Land: Land owned by the Maryland Department of
Natural Resources and lands that are generally thought to be protected from development
pressures.
Agriculture Easements: The Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation
(MALPF), housed within the Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA), protects
agricultural lands through the use of perpetual easements. The purpose of the program is
to preserve productive agricultural land and woodland in Maryland to provide for the
continued production of food and fiber, curb the extent of random urban development, and
protect these lands as open space.
19 Queen Anne’s County Comprehensive Plan 2010, Section 2.9.2 Map ESA-7: Potential Mineral Resource Areas,
pg. 2-23.
71

Version 10-23-19
Map 5-3 Sub-watershed Resource Land
72

Version 10-23-19
Growth Plan Impacts
Conversion of agriculture and forest resource lands to urban use and potential encroachment on
priority habitat areas associated with Queenstown’s growth plan (See Map 1-3) are summarized in
the following tables (see Table 5-2, 5-3 and 5-4). Land conversion from agriculture and forest use
associated with the Annexation areas outlined in the Land Use Plan is minimal across all features
(agriculture land, forest and targeted habitat protection areas), less than one percent.
Encroachments into habitat protection areas, also minimal, do not directly impact critical buffers
or listed sensitive environmental areas. Although low, impacts associated with the Long Range
Growth areas in the Land Use Plan are more substantial. This is especially an issue where
development could result in the loss of important wildlife corridors, stream or shoreline buffers.
Table 5-2: Growth Plan Impacts – Forest Land Converted to Urban Use
Lower Chester River Watershed Wye River Watershed
Total (Acres) (Acres) (Acres)
Forest 17,458 4,889 12,568
Forest Land Converted
- Annexation 15 7 8
- Long Range Growth 161 26 135
Land Use Change Percent Converted
- Annexation 0.09% 0.14% 0.07%
- Long Range Growth 0.92% 0.53% 1.07%
Source: Peter Johnston & Associates, LLC
Table 5-3: Growth Plan Impacts – Agriculture Land Converted to Urban Use
Lower Chester River Wye River
Total Area Watershed Watershed
(Acres) (Acres) (Acres)
Agriculture Land 42,032 9,691 32,341
Agriculture Land
Converted
- Annexation 59 59 0
- Long Range Growth 493 199 294
Percent
Land Use Change Converted
- Annexation 0.14% 0.60% 0.00%
- Long Range Growth 1.17% 2.05% 0.91%
Source: Peter Johnston & Associates, LLC
73

Version 10-23-19
Map 5-4 Sub-watershed Protected Land
74

Version 10-23-19
Table 5-4: Growth Plan Impacts – Targeted Habitat Protection Areas Disturbed
Lower Chester River Wye River
Total Area Watershed Watershed
(Acres) (Acres) (Acres)
Targeted Habitat
Protection 39,321 8,249 31,072
Habitat Disturbed
- Annexation 16 11 5
- Long Range Growth 399 93 306
Percent
Land Use Change Converted
- Annexation 0.04% 0.14% 0.02%
- Long Range Growth 1.02% 1.13% 0.98%
Source: Peter Johnston & Associates, LLC
Existing Protection Measures
Regardless of location, all future development in Queenstown is subject to minimum performance
standards for environmental protection. Existing regulations establish minimum performance
standards that limit the allowable area of disturbance on sites in order to minimize impacts on
sensitive areas and require appropriate buffers for sensitive environmental features.
Queenstown Zoning Code
The Queenstown Zoning Code requires a minimum three-hundred natural buffer from the Wye
River and perennials streams feeding the Wye River. A one-hundred foot natural buffer is required
from all other perennial streams. Stormwater and/or sediment control devices are not permitted in
these stream buffers. Stream buffers may be reduced to no less than seventy-five feet for required
road crossings and public or community facilities if disturbance is minimized. Queenstown
requires these buffers be established in woody or wetland vegetation when a change in land use
occurs.
Where the one-hundred foot perennial stream buffer includes contiguous 100 year floodplain and
nontidal wetlands it must be expanded to include hydric soils, highly erodible soils and soils on
slopes greater than fifteen percent (15%) that are contiguous with the perennial stream, any 100
year flood plain adjacent to the stream, or any nontidal wetlands adjacent to the stream to a
maximum distance of three hundred (300) feet.
A minimum fifty foot buffer is required from all intermittent streams. Permanent or temporary
stormwater management and sediment control devices are not be permitted in this buffer. Road
crossings and public or community facilities may be permitted if disturbance is minimized. Buffers
must be established in woody or wetland vegetation when a change in land use occurs.
75

Version 10-23-19
A minimum twenty-five foot setback from all non-tidal wetlands is required for all development
around the extent of the delineated nontidal wetland except as permitted by the U.S. Army Corp
of Engineers and the State of Maryland, Department of Natural Resources, Non-tidal Wetland
Division.
Grading, removal of vegetative cover and trees, and paving are not permitted on any land in excess
of fifteen (15) percent slope.
Applicants for a development activity, redevelopment activity or change in land use must identify
all applicable Habitat Protection Areas including Federal or State threatened or endangered species
or species in need of conservation, forest areas utilized as breeding areas by interior forest dwelling
birds, and designated Natural Heritage Areas. If the development site is in or near a Habitat
Protection Area the applicant must request review by the Department of Natural Resources
Wildlife and Heritage Service for comment and technical advice. Based on the Department’s
recommendations, additional research and site analysis may be required to identify the specific
location of the Habitat Protection Area on or near the site. If the presence of a Habitat Protection
Area is confirmed by the Department of Natural Resources, the applicant must develop a Habitat
Protection Plan in coordination with the Department of Natural Resource. The applicant must
obtain approval of the Habitat Protection Plan from the Planning Commission or the appropriate
designated approving authority. The specific protection and conservation measures included in the
Plan will be considered conditions of approval of the project.
Queenstown Critical Area
Queenstown adopted a Critical Area Program a few years after the Maryland General Assembly
adopted the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Protection Program (Natural Resources Article 8-181-
8-1816) in 1984. Queenstown’s Critical Area Program is embodied in a series of implementing
provisions contained in the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. The policies and
goals included in the Queenstown Critical Area Program are aligned with those of the Natural
Resource Article, namely:
• to conserve fish, wildlife, and plant habitats; and
• to establish land use policies for development in the Critical Area which accommodate
growth and address the fact that even if pollution is controlled, the number, movement,
and activities of persons in that area can create adverse environmental impacts.
The Critical Area includes the Chesapeake Bay, its tributaries to the head of tide, tidal wetlands,
plus all land and water within 1,000 feet beyond the landward boundary of these waters and
wetlands. Slightly more than sixty percent of Queenstown’s upland area is within the Critical Area.
76

Version 10-23-19
Development standards in the Zoning Ordinance include requirements for identifying and
protecting environmental and sensitive features located within the Critical Area, including but not
limited to plant and wildlife habitat, forests and woodlands, hydric and highly erodible soils, steep
slopes, streams, wetlands and shorelines. Minimum buffer widths and vegetation requirements are
applicable to tidal shoreline areas and along perennial and intermittent streams. These buffer
requirements have been incorporated into the sensitive area protection standards applicable to land
outside the Critical Area.
Queenstown Floodplain Ordinance
Queenstown adopted an updated Floodplain Ordinance in 2015. This ordinance was based on the
Maryland Model Floodplain Ordinance. It incorporates the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs)
recently updated by the State of Maryland in conjunction with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA).
The Floodplain Ordinance requires development and new construction in the floodplain meet
certain flood protection measures including construction of the lowest floor two foot or above the
base flood elevation and utilization of certified flood-proof construction techniques. Construction
in the floodplain is prohibited unless an applicant can prove hardship (other than economic).
Improvements that are not substantial are required to be constructed to minimize damage during
flooding or be elevated to the greatest extent possible. Proposed floodplain subdivisions must
submit plans for maintenance of forest cover, flood protection setbacks, re-vegetation,
accommodation of stormwater runoff, and prevention of erosion.
Queenstown Stormwater Management Ordinance
Queenstown adopted an updates Stormwater Management Ordinance in 2010. The stated purpose
of this Ordinance is to protect, maintain, and enhance the public health, safety, and general welfare
by establishing minimum requirements and procedures that control the adverse impacts associated
with increased stormwater runoff. Queenstown’s goal is to manage stormwater by using
environmental site design (ESD) to the maximum extent practicable (MEP) to maintain after
development as nearly as possible, the predevelopment runoff characteristics, and to reduce
stream channel erosion, pollution, siltation and sedimentation, and local flooding, and use
appropriate structural best management practices ( BMPs) only when necessary. This will restore,
enhance, and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of streams, minimize
damage to public and private property, and reduce the impacts of land development. The
Stormwater Management Ordinance adopts by reference the following guidance documents:
• The 2000 Maryland Stormwater Design Manual , Volumes I & II (Maryland Department
of the Environment, April 2000), and all subsequent revisions serves as the official
guide for storm water management principle , methods, and practices.
77

Version 10-23-19
• USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Maryland Conservation Practice
Standard Pond Code 378 (January 2000).
Forest Conservation Ordinance
Queenstown adopted a Forest Conservation Ordinance that is applicable to all land outside of the
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area. Anyone making applications for subdivision, grading permit or
sediment control plan for a tract of 40,000 square feet or more is subject to the requirements of the
Forest Conservation Ordinance. Applications for these activities must include a forest stand
delineation and forest conservation plan. Forest conservation thresholds by land use categories
apply. Priority planting areas include buffers for streams, corridors to connect existing forests,
buffers between differing land uses and expansion of existing forests. The use of native plant
materials is encouraged.
78

Version 10-23-19
SECTION 6: WATER RESOURCES
Introduction
Queenstown’s “Water Resources Element” (WRE) satisfies a basic planning requirement
mandated by Maryland House Bill 1141 (HB 1141). The purpose of the WRE is to assess water
resource capacity to meet current and future needs. Specifically, the statutory requirements are to:
• Identify drinking water and other water resources that will be adequate for the needs of
existing and future development proposed in the land use element of the plan, considering
available data provided by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE).
• Identify suitable receiving waters and land areas to meet the storm water management and
wastewater treatment and disposal needs of existing and future development proposed in
the land use element of the plan, considering available data provided by MDE.
• Adopt a WRE in the comprehensive plan on or before October 1, 2009, unless extensions
are granted by Maryland Department of Planning (MDP) pursuant to law.
The findings of the WRE influence other Plan elements including: 1) the Land Use Plan; 2)
Municipal Growth; 3) Community Facilities; and 4) Natural Resources. The WRE evaluates water
resource capacity limits and their potential implications for facilitates development and growth
management strategies.
Goal, Objectives and Policies
Goal
Manage water resources for sustainability.
Objectives
• Maintain a safe and adequate drinking water supply to accommodate the needs of the
current Queenstown population as well as future generations.
• Invest in sewer infrastructure that will provide adequate treatment capacity for projected
demand and reduce pollutant loading to the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries in the
Queenstown Planning Area.
79

Version 10-23-19
• Require the application of best management practices to protect and enhance the quality of
surface water and groundwater resources including wetlands, the Chesapeake Bay, and its
tributaries.
• Promote coordinated planning between jurisdictions and agencies responsible for drinking
water, wastewater, and stormwater management.
• Engage the public in watershed conservation and promote a stewardship ethic.
Policies
• Design of development on farmland converted to urban use will repair and restore essential
functions of the natural resource base where needed and enhance water quality over the
long term.
• Existing woodlands will be preserved to the maximum extent practical and expanded to
connect with nearby woodlands.
• Stream protective corridors and buffers will be enhanced or restored.
• Tributaries of Queenstown Creek and the Wye River will be protected.
• All development will reflect conservation and environmental site design principals
Hydrogeological Setting
The following discussion provides an overview of Queenstown’s regional hydrogeological setting
and its linkages with local water resources in the Queenstown Planning Area.
Geology
Queenstown is located within the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic province, which extends
from New York, across Florida, and through the Gulf Coast. The region is characterized by nearly
flat surface topography superimposed on deep, unconsolidated (loose) layers of sand, silt, and clay.
The sediments accumulated under varying depositional environments imposed by fluctuations in
mean sea level which controlled the pattern in distribution and texture of materials deposited across
the region. The resulting interbedded geologic layers impose a strong influence on current water
resources in the Queenstown Area.
The Atlantic Coastal Plain aquifer system in Maryland consists of an alternating series of aquifers
and confining units that descend and widen as they extend toward the Atlantic Ocean. The major
80

Version 10-23-19
aquifers in the Coastal Plain system are the Patuxent, Patapsco, Magothy, Aquia and Piney Point
Formations, and the Chesapeake Group (see Figure 7-1).
In the mid-Atlantic region, the Coastal Plain wedge of sediments increases in thickness from a
featheredge near the Piedmont Fall Zone to more than 2.5 miles thick under the continental shelf.
The sediments rest on an eroded surface of metamorphic, crystalline rock formed more than 230
million years ago.20 The oldest and deepest overlying sediments include Cretaceous clay, sand,
and gravel stripped from the Appalachian Mountains and deposited in deltas to the newly formed
Atlantic Ocean basin approximately 100 million years ago. These vastly thick (as much as 4,500
feet), ancient deposits were able to form because the Delmarva Peninsula occurred along an
extremely active continental plate boundary. Approximately 35 million years ago, a large
meteorite interrupted this deposition pattern, creating a crater more than 55 miles in diameter in
the southern portion of the Chesapeake Bay. Since its impact, more than 1,000 feet of additional
sediment accumulated, mostly during warm interglacial periods and high sea level conditions
similar to today’s climate. Across the Atlantic Coastal Plain, the long-term geologic history
continues to control the effects of climate fluctuations on surficial features, such as shorelines,
waterways, and wetlands.
Figure 7-1: Atlantic Coastal Plain
Ground Water Resources
The sand, silt, and clay sediments across the Atlantic Plain form a layered aquifer system which
provides water supply across the Delmarva Peninsula. Near Queenstown, five major aquifer
systems have potential to supply municipal and residential water demands, including the shallow,
20 Sheridan, R.E. and J.A. Grow, Eds. 1988. The Atlantic Continental Margin: U.S. Geological Society of America,
Boulder, CO, 1988. x, 610 pp
81

Version 10-23-19
unconfined Columbia aquifer, the Aquia, Matawan, and Magothy aquifers, and the Potomac Group
confined aquifers.21 Bedrock underlying the Coastal Plain sediments is not considered a potential
water supply. The following highlights the most significant features of the aquifer system,
especially with regard to providing water supply to the Queenstown Planning Area.
• The Columbia aquifer is a surficial, unconfined (i.e., water table) aquifer which generally
occurs within ten feet of the land surface in sediments from the Pliocene/Pleistocene Series
(i.e., deposited 10,000 to five million years ago). Recharge to the aquifer is through
direction infiltration of rainwater. Groundwater discharge from the aquifer occurs
primarily to local tributaries, wetlands, and the Chesapeake Bay. Only three percent of the
surficial aquifer recharges deeper, confined aquifers.22 The water supply is heavily relied
upon for irrigation of nursery stock and farms, as well as for domestic and small
commercial supplies. Because of its vulnerability to surface contamination and dewatering
during droughts, however, use of these deposits is now rare.23
• The shallowest confined aquifer is the Aquia, which supplies most of the County’s water
demand and a portion of Queenstown’s current municipal supply. The formation includes
fine to coarse glauconitic quartz sand with varying amount of clay, typically within 110
feet of the land surface. These sediments are part of the Eocene Series deposited 35 to 56
million years ago. Recharge to the Aquia occurs where the formation outcrops in a belt
from the District of Columbia to the mouth of the Magothy River. Some exposures also
are found in Kent County, near the Sassafras River.24 Since 1980, water levels in the Aquia
have declined with usage at a rate of approximately six inches per year. As a result salt
water intrusion has increased, especially along the Chesapeake Bay shoreline of Kent
Island and further allocations are limited. In addition to quantity, the naturally occurring
arsenic (10 to 15 ug/L) and iron (0.3 ug/L) present challenges to its use as a domestic water
supply.25
• The Matawan aquifer underlies the Aquia aquifer in western Queen Anne's County and
possibly elsewhere. It occurs approximately 610 to 650 feet below the land surface in an
upper Cretaceous marine deposits formed 65 to 100 million years ago. The Matawan
Formation is composed mainly of silt and clay, but pockets of sand provide enough water
to supply wells on Kent Island and in the Queenstown area. As a result, in some locations
21 Drummond, D.D. 2001. Hydrogeology of the Coastal Plain Aquifer System in Queen Anne’s and Talbot Counties, Maryland,
with emphasis on water-supply potential and brackish-water intrusion in the Aquia Aquifer. Report of Investigations No. 72.
Maryland Geological Survey.
22 Ator, S.W., Denver, J.M., Krantz, D.E., Newell, W.L., and Martucci, S.K., 2005, A surficial hydrogeologic framework for the
Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1680, 44 p.
23 Drummond, D. D., 1988, Hydrogeology, brackish-water occurrence, and simulation of flow and brackish-water movement in
the Aquia aquifer in the Kent Island area, Maryland: Maryland Geological Survey Report of Investigations No. 51, 131 p.
24 Vokes, H. E. and J. J. Edwards. 1974. Geography and Geology of Maryland. Maryland Geological Survey.
25 Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP. 2007. Town of Queenstown, Maryland: Evaluation of alternatives to
reduce arsenic levels in the public water supply (report provided to Queenstown, August 28, 2007). 12 pp.
82

Version 10-23-19
the Matawan aquifer is indistinguishable from the underlying Magothy aquifer.26
Withdrawal at the Queenstown Harbor Golf Course averages 72,000 gallons per day; the
maximum yield has been as high as 336,000 gallons per day. Water tests indicate low iron
and arsenic concentrations and generally excellent water quality.27
• The Magothy Aquifer occurs approximately 900 to 950 feet below the land surface, and
includes a broad lateral distribution of mixed materials including organic material, pyrite,
marcasite, and finely banded white sands.28 These sediments are older than the Matawan
deposits but were also deposited during the upper Cretaceous, 65 to 100 million years ago.
Water quality of this aquifer is generally good except for its high iron content, which ranges
between 12 and 19 parts per million (ppm). Iron concentrations exceeding the state 0.3
mg/l drinking water limit can cause red, brown, or yellow staining of laundry, glassware,
and household plumbing fixtures. Recharge to the aquifer primarily occurs along northern
Anne Arundel County, along the Patapsco sub-estuary.29
• The Potomac Group includes the Patapsco, Arundel, and Patuxent Formations, part of the
Lower Cretaceous Series formed 100 to 145 million years ago. Sediments consist of
interbedded sand, silt, and clay deposits. It is the deepest aquifer with potential for
providing municipal water supply. The Upper Patapsco aquifer underlies the Magothy
aquifer and supplies water for domestic, commercial, and municipal uses on Kent Island
and eastward to Grasonville. The Upper Patapsco aquifer is very productive but has
severely elevated iron and manganese concentrations (28 and 0.4 mg/L, respectively).30
The water quality issues become less severe to the east and south. In Talbot County, iron
concentrations do not pose a treatment problem, and the aquifer is used as a municipal
supply without any treatment. The Lower Patapsco aquifer underlies the Upper Patapsco
aquifer on Kent Island, and probably elsewhere in the study area. It has been used for part
of the public supply system on Kent Island since late 1999, but nowhere else on the Eastern
Shore of Maryland south of Cecil County. Although water from the Lower Patapsco aquifer
requires treatment for iron, concentrations are much lower than in the Magothy and Upper
Patapsco aquifers. Recharge to the Patapsco aquifer occurs in a broad area along the
Piedmont fall line, from Washington, DC, across northern Anne Arundel County and
26 Drummond, D.D. 2001. Hydrogeology of the Coastal Plain Aquifer System in Queen Anne’s and Talbot Counties, Maryland,
with emphasis on water-supply potential and brackish-water intrusion in the Aquia Aquifer. Report of Investigations No. 72.
Maryland Geological Survey.
27 Ibid
28 Ibid
29 Klohe C.A. and R.T. Kay 2006. Hydrogeology of the Piney Point-Nanjemoy, Aquia, and Upper Patapsco Aquifers, Naval Air
Station Patuxent River and Webster Outlying Field, St. Marys County, Maryland,. USGS Report SIR 2006-5266. 36 p
30 Drummond, D.D. 2001. Hydrogeology of the Coastal Plain Aquifer System in Queen Anne’s and Talbot
Counties, Maryland, with emphasis on water-supply potential and brackish-water intrusion in the Aquia Aquifer.
Report of Investigations No. 72. Maryland Geological Survey.
83

Version 10-23-19
Baltimore Harbor, up into Harford County.31 Aquifer tests have shown that the Lower
Patapsco aquifer is very productive, and provides an excellent alternative to shallower
aquifers, in spite of its great depth (1,445 feet below sea level at Stevensville). The deeper
Middle Patapsco and Patuxent aquifers are potential ground-water sources, but have not
been tested thoroughly for use for water supply in Queen Anne's County.
In south-eastern Queen Anne’s County, the Miocene and Piney Point Aquifers occur between the
surficial Columbian aquifer and the Aquia aquifer. Local drilling logs, however, reinforce reports
indicating that these sources do not exist in the Queenstown Planning Area.32
Water Resource Assessment Assumptions
The assessment of water resources in the following sections is based on the growth implied in the
Land Use Plan (see Section 2). It examines the supply and demand implications of population,
dwelling unit and nonresidential floor area growth and changes in run-off characteristics associated
land use changes. These aspects of growth and land use change are quantified for the 2040
projections and at build-out of the annexation and long range growth area discussed in Land Use
Plan and shown on Map 2-3. In this case, projected population and dwelling unit increases through
2040 are based on the dwelling units and nonresidential floor area depicted in the development
concepts for these properties described in the 2010 Community Plan and summarized in the Table
4-10 (Dudley North).
Water Supply and Demand
Current Water Supply and Demands
The Charter of the Town of Queenstown requires all developed properties within the Town limits
be served by a public water system owned and operated by the Town of Queenstown. In addition,
the Town provides water service to Friel’s Lumber Company and the Queen Anne’s County
Animal Control Facility which are located outside the corporate limits of the Town. The Town
presently serves water to approximately 645 units plus commercial uses.
The Town currently has a permitted water appropriation to withdraw 70,000 gallons per day from
two productions wells. Water is drawn from two wells located in the Matawan aquifer and is the
primary source of water for the community.
31 Klohe C.A. and R.T. Kay 2006. Hydrogeology of the Piney Point-Nanjemoy, Aquia, and Upper Patapsco Aquifers, Naval Air
Station Patuxent River and Webster Outlying Field, St. Marys County, Maryland,. USGS Report SIR 2006-5266. 36 p
32 Drummond, D.D. 2001. Hydrogeology of the Coastal Plain Aquifer System in Queen Anne’s and Talbot
Counties, Maryland, with emphasis on water-supply potential and brackish-water intrusion in the Aquia Aquifer.
Report of Investigations No. 72. Maryland Geological Survey.
84

Version 10-23-19
The Town is currently seeking funding from USDA to construct an additional well and water
treatment plant to meet future water service demands. The new well will require an amendment to
the current water appropriation permit for the required additional flow. This requested allocation
will provide water supply for only current and future residents within the Town limits. The
withdrawal rate will not provide for additional development associated with the Long-Range
Growth area shown on Map 2-3.
Map 3-1 shows the approximate location of the municipal supply wells including a schematic of
the water distribution system.
The town has two elevated water storage tanks. The water tower at Wall Street is reported as a
50,000 gallon tank. Water treatment consists of disinfection by the addition of sodium
hypochlorite. The water tower at the Outlet well site is a 100,000-gallon tank. Water treatment
consists of disinfection by the injection of a chlorine solution using chlorine gas. The Town is
seeking funding from USDA to modify the chlorine disinfection to system to a compatible sodium
hypochlorite system. To ensure adequate fire flow, the Town is seeking funding from USDA to
construct a 250,000-gallon water tower to replace the existing 50,000 gallon tank located on Wall
Street. A fire flow modeling analysis based on the water tank volumes, pipe distribution network,
storage status also indicated that the existing water distribution system is not adequately serving
the Town’s current population.
A mix of residential and commercial land uses are proposed on lands adjacent to the Town and
within the Queenstown growth area. If any of these lands were to be annexed, the Town will
provide water and sewer service per the Town’s charter. Additional water service of 300,000 to
500,000 gallons per day will be required to serve full build-out of the proposed Queenstown growth
area.
Future water supplies
Pump tests indicated the capacity of the newest municipal well supplied by the Matawan aquifer
can be increased to supplement the current combined yield and sustain the full build-out demand
summarized in Table 6-1. The combined yield of the existing municipal supply wells is more than
300,000 gallons per day.
Table 6-1: Existing, Committed and Projected Water Demand
Residential (gpd) Nonresidential (gpd) Total (gpd)
EXISTING AND COMMITTED
Existing 68,000 -- 68,000
Vacant 4,250 0 4,250
Town Center 0 2,700 2,700
Steamboat Village 5,500 0 5,500
Queenstown Harbor Resort 0 33,300 33,300
85

Version 10-23-19
Table 6-1: Existing, Committed and Projected Water Demand
Residential (gpd) Nonresidential (gpd) Total (gpd)
Waterman property 50,000 45,000 95,000
Total 127,750 81,000 208,750
FUTURE
Annexation 32,500 4,501 36,438
Long Range Growth 165,000 99,000 251,625
Subtotal 197,500 103,501 288,063
Total 325,250 184,501 496,813
Source: Peter Johnston & Associates, LLC
The Aquia aquifer has no potential for meeting future demands of the Queenstown community.33
Strict limitations on groundwater withdrawal have been emplaced by MDE because of increased
salt water intrusion, especially along the Chesapeake Bay shoreline of Kent Island. Any additional
water supplies must be provided from deeper aquifers potentially including the Matawan,
Magothy, or Patapsco aquifers. A review of hydrogeology reports and currently permitted wells
in the vicinity of the Queenstown Planning Area suggest the confined aquifer system can provide
adequate municipal water supplies in the future. Most wells permitted for more than 100,000
gallons per day are used for agriculture and irrigation and provide two to five times more water
than the current supply and demand in Queenstown (Table 6-2). Elevated iron, manganese, and
arsenic concentrations, however, will require treatment.
Table 6-2. Summary of water appropriations permits (greater than 100,000 gallons per day)
within 50 square miles of the Queenstown Planning Area
Average/Maximum Daily Yield
Aquifer/Location
(x1000 gallons per day)
COLUMBIA (SURFICIAL) AQUIFER
Central Sod Farms of Maryland (irrigation) 100 / 400
Ball & Burlap Nursery, Inc. (irrigation) 135 / 450
McClyment, David. B (irrigation) 114 / 690
AQUIA FORMATION
Armour Swift Eckrich (chicken processing) 100 / 125
S.E.W. Friel (food processing) 123 / 1,000
Central Sod Farms of MD (irrigation) 100 / 400
Ball & Burlap Nursery, Inc. (irrigation) 135 / 450
Schaefer, Louis (aquaculture/irrigation) 200 / 1,200
Queen Anne’s County Sanitary District 88 / 175
Rhodes, Jr., Temple (irrigation) 247 / 1,498
Rhodes, Jr., Temple (irrigation) 97 / 587
Rhodes, Jr., Temple (irrigation) 109 / 659
Central Sod Farms of Maryland, Inc (irrigation) 411 / 720
J.L. Carroll (irrigation) 197 / 1,198
33 Drummond, D.D. 2001. Hydrogeology of the Coastal Plain Aquifer System in Queen Anne’s and Talbot Counties, Maryland,
with emphasis on water-supply potential and brackish-water intrusion in the Aquia Aquifer. Report of Investigations No. 72.
Maryland Geological Survey.
86

Version 10-23-19
Table 6-2. Summary of water appropriations permits (greater than 100,000 gallons per day)
within 50 square miles of the Queenstown Planning Area
Average/Maximum Daily Yield
Aquifer/Location
(x1000 gallons per day)
MAGOTHY FORMATION
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 18 / 220
Queen Anne’s County Sanitary District 98 / 144
Washington Brick & Terra Cotta Company 72 / 336
Queen Anne’s County Sanitary District 342 / 513
PATAPSCO FORMATION
Hunters Oak, LLC 62 / 285
Source: MD Department of the Environment, Water Rights Division 2000, summarized by URS Corporation
200.
Wastewater
Map 3-1 shows the approximate location of the treatment plant and collection system. The WWTP
was constructed in 2015 to meet Chesapeake Bay nitrogen and phosphorus discharge limitations.
The WWTP is bio-reactor plant that contains the latest equipment and technology and currently
has a capacity of 200,000 gallons a day. The facility was approved by the Maryland Department
of the Environment under the terms of NPDES discharge permit number MD0023370.
To protect Little Queenstown Creek, the Chester River, and the Chesapeake Bay, the Maryland
Department of the Environment has limited the total annual nutrient loads from a point source to
Little Queenstown Creek to 3,266 pounds of total nitrogen (TN) per year and 411 pounds of total
phosphorus (TP) per year. The new WWTP plant can reduce nutrient loadings significantly and
increase the plant’s treatment capacity to as much as 350,000 gallons/day within these limits.
Special requirements for the plant include an 85 percent reduction in Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and enhanced nutrient removal (ENR). Based on an
annual average flow of 0.200 million gallons per day (mgd) the NPDES permit limits the plants
annual loading to 183 pounds of total phosphorus (P) and 2,435 pounds of total nitrogen (N).
Table 6-3: Existing, Committed and Projected Sewer Demand
Residential (gpd) Nonresidential (gpd) Total (gpd)
EXISTING AND COMMITTED
Existing 88,000 -- 88,000
Vacant 4,250 0 4,250
Town Center 0 2,700 2,700
Steamboat Village 5,500 0 5,500
Queenstown Harbor Resort 0 33,300 33,300
Waterman property 50,000 45,000 95,000
Total 147,750 81,000 228,750
87

Version 10-23-19
Table 6-3: Existing, Committed and Projected Sewer Demand
Residential (gpd) Nonresidential (gpd) Total (gpd)
FUTURE
Annexation 32,500 4,501 36,438
Long Range Growth 165,000 99,000 251,625
Subtotal 197,500 103,501 288,063
Total 345,250 184,501 516,813
Source: Peter Johnston & Associates, LLC
The maximum 400,000 gpd capacity of the Queenstown WWTP will not be adequate to service
the full build out scenario shown on Map 2-3 and summarized in Table 6-3. A number of variables
such as actual versus design flow assumptions and real development programs versus assumed
build out number will affect this conclusion. As these outcomes are not expected to occur within
the planning period (2040) consideration of alternative strategies to address facility capacity
limitations is left to future planning processes.
Stormwater and Non-Point Source Assessment
Development, industry, transportation, and agriculture can all increase non-point source pollution
to the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Although residential and commercial development can
decrease nutrient and sediment delivery to adjacent surface water bodies, increased storm runoff
has been linked with higher rates of stream bank erosion and delivery of toxins. Agriculture,
especially corn and soybean row crops, has been linked with elevated nitrogen and phosphorus
loads and deteriorated water quality.
Non-point source (NPS) pollution comes from many diffuse sources including excess fertilizers
and pesticides from agriculture and development (e.g. residential lawn fertilizer), oil, grease, and
toxins from development, sediment from improperly managed construction sites, crop and forest
lands, and eroding stream banks, and bacteria and nutrients from livestock, pet wastes, and septic
systems. The NPS pollution is delivered to lakes, rivers, wetlands and coastal waters by
groundwater discharge and surface water runoff. Excess loading rates have been linked with
harmful effects on drinking water supplies, recreation, fisheries, and wildlife. In particular,
elevated plant nutrient loads, including total nitrogen (TN) and phosphorus (TP) cause excessive
algal blooms which ultimately can result in a reduction in dissolved oxygen concentrations.
Ground water discharged from the surficial aquifer is the primary source of water and nitrate;
whereas, sediment, phosphorus, and pesticides are delivered by runoff during storm events.34
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is working closely with state agencies, including the
Maryland Department of the Environment, to establish Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
standards for managing human activities and improving surface water quality of impaired and
34 Staver, L. W., K. W. Staver, and J. C. Stevenson. 1996. Nutrient inputs to the Choptank River estuary: Implications for
watershed management. Estuaries 19:342-358.
88

Version 10-23-19
threatened waters across the Chesapeake Bay watershed. A TMDL is a calculated amount of a
pollutant that a specific stream, lake, estuary or other waterbody can receive without violating state
water quality standards. The TMDL allocates the load to point sources and nonpoint sources,
which include both anthropogenic and natural background sources of the pollutant.
Pollution controls must outweigh impacts from development and also agriculture. In the Lower
Chester River and tidal portions of the Wye River, designated uses (fisheries and recreation) are
impaired from sediments, nutrients, and fecal coliform. Shellfish harvesting has been restricted
mainly due to excessive fecal coliform derived from manure spreading, direct deposition from
pets, livestock and wildlife, failing septic systems and associated drain fields, and discharge from
recreational boaters.
Nutrient TMDLs for the Lower Chester River, however, have been challenging to derive because
of the difficulty in modeling the strong influence imposed by the Chesapeake Bay tides on water
quality across the sub-estuary. TMDLs for the Lower Chester River are pending. TMDLs will not
be set specifically for the Queenstown Harbor because of its small watershed area. The
Queenstown Planning Area and its watershed occupy one percent of the of the entire Chester River
watershed, for which TMDLs are being developed. Similarly, sediment and nutrient TMDL’s will
not be developed specifically for the Upper Wye River, a sub-basin which occupies six percent of
the Wye River watershed. For the Wye River, a TMDL only for fecal coliform has been released;
and TMDL’s for nutrient and sediment will be released in the future.
This evaluation of how growth and changes on land cover/land use may affect nutrient loadings to
the Queenstown Creek and Upper Wye River updates an analysis of land use change in the
Queenstown Planning area in terms of nutrient loadings (Total Nitrogen (TN) and Total
Phosphorus (TP) included in the Queen Anne’s County Comprehensive Plan 2010.The County’s
analysis was done based on data provided by Maryland Department of the Environment that
incorporates impervious surface by land use type factors from the Center for Watershed Protection
and nitrogen and phosphorus loading rates by land use from the Chesapeake Bay Program model.
The County’s analysis focused on the Queenstown Planning Area and evaluated loading changes
based on the 2030 Preferred Land Use Plan outlined in the 2010 Community Plan. The results
showed that that the build out of the Queenstown Planning Area would reduce nitrogen and
phosphorus loading to receiving waters.
The update of the County’s analysis results reflects the revised land use plan outlined in Section
2. The “2040” scenario accounts for land use and cover changes associated with development of
the Dudley North, Waterman property and Queenstown Resort properties. The “Build Out”
scenario accounts for cumulative land use and cover changes associated build out of the Long
Range Growth areas. Point source loading was held constant at 3,266 pounds of total nitrogen
(TN) per year and 411 pounds of total phosphorus (TP) per year which likely overstates loading
for the 2040 scenario.
89

Version 10-23-19
The results of this analysis, summarized in Appendix A, are very similar to those of the County35
and demonstrate that with the application of best management practices there is adequate capacity
in receiving waters to accept the stormwater runoff associated with the Land Use Plan outlined in
Section 2.
Modelling of nutrient loading assumes implementation of the Maryland Chesapeake Bay Tributary
Strategies. Of particular importance to Queenstown are the point source and stormwater tributary
strategy. The point source strategy assumes upgrading WWTPs to use Enhanced Nutrient Removal
(ENR) technology to meet nutrient loading caps. Queenstown has implemented this strategy.
Stormwater tributary strategies promoting erosion and sediment control measures and adoption
and enforcement of stormwater management ordinances to minimize the water quality impacts on
local waterways. The Stormwater Tributary Strategy supports implementation of the approaches
to stormwater management identified in the Maryland Stormwater Design Manual. Queenstown’s
Stormwater Management Ordinances implements these strategies.
Conclusions
Drinking Water
Groundwater supplies are believed to be sufficient for existing and projected demand however,
groundwater withdrawal from the Aquia aquifer is expected to be limited.
Suitable Receiving Waters and Land Areas
Wastewater treatment capacity is adequate to accommodate growth late into the planning period
and have effluent discharge quality remain within the point source TMDL caps established for the
Queenstown WWTP. Capacity will need to be increased to fully service the build out of the
planned annexation areas and long range growth areas. There will be insufficient capacity in the
WWTP to accommodate the full projected development associated with the build out of the long
range growth areas.
Nutrient loadings associated with projected land use changes associated with the Land Use Plan
will not increase deposition to receiving waters assuming adherence to applicable tributary
strategies and rigorous application of stormwater best management practices to limit sediment and
other pollutants from reaching receiving waters.
Water Resources Recommendations
The Water Resources Element summarizes potential impacts from human activities across the
Planning Area under current conditions, for development through 2040 and full build-out. It also
35 Queens Anne’s County Comprehensive Plan 2010, Appendix 3: Water Resources Analysis and Best Management Practices
Toolkit, pg. 151-155.
90

Version 10-23-19
highlights potential constraints that will limit development in the Planning Area. Specifically, the
Town will need additional water supplies in the short term and increase WWTP capacity in the
latter part of the planning period. To address these issues the following actions are recommended.
Water Supply
Hydrogeology investigations (e.g., Drummond 2001) together with the high production rates of
irrigation wells completed in the Magothy aquifer indicate strong potential for Queenstown to
accommodate future water demands. The Town should pursue plans to increase capacity of
municipal wells to 300,000 gallons per day. Develop an additional municipal well in the Matawan,
Magothy, or Patapsco Formations to supply projected demand of approximately 300,000 gallons
per day. Developing additional municipal supply wells will require pursuit of additional or
expanded groundwater appropriation permits.
Wastewater Treatment
The modernized wastewater treatment plant will meet approximately seventy percent of the total
discharge anticipated with full build-out scenario. Spray irrigation and other approved non-potable
uses for the remaining discharge volume are viable, especially if the wastewater is treated first.
Ideally, spray irrigation should occur in the eastern portion of the Planning Area, where silty soils
slow infiltration and allow great opportunity for further biodegradation of contaminants prior to
discharging in local waterways and the Chesapeake Bay. Also the Town should work with MDE
to explore the development of a “purple pipe system” to reclaim wastewater for non-potable uses
as appropriate under MDE regulations to boost capacity.
Stormwater Management
Cooperate with Queen Anne’s County in the development of Watershed Management Plans for
the Lower Chester River and Wye River watersheds and balancing the impacts of land use patterns
across all landscapes (i.e. natural, agricultural, rural residential, suburban and town/village) by
facilitating infill development within the Town and Planning Area.
Missing Data
When the Water Resources Element is updated, additional information about the local groundwater
system, wastewater treatment options, and response of aquatic ecosystems to watershed activities
and anthropogenic influences will improve the basis for future policy decisions.
Water Supply Issues and Uncertainty: Additional information describing groundwater resources
in the Queenstown Planning Area will provide a stronger basis for planning sustainable growth.
In particular, a synthesis of historic boring logs recorded during well explorations or development
would provide a more accurate description of the local groundwater resources. Results would
91

Version 10-23-19
provide invaluable information for future well explorations. More specific description of the
contamination from petroleum derivatives (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes, or BTEX
chemicals), including the source and extent also would be helpful for maintaining the current water
system and locating future wells. In addition, the community is concerned with impacts from an
existing landfill adjacent to the Town Planning Area and immediately up-gradient of Queenstown
Creek. Information describing the near-surface hydrogeology of the site would be useful for
evaluating impacts on surface water and shallow groundwater quality.
A 2001 report identified several outstanding data gaps in Queenstown’s water supply
infrastructure.36 There remains conflicting information about the Del Rhodes water tank size.
Resolving the discrepancy will be critical to ensuring access to adequate water supply during
emergency situations. The Town also would benefit from locating leaks in the distribution
network.
36 URS Corporation. 2001. Evaluation of selected water and wastewater system components in Queenstown, MD (draft report
presented to Town of Queenstown).
92

Version 10-23-19
SECTION 7: TRANSPORTATION
Introduction
Efficient and effective movement of people and goods is an important concern in any community's
plan. Providing a safe and efficient transportation network with minimal disruption is a challenge
in light of the divided responsibilities for infrastructure and systems. For its part is requires that
Queenstown’s transportation plan be closely coordinated with other elements of the
Comprehensive Plan to assure that local transportation plans and policies complement and support
those of other sections. As the control of transportation systems is divided among State, the
County, and Queenstown agencies managing transportation facilities at the beyond local streets to
ensure adequate capacity will require coordination and cooperation among the various levels of
government.
Goal, Objective and Policies
Goal
Provide a safe and efficient transportation system.
Objectives
• Maintain a functional road and street system for the safe, convenient and efficient
movement of people, goods and services.
• Create a connected street network tying together all parts of Queenstown without the use
of US 301 or US 50 for access.
• Work with State and County officials to promote transportation system improvements that
address local as well as regional travel issues.
• Improve pedestrian and bicycle opportunities insuring that pedestrian and bicycle facilities
are an integral part of new project design.
• Insure new streets connect to the overall Town system in a way that promotes safe and
efficient movement of vehicles and pedestrians.
• Maintain the existing systems to maximize the effective lifespan of transportation
investments.
93

Version 10-23-19
Policies
• New development will be designed so as to contribute to improvements in safety and traffic
flow in and near the Queenstown Planning Area to the maximum extent reasonable.
• Subdivision applications and other development approvals will be reviewed for adequacy
of streets and roadways. Approvals may be deferred, phased in, or conditioned upon the
availability of adequate capacity.
• Vehicular, biking, and pedestrian access to community facilities within the Town and to
major activity centers beyond the Town shall be encouraged.
• New development abutting existing neighborhoods shall provide continuity for vehicular
and pedestrian movement by maximizing connectivity to the extent consistent with good
site planning.
Highway System
The Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) maintains a functional classification of roads
and highways (see Map 7-1). The federal functional classification of roadways is a tool used by
both SHA and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to report the function of roadways
in their current form. SHA’s functional classification system in the Queenstown area includes the
following:
Principal Arterials - Arterial highways are intended to carry large volumes of regional traffic at
relatively high speeds between activity centers. SHA has classified US 50 and US 301 as principal
arterial highways.
Collectors - Collectors gather traffic from local roads and funneling them to the Arterial network.
SHA has classified MD 18 as a Major Collector and MD 456, Del Rhodes Avenue, as Minor
Collectors.
Local – Local road and streets serve primarily to provide access to adjacent land. Most of the
County and municipal systems in the Planning Area are classified as local roads.
Issues
Of most concern to Queenstown is the adverse effect US 50 and US 301 have on local traffic
circulation. That the State Highway Administration capital improvement plans and needs
inventory includes no projects that address this issue adds to this concern.
94

Version 10-23-19
US 50 between Outlet Center Drive and Sportsman’s Neck Road carried approximately 47,000
vehicles per day on average according to recent counts, indicating that this section of highway is
at or above its design capacity. During peak summer travel times capacity is stretched further with
a seasonal estimated average daily traffic peak of 128 percent of yearly average—in July.
Surprisingly, in 2000 the same section of highway carried 46,212 vehicles per day a nearly 15
percent decrease from 2014 annual average daily volume.
It is anticipated that the capacity of US 50 and US 301 will be seriously exceeded over the next
decade. Small disruptions in the flow of traffic - minor accidents, breakdowns, etc.—will cause
substantial congestion in the study area and beyond on normal travel days. While improvements
are being designed for the US 50 corridor, no funding commitments have yet been made for
construction.
Several intersections along US 301 have been restricted in an attempt to safely manage access to
the highways and facilitate the unimpeded movement of regional traffic. The conflict between
turning vehicles and through traffic however cannot be eliminated altogether through at-grade
intersection improvements and median crossovers. As traffic continues to increase, the viability of
at-grade intersections will be weakened. Areas where traffic conflicts occur between high-speed
through traffic and slower merging and crossing local traffic include:
• Outlet Center Drive and US 301
• Outlet Center Drive and US 50
• Del Rhodes Avenue and US 301
• MD 18 and US. 50
• Sportsman Neck Road and US 50
The planned improvements to the US 50 corridor are outlined in Table 7-1. The State Highway
Administration has prioritized these improvements based on input provided by the Queen Anne’s
County Board of County Commissioners.
Table 7-1: MD State Highway Administration Priorities for US 50/Ocean Gateway
Corridor Improvements
Project Description Priority Status
Carmichael Road Overpass 1 Funded for Design
Sportsman's Neck Road Overpass 2 Funded for Design
MD 404 Interchange 3 Funded for Design
MD 213 Interchange 4 Funded for Design
MD 18 Overpass 5 Funded for Design
US 50 Widening to 6 Lanes: 6 Funded for Design US 301 - MD 404
95

Version 10-23-19
According to SHA, while the phases of the US 50 project were prioritized during project planning,
it was understood at the time that the prioritization was preliminary and subject to change with
input from Queenstown and Queen Anne's County. SHA will work with Queens Anne's County
and Queenstown to prioritize the phases, once funding becomes available, to move the projects
forward. Additionally, any project in the vicinity of the Waterman property development will need
to be revised to reflect development on that parcel.
Currently, the MD SHA’s two highest priorities include overpasses at Carmichael Road and
Sportsman’s Neck Road. Carmichael Road leads to the Wye Island Natural Resource Management
Area and is sparsely populated. Sportsman’s Neck consists of low-density residential and
agricultural land uses. Given the high density of residents and increasingly heavier traffic volumes
within the Queenstown municipality, the SHA priority list does not reflect local circulation needs
nor does it adequately address the access needs of Queenstown with respect to MD 18.
In summary, the primary transportation issues center on:
• lack of access to the Town to and from the US 50 corridor;
• inadequacy of the intersection configurations in light of projected traffic increases and
seasonal peaks;
• conflict between slower moving/turning traffic especially on US 50 near the Outlets and
the higher speed traffic on US 50; and
• properly adjusting SHA improvement priorities to reflect the needs of the traveling public
in the US 50 corridor and the needs for improved accessibility in the Queenstown area.
In particular, SHA plans consist of replacing at-grade intersections with overpass interchanges
without considering alternative road layouts which could improve traffic flow from communities
adjacent to US 301 and US 50. SHA’s focus remains on improving traffic flow to ocean beaches
rather than improving safety for the area residents who use these roads for local travel. Current
plans call for five overpasses along the US 50 corridor and its expansion to a six-lane highway,
but no improvements to US 301. Yet traffic flow has increased and tends to be more consistent on
US 301. This will only be intensified when US 301 is connected to the I-95 northeast corridor via
a limited access highway.
96

Version 10-23-19
Map 7-1 Highway Functional Classification System
97

Version 10-23-19
Responsible Agencies
The responsibility for transportation facilities and services fall to a number of State and local
agencies. They include the following:
Highways, Road and Streets
Responsibility for planning and maintenance of the street and highway systems in the planning
area are shared among the State, Queen Anne’s County and Queenstown. Of particular importance
to Queenstown is the State highway system.
State Highway Administration (SHA) – SHA is responsible for State-owned, managed and
maintained transportation facilities including highway, transit, maritime and aviation facilities.
Planned improvements to State transportation systems including highways are outlined in the
Maryland’s Consolidated Transportation Program (CTP) which is a six-year capital budget for
transportation projects.
The CTP contains projects and programs across the Department, including the Maryland Aviation
Administration, the Motor Vehicle Administration, the Maryland Transit Administration, the
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, the Maryland State Highway Administration,
the Maryland Port Administration, and the Maryland Transportation Authority. The CTP includes
capital projects that are generally new, expanded or significantly improved facility or service that
may involve planning, environmental studies, design, right-of-way acquisition, construction or the
purchase of essential equipment related to the facility or service. An expanded description is shown
for each major project, along with a list of minor capital projects. The Consolidated Transportation
Program (CTP) public outreach is an important component of the project selection process.
Counties are asked to provide their input every year via the County Priority Letter. These priorities
are considered along with the State's safety and mobility goals to help develop the draft CTP.
Counties and municipalities are asked to comment on the draft CTP through the CTP tour process,
which takes place between September and November every calendar year.
As part of the review and approval process for a development project SHA’s role in the process is
technically limited to granting or not granting a permit for access to SHA owned facilities. The
size and scope of the development project is agreed upon by the local planning authority and the
developer. Following that determination, SHA’s role is to ensure that planned improvements to
the transportation network can accommodate the proposed development’s traffic impacts in a safe
and efficient manner. If necessary, SHA can require additional improvements as a condition of an
access permit. To make these determinations SHA works through the Traffic Impact Study
process, in coordination with the local planning authority and the developer, which is based on the
proposed improvements agreed upon by the local planning authority and the developer.
98

Version 10-23-19
Queen Anne’s County Department of Public Works, Roads Division –The Queen Anne’s County
Roads Division is responsible for traffic engineering along with the maintenance of over 549 miles
of County Roads and 32 bridges. Normal duties include but are not limited to road building, bridge
maintenance, patching of roads, resurfacing of roads, guard rails, mowing right-of-ways,
inspection of new roads and bridges, striping, snow removal, installation and maintenance of
drainage pipes and culverts, fabricating as well as installing and maintaining road signs,
maintaining shoulders, removing trash from roadsides, entrance permits, tree trimming,
maintenance of gravel roads and acquisition and maintenance of equipment.
Queenstown – Queenstown is responsible for maintaining approximately 30 miles of municipal
streets. Streets are maintained under contracts with private firms.
Airport
Queenstown is served by the Bay Bridge Airport located approximately 11 miles from the Town,
near the Chesapeake Bay Bridge just south of the US 50/301 and Route 8 interchange in
Stevensville. The airport provides chartered flights, pilot training services, helicopter academy and
access to community-based door-to-door passenger services.
Transit and Bus Service
County Ride – County Ride is a public transit system for the County and is operated under the
Department of Aging. County Ride operates 3 deviated fixed routes, Route 1 (Kent Island &
Grasonville to Easton), Route 2 (Centreville to Stevensville) and Route 3 (Annapolis). Deviated-
fixed routes operate on a time schedule. Drivers may deviate off the route for any rider if the
deviation is within 3/4 of a mile. Route 2 picks up passengers at the Queenstown Premium Outlets.
Maryland Upper Shore Transit (MUST) – MUST is a fixed route service offered through a
collaborative effort between Delmarva Community Transit in Dorchester County, USTAR in Kent,
Caroline and Talbot Counties and Queen Anne’s County, County Ride. Special services are
available for persons unable to use the regional fixed routes.
Maryland Transportation Authority (MTA) – Bus service is provided by a private carrier on
contract with MTA. Daily service is provided to the business and government employment centers
of both Washington D.C. and Baltimore, MD.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
The County is primarily responsible for developing and maintaining a variety of pedestrian and
bicycle facilities across the County. The following describes existing facilities:
Cross Island Trail Park – The Cross Island Trail is a linear park in Queen Anne’s County offering
an avenue of safe non-motorized transportation for citizens. The trail was initiated in 1998 and
99

Version 10-23-19
completed in September 2001. The Cross Island Trail spans Kent Island west and east from
Terrapin Nature Park on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay to the Kent Narrows. The trail is a 10
foot wide paved surface approximately stretching six miles in length through open fields,
woodlands and over wetlands.
Kent Narrows Pathways – The Kent Narrows Pathways are an existing network of trails that
connect the four quadrants of the Kent Narrows. This network of pathways provide pedestrian and
bicycle access throughout the Kent Narrows.
Kent Island South Trail (Matapeake Greenways) – The Kent Island South Trail is a 6 mile paved
trail system that parallels Route 8 from Matapeake State Park to the Romancoke Pier.
SHA supports the construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities along state owned roadways,
however, the County must agree to obtaining any necessary right-of-way for the project and taking
over maintenance once the facilities are installed. SHA has several grant resources available to aid
in the design and construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including the Transportation
Alternatives Program; Maryland Bikeways Program; and Recreational Trails Program.
Queen Anne’s County Water Trail
In 1999, Queen Anne’s County began planning a recreational water trail route that would skirt the
county’s shoreline from the upper reaches of the Chester River, encircle the southern end of Kent
Island and loop up the Eastern Bay to Romancoke and Wye Island. This water trail includes a
number of stops including Conquest Beach, the Chesapeake Exploration Center on Kent Island,
Matapeake State Park, Romancoke, Wye Island and Centreville Warf. A new waterfront park at
the site of the Queenstown WWTP could be added a stop along this trail, attracting more
recreational tourist to the Town.
Chesapeake Country National Scenic Byway
The Chesapeake Country National Scenic Byway links the Eastern Shore’s unique resources along
an 86 mile stretch of State designated scenic routes running through Queen Anne’s, Kent and Cecil
Counties. For well over two centuries, the corridor has provided connections among the region’s
homes, farmsteads, rural villages, market towns and county seats. The Byway includes MD Routes
18 through Queenstown and 213 from Kent Island to Chesapeake City, with an extension on MD
Route 20 to Rock Hall and MD Route 445 to Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge.
Among others, the Byway features historic churches along the route, including St. Luke’s
Episcopal Church at 7208 Main Street, Queenstown, MD which is described as follows:
This “very neat and commodious frame edifice” was constructed in 1840-1841 and
consecrated by Bishop William R. Whittingham in April 1842. The church was erected on
100

Version 10-23-19
land donated by the owners of nearby Bowlingly plantation. The building is a marvelous
example of the small country churches built in villages of the mid-19th century.
The rectors of St. Paul’s Parish served the congregations of both St. Luke’s and old Wye
until 1859, when Wye Parish was created. After 50 years of service and a fire of
undetermined origin, St. Luke’s Chapel was in need of repairs and renovation. In 1890, the
building was reconstructed, and it is assumed that the stained glass windows were part of
the renovation.
William H. D. Wright of Blakewood presented a bell to St. Luke’s Chapel in 1894. The
bell was immediately installed in the bell tower, and it has been sounding the call to
worship for more than a hundred years. There have been no significant architectural
changes, either exterior or interior, since 1890. In 1989, an adjoining Parish house was
constructed, providing much needed space for Sunday school and congregational
gatherings.37
Recommendations
The Long Range Growth areas shown on Map 2-3 includes a mix of residential, commercial and
institutional development on the south side of US 301. It is essential that an overpass be
constructed to carry Greenspring Road over US 301 to avoid a feeling of two separate towns. This
overpass should include facilities for pedestrians and bicycle uses.
Queenstown’s proposed transportation plan is shown on Map 7-2. The plan concept is for a mix
of overpasses and roadway improvements to solve current transportation shortcomings and serve
the land uses recommended in this Plan. Of immediate importance, this transportation solution
enables the Queenstown community to access US 50 and US 301 in either direction without
entering an at-grade intersection.
Specific recommendations for vehicular traffic in the Planning Area are:
1. Move Greenspring Road into the State highway system. Combine public and private
resources to prioritize an overpass on US 301 at Greenspring Road that includes pedestrian
and bike facilities.
2. Create a roundabout Town gateway at the intersection of MD 18 and Greenspring Road.
3. Realign MD 18 from the roundabout to the current Town limit to create a double-sided
Town-like street through the Dudley North property.
37 http://www.chesapeakebyway.org/churches_int.php
101

Version 10-23-19
4. Designate the extended Greenspring Road link from US 301 to the planned US 50 right-in
right-out on Del Rhodes as a collector and limit new curb cuts.
5. Link Del Rhodes to MD18 via Dudley north.
The Town supports increased movement by walking and bicycle as a quality of life issue.
Residential, commercial and institutional area roads must include streets that are bicycle and
pedestrian safe. In addition, all new developments must include a combination of roads and
pathways that make travel by walking or biking attractive, practical and safe. A suggested network
is shown on Map 7-2. Specific recommendations for non-vehicular movement in the Planning Area
are:
1. Include hiker/biker lanes on all overpasses.
2. Support development of a hiker/biker lane on the existing US 50 overpass at Nesbit Rd.
and through to the golf course property to tie Town Center to the regional trail network.
3. Work with State and County officials to create a second trail link along MD 18 (Route 18
Hiker/Biker Trail) and the old rail line to the County’s trail network near Grasonville and
back to the Waterman property.
4. Endorse a signed trail link through the Town Center along MD 18 to Centerville per the
County plan.
5. Require developers of the Waterman property provide access for a trail link from the Nesbit
Road area south of US 50/301through the Waterman property connecting to the Dudley
South property and then into the Town.
102

Version 10-23-19
Map 7-2 Transportation Plan
103

Version 10-23-19
SECTION 8: IMPLEMENTATION
Municipal Growth and Land Use
Town Center
From Charity Lane along Main Street to Short Street and from Main Street to Wall Street on Del
Rhodes Avenue is the natural and historic Town Center. The Town wants this area to continue as
its civic heart and a viable commercial center. The Town Center currently serves four functions.
Its largest role is as the daily civic center of Town. Townsfolk visit the Town Office, the post
office, the bank and church, and staff the fire station. Second, a small group of businesses provide
Queenstown residents with a modest array of daily goods and services. These businesses benefit
from the traffic generated by the civic functions and immediate proximity of residents. Third, a
small group of businesses and cultural attractions seek to attract visitors and tourists to Town.
Fourth, the Town Center serves as community event venue as the Town and the fire department
hold community events and fundraising activities. The Town Center anchors are the bank, Town
Office, post office, and fire station. These draw people to the center during the work day. The
Queenstown Pizzeria depends on this daily local traffic. The Bed and Breakfast and Museum both
benefit from out-of-town traffic. Currently, most of the Town Center’s commercial parking needs
are met with on-street public parking and by informal shared use of parking lots owned by the
bank.
Moving the Volunteer Fire Department from its present location to a new facility at the intersection
of Greenspring Road and Main Street (on the Dudley North property) will free up new commercial
space downtown and operate as a catalyst for revitalization (see Figure 8-1). Reuse of the Fire
Station complex could add 6,500 square feet, would double the amount of retail, and help create a
more viable critical mass of shops. New retail uses could fill the ground floor street front space
and apartments or offices could use the second floor space and the building in the rear.
The Town Center must be revitalized and maintained as a traditional small town mixed-use area
with historic and pedestrian-oriented character. Existing historic structures and sensitively
designed infill development should accommodate a diverse mix of compatible residential,
nonresidential, and public uses. Small-scale commercial businesses and services should be
oriented to the needs of the community and to tourists. Recommended actions to increase the
critical mass of commercial uses in Town Center include:
• Assist Town Center property owners to explore development opportunities and help with
cooperative public/private solutions.
• Investigate using the Bank parking lot frontage for new commercial uses.
• Facilitate fire station conversion to commercial and office uses and help provide parking
to support these new uses.
104

Version 10-23-19
• Facilitate conversion or redevelopment of the house between the Fire Station and the pizza
shop into shops.
• Encourage new business uses along Rte. 18 and Del Rhodes.
• Encourage cleanup of current business establishments along MD 18 and Del Rhodes
Avenue.
• Encourage new retail along US 301 on the Dudley property near the former Bob’s mini-
mart with a new connecting street to the retail planned for Dudley North.
Annexation and Long Range Growth Areas
With implementation of many of the recommendations in the 2010 Community Plan, Queenstown
has most of the tools in place necessary to accomplish their land use objectives. The primary
regulatory tools for infill, redevelopment and growth management Queenstown has adopted are
briefly described as follows.
CR Community Redevelopment Overlay District (CR) - The CR overlay district included in
the Queenstown Zoning Ordinance promotes appropriate infill development and redevelopment.
The stated intent of this zoning tool is to encourage and facilitate new development and
redevelopment on vacant, bypassed and underutilized land by allowing the Planning Commission
to vary standards and requirements when the design of a proposed infill and redevelopment project
is found to be context sensitive.
PN Planned Neighborhood Development Floating Zone - Queenstown’s objective of
encouraging and providing for mixed-use development in annexed areas applies to the Planned
Annexation and Long Range Growth areas shown on Map 2-3. It is in these location that the Town
wants to achieve a variety of housing types, densities, nonresidential uses, open spaces, and
recreational amenities that blend appropriately with existing land uses. The Planned Neighborhood
Development (PN) and Planned Regional Commercial (PRC) floating zones included in the
Queenstown Zoning Ordinance have been designed to achieve these ends.
The PN floating zone is applicable to large tracts of land of at least twenty-five (25) acres. Smaller
tracts may be considered when the development of such land is found to be compatible with an
adjacent, existing, or proposed PN type development and/or adjacent Town land uses.
The PN floating zone requires a minimum residential density of three and one-half (3 1/2) dwelling
units per net tract acre and permits a maximum density of six dwelling units per acre. Additional
density can be achieved through bonus density provisions that allow for transfer of development
rights (TDR) from a designated TDR sending area.
The PN district requires a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the gross site acreage be in open
space. It also sets minimum and maximum percentages of types of residential units to insure that
105

Version 10-23-19
the development has at least three (3) of the five (5) unit types; detached single family dwelling,
two (2) family dwelling, townhouses, multi-family dwellings and apartments.
PN district standards allow for such things as setback, lot size, lot dimensions, lot coverage,
minimum floor area, height, and yard requirements to be established according to an approved
Master Development Plan. Because the PN district is a floating zone, the Town Commissioners
are not required to grant approval until and unless they conclude the proposed development is
consistent with the Queenstown Comprehensive Plan and that the design of the proposed
development conforms to Queenstown’s Planned Neighborhood Design Guidelines.
PRC Planned Regional Commercial Floating Zone - The PRC floating zone is intended to
regulate large-scale mixed-use development projects including a wide range of commercial and
retail trades and uses, as well as offices, business and personal service, and residential uses. The
standards for this district insure appropriate transitions to adjacent residential neighborhoods and
safety. They allow for new commercial and mixed-use development that is compatible with and
contributes to the character of the Town. The PRC floating zone was applied to the Waterman
property in 2015.
All future development in the Planned Annexation and Long Range Growth areas shown on Map
2-3 should be required to develop under the provisions of the PN or PRC floating zone. This will
insure that the Town has maximum control over development design and impact mitigation in
order to achieve the objectives outlined in this Plan.
The Town should work with Queen Anne’s County to define a County-to-municipality TDR
sending area and develop tools to create incentive for and facilitate transfers. Ideally the sending
area should be located within the Lower Chester River and/or Wye River watersheds and the
development rights transferred come from resource lands and/or sensitive areas.
Flood Hazard Management
Like most coastal communities Queenstown is subject to some degree of higher water levels during
storm events. Climate change and rising sea level have the potential to increase the frequency and
intensity of flood events, potentially putting property and critical infrastructure at risk.
In 2008, the Maryland Commission on Climate Change reported the following:
“Sea level in Maryland rose by 1 foot in the 20th century, partially because the land is
sinking as a result of slow adjustments of the Earth after the last Ice Age. Maryland coastal
regions have been subsiding at about a rate of 6 inches per century and should continue at
this rate during this century. Additionally, the average level of the sea in this region rose
by about the same amount (6 inches) during the past century, resulting in the observed 1
foot of rise of the mean tidal level relative to the land. As a result, Maryland has
106

Version 10-23-19
experienced considerable shoreline erosion and deterioration of coastal wetlands which are
a critical component of its bays and estuaries.
Sea-level rise is very likely to accelerate, inundating hundreds of square miles of wetlands
and land. Projections that include accelerating the melting of ice would increase the relative
sea-level along Maryland’s shorelines by more than 1 foot by mid-century and 3 feet by
late century if greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow. If sea level rises by 3 feet, most
tidal wetlands would be lost—about 200 square miles of land would be inundated. New
tidal wetlands developed on newly flooded land would not offset the loss of existing
wetlands and significant negative effects on living resources dependent on these wetlands
would result. Moreover, if sea level were to rise by 3 or more feet, this would mean that
rapid and probably uncontrollable melting of land-based ice was underway and that sea
level would rise at an even greater rate during subsequent centuries.
Rains and winds from hurricanes are likely to increase, but changes in their frequency
cannot now be predicted. The destructive potential of Atlantic tropical storms and
hurricanes has increased since 1970 in association with warming sea surface temperatures.
This trend is likely to continue as ocean waters warm. Whether Maryland will be
confronted with more frequent or powerful storms depends on storm tracks that cannot yet
be predicted. However, there is a greater likelihood that storms striking Maryland would
be more powerful than those experienced during the 20th century and would be
accompanied by higher storm surges—made worse because of higher mean sea level—and
greater rainfall amounts.”38
Currently the Town regulates development in the 100-year Floodplain based on the Federal
Emergency Management Agency’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) and requires development
delineate the base flood elevations and utilize flood proof construction methods. Queenstown
adopted a revised Floodplain Management Ordinance based on the State’s model ordinance in
2015.
It seems prudent to assume impacts from storm surge in Queenstown are likely to increase with
climate change and sea level rise and that the FIRM maps do not delineate the potential extent of
inundation in the Town associated with catastrophic storm events. It was reported in the 2010
Community Plan that, “currently, flood surges from major storms including Category I hurricanes
range up to five feet above normal. In 2005, Hurricane Isabelle, a category II storm, caused a flood
surge of nine feet. Models indicate that a Category III hurricane could cause a storm surge of 9 to
12 feet along Queen Anne’s County shoreline, and a Category IV hurricane could surge 14 to 16
feet above normal. A Category V Hurricane, with winds greater than 155 mile per hour could
produce a storm surge of more than 18 feet above normal. From 1851 to 2005, five hurricanes
38 Comprehensive Assessment of Climate Change in Maryland, Report of the Scientific and Technical Working
Group Maryland Commission of Climate Change, July 2008,
http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Air/ClimateChange/Documents/FINAL-Chapt%202%20Impacts_web.pdf
107

Version 10-23-19
passed within approximately ten miles of the Maryland state boundary; all of these storms were
Category I or II (http://www.csc.noaa.gov/hez_tool/states/maryland.html; accessed 9/5/09).”
To accommodate the potential for higher storm surges, rising sea level, and climate change the
Town should consider regulations that restrict substantial development in mapped flood zones up
to and including category III storms and restrict development in areas less than 12 feet above
current mean sea level (See Map 8-1). Application of such regulations to existing developed areas
will be difficult but should fully apply to development located outside of the urban core, e.g.,
annexation areas, long range growth areas. In addition, the Town should evaluate the potential
impact of a Category III event on critical Town infrastructure..
Community Design
Design Guidelines
Development guidelines applicable to PN Planned Neighborhood and PRC Planned Regional
Commercial developments are referred to in the Zoning Ordinance but have not been prepared and
formally adopted. The Planning Commission should develop design guidelines for each of these
floating zone types and recommend them to the Town Commissioners for adoption.
Development Design Recommendations
The following outlines design recommendations for properties in the Annexation and Long Range
Growth areas. These design recommendations support the land use, natural resource conservation
and sensitive area protection, and transportation objectives of this Plan. They should be reflected
in PN and PRC design guidelines and should influence consideration of proposed development
master plans submitted under the provisions of the PN and/or PRC floating zones.
Dudley North – The Dudley North property in included in Queenstown’s Land Use plan as a
priority annexation area. Design recommendations for this property are as follows. Figure 8-1
illustrates how the design guidelines can be met.
1. A short mixed-use commercial street fronting US 301 on the 8 acre in-Town parcel
connecting to MD 18 via the street network in the Dudley North parcel.
2. A double-loaded through street in place of MD 18 with routing through the center of the
parcel and connection to a grid-like local street network with alleys serving most homes
and businesses.
3. The roadbed of old MD 18 as part of the new street system.
4. A new Town gateway and roundabout at MD18 and Greenspring Rd.
5. A grade separated interchange at Greenspring Rd and US 301.
108

Version 10-23-19
6. A hiker/biker trail link through the site.
7. A Town green visible from US 301 and faced by live work units and town homes.
8. A buffer to screen the homes from US 301 with berms and trees for visual protection and
sound suppression.
9. Retain land are north of MD 18 as open space, preserve existing forest cover.
Dudley Home Farm - The Dudley Home Farm is included in the Queenstown’s Long Range
Growth plan. Design recommendations for this property are:
1. A Town-like street grid that connects to Cherry Lane and MD 18.
2. A Town-like frontage on one or both sides of MD 18 with alley loaded homes facing the
street.
3. A grade separated interchange at Greenspring Road.
4. A hiker/biker trail link through the property along MD 18.
5. Buffering homes from US 301 with berms and trees for visual protection and sound
suppression.
6. Town access to the water at Salt House Cove.
Dudley South - Dudley South is included in the Queenstown’s Long Range Growth plan. Design
recommendations for this property are:
1. Preservation of the woodland triangle bounded by Greenspring and Del Rhodes and
treatment as a woodland park.
2. A Town hiker/biker link though the woodland park as a part of the Town loop connecting
the Sportsman Overpass and the Greenspring overpass.
3. A street linking the Sportsman’s Neck Overpass and Del Rhodes Ave. exit US 50 to
Greenspring Road to connect the Town to US 50 westbound and eastbound.
4. A public street in the development area that connects Del Rhodes to Greenspring Road and
has a Town-like streetscape along some segments.
5. A Town-like corner at Del Rhodes and US 301.
6. A Town-like streetscape/ frontage along Del Rhodes Ave.
7. A grade-separated interchange at Greenspring Road and US 301 with a Town-like
streetscape along the Greenspring Road frontage.
109

Version 10-23-19
8. A Town green visible from US 301 with mixed use development facing it.
9. Sound suppression design must be considered for the areas of the property close to US301.
Callahan Farm - The Callahan Farm is included in the Queenstown’s Long Range Growth plan.
Design recommendations for this property are:
1. A residential neighborhood that feels like an addition to Town rather than a separate place
and includes a mix of unit types and lot sizes.
2. A Town-like street front along Greenspring Road without driveway curb cuts.
3. An open space spine including the pond, wetland, and farm house tying to the St. Peter’s
Church and the adjoining woodland.
4. A hiker/biker trail that links to the Town and the American Discovery trail towards
Tuckahoe Park.
5. An entrance on the planned US 50 frontage road with special treatment facing US 50 that
blends with the character of St. Peter’s Church.
Town Gateways
MD 18 at US 301, Del Rhodes Avenue at US 301, and MD 18 at the eastern end of Town are the
principal gateways entering the community. In addition, US 301, after the US 50 split serves as an
attractive approach corridor to the Town from the west. Although the Town entrance on MD 456
from MD 50 is not in the Town proper, it is a heavily used entrance to the Town and the Town and
County should cooperate to improve the appearance of this area.
1. MD 18 (Main Street) is the principal gateway into Queenstown. The Town will work with
Queenstown Harbor Golf Course to landscape a distinctive gateway at the entrance from
US 301 to introduce the character of the Town to visitors and provide an attractive welcome
to residents.
110

Version 10-23-19
Map 8-1 Flood Inundation Zones
111

Version 10-23-19
2. Del Rhodes Avenue is the second of four Town gateways. It should continue to provide a
transition to the Town Center with a mix of commercial and residential uses. As it
approaches US 301 it should return to entirely commercial use. This entrance should also
provide a welcoming gateway to Queenstown. Over time, the commercial establishments
at the Del Rhodes Town entrance should be redesigned so that they present an attractive
face to US 301 and Del Rhodes Avenue. For example, if both sites continue as gas stations,
they should be remodeled to better match the character and style of the Town and provide
screening for the pump islands from both the highway and Town side.
3. The third gateway is where Main Street meets MD 18 arriving from Centreville. Relocating
the Fire Station to the southwest corner of this intersection affords the opportunity to
provide another attractive, as well as functional, entry.
4. The final visual gateway is the forest that borders the approach to Queenstown along US
301 from the west. This forest is a desirable and attractive feature that must be protected
and extended. Any development along US 301 as it approaches and passes through
Queenstown must include a berm and plantings to extend the roadside woodlands as both
a visual amenity and to provide noise buffering for adjacent uses.
Historic Properties
While Queenstown's origins are eighteenth century (or even seventeenth), the historic area of the
Town is essentially nineteenth century. Surviving structures from the 1700's include Bowlingly
(1733) and the colonial courthouse/Town Hall (c. 1708). No additional eighteenth-century
buildings within the Town limits have been identified.
The demise of Queenstown's earliest structures over time is typical of colonial-era towns. During
this period, economic development was insufficient to support construction of buildings from
materials other than timber which could have endured to present times. Table 8-1 lists the
structures that are included on Maryland’s Historic Places Inventory and their locations.
Table 8-1: Queenstown Historic Places
Property Address
Bowlingly (Bollingly), Neale's Residence, Ferry 111 Bowlingly Circle
House
Queenstown Courthouse Main Street (MD 18) & Del Rhodes
Avenue
My Lord's Gift Links Lane
Waterman Property Kirkely Road
St. Peter's Roman Catholic Church Ocean Gateway (US 50)
St. Luke's Episcopal Church Main Street (MD 18) & Dudley Road
Nationwide Insurance Agency Main Street (MD 18)
112

Version 10-23-19
Table 8-1: Queenstown Historic Places
Property Address
Canterbury House (Probable site of Queenstown Jail) 6923 Main Street (MD 18)
Sherwood House (Caroline T. Wilson House) 7120 Main Street (MD 18)
Burnt Tavern (Chester House Hotel, Gabler House) 7200 Main Street (MD 18)
Stone Granary 7133 First Avenue
Robert Price, III Residence 200 Del Rhodes Avenue
Crescent House 7009 Main Street
Denny-Bishop-Hane House 6915 Main Street
Historic structures in Queenstown are of three general types in terms of construction, siting, and
architectural character. Close to the Town's historic main crossroads are buildings which have had
or continue to have a commercial function and are sited at the front property line, with a
commercial-type facade.
Adjoining and nearby residences on Main Street and Del Rhodes Avenue consist of or mixed-use
structures. Many of these structures have a townhouse siting, close to the front lot line, with vertical
massing. The architecture and lot layout are appropriate for the small lots and compact layout of
the pedestrian-oriented commercial core.
Outside the central area homes tend to be placed further back on lots, with residences on larger
lots oriented to their own landscaped yards rather than to streets.
While there is considerable variety in the size and shape of the homes in Queenstown, reflecting
the varying dates of construction and lot sizes, the traditional homes exhibit the common features
of vertical massing, brick construction or frame with wood siding, roofline prominence such as
gables, window shutters and other wall decorations, and frequent indoor-outdoor transition spaces
such as verandas or porches.
Several of the older farmhouses within the unincorporated Planning Area may have historical or
architectural significance but have never been extensively studied for purposes of historic
preservation. Queen Anne's County does not have a formal historic preservation program or
historic district regulations.
The property containing Bowlingly was voluntarily placed under deed restrictions limiting
development with the National Trust for Historic Preservation by its former owners. This easement
prohibits additional development of the property. A large agricultural field directly adjacent and
north of Town which was once associated with the Bowlingly property is also under restrictive
easement with the National Historic Trust. Control of these easements has been transferred from
the National Historic Trust to the Maryland Environmental Trust.
The “Heritage Area and Tourism Areas” Act of 1996, Chapter 601 of the Laws of 1996 requires
that each jurisdiction included in a certified heritage area contain in its Plan, by reference, the
113

Version 10-23-19
management plan for the heritage area. The Maryland Heritage Area Authority has certified, with
conditions, “The Stories of the Chesapeake Heritage Area,” thereby recognizing heritage areas in
Kent, Queen Anne’s, Talbot, and Caroline Counties and their municipalities and offers a
mechanism for coordinated and enhanced heritage tourism in these counties. Queenstown
recognizes and references “The Stories of the Chesapeake Heritage Area Management Plan” as a
means to further opportunities for heritage tourism and economic development. This update of the
comprehensive plan incorporates by reference all portions of the Stories of the Chesapeake
Heritage Area Management Plan, except those portions solely relating to other jurisdictions within
the Heritage Area, as part of the comprehensive plan.
Parks and Recreation
Queenstown has been evaluating the feasibility of developing a waterfront park at the site of the
WWTP. If and when developed the Town should consider having this destination added to the
Queen Anne’s County Water Trail, a recreational water trail route that skirts the county’s shoreline
from the upper reaches of the Chester River, encircle the southern end of Kent Island and loop up
the Eastern Bay to Romancoke and Wye Island. The water trail includes a number of stops
including Conquest Beach, the Chesapeake Exploration Center on Kent Island, Matapeake State
Park, Romancoke, Wye Island and Centreville Warf. Queenstown could be an added stop for
recreational tourists in small craft.
Pedestrian access across the east end of Little Queenstown Creek should be improved in both
directions to facilitate community access and neighborhood interactions. Ideally, the existing
footbridge would link up with a footpath that skirts Queenstown Harbor development and
facilitates access to the Queenstown Harbor Golf Course. Sidewalk and roadside improvements
should also encourage pedestrian and bicycle thru-traffic to the playground park on the east side
of Queenstown.
Water Resources
In December of 2010 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set limits on the amount
of nutrients and sediment that can enter the Chesapeake Bay, known as Total Maximum Daily
Loads (TMDLs). EPA required the Bay watershed jurisdictions to develop statewide Watershed
Implementation Plans (WIPs). WIPs are described as the first phase of a road map and
accountability framework for restoration of the Chesapeake Bay and clean local streams.
Maryland completed its Phase I WIP in December 2010 and subsequently developed a Phase II
WIP in collaboration with local partners, including county government staff, soil conservation
managers and other local decision makers.
Queens Anne’s County prepared its Phase II WIP in 2011. The County’s Phase II WIP includes
an overview, strategies, 2013 milestones and a capacity analysis. Among other strategies, the
County is seeking collaboration between the county and towns to create a program to plan and
114

Version 10-23-19
implement WIP strategies. Queenstown should cooperate with the County and State where it can
to implement the WIP strategies.
Natural Resources Conservation and Sensitive Areas Protection
Queenstown already has most of the regulatory tools necessary to minimize impacts to natural
resources and protect sensitive environmental areas. These are minimum standards. Their
application in the context of a specific development design determines effectiveness. When
reviewing development proposals the Town should consider how the design of the project affects
the “targeted habitat protection areas” shown on Map 5-2. The “targeted habitat protection areas”
coverage is more extensive than the minimum buffer requirements in the zoning code and includes
consideration of wildlife corridor links, vegetative cover and drainage patterns. Although these
areas may not be completely avoided, e.g., when providing necessary access to development areas
on the property, development design should maintain these as natural areas to the maximum extent
practical. In addition, these areas should be the preferred location for forest planting and wetland
creations offsets when required. These objectives should be incorporated as design guidelines for
PN and PRC developments.
Interjurisdictional Coordination
Joint Planning Agreement
Queenstown’s role on Queen Anne’s County’s growth management and sustainability strategies
and the County’s role in influencing the zoning and development processes related to annexed
lands are compelling reasons for the Town and County to reach prior mutual agreements
concerning development in the Town’s planned growth and annexation areas. The recent court
actions surrounding rezoning the Waterman Family property are prime examples of why the
County and Town should be fully vested in each jurisdiction’s plans and why concerns for the
impacts of development on County provided facilities and services addressed as early as possible
in the development process.
The Queen Anne’s County Comprehensive Plan 2010 makes clear the County’s intent “to reduce
development encroachment in the rural areas by directing growth to existing population centers
located in towns, villages, crossroads, planning areas (growth areas) and/or Priority Funding
Areas.”39 Aligned with this policy are the County’s strategies to support municipal growth and
annexations plans, enter into joint planning agreements with the municipalities and to designate
Municipal Growth Areas as Transferable Development Rights (TDR) receiving areas.
A prime example of why interjurisdictional coordination and cooperation is critical to both
jurisdictions’ growth management strategies is Queenstown’s need for Critical Area Growth
39 Queen Anne’s County Comprehensive Plan 2010, pg. 1-4
115

Version 10-23-19
Allocation to fully implement its growth plan. Approximately 180 acres of Queenstown’s growth
area are located in the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area and are designated Resource Conservation
Areas (RCA). In order for these areas to be developed as planned Critical Area growth allocation
must be applied (see Map 8-2). Queen Anne’s County has already set aside 200 acres of Growth
Allocation for Queenstown. This amount of Growth Allocation will not be sufficient to enable full
development of Queenstown’s planned growth area. Having adequate Growth Allocation to
support its planned growth gives the Town a strong incentive to offer land owners in the planned
growth area to be annexed into the Town.
Upon adoption of this Comprehensive Plan Queenstown should negotiate a joint planning
agreement with Queen Anne’s County that:
• Ensures the Queen Anne’s County Comprehensive Plan recognizes Queenstown’s revised
planned growth areas and annexation plan;
• Confirms Queen Anne’s County will set aside adequate Critical Area Growth Allocation
to fully support Queenstown’s growth plans;
• Ensures Queen Anne’s County’s concerns for potential impacts on County facilities and
services are addressed in annexation agreements; and
• Establish reasonable mechanisms and rates of exchange for transferring development rights
to municipal receiving areas in the Queen Anne’s County’s TDR program.
Council of Governments
The existing Queen Anne’s County Council of Governments is another forum that presents
opportunities for the municipal and county representatives to discuss issues relative to ongoing
implementation of their respective planning and implementation programs. To insure on-going
awareness and cooperation the Town and County should coordinate the development and review
of amendments/updates to each jurisdiction's Zoning Ordinance and District Maps; Critical Area
Program Ordinance and Maps; Infrastructure Improvement Plans for Sewer, Water, Roads, and
Parks; and Capital Improvement Program and/or Annual Budget as they relate to mutual areas of
interest. This coordination should ensure that these Plan implementation tools are consistent with
this Comprehensive Plan and will serve to streamline the development application and review
process within the Town and Planning Area as mandated by the State's 1992 Economic
Development, Resource Protection and Planning Act.
116

Version 10-23-19
117

Version 10-23-19
Map 8-2 Planned Growth Allocation
118