Guest Commentary: Tom Alspach TPA President

On November 2 voters will be asked whether they approve of County Bill 924, a new zoning law that was adopted unanimously by the Talbot County Council and endorsed unanimously by the Easton Town Council.            

Bill 924 complements other zoning legislation recently adopted by the town of Easton; the two measures represent a refreshing effort by those jurisdictions to work together in supporting retail development in town, while discouraging commercial sprawl in the countryside.

County Bill 924 imposes a size limitation of 65,000 square feet on retail stores in the county (automobile and farm machinery dealerships are exempted). The Easton legislation relaxes the town's own size cap, and allows planned major retail areas that include stores in excess of 65,000 square feet.

County Bill 924 and Easton's revised legislation are consistent with the comprehensive plans of both jurisdictions, and with principles of smart growth. Commercial interests have an incentive to develop new or expand existing retail stores as infill or redevelopment within town limits, serviced by public sewer and water, and accessible by shorter automobile trips or even by foot. At the same time, the potential for suburban shopping malls in the county is limited, reducing intense development on septic systems and wells, limiting congestion on narrow county roads and preserving our rural open space.

So County Bill 924, considered in context with the recent Easton legislation, offers a unique win-win opportunity for commercial developers and land preservationists alike. Given this commendable reconciliation of divergent interests, it is difficult to imagine that anyone would lobby against a Yes vote on Ballot Question B. Oddly enough, someone has.

Anyone who somehow has missed the relentless full page Lowe's newspaper ads probably has received the glossy colorful mailing, doubtlessly the first of many. Lowe's urges voters to reject Bill 924 because it supposedly impedes the company's ability to build a new store. Every time Lowe's satisfies zoning regulations, the ads proclaim, the "County Council changes the rules" to obstruct its ability to expand.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The deceptive Lowe's campaign is a true disservice to Talbot County voters on the part of a company that claims to a "good neighbor."

Contrary to its public charges, it is Lowe's that has a history of "changing the rules." After our Board of Appeals ruled (and our Circuit Court affirmed) that Lowe's could not build a big box in the county limited industrial zone, the company's lawyers rewrote our zoning laws to reverse that decision. The last County Council then agreed to adopt the Lowe's rewrite, and to "change the rules" through Bill 808.

After Bill 808 was blocked by a citizens' referendum, Lowe's again changed the rules by persuading a majority of the last County Council to rezone their proposed big box site on Route 50 from limited industrial to general commercial. The courts have now ruled that the rezoning was done illegally and therefore is not effective, but Lowe's has vowed to pursue more litigation in an effort to secure commercial zoning. The company is spending so much money to defeat Bill 924 simply because it would impose reasonable size limits in the county commercial zone.

But the most shameless falsehood in the Lowe's advertising is the baseless claim that the adoption of Bill 924 would mean it could not build a new store. A "Yes" vote on Bill 924 will absolutely not mean that Lowe's cannot expand its store in our community. The new Easton legislation affords Lowe's the opportunity to expand its current store, or to build a new store within town limits (and sufficient land in town is indeed available). Bill 924 does nothing more than ensure that such expansion will occur in town, and that neither Lowe's nor any other major retailer will become the anchor of a sprawling commercial center in the countryside.

And that's why Talbot County voters should Vote Yes on Ballot Question B.