Eastport project sent back for more city review

Board of Appeals finds public services lacking

For the second time this year, the Annapolis Board of Appeals has ruled that parts of a proposed Eastport development project fall short in providing adequate public services to the community.

After deliberating for about two hours Monday night, members of the board unanimously approved a motion to send plans for the mixed redevelopment of parts of the Eastport Shopping Center back to the Department of Planning and Zoning.

In a forthcoming written ruling, the board would provide specific requests of city officials to revisit the application again and accompanying mitigation plans, which “have failed in some respects,” said Board Chair Robert Gallagher.

During Monday’s proceedings, Gallagher took issue with all five mitigation plans for police service, traffic control, recreation space, non-auto services and stormwater management. He argued they still did not meet the standard laid out in City Code that mitigation has to result in the facility being no worse off after development is completed.

For example, Gallagher said, there is “insufficient evidence” that a developer’s plan to pay for security cameras and up to $50,000 annually to employ off-duty Annapolis police officers onsite would maintain or improve current safety standards.

“My view is similar on all of these,” he said.

Earlier this year, the board took similar action when it deemed that more than half of the project’s adequate public facilities requirements fell short and asked that the respective city departments provide mitigation plans to meet City Code.

For a new development to be approved, it must be determined the city can continue providing the same or better services to the community. After extensive negotiations with the developer, Solstice Partners, Planning and Zoning Director Sally Nash approved in May mitigation plans for the five services still at issue.

An appeal of her decision followed a month later. In mid-November, the legal counsel for the developer, Annapolis attorney Alan Hyatt, and Heidi Halleck, the attorney for the two Eastport residents who brought the appeal, completed their oral arguments.

Board members varied in their support for the mitigation plans. Some sought stronger language in the plans, such as requiring a set amount for the developer to pay for security rather than a sum “up to” $50,000. Others thought that despite the mitigation plan not appearing sufficient, they did meet the legal standard. For instance, someone might “hold their nose” at a $21,000 payment by the developer in lieu of creating more than 40,000 square feet of new recreational space, but it’s what is required by law, said board member Andrew Burnett.

Board member Nadine Chien briefly argued for the developer’s certification to be vacated entirely, meaning they would be required to resubmit new plans for the project. But after further discussion, Chien opted to give developers a “third bite of the apple,” which would allow the board to provide a detailed outline of what they were looking for to meet the adequate public facilities requirements.

Board Vice-Chair Christian Zazzali shared the sentiment of other members that redeveloping the Eastport Shopping Center is long overdue.

“This is a project that should happen,” he said. “It is a neglected, underutilized surface parking lot in a really wonderful part of town.”