skip to main |
skip to sidebar
By
Mike Rauck
During a week where the news is trending more negative than positive, members of our community continue to fight the trend. Senior Pastor Dione Bowlding from Bowie City Church announced in a weekly recorded message on YouTube Sunday that the church donated $1,000 to the Bowie Interfaith Food Pantry in response to a theft that occurred at the pantry early Friday evening.
According to Bowlding, the church has a program to assist the Bowie Interfaith Food Pantry in every calendar month that has five Sundays. On the fifth Sunday of those months, the church budgets about $4,000 to give to church families to shop and deliver goods to the pantry.
This month has five Sundays, but due to a scheduling conflict, the church donated to the food pantry on the first Sunday of the month. Bowlding said that the church happened to have $1,000 remaining in this month’s donation budget, and that money was delivered to Bowie Interfaith Food Pantry Director Debbie Langdon over the weekend.
"The pantry is so fortunate to have such generous support from the community,” Langdon shared with Bowie Living. “We are overwhelmed by their kindness and compassion. These last few days have seen an increase in donations - some due to the pandemic and some due to the break in."
The pantry has had to make slight changes to their operations due to the temporary closure of city buildings where some of the pantry’s drop-off sites are located, but donations are still being accepted in the back of the Kenhill Center. Visit the Bowie Interfaith Pantry and Emergency Aid Fund Facebook page for the drop off hours and list of items needed.
Monetary donations can be made via the pantry’s web site by clicking here.
The mandatory shutdown of some businesses due to concern about the Coronavirus will create a greater need for the pantry's services.
The Bowie Police Department identified 57-year-old Michael James Treyfry this afternoon as a suspect in the pantry theft. Anyone with information about the theft or the whereabouts of Treyfry is encouraged to contact Detective Booth, Bowie Police Department Criminal Investigations Section at (240) 544-5700. Callers can leave anonymous tips by calling (240) 544-5770.
Have you supported the pantry in the past? Are you part of an organization that supports the pantry? Share your stories in the comments.
By
Mike Rauck
Seritage SRC Finance is seeking to increase the number of residential units allowed on the Sears property at the Bowie Town Center for a proposed mixed-use project that could include retail, office, hotel, and residential buildings. The 10.8-acre site is only one of several parcels that make up the 72-acre Bowie Town Center, and it currently includes the vacant Sears building, BJ’s Restaurant and Brewhouse, and several acres of parking.
Seritage filed a zoning map amendment earlier this month to permit up to 800 multi-family units and up to 150 townhouses or assisted living beds on the property. The proposal represents a 670 unit increase over the 280 units that are permitted on the property under previously approved plans.
The application that Seritage filed with the county is one of three applications that require review and approval before any buildings are constructed.
The City of Bowie plans to review all three applications using the city’s development review guidelines. The guidelines call for a stakeholders’ meeting, a Bowie Advisor Planning Board public hearing, and a City Council public hearing for all three applications that Seritage anticipates submitting.
Seritage is a 2015 spinoff of Sears, Roebuck and Company. Sears owned a considerable amount of real estate throughout the country, and those holdings were transferred to Seritage as part of the spinoff.
Seritage has sold some of the former Sears properties, found tenants for others, and demolished some to make way for mixed-use projects.
In the company’s most recent earnings report published in February, Seritage detailed plans for three new projects to convert former Sears properties to mixed use sites – one each in Dallas, Chicago, and Redmond, Washington. The projects will be built in phases with an average of 500 residential units per property if all goes according to plans.
Multiple residents expressed concern about the current state of the Bowie Town Center during recent City Council listening sessions. The quality of the stores and the number of vacant units were mentioned.
Traditional brick-and-mortar retail stores have suffered in the wake of increased online shopping, and retail properties are commonly repurposed for other uses including restaurants, fitness clubs, entertainment venues, and residential.
The Sears property is part of collection of parcels that make up what is known as the Bowie New Town Center (BNTC) Comprehensive Design Zone (CDZ). Other properties in this CDZ include the rest of the Bowie Town Center, the Shoppes at Bowie Town Center, Bowie City Hall, the Palisades townhouses, Heather Ridge Apartments, and several commercial and residential properties across from the Bowie Town Center on the north side of Route 197.
A Comprehensive Design Zone is like a custom zone where residential density caps and other property restrictions are tailored for a cluster of properties – unlike more traditional zoning where density restrictions must be strictly followed. Planning officials have more flexibility when approving new and modified plans for CDZs, and approvals are handled on a case by case basis.
All property owners have the right to submit development applications for review, and the fact that the application is being reviewed by the city should not be seen as an endorsement by city staff, the Bowie Advisory Planning Board, or the City Council. City Council recommendations emanate from the review process. The city’s position should never be assumed just because a development application is being considered.
City review of the Seritage zoning map amendment application is expected to begin in late spring.
Click here to view a January 2019 video where the Sears property owners discuss possible uses for the site.
By
Mike Rauck
Three months after an election where the impact of development projects was considered a major concern for voters, members of the Bowie City Council divided into two camps for last Monday’s votes on two detailed site plans for the South Lake project – councilmembers who wanted to send a symbolic message and councilmembers who wanted to participate in the county’s process despite having a restricted role.
Mayor Adams and councilmembers Boafo, Harrison, Nbdebumadu, and Turner voted to recommend approval of the South Lake plans, and councilmembers Estève and Woolfley voted against. The 5-2 split was reminiscent of vote tallies from the previous council where Estève and Woolfley typically voted against recommending development applications before the council.
City Council development project votes generally have no binding authority. The decisions typically serve only as recommendations when the plans are considered by the Prince George’s County Planning Board and the District Council.
City Council recommendations, however, typically include more than just an up or down vote on a project. City planning staff and the Bowie Advisory Planning Board generally provide the council a list of recommended conditions for approval. Common conditions for approval include widening of a road, adding a sidewalk, increasing parking spaces, adding a trash receptacle, changing the type of bike rack used, and installing signs.
Developers seeking a positive recommendation from the Bowie City Council tend to accept staff’s conditions for approval, thus giving the city some limited leverage on development projects even though the city has no power to stop these projects. That leverage is lost when the city rejects a development application (e.g., Pecan Ridge), and that leverage is lost when the city decides to take no action on a development application (e.g., Amber Ridge).
A City Council recommendation to reject a development application can also affect a project, but only if the City Council provides reasons that are applicable to the criteria that the Planning Board and the District Council can consider by law for the particular type of application being considered.
School capacity was cited as a factor in the City Council’s decision to reject the Pecan Ridge proposal, but the county adopted rules years ago that prevent development applications from being rejected due to school capacity issues. The county instead charges a per-unit fee for new development projects to fund school capital improvement programs.
“South Lake is going to happen regardless of whether the Bowie City Council takes a stand or not,” District 4 Councilmember Roxy Ndebumadu explained during Monday’s meeting before voting to approve city staff’s recommendations for the project. “We need to have a seat at the table.”
The South Lake development is being built in Ndebumadu’s district.
District 2 Councilmember Dufour Woolfley argued that changes to the project recommended by city staff are minor in nature. “They really don’t address the overall concerns that the community has, and they’ve had for a long time, and that’s of course with traffic and the impact on education,” Woolfley pointed out. “Nor does it fairly represent the real world of retail and how it’s changing, and I don’t see how introducing new retail into our environment is all that helpful.”
The council’s consideration of the two South Lake detailed site plans on Monday was constrained by commitments made by the previous council when the property was annexed into the city. Ndebumadu suggested that voting against the project could subject the city to a lawsuit from the applicant.
After consultation with the city attorney, Woolfley recommended indefinitely tabling a decision on the South Lake detailed site plans as a way of abiding by the terms of the annexation agreement without showing support for the project.
District 1 Councilmember Michael Estève concurred with Woolfley’s approach. “We have to be careful about what we signal to residents, and we have to be careful about what we signal to the community at large,” Estève said. His comments were met with applause from a handful of people present Monday night who oppose the South Lake development.
“We have to figure out the best way to be most effective given our restricted role,” Councilmember Boafo told Bowie Living. “We know that the City Council doesn’t have the power to stop development projects, but we do want to be able to influence plans. Someday the Sears property owner will submit a plan to redevelop that site, and we need to have our voices heard.”
Boafo would like the City Council to work more closely with the Prince George’s County Planning Board to better understand how the council can best address future development. “I’m looking forward to spending time with the Planning Board in the near future,” Boafo said.
Despite differences in how councilmembers voted on the South Lake applications, there is broad consensus in the council that traffic and the state of the schools in Bowie are major concerns.
A public hearing for the two South Lake detailed site plans will be held by the Prince George’s County Planning Board on Thursday, March 19th.
By
Mike Rauck
As of 11am this morning (Tuesday, March 3rd), customers calling the phone number for Sardi's Bowie location will hear a recorded message indicating that the restaurant is closed after a recent fire. According to the message, the recording will be updated when the status of the restaurant changes, and no estimate was provided for the length of the closure.
The phone number for Sardi's Bowie location is (301) 383-2167.
Please send Bowie Living a note if you hear any info. Thank you!
By
Mike Rauck
The Bowie City Council will hold a meeting tonight, March 2nd, at 8:00pm in Bowie City Hall, 15901 Excalibur Rd.
Agenda items include review of two detailed site plans for the South Lake development, a briefing on the Countywide Sectional Map Amendment, and a proposal to honor former Bowie Mayor G. Fred Robinson.
Although the council is generally united in a goal to reduce development in the Bowie area, they have struggled to find an approach to handling development applications that come before the council. Past actions by this council have included postponing reviews (South Lake), recommending against projects (Pecan Ridge), and canceling council review without a recommendation to the county (Amber Ridge).
Councilmembers have expressed frustration that their recommendations have no affect on the outcome of development projects because the real power lies with county officials. The truth is a little more nuanced.
Although it’s true that the city doesn’t have the power to stop development projects, the city does have a role and responsibility to residents to improve or minimize the impact of development projects. The city frequently makes recommendations to developers and to the county about senior housing allocations, roadways, sidewalks, and walking paths that are accepted by developers, and the council should never give up that responsibility like it did with the Amber Ridge project.
Councilmembers may fear approving a recommendation for a development application because it has the appearance of support for development, but they need to explain to residents that what they’re doing is the most responsible path forward given what the law allows.
Councilmembers should also resist the urge to perpetuate the myth that the path forward to limiting development is to simply stop county officials from voting “yes” on development applications. It’s much more complicated than that, although it is true in some situations.
At the heart of the development project approval process is the concept of property rights. If you own a piece of land, and you propose a development project that matches the use and density of the zoning for your property, and your proposal meets all other guidelines, including adherence to environmental regulations, you have the right to develop your property. You may have to make some roads improvements near your property, but by law, you have the right to build if you meet the criteria.
The second concept is equal treatment for all applicants. If project approvals are based on a County Council vote alone, we have the potential for decisions to be made arbitrarily and potentially subject to abuse and unwanted influence. It’s therefore important that approval for development projects be conditioned on a common set of rules and criteria, and all stakeholders, including the public, can participate in the process to show that a project does or doesn’t meet prescribed guidelines. Forcing projects to adhere to guidelines creates accountability in the approval process.
A corollary to the concept of equal treatment is that development project approvals are not made by plebiscite. In other words, when it comes to someone’s property rights in Maryland, a vote by the people can’t take those rights away.
There have been plenty of times when residents have testified during public hearings where they said something like, “stop this development. The people don’t want it.” That sort of testimony has no effect with the county Planning Board because they can only consider the common criteria which all development projects are measured against. Public sentiment can be used, however, to influence the design of a project, but not to force rejection of a development application.
When it comes to school capacity, the county adopted rules years ago that prevent development applications from being rejected due to school capacity issues. School capacity numbers are still used by the county for planning purposes, but rather than rejecting applications, the county charges a per-unit fee for new development projects regardless of school capacity. The fee is assessed at the time a building permit is issued. The fee is adjusted each year for inflation, and the 2020 rate is $16,698 per unit. The fee is lower for construction inside the Beltway and in other areas where the county is promoting development.
Some residents have testified at public hearings that the developer for this project or that project should be forced to build a new school. Although the sentiment may be right, it’s unfair to force a single development project to pay for 100% of the cost of a new school when the new development won’t have enough students to fill a new school. That’s what makes the school facilities surcharge ideal because every development, no matter how small or how large, contributes an amount that is proportional to the development’s size. It also gives the county the ability to use those fees where the need is the greatest rather than having developers construct schools in places where school capacity is not an issue.
One common complaint is that the school facilities surcharges generated by Bowie development projects aren’t used for school improvements or school construction for Bowie area schools. The truth is that they don’t go directly to school improvements in other areas of the county either. They are generally used to service the debt obligation on money borrowed for multiple school capital improvement projects throughout the county, including projects in Bowie.
When it comes to road capacity, development project applications are rarely, if ever, rejected due to capacity. The process does include an evaluation of road capacity, but if the adequacy tests fail, the developer is usually given the option of mitigating the traffic issue by making road improvements that are proportional to the additional traffic generated by the development.
The Melford developers were required to make several changes to intersections along Route 301 and Route 3, but the improvements were considered to be proportional to the extra traffic that the development was anticipated to generate.
Some residents testified in public hearings that the Melford developers should fund an additional lane in each direction on Route 3. The truth is that the Melford development is not responsible for one third of the traffic on Route 3, and the road improvements that the developer was forced to make were more proportional to the impact that the development would have.
One area where County Council members should be held accountable is for their approval of text amendments.
We recently saw the County Council vote in favor of a text amendment that had the effect of changing the permitted residential density for the Freeway Airport property. The council was certainly within its authority to vote “no” without violating property rights and the principle of equal treatment.
