Economic Development Report (An insert in yesterday's Indy)
Posted by Pauleen Brewer at 7/12/2007 7:00 AM 
Categories: Existing Businesses, New Businesses, Water and Sewer, Revitalization
Categories: Existing Businesses, New Businesses, Water and Sewer, Revitalization
Hughesville Commercial
The County & Hughesville residents have developed a sub-area plan that calls for restoration of a historical center with an arts theme. The community has a number of small business parcels and parks for office and industry location. The county is working with a telecommunications client to facilitate the development of a Hughesville site for an office building. Storage needs related to the user have created a need for zoning changes. The County Economic Development Department and Planning and Growth Management Department have met with the developer to establish criteria. The developer is looking at a potential office park for an expanded site, rather than just one building.
I'd like to clarify a few things...
We did not develop a sub-area plan - we developed a revitalization plan. The difference - a sub-area plan requires rezoning and flows outside the PFA. The revitalization plan is restricted to the priority funding area and not peripheral development. Our stance was to restrict development and infill to the PFA boundaries.
While we are certainly open to the "arts theme", it was not something that was "developed" by the citizens on the revitalization committee.
A vast majority of Hughesville residents have doubts about this development because: 1. It requires rezoning and is outside the PFA. 2. This development will include quite a bit of industrial business vs. professional office space 3. The developer met with a few residents to garner support for this development and did NOT receive it. So, do not be mislead into thinking this project has the support of Hughesville residents.
Reply to this
All of this just looks suspicious to me...seems as if the EDC has been working in tandem with the County and the DEVELOPERS for Hughesville and the seven waterfront "villages" which we all know will be mixed use - commercial and residential. Why hasn't this been brought to our attention before? Why are we now just hearing about it? And from the EDC no less!!
Reply to this
Sounds to me like the County isn't even concerned with following the Hughesville Revitalization Plan. It seems all they care about is accommodating the developer, not just in Hughesville, but all over the County.
Reply to this
As usual, with many of these reports, there is erroneous information involved. The first sentence is ok except for the "arts theme" wording at the end of the sentence. True, this was discussed and touched on in some of the Revitalization meetings and may be what comes out of it, but it is not a given, nor has anyone indicated that it was. This a pet project of Mr. Reardon, head of EEOC who lived in the western US and saw small towns use the arts theme as a way to revitalize their cores. Not saying this may not be a good idea, but as far as I know this is not a fact.
The following information is included in the same paragraph as the first sentence which reads "The County and Hughesville residents" indicating to me that the residents are behind this rezoning to accommodate the telecommunications client. I suspect the landowner is Ray Mertz with property on the north side of the bypass behind the Harley Place. Some of us met with Mr. Mertz (and also Smolinsky, the Harley guy who is also involved in the project).Those present stated our position that we wanted to follow the Revitalization Plan.
Now, do we let this slide or oppose this project. As we told Mr. Mertz and Mr. Smolinsky, we would like to give the Revitalization Plan a chance before we go rezoning the surrounding area. And there will be many more requests for rezoning if this goes through. For this particular project, contrary to what the brochure would have you believe, there will have to be rezoning for the office park as well as the storage. This will give us truck traffic as well as a possibility of whatever else comes with this rezoning. And if other zoning goes through which I anticipate it would based on the rezoning of this property, we would end up like White Plains except we will have the ghost town of Hughesville surrounded by industrial and multi-level office complexes.
We need to stick to the Hughesville Revitalization Plan: revitalize the core of Hughesville before going to the surrounding areas. Review in a couple of years how the revitalization is going in the village and then work on possible expansions.
It is not an easy task to revitalize. It is much easier to build new. But what we need now is revitalization to our village; not surround it with bright as a penny new office and industrial projects.
These thoughts are my own and a few other folks; they may not be yours. I need to know who supports getting involved in this and who feels we should let it slide.
If there are those of you who may say "who does she think she is"; well, I am a resident of Charles County and of Hughesville who cares about what happens to our community (both countywide and villagewide). It doesn't matter that something has been done a ccertain way forever, it doesn't make it right. And just because our county has always given developers and moneymakers the upper hand does not make it right. We can do amazing things. We have a track record.
Reply to this