← All documents

draft comprehensive plan

Other January 18, 2023 · 97 page(s)

View original PDF ↗ Meeting

Full extracted text

The document's complete text, exactly as extracted — not a summary. Use “Summarize this document” above for the short version.

Town of Centreville
Comprehensive Plan: 2040
Planning & Zoning Commission
Public Hearing Draft
November 17, 202
1

Adopting Resolution
Left blank
2

Acknowledgement Page
Left Blank
3

Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 6
PURPOSE OF THE PLAN UPDATE ........................................................................................................................................ 6
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT .................................................................................................................................................... 7
MARYLAND VISIONS FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING .......................................................................................................... 8
ORGANIZATION OF THE PLAN ........................................................................................................................................... 9
II. THE POPULATION OF CENTREVILLE ................................................................................................................. 10
LOCATION .................................................................................................................................................................. 10
POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS ..................................................................................................................................... 11
III. MUNICIPAL GROWTH .................................................................................................................................... 15
PROJECTIONS OF HOUSEHOLD GROWTH ........................................................................................................................... 15
A PLAN FOR MUNICIPAL GROWTH .................................................................................................................................. 21
IV. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................................................................. 29
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................... 29
EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................................................. 29
A PLAN FOR NATURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................. 36
V. WATER RESOURCES ........................................................................................................................................ 39
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................... 39
EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................................................. 39
A PLAN FOR WATER RESOURCES .................................................................................................................................... 42
VI. LAND USE ...................................................................................................................................................... 45
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................... 45
EXISTING PATTERN OF USE ............................................................................................................................................ 46
A PLAN FOR LAND USE ................................................................................................................................................. 48
VII. HOUSING ...................................................................................................................................................... 55
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................... 55
EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................................................. 55
A PLAN FOR HOUSING .................................................................................................................................................. 60
VII. TRANSPORTATION ........................................................................................................................................ 64
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................... 64
EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................................................. 64
A PLAN FOR TRANSPORTATION ....................................................................................................................................... 69
VIII. COMMUNITY FACILITIES .............................................................................................................................. 79
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................... 79
EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................................................. 79
A PLAN FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES ............................................................................................................................... 86
4

IX. IMPLEMENTATION ......................................................................................................................................... 90
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................... 90
ZONING AND SUBDIVISION AMENDMENTS ........................................................................................................................ 90
WATER AND SEWER ALLOCATION PROGRAM .................................................................................................................... 93
STUDIES AND SPECIFIC PLANS ......................................................................................................................................... 93
FUNDING MECHANISMS ................................................................................................................................................ 94
INTERJURISDICTIONAL COORDINATION ............................................................................................................................. 94
CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................................................. 96
5

I. Introduction
Purpose of the Plan Update
This is the 2022 Update of the Centreville Community Plan, the Town’s official comprehensive
plan and guide to growth and development. It was written by the Centreville Planning
Commission as required by Maryland law and in service to the people of Centreville, those here
today and those that will be here in the future.
This is an update of the current 2009 Plan; it is not a wholesale reappraisal. It keeps the course
we set a decade ago while recognizing that, from time to time, it is essential to turn the boat
into the wind to make progress. So, this Update, not only refines and details long held and
prevailing ideas, it resolves to provide a guide to difficult policy decisions that will shape the
Town through 2040.
The general purpose of comprehensive planning is to bring about the careful development of a
community and the conservation of what residents find exceptional about it. This has been the
continuous goal of Centreville’s Community Plan since it was first adopted in 1966 and it
remains so today1. But now, as we look to the year 2040, we also focus on five specific goals, as
follows:
Provide direction on how to expand the municipal water and sewer system. No other class of
infrastructure is as essential to the sound and healthy development of a town as its water and
sewer systems. The Town’s water and sewer systems are nearing their capacities and must be
improved and expanded to achieve the long-standing community planning goals.
Develop the local economy, the commercial tax base, and ensure the strong and resilient fiscal
health of our local government. The Town’s reserve of land for commercial or light industrial
development is mostly developed. Some intensification may be feasible in the future but
additional space for employment will be needed for the future and to position the Town to
capitalize on regional development and transportation trends.
1 The Town adopted its first comprehensive plan (and zoning ordinance) in 1966, with amendments in 1974 and 1981. The first Plan
Update was adopted in 1988, which then was amended in 1992 and 1998. The next Update, which is the Plan in effect at the time of
this writing, was adopted in 2009.
6

Organize the character and function of the Town’s existing and future streets and the
development that will front them. People fully experience a place by moving through it and a
community’s streets and avenues shape its enduring character. The Town is poised to grow so
planning now for the intended character and function of major streets will guide development
in lasting ways.
Show how to interconnect existing and future neighborhoods with outstanding open spaces
and greenways that will impart a character of good health, small town vitality, and scenic
beauty. The Town is planned to physically expand. It could grow as fragmented and separated
places or in a way that brings about interconnected parks, walkways, and the far-reaching
conservation of natural resources.
Guide the location, layout, and character of future neighborhoods. Open lands in and around
Centreville could be developed as conventional single-use residential subdivisions or in ways
that distinguish them as excellent neighborhoods unique to Centreville. Left to chance, land
development seldom organizes itself into coherent extensions of existing or historic patterns.
This Plan Update does not depart significantly from the current 2009 Plan. Instead, it provides
more detailed guidance, while addressing the needs of today and aiming to create the best
conditions for the Town’s future. Each of the above ideas represents some refinement to the
policy guidance and goals in the current plan.
Public Engagement
The Planning Commission conducted near monthly work sessions through 2021 and 2022 as it
worked to update the 2009 Community Plan and assemble this document. It held a public
workshop on a draft version on this document October 5, 2022. Following the public workshop,
the Commission voted to publicize the Plan for a Public Hearing, which was held on (January 18,
2023). [To be completed following the public review process.]
7

Maryland Visions for Comprehensive Planning
The State’s guiding statutory visions for comprehensive planning summarize the minimum
criteria by which any comprehensive plan in the State is judged to be valid. These visions
explain why no town, city, or county can shut its doors to growth, or allow haphazard
development, or disregard planning for public infrastructure, or neglect economic development
or the need for housing. Local governments in Maryland that regulate land use development
must adopt comprehensive plans aligned with the 12 Visions listed below.
Vision - 1. 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.
Vision - 2. Citizens are active partners in planning and implementing community initiatives and are
sensitive to their responsibilities in achieving community goals.
Vision - 3. Growth is concentrated in existing population and business centers, growth areas adjacent
to these centers, or strategically selected new centers.
Vision - 4. 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.
Vision - 5. Growth areas have the water resources and infrastructure to accommodate population and
business expansion in an orderly, efficient, and environmentally sustainable manner.
Vision - 6. 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.
Vision - 7. A range of housing densities, types, and sizes provides residential options for citizens of all
ages and incomes.
Vision - 8. 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 are encouraged.
Vision - 9. Land and water resources, including the Chesapeake and coastal bays, are carefully
managed to restore and maintain heathy air and water, natural systems and living resources.
Vision - 10. Waterways, forests, agricultural areas, open space, natural systems, and scenic areas are
conserved.
Vision - 11. Government, business entities, and residents are responsible for the creation of sustainable
communities by collaborating to balance efficient growth with resource protection.
8

Vision - 12. 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.
The visions also form the context for coordination between Centreville and Queen Anne’s
County in both planning and “implementing strategies”. For example, the towns in Queen
Anne’s County are among “the existing population centers” to which the County is called to
direct growth. And just as the County’s planning directs growth to Centreville, the State’s
visions oblige the County to implement complementary strategies, such as sharing in the
municipal costs of providing essential facilities and services, which is recommended in this Plan
Update.
Organization of the Plan
Following the next chapters about population, this report is organized into seven interrelated
chapters, each focusing on a major functional or policy area: Municipal Growth, Natural
Environment, Water Resources, Land Use, Housing, Transportation, and Community Facilities.
Each chapter contains objectives and recommendations. The last chapter is about
Implementation, including sections on land use regulations , interjurisdictional coordination,
and areas of critical State concern.
9

II. The Population of Centreville
Location
The Town of Centreville is centrally located within Maryland’s upper eastern shore region, 55
miles south of Wilmington, Delaware and 35 miles east of Baltimore along U.S. Route 301. (See
Figure 1.) The upper eastern region, composed of five rural counties—Cecil, Kent, Queen
Anne’s, Caroline, and Talbot), is home to 243,245 people (or 4% of Maryland’s population) and
123,400 jobs2. Centreville is the county seat of Queen Ann’s County.
Town of
Centreville
Queen Anne’ s
County
FIGURE 1
2 Source of population estimate is U.S. Census, Maryland State Data Center (2019). Source of employment data is Jobs by Place,
Maryland State Data Center, 2020 projected.
10

Population and Households
Decade by decade, between 1960 and 2000, Centreville’s population remained within a narrow
band changing only by plus 107 residents as shown in Figure 2 below. But between 2000 and
2010 the Town’s population surged, growing at an unprecedent average annual rate of 8.1%,
adding 2,315 residents and more than doubling in just 10 years3. The 2020 U.S. Census
population county for Centreville is 4,727.
Households, which are occupied housing units, also increased rapidly between 2000 and 2010,
as would be expected. During that decade, 761 households were added to the Town bringing
the total to 1,568 households. Then, between 2011 and 2020, 278 more housing units were
added4. As these units are assumed occupied, the 2020 estimated number of households is
1,846. Households are the “demand units” for most municipal facilities and services. For
example, the number of households is multiplied by the average water demand to estimate
demand for domestic municipal water. In the next chapter, Municipal Growth, we look to the
future and present projections using this estimated number of households as the baseline.
3 By comparison, over the full 60 years since 1960, the Town’s average annual rate of growth approximated 1.6 percent.
4 The number of housing units added though 2020 (278) is based on the Town’s tracking of its building and occupancy permits. It
differs from the recently released 2020 U.S. Census estimate of 1,989 housing units which implies that 295 units were added during
the decade.
11
368,1 358,1
810,2
790,2
079,1
582,4
727,4
POPULATION CENTREVILLE: 1960-2020
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
FIGURE 2, SOURCE U.S. CENSUS.

For decades the Town’s share of Queen Anne’s County’s population and households fell, from
a high of 12.4 percent in 1950 to a low of 4.9 percent by 2000 as shown in the chart below. This
was primarily the result of the County’s build-out of Kent Island combined with essentially no
growth in Town (or in any of the County’s municipalities). But by 2010 however, the Town’s share
of the County’s population had been restored to its 1960 level before dropping recently to
about 10.6 percent. As of 2020, the latest year data are available, the population of all the towns
in the County, made up 14.2 percent of the County’s population5. Centreville, as the County’s
largest town, accounts for the lion’s share of municipal growth and plays a significant role in the
County’s efforts to concentrate growth in areas that can be served cost-effectively with public
services, protect farmland, and preserve overall rural character.
12.2%
11.2% 11.2%
10.6%
10.1%
7.9%
6.2%
4.9%
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
FIGURE 3, SOURCE U.S. CENSUS.
5 This is in stark contrast to the other counties in the Upper Eastern Shore region: 29% of Cecil County’s 2018 population is
municipal; 36.3% in Caroline County; 40.2 % in Kent County, and 52.0% in Talbot County, per MD Department of Planning , State
Data Center and Source U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates, May 2019.
12

Age
Between 2000 and 2010, the share of the Town’s population under 18 years of age increased
five percentage points to 27%, while the share of residents 65 years and older decreased from
22% to 18%. Household growth during that decade accounted for a younger population and
the median age dropped from 41.3 to 39.56. Recent statistical analyses by the U.S. Census
Bureau however suggests some reversal since 2010; the median age may have risen to 44.3
years. Those under 18 are estimated now to comprise only 20 percent of the Town’s population.
The Town’s recent slower pace of household formation may account for this change as younger
families have aged without the offsetting effects of new households with children. Indeed, 2018
estimates suggest there are 260 fewer children now than in 2010. The new complete 2020
Census, when it is eventually released, might provide a more reliable data set based on direct
survey methods, but for now the data suggest the Town’s population is not becoming more
youthful like it did in the previous decade
Age Distribution : 2000 Age Distribution: 2010 Age Distribution: 2018
Under 18
Under 18
22% Under 18
27%
20%
Everyone Else Everyone Else
56% 65 + Older 55% Everyone Else 65 + Older
22% 65 + Older 59% 21%
18%
FIGURE 4, SOURCE U.S. CENSUS AND U.S. CENSUS AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY (FOR THE 2018 CHART)
6 The median age in 2010 in Queen Anne’s County was 42.6.
13

Household Structure and Families
Like population, the number of households and age, the makeup of households is an important
indication of community character. Reliable data, at the small town scale, on household
structure are available only from the decennial census, so we note here that the data below are
10 years old. In 2010, 1,102 households, or about 70% of all households, were families--that is,
the occupants were related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. About 30% of
households were non-families; they were either unrelated people living together or one-person
households. By comparison, in 2000, there were 497 family households, making up 61.2% of the
total. Householders living alone (one-person households) made up nearly 25% (or one in four) of
all households in 2010. By comparison in 2000 there were 265 one-person households, making
up 32.8% of all households. In Queen Anne’s County family households made up 73.9% of
households and one-person households make up 20.6%.
Other relevant findings from the 2010 Census about Centreville’s households:
• 38% of households had children.
• 30% of households had a person over 65 years of age.
• Average family size was 3.1 persons per family.
• Average household size was 2.6 persons per household.
• Owner-occupied housing units made up 69% of all units with an average household size
of 2.71.
• Renter occupied units made up 23.6% of all units with an average household size of 2.26.
• Vacant units made up 7.4% of all units.
14

III. Municipal Growth
The chapter presents alternative projections of household growth, estimates the number of
housing units that could be developed within Town under current zoning rules, evaluates
alternative growth scenarios, adopts a plan forecast of household for the year 2040, assesses
the impact of growth on key community facilities, and updates the Town’s Municipal Growth
Area boundary and land use plan for the growth area.
Projections of Household Growth
TABLE 1
Zoned Development Capacity
New Housing Units: 2011-2020
Year Units
A household is an occupied housing unit. It is the main
“demand unit” considered when contemplating change
2011 26
and its impacts on community facilities. With a reasonably 2012 48
accurate forecast of households, for example, a town can 2013 38
2014 48
estimate future residential demand for water and
2015 53
sewerage, classroom space in schools, and parkland.
2016 17
2017 17
In 2010 the U.S. Census recorded 1,568 households in
2018 21
Centreville, and over the subsequent ten years the Town 2019 2
added 278 new housing units (see Table 1). Each of these 2020 8
new units is assumed to be occupied, therefore, the level
278
of 1,846 households is the 2020 baseline. The Town’s
Source: Town of Centreville
share of total County households stands at about 9.9%7.
Development Pipeline
Centreville presently has no housing units in the development pipeline, which is to say there
are no unbuilt housing developments with final plan or plat approval. However, the Providence
Farm subdivision continues to build out and has less than 12 lots remaining.
7According to U.S. Census figures and the Town tracking of permits over the past decade, Centreville’s share of County’s total
households rose from 5.27% in 2000 to 8.70% in 2010 to an estimated 9.85% by 2020.
15

Capacity for New Housing
The term “Zoned Development Capacity” refers to the acreage within the Town that is available
for development and the housing units which could be built on that land under current zoning
rules. In estimating the Town’s capacity for development, only “buildable land” is considered,
which refers to acreage that meets each of the following criteria:
• It is not encumbered by serious environmental constraints.
• It is undeveloped or clearly under-developed as evidenced for example by the presence
of only one building on a large tract of land.
• It has a zoning classification that permits residential development.
• It is mapped within either a current or planned water and sewerage service area.
• It is otherwise not actively in another use.
It is not uncommon to find large
TABLE 2
parcels of residentially zoned land
Residential Development Capacity by Zoning District
being used for religious, institutional,
or recreational purposes, including
Max. Computed
schools and parks. Such parcels are Density by Potential Density
Code Total Housing (units/gross
not counted when estimating
Zone (units/acre) Acreage Units acre)
development capacity.
Table 2 shows the acreage and
R-1 3.00 162 340 2.1
potential new housing units within
R-2 5.00 8 30 3.6
each of the Town’s residential zoning
districts today. As shown, there is
R-3 - Turpin Farm 8.00 66 290 4.4
capacity for 875 housing units8. The
unit counts are mostly distributed TND - Carter Farm 5.00 43 215 5.0
among the R-1, R-3, and TND zones,
sum 279 875 3.1
with only 30 lots remaining in the R-2
zone. Source: Jakubiak & Associates, Inc.
8 It is important to note that Town zoning does allow housing units above commercial space, but a parcel-by-parcel evaluation of the
redevelopment potential of existing commercial buildings was not undertaken. It is thus possible that a limited number of apartments
would be developed in the Central Business District (CBD) through the renovation or adaptive reuse of existing buildings.
16

Most of the residential development potential shown in Table 2 is found on five major tracts of
land. Figure 5 shows each tract, its current zoning district and potential yield of new housing
units. Each was as designated a major infill area in the 2009 Community Plan and remains so
today. It is estimated that there is potential for 810 dwelling units on these five major parcels
alone. These tracts, comprising 253 acres, account for 94 percent of the estimated capacity for
new housing units9. The other six percent is comprised of lots that are platted but vacant and
several small tracts which could be subdivided.
(Carter Farm) Major Residential Infill
Current Zoning:TND
BuildOutEstimate:215 Current Zoning:R-1 Parcels
BuildOutEstimate:70
4
3
(Turpin Farm)
Current Zoning:R-3 Total Potential Dwelling Units: 810
Current Zoning:R-1 BuildOutEstimate:290
BuildOutEstimate:130 1
5
Current Zoning:R-1
BuildOutEstimate:105
2
FIGURE 5
EXHIBIT 1
9 The recognition of the development potential on each major tract is not an endorsement of any development plan or an assurance
that required public water and sewer allocation will be made to support such potential, or even that the zoning will remain
unchanged. A developer must ultimately submit a plan for each tract for Town review and approval. In each case the actual
development of the tract may provide less than its theoretical potential.
17

Alternative Growth Projections
Three projections are shown in Table 3 and graphed in Figure 6. Each represents a plausible
future track for household growth through 2040, unconstrained by limitations on the availability
of public water and sewer or zoning restrictions. However, the highest projection (Projection 2)
serves mostly to bracket the upper limit potential for growth. Given County land use policies
that direct housing development into towns and the availability of land in Centreville and its
growth area, it would seem likely the Town’s share of the County’s residential base will increase
as it has since 2000.
• As noted in Table 3, Projection #1 fixes the number of households in Centreville so that
by 2040 the number of households in Town would comprise the same share of the
County’s total households, 9.9%, as it did in 2020. Under this scenario the number of
households in Centreville would increase by about 444 between 2020 and 2040 at an
average annual rate of 1.08 percent.
• Under Projection #2, the Town would grow between 2020 and 2040 along the same
trend recorded between 2000 and 2020, which was a period of significant residential
growth in Centreville, particularly during the first decade of that period. Under this high
growth scenario, the number of households in Centreville would more than double (like
it did between 2000 and 2020), increasing by about 4.2 percent per year. By 2040 the
Town’s share of total County households would approximate 18 percent.
• Under Projection #3, the Town would grow between 2020 and 2040 along the same
trend recorded between 2010 and 2020, which was a period of moderate growth. Under
this scenario, the number of households in Centreville would increase by about 714 at an
average annual rate of 1.65 percent. By 2040 the Town’s share of total County
households would approximate 11 percent.
TABLE 3
Alternative Household Projections 2020 - 2040
Projection Past Current Future Change 2020-2040
Ave
% # Annual
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 Rate
1. Fixed Share of County Households (at 9.9%) 8 07 1 ,568 1 ,846 2 ,070 2 ,290 24.0 444 1.08
2. Replicate Town's Growth Trend Between 2000 and 2020 8 07 1 ,568 1 ,846 3 ,000 4 ,220 128.6 2374 4.22
3. Replicate Town's Growth Trend Between 2010 and 2020 8 07 1 ,568 1 ,846 2 ,200 2 ,560 38.7 714 1.65
Source: Jakubiak & Associates, Inc.
18

Household Projections: 2020 -2040
4,500
4,000
3,500
Projection
2
3,000
Projection 3
2,500
2,000
Projection 1
1,500
1,000
500
-
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
FIGURE 6
Impacts of Projected Growth
The Tables below show the impact of the projected household increase on the capacities of
local schools and public water and sewer facilities. Table 4 shows the impact to pupil
enrollment on the capacity of area public schools. The table does not account for the potential
impact of changes (increase or decrease) in enrollment that may occur in the parts of the school
districts outside the Town’s boundaries. It is worth noting that the Queen Anne’s County School
Facilities Master Plan projects declining enrollments through 2028 and utilization rates well
below state rated capacities—that is, enrollment is anticipated to be under capacity.
As shown in Table 4, current enrollments approximates 74% at Centreville Elementary, 89% at
Kennard Elementary, 83.5% percent at Centreville Middle and 96% at Queen Anne’s County
High. By 2040 enrollment would remain under capacity at the elementary and middle schools
levels with Projections #1 and #3. By contrast, enrollment would exceed capacity with Projection
#2 at each of the schools, likely creating needs for new or expanded schools. The high school,
with little existing capacity to spare, is expected to be near its capacity with Projections 1 and 3
and exceed it with Projection #3.
19

TABLE 4
Estimated Impact of Projected Growth on Public School Capacity By Projection: 2040
Projection 1 Projection 2 Projection 3
State
2020 Fall % Use in
Public School1 Rated Enrollment 2020 Increased Capacity % Use in Increased Capacity % Use in Increased Capacity % Use in
Capacity Enrollment Remaining 2040 Enrollment Remaining 2040 Enrollment Remaining 2040
Centreville Elementary 5 81 432 74.4%
89 1 17 89% 475 ( 269) 125% 143 64 94%
Kennard Elementary 5 03 446 88.7%
Centreville Middle 6 59 550 83.5% 44 65 90% 237 ( 357) 119% 71 38 94%
Queen Anne's County High 1 ,263 1 ,214 96.1% 67 (18) 101% 356 ( 925) 124% 107 (58) 105%
1The "Projected Increased Demand" (for student enrollment) reflects the following assumed pupil yields for new dwelling units: 0.2 students per unit (for elementary school), 0.1 students per unit (for middle school) and 0.15 students
per unit (for high school).
Source of State Rated Capacity and Enrollment data is the Queen Anne's County Public Schools Educational Facilities Master Plan, 2022
Table 5 shows the estimated impact to the Town’s water and wastewater treatment capacities.
As shown, current public water use plus commitments total 622,600 gallons per day or about
97% of permitted extractive capacity. The remaining capacity is not sufficient to serve growth
under any of the projections and expanded extractive (and storage) capacity would be required.
With respect to public sewer, the existing demand for wastewater treatment plant capacity
approximates 542,000 gpd, representing 93% of available capacity. In each projection scenario,
an expanded plant capacity would be required. Projections #1 and #3 would each create
demands that would significantly exceed available capacity. As a practical matter, an expanded
wastewater treatment plant, sized to accommodate approximately 1.18 to 1.25 million gallons
per day, would be required by 2040 under these more modest growth scenarios. Projection #2,
the high growth projection, would require an even larger capacity—approximating 1.7 million
gpd.
TABLE 5
Impact of Projected Growth on Public Water and Sewer Capacity by Projection: 2040
Projection 1 Projection 2 Projection 3
Existing &
Community Facility CapacityCommitted % Use Non- Residential Capacity % Use Non- Residential Capacity % Use Non- Capacity % Use
Demand Residential Demand Remainingin 2040 Residential Demand Remaining in 2040 Residential Residential Remaining in 2040
Demand Demand Demand Demand
Public Water (gallons per day)6 45,000 622,600 97% 25,000 1 11,000 (199,600) 118% 25,000 5 93,500 ( 596,100) 192% 2 5,000 178,500 (181,100) 128%
Public Sewer (gallons per day)5 42,000 503,000 93% 25,000 1 11,000 (183,000) 118% 25,000 5 93,500 ( 579,500) 207% 2 5,000 178,500 (164,500) 130%
A WWTP with a capacity of at least 1.18 million A WWTP with a capacity of at least 1.66 million gpd A WWTP with a capacity of at least 1.25 million
Implications
gpd would be required. would be required. gpd would be required.
Notes: For public water, "Existing & Committed Demand" includes actual average daily use of 360,912 gpd plus committments in 2022 of 261,688 gpd. For public sewer, "Existing & Committed Demand" includes actual flows in 2022 plus commitments to provide service equivalent to
26,000 gallons per day (gpd). Projected demand for both water and sewer assumes each household or household equivalent generates a demand of 250 gpd, which exceeds actual use or flow, but is used for comprehensive planning purposes to promote conservative estimates.
Source: Town of Centreville and Jakubiak & Associates, Inc.
20

Forecast 2040
Having evaluated three alternative projections, the Planning Commission selected one of them
to be its forecast or guide through 2040. A reliable forecast allows a Town to anticipate and
prepare for the impacts of growth and the needs of future residents. The Commission selected
Projection #3 from the previous section--a projected rate of growth of 1.65 percent per year on
average, which would result in about 714 new households by 2040.
At this level of growth, Centreville’s population would approximate 6,670 in 2040. As noted
above, this level of growth would keep public school enrollment well within current capacities at
the elementary and middle school levels. Highschool capacity would likely be exceeded, but
only modestly and the County Board of Education has ample time to plan for and adjust it
deems necessary. At this level of growth, the Town would need to expand its wastewater
treatment capacity to 1.25 million gallons per day.
A Plan for Municipal Growth
Objectives
1. To grow both in a measured way--through deliberate and strategic planning--to
maximize the benefits that accrue to both existing and future residents.
2. To grow only in a manner that assures essential public facilities and infrastructure remain
adequately sized and equipped with capacities to deliver exceptional services without
compromise to existing residents, institutions, and businesses.
3. To prioritize the protection, conservation, and even restoration of natural resource lands,
and the natural services they provide, as the Town expands its boundaries.
4. To bring about logical extensions of the Town, its streets, infrastructure, parks, and trails,
and connect future neighborhoods with those existing to form a cohesive community.
5. To preserve the growth area in farming and other open space and natural resource uses
until such time as annexation takes place.
21

Growth Area: Size and Location
A designated growth area is a planned extension of the municipal boundaries to encompass
lands that may be annexed in the future. Under Maryland planning law, properties must be
within the growth area to be eligible for annexation. This Plan’s growth area contains about
2,250 acres and is shown on Map 1.
MAP 1
The Growth Area, as drawn in the 2009 Community Plan, encompassed about 1,720 acres,
nearly 390 acres of which are environmentally sensitive and thus not available for development.
The updated Growth Area is about 310 acres larger primarily because it now includes acreage
previously planned as a “County Businesses Park” located on the west side of U.S. Route 13 and
land along the Growth Area’s southern boundary between Rolling Bridge Road and Symphony
Village.
22

This Plan includes the planned business park in the Growth Area to signal the Town’s intention
that such development occur within the municipal limits under Town development rules. The
Growth Area is enlarged along the southern side so that it now follows the stream rather than
the planned Taylor Mill Road Extended. With this change, the Town could allow development
to occur on both the north and south sides of Taylor Mill Road Extended which would facilitate
the upgrade of this road by the private sector. Further, using natural features like a stream to
establish the boundary is consistent with how the Centreville growth area is drawn elsewhere.
Planned Land Use
The generalized land use plan for the Growth area is shown in Map 2 and each of the
recommended land use designations are described below.
MAP 2
23

Resource Conservation / Open Space
The Resource Conservation designation encompasses those natural resource lands that exist
today including wetlands, streams and their buffers, steep slopes, shorelines, and forested areas
(See Chapter IV, Natural Environment). The generalized land use plan also envisions an
expansion of resource lands as development
takes place, through the widening of stream
buffers and planned forest regeneration, and
the designation of lands for future
conservation area especially when connections
can be made between natural areas. As future
neighborhoods are developed, land along
existing streams and forest areas would be set
aside for conservation and parks and open
space amenities could be provided such as
trails to link neighborhoods together.
Complete Neighborhoods
The yellow areas on Map 2 show the location of the Town’s future neighborhoods. These areas
would allow for a diverse set of housing types, open spaces and parks, institutional uses, and,
where applicable, a limited amount of neighborhood level retail, office, and commercial service
uses. As noted in Chapter IV, Natural Environment, this Plan recommends substantial forest
regeneration, clustering home sites to minimize the coverage of the land in impervious surfaces,
connecting areas with bike and walking trails, using the stormwater practices designed to treat
stormwater associated with the most significant rainfall events, right-sizing the design of Town
streets and infrastructure, and developing renewable energy neighborhoods—that is, the
Centreville neighborhoods of the future could be powered by renewable energy sources.
These goals may require approaches that are fundamentally different than conventional zoning
and subdivision procedures provide for.
To implement complete neighborhoods for the future, the Town would apply new planned unit
development (PUD) standards as recommended in Chapter VI, Land Use. The recommended
PUD approach represents a departure from the standard zoning districting in which each zone is
set aside primarily for one main use to the exclusion of most others. This PUD approach
provides site plan flexibility, as well as special requirements, on the use and development of
land.
24

This Plan prepares for a future when neighborhoods may look substantially different than the
conventional single-family subdivisions now in Town. In the future, homes may be clustered in
higher density arrangements and in attached buildings which will leave more open space to be
preserved. Housing types and architecture are likely to be different than they are today too, and
zoning, subdivision, and infrastructure standards may need to be modified to guide
development where energy efficiency, affordability, and very economical utility delivery will be
driving forces in community design.
It is important to clarify that this Plan does not envision a future of residential subdivisions
covering the entire growth area. Instead, it envisions pockets of well-planned and denser
development interconnected with major preserved open spaces. This will result in substantially
less road mileage and less mileage of public water and sewer lines to be installed and
maintained. In the future, clusters of residential development may even be able to exist without
a hard connection the Town’s WWTP and open spaces may accommodate community scale
wind and solar projects to supply some portion of the demand for residential energy.
This complete neighborhoods planning approach may require that the Centreville Planning
Commission have more discretion in the development plan review and approval process, and it
will require that future developers use more creativity in neighborhood design. More specific
objectives to be achieved by PUD’s in the Growth Area are as follows:
• To encourage cohesive, functional, and aesthetic use of open spaces including the
enlarging resource areas, connecting existing and planned open spaces on adjoining
tracts of land, and preserving of broad open vistas.
• To encourage flexibility in the design of neighborhoods and construction of buildings so
they are responsive to the unique environmental, cultural, and scenic resources that
characterize a property and its surroundings.
• To encourage intergenerational neighborhoods, where housing is provided to meet the
needs of area residents through many stages of life.
• To encourage innovations in the development of land to bring about very low impact
and highly energy-efficient patterns of development, especially in or near
environmentally sensitive areas.
• To tie the development of land more closely to the goals and recommendations of this
Comprehensive Plan.
25

Employment Areas, Economic Development
Light industrial uses are recommended near the western side of the interchange of U.S. Route
301and MD Route 304. This has long been planned as a site for a “County Business Park” since
the 1988 Centreville Community Plan. Nearly 135 acres are so designated for office and light
industrial use. This does not include vegetated buffers and open spaces that have long been
envisioned along the highway frontage.
This planned employment area
can readily support a business
park and/or multiple light
industrial uses. With competent
business park design and
infrastructure planning, this
acreage could readily
accommodate up to 1.3 million
square feet of floor area and
about 1,460 jobs10. Greater
intensity of development and/or
a mix of office uses would increase the overall potential floor area and employment. One of the
objectives of encouraging light industry at this location is that it can thrive without causing truck
traffic or commuting in Town. It could also contribute significantly to the Town’s assessable tax,
supply a source of employment and economic development to the larger area, and support the
local agricultural sector by being a location for value added industrial output.
This Plan recommends that the land in this area be reserved for employment generating
industrial and corporate office uses that may not be compatible elsewhere in Centreville and
which can strongly contribute to the economic well-being of the Town and region. The Plan
recommends that the Town’s Light Industrial District be evaluated and amended as needed for
this purpose or that a new zoning district be established to ensure that only light industrial and
related employment uses are permitted; not uses such as a gasoline stations, restaurants,
convenience stores, institutional uses, or other non-industrial uses.
10 These estimates are arrived at by assuming at least 75% of the designated 134 acres designated for Employment Use on the
Growth Area Plan Map are developed; that such land develops at a floor-to-area-ratio (FAR) of 0.3; and that the uses generate one
job per 900 square feet of industrial floor area.
26

The Growth Area Plan also designates the interchange of U.S. Route 301 and MD Route 213 as
a potential employment area. This is a more conceptual designation meant to signal the Town’s
potential openness to considering uses that would contribute to economic development near
this interchange. The Plan recognizes that the area is outside of the planned Municipal Growth
Area, however, this Plan holds open the possibility that annexation may be found in
Centreville’s best interests and the Town may at some point decide to amend this Plan to
extend its Growth Area and its water and sewer services along MD Route 213 south to the
properties near the interchange.
Commercial Areas – MD Route 304 Corridor
Commercial uses are recommended in the MD Route 304 Corridor, on the south side of Route
304 roughly extending from Vincit Road 0.75 mile eastward. About 35 acres of land is so
designated on Map 2 . This would be a central commercial corridor for the Growth Area at a
highly accessible location intersected by the planned East Side Major Collector, which is visible
on Map 2 but discussed in more detail in Chapter VII, Transportation. Both the planned East
Side Collector and MD Route 304 are envisioned as future parkways and the arrangement of the
corridor’s buildings and sites should take on the character of parkway, with coordinated
landscaping, trees, screening of parking lots, and buildings along MD Route 304, generally set
within a parklike environment.
A collector road running parallel to MD Route 304 is shown on Map 2. Its purpose is to
interconnect all future commercial sites and eliminate the need for multiple driveway
connections to MD Route 304. This collector street is mapped roughly 400 feet back from MD
Route 304 creating a compact linear form along the parkway. The Town will need to prepare a
small area master plan and design standards and adopt zoning and site development
requirements to guide the development of this area to avoid uncoordinated and sprawling
commercial development.
27

Greenbelt
Figure 7 shows the planned
Greenbelt, carrying forward
the concept from the 2009
Community Plan. The
Greenbelt encompasses
areas beyond the Growth
Area that are intended to be
left undeveloped through the
foreseeable future in open
space, natural area, and
farming. As an intact land
use zone, the Greenbelt creates a unified edge to development and ensures the Town remains
set within a rural preserve of natural lands and agriculture.
Preservation of the Greenbelt in naturalized and farming uses also helps ensure the Town has
space available for treated wastewater spray irrigation allowing for the necessary increases in
the capacity of the municipal sanitary sewer system. One farming tract in the Greenbelt is
currently being used as a spray irrigation field. The use of other parts of the Greenbelt for this
purpose is encouraged as needs may arise.
G
Planned re
Greenbelt Greenbelt
MD
Route 213 e n b
e
lt
Resource Conservation /
Open Space
Gr e e n
b
elt
Chesterfield
Rd.
Railroad Ave. MD Route 305
G re
e n b
C
C
Em
o
o
m
m
pl
p
m
o
l
y
e
e
m
t
rc
e
e
i a
N
n
l
t
eighborhood
e
lt Town Limits (2022)
Little Kidwell
Ave. Municipal Growth
MD
Route
18 B
G
o
re
u
e
n
n
d
b
a
e
ry
lt
Coursevall
Dr. MD Route
304
EXHIBIT 2
Greenbelt
312
etuoR
DM
Taylor Mil
G
l Rd
r
.
eenbelt U.S. Route 301
.dR
egdirB
gnilloR
FIGURE 7
28

IV. Natural Environment
Introduction
The Town of Centreville lies within the gently rolling landscape of the Corsica River watershed,
at the confluence of the Corsica River and its main tributary streams. All rainwater that falls
within the Town and the 40-square mile watershed makes its way to the Corsica River through
many small and intermittent streams that extend eastward from the River to points beyond
Centreville. The natural resources and environmentally sensitive areas within the Town are
discussed in this section of the report.
Existing Conditions
Corsica River, Tributary Streams, and Stream Buffers
The Corsica River flows northwest about five miles from the Watson Road Bridge, which is near
the western edge of Town, before entering the Chester River. The Chester River is one of the
Chesapeake Bay’s major tributaries, merging with the Bay at Love Point. The River’s main tidal
tributaries are Yellow Bank and Mill Stream. Three-Bridge Branch and Gravel Run extend from
the Yellow Branch eastward as non-tidal streams and the Old Mill Stream extends from Mill
Stream southeastward as a non-tidal stream to points east and south of U.S. Route 301. Map 3
shows the major streams in and around Centreville along with wetlands and floodplains.
The Town’s streams are generally buffered in woody vegetation and have natural shorelines. A
stream buffer (riparian buffer) is an integral part of the natural resource. It is the area of land
extending outward from the top of the stream bank. Wide and naturally vegetated buffers
protect the health and vitality of streams, while narrow and urbanized buffers, allow the water
temperature to rise and excess pollutants and sediments to pass into the water. To achieve the
optimum protection of a stream’s water quality, buffers would be naturally vegetated, fully
encompass their floodplains and, where possible, be at least 100 to 300 feet wide.
29

Floodplains
Map 3 also shows the floodplains in Centreville. The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) regularly maps the 100-year floodplains. These are areas where mapped flood
elevations have a 1% chance of being matched or exceed in any given year by flood events.
Within its boundaries, the Town regulates development activities in these floodplains through
its Floodplain Management Ordinance.
MAP 3
The Town’s floodplains are directly associated with the Corsica and its tributary streams. It is
generally the case that the Town’s floodplains are undeveloped and mostly in a forested or
wetland condition. During flooding events the most noticeable part of the floodplain is where S.
Commerce and S. Liberty Streets join to form the two-way section of MD Route 213. Here the
floodplain covers Mill Stream Park. The floodplain is also extensive along Front Street from
Wharf Lane to and including the Centreville Wharf Park.
30

Wetlands
Map 3 also shows the Town’s tidal and non-tidal wetlands which for the most part are closely
associated with the Corsica and its tributaries. These wetlands attenuate flooding, prevent
shoreline erosion, help maintain the water quality of the Corsica River, Chester River, and by
extension the Chesapeake Bay, and provide habitat for native plants and wildlife.
Tidal (Estuarine) wetlands line the banks of the
General Location of Tidal (Estuarine) Wetlands Along Mill
Yellow Branch and Mill Streams and are quite Stream on the Town’s Western Boundary
e
C
x
o
t
r
e
s
n
ic
s
a
iv
N
e
e
a
c
lo
k
n
R
g
o
t
a
h
d
e
t
T
o
o
M
w
i
n
ll
’ s
S
w
tre
e
a
st
m
er
P
n
a
b
rk
o
.
r d
Fi
e
g
r
u
f
r
r
e
o m
8
Mill
Stream
Trail
C
El
e
e
n
m
tr
e
e
n
v
t
i
a
ll
r
e
y School
shows the general location of tidal wetlands in
this area.
The non-tidal (Palustrine) wetlands in Centreville
are generally forested and extend into slightly
higher elevations at greater distance from tidal
influence. The Town’s non-tidal wetlands,
whether populated by trees or just herbaceous
plants, provide vital basins for retaining and
N
filtering rainwater that flows from upland
locations.
FIGURE 8
These are generally
located on the east side of
General Location of Non-Tidal (Palustrine) Wetlands Along Gravel Run
Hope
Rd.
MD 213 and coincide with
the forested corridors that
are a prominent part of
the area’s natural setting.
Figure 9 shows non-tidal
King
Ct.
wetlands associated with
Gravel Run located just
north of the Turpin Farm.
FIGURE 9
31

Steep Slopes
The Town’s landscape, like the Corsica River watershed generally, is gently rolling. Steep
slopes, which are hillsides with grades of 15% or greater, are confined to the wooded shorelines
of the Yellow Bank Stream, Mill Stream and the other streams that extend into forested or
otherwise undeveloped portions of the Town. These areas of steep slopes can be seen on Map
3 within the green corridors that coincide with the streams. On the map, the differences in the
land’s surface elevation is revealed using contour lines which connect points of equal elevation
above sea level. Where contour lines are spaced far apart, the land is relatively level with little
change in elevation. Where contour lines run closely together, the land is sloping, and the
closer they are, the steeper the grade. Land disturbance on steep slopes in Centreville
including clearing trees can lead to stormwater and pollutant runoff into the streams, soil
erosion, and stream bank failures.
Forests
Map 3 also shows areas covered in forests including very small forest stands and wooded
backyards. Forests provide many ecological benefits including producing oxygen, protecting
streams and groundwater quality, moderating localized temperatures, providing habitat for
wildlife and birds, and capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air and sequestering carbon. A
single tree can remove many tons of carbon from the air over its lifetime.
The remaining forested lands in and around Centreville are aligned with streams and wetlands,
typically these are areas that could not readily be put to aquicultural use. In fact, the three most
significant forested areas extend along streams radiating eastward from the Corsica River. They
are fragmented into long corridors that extend into and beyond the Town’s Growth Area. While
they provide residual water quality benefits, they bear no resemblance to their pre-agricultural
extent and function. The preservation of these remaining forests is vital to the maintain the
current health status of the Corsica River; their expansion is vital to restoring the River’s health.
32

Chesapeake Bay Critical Area
The Town is required by the State of Maryland to administer regulations limiting the use and
development of land within 1,000 feet of tidal waters, an area known as the Chesapeake Bay
Critical Area (see Map 4). All lands within 1,000 of the Bay, its tributaries, and tidal marshes are
designated as the Critical Area. Properties within the Critical Area are designated one of three
categories: Intensely Developed Area (IDA), Limited Development Area (LDA), and Resource
Conservation Area (RCA)11.
Intensely Developed Area: The IDA is meant for intensely developed areas where houses,
businesses, marinas, parking lots, etc. were constructed mostly before the State’s adoption of the
Critical Area Program in the 1980’s. The IDA generally coincides with development that has
substantially altered the natural capability of the land to protect the water quality. This area is
shown in red on Map 4. The IDA classification does not restrict development but does require
that applicants for development / redevelopment put measures into place when developing land
that can reduce stormwater pollutant runoff by at least 10% below pre-development conditions.
Limited Development Area: The LDA designation is meant for those areas, where limiting the
amount of additional land development (i.e., the coverage of the land with impervious surfaces
such as buildings and parking lots), will protect water quality. This coincides with areas of less
intensive development than the IDA and is shown in yellow on Map 4. The LDA classification
places significant limitations on development, requiring for example that no more than 15% of a
certain sized lots be covered with impervious surfaces and requiring the protection of forests.
Resource Conservation Area: The RCA is meant to cover the most sensitive parts of the Critical
Area, such as intact riverine forests, natural shorelines, wetlands, and wildlife habitats; areas that
function naturally to protect the Bay’s water quality and wildlife. These area are shown in green
on Map 4.
11 The rules and criteria for classifying properties into these categories are set forth in the Critical Area regulations (found in the
Town’s Zoning Ordinance. https://ecode360.com/9532220)
33

MAP 4
34

Impacts of Sea Level Rise
The Chesapeake Bay is rising but because of the Town’s limited amount of developed
shoreline, the Town is not as vulnerable to sea level rise as coastal communities12. However, sea
level rise will impact the Town’s tidal shorelines, wetlands, the floodplains of the Corsica River
and the tidal parts of other streams. Impacts may include shoreline erosion, deterioration of
tidal wetlands, rising groundwater, and nuisance flooding in lower lying riverine areas.
Existing Open Water Open Water with 2 Foot Sea Level Rise:
Projected 2050
FIGURE 10
Figure 10 above is a composite of two images from the National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Sea Level Rise Viewer. The image on the left shows the
current extent of open water, which coincides with the Corsica River and the main branches of
its tributary streams. The exhibit on the right shows an expanded open water scenario under the
assumption that sea levels rise 2.0 feet above the year 2000 levels.
12 In its 2018 report, Sea Level Rise Projections for Maryland, the Maryland Commission on Climate Change (MCCC) noted that the
Bay’s water levels have been rising for a long time, since Last Ice Age actually, as the Bay filled up and coastal Maryland settled
(which is still happening). But during the 20th century, with warming waters and glacial melt, the oceans began to expand their
volumes steadily and rise. Now, well into the 21st century, the warming of the earth is accelerating and so is the rise of the tidal
water throughout the Chesapeake Bay region.
35

The Maryland Commission on Climate Change projects, with high confidence, that by 2050 area
sea levels will rise 2.1 feet over the levels measured in 2000. Should this come to pass, the
Town could expect through the lifetime of this Plan that floodplains will expand, flooding will be
more severe and frequent, and tidal wetlands will extend further upland as hydrologic
conditions change. Lands at or below the elevation of 2.1 feet are projected to be inundated.
As a general guide, protecting these areas over the next decades will become increasingly
important. Sea level rise is project to continue through this century.
A Plan For Natural Resources
Objectives
• To ensure that the Centreville Growth Area is designed and built to avoid and/or
minimize adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive areas.
• To preserve, protect, and grow the remaining natural resource features and sensitive
areas and the key roles they play in sustaining life and property in and around
Centreville.
• To use the preservation of natural areas as a means of linking the Town as it grows with
natural and recreational assets.
• To facilitate the natural migration of wetlands and natural vegetation as Bay water levels
rise along the tidal portions of streams, so that buffers can continue to function to
improve water quality and minimize flooding.
• To cultivate a love for the outdoors and promote greater public recreational access to
and use of shorelines and forested steam buffers throughout the Town.
36

Recommendations
Modernize Critical Area Regulations, Forest Conservation
The Town should continue to update its Critical Area Program and Ordinance, as required by
State law, to remain consistent with State Critical Area law and regulations and to reflect the
unique context of Centreville. Likewise, the Forest Conservation Ordinance needs to be
updated especially considering the opportunities arising from development in the Town and
other recommendations related to forest regeneration and stream protection.
A Town Forestry Program
Institute a continuous town forestry program to promote forest health and vitality and greater
tree canopy coverage by (1) creating funding mechanisms for protecting existing and future
forests, (2) planting street trees, (3) encouraging the voluntary planting of native species trees
on public and private lands, (4) encouraging property owners to conserve forested areas to the
extent possible, and (5) growing local forests through strict enforcement of the Town’s Forest
Conservation Ordinance. Tree planting within the Town can enhance the aesthetic quality of
streetscapes, cool impervious surfaces, create wildlife habitat, promote stormwater
management, reduce energy consumption, and improve air quality. The Town has a Tree
Ordinance, Section 145 of the Town Code. In 2021 Planning Commission recommend
amendments to that ordinance along with detailed specifications to guide the installation of
street trees on the Town’s public streets. This Plan recommends the adoption of these
amendments.
Protect Stream Buffers
This Plan aims to establish naturalized stream buffers along all streams that run through Town
and the Growth Area. Where redevelopment and the intensification of land is proposed or
where new development is proposed on properties containing streams, this Plan recommends
that expansive stream buffers be established both within and outside of the Critical Area. This
Plan recommends that the Town amend the Zoning Ordinance to require non-disturbance
buffers of at least 100-feet wide on each side of perennial streams and 50-feet on each side of
intermittent streams, expanded as needed to account for steep slopes and floodplains.
Naturalized buffers play a significant role in protecting water quality and accommodating the
migration of wetlands and flood zones as sea levels rise. Also, the Plan recommends that the
Town and other units of government or public agencies plant wide stream buffers on publicly
owned properties where feasible.
37

Protect Sensitive Environmental Areas
To ensure that regulations and standards related to environmental protection are implemented
the Town must insist on high quality site design, professionally engineered land plans, and
thoughtful early reviews of concept plans. Thoughtful land planning can promote the growth
and resilience of natural areas, for example by designating lands adjacent to existing streams
for afforestation and land preservation.
Perennial and intermittent streams and adjoining natural buffers, habitats of threatened and
endangered species (where present), wetlands, steep slopes, and the forests shown on Map 3
should be protected from the adverse effects of development. With respect to each of these
“sensitive areas” within Centreville some level of protection is already in place through either
local, state, and/or federal regulations. But the value of identifying sensitive area early in the site
planning process for review by the Planning Commission is vital to drawing up plans that offer
the greatest long term protection.
Transform the Growth Area into High Value Ecologically Sustainable Neighborhoods
Over the long term as the Growth Area is developed, this Plan recommends that the Town
guide community development into high value ecologically sustainable ways: for example,
substantial forest regeneration, clustering home sites to minimize the coverage of the land in
impervious surfaces, connecting areas with bike and walking trails to minimize vehicle trips,
using the most advantageous stormwater practices designed to treat stormwater associated
with the most significant rainfall events not just typical rain events, right-sizing the design of
Town streets and infrastructure, and developing 100% renewable energy neighborhoods—that
is, Centreville future neighborhoods would be powered by renewable energy sources.
Facilitate Access to Natural Resource Areas
Chapter VII, Transportation, describes and maps existing and proposed Greenways. The
Greenways encompass natural resource lands such as stream buffers and forested areas within
the Town and its Growth Area. The Greenways provide access to and through these areas to
shorelines, parks, and recreational opportunities and address a central organizing feature of this
Plan – that natural areas should interconnect the Town as its grows providing residents with
public access to and through natural areas.
Coordinate with the Queen Anne’s County, the State, Federal Agencies, and Non-Profits
The Town of Centreville provided leadership to the “Corsica River – Watershed Restoration
Action Strategy – Final Report, September 2004”, (WRAS). The effort led to measurable
improvements in water quality. There may be other opportunities over the next two decades
for the Town to coordinate with others on studies and strategies aimed at environmental
improvements within the Corsica Rover Watershed.
38

V. Water Resources
Introduction
This section addresses both the quality of the Town’s drinking water and the water quality of
local waterways. In this chapter we discuss the Town’s municipal wells in the Acquia aquifer
which are naturally protected from land-based pollution, being deeply set below ground, and
shielded by a packed layer of sand and silt. We also review information on the Corsica River
Watershed. The recommendations set forth in the Natural Environment and Land Use chapters
are integral to this chapter. In their entirety, these three chapters advance a comprehensive
policy aimed at improving and sustaining the water related natural resources that protect the
health and well-being of the Town.
Existing Conditions
Aquia Aquifer13
Groundwater, drawn from the Aquia Greensand Formation (aquifer), is the sole source for
potable water supplies in Centreville. According to the Queen Anne’s County Comprehensive
Water and Sewer Plan, this formation is the most important source of groundwater in Queen
Anne’s County, with several hundred wells, mostly on Kent Island and in the Grasonville and
Queenstown areas. Because of heavy pumping of water on Kent Island in the Talbot County
towns of Easton and St. Michael’s, brackish water intrusion has affected water quality on the
northwestern half of Kent Island. The State does not allow any new Aquia aquifer appropriations
on Kent Island and will only consider them east of the Kent Narrows – including within the
Centreville area -- on a case by case basis. The aquifer has a band a few miles wide within its
formation wherein water exceeds the federal drinking water standard for arsenic. This band
extends from the Prospect Bay community in southern Queen Anne’s County northeast through
Centreville. Centreville’s water treatment therefore requires arsenic removal.
13 The source of information on source water is the Queen Anne’s County Comprehensive Water and Sewerage Plan, 2011.
39

Public Water
Centreville operates a municipal water supply and distribution system. It consists of three
operating wells (in the North Brook Subdivision, the Centreville Business Park and near Queen
Anne’s County High School). The Town has three water storage tanks with holding capacities of
100,000, 200,000 and 300,000 gallons. The Town plans to construct a fourth elevated tank near
MD Route 304 along the eastern edge of the Town’s current limits with a capacity of up to
600,000 gallons.
The Town has two water treatment facilities. The facility at North Brook has a treatment capacity
of 720,000 gpd. The facility at the Business Park has a treatment capacity of 750,000 gpd. Both
include the removal of arsenic.
The entire municipal limits are served with municipal water. The Town’s wells have a combined
extractive capacity and permitted withdrawal rate of 645,000 gallons per day (gpd). Current
actual use approximates 360,912 gpd.
Corsica River Watershed and Non-Point Source Water Pollution14
The Corsica River Watershed
encompasses Centreville and has a
drainage area approximating 25,600
acres (40 square miles). The River, with
its headwaters just east of Town is
about 6.5 miles long and is a tributary
to the lower portion of the Chester
River which flows into the Chesapeake
Bay. Land use in the watershed is
distributed among primary
classifications as follows: agricultural
(66%), forests (26.3%), residential
(4.5%), nonresidential urban (3.3%)
FIGURE 11, SOURCE MARYLAND DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENT`
and wetlands (0.3%).
14 The primary source for information on the Corsica River Watershed is the report titled, Updating the Statistical Analysis of Non-
Tidal Nutrient Monitoring Data in the Corsica River Watershed, Final Report, 2019, by Carlington W. Wallace, Interstate Commission
on the Potomac River Basin for the Maryland Department of the Environment.
40

The term “non-point source” refers to pollutants that are carried off the land by rainfall and
washed into streams or make their way into ground water. There is no single discharge point for
these pollutants; their sources mostly include farm fields, but also parking lots, streets, roofs,
and other impervious surfaces. Nutrients, fertilizers, sediments, bacteria, oil, and other
contaminants degrade stream quality and the Chesapeake Bay.
Nutrients are the principal contributor to poor water quality from non-point sources. The two
chemical nutrients that are most frequently associated with pollution in the Chesapeake Bay
and its tributaries are nitrogen and phosphorus. Excessive concentrations of these can grow
algae and deplete oxygen making the water unsuitable for most aquatic life. The farm fields
throughout the Corsica River watershed are the primary contributors to pollutant loadings in the
Corsica River, but within town limits impervious surfaces are the primary source.
Because non-point water pollution flows from impervious surfaces, the amount of impervious
coverage is a general indicator of the health of a watershed and its streams. When impervious
coverage within a watershed exceeds 10%, the most sensitive stream qualities are lost. When
coverage reaches 25 to 30%, stream quality is generally significantly degraded. In 2016, Queen
Anne’s County estimated impervious coverage in the Corsica Rover watershed at only 4.5%15.
This is not meant to suggest the Corsica River is in pristine condition; it is not as non-point
source runoff from farm fields overwhelms the benefits of low imperviousness and the River is
classified as an impaired waterway.
Wastewater Treatment
The Town operates a public sewerage system16. The Wastewater Treatment Plant, a point
source of water pollution in the Corsica River Watershed, is permitted to discharge an average
of 542,000 gallons per day of treated domestic wastewater, but only between December 1 and
March 31. The plant discharges to Gravel Run which is a “Use 1 Waterway” where water quality
is protected for human contact and nontidal warmwater aquatic life. The Town operates a spray
irrigation system for effluent disposal year round in combination with the approved seasonable
discharge to Gravel Run. More information on the Town’s public sewerage system is found in
Chapter VIII, Community Facilities.
15 2022 Update, Queen Anne’s County Comprehensive Plan, Appendix D (Water Resources Element).
16 As noted in the 2021 Centreville Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion, Preliminary Engineering Report, which is available for
review at Town Hall, the WWTP was upgraded and expanded in 2003 to achieve biological nutrient removal (BNR) levels of
treatment. The plant’s treatment process consist of a two-tank sequencing batch reactor with chemical addition for phosphorous
precipitation and cloth media filtration. The plant treats wastewater as designed and within in NPDES permit limits.
41

A Plan for Water Resources
The State of Maryland entered into the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement
committing to achieve targeted reductions in the amount of pollution entering the Bay,
especially nitrogen and phosphorous by 202517. The focus is on the reduction of excess
nitrogen flowing into tributary waters and the Bay. Each of the counties in Maryland have a
targeted reduction to achieve including Queen Anne’s County.
Centreville will contribute to the overall efforts in Queen Annes County to meet the State’s
pollution targets by minimizing the pollutant loadings generated within Town limits. Over the
longer term, the Town will work to reduce or minimize pollutant runoff through new
development with Environmental Site Design under modern stormwater management rules. It
will also seek to bring about water quality improvements by following this Plan’s
recommendations including those related to open space preservation, forest retention, the
creation of stream buffers and modernization of the wastewater treatment plant.
Objectives
1. To ensure the long-term safety and quality of Centreville’s drinking water.
2. To protect water quality of the streams in and around Centreville as the Town develops.
3. To reduce water pollution by retrofitting antiquated stormwater management, adding
new green solutions to address untreated impervious areas, planting trees, restoring
stream buffers and other approaches.
4. To encourage low impact land development (LID) techniques to the greatest extent
possible to minimize development’s impact to area water resources.
17 Maryland entered into the Agreement with the five other states, and the District of Columbia, within the Chesapeake Bay
watershed and with the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
42

Recommendations
Wellhead Protection
To optimally protect underlying water sources, the Town could, in coordination with the County,
prepare a Source Water Protection Plan and then adopt a Wellhead Protection Ordinance.
Such an ordinance works by designating zones that encompass source water protection areas
and regulating land use activities to reduce contamination risks. MDE has published a model
ordinance which the Town could customize and adopt. The other aspect of wellhead protection
is to mitigate, to the extent possible, currently identified contamination sources on the land.
These potential sources would be identified as part of the Source Water Protection Plan.
Ensure Abandoned Wells are Closed
Coordinate with the Queen Anne’s County Department Health and the State of Maryland in
ensuring that any abandoned wells in the area are properly and permanently sealed to prevent
the potential for pollutants to enter the water supply.
Protect Remaining Forest Areas and Streams
Forests left in a natural condition are optimally suited to protect water quality both surface
water (such as Three-Bridge Branch, Gravel Run, and Mill Stream) and groundwater reserves.
The Town should work to prevent them from being cleared, graded, and developed to urban
uses. As noted in the Land Use and Municipal Growth chapters, certain parts of the Growth
Area are currently forested. This Plan recommends that, through the processes of annexation
and development plan review, these forests be protected and expanded.
This Plan aims to establish broad vegetated buffers along all streams that run through the Town
and its designated growth area. Where redevelopment and the intensification of existing uses
of land is proposed or where new development is proposed on properties containing streams,
the Plan recommends that broad stream buffers be established wide enough to provide optimal
water quality improvement and preservation. Naturalized buffers play a significant role in
protecting water quality. Also, the Plan recommends that the Town plant buffers along streams
that are on publicly owned properties where feasible.
43

Modern Stormwater Management
Redevelopment under modern stormwater management regulations generally improves the
quality and reduces the quantity of runoff. The Town will continue to adhere to stormwater
management regulations that reduce water pollution through its agreement with Queen Anne’s
County by which the County administers State stormwater management and sediment and
erosion control regulations within Town limits. This Plan does recommend that in the early or
conceptual parts of development site planning, the Planning Commission guide developers to
use low impact development and environmental site design.
Minimize Impervious Surfaces
Non-point water pollution refers to the chemicals, fertilizers, and sediments that wash off
impervious surfaces into streams. As previously noted about 4.5% of the watershed is now
covered by buildings, streets, driveways, and parking lots. The long-term goal of this plan is to
remain under 10% as the Town develops and expands into its growth area.
Since Centreville is the only urban center in the watershed, it will impact the health of the
Corsica River. To keep the watershed from exceeding the 10% impervious coverage, while
allowing responsible growth, about 1,320 more acres of land in the watershed (the equivalent to
2.0 square miles) can ultimately be converted to impervious coverage. So, over the next 20
years, as development takes place in Town and its growth area, the Town must aim to minimize
the amount of new impervious surface area created. See Chapter III, Municipal Growth for
supporting recommendations.
The Town has made strides in this regard by modifying zoning standards to allow for narrower
neighborhood streets and clustering of houses on small lots within planned unit developments
(PUDs). These efforts, reduce the length of streets and private driveways. Other methods that
the Town might consider include reducing standard parking requirements, requiring pervious
materials for parking lots, prioritizing the use of pervious materials in parks and in major
developments, requiring clustering of houses in proposed subdivisions, and incentivizing the
use of green roofs and the voluntary removal of unused or unnecessary lot coverage.
44

VI. Land Use
Introduction
This land use plan focuses on the pattern, distribution, and character of activities through
204018. It is a guide to the use and development of land, showing the preferred generalized use
of every parcel within the Town. It is especially interrelated with the other elements of this Plan
report and some of the land use ideas and recommendations highlighted here are detailed
further in other sections. Land use recommendations for the Municipal Growth Area are
provided in Chapter III and should be read in concert with this chapter to appreciate the full
scope of Centreville’s long range land use planning.
The land use plan guides commercial and residential uses into downtown, along Railroad
Avenue and MD Route 213 and within the Centreville Business Park. It endeavors to make
downtown a vibrant center of economic, cultural, and civic life within the region. It seeks to
enhance the potential for the private housing market to deliver a variety of housing types to
meet the needs and preferences of residents of different income levels and life stages. It
recommends open spaces and seeks to protect the Town’s remaining forests, which are
identified in Chapter IV, Natural Resources. While embracing growth, it seeks to sustain
Centreville’s traditional small town character and charm.
As noted in Chapter III, Municipal Growth, Centreville will absorb an increasing share of
household growth in Queen Anne’s County. Over the next two decades, this is likely to happen
through the conversion of large tracts of land to new neighborhoods within the Town’s
boundaries and to some extent within the Growth Area. With the existing settlement pattern as
a general model for future development, Centreville should remain a relatively compact
community within a greenbelt of farms and forests.
Implementation of the objectives and recommendations of this Plan will occur in many ways, but
the most prominent way is through the Town’s Zoning Ordinance. Following adoption of this
Plan, a new zoning map and amendments to the Zoning Ordinance would be adopted as is
customary.
18 A land use plan is not a zoning map. Instead, it is a guide to the use and development of land. The zoning map is more than a
guide, it is part of the Town’s laws and divides the Town into districts, each having its own set of use and development regulations.
While a zoning map is not a land use plan, it derives its substance and content from the adopted land use plan.
45

Existing Pattern of Use
The term “land use” refers to the way property owners use land and therefore it reflects the
cultural, economic, and environmental character of an area. A land use map is the visual
expression of that character. Centreville’s existing land uses are shown on Map 5. An overview
of the existing pattern of land use follows.
MAP 5
• As the County seat, Centreville is a center of governmental uses which are concentrated
in downtown around the historic courthouse and green. Downtown is also home to law
and other professional offices, restaurants, and shops. It is designated as “central
business district” on Map 5.
• From the downtown core, residential neighborhoods extend westward along
Chesterfield Road and eastward between Water Street and Kidwell Avenue. These
neighborhoods are made up primarily of single-family detached houses but also include
institutional uses including churches and schools. Occasionally there are commercial
uses in these neighborhoods, whose establishment predate modern zoning laws.
46

• During the past couple of decades, land further removed from downtown was
subdivided, creating neighborhoods such as Providence Farms to the east, Symphony
Village to the south, and North Brook to the north.
• Residential apartment buildings and complexes are designated “multi-family
residential” on Map 5. Since adoption of the 2009 Community Plan, the east side of
Little Hut Drive has been developed as a multi-building apartment complex known as
the Willows at Centreville.
• The Centreville Business Park is a significant area of commercial and light industrial use,
including a community shopping center fronting Centreville Road (MD Route 213).
Business offices and light industrial uses are situated internal to the business park.
Existing commercial uses are shown in red and light industrial uses in purple on Map 5.
Much of the business park is still vacant.
• An institutional center is emerging along Railroad Avenue (MD Route 304) at its
intersection with Kidwell Avenue near the County middle and high school complex.
Since the adoption of the last community plan, the County has constructed its main
governmental office building there, the YMCA has obtained site plan approval for a
major indoor / outdoor recreational facility, and the County Board of Education has
appeared before the Planning Commission to discuss a conceptual plan to develop an
office complex.
• As documented in Chapter III, there remains a significant amount of undeveloped land
within Town limits zoned for residential use. Nearly 280 undeveloped acres are zoned for
residential use. This land is shown in light green on the map as Open Space. There are
also about 30 platted vacant lots zoned for residential use.
• Lastly, the extent of natural resource land, including shorelines, wetland and forested
stream buffers within municipal limits is substantial. This land use reflects the presence
of underlying natural conditions. It is mapped and discussed in detail in Chapter IV,
Natural Resources and shown here in a dark green color.
Outside of Town, agriculture is the prominent land use. Scattered housing lots and residential
subdivisions can also be found throughout the countryside just beyond Town limits. The Town’s
designated growth area is comprised of very large tracts of land. Each has significant
development potential, and with thoughtful planning and coordination, an interconnected
arrangement of open spaces and naturalized areas can be preserved for recreational use and
environmental protection. The planning goals for this area are found in Chapter III.
47

A Plan for Land Use
This section of the Plan focuses on the future use of land located within the current Town
boundaries. This updated land use plan signals that Centreville will be especially intentional and
purposeful in its decisions about development through 2040. The term land use “development”
is defined here as the conversion of vacant land to another use, or the redevelopment or re-use
of existing buildings and sites, in ways that advance the Town’s improvement, progress, and
enhancement as described by the Objectives incorporated throughout the Comprehensive
Plan.
To ensure that proposed land use changes meet this definition, this Plan recommends that all
major proposals proceed through a deliberative process during which the benefits that are
delivered to the Town are investigated and established. The Town is receptive to allowing
flexibility where needed to achieve quality and competent community design, but where
individual proposals fail to meaningfully advance the Town’s development (as defined above),
they will not comply with this Plan and should not be approved.
Through 2040, Map 7 and the supporting text of this Chapter are to be used to guide the
location, type, intensity, and character of development and redevelopment. This means the
Planning Commission will evaluate new land development proposals in light of this Plan.
Objectives
The main goal of the land use plan is that Centreville develops as a healthy, prosperous, and
beautiful town with a continual improvement in the quality of life for its residents and the vitality
of its businesses. The supporting objectives are as follows:
• To create a network of open spaces and resource conservation lands which will secure
important environmental functions, form the basis of a town wide recreational asset, and
promote community health, vitality, and scenic beauty.
• To guide future neighborhoods into patterns that encourage an intergenerational
community, which features a variety of housing types instead of neighborhoods
separated by age or income.
48

• To foster an economically vibrant downtown, preserve its historic elements, promote
residential uses in and near downtown and link downtown to other parts of the Town
with an efficient system of streets, walkways, community open space, and public utilities.
• To foster continual real estate investment, the redevelopment of vacant or underutilized
properties, and the redevelopment or improvement of properties that do not contribute
to the Town’s overall wellbeing.
Future Land Use Map
Map 6 shows the 2040 future land use plan. Each of the major use categories within the Town’s
current boundaries are described below. Map 6 also shows the more generalized land use plan
for the Growth Area, which is discussed in more detail in Chapter III, Municipal Growth.
MAP 6
49

Open Space / Resource Conservation
Areas planned for Open Space / Resource Conservation include improved public and private
recreational areas, specialized open areas like the Chesterfield Cemetery, and natural resource
areas such as the shorelines and 100-year floodplains associated with the Corsica River and its
tributaries. These areas are, to the extent possible, meant to be protected so they can perform
their resource functions, like retaining flood waters, recharging ground water supplies, and
protecting downstream water quality. See Chapter IV, Natural Resources for a discussion of
these resource areas and recommendations for their protection.
Residential
The light yellow areas shown on Map 6 encompass existing neighborhoods and residential lots
that are primarily zoned R-1 and R-2. The primary purpose of the designation is to signal the
Plan’s intent that these areas be conserved in residential use and/or continue to be developed
for housing under approved plats. It also encompasses four of the five major residential infill
tracts that are discussed in Chapter III, Municipal Growth (See Figure 5). As discussed later in
this chapter, the Plan recommends that these infill tracts be developed as residential planned
unit developments (PUDs) with an overall density approximating five housing units per acre. The
exception to this is the Carter Farm, where development should feature a lower density of
housing units, which is discussed below.
The current Zoning Ordinance contains a zoning district and regulations for Traditional
Neighborhood Development (TND) communities. The Town adopted these provisions following
the last comprehensive plan and applied the TND zone to the Carter Farm on Chesterfield
Avenue. Since then, the Planning Commission has reviewed multiple TND development plans
and its experience has informed the Commission that standard TND provisions, as applied to
the Carter Farm, allow residential density that is out of character with the Chesterfield
neighborhood. The purpose of the TND designation was to signal a preference for patterns
consistent with pre-WW II residential neighborhoods that feature a mix of housing types, grid
streets, open spaces, institutional uses, and possibly small-scale complementary commercial
uses. This is still a preferred development pattern generally, but this can be achieved through
the Planned Unit Development recommendations discussed in this report. This Plan
recommends that the Zoning Map be amended to remove the TND zone classification from the
Carter Farm in favor of a lower density residential zone, such as R-1. This plan further
recommends that the TND provisions in the Zoning Ordinance be eliminated and that the
Planned Unit Development approach recommended in this Chapter be pursued.
50

Residential, High Density
The primary purpose for the “high density” designation is to signal this Plan’s intent to conserve
existing multiple-family housing areas in residential use and promote other residential
neighborhoods featuring a variety of housing types. For the most part, this designation covers
existing townhouse neighborhoods and apartment complexes, now zoned R-3, but it also
includes the Turpin Farm. The Turpin Farm is centrally located adjacent to downtown, and its
development should support the economic vitality of downtown. The recommended density of
housing units in the R-3 district is eight housing units per acre.
Institutional
This designation signals the Plan’s intent of keeping the existing institutional uses as the
preferred uses on those properties so designated. The Plan also supports the development of
institutional uses such as places of worship, schools, nursing homes, and day care centers in
certain residential and commercial areas, and the Zoning Ordinance should continue to
accommodate them. This Plan recommends that an Institutional zoning district be established
and that the significant institutional properties, especially the publicly held ones, be rezoned to
this new district.
Central Business District (CBD)
This designation encompasses properties within downtown where mixed-use development is
encouraged, and a broad array of commercial and institutional land uses would continue to be
allowed. The Plan also encourages residential apartments above commercial storefronts and
new residential buildings with densities that can meaningfully increase the resident population
in the CBD, such as one housing unit per 1,200 square feet of lot area. The Plan recommends
that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to allow standalone residential building within the
CBD. More specific recommendations are provided in the next section of this Chapter.
Commercial
As shown on Map 6 recommended commercial areas are clustered along Water Street and
Railroad Avenue, Pennsylvania Avenue, Centreville Road, south of Town and Church Hill Road
north of downtown. With few exceptions every lot designated on Map 7 for Commercial use is
already developed. The two main exceptions include the 9.8-acre pasture and farmstead
located on the north side of Delmarva Power at 2612 Centreville Road, and the 4-acre parcel at
Ruthsburg Road, opposite the high school which is owned by Queen Anne’s County. Both
parcels are zoned C-2, General Commercial.
The C-2 district is a general commercial zone. It allows retail, service and office uses and is
intended to provide convenient locations for local shopping. The district is located along
Centreville Road, the southern gateway from MD Route 18 to the Mill Stream Bridge, at the
northern gateway into downtown along Centreville Road and near the future YMCA site.
51

The Town’s other Commercial zoning district is called C-3 (Intense Commercial). It is located on
the south side of MD Route 18 east of MD Route 213 and along Railroad Avenue from the Acme
Shopping Center to Pennsylvania Avenue. The east side of Pennsylvania Avenue is also zoned
C-3. Commercial uses including automotive garages, motor vehicle fuel stations, bottling and
beverage distribution, wholesale businesses and warehousing, and manufacturing are
permitted in the C-3 district. These uses, if located along Railroad or Pennsylvania Avenues,
could adversely impact the character of adjoining residential neighborhoods, and introduce
heavy truck traffic onto local streets. This Plan recommends that zoning map and text
amendments be considered to promote more compatible commercial uses in these areas.
Planned Business District
Intensive business and light industrial uses are recommended in the Centreville Business Park
shown in purple on Map 6. The business park is currently zoned Planned Business Development
(PBD) District which permits a variety of commercial land use activities.
Because only two other sizable commercial parcels remain undeveloped within Town
boundaries and their conversion to commercial use cannot be assured, it is likely that pressure
will mount to develop the remaining lots in the Planned Business Development (PBD) District
through 2040. This plan strongly recommends that space in the business park be reserved
primarily for major and intensive commercial uses that may not be compatible elsewhere in
Centreville and which can strongly contribute to the local economy and employment. The
business park is designed to accommodate large scale commercial buildings and site
operations.
Other Recommendations
Promote the Vitality of Downtown
Downtown Centreville, the central business district, is the institutional center for the Town and
Queen Anne’s County. It is also the community’s traditional center for government, shopping,
entertainment, restaurants, and local professional and law offices associated with the
courthouses. Downtown should remain highly walkable.
52

• From a land use perspective, to promote the
preservation, upkeep, and adaptive reuse of
historic buildings, the Town should consider
incentives to encourage developers to
rehabilitate buildings and to incorporate
residential apartments on the upper floors
were possible. In this regard the Town should
consider historic districting and the use of
State and federal preservation tax incentives to
encourage private sector investment in and
rehabilitation of historic buildings19.
• Where feasible, without disrupting the historic
character, this Plan encourages the
development of new mixed-use buildings
featuring commercial at street level and residential apartments above as well as stand-
alone residential buildings.
• As noted on the Future Land Use Map, this Plan recommends that the CBD be extended
along Water Street to Little Hut Drive and on both the north and south sides to
Pennsylvania Avenue.
Promote the Development of Complete Neighborhoods
This recommendation applies to the large infill tracts as described in Chapter III, Municipal
Growth; generally, tracts of 10 acres or more in size, which are designated on the Future Land
Use Plan, Map 6. These tracts are intended for master planned communities with a mix of
housing types (single-family detached, duplexes, tri-plexes, attached houses, and apartment
buildings) and supporting non-residential uses, like institutions, parks, open spaces, and limited
commercial buildings under certain conditions.
To achieve this, this Plan recommends residential planned unit developments (PUDs). The
Town’s zoning ordinance currently has a PUD zoning district. It is a “floating zone”, which can
be thought of as a special zoning district that floats over certain pre-qualified tracts of land and
is allowed to settle down onto the tract upon request by the owner. Under current regulations, a
PUD must go through an extensive process of meetings and hearings, involving approvals from
both the Town Council and the Planning Commission.
19 The Maryland Historic Trust administers an Historic Revitalization Tax Credit Program consisting of three separate programs for
buildings and uses that are either listed on the National Register of Historic Places, are designated as historic properties by local
(town) law or are within a qualifying local (town) historic district.
53

In an alternative approach, which this Plan recommends be considered, the PUD is not a
separate zone, but instead a set of standards that guide master planned neighborhood
development. In this approach, every qualifying tract, (such as parcels 10 acres or more in size)
would be granted by-right flexibility in certain pre-defined development standards and are
required to use that flexibility to achieve exceptional community design.
The main difference between the approaches is that the PUD floating zone requires multiple
Town Council meetings to review and approve the project because, in effect, legislation is
needed to establish the special standards for the new district. By contrast, with the PUD-
standards approach, parameters for flexibly applying standards are set down within the text of
the Zoning Ordinance from the beginning and thus the plan review and approval function
remains within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission as is customary. In both cases, the
PUD provides the Town with more discretion in the approval process and the developer with
more flexibility in plan design.
It is this Plan’s general intent with either PUD approach to guide the placement, design, use,
and density of well-planned residential neighborhoods that can offer a variety of building types
and uses with optimal freedom to achieve great community design within the context of a site’s
location and special attributes. The purpose statements for Town’s PUD floating zone are set
forth in Section 170-28 of the Centreville Zoning Ordinance. This Plan recommends that they be
maintained, and activity implemented in the review and approval of future residential
development.
54

VII. Housing
Introduction
This section of the report provides a summary and evaluation of existing conditions, objectives,
and recommended policies on housing. The Land Use Article of the Annotated Code of
Maryland was amended in 2019 to require that comprehensive plans contain a housing element
to address affordable “workforce” and “low-income housing”. Affordability is measured in
relation to the Area Median Income (AMI), a measure set by the federal Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD). The “area” in the term AMI, for Centreville, is the Baltimore-
Columbia-Towson Metro Region. The median annual income for the Region is $105,10020. By
comparison, the 2019 median annual income for Centreville was $89,699.
Increasing the availability of affordable housing as a goal can conflict with other vital planning
goals but policies about housing are especially important because they directly shape who can
live in a community and who cannot. In this chapter we seek to balance competing goals and
aim to encourage affordable housing options that can fit compatibly within the Town over the
long run and maintain the Town’s zoning and land use framework.
Existing Conditions
Affordability in Centreville
HUD’s “housing cost burden” is the standard measure of housing affordability in the United
Sates . According to the standard, households that are cost-burdened pay 30% or more of their
gross income on housing expenses (such as rent, mortgage, utilities, condominium and HOA
fees, and taxes) and thus have difficulty affording other necessities such as food, clothing,
transportation, and medical care. Not surprising households that are most cost burdened have
the lowest incomes.
20 “FY 2021 Income Limits Documentation System.” FY 2021 Income Limits Documentation System -- Summary for Baltimore-
Columbia-Towson, MD MSA, www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il/il2021/2021summary.odn.
55

For the Town’s renter households, 39.7 percent of them, or 122 households, are cost burdened.
This is less than the State and Region, where about one-half are. For the Town’s homeowners,
26 percent or 254 households pay more than 30 percent.21 Therefore, relative to the State and
Region, a smaller share of the Town’s households is burdened by housing costs.
Workforce housing is housing that is affordable for a household making between 60 and 100
percent of median income. For the official AMI – that means between $63,300 and $105,100.
Ideally households in this range should be able to find an apartment renting for no greater than
30% of annual income. A renter household earning $63,300 would pay up to $18,990 per year,
or $1,582 per month before becoming cost-burdened. Since the median rent for a two
bedroom apartment in Centreville is $1,38422, or about $199 per month less, one could
conclude the Town is a good value relative to the Region.
However, to appreciate local affordability—that is, the cost for Centreville residents in
particular, the Town’s median income is used. A renter household in Centreville earning 60% of
the Town’s median income or $53,820, would be cost-burdened if paying more than $16,150 per
year in rent, or $1,345 per month. The 2019 U.S Census, American Community Survey shows that
44 of the Town’s households are paying monthly rents between $1,000 and $1,499, 40 are
paying rents between $1,500 and $1,999, 61 are paying rents between $2,000 and $2,499 and
18 are paying more than $3,00023. This explains the finding that 39.4 percent of the Town’s
renter households are housing cost-burdened. For lower income households--making less than
60% of local median income—renter housing is unaffordable in Centreville.
The same assessment can be for owner occupied housing. For a house valued at the current
estimated median sales price of $328,50024 a household would pay about $1,760 per month, in
mortgage, taxes, and insurance. At this median price, a household earning 60 percent of the
Region’s AMI would be paying 33 percent of its income on housing. But closer to home, a
household making 60 percent of the Town’s median income would pay 39 percent of its income
on housing. A household that earns close to the median income would find that the cost of
homeownership would exceed the 30% affordability standard. Households earning less than
60% would not find affordable housing to buy in Centreville.
21 “Census Profile: CENTREVILLE, MD Urban Cluster.” Census Reporter, censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US15090-centreville-md-
urban-cluster/.
22 HUD Economic and Market Analysis Division. “FY 2021 Fair Market Rent Documentation System.” FY 2021 Fair Market Rent
Documentation System - Calculation For Centreville www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr/fmrs/FY2022_code/2022summary.odn.
23 “Census Profile: CENTREVILLE, MD Urban Cluster.” Census Reporter, censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US15090-centreville-md-
urban-cluster/.
24 Zillow.com Median Home Value estimate for Centreville, Maryland
56

Other Characteristics of Housing in Centreville
Housing Unit Type
The U.S. Census American Community Survey (2019) provides an estimate of housing units and
a break down among the various housing types25. As shown in Table 6, about 85 percent are
single-family detached units and 5 percent are single-family attached units (townhouses).
Combined, single-family units comprise 90 percent of the Town’s housing units. The remaining
10 percent is found in buildings with two or more housing units.
Table 7 below shows the share of the Town’s existing housing units constructed in each decade
since before 1940. It is striking that 41 percent of housing units were built in one decade alone,
2000 to 2009. About 14% of total units are in structures built before 1940.
TABLE 7
TABLE 6
Current Housing Units by Type Current Housing Units by Age
of Structure
Total units 1,969 100%
1 unit detached 1,672 85% Year Structure Built # %
1 unit attached 101 5%
2 or 4 units 97 5% 2010 to 2019 180 9%
5 to 9 units 61 3% 2000 to 2009 808 41%
10 to 19 units 0 0% 1990 to 1999 68 3%
20 or more units 38 2% 1980 to 1989 122 6%
1970 to 1979 230 12%
Source: U.S. Census, American Community Survey
1960 to 1969 104 5%
1950 to 1959 101 5%
1940 to 1949 75 5%
1939 or earlier 281 14%
Source: U.S. Census, American Community Survey
25 The data published by the U.S. Census, American Community Survey is based on statistical methods and, at the smaller
geographic sample size such as the Town, such data contain substantially high margins of error. The data should be used here as a
basis for general characterization only.
57

Housing Types Permitted by Town Zoning
Table 8 below shows the distribution of permitted housing types by zoning district. The Town’s
current Zoning Ordinance generally allows a variety of housing types including duplexes,
townhouses, apartments in combination with commercial buildings, and stand-alone multi-
family buildings. The Town’s TND zone is a mixed use district though only one tract (Carter
Farm) is now zoned TND and is has yet to be developed. Elderly housing which can be a
specialized form of multi-family housing is permitted in all residential districts and mobile home
developments are allowed in the R-3 and Planned Revitalization Area (PRA) zones.
TABLE 8
New Housing Types Permitted by Mapped Zoning District
Housing Types Zoning Districts
R-1 R-2 R-3 PRA TND PUD CBD C-2 C-3 PBD
Single-family detached permitted permitted permitted permitted permitted permitted
Single-family attached (townhouse) permitted permitted permitted permitted permitted
Accessory dwelling permitted1 permitted permitted permitted permitted permitted
Duplex and two-family permitted permitted permitted permitted
Multi-family2 permitted permitted permitted permitted
Elderly Housing permitted permitted permitted permitted permitted permitted permitted
Mobile Homes permitted permitted
Dwelling units with commercial permitted permitted permitted permitted
1The accessory unit must be within the single-family dwelling, not in a separate stand along building.
2A multi-family dwelling is one that is within a building containing three or more housing units, such as an apartment building.
Note the Light Industrial District (I) does not permit residential uses and is not included in the table.
Housing for Lower Income Households
Housing Developments
There are two low income housing developments in Town that offer housing to all age groups:
Renaissance Chase Apartments and Willows at Centreville Apartments. Both were built under
the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit program (LIHTC). Under the program, the federal
Department of Housing and Urban Development grants state and local agencies authority to
issue tax credits for the acquisition, rehabilitation, and construction of rental housing for lower
income households. The units are set aside for households making less than 60 percent of the
area median household income and rents are generally capped at 30 percent of a household’s
income.
58

Renaissance Chase has 64-units consisting of one, two, and three-bedroom options26. This
property was developed using the LIHTC program and provides Section 515 Rural Rental
Housing which is available to low income families and elderly persons with disabilities. Renters
are also eligible for Section 521 USDA Rental Assistance, which allows for renters to pay no
more than 30% of their adjusted income towards rent. Not all units at Renaissance Chase may
qualify for this program but some units are eligible27. The Willows at Centreville consists of ten
two-story buildings with a mix of one, two, and three bedroom options for a total of 70 units.
LIHTC is the only program for this property28.
Housing Authority of Queen Anne’s County
Most of the affordable options in Queen Anne County are owned and operated by the Housing
Authority of Queen Anne’s County (HAQAC). In fact, there are five communities in the County
owned and operated by the Housing Authority, though none are in Centreville. The Authority
also manages a Housing Choice Voucher program which provides vouchers used by households
to rent houses or apartments from private owners. Presently there are 141 Housing Choice
Vouchers active throughout the County. The program however is no longer funded, and no
vouchers have been approved since 2017. The waiting list for a voucher is 10 years29.
Queen Anne’s County Department of Housing and Community Services
The County’s Department of Housing and Community Services operates housing programs for
existing and prospective County residents.
• The Critical Workforce Home loan program helps essential personnel who work and
want to live in Queen Anne’s County. This includes teachers, law enforcement, and first
responders. As of February 2020, the County had distributed 81 Critical Workforce
Home loans30.
• Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit (MPDU) Rental program. Limited Rental units are
available through this program for renters making 80% of median area income. As of
February 2020, the County has distributed 44 MPDU loans31.
26 The Renaissance Chase project is is located within the R-2 zoning district and is a non-conforming use since the R-2 district does
not permit multi-family buildings.
27 “Renaissance Chase In Centreville, Maryland.” Affordable Housing Online, affordablehousingonline.com/housing-
search/Maryland/Centreville/Renaissance-Chase/15459.
28 “THE Willows at CENTREVILLE IN Centreville, Maryland.” Affordable Housing Online, affordablehousingonline.com/housing-
search/Maryland/Centreville/THE-WILLOWS-AT-CENTREVILLE/10106359.
29 Queen Anne's County Department of Community Services. Housing Strategy for Queen Anne's County, Maryland, Partners for
Economic Solutions, 20 Apr. 2020.
30 “Affordable & Workforce Housing Unit.” Affordable & Workforce Housing Unit | Queen Anne's County, MD - Official Website,
www.qac.org/1212/Affordable-Workforce-Housing-Unit.
31 “Affordable & Workforce Housing Unit.” Affordable & Workforce Housing Unit | Queen Anne's County, MD - Official Website,
www.qac.org/1212/Affordable-Workforce-Housing-Unit.
59

Senior Housing
Between 2010 and 2019 the share of the Town’s population 65 years or older rose from 18
percent to 22 percent. Projections by the State for Queen Anne’s County indicate this trend will
continue. Between 2020 and 2040 the senior share of the County’s population is projected to
increase from 20 percent to 26 percent32. It is reasonable to conclude that the aging expected
at the County level will continue to occur in the Town through 2040.
There is one renter subsidized senior living community in Centreville called Tilghman Terrace;
apartments for seniors subsidized by the federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Renters typically pay 30% of gross income for rent. There are 42 units available that vary
between one and two-bedroom options33.
Multiple national studies and surveys indicate that seniors generally want to remain at home
rather than relocate to senior housing as they age. And yet seniors, especially as they progress
through their 70’s, can encounter difficulties with living at home and can benefit from
specialized health care and interacting with other people. Traditional large scale assisted living
facilities or convalescent homes are one option but other, smaller housing options, might fit
well within the Town’s existing neighborhoods. In fact, other options may become a necessity as
the cost of private assisted living can be considerable and outpace the savings of middle and
lower income seniors.
A Plan For Housing
Objectives and recommendations for land use and municipal growth are set forth elsewhere in
this report, while this Chapter’s recommendations focus mostly on affordable housing types and
adapting to changes in housing needs. The Town’s main goal for housing through 2040 is that
Centreville is a place where residents of all ages and income levels have housing options that
allow them to live comfortably and affordably in the community.
32 Explore Census Data, data.census.gov/cedsci/table?tid=ACSDP5Y2019.DP05&g=0400000US24_0500000US24035.
33 “Tilghman Terrace Apartments In Centreville, Maryland.” Affordable Housing Online, affordablehousingonline.com/housing-
search/Maryland/Centreville/Tilghman-Terrace-Apartments/10005981.
60

Objectives
• Encourage a variety of housing types to maintain the Town as an inter-generational
community.
• Protect the supply of quality housing to meet the affordable housing needs of the
Town’s households that earn less than 60% of the median household income and thus
face a high-cost burden.
• Remain flexible to accommodate changing housing needs over time in both the
production of new housing and the preservation and repurposing of existing units
especially considering the aging trends in area population.
Recommendations
Maintain a Land Use Pattern that Encourages Multiple Housing Types
The current Zoning Map classifies the Turpin Farm as R-3, a zoning district that allows a large
variety of housing types. The Zoning Ordinance also allows certain tracts to be developed as
planned unit developments or traditional neighborhood developments and both districts allow
flexibility in housing types. Taken as a whole, Centreville’s zoning allows duplexes, townhouses,
apartments in combination with commercial buildings, and stand-alone multi-family buildings.
In practice, however, specific standards can make it practically difficult for property owners to
deliver these options, even when they would otherwise be compatible with neighborhood
character. Increasing the supply of new housing, while conserving existing neighborhood
character is possible however and the Town should continue to encourage a mix of housing
types by reducing unwarranted regulatory obstacles where possible. This has the added benefit
of making more efficient use of available land and municipal infrastructure and does not involve
land development.
Presently duplexes are prohibited in the R-1 and R-2 zones and while they are allowed in the R-3
zone, each of the two units in a duplex must have its own minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet,
which is an obstacle. Accessory apartments in separate buildings are not allowed in the R-1
district and only permitted as a Special Exception in the R-2 district provided the lot is at least
10,000 square feet.
61

Duplexes and accessory apartments can be
compatible within all residential
neighborhoods and can have no adverse
impact on neighborhood quality of life.
Duplexes can be made indistinguishable from
single-family houses as illustrated in the
photographs here and can readily fit on the
same lot as a single-family house34.
Create an Inter-generational Housing Taskforce
A town that is intergenerational will have
housing and social options that allow older
residents, young people, and families to mix
within neighborhoods. Because workable
solutions to any important and complex goal
requires focused long-term community
attention, the Town might consider
sponsoring a citizen committee to study and
recommend approaches for addressing existing and future housing needs for middle and lower
income seniors especially.
The committee can suggest ways the Town might facilitate senior housing and aging in place
within neighborhoods. Options might include repurposing houses into small senior living and
care arrangements, co-housing options where seniors share expenses, and encouraging
universal design principles in new or rehabilitated housing to make it easier for seniors to live at
home. The committee could also coordinate with HAQAC and Queen Anne’s County
Government to evaluate the needs of low income households in this age group. As noted
previously, there is a rental-assisted senior housing community in Centreville, but the demand
may increase over time in response to health care costs and the aging of the area population.
Efforts to promote new senior housing within existing neighborhoods should be investigated
and adopted if found workable.
34 Credit. The source of these photos and the outline of housing types herein is Opticos Design, “Missing Middle Housing” which is
available at www.missingmiddlehousing.com.
62

The Town’s land use plan is the overall policy framework within which these housing
recommendations must fit. The intent is that within the land use vision of Centreville, there will
always be housing options that meet the needs of the Town’s households regardless of income
and age. This includes the housing needs of young adults and families who could be putting
down roots in Centreville and the needs of its senior citizens who live in and near Town. The
Town aims to have a housing stock which meets the needs of its residents and their family
members through their full cycle of life.
63

VII. Transportation
Introduction
This section addresses existing circulation in Centreville and provides guidance on addressing
future access and circulation for the Town’s long term development. Some streets will need to
be improved and several will need to be constructed, when the time is right, to sustain smart
municipal growth and expansion. Left unplanned and underdeveloped, the street system could
become ill-equipped to handle traffic and then development could burden residents leading
especially to gridlock within the MD Route 213 corridor and downtown.
Map 7 shows the existing street and highway system in the Centreville area and Map 8 shows
the planned street system focusing on major streets --- called Collectors and Primary Local
streets. The alphanumeric symbols on Map 8 corresponds to the discussion of proposed
projects later in this section under the heading “Recommendations”.
Among other things, this section of the Plan also recommends that the Town continue building
an interconnected network of sidewalks, trails, and bikeways and extend that network into the
planned Growth Area as development take place.
Existing Conditions
Functional Roadway System
Map 7 classifies existing major streets and highways in the Centreville area by their function:
arterials and collectors. Arterial highways carry higher traffic volumes at relatively high speeds
and connect Centreville to the region. These are MD Route 213 and U.S. Route 301.
MD Route 213 is the north-south axis through the core of Centreville where it operates with one
lane in each direction: Commerce Street northbound, and Liberty Street southbound. The
Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) classifies MD Route 213 as a minor arterial. U.S.
Route 301, by contrast, is a principal arterial on the federal highway system. It bypasses
Centreville on its southern and eastern sides where it intersects with MD Routes 213 and 304 at
grade separated interchanges. U.S. Route 301 in the Centreville area is a four-lane divided and
access-controlled highway.
64

SHA classifies MD Routes 18, 304, and 305 as major collectors. Major collectors collect traffic
from lesser streets and convey it arterial highways and thus to points beyond Centreville, and in
reverse, they collect traffic from the arterial system and distribute it to local neighborhoods.
Within Town, these same collectors—MD Routes 18, 304, and 305--are the primary means of
east-west travel. The efficient movement of areawide traffic is a primary concern on the collector
road network.
Map 7 also shows the Town’s minor collector roads including Wexford Road, Watson Road,
Kidwell Avenue, Little Kidwell Avenue, Coursevall Drive and Taylor Mill Road. These roads also
collect traffic from minor streets but are secondary in that function to the major collectors. As a
network, arterials, and collectors (both major and minor) shape the distribution and character of
travel in and around Centreville.
E
Fu
xi
n
s
c
ti
t
n
io
g
n al Watson Rd.
Wexford
Dr.
Classification
of Streets and
Principal Arterial
Highways
Chesterfield
R
L
d.
ittle
B
K
ro
id
ad
w
Pe
w
e
nn a
l
s
l
y y lv
A
an
K v
ia
e
A
id
v
.
e
w
.
ell Ave.
Little
Hut
Dr.
VincitSt.
MD Route 305
M
M
M
i
a
i
n
n
jo
o
o
r
r
r
C
A
C
o
r
o
t
l
l
e
l
l
e
e
ri
c
c
a
t
t
l
o
o
r
r
MD
Route
18 CoursevallDr.
MD Route
304
312
etuoR
DM
Taylor Mill Rd.
.dR
egdirB
gnilloR
U.S. Route 301
MAP 7
65

Highway Traffic Volumes and Conditions
Table 10 shows average daily traffic volumes reported by SHA in 2000, 2010, and 2019 for the
main north-south movements through Town—that is, along MD Route 21335. As shown, traffic
increased over time along MD Route 213, most notably on the section south of MD Route 18,
which is the section of highway fronting the Centreville Business Park and the Town’s busiest
shopping center. Table 10 shows that the average number of vehicles per day along the
shopping center’s frontage increased by 18% between 2010 and 2019. By comparison, during
the same decade, traffic north of Downtown increased by only 2%.
TABLE 9
Traffic Volumes in Centreville Over Time
Highway Section
Vehicles per Day Change 2010-2019
Highway Section 2000 2010 2019 # %
At the Gateways to Downtown
MD 213 South of MD 18 (4H Park Rd) 1 4,600 1 3,532 1 6,002 2 ,470 18%
MD 213 North of MD 18 (4H Park Rd) 1 2,150 1 5,042 1 6,674 1 ,632 11%
MD 213 South of MD 305 (Hope Rd) - 1 1,842 1 2,135 293 2%
Within Downtown
Commerce Street (northbound) at Kidwell Ave. - 7 ,272 7 ,665 393 5%
Commerce Street (northbound) at Water St. - 6 ,452 6 ,205 (247) -4%
Liberty Street (southbound) at Church Ln. - 7 ,152 7 ,795 643 9%
Liberty Street (southbound) at Water St. - 6 ,102 6 ,825 723 12%
Table 10 shows that traffic within downtown has increased since 2010 most notably southbound.
Traffic on Liberty Street increased 12%, measured near Water Street, and 9% measured further
south at Church Lane. The data show that northbound (via Commerce Street) traffic volumes
drop as vehicles move toward downtown demonstrating the role that Kidwell Avenue plays in
intercepting traffic before it gets to the core of downtown. Traffic on Commerce Street at its
intersection with Water Street fell by 4% between 2010 and 2019. Peak period congestion and
delay remain a recurring issue in the MD Route 213 corridor and often coincides with the
release of students from area schools in the afternoon.
35 Because the reported 2020 volumes were likely impacted by the economic shut down due to the pandemic and because of the
disruption of normal traffic operations occurred during the period of the MD Route 213 utility construction, data for 2019 are
presented instead of 2020. Note that at each location where volumes were recorded, the 2020 volumes were significantly lower than
the 2019 volumes indicating the probable impact on areawide traffic of these two factors.
66

One of the consequences of the opening of the interchange at U.S. Route 301 and MD Route
213 was the introduction of a steady flow of traffic northbound into Town during peak periods.
(Traffic on MD Route 213 used to stop of the signalized intersection with U.S. Route 301 and
entered Centreville in intermittent cycles.) The signalized intersection at Coursevall Drive was
intended, in combination with the signalization of Laser Drive, to disrupt the steady flow of
travel to allow upstream traffic in downtown to dissipate. Laser Drive, however, has not been
completed nor signalized so the State’s traffic operational strategy has not been implemented.
This has complicated the unsignalized entrance into the Food Lion Shopping Center, which
SHA determined back in 2004 warranted a traffic signal. This intersection is the site of significant
delay and congestion when MD Route 213 is carrying high volumes of traffic.
FIGURE 12: MD ROUTE 213 AT THE COURSEVALL INTERSECTION
MD Routes 304 (Ruthsburg Road and Water Street) and 305 (Hope Road) connect to U.S. Route
301 east of Town. As noted above MD Route 304 intersects U.S. Route 301 at a grade-
separated interchange and MD Route 305 intersects the highway at an on-grade channelized
intersection. The distribution of traffic over time on these main east-west routes and on U.S.
Route 301 is shown in Table 11 below. Traffic has increased on each of these highway sections
except for MD Route 305 (Hope Road). Traffic on Hope Road has trended downward for 20
years and even decreased by 15% between 2010 and 2019 likely owing to the improved crossing
provided by the US 301/ MD 304 interchange.
67

TABLE 10
Traffic Volumes Area Roadways: 2000, 2010 and 2019
Highway Section Vehicles per Day Change 2010-2019
2000 2010 2019 # %
U.S. Route 301 (south of MD Route 304) 15,126 17,427 24,353 6,926 39.7%
MD Route 305 - Hope Road (East of MD 213) 1 ,900 1 ,743 1 ,481 -262 -15.0%
MD Route 304 - Water Street (East of MD 213) 5 ,400 4 ,260 5 ,000 740 17.4%
Source: Maryland State Highway Administration
MD Route 304 also extends to the west side of Downtown on an alignment made up of W.
Water Street, Chesterfield Road, and Corsica Neck Road. A proper and consistent comparison
of traffic volumes on this route cannot be made using SHA data because the count location has
changed frequently over time. For the W. Water Street section, SHA’s 2019 counts show 3,673
vehicles per day. This roadway section is an important part of the major collector road network
for traffic headed toward southbound MD Route 213 from Shore Lumber Millwork, Centreville
Elementary School, and the offices of the Queen Annes County School Board. These land uses
contribute to heavy morning volumes on Chesterfield Avenue.
The most significant change in area traffic volumes is the nearly 40% increase on U.S. Route 301
between 2000 and 2019. This reflects the response of interstate traffic to major highway
upgrades in the U.S Route 301 corridor in Delaware, which have provided a viable alternative to
the more heavily travelled Interstate Highway 95 corridor.
Local Streets
The municipal street system includes the Town’s original streets like Broadway and Lawyers
Row, laid out in the 18th century, collector streets like Kidwell Avenue and Little Kidwell Avenue,
and residential streets constructed at various stages of development. Overall, travel speeds
and volumes on Town-owned streets are typical of local streets with a residential character. The
roads are adequate to safely handle the volumes they carry, and they are no known safety or
capacity issues that require rehabilitation or roadway expansion. Because of small blocks,
intersecting streets, and extensive sidewalks, the Town’s core is highly interconnected and very
walkable. Most town streets have sidewalks so walking within neighborhoods is generally
convenient. However pedestrian linkages between the Town’s various residential communities
and between them and downtown are not developed.
68

Public Transit
The Queen Anne’s County Department of Aging operates three weekday “deviated fixed
routes” within the County, and one of those routes connects Centreville to Stevensville. These
routes operate on a standard schedule, but the bus driver may deviate from the route up to ¾
mile for a rider. The regular stops in Town include the Kramer Center, Acme, Tilghman
Terrance, and Food Lion. Rides are available to the public generally, as well as disabled persons
and senior citizens.
Trails
There are three hiker / biker trails in Town. The first is the Town-owned Millstream Trail which
extends from Mill Stream Park on MD Route 213 (at the merging of Liberty and Commerce
Streets) northwest to Creamery Lane. From that point it is a short distance over existing
residential streets to Centreville Wharf Park via Front Street. The second is the Nature Trail
which is a platted open space amenity contained entirely within in the North Brook Subdivision.
The third is the trail connecting Symphony Village to the shopping center on MD Route 213.
A Plan for Transportation
This section addresses future access and circulation needs. Map 2 shows the planned street
system. This section also included a recommended trail network map.
Objectives
• To have a transportation system that allows residents of all stages of life and abilities the
freedom to move about Town and be active participants in the cultural, civic, and
business life of Centreville without unnecessary obstacles.
69

• To ensure long-term street access and circulation throughout Centreville is protected so
that residents and visitors move efficiently through the community and business goods
and commercial services are efficiently transported.
• To be guided by an overall street system plan where traffic speeds and loadings are
compatible with the local context, and beautiful, with the complete set of features that
make them a joy to drive on or walk or bike along.
• To have an interconnected town where the logical extensions of existing and planned
streets and trails are made.
• To promote walkability in downtown and along all streets extending from downtown
where sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian amenities, and parking are strategically located.
• To ensure the problem of heavy truck traffic is continually addressed and to eliminate, to
the extent possible, the mixing of heavy truck traffic with local traffic and pedestrian
movements.
• To promote modernized street infrastructure that capitalizes on existing and emerging
traffic operational and safety technologies and supports alternative fuel vehicles.
• To promote a cost effective and system based holistic approach to development,
improvement, and maintenance of Town streets.
Recommendations
Build the Planned Collector Street System as the Town Develops
The Centreville street system will need to evolve to accommodate the Town’s planned
development, especially within the Growth Area. This Plan is needed to ensure that streets are
improved in a way that is cost effective, delivers lasting mobility benefits to existing and future
residents and businesses, and provides options for minimizing congestion on MD Route 213
through downtown. The proposed general alignments for new and upgraded Collector and
Primary Local streets are shown on Map 8.
70

S
H
t
i
r
g
e
h
e
w
ts
a
a
ys
n d
P lan Watson Rd. MD
Route
213
Wexford Dr..
Principal Arterial
Chester P
field R
L
d.
-
B
5
roadway
PL-1 M
M
i
a
n
E jo
o
xi r
r
s t C
A
in o
r
g
t
l
e
le
ri
c
a
t
l
or
Little Kidwell
A
Brow
v
n
e
St.
.
Kid
P
we
L
ll
-
A
2
ve. Little
Hut
Dr.
C-1
C-2
MD Route 305
Mi
N
n
E
o
e
xi
w
r
s t
C
i
o
n
o
r
g
U
lle
p
c
g
t
r
o
ad
r
ed
MD
Route
18 New or Upgraded
PL-4
Coursevall
Dr. C-4
PL-3
MD Route 304
Prim
Ex
a
is
r
t
y
in
L
g
ocal
New or Upgraded
C-5
312 etuoR
DM
Taylor Mill Rd.
U.S. Route 301
.dR
egdirB
gnilloR
C-3 P
N
In
l
e
a
te
w
n
r
n
c
G
e
h
d
a
ra
n
R
d
g
o
e
e
u
S
f
n
o
e
d
r
p
a
S
a
b
r
t
o
u
at
d
u
e
t
y
d
ParkwayDesign
MAP 8
When land within the Growth Area is proposed for development, developers will be required to
conform their plans with this planned street system and build the new streets or upgrade
existing ones that serve their projects. The Town will coordinate with SHA to review traffic
impact studies for developments that impact State owned and maintained roadways. As is its
practice, the Town will continue to require that developers make planned street upgrades as a
condition of development approval. Until they are needed, the mapped street alignments are
to be reserved and protected from development.
Map 8 shows the major elements of the future street system which is planned to serve the
eventual build-out of Centreville and its growth area. It shows both new and upgraded streets
and the future functional classification of the street network. The map does not show all future
local streets that may be needed; these would be built as development takes place. Instead, it
shows the planned alignments of Collectors (C) and Primary Local (PL) streets. The planned
projects corresponding to Map 8 are described below.
• C-1. This minor collector would run from the planned Oak Street Extended southward
and cross MD Route 305 before heading east to connect with the planned East Side
Major Collector. It would address circulation needs of future residents east of the
existing Town limits between MD Route 305 and the railroad.
71

• C-2. This is the planned East Side Major Collector. This major Collector would extend
from Wexford Drive in the north to Rolling Bridge Road, south of MD Route 304, before
tuning westward onto the Taylor Mill Road alignment. It would collect traffic throughout
the growth area and distribute it to the arterial road network--that is, to U.S. Route 301
or MD Route 213. It would also function to link existing and future neighborhoods and
commercial areas in the Growth Area. As this route is constructed in the southern part of
the Growth Area, Rolling Bridge Road could be downgraded to a Primary Local street
and carry slower moving traffic. This route in combination with other collector routes
would provide congestion relief to MD Route 213.
• C-3. This minor Collector would extend from Rolling Bridge Road eastbound before
bending northward and crossing MD Route 304 near the Planned Business Park.
• C-4. This minor Collector would extend Vincit Road southward to the East Side Major
Collector at Taylor Mill Road Extended. This would serve the north-south travel needs of
the southeast portion of the Growth Area.
• C-5. Taylor Mill Extended-West. This would continue the Eastside Major Collector to MD
Route 18.
• PL-1. This is the extension of Oak Street eastward toward the Eastside Major Collector
and westward over MD Route 213, through a narrow portion of the larger tract which has
been set aside for future access.
• PL-2. This is a set of Primary Local streets that connect Commerce Street to Banjo Lane
and Little Hut Drive through the Turpin Farm.
• PL-3. This is a set of Primary Local streets that primarily run parallel to MD Route 304
providing for the circulation needs of future mixed use development. This allows MD
Route 304 to be an attractive parkway because commercial driveways, truck loading
zones, and parking lots would connect directly to it rather than to the MD Route 304.
• PL-4. This is a set of Primary Local streets that includes the completion of Laser Drive
and its extension westbound from MD Route 213 to MD Route 18. It also includes a
street that would be extended south on the west side and parallel to MD Route 213 and
a separate street connecting Hibernia Road to MD Route 18.
72

• PL-5. This Primary Local street would extend from Chesterfield Road to Liberty Street
through the following three properties, Carter Farm, Queen Anne’s County Board of
Education, and the Town owned public works lot. It would include an upgrade to the
existing Johnstown Lane which presently intersects Liberty Street. This roadway would
relieve traffic on Chesterfield Avenue.
Apply New Street Development Principles
To promote overall design uniformity, good balance with planned land uses, street design
quality, and functional resiliency, several general principles must guide the development of
Collector and Primary Local streets. These are as follows:
• The primary purpose of each Collector street is to collect traffic from the local street
system and to allow efficient travel throughout the Town as it grows. While the
alignments of the planned streets may vary somewhat from that shown on Map 8, the
planned Collector streets are to be roughly spaced one-half to two-thirds of a mile
apart, which is the approximate distance at which they are mapped. Where possible they
should be designed as parkways scaled to the context of the Town’s future
development. They should be landscaped scenic streets with a high degree of emphasis
on natural beauty and ease of movement serving the travel needs of future
development.
• Access onto the planned Collectors via public street intersections is preferred over
direct driveways. Public street intersection spacing of about one-quarter mile along
major Collectors is about right. For the minor Collectors shown on Map 8, however the
spacing could be less and should be balanced with the goal of serving the circulation
needs of the land uses proposed. Generally, direct access to adjoining properties (e.g.,
via driveways) along all existing and proposed Collector streets shown on Map 8 should
be limited in order preserve their capacity, functionality for cars, bikes and pedestrians,
and their scenic beauty.
• Collector and Primary Local streets should provide wide planting strips for large street
trees, landscaped medians where feasible, and separate protected bike lanes or multi-
use trails.
• To the extent possible, the right-of-way for each new or upgraded Collector street
should be 80 to 100-feet wide which ensures street space for the ultimate buildout of the
Town and the optimal flexibility for configuring travel lanes, turning lanes, bikeways,
73

pedestrian amenities, street trees, landscaping, and utilities. The current “major and
minor collector road” standards in the Centreville Subdivision Regulations, establish the
minimum rights-of-way widths at 60 feet and should be revised. Rights-of-way for
Primary Local streets can generally be less wide than those for the planned Collector
streets and should be sized for the land uses they would serve: 50 to 60 feet wide is
generally adequate (corresponding to the Secondary Street section in the Subdivision
Regulations).
• To the extent possible, all Primary Local streets should include ample planting strips and
street trees well suited to and selected to complement the design of the street.
• The development of all new streets, primary streets, and local streets and lanes, should
follow required design standards and specifications, including those standards in the
Town’s Tree Ordinance, that the Town maintains and would revise in accordance with
this Plan.
• The images here and on the next
page reflect the recommended
generalized character (for Major
Collector street design) for MD Routes
213, 304, 205 and the East Side Major
Collector as indicated with the
“parkway” designation on Map 8. In
the images, note the boulevard
median, the separated bike lanes, the
use of street trees within the median
and along the street, the capacity for
on-street parking, the use of street
lighting and landscaped setbacks
between the street and buildings.
Initial phases of Major Collector street
development may never need to FIGURE 13
exactly match the standards reflected
in these images. For instance, one traffic lane in each direction separated by a landscape
medium could generally be sufficient in most cases through the foreseeable future.
These image are for long term guidance however and they help ensure that limited
street development does not foreclose the possibility for optimal design.
74

FIGURE 14
FIGURE 15
75

• All planned upgrades and improvements should reflect the context and character of the
areas through which they pass and contribute to the sense of place of the local
neighborhood or part of Town. This is especially the case with the Primary Local streets.
While these streets, which are shown in green on Map 8 are intended to carry traffic
through and between future neighborhoods, intersecting residential or commercial
driveways would be acceptable. The right-of-way and the required pavement widths of
the Primary Local streets should be balanced against the land uses they are intended to
serve. So, for example Laser Drive as an industrial roadway would be significantly wider
than the local residential streets that would extend through the Carter and Turpin Farms.
Deploy Smart Street Technologies for Safer and More Effective Streets
New Collector streets should be smart streets—that is, outfitted with sensors that monitor and
record traffic volumes, heavy truck traffic, wear and tear, and conditions such as temperature,
ice, and other factors that would allow for the most efficient long-term care and management of
the street system. For MD Routes 213, 304 and 305, encourage the State Highway
Administration to deploy smart street technologies. Also, for all streets consider the use
streetlight technologies that can detect traffic volumes at signalized intersections and adjust red
and green times and pedestrian crosswalk times to improve overall convenience and safety.
Consider streetlights that can adjust to ambient light conditions and increase in intensity when
pedestrians approach on a sidewalk or crosswalk. Consider embedded lights in crosswalks that
light up to signal to oncoming vehicles when a pedestrian is about to enter the crosswalk.
Insist that New Development Build an interconnected Local Street System
It is critical that no major development become an island onto itself; that all neighborhoods and
parts of Town are interconnected. Roads that may be stub-ended in anticipation of future
extension into newly developed areas must not be prevented from being extended when the
time comes. New development must also conform itself to the planned streets shown in this
Plan and construct those streets whose alignments pass through the development tract.
Ensure all Aspects of the Transportation System are Accessible and Safe to People with Disabilities,
Children, and Seniors.
Through development plan review and attention to the details of street design, the Town can
ensure that new and redeveloped parking lots, sidewalks, crosswalks, transit stops, trails, and
entrance ways into commercial and institutional buildings or sites meet the objectives of the
federal Americans with Disabilities Act.
76

Build A Town-wide Trail Network
Extend the Millstream Trail from Mill Stream Park east into the Growth Area and build an
interconnected trail network as shown in Figure 16, “Greenway and Trail Plan”. The Town
should require developers to build multi-use trail linkages within and near their development
projects using the figure as a guide. This is relevant within the Town and in the Growth Area.
This Plan recommends that trail alignments be reserved, and the trails be constructed as land
development takes place or sooner where practical. The trails may run within or along the
planned collector road rights-of-way or on separate alignments and ultimately would provide a
greenway network connecting residents to the Town’s park system.
Greenway and Trail Plan
Trails
Existing Trail
Programmed for
Construction
Planned
Greenways
FIGURE 16
The Town should also consider preparing and implementing a Walking and Bicycle Trail Plan
which would recommend and program specific improvements for pedestrian and bicycle
connectivity throughout the greater Centreville area. This plan should refine and detailed the
proposed greenway trail alignments shown in this Chapter and coordinate with property owners
as needed to secure rights of access. The Town could then actively implement projects
recommended in that plan, supported where possible by grant programs. In the meantime, the
major trail alignments shown in Figure 16 should be implemented to the extent possible.
77

Coordinate with Queen Anne’s County to Ensure Continued Transit
Queen Anne’s County provides bus service to Town residents to Kent Island at Stevensville.
Over time the Town and County should coordinate in the context of the County’s five year
transit planning process to determine if adjustments and expansions of the services would be
beneficial to local mobility goals. To be a vibrant intergenerational community, paratransit
service may need to become especially useful within Centreville given the trends toward an
increasingly older population.
78

VIII. Community Facilities
Introduction
Community facilities are the part of municipal development that most depends on coordination
between multiple agencies and units of government. Because of their complexity and the
efficiencies that can be obtained, public facilities are provided to all residents within designated
service areas. Often this means residents of separate jurisdictions are served by the same
facilities and services. Community facilities, at least when they are operated optimally and
provided fairly, are delivered in such a way that one person’s enjoyment is not diminished by
another person use.
This section of the report focuses on municipal water and sewerage facilities, public education,
libraries, parks, and police and fire protection. These are the primary community facilities that
benefit Town residents. This section of the report provides a summary and evaluation of existing
conditions, a list of objectives, and recommended policies.
Existing Conditions
Public Water
Centreville operates a municipal water supply and distribution system. It consists of three
operating wells (in the North Brook Subdivision, the Centreville Business Park and near Queen
Anne’s County High School). The Town also has three water storage tanks with storge capacities
of 100,000, 200,000 and 300,000 gallons. The Town plans to construct a fourth elevated tank
near MD Route 304 along the eastern edge of the Town’s current limits with a capacity of up to
600,000 gallons.
The Town has two water treatment facilities. The facility at North Brook has a treatment capacity
of 720,000 gpd. The facility at the Business Park has a treatment capacity of 750,000 gpd. Both
include the removal of arsenic. The entire municipal limits are served with water.
79

The systems’ maximum permitted extractive capacity is 645,000 gallons per day (gpd) with a
daily average capacity of 775,400 gpd for the month of maximum use. Current average daily
use approximates 360,912 gpd. Commitments made by the Town to ongoing development
projects and to ensure all lots have at least one allocation approximate 261,688 gpd. This leaves
an effective excess capacity of about 22,400 gpd. For comprehensive planning purposes, this
excess capacity can be converted into equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) where dwelling units are
assumed to demand water at a rate of 250 gallons per day36. Assuming 250 gallons per day per
EDU, the Town has excess capacity for 90 EDU’s37.
Public Sewerage
The Town operates a public sewerage system. It consists of a wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP), five pumping stations and distribution lines38. The WWTP is permitted to discharge an
average of 542,000 gpd of treated domestic wastewater but only between December 1 and
March 31. The plant is located within Town limits on Johnstown Lane and discharges to Gravel
Run which the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) classifies as a “Use 1 Waterway”
where water quality is protected for human contact and nontidal warmwater aquatic life. The
MDE permits the Town to operate a spray irrigation system for effluent disposal year round,
which the Town is required to do, in combination with discharge to Gravel Run, to provide this
essential service.
For the purposes of capacity estimating, because wastewater flows fluctuate year to year and
can be impacted by weather conditions, a three-year average is used for estimating “current”
flows. The current average annual daily flow of the plant for the period 2018 through 2020
approximates 477,000 gpd, meaning the plant is said to be operating at 88% of permitted
capacity, leaving 65,000 per day remaining. For context, this remaining capacity is equivalent to
the flow generated by 260 equivalent dwelling units (EDUs). The Town has made commitments
to provide service to other potential users, which when considered, leaves an effective capacity
of about 195 EDU’s.
36 This demand factor is higher than that actual per household daily use so that it provides a conservatively higher estimate of
demand for comprehensive planning purposes given the critical nature of water infrastructure.
37 At 200 gpd, a less conservative estimate, though still greater than actual household use, effective remaining capacity is 112
EDU’s.)
38 As noted in the 2021 Centreville Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion, Preliminary Engineering Report, which is available for
review at Town Hall, the WWTP was upgraded and expanded in 2003 to achieve biological nutrient removal (BNR) levels of
treatment. The plant’s treatment process consist of a two-tank sequencing batch reactor with chemical addition for phosphorous
precipitation and cloth media filtration. The plant treats wastewater as designed and within in NPDES permit limits.
80

It is important to note that flows at the WWTP have been increasing each year. The WWTP
recorded an average daily flow of 506,000 gpd in 2021, which is well above the three-year
average noted above, and represents 93% of permitted capacity, leaving a remaining capacity
of 36,000 gpd. For context, this is equivalent to the flow generated by 144 more households.
The Town is in the process of actively evaluating and assembling funding for an upgrade and
expansion of the WWTP including effluent discharge and spray irrigation capabilities, which is
discussed later in this chapter and elsewhere in this report.
Public Schools
There are four public schools in Centreville. As shown in Table 11, current (2020) full time
enrollment approximates 89% at Centreville Elementary, 89% at Kennard Elementary, 83.5% at
Centreville Middle and 96% at Queen Anne’s County High. Elementary school enrollment is
split between Centreville and Kennard Elementary Schools. Centreville houses Kindergarten
through second grade while Kennard houses grades three, four, and five. The Middle School
houses grades six, seven, and eight and the High School houses grades nine through 12. There
are nine portable classrooms at Queen Anne’s High School.
TABLE 11
Enrollment and Capacity at Centreville Area Schools: 2020
State Rated 2020 Fall
% Use in 2020
Capacity Enrollment
Public School
Centreville Elementary 5 81 5 19 89.3%
Kennard Elementary 5 03 4 46 88.7%
Centreville Middle 6 59 5 48 83.2%
Queen Anne's County High 1 ,263 1 ,214 96.1%
Source of State Rated Capacity and Enrollment data is the Queen Anne's County Public Schools
Educational Facilities Master Plan, July 2021. The enrollment presented here for Centreville Elementary
School includes 87 pupils estimated by Queen Anne's County Public Schools to be enrolled in pre-K in
each of the next 10 years.
81

The Queen Anne’s County School Educational Facility Master Plan projects full time enrollment
through the 2030-31 school years as follows: Centreville Elementary, including Pre-K (517);
Kennard Elementary (485); Centreville Middle (528); and Queen Anne’s High School (1,210).
With the exception Kennard Elementary School (grades three, four and five) enrollments are
expected to be lower in 2030 than in 202039. Kennard would operate at 96.4% of capacity in
2030.
Public Library
Queen Anne’s County operates a library system including the central library at 121 Commerce
Street in Centreville, which serves a population extending well beyond Town limits of about
20,000. The Centreville location has an estimated floor area of 10,480 square feet. Town
residents are well served by the library and no capacity expansions to the building are currently
planned, though it is recognized that long term future expansions may be needed to serve the
area’s growth40. The County also operates one branch location in Stevensville.
Parks
A community’s parks and recreational land resources are best viewed as a system: a system of
parts that can function together to provide a full suite of recreational amenities. There are three
main levels of municipal parkland: Mini Parks; Neighborhood Parks; and Community Parks. A
fourth type, Natural Resource Areas, can also fit into a larger system of recreational assets and
this is certainly the case in Centreville.
39 Queen Anne’s County Public School Educational Facilities Master Plan, July 2021.
4020-year Facilities Master Plan for the Maryland Eastern Shore Libraries, Queen Anne’s County, 2013.
82

Mini-Parks
A mini-park is a small park that
usually addresses specific needs
within less than one-quarter mile
walking distance or serves as a
memorial or other special place with
a town. A mini-park is typically less
than one acre in size and can be
either passive or active.
The Queen Anne’s County
Courthouse Green—the
quintessential courthouse square is
an example. Owned by Queen
Anne’s County, it provides passive amenity open space for residents, employees, and visitors to
downtown. The property includes the historic courthouse building, which was built in 1793. The
other mini-park is Nickerson Park, at 420 N. Commerce Steet along the southern bank of Gravel,
which serves as public memorial space. Another example of a mini-park is the park and
playground at the Renaissance Chase Apartments on Queen Anne’s Circle which is owned and
maintained privately for the residents of that apartment community.
Neighborhood Parks
Neighborhood parks generally serves residents within a distance ¼ to ½ mile, which is
synonymous with a 5 to 10 minute walk. These parks contain active recreational amenities like
ball fields, tennis or basketball courts, and playgrounds. The Town does not own any
neighborhood parks. The Northbrook Phase II Homeowners Associations owns and maintains
open space tracts within that subdivision of which about 4.5 acres are dedicated to recreational
space including a soccer field and playground. The Symphony Village Homeowners also owns
and maintains neighborhood level parkland and open space amenities. The Willows at
Centreville Community along Little Hut Drive also owns and maintains neighborhood level
improved parkland.
83

Community Parks
Community parks are larger than neighborhood parks and serve residents drawn from a larger
area41. Generally, community parks contain multiple fields for team sports and amenities
including courts, walking trails, playgrounds, and picnic pavilions. The Whitemarsh Park located
just north of Town along MD Route 213 is a community park owned by Queen Anne’s County.
The property contains 318 acres. Though not fully improved, it contains multiple athletic fields
and baseball diamonds.
Natural Resource Areas
A fourth type, natural resource areas, are located where natural and sensitive environments exist
and encompass areas that cannot or should not be developed because of their resource value
or development constraints. The principal function of natural resource areas is resource
preservation and allowing human interaction with and connection to the natural environment
through low impact activities such as hiking, beachcombing, swimming, boating, fishing, wildlife
photography, and picnicking.
Mill Stream Park is the Town’s
major natural resource area
park. It encompasses the park
improvements directly
accessible at MD Route 213
and the riverine buffer that
extend westward along Mill
Creek. The Mill Stream Trail
has been constructed through
this area. The town-owned
Centreville Wharf Park (2.4
acres) also qualifies as a
natural resource area and it
lies adjacent to the Centreville
Landing, which is owned by
Queen Anne’s County. In the same vicinity, all but one waterfront property located between
Front Street and the Corsica River has been acquired by the Town or County and improved for
parkland. There is a near continuous park resource extending between Chesterfield Road and
Centreville Wharf Park.
41 A source for more information on the community level parks in Queen Anne’s County, and other parks throughout the County, is
the Land Preservation, Parks, and Recreation Plan (LPPRP) which the County maintains and periodically updates. The County
adopted the current version of the LPPRP in 2018.
84

Lastly it is worth noting that Nickerson Park, while located on N. Commerce street lies adjacent
to Gravel Run being part of a major Town land holding that extends about 800 feet eastward
encompassing the Gravel Run stream buffer. This Town property lies adjacent to the Turpin
Farm which when developed could help create a much larger public greenway.
Summary
Among the park types noted above, the Town is deficient in neighborhood parks and mini-
parks. There are no neighborhood level parks in Town apart from the private HOA-owned parks
in North Brook and Symphony Village. It is important to note that the Town is home to four
public schools whose grounds may hold potential for park programming, which may be
especially beneficial to the residents that live within walking distance of them. Lastly the Town
Planning Commission recently approved development plans for a YMCA at Vincit Dive. While,
the YMCA operates as a private fee-based membership organization, it will be an important
recreational asset to the greater community and include athletic fields.
The Town has developed nature-based recreational resources including the Mill Stream Park
and Centreville Wharf Park and these are significant amenities, unique within Maryland’s
municipalities. The County has developed the boat landing and the White Marsh community
park is located just to the north of the Town. These represents substantial progress on the
Town’s long term objectives of securing recreational assets, greenways, and trails.
Queen Anne’s County Land Preservation, Parks, and Recreational Plan
Queen Anne’s County prepares and updates (every five years) the Queen Anne’s County Land
Preservation, Parks, and Recreational Plan (LPPRP). The LPPRP is required by the State of
Maryland for counties, and the municipalities within them, to remain eligible for local Program
Open Space (POS) grants. POS is a statewide program that funds the acquisition and
improvement of land for parks. In coordination with the County, each year Centreville can
submit land acquisition and development projects for the State’s consideration under the Open
Space Annual Program, which the County submits to the Maryland Departments of Natural
Resources and Planning.
85

Police and Fire Protection
The Town of Centreville operates a municipal police department with 14 sworn officers. The
department is located on a 2.5-acre Town owned lot at 420 N. Commerce Street. The police
building is a two-story structure with approximately 2,800 square feet of floor area.
The Goodwill Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company provides fire protection in Centreville and
within a larger service area in central Queen Anne’s County. The company’s station, constructed
in 1948, is located at 212 Broadway.
A Plan for Community Facilities
Chapter III, Municipal Growth discusses the impacts that planned growth would have on the
local facilities through 2040 and notes that the capacity of municipal sewer facilities will need to
be expanded and the capacity of the high school will need to be thoughtfully tracked over the
next decades. The Town’s basic goal with respect to community facilities is that they be
expanded, maintained, and managed such that they remain sized and equipped to deliver
exceptional service to existing and future, residents, institutions, and businesses.
Objectives
• To upgrade and expand the Town’s public water and sewer systems.
• To ensure the Town’s community facilities are accessible to and provide benefit and
value to all members of the community.
• To develop a system of interconnected parks and open spaces built on a foundation of
natural resource areas with special emphasis on neighborhood parks.
• To ensure that developers contribute to providing and enhancing community facilities
and essential public services at least commensurate with the expected impact of their
proposed projects.
86

Recommendations
Upgrade and Expand Public Water and Wastewater Treatment Capacity
The highest priority for community facilities is modernizing the wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP) and its effluent discharge capacity. This Plan recommends that the plant be expanded
as well as modernized to meet the Town’s development goals. The decision to expand the
WWTP will depend on the availability of funding, and options under current consideration
include replacing the plant at about its same capacity and expanding it to 750,000 gpd, 1.0
million gpd, or 1.25 million gpd. As discussed in Chapter 3, Municipal Growth, a capacity of 1.25
million gpd would be necessary to serve the Town’s forecast growth through 2040.
Extending Municipal Water and Sewerage Services
Chapter 3 of this Plan discusses five tracts of land that have the potential to be converted to
residential use in the future (infill tracts). Generally, there is value in developing lands that are
already adjacent to existing neighborhoods and served by existing roads. However, the intent
of this Comprehensive Plan is not to limit the Town’s development to the private timelines of
the owners of these tracts or even to specifically reserve capacity for them. As a matter of
policy, as opportunities arise to develop the Town in smart and sustainable ways, to achieve
environmental, public health, or economic development benefits, or to obtain contributions to
the expansion and financing of the Town’s infrastructure, Centreville will be open to annexing
land, and extending municipal water and sewer services to properties within Growth Area
irrespective of any residual infill potential within current boundaries. The Town will develop and
maintain a strict allocation policy through 2040 making final allocation commitments only upon
final site plan or final subdivision plat approvals.
Develop A Town Greenway and Park System
Centreville has natural resource related recreational assets and great potential to secure a
system of greenways throughout the Town and Growth Area. However, Centreville lacks
neighborhood parks. This Plan recommends that the Town Council appoint a citizen committee
to study the Town’s recreational needs, develop standards that will shape how parks are
provided and improved overtime including the availability of public schools grounds for
recreation, to assemble a park master plan, and to coordinate with Queen Anne’s County on a
regular basis in the update of the County Land Preservation, Parks, and Recreational Plan.
87

With or without a more detailed study or plan, as discussed throughout this Plan, the Town
aspires to develop a greenway and trail network along with public neighborhood parks in all
future neighborhoods. Figure 17 shows existing parks and the recommended general location
of future greenways and parks. Where greenways are shown on land to be developed, such land
should be dedicated by the developer to the Town as public resources to be preserved in
perpetuity and improved for public recreational and educational purposes and managed for
environmental protection.
GeneralTown Greenway and Park Plan
Nickerson Park
North Brook,
Courthouse Green HOA Mini Park, Existing
Wharf Neighborhood Park
Park
Existing
Approx.
Alignment, Mill Proposed
Stream Park Trail
Natural Resource Area Park
Mill Stream
Park Existing
Proposed
Public School
YMCA
Trails
Existing Trail
Approx. Alignment, Programmed for
Mill Stream ParkTrail, Phase II Construction
Symphony
Village, Planned
HOA
Greenways
FIGURE 17
New residential development projects should include the development, improvement, and
dedication of public parks, open spaces, and trails. This Plan acknowledges that the provision of
exemplary park and open spaces within major infill tracts (see Chapter III, Municipal Growth)
and the Growth Area may reduce the land available to developers for new housing units and
that clustering of houses within the landscape is one way to free up land for parks and open
space. Future neighborhood development in Centreville will favor creative arrangements of
open spaces and neighborhood design that prioritize high accessibility to parks over the run-of-
the-mill platting of lots that maximize the yield of lots. Until such time as the Town adopts
specific regulations, the following standard should stand as the minimum amount of parkland in
new developments: 1,000 square feet of parkland should be provided for each proposed
household in a residential development.
88

This Plan also recommends that the Town coordinate with Queen Anne’s County Public Schools
to program school grounds for recreational purposes especially in areas that lack neighborhood
parks. Centreville Elementary School and Kennard Elementary School are especially accessible
for residents within their respective neighborhoods.
Consider and Adopt Growth Management Tools
This Plan recommends that the Town systematically study, and if found advisable adopt,
regulations such as adequate public facilities ordinances (APFO), impact fees, street, park, and
school ground dedication requirements, and other growth management tools and programs
that could be administered to ensure community facilities are appropriately funded so that their
capacities are retained or expanded. This includes police and fire and emergency medical
services, whose capital facilities and services will need to be expanded as development takes
place to ensure adequate levels of service are maintained. It is the Town’s policy that new
development contribute to maintaining the adequacy and indeed improving community
facilities.
Protecting and Expanding Local Public Schools
While the Queen Anne’s County Board of Education administers the public school system and a
facilities master planning program, the Town of Centreville—home to four public schools--has a
great stake in the outcome of such planning. This Comprehensive Plan recognizes each school
as an essential community asset that contributes to the quality of life and vitality of the Town.
While the Board of Education’s currently published projections show little change in enrollment
through the 2030-31 school year (except for Kennard Elementary), it is vitally important to the
Town that new development is balanced with available capacity. It is also important to the Town
that local children be able to attend schools within the Town’s boundaries. Therefore, the Town
will seek to coordinate with the Board of Education to ensure adequate capacities exist for the
Town’s growth and that excellent schools remain in Centreville.
89

IX. Implementation
Introduction
It can be difficult to implement all the recommendations and achieve all the objectives of a
Comprehensive Plan, but significant progress can be achieved through sensible and practical
actions and a commitment to progress tracking. This chapter recommends adopting changes to
zoning regulations, preparing studies, using a capital improvements program, coordinating with
the State of Maryland and Queen Anne’s County to fund infrastructure and promote the
planned development of the Centreville growth area, and annual reporting by the Planning
Commission.
Plan implementation in Centreville involves coordination with Queen Anne’s County and the
State of Maryland. Queen Anne’s County administers stormwater management review in the
Town. It also administers zoning and subdivision regulations within the Growth Area so it can
play a constructive role in the long-term development of the community. The State of Maryland
is a partner in many initiatives where its interests overlap those of the Town as discussed later in
this chapter.
Zoning and Subdivision Amendments
The Centreville Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations regulate the use and
development of land within Town boundaries. The Zoning Ordinance establishes the purposes
of each zoning district and specific standards such as the maximum allowable building height,
minimum lot size, and the maximum number of dwellings per acre. The Subdivision Regulations
provide standards and procedures for subdividing land into buildable lots and laying out
streets, parks, and other public improvements. Both laws are extremely important and are
amended from time to time following public hearings and deliberations.
The Zoning Ordinance is Chapter 170 of the Town Code. The Subdivision Regulations are set
forth in Chapter 138. Amendments can help align these essential ordinances with the
objectives and recommendations of this Plan. Some amendments ought to be made and
adopted soon after adopting this Plan and some require more time for study, consultation with
the public, and deliberation. Here are the main topic areas to be addressed with the
recommended time frames for study and adoption.
90

Immediate Term Amendments
These are among the main amendments that should be evaluated and adopted soon after
adoption of this Plan.
• Comprehensively amend the Zoning Map to bring it into alignment with the land use
recommendations set forth in this Comprehensive Plan, most notably Map 6, Future
Land Use.
• Create the following two new zoning districts with purposes and standards in accord
with this Plan: Resource Conservation / Open Space District, and Institutional District,
and eliminate the Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) District.
• Overhaul the current Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations by converting the
current floating zone into a set of standards and procedures that establish master
planned complete neighborhoods as the preferred and required approach to
development within residential zoning districts.
• Establish stand-alone multi-family residential buildings as permitted uses within the
Central Business District (CBD).
• Incorporate within the Zoning Ordinance an adequate public facilities ordinance (APFO)
that requires the testing and documentation of the traffic carrying capacity of streets and
intersections, the adequacy of sidewalks, pedestrian routes generally, and bikeways, and
the adequacy of municipal water, sewer, and other facilities and services as a condition
precedent to development plan approval.
• Establish a required public comment period and standards for the Town to follow before
it can issue a permit to demolish any building in the CBD.
• Amend the existing common open space provisions in the Zoning Ordinance to
establish a required minimum amount of open space, a minimum amount of improved
amenity open space, and the provision of park amenities.
• Establish standards for buffers on both sides of streams of at least 100-foot wide for
perennial streams and 50-foot wide for intermittent streams and consider minimum
buffers along existing forests.
• Undertake other amendments that would improve the Zoning Ordinance and support
implementation of this Plan.
91

Longer Term Amendments
These are the amendments that should be evaluated and if found advisable, approved within
about three years of adopting this Comprehensive Plan.
• Amend the subdivision regulations to require the expansion and reservation of broad
riparian buffers and the reservation, improvement, and dedication of planned streets,
open spaces, parks, and school sites as a condition of subdivision approval.
• Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include the protection and preservation of the
Centreville historic district, which is on the National Register of Historic Places42.
• Amend the standards of the Zoning Ordinance that presently make it difficult to provide
compatible and affordable housing options such as duplexes, accessory apartments,
and small senior care homes.
• Adopt architectural, building, and site design guidelines and standards for development
and redevelopment specific to the Central Business District.
• Adopt new standards for public streets as recommended in Chapter VII, Transportation.
• Update regulations including the Critical Area regulations and the Floodplain
Management Ordinance for areas vulnerable to sea level rise.
42 The Centreville Historic District was listed on the United States, National Register of Historic Places on November, 13, 2004. The
National Register of Historic Places is managed by the National Park Service as part of a “national program to coordinate and
support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate and protect America’s historic and archeological resources” (National
Register of Historic Places (www.NPS.gov). The District (Centreville’s downtown) was laid out during the 18th century. The inventory
description of the District and a listing of the structures that contribute to the District’s significance are provided at:
https://mht.maryland.gov/nr/NRDetail.aspx?NRID=1459.
92

Water and Sewer Allocation Program
This Plan recommends that the Town Council adopt, publish, and regularly update allocation
policies for public water and sewer services immediately. As documented in Chapter VIII,
Community Facilities, available water supply capacity only approximates that needed to serve
90 more dwelling units and wastewater treatment capacity only approximates that needed to
serve 144 more dwelling units. It is in the public interest of responsible and effective growth
management, fiscal well-being, and economic development, to establish procedures for (1)
continuously tracking the use of water and sewer services against design and permit capacities
and (2) for requesting and approving allocations.
It is further recommended that the Town also immediately designate and maintain unallocated
emergency reserves of water and sewer capacities in an amount judged sufficient by the Town
Council upon consultation with its consulting engineers and the Maryland Department of the
Environment.
Studies and Specific Plans
The Plan has identified challenges which require further study and coordination with the State
of Maryland and Queen Anne’s County, (and with residents, business owners and other
stakeholders) before specific or detailed recommendations can be made. The most pressing is
the study of wastewater treatment capacity, the design of a new wastewater treatment plant,
and acquisition and outfitting of another spray irrigation field. This study and the plan for
financing necessary upgrades is underway.
Traffic Operational Study
A traffic operation study for the MD Route 213 corridor should be undertaken in coordination
with the State Highway Administration with the purpose of identifying existing and future
problem areas and proposing and funding solutions. The study area ought to include MD Route
213 from the U.S. 301 interchange to the northern municipal limits and the main intersections
along this route. The streets to be studied include Commerce and Liberty Streets and those
that radiate from Downtown such as Broadway, Water Street, Chesterfield Avenue, Kidwell
Avenue, Little Kidwell Avenue, and Turpins Lane. After the initial study, this Plan recommends
that traffic conditions be continuously monitored and traffic counts along key sections and
intersections be periodically updated.
93

Funding Mechanisms
It is advisable that the Town create a five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) which is a
financial planning tool for scheduling infrastructure priorities in line with available and projected
revenues. A CIP matches planned capital projects with required revenue sources, which may
include general obligation bonds, the general fund, and Queen Anne’s County, State, and/or
federal payments. The Town should use its CIP to schedule the improvements recommended in
this Plan and those that flow from supporting studies.
Public sewer service and water supply in Centreville are provided through an enterprise fund,
which means that operations and expansions of capacity are to be financed by new system
users and grants, but not funded through the general fund of Town government. There may be
times when direct County assistance in expanding essential facilities is desirable as the optimal
way to support planned development. This Plan recommends that the Town and County jointly
study and advance strategies to fund needed expansions of water and sewer services. After all,
Centreville is a vital location for planned growth within the overall development framework of
the County.
The Town should continue to work cooperatively with the funding programs administered by
State agencies to implement key priorities. Each of these agencies has a long-term interest in
promoting the harmonious, prosperous, and environmentally sustainable development of
Centreville. As discussed below, this value is illuminated in the State’s overarching blueprint for
economic vitality and environmental stewardship, called “A Better Maryland”.
Interjurisdictional Coordination
Centreville and Queen Anne’s County
Growth Area and General Planning
This Plan counts on Queen Anne’s County’s cooperation with the Town in not allowing
development activities within the Town’s Growth Area, without municipal annexation. The Town
and County share interests in the thoughtful and planned development of Centreville over the
long term. The Town needs to develop infrastructure and support patterns of growth that
preserve future parkland and resource areas, open space corridors for trails, the rights-of-way
for future streets, and opportunities for the efficient provision of emergency services, among
other things. These essential goals can be blocked by uncoordinated and unplanned
development.
94

Queen Anne’s County in turn relies on Centreville to absorb a share of the County’s growth so
that among other things: farming areas are not converted to development or fragmented into
suburban sprawl; domestic wastewater is treated at the wastewater treatment thereby
delivering water quality benefits over the alternative of onsite private septic systems; historic
investments in schools and other facilities are optimized and school bussing costs are
minimized; and County roadways are not burdened by commuting traffic. Development in the
Town’s Growth Area without annexation and Town infrastructure would disrupt implementation
of this Comprehensive Plan. This Plan recommends that the Town and County coordinate on:
• The continual review, update, and implementation of the Queen Anne’s County
Comprehensive Water and Sewer Master Plan.
• Strategies for land preservation in the designated Greenbelt around the Growth Area.
• Preserving and acquiring open spaces for use as spray irrigation fields.
• Town review and comment on land use and development proposals within the Growth
Area, which may necessitate the preparation of a Joint Planning Agreement between
the Town and County.
• County funding assistance for municipal water and sewer facilities and wastewater
treatment plan upgrades.
• County funding assistance and cooperation in the reservation of land for and
construction of planned streets, parks, open spaces, and potential school sites.
This Plan further recommends that the separate Town and County Planning Commissions meet
periodically to review implementation of their respective comprehensive plans and work to
sustain existing and develop new cooperative arrangements.
Queen Anne’s County Land Preservation, Parks, and Recreation Plan
This Plan recommends that the Town participate with Queen Anne’s County in its regular five
year update of the County Land Preservation, Parks, and Recreation Plan. The plan is required
by the State of Maryland for the County, and the towns in the County, to be eligible for local
Program Open Space (POS) grants. POS is a statewide program that funds the purchase and
development of parkland. In coordination with the County, each year Centreville can submit
land acquisition and park development requests for funding consideration under the Open
Space Annual Program which the County submits to the Maryland Departments of Natural
Resources and Planning for approval.
95

Areas of Critical State Concern
The State of Maryland has prepared and adopted a statewide plan, A Better Maryland, which
seeks to support a thriving economy and environmental stewardship throughout Maryland. The
Plan’s highlight is its commitment to collaboration between the State and local governments by
providing resources and tools for implementing long-term plans. To facilitate this collaboration,
the State’s plan advances certain “areas of critical state concern”. The most prominent for
Centreville are shown in Figure 18 on the following page. This Comprehensive Plan
recommends close coordination between the State and the Town.
A Continuing Planning Program
Town planning is a continuous process guided by an adopted comprehensive plan, and the
primary responsibility falls to the Planning Commission. The Centreville Planning Commission
routinely reviews site development plans and subdivision plats, and it has the authority to lead
more detailed studies and plans and advise the Town Council and the citizens of the Town on
changes to zoning and other regulations, annexations, and capital improvements. As part of its
work, the Planning Commission should also conduct a yearly assessment of growth and
development and a progress report about implementation of this Comprehensive Plan as part
of its Annual Report. The Annual Report should then be made available to Town residents,
neighboring jurisdictions, and the State of Maryland.
Conclusion
The Planning Commission understands that the Plan described in this report will not be realized
in the short term or exactly as conceptualized. Our aim is to anticipate the needs of the future
as best we can and encourage growth, development, and conservation toward the greatest
good possible. Departures from this Plan may, from time to time, be suggested; future
information and a wider knowledge may point to better solutions or unforeseen opportunities.
In such cases, it is our intention that such departures be studied and if found justified
considering the Plan’s long term goals, they should be accepted by amending this Plan in the
same way it was adopted. It is our goal that this comprehensive plan update, which is but one
in a long series of Centreville Comprehensive Plans, points the Town in the direction of a
sustainable and prosperous future.
96

Recommendation / Policy Area Maryland Areas of Critical State Concern
Spatially Designated Policy Program Plan
Program
Planning and adaptation for sea level rise, Coastal Community Flood Chesapeake & Coastal MD Hazard Mitigation Plan
flood mitigation, habitat and shoreline Risk Program Service Program, Climate
protection Leadership Academy, MD
Commission on Climate
Change
Updating environmental regulations in flood Chesapeake and Atlantic Chesapeake & Coastal
prone areas Coastal Bays Critical Areas Service Programs
Program, Coastal Community
Food Risk Areas
Protecting water quality and preserving forests Sustainable Communities Chesapeake & Coastal
Program Service Programs
Developing neighborhood parks and Program Open Space - Local
playgrounds and trails
Addressing affordable and senior housing Community Legacy Program Home Ownership and
Affordable Housing (DHCD)
Tourism and related business development, Community Legacy Program Office of Tourism
programming downtown activities Main Street Program Development assistance
programs
Promoting economic development, downtown Community Legacy Program, A Strategic Plan for
revitalization Main Street Program, Arts Accelerating Economic
and Entertainment District Development
Historic preservation, protection of historic Certified Heritage Area Maryland Historic Trust
structures and cultural heritage Program, Stories of the
Chesapeake, National
Register Places and State
designate historic sites
MD Route 213 traffic operational studies State Highway Administration MD Transportation Plan
Traffic Study
Building bikeways and sidewalks MD Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan
Smart streets technologies Chesapeake & Coastal MD Transportation Plan
Service Programs
Note: Sustainable Community Program designation is a prerequisite for eligibility in the Community Legacy Program.
FIGURE 18
* * *
97