Queen Anne’s County adopts temporary moratorium on certain residential and mixed‑use projects tied to sewer allocation

Queen Anne’s County commissioners on Aug. 12 voted to adopt Resolution 25‑12, imposing a temporary moratorium on the application, approval, construction and permitting of residential and mixed‑use projects in specified sewer subdistricts when a project’s anticipated sewage allocation exceeds 1,750 gallons per day.

The moratorium, approved by voice vote and recorded as passing unanimously, applies to projects in the K & S and G service area, Prospect Bay service area, Cloverfield’s Bay City service area and the Southern Kent Island wastewater subdistricts. The text of the resolution says the moratorium is intended to remain in effect while the county reviews and updates the master water and sewer plan, the water and sewer allocation policy, and other related plans, policies and codes.

The resolution includes language intended to exempt “pending projects that have prerequisite sewer and potentially water allocation for their specific development,” but several developers and their attorneys urged clarification during the public‑comment period.

Attorney Joe Stevens, representing Mallard Properties and developer David Azar, told commissioners the resolution as written could halt projects that already have sewer allocation or site plan approval. Stevens said, “section 3 refers to no review of building permits,” and asked the county to revise the language so it would not block projects that already secured sewer allocation or site‑plan approvals. He also asked the board to consider raising the sewage threshold used in the moratorium to avoid unintentionally stopping smaller projects.

Developer Joe Cusimano, who said he is working on a project on Kent Island of fewer than 20 units, asked the board to consider increasing the threshold to 5,000 gallons per day so smaller projects with substantial time and investment would not be delayed. Cusimano said the moratorium as drafted could be “pretty devastating” for applicants who have already invested funds and time.

Commissioners and staff said the intent of the resolution is not to stop permitted or allocated projects. During discussion before the recorded vote, county staff and the board urged any applicant with specific concerns to meet with planning staff to confirm whether their project’s approvals or allocations are protected under the resolution.

Commissioners described the moratorium as a pause to allow staff and the Planning & Zoning Department to reassess the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO), water and sewer allocation policies, and the master water and sewer plan in light of limited sewer capacity and rising education costs tied to growth. The board said the pause is intended to give planners time to review policy and not to permanently prohibit development.

The motion to adopt the resolution was made and seconded by commissioners (mover/second not specified in the record). The board voted by voice; the clerk recorded the outcome as approved (yes: 5, no: 0). The resolution text and staff materials state the moratorium does not apply to projects that already hold the prerequisite sewer or water allocations required for development.

The commissioners directed applicants with questions about how the moratorium affects a specific project to contact county planning staff for clarification. The county indicated it will review and possibly revise the language of the moratorium to address the concerns raised about building‑permit review and sewer allocation.