Development
Costco tries end run around law for Wheaton gas station
The Montgomery County Council passed a law specifically to stop Costco from building a large gas station adjacent to a residential neighborhood in Wheaton. Now, Costco has made another proposal that would simply move it 300 feet to the east.
A gas station is not appropriate for the future Costco site at Westfield Wheaton. Underground gas tanks have a tendency to leak, and the proposed site is adjacent to people swimming at the Kenmont Swim and Tennis Club.
A gas station also contributes to making Wheaton more car-oriented and less walkable, moving it in the wrong direction in the Whirlpool of Induced Demand.
The recently approved Wheaton Sector Plan includes provisions to make Wheaton more walkable. As the surrounding area becomes more vibrant and economically successful, the large Westfield parking lots represent ideal opportunities for urban-formatted housing and amenities right near the Wheaton Metro.
But a new, jumbo-sized Costco gas station would create a large, unwalkable dead zone, add pollution, and bring constant traffic jams, all making redevelopment much more difficult. The Montgomery County DOT will be especially reluctant to design any roads for pedestrians instead of cars with massive numbers of vehicles constantly traveling to and from the gas station.
When the County Council rejected the previous gas station proposal, it passed a bill that bans large gas stations from being within 300 feet of schools or recreation centers. The original bill prohibited gas stations within 1,000 feet of schools or recreation centers, which originally seemed to have the votes to pass until intense lobbying from Costco changed several councilmembers' minds.
Costco's new gas station location proposal is 300 feet to the east of the rejected site.

Top: 2010 proposed Costco gas station location. Bottom: 2012 proposed Costco gas station location. Note that the new location is just to the east of the line that delineates 300 feet to the swimming pool. Diagrams are based on documents from the Kensington Heights Civic Association.
Altering a bad proposal so its location is a few feet to the east doesn't change that it's a bad idea. Costco has also already said that they will open the Wheaton location with or without the large gas station. Montgomery County has already given a $4 million subsidy to Costco. They should respect the spirit of the County Council's decision and drop the gas station rather than cynically trying to exploit a loophole.
Comments
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- Metro policy for refunds after delays falls short, riders say
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
- Prince George's County struggles to get trails right






by Gray on Nov 1, 2012 10:42 am • link • report
My only concern is how well a gas station will work around the mall, as the traffic pattern and parking at the mall is already a major bother. (I almost exclusively drive to the mall, so I'm looking at this as a driver and not a pedestrian.)
by Ben Schumin on Nov 1, 2012 10:52 am • link • report
1. A lot more vehicles going across the sidewalk at the driveway.
2. A more visually unattractive usage than even a parking lot, and generally noisier and less desirable to the olfactory sense.
As someone who actually walks a great deal in suburban locations, I can attest that gas stations tend to be particulary unfriendly to walking.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 1, 2012 10:57 am • link • report
Gas stations impact the air quality of the surrounding area. The below is the only thing I could find quickly but I've looked into this previously and there are multiple sources confirming this issue:
http://news.discovery.com/earth/gas-stations-are-toxic-neighbors.html
Anyone who has ever pumped their own gas downwind of the tank knows the tell-tale smell of fuel. But even from a distance those fumes linger. Researchers in Spain found that gas fumes contaminate the air up to 100 meters, or 328 feet, away with potential health hazards.
Being close to a gas station lowers property values. That's why this otherwise very well located property simply isn't selling. It's $120K below assessed value and doesn't actually need that much rehab but it's next to a gas station:
http://franklymls.com/AR7864642
by Falls Church on Nov 1, 2012 11:14 am • link • report
by Paul on Nov 1, 2012 11:21 am • link • report
by git on Nov 1, 2012 11:33 am • link • report
by Gray on Nov 1, 2012 11:39 am • link • report
by selxic on Nov 1, 2012 11:56 am • link • report
by nicholas.l.casey@gmail.com on Nov 1, 2012 12:07 pm • link • report
I'd argue that adding a Costco right next to a Target has already created that. Opposing the addition of a gas station on the basis of decreased walkabality in this instance seems to provide a very low marginal return.
If this scenario didn't involve a Costco then I might see some merit to opposing the gas station. But Costco is about as auto-centric as retail store can get.
by Fitz on Nov 1, 2012 12:19 pm • link • report
by dcseain on Nov 1, 2012 12:22 pm • link • report
I'm going out on a limb and suggesting that this scenario is really, really an anomaly.
by HogWash on Nov 1, 2012 12:26 pm • link • report
by Danila on Nov 1, 2012 12:28 pm • link • report
by selxic on Nov 1, 2012 12:28 pm • link • report
Now, if your point is just that there shouldn't be a Target and Costco with tons of parking in this location, I won't argue there. However, given that we have chosen to build decidedly non-transit-oriented, parking-centric big box stores here, I fail to see how the site changes with the addition of a gas station.
by Gray on Nov 1, 2012 12:35 pm • link • report
by Webmaster on Nov 1, 2012 12:36 pm • link • report
by Crickey7 on Nov 1, 2012 12:58 pm • link • report
by aaa on Nov 1, 2012 12:58 pm • link • report
by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 1, 2012 1:13 pm • link • report
by Gull on Nov 1, 2012 1:18 pm • link • report
I used to live not too far from this mall. People do walk around Wheaton. No one walked in this part of the Mall, however, other than to and from their cars.
by Crickey7 on Nov 1, 2012 1:18 pm • link • report
That's a big leap. I don't think anyone has ever thought to himself, "My, now that there's a conveniently-located gas station in my neighborhood, I will buy a car!" Likewise, I doubt people will drive more, or that more people with cars will relocate to be near the gas station.
by MJ on Nov 1, 2012 1:18 pm • link • report
by Karen on Nov 1, 2012 1:21 pm • link • report
I would worry, long-term, about leakage (but doubt it would affect the pool unless it has a really serious leakage problem of its own) but the other arguments here aren't very convincing. I visit the mall from time to time and usually come from Metro. The back section of the mall lot where this is being built isn't very walkable. In general, the circulation of cars and people are pretty awkward and this won't lead to much a net change in that. I've used Costco gas stations in a variety of locations and the volume seems lass than overwhelming. Most likely nearby stations will lower their prices in competition which will limit the impact.
Yes it's an end run and if you're going to fight it I'd stick with that.
by Rich on Nov 1, 2012 1:46 pm • link • report
The gorilla in the room is that politicians need to show they are trying to provide jobs, hence the aforesaid stupid decisions, b/c Ike and Co. need the votes more than they actually care about Wheaton.
Full disclosure: I say all of this as a proud Costco shareholder who does not believe that Costco should be anywhere near a Metro station. Costco has its place in the car-dependent, ex-burbs, which is where Wheaton is heading with more mall development.
by TC on Nov 1, 2012 1:59 pm • link • report
If Cosco delivers more gallons per pump than other gas stations, does that mean that there will be two fewer gas stations in MoCo because of this gas station? Are those two gas stations better or worse candidates for walkability?
New Jersey has no-idling zones by its gas stations. Does MoCo need such an ordinance?
by Jim Titus on Nov 1, 2012 2:01 pm • link • report
Interesting thought on why that house in Arlington isn't selling. My guess is that it is at the intersection of 29 and Military, and is fairly overpriced for only being 815 sq feet. My older brother just bought a 1200 sq foot condo a half mile from here and is paying $320,000.
Huge lot on the example you gave though. Seems like a fairly good starter home if you can swing the down payment. I agree though, if it was another block up Quebec, it would have sold already, mostly because it is further from 29, but somewhat because it is further from the gas station is certainly possible.
by Kyle-W on Nov 1, 2012 2:02 pm • link • report
The cas station here seems like a pretty small part of a non-walkable commercial area. And there's no evidence that a Costco gas station is any different from other gas stations in terms of pollution and other negative effects. The tone of this blog post is irrationally anti-car.
by Potowmack on Nov 1, 2012 2:06 pm • link • report
Last comment, on Redfin, the agent there called it a teardown (I agree, because of the lot size) but if you are going to bay $450,000 to buy a lot, and still have to tear down the house, may as well buy that lot a touch further from busy streets, and from gas stations as well, so your point is definitely taken.
by Kyle-W on Nov 1, 2012 2:07 pm • link • report
by selxic on Nov 1, 2012 2:16 pm • link • report
leaving aside the question of whether nonurban areas are more livable with big box retail or not, given the finite number of metrorail stations we have (or realistically will have) in the region, and that many of the areas close to them have legacy single family housing (sometimes historic)that realistically will never be redeveloped, it seems quite reasonable to me to shoot for walkable urbanism in every area within 1/2 mile of a metro station that is not already precluded by something else.
Now it may be that the location of this gas station relative to this costco makes walkability meaningless as long as this costco is there (they needn't last forever - ArlCo certainly has its eye on the one at Pentagon City) - in which case the arg against is all about idling cars and disabled kids, not walkability.
But I am still befuddled that "urbanism can't be everywhere" applies to metro station areas.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 1, 2012 2:20 pm • link • report
As long as Costco remains at this location (which they will continue to do so long as the store remains sufficiently profitable) this argument is purely academic. The effects of this gas station on the urbanism and walkability of this area are a drop in the bucket when compared to the general effects of a giant big box store surrounded by acres of parking.
This gas station isn't going to entice more people to drive- it will just meet the needs of existing drivers. And unless there is evidence that Costco is violating environmental or other laws by building this station, the arguments seem to come down to pure personal preference and aesthetics. As for the claim that Costco gas stations somehow lead to long lines of idling vehicles, that hasn't been borne out by my experiences at Costco gas stations around the country. The stations aren't open to the general public, but rather draw from the much smaller pool of Costco members. The large majority of customers of Costco gas stations are likely drawn from people who were coming to the store anyway. The overall effect on traffic is likely minimal.
by Potowmack on Nov 1, 2012 2:36 pm • link • report
I'm glad someone else pointed this out. Along those lines,
rather than cynically trying to exploit a loophole.
This is neither an end run or a loophole. I looked at the title of this post, and thought I'd discover that Costco engages in some sub rosa, nefarious trickery to get a gas station.
But then I come to find that the original bill prohibited gas stations within 1000 feet of schools; Costco successfully lobbied to have it changed to 300 feet; the 300 foot prohibition passed; and - surprise, surprise - Costco changed the location of the gas station to 300 feet away from the school. Not only was this completely predictable, but it was entirely above board.
They should respect the spirit of the County Council's decision
Good grief. I suppose what this means is, "Even though we lobbied the council to change the proposed law so we can still have a gas station, we know they don't *really* want one, so . . . never mind, despite that our new proposal is in perfect harmony with the law that was actuallypassed." What nonsense.
by dcd on Nov 1, 2012 2:42 pm • link • report
by kk on Nov 1, 2012 2:42 pm • link • report
"It's unrealistic to expect every area to be a walkable, urban environment. "
Well call my point academic if you wish, I think its important. As I said, this particular spot may stay as long as Costco does (which will not be as long as its profitable, but only as long as its profit exceeds the opporunity cost of the land its on) As I said, opposing this gas station now on grounds of walkability may not make sense (I cannot speak to the issue of the school nearby the impact on it of emissions). But I think as a general principle of planning we should be looking for dense walkable urbanism at all our existing metro stations. The life cycle of a big box retail location need not be long. The big box center at Potomac yards already has definite plans for redevelopment, and its about 25 years old (?). Im not sure how old the Pentagon City Costco and its adjacent center is - its days too are numbered. Big Box can make a placeholder for walkable urbanism - MoCo should definitely be planning on the succession for this site, and making sure (I am not talking about the gas station here) its not doing anything to foreclose WUP options.
We cannot afford thinking that in the name of realistically saying walkable urbanism is not possible everywhere, would rule it out in places close to metro stations.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 1, 2012 2:57 pm • link • report
by Crickey7 on Nov 1, 2012 3:01 pm • link • report
by AWalkerInTheCity on Nov 1, 2012 3:13 pm • link • report
by Cavan on Nov 1, 2012 3:19 pm • link • report
by Jim Titus on Nov 1, 2012 3:31 pm • link • report
The inclusion of this gas station, or not, will have zero inpact on teh urban fabric of Wheaton. The Mall isn;t going anywhere, and it's a huge thing in between this station and the Metro. To the extent there is any impact on pedestrian activities, it would be due to overall increase in auto traffic. I'd say that increase compared to the Mall traffic generally is unlikely to be significant, and in any event it will be cannibalizing sales from other stations nearby, meaning little or no net growth in auto traffic. If anything, diverting cars from entering and exitign gas stations on the major roads nearby would do more to increase walkability in Wheaton.
by Crickey7 on Nov 1, 2012 3:45 pm • link • report
Interesting that the agent at Redfin called it a teardown. I wouldn't have thought so as it's more common to rehab properties in historic districts since tearing down is very difficult with the permitting.
The rehab market is dynamite in N. Arlington, so I still suspect that being next to a gas station is a pretty big ding against that property. What's the point of a big lot if your kids can't play in it because of fumes from the gas station next door?
Also, to others re:Costco, while the research indicates that air quality is impacted in a 300 feet radius from gas stations, that's for normal gas stations. I would think the radius of impact for a mega station with many cars idling in line would be much bigger. Putting in a mega gas station next to a residential neighborhood is a big gamble with their property values with comparatively little upside. Think of a fueling station as a light industrial use rather than a normal commercial use.
by Falls Church on Nov 1, 2012 4:10 pm • link • report
The parking lot in question is a five to ten mintue walk from the western entrance to the Metro, depending on how fast you walk and what route you take. That is certainly close by any standard of mobility.
by Cavan on Nov 1, 2012 4:23 pm • link • report
by selxic on Nov 1, 2012 6:15 pm • link • report
I find it contradictory for opponents of the gas station to argue that there are already plenty of choices available in the surrounding area, and yet with Costco it will become the busiest gas station in the region. Which scenario is it?
If there are plenty of competitive choices already available, then the Costco gas station should not become disastrously crowded and polluted. If the opposite happens and the Costco is overwhelmed, then the lack of affordable gas (and stores) in the County is quite legitimate.
I support more density in Wheaton, but the mall is an important economic engine for the area. If BP/Exxon/Shell cannot adequately compete, then their parcels should be redeveloped for the better.
by Wheaton Resident on Nov 1, 2012 6:30 pm • link • report
by LindaS on Nov 1, 2012 6:33 pm • link • report
Unless we plan to rebuild the mall from scratch, the big box stores are here to stay (as long as the demand exists). The vision should be more focused on areas north and south of the Metro station for further redevelopment.
by Wheaton Resident on Nov 1, 2012 8:22 pm • link • report
by Think A Little on Nov 1, 2012 11:02 pm • link • report
by Ed from Montgomery on Nov 3, 2012 7:54 pm • link • report
by MaryK on Nov 4, 2012 7:37 pm • link • report
by Carlos on Dec 27, 2012 4:26 pm • link • report
Add a Comment