A recent story in the New York Times about the failed Christmas Day attempt to blow up an airliner got me thinking. The story indicated that the bomber's access to the flight was due to a series of failures in the system that is supposed to protect us from events just like this.
In fact, the bomber was actually subdued by a passenger. Not by any agent or security official. This is a perfect example of how citizens often have to step forward and take action when the agencies responsible for protecting us fail to do their job.
Ironically, the same passenger who subdued the would-be bomber was hailed as a hero.
Why isn't the same standard applied when a citizen environmental whistle blower points out that a factory, a farm, or a developer is polluting our water?
Oh sure, the results of an airplane bomb are much more spectacular. Three hundred people die in a fiery crash. CNN has news fodder for days. Wolf Blitzer brings in a sleeping bag and camps out in the 'situation room.' Fox News commentators positively squeal with glee as they report how the Obama administration is responsible for the deaths of these god-fearing Americans.
So what happens when a polluter increases nutrient levels or bacteria levels to our waterways, in numbers that are dangerous to the public health?
A physteria bloom, temporary perhaps; fishing and recreation closures; commercial fisheries shut down; hotels and motels suffer a loss of business for years to come. Fisheries are possibly damaged for years to come. And it's conceivable the drinking water for communities along the waterway will be affected.
Twenty five years ago, the Chesapeake Bay was screaming out for help. It was dying. Legislative programs were put in place to rectify the problem. In those twenty + years the health of the Bay has actually declined. All these good intentions went to waste simply because the agencies charged with enforcing the laws which would improve the Bay's health have not been doing their job any better than the TSA screeners for Northwest Flight 253.
In effect, I would be out of a job as a Waterkeeper if the agencies charged with enforcing the laws that would protect our waterways had been doing their job all along.
I have to tell you, it doesn't look like I'll be retiring anytime soon.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Poop is Poop - No Discharges!
Astonishing Admission by Perdue Follows December 17th Notice of Intent to Sue Perdue, Hudson Farm in Berlin, MD.; Fecal Coliform Level “Hundreds” of Times EPA-Permitted Level for Treated Human Sewage Deepen Concerns About Threat to Maryland Waterways and Human Health.
We are appalled to learn from Perdue’s public statements that it now admits importing human sewage into the Alan and Kristin Hudson Farm – a chicken factory farm located in Berlin, MD. Our initial assumption was that the only manure problem polluting Maryland waterways and endangering human health at the facility was related to chickens. It now appears that the ‘off the charts’ readings we detected for fecal coliform likely are also related to the human waste that Perdue has acknowledged is being shipped into the site and stored in an unsafe manner.
If Perdue and Hudson try to claim that human sewage trucked into the farm is a safe Class A biosolid, then they need to explain why we found fecal coliform levels at 100-200 times what the EPA allows for Class A biosolids. The levels we detected are comparable to what you would find in a pit of raw, untreated sewage still in liquid form.
It is mind boggling to us that a Maryland farm would be viewed by anyone as an appropriate dumping site for human sewage in any form. This is particularly true when the same farm is already the site of what appears to be an out-of-control situation with animal waste. This seems like the very definition of making an already bad situation worse, with Maryland’s waterways and residents paying the price at the expense of their health.
Unfortunately, what we’re seeing with Hudson Farm – piles of uncovered waste sitting in open fields, alongside drainage ditches that carry pollution to the area’s streams and rivers, and eventually to the Bay – is commonplace throughout the Eastern Shore. Until this industry takes responsibility for its waste, and state environmental agencies get serious about protecting our waterways, no amount of taxpayer money, ongoing study or well-intentioned legislation is going to fix the Bay’s problems.
BACKGROUND
The Hudson Farm and Perdue Farms, Inc., were the recipients on December 17, 2009 of a notice of intent to file suit for violations of the Clean Water Act at the Eastern Shore facility consisting of an 80,000-bird Concentrated Animal Feed Operation (CAFO). The factory farm is is owned by Alan Hudson, a contract grower for Perdue Farms.
The legal action against Hudson Farm and Perdue was the culmination of several years of intense scrutiny of the Maryland CAFO industry for its contribution to the ongoing decline in health of the state’s local waters. The results of recent water sampling from ditches that ran past an extensive, uncovered waste pile on the property show high levels of many toxic pollutants, including fecal coliform, phosphorus and nitrogen.
In addition, photographic evidence taken from both the ground and the air over the past few months clearly shows the runoff from the manure pile to the surrounding ditch drainage areas. The facility discharges pollution into the Franklin Branch of the Pocomoke River, which then empties into Chesapeake Bay. Both the Pocomoke and the Bay have been listed as impaired for nutrients under the Clean Water Act.
Corporate-owned, large-scale factory farm facilities in Maryland and other states nationwide produce a significant amount of waste, including manure and slaughter byproduct. This year, Maryland’s Department of the Environment finalized a state Maryland Animal Feed Operation, or MAFO, permit for some of these facilities which allow for piles of manure to sit in open fields for up to 90 days. The federal CAFO permit that Hudson Farm applied for by filing a Notice of Intent with MDE allows for stockpiling of manure for a 14-day period.
Under either the federal and state permitting system, however, discharges from manure piles are illegal. As a result of inevitable discharges from manure stockpiling, these growing operations continue to pollute drinking and recreational water supplies by fouling rivers, lakes, streams and underground aquifers with untreated livestock manure.
You can read more here, and see photos.
We are appalled to learn from Perdue’s public statements that it now admits importing human sewage into the Alan and Kristin Hudson Farm – a chicken factory farm located in Berlin, MD. Our initial assumption was that the only manure problem polluting Maryland waterways and endangering human health at the facility was related to chickens. It now appears that the ‘off the charts’ readings we detected for fecal coliform likely are also related to the human waste that Perdue has acknowledged is being shipped into the site and stored in an unsafe manner.
If Perdue and Hudson try to claim that human sewage trucked into the farm is a safe Class A biosolid, then they need to explain why we found fecal coliform levels at 100-200 times what the EPA allows for Class A biosolids. The levels we detected are comparable to what you would find in a pit of raw, untreated sewage still in liquid form.
It is mind boggling to us that a Maryland farm would be viewed by anyone as an appropriate dumping site for human sewage in any form. This is particularly true when the same farm is already the site of what appears to be an out-of-control situation with animal waste. This seems like the very definition of making an already bad situation worse, with Maryland’s waterways and residents paying the price at the expense of their health.
Unfortunately, what we’re seeing with Hudson Farm – piles of uncovered waste sitting in open fields, alongside drainage ditches that carry pollution to the area’s streams and rivers, and eventually to the Bay – is commonplace throughout the Eastern Shore. Until this industry takes responsibility for its waste, and state environmental agencies get serious about protecting our waterways, no amount of taxpayer money, ongoing study or well-intentioned legislation is going to fix the Bay’s problems.
BACKGROUND
The Hudson Farm and Perdue Farms, Inc., were the recipients on December 17, 2009 of a notice of intent to file suit for violations of the Clean Water Act at the Eastern Shore facility consisting of an 80,000-bird Concentrated Animal Feed Operation (CAFO). The factory farm is is owned by Alan Hudson, a contract grower for Perdue Farms.
The legal action against Hudson Farm and Perdue was the culmination of several years of intense scrutiny of the Maryland CAFO industry for its contribution to the ongoing decline in health of the state’s local waters. The results of recent water sampling from ditches that ran past an extensive, uncovered waste pile on the property show high levels of many toxic pollutants, including fecal coliform, phosphorus and nitrogen.
In addition, photographic evidence taken from both the ground and the air over the past few months clearly shows the runoff from the manure pile to the surrounding ditch drainage areas. The facility discharges pollution into the Franklin Branch of the Pocomoke River, which then empties into Chesapeake Bay. Both the Pocomoke and the Bay have been listed as impaired for nutrients under the Clean Water Act.
Corporate-owned, large-scale factory farm facilities in Maryland and other states nationwide produce a significant amount of waste, including manure and slaughter byproduct. This year, Maryland’s Department of the Environment finalized a state Maryland Animal Feed Operation, or MAFO, permit for some of these facilities which allow for piles of manure to sit in open fields for up to 90 days. The federal CAFO permit that Hudson Farm applied for by filing a Notice of Intent with MDE allows for stockpiling of manure for a 14-day period.
Under either the federal and state permitting system, however, discharges from manure piles are illegal. As a result of inevitable discharges from manure stockpiling, these growing operations continue to pollute drinking and recreational water supplies by fouling rivers, lakes, streams and underground aquifers with untreated livestock manure.
You can read more here, and see photos.
Monday, December 7, 2009
No Money? No Excuse to Pollute!
Voice of America recently launched a five part series on their website about the state of the Chesapeake Bay. Their reporter, Rosanne Skirble, assigned to cover the recent Obama Executive Order to get the Bay cleaned up.
The full report is interesting to watch, but what caught my attention was the part about municipal wastewater and our waterways.
In her special report segment on urban pollution, Snow Hill, MD Mayor Stephen Matthews talked about the problems with the town’s ancient combined sewer/stormwater wastewater treatment plant and admitted to Skirble and the entire world that every time it rains hard in Snow Hill they have no choice but to open the ‘flood gates’ and let raw, untreated sewage flow into the Pocomoke River.
If this horrifies you, welcome to the club. This is something we’ve been aware of for quite some time and now it’s time for more people to know.
Human waste, unlike farm animal waste, by law must be treated before it can be discharged into our waterways or applied to the land. This law also requires that those who do the discharging or application must have a federal permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program under the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA.)
In Maryland, this federal program is administered by the Maryland Department of the Environment. Twenty years ago MDE entered into an agreement with the EPA to issue/renew the permits in Maryland, inspect the permit holder facilities, and enforce any violations of the permit through fines or legal actions.
But if you read between the lines of this VOA report, you quickly realize that Maryland has done little to force Snow Hill or Worcester County to stop polluting the Pocomoke River.
You'll especially like the part where Skirble & Matthews reveal a little known secret about the Snow Hill treatment plant - Worcester County actually pays Snow Hill tens of thousands of dollars a year to 'treat' waste runoff water that accumulates at the County land fill - a watery goo of landfill toxins and heavy metals that the Snow Hill wastewater treatment plant does not have the capacity to treat or filter, so it all goes into the river.
And where is MDE in all of this? The NPDES wastewater permit the State has issued to Snow Hill is expired. The State has given the County/Town extensions so the plant can continue to operate. The NPDES wastewater permit issued by the State does not cover the pollutants coming from the landfill waste.
This is one of the many reasons Waterkeepers Chesapeake, today December 7, is asking the EPA to look into Maryland's failure to adequately oversee the permitting program entrusted to it by EPA.
Read more about Waterkeepers' 58 page Citizen De-Delegation Petition, which outlines hundreds of examples of poor oversight by MDE, on the Assateague Coastal Trust website....http://www.actforbays.org/
The full report is interesting to watch, but what caught my attention was the part about municipal wastewater and our waterways.
In her special report segment on urban pollution, Snow Hill, MD Mayor Stephen Matthews talked about the problems with the town’s ancient combined sewer/stormwater wastewater treatment plant and admitted to Skirble and the entire world that every time it rains hard in Snow Hill they have no choice but to open the ‘flood gates’ and let raw, untreated sewage flow into the Pocomoke River.
If this horrifies you, welcome to the club. This is something we’ve been aware of for quite some time and now it’s time for more people to know.
Human waste, unlike farm animal waste, by law must be treated before it can be discharged into our waterways or applied to the land. This law also requires that those who do the discharging or application must have a federal permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program under the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA.)
In Maryland, this federal program is administered by the Maryland Department of the Environment. Twenty years ago MDE entered into an agreement with the EPA to issue/renew the permits in Maryland, inspect the permit holder facilities, and enforce any violations of the permit through fines or legal actions.
But if you read between the lines of this VOA report, you quickly realize that Maryland has done little to force Snow Hill or Worcester County to stop polluting the Pocomoke River.
You'll especially like the part where Skirble & Matthews reveal a little known secret about the Snow Hill treatment plant - Worcester County actually pays Snow Hill tens of thousands of dollars a year to 'treat' waste runoff water that accumulates at the County land fill - a watery goo of landfill toxins and heavy metals that the Snow Hill wastewater treatment plant does not have the capacity to treat or filter, so it all goes into the river.
And where is MDE in all of this? The NPDES wastewater permit the State has issued to Snow Hill is expired. The State has given the County/Town extensions so the plant can continue to operate. The NPDES wastewater permit issued by the State does not cover the pollutants coming from the landfill waste.
This is one of the many reasons Waterkeepers Chesapeake, today December 7, is asking the EPA to look into Maryland's failure to adequately oversee the permitting program entrusted to it by EPA.
Read more about Waterkeepers' 58 page Citizen De-Delegation Petition, which outlines hundreds of examples of poor oversight by MDE, on the Assateague Coastal Trust website....http://www.actforbays.org/
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Chickens or.............
A recent Opinion Editorial in The Daily Times (Nov. 6) bemoaned the fact that the EPA may be unfairly targeting the poultry industry on the Eastern Shore as it begins to finally do its job and regulate pollution sources to the Chesapeake Bay.
You can read the entire OpEd here
A paragraph or two in the editorial piece bothered me:
"The bay needs to be protected. The question is whether Maryland's poultry growers will able to meet the new restrictions and remain competitive with farms across the country."
"While the bay more than merits our concern, we must also not lose sight of the impact of poultry operations on Maryland's economy, particularly on the Lower Shore. If there were no longer a viable poultry industry, the impact would strike far beyond the loss of growers and processing plants."
The editorial piece ended by stating, "The EPA and the state must be prepared to offer whatever assistance growers require to enable them to comply with the new restrictions and remain economically viable."
The EPA is going to regulate the larger CAFO (confined animal feeding operations) facilities in Maryland and require a tighter control on the amount of water discharges from these operations through more stringent permitting, monitoring, and reporting.
The editorial was implying that if the EPA further regulates the industry in Maryland it may over-regulate them out of business.
I felt compelled to post a comment to their on-line editorial. It was posted 11/11/2009 at 10:55:44 AM. Interestingly, I just noticed tonight that my comment is no longer posted, while five other comments still remain on The Daily Times website editorial page.
What I wrote was that it is irresponsible to put this in an 'either-or' context. Wastewater is wastewater, whether it comes from humans, manufacturing, or chickens. Stormwater run-off is stormwater run-off, whether it comes from poultry operations or urban development.
Should we say our county taxes are too high and we should not have to pay for the permits, inspections and enforcement of our wastewater treatment facilities? Let's dump raw human sewage straight into our creeks, rivers and bays because it is simpler, cheaper and less time-consuming? (Gee, that is exactly what USED to happen before this country drafted federal pollution laws!)
Like it or not, the poultry industry on the Eastern Shore is just that - an industry. These corporations are just the same as if they were producing automobiles, furniture, clothing, or paint.
The difference in the state of Maryland is that the poultry corporations are allowed to pass off the cost of environmental pollution on to the backs of the contracted growers who work for them, and on to the communities that surround these industrial facilities.
It is time the State of Maryland requires the corporations that own the chickens to accept responsibility for the waste these chickens produce, and share that responsibility with the growers who contract to work for them.
The industry's excuse that the chicken poop is a valuable commodity to the grower (it's used by the grower to fertilize his own crop fields or sold to another row crop farmer) can no longer be allowed to excuse them from accepting responsibility for the waste.
The fact is, larger and larger facilities are popping up all over the Eastern Shore. They are quickly replacing the small long narrow chicken houses you remember from your drives down Rt. 113. Every time I see a Perdue tractor trailer go down Rt. 113 with the pretty little farm house depicted on the side I have to laugh.
In reality, your chicken dinner is being grown in shiny silver 20,000 - 30,000 square foot buildings, usually 6 - 12 together, and in one case as many as 26 at one facility. These larger buildings can house up to 25,000 birds at one time, and sometimes five flocks can be cycled through in a year.
Here in Worcester County, despite some officials who claim the county's zoning laws will not allow such large CAFOs to be built, we are seeing a dramatic increase in these larger production facilities.
From Berlin, drive out Rt. 374 towards Powellville and just before you get to the little bridge over the Pocomoke River take a look to your right. What was once a scenic little farm (my artist friend painted the scene one year when the crop fields were golden yellow and the sun lit up the classic red barn,) is now a row of alien looking giant silver poultry houses. Where's that idyllic Perdue 'family farm' now??
Or take a back road tour down to Five Bridges Road in lower Worcester County, across the road from Dividing Creek. This huge facility will produce somewhere around a quarter of a million birds, tons of manure, and nearly half a million pounds of nitrates from the ammonia emissions coming out of those buildings.
So this brings us back to the EPA permitting and regulations. Where once there were crop fields, forest and upland wetlands to capture the rain water and infiltrate it back into the ground before it reached Dividing Creek, now we have thousands and thousands of square feet of hardened surface. Roof tops, cement pads, outbuildings, driveways. Stormwater run-off from these surfaces picks up whatever pollutants are on the ground of these facilities and carries it off to the nearest stream.
Manure that is loaded with e.Coli and coliform bacteria, nitrogen, phosphorous, arsenic, other heavy metals - not to mention the pharmaceuticals that are used to keep 25,000 closely confined animals living.
Until the politicians and agency heads in this state develop the political will to require the poultry corporations to accept responsibility for the waste their industry is producing, then the EPA will have to come in and do it for them. And in this state, that puts the burden on the contracted grower (the family farmer.)
You can read the entire OpEd here
A paragraph or two in the editorial piece bothered me:
"The bay needs to be protected. The question is whether Maryland's poultry growers will able to meet the new restrictions and remain competitive with farms across the country."
"While the bay more than merits our concern, we must also not lose sight of the impact of poultry operations on Maryland's economy, particularly on the Lower Shore. If there were no longer a viable poultry industry, the impact would strike far beyond the loss of growers and processing plants."
The editorial piece ended by stating, "The EPA and the state must be prepared to offer whatever assistance growers require to enable them to comply with the new restrictions and remain economically viable."
The EPA is going to regulate the larger CAFO (confined animal feeding operations) facilities in Maryland and require a tighter control on the amount of water discharges from these operations through more stringent permitting, monitoring, and reporting.
The editorial was implying that if the EPA further regulates the industry in Maryland it may over-regulate them out of business.
I felt compelled to post a comment to their on-line editorial. It was posted 11/11/2009 at 10:55:44 AM. Interestingly, I just noticed tonight that my comment is no longer posted, while five other comments still remain on The Daily Times website editorial page.
What I wrote was that it is irresponsible to put this in an 'either-or' context. Wastewater is wastewater, whether it comes from humans, manufacturing, or chickens. Stormwater run-off is stormwater run-off, whether it comes from poultry operations or urban development.
Should we say our county taxes are too high and we should not have to pay for the permits, inspections and enforcement of our wastewater treatment facilities? Let's dump raw human sewage straight into our creeks, rivers and bays because it is simpler, cheaper and less time-consuming? (Gee, that is exactly what USED to happen before this country drafted federal pollution laws!)
Like it or not, the poultry industry on the Eastern Shore is just that - an industry. These corporations are just the same as if they were producing automobiles, furniture, clothing, or paint.
The difference in the state of Maryland is that the poultry corporations are allowed to pass off the cost of environmental pollution on to the backs of the contracted growers who work for them, and on to the communities that surround these industrial facilities.
A great little video from The Sierra Club - fun to watch even though it's a bit dated.
The industry's excuse that the chicken poop is a valuable commodity to the grower (it's used by the grower to fertilize his own crop fields or sold to another row crop farmer) can no longer be allowed to excuse them from accepting responsibility for the waste.
The fact is, larger and larger facilities are popping up all over the Eastern Shore. They are quickly replacing the small long narrow chicken houses you remember from your drives down Rt. 113. Every time I see a Perdue tractor trailer go down Rt. 113 with the pretty little farm house depicted on the side I have to laugh.
In reality, your chicken dinner is being grown in shiny silver 20,000 - 30,000 square foot buildings, usually 6 - 12 together, and in one case as many as 26 at one facility. These larger buildings can house up to 25,000 birds at one time, and sometimes five flocks can be cycled through in a year.
Mountaire CAFO in Somerset County - 26 30,000 square foot buildings
Here in Worcester County, despite some officials who claim the county's zoning laws will not allow such large CAFOs to be built, we are seeing a dramatic increase in these larger production facilities.
From Berlin, drive out Rt. 374 towards Powellville and just before you get to the little bridge over the Pocomoke River take a look to your right. What was once a scenic little farm (my artist friend painted the scene one year when the crop fields were golden yellow and the sun lit up the classic red barn,) is now a row of alien looking giant silver poultry houses. Where's that idyllic Perdue 'family farm' now??
Or take a back road tour down to Five Bridges Road in lower Worcester County, across the road from Dividing Creek. This huge facility will produce somewhere around a quarter of a million birds, tons of manure, and nearly half a million pounds of nitrates from the ammonia emissions coming out of those buildings.
So this brings us back to the EPA permitting and regulations. Where once there were crop fields, forest and upland wetlands to capture the rain water and infiltrate it back into the ground before it reached Dividing Creek, now we have thousands and thousands of square feet of hardened surface. Roof tops, cement pads, outbuildings, driveways. Stormwater run-off from these surfaces picks up whatever pollutants are on the ground of these facilities and carries it off to the nearest stream.
Manure that is loaded with e.Coli and coliform bacteria, nitrogen, phosphorous, arsenic, other heavy metals - not to mention the pharmaceuticals that are used to keep 25,000 closely confined animals living.
Until the politicians and agency heads in this state develop the political will to require the poultry corporations to accept responsibility for the waste their industry is producing, then the EPA will have to come in and do it for them. And in this state, that puts the burden on the contracted grower (the family farmer.)
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Worcester now, and in the future....
This is a beautiful view of the area around Bishopville Prong. Unfortunately this area was upzoned to rural residential which will allow slightly denser growth, all on septic, outside of the Comp. Plan's recommended growth areas.
Let's hope the county enforces use of 'best technology' septic systems, strong stormwater management, and critical area protections so our waterways will not be severely impacted.
Critical Area buffers like these help to protect the quality of our water. When these buffers are illegally cleared we need county compliance staff to not only require mitigation but to assess fines, follow up and make certain the buffer is replanted.
This proposed development in Public Landing (below) illegally cleared several hundred yards of protective buffer along Paw Paw Creek. The developer was issued a warning, a 'gentleman's agreement' was reached in which he would replant the shoreline and no fines were issued. According to County officials, the developer was required to mitigate by planting a substantial new buffer of trees and shrubs, which has been done. According to this official, the new plants are thriving. I still continue to respectfully disagree with the County on this approach. Had the County issued a hefty fine AND a firm mandate for mitigation, other developers would not be so quick to strip a shoreline in order to open up water views and hasten the sale of their property. And our waterways would benefit by not losing mature trees and shrubs, only to be replaced with young plants that won't afford the same protections for many years.
Clean Water is what brings us all to Worcester County. Healthy water provides safe habitat for fish, crabs, wildlife. Healthy water provides recreational opportunities. Healthy water keeps our families healthy. Let's continue to work together to keep Worcester County a healthy place to live, work and recreate!
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
3.5 Years to Adopt a Zoning Plan
Nearly four years after the Worcester County Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2006 by the County Commissioners, its implementation has finally been voted upon...well, sort of.
While missing the mark on many aspects of the Comprehensive Plan, (and thus these award winning concepts such as TDRs, Impact fees, alternative energy initiatives, and protection of flood plains from development were not implemented) the County's new zoning code and zoning map was approved on November 3, 2009.
With very few changes to the text of the Zoning Code, and one or two strange (?) changes to the Comprehensive Zoning Maps – the Worcester County Commissioners, in spite of themselves, voted unanimously to adopt the new zoning ordinance. Cowger was the lone dissenting vote to approve the Zoning Maps.
Assateague Coastal Trust's efforts to strengthen the language in the code for protection of our waterways and our natural resources remained as suggested in our public comments and as amended by the Planning Commission and Staff.
Our efforts to better protect our waterways through more protective zoning districts were for the most part incorporated into the new land use zoning maps.
Our efforts to force this Board to deal with the elimination of the Estate (E-1) zoning, as called for in the Comp. Plan, and place these flood prone areas into more protective zoning did not succeed. Commissioner Gulyas seemed to think the Estate Zoning was some live animal that would (in her words!) ‘die a slow death if we just leave it alone.’
While this means large areas of South Point and the Rt. 611 corridor will not be up-zoned to more dense residential but will remain Estate zoned, some areas of E-1 were indeed given higher density zoning - Gum Point Road and the Bishopville Prong area were both given R-1 zoning.
Commissioners Cowger and Church, obviously uneducated about the zoning and the code, made fools of themselves arguing moot points about how much money a certain developer had paid for a proposed project. Both Cowger & Church kept loudly arguing, mistakenly, that the Commissioners were ‘down-zoning’ the man’s property.
Commissioner Bud Church practically shed tears during his plea to the audience that a huge mistake had been made. What these two Commissioners didn't seem to understand is: 1. The parcel started as A-1 and stayed as A-1; and 2. Comprehensive Re-zoning is not determined by how much money a land speculator wants to gamble on future projects.
In another zoning map change, all the Commissioners voted to leave two parcels along Rt. 589 as A-1 zoning, against Planning Commission recommendations to change the agricultural zoning to residential R-1. The Commissioners argument for this was they did not want to add to the traffic congestion on Rt. 589 so they wanted to leave the two parcels at the current zoning.
What they were oblivious to, however, were the several hundreds of acres of E-1 zoned parcels along Gum Point Road, adjacent to and just behind the two highway fronting parcels. All that area was being recommended to go up to R-1 and they left it that way!
So somehow all this new residential traffic coming off of Gum Point Road onto Rt. 589 is not going to be as detrimental to the highway as that one little parcel of A-1 they fought so hard to keep A-1……..go figure?
They did not support a motion by Commissioner Shockley to add 2 more building lots to the already permitted 5 lots allowed per parcel in the A-1 zoned areas. They did however, support his text amendment to increase the total square footage allowed ‘by right’ for commercial buildings on an A-1 parcel from 600 sq. ft to 3,000 sq. ft.
Without adequate time to consider all the ramification of this major change, and under pressure by the Commission President to wrap things up, it remains to be seen what impact this will have on types of commercial businesses in our A-1 district throughout the county. At the very least they should have agreed to the 4,400 increase by ‘special exception’ review only.
Most disturbing about yesterday’s meeting was the total lack of assistance by the County Attorney to guide the Commissioners through this process, keep them focused and help them not make mistakes like they did on Rt. 589 and possibly to the A-1 district allowable uses. In my opinion he has proven himself, once again, to be lacking in the skills to adequately advise our Commissioners and this county.
The icing on the cake was the vote. Commission President Gulyas insisted on raising hands to signify yea or nay. She had to continually ask for people to keep their hands up for an official count, sometimes questioning if someone’s hand had been raised or not, they were all talking at once, Cowger wanted to continue his rant about the Sea Hawk Road property…..it was embarrassing.
What the heck happened to taking a roll call voice vote, right down the line, and make each Commissioner speak his/her vote? Very unprofessional behavior yesterday, but then that is what we have come to expect.
While missing the mark on many aspects of the Comprehensive Plan, (and thus these award winning concepts such as TDRs, Impact fees, alternative energy initiatives, and protection of flood plains from development were not implemented) the County's new zoning code and zoning map was approved on November 3, 2009.
With very few changes to the text of the Zoning Code, and one or two strange (?) changes to the Comprehensive Zoning Maps – the Worcester County Commissioners, in spite of themselves, voted unanimously to adopt the new zoning ordinance. Cowger was the lone dissenting vote to approve the Zoning Maps.
Assateague Coastal Trust's efforts to strengthen the language in the code for protection of our waterways and our natural resources remained as suggested in our public comments and as amended by the Planning Commission and Staff.
Our efforts to better protect our waterways through more protective zoning districts were for the most part incorporated into the new land use zoning maps.
Our efforts to force this Board to deal with the elimination of the Estate (E-1) zoning, as called for in the Comp. Plan, and place these flood prone areas into more protective zoning did not succeed. Commissioner Gulyas seemed to think the Estate Zoning was some live animal that would (in her words!) ‘die a slow death if we just leave it alone.’
While this means large areas of South Point and the Rt. 611 corridor will not be up-zoned to more dense residential but will remain Estate zoned, some areas of E-1 were indeed given higher density zoning - Gum Point Road and the Bishopville Prong area were both given R-1 zoning.
Commissioners Cowger and Church, obviously uneducated about the zoning and the code, made fools of themselves arguing moot points about how much money a certain developer had paid for a proposed project. Both Cowger & Church kept loudly arguing, mistakenly, that the Commissioners were ‘down-zoning’ the man’s property.
Commissioner Bud Church practically shed tears during his plea to the audience that a huge mistake had been made. What these two Commissioners didn't seem to understand is: 1. The parcel started as A-1 and stayed as A-1; and 2. Comprehensive Re-zoning is not determined by how much money a land speculator wants to gamble on future projects.
In another zoning map change, all the Commissioners voted to leave two parcels along Rt. 589 as A-1 zoning, against Planning Commission recommendations to change the agricultural zoning to residential R-1. The Commissioners argument for this was they did not want to add to the traffic congestion on Rt. 589 so they wanted to leave the two parcels at the current zoning.
What they were oblivious to, however, were the several hundreds of acres of E-1 zoned parcels along Gum Point Road, adjacent to and just behind the two highway fronting parcels. All that area was being recommended to go up to R-1 and they left it that way!
So somehow all this new residential traffic coming off of Gum Point Road onto Rt. 589 is not going to be as detrimental to the highway as that one little parcel of A-1 they fought so hard to keep A-1……..go figure?
They did not support a motion by Commissioner Shockley to add 2 more building lots to the already permitted 5 lots allowed per parcel in the A-1 zoned areas. They did however, support his text amendment to increase the total square footage allowed ‘by right’ for commercial buildings on an A-1 parcel from 600 sq. ft to 3,000 sq. ft.
Without adequate time to consider all the ramification of this major change, and under pressure by the Commission President to wrap things up, it remains to be seen what impact this will have on types of commercial businesses in our A-1 district throughout the county. At the very least they should have agreed to the 4,400 increase by ‘special exception’ review only.
Most disturbing about yesterday’s meeting was the total lack of assistance by the County Attorney to guide the Commissioners through this process, keep them focused and help them not make mistakes like they did on Rt. 589 and possibly to the A-1 district allowable uses. In my opinion he has proven himself, once again, to be lacking in the skills to adequately advise our Commissioners and this county.
The icing on the cake was the vote. Commission President Gulyas insisted on raising hands to signify yea or nay. She had to continually ask for people to keep their hands up for an official count, sometimes questioning if someone’s hand had been raised or not, they were all talking at once, Cowger wanted to continue his rant about the Sea Hawk Road property…..it was embarrassing.
What the heck happened to taking a roll call voice vote, right down the line, and make each Commissioner speak his/her vote? Very unprofessional behavior yesterday, but then that is what we have come to expect.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
The Arm Chair Lawyer
As the TV commercial says, "I'm not really a lawyer, but I did sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night!"
I wish I had pursued an education in studying law. I find it fascinating. As a Waterkeeper I absolutely believe in enforcing the law. A wise friend once said, "If there's a law that is not enforced, then there is no law."
I served on Worcester County's Ethics Board in the 90's. This Board was advised by a former county attorney and I learned a lot from him. I didn't always agree with him but I respected his knowledge of the law, of the county laws, and admired his sense of what was right and what was wrong.
In my previous life (before Waterkeepers) and in this life, I've worked with and have been advised by lawyers regarding all sorts of issues - corporate law, environmental law, non-profit law, tax law, civil laws, ethical laws. All boards I've ever served on included attorneys certified in many different areas of law, always there to give us sage advice.
As a result I feel I have a fairly solid sense of understanding when something is right and when something is just plain wrong.
And so in May 2009 when the County Commissioners held their now infamous closed door meeting and four Commissioners voted behind closed doors to dismantle a nationally admired Planning Department and emasculate one of the most educated and talented planners this county had ever had the privilege to employ, and humiliate one of the most knowledgeable zoning administrators in county history, just because one south county commissioner desired to help his buddies get their permits faster, easier and without as much scrutiny, I clearly knew something was WRONG. So did three other Commissioners. So did the public who were in attendance at that May meeting.
Yet four Commissioners and one County attorney had no qualms putting lipstick on this pig and contemptuously tried to dupe the citizens into believing this was being done for the good of the citizens and the county, as a cost cutting effort and nothing more.
Assateague Coastal Trust questioned the County Attorney, who arrogantly replied we didn't know what we were talking about. ACT could not stand by without some attempt to substantiate our outrage. Under guidance of our capable attorneys, ACT drafted an appeal to the Maryland Open Meetings Act Compliance Board to right this wrong.
I was scoffed at by the County's attorney as being an 'arm chair lawyer'. He advised the Commissioners not to worry. He wrote a lengthy rebuttal to the Compliance Board and defended his advice to the Commissioners.
On October 27, 2009 the Maryland Open Meetings Act Compliance Board, advised by the State Attorney General's Office, agreed what had happened was wrong. And not just a little bit wrong, on October 27, 2009 the Compliance Board issued a finding that the County violated the Open Meetings Act on every single count.
I found it most satisfying that the AG's office used the County Attorney's legal argument, in which he states the County's actions were an 'Administrative' prerogative versus a 'Legislative' responsibility, to substantiate their opinion that indeed the action of consolidating the government departments was 'legislative' and therefore in violation of the Act.
The Compliance Board, in their ruling, stated: "The County Commissioners’ focused on the executive nature of the consolidation and that no county services were changed. The complaint, however, focused on the potential impact of the consolidation on land use decisions and environmental consequences that flow from such decisions, and argued that the decision was a policy matter subject to the Act. We accept as a truism that a consolidation or reorganization of departments at any level of government may well impact the manner that decisions are made and what priorities might be established.....Based on the information offered by the Council, we find that the Council’s action failed to qualify as an administrative function."
What I find less satisfying is that our County Attorney continues to publicly use his excuse about "protecting the privacy of our 'soon to be fired' employees," when within hours desks were being packed up and these folks were out on the street, and everyone knew about it.
Indeed, the Open Meetings Act Compliance Board stated the following: " In response to our request, the County Commissioners provided us with a copy of its minutes for the closed session. In fact, part of the closed session qualified as a personnel matter in that it concerned the ability of a particular employee to retire. However, other matters were discussed, such as a suggested severance package, when the decision affecting the employees should be implemented, available alternatives such as furloughs, and the merits of reorganization in general. To the extent discussion extended beyond the status of a single identifiable employee, we find that the Commissioners exceeded the permissible bounds of the personnel exception, thus, violating the Act."
While none of this will bring back an independent Planning Department to our County Government until hopefully after the next election, for a few hours this weekend I plan to sink down into my overstuffed armchair and soak up some of the warm sunshine.
I wish I had pursued an education in studying law. I find it fascinating. As a Waterkeeper I absolutely believe in enforcing the law. A wise friend once said, "If there's a law that is not enforced, then there is no law."
I served on Worcester County's Ethics Board in the 90's. This Board was advised by a former county attorney and I learned a lot from him. I didn't always agree with him but I respected his knowledge of the law, of the county laws, and admired his sense of what was right and what was wrong.
In my previous life (before Waterkeepers) and in this life, I've worked with and have been advised by lawyers regarding all sorts of issues - corporate law, environmental law, non-profit law, tax law, civil laws, ethical laws. All boards I've ever served on included attorneys certified in many different areas of law, always there to give us sage advice.
As a result I feel I have a fairly solid sense of understanding when something is right and when something is just plain wrong.
And so in May 2009 when the County Commissioners held their now infamous closed door meeting and four Commissioners voted behind closed doors to dismantle a nationally admired Planning Department and emasculate one of the most educated and talented planners this county had ever had the privilege to employ, and humiliate one of the most knowledgeable zoning administrators in county history, just because one south county commissioner desired to help his buddies get their permits faster, easier and without as much scrutiny, I clearly knew something was WRONG. So did three other Commissioners. So did the public who were in attendance at that May meeting.
Yet four Commissioners and one County attorney had no qualms putting lipstick on this pig and contemptuously tried to dupe the citizens into believing this was being done for the good of the citizens and the county, as a cost cutting effort and nothing more.
Assateague Coastal Trust questioned the County Attorney, who arrogantly replied we didn't know what we were talking about. ACT could not stand by without some attempt to substantiate our outrage. Under guidance of our capable attorneys, ACT drafted an appeal to the Maryland Open Meetings Act Compliance Board to right this wrong.
I was scoffed at by the County's attorney as being an 'arm chair lawyer'. He advised the Commissioners not to worry. He wrote a lengthy rebuttal to the Compliance Board and defended his advice to the Commissioners.
On October 27, 2009 the Maryland Open Meetings Act Compliance Board, advised by the State Attorney General's Office, agreed what had happened was wrong. And not just a little bit wrong, on October 27, 2009 the Compliance Board issued a finding that the County violated the Open Meetings Act on every single count.
I found it most satisfying that the AG's office used the County Attorney's legal argument, in which he states the County's actions were an 'Administrative' prerogative versus a 'Legislative' responsibility, to substantiate their opinion that indeed the action of consolidating the government departments was 'legislative' and therefore in violation of the Act.
The Compliance Board, in their ruling, stated: "The County Commissioners’ focused on the executive nature of the consolidation and that no county services were changed. The complaint, however, focused on the potential impact of the consolidation on land use decisions and environmental consequences that flow from such decisions, and argued that the decision was a policy matter subject to the Act. We accept as a truism that a consolidation or reorganization of departments at any level of government may well impact the manner that decisions are made and what priorities might be established.....Based on the information offered by the Council, we find that the Council’s action failed to qualify as an administrative function."
What I find less satisfying is that our County Attorney continues to publicly use his excuse about "protecting the privacy of our 'soon to be fired' employees," when within hours desks were being packed up and these folks were out on the street, and everyone knew about it.
Indeed, the Open Meetings Act Compliance Board stated the following: " In response to our request, the County Commissioners provided us with a copy of its minutes for the closed session. In fact, part of the closed session qualified as a personnel matter in that it concerned the ability of a particular employee to retire. However, other matters were discussed, such as a suggested severance package, when the decision affecting the employees should be implemented, available alternatives such as furloughs, and the merits of reorganization in general. To the extent discussion extended beyond the status of a single identifiable employee, we find that the Commissioners exceeded the permissible bounds of the personnel exception, thus, violating the Act."
While none of this will bring back an independent Planning Department to our County Government until hopefully after the next election, for a few hours this weekend I plan to sink down into my overstuffed armchair and soak up some of the warm sunshine.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
The Coastkeeper and GOP Rep. Joe Wilson
The Coastkeeper took a long awaited vacation, came home totally relaxed, recharged, renewed, calm, focused and ready to get back to work.
Then I attended the Worcester County Commissioner's work session on Tuesday, Oct. 20 and all that stuff I mentioned in the first line was gone...poof....back was the brain strain, the twitchy eyeball, the muscle cramp just above that left shoulder blade.
How can elected officials, who are responsible for the well being of our wonderful Worcester County, be so off base, so uninformed, so willing to publicly flaunt their ignorance and incompetence??
The work session was for the purpose of the county staff to go over the recommended changes to the draft Zoning District Maps (based on public comments received during the open comment period this past June) with the County Commissioners- all part of the process as the County finally gets around to implementing the 2006 Comprehensive Plan.
For the past 3 months, county staff and the Planning Commission have taken time to go over every submitted public comment regarding the proposed new zoning code and the proposed zoning districts and they suggested changes when they felt your public comments warranted the change. Some public comments were debated at the numerous Planning Commission/staff meetings and it was deemed not appropriate to recommend any changes. And some changes just seemed to appear out of nowhere - like that off-site septic system exemption I mentioned in my previous posting, which is now in the code but wasn't there when the public was given the chance to review the new code and make comment.
I sat in on most of those Planning Commission work sessions. I watched and listened to the debates, the advice offered by county staff; observed the time taken to consider each request and come to a consensus.
Guess how many County Commissioners attended these meetings? ....and the correct answer is.....one. During a number of these meetings I observed County Commissioner Linda Busick taking notes, sitting there in the peanut gallery with the rest of us. Kudos, Commissioner Busick. Was my County Commissioner there, Mr. Church, at any time? .....and the correct answer is....no (that wasn't very hard, was it?)
So back to Tuesday, October 20, 2009. I could count the number of citizens in the audience observing this meeting on two hands. Good golly Miss Molly, did you ever miss the show of the year if you weren't there! If this county ever needed to have public meetings televised, or at least have a tape recording of every word said, Tuesday, October 20, 2009 was the day to do it. Folks, it was absolute chaos up there on the dais.
County staff had prepared a rather large packet of information, I believe a thick notebook, that had been given to the Commissioners in advance of these work sessions, to allow them to read and see what had been done over the past three months. (I'm sorry I have to keep saying County staff, but that's my only option these days. This new consolidated 'department' doesn't have a name. I can't refer to County Planning Director because we don't have one anymore. There is a new 'Director' and a new 'Deputy Director' but I don't know what they are Directors of... but when I refer to County staff I mean Director, Deputy Director, and their staff.)
It was very obvious from the get-go that most of the Commissioners sitting up there either did not have the book in front of them, or had not even read the book to prepare themselves for this meeting.
What was supposed to be a discussion about proposed changes to the Draft Zoning Maps to reflect the Land Use elements adopted by most of these VERY SAME COMMISSIONERS in the 2006 Comprehensive Plan became a chaotic, uncontrolled display of total ignorance of the subject matter and absolutely total ignorance of the job at hand.
Commissioner Cowger admitted (knowingly but more likely unknowingly) that AFTER the public comment period had closed he had discussions with land owners along Rt. 589 who want to see their parcels upzoned to a Commercial-2 District (not as heavy commercial as to allow big box stores, but almost.)
This is wrong on soooo many levels. First, Mr. Cowger, apparently some people in this county are allowed to continue the public comment period even now, when the rest of us adhered to the legally set deadline of June 12. And this might be a good place to note that while I was a good girl and adhered to the rules of the meeting President Gulyas set - no public participation during the proceedings - how is it that not a single Commissioner, and especially Ms. Gulyas, did not bat an eyelash when Mark Cropper, noted attorney to most every developer in the county, walked up ON TO THE DAIS during the meeting and whispered sweet nothings into the ear of County Attorney Sonny Bloxom??? I can only imagine what would have happened had I sauntered up to the dais and approached Mr. Bloxom during the meeting.
Second, Mr. Cowger, this is not about zoning parcels of land to accommodate the wishes of the property owner. This is about planning a balanced use of ALL the land in Worcester County to assure the land will provide economic viability for the County, pleasant areas to live in, protection of environmentally sensitive areas, and a use of the land that will assure us the same Worcester County we enjoy today (the same Worcester County citizens, stakeholders and County Commissioners pledged to protect in 2006) will be there for future generations.
I watched incredulously as the Commissioners began to debate, argue and interject their views about this parcel, and that parcel, and actually NAMED property owners....oh my gosh, they were actually talking about how to zone parts of this county because 'so and so' owned the property.
This meeting was no longer about land use planning and zoning. It was now about 'how can we accommodate this person and that person?'
What was so amazing to me is that everything the Planning Commission and County staff had prepared for them, which served to answer a lot of their questions, was totally ignored. Some Commissioners did not even have these documents in front of them. How incredibly rude, how incredibly inconsiderate to those who had prepared them. How flat out IRRESPONSIBLE to the citizens of this County!!!
Worse - the reality is this, these elected officials who are going to vote on a new Zoning Code, Subdivision Development Regulations, Commercial Development Regulations and a new Zoning District Map don't have a clue what is in there. They haven't read it.
And you know what is really laughable, if one can laugh at this point? I'm willing to bet next week's pay check that every single one of our County Commissioners has at one time or another complained that our Congress is about to vote on a Health Care Bill that the elected officials in Congress have not read.
Ok, I guess at this point some of you are wondering about the title of this blog post? Here's the reason: on October 20, 2009 during a County Commissioner work session I almost shouted out at the top of my lungs "stop this madness! It's embarrassing!"
I truly did, in fact I felt I was so close to getting out of control I had to leave the Commissioner Chambers, go outside, bang my head against the cement pillar at the top of the steps, and talk aloud to myself like some homeless person in San Francisco (you know what I mean - you're on Columbus and watching some guy having a conversation with another homeless dude across town on Van Ness who is also talking into his shirt.) I literally had to talk myself down, get composed, and go back inside to take my seat and adhere to the rules, and not say a word.
And now I can close my very public diary, hit 'publish', and go to bed. But I haven't slept well since Tuesday, October 20 and I don't expect to sleep well tonight. There is much to research, attorneys to consult, and strategies to plan with my Board. There is serious trouble in River City folks and we need to pay attention.
Then I attended the Worcester County Commissioner's work session on Tuesday, Oct. 20 and all that stuff I mentioned in the first line was gone...poof....back was the brain strain, the twitchy eyeball, the muscle cramp just above that left shoulder blade.
How can elected officials, who are responsible for the well being of our wonderful Worcester County, be so off base, so uninformed, so willing to publicly flaunt their ignorance and incompetence??
The work session was for the purpose of the county staff to go over the recommended changes to the draft Zoning District Maps (based on public comments received during the open comment period this past June) with the County Commissioners- all part of the process as the County finally gets around to implementing the 2006 Comprehensive Plan.
For the past 3 months, county staff and the Planning Commission have taken time to go over every submitted public comment regarding the proposed new zoning code and the proposed zoning districts and they suggested changes when they felt your public comments warranted the change. Some public comments were debated at the numerous Planning Commission/staff meetings and it was deemed not appropriate to recommend any changes. And some changes just seemed to appear out of nowhere - like that off-site septic system exemption I mentioned in my previous posting, which is now in the code but wasn't there when the public was given the chance to review the new code and make comment.
I sat in on most of those Planning Commission work sessions. I watched and listened to the debates, the advice offered by county staff; observed the time taken to consider each request and come to a consensus.
Guess how many County Commissioners attended these meetings? ....and the correct answer is.....one. During a number of these meetings I observed County Commissioner Linda Busick taking notes, sitting there in the peanut gallery with the rest of us. Kudos, Commissioner Busick. Was my County Commissioner there, Mr. Church, at any time? .....and the correct answer is....no (that wasn't very hard, was it?)
So back to Tuesday, October 20, 2009. I could count the number of citizens in the audience observing this meeting on two hands. Good golly Miss Molly, did you ever miss the show of the year if you weren't there! If this county ever needed to have public meetings televised, or at least have a tape recording of every word said, Tuesday, October 20, 2009 was the day to do it. Folks, it was absolute chaos up there on the dais.
County staff had prepared a rather large packet of information, I believe a thick notebook, that had been given to the Commissioners in advance of these work sessions, to allow them to read and see what had been done over the past three months. (I'm sorry I have to keep saying County staff, but that's my only option these days. This new consolidated 'department' doesn't have a name. I can't refer to County Planning Director because we don't have one anymore. There is a new 'Director' and a new 'Deputy Director' but I don't know what they are Directors of... but when I refer to County staff I mean Director, Deputy Director, and their staff.)
It was very obvious from the get-go that most of the Commissioners sitting up there either did not have the book in front of them, or had not even read the book to prepare themselves for this meeting.
What was supposed to be a discussion about proposed changes to the Draft Zoning Maps to reflect the Land Use elements adopted by most of these VERY SAME COMMISSIONERS in the 2006 Comprehensive Plan became a chaotic, uncontrolled display of total ignorance of the subject matter and absolutely total ignorance of the job at hand.
Commissioner Cowger admitted (knowingly but more likely unknowingly) that AFTER the public comment period had closed he had discussions with land owners along Rt. 589 who want to see their parcels upzoned to a Commercial-2 District (not as heavy commercial as to allow big box stores, but almost.)
This is wrong on soooo many levels. First, Mr. Cowger, apparently some people in this county are allowed to continue the public comment period even now, when the rest of us adhered to the legally set deadline of June 12. And this might be a good place to note that while I was a good girl and adhered to the rules of the meeting President Gulyas set - no public participation during the proceedings - how is it that not a single Commissioner, and especially Ms. Gulyas, did not bat an eyelash when Mark Cropper, noted attorney to most every developer in the county, walked up ON TO THE DAIS during the meeting and whispered sweet nothings into the ear of County Attorney Sonny Bloxom??? I can only imagine what would have happened had I sauntered up to the dais and approached Mr. Bloxom during the meeting.
Second, Mr. Cowger, this is not about zoning parcels of land to accommodate the wishes of the property owner. This is about planning a balanced use of ALL the land in Worcester County to assure the land will provide economic viability for the County, pleasant areas to live in, protection of environmentally sensitive areas, and a use of the land that will assure us the same Worcester County we enjoy today (the same Worcester County citizens, stakeholders and County Commissioners pledged to protect in 2006) will be there for future generations.
I watched incredulously as the Commissioners began to debate, argue and interject their views about this parcel, and that parcel, and actually NAMED property owners....oh my gosh, they were actually talking about how to zone parts of this county because 'so and so' owned the property.
This meeting was no longer about land use planning and zoning. It was now about 'how can we accommodate this person and that person?'
What was so amazing to me is that everything the Planning Commission and County staff had prepared for them, which served to answer a lot of their questions, was totally ignored. Some Commissioners did not even have these documents in front of them. How incredibly rude, how incredibly inconsiderate to those who had prepared them. How flat out IRRESPONSIBLE to the citizens of this County!!!
Worse - the reality is this, these elected officials who are going to vote on a new Zoning Code, Subdivision Development Regulations, Commercial Development Regulations and a new Zoning District Map don't have a clue what is in there. They haven't read it.
And you know what is really laughable, if one can laugh at this point? I'm willing to bet next week's pay check that every single one of our County Commissioners has at one time or another complained that our Congress is about to vote on a Health Care Bill that the elected officials in Congress have not read.
Ok, I guess at this point some of you are wondering about the title of this blog post? Here's the reason: on October 20, 2009 during a County Commissioner work session I almost shouted out at the top of my lungs "stop this madness! It's embarrassing!"
I truly did, in fact I felt I was so close to getting out of control I had to leave the Commissioner Chambers, go outside, bang my head against the cement pillar at the top of the steps, and talk aloud to myself like some homeless person in San Francisco (you know what I mean - you're on Columbus and watching some guy having a conversation with another homeless dude across town on Van Ness who is also talking into his shirt.) I literally had to talk myself down, get composed, and go back inside to take my seat and adhere to the rules, and not say a word.
And now I can close my very public diary, hit 'publish', and go to bed. But I haven't slept well since Tuesday, October 20 and I don't expect to sleep well tonight. There is much to research, attorneys to consult, and strategies to plan with my Board. There is serious trouble in River City folks and we need to pay attention.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Important County Commissioner meeting Oct 20
The COASTKEEPER wants to remind you about the County Commissioner work session Tuesday Oct. 20, at 1:30 pm at the Govt. office building in Snow Hill.
The October 20 work session will be to review the revised ZONING MAPS, based on input that was given to the County during the Public Hearing in June and based on your written comments.
The Planning Commission is submitting some very good changes to the proposed zoning districts, particularly more protective zoning for the Sinepuxent Road and Holly Grove Road areas, which are the headwaters to three very important creeks (Ayers, Trappe, Herring.) Based on ACT’s comments and yours, this area will now see a larger land area protected as a Resource Protection District.
We are also pleased with the inclusion of more protective language/text regarding our impaired waterways and the development along these waterways.
Significant changes have also been recommended for the Rt. 611 corridor and for South Point, and also down in the Stockton area.
Thanks to unprecedented public participation and support, Assateague Coastal Trust is generally pleased with the revisions being proposed to the Draft Zoning Code and Land Use Map.
Those of you who live in the South Point area might want to review this observation made by County staff to the Planning Commissioners regarding the revised E-1 zoning districts in South Point and along the Rt. 611 corridor:
"Even though the requested retention in the E-1 Estate District is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the staff and Planning Commission have no objection to doing so and would therefore recommend that the E-1 Estate District be retained in the MD Rt. 611/South Point area. However, the citizens do need to realize that in the next planning period the E-1 Estate District will need to be abolished and another zoning designation placed upon the area. The citizens should give serious consideration to what type of zoning classification is most in keeping with the area without creating extensive non-conforming lots or uses or having unanticipated adverse impacts to themselves".
While it’s humorous that County Staff uses this instance to note the E-1 District is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan when it was County Staff that recommended the Commissioners RETAIN the E-1 zoning, it should also be noted the 2006 Comprehensive Land Use Map adopted by the County does indeed indicate a zoning district designation for the eliminated E-1 districts – look at the 2006 Land Use Map - all E-1 districts have been reverted to an Agricultural designation. Furthermore, if you read the ‘Watershed Characterizations’ in the land use section of the 2006 Comprehensive Plan, there is a very clear direction on what should be done!
At recent meetings with County staff, Ed Tudor has pointed out that perhaps residents in current E-1 Districts might not like to have a chicken house built next door to them. If you read the proposed zoning District definitions, you will see that the Proposed A-2 agricultural zoning district and the current E-1 zoning District share the same allowed uses, including poultry operations, animal waste storage lagoons, aquaculture operations, and other agricultural uses, and while the A-2 District might allow for a more commercial use these are by special exception only, so the public would have an opportunity to question those uses.
There was a reason the 2006 Comprehensive Plan called for the elimination of the E-1, which the current County Commissioners have refused to deal with, and the reason was because most of our E-1 zoning districts are in the flood plain, Critical Area, or resource sensitive areas. Up-zoning these remaining E-1 Districts to higher density uses is not sound land planning if they are located away from public services such as water and wastewater, so the Comprehensive Land Use maps recommended an agricultural zoning designation.
You can read Mr. Tudor’s full comments to the Planning Commission on the ACT website, here. The zoning map comments are located near the end of the document. ACT does not have a copy of the most current recommendations from the Planning Commission to the County Commissioners, however this document is fairly representational of those recommendations.
Assateague Coastal Trust agrees with Mr. Tudor’s assessment that the citizens in the E-1 Districts should give serious consideration to the zoning designations during the next Comprehensive Planning round of re-zoning. This is only a year away, ironically, since it has taken the county so long to get around to implementing the 2006 Comprehensive Plan. ACT will keep you updated on the next round of zoning updates so you, the public, can have adequate time to become involved in the process.
Meanwhile- A show of citizen support at the Commissioner’s work session on October 20 will help ACT keep the pressure on so the Commissioners will accept the Planning Commission recommendations and not try to weaken these recommendations.
I know it’s difficult to attend these day time meetings on a work day. And we are sorry we don’t have a way to post actual word for word transcripts so the public could read what was said and what happened at these public meetings.
Perhaps someday, with enough citizen input, the County will schedule these types of meetings for the evening so that greater public participation or observation may take place. Or perhaps one day the County will actually consider live video presentation of their public meetings on a public access cable channel! Something to push for during the next election cycle??
Thank you again for your participation this past summer in the drafting of our new zoning code. We made some significant changes for the better and we need your help to keep the County Commissioners committed to keeping these changes!
The October 20 work session will be to review the revised ZONING MAPS, based on input that was given to the County during the Public Hearing in June and based on your written comments.
The Planning Commission is submitting some very good changes to the proposed zoning districts, particularly more protective zoning for the Sinepuxent Road and Holly Grove Road areas, which are the headwaters to three very important creeks (Ayers, Trappe, Herring.) Based on ACT’s comments and yours, this area will now see a larger land area protected as a Resource Protection District.
We are also pleased with the inclusion of more protective language/text regarding our impaired waterways and the development along these waterways.
Significant changes have also been recommended for the Rt. 611 corridor and for South Point, and also down in the Stockton area.
Thanks to unprecedented public participation and support, Assateague Coastal Trust is generally pleased with the revisions being proposed to the Draft Zoning Code and Land Use Map.
Those of you who live in the South Point area might want to review this observation made by County staff to the Planning Commissioners regarding the revised E-1 zoning districts in South Point and along the Rt. 611 corridor:
"Even though the requested retention in the E-1 Estate District is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the staff and Planning Commission have no objection to doing so and would therefore recommend that the E-1 Estate District be retained in the MD Rt. 611/South Point area. However, the citizens do need to realize that in the next planning period the E-1 Estate District will need to be abolished and another zoning designation placed upon the area. The citizens should give serious consideration to what type of zoning classification is most in keeping with the area without creating extensive non-conforming lots or uses or having unanticipated adverse impacts to themselves".
While it’s humorous that County Staff uses this instance to note the E-1 District is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan when it was County Staff that recommended the Commissioners RETAIN the E-1 zoning, it should also be noted the 2006 Comprehensive Land Use Map adopted by the County does indeed indicate a zoning district designation for the eliminated E-1 districts – look at the 2006 Land Use Map - all E-1 districts have been reverted to an Agricultural designation. Furthermore, if you read the ‘Watershed Characterizations’ in the land use section of the 2006 Comprehensive Plan, there is a very clear direction on what should be done!
At recent meetings with County staff, Ed Tudor has pointed out that perhaps residents in current E-1 Districts might not like to have a chicken house built next door to them. If you read the proposed zoning District definitions, you will see that the Proposed A-2 agricultural zoning district and the current E-1 zoning District share the same allowed uses, including poultry operations, animal waste storage lagoons, aquaculture operations, and other agricultural uses, and while the A-2 District might allow for a more commercial use these are by special exception only, so the public would have an opportunity to question those uses.
There was a reason the 2006 Comprehensive Plan called for the elimination of the E-1, which the current County Commissioners have refused to deal with, and the reason was because most of our E-1 zoning districts are in the flood plain, Critical Area, or resource sensitive areas. Up-zoning these remaining E-1 Districts to higher density uses is not sound land planning if they are located away from public services such as water and wastewater, so the Comprehensive Land Use maps recommended an agricultural zoning designation.
You can read Mr. Tudor’s full comments to the Planning Commission on the ACT website, here. The zoning map comments are located near the end of the document. ACT does not have a copy of the most current recommendations from the Planning Commission to the County Commissioners, however this document is fairly representational of those recommendations.
Assateague Coastal Trust agrees with Mr. Tudor’s assessment that the citizens in the E-1 Districts should give serious consideration to the zoning designations during the next Comprehensive Planning round of re-zoning. This is only a year away, ironically, since it has taken the county so long to get around to implementing the 2006 Comprehensive Plan. ACT will keep you updated on the next round of zoning updates so you, the public, can have adequate time to become involved in the process.
Meanwhile- A show of citizen support at the Commissioner’s work session on October 20 will help ACT keep the pressure on so the Commissioners will accept the Planning Commission recommendations and not try to weaken these recommendations.
I know it’s difficult to attend these day time meetings on a work day. And we are sorry we don’t have a way to post actual word for word transcripts so the public could read what was said and what happened at these public meetings.
Perhaps someday, with enough citizen input, the County will schedule these types of meetings for the evening so that greater public participation or observation may take place. Or perhaps one day the County will actually consider live video presentation of their public meetings on a public access cable channel! Something to push for during the next election cycle??
Thank you again for your participation this past summer in the drafting of our new zoning code. We made some significant changes for the better and we need your help to keep the County Commissioners committed to keeping these changes!
Monday, October 12, 2009
Promises and Threats
In an article posted Oct 1 on delmarvanow.com a reader, "Hadley", said this about the resignation of Sandy Coyman, Planning Director for Worcester County: "Developers & Realtors, draw up those contracts; contractors, man your backhoes; carpenters, fire up those air nailers and skill saws: Happy Days are here again, Kelly is "liaising” with tech stuff and keeping track of ID badges, and ding-dong, Sandy’s gone. Kathy P and other Coastal Bay Untrustworthies-- cry me a river."
On Oct. 8, Mr. Coyman was quoted in a Worcester County Times article, referring to the 2006 Worcester County Comprehensive Plan, "A comprehensive plan should really be a compact between elected officials, county government and the citizens to let them know where we are all trying to go and how to get there, its something to be taken very seriously."
Both of these quotes explain what has happened in Worcester County.
If you attend Commissioner Meetings in this county you would know that County Counsel Sonny Bloxom and County Commissioner President Louise Gulyas didn't respect the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. They both said publicly that "a plan is just that, a plan, and plans are made to be changed." Gulyas supported the dissolution of the County Planning Department.
On their lead, Commissioners Purnell, Church and Cowger joined the effort to break this compact between the county and its citizens in favor of assisting a few businessmen who wish to further jeopardize the future of Worcester County for their own monetary gain.
On Oct. 8, Mr. Coyman was quoted in a Worcester County Times article, referring to the 2006 Worcester County Comprehensive Plan, "A comprehensive plan should really be a compact between elected officials, county government and the citizens to let them know where we are all trying to go and how to get there, its something to be taken very seriously."
Both of these quotes explain what has happened in Worcester County.
If you attend Commissioner Meetings in this county you would know that County Counsel Sonny Bloxom and County Commissioner President Louise Gulyas didn't respect the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. They both said publicly that "a plan is just that, a plan, and plans are made to be changed." Gulyas supported the dissolution of the County Planning Department.
On their lead, Commissioners Purnell, Church and Cowger joined the effort to break this compact between the county and its citizens in favor of assisting a few businessmen who wish to further jeopardize the future of Worcester County for their own monetary gain.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
I Bottle My Own
While paddling on Pamlico Sound yesterday I drank cool tap water from my water bottle and thought I should post a note on my blog about why I fill my own water bottle each day.
![]()
During the 2009 WATERKEEPER Alliance annual conference, the COASTKEEPER viewed a 2008 Sundance Film Festival documentary selection “FLOW– How DidA Handful of Corporations Steal OurWater?”, an investigation into what experts label the most important political and environmental issue of the 21st century.
This documentary deals with the increasing privatization of the world’s disappearing fresh water supply and brings to the forefront how politics, human rights, pollution and in some cases downright theft of aquifers is all tied up in this industry. Not to mention the other issue, which is the millions of plastic bottles ending up in our landfills each year.
Inspired by this wake up call, the Assateague COASTKEEPER took an idea from the NY/NJ BAYKEEPER Program and ordered up a batch of stainless steel re-usable water bottles that declare “I BOTTLE MY OWN.”
Now you too can own one of these beauties! Each bottle comes with a carabiner clip and a little compass. Please send $15.00 (which includes S/H) to ACT, PO Box 731, Berlin, MD 21811; or stop by the ACT office in Berlin and pick one up for $12. Not only will you be helping to save the world’s fresh water supplies, you can also help to promote the Assateague COASTKEEPER Program! Order yours today. ACT hopes to bring a special viewing of “FLOW” to our watershed this fall. Watch our website and your emails for an announcement.
Less Plastic - More clean water!
This documentary deals with the increasing privatization of the world’s disappearing fresh water supply and brings to the forefront how politics, human rights, pollution and in some cases downright theft of aquifers is all tied up in this industry. Not to mention the other issue, which is the millions of plastic bottles ending up in our landfills each year.
Inspired by this wake up call, the Assateague COASTKEEPER took an idea from the NY/NJ BAYKEEPER Program and ordered up a batch of stainless steel re-usable water bottles that declare “I BOTTLE MY OWN.”
Now you too can own one of these beauties! Each bottle comes with a carabiner clip and a little compass. Please send $15.00 (which includes S/H) to ACT, PO Box 731, Berlin, MD 21811; or stop by the ACT office in Berlin and pick one up for $12. Not only will you be helping to save the world’s fresh water supplies, you can also help to promote the Assateague COASTKEEPER Program! Order yours today. ACT hopes to bring a special viewing of “FLOW” to our watershed this fall. Watch our website and your emails for an announcement.
Less Plastic - More clean water!
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Quiet time
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Co-Opting the Message
Last week 1000 Friends of Maryland launched their newest campaign around land use, a campaign targeted at Maryland's agricultural lands. Their goal is to keep farmers 'farming' and stop the continued sell-off of our rich agricultural lands to subdivision development.
A worthy goal and one vested in their mission statement. Unfortunately their media materials contained some language that I would like to debate.
A section of their publication stated "The growing divide between the agricultural community and the environmental community threatens to further alienate farmers in the public eye. The most volatile area of conflict has been around regulations on runoff from poultry farms, and there are indications that the divide may become more pronounced as the EPA and states struggle with failed bay cleanup goals. 1000 Friends of Maryland can help to bridge the divide among interest groups and communities in all parts of the region..."
Now besides the fact I met with these folks prior to the publication of these materials and I thought we had specifically addressed this language, the fact that they could not tell me how they planned to 'bridge' this gap leaves me disturbed. The reference to environmental laws and regulations as the reason for this great divide brought to mind a column I wrote for the ACT newsletter about a year ago.
And so I have dusted off that old 2008 column and post it now on my blog, because it is still so very relevant!! Read on......
I recently represented Assateague Coastal Trust at a one day retreat of Eastern Shore environmental groups, hosted by the MD League of Conservation Voters. Our goal for the day was to find a way to strengthen our influence in Annapolis by coming together as a unified voice for the Eastern Shore.
Not surprisingly, WATERKEEPER Alliance's effort to bring about more transparency in the CAFO permitting process quickly became a topic of discussion among a few of the groups and at first I was not bothered by direct and indirect comments on the perceived folly of our effort.
I became increasingly alarmed as the other environmental advocates spoke using expressions like "partnership with the farmers" and "protecting the family farms." What alarmed me about this discussion was not that these land conservation advocates needed to work cooperatively with our Maryland farmers, but rather that these environmentalists had been using the very phrasing developed by the poultry industry to fight regulation.
If you've ever heard the term “co-opted” used and didn't know exactly what it meant, this was a perfect example. One way or another, these environmental groups had been duped into speaking the language of the Poultry industry, language that seeks to dissemble and misrepresent the issues that we as environmental groups must pursue. By using this language, these people were unwittingly supporting the very group that fights so hard to prevent the regulation necessary to protect our drinking and recreational waters.
Do you ever get angry when you see someone throw trash on the beach at Assateague? Would you stop someone from dumping waste oil down a storm drain? Do you think it's OK for people to throw garbage from their car windows?
The fact is, the issue that seemed to alarm them the most was that WATERKEEPER wanted the poultry industry, like every other individual and industry in the country, to obey the laws which were written to protect the environment. This is what WATERKEEPER Alliance is asking the state to do by requesting transparency.
This is not new law or new regulation, it is simply saying, "You must tell us what you are doing." For too long now the poultry industry has been exempted from the same requirements that other industries must follow; providing specific information on how they handle runoff and waste.
Then there's the persistent myth of the "family farm." I've been to family farms, I know farmers who run their own operations on their own land, and I know the difference between that type of operation and a factory farm (which are family farms about as much as the Sopranos were a "family").
The poultry industry likes to portray these issues as hurting the family farmer when the real truth is that the poultry industry itself is more of an enemy to the family farm than any current form of state or federal regulation. The advantages they seek for these businesses, things like tax breaks, environmental waivers and zoning exceptions uniformly advantage only the largest corporate operations.
In fact these advantages the corporations seek usually result in an unfair competitive advantage for the large operations, an advantage that all too often results in the loss of family farms as profit falls and costs rise.
So don't tell me that by fighting to make others obey the same laws we all have to obey I'm hurting someone. And don't tell me that by protecting the water you play on, swim in, fish in, and drink I'm somehow doing the devil's work.
A worthy goal and one vested in their mission statement. Unfortunately their media materials contained some language that I would like to debate.
A section of their publication stated "The growing divide between the agricultural community and the environmental community threatens to further alienate farmers in the public eye. The most volatile area of conflict has been around regulations on runoff from poultry farms, and there are indications that the divide may become more pronounced as the EPA and states struggle with failed bay cleanup goals. 1000 Friends of Maryland can help to bridge the divide among interest groups and communities in all parts of the region..."
Now besides the fact I met with these folks prior to the publication of these materials and I thought we had specifically addressed this language, the fact that they could not tell me how they planned to 'bridge' this gap leaves me disturbed. The reference to environmental laws and regulations as the reason for this great divide brought to mind a column I wrote for the ACT newsletter about a year ago.
And so I have dusted off that old 2008 column and post it now on my blog, because it is still so very relevant!! Read on......
I recently represented Assateague Coastal Trust at a one day retreat of Eastern Shore environmental groups, hosted by the MD League of Conservation Voters. Our goal for the day was to find a way to strengthen our influence in Annapolis by coming together as a unified voice for the Eastern Shore.
Not surprisingly, WATERKEEPER Alliance's effort to bring about more transparency in the CAFO permitting process quickly became a topic of discussion among a few of the groups and at first I was not bothered by direct and indirect comments on the perceived folly of our effort.
I became increasingly alarmed as the other environmental advocates spoke using expressions like "partnership with the farmers" and "protecting the family farms." What alarmed me about this discussion was not that these land conservation advocates needed to work cooperatively with our Maryland farmers, but rather that these environmentalists had been using the very phrasing developed by the poultry industry to fight regulation.
If you've ever heard the term “co-opted” used and didn't know exactly what it meant, this was a perfect example. One way or another, these environmental groups had been duped into speaking the language of the Poultry industry, language that seeks to dissemble and misrepresent the issues that we as environmental groups must pursue. By using this language, these people were unwittingly supporting the very group that fights so hard to prevent the regulation necessary to protect our drinking and recreational waters.
Do you ever get angry when you see someone throw trash on the beach at Assateague? Would you stop someone from dumping waste oil down a storm drain? Do you think it's OK for people to throw garbage from their car windows?
The fact is, the issue that seemed to alarm them the most was that WATERKEEPER wanted the poultry industry, like every other individual and industry in the country, to obey the laws which were written to protect the environment. This is what WATERKEEPER Alliance is asking the state to do by requesting transparency.
This is not new law or new regulation, it is simply saying, "You must tell us what you are doing." For too long now the poultry industry has been exempted from the same requirements that other industries must follow; providing specific information on how they handle runoff and waste.
Then there's the persistent myth of the "family farm." I've been to family farms, I know farmers who run their own operations on their own land, and I know the difference between that type of operation and a factory farm (which are family farms about as much as the Sopranos were a "family").
The poultry industry likes to portray these issues as hurting the family farmer when the real truth is that the poultry industry itself is more of an enemy to the family farm than any current form of state or federal regulation. The advantages they seek for these businesses, things like tax breaks, environmental waivers and zoning exceptions uniformly advantage only the largest corporate operations.
In fact these advantages the corporations seek usually result in an unfair competitive advantage for the large operations, an advantage that all too often results in the loss of family farms as profit falls and costs rise.
So don't tell me that by fighting to make others obey the same laws we all have to obey I'm hurting someone. And don't tell me that by protecting the water you play on, swim in, fish in, and drink I'm somehow doing the devil's work.
Monday, September 28, 2009
IMPORTANT WORCESTER COUNTY MEETING OCT 6
Please be advised! The Planning Commission has turned over a 'final draft' document of the revised County Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Map (based on public comment submitted this summer) to the County Commissioners.
The Commissioners will hold two work sessions to review these changes and prepare to adopt a new Zoning Ordinance, new Zoning District Map, and new Subdivision Regulations. The first is Oct. 6 at 1:30 pm in the Government Office Bldg. in Snow Hill. The second work session will be Oct. 20 at 1:30pm, same location.
It is imperative concerned County citizens attend these work sessions to listen and be seen**. No further public comment can be made and these work sessions, while open to the public, will not be open to public comment.
Through Assateague Coastal Trust, ACT attorneys and I helped to draft our written comments earlier this summer and they were submitted to the County by ACT's President Jim Rapp on behalf of the ACT Board of Directors.
Many of our comments regarding identification of impaired waterways, incorporation of better TMDL protective language, a more protective zoning district for the Holly Grove Swamp, (which in turn will protect the water quality of Herring, Turville, Trappe and Ayers Creeks,) were indeed drafted into these new documents.
In addition, per our comments, improvements to various definitions regarding environmental resources and environment features were written into the code. However, despite our pressure the County chose not to address the abolishment of the Estate Zone, nor did it chose to deal with another progressive Comp. Plan program - Transfer of Development Rights - to keep commercial development in the commercial zones.
I have to admit I was greatly surprised by this. After all, there was a huge hullabaloo in June after the public comments were received by Permitting Dept. Director Ed Tudor and assistant Phyllis Wimbrow (yes, it was Permitting Staff writing the new Code, not Planning....go figure.) And then of course, just after the public comment period, the entire government structure was overthrown and Permitting became King, with Planning and Environmental Programs kicked out of the sandbox.
Wimbrow publically berated ACT, the Coastkeeper, Maryland Coastal Bays Program and even the Maryland Department of Planning (!) during the June Planning Commission meeting, accusing us of not knowing what we were talking about.
Well, I'll admit I don't have an undergraduate or post graduate degree in Planning....but wait, neither do those two!
Oh, but I digress. Let me get back on track.
So imagine how thrilled I was to find some of our suggested language drafted into the revised code and subdivision regs.
My issue at this point is new language in the revised draft of the Code that now specifically exempts Rural Cluster Subdivisions and Consolidated Development Rights Subdivisions from the previous requirement to contain all their wastewater treatment on-site.
Offsite septic waste disposal systems and off-site location for drain fields is not good! There are a number of these in the county already. If they aren't providing a great location for people to drive down the dirt access road into the woods to dump their garbage, these off-site systems are prone to lack of monitoring, inspection and maintenance. Which means pollution to our streams, creeks and groundwater.
Another problem with this new language in the Consolidated Development Rights Subdivisions is that if off-site sewage disposal is allowed, the lot size is allowed to be smaller, which can potentially increase the number of lots to the maximum of 20 allowed. If the septic sewage had to be treated on each lot, the lots are required to be larger, thus limiting the total number of houses built.
Look folks - if the land you want to put a housing development on cannot handle the waste generated by the occupants - then it should not be allowed to be developed into subdivisions!! End of story.
That's why we are supposed to have 'growth centers' - because there are PUBLIC SERVICES within these growth centers. That's why Worcester County's Comprehensive Plan specifically designated 'growth areas', and these were not in the middle of our rural woods and agricultural lands.
If you agree with me - call your County Commissioners. And don't let them tell you it's too late to comment..."the public comment period is closed," they love to use this cop out.
This specific language that gives an exemption for off-site sewage disposal for Rural Cluster Subdivisions and Consolidated Development Rights Subdivisions was not in the draft of the Code we, the public, were given. Therefore we were not able to comment on it. Tell them that.
And go to the meeting on Tuesday, October 6 at 1:30pm in Snow Hill at the Govt. Building behind the Courthouse. If our elected officials do not see their voting public out in the audience, who will they see?
(**and now the disclaimer - the Coastkeeper is out of the state on Oct. 6. But several representatives from Assateague Coastal Trust will be in attendence. I'll be back in time for the second work session.)
The Commissioners will hold two work sessions to review these changes and prepare to adopt a new Zoning Ordinance, new Zoning District Map, and new Subdivision Regulations. The first is Oct. 6 at 1:30 pm in the Government Office Bldg. in Snow Hill. The second work session will be Oct. 20 at 1:30pm, same location.
It is imperative concerned County citizens attend these work sessions to listen and be seen**. No further public comment can be made and these work sessions, while open to the public, will not be open to public comment.
Through Assateague Coastal Trust, ACT attorneys and I helped to draft our written comments earlier this summer and they were submitted to the County by ACT's President Jim Rapp on behalf of the ACT Board of Directors.
Many of our comments regarding identification of impaired waterways, incorporation of better TMDL protective language, a more protective zoning district for the Holly Grove Swamp, (which in turn will protect the water quality of Herring, Turville, Trappe and Ayers Creeks,) were indeed drafted into these new documents.
In addition, per our comments, improvements to various definitions regarding environmental resources and environment features were written into the code. However, despite our pressure the County chose not to address the abolishment of the Estate Zone, nor did it chose to deal with another progressive Comp. Plan program - Transfer of Development Rights - to keep commercial development in the commercial zones.
I have to admit I was greatly surprised by this. After all, there was a huge hullabaloo in June after the public comments were received by Permitting Dept. Director Ed Tudor and assistant Phyllis Wimbrow (yes, it was Permitting Staff writing the new Code, not Planning....go figure.) And then of course, just after the public comment period, the entire government structure was overthrown and Permitting became King, with Planning and Environmental Programs kicked out of the sandbox.
Wimbrow publically berated ACT, the Coastkeeper, Maryland Coastal Bays Program and even the Maryland Department of Planning (!) during the June Planning Commission meeting, accusing us of not knowing what we were talking about.
Well, I'll admit I don't have an undergraduate or post graduate degree in Planning....but wait, neither do those two!
Oh, but I digress. Let me get back on track.
So imagine how thrilled I was to find some of our suggested language drafted into the revised code and subdivision regs.
My issue at this point is new language in the revised draft of the Code that now specifically exempts Rural Cluster Subdivisions and Consolidated Development Rights Subdivisions from the previous requirement to contain all their wastewater treatment on-site.
Offsite septic waste disposal systems and off-site location for drain fields is not good! There are a number of these in the county already. If they aren't providing a great location for people to drive down the dirt access road into the woods to dump their garbage, these off-site systems are prone to lack of monitoring, inspection and maintenance. Which means pollution to our streams, creeks and groundwater.
Another problem with this new language in the Consolidated Development Rights Subdivisions is that if off-site sewage disposal is allowed, the lot size is allowed to be smaller, which can potentially increase the number of lots to the maximum of 20 allowed. If the septic sewage had to be treated on each lot, the lots are required to be larger, thus limiting the total number of houses built.
Look folks - if the land you want to put a housing development on cannot handle the waste generated by the occupants - then it should not be allowed to be developed into subdivisions!! End of story.
That's why we are supposed to have 'growth centers' - because there are PUBLIC SERVICES within these growth centers. That's why Worcester County's Comprehensive Plan specifically designated 'growth areas', and these were not in the middle of our rural woods and agricultural lands.
If you agree with me - call your County Commissioners. And don't let them tell you it's too late to comment..."the public comment period is closed," they love to use this cop out.
This specific language that gives an exemption for off-site sewage disposal for Rural Cluster Subdivisions and Consolidated Development Rights Subdivisions was not in the draft of the Code we, the public, were given. Therefore we were not able to comment on it. Tell them that.
And go to the meeting on Tuesday, October 6 at 1:30pm in Snow Hill at the Govt. Building behind the Courthouse. If our elected officials do not see their voting public out in the audience, who will they see?
(**and now the disclaimer - the Coastkeeper is out of the state on Oct. 6. But several representatives from Assateague Coastal Trust will be in attendence. I'll be back in time for the second work session.)
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Trees - Who Needs 'Em?
I'm talking about trees - you know, those obnoxious tall things that send out roots under your driveway, drop leaves and needles into your gutters, block your view. Who needs 'em? Let's get rid of them.
That seems to be the way Worcester County thinks about trees. Oh sure, county Planning Commission members will talk a good story - "trees are necessary to take up nutrients out of the groundwater, trees keep our parking lots cool and reduce radient heating, trees are important environmental features and must be protected. Especially large, established trees."
But sit at a few Planning Commission meetings and you soon learn they could care less. At the September 17 Planning Commission meeting, a new restaurant that will be built on Rt. 116 in West Ocean City was on the agenda. The PC had almost completed its review of the project, everyone had contributed their two cents worth and approval was eminent. Then suddenly an almost offhand comment by one of the Planning Commission members brought the two large, mature maple trees into the discussion. Now you have to realize, the property owner/business owner and his attorney had said nothing about these trees. These folks were just sitting there ready for the Commission to approve the project.
And with a flip of her hand, one Commissioner said "oh, its ok if you want to cut them down." That was it - the Planning Commission said go ahead and get rid of these two, mature - HEALTHY - trees if it will make it easier for the business owner to design the layout of the parking spaces!
I could not believe my ears. I could not speak up or object. They were just...gone.
So keep an eye out for it, folks. Across Rt. 611 from the Green Turtle, there's a small white house sitting back off the road on a wooded lot. When the construction begins, say goodby to those two large maples.
Oh, but don't worry - that particular Commissioner thought the whole design of the diner style restaurant was 'cute', so who needs the trees?
We can now drive down Rt. 611 just south of Sunset Ave. and where we had the opportunity to keep two more trees in this rapidly developing commercial zone, trees which will help to control stormwater, lower the ambient temperature in the area, and just do their simple job of providing oxygen - kiss 'em goodby.
Even more sad, when I spoke to this Commissioner on the street a week later, she didn't even realize she was the one who had done this!
That seems to be the way Worcester County thinks about trees. Oh sure, county Planning Commission members will talk a good story - "trees are necessary to take up nutrients out of the groundwater, trees keep our parking lots cool and reduce radient heating, trees are important environmental features and must be protected. Especially large, established trees."
But sit at a few Planning Commission meetings and you soon learn they could care less. At the September 17 Planning Commission meeting, a new restaurant that will be built on Rt. 116 in West Ocean City was on the agenda. The PC had almost completed its review of the project, everyone had contributed their two cents worth and approval was eminent. Then suddenly an almost offhand comment by one of the Planning Commission members brought the two large, mature maple trees into the discussion. Now you have to realize, the property owner/business owner and his attorney had said nothing about these trees. These folks were just sitting there ready for the Commission to approve the project.
And with a flip of her hand, one Commissioner said "oh, its ok if you want to cut them down." That was it - the Planning Commission said go ahead and get rid of these two, mature - HEALTHY - trees if it will make it easier for the business owner to design the layout of the parking spaces!
I could not believe my ears. I could not speak up or object. They were just...gone.
So keep an eye out for it, folks. Across Rt. 611 from the Green Turtle, there's a small white house sitting back off the road on a wooded lot. When the construction begins, say goodby to those two large maples.
Oh, but don't worry - that particular Commissioner thought the whole design of the diner style restaurant was 'cute', so who needs the trees?
We can now drive down Rt. 611 just south of Sunset Ave. and where we had the opportunity to keep two more trees in this rapidly developing commercial zone, trees which will help to control stormwater, lower the ambient temperature in the area, and just do their simple job of providing oxygen - kiss 'em goodby.
Even more sad, when I spoke to this Commissioner on the street a week later, she didn't even realize she was the one who had done this!
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Swim - Fish - Drink
Swim- Fish-Drink was the theme of the design on the t-shirt at a WATERKEEPER ALLIANCE conference a couple years ago. It's one of my favorite. Not just because it was a very trendy drab green color, but rather because these words ran across the chest, with an appropriate graphic of a swimmer, a fish and a glass of water above each word. Very simple, yet these 3 images and 3 words told a huge story about a single character - water.
Swim - Fish -Drink. That water theme sums up Worcester County in a nutshell. Tourists and residents alike flock to Worcester County to swim, jetski, water ski, wade in the county's water. Tourists and residents alike come here to boat, fish, clam, crab in the county's water. And we all drink the water here - well water or city water, it all comes from our aquifers that are fed from the groundwater, and that groundwater is recharged from whatever water can make its way through the soil.
And so I found myself on Wednesday, September 23, sitting in a meeting room for seven hours overlooking Back Creek in Annapolis, MD, a member of the Maryland Stormwater Consortium, with two dozen other environmental advocates, scientists, lawyers, engineers and land planning consultants to exchange ideas and formulate a communication strategy about the new Maryland Stormwater regulations that will go into effect early 2010.
The Maryland Stormwater Consortium formed almost two years ago, after the State Legislature passed the Maryland Stormwater Act of 2007 - probably one of the most progressive pieces of environmental legislation to ever come out of Annapolis because it mandated that county and municiple land use and development codes must incorporate ENVIRONMENTAL SITE DESIGN (ESD) into the earliest planning stages of development/redevelopment.
ESD says that after the construction phase is complete, all stormwater must be kept on the development site to the maximum extent practicable and what does run off must be very close to what ran off the natural site before it was developed. Redevelopment regulations now require improvements to how stormwater is controlled so that the new building and parking lots actually do a better job of keeping the water runoff on site than the old building did. (are your eyes glazing over yet?)
The Consortium positioned itself to advocate for the strongest regulations possible as the state's old regs began a transformation that would turn the building community upside down. The paradigm shifts!
Old skool: water is 'waste'- move it, pipe it, steer it by curb and gutter; whatever it takes to get it off the land as fast as possible. Dump it out into the closest body of water to the job site.
New skool: water is a 'resource' (wow, what a concept!) Capture it, infiltrate it, re-use it, keep it on the land, filter it and let it recharge the ground water.
So now 'old skool' county/city codes must change. Familiar, easy, 'been doing it this way for years' methods are out the window. Old dogs must learn new tricks. Fortunately there are a number of new dogs in town too, so in some cases the transition will not be so difficult.
The Coastkeeper, and other Maryland Riverkeepers have challenged Maryland on sediment erosion control laws. Now we are preparing a review and possible challenge to the weakest elements of the new stormwater regulations. Between the Waterkeepers and the Consortium, good citizens are working hard (and making our state/local agencies eat lots of antacids!) to enact the best possible regulations in order to protect THEIR water - YOUR water - OUR water!
We all want to Fish - Swim - Drink clean, healthy water. ESD will help keep pollutants and sediment to a minimum, if we can convince our elected officials to adopt strong local regulations.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
To 'Prog'
I wish to use my first post to thank Tom Horton for the inspiration that led to the name of my blog.
In his 1996 book 'An Island Out Of Time', about Smith Island on the Chesapeake Bay of Maryland, Tom wrote the following passage: ...."And among them, a transcendent few are proggers, existences webbed wonderfuly into this waterland. Their gleanings and discoveries continually enhance and reforge the bonds between human and natural communities here...A true progger loves, above all, to roam the edges where land and water merge."
Further along, he quotes an Eastern Shore waterman who says, "Proggers just go out to see what we can see, find what we can find."
How perfectly these words describe who I am and what I do. I am the Assateague COASTKEEPER and I am one of over 200 passionate WATERKEEPERS (of the WATERKEEPER Alliance) who speak for the waterways we are assigned to protect and defend.
I spend my days 'progging' my way around the Coastal Bays of Maryland, on a small 17' Carolina Skiff, keeping an eye out for pollution discharges, buffer clearing, construction, or marsh damage that can cause harm to the waters of Assawoman Bay, Isle of Wight Bay, St. Martin River, Herring Creek, Turville Creek, Sinepuxent Bay, Newport Bay, Chincoteague Bay and all the little creeks, guts and ditches that feed into them.
I also spend my days 'progging' my way around the halls of Worcester County government, challenging when necessary, to make sure County and State environmental laws are enforced and to ensure County policies will protect and enhance the health of our waterways and natural resources of Worcester County.
These waters can not speak for themselves. They need a voice. The Assateague COASTKEEPER is that voice.
So thank you Tom, for the blog name. Thank you Assateague Coastal Trust for your support of the Coastkeeper program. Thank you Waterkeepers everywhere around the globe for your guidance, inspiration, and dedication.
My posts, from this point on, will hopefully make residents of and visitors to Worcester County aware of what is going on - whether this is happening in public forums, in legislative forums, behind closed doors, or out in the open - waiting for a progger to come along and find it.
In his 1996 book 'An Island Out Of Time', about Smith Island on the Chesapeake Bay of Maryland, Tom wrote the following passage: ...."And among them, a transcendent few are proggers, existences webbed wonderfuly into this waterland. Their gleanings and discoveries continually enhance and reforge the bonds between human and natural communities here...A true progger loves, above all, to roam the edges where land and water merge."
Further along, he quotes an Eastern Shore waterman who says, "Proggers just go out to see what we can see, find what we can find."
How perfectly these words describe who I am and what I do. I am the Assateague COASTKEEPER and I am one of over 200 passionate WATERKEEPERS (of the WATERKEEPER Alliance) who speak for the waterways we are assigned to protect and defend.
I spend my days 'progging' my way around the Coastal Bays of Maryland, on a small 17' Carolina Skiff, keeping an eye out for pollution discharges, buffer clearing, construction, or marsh damage that can cause harm to the waters of Assawoman Bay, Isle of Wight Bay, St. Martin River, Herring Creek, Turville Creek, Sinepuxent Bay, Newport Bay, Chincoteague Bay and all the little creeks, guts and ditches that feed into them.
I also spend my days 'progging' my way around the halls of Worcester County government, challenging when necessary, to make sure County and State environmental laws are enforced and to ensure County policies will protect and enhance the health of our waterways and natural resources of Worcester County.
These waters can not speak for themselves. They need a voice. The Assateague COASTKEEPER is that voice.
So thank you Tom, for the blog name. Thank you Assateague Coastal Trust for your support of the Coastkeeper program. Thank you Waterkeepers everywhere around the globe for your guidance, inspiration, and dedication.
My posts, from this point on, will hopefully make residents of and visitors to Worcester County aware of what is going on - whether this is happening in public forums, in legislative forums, behind closed doors, or out in the open - waiting for a progger to come along and find it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
