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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
