To start, I can report that the County Council will resume hearing Petitioners’ case for rescission of Resolution 281 (the greenlight given Lakeside in August 2020) at a work session at 5 PM on Monday, December 13th in the Bradley Room.  

Monica Otte and I met recently with the County Manager Clay Stamp and County Attorney Patrick Thomas, and open communication should assure the presentation will go much more smoothly than at the October 12th meeting.  The meeting will be open to the public and will be livestreamed and transcribed for the record.  As earlier, I will be the only person speaking on behalf of petitioners (now at least 425, up from 349 on Sept 24th).  But I  can call witnesses and present exhibits.  It is also agreed that the presentation will not exceed two hours.  

To add your own voice to this citizens’ effort, just send a short email supporting Petition 21-01 to [email protected].

The Public Hearing on Pete Lesher’s Resolution 308 at which all citizens can speak will also resume but in a separate session that I believe will to be held the following evening; that is, at the regular December 14th Council Meeting.  Here, speakers are limited to three minutes (five if representing an organization.)  See the Council’s agendas when posted.  

As to substantive developments concerning Lakeside, much has happened since the last Focus on Talbot.  That was the report on facts revealed by the Choptank Riverkeeper and by our neighbor, Dr. Smullen, about the outrageous failures ongoing at the existing Trappe sewerage plant—to which Rocks Engineering (the developer) intended to hook the first 89, or 120, or 250 or some number of houses for some indefinite period of time.  And all of the problems meant more sewage effluent into that little tributary feeding the long-impaired La Trappe Creek.  Everyone seems to agree that hooking up to the existing plant would be insanity—and yet it was the pillar on which the start of construction of Lakeside rested. 

In keeping with the season, let’s use a sports metaphor.  Rocks Engineering is scrambling in the backfield, trying to do anything to avoid rescission.  Yet “rescission without prejudice” (meaning Rocks can bring Lakeside back for reconsideration once open questions are answered) is exactly what buys Talbot County the time to get it right—that is what’s needed.  And the Council unquestionably has the authority to rescind R281, as we all learned from the legal opinion obtained last month by three of our neighbors from the respected firm of Gallagher, Evelius and Jones.

Here is one remarkable  illustration of the scrambling Rocks Engineering is doing right now—laid out in broad daylight but missed by most everyone:  

On the morning of October 6th Matt Pluta (the RiverKeeper) presented to the Planning Commission data from an independent lab showing the existing Trappe Plant is regularly discharging nitrogen at a level at least thirteen (13) times higher than the St. Michaels wastewater plant.  Trappe is not in violation only because, astonishingly, MDE has put no limit on the amount of total nitrogen it can discharge into La Trappe Creek!  And the lab report showed E coli and fecal coliform in the stream below the plant at more than ten times the threshold Maryland deems safe.  Dr. Smullen delivered a 21-page report showing huge inflow and infiltration (“I&I”) problems in Trappe, and that the plant fails even with precipitation far from extreme.  Lisa Ghezzi, a Commissioner, read language from the MDE’s permit that clearly says that a sludge permit is required, but which the Town’s attorney dismissed (since they don’t have one) because of an email from someone at MDE.  

Anyone attending that PC meeting saw that a majority of Commissioners were extremely concerned about the existing plant, and hooking up more houses before that plant and its I&I problem are both fixed properly likely was not going to fly.  The meeting recessed before a vote.

That very night (October 6th) the Trappe Town Council happened to be meeting.  (Trappe is the Co-Applicant with Rocks Engineering on the Lakeside project, and to say they work closely together is to understate reality.  They act as if partners, even though one should be the regulator and the other the regulated.)  At its meeting the Town commissioned a new engineering study for some quite extraordinary alternatives to the Lakeside sewerage scheme.

After eighteen years (18!) with but one plan on the table—to hook up the first Lakeside homes to the existing plant–the Town decides on the very day new facts come to the attention of the Talbot Planning Commission that it should spend taxpayer money to explore radical new alternatives.   (The Town of Trappe has always owned and operated the existing plant, and has always known the facts disclosed earlier that morning.)

The next evening, October 7th, the Planning Commission meeting continued, with Rocks Engineering’s lawyer explaining to the Commissioners  that the Applicant had other new alternatives it was exploring for wastewater!  (Watch the explanation here, beginning at 11:50, or attached below is a non-official transcript.)

What are these new ideas?  First, maybe the new Lakeside plant “will be expanded,” and all of Trappe’s sewerage (plus water from the I&I problem?) will get pumped to the new plant on the east side of Rt. 50–then the flow from the existing Town will be pumped back to La Trappe Creek…and the Lakeside flow will be sprayed upland of the pristine Miles Creek.  Or maybe the waste now generated in Trappe will get pumped to Lakeside for treatment, and a “hybrid” system will be used–in summer spray it on the fields there, but in winter pump it all back to discharge into that little unnamed tributary at the headwaters of the shallow and ill-flushed La Trappe Creek.  Or—and I’m not making this up—all of Trappe’s sewerage gets pumped to Lakeside for treatment, and then it is all pumped back to discharge into that little unnamed tributary all year long, with no spraying.

That is some scrambling!  It’s not that all of those ideas are necessarily crazy, but that they were only brought up on the very day the Planning Commission met to consider rescission–and fourteen months after R281 was first adopted?  That these ideas were first revealed to the County just 50 minutes before the Planning Commission vote?  That anyone believes these ideas will be properly vetted by December 1st, the purported study deadline?  That is what’s crazy.   

And among other things, Rocks Engineers’ attorney pointed out that “MDE will have to determine how it will fund it.”  [Read taxpayers.  And if I were a certain type of developer, I might relish mixing state work in with my own—an opportunity to game that funding system.]

By December 1st not one of these brainstorms will have advanced much beyond a concept; not one will have been deeply vetted even by the Applicant, much less the Talbot County Public Works Advisory Board, the Planning Commission, the County Council, or the Public.  Not one of these ideas was mentioned at the October 28th MDE hearing…and is there any doubt that the whole MDE discharge application process would need to be redone in toto with any of these changes?  

With all due respect, if this exercise is to stave off rescission without prejudice of Resolution 281, it’s absurd.  Like trying to build the airplane while flying it too.  The very purpose of rescission is to buy the time to get things right, and that is what Talbot needs.  The scrambling is a distraction, and the Talbot County Council should rescind R281 forthwith. 

Dan Watson is the former chair of Bipartisan Coalition For New Council Leadership and has lived in Talbot County for the last twenty-five years. 

Unofficial good faith transcript 

11:56 Ryan Showalter, attorney for TEHBT (not Town of Trappe).
[Bracketed language is DW comment.] Emphasis added.

“The Town has a PER that it prepared in connection with its plan to replace or upgrade its treatment plant.” [So, existing PER it is completed. Not clear if it has ever been released to anyone.] One of components of R281 is a capital improvement project to upgrade their plant. [Describe what that means.] The first step to getting any state of federal funding is to do a PER, Preliminary Engineering Report, that looks at a number of alternatives ranging from doing nothing to a variety of other approaches, and that evaluation is performed by an engineer. The evaluation provides reasonable cost estimates for the various alternatives, evaluates their feasibility, there timing. And, so, they produced a PER that looked at a number of different alternatives.

“And through a variety of different discussions [without reference to who, when, where], a new alternative became apparent [in the last 24 hours?] which was the possibility of EXPANDING the Lakeside plant. …. Put 200,000 gallons of capacity online on the east side of Route 50, and if that happens, essentially the existing town collection system [with huge I&I problems] goes to the town treatment plant…and there would be a new pump station at the town treatment plant that would pump wastewater to the new Lakeside plant, it would be treated to ENR levels, and then discharged….

“The Town is evaluating three potential scenarios: one is to keep the existing discharge permits as they are, so Lakeside would discharge 540,000 gpd [no ref to 1,500,000 max]… consistent with its [not yet issued] permit and the Town would have a 200,000 gpd point discharge. Another alternative is to look at a hybrid system where there is spray during the summer and point discharge during the winter. And then the third is to look at discharging all of it through the point discharge and not having spray irrigation.

“The Town Council [just last night] approved a proposal from the Town Engineer [who?] to do that evaluation and amend their PER to add the results of that evaluation….the Town has a soft deadline from MDE [why is MDE giving deadlines? Are they in loop?] of December 1st to evaluate alternatives and provide information about their next steps. So, my understanding is that the engineers intend to do that evaluation quickly so the Town can understand the potential implications and consider that.”

[Opined that a good chance that will be the way to replace the Town plant in 18-20 months. President Councell pressed him, but understandably he could not commit.]

[17:25] “If the Town decides to go that route…”

“A number of diff factors here obviously. The first is, and I want to be very clear, I have no influence over that; we don’t control that. It’s a Town decision, the Town citizens have to evaluate that. MDE WILL HAVE TO DETERMINE HOW TO FUND IT. There are lots of variables there that we don’t control. Assuming they select that as the alternative, we’re committed to cooperating with the Town in any form or fashion to expedite that.”

 

 

 

 

 

At the public hearing on Lakeside last Tuesday night, the County Council and the public learned that the little stream below the existing Trappe sewerage plant–to which the first 120 (or more) Lakeside homes will be connected—today carries a level of E coli eleven times (!) Maryland’s recreational water quality standard. And the plant is right now discharging effluent into that stream at more than twelve times (!) the nitrogen concentration as put out by the St. Michaels plant, an unheard-of level. ELEVEN AND TWELVE TIMES AS MUCH.

And the Trappe sewer collection system leaks like the proverbial sieve. And a massive failure at that plant that lasted for at least three months (and for which MDE levied no enforcement penalty) was not due to “extreme precipitation” as claimed by the Town, but rather occurred under common circumstances. And all this discharge is going into the shallow, ill-flushed headwaters of La Trappe Creek (which MDE lists as already impaired for fecal coliform and other indicia of pollution)—at a point less than a half mile above Trappe Landing where local boaters and kayakers interact with that tributary. You’ve probably seen the photos.

All of this is new information unavailable to the Council when they gave Lakeside a greenlight in August 2020, and are among the important reasons—there are others—why the Council really must rescind its action taken last year. The information was authoritative, not just “someone’s opinion” and was provided by ShoreRivers from reports by a professional lab that operates to EPA standards, on water samples drawn within the last five weeks, and a 21 page research analysis (with an 18 page appendix) prepared by Dr. Jim Smullen, a nationally recognized wastewater expert with 40 years of experience with many degrees including a PhD…who just happens to live near Trappe. Who knew?

The reason this is important is that the Lakeside developer and the Town of Trappe are intent on connecting those first 120 houses, possibly quite a number more, to that plant via a pipe to be run under Route 50. Even 120 homes would increase the plant’s sewerage flow by almost 30%. It is insanity, but it seems the cheapest way for the developer, Rocks, to get going, and the Town wants his money, because of a financial squeeze, all tied back to that sewer plant.

Big picture: this all needs to get fixed—the failing plant and that little Town’s financial problems both—but tying Lakeside into that plant is not an answer. Lakeside, that massive subdivision, brings to Talbot County troubles enough even aside from running its waste through an antiquated plant and into La Trappe Creek.

If you saw any of the County Council Public Hearing last Tuesday night, in person or on video (Item XIII, begins 40 minutes in), you’ll agree it was extraordinary. Solid and damning information—yes. But procedurally? Oy! Fortunately, everyone seems committed to a more mature orderly format when the public hearing resumes, which will happen at a date to be announced.

Briefly, on Tuesday the agenda item was set as a Public Hearing on Mr. Lesher’s resolution to rescind the green light given Lakeside last year, and of course many citizens went to considerable effort to come to the meeting to speak, even though strictly limited to three minutes.

But, with practically no notice and no discussion of the ground rules, I was told that in connection with Petition 21-01 filed in early May and now supported by over 350 citizens, I was to “present my case” before any other speakers (with witnesses and exhibits and no limitation on time, which is how the process is described in the Council’s Rules of Procedure). Having researched Lakeside for six months, there is a mountain of important new information that the Council must see—and it appeared, “now or never.”

And so unfolded a very awkward situation, one in which I know I seemed very disrespectful not only of the Council’s time, but that of my friends and neighbors waiting to speak. (I sent an email of apology that next morning to the 350 on the Roster of petition supporters, and while a few did confirm I had given them offense, many more understood fully—and recognized that it was because of the petitioners’ different rules that the RiverKeeper, Matt Pluta, and Dr. Smullen were able to reveal such important new information, on E coli and nitrogen, for example.)

Our Petition 21-01 is alive and well and its cause is gathering strength. If you yourself have not spoken up to oppose Lakeside, join the Roster: just send a short email of support of our petition to [email protected]. We have more new information to present to the Council, but it can now be done more briefly and with greater organization. And, separately, the Public Hearing on Mr. Lesher’s resolution can wind up too, without the two efforts overlapping or disrupting one another.

Stay posted.

Dan Watson is the former chair of Bipartisan Coalition For New Council Leadership and has lived in Talbot County for the last twenty-five years. 

It is disappointing–and surprising–to have to report that last week the Planning Commission turned down a proposal to rescind its finding last year that the Lakeside project is still deemed consistent with the Talbot County Comprehensive Plan. This, in spite of a wealth of new information that has been gathered that demonstrates clearly that Lakeside should be paused until important problems are worked out.

Most dramatic and obvious is that the developer, Rocks, is going to hook up at least 120 homes (a 27% load increase) to the existing grossly inadequate wastewater plant the effluent of which courses into the headwaters of shallow and ill-flushed La Trappe Creek. You recall those photos, of course.

How can anyone reconcile this report that important, dramatic, compelling new information has been assembled that bears on public health and Talbot’s quality of life—and yet the Commission did not change its mind? Surely, you reason, Watson is exaggerating the significance of the evidence, blowing things out of proportion. Well, that could be one answer… but that’s not the story, at least in my opinion. Gathering information is not the same as communicating information—and as I thought about it intently in the last few days, I am sure that that is where the system is flawed and broken.

I intend to write a full Spy piece on this in a month or two (no hurry now), but briefly, here’s the picture: gathering information is unilateral; communication is a two-way street. Communication requires active engagement on both sides…speaking and listening, expression and comprehension. Let’s accept on its face that Commissioners, who are unelected volunteers appointed by the Council, are well intentioned people.

The problem, which I will not detail here, is a gross unbalance in the manner information comes before the Planning Commission—unlimited and unchallengeable monologue by advocates, building a story in meeting after meeting (supported or accommodated by a surprisingly passive staff), versus three-minute, hard stop, “comments” by others afterwards, at one short session. Is it any wonder things don’t always work out as they should?

And as to written materials? People like me can present detailed information and try to explain complexities carefully and methodically in a nine-page letter, and ShoreRivers can deliver lab reports, and a professional report by a recognized wastewater expert (with an appendix of exhibits proving the thesis), but that does not assure that the intended audience has digested it all—indeed, that they have even read it. But that critique is for another day. (And I know of course that more than a few surely are thinking, it’s just sour grapes.)

Since the Commission has already acted, guess what. The Council has chosen now as the time to invite yours truly to “present my case” in connection with the demand for rescission of R281 I first presented last May 7th, over five months ago. Cynical, in my opinion—and really triggered by their realization, I think, that were they to dispose of this rescission question without ever letting me have my say, litigation would surely ensue. (The lawsuit for “mandamus” I filed back in June to compel this presentation is still open, and won’t be moot or dismissed until I have completed my full say.)

So I will be there tomorrow night. And because the Council’s Rules for a petitioner are a little different than for public hearings, I’ll not be hard stopped at three minutes. If you are not attending (many are), you might want to livestream it from the County’s website, link below.

It will be an honor, actually, to speak to the Council not for myself alone, but for 349 additional citizens (and voters ) as we exercise our right “to petition the government for a redress of grievances,” which is how the idea is expressed in the First Amendment. The 349 (as of September 24th) are listed by name on the County’s roster, citizens who formally support my call for rescission. Some I am told are “mad as hell and don’t want to take it anymore.”

Seems late in the game, but if you want me to be speaking for you also tomorrow night, just email support for Petition 21-01 to [email protected] today. We’re all in this together.

Dan Watson is the former chair of Bipartisan Coalition For New Council Leadership and has lived in Talbot County for the last twenty-five years. 

 

 

Three prominent local attorneys engaged a respected law firm to examine the advice recently given the County Council, that the Council’s “hands are tied,” and there is really nothing it can do about Lakeside at this point. In a forceful opinion distributed last Thursday, the firm established the opposite: the Talbot County Council “unquestionably” has the power and authority to rescind the greenlight given to Lakeside last year, and if they do so, the approval of last year’s Council action by the Maryland Department of Environment (“MDE”) is of no effect.

The Council can indeed act, if it chooses to do so. Mr. Lesher’s Resolution to rescind R281, “the green light,” comes up in Public Hearing at the Council’s October 12th meeting, and its adoption would suspend Lakeside at least for an extended time while many recent questions are investigated and resolved. These include the condition of La Trappe Creek (you remember those photos, right?); the operation and discharge limits at the existing Trappe sewerage plant; the number of Lakeside homes to be connected there; after-the-fact changes to the proposed new plant; and, recently discovered drafting errors and mapping mistakes or major proportions made by the developer and Town of Trappe. Over three-hundred citizens have written the Council in support of a Petition to stop Lakeside while these problems are addressed. (Just send your own email to that effect to [email protected].)

The gentlemen who have done our community such a service in obtaining an independent legal opinion are themselves distinguished attorneys: Mike McConnel, John Briggs, and J.T. Smith. Two of them are retired and none lives anywhere near Trappe. They hired Gallagher, Evelius and Jones of Baltimore who researched the matter fully; the attached opinion includes citations of case law that demonstrate that the Council—and the Planning Commission—do have the ability to protect Talbot County citizens, as common sense suggests. The matter is so clear that there was none of the usual lawyerly equivocation in the firm’s conclusions:

“The County Council is authorized to rescind Resolution 281 and would do so by enacting Resolution 308 [Lesher’s legislation].

The Planning Commission has authority to reverse or rescind its certification of Resolution 281.

Resolution 308 would rescind Resolution 281’s amendments and would restore the status quo as it existed before the adoption of Resolution 281 and its approval by MDE.”

(The developer and the Town of Trappe—who are jointly the “Applicant” trying to get Lakeside underway–could perhaps avoid the impact of a rescission, but only if they are able to show that they were in fact acting in good faith when they went forward. The issue would not be how much dirt they had moved, but the facts surrounding the reasons for rescission and the Applicant’s decision to proceed. The County Council has no role whatsoever in evaluating that question, should it even arise.)

In other news related to Lakeside, the Planning Commission has received and is reviewing important new information from various parties that was not in its possession in June 2020 when it found, on a 3-2 vote, that the plans for Lakeside were consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan. It is likely to decide on Wednesday, after a public hearing, what action it might wish to take in view of the new information. ShoreRivers presented data from recent water samples below the Trappe plant, for example, that show extremely high levels of nitrogen are in the little tributary feeding La Trappe Creek, as well as E coli. (Again, those photos. Oy!)

No doubt more information will be made public prior to the October 12th Public Hearing in front of the County Council. Put it on your calendar!

Dan Watson is the former chair of Bipartisan Coalition For New Council Leadership and has lived in Talbot County for the last twenty-five years. 

Opinion Letter by Gallagher, Evelius and Jones

 

 

Unless Resolution 281 is rescinded, sewage from Lakeside’s first phase is slated to be pumped under Route 50 and run to the existing Trappe wastewater treatment plant, where it will get added to all of the rest of Trappe’s waste, treated in some fashion, and discharged into an “unnamed tributary” of La Trappe Creek where Trappe’s effluent has been directed for decades.

The Trappe plant is old, and was last upgraded in 2002. The low standards it is expected to meet; its ability to meet those standards consistently, month in and month out; and MDE’s monitoring and enforcement of its operation are all issues of controversy—with or without the additional waste load coming from Lakeside. (As to that second point for example, due to some “washout,” the plant was in violation for three straight months earlier this year, discharging as much as 230% of what is permitted even under its antiquated standards.) You will probably hear more about these issues in coming weeks.

The Trappe sewerage treatment plant is right on the edge of the Town, hard against the Talbot line. The treated effluent is piped into Talbot County, discharging into an “Unnamed Tributary” at Island Creek Road. (The area is zoned “Countryside Preservation,” by the way.) At this point, that effluent is no longer Trappe’s problem—it’s now on Talbot County land, in Talbot County waters, and is a Talbot County problem.

In learning about Lakeside’s impact on our County, I’ve been hearing and reading about this “Unnamed Tributary,” for some time—for example, in MDE’s permits for the Trappe plant. It is a small stream essentially beginning at the sewage plant and running about a half mile (as the crow flies) till it spills into the headwaters of La Trappe Creek, and from there into the Choptank. La Trappe Creek and the Choptank are both on the EPA list of impaired waters; the lower Choptank (downstream of La Trappe) is cited for fecal coliform issues, among others, and I believe La Trappe Creek is also.

I live on the Miles and have never been on La Trappe Creek, or even to Trappe Landing, much less have I seen this “Unnamed Tributary.” So, Saturday a week ago (the 11th), I roped my kayak into my wife’s SUV (really should get a carrier), and drove down to the landing. It was a great afternoon for kayaking—upper 70’s sunny, no wind. (When I got back, I checked and saw that I’d been there just about low tide.) I had to paddle upstream less than a half mile to find where the stream carrying the discharge from the Trappe sewage plant fed into La Trappe. It was a random day, and I presume sometimes conditions on that “unnamed tributary” are better, and sometimes they are worse. Nevertheless, below are some of the photos I took that day.

Is this our Talbot County? Are we really going to say it’s fine for Lakeside to increase the load on this already dire waterway–by 27%, maybe more? Have we no means to influence this, no leaders who will make it right?

If you are concerned about these matters, and about the Lakeside subdivision going forward, follow the news on social media (“Trappe the Waste” FB page, or “Talbot Integrity”). And indicate your support for Petition 21-01, which is alive and well, by emailing to that effect to [email protected].

Documentation:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dan Watson is the former chair of Bipartisan Coalition For New Council Leadership and has lived in Talbot County for the last twenty-five years. 

 

I think that’s about to happen.  This time in the still of the night, in the quiet of a nearly empty Bradley Room at the tippy-tail end of this coming Tuesday night’s County Council meeting.  All but the staff and Council will have left the room much earlier.  The few live-streamers will have turned off the computers, maybe to call a friend about breaking news. Probably no one will be waiting to comment, as the action’s over.

(This foretelling is based on a reading between the lines of Sunday’s Star Democrat article: Item VII. B. could signal big happenings regarding the Talbot Boys Statue.  If so, after a decade of argument, it will rightly go in the books as one of Talbot County Council’s Big Meetings!  I sure hope that item passes.)

I don’t really know what’s going to happen of course, but the end-of-meeting scenario above is quite possible.  When people leave after VII.B, the meeting isn’t over.  An hour later the Council will come to the eighteenth and very last item of the night:  “Item F” under the County Manager’s Report.  “APPOINTMENT OF COUNTY ATTORNEY.”  Four little words.  No one there to watch.

Anyone who’s been reading about Lakeside (and if you somehow know nothing about it, it’s that 2501 home subdivision coming PDQ to Trappe…do some homework—check out “Trappe The Waste” Facebook page) knows that there is considerable controversy over the integrity of the County procedures related to its approval.  And anyone who read “Focus on Talbot” last week knows that I—and others, including attorneys–am very concerned about the wrong but very convenient advice given by our Acting County Attorney to the Council members supporting Lakeside.

Compounding it all, at the “tippy-tail end” of this coming Tuesday night’s County Council meeting,  when no one is watching, I believe a majority of the County Council intends to  approve a contract making the “Acting” County Attorney our official and permanent “County Attorney.” 

Try as I might, I have not been able to see the actual contract the Council intends to approve, but what I understand is bulleted below.  (My effort to get and report on the “true facts” has been thwarted by a Talbot County government that has not provided copies of the applicable documents even under a September 1st Public Information Act (“PIA”) request seeking material that is very clearly in the public realm.  And of course the “Office of Law” handles PIA requests.  Since the County won’t produce the documents, I must tell you that the following is not 100% confirmed, but is what I understand:

• Our Acting County Attorney, Mr. Thomas, is an attorney with the six-lawyer law firm of the McLeod Law Center (https://www.mlg-lawyers.com) of Chestertown, with a second office in Denton.  (No office in Talbot County.)  The firm highlights six “practice areas,” the first of which is “Real Estate,” and the fourth “Local Government Law.”
• A short-term contract was signed in February, and I cannot determine if there was an public solicitation or open discussion of that process.  In any event, the McLeod firm was hired on a hourly basis to provide all legal services to the County, including not only the services of Mr. Thomas, but others as needed (such as his associate Mr. Meehan who has been designated the “independent counsel” representing the Planning Commission (think Lakeside) and is also representing the County in my lawsuit to require the Council to properly hear the Petition I filed in May, now supported by over 250 other citizens.)
• Every lawyer I have spoken to is skeptical that some “hourly rate” arrangement is financially sensible, compared to hiring a qualified attorney as has been done for the last 25 years.
• The County Charter provides for the engagement of an individual person to be County Attorney, and its unclear how a corporate contract meets some criteria (e.g., residency requirements, especially when the firm does not even have a Talbot County Office.)
• The existing contract was for a short term, and apparently having well served the objectives of the persons on the Council making decisions about engagement—i.e., the majority that so strongly supports Lakeside, It appears that contract is about to be made permanent.  That is, if the Council on Tuesday night acts on “item X.F,” the eighteenth and final item after a long night, with no one watching.  All the information we citizens have about it is four little words:  “APPOINTMENT OF COUNTY ATTORNEY.”

Any Council member or any citizen who cares about this appointment to arguably the most important and powerful post in Talbot County government, on Tuesday night would ask these questions…before then moving to defer a decision:

1. Did Talbot County have an independent lawyer review the contract on behalf of the County?  Contracts for legal services can be tricky, potential for many subtle nuances.  Were appropriate protections for the County included?  (The McLeod firm’s counsel or advice is obviously inapplicable and in fact it would be unethical if provided.)
2. Did the Acting County Attorney advise the County to have independent counsel negotiate the contract?  To review it thoroughly?  Did that happen? To whom (if anyone) did that attorney report the results of its review?  Did all County Council members receive counsel or written comments?
3. If not an independent lawyer, who negotiated the contract on behalf of the Talbot County?  The County Manager?  All Council members?  A subcommittee of members, duly appointed?  Has that party ever previously negotiated a contract for legal services for a complex organization like Talbot County, where responsibilities are not singular?  Describe the process—roughly over what time period, who involved, etc.?
4. The Charter provides for an individual to serve as County Attorney.  How does the proposed contract square that circle, e.g., residency issue, when the contract is with a Corporate entity that has no office in the County?  Does the contract bar the law firm from assigning someone who is not a resident of Talbot County?
5. Are the County’s termination rights clear and unrestricted, free of any possible future claims from service provider?  Never want to be in suit with a lawyer!
6. Was this the product of a solicitation for legal services, i.e., an “RFP”?  If not, why not, and what provision of law allowed for sole-source engagement”  If an RFP, did others respond, and were they interviewed?
7. Is there any reason why the public cannot see this proposed contract?  If there are valid confidentially issues, can it not be redacted appropriately?
8. Is this emergency legislation?  Is there any reason action on it cannot be deferred?

Until actual contract language is reviewed (preferably by an independent attorney), there is no way to understand whether or not any problem exists with this proposed contract.  Action should be deferred until these questions are answered for the public’s understanding.

The issue of the integrity of our government processes is very important, whatever you want the Council to do with that Confederate statue.  Folks, we’re all in this together.

Dan Watson is the former chair of Bipartisan Coalition For New Council Leadership and has lived in Talbot County for the last twenty-five years.  

 

Those who see Lakeside, that 2501-unit behemoth in Trappe, as an irrevocable turning point for our community, need to face this fact: on October 12th, five weeks from now, Talbot County will be on the Rubicon.  No matter the baked-in public health or environmental problems that exist with the current plan, if Mr. Lesher’s Resolution 308 is defeated, the County will have nothing whatever to say about Lakeside again (that is, until years hence, when it’s 2/3 built out and needs an ok for the final third…by which time the damage is done.)  More importantly, that defeat would also mark the end to any pretense that Talbot County’s oversight of development is carried out with integrity. 

And the thing most likely to assure the defeat of Resolution 308 is that the Talbot County Council was just told—wrongly—that it has no earthly power, under any circumstances, to save us.  This strongly worded advice came to Council members on August 24th in open session from the Acting County Attorney, virtually as dictum.

I think this problem can only be addressed credibly by lawyers in our community.  Sometimes, you just have to step up.  

The Situation:

Prior to the County Council’s Public Hearing on Lakeside set for October 12th, the Planning Commission (“PC”) may review new information not available to it in 2020, raising important questions regarding the impact of Lakeside on the public health, water quality, sensitive areas, and the environment  of Talbot County.  Suppose this happens (in spite of every effort by the County Council to stop it), and that because of this new information the PC rescinds its June 2020 finding that Lakeside was ready for “Immediate Priority” status.  (That finding was a legal prerequisite to the Council’s adoption of Resolution 281 last August giving Lakeside the green light to proceed.)  Further, assume that the PC recommends to the Council that it now rescind R281 by adopting Resolution 308 (“R308”) recently introduced by Pete Lesher.  None of these things are absolutely certain to happen, but assume they do.

Importantly, R308 provides for rescission “without prejudice.”   Its adoption does not mean that Lakeside is dead.  Rather, the developer can reapply in the future, when issues revealed by the new information have been addressed and questions answered.   If all is in order, Lakeside will have earned its “immediate priority” designation.

The 2017 “Boomer case” on rescission clearly establishes that under Maryland law, if rescission is based on new information, the PC has the right to rescind its finding of consistency, and the Council has a right to rescind Lakeside’s green light by adopting R308.  Such rescission would have the effect of stopping Lakeside immediately–unless the developer can demonstrate that it had acted in good faith in reliance on the earlier adoption of R281, for example by actually starting construction on July 15th.  The issues of “acting in good faith in reliance” would turn on facts yet to be evaluated.  There are certain facts (e.g., filing of rescission petition on May 7th two months before the developer put a shovel in the ground) that call into question the good faith of subsequent actions.

Citizen engagement with these issues has been accelerating since May 7th.  Today over 250 individuals (plus the Talbot Preservation Alliance) have requested the County put their names on the roster in support of the petition for rescission, and by October 12 more will certainly join in.  

Turnout at the Oct. 12th meeting will be substantial.  After hearing from its constituents, the Council will vote to adopt or to reject R308, either stopping Lakeside for now–until important questions are answered and issues addressed–or permitting Lakeside to proceed, with the first 120 homes connecting to the existing, antiquated Trappe sewage plant.  If it rejects R308, the County Council will have chosen to give up forever any influence over what happens at Lakeside.

The Talbot County Council also sits as the County’s Board of Public Health, by the way.

The Problem:

The Acting County Attorney, at the Council’s meeting on August 24th, instructed Council members on the law pertaining to rescission.  The Council members therefore believe (in fact, or perhaps for convenience) that they are governed by that advice and should/must follow the guidance of the County’s chief legal advisor.  Therefore, if nothing is done to alter the situation, a majority of Council members will undoubtedly reject R308 on October 12, doing so behind the shield of “official legal advice” that says their hands are tied.

The Advice:

Lawyers, not laymen, can best assess the counsel and advice given (or omitted) by a County Attorney, and that person’s fulfillment of duties to all the varied parties and stakeholders who make up a County government and whose interests may not be identical.

As to that second point, unlike an attorney hired by an individual, any County Attorney’s responsibilities to his or her client are more complicated.  The client is the corporate body—in this case, Talbot County, MD–and his or her duties run to the whole body politic: not just the County Council, but also the Planning Commission and similar government entities, whose concerns and interests are sometime different than the Council’s.  Even as to the Council, any County Attorney’s duties are to all members, not an individual or subset of members.  And since he or she is explaining advice in public, pronouncements are heeded by County citizens, and so have an important and direct impact on the understanding of those stakeholders too. 

As to the legal advice given to the Talbot County Council on August 24th, any interested lawyers will want to view it themselves.  But summarized in a few words:

Talbot County is powerless to act under any circumstances.  Adopting Mr. Lesher’s Resolution 308 “would not have any effect.”  (The County Attorney  did not mention, for example, the possibility of requesting MDE to use its discretion similarly to rescind the “approval” given to Talbot’s earlier adoption of R281, in view of new and troubling information.)

Councilman Divilio, referencing that authoritative advice summed it up thus:  “You just heard our County Attorney; there’s nothing to this, it is a waste of time….all is for naught.”  And Ms. Price agreed, “We have no more power.”  

The Boomer case and its implications were not discussed–nor that MDE’s approval of the County’s action last year (even if truly determinative) was discretionary, and that if presented with important new evidence, the Planning Commission’s rescission of its finding of consistency, and the Council’s  action to rescind “without prejudice” Resolution 308, MDE might very well reverse its decision made last year as well.  In fact, it might have a duty to do that.

One Solution:

A solution is needed in quick order, or irrespective of important issues that need addressing, in five weeks-time the irrevocable decision is all but made:  this enormous but flawed billion-dollar project—the biggest ever conceived in Talbot County—will proceed uninterrupted, uncorrected, and with Talbot County having nothing to say about it. Worse, the integrity of our land review processes will be shown to be hollow. 

Inherently, issues of legal advice given by any County Attorney can never be resolved by a layman; credentials alone are out of balance.  Laymen’s opinions don’t really count.  Even if I were to hire a lawyer myself, that wouldn’t do it—because “that’s just Watson’s lawyer saying what Watson wants.”

This problem, in my opinion, can only be solved by some of the distinguished lawyers in this County picking up the ball.  Retired lawyer, working lawyer, from-here’s or recent arrivals—but people with credibility because they understand not just how the law should work, but also how lawyers are supposed to serve clients.  You have the cred.

Others may do better, but I have one idea that I think is practical and would work but that I cannot implement.  I’d like to share it with any lawyers around here who care about Talbot and are willing to get involved right now (not as a full-time job, even for 5 weeks!).  Whether my idea or someone’s better plan, none is useful unless acted on promptly.   If interested in speaking, I can be reached at [email protected].

Folks, please forward this to the lawyers you know around here (especially those not practicing locally, as they may be conflicted whatever their personal views).  And join in supporting this rescission effort yourself, by sending a brief email to that effect to [email protected].  Finally, put that Oct 12 public hearing on your calendar.

Dan Watson is the former chair of Bipartisan Coalition For New Council Leadership and has lived in Talbot County for the last twenty-five years. 

 

Good News on Lakeside!

Thanks to Councilman Pete Lesher, our request to introduce legislation rescinding Resolution 281 is on tomorrow night’s County Council agenda.  Starting the legislative process is critical and overdue.  Thanks also to the two hundred twenty-eight (more, at this point!) citizens, and Talbot Preservation Alliance, who stepped up to formally support the petition effort.

As our rescission resolution pertains to land use, the matter should be referred promptly to both the Public Works Advisory Board (“PWAB”) and the Planning Commission for their recommendations; one would expect it will be on their respective agendas the first week of September.  The County Council is also required to schedule a public hearing, which will occur after getting input from the PWAB and Planning Commission.  This should happen in September.

Tempering this is the thought that, yet again, we may have “been had,” suckered somehow, so that our efforts are for naught.  If so, it’s not clear by whom.  And maybe it’s just my odd take on things.  Read on.

Why is Rescinding 281 The Key?

Resolution 281 was adopted by the current County Council a year ago; it designated most of Lakeside (the northern two-thirds) as “Immediate Priority” for development.   IT WAS THE GREEN LIGHT.  

Uniquely, the act of rescinding Resolution 281 “without prejudice” is the only thing that will put Lakeside on hold—including suspending construction of Phase 1, the first 120 houses otherwise being connected to the Town’s inadequate existing sewer plant.  Only rescission of Resolution 281 assures that the County can buy the time needed to get this right, and today that is the most important thing.  Once all the questions are answered, the developer and Town can come back in and reapply, when the County really knows what’s going on.

Secondly, there are ongoing arguments before the Maryland Department of Environment (“MDE”) due to the remand of the spray irrigation ground water discharge permit for the new sewage plant to serve the 2,381 homes beyond Phase 1.  Many parties are offering comments to MDE, and the issues are highly technical.  At the same time, if the system is flawed in any way or if proper monitoring and oversight are not assured, the risk to public health, our water quality and the environment are huge.  Talbot County is not really in a position to offer meaningful technical comments at this point—but the most powerful “comment” of all would come to MDE and the developer through rescission of Resolution 281:  when you bring this back to us, make sure it is right.  Since it’s our only bite at the apple, Talbot County gets a last look.

What Happens If Resolution 281 is Not Promptly Rescinded?

With the Immediate Priority designation still in hand, the developer (the Rocks family of Vienna VA) remains good to go, notwithstanding on-going discussion of the discharge permit at MDE.   The developer is now and remains free of any control or influence of any sort from Talbot County.  (Lakeside was long ago annexed into the Town of Trappe, and local “regulation,” such as it is, is imposed only by the Town.  Another story.)

The only other thing the County or the Planning Commission or citizens can do is to offer technical comments on the new permit at that MDE hearing.   That’s not unimportant, but MDE is also listening to the “Applicant” (the developer and Town of Trappe working together), and MDE will do whatever MDE wants to do.  Talbot County will continue to have zero control or influence.

And How Might We Have Been Had?

Having watched this unfold very carefully, I personally believe that citizens’ hopes for achieving a safer Talbot County by rescinding Resolution 281 may yet be thwarted by three things that occurred over past months—more accurately, one unnecessary thing that did happen, and two necessary things that (so far) did not.

Being Had, Step 1:  Delay.

You already know the first thing that happened:  delay, delay, delay.  Petition 21-01 was delivered in proper form on May 7th, more than three months ago.  The Council has never permitted its proper introduction per its own Rules of Procedure, and is spending tax dollars even now fighting a lawsuit I had to bring, seeking a Court order to compel the Council to do as it is required.  Had they properly heard the Petition on May 11th, think where we would be much further along with this effort.

No less egregious is this:  Bypassing the Council, a letter was delivered on July 1st directly to the Planning Commission detailing concerns with the Lakeside project and the earlier approval process.   The Acting County Attorney, on the Council’s behalf, immediately sent an email instructing Commissioners not to discuss any of it, even among themselves—what one commissioner referred to as “a gag order.”  The Acting County Attorney, Mr. Thomas, was asked to attend the Planning Commission’s meeting four days later, to discuss the Council’s “instruction” among other things.  But he was too busy, “in a meeting.”  Even though the Commission offered to suspend its meeting until later that day or the next, Mr. Thomas was unable to meet with the Commission until July 16th, and the Commission did not really get started on its work until July 21st.  The Planning Commission has taken these matters very seriously, and since then has moved as swiftly and decisively as possible given the circumstances.  

Meanwhile, on July 15th—one day before Mr. Thomas for the first time was available to meet with the Planning Commission—the developer had bulldozers at the Lakeside site pushing dirt.  No ribbon cutting.

Being Had, Step 2:  No Independent Counsel

The Planning Commission, like everyone else, knows that a majority of County Council members, for whatever reason, very strongly support the Lakeside development. (The Planning Commission is central to this rescission discussion, as only they have the legal power to find Lakeside “consistent” with our Comprehensive Plan.  If they discover new information causing them to rescind last year’s finding of consistency, then Resolution 281 would logically fall as well.) 

 Very soon after receiving the July 1st letter and the “gag order” on July 2nd, Commissioners began discussing the need for independent counsel, i.e., their own lawyer unconnected to the County Council.  The very first act the Commissioners took after Mr. Thomas finally met with them on July 16th (after a 90-minute closed executive session) was to vote unanimously “to request the County Council to provide us a means to obtain our own independent—independent [emphasis in the original] –legal advice.”

The discussion about independent counsel for the Commission is a long saga.  Bottom line:  the Commission was not provided its own lawyer in spite of its formal request.  Instead, the County Council assigned them Mr. Thomas’s associate, a gentleman who works in the same firm–and the gentleman who represents the County Council even today fighting us petitioners in Court. 

Being Had, Step 3:  “Boomer Under Wraps”

I cannot be certain of this, because before every Planning Commission and County Council meeting the parties go into closed “executive session” with counsel, and of course no one can know what is said there.  But I say this based on an intimate if imperfect familiarity with the record of what’s gone on in past months in County government regarding Lakeside.

One hundred and six days after the filing of Petition 21-01 calling for the rescission of Resolution 281, there is no public evidence, no hint whatsoever, that the County Attorney has explained to the Council or Planning Commissioners the fundamental law of Maryland concerning rescission:  

Subject to one important caveat, a County Council and/or Planning Commission has the absolute right to rescind a prior action if faced with new information it believes requires a reversal.  That is the law as clearly established in a simple case, “Boomer vs. Waterman,” from 2017 upheld by Maryland’s highest Court, and it unfolded right next door in Queen Anne County.  

Surely the County Attorney knows all about this case, for multiple reasons even beyond the fact that, with the unusual request for rescission presented back on May 7th, he would have had a responsibility to investigate the law in our State for the County and the Commission.  

As recently as their most recent meeting a week ago today, Commissioners expressed strong feelings about troubling new information on Lakeside, and that it was different than they had understood when they first found for consistency, and they might well change their position on reconsideration.  Yet, nothing was done…no mention was made of rescission, or of options, or Boomer, or the risk of imminent vesting.  The Commission did not move to rescind last year’s action, or recommend that the Council rescind Resolution 281.  

Perhaps, as I believe, the law established by Boomer and its implications had not been adequately explained to them.   Most importantly, I suspect they had not been fully briefed that the one way the developer could escape the consequences of Talbot County rescinding Resolution 281 is the caveat:  vesting.

Being Had, Step 4:   Vesting.

The only exception to the power of a County Council, or Planning Commission, or other body, to rescind a prior action based on new and troubling information is if the affected party—say the developer, Mr. Rocks–has taken significant actions in good faith in reliance on the earlier decision. 

 Think about that.

Here is my supposition based on the history I know:  The Talbot County Attorney, the Town of Trappe, the developer, and/or others supporting Lakeside (it is a close-knit group) knew very soon after May 7th that, not only had citizens awakened to problems at Lakeside, but that their effort to get a rescission of Resolution 281 was a serious threat.  (As the Town of Trappe’s lawyer was on the losing side of Boomer, I imagine everyone in that camp would quickly have learned that the County Council and Planning Commission absolutely have the power to rescind, and that their only escape is vesting.)  What to do?  How about this:

• Do not let Petition 21-01 be presented.  Ignore it, then fight it.
• If the issues ever come to the Planning Commission, issue a gag order and then delay them from beginning work as long as possible.
• Certainly do not provide the Planning Commission independent counsel, as any unconflicted, competent and knowledgeable lawyer would quickly discover Boomer, understand its implications (especially regarding vesting), and explain it all fully to his or her client, the Commission.
• Do not mention or explain Boomer to any “unfriendly” parties or the public, especially as to the significance of vesting.  Let that sleeping dog lie. 
• Meanwhile, do anything possible to create the appearance of “action in reliance” on the earlier decisions—like push dirt at the entryway.

I have no proof that this was anyone’s “plan,” but it all pretty much comports with what I have seen.  The developer, Mr. Rocks, had equipment pushing dirt on the site on July 15th for the first time ever, thirteen days after the County’s “gag order” to Commissioners, one day before Mr. Thomas was able to find time on his calendar to meet with the Planning Commission, and two months and a week after Petition 21-01 was filed, putting all on notice that a rescission effort was underway.

But do not give up hope.  The Boomer case is clear on this too: only actions taken in “good faith” are legitimate cause for an exception to a Council’s or Commission’s right to rescind.  It seems doubtful to me, under the circumstances, that work done on and since July 15th would alone defeat the power Talbot County holds, should it be wise and bold enough to act, to rescind Resolution 281.

Dan Watson is the former chair of Bipartisan Coalition For New Council Leadership and has lived in Talbot County for the last twenty-five years. 

Focus On Talbot: Lakeside Turning Point Tomorrow?

The Planning Commission meets in a work session tomorrow at 2 P.M. in the Bradley room to discuss open questions regarding Lakeside. Because of logistical issues this may be its only opportunity to take action to rectify problems inherent in the 2020 approval of that enormous subdivision. Accordingly, I sent to the Commissioners on Friday the following letter in an effort to make plain the reasons why immediate rescission of Resolution 281 is the right course to protect Talbot County.

___________

Dear Chairman Councell and Commissioners:

I know very many citizens of Talbot County join me in thanking you for the serious interest and quite extraordinary effort you have shown regarding questions about the proposed Lakeside wastewater treatment plant, and other issues related to that development. Just as Lakeside is unique, so is the Planning Commission’s current situation.

Lakeside will have an unparalleled, generational impact on Talbot–essentially a new town straddling Route 50 whose wastes could impact our waters, sensitive areas, and public health enormously, as it will every other aspect of our County over the next fifty years. Similarly, Commissioners have a truly unprecedented opportunity–and challenge–in selecting the right course of action at this difficult moment.

I understand this to be the context: (a) two Commissioners are scheduled to be out of town for weeks; (b) a great pile of information purporting to answer the Commission’s important questions sits undigested; (c) MDE is months away from issuing a Final permit (the September hearing and comment period being merely steps to that end); and (d) Mr. Lesher has announced, and directed the County Attorney to introduce, a resolution to rescind 281 “without prejudice,” triggering the recommendation process with the PWAB and Commission both. Oh, and the developer, who is the party that obtained a less-stringent-than-represented permit last December, is moving earth every day.

You know I and some 228 other citizens advocate a particular course of action—rescission of your finding in June, 2020, that Amendment 1 to Resolution 281 is consistent with our Comp Plan, together with a recommendation to the County Council that Resolution 281 itself be rescinded—and I would like to make plain why.

First, we all must recognize the simple fact that until MDE issues an actual Final Permit (not a “Tentative Determination,” which is exactly what the so-called Draft permit was last year, the one that was watered down, unknown to us all), neither the Planning Commission or anyone else can know important facts about what will be built at Lakeside. Will the Final permit require a lagoon to hold 60 days, 75 days, or 90 days of wastewater? Will the plant spray just 540,000 gallons on any day (which the soil study seems to suggest should be the limit), or can it spray huge volumes just so it averages no more than that in a year? It matters not a whit what is today on the developer’s plans, as logic and experience suggest that down the road, only what the permit requires will be ultimately be built. All questions are not answered by citing ENR treatment standards; other issues are very important.

Commissioners cannot take the easy path—just assume whatever MDE approves will be fine—because the Commission’s direct responsibilities to Talbot citizens are quite different than MDE’s concerns. MDE does not concern itself with our Comp Plan at all. And, as a specific example, MDE takes a policy position that spray irrigation results in zero nutrient load, and so it need not be concerned with nutrients at all, or a system’s impact on TMDLs and our tributaries. And perhaps MDE can assume all plants operate exactly as designed all the time, notwithstanding Talbot’s real-world experience of decades-long failures at the Preserve and Martingham (and recent failures in Trappe itself). Commissioners’ decisions impact the health and local waters of their fellow citizens in a way that cannot be abdicated to “others,” even MDE.

Secondly, though the Commission has taken very seriously the questions that have been raised, and has been swift to action, the considerable information it has gathered is completely undigested, even if it’s all come in. (The public, by the way, has not been able to access the information at all.) If you let time and logistics dictate that a decision be made without that information being properly reviewed in a reasonable way, then the process, well intentioned or not, would actually be a charade, discrediting and not strengthening the County’s land review processes.

In a word, this is what you have been asked about the Lakeside project and its critically important waste water plant: is it consistent with our Comp Plan? And today, that is literally unknowable. What does “it” mean? Until MDE generates that Final permit—certainly not before November—who could answer that question?

Commissioners did not know the MDE permit was going to be changed when you found consistency in June of 2020, but now that you do know that—and that other changes are in the offing in coming months–the appropriate reaction is also to change—that is, to rescind “without prejudice” that finding. (“Without prejudice” of course meaning that after the facts are known, the Applicant can immediately come in for reconsideration.) This need not hinge on new information concerning the existing Trappe plant, which may or may not ultimately have a bearing.

The whole idea of the recission of Resolution 281 (and the finding of consistency that is its prerequisite) was precisely to provide the County with the time needed to properly assess all of the information that bears on these issues. If at your August 16th meeting you rescind “without prejudice” your earlier finding of necessity, the world will not end—you simply will have made the honest statement that the basis for your earlier finding has changed and until you know what is going to happen at Lakeside, you are in no position to make any finding.

Mr. Councell, as you often say, the Planning Commission’s powers are limited, and it is the County Council who calls the shots in almost every case. One of two exceptions is this very issue of “consistency,” where by statute the Commission alone holds the power—and the responsibility—to act for the benefit of our citizens. As you’ve said, whatever the Commission does, the Council “takes it from there,” and the Commission is merely advisory. (In this case, the appropriate advice on Mr. Lesher’s coming resolution would obviously be to rescind 281—and down the road, when open questions have been answered, the developer can come back in for proper reconsideration.)

Finally, I would like to reflect on what inaction by the Commission means. If you rescind the consistency finding, you buy the County time to evaluate. If you do not, then the green light given the developer last year on questionable pretenses remains unaffected. Many people and organizations (including perhaps the County or even the Planning Commission itself) may submit “comments” or questions or opinions to MDE in the upcoming public hearing and review. Being direct about it, so what? Whatever MDE decides—relying often on the developer and Town’s opinions too—will be the Final permit, and that is all the developer must conform to. Other than that, whatever the Town and the developer agree to do is what will happen.

Talbot County, as you know, has nothing to say about Lakeside but this. Choosing not to rescind its finding of consistency is to pass up the County’s one and only opportunity to influence this “biggest project ever.” All would hope that Commissioners do not ultimately rue a missed opportunity.

Thank you for your consideration of these thoughts.

Dan Watson

Dan Watson is the former chair of Bipartisan Coalition For New Council Leadership and has lived in Talbot County for the last twenty-five years. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The County Council’s response to the lawsuit seeking a court order that they permit presentation of a citizen’s petition regarding Lakeside–as required by their own Rules of Procedure—was to say I sued the wrong party. Technically, “Talbot County, Maryland” needed to be named, not the County Council who is ignoring its own Rules. Fair enough. So, two weeks ago I re-filed the identical papers, and this silly and unnecessary action continues with a couple of weeks lost. 

But believing there are adults in the room, last night I sent the following communication to all Council Members copying key staff.  (Any citizen who might want to express their own view on the Councils’ intransigence can reach Council members at the addresses below.)  And to add your own name to the 227 who have so far voiced support for Petition 21-01, just send an email to that effect to [email protected].

_____________ 

Dear Council Members,

Ms. Moran, the Council’s Secretary, has so far listed 227 individuals (plus TPA representing its constituency) who have taken the time to email the Council to join in or voice support for Petition 21-01, submitted more than three months ago. I know few of these people, and they are from all over the County.  

Your own Rules of Procedure provide specific provisions that any citizen must follow to petition the Council (in the words of the first amendment) for a redress of grievances.  The provisions were followed to a Tee.  I reiterate the request—for myself, the other 227 so far on that roster, and many other citizens you know are interested–that you permit the presentation of Petition 21-01, and also that you introduce the Resolution it proposes.  In due time, after proper consideration, you will have the opportunity to adopt or reject (or amend) that Resolution.  

You’ll recall this petition was triggered by a need to uphold the integrity of our land use review process: unbeknownst to the County, apparently significant changes were made to the Lakeside groundwater discharge permit after your approval of Resolution 281.  That would be troubling in any instance, but doubly so given the scale and significance of Lakeside to the future of Talbot County. And other questions have arisen concerning the existing Trappe sewer plant that has been in violation for months, but is slated to receive hookups of the first 120 Lakeside homes.

Many of your constituents are puzzled why, instead of simply permitting presentation of Petition 21-01, you have hired a lawyer (oddly, the same gentleman who you hired as “independent counsel” to the Planning Commission) to fight not one, but two lawsuits that have had to be filed in our effort to get a court order mandating you to do what you are actually obligated to do:  give us an opportunity to present our case. If your objective is delay, it has succeeded so far; this whole matter might already have been resolved (at little cost) had you permitted presentation months ago.

Sincerely,

Dan Watson
Easton

Council Members’ email addresses (per the County website) are:

• Chuck Callahan [email protected]
• Pete Lesher [email protected]
• Corey Pack [email protected]
• Frank Divilio [email protected]
• Laura Price [email protected]