Three months. That’s how long it’s been since the Talbot County Circuit Court sent the Lakeside project back to the Maryland Department of Environment (“MDE”) for a second review of its discharge permit, after receiving complaints about the content and process that had unfolded. Three months is also how long since the County Council first refused to hear a citizen’s Petition for Recission of Resolution 281, a temporary reversal of the green-light given to this project until we can all get to the bottom of what’s going on.
This Lakeside conflict is terribly important to the future of Talbot County—a subdivision of 2501 homes and shopping centers that will spray a huge volume of sewage effluent onto fields in the watershed of the impaired Choptank River. The project also challenges the County’s commitment to the “rural character and quality of life” that is the hallmark of our Comprehensive Plan, though that is a different story.
Here’s what’s up:
The County Council:
The Talbot County Council seems adamantly committed to doing exactly nothing about the risks at Lakeside. For three months the Council has been well aware that subsequent to the County’s approval, significant changes were made to MDE’s permit for the new Lakeside sewer system—changes pointed out in ShoreRivers’ successful petition to the Circuit Court. And new questions about the existing Trappe sewer plant relevant to Lakeside also have surfaced. (A quick rebuttal by the Town of some of those the claims has not yet been evaluated.) But the Council has shown zero interest in learning if there are any problems or not.
The County Council has called no session or hearing to look into any of this.
The Council has not asked the Planning Commission or the Public Works Advisory Board (“PWAB,” whose expertise is in this area) to look into it. On the contrary: on July 2nd the Council instructed the nominally independent Planning Commission and Public Works Advisory Board (“PWAB”), both made up of citizen volunteers, not to even discuss it, or the possibility of rescinding even temporarily the greenlight the County gave to Lakeside last year.
The Council has not so far acted on the Planning Commission’s request for legal representation of its own choosing, independent from the County Attorney and his law firm, as is common in other counties.
The County Council for three months has continued to refuse to hear my Petition for rescission of 281, since joined in by about 200 other citizens, even though that action is expressly provided in their Rules of Procedure. Instead, they are moving as slowly as possible in fighting the lawsuit I had to file on this little procedural issue.
Perhaps President Callahan and the other four Council members are all experts on wastewater treatment plants and effluent discharge questions. Perhaps they know for certain that none of these issues can possibly affect public health, or water quality, or sensitive areas, or the environment—aspects of our community the Council is obligated to protect under our Comprehensive Plan.
Or perhaps the Council is just so supportive of the Lakeside project and the developer that they will abide no delay, no matter what. Why is that? This is the most significant Talbot project in a lifetime—character changing, unfolding over decades. And the requested rescission of Resolution 281 which green-lighted Lakeside is “without prejudice,” meaning it can be re-adopted if it turns out the concerns are not really serious. Motivation for the Council’s refusal to confirm that Talbot County is protected, or to look at any of the dangers here, is mystifying.
The Planning Commission and PWAB:
Meanwhile, the Planning Commission and the PWAB have not been sitting on their hands. Both took seriously the information regarding post-approval changes to the MDE permit and other concerns. But faced with a direct instruction from the Acting County Attorney not to get into the issues, they took an appropriately conservative course: both spoke at the July 13th Council meeting expressing a commitment to look into these matters, but took no other action until after a closed-door meeting with the Acting County Attorney to discuss whatever “constraints” might pertain.
The Planning Commission then met and generated specific questions for the developer and for the Town of Trappe and for MDE that were sent out last week, with responses expected shortly. At least they have taken the matter seriously, are doing what they can in spite of the County Council’s apparent resistance. (Depending on the information they are able to uncover even at this late date, the PWAB and Planning Commission may or may not contribute comments or further questions to MDE as that authority considers the Lakeside discharge permit per the Circuit Court’s remand.)
However, so far as I can see there has been no reference to rescission of Resolution 281, even “without prejudice,” though it is possible the Lakeside project as we now understand it is NOT consistent with the standards of our Comp Plan. Perhaps the Planning commission somehow knows that none of the changes are important. Or perhaps in that “closed door session,” the line was drawn for the Commission and they were told that step is out-of-bounds. In any event, recission of Resolution 281 “without prejudice” is the one and only lever I believe the County has available that would influence the Lakeside development in any meaningful way.
Coming Up:
In a couple of weeks, the Planning Commission, perhaps along with the PWAB, will meet to discuss any new information they receive, and will decide what to do with that information. Stay tuned. MDE is holding a public hearing on the Lakeside discharge permit on September 8th, and will receive written comments through September 24th. And the Circuit Court may resolve in coming weeks whether or not the County Council can ignore the language of their own Rules of Procedure in refusing to hear a citizen’s petition presented in accordance with those Rules. (To join in this still-active petition, just send an email to that effect to [email protected].)
The most surprising thing to me is that County authorities—the Council most particularly—sees nothing wrong with an applicant presenting information to the County in order to obtain an important County approval, and then making numerous changes after the fact, without so much as notice to the County. It goes to the integrity of our system, and ought not be permitted.
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.