MENU

Sections

  • Home
  • About
    • Contact Us
    • Editors and Writers
    • Join our Mailing List
    • Letters to Editor Policy
    • Advertising & Underwriting
    • Code of Ethics
    • Privacy
    • Talbot Spy Terms of Use
  • Art and Design
  • Culture and Local Life
  • Public Affairs
    • Ecosystem
    • Education
    • Health
    • Senior Life
  • Community Opinion
  • Sign up for Free Subscription
  • Donate to the Talbot Spy
  • Cambridge Spy

More

  • Support the Spy
  • About Spy Community Media
  • Advertising with the Spy
  • Subscribe
May 17, 2025

Talbot Spy

Nonpartisan Education-based News for Talbot County Community

  • Home
  • About
    • Contact Us
    • Editors and Writers
    • Join our Mailing List
    • Letters to Editor Policy
    • Advertising & Underwriting
    • Code of Ethics
    • Privacy
    • Talbot Spy Terms of Use
  • Art and Design
  • Culture and Local Life
  • Public Affairs
    • Ecosystem
    • Education
    • Health
    • Senior Life
  • Community Opinion
  • Sign up for Free Subscription
  • Donate to the Talbot Spy
  • Cambridge Spy
3 Top Story

About John Griep

John Griep has spent more than 25 years as a reporter and editor covering Talbot County and the Mid-Shore, including county and town governments, courts, police, planning and zoning, business and real estate. Contact him at [email protected].

Will a Last-Minute Proposal Keep Confederate Monument in Talbot County?

December 10, 2021 by John Griep

A D.C. firm with at least one statue removal among its recent projects was the sole bidder for the removal and relocation of the Confederate monument on the Talbot courthouse green.

The county council awarded the contract Nov. 23 to Stratified Inc., which offered a $67,000 bid to remove the controversial monument and relocate it to a Civil War battlefield site in Virginia. However, a majority of the council also provided additional time for another location — preferably in Talbot County or elsewhere in Maryland — to be offered.

If a closer, suitable site is offered — the council had asked for any last-minute proposals to be submitted by Monday, Dec. 6 — the county could then negotiate with Stratified Inc. to amend the contract to reflect the new location. Any proposals that were submitted by Monday will be reviewed by county staff and presented for consideration at the council’s regular meeting on Tuesday, Dec. 14.

“We have some possibilities within the county to relocate the monument,” Councilwoman Laura Price said. “Nobody’s trying to keep it here (on the courthouse green) anymore. But there are people who would like it to stay in the county. And that needs to be given an opportunity.

“So all we’re talking about here is to allow the county manager some flexibility that if a location within the county or even possibly, if it’s not in the county within the state, rather than moving it to Virginia, comes available during the process — because the RFP will take some time a little bit of time — to allow the county manager some flexibility that if a location is appropriate, and council chooses to do that, it just gives some flexibility.

“It does not stop this RFP process. It just allows it to be moved elsewhere in the county rather than to Virginia if that opportunity presents itself in the next month or so,” Price said.

Other council members noted supporters of keeping the monument on the courthouse green or in Talbot County have had ample opportunity to find and propose a suitable location elsewhere in Talbot County.

Councilman Frank Divilio said two proposals came in after the deadline for the RFP and he was disappointed in those offers. (During the Nov. 23 meeting, Price said she was getting text messages that there was another proposal that had not yet been provided to the county council.)

“I feel that it was a bit disingenuous when individuals say that there are locations and people that would take it without giving thought to their neighbors, their homeowners associations,” Divilio said. “I don’t see how extending the deadline will make anyone who has reservations of coming forward as have been expressed, come forward any faster.

“We gave that opportunity. We were approached and told that many individuals who are willing to accept it are afraid to come forward. And to me that doesn’t show the full commitment to the community that they would be willing to do it,” he said.

Council Vice President Pete Lesher expressed similar concerns about a location other than Cross Keys and outlined his criteria for a suitable monument site:

“(T)here are two attributes that I think the Cross Keys location has that that another location would have to provide. One is that it is owned and operated by an organization that is organized for that purpose in perpetuity. In other words, … the land will not be bought and sold…. It is owned by a preservation organization. And there is … no foreseeable prospect that that will change in in any foreseeable timeline. So there’s an element of perpetuity here.

“You know, if this was a private landowner, the land could be sold and then what. So I don’t see, I don’t see a private landowner being a responsive prospect for this destination.

“Second, is that there is an authenticity to this location. A lot of Talbot County boys fought in this location, people who are named on this monument, there’s something that is true about that location. That authenticity of location I think is something that happens (to be) a particular advantage. Now, perhaps there are other places that would meet (that authenticity).

“(A)nd most important is that this location also ensures public access for the indefinite future.”

“If there are other locations, perhaps that are closer, that could fulfill all of those requirements,” Lesher said he would be willing to support such a location. “(B)ut there … are a lot of advantages to the (Cross Keys) location and that is why I’m reticent to support this. I’m willing to explore alternatives. But right now, I’m skeptical that there’s one that will exceed the advantages of the (location) that is on the table.”

The council voted 3-2 to amend the awarding of the bid to include the possibility of another location; then voted 5-0 to award the bid as amended.

That ultimate vote prompted Lesher and Councilman Corey Pack to note that the council had voted unanimously to move the monument.

“This council just voted unanimously to award a bid to move the monument,” Lesher said. “That’s something that I did not expect and I think it is pretty extraordinary.”

Pack said he had not picked up on that point during the confusion over the votes.

“… (T)he statute will be moved. And for the first time — as Mr. Lesher pointed out — a unanimous vote to move the statue. That should be the front page story: That this council had voted unanimously to move the Confederate statue.”

Council President Chuck Callahan seemed to take some umbrage to that point.

“Laura and I voted against moving that statute. So that’s, that’s number one. I want to make sure we understand that.

“Number two, is we tried to create a situation to keep it here. Okay. So that’s the reason we voted the way we did,” Callahan said. “Okay, so you can think what you want.

“But, you know, hey, it’s over, it’s done with. The people that maybe have a place for it they have another couple of weeks to go ahead and, you know, see what that’s all about,” he said. “And all we tried to do is create a situation to try to please everybody and keep it here. That’s all we’re trying to do.”

Lesher, Pack, and Divilio had voted Sept. 14 to relocate the monument to the Cross Keys Battlefield near Harrisonburg, Va., which is part of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation.

Callahan, Price, and Lesher voted Nov. 23 to allow for additional time for proposals for an alternate location.

The costs associated with the monument’s removal and relocation will be paid by a private fund held at the Mid-Shore Community Foundation and there will be no cost to county taxpayers.

The Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation works with partners to preserve the Shenandoah Valley’s Civil War battlefields, to share its Civil War story with the nation and to encourage tourism and travel to the Shenandoah Valley’s Civil War sites.

Sealed bids in response to the RFP were due 10 a.m. Nov. 19 and considered by the council at its Nov. 23 meeting.

Stratified’s proposal calls for the firm to begin the planning process for the statue removal and relocation once the bid is awarded, with removal to begin on Jan. 17 and to be completed by Jan. 21.

As a result of the pending relocation of the monument, a federal lawsuit calling for the statue’s removal has been placed on hold. The case currently is stayed until at least Jan. 21, with attorneys telling a U.S. District Court judge that a new status report will be submitted if “any new developments affect the timing of the proposed work prior to January 21.”

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Filed Under: 3 Top Story Tagged With: award, bid, confederate monument, contract, relocation, removal, stratified inc., Talbot County

Checking In with Easton Mayor Robert Willey

December 2, 2021 by John Griep

Easton Mayor Robert Willey sat down Thursday morning with The Spy to discuss ongoing and upcoming projects around town, including a new section of Rails-to-Trails, one approved and one proposed residential development, and distribution of American Rescue Plan Act funds. The mayor also highlighted last month’s successful 50th anniversary Waterfowl Festival and Saturday night’s Christmas parade, which has more than 60 units participating.

This video is about 16 minutes long.

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Filed Under: 2 News Homepage Tagged With: ARPA funds, Easton, events, fire department, mayor, police, projects, robert willey

CDC: How to Safely Celebrate the Holidays

November 24, 2021 by John Griep

COVID-19

With COVID-19 numbers increasing in recent weeks, the CDC is offering suggestions on safer ways to celebrate the holidays.

The best way to minimize COVID-19 risk and keep your family and friends safer is to get vaccinated if you’re eligible, according to the CDC. This is particularly important for holidays and other family events where many generations gather.

The CDC offers these general tips:

• Protect those not yet eligible for vaccination such as young children by getting yourself and other eligible people around them vaccinated.

• Wear well-fitting masks over your nose and mouth if you are in public indoor settings if you are not fully vaccinated.

• Even those who are fully vaccinated should wear a mask in public indoor settings in communities with substantial to high transmission.

• Outdoors is safer than indoors.

• Avoid crowded, poorly ventilated spaces.

• If you are sick or have symptoms, don’t host or attend a gathering.

• Get tested if you have symptoms of COVID-19 or have a close contact with someone who has COVID-19.

If you are considering traveling for a holiday or event, visit CDC’s Travel page to help you decide what is best for you and your family. CDC still recommends delaying travel until you are fully vaccinated.

• If you are not fully vaccinated and must travel, follow CDC’s domestic travel or international travel recommendations for unvaccinated people.

• If you will be traveling in a group or family with unvaccinated people, choose safer travel options.

• Everyone, even people who are fully vaccinated, is required to wear a mask on public transportation and follow international travel recommendations.

Special considerations:

• People who have a condition or are taking medications that weaken their immune system may not be fully protected even if they are fully vaccinated and have received an additional dose. They should continue to take all precautions recommended for unvaccinated people, including wearing a well-fitted mask, until advised otherwise by their healthcare provider.

• You might choose to wear a mask regardless of the level of transmission if a member of your household has a weakened immune system, is at increased risk for severe disease, or is unvaccinated.

• If you are gathering with a group of people from multiple households and potentially from different parts of the country, you could consider additional precautions (e.g., avoiding crowded indoor spaces before travel, taking a test) in advance of gathering to further reduce risk.

• Do NOT put a mask on children younger than 2 years old.

“By working together, we can enjoy safer holidays, travel, and protect our own health as well as the health of our family and friends,” the CDC states on its website.

The Spy obtains information for the above chart between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. Statewide data is updated about 10 a.m. each day; counties may update data throughout the day until 5 p.m., although some counties do not update on weekends. Johns Hopkins updates its data throughout the day.

Key points for today

• Talbot County’s level of community transmission of COVID-19 is high. Everyone should wear a mask in public indoor settings when the community transmission level is substantial or high, according to the CDC.

• You can use the COVID-19 County Check Tool for a snapshot of your county’s level of community transmission over the past 7 days. The tool also displays guidance on masking based on how the virus is spreading in your county.

• The county’s 7-day average positivity rate is 7.29%. The state’s 7-day average positivity rate is 3.9%.

Vaccinations

• CDC 18+ population with at least one dose : 88.4%

• To pre-register for a vaccine appointment, visit www.marylandvax.org or covidvax.maryland.gov or call 1-855-MD-GOVAX (1-855-634-6829).

• State Vaccine Information Page: https://coronavirus.maryland.gov/pages/vaccine

• Vaccination Site Search: https://maryland.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/nearby/index.html?appid=0dbfb100676346ed9758be319ab3f40c

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Filed Under: 2 News Homepage Tagged With: coronavirus, Covid-19, hospitalizations, positivity rate, vaccination, vaccine

Cambridge Commissioners Ask Mayor to Resign Following ‘Revenge Porn’ Charges

November 18, 2021 by John Griep

The Cambridge commissioners voted unanimously Tuesday night to have the city attorney draft a letter asking Mayor Andrew Bradshaw for his resignation.

The vote came following a Tuesday night emergency meeting that went into closed session for consultations with the city attorney and city manager.

“It is the sincerest hope of all of the Commissioners that the Mayor will do what is best for the City of Cambridge and its citizens and tender his resignation,” the commissioners said in a joint statement. “Should he fail to do so, then the Commissioners are prepared to pursue all available options under Maryland Law and the City Charter.”

The joint statement from Commission President Lajan Cephas (Ward 2) and Commissioners Brian Roche (Ward 1), Jameson Harrington (Ward 3), Sputty Cephas (Ward 4), and Chad Malkus (Ward 5) was posted on the city’s website.

Section 3-35 of the city’s charter sets forth the procedure for removals from office:

“The commissioners may remove from office, or discharge from employment, the city manager, the chief bailiff and any other officer or employee that may be elected or appointed under the authority of the charter, or any ordinance or order of the commissioner (whether be the term of service under which he holds his office or employment), for neglect of duty, for incompetence, or for any other misconduct, which, in the judgment of the commissioners, constitute reasonable and sufficient ground for removing him from office, or depriving him of employment.

“In all cases, where the official or employee has any fixed or definite term of service, a charge or complaint, in writing, shall be presented to him, and evidence as to the facts alleged in such charge or complaint, shall be taken before the commissioners if he denies the correctness or truth of same.”

If Bradshaw were to resign or be removed, the commission president would assume “all rights, powers and duties of the mayor,” according to the charter, and the commissioners would need to schedule a special election to fill the mayoral vacancy.

In a previous statement, the city noted that Cambridge has a council-manager form of government with the appointed city manager, not the mayor, serving as the city’s chief executive officer and heading its administrative branch.

Bradshaw, 32, was charged Monday with 50 counts of “revenge porn,” accused of creating multiple Reddit accounts with usernames that were permutations of a former romantic partner’s name and birthdate and posting intimate photos of her that were “captioned with racial slurs and sexually explicit language, on those Reddit accounts and various Subreddit forums that were related to sexual activity, humiliation, degradation, race, and other topics,” according to the state prosecutor’s office.

“Maryland’s Revenge Porn Statute, Maryland Criminal Law Article § 3-809, prohibits the nonconsensual distribution of a private visual representation of another which exposes their intimate body parts or displays them engaged in sexual activity, with the intent to harm, harass, intimidate, threaten or coerce the person depicted,” the Office of the State Prosecutor said in a press release.

Bradshaw was released Monday without having to post bond.

According to charging papers:

• The photos were posted in April and May.

• The woman contacted police in mid-May to say she had learned nude photos of her had been posted on Reddit. She told police that the photos were posted without her knowledge or consent and had only been sent to Bradshaw.

• She said the photos were sent when she and Bradshaw were in an intimate relationship, she did not give him consent to re-distribute the photos, and she is no longer romantically involved with Bradshaw.

• The accounts used to post the photos were from an IP address that provided internet service to Bradshaw’s Cambridge home.

• The photos were posted to subreddits named RacePlay, “with racial slurs in several of the posting titles,” and HumiliatingComments, among others. Charging papers allege that nine posts were made to the RacePlay subreddit and there were racial slurs in seven of the titles or captions.

Bradshaw’s home and the mayor’s office at city hall were searched by police on Aug. 4.

 

 

 

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Filed Under: 3 Top Story Tagged With: andrew bradshaw, Cambridge, charges, commissioners, mayor, photos, reddit, revenge porn

Cambridge Mayor Charged with 50 Counts of Distributing Revenge Porn

November 15, 2021 by John Griep

Cambridge Mayor Andrew Bradshaw has been charged with 50 counts of distributing revenge porn, the state prosecutor’s office said in a news release.

Bradshaw is charged with posting nude photographs of a former romantic partner to various forums on Reddit without her knowledge or consent and with the intent to harm her, according to the release.

The criminal information filed Monday in Dorchester County Circuit Court alleges Bradshaw made multiple Reddit accounts with public usernames that consisted of permutations of the name and birthdate of the woman, and then posted the photos, “captioned with racial slurs and sexually explicit language, on those ‘Reddit’ accounts and various ‘subreddit’ forums that were related to sexual activity, humiliation, degradation, race, and other topics,” according to the press release.

“Using someone’s private images without their consent is a serious breach of trust and invasion of privacy, and the power and breadth of the internet makes such a violation even more egregious,” State Prosecutor Charlton T. Howard III said in the news release. “Our office is committed to protecting victims from those who abuse their positions of power and trust.”

Maryland’s Revenge Porn Statute, Maryland Criminal Law Article § 3-809, prohibits the nonconsensual distribution of a private visual representation of another which exposes their intimate body parts or displays them engaged in sexual activity, with the intent to harm, harass, intimidate, threaten or coerce the person depicted. If convicted, Mr. Bradshaw would face a maximum penalty of two years’ incarceration and a $5,000 fine for each count.

According to charging papers:

• The woman contacted police in mid-May to say she had learned nude photos of her had been posted on Reddit. She told police that the photos were posted without her knowledge or consent and had only been sent to Bradshaw.

• She said the photos were sent when she and Bradshaw were in an intimate relationship, she did not give him consent to re-distribute the photos, and she is no longer romantically involved with Bradshaw.

• The accounts used to post the photos were from an IP address that provided internet service to Bradshaw’s Cambridge home.

• The photos were posted to subreddits named RacePlay, “with racial slurs in several of the posting titles,” and HumiliatingComments, among others.

Charging papers allege that nine posts were made to the RacePlay subreddit and there were racial slurs in seven of the titles or captions.

Bradshaw’s home and the mayor’s office at city hall were searched by police on Aug. 4.

City officials, in a notice posted on the city’s website, said: “The City is aware of the matter involving the Mayor. The City is currently gathering information and will cooperate fully with the Maryland State Police and the Office of the State Prosecutor.

“As the City has a Council-Manager form of municipal government whereby the City Manager serves as the chief executive officer of the City and the head of its administrative branch, the business of the City is unaffected.

“As this is an active legal matter, no further comments will be made at this time.”

City commissioners were scheduled to meet Monday night for a work session to discuss the composition of the board of the Cambridge Waterfront Development Inc. but that meeting was cancelled Monday afternoon.

The commissioners are now scheduled to meet Tuesday night in a closed session.

Maryland State Police and the Easton Police Department assisted the Office of the State Prosecutor with the investigation.

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Filed Under: 2 News Homepage, News Portal Highlights Tagged With: andrew bradshaw, Cambridge, charge, charges, circuit court, mayor, photos, reddit, revenge porn, subreddits

Talbot Seeks Bids for Confederate Monument Removal, Relocation

November 8, 2021 by John Griep

Talbot County has issued a request for proposals (RFP) for the removal of the Confederate monument from the courthouse grounds and its relocation to a Civil Wars battlefield in Virginia.

The RFP stems from the Talbot County Council’s 3-2 vote on Sept. 14 authorizing the relocation of the monument to the Cross Keys Battlefield near Harrisonburg, Va., which is part of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation.

The costs associated with the monument’s removal and relocation will be paid by a private fund held at the Mid-Shore Community Foundation and there will be no cost to county taxpayers.

The Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation works with partners to preserve the Shenandoah Valley’s Civil War battlefields, to share its Civil War story with the nation and to encourage tourism and travel to the Shenandoah Valley’s Civil War sites.

Sealed proposals will be accepted until 10 a.m. Friday, Nov. 19, and the council anticipates awarding the bid at its Nov. 23 meeting.

For more information, go to www.talbotcountymd.gov under Topics of Interest/Public Notice/Bid Notice or the e-Maryland Marketplace.

Bid 21-12 Request for Proposals- Removal of Confederate monument
Bid 21-12, - GENERAL CONDITIONS and Photos of Statue
Bid 21-12 Bid Forms and Affidavits

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Filed Under: 2 News Homepage Tagged With: bid, confederate, monument, relocation, removal, rfp, Talbot County

Crowd Urges MDE to Deny Permit for Trappe East Sewer Plant

November 1, 2021 by John Griep

More than 150 people largely filled the curling rink at the Talbot County Community Center to urge state environmental officials to deny a wastewater discharge permit for the Trappe East/Lakeside wastewater treatment plant.

Nearly three dozen spoke during the Thursday night public hearing on the Maryland Department of the Environment’s draft permit for the project, which would allow an annual average of 540,000 gallons per day of treated effluent to be sprayed onto farmland near the Miles Creek.

The crowd applauded every speaker, who each supported the denial or withdrawal of the permit, with most concerned about the environmental impact on the relatively pristine Miles Creek. The condition of Miles Creek is dramatically different than La Trappe Creek and an unnamed tributary of La Trappe Creek into which Trappe’s existing wastewater treatment plant discharges its effluent.

The unnamed tributary, La Trappe Creek, and the Choptank River — into which La Trappe and Miles creeks flow — are all impaired and conditions in the Choptank have been getting worse, not better.

Several speakers also challenged MDE on its failure to enforce permit limits of existing sewer plants and to ensure compliance with the federal Clean Water Act.

Tom Hughes said he has been concerned about the town’s existing plant for more than 20 years.

He said he had stood up in a similar meeting two decades ago and “asked the MDE representatives there how they could consider allowing Trappe to increase its wastewater plants discharged into La Trappe Creek when there was already way too much nitrogen, phosphorus and fecal bacteria in it.

“Here we are 23 years later, and absolutely nothing has changed,” Hughes said. “La Trappe Creek is still grossly impaired and the town is reportedly again violating its discharge permit. We have an ongoing public health hazard in La Trappe Creek and the MDE has known about it for decades.”

He said he had sought 2021 data about La Trappe Creek or the unnamed tributary to compare to data from 1998 and 2003 and had gotten little response and no information from MDE.

“Six weeks have now passed and I still haven’t gotten a direct answer to my simple question,” Hughes said.

Choptank Riverkeeper Matt Pluta said the permit should be “withdrawn and reprocessed as the surface water discharge permit that it is.” (The permit is being processed as a groundwater discharge permit as the treated effluent will be spray irrigated onto farmland.)

“MDE is responsible for setting the limits and conditions for discharging treated sewage in the state,” he said. “And these groundwater discharge permits are issued under the assumption that no pollution will end up in the groundwater or the river.

“This idea that zero discharge will occur is legal fiction. For too long the state of Maryland has been hiding pollution loads under these permits that are damaging our rivers,” Pluta said. “The Choptank River is already impaired and recognized by the state and federal agencies as trending in the wrong way and incorporating more pollution; water quality conditions in the Choptank are getting worse. And it seems that we’re prepared, through this permit, to let that pollution trend continue.

“In fact, in 2015, USGS reported that 70% of the nutrients in the Choptank come from groundwater, which is exactly what this permit is regulating,” he said. “Here we’re talking about a groundwater discharge permit for which the state believes zero discharge to the groundwater will occur.”

He said more than half of the groundwater discharge permits on the Eastern Shore are in non-compliance with permit limits and conditions.

Pluta also said groundwater discharge permits for treated effluent aren’t “even applying common farming practices.

“When the farmer puts down nutrients they do it at the right time and the right rate,” he said. “When a wastewater operator applies nutrients, they do it to control volume, their incentive is to control volume and put as much down as they can.”

While comments largely focused on the permit for the new treatment plant, Tom Alspach of the Talbot Preservation Alliance argued that MDE could not consider the Trappe East project separately from the town’s existing plant.

“You can’t do that. It’s not intended to be a separate undertaking by this developer for this one particular permit,” he said. “It is integrally related to the existing plant. The two facilities are going to be connected by a pipe. It is is intended that flows will go back and forth for an indefinite period of time.

“Ostensibly the first 120 houses from this new development to be served by the spray field are to be connected instead to the existing plant,” Alspach said. “That 120 can be an illusory number, there is no limit on how many houses can actually be connected. The only people that can limit it are the Town of Trappe and the developer. They may have no interest in limiting it if the circumstances are such they can accommodate more.

“There is no period of time limiting for how long the new houses in the Trappe East project may be connected to the existing plant. Those things, again, are a matter of contract between the town of Trappe and the developer,” he said, suggesting home sales would be slow and the spray field would not be developed “for a long, long time” and the developer would pay connection fees and send sewage to the existing Trappe plant “for as long as they can.”

“So in essence, you’ve got to look at these two things together, they’re going to be part of one system,” Alspach said. “And you gotta find a way to keep the new houses from connecting to this existing plant and exacerbate the problems you’re already having.

“I know you applaud yourselves for the fact that despite testimony that the (town’s current) plant is failing that there has not been that many exceedances under the permit,” he said. “That’s because the permit has such lousy standards. It’s not an ENR (enhanced nutrient removal) plant, which is the state of the art (and which) the new facility is going to be built to.

“It’s not even a BNR (biological nutrient removal) facility. It’s less than BNR,” Alspach said. “It’s so bad that MDE would not even allow 11 houses on Howell Point Road to be connected to the plant that have septic systems, because it’s not at least a BNR standards. And you can’t use Bay funds to do that connection.”

Anne Hill said she lives on La Trappe Creek and worries about her grandchildren.

“I’m not a scientist. I’m not an activist. I hate public speaking. I would rather be home. But I came out here because I’m a grandma,” she said. “And I live in constant fear that one of my grandchildren is going to fall into that creek and get seriously sick. It is that bad. You’ve seen the reports. This is a real issue for me. I have a well, it’s a real issue. I’m not talking about maybe, maybe not; this affects my life today.

“I really get upset because every single person has kicked this can down the road. I listened to the planning commission. I listened to the county council. They all said whoa, MDE will take care of it,” Hill said. “You are all gatekeepers. Every single one of us is a gatekeeper to these waterways and we cannot keep kicking the can down the road.

“Where’s the person that’s going to say no, I am responsible for these waterways. It is my job … to stop these things from polluting our waters. You are all gatekeepers, please be a gatekeeper. I’m just a grandma.”

Jim Smullen focused his comments on the need for “quantitative enforceable language” in the permit. Smullen has worked in water resources, engineering and science for 49 years, representing large dischargers for the last 31 years.

He said the state agriculture department”has requirements for 75 days of no nutrient application by farmers on cropland and pasture land.

The Trappe East permit talks about 75 days of storage, but does not detail December 15 to February 28, as a no-spray period, Smullen said.

“The permit needs to do that, that’s critically important,” he said. “The other thing that permit needs to do is to tell the applicants that there is no other way to get rid of sewage once the prohibition is on for no spraying. The permit should say they should have contracts in place for waste haulers for when they can’t spray that’s taken away to other sewage treatment plants. You cannot have a situation where they argue that we need to spray because the tank’s full.”

Smullen also said prohibitions against spraying based on precipitation, high winds, freezing conditions, or saturated soil conditions needed quantitative limits “to make those an enforceable part of the permit.

“So much rain. Stop. Such a temperature. Stop. (D)on’t allow the operators to make subjective decisions about when to spray and when not to spray,” he said.

Alan Girard of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation said there were issues with several analyses in the permit and some factors, such as historic precipitation and extreme weather potential, had not been considered.

At the start of the meeting, Dr. Suzanne Dorsey, MDE’s assistant secretary, said the “hearing is focused on the proposed discharge permit” for Lakeside/Trappe East, but acknowledged concerns about the town’s existing plant.

“MDE regulates the Trappe plant under a separate permit for discharge to surface water. And when our inspections of early last summer found excessive nitrogen levels, we required immediate action to fix the problem,” she said. “An inspection later in the summer determined that the plant had returned to compliance. MDE continues to investigate the cause of this failure and to determine what additional action or corrections may be needed. Continued inspection and oversight will ensure that the plant is capable of managing the existing waste stream and any additional load allocation from growth approved by the local authorities.

Dorsey also noted that the permit “review process is rooted in science, engineering and state regulation and law” and MDE has no authority over land use decisions.

“We do require a permit applicant to demonstrate that a proposed facility has received county and town approvals, such as zoning and land use. Once a local government approves the land use for the facility, MDE evaluates a permit application,” Dorsey said. “And we evaluate it to ensure that the proposed facility’s engineering capacities will lead to results that meet the standards of state and federal law, including limits in the water discharge itself and limits on pollution to any affected groundwater and waterways.

“If MDE’s science-based review finds that all such requirements are met, then the draft permit is open and available for public comment. That’s why you’re here tonight,” she said.

Written comments on the draft permit (19-DP-3460) must be emailed by 5 p.m. Monday, Dec. 6, to [email protected] or mailed, with a postmark no later than Dec. 6, to: Maryland Department of the Environment, Water and Science Administration, Attn: Mary Dela Onyemaechi, Chief, Groundwater Discharge Permits Division, 1800 Washington Blvd., Suite 455, Baltimore, MD 21230-1708.

Permit documents are available online at https://mde.maryland.gov/programs/Water/wwp/Pages/19DP3460.aspx.

The MDE permit is one of two ongoing processes related to Trappe East, a mixed-use project of up to 2,501 homes and commercial uses on about 800 acres on the northeast side of Trappe.

While the MDE is reviewing the discharge permit, one Talbot County Council member has introduced a resolution to rescind changes to the county’s water and sewer plan related to the Trappe East project.

A public hearing on Resolution 308 was held Oct. 12 and will be continued at a future meeting of the county council.

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Filed Under: 2 News Homepage Tagged With: discharge, groundwater discharge, lakeside, mde, permit, spray irrigation, Trappe, trappe east, treatment plant, wastewater

Spy Check-in with Easton Mayor Robert Willey

October 20, 2021 by John Griep

Easton Mayor Robert Willey speaks Tuesday morning with The Talbot Spy to discuss:

  • ARPA funding for new fire trucks, a firefighter training center, and broadband;
  • the efforts to retain and recruit officers for the Easton Police Department, including a cadet program;
  • ongoing infrastructure and paving projects;
  • continued rehabilitation of several houses on the Hill;
  • the upcoming Mayor’s Prayer Breakfast and 50th Waterfowl Festival;
  • and the town’s need for a human resources staffer.

This video is about 12 minutes long.

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Filed Under: 2 News Homepage Tagged With: ARPA, Easton, EPD, EVFD, funds, mayor, prayer breakfast, robert willey, Waterfowl Festival

Talbot Council Hears from Petitioner, Public on Rescinding Resolution 281

October 14, 2021 by John Griep

The county council heard public comment from two fronts Tuesday night on the rescission of Resolution 281.

Resolution 308, introduced by Talbot County Council Vice President Pete Lesher, would rescind Res. 281, which amended the county’s sewer plan to include the Lakeside/Trappe East project.

A public hearing on Res. 308 began Tuesday night and will continue on

The council also heard the presentation of Petition 21-1 from Dan Watson, representing several hundred Talbot County residents petitioning the county council to rescind Res. 281.

Watson had filed the petition on May 7 and since then has been asking the council to follow its rules of procedure allowing him to present the petition with witnesses.

When the hearing for Res. 308 began, County Attorney Patrick Thomas said Watson would go first, presenting the petition, since it had led to the introduction of the resolution.

During Tuesday night’s meeting, Watson said he was informed by email on Friday that the petition presentation was set for the Oct. 12 council meeting and noted it was the council that decided to schedule the presentation for the same night as the hearing on Res. 308.

He noted that 349 people had signed the petition thus far and if each person “took their allotted three minutes for public comment” on Res. 308 that would be nearly 18 hours of comment. The council’s rules for presenting a petition have”no limitation on my time to present a wealth of important, new information, but I assure you, I won’t be anywhere near that,” Watson said.

Watson outlined five reasons why the petitioners believe Res. 281 must be rescinded:

  • Res. 281 connects Lakeside to the town’s existing plant, which he argued is inappropriate since a) La Trappe Creek is already polluted, b) data shows e. coli and extremely high nitrogen levels, c) the current sewer plant and system have operating problems, “including terrible infiltration,” and d) hooking up more homes to the existing plant would be “outrageous.
  • Res. 281 assumes the new plant to be built at Lakeside/Trappe East will work properly as designed.
  • Res. 281 is flawed because it reclassified properties erroneously.
  • Res. 281 misrepresented the change being made to the sewer property classifications.
  • Res. 281 was predicated on “gross misunderstandings.”

Witnesses questioned by Watson included Choptank Riverkeeper Matt Pluta, who detailed water quality testing on La Trappe Creek and an unnamed creek that feeds into it and into which the Trappe plant discharges its treated wastewater; Gene Lopez, a kayaker who said photographs he had taken of the feeder creek showed “all sorts of discharge discoloration, and something brownish, that’s floating on the water;” and Dr. Jim Smullen, a wastewater professional for four decades who said no additional homes should be connected to the existing plant until the town fixes the water and sewer system’s inflow and infiltration problem.

After a lengthy presentation, Watson and the council agreed to set another date for the presentation to continue and public comment began on Res. 308.

Calvin Yowell urged the parties to consider a new suggestion, sending the town’s wastewater to the Lakeside/Trappe East plant to be treated and then sent back for discharge into the unnamed creek.

Other speakers included Phil “Chip” Councell, Talbot planning commission president; William Anderson of the county’s public works advisory board; Lisa Ghezzi, county planning commissioner; and Tom Alspach of the Talbot Preservation Alliance.

The public hearing on Res. 308 also will be continued at a future date.

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Filed Under: 2 News Homepage

Talbot Council Holds Hearing Tonight on Rescission of Resolution 281; Planning Commission Majority Reaffirmed Support for Sewer Plan Changes

October 12, 2021 by John Griep

The county council will hold a public hearing tonight on a resolution that would rescind sewer plan changes for the Lakeside/Trappe East project.

Council Vice President Pete Lesher introduced Resolution 308, which would rescind Resolution 281.

Resolution 281 was approved 4-1 by the Talbot County Council in August 2020; Lesher voted against approval. Resolution 281 included several amendments to the county’s comprehensive water and sewer plan, most notably in connection with the proposed 2,500-unit residential and mixed commercial development proposed for the northeast side of Trappe.

Those changes included a new wastewater treatment plant for the Trappe East project. The plant would treat wastewater at an enhanced nutrient removal (ENR) standard and discharge up to 540,000 gallons of wastewater per day as spray irrigation on adjacent fields.

Opponents are concerned about the environmental impact on nearby Miles Creek, which feeds into the Choptank River, and note the abysmal water quality of La Trappe Creek, another Choptank River tributary into which the existing Trappe sewer plant discharges its treated wastewater.

Environmental concerns were heightened earlier this year after problems at the town’s existing plant. Those concerns led the county planning commission this summer to seek additional information from the Maryland Department of the Environment, the town of Trappe, and the developer.

The Talbot County Planning Commission heard public comment Wednesday morning on those concerns and voted 3-2 Thursday night against a motion recommending that the county council rescind Resolution 281.

All five members had concerns about the town’s existing plant and the current condition of La Trappe Creek, but three agreed that the panel had been correct in voting last year to certify that Resolution 281 was consistent with the county’s comprehensive plan.

Those three members — Chairman Phil “Chip” Councell, Paul Spies, and Michael Strannahan — had voted to certify that Resolution 281 was consistent with the comprehensive plan. Commissioners William Boicourt and Lisa Ghezzi voted last year against certification and voted Thursday night to recommend rescission of Resolution 281.

Councell said he was trying to reach a middle ground that would result in the most timely upgrade to the existing Trappe plant and an improvement in its discharge.

Councell noted the commission had not been formally asked to review its decision on Resolution 281, but “felt we had to do something” when new information came to light.

“And that something in my opinion, was what can we do to protect La Trappe Creek?” Councell said. “(I)f we vote to rescind, it probably goes to court… (I)f this gets tied up in litigation, it goes on and on and on. The existing Trappe wastewater treatment plan continues to pump the water.

“So I’m struggling here right now, trying to figure out what is the fastest way to get that plant upgraded,” he said. “And no matter what happens today, tonight, no matter what happens next Tuesday, every citizen in this county needs to be committed to getting that plant where it needs to be, whatever it takes.

“And I think … it makes no sense to compound the problems that we know is a problem,” Councell said. “So we’re going to add one-third of the capacity to the existing plant…. But if we hold the process up for one year or two years, more than that, it’s going to go into La Trappe Creek anyway.

“I think I’m willing at this point to do everything in our power … short of rescission, because I honestly think that would be the worst thing for the Trappe wastewater treatment plant,” he said.

Attorneys for the Town of Trappe and the project’s developer noted they are looking at the possibility of using the Trappe East plant to treat the town’s existing wastewater to ENR standards and then sending the treated discharge back to the town’s discharge point. That option may be the fastest and cheapest way to upgrade the town’s wastewater treatment to ENR standards, which would significantly improve the town’s discharge into La Trappe Creek.

Ryan Showalter, an attorney for the developer, said Wednesday, “that’s an option that’s being studied, and one reason why it’s being studied as it may be the fastest way to replace or upgrade the town’s treatment process.

“The Lakeside plant is modular, so adding two additional modules could create 200,000 gallons of capacity in the existing Lakeside plant,” he said. “Nobody’s proposing changes in the discharge at this point.

“So the concept would be whatever comes from the the existing town’s collection system would be treated at Lakeside and would be discharged at ENR levels to La Trappe Creek,” Showalter said. “If one day there’s 150,000 gallons coming from the town collection system, that 150,000 gallons would be discharged under the town’s existing point discharge at ENR levels.”

Showalter also noted that nearly all of the Lakeside property has been designated as a future growth area for Trappe since 1973.  The entire property has been in the town’s planned growth area since at least 2002 and in the county’s growth area plan for Trappe since at least 2005.

Bruce Armistead, an attorney for a neighboring property owner, said his clients — Dr. and Mrs. Steve Harris — were primarily concerned about the location of the spray irrigation fields.

“The Harrises are an adjacent landowner to the proposed Lakeside project and potentially the most affected by the entire project,” he said Wednesday. “That doesn’t mean that they’re unconcerned about the information you’re receiving about the existing Trappe plant, but their principal concern is the location of the spray fields that are proposed for the Lakeside project.”

Armistead said it appeared the planning commission may have received incomplete or inadequate information during its 2020 review of Resolution 281.

“And it really doesn’t matter whether that was inadvertent, intentional, sloppy, or whatever,” he said. “The fact is, if you agree that there was incomplete or incorrect information that was used to make your decision previously on 281, then you have an obligation to the county to support taking another look.

“Real people and property rights are going to be seriously affected by this proposal,” Armistead said. “We’ve only got one chance to get this right. And frankly, Dr. Harris does not want to be the canary in the mineshaft.”

The Talbot County Council meeting begins at 6 p.m., with public hearings scheduled to begin at 6:30 p.m. The council meets in the Bradley Meeting Room in the south wing of the courthouse, but seating is limited and is available on a first-come basis.

The meeting may be viewed online by going to the county’s website at https://talbotcountymd.gov, then scrolling down and clicking on the photo of the county council under the heading “Meeting Videos.” On the meeting videos page, click on video or live/in progress next to the listing for the council’s Oct. 12 meeting.

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Filed Under: 2 News Homepage Tagged With: discharge, lakeside, planning commission, rescission, resolution 281, Talbot County, Trappe, trappe east, wastewater treatment plant

Next Page »

Copyright © 2025

Affiliated News

  • The Chestertown Spy
  • The Talbot Spy

Sections

  • Arts
  • Culture
  • Ecosystem
  • Education
  • Mid-Shore Health
  • Culture and Local Life
  • Shore Recovery
  • Spy Senior Nation

Spy Community Media

  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Underwriting

Copyright © 2025 · Spy Community Media Child Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in