MENU

Sections

More

October 17, 2021

The Talbot Spy

The nonprofit e-newspaper for the Talbot County Community

News News Homepage

Talbot Council Hears from Petitioner, Public on Rescinding Resolution 281

by 3 Comments

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Watson outlined five reasons why the petitioners believe Res. 281 must be rescinded: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

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

by 3 Comments

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.

Easton Historic District Commission Unanimously OKs Removal of Confederate Monument from Talbot Courthouse Grounds

by 5 Comments

Easton’s historic district commission voted unanimously Monday night to allow the removal of the Confederate monument from the county courthouse square.

The Easton Historic District Commission voted 7-0 in favor of a certificate of appropriateness that will allow Talbot County to remove and relocate the monument.

Commission members noted the town’s historic district guidelines have little guidance on statues, but a national historical preservation organization supports removal of Confederate monuments from public spaces.

The monument outside the entrance to the Talbot County Court House is believed to be the last Confederate monument on public property in Maryland.

Attorney Dan Saunders, representing Talbot County, said a majority of the Talbot County Council had determined it was in the best interest for public health, safety, and welfare to move the monument from the courthouse grounds

“The statue is on county land. It is controversial. It is divisive sadly,” Saunders said. “And it is hurtful to certain citizens of the county. So the county council has made this determination…. They are the elected officials charged with making that kind of public policy decision. And it would not be inappropriate for this body to give some deference to their thought process….”

“Because it’s controversial, it needs to be someplace where people can choose to go see it or choose not to go see it, not in a place where they have to go see it in order to conduct the business that is conducted at the courthouse,” he said.

Three residents spoke against removing the statue.

Lynn Mielke said statues for Talbot County’s Confederate and U.S. troops were erected in 1884 and 1888, respectively, at Culp’s Hill at the Gettysburg battlefield.

After the county’s Civil War veterans visited Gettysburg in 1913 for the 50th anniversary of the battle — and no doubt saw the two statues, Mielke said — efforts began to raise funds for Confederate and Union monuments at the courthouse.

The Confederate monument was funded and built; the Union one was not but a new fundraising effort is underway for such a monument, she said.

A rendering of a proposed monument to Talbot County residents who fought for the United States during the Civil War. The proposal also would include informational plaques about Talbot County’s role in the Civil War.

“108 years later a group, Build the Union Talbot Boys, has investigated, designed, and begun to raise money for a Union Talbot Boys companion monument to complement the Talbot Boys in gray monument, with informational plaques, to make a complete statement on the courthouse lawn about Talbot County’s unique role in the Civil War, (including) the Talbot Boys, the Union Talbot Boys, the USCT (United States Colored Troops), including the Unionville 18, and Frederick Douglass,” Mielke said.

“The Talbot Boys memorial is is not a memorial to traitors,” Mielke said. “And it is not a memorial to non-veterans.”

Clive Ewing noted that the town’s historic district booklet includes two photos of the Confederate monument.

He said the county council’s resolution removing the monument only refers to the statue and argued that language doesn’t include the monument’s base.

David Montgomery, president of Preserve Talbot History, said moving the monument 200 miles away “to a battlefield in the Shenandoah Valley” does not help tell the story of Talbot County’s divided loyalties during the Civil War.

Commissioner Grant Mayhew said the historic district commission should look at guidance from the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

The National Trust issued a statement about Confederate monuments after the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer sparked protests “in support of racial justice and equity.”

In its June 18, 2020, statement, the National Trust said:

“This nationwide call for racial justice and equity has brought renewed attention to the Confederate monuments in many of our communities. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has previously issued statements about the history and treatment of Confederate monuments, emphasizing that, although some were erected — like other monuments to war dead — for reasons of memorialization, most Confederate monuments were intended to serve as a celebration of Lost Cause mythology and to advance the ideas of white supremacy. Many of them still stand as symbols of those ideologies and sometimes serve as rallying points for bigotry and hate today. To many African Americans, they continue to serve as constant and painful reminders that racism is embedded in American society.

“We believe it is past time for us, as a nation, to acknowledge that these symbols do not reflect, and are in fact abhorrent to, our values and to our foundational obligation to continue building a more perfect union that embodies equality and justice for all. We believe that removal may be necessary to achieve the greater good of ensuring racial justice and equality.

“And their history needs not end with their removal: we support relocation of these monuments to museums or other places where they may be preserved so that their history as elements of Jim Crow and racial injustice can be recognized and interpreted.

“We recognize that not all monuments are the same, and a number of communities have carefully and methodically determined that some monuments should be removed and others retained but contextualized with educational markers or other monuments designed to counter the false narrative and racist ideology that they represent, providing a deeper understanding of their message and their purpose.

“Our view, however, is that unless these monuments can in fact be used to foster recognition of the reality of our painful past and invite reconciliation for the present and the future, they should be removed from our public spaces.”

Talbot Planning Commission Will Discuss Resolution 281 at Thursday Night Meeting

by Leave a Comment

The county planning commission heard public comments Wednesday morning on Resolution 281 and will discuss Thursday night what actions, if any, it will take on the matter.

Resolution 281 amended Talbot County’s water and sewer plan to:

• reclassify and remap certain areas of the Lakeside/Trappe East property from W-2 to W-1 and from S-2 to S-1. (W-1 is immediate priority status for water; S-1 is immediate priority status for sewer.)

• add the Trappe East water and sewer systems to the list of capital improvement projects.

The commission’s agenda for Wednesday described the issue as “Discussion of Planning Commission’s previous certification of consistency with the Talbot County Comprehensive Plan with respect to Resolution 281 and possible recommendations and/or other actions, including undo, consider, reconsider, rescind or amend the previous certification.”

After hearing Wednesday morning from environmental groups and attorneys for a neighboring property owner, the developer, and the Town of Trappe, among others, Talbot County Planning Commission Chairman Phil “Chip” Councell asked for another meeting to be scheduled for the planning commission to consider the comments and discuss its course of action.

Councell asked for that meeting to be held before Tuesday, when the county council will hold a public hearing on Resolution 308, which would rescind adoption of Resolution 281. Resolution 308 was introduced by Council Vice President Pete Lesher, the sole council member to vote last year against Resolution 281.

Resolution 281 had been introduced Dec. 17, 2019, by Talbot County Councilmen Chuck Callahan, Frank Divilio, and Corey Pack, with public hearings held Feb. 11, 2020, and July 21, 2020.

The Talbot County Planning Commission considered the resolution in January, May, and June 2020, and voted 3-2 that an amended resolution was consistent with the comprehensive plan.

The county council voted 4-1 on Aug. 11, 2020, to approve the resolution as amended, sending the matter to the Maryland Department of the Environment for its approval, which the state agency subsequently granted. Councilwoman Laura Price joined Callahan, Divilio, and Pack in voting in favor of Resolution 281.

Earlier this year, petitioners asked the county council to rescind Resolution 281, claiming the county council and the planning commission were not provided with full information last year and noting that the discharge permit for the wastewater treatment plant that will serve Lakeside has been sent back to the state environment department for additional public comment and a public hearing.

Cambridge Mayor Check-In: Not So Fast with Hospital Land Transfer, Timeline for New City Manager and the Dreaded Delta Covid

by 1 Comment

The Cambridge Spy and WHCP Community Radio continue with our ongoing monthly series with Mayor Andrew Bradshaw on the most current affairs of the City of Cambridge.

This month, Mayor Bradshaw comments on the slight delay for the grand opening of the new Shore Regional Health facility on Route 50, his observation that the land transfer from the University of Maryland Health System to Cambridge will not be as turnkey as some in the community had anticipated, the lineline for the hiring of a new city manager for Cambridge, and the impact of Covid’s Delta variant as the city starts to reopen.

This video is approximately 13 minutes in length. 

New Hearings Set on Trappe East Development

by

Maryland residents concerned about the water-quality impacts of a large housing and commercial development on the Eastern Shore have three new opportunities in October to share their opinions with decision makers.

The Maryland Department of the Environment has scheduled a public hearing Oct. 28 on its plan to permit treated wastewater from a planned development in Trappe, called Trappe East, to be sprayed on nearby farm fields. It will be held in person at the Talbot County Community Center​​ and Curling Rink, at 10028 Ocean Gateway in Easton.

Talbot County’s council and planning commission, meanwhile, plan to hold hearings of their own before the MDE session to revisit their 2020 votes in support of the project.

The MDE had issued a groundwater discharge permit in December 2020 for the proposed community of 2,501 homes and apartments plus a shopping center, to be built on an 860-acre tract annexed nearly two decades ago by the town of Trappe. Earlier this year, though, a Talbot County judge ordered the department to give the public another opportunity to comment on the permit because of changes made in it before being issued.

The MDE’s newly proposed permit — unchanged since its original issuance — would allow the developer to eventually spray an average of 540,000 gallons of wastewater daily on grassy fields. It must be treated using enhanced nutrient removal to lower the levels of nitrogen and phosphorus. A lagoon is also required to store wastewater for up to 75 days during winter and when it’s raining or too windy to spray.

Neighboring residents and environmental groups have questioned the MDE’s assurances that the nutrients and other contaminants in the wastewater would be soaked up by the grass in the fields. They fear it could seep into groundwater or run off into nearby Miles Creek, a tributary of the Choptank River.

In addition to in-person comments at the hearing, the MDE will consider written comments submitted by Nov. 5. Those should be emailed to mary.dewa@maryland.gov or mailed to Mary De​la Onyemaechi, Chief, Groundwater Discharge Permits Division, Maryland Department of the Environment, Water and Science Administration, 1800 Washington Blvd., Baltimore, Maryland 21230-1708.

Project opponents have gathered about 200 signatures on a petition calling on the Talbot County Council to rescind its 2020 resolution in support of the development. The resolution amended the county’s water and sewer plan to include the Trappe East development, which effectively cleared the way for the MDE to issue its permit.

Opponents say the council should withdraw its backing, particularly because of changes the developer has made since then in how development’s wastewater will be handled. The first 89 homes in the development, already under construction, are to have their sewage piped to Trappe’s wastewater treatment plant. That plant discharges into LaTrappe Creek, a Choptank River tributary already impaired by excessive nutrient pollution.

When the Talbot County Planning Commission meets at 9 a.m. on Oct. 6, it will discuss whether to rescind its 3 to 2 vote in 2020 recommending that the council support the Lakeside project. The county council hearing takes place at 6:30 p.m. Oct. 12.

By Timothy B. Wheeler

Talbot Council Rejects Petition Seeking Repeal of Confederate Statue Removal

by

The county council voted 3-2 Tuesday night to deny a petition asking the council to change its mind on moving the Confederate monument off the courthouse lawn.

The petition for rescission called on the Talbot County Council to introduce a resolution to rescind its Sept. 14 decision to relocate the monument to a Civil War battlefield in Virginia.

Shortly after the petition was read, Councilman Corey Pack made a motion to deny the petition, which was seconded by Councilman Frank Divilio.

Councilwoman Laura Price took issue with the rapid pace of the process.

“I thought we were just having discussion because now the first person to get to make a motion … nobody else has an opportunity to make a motion,” she said. “I thought we were just discussing and asking questions at the moment. But like the game show, we have to press the button fast enough.”

Price and Council President Chuck Callahan reiterated concerns from the Sept. 14 meeting at which a council majority voted to approve the administrative resolution to relocate the monument on the same night it was introduced and without first having a public hearing. Callahan and Price had voted Sept. 14 against relocation; Council Vice President Pete Lesher joined Divilio and Pack in voting for moving the statue.

Council members split along the same lines over the motion to deny the petition.

“I think public process was important, is still important. And I certainly would have liked to have seen this resolution go through a public process, especially with information that has that has come to light,” Price said. “Again, I guess I didn’t hit the buzzer fast enough, because I know the way this motion to deny is going to go down. It’s been motioned, it’s been seconded, it’s going to go the same way as the vote did two weeks ago. And once again, the public is going to get shut out of this process. And I wholeheartedly disagree with that.”

Callahan agreed.

“So it’s kind of a shame that the public didn’t get the opportunity to do this. And it’s not the right way to go, in my opinion,” he said. “And I guess we’re just gonna keep moving forward.”

Pack, as he did Sept. 14, said the county council had opportunities to hold public work sessions on the Confederate monument “(a)nd it was not, it was not, was not done. So I think it’s not fair, it’s not appropriate, to now say that the public has been shut out. So that I just take issue with that characterization.”

But Price argued there was a difference between a public work session and a public hearing on a bill or resolution.

“We’ve heard about the entirety of the subject for the last year and a half when people come,” she said. “And I appreciate them coming and speaking at the end of you know, at the end of our meetings, absolutely. We’ve heard from it. And we know that nobody’s opinion was going to change.

“But when there is a bill or a resolution on the floor, I believe in transparency and a public process to come and have your three minutes to speak to the council in this setting, as opposed to just a work session,” Price said.

The three residents who filed the petition for rescission were among several people who spoke during the public comment period of the Sept. 28 meeting.

Lynn Mielke, David Montgomery, and Clive Ewing questioned the process and asked at least one council member to ask the county attorney to draft a resolution to rescind the monument’s relocation.

Mielke said a May 28 legal opinion from the county attorney outlined the process, “which is that a council member … can introduce a resolution or ask the attorney to write a resolution consistent with the request of the petitioner, which is what we thought we would get a vote on today, not to be railroaded by an out-of-order motion to not consider the petition.

“It was wrong. It was the wrong process,” she said. “I think it was out of order under Robert’s Rules of Order.

“And I can only think of the saying that democracy dies in darkness. Well the sun’s setting on Talbot County,” Mielke said.

Ewing said he was “exceptionally concerned regarding the lack of transparency to adopt the administrative resolution to relocate the Talbot Boys statue out of state.

“The manner of how this action was accomplished brings into doubt the legitimacy of the process, which is why I and others have petitioned this council to rescind this administrative resolution,” he said. “I’m baffled why the majority of the council continues to disregard the input of and the questions from so many in the community in this matter. I am baffled why there was even a vote tonight on that, when all that was requested was that a single council person instruct the attorney to draft a resolution.

“I’ll humbly submit that that vote was taken out of order. Alright, I’d ask y’all to revisit that. And I think after this meeting, you certainly can direct the attorney to do just that,” Ewing said. “There’s no doubt there’s powerful forces most if not all, from outside the borders of Talbot County that have found their way to influence this council. Of course, local councils like this one, are intended to represent the interests of the actual local citizens, not third parties, not Annapolis, politicians, certainly not the well-connected individuals who have chosen Easton and Talbot County to fulfill their own vision and interpretation of history.

“I thank the members of this council who have acted in good faith and resisted the meddling of those who have targeted this county for their latest political or social cause,” he said. “For the remainder of the council, I certainly hope you will reconsider if it is truly in the best interest of the community at large to send this monument out of state. I submit to you that the vast majority of Talbot countians believe this monument dedicated to Talbot County men must remain in Talbot County.”

Montgomery said the petitioners “will submit the petition again, a new petition for a new number and ask the same thing and hope it’s dealt with properly procedurally, but maybe we could just move forward.

“All it takes is for one county council member in an open session or in writing to ask the county attorney to draft a resolution in form and substance like the petition requested,” he said. “So I would just like to ask one member of the county council to make that request between now and the next meeting.”

Talbot Seeks OK for Confederate Monument Removal; Statue Supporters Ask for Relocation to be Rescinded

by

Talbot County has filed its application seeking approval from the Easton Historic District Commission to relocate the Confederate monument from the county courthouse grounds.

The county’s application for a certificate of appropriateness was filed Monday, Sept. 27, the deadline for applications to be on the historic district commission’s Oct. 11 meeting agenda.

In its application, the county said a council majority had adopted an administrative resolution to relocate the statue to the Cross Keys Battlefield in Harrisonburg, Va.

The town’s historic district guidelines allow the historic district commission to “approve the moving of historic resources if it finds ‘that it is not in the best interests of the Town or a majority of its citizens to withhold approval,'” according to the county’s narrative in support of removal.

“For profound reasons, it is not in the best interests of the Town of Easton (the ‘Town]) or a presumed majority of its citizens to withhold approval of the County’s’ removal of the Statue from the County Courthouse grounds,” Talbot County said in its narrative. “The Statue, dedicated in 1916, is a Confederate monument on the County Courthouse grounds that commemorates individuals from Talbot County who served in the Confederacy during the Civil War.

“As is well known and highly publicized, the Statue’s presence on the County Courthouse grounds has generated significant controversy and division among many citizens of the County, including citizens of the Town,” according to the narrative. “By way of example, the County is currently defending litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland filed by certain individuals, governmental agencies, and entities who seek to have the Statue removed. Thus, the County Council seeks to relocate the Statue from the County Courthouse grounds.”

The county said its intent is for the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation “to take possession of the Statue where it can be displayed on the Cross Keys Battlefield on the ridge where Maryland troops fought, including troops from Talbot County.

“The Statue can then be repurposed as a monument to all Maryland troops engaged at the battle of Cross Keys with additional interpretation added,” according to the narrative. “The Cross Keys Battlefield is private property; however, it is open to the public year round. Thus, the Statue can be preserved and viewed in a better historical context along with other monuments commemorating the Civil War.”

The county also said moving the statue “to another location outside the Town’s Historic District will not change the general character of the County Courthouse or the Town’s Historic District as a whole. The historic character of the County Courthouse will remain intact, and the Statue’s relocation does not affect any other historic sites, buildings, or other structures in the Town’s Historic District.”

Historic District Application Packet (relocation of Talbot Boys Statue)

While the county is working through the administrative process to relocate the Confederate monument from the courthouse lawn, opponents of its removal are asking the county council to change its mind or accept a Talbot County site for the monument.

Lynn Mielke, David Montgomery, and Clive Ewing, longtime advocates for keeping the statue at its current location, have petitioned the council to rescind the administrative resolution calling for the statue’s relocation to Virginia. The petition for rescission is on the council’s agenda for tonight’s meeting.

Members of Preserve Talbot History, meanwhile, are looking for a suitable site for the monument in Talbot County and have asked the county council for greater transparency on the matter.

In a Sept. 23 press release, the group said the county council needs to answer these questions:

1. Has the cost of moving the memorial been estimated, and on what basis?

2. Is there a written commitment from some individual or organization to pay that cost?

3. What is the basis for claim that no one in Talbot County would accept the memorial?

4. Was any request for proposals to take the memorial ever posted?

Talbot Begins Process for Confederate Monument’s Removal; Easton Panel OK Will Be First Step

by

Following the Sept. 14 vote for its relocation, Talbot County officials are beginning initial steps to remove the Confederate monument from the courthouse green.

The administrative process includes seeking approval from the town’s historic district commission for the monument’s removal and likely will require a bid process for its removal and relocation.

As that process continues, those who have been working to keep the monument at its current location are seeking out possible Talbot County sites for its relocation.

The county currently is preparing an application to Easton’s Historic District Commission, Talbot County Council Vice President Pete Lesher said he was told by staffers.

An application would need to be submitted by Monday for the monument’s removal to make the commission’s Oct. 11 agenda, Lesher said Wednesday in an email. If the application is heard Oct. 11, the commission could take action at its Oct. 25 meeting.

“The HDC application is the appropriate first action ,” Lesher wrote. “No steps have been taken on the physical removal until we get through this initial action.”

Lesher said he wasn’t yet aware of a bid process for the monument’s removal, but said “the county has rules for the disbursement of funds, and I am sure this project falls within them.”

Asked about the possibility an appropriate site for the monument could be located in Talbot County, he said “No one has proposed to me an alternative site.

“It seems that a publicly accessible site that is associated with the Talbot Boys named on the monument — such as the Cross Keys battlefield — would be hard to equal,” Lesher wrote.

“Others searched for over a year to find a site, without success,” he said. “I give (Councilman Frank) Divilio great credit for finding and securing such a suitable and appropriate site.”

Since the Sept. 14 vote, David Montgomery, president of Preserve Talbot History, has said several Talbot County sites have been offered for the statue’s new location.

In a Wednesday afternoon email, Montgomery said the group has not had any “formal discussions with Council members about possible sites.

“We are still doing our homework and hope to have something solid to discuss soon,” he wrote.

Montgomery added that several site characteristics have been discussed. Those are:

• Physical feasibility, that the site be accessible to moving equipment and provide a stable base.

• Public access, now or in the future, so that the educational purpose can continue.

• Security, so that random or political vandalism can be discouraged.

Divilio, who previously had joined a 3-2 council majority in voting against the monument’s removal, introduced an administrative resolution during the Sept. 14 council meeting to move it to the Cross Keys Battlefield in Harrisonburg, Va., “a private park, under the custody, care, and control of Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation….”

The resolution requires the monument’s removal and relocation to be paid by private funds.

Although the foundation had agreed to take the monument, its executive director sent a letter shortly before the Sept. 14 meeting noting the foundation’s monuments policy supports keeping a monument at its original location, with relocation within the county the next best option.

However, the letter also reiterated the foundation’s willingness to accept the monument and become its permanent steward “if and when it is evident that the monument will not and can not remain safely” in Talbot County.

Divilio was joined by Lesher and Councilman Corey Pack in voting Sept. 14 for the resolution. Pack had sought the monument’s removal from the courthouse grounds last year, but his measure was only supported by Lesher.

As a result of the Sept. 14 vote, the federal lawsuit seeking the monument’s removal from the courthouse green is on hold.

After years of debate, protests, letters, emails, public comment, several votes against removal, and the lawsuit, a majority of the Talbot County Council voted Sept. 14 to relocate the monument to a battlefield site in Virginia.

Three days later, a federal judge granted a motion for a limited stay, putting the case on hold for 30 days and requiring a joint status report by the end of that period.

An attorney for Talbot County sought the stay in a Sept. 16 consent motion, noting “Removal of the statue is the central issue in this litigation.

“Because the statue is a historic structure within the meaning of local preservation laws, some additional administrative steps are required before removal is effected, including a public hearing before the local commission charged with certifying that removal is appropriate under the related local regulations,” Kevin Karpinski, the county’s attorney in the case, wrote in the motion.

Karpinski said the attorneys for the organizations and individuals who had filed the lawsuit had “graciously consented to this request for a stay.

“The County respectfully submits a temporary stay is in order to: 1) permit the parties to determine whether a compromised solution is a possibility in light of this recent development and pending developments in the administrative process; and, 2) to avoid unnecessary consumption of the Court resources,” he wrote.

 

 

Council Votes to Move Talbot Boys, But Fight May Not Be Over

by

Although the county council voted 3-2 Tuesday night to move the Confederate statue on the courthouse grounds to a Civil War national historic district near Harrisonburg, Va., advocates for keeping the monument at its current location, or at least in Talbot County, say the fight is not over.

During public comments near the end of Tuesday night’s meeting, Preserve Talbot History’s president said the foundation that leads the preservation efforts at the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District said in a Tuesday afternoon letter that it would only accept Talbot’s monument “if it will not and cannot stay safely here.

“They’re not welcoming this statue as something ‘Oh, this is fantastic, we always wanted to have the Talbot boys statue in the corner here,'” David Montgomery said. “They’re taking it because they’ve been assured that we’re going to tear it down, melt it, or put it in a warehouse. Those are their conditions. That should have been made clear to the council when this proposal was set up to vote….”

The Sept. 14 letter from the executive director of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation says the foundation’s position is that monuments should remain in their original location whenever possible and that an attempt should be made to relocate the monument in Talbot County if it is removed from its current location. If the monument must be moved out of the county, the foundation said it remained “committed to its offer to become its permanent steward….”

According to the email headers The Spy has viewed, the letter was emailed at 3:49 p.m. Tuesday and sent to all five county council members. The Spy does not know when it was actually received by the council members, whose meeting Tuesday night began at 6 p.m. with the discussion of the administrative resolutions concerning the Confederate monument beginning at about 6:37 p.m.

The full text of the foundation’s letter is below:

Talbot Boys Monument

 

The letter refers to the foundation’s monument policy, which is posted on its website:

SVBFMonumentPolicy

 

Montgomery also challenged the process by which the relocation vote had occurred.

“(T)his was done in such a surreptitious manner, that won’t be forgotten,” he said. “A policy decision like this should not be made through a procedural maneuver that eliminates not only public comment, (but also) the time for this council to review thoroughly, to know what the battlefield … looks like, to know what the arrangements are for moving it, to know how that can be done safely, even to know whether the base is going to go along with it or not. All that’s missing…. No matter what the legal cover… this was a fundamental policy decision.”

Montgomery said sincere efforts should be made “…to find a place in Talbot County for this memorial … if this council is determined to take it out of its current place.

“I hope the move the monument will support that objective. They’ve said all along that all they want to do is move the monument and find another place in Talbot County for it,” he said.

Lynn Mielke, who has supported keeping the monument at its current location, said she has been involved in the issue since 2015.

“And I would suggest that it’s not over yet,” she said.

Mielke said her main reason to speak Tuesday night, however, was to share “… an observation that I’ve made over those years, as well as tonight. That observation is of the residents of Talbot County. And how no one’s come and torn down the monument. No one has defaced it or put paint on it. It’s been courteous and … the protests for its removal is very consistent with what the founding fathers had saw in terms of peaceful protest and sharing opinions.

“Tonight, for instance, there were the Move the Monument people and there were the Preserve Talbot County history people (outside the courthouse). And everyone was courteous to everyone else…,” she said. “The Move the Monument people were handing out snacks to everyone. And I guess it sort of reminded me of, if you read the history of Culp’s Hill, the Battle of Culps Hill, where we had Talbot Countians both on the Confederate side and on the Union side fighting each other. But when the battle was over, they helped each other.

“The battle here is not quite over but I would hope that until it is, and even when it is, that each side will respect the other and show them that grace that I observed tonight and I have observed over the last few years,” Mielke said.

The Confederate monument on the Talbot County courthouse grounds. Photo by John Griep.

Others had harsher words for Frank Divilio, Pete Lesher, and Corey Pack, the three councilmen who voted for the resolution to relocate the statue.

Michelle Ewing called Divilio “duplicitous” and said “… thanks to you and Corey (Pack) and Pete (Lesher) our county will forever be divided.”

Clive Ewing agreed.

“Obviously, I’m disappointed in how the council went about advancing the Talbot Boys resolution to a vote tonight,” he said. “Transparent government is the best government and you have left a lot to be desired.

“This action does nothing to advance understanding and unity in this county,” Ewing said.

Shari Wilcoxon said “… this is a very sad day for Talbot County to be swept up in the same horrific Marxist idealism that’s going on throughout our country…. It’s really a frightening step, it’s frightening what’s going on in our country, and it’s a sad day that’s going on here in Talbot County….”

Speakers who supported efforts to move the statue from the courthouse grounds said it took courage to make that decision.

“I saw an awful lot of courage here tonight, tremendous courage, because it takes a great deal of courage to have a change of heart,” Keith Watts said.

“You talked about respect, and being respectful. And I think it’s so important for the community, whatever the outcome was tonight, to continue to respect each other. Because we all live together,” he said. “There are certainly individual acts of courage on each and every single person’s part that’s here tonight, both in the audience and on that dais…. I think that you can take some solace in the fact that you did what you felt was in your hearts.

“Whether I agree with that, or not, it doesn’t matter so much as to continue to look at each other, listen to each other, and respect each other because we all live together,” Watts said. “And I think we all, in our own ways, have Talbot County’s best interests at heart. Always…. So thank you for your candor. Thank you for your courage. Thank you for bringing us to this point. And thank you for leading us from here because now it’s the way forward.”

Richard Potter, president of the Talbot County NAACP, thanked Divilio.

“Thank you for your courage tonight. I appreciate that. I appreciate you and your diligence in trying to find a peaceful solution to this issue,” he said. “I know tonight was difficult. And I’m pretty sure the days ahead will be difficult. But that’s leadership.

“One of the quotes that I leave this council with is one from Winston Churchill: ‘Mountaintops inspire leaders, but valleys mature them.'”

The NAACP and others had filed a federal lawsuit to require the county to move the Confederate monument from its position on the lawn just outside the Talbot County Court House.

Divilio said he submitted the resolution to relocate the statue to the Cross Keys battlefield to put an end to the divisive debate and to ensure the monument is preserved.

“If the Talbot boys make this move, they will help tell the story of the Civil War and how communities and families were divided, unfortunately, much as we are today,” he said. “Cross Keys battlefield is an appropriate new home for the Talbot boys where the monument will be cared for with respect, and be part of the teaching history for generations to come.

“Throughout this process, it has been very important to me that the Talbot Boys be treated with respect,” Divilio said. “And if the decision was made to move it, there needed to be a new location identified that would be able to keep it and maintain it for the long term. Unfortunately, no such option existed locally and I feared the situation would evolve much like it has in other parts of this country and the courthouse grounds would be vandalized and the Talbot Boys would be destroyed.

He said the simple answer to questions about why the statue is being moved out of the county is that “no one wanted it. No one wanted to subject themselves, their business, their organization, or their government to the backlash from agreeing to accept the Talbot Boys on their property.

“The Talbot Boys issue has divided our community for too long and has sidelined many other important things the county council and county government needs to address,” Divilio said. “I believe that moving the Talbot Boys to a historically appropriate place of respect, and allowing our community to move forward is the best for Talbot County. It is time to bring this resolution to a close so we can shift our focus to rebuilding our relationships and coming together to build a 21st century Talbot County.”

Council Vice President Pete Lesher commended Divilio, who has previously voted to leave the monument at its current location, for his “diligence in identifying and securing an honorable and appropriate destination for the statute.

“For generations, the voices of Talbot County’s African-Americans were unheard and ignored too often,” Lesher said. “Now that they have allies across racial, ethnic and economic divides, we are beginning to hear them and give them new respect. It is clear that the presence of this statute on the courthouse square would continue to rankle. Tonight’s move is simply overdue.

“The monument is a misrepresentation of history, suggesting an inflated number of Talbot County residents fought against Maryland and against the United States in America’s new birth of freedom,” he said. “In fact, Talbot County voted overwhelmingly for pro-Union candidates to a potential secession convention that never met. This monument is simply not good history.

“And this statue shows a young Confederate soldier, not in surrender, but going off to war in his fresh uniform to fight a lost cause,” Lesher said. “In this Excelsior portrayal from Longfellow’s poem, he is ennobled, heroically prepared to give his life to preserve a way of life that was economically sustained through enslaved black labor.

Councilman Corey Pack agreed and noted the primary goal of the Confederacy was to maintain slavery.

“(W)e may not know individually why those men went to fight, perhaps because their friend down the street was going off to fight, perhaps because they were bored, perhaps because they truly believed in what the Confederacy stood far, we don’t know. But what we do know is the overarching umbrella that the Confederacy stood for,” he said. “And that was most notably the enslavement of black people. And no matter how you cut it, had the Confederacy won, that would have continued on. Written within the documents of their articles of confederacy is for the continuation of slavery….

“So we know what the Confederacy stood for. And these statues that came about at the turn of the 20th century was basically to glamorize that lost cause movement of the Confederacy, that although they fought and lost, they fought for a noble cause.

“I believe this is the right thing for Talbot County, I really do, I really do,” Pack said. “I believe that this is not erasing history, it’s just relocating a statue to another location where it can live out its days and if persons want to go travel and see it at that location, they’re free to do so. But to have the statute out front, that glamorizes a time and a period with not everybody who’s free, to have a statue out front, which still has the the draped flag of the Confederacy, to have that CSA on the buckle of that young man. And knowing what that stood for is not appropriate for this date and time.”

Councilwoman Laura Price had a competing resolution drafted calling for a Union statue and the names of Union soldiers to be added to the existing Confederate monument. But she said Tuesday night that she would not be offering that administrative resolution because she felt the public should be allowed to comment at a public hearing.

“Moving it out of the county is one thing, moving it out of the state is quite another,” she said. “And as I stated, the reason that I’m delaying my resolution is because it does deserve public feedback. And there are some people out there who maybe are supportive of moving the monument, but don’t support moving it to Virginia.

“I would ask you to have a proper public hearing and let people talk about (it). You’re the only one who looked and you alone are deciding to move to Virginia,” Price said. “And I think there’s a lot of people who would be supportive of moving the monument that don’t want it to go to Virginia. So I do have a problem with that….

“I’d much rather have compromise and try to … figure out if we can do another solution. But if this is going to be the solution that passes here, the people, all of the people deserve a proper public hearing…,” she said. “I believe that this is wrong. And it’s not anything to do with my opinion, whether it should stay as is, become a unity, or go, has nothing to do with that, it has everything to do with process.”

Council President Chuck Callahan noted Divilio had had a change of heart on the issue but “I can tell you I’m not there.

“I feel it’s a mistake. I think it’s a mistake, moving it from here,” he said. “I’ve always been very open minded. And I’ve told everybody I’ve been open-minded through the years, you know, could we find a place, could we find a place? I’ve always really been open minded to listen to everybody….

“You know, if we were going to move it, I would love to have the opportunity for the public to have input on where we’re going to put it,” Callahan said. “I really do, I think it’s important…. So I really feel like … if we were to make that decision that this is gonna move, it would have been really great if the public had the opinion on where it was going to be moved at.”

Pack took some issue with Callahan’s remarks about giving the public an opportunity to speak.

“I just want to say for clarification, you know, we’ve had opportunities to engage the public….,” Pack said, referring to requests from the Talbot NAACP and religious leaders to meet with the council to discuss the issue. “We’ve had opportunities to engage the public. We’ve turned down invitations to engage the public.

“Our attorneys from Baltimore City, high-powered attorneys that come consult this council, (said we should) engage the public, and we chose not to,” he said. “So you can’t say to this man now you’re (not) going about (it) the right way because you didn’t include the public. We had opportunities to do so. And the majority chose not to. That’s not fair to now say to him, he hasn’t engaged in the public. When you had opportunity to do it, we did not.

“That’s your opinion,” Callahan replied.

“That’s a fact,” Pack said.

It was unclear whether the approved resolution only provides for the relocation of the statue of the young Confederate soldier atop the base or to the entirety of the monument including statue and base. The resolution as drafted and approved Tuesday night solely refers to the Talbot boys “statue,” and never mentions the word “monument,” but council members spoke about the “monument” when discussing the resolution. The dedication “To the Talbot Boys” appears on the base.

In a Wednesday afternoon email, Divilio indicated his intention with the resolution was to relocate “all of it.”

The draft administrative resolution may be read in its entirety below.

DRAFT_Administrative_Resolution_-_Relocation_of_Talbot_Boys_Statue_-_September_2021

 

Key moments from Tuesday night’s discussion may be seen in the below video, which is about eight minutes long. A full video of the county council meeting may be viewed and/or downloaded at https://talbotcountymd.gov/About-Us/County_Council/council-meeting-video.