Dear Council Members:

No doubt you would want to see evidence substantiating one particularly important point that has been raised time and again, that R281 was originally adopted based on a misunderstanding, purposeful or otherwise, of Lakeside’s approval history leading up to that 2020 review.  One ought not assume you’ve seen this material before.

(If you saw the Spy piece last week recapping four reasons the Reset Resolution should be adopted (here),  this email deals just with the second bullet—the false basis for adoption of R281.) 

In 2020 the Planning Commission, the Council, and everyone else came to believe that Lakeside had been fully approved long ago—certainly by 2006 when it had gotten MDE sewer construction permits.  Without County approval as “immediate priority,” MDE is not permitted to issue construction permits.  But MDE did issue permits back then, falsely leading the Planning Commission and others to believe that everything germane to Lakeside outside of sewer arrangements had been reviewed and approved long ago.  

This point comes through clearly in a reading of the entire record of CC and PC meeting transcripts—but no one expects you to do that.  What I have attached are several pages of excerpts from the transcripts that reveal the depth of the misunderstanding, and how it came to be.  (I pulled these excerpts over a year ago in preparation for the presentation I made to the former Council.)

Contrast the excerpts, and the clear implication of each point, with these facts:

• Lakeside had never before been presented to the Talbot County Planning Commission for review of any sort, much less a finding of that some earlier CWSP amendment was consistent with the Comp Plan.
• Lakeside had been REJECTED 5-0 by the County Council the one and only time an earlier Lakeside CWSP amendment came up (2004).
• MDE may have issued sewer construction permits in 2005 and 2006, but they did so in spite of the fact that the County had refused to designate the project “immediate priority,” a violation of the Environment Article 9-511.
• Hearsay aside, no actual evidence was ever presented by anyone that MDE had, on its own authority because of the passage of time, reclassified Lakeside from “S-2” to “S-1, immediate priority”…because MDE has no such authority under Maryland law.  
• The idea, asserted via hearsay by various parties, that MDE “considered” or “interpreted” of “felt” Lakeside to be “S-1 immediate priority,” completely undermined the County’s review of all of the issues central to our Comp Plan!  THIS IS A LAND USE DECISION, AND ONLY THE COUNTY CAN MAKE THAT DECISION.

Here are just four of many quotes attached; they come directly from the transcripts and capture the impact of the misunderstanding or falsity on which the entire approval of R281 was based.  They show why, to this day, the Talbot County has never discussed Lakeside’s impact on schools, or traffic, or taxes—and the 2020 review pertained to nothing but sewerage.

Mr. Showalter (the developer’s attorney):  “MDE has issued construction and discharge permits for this project previously.  And MDE believes this project is essentially S-1/W-1 today and that an amendment is not necessary to the County Plan.”

• Commissioner Spies:  “Well, so it’s still you opinion that this process here today is not actually necessary but it’s something that you’re going through because its proper channels for the County?”
• Mr. Showalter:  “That’s correct.”
• Mr. Showalter:  “MDE considers it S-1/W-1.  MDE has issued construction discharge permits for this project before.  So, if you do nothing or if the County rejects this amendment, the project will go forward with the 540,000-gallon wastewater treatment plant, the spray area in the location it’s been previously approved, but you County Plan to permit it to occur at BNR levels [a low treatment standard].”
• Commissioner Spies:  “I am voting on whether moving this property that’s already been approved and a previous Board of [Planning] Commissioners believed that it met that standard—and it passed way before my time on the [Planning Commission].”

Please evaluate all of the excepts attached as a totality, and we believe you will see that the 2020 review of Lakeside was incurably flawed.  That fact, added to other fundamental problems noted previously in public discourse and the formal record both, support adoption of the proposed resolution to “reset Lakeside”.  I hope you will find this additional information helpful.

Thank you.

The Talbot Integrity Project
Dan Watson, Acting Chair

In the midst of holiday celebrations and preparing for 2023, I am writing to express my gratitude to you, my neighbors, for your foresight in selecting Bob Willey as Mayor of Easton just four short years ago. None of us could have imagined in that short time the challenges our community would face: pandemic, fiscal constraints, labor shortages, supply chain interruptions and, sadly, crushing inflation, food insecurity and homelessness to name a few. Fortunately, we had the foresight to place in office, a highly effective leadership team – Mayor and Council – with the capacity and capability to find effective solutions that work for the Town. 

Led by the Mayor’s steady hand, the Town finds itself in an enviable position. Easton has a very stable tax rate, is attracting new businesses and employers to our business parks, and is working to address smart growth and attainable workforce housing. We now have a Small Area Master Plan for Port Street that is guiding redevelopment on Easton Point.  Easton is known for its tree lined streets, easy walkability, and accessible parks. The rails-to-trails connectivity to Port Street and Easton Point Park is now a reality. A modern wastewater treatment facility is in place with capacity to service our growth and, importantly, to contribute to our collective Bay Restoration initiatives.

I am grateful and proud of our Town staff, police, and emergency responders for making a stronger, safer community and for delivering cost effective services – services that are an essential and integral part of the quality of life we enjoy in Easton. The Mayor listens to the community, sets the tone for the staff, and then leads by example. He seeks and is open to constructive feedback when new issues arise amidst constant change. And, he has an enormous capacity for unselfishly serving the community.

As we set our sights on 2023, let’s make an informed decision in May to re-elect Bob Willey Mayor of Easton.

Ted Bautz
Easton

In Talbot County, 2022 gave rise to a  potent movement of citizens and voters demanding, first, integrity in the County’s land use decisions and, second, fidelity to the Talbot County Comprehensive Plan—including an immediate fix to the damage inflicted by the improper approval of the gigantic Lakeside subdivision by the former Council.  

Beneath the banner of “Reset Lakeside,” voters energized by those two key issues helped elect three candidates–a majority of the Council—who, before being endorsed by the Talbot Integrity Project (“TIP”), vowed to do just that.  

(Mr. Lesher finished over 700 votes ahead of sitting Council President Callahan, and Ms. Mielke, a newcomer to politics, also achieved a vote count higher than Mr. Callahan’s.  The fifth spot on the Council was a close race between two TIP-endorsed candidates, one a Republican and the winner, Ms. Haythe, a Democrat.)

But in the three months since the candidates spoke to voters about land use and about Lakeside, the movement’s underlying rationale may have slipped out of focus a bit, some forgetting what is at stake here.  

So as a refresher, here is a high-level restatement of four reasons why the ”Reset Lakeside” resolution should be adopted forthwith.  

•  DEFENDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S AUTHORITY UNDER LAW:

Maryland law is clear that (1) the Planning Commission, not the County Council, has the exclusive and conclusive authority to determine whether or not an amendment to the Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan is or is not consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan (the “Comp Plan”), and (2) that if the Planning Commission certifies that an amendment is not consistent, then the Council does not have the authority to adopt such an amendment.

On November 3, 2021 the Planning Commission determined that Resolution 281 (“R281,” the CWSP amendment that enabled Lakeside to go forward) is NOT consistent with our Comp Plan.  The former Council refused to acknowledge the Planning Commission’s authority on that critical question.  And they did so even though the Commission’s finding was based on public health and environmental problems in La Trappe Creek associated with the antiquated Trappe wastewater treatment plant to which Phase 1 of Lakeside will direct its sewerage, increasing the flow by over 30%.

• FUNDAMENTAL OMISSIONS IN THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL PROCESS:

When the Lakeside CWSP amendment (R281) was presented in 2020, the Planning Commission, the Council, and the public all were under the misimpression that Lakeside had long ago been okayed by Talbot County, and this was just an update of some sort related to a sewer permit renewal.  That misunderstanding seemed plausible because the developer, back in 2005, DID get sewer construction permits from the Maryland Department of Environment (“MDE”) —but they had been issued improperly.   On December 21, 2004 the County Council, whose designation of the property for “immediate development was prerequisite, had in fact TURNED DOWN the Lakeside proposal unanimously.  They hadn’t even sent it to the Planning Commission at the time, since the idea was dead on arrival at the Council.  

The falsehood that Lakeside had been approved long ago meant the 2020 review focused only on details related to sewage, with no discussion of Lakeside’s impact on schools, traffic, taxes, public safety, health care capacity and so forth.  How this misunderstanding gave rise to this grossly flawed review in 2020 was presented to the former County Council over two hours and in great detail on December 13, 2021, but the former Council simply ignored the information.  Surely the new Council will not.

• THE TALBOT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:

Distinct from the improprieties of Lakeside’s approval process is that project’s blatant incompatibility with the substance of the Talbot County Comprehensive Plan.  The Vision Statement leading off our Comp Plan begins with these words:  

“The primary goal of Talbot County’s Comprehensive Plan is to promote a high quality of life, to preserve the rural character of our County, and to protect the health, safety and well-being of its citizens, in a resilient community.”

Who seriously contends that the current plan for that enormous sub-division–quintupling the population of little Trappe, with the town now straddling Ocean Highway, and adding commercial space aggregating one-third the square footage of the Annapolis Mall—contributes to the County’s rural character, or doesn’t degrade our quality of life?  Because the review of Lakeside in 2020 began from the false premise that the project had been approved by the County over fifteen years ago, even these fundamental aspects of Lakeside were never discussed in approving R281.

• MDE’S RECENT PERMIT REMOVED THE UNDERPINNING OF THE LAKESIDE APPROVAL:

Adoption of the CWSP amendment that gave Lakeside the green light was predicated on the belief, represented by the developer and Town of Trappe…that a 540,000 gallon-per-day treatment plant was assured…for example, when Mr. Showalter told the Planning Commission on May 20, 2020 “So, if you do nothing, or if the County rejects [R281], the project will go forward with the 540,000-gallon wastewater treatment plant…”  MDE’s approval of a plant of that capacity was needed to support the developer’s plan.  

But on October 27th, 2022, MDE issued a final permit for only 100,000 gallons per day and stripped away any reference to future growth.   There is simply no assurance that the treatment plant will ever be enlarged, yet the developer still holds hundreds of acres of land designated “immediate priority” for development.  (The actual permit will support only 400 homes, and no commercial space.) 

Had it been known that MDE would issue a discharge permit of only 100,000 gallons per day, it is inconceivable that the County Planning Commission would have certified a CWSP amendment classifying for “immediate priority” a project the scale of Lakeside, one that far, far exceeds any sewerage capacity.  MDE’s action itself provides an ideal opportunity for the County to give earnest reconsideration to Lakeside. 

• BE ALERT TO FOUR RED HERRINGS:

Here are four ideas that could be thrown out to excuse inaction by the new County Council on the “Reset Lakeside” resolution.  None of them hold water.

• Let’s talk just about sewerage, ignoring items above.  A diversion that worked before, try it again!
• Affordable housing!  Lakeside’s first 120 homes are offered from $379,990 to $554,990.  Unlike some communities, the developer was not even required to assure any proportion of their offerings be priced at an “affordable” level.
• The only people who object to Lakeside are rich “come-heres” who live on the water.  Any effort to identify a split in our community over Lakeside is demonstrably off-base.  The 2021 rescission of R281 had over 400 citizens from all over the County emailing the Council in support.  When TIP set out to raise funds for litigation, 75% of contributors came from small donors to a GoFundMe page, most sending $25 to $200.  And in the recent political campaign, it was not “rich come-heres” who helped power the election of three TIP-endorsed candidates.
• A “reset” now comes too late, and would be unfair to the developer.  Ha!  This is the most galling claim of all.  The developer knew about the serious effort to rescind R281 in May 2021, two months before any construction commenced…but proponents  encountered purposeful delay and obstruction by supporters of Lakeside at every step.  

In connection with TIP’s ongoing suit against MDE, Councilman Lesher provided an affidavit confirming that in August, 2021 he met with the developer’s attorney, and “Mr. Showalter stated that, with respect to the work proceeding at Lakeside, his client ‘understood that they were proceeding at their own risk.’”

Clearly, before July, 2021 the developer knew that, because of the faulty premises and misunderstandings behind the County’s approval, Lakeside faced substantial jeopardy if it proceeded in the face of a rescission effort.  The developer decided to proceed anyway, no doubt relying on supporters on the former Council thwarting citizens’ efforts to protect Talbot. 

Citizens and voters of Talbot County support the “Reset Lakeside” movement just as strongly today as they did in the recent election, precisely because they know Lakeside is fundamentally wrong for Talbot County.   It has always been incompatible with our Comprehensive Plan, as the 2004 Council recognized when it voted 5-0 AGAINST.  And over the past 18 months everyone has come to learn of the recent procedural improprieties in granting approval—especially the former Council’s disregard of the Planning Commission. 

 Talbot citizens are looking to the new Council to promptly adopt the proffered resolution in order to restore integrity to the County’s land use approvals and show fidelity to the Talbot County Comprehensive Plan.  In other words, with due respect, “Reset Lakeside.”

Dan Watson
Talbot Integrity Project

This is a topic that, beyond this short update, should rightly wait till after Christmas. Just know that red flags are out, flying stiff on the wind.

Six weeks after the Council election in which “Reset Lakeside” was front and center and where a majority of three explicitly voiced support for the movement (and another candidate was non-committal), the political winds seem suddenly to have shifted.  The “Reset” initiative of course was not the only issue considered in the recent election, but no one can deny that it was a real focus. 

The Reset initiative, triggered by improprieties in the Lakeside approval processes during the prior Council’s term, demands protection of our Planning Commission’s authority under Maryland law to decide if amendments to our sewer plan are, or are not, consistent with our Comprehensive Plan.  In the case of Lakeside, the Planning Commission determined it is NOT consistent, which the former Council ignored and a majority of the new Council pledged to set right.

The consequence of acknowledging the Commission’s authority would be to “Reset Lakeside,” and before proceeding it would have to come back to the Commission for a new review.  And not just by the Planning Commission: the Public Works Advisory Board, the citizens (in a public hearing), and ultimately the new Council would review it too.  In that process, for the first time the community can discuss schools, traffic, taxes, health care capacity and all the rest. 

Beyond yard signs, specific legislation to set this right was respectfully submitted to Council members and made public over two weeks ago.  Pete Lesher announced at the Council’s first meeting last week that he is prepared to introduce it at the next meeting (January 10th, put it on your calendar).  

But do not assume all is well and the initiative is proceeding as one would expect.  There are indications to the contrary, though there will be time enough after the holidays to better evaluate the situation.

(Perhaps there is really no serious problem afoot, and those of us familiar with current events are just seeing the conflation two things.  First, some Council members may be thinking this request is really just Dan Watson’s caper alone, as former Councilman Divilio always portrayed it…”one dude down the road.”   Hearing often from one spokesman, perhaps it’s easy to forget this is a community-wide project with broad support.  The second reality is that, while not the intent, I’m sure my continued efforts for adoption of the needed Resolution can seem annoyingly pushy, very irritating in fact.  Maybe the messenger is detracting from the message.)

In any event, an alert is enough.  All the rest should be set aside till after the holidays, as family and friends and the meaning of the season take precedent.  Merry Christmas!

Dan Watson
The Talbot Integrity Project

Having the good fortune to be born in Talbot County in 1937 and raised in the charming community of Oxford was a blessing. Growing up in the town of Oxford, we took great pride in the fact that God, family and community were stressed as being extremely important. 

Oxford has a long history. It was a commercial port of entry into the United States for seafaring ships beginning in 1694, and it was one of the busiest seaports around bringing manufactured goods from England and carrying back cargos of tobacco and other raw products. Oxford was the home for the first naval academy, and also the home of Robert Morris, financier of the Revolutionary War. It had a train station carrying passengers to Easton, and an elementary school where two sisters, who were teachers, taught all 6 grades. One sister taught first to third grade and the other fourth to sixth grade. After completing the sixth grade,  we were off to Easton in a full school bus. 

We have another milestone for Oxford and perhaps one that leads the nation in the number of individuals who joined the police force. The small town of Oxford with a population in 1940 of 826, which is near the current population today of 800, boasts of 13 men who joined the Maryland State Police. Beginning in the 1940s, concern for country was evident when brothers after brothers served in the military and then joined the Maryland State Police upon discharge from the service. Serving their country and community was important to members of the same family and continued until the middle of the 1990s. There were five sets of brothers who joined the Maryland State Police beginning with:

1. Walter H. Dobson serving from August 1, 1942 – July 1, 1976 followed by his brother Arthur W. Dobson joining in 1943 – 1970.
2. W. Weber Duncan, Jr.  joining the force on January 6, 1958 – July 1, 1980 followed by his brother Thomas G. Duncan entering July 5, 1960 – July 1, 1984.
3. Colin N. Macindoe entering the Maryland State Police on July 7, 1958 – July 1, 1980 followed by his brother William N. Macindoe serving from July 1, 1963 – July 1, 1987.  
4. James H. Balderson joining the police force on January 5, 1959 – January 1, 1981 followed by his brother John D. Balderson beginning on October 6, 1975 – April 1, 1987.
5. William C. Sullivan entering on July 7, 1969 – July 1, 1990 followed by his brother John R. Sullivan entering on January 2, 1974 – March 1, 1992. 

In addition to these five sets of brothers, there were others who were from Oxford and who joined the Maryland State Police. They were:

1. Roger B. Harris, Jr. entering on November 18, 1941 – October 20, 1974.
2. Robert W. Gerlock joining on July 8, 1957 – September 30, 1978.
3. F. Steven Bryan beginning on June 1, 1971 – May 1, 1994

Lastly, there were four other individuals from Oxford who became Talbot County Sheriffs. They were:

1. George O. Granger, Jr.  beginning in 1958 – 1962.
2. G. Benjamin Forrest serving from 1974 – 1982.
3. Robert W. Gerlock serving from 1982 – 1986
4. Thomas G. Duncan starting in 1993 – 2002. 

This makes a total of 15 individuals choosing police duties and contributing to our Country and State for a total of 341 years serving law enforcement.  They served the Maryland State Police for a total of 316 years and a total of 25 years as sheriffs in the Talbot County Sheriff’s Department.  I know of no other small town who can boast of such awesome law enforcement personnel. Oxford was truly the “Mayberry of the USA”.

Thomas G. Duncan
Oxford

You just can’t vote a yard sign into law.

Accordingly, this morning The Talbot Integrity Project (“TIP”) sent to all members of the new, incoming County Council a formal request that the Council consider, and adopt, two specific Resolutions that will implement the “Reset Lakeside” initiative advocated by TIP in the recent campaign.

As sponsor of the “reset” movement, it has been TIP’s responsibility to come forward with specific language that will accomplish the goals embodied in that catchphrase, so Talbot County can move from a gross idea to action.  Those goals are two in number, and were presented in an outline linked to an article in the Talbot Spy on September 28th.

First, the new County Council can reverse a position taken last March, and confirm that it is the Planning Commission that has exclusive authority to make decisions about any project’s consistency with our Comprehensive Plan.  That is the law.

Second, since the Planning Commission last year determined that Lakeside is NOT consistent with the Talbot County Comprehensive Plan, Lakeside must be paused in place, inviting the developer to bring it back anew for proper consideration by the Planning Commission and the Council before approval.  And for the first time, they—and the citizens in public hearing—can address a litany of issues such as schools, taxes, traffic, public safety and the impact on the County’s strained healthcare capacity.  

All of these are important issues, and without a “reset,” County taxpayers, and not the developer, will be the ones dealing with and paying for these aspects of uncontrolled growth.  Perhaps some changes are in order.

The legislation proposed by TIP consists of two Resolutions accessible by these links:  the main “Reset Resolution” (Exhibits here), and a second Resolution that simply accommodates certain non-controversial improvements to the Trappe water system that were also contained in the original Resolution 281 before it was rescinded.

Voters elected three candidates to the Council that TIP endorsed: Pete Lesher, Keasha Haythe, and Lynn Mielke.  At the League of Women Voters/CBF Candidate Forum, all these candidates (and other candidates too) said that they would support the Reset Lakeside effort outlined in the Spy that very day.  

TIP hopes that, on thoughtful consideration, all new Council members will act responsibly and adopt this legislation.  And not just because the call to “Reset Lakeside” was so strongly supported by voters in the recent election, but because it’s the right thing to do.

Dan Watson
Talbot Integrity Project – Easton

As virtually its last act, at the tail end of its very last meeting, and with no advance notice on the agenda, the outgoing County Council on November 22nd voted to make a critical appointment, replacing a sitting Planning Commissioner.  But that spot on the Planning Commission does not become vacant until the new County Council’s term.  It is rightly the decision of the new council to make the appointment, perhaps simply naming the current Commissioner (who applied for reappointment) or choosing someone else they prefer to serve on the Planning Commission. 

The Problem?  It is NOT just that the County Council did not have the authority to make the appointment.  Worse: the County Council—and most importantly, the County Attorney who advises the Council and is responsible for seeing that members have sound, accurate legal advice and guidance—knew in advance that they did not have that authority, and they did it anyway!  

This hail Mary pass at the end of the county council term is illegal and cannot stand and is an insult to county voters who have made their voices heard in the recent election. 

A group of concerned Talbot citizens, represented by Mike Pullen, the former County Attorney, filed suit in Talbot County Circuit Court yesterday asking the Court to declare the action of the departing Council out of bounds, and cut off that blatant attempt to influence, if not control, future land use decisions, on their way out the door.  

(This was not just any old appointment to any old board:  it is the Planning Commission that most closely oversees all of Talbot’s land use decisions—including those affecting Lakeside, should it come back for  a new review–and will also oversee the next Comp Plan revision starting in the new Council’s term.) 

Personally, I am truly saddened to find myself suing the County. I think of it, frankly, not as an action against Talbot, but an action for Talbot. We have seen this exact movie before in 2002 and the county faced a similar lawsuit way back then.   In any event, it seems either the ineptitude of the County Attorney, or the attitude of some on the outgoing Council, or both, make this unfortunate action necessary.

The Complaint we filed, which spells out the whole sordid story in detail, is here.  Please take a moment to read the suit and educate yourself on the importance of this issue. The rewrite of the Comprehensive Plan is on the near horizon in 2023 and who sits on the Planning Commission is of fundamental importance to our County. 

Dirck Bartlett
Easton

Regarding Philip Logan’s interview with the Spy, entitled Spy Chats A Mid-Shore Place in Transition: A Chat with Architect Philip Logan on Bellevue and Good Subdivisions

Unfortunately Mr. Logan is not aware of the growth or development emphasis in Maryland and Talbot County. The only criteria is the environment. There is no thought about the fabric of the community.

As examples:

Talbot Preservation Association in Talbot County fights every proposal with their environmental agenda. There is no compromise for Mr. Logan’s suggestions. Their agenda equates more homes with degradation to the environment. The Planning Commission and Council have no stake in supporting good development principles and upsetting the citizens.

This is the South. The locals tend to follow the “move heres”. After all, they are wealthy. They have been successful. They must know what is right. Even though these new citizens hide behind the environment, they simply don’t want growth and their influence pushes this agenda on the locals.

Maryland Critical Area law along with the Department of Environment laws make it impossible to develop in a socially responsible manner, in the County. They encourage traditional cookie cutter dispersed development. In one of the most dense development zones in the county, village hamlet, Maryland regulations restrict a home site to approximately three quarters of acre.

Talbot County, before the Talbot Preservation Association, had a very progressive village zoning ordinance. It allowed four houses per acre. But there was a catch. The property had to be rezoned to Intense Development, a critical area designation. There was, is no land in a village in the county with this designation. Getting it approved with the Talbot Preservation Association’s opposition would be impossible. Under the current zoning ordinance the County has no zone that could be more than one house per acre of gross site acreage.

These are the main impediments to Mr. Logan’s thoughts. There are many more. Like the Department of Public Works road requirements, just general opposition to everything by the Department of Health regulations, etc. Good development is a fight that will not be won in Talbot County.

Clint Wadsworth
Talbot County

For the past decade my husband and I have enjoyed walking on the St. Michaels Nature Trail. Like thousands of residents and visitors, we have been fortunate to make many friends and acquaintances, and we all have been blessed to be able to see the natural bounty of the Chesapeake at its finest. We have all applauded the Town and State commitment to the Nature Trail, Back Creek Park and the Watermen’s Dock. These improvements just add to the wonderful nature of St. Michaels.

Environmental Concern, an early champion of the Nature Trail, is the owner of much of the land on one side of the Trail. Environmental Concern (EC) is seeking to have the Town annex a part of its land, outside the Town of St. Michaels and now regulated by Talbot County, under the guise of a “mapping error.” For some reason, however, in order to correct this “mapping error” (something on the books for nearly 100 years is hardly a mapping error!), EC is proposing the annexed parcel be REZONED FROM RESOURCE CONSERVATION TO RESIDENTIAL. This would enable the entire plot to be subdivided by EC or future developers into dozens upon dozens of homes, with the accompanying parking lots and necessary infrastructure, upon what currently is, in part, environmentally protected land.

Other local communities have been dealing with these issues. Many of my neighbors and I are greatly concerned about what this will mean for our Town, the Nature Trail, Back Creek Park, the Watermen’s Dock. Before this “mapping error” turns into another fait accompli, requiring major upgrades to water, sewer and road systems, we are organizing to speak out as this is a vital issue to our Town.

This “mapping error” has protected this part of the Chesapeake for nearly 100 years, and has helped make St. Michaels a jewel of the Eastern Shore—a high-quality tourist destination and a town that people want to live in. Imagine what could happen over the next 100 years if conservation zones could be rezoned for high-density residential building, and St. Michaels is used as the precedent for this change! And shame on us all if our elected officials vote for the future destruction of environmentally protected land!

Environmental Concern has the rights to sell its property and is not being prohibited from doing so. But why should this annexed land be rezoned? Property owners all throughout St. Michaels live within the Town and County rules and regulations. Why should this special piece of property be rezoned, increasing significantly its value to EC but irreparably damaging our Town.

This annexation issue has been portrayed as a minor local government administrative matter having to do with taxation and maps rather than rezoning. It isn’t. IT’S ABOUT THE REZONING and to think otherwise is to obscure the goal of protecting land along the Chesapeake.

I ask that town officials, especially our elected Town Commissioners, strongly consider the investments that have been made to preserve our environmental bounty here in St. Michaels, and the significant value the Nature Trail and its surrounding areas provide to all our town residents and our many visitors.

Michelle S. O’Connor
St. Michaels