With no one paying any attention, the Talbot County Council on Tuesday night is holding the one public hearing on legislation that is the first critical step to build a new sewer line that ultimately could trigger major development along the St. Michaels Road (Rt 33). And since it affects a strategic spot in our community, it surely works against maintaining the “rural character” of Talbot County as required by our Comprehensive Plan.
This legislation, “Resolution 299,” is the first step required to build a new force main sewer line running nearly a mile along the St. Michaels Road from Carroll’s Market eastward to a parcel owned by the County that abuts the Town of Easton. Think about the implications of this: sewer from Easton right out to that stoplight at “the Pincushion.” On the north side are three very large wooded parcels wrapping around a few small homes; on the south side are four or five large farm parcels, one over 300 acres. This land is as ripe as it gets for intense residential and/or commercial development if/as/when it’s rezoned by the County Council in the future—and if it has sewer available. Resolution 299 is the essential first step to get the ball rolling for sewer.
Resolution 299 was “introduced” at the end of the last meeting by vote of all Council Members except Mr. Lesher–but which member actually caused the Resolution to be drafted and brought up at the meeting is not public. Mr. Callahan asked the County engineer to explain the legislation that no one had previously heard of, and he did so in exactly one minute (literally). He offered not a single word as to WHY a sewer connection is needed for the Repurposing Facility. (When the Planning Commission approved the Repurposing Facility, sewer was never mentioned.)
Only Mr. Lesher had any questions, and confirmed that neither the Repurposing Facility nor other adjacent properties are in the critical area nor are any failing septic systems involved. The project is estimated to cost the County approximately $180,000—but already there is talk of cutting costs by permitting other lots to hook up. A harbinger?
Here is the sole reason stated in Resolution 299 for running a new force main along the most strategic piece of roadway in Talbot County: “the Repurposing Center requires sewer to support the office and operations on the site.”
The Repurposing Facility was recently built “for the recycling of road materials, concrete from construction debris, wood debris from fallen and diseased trees and brush associated with storm events”—that is, it’s a big materials yard. No processing is connected to the sewer line of course, so the sole issue is a toilet for the few workmen on site. The yard is equipped at present with a porta-potty which would see adequate, but if for some reason an actual bathroom is required, it is not obvious why a septic system of the smallest scale could not be built on the 105-acre site. There were zero questions about any of this by County Council members before four voted in favor of proceeding.
(The Star Democrat did cover this meeting: the next day’s paper sported a photo of the Council President and a two-inch headline, front page above the fold—announcing that the Council will continue for now to hold virtual meetings. Not a word about the new sewer line on Route 33, or two other very important sewer issues that also came quickly before the Council. The paper also made a point to bring up a six-month-old exchange about the Talbot Boys Statue, even though that topic did not even come up at the meeting.)
The public hearing on Resolution 299 comes before the Council in virtual session on Tuesday evening, April 13th, at 6:30 PM. As drafted, the Resolution recites that the proposed amendment to the County Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan “has been submitted to the Talbot County Planning Commission and the Talbot County Public Works Advisory Board for review for consistency” with the Comp Plan. That is not true—such meetings have not yet occurred so the public currently does not have the benefit of these independent reviews that would better inform us—for example, why the Resolution changes the proposed use of a 105-acre parcel to “office/retail.” Or how to reconcile this sewer extension into the “Easton Greenbelt,” land purposefully designated “Countryside Preservation” in the County’s Comprehensive Plan.
Some people, including County Council members I’m sure, will assert I am making a mountain out of a molehill: that this project is just needed so the men at the repurposing yard can have a toilet to use; that the Resolution itself is a only a formality, “merely” changing the classification of one lot from “Unprogrammed” to “Immediate Priority;” that it does not itself authorize construction, and many future steps are needed anyway; and most importantly, that this does not pertain to any property other than the Repurposing Facility, i.e., none of that prime property along Rt. 33 can connect to this sewer line, and is well protected by zoning and our Comprehensive Plan.
To which I would reply: don’t be foolish. The journey from farm field to sprawl begins somewhere, often unnoticed. And slow at first…more like an infection that a bombshell.
Once this lot, hard upon the Town boundary, is classified “Immediate Priority,” (a position already supported by four members!), the development train begins slowly to leave the station. Things happen that seem the fulfillment of earlier commitments, and “always intended.” (Consider, for example, Trappe East.) Once the line is in place, hookups generate more money to the County, and service fees to cover operating costs. Indeed Resolution 299 already provides “for recoupment of a portion of the construction costs from other lots served by other lots served by the force main that may be authorized to connect to it in the future.”
Our only defense is the express protection embedded in Resolution 299 against “connecting other properties” and against “further subdivision.” And oh, how fragile, weak–and political–it is: just like rezoning, no subdivision or additional connections can be made “unless duly approved by the County Council.”
I am not into conspiracy theories and do not allege some malevolent scheme behind Resolution 299. But it is bad for Talbot County’s commitments to maintain our rural character and to oppose sprawl. Was it not so dangerous, providing a single toilet for a materials yard would a laughable justification for such a costly and impactful undertaking.
Focus on Talbot indeed!
Dan Watson is the former chair of Bipartisan Coalition For New Council Leadership and has lived in Talbot County for the last twenty-five years.
Hugh Edward Panero says
So at best it is a $180,000 toilet or at worst a very sneaky way to lay the groundwork for more development along Rt 33. Someone needs to make sure there are some brakes on this train.
Dixcy Bosley says
“ The journey from farm field to sprawl begins somewhere “ is profoundly true.
I remember all to well the beautiful silos of the farm that is now Target and BJs. An ugly site to behold on the edge of the Bay. As the folk song says. This old Bay has seen a lot of living. This old Bay has done a lot of giving”
What is our responsibility to give back?
Thanks for helping us to pay attention to the development train slowly leaving the station
Hugh (Jock) Beebe says
Thank you, Mr. Watson, for your carefully reasoned Talbot Spy piece about the County Council’s apparent intent to move toward support of development by laying a path toward sewer system future enhancement.
Having lived through the 1980s logarithmic speed of turning Bellevue, Washington from a mostly rural area into an “instant” large city, I can easily imagine such a disaster occurring hereabouts.
Since the forces of commercial land development are so powerful and the general level of Talbot County resident awareness of the hazard seems low, your sustained effort to be a voice of awareness is valuable and appreciated.
Carol Voyles says
Thank you, Dan. This sounds eerily similar to controversial projects proposed for the Bay Hundred a few years ago. Contractors are of course attracted to our green spaces, but we have a Comprehensive Plan that appreciates topographical vulnerabilities, and we’re not Delaware.
Darrell Parsons says
Thank you for raising this. The push for development is so strong once the idea germinates. And surely it is driven by priorities which don’t include maintaining any rural character.
Michael Hash says
Thank you Dan for bringing this matter to wider attention and for your compelling arguments against this threat to the rural character of the County. This is clearly a text book case of the dangers of the slippery slope. I hope there will be an outpouring of opposition to Res. 299 when it comes before the Council. And, many thanks to Pete Lesher for his vigilance on behalf of the residents of Talbot County.
Elizabeth Clark Fisher says
How does the public comment on this remotely?
John Griep says
The following information comes from the county council’s agenda:
To access the Talbot County Council Meeting virtually:
• Through the Talbot County website (www.talbotcountymd.gov). Click on the picture of the Talbot County
Council on the bottom left hand corner of the page and you will be directed to the Council Meeting Video
streaming page. Closed Captioning is available on the livestream video.
• Via YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/midshorecommunitytelevision
• If you are an Easton Cable subscriber you can view the meeting through TV-Channel 98
• To participate in the meeting call: (415) 655-0002 or (855) 797-9485 (toll-free) and enter access number:
160 983 5178
• To participate via computer through WebEx Events go to:
https://talbotcounty.webex.com/talbotcounty/onstage/g.php?MTID=efa746c3bda718dd1f92cf96c3541e31f
Event Number: 160 983 5178
Event Password: 041321
To provide public comment:
• Citizens are strongly encouraged to submit written public comments to the Talbot County Council via email to [email protected] or via mail to County Council, Courthouse, South Wing, 11
North Washington Street, Easton, MD 21601.
• To provide public comments verbally during the County Council meeting:
– If participating through the phone call (415) 655-0002 or (855) 797-9485 (toll-free), enter access number
160 983 5178 and press *3 to indicate you wish to make public comments. You will hear the prompt, “You
have raised your hand to ask a question. Please wait to speak until the host calls on you.” When public
comments are ready to be accepted, the host will unmute the callers who have indicated they wish to speak
one by one. You will hear the prompt, “Your line has been unmuted.”
– If participating on your computer through WebEx Events:
https://talbotcounty.webex.com/talbotcounty/onstage/g.php?MTID=efa746c3bda718dd1f92cf96c3541e31f
Event Number: 160 983 5178
Event Password: 041321
In the participant panel, in the lower right hand corner, click the hand icon to indicate you wish to make
public comments. Please wait to speak until the host calls on you. When public comments are ready to be
accepted, the host will call you by name.
Buck Waller says
Let me join the chorus praising Dan and Pete. Truer words were never spoken: “The journey from farm field to sprawl begins somewhere”…. we should end this expensive journey right here so our very important greenbelt is retained and so that we don’t push our town into being another traffic-snarled nightmare.
Glenn Baker says
So the Gannon Family LLC who developed the route 50 section by Chapel road with the Tractor Store, and the adjoining fast food section Panera etc. bought the 300 acre plus farm across from Town and Country store and subdivided the waterfront lots on Dixon Creek by Lee Haven Road now have a back door way to access sewer for their 300 acre development. These local country guys are sharper then the normal developers, don’t you think?
Dan Watson says
I know of nothing whatever that connects Mr. Gannon to any plans along Rt 33, and don’t see why anything like this is in order. We all do need to be attentive however, and I think the issue is the same whoever controls the propertied in the area.
DW
Meg Olmert says
I too would like thank Mr. Lester & Mr. Watson. It certainly does seem like a text book case. So very brazen. Shame on us if we don’t out it and kill it now.
Any recommendations on the best way to weigh in against this?
Eileen A. Deymier says
Contact information for Talbot Couty Council:
Chuck F. Callahan, [email protected]
Frank Divilio, [email protected]
Pete Lesher, [email protected]
Corey W. Pack, [email protected]
Laura E. Price, [email protected]
Murphy says
This is the first I’ve heard about this issue and I have many questions and want to hear more before it is passed. The council should at the very least postpone for the public to be more informed.
Martha Witte Suss says
My thoughts are having a sewer in an environmentally sensitive area as our county–is a really great idea! M
The Repurposing Center is another NO BRAINER! What a great idea – repurposing mulch, asphalt, cement which would otherwise be industrial waste in a landfill.
Come on Dan! Blow the whistle on something that is problem. Having a sewer system makes GOOD ENVIRONMENTAL SENSE as does having a County Roads Repurposing Center.
Dan Watson says
Hi Martha–
Many citizens are committed to achieving the vision of Talbot County expressed in our Comp Plan, and a healthy environment too. That’s what the Comp Plan says: “Both/and,” not “Either/or.” But as a leading realtor, you surely know the implications of extending sewer lines into undeveloped portions of the county–an invitation to intense development. It creates an exceptional threat.
Since you participated in ShoreRiver’s very successful “Project Clean Stream” cleanup of Unionville Road area a couple of weeks ago, it’s apparent you too care about the environment, and especially clean water. Can’t we achieve both?
(BTW, no one is saying the Repurposing Facility is a bad idea–except the 2 or 3 private businesses competing with it, and they seem to have been overruled. Pretty upset.)
DW
Robert J. Randall, P.E. says
Suspicious motives aside, the sure way to halt an undesireable progression of environmental assault is plainly to thwart the darn sewer plan. Where can we sign up to help?