First, let me publicly thank the Planning Commission members for their voluntary service dedicated to safeguarding our community and environment. There is no question as to the significant amount of time they devote to matters put before the Commission.
Having observed the town Planning Commission’s May 18 hearing regarding the Poplar Hill project I am truly confused. Why are the Planning Commission’s overly conciliatory interactions with this Northern Virginia developer and its enabler, Mr. Showalter (referred to by PC staff in the public hearing as “Ryan”), allowing for such a time-consuming, ill-advised proposal to dominate your attention and valuable time?
The resolution of this matter seems to quickly boil down to two primary points. As Mr. Pluta of Shore Rivers noted, the Critical Areas buffer (which is widely believed to be inadequate) is 1,000 feet from tidal waters. Why should there be such time-consuming back-and-forths regarding what the developer would like to do at the 100- or 200- or 300-foot lines, ballfields vs. passive meadows, sediment catchment and filtering basins, etc.? What is the basis for the Town or County giving consideration to compromising on the existing regulations? The town is not getting anything it needs or wants to support compromising important standards.
There continues to be community discussion as to the need for ‘affordable housing’, but as Mr. Showalter candidly admitted, there is no portion of this project that is dedicated to low-income or affordable housing or subsidized housing. As he indicated, it is a pure for-profit “market rate” housing investment proposal. Is there some other benefit to the town of which I am not aware that might form the basis for compromising our (inadequate) resource protection standards in a misguided effort to accommodate this out-of-town profit-based business proposal?
The second primary point that should lead to an obvious and quick resolution to this proposal was noted by Mr. Hughes, formerly the Chair of the County Planning Commission. Under certain circumstances, some growth or development is permitted within the Critical Areas, although the permitted Supplemental Growth allocated for Easton’s use has long since been used up. As a clear provision of Maryland law regarding development within the critical areas, (Title 27, sect 01.02.03, I believe), it is stated that this is only permitted “provided that water quality is not impaired”. The upper reaches of the Tred Avon is deemed to be one of the most impaired sectors in the entire far-reaching Choptank River. This is scientific fact. Per NOAA. Per Md DNR. Per local environmental groups. By law, this portion of the developer’s proposal (ANY development or changes within 1,000 feet), should not be under discussion. Not various considerations of 100 vs 200 vs 300 feet. End of discussion. Five minutes. Next agenda item. How was this developer and his attorney able to steer the discussion so off track?
Lastly, it should be noted that after so many, many years and community meetings, the Town is well on the way to actually moving forward with the public-access waterfront park development and more commercial development of the under-utilized Easton Point area. The area under consideration for these happens to be the very same upper reaches of the Tred Avon River just around the corner from the Poplar Hill development with its proposed compromises of the Maryland water quality regulations.
I encourage the Planning Commission to look beyond the fog of engineering discussions, boil the project down to its simplicities and let the developer know that he is invited to submit proposals that are in compliance with applicable regulations, but that compromising those standards to the permanent detriment of the town and county is not something to be entertained.
Bob Wenneson
Easton
Clara Kelly says
Well said, Mr. Wenneson! And to answer Mr. Roe’s earlier request for contact information to express these and other concerns about the Poplar Hill project directly to the Talbot County Planning Commission:
https://talbot-md.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=4&event_id=876
Letters and email received by close of business June 5 will be made part of the agenda packet the Planning Commission members will review before the June 7 meeting.
Numbers to call if you have difficulty accessing the site: 410-770-8001; 410-770-8033. The Commission members I have spoken with have been very helpful and gracious with their time in explaining the growth allocation recommendation and Critical Area classification processes.
Dan Watson says
Mr. Wenneson hits the nail on the head. Many thanks.
Obviously, at the 50,000 ft level, the community’s Poplar Hill problem is of the same cloth as Lakeside, and others that no doubt will follow. The constant development pressure is because much money is to be made. Nothing wrong with that–BUT at a bare minimum it needs to be done by the book. Instead, developers–through their experienced and so-well-connected lawyers and engineers–seem to approach every situation expecting concessions and exceptions and waivers and bend-over-backwards accommodations from public officials at every turn….Councils, Planning Commissions, and, at the foundation, staff. All good buds, all on a first name basis of course. These are the officials and staff members whose responsibility is to look out for you, for the public interest.
Bob’s assessment is exactly right. Why compromise standards? Why ignore critical area regs? The only one who benefit$ is the developer….and the lawyers and engineers who make it happen.
(And speaking of “by the book,” one hopes citizens–you–are set to be actively engaged when the County Comp Plan update begins some months from now. Citizens have a great deal of responsibility to see that “the book” expresses their consensus point of view. If not, don’t complain later!)
The Talbot Integrity Project,
Dan Watson
Larry Hitchens says
At last a voice of reason
I live in The Easton Club just across the road from this “planned” development. I too fail to understand why there is ongoing discourse on
Something that should have been sent back to the developer to come up with a plan that fits with the needs of our community and is not so
Detrimental to our environment.
Bishop Joel Marcus Johnson says
Mr. Bob Wenneson’s fine letter points out the amorphous concept of affordable housing: “…there is no portion of this project that is dedicated to low-income or affordable housing or subsidized housing.” But it is even more than that! The concept itself neglects to include the category of those 46% of professionals who serve as educators and support staff in our Talbot County Public Schools – indeed, who cannot afford to live in the very county in which they so capably serve, keeping our school system at its professional apex.
Hugh (Jock) Beebe says
Bob Wenneson’s perspective on the process of evaluating the extraordinary Poplar Hill development is important and was clear during the May 18 Planning Commission meeting. Why did back and forth questioning about Critical Area compromise go on for such a lengthy (hours) time?
It seemed to several of us, standing in the back where we could mumble comments to each other, that consideration of overall impact on the community was drowning in a sea of minute details. Could it be that Planning Commission members have gotten caught up in a lillipution effect where the big picture is being obscured?
Staying focused on Poplar Hill development’s negative effect on the whole community can be encouraged by aroused citizens who see this clearly. There’s still time to send a strong message to the Planning Commission before June 15.
Reed Fawell 3 says
These comments of opposition, and all those that have gone before, are very hopeful signs pf progress. On the other side of the controversy, the incredible silence of the decision makers in responding intelligently to this outpouring of intelligent opposition is deafening and damning. “Checking off boxes” is not a part of their job, nor is being lead around by their nose. Their job is to protect their community and all its citizens, and so engage with them and follow the law, and explain why and how to legitimize any decision.
Ralph Walker says
All the letters and replies are on the mark. How much more chit-chat is needed for you planners to end this discussion and make, what seems to be the final word.
Also did anyone think that a new well to supply needed water might have to be drilled. What about all of us on our own deep wells on this side of the Tred Avon River. Will this effect our supply?
Let us give a final heave ho to this project with some common sense. End of story from someone who has been here since 1962.
Jerry McConnell says
Mr Wenneson has hit the nail on the head. The Planning Commission should promptly dispel any notion about reclassification of Critical Areas land in the Town of Easton (and same obviously goes for the County Planners and Council Members ).
In fact, it’s troubling that it hasn’t already happened. There’s more than an adequate supply of “infill” available in the Town of Easton to accommodate housing for the teachers, nurses, and other public services workers that some people apparently think are all presently commuting from Delaware or living in in campgrounds somewhere. As a matter of fact there’s 50 or 60 nice unsold new homes for rent in a stunning, brand new development right on Rt 50 in metro Trappe, named Lakeside.
In any event, granting developers the opportunity to put 400+ housing units in a Critical Areas Zone would be shameful and not in the best interests of current residents…. Even if Ryan says it’s a great idea.