You, reader, surely understand that TIP (The Talbot Integrity Project) must be very careful here. We want to be precise and accurate in trying to describe what I know to be “falsehoods” that were the very foundation of the County’s approval of Lakeside, as TIP has no wish to libel or unjustly damage anyone.
And that means I cannot over-simplify things for you, “summarize,” or take short cuts with descriptions. I need to distinguish what I present as my opinion, versus what I tell you is fact. So, if you are interested, you have the burden to read carefully and make your own judgment as to what this information reveals…and about what the citizens and officials of integrity should do about it.
First, let’s be clear that all lies are falsehoods, but not all falsehoods are lies. Many things that were simply untrue were asserted by various people in this Lakeside saga. Intuitions aside, TIP has no sure way of knowing what was intentional, known by the speaker to be false, and what was simply an innocent mistake. In December, 2021 when I first addressed these issues with the former Council, I explained these distinctions in a brief memo here.
TIP believes three basic falsehoods were at the very core of the 2020 adoption of Resolution 281 (“R281”), virtually the sole legislation the County can employ to influence the Lakeside development. In my opinion these falsehoods combined to tell this story: the subdivision of Lakeside—all 2501 homes and a half-million sq. ft. of commercial space—was approved long ago by Talbot County (and MDE also), which meant that County authorities had already okayed its impact on schools, traffic, public safety, and, taxes. To raise these or any other issues “again” would be unfair to the developer, who had gone through all of that over a decade ago and was justifiably relying on earlier approvals. (The only issue on the table with R281 was the sewerage system, which was really in MDE’s bailiwick.)
The three falsehoods were repeated over and over and over again, mostly by the developer’s attorney but reinforced by other voices as well. These false ideas were, in TIP’s opinion, foundational to everyone’s understanding of Lakeside and its approvals, including the public, the Planning Commission, the Public Works Advisory Board (“PWAB”) and the County Council.
Lest anyone think TIP is making a mountain out of a molehill, that the falsehoods leading to the approval of Lakeside were incidental or peripheral to the main discussion, attached are Exhibits setting out voluminous excerpts on the different topics. These direct quotes are taken from the official transcripts of Planning Commission and County Council meetings, and from an unofficial transcript of the important Planning Commission meetings of October 6 and 7, 2021 prepared from video.
Falsehood #1: In 2002 Talbot County gave Lakeside a “S-2” sewer service classification, essentially meaning that decades ago the Lakeside subdivision we know today had been approved by the County for development in “3-5 years” from that date. But that was untrue: the 2002 Sewer Service Area map for Trappe always showed the farmland now called Lakeside as unprogrammed. The County Council never said when that area of the County would get sewer service, if at all. It opposed any big development on that land. It had never approved the scale or phasing, or set conditions for any particular subdivision. This is absolutely fundamental.
Proof? The ONLY place where the land comprising Lakeside was labeled “S-2” was on an extraneous, supplemental “Long Range Planning” map known as “Figure 24”–not the operative Sewer Service Map where that land was actually classified “Unprogrammed.” In its letter to the County of May 9, 2023, MDE confirmed that the County is now to amend its Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan (“CWSP”) to delete Figure 24 altogether in order “to resolve any confusion.” (On May 4th the County Engineer emailed MDE, understating the fact when he reported that Figure 24 had “created a huge mess.”)
The “confusion” MDE cited was very real, leading on more than one occasion to staff members of MDE itself to assert, erroneously, that the Lakeside land had been classified as “S-2,” including in a 2004 letter from a Dr. Tien that may have set the stage for issuing invalid permits.
As to Falsehood #1, Exhibit A (here) sets out seventeen false statements to the effect that in 2002 the County had classified Lakeside “S-2 for development in 3-5 years,” when it was actually unprogrammed for any sewer service. This misunderstanding permeated every aspect of the Lakeside review.
One example: from the developer’s attorney, Mr. Showalter to the Planning Commission on May 20, 2020: “In 2002, the County Council amended the county’s comprehensive water and sewer … That amendment mapped the entire project site as S-2 W-2, indicating it was available for water and sewer service within three to five years of 2002 when the amendment was adopted. That amendment, that’s now almost 20 years old…”
(The falsity that Lakeside had been classified “S-2” was also in the actual title of R281, read aloud to all assembled every time R281 came up in any public hearing.)
Falsehood #2: Compounding the false claim that the land was “S-2,” it was repeatedly stated (a) that MDE—the governmental agency with ultimate authority for sewer matters—had “determined” by 2010 or earlier that, due to the passage of time, the land in question was actually “S-1 immediate priority” already eligible for connection to sewer, and (b) expressly or implicitly, that such “determination” effectively superseded regulation by the Talbot County CWSP itself. This falsehood was most clearly asserted when the developer’s attorney, Mr. Showalter, told the Planning Commission “if you do nothing or if the county rejects this amendment, the project will go forward [anyway].”
TIP does not refute a claim by the County Engineer that a staff person at MDE once stated that the land comprising Lakesides was considered “S-1, immediate priority.” But such an assertion by an individual working for MDE obviously could not, and did not, supersede State law or the Talbot County CWSP itself—where Chapter 3 clearly expresses the one and only manner in which the sewer classification of a parcel can be changed. (That is, by the County adopting a formal amendment to its CWSP.) Nevertheless, in the review of Resolution 281, the developer’s attorney emphasized again and again to the Planning Commission and everyone else, that the State authority governing sewerage regulation had “determined” that Lakeside was already entitled to hook up to sewer.
Exhibit B (here) is a compilation of the twenty-two times it was claimed that MDE had somehow officially determined Lakeside to have already been moved up to “S-1” status…and (explicitly or by implication) already legally entitled to connect to sewer. If so, the adoption of R281 wasn’t even necessary.
One example: Mr. Showalter to the Planning Commission on May 20, 2020: “MDE indicated that this project is essentially S-1/W-1 today and that an amendment in not necessary to the County plan.”
Falsehood #3: As seeming proof that Falsehood #2 was true, advocates for Lakeside frequently cited the fact that prior to 2010 MDE had issued not just a discharge permit, but also sewer construction permits for the Lakeside subdivision. And, indeed, such permits were issued!
What is FALSE, however, is the implication that those permits meant that, prior 2010, Talbot County had reclassified the Lakeside subdivision as “S-1, immediate priority” for development. Talbot County had never reclassified that land from its status as “Unprogrammed.” MDE cannot legally issue permits to “install or extend” sewer lines into an area unless a county governing authority has designated it “S-1, immediate priority.” Those permits were not validly issued…but very, very few knew that.
EXHIBIT C (here) is a list of excerpts that reference the sewer construction permits MDE issued for Lakeside prior to 2010 , leaving the false impression that Talbot County must have approved Lakeside long ago to be “S-1, immediate priority” (since that is a legal prerequisite to obtaining such permits). The false implication was left unrefuted.
One example: Mr. Showalter at the May 20, 2020 Planning Commission meeting: “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…”
None of this tale was true, but it did prove very persuasive. EXHIBIT D (here) is a list of excerpts that demonstrate that Planning Commissioners, and no doubt County Council Members as well, understandably believed what they heard from R281’s applicants.
One example: Mr. Spies at June 3, 2020 Planning Commission meeting: “I’m voting on whether moving this property that’s already been approved and a previous Board of Commissioners believed that it met that standard and the County — and it passed way before my time on the board”.
These falsehoods, the very basis of R281’s approval, tainted everything, most importantly the Planning Commission’s proper application of the “seven standards” (particularly as regards timing) in ascertaining R281’s consistency with our Comprehensive Plan.
The false tale–that the County had reviewed the relevant issues long ago and had granted approvals “back then”–is belied by a formal statement (here) that the Talbot County Council sent to the Town of Trappe on January 29, 2003, prior to any annexation, seen now for the first time in over 20 years (I believe). From the statement:
The Talbot County Council feels obligated to express great concern regarding the impact that future development of this land may have on the citizens we represent, and the related impact on County services and infrastructure.
Past experience has shown that growth of incorporated towns, without careful planning and foresight, can often have a negative effect on the quality of life of County residents, including the fiscal obligations of County government.
The County Council respectfully requests that this letter and the following “points of concern” be made part of the record…[and] further requests that the Commissioners give considerable thought to these points.
[From a long list.] Roads and Traffic; Schools (White Marsh Elementary School is currently at capacity); Police; Emergency Medical Services; Government Services; Environment;…
On May 9th, 2023 MDE directed the County to prepare a new Sewer Service Area map for the Town of Trappe because the map adopted by R281 “needed to be corrected.” MDE instructed the County to make “any changes…that the County may deem as necessary.”
Prior to adoption of R281, the farmland underlying Lakeside was always “unprogrammed,” and Talbot County never once considered the impact a colossal subdivision will have on our schools, and traffic, and taxes, etc. The falsehoods asserted in order to persuade the County to adopt R281 denied the citizens the benefit of a proper, untainted review by the Planning Commission of that project’s consistency with the County Comprehensive Plan. Reclassifying those parcels based on false pretenses was a clear and unambiguous mistake that must surely be corrected. It is not by accident that that MDE has now invited the County to do so.
The citizens of Talbot County are the injured party here, having been denied the benefits embodied in our Comprehensive Plan. No fault lies with the citizens. Read the record, consider the source of these troubles. In TIP’s opinion there is no unfairness in reverting Trappe’s sewer classifications, to the maximum possible, to the status before R281 was adopted. If something is to be developed on the east side of Trappe, let it go through an honest and proper County review.
If you want to understand Lakeside, print out those Exhibits, read them for yourself.
Dan Watson
Talbot Integrity Project
Wilson Dean says
Mr. Watson lays in out well-documented detail the case that (1) the required process for approval of the Lakeside project never actually occurred and (2) the repeated claims that the process had already been completed has served only to establish a false narrative that Lakeside is a done deal.
With regard to the second point, these repeated but unsubstantiated claims can only be considered the BIG FALSEHOOD (for reasons cited by Mr. Watson, I’ll avoid use of the term BIG LIE). Essentially, these false claims have been made so frequently by so many individuals with such conviction that many of the important parties to the approval process—most importantly the Talbot County Council—believe them to be true. Alas, that simply is not the case.
Speaking from my own perspective, I am not opposed to growth in Talbot County. Nonetheless, I do insisted that the County Council follow the rule of law before granting any approvals. This means spelling out in specific detail (1) what each project will cost in terms of the impact on taxes, schools traffic congestion, police, the county’s rural character, and environment and (2) how the Council intends to deal with each of these increased costs.
The County Council needs once and for all to set aside the notion that the required process for approving Lakeside has been met. Then it needs—for the first time—to follow the required process and make transparent how any approved portion of the project yields a net benefit to Talbot County after accounting for all of the costs.
Reed Fawell 3 says
SEE TIPs Exhibit B linked into 5th from the bottom paragraph of above article, namely:
“a formal statement (here) that the Talbot County Council sent to the Town of Trappe on January 29, 2003, prior to any annexation, seen now for the first time in over 20 years (I believe). From the statement:
The Talbot County Council feels obligated to express great concern regarding the impact that future development of this land may have on the citizens we represent, and the related impact on County services and infrastructure.
Past experience has shown that growth of incorporated towns, without careful planning and foresight, can often have a negative effect on the quality of life of County residents, including the fiscal obligations of County government.”
The County Council respectfully requests that this letter and the following “points of concern” be made part of the record…[and] further requests that the Commissioners give considerable thought to these points.
[From a long list.] Roads and Traffic; Schools (White Marsh Elementary School is currently at capacity); Police; Emergency Medical Services; Government Services; Environment;…”
This comment reminds me of my reaction on reading, for the first time, Easton’s comprehensive plan – how by its express terms, that comprehensive plan, in my opinion, seemed to be designed to prevent the occurrence of projects such as Poplar Hill. Recall that here, on this website, I quoted or paraphrased portions of that Easton’s Comprehensive Plan to substantiate my opinion.
I mention this because Easton’s comprehensive plan, in my opinion, showed conclusively that the town had be dealing with and fighting these problems for decades, as far back as the 1950s (as I recalled.), and yet again, around 2009, the town was endeavoring to fix these chronic problems once and for all.
Surely too, in my opinion, the current County Comprehensive Plan makes itself clear on these issues, yet here too they seem to arise yet again and again as if they were matters of first impression.
We must fix our current systems once and all. Otherwise our towns and County will be overwhelmed.
And perhaps it is more accurate the say we must find far better ways and means to enforce these current systems that are in place, and Jay Corvan’s earlier suggestions here promote that end.
See Jay Corvan article and interview found in two earlier Spy articles below:
https://talbotspy.org/a-failure-of-imagination-what-we-learned-from-lakeside-by-jay-corvan/
https://talbotspy.org/a-chat-with-architect-town-planner-jay-corvan-on-dentons-tragedy-and-trappes-promise/
Barbara Denton says
Shame on the County Council for not doing their due diligence in regard to Lakeside. This also includes the County Council attorney, and all of the good old boys who knew it was wrong but would not rock the boat and say no the Rauchs. Those of you who ran for Council and promised to stop development that did not conform to the Comprehensive Plan obviously did not mean it. You need an attorney who will represent the interests of the citizens of Talbot County not the interests of the good old boys who do not care in the least how they ruin Talbot County. It is bad enough when people running for National office tell falsehoods to get elected but, to do it right to our face, and then act like everything is wonderful, is a disgrace we will not forget. You have only been in office since December and you are already falling down on the job.
Dan Watson says
Here is an important point many people misunderstand: The COUNTY ATTORNEY is not supposed to be the County COUNCIL Attorney.
He (or she) is supposed to represent the body politic, the corporate entity “Talbot County, Maryland,” not just one (albeit the most powerful) stakeholder. He has responsibilities–fiduciary duties, in fact–to all of the stakeholders, including the Planning Commission (that has responsibilities and authorities delegated to it DIRECTLY from the state, independent of and not subject to the County Council). And Citizens themselves are Talbot’s primary stakeholders. This is analogous to the role of any Corporation’s Corporate Attorney, who does not represent just the CEO, or just the Board (two parties that on occasion are at odds); Corporate counsel has duties to both of them AND to stockholders and others who hold stake in the company. Also analogous to the US Attorney General, who is the Nation’s lawyer, not lawyer for the President.
And think about this: even if the County Attorney just served “the Council,” what would that mean? The Council is not monolithic (in theory anyway). So does he just work for whichever 3 are in the majority on any point, striving to advance their point of view and thwart what the minority wants? Does he work between meetings for the PRESIDENT of the CC? Might he, in reality, use his unchallenged influence to drive the CC’s viewpoint in the direction he (or she) personally favors?
None of this seemed to be a big problem when Pullen was County Attorney, but is a big problem today….arguably driving land use issues in our County for the last 2-½ years. Thanks for highlighting what TIP believes is about the biggest practical problem we face.
DW
Reed Fawell 3 says
About the Councils and groups of all sorts, in power, generally –
There is saying about an effective group of say 5 people – that those 5 folks working together with positive group dynamics will create a positive work product worth say 100 folks working independently. Here the whole, thanks to positive group dynamics, amounts to far more than the sum of the parts.
There is also a saying about dysfunctional groups, say of 5 people. Here the opposite happens. Those 5 individuals working in the group never fail to create a negative result, one that is often exponentially negative. Here, of course, the whole is worth far less that its parts, and instead threatens harm.
Group dynamics are very tricky, and often can be very dangerous. Particularly when the interests of the group become more important than the interests of those who elected or appointed them. Here you typically find hidden agendas, charades, false problems, and false solutions, an a manipulative leader. Real problems are rarely discussed. So when challenged with truth these dysfunctional groups never fail to circle the wagons, and their members collective negative responses typically go into overdrive.
We are surrounded by negative groups today, particularly those in power, whether large or small.
The expert here is Reinhold Niebuhr, in his many writings, most notably his book Moral Man and Immoral Society, explaining how people are more likely to sin in groups than as individuals.
Reed Fawell 3 says
It is amazing to me the amount of sinning going on in American groups today. It is equally amazing how little push-back those corrupted groups get in America today.
A wonderful example today is the vast corruption of of groups in American higher education. For details see today’s WSJ article found here:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/state-university-tuition-increase-spending-41a58100?mod=hp_lead_pos7
I summarized this problem in a nutshell on this website back on July 5 found here:
https://talbotspy.org/bidens-student-loan-forgiveness-gambit-fails-by-j-e-dean/
Sharon B Smith says
And as a resident of Cambridge downstream from Lakeside, I do not welcome the additional Route 50 traffic nor potential Choptank River pollution.