In the last election, nothing could be clearer that the issue front of mind of Talbot County voters was the need for managed development. There was and is a feeling of our community being a sitting duck, at the mercy of developers who will for their own profit impose on us projects that may disrupt the traditional rural nature of our beautiful home.
The concern is also what these projects will do to demand on our schools, health care system and the implication of these demands on tax payer costs and our own access to what may already be overwhelmed systems.
Monumental efforts to make the citizens aware of the circumstances of the Lakeside and Poplar Hill Projects where they are in the approval process, decision points and opportunities for public input are only necessary because our elected officials have failed to put mechanisms in place to force these projects to slow their roll and clarify system burdens they present earlier in the process.
Without mechanisms of managed development, we can look forward to continuing public anxiety about growth and demands on community organizations to play catch up.
The Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) is well known and used by communities for just such a purpose. The purpose of APFOs is to make new development approval contingent on the existence of adequate public facilities including schools and health care thus mitigating the impact of individual projects.
Councilman Pete Lesher, in a Spy interview on January 25th to explain his not putting forward the Lakeside Reset resolution said the following: “I am putting forth my efforts toward setting out a vision for the future and for improving the rule book and the vision for Talbot County with things like an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.”
Mr. Lesher was the number on vote getter among Council candidates, surely due to his endorsement by Lakeside Reset and his identification with controlled growth. We are waiting for an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance to be on the County Council agenda. The sooner the better.
Holly Wright
Talbot County
Susie Hayward says
On June 6, 2023, there was a joint meeting with the County Council, various Town Councils, and the Maryland Department of Planning to discuss APFO and the steps needed to set up such an Ordinance. The APFO would operate in conjunction with the Comp Plan, so the time to set this up would be when updating the current 2016 Comp Plan. Before that, there would need to be a Development Capacity Analysis to determine the desired growth rate. Next, they would have to have a Capital Improvement Plan to ensure the infrastructure moving forward is adequate to meet the desired growth. Then Adequacy Standards and the APFO fee would be determined.
What seemed to surprise some of the Council members was that an APFO is used for growth, which Talbot County does not want, at least not in the unincorporated areas. The Current Comp Plan designates growth to be in the incorporated towns, meaning the land would be annexed into the Town and no longer under the control of the County. The County can not impose an APFO on properties in the Towns. The only fee the County could impose to development in the Incorporated Towns would be for the Schools.
Contrary to what some believe, an APFO is not designed to limit growth but to allow growth in a predetermined, planned way. But if the County does not want growth in the unincorporated areas, then there is no need for the County to have an APFO. It would be up to the Towns to have such a plan, but the infrastructure covered would be that which the Town, not the County, owns. The County can not require the Incorporated Towns to have an APFO. However, as mentioned above, the County can impose an APFO Fee for Schools. Currently, the County receives an Impact Fee ($7,852 for a single-family dwelling) and Real Property Taxes for development within the incorporated areas.
I doubt we will see an APFO introduced at the County level anytime soon due to the scope of work involved, if at all, due to the lack of growth in the County.
Holly Wright says
Thank you so much for your explanation of the relevance of APFOs at the County level and in particular vis a vis the significance of the Development Capacity analysis in relation to the comprehensive plan.
Holly Wright says
I appreciate hearing the point of view of the Board of Realtors. As you know, many ordinances that were crafted for different times can be adapted to the current needs of the country such as the Development Capacity Analysis. I think we should rely on our elected officials at the county and town level to craft the changes in the rule book that today requires based on their understanding of the communities demand for new mechanism for managed growth.
Ann Davis says
You make some very good and urgent points.
Wilson Dean says
It is inconceivable, in fact incredulous, that we are facing significant development projects in this County without an extensive AFPO. The County Council needs to do its job and get one in place before these projects proceed any further.