Dear Jennifer,
As this process has evolved you may be unaware of problems involving the Noise Ordinance Task Force and the upcoming vote on these Bills. This will highlight some of the problems.
Appointing Glenn Higgins, Commodore, Miles River Yacht Club, to the Noise Ordinance Task Force appears to have sanctioned a special role on the Task Force (a legislative function and part of the public trust) to promote the interests of the Club. This is not a criticism or a personal attack. It’s simply a statement of fact.
The resulting recommendation carving out special treatment for the Club confirms, in fact, that’s exactly what occurred. MRYC is the only yacht club in the County. It’s given special permission, by legislation, to operate a wedding venue with outdoor music at what could be every weekend for three months, or every other weekend for six months a year.
All other property owners in the County will be required to get a special exception, a process that considers and balances the rights of affected neighboring property owners. MRYC gets a pass. This isn’t fair and isn’t right. All this was in our August 9 letter to you and the Council.
The problem with giving MRYC a unique and powerful position of trust on a governmental Task Force, then giving their property the special treatment they have both requested and recommended is problematic at best.
The reason MRYC wants to become a wedding venue under § 190-31-1 F is for the Club to make money. It’s a lucrative business, clearly, the very purpose of that part of the Bill.
But the zoning ordinance defines a “Yacht Club” as a non-profit. The profits the Club will earn as a wedding venue will offset member’s operational costs and reduce member’s dues. The actual costs of turning the Club into a wedding venue will be increased noise, congestion, and decreased property values in the neighborhood. These costs are offloaded from the Club and borne by the neighbors. It’s not free. The costs are not insignificant.
The problem of appearances created by the Commodore’s appointment is compounded by your membership in the MRYC and your service on the Club’s House Committee. It raises several questions that you may not have considered as thoroughly as you might.
Changing the law to increase the Club’s profits directly benefits the membership. But when the Commodore is a member of the Task Force, appointed by you, and you are a member of the Club serving on the House Committee, the connection between private interests and the public good is blurred by self-interest, of the Club certainly, by the Commodore on the Task Force, and by yourself as President of the Council and a Club member on the House Committee.
This is not a reflection on your integrity, your motives or your character. Having been in public office, I know that because we all believe we’re doing the right thing, we also believe, rightly or wrongly, that others see us in that light, too. But that isn’t so.
The County’s noise expert looked at the Task Force’s recommendations impartially. His email of April 10, 2018 says:
“In short, your current permissible noise levels are currently on the high side of what I have seen in other residential communities. To raise them and double the noise level would be a terrible mistake, one that the community will be paying for in many ways for years to come.”
The Club is looking for significant, special and direct financial benefit with your support, despite the public costs identified by the County’s own noise expert. Voting to benefit the Club and its members financially, including yourself, at the neighbors’ and the public’s expense, raises ethical questions.
It certainly appears to the public, looking from the outside in, that your judgment is not impartial and independent. Even though from your perspective the lack of independence and the conflict may not be apparent it’s not lost on others.
Your integrity is not being impugned. It should be above reproach both as a member of the Bar and as a member and President of the Council. But protecting it from question is more important than a single vote on an issue that could, and does, call it into question.
Please recuse yourself from voting on § 190-31-1 F. It confers a special financial benefit on the Club based on a self-interested recommendation and puts you in an untenable position of being in an apparent conflict.
You can recuse yourself and still vote on the balance of the Bill if Council adopts a motion to separate the question before the vote. The motion would be to separate § 190-31-1 F from the balance of the Bill. You could then recuse yourself and conduct a separate vote on § 190-31-1 F. This would cure any apparent conflict of interest between the Club, you, and the overriding public interest.
This issue is important not just to the neighbors of the Yacht Club. It’s important for the people in the County to know that Council members put the public interest first. They’re entitled to have confidence that Council members are acting without partiality or special favor.
The decision about recusal is yours, of course. But the public is entitled to know your decision, to make their own independent judgment about whether it’s consistent with what they expect of Council members. Full disclosure and transparency are the best antidote for any questions that exist.
Please consider this, and please advise whether you will recuse yourself.
Thanks for your service.
Sincerely,
Michael Pullen
Counsel for Hon. John C. North, III
David North
Daniel North
cc: Corey Pack, Vice-President
Laura Price, Council member
Dirck Bartlett, Council member
Chuck Callahan, Council member
R. Andrew Hollis, County Manager
**************************************************************************
August 24, 2018
Dear Pres. Williams and Councilmembers:
Please consider amending Bill 1403, the Noise Ordinance, to accomplish a couple objectives:
- Give Tilghman Island restaurants, bars, and nightclubs (and others in VM zoning districts) what’s been proposed.
- Continue existing noise levels throughout the balance of the County.
The motocross track has had noise complaints, but it’s never been cited for a violation of the existing 55 dBA noise standard. There’s no reason, or need, to double the existing noise standard for the track.
Doubling noise levels throughout the whole County, for no reason, creates new and unnecessary problems, for example, even noisier parties at short-term rentals in residential neighborhoods. That investment market is already lucrative enough to attract investors and visitors to the County without needlessly burdening neighbors by doubling noise levels.
This amendment essentially uses existing text, so it’s simple.
Section 92-4 NOISE STANDARDS
- It shall be unlawful within the County to make, continue to make, permit, or cause to be made or continued a Noise Disturbance or a Noise level in excess of 65 dBA 55 dBA, during the Daytime or 55dBA during the Nighttime, except as specifically stated herein.
- In the VM zone, as defined in Chapter 190 of the Talbot County Code, restaurants, bars and nightclubs required to obtain a Noise Compliance Plan shall not exceed 60 dBA during the Daytime or 55 dBA during the Nighttime, except as specifically stated herein.
- In the LC, GC, and LI zoning districts, the standard of 65dBA shall apply.
Explanation:
Para. A: Existing text of Bill 1403 § 92-4 A, amended to maintain existing noise levels of 55 dBA throughout the County except as provided in Paragraph B and C.
Para. B: Existing text, verbatim, of Bill 1403, §92-4 C.
Para. C: Existing text, verbatim, from current noise levels in LC, GC, and LI zoning districts.
Purpose of Amendment: To maintain existing noise levels throughout the County except in the VM zone for restaurants, bars, and nightclubs, and to increase noise levels to 60 dBA for these uses. This would allow uses in the Tilghman community to increase noise levels but maintain existing noise levels throughout rest of the County, including the 65 dBA in the LC, GC, and LI zoning districts.
Finally, a short quote from Wikipedia:
“Occam’s razor is the problem-solving principle that the simplest solution tends to be the right one. When presented with competing hypotheses to solve a problem, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions.”
This is sound general advice. The proposed text is simple, mostly verbatim from existing sources, and does what may be necessary but only that. It isn’t overboard and doesn’t create new, unneeded noise problems.
I’m happy to provide additional information or answer any questions if you’d like.
Thanks for your service.
Sincerely,
Michael Pullen,
Counsel for Hon. John C. North, III
David North
Daniel North
Rod Coleman says
First, unless Oxford has moved to Dorchester, MRYC is not the only yacht club in Talbot County. Tred Avon Yacht Club is also here.
Second, unless I am much mistaken, your client is an immediate neighbor of MRYC. This might be of interest to readers of this letter.
Full disclosure, I am a member of MRYC. I believe the Club has entertained weddings and other such events (log canoe regattas, etc) for many years. Would be interesting I’m sure to better understand Judge North’s sudden opposition to something that is not at all new.
Views are my own, not MRYCs.
Sharon Burns says
Is the Yacht Club in Oxford no longer in existence? I realize I have lived out of the county for a bit, but can’t imagine they moved. I know that Miles River has had wedding receptions for many, many years. I know that both of my siblings had their receptions at this facility over a quarter of a century ago. Why would Judge North be upset about this now? He has lived by the Yacht club for how long? It seems a bit personal, and I would find it even more strange if he were not a member…
Joe Kildea says
Organization proposes reasonable changes to adapt and neighbor lights hair on fire – textbook NIMBYism. The story really should include an editor’s note about the author’s interests considering how over the top the charges are.
Robert Jones says
Give Tilghman what it wants? What does it want? Is it what a convenience store and two absentee restaurant and bar owners want? The rest of us want what we moved here and invested in – a peaceful, remote rural village. 65 db is RIDICULOUS HERE. Why are you, who wants peace and quite for Judge North and his family throwing Tilghman under the bus? How dare you.
Jeffrey W R Mathias says
So you are saying that only the three business people that you mention are the only ones for reasonable outdoor music? You and I both know that is false. That is what is ridiculous here.
Speak your mind but don’t lie. There are plenty of us that support our businesses and their right to entertain their guests.
Catherine Richards says
Your description of ‘those in favor of outdoor music’ for Tilghman Island businesses is way off base. There many residents who support the right of our dining and special event establishments to have reasonable outdoor entertainment. Your comment about a ‘convenience store and absentee…..” is not only inaccurate but fairly rude. Those in favor include patrons, residents, long time repeat tourists, transient boaters, seasonal slip holders and yes, business owners working hard to operate a successful, long term thriving venture on Tilghman.
Separating the Tilghman noise ordinance from the remainder of the issues in question is the only intelligent way to move these items through.
Over the past few years our community has experienced some real loss with the closing and changes in ownership of some of our best loved and attended venues. There is some real momentum and energy returning in the form of dinining and accomodation businesses on the Island and now is the perfect time to correct the long standing fairly ridiculous restrictions on outdoor enterainment.
Sarah Eastman says
Cheers to Michael Pullen and his report revealing his and others’ growing concern over Jennifer Williams’ unattractive pro business agenda, Jennifer’s special interests breeds conflict and future instability for Talbot County. Short Term Rentals (otherwise known as STRS) and actually many of the land issues discussed in the “Update 190” are tainted with her will to represent the region’s real estate lobbyists and not the neighborhoods, communities or individuals. The town of Easton made law in 2016 “Ordinance 680” which allows only full time residents to be licensed to rent their homes as STRS for up to 6 months per year. This approach fits in with the community’s long history and offers a clear solution to the ongoing strife if even only for one reason- the revenue will come back to the community’s fold with major impingement on the area.
However, Williams wants to allow anyone, even foreign or out of town investors who might be peeling grapes on Florida beaches to have the right to get a permit to own and operate as many STRS in our County as they please, and anywhere. That’s right even back to back, on private roads, in crtitical areas where docks are not even allowed to be leased.
We desire better leadership than this to support a well balanced, peaceful and desirable future.
Michael Endzel says
Ummm…
https://www.tayc.com
Willard T Engelskirchen says
Please remember that the North family has a contentious history with the MRYC. Also, they have nearby property. I contributed to Mr Pullens campaign. Sorry about that.
Glenn Higgins says
Dear Mr. Pullen,
In response to your open letter dated August 28. Please be aware that Jennifer Williams did not appoint me to the Noise Ordinance Task Force. I submitted my name as an interested citizen and businessman in Talbot County. I assume that the entire County Council then reviewed all the applicants that showed an interest and made their selection. Your “statement of fact ” that I was “appointed ” by Jennifer Williams is actually not factual. By inferring that I was appointed by any single member is in fact insulting to the Council as a whole as well as to me and Ms. Williams particularly. In fact your attempt to paint Ms. Williams in such a bad light throughout your letter is very off putting. Is your motive politically motivated perhaps? Or is it personal? Either way it’s shameful.
As a Stakeholder in the increasingly regulated and taxed business arena I felt that it was time that I become more involved . Surely you do not suggest that I do not have that right?
The Noise Ordinance Task Force was comprised of over a dozen citizens of Talbot County with differing opinions,outlooks,backgrounds and businesses. The only area the Task Force considered had to do with noise. We had nothing to do with the zoning aspects of Next Step 190 although your letter states that it did. It is disappointing that you,as an attorney who worked for Talbot County for many years would twist the facts so completely.
As you should know the zoning ordinance was drafted by the Planning Commission. The Task Force never considered the yacht club and made absolutely no recommendations regarding zoning issues. The Miles River Yacht Club and the Talbot Country Club are both similarly situated on creeks with homes around them and across the water from them . Why would you assert that Miles River Yacht Club is asking for “special treatment ” If you take exception to any aspect of the ordinance content then I suggest that you at least get your facts straight.
The Noise Ordinance Task Force is/was a example of Democracy in action. Issues were discussed and voted on. We all had our say. The end result ,strictly on the subject of noise, was submitted to the County Council for continued deliberations.
Serving as Commodore of Miles River Yacht Club has been an exhilarating year for me. But it has only been one year. It does not define who I am. I have two fantastic children and a plethora of friends. I have recently received a Governors Citation from Governor Larry Hogan for my family’s business accomplishments over the past forty plus years. I enjoy the hunting and fishing that my native Talbot County affords me. If I am to be defined please use these parameters.
I understand that you are in the employ of the Honorable John C. North III and his sons and must take a position that is assigned to you by them . I have met with Judge North and had what I assumed was a very productive exchange. During our conversation my cell phone was placed on the table with a “decibel app” engaged. While the app on cell phones will not correspond exactly to the instrument used by Talbot County, it is a good gauge to get an idea of what 65 decibels is. I urge any interested party to download such an app. Judge North was astounded that our normal conversation in a closed room was averaging 72 decibels and thus illegal on any property line subject to the current County Ordinance.
Again referencing your comments on the zoning issues , I have spoken during two public comment sessions representing Miles River Yacht Club as Commodore. I spoke on the subject of Weddings and Event Venues. I also spoke about being a good neighbor as well as being a productive employer and part of the community. There were ample recording devices and a Stenographer present. If you can gather from any testimony that I offered that Miles River Yacht Club has plans to become a Wedding Venue or any other Event venue then I invite you to point those out in print. Miles River Yacht Club has asked for an affirmation that we will be allowed to continue at the same level of operation as we have over the past twenty years.
In closing I urge you again to please put in a bit more research before you start a letter writing campaign
Glenn Higgins
Chesapeake Seafood Caterers
Commodore MRYC