Out and About (Sort Of): Four Seasons Saga Goes On and On and On by Howard Freedlander

I am dismayed but not surprised that the opponents of the long-embattled Four Seasons development on Kent Island have appealed the most recent Maryland Board of Public Works wetlands decision to the Queen Anne’s County Circuit Court.

Some months ago I wrote: “This battle, fought too many times in court, needs to end.” As I recall, the column drew a comment, not unexpectedly, that strongly disagreed with mine.

For 15 years, environmental groups and citizens have fought this 1,079-acre senior housing project. They want nothing on this property. In every court decision of which I am aware, the opponents have met defeat. Yet, they persist. Delay is effective, I suppose.

On Nov. 18, 2015, the Board of Public Works (BPW), in a 2-1 decision, granted K. Hovnanian, the developer, a wetlands decision permitting the installation of a sewer line under Cox Creek, construction of 10-slip pier with a wave fence and the discharge of fill from stormwater system into tidal wetlands. The Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas Commission, other regulatory agencies and the BPW’s wetlands administrator recommended approval. This wetlands license is necessary for the project to proceed.

The developer probably knew better than to break out the champagne.

I was interested and skeptical to read criticism that the BPW failed to consider requirements regarding stormwater and provide sufficient public testimony at its most recent meeting. The wetlands administrator drew flack for saying that the stormwater system would not remove 100 percent of the pollutants. He supposedly said that the project would handle nitrogen and phosphorous pollution more effectively than the property remaining as is.

The opponents are skilled at parsing comments and finding cause for continued litigation.

I am hard-pressed to accept the assertion that the BPW was somehow negligent in considering stormwater requirements. This project has undergone extensive study by experts, BPW staffers and the board members themselves. As for public testimony, I recall sitting through a marathon BPW session in 2007 when opponents and proponents alike had exhaustive opportunity to voice their thoughts. Since then, court cases and continued entreaties from the opponents have created a trove of information and scientific studies related to this project.

As someone sitting on the sidelines, no longer involved in this troubled project, I find myself impressed by the single-minded focus of the environment groups. Our legal system allows innumerable appeals if the arguments differ, I guess. Then, my admiration wanes.

I think about the enormous amount of money spent by Hovnanian and the opponents for legal fees and scientific studies. Both sides obviously foresee a benefit in their investment of time, money and energy. So this contentious land-use saga goes on and on and on.

I wonder why the opponents have not exerted the same amount of effort to find a way to raise the money to preserve and buy the Four Seasons property. Without knowing if this is a viable option, I continue to see no proactive approach on the part of the opponents. Would the developer accept $10-$20 million to sell the property and move on to a project welcomed and supported by a community other than the one on Kent Island in Queen Anne’s County? Has the idea ever been broached?

This property has become an emotional battleground, consuming a tremendous amount of time and money in the legal and government worlds. That bothers me. Perhaps the opponents feel pleased that they have delayed this project for 15 years; that’s victory of sorts. Perhaps the developer feels pleased with favorable governmental and legal decisions and believes that construction will begin sooner, rather than later.

I walked this property nearly nine years ago. Its waterfront is impressive. It would be wonderful to preserve in its present state and add no more people and cars to an already congested Kent Island. What’s also impressive is that the developer has cleared every bureaucratic and regulatory hurdle. It has shown tremendous patience and perseverance; the monetary objective must be significant.

So this saga will add another courtroom chapter.