The Town of Easton Planning Commission convened on Wednesday afternoon to discuss ongoing development projects and address concerns raised by community members. And the first part of the meeting focused on the Poplar Hill Farm development application.The Poplar Hill development has been a subject of considerable public debate and scrutiny among various stakeholders recently.
Ryan Showalter, representing the Poplar Hill developer’s LLC, appeared before the commission to request a continuance to allow his client further evaluation and incorporate feedback received from the planning commission, the parks board, and the general public over the last few month.
During the meeting, commission members expressed the importance of addressing key issues raised by the community, such as water quality, critical area regulations, and the potential impact on the Tred Avon watershed.
In response, Showalter clarified that the regulations did not necessarily preclude all development in an impaired watershed. He emphasized the need to carefully evaluate the project’s potential impact and make modifications to address public concerns and suggestions effectively.
The commission acknowledged the importance of considering recommendations from respected environmental groups, such as the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, regarding development in the area. The need for coordination between the state’s regulations, the critical area commission, and local environmental groups was also emphasized.
Discussion also turned to the concept of an adequate public facilities ordinance (APFO). Commissioners discussed the possibility of adopting an APFO to ensure that development projects meet specific criteria related to traffic, school capacity, water, and sewer infrastructure. While the town currently operates under similar policies, the adoption of an APFO would provide a formal framework for assessing development projects and their impact on public facilities.
Ultimately, the commission approved a continuance for the Poplar Hill Farm application. The next planning commission meeting in August will provide time to revisit those revised plans and potential modifications.
Hugh (Jock) Beebe says
It seems the Poplar Hill development applicant has expressed a desire to have more time to find ways to build a response to the organizations and many individual citizens opposing it. The Easton Planning Commission’s granting of several months in which to do that certainly appears to generously express fairness in the mounting opposition to the Poplar Hill project.
Thinking ahead to August it seems useful to note this now and recall it later. If Mr. Showalter returns with a polished argument favoring the developers perhaps the established.climate of fairness would allow a further delay of contesting views to enable the large number of individual citizens, without the aid of specialized lawyers, to present their important opposition.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Dan Watson says
Mr. Showalter allegedly got his client a “continuance” from the Town, so they can tweak the plan based on “community comments.” I believe due to the good efforts of many citizens, led by TPA and others, the growth allocation request is rightly going down to defeat at both the Town and County level.
But rather than outright defeat, the continuance grants the developer permission to come back and fight another day–when TPA and public have to reenergize, and everyone do it all over again. That’s actually not right, nor good for the community. (As the continuance was already granted at the Town, the suggestion below relates just to the County Planning Commission, which heard a great deal of public comment at last meeting. But for 2 Commissioners being absent, they would have voted on the spot. Instead, the vote was deferred vote till July 5th.)
Showalter’s request to for a continuance on growth allocation issue should be flat out rejected by the Planning Commission, as it is not a site-plan issue, but a policy issue. The PC should proceed to a vote, and it should firmly reject the growth allocation on policy grounds, because it is not consistent with our Comprehensive Plan to make a critical areas exception for residential/commercial development that only generates private benefit (profits to the developer) and no public benefit. Not only is it that the proper result for community, there is solid logic for it, and there is precedent.
LOGIC: Showalter is quoted saying the delay is for “further evaluation and incorporate feedback received from the planning commission, the parks board, and the general public.” But the PC should make the point that there is nothing the developer can do that would justify the COUNTY granting “intensive development rights” (whatever the term) for land in the critical areas for any residential/commercial development. This is not a site plan approval situation, where tweaking of plans in response to comments will change anything: as Greenleaf and others said at last PC meeting, its not about the details of the plan, its about the fundamental policy—it fails at wholesale level.
(The PC is doing the developer a favor, saving him time and money by resolving this policy issue now. It is also saving TOWN time and money by making this determination now—think of all the hours and hours the Town staff, Commissioners, TPA, the public, etc. will otherwise waste.)
PRECEDENT: You recall this was the exact situation in December, 2004 regarding….LAKESIDE! Rocks and the Town wanted the County Council to adopt a CWSP amendment to reclassify Lakeside as S-1 for immediate development, but the County Council was adamantly opposed. The day of the meeting the applicant attempted to withdraw its request. But the County did not permit it, and took the matter to a vote, rejecting Lakeside unanimously. The County Attorney, Mike Pullen, wrote up matter fully, as the issue was disputed. But the central idea was that once the applicant filed the request, it was “owned” by the Council and the applicant did not have a right to withdraw it if the Council wished to proceed.
The Council took the bull by the horns in 2004 to protect Talbot County at Lakeside, and it’s exactly what the Planning Commission should do On July 5th to protect Talbot County against the Big Version of Poplar Hill. I hope you will be advocates for this idea.
The Talbot Integrity Project
Dan Watson
Sarah Eastman says
Well said
Reed Fawell 3 says
Yes, I agree with first two comments above. The Planning Commission is now engaged in “Manager’s Speak.”
Ralph Walker says
Let’s have all Planners in attendance on July 5th. Let’s stop all further discussion and continued delays on this site. Tell the owner to sell or donate to an environmental team and let the grass grow and farmers plant sensibly for all of our areas. Let the wildlife roam in peace. Let us all stop this continued rush for the almighty dollar and protect what we have left, unharmed for future generations here.