Nonpartisan Education-based News for Talbot County Community
The Lakeside/Trappe East residential and commercial project on the northeast side of Trappe was billed as a way to save the financially struggling town, The Washington Post reported Monday afternoon.
But some opponents fear the 2,501-home development, which could quintuple the town’s population, will change Talbot County’s rural character and caution that its wastewater treatment system could cause environmental problems.
The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.
The county planning commission heard public comments Wednesday morning on Resolution 281 and will discuss Thursday night what actions, if any, it will take on the matter.
Resolution 281 amended Talbot County’s water and sewer plan to:
• reclassify and remap certain areas of the Lakeside/Trappe East property from W-2 to W-1 and from S-2 to S-1. (W-1 is immediate priority status for water; S-1 is immediate priority status for sewer.)
• add the Trappe East water and sewer systems to the list of capital improvement projects.
The commission’s agenda for Wednesday described the issue as “Discussion of Planning Commission’s previous certification of consistency with the Talbot County Comprehensive Plan with respect to Resolution 281 and possible recommendations and/or other actions, including undo, consider, reconsider, rescind or amend the previous certification.”
After hearing Wednesday morning from environmental groups and attorneys for a neighboring property owner, the developer, and the Town of Trappe, among others, Talbot County Planning Commission Chairman Phil “Chip” Councell asked for another meeting to be scheduled for the planning commission to consider the comments and discuss its course of action.
Councell asked for that meeting to be held before Tuesday, when the county council will hold a public hearing on Resolution 308, which would rescind adoption of Resolution 281. Resolution 308 was introduced by Council Vice President Pete Lesher, the sole council member to vote last year against Resolution 281.
Resolution 281 had been introduced Dec. 17, 2019, by Talbot County Councilmen Chuck Callahan, Frank Divilio, and Corey Pack, with public hearings held Feb. 11, 2020, and July 21, 2020.
The Talbot County Planning Commission considered the resolution in January, May, and June 2020, and voted 3-2 that an amended resolution was consistent with the comprehensive plan.
The county council voted 4-1 on Aug. 11, 2020, to approve the resolution as amended, sending the matter to the Maryland Department of the Environment for its approval, which the state agency subsequently granted. Councilwoman Laura Price joined Callahan, Divilio, and Pack in voting in favor of Resolution 281.
Earlier this year, petitioners asked the county council to rescind Resolution 281, claiming the county council and the planning commission were not provided with full information last year and noting that the discharge permit for the wastewater treatment plant that will serve Lakeside has been sent back to the state environment department for additional public comment and a public hearing.
The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.
Maryland residents concerned about the water-quality impacts of a large housing and commercial development on the Eastern Shore have three new opportunities in October to share their opinions with decision makers.
The Maryland Department of the Environment has scheduled a public hearing Oct. 28 on its plan to permit treated wastewater from a planned development in Trappe, called Trappe East, to be sprayed on nearby farm fields. It will be held in person at the Talbot County Community Center and Curling Rink, at 10028 Ocean Gateway in Easton.
Talbot County’s council and planning commission, meanwhile, plan to hold hearings of their own before the MDE session to revisit their 2020 votes in support of the project.
The MDE had issued a groundwater discharge permit in December 2020 for the proposed community of 2,501 homes and apartments plus a shopping center, to be built on an 860-acre tract annexed nearly two decades ago by the town of Trappe. Earlier this year, though, a Talbot County judge ordered the department to give the public another opportunity to comment on the permit because of changes made in it before being issued.
The MDE’s newly proposed permit — unchanged since its original issuance — would allow the developer to eventually spray an average of 540,000 gallons of wastewater daily on grassy fields. It must be treated using enhanced nutrient removal to lower the levels of nitrogen and phosphorus. A lagoon is also required to store wastewater for up to 75 days during winter and when it’s raining or too windy to spray.
Neighboring residents and environmental groups have questioned the MDE’s assurances that the nutrients and other contaminants in the wastewater would be soaked up by the grass in the fields. They fear it could seep into groundwater or run off into nearby Miles Creek, a tributary of the Choptank River.
In addition to in-person comments at the hearing, the MDE will consider written comments submitted by Nov. 5. Those should be emailed to [email protected] or mailed to Mary Dela Onyemaechi, Chief, Groundwater Discharge Permits Division, Maryland Department of the Environment, Water and Science Administration, 1800 Washington Blvd., Baltimore, Maryland 21230-1708.
Project opponents have gathered about 200 signatures on a petition calling on the Talbot County Council to rescind its 2020 resolution in support of the development. The resolution amended the county’s water and sewer plan to include the Trappe East development, which effectively cleared the way for the MDE to issue its permit.
Opponents say the council should withdraw its backing, particularly because of changes the developer has made since then in how development’s wastewater will be handled. The first 89 homes in the development, already under construction, are to have their sewage piped to Trappe’s wastewater treatment plant. That plant discharges into LaTrappe Creek, a Choptank River tributary already impaired by excessive nutrient pollution.
When the Talbot County Planning Commission meets at 9 a.m. on Oct. 6, it will discuss whether to rescind its 3 to 2 vote in 2020 recommending that the council support the Lakeside project. The county council hearing takes place at 6:30 p.m. Oct. 12.
By Timothy B. Wheeler
The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.
Over the pleas of his colleagues, Talbot County Council Vice President Pete Lesher introduced a resolution Tuesday night to rescind Resolution 281, in which the county supported the request of Trappe and a developer to amend the county’s comprehensive water and sewer plan for the Trappe East project.
The other four members of the Talbot County Council cited legal advice that the resolution, if approved, would accomplish nothing.
“My goal in this process is to give the issue a fresh public hearing for the benefit of both proponents and the skeptics,” Lesher said. “Resolution 281 came to the council at a time of a series of higher profile issues. And we’ve heard from a growing number of constituents who are concerned that their issues with this were not heard.
“And among those concerns is a provision of Resolution 281 that will allow the first 120 homes to be connected to Trappe’s existing secondary wastewater treatment plant, an outdated plant that discharges nutrients into an impaired waterway,” he said. “Trappe does eventually plan to upgrade this plant to modern ENR discharge standards, but that upgrade is still years away.”
County Attorney Patrick Thomas said the council’s approval of Resolution 281 essentially was the preliminary approval to change the water and sewer plan.
“(U)nder state law, once the council approves these comprehensive water and sewer plan amendments, they then have to go to MDE for final approval,” Thomas said. “MDE can then can deny it, they can approve it, they can amend it in part, they have … the final authority on that.”
After the council approved Resolution 281, the proposed amendment was sent to MDE, which approved it in November 2020.
“And then those amendments became part of the comprehensive water and sewer plan,” Thomas said. “So at this point, there’s nothing … for the council to rescind. (Y)ou gave your preliminary approval, it went on to MDE, they issued the final approval.”
The only way to undo Resolution 281 would be for the council to approve another amendment to the comprehensive water and sewer plan to revert it to its pre-281 status and for MDE to then approve that amendment, he said.
Councilman Frank Divilio said he had concerns about the Trappe East project, but rescinding Resolution 281 would be “a waste of time.”
Councilman Corey Pack agreed.
“I think that the county attorney has already laid out, succinctly, that 281 has already been incorporated to the comprehensive water and sewer plan and I don’t know how many times he can say that,” Pack said. “There is nothing here to rescind. This is a bridge to nowhere…. (I)t doesn’t accomplish anything.
“There is a way by which if you wanted to remove the changes of 281 from the comprehensive water and sewer plan, you would need to amend the comprehensive water and sewer plan,” he said. “This just doesn’t do it. Mr. Lesher, I’m sorry, it’s really putting the council in a bad position to put something on the agenda for a public hearing, which you very well know is not going to accomplish anything.”
Pack also noted that Resolution 281 contained some beneficial compromises between the county, town, and developer.
“There are those things built into 281 that were good. Going from a 2-foot freeboard to a three foot freeboard was a good thing. Going from 60 days of holding time to 75 days of holding time was a good thing,” he said. “So not everything in 281 to my point of view was bad.
Council President Chuck Callahan and Councilwoman Laura Price agreed that rescinding Resolution 281 would have no effect.
“I think there are some valid concerns and questions that need to be answered,” Price said. “But like my other colleagues, this is not the vehicle to do that.”
Price said the council would be able to make a more informed decision “on whether or not we … need to amend the comprehensive water and sewer plan” to address Resolution 281 after the Maryland Department of the Environment’s public hearing on the discharge permit for the Trappe East wastewater treatment plant.
That hearing had been set as a virtual hearing in early September but has been changed to an in-person hearing in late October at the Talbot County Community Center.
Asked what would happen if the council approved Lesher’s resolution, Thomas, the county attorney, said, “I don’t think it would have any effect. It’s not amending the comprehensive (water and sewer) plan.”
After additional discussion, a majority of the county council voted to schedule a public hearing for the rescission resolution at 6:30 p.m. Oct. 12.
The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.
A split town council approved a zoning text change that will allow home improvement centers to propose stores larger than 65,000 square feet.
The Easton Town Council voted 3-2 Monday night to approve Ordinance 756, which amends the town zoning ordinance to add a definition of home improvement center and excludes those stores from the town’s size limit on major retail.
Councilmen Alan Silverstein, Ron Engle, and Rev. Elmer Davis Jr. voted to approve the ordinance; Council President Megan Cook and Member Don Abbatiello voted against.
Supporters said the zoning text change does not approve any specific project, but allows a home improvement center to seek approval from the town council for a particular project.
Opponents said the amendment should be considered during the coming update to the town’s comprehensive plan.
Engle, speaking before the vote, said many of those commenting on the amendment were confused about its effect.
“The purpose of this ordinance is to propose a pen and ink change to create a definition for home improvement center,” he said. “If passed, it would only allow the council to review, through the PUD process, a proposal for a new home improvement center is larger than the maximum 65,000.”
Engle said the current comprehensive plan was started in 2007, approved in 2010, and was intended to cover a 6-year period. The state later extended the plans to ten years and Easton is set to begin updating its plan this year, a process that could take two years.
“It’s too late. We’re already a regional shopping destination,” Engle said of concerns about allowing big box stores.
He said the current plan encourages new retail development in or near existing shopping centers, but “we should then look to existing commercially zoned properties in town. Not to non-commercially zoned properties or properties not in town that we would have to annex.
“There are only two parcels where this can occur,” he said. “The commercial area between Route 50, U-Haul, and Olive Garden clearly is the most attractive commercial area in town.”
Abbatiello agreed Easton was a commercial hub, but said any change involving big box retail stores should wait until after the comprehensive plan is updated.
“Those of you who want to think the town of Easton is still the quaint small town from the past are ignoring reality,” Abbatiello said. “Easton is growing and becoming a hub for commerce on the Mid-Shore.
“The question therefore isn’t whether or not development will come to Easton, the question is what form will it take,” he said. “(W)e currently have a mechanism for answering that question through the comprehensive plan.
“As a result, I think any current proposal should follow the comprehensive plan that is in place,” Abbatiello said. “And I believe that the new comprehensive plan, beginning to take shape this year, should look seriously at where a large home improvement store can go.”
Cook agreed that the comprehensive plan update should come first and said the majority of those who emailed comments supported that idea.
“During the last rewrite, there were roughly 850 people involved which shows that the comprehensive plan process is the correct venue for the community to consider, not just this proposal, … but for the general idea of big box stores within the town of Easton,” Cook said.
Davis noted the comprehensive plan has been amended since its last update in 2010.
“So it is not a plan … that was etched in stone and no one went contrary to what was written. I am of the feeling that this ordinance does not guarantee any business being built in the city of Easton,” he said. “This is just to change some verbiage and language, and I would hope and pray that this be considered, because from an economic point of view, that if it came to fruition, it will afford minorities, people who look like me and other people in the community a job, and I think that’s essential. Economic development is essential.”
Two people spoke Monday night against approving the zoning text change.
Pete Lesher, a former town councilman, said the zoning code should not be changed,
“Easton has a sound rule. And there are good reasons for that rule concerning the location of big boxes in our community,” Lesher said. “I said in my written commentary that the colocation of big boxes with with smaller retailers necessarily has a beneficial effect to those smaller retailers and linking those two in the rule requiring them to be co located, is something that does help our smaller businesses and I’d hate to see that advantage lost in a rule change here.
“The second is really that principle of encouraging redevelopment. I think we do have a sense that Easton is overbuilt with retail space, and while … we don’t have an empty big box, there are … retail spaces in this community that are ripe for redevelopment,” he said. “The rule as it stands encourages redevelopment into those spaces rather than the breaking of new ground for new development.
“We shouldn’t change the rulebook for one potential applicant — that smacks of picking winners and losers,” Lesher said. “And that just doesn’t seem the right way to govern.”
Laurie Forster, a resident of Mulberry Station, urged the council to “stick to the plan.”
“We have a process called the comprehensive plan. I just read the one from 2010 I never thought I’d be doing that,” she said. “And I understand a lot more about the comprehensive plan now that it’s community involvement that really is to drive that plan.
“And we have a saying in our house, stick to the plan. And so I guess I’m asking you to stick to the plan,” Forster said. “The plan does not allow for this size or this type of business in that spot. I won’t debate the effects that it might have on our neighborhood because I know that’s not the issue at hand tonight but I am concerned.”
The town’s current 65,000-square-foot size limit for major retail uses does not include stores that expand, redevelop, or are adjacent to shopping centers approved before Aug. 25, 2004. Ordinance 756 would add “home improvement centers” as a use that is not subject to the size limit.
The Easton Planning and Zoning Commission considered the proposed text amendment at its November meeting and unanimously recommended the town council deny the request. Changes to the town’s size limit on retail stores should only be considered during the upcoming comprehensive plan review, the commission urged.
The town will start its review and update of the comprehensive plan this year, with the update expected to be complete by 2023.
The zoning text amendment, sought by the Gannon Family Limited Partnership, has prompted speculation that Home Depot is again interested in building a store in Easton.
During the town’s Jan. 19 hearing on Ordinance 756, a representative for the family partnership said a home improvement center was interested in purchasing property at U.S. Route 50 and Chapel Road, but would want to build a store larger than the current 65,000-square-foot limit. The partnership then applied for a zoning text amendment to allow for a larger size for home improvement centers.
DraftOrd756The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.
The town council will be taking written comments until Monday, Feb. 1, on a proposed zoning text amendment that would allow home improvement centers to exceed 65,000 square feet.
The 65,000-square-foot size limit for major retail uses does not include stores that expand, redevelop, or are adjacent to shopping centers approved before Aug. 25, 2004. Ordinance No. 756 would add “home improvement centers” as a use that is not subject to the size limit.
The Easton Planning and Zoning Commission considered the proposed text amendment at its November meeting and unanimously recommended the town council deny the request. Changes to the town’s size limit on retail stores should only be considered during the upcoming comprehensive plan review, the commission urged.
The town will start its review and update of the comprehensive plan this year, with the update expected to be complete by 2023.
The zoning text amendment, sought by the Gannon Family Limited Partnership, has prompted speculation that Home Depot is again interested in building a store in Easton.
During the town’s Jan. 19 hearing on Ordinance 756, a representative for the family partnership, said a home improvement center was interested in purchasing property at U.S. Route 50 and Chapel Road, but would want to build a store larger than the current 65,000-square-foot limit. The partnership then applied for a zoning text amendment to allow for a larger size for home improvement centers.
Attorney Zach Smith said there are no existing sites in town that would readily work for the home improvement center and the store also would like to be on the east side of U.S. Route 50 where future growth is planned.
Approving the ordinance, Smith said, would simply allow the home improvement center to “proceed with a design, bring that design forward to the town council, the town council can lay it out to the public and we can have a robust discussion in the context of an actual concrete plan about the pros and cons of a home improvement center.
“I guess if you are of the mind that ‘no way, no how, we don’t want another home improvement center in Easton,’ then there’s no point in making that change as it is not necessary,” he said. “And certainly I suspect there are folks in our community that have that opinion. I also think there are probably folks in our community who would say, ‘it can’t get here soon enough, open the door, let’s bring ’em in.'”
Tom Alspach of the Talbot Preservation Alliance said the proposed text amendment “raises what has been over the last 20, 25 years probably the most contentious, controversial issue regarding development that the town of Easton has faced.”
Alspach said the issue started in the late 1990s when the town adopted a moratorium on big box developments. Big box stores were addressed in the 2004 and 2010 comprehensive plans and subsequent zoning ordinances.
“This is not some minor matter that we are being asked to tweak in the town ordinance,” Alspach said. “This is something that goes to the very heart of how this town should develop in terms of its commercial enterprises ….”
Written comments on Ordinance 756 may be emailed to the town council at mayor&[email protected].
DraftOrd756The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.
