It was clear on Tuesday evening that Talbot County Council member Pete Lesher was speaking with a heavy heart when he made it know that he would not be proposing the Talbot Integrity Project’s (TIP) draft resolution to “reset” the new Trappe housing development known as Lakeside.
Noting that the Maryland Department of the Environment’s final approval for Lakeside’s first 400 homes on November 1 was granted just a few days before election day, he regretfully stated that this permit made the “Reset Resolution” obsolete. In short, the train had already left the station for the housing development’s first phase, having had the original approval of the County’s planning commission and the Talbot County Council in the last term setting the stage of MDE’s decision to permit construction.
While disappointing in the decision, Lesher has decided not to propose the TIP-approved motion.
In his Spy interview yesterday, Councilmember Lesher explains in detail the circumstances that led to this decision and his plans for protecting Talbot County from out-of-scale development projects in the future, including presumably Lakeside’s Phase II plans to construct more homes beyond the 400 units covered by their current permit.
This video is approximately ten minutes in length.
Andy McCormick says
Thank you Pete and Spy for the summary. Slightly disappointing but there has been some progress and Pete has done a nice job of getting this issue on the table so that Easton residents move forward with full transparency on this complicated issue.
Reed Fawell 3 says
Pete’s description of the developer’s vested rights under the recent MDE sewer permit, limiting Lakeside to 400 units, as a legal issue, appears sound. Thus, it that is correct, those vested rights, via the permit, would neuter, and render superficial, any council vote on the reset resolution as drafted, and such a vote likely would unnecessarily further polarize the overall issue of Lakeside within the County, without good cause or result. So Pete and Lynn Lynn Mielke (as she expressed her position at the Council hearing) are solid ground. I believe they did right thing under the circumstances.
There is plenty of opportunity here now to reach a far better resolution on future development than would otherwise have been possible without the efforts of the Talbot Integrity Project’s (TIP) to date, which efforts resulted in the highly circumscribed sewer permit limiting development to 400 homes. But, in terms of time, effort, expertise, open issues, and will, the difficult work on future development on Lakeside and the County, and its towns, has only just begun.
Hugh (Jock) Beebe says
After hearing Mr. Lesher’s clear summary of the unfortunate Lakeside history it appears he briefly mentioned the need for additional legislation to improve the process by which local control of development can be more effectively managed – a hopeful sign.
Based on public data over the past 6-12 months, there has been far greater awareness and engagement among Talbot County residents in being active caretakers of the special quality of life on the Eastern Shore. Perhaps the unfortunate Lakeside debacle should be regarded as a lesson from which we can continue to take seriously our own individual participation in local government.
Paul Rybon says
It’s a shame that Mr Lesher allowed his name to be included on the ballot as a tip Reset
insisting proponent, even though he knew that the permits had just been issued by the State. And why, as he now stated that the horse is out of the barn, too late, when the TIP group kept insisting that the Trappe steerage plant was ALREADY exceeding capacity. Where is effective leadership going to come from on this Council?
Donna Richardson says
Lake side only gives more people from western shore to come to the eastern shore which is going to be over crowded. we would like to keep the Easton and Trappe area as a place to visit, not live. If we do not put a stop to this growth, it will be another Annapolis.
Bill Thompson says
Let’s suppose for a moment that at the beginning of this process–the original presentation of the Lakeside proposal to the Planning Commission–that the developer either misrepresented, heavily restricted or downright fabricated the potential impacts of the project and thus paved the way for the commission’s approval, letting the horse out of the barn, so to speak, with the subsequent approval by the County Council. Later on it the commission learned more–the bigger and more accurate picture–about the potential impacts on the county and reversed its decision. And now we’re told that the second and more learned commission position carries no legal authority and that that horse is not only out of the barn (the so-called vested interest) but galloping on the horizon. So I am to believe that there’s no recourse, no accountability for an early decision based upon faulty information? If that’s the case, any clever developer with deep pockets, enormous patience and the right lawyer can manage to work its will. If that’s the case, so long Talbot County as we now know and love it. (All the more reason to support Eastern Shore Land Conservancy.)
Warren Davis says
January 30, 2023
Councilmember Lesher,
I recently wrote to you regarding your reluctance to move forward with the Lakeside Reset resolution. I have now listened with great interest to your explanation on Talbot Spy. I appreciate your effort to explain your position in a very public manner. I also appreciate your obvious expertise in the process of approving development in Talbot County. What little I know of this process is mostly attributable to listening to your presentations at the Oxford Community Center and your video explanation published on the Talbot Spy.
That said, I have a number of comments and questions that I would like to pose to you.
First, I understand that bottom line it is your conclusion that there is nothing to be done at this time with respect to the construction of approximately 400 homes at Lakeside. (The horse has left the barn; the cake is fully baked.) As I understand your rationale for this conclusion, it is based on the Nov. 1, 2022 decision of the MD Department of Environment (MDE) to grant final approval for sewage disposal utilizing up to 100,000 gallons per day. Based upon this action, the developers have connected to Trappe’s existing sewage system (admittedly a substandard system) and have expended other funds in reliance on the MDE action. You also suggest the developers have final approval to begin construction of a new Lakeside sewage facility that would permit them to expand the current 120 houses to approximately 400 houses. Because of the MDE November approval and the developer’s actions in reliance on that approval, you have concluded that nothing can be done at this point to stop or delay construction of 400 houses at Lakeside. I think I understand what your thinking is in this regard. However, I have a few questions:
1. Is it based on legal advice you received and, if so, who provided that advice and is it formalized in writing?
2. Is your conclusion influenced by the prospect of litigation by Lakeside’s developers should the County Council take any action to call into question the current development occurring at Lakeside?
3. Have you received any advice that would suggest your conclusion may be incorrect and that there may be an opportunity to stop or delay current Lakeside development? If so, what causes you to discount that advice?
Second, assuming that you are correct regarding the development now underway of approximately 400 houses, I am interested in learning more about the steps that would enable further Lakeside development. As you point out, the MDE did not approve the developer’s request for a system designed to operate with 540,000 gallons per day which would accommodate 2,000+ houses (the admitted long-term goal of the Lakeside developers). You also state that any further approvals would restart the entire Lakeside approval process. I would appreciate it if you could expand and clarify this important conclusion. I have several questions:
1 What governmental bodies would be involved in the new approval process and in which order would they act?
2 Is there an opportunity to be preemptive with regard to further Lakeside expansion rather than simply waiting for the developers to come forward with new approval requests?
3 Will decisions regarding further expansion of Lakeside be mostly limited to environmental and waste disposal issues?
4 Will the question of consistency with the County’s Comprehensive Plan be before one or more of these governmental bodies? Will there be an opportunity for public input on this question?
5 Will issues of educational capacity and resources, health facilities and resources, and other public amenities be addressed by one or more of the governmental bodies.
6 Is there an opportunity to amend the County’s Comprehensive Plan in advance of any further request for Lakeside expansion that would make it less likely that such a request be approved?
7 What other specific actions might the County Council take that could influence the Lakeside developers to rethink their efforts to build 2,000+ homes in Trappe and be a caution to others who may have similar plans in the future.
Again, as one of many Talbot citizens who supported Reset Lakeside and sought out and voted for Council candidates who agreed with these concerns, I share your frustration with the current situation. I believe that candid responses to the questions set out above will go a long way to channeling that frustration toward mutual understanding and positive action. I hope you agree. I look forward to your responses.
Sincerely,
Warren Davis
Oxford
Reed Fawell 3 says
All ten of these questions posed above are excellent, highly pertinent, and essential in moving forward on these Lakeside issues in an effective, and competent way, both as regards to the legitimate concerns of the citizens of Talbot County and also, at this point, to demonstrate the competence of the County government and its council to deal with these issues and to effectively protect the interests of all of it citizens here and now and going from here and now.
Pete Lesher says
Yes, my opinion was based in part on written legal advice from the County Attorney. TIP certainly provided written advice. Other sources were spoken. I recognize that no matter which direction we take, the County was likely to be subject to litigation from one side or another. I can’t let that threat sway us; we need to make the best decision for Talbot County. One factor I weigh in determining the best decision is pragmatism—will it actually work? And of course I have received contradictory advice on the efficacy of a “reset” resolution; I had to weigh one against the other.
Turning to your second set of questions: as it stands now, if the developer requests nothing different, perhaps only the state—MDE—would have a role in reviewing and approving future phases. But that does not have to be the case. With the Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan Report of the Review under way, with a workshop this January 31 between the Council and Public Works Advisory Board, language from the MDE final permit is going into the draft. With this language carried forward into the Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan update later this year, it paves the way for a local decision to deviate from that permit language in a future phase. Council may need to amend procedures slightly to clarify this local decision-making role in future phases. If we take that step, yes, there would be the full three-level County review, from Public Works Advisory Board to Planning Commission to Council, with public input and hearings at the PC and Council levels. And yes, at the PC level, the central question is consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
The next opportunity for a full review and revision of the Comprehensive Plan arrives in 2026–the ten-year mark for the 2016 plan, as prescribed by state law. Whether that happens before or after the next phase of Lakeside depends on the developer’s timetable, and their timetable likely hinges on the housing economy.
Because the Town of Trappe has zoning authority over Lakeside—and thus the decision-making role over anything from development amenities to transportation impacts—the state limits the county role to the water & sewer designation. While there are broader concerns regarding Lakeside, most of those need to be taken to the Trappe Town Council. The County’s role must revolve around water & sewer.
You are not the only one to raise the question about health care capacity. This is regulated entirely at the state level. Our sole role at the County level is enabling Shore Health to build its future medical center in Easton in a timely fashion. Even if we enact an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, health care capacity will not be a valid factor. We simply need to pressure the State of Maryland to do its part on this front.
Again, the key action for the County is to ensure that future Lakeside phases require an amendment to the Comprehensive Water & Sewer Plan, or a like local-level decision with public input. Defining this path forward will be my next objective.
Dirck Bartlett says
The Planning Commission basically said that allowing the developer to hook up to the old polluting plant and therefore add more foul effluent into a La Trappe Creek is a violation of the Comprehensive Plan.
Not only that Pete, but it basically makes us (Talbot County) look like a third world country. You have basically allowed the developer to hook up their Lakeside homes to La Trappe Creek. You could heve simply put your Talbot Board of Health hat on (you have this function as an elected County Council member) and said that more pollution into La Trappe Creek is unacceptable in any event. This is exactly what the Planning Commission did. The Comprehensive Plan does not allow more water pollution and effluent to be poured into the most impaired river we have, the Choptank.
Not one drop of polluted effluent from Lakeside should ever be allowed into the existing Trappe Plant. This is an outrage and so sad for the watermen and citizens who enjoy their livelyhoods on the Choptank River. You had every ability to find a better way on this issue and I’m dissapointed in how you decided not to confront the reality of the situation in Trappe.
The County Attorney, no doubt provided ill informed advice that has resulted in this collective failure on the part of the County Council. The homes should put a sign on each toilet. Flush twice, its a long way to La Trappe Creek!