OUR MISSION: MANAGED GROWTH
"To protect the unique environment and heritage of Talbot County --- its waterways, farmland and historic small towns."

Talbot Residents, please send your comments opposing the Wye Mills Plan to the Queen Anne's Conservation Association

Dear Friends of Wye Mills,

At the May 24, 2011 meeting of the Queen Anne's Commissioners, a public hearing was held regarding requests for re-zoning of properties.  Among the requests were one from Whalou Properties LLC and one from Michael Foster.  The Whalou property is located on the northwest corner of US Route 50 and MD Route 213, and on the northeast side of US Route 50 and MD Route 213.  The Foster property is located on the Southeast side of US Route 50 and MD Route 213.  They want to rezone them commercial and light industrial/highway services.

The Planning Commission judged these requests as inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and forwarded an unfavorable recommendation to the County Commissioners.  Following the comments presented at the public hearing on May 24, 2011, the County Commissioners decided to leave the record open for further written comments to be submitted. 

It is absolutely critical that as many written comments as possible are received opposing these rezoning requests. If the County Commissioners approve them, as they very well might given the stated positions of the Majority, the only recourse left will be litigation. 

I have attached my own summary of the key reasons why these lands should not be rezoned.  Please feel free to use these to create your own comments and send them to the County Commissioners.  The closing date for comments to be received is June 14th.

I cannot over-emphasize how important this is.  The future character of Wye Mills and the entire area is truly at stake.   Please consider sending comments either by mail or by e-mail.  The addresses are:

Queen Anne's County Commissioners
107 Liberty Street
Centreville, MD 21617

The County website is qac.org - each one of the Commissioners can be contacted by e-mail:

sarentz@qac.org
pdumenil@qac.org
ddunmyer@qac.org
bsimmons@qac.org

and the County Administrator:  gtodd@qac.org

Thank you for your help!

Sincerely,

Carol E. Bilek
Wye Mills Preservation Consortium

MILES POINT IN ST MICHAELS IS STAYING GREEN!

Miles Point has been saved! Between the persistence of citizens and activists over a 12 year period, and the appearance of an 'angel' with a desire to settle in St. Michaels the land will remain green!! This really is proof that citzens can create action! Well done.

Critical Area Mapping Update Project
Public Information Meetings

The State of Maryland has remapped all of the critical areas in Talbot county based on new aerial photos and modern technology. The existing maps are based on 1972 information. This remapping has affected many properties in Talbot County as zoning may have changed as a result of the new Critical Areas map. Your property designation may have changed!

More information:

www.dnr.state.md.us/criticalarea/mapupdate.html
Critical Area Commission: (410) 260-3460
Talbot County Planning Office (410) 770-8030

Sponsored By: Critical Area Commission for the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays
(mowens@dnr.state.md.us) Talbot County Planning Office (mverdery@talbotcountymd.gov)

10/15/2010 - Star Democrat
TPA calls for economic study of runway extension
By Thomas T. Alspach - Guest Comment

At the Sept. 28 public hearing on the proposed extension of Easton Airport, Talbot County Council member "Buddy" Harrison chastised Talbot Preservation Alliance for its failure to participate in that night's political theater.

Referring to TPA, Harrison said, "they tout to preserve the rural character of this county, and they're absent... if they really are trying to preserve the rural character... why aren't they here tonight making a statement?"

TPA elected not to participate in an election-season stunt for two reasons. First, there was no issue before the council to be "decided:' any purported decision on runway extension that night would have been utterly meaningless, and subject to change by a new council seated in just weeks or the council elected in 2014. Second, no responsible decision could have been reached that night while so much conflicting evidence, both in support of and adverse to the runway extension, remains unresolved.

The FAA advises that the federal funding that will cover 95 percent of this project will not be available until 2020 or later. Why then, except to curry political favor, would a council member vote to eliminate one extension alternative now, while competing claims have not been reconciled?

The independent environmental assessment prepared on behalf of the airport authority concludes that the proposed extension will have insignificant or no impact on air quality, water quality, noise levels and wetlands. Opponents of the extension offered contrary arguments about environmental impact at the public hearing, and have been doing so for some time. The authors of the environmental assessment should respond to the issues raised by extension opponents, and those opponents should address the conclusions included in the assessment findings. This should occur long before any decision to "abandon" an extension alternative is reached.

Similarly, conflicting versions of the economic impact of the runway extension should precede any final council action. Opponents emphasize the loss of Global Strategies and its 160 employees in the event that its building is demolished for a new runway. As a tenant, does the company pay any Talbot County taxes? How many of those employees live and pay taxes here? We are not talking about the jobs "disappearing" but only, worst case, being moved to another location.

The "economic engine" claims of airport expansion proponents should be scrutinized. Opponents question the claim of "172 airport jobs," which doesn't appear to jibe with reality. It is fair to ask how the airport supposedly generates "$52 million annually" in revenue for the county.

To justify significant financial commitments to induce Shore Health System to locate its new hospital near Easton, the county council engaged a respected economic analyst to determine the likely economic effect of relocation of the hospital elsewhere. TPA agrees with the suggestion of Al Silverstein on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce that the next council should engage an expert to quantify and compare the economic contributions to the community generated by Global Strategies and by the airport businesses, respectively. All the county council had before it on Sept. 28 were opposing unsubstantiated economic claims.

A compelling economic justification should be provided in any event to justify the potential loss of three residences in the airport "safety zone". As a practical matter, no one will be displaced for at least another 10 years and, if that is to occur, fair market value for the houses and the cost of relocation for the occupants will be forthcoming. But we believe that, in the end, a political means can be found to leave those houses in place if any of the owners would rather stay put than accept the money.

A final decision on how to resolve all of these issues likely will be a task of the county council elected in 2014, or perhaps even in 2018 if the federal funding date continues to slip.

The unnecessary elimination of any potentially viable runway extensions alternative now, in an emotionally charged atmosphere in front of potential voters, would have been highly irresponsible. The community should appreciate that council members Bartlett, Duncan and Peck refused to go along with this obviously political ploy.

Mr. Alspach is president of Talbot Preservation Alliance.

10/1/2010
Assessment states why FASTC site dismissed

By BRUCE HOTCHKISS
Senior Editor

RUTHSBURG, Md. — The long-anticipated draft environmental assessment of the plan to locate a Foreign Affairs Security Training Center on 2,000 acres in Queen Anne’s County confirms not only what opponents feared, but why it was abandoned by federal officials.
The precisely detailed assessment states that the facility would be noisy beyond acceptable standards, disruptive of the environment and of surrounding neighborhoods and residences, a dangerous nuisance on the roads leading to it, a threat to the Delmarva fox squirrel and a toxic imposition on activities at Tuckahoe State Park.
The assessment was released to the Queen Anne’s Conservation Association which had sought documents relating to the training center since January when it filed a Freedom of Information request.
When the Department of State and the General Services Administration, which were administering the project, failed to respond, QACA went to court in April, suing for the release of the documents.
The court held with QACA and ordered the documents submitted to the association in September, even as federal officials were reportedly looking at another tract in the coal mining area near Wilkes Barre, Pa.
Among the documents, now in possession of QACA, is the draft assessment, which, as expected, had been heavily redacted.
Nonetheless, its recorded assessments confirm the significant impact which the facility would have imposed on a broad section of the county. Interestingly, the draft document appears to have been prepared at two different times.
The early pages contain the folio line, “Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment May 28, 2010.”
Later pages contain the folio line: “Cancelled Draft Environmental Assessment July 2010.”
Also of note is that the assessment looks at two radically different locations for training areas within the center, the original, called “Alternative A,” and a second named “Alternative B.”
Alternative B evolved, according to the assessment document “to respond to initial public scoping input.”
The assessment, in one broad section, focuses on the noise which the facility would have generated.
Noise levels, it is noted, are usually measured and expressed in decibels (dB) that are weighted to frequencies perceivable by the human ear, known as A-weighted sound levels and expressed as dBA.
For example, the standard dBA level for a residential area is 55dBA, for a commercial area, 64dBA and for an industrial area, 70 dBA.
A commercial jet taking off from 200 feet away has a dBA of between 108 and 115.
Mock urban training — cars, guns, explosives, etc. — has a dBA of 110 and a one-pound submerged charge, a dBA level of 107.
A three-pound submerged charge, the assessment document notes, carries a dBA level of 117.
Here are some excerpts taken directly and verbatim from the assessment report:
* * *
• Worst-case noise levels in Ruthsburg from the firing ranges are predicted to be 70 dBA under either Alternative. Depending on the duration of training activities on the firing ranges, these noise levels would represent a moderate to major impact on the residents of Ruthsburg.
• On training data provided by the Department of State, the following levels of activity were incorporated into the average training day noise model:
§ Driving tracks: Assumes nearly continuous use over the course of a day.
§ Mock Urban Training: Periodic use over the course of a day. Average of eight flash bang explosions per day.
§ Explosives Ranges: Average of 12 explosives detonations per day.
§ Firing Ranges: Assumes nearly continuous use over the course of a day.
§ Cooling Towers: Continuous use.
• Explosives detonation would have a major impact on Tuckahoe State Park…… (U)nder all scenarios, portions of the park would be exposed to peak noise levels at or in excess of 100 dBA in the park from detonation of the CTS flash bang and the 8-ounce cast booster ...”.
• Major: The noise generated by the construction or operation of the project exceeds established regulatory guidelines for residential areas, greatly impacts users’ enjoyment of Tuckahoe State Park, or would result in substantial interference with outdoor or indoor activities for nearby residents.
• The movement of heavy trucks transporting construction materials along area roadways could also result in adverse noise impacts to area residences.
• Vehicle use by FASTC faculty, staff, and students would be the same for Build Alternative 1 and Build Alternative 2. A traffic impact study indicates that these users would add approximately 505 morning peak hour trips, 280 mid-day, and 467 PM peak hour trips when the FASTC initially opens in 2011, and approximately 687 morning peak hour trips, 380 mid-day, and 633 evening peak hour trips when the FASTC is completed in 2014. The traffic study also indicates that most of the faculty, staff, and students would use Route 304 west of Ruthsburg. If using Route 481 west of the FASTC, the traffic impact study projects that most of these travelers would turn onto Greenville Road, thus avoid crossing the southern end of the riparian stringer inhabited by the Delmarva fox squirrel.
• In summary, based on an average training day scenario, noise impacts under either alternative could be considered moderate to major for those residences that are located within the 55dB average training day contour. In addition, under both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, the majority of Tuckahoe State Park would be located within the 55dB contour and this would represent a moderate to major impact on the park, which could negatively impact user experience.