From William Onorato, on behalf of 543 Concerned Citizens:
Councilman Richard Slutzky, current representative of District E and Council President hopeful, serves a dual role as not only a legislator but also as a “judge “on the Board of Appeals for zoning cases as do all seven Council members. This puts Council members in a very powerful position when it comes to zoning matters. Not only do they have the power to change the zoning laws as legislators, but they also sit in a quasi-judicial capacity presiding over requests for variances, requests for zoning changes, appeals of certain issues, among other zoning related matters.
The problem with this dual role rears its ugly head when the citizens a Council member represents encounter problems caused by over-ambitious developers. The development of Eva Mar Farm is just such an example. Developers plan to build a 514 unit continuing care retirement community (“CCRC”) and 144 single family homes on the 155 acre property on Route 543 in between Route 22 and C. Milton Wright High School. Residents of the communities surrounding the farm went to Councilman Slutzky to express their concerns and to seek help in mitigating the development’s many negative impacts. Councilman Slutzky, while initially responsive, told his constituents that he was unable to get involved because it would be a conflict of interest due to his role on the Board of Appeals.
Mr. Slutzky explained that if a zoning case arose from the proposed development, his ability to be fair and impartial would be compromised. Councilman Slutzky’s view is arguably contrary to the County Charter which was recently amended in June 2012 to clarify this dilemma (see Bill 12-33). The County Charter understandably indicates that Council Members may not discuss cases that have been actually filed and/or are pending before the Board of Appeals. The issue here is that nothing at all has been filed or is pending or even likely to get before the Board of Appeals on the Eva Mar case. The consequence of Councilman Slutzky’s narrow view is that the citizens he represents are left without government representation in matters that greatly impact their safety, property values and quality of life. In and of itself, that presents a serious problem for taxpayers. But Councilman Slutzky’s view is not shared by all council members and is only one part of the problem.
The other part of the problem is that Councilman Slutzky does not take a similar position when it comes to accepting campaign contributions from the very same developers who also might come before him on the exact same matter. In reviewing his publicly available campaign finance records, it was learned that on or about September 4, 2013, he accepted a check for $1,000 from Dixie Construction Company. Shawn Pyle, president of Dixie Construction, is on the Board of Directors of Presbyterian Homes of Maryland (“PHM”) who will operate the CCRC planned for Eva Mar. In addition and more directly, on or about September 17, 2013, he accepted $200 checks from both Michael Charlton of Elm St. Developers and the law firm of Snee, Mahoney, Lutche and Helmlinger, P.A. Mr. Charlton is the developer of the Eva Mar project and Joseph Snee, named partner in the law firm, is the attorney for the developer. All of these parties are just as likely to be before him on the Board of Appeals. Aren’t they?
So how does the acceptance of those checks from parties related to the Eva Mar project not also present a conflict of interest when those parties are also likely to be in front of you on a case before the Board of Appeals? Doesn’t the acceptance of these checks create an even greater appearance of impropriety than helping your constituents deal with well-connected and deep-pocketed developers? To be clear here, I am not alleging that there are any actual quid-pro-quos going on here or in the past. There is no proof of that. My point is to question the consistency and accuracy of Councilman Slutzky’s position on this issue and whether this position is good for his constituents (and the County) when it comes to matters like this.
Beyond just the Eva Mar related checks, Councilman Slutzky has a long history of accepting significant contributions from developer related interests which further undermines his position on declining to help his constituents in zoning matters. In addition to the most recent contributions related to the Eva Mar project, Councilman Slutzky has received since 2005 around $36,000 from developers, attorneys for developers, construction companies, people who have sought zoning changes to property they own, etc. This is out of total contributions received from all sources of $55,175. That represents 65% of his total campaign contributions coming from people who have interests in zoning related matters. This is the highest percentage by far of any council member. One has to at least question whose interests Councilman Slutzky truly represents in these types of matters and the appearance this pattern of contributions creates.
To be fair, the acceptance of campaign contributions from developers is not limited to just Mr. Slutzky. All council members (and our County Executive) receive contributions from developers, some more than others of course. The difference is that other council members actually have the courage to help their constituents with these issues whether or not they might lead to a Board of Appeals case and do not hide behind a conflict of interest to avoid taking an unpopular position with developers. See for example Bill 13-16 introduced by Councilmen McMahan, Woods, Boniface and Guthrie to assist the residents near the proposed Wal Mart on Route 924. That case is analogous to the Eva Mar development and yet those Councilmen come to the aid of those residents who have the same complaints about traffic and safety as we do. So what is the solution?
First the solution is not to rely on the County Executive for representation as Councilman Boniface suggested in recent public comments. This is contrary to everything we learned in Government 101. But to play along, we tried early on to reach out to David Craig on this matter but he too declined to get involved and referred us to planning and zoning. Their job is not to be an advocate for us rather their role is simply to interpret and enforce the zoning laws. Further making Councilman Boniface’s suggestion completely unworkable is the close ties David Craig has with Joe Snee, lead attorney on the project who served as a campaign advisor to Craig. The Craig administration fully supports this development from top to bottom as evidenced in part by the comments of Mary Chance, Director of Administration, and Jim Richardson, Director of Economic Development, that can be found right on the web page for the CCRC. The expectation of impartiality from the executive branch in this case is purely an illusion at best.
One solution is for the council member in whose district a contentious development plan arises to recuse himself from the Board of Appeals on that particular matter. One, this allows the Councilman to help his or her constituents without worries over conflict of interest issues. I should say here that I fully recognize that the developers are constituents too. But a Councilman cannot represent one over the other as is being done in this case. Two, it removes any temptation from developers to make campaign contributions in hopes of a favorable result or support in exchange. And three, most importantly, it removes any appearances of impropriety that arise from accepting checks from developer related issues. The objection to this proposal is that the Council members want the ability to cast a deciding vote in matters in their jurisdiction. That is exactly what we do not want and what leads to developers making such campaign contributions in hopes of getting the deciding vote in their favor. After all, $200 is a small investment on a multi-million dollar project. Let’s take that option off the table all together and remove the Council member from the picture in matters like this so he or she can do what they were elected to do – that is represent the people.
In conclusion, the position that Councilman Slutzky is taking with respect to representing his constituents is completely inconsistent with his practice of accepting campaign contributions from developer interests in close proximity to a plans for a development going public. His position is not consistent with the positions other Council members have taken in other zoning related matters such as the Wal Mar/924 case. Nor is his position consistent with the recent amendment of the County Charter on this very issue. Councilman Slutzky’s indefensible position has left taxpayers without representation on an issue that presents significant concerns over a multitude of issues, including but not limited to public safety, quality of life, excessive traffic, and property values. The response by our government to our concerns has been riddled with inconsistencies, unanswered questions and, in short, nothing short of abysmal. The issue here is not that we don’t like what we are hearing. The issue here is that the County Council does not like what it is hearing from us and does not like having its relationship with developers being called into question. This should worry all Harford County residents who live next to or near undeveloped land and should be on everyone’s minds as we head to the polls this June and again in November.
William Onorato, On behalf of 543 Concerned Citizens
www.543concernedcitizens.com
www.facebook.com/ccevamar
An incredibly thoughtful piece, thank you Mr. Onorato for the research and the insight. It is a shame your name is not on the vote for a County Council position this year!
Mr. Onorato,
I applaud your very thoughtful post. Unfortunately for this county administration, it is filled with reason and truth. As nearly a lifelong citizen of this county, I am disgusted by what I have witnessef in terms of the good ole’boys backroom wheeling and dealing, political corruption and nepatism at the expense if the honest, ordinary hardworking folks in this county.
The county’s behavior with regard to the changesade so that the Eva Mar deal could sail on through are not isolated. Instead, it is a pattern that has been used before. Several years ago, legislation was introduced by the county executive and passed by the county executive pertaining to a quasi public board. The board was not aware that such a thing had occurred until one of the staff had read about it in the paper. When asked about it, a county government employee said not to worry about it, it was only for the purpose of “cleaning up the language.” What a lie. Within about a year, the original board was dismantled, all staff were laid off and all asserts were transferred to the county.
Whether the two who gave a thumbs-down like it or not, this indeed occurred and there are more just like it or very similar. Most county citizens are not aware of the depth of corruption and ugliness that permeates our leadership structure. It is sickening and an insidious pattern that the current administration has exhibited, all while saying “oh, don’t worry about it, we are just cleaning up the language in the original bill,” “we didn’t know,” etc. etc. etc. The only people who believe their BS (I hope) is them.
Please excuse the autocorrects
Excellent work.
I remember when the good councilman played a role in the odd placement of a new school. Seems there are a good number of honest questions to ask.
He played more than a role. He was the driving force that forced the BOE to put that school in the wrong place. All of the studies showed that the school should have been placed at the Campus Hills site. If you look at the area who really benefited from the school being placed there? A question that everyone should answer for themselves!!!!!!!
The Campus Hills / Red Pump issue was an easy one. Red Pump is in the Development Envelope while Campus Hills was not. The state wouldn’t have contributed construction money to Campus Hills because it was outside of the designated growth area. Red Pump could be hooked into public water and sewer while Campus Hills would have been on well and septic. (That is, until water and sewer would have been extended to it for health and cost reasons, thereby opening the Schucks Road area to more intensive future development.) Again, Red Pump was an easy call.
I’m not sure what you mean by “all of the studies.” Wasn’t aware that there were many “studies” done on it.
You are wrong! State financial support for school construction and the sites selected have absolutely nothing to do with any designation of a development envelope. There was never a need to extend water and sewer to the Campus Hills site. There are many schools throughout the county operating on wells and septic systems that have had additions and modernizations that required new wells and expanded septic systems. This did not preclude those construction projects from moving forward.
Actually you are wrong. The State refused to financially support the school built at Red Pump, but would have supported the school being built at Campus Hills.
Did you actually read my post? I was responding to Blue Ox claim that the State would not have provided financial support for Campus Hills and the rationale used to deny State approval of the project. You are wrong about State funding for Red Pump. The county decided to forward fund because it reduced the time required to get State approval and start construction. The BOE requested the State reimburse the county what would be their normal contribution to the project which the State eventually did in the millions of dollars. This is the same process that was used to build Patterson Mill, Bel Air, and Edgewood, all of which received State funding.
Also there were several studies done in regards to population, growth, and transportation cost.
Very well explained. Thank you. Heads-up on the quasi-gov water board being proposed: would be appointed by the county executive and it appears they would report to no one?
Unfortunately, this is the way it is in American government. From little old Harford County all the way to the top. To change our system seems insurmountable as half our citizens don’t even vote.
As far as this project, I am wholeheartedly in support! We have had plans to retire to Glen Meadows, but this will be a newer facility with a pool and a pub. And it allows us to stay in Harford County.
So as us boomers age, this is the kind of place to be……
To be clear on our group’s position, we are not necessarily opposed to the concept of a CCRC at this location. What we are opposed to is a four story 514 unit facility that amounts to a major commercial operation (multiple dining rooms, pub, post office, beauty salon, general store, exercise facility, pool, meeting areas, 160 employees, private security, private ambulance, flood lights, dumpsters, loading docks, etc) in a residential area. We question the wisdom of our zoning code for allowing something like that as a matter of right on R1 property sitting in the middle of quiet residential neighborhoods. All components of a CCRC are either disallowed or require a special exception on R1 property. That is why you see nursing homes, assisted living facilities, Brightview Avondell and the like all concentrated close to or near the Route 24 corridor. Because that is where our zoning code deems THOSE facilities to be appropriate. But you put each of the smaller components together and call it a CCRC, then you are allowed as a matter of right. Yes shame on us for not doing something about this earlier. But at the same time one would think that the people we elect would have thought this through. The Council counters this by saying “we can’t deny a CCRC because it could subject us to a discrimination lawsuit under the federal Fair Housing Act.” Fair enough. But why is that not a problem for other counties, such as Montgomery County, that require a special exception hearing to determine whether a CCRC is appropriate in a given location. That is all we ask for. A special exception hearing to determine whether a 514 unit facility is appropriate at THAT location. Perhaps a 200 unit facility with 2 and 3 story buildings (instead of 3 and 4 stories) would be more appropriate at this location. That could be mandated without actually denying the CCRC the right to build at this location. There are solutions here that could be win-win for everybody, but the fact is this government is hell bent on making this CCRC happen and to heck with the impact it has on the surrounding community. We are solving one problem of not having a CCRC and creating ten more in the process. Slutzky and co. could care less though and just manufacture excuses for not working with us. We are actually reasonable people believe it or not.
Unfortunately the a-holes in Harford County Government think they can do whatever they want once they are elected to office, it’s a power trip, same goes with law enforcement. The way to beat this good-ole-boy network is too bring in fresh blood and send these a-holes packing. If you give them their walking papers you will see them with a sign around their neck “Will Work For Food” because they will not make in the private sector, Guaranteed!
Again, perfectly described, thank you sir. If the County Council is to be involved in zoning issues, absolutely nothing should be introduced in “bulk” three page at a time form. These issues are incredibly too difficult for simply leaving an absentee vote.
I’m missing something here, Evamar is in Slutzkys district. This project will bring money and voters to his district. The people who contributed to him are the ones that got him elected. Aren’t elected officials suppose to be the representation of those who voted for him? This sounds like a bunch of people mad because Slutsky doesn’t see things their way. Kinda like when Mom says no to a small child so they run crying to Dad.
Yes that is in his district. But when the people that he represents come to him and he tells them that he must remain neutral and cannot represent them, that is when I see a problem. So who does he really represent the people in his district or the development community that donated the most to his campaign? I was always taught that an elected official represents the will of the people, not the will of the ones that donated the most to his or her campaign.
Yes we recognize that developers are constituents too and that Slutzky represents them as well. The issue here is that we are left without any government representation on an issue that presents significant issues to our community. The developers are not the only ones who voted Slutzky. Unfortunately, we probably did as well. Just by his complete silence on the issue he is assisting the developers. We need someone to advocate for our position. We have none. No we don’t expect Slutzky to wave a magic wand over the whole thing and make it go away. But we do expect him to stand up and keep the developer honest and apply some pressure so that we do not get steamrolled. Which is exactly what is happening here. We are getting steamrolled because the developers they have the full backing of our government. So much so, that they passed three zoning code changes specifically to benefit the project just two days before the Eva Mar plans went public. That is a whole other story. But the point is that passing those changes and the refusal to help us has emboldened the developers and caused them to believe that they are above the law. We have seen nothing but arrogance through out this process from them. As I said earlier, we are not unreasonable people. We just want to be treated honestly and with respect. Neither of which is happening here.
Harford County:
Owned and Operated by Joe Snee
EVA Mar is just the tip of the iceberg. Gonna be some pissed off folks trying to sell houses and flee Hickory…
Do tell
The zoning changes help the surrounding community, The CCRC is being built no matter how much you don’t like it.
having worked with every county council since the first one back in the 70″s this one is the biggest bunch of do nothings we had ever!!!! good old boys and backroom deals are their stock & trade. this by the way includes the executive branch too
Just a fyi, if you have ever tried to get some sort of zoning passed for whatever reason be prepared to make a “Donation” to their campaign fund. That will be one of the first items presented to you, if you make a donation it will make the process easier. I don’t know about you but I have a problem with this process.
Careful Ole Dirty Dick don’t take kindly to criticism…wanna rastle?
This Ole Dirty Dick don’t back down from no one dip shit. I will be glad to expose the bullsht that goes on with the zoning process. I will be glad to name certain council member names, and the bs that was “Demanded” before the process even began. Want to roll? let’s go dipsht., you only need to prove to me that you are involved in the county council process and I will break this sht wide open.
Hedley Lamarr, why can’t there be an investigation into all of this? Every time we turn around, its another slap in the face to county citizens by our elected officials about an eyebrow-raising activity, most recently the purchase of contaminated waterfront property, and now learning about how zoning was passed to benefit this developer and the huge monstrosity of a project that is planned. I am sure that such planning was in the works for a very long time.
How about a state or federal-initiated investigation? Wouldn’t be a bit surprised by how much dirt we would find. If their process has been so innocent and clean, let them prove it by a real neutral party coming in to take a look at the back-up. Uh oh, I think I hear the shreader….
Simple, Hedley is full of crap
I’M full of information, not crap. Just went thru some zoning issues, just waiting for the right time to make public, it will involve race which will open a can worms.
I would also like to mention that you cannot get answers as to why certain zoning is not passed, race could be a driving factor. Once local news gets this info it’s off to the races.
Mr. Craig where you on these events and this midnight bill passing back on Nov 12. Mr. Bonk face advised at county council that we should seek our answers from the Executive Branch. Well what say ye on repealing 13.35,13.36 and 13.37.
If I’m not mistaken the project is in the third election District, or District C. If is not represented by Councilman Slutzky. When will residents wake up and start taking notice of their surroundings? This fight should have been fought a long time ago and not now at the introduction of the plan at a Community input Meeting. The prospect of an undeveloped 149 acre parcel of land in the development envelope should have caused concern to you folks a long, long time ago! Where was the concern when the two new townhouse developments on 543 and the new single family development on Thomas Run Road were proposed? Wait…they weren’t in your backyard….right?
You are indeed mistaken. A check of the Board of Elections website shows the Eva Mar property is in Precinct 3-22 which is in Council District E belonging to Mr. Slutzky.
First, the expectation for this property which is zoned R1 was for single family homes on decent sized lots. If that is what showed up and everything was done above board, we would not be having this discussion. But, due to a little known exception, something entirely inconsistent with R1 zoning is allowed on this property – a CCRC. That was a shock to us all. Yeah in retrospect maybe we should have hired an attorney to tell us precisely everything that is allowed on R1 property. But to most people, you hear R1, you think single family homes. Not four story buildings and 514 units. Just as you would not expect a Walmart on R1 property.
With regard to the other pockets of houses going in – Ann’s Meadow is 20 units total as is the other development Sandy Ridge. Prospect Green consists of 96 townhomes. Part of problem is we did not know about these developments until the ground was broken. Developers are only required to notify those people who live immediately adjacent to a property. So unless you actually have the spare time to read legal notices, you were not going to know. Second, even if we did know, those developments are a far cry from a four-story 514 unit CCRC AND 144 single family homes on top. The 144 single family homes by themselves is more than the three developments you mentioned combined. But then throw in a major commercial operation on top of that. That is a HUGE difference.
Finally, we do not dispute a developer’s right to develop property. We are not against all development. If a developer wants to put 20 homes on a piece of property, that is his perogative provided it does not present safety issues, undue congestion or diminish property values. And that is what is going on here when you try to exploit every square inch of land in order to make a buck. It is simply more than the area can handle on many levels.
For example, do you realize that this project is going to be putting an additional 2,500 to 3,000 trips per day onto Route 543? Vs. a 20 unit development that might put 200 trips per day out there. The problem is that all of these combined are going to have a huge impact. And this is proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back so to speak
Suggesting 140 houses will result in 3000 additional cars on the road is absurd.
BillH, did you even read what William wrote? “For example, do you realize that this project is going to be putting an additional 2,500 to 3,000 trips per day onto Route 543? Vs. a 20 unit development that might put 200 trips per day out there. The problem is that all of these combined are going to have a huge impact. And this is proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back so to speak”. BIG difference when you see the traffic and accidents that occur in that area now. Please read, digest, then respond… it will add to your credibility. Well done, William
Let me clarify:
1. Per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition used in most if not all traffic studies – 140 single family houses will produce close to 1,400 trips per day – that is 700 out, 700 in.
2. Per same manual, a 514 unit CCRC, while it produces significantly less traffic per unit makes up for it with the high number of units. It will produce close to 1,300 trips per day – not all from residents, but including deliveries, employees and visitors.
3. That adds up to about 2,700 trips per day from this project ALONE plus or minus on any given day – thus, I’m calling 2,500 to 3,000 trips.
4. This all onto Route 543 which is carrying a total volume of around 16,000 cars per day depending on where the volume is measured.
5. As if that were not enough, we will be adding another 200 trips from Sandy Ridge; 200 trips from Ann’s Meadows; and roughly 500 trips from Prospect Green.
6. Adding up all this traffic (using industry standards not speculation) we are looking at a 20% to 30% increase in volume on 543 over next five years. Forget about AM/PM peak, adding this kind of volume will only increase chances of accidents and congestion at any time.
6. And I can go on, after the DAC meeting for Eva Mar, we heard about the plans to expand Oak Grove Baptist Church school from 100 students to 330 students. There is another 230 cars at AM drop off and 230 at PM drop off on same roads impacted by Eva Mar. You should have heard the comments from the SHA rep on the impact this will have on the intersection of Prospect Mill and Route 22.
7. Not as close but still close enough we have the massive County emergency operations facility being built just up Route 543 on the other side of Route 1; you have the athletic complex up at Shucks Corner; and you have the ever expanding Harford Community College. All will add to traffic on 543.
Do you get the point about why we are concerned about traffic on a road that is already problematic? This is REAL not imagined not speculation.
” Per same manual, a 514 unit CCRC, while it produces significantly less traffic per unit makes up for it with the high number of units. It will produce close to 1,300 trips per day – not all from residents, but including deliveries, employees and visitors”
Well it seems the best thing for traffic is the CCRC, Why did the citizens have it downsized from their input? Seems making it larger is the logical thing to do.
Actually the county isn’t getting any smaller no matter how hard the last guy to move here trys. It’s past time to widen 543 to 4 lanes with a center turn just like 22 then all problems are solved..
The gentleman the stated that he has “Taxation without representation” is partially correct. We can talk to you about zoning issues up to when a case is officially filed, and then we can’t by law. However I have stated for some time that the Council should NOT be the “zoning Court of Appeals”, and I believe the majority of the Council now agrees and we are going to introduce a bill to remove us from that position. This will allow us to talk to our constituents at any time about zoning issues. This will also allow the citizens to go right to court, if they desire, without have to go through the “Zoning Court of Appeals” because that step will be eliminated.
All that does is take the pressure off of you. Then you can throw up your hands and say another party made the decision. And who has the money to take developers to court? Just another way to duck your responsibility to work for your constituents – at least the ones that don’t contribute to your election campaign.
And I forgot to add, I’m sure this appeals body will be filled with political appointees who will owe their positions to you.
I find it very hard to believe that this council has made and is proposing more changes solely to benefit themselves. The council sitting as the zoning board of appeals has worked well up until this council adopted this “pay to play” mentality. As of late, it seems one can directly connect the dots between contributions and votes. More appropriately, the changes that need to be made are on the council, not the duties they perform. This council changed the rule that prevented elected individuals from creating jobs for themselves and being hired back if they lost a re-election bid. The council as a zoning appeals board works well and needs no change. It’s when you start manipulating that you develop a problem. Furthermore the bills passed (13.35, 13.36, 13.37) were absolutely done to accommodate the Eva Mar project and the council had full knowledge of it. Any story you are fed to the contrary is BS.
Rob – Thank you for your comments. It has been a pleasure speaking with you. We look forward to having you speak at one of our group meetings.
When is the next group meeting? I live in the area and would love to get involved in this because it will negatively affect the entire area and as a life-long citizen in this county, growing up nearby, it is heartbreaking.
Was what they did illegal Bob?
Clearly the change to the CCRC language was done related to a CCRC, but where is the proof that the others were done for Eva-Mar? Do you have any proof or are you just politicking for votes?
Bill 13-35 as you say clearly relates to CCRC building heights and resulted in allowing four story buildings instead of three story buildings. Three story were not enough for PHM, they had to go to four stories. So much for being a good neighbor.
Bill 13-36 reduced a key threshold dealing with Natural Resources Districts (NRD) from 30% to 25%. Why? Because the Eva Mar property has 26% NRD not enough under old law to qualify but now enough under new law. This allows developer to use R2 standards instead of R1 which means smaller lot sizes, possibly townhouses, etc. Basically allows them to cram in more houses in a smaller space. This only kicks in if CCRC goes away so it is more of an insurance policy for Elm St. But the CCRC going away is not out of the realm of possibilities as the CCRC has already failed once in Aberdeen. This is the most egregious of the three bills.
Bill 13-37 extended the length of time site plans are valid from two years to three years. Why? Because the CCRC has to go through a lengthy approval process before breaking ground. They need to sell 70% of their units ahead of time. That could take more than two years and cause them to go through approval process again.
All just a little “housekeeping” two days before going public.
“Bill 13-35 as you say clearly relates to CCRC building heights and resulted in allowing four story buildings instead of three story buildings. Three story were not enough for PHM, they had to go to four stories. So much for being a good neighbor.”
This is an outright lie William and you know it. They changed the code from 50′ to 4 stories. The CCRC could have easily built a 4 story building under the 50′ height limit but it would have looked something similar to the old falston general hospital, an ugly building no one misses. Instead due to the for sight and community concern of the county council we will now get a building that is pleasing to the eye, unlike the county maintenance building that will be next door to it.
I cannot believe I am going to validate the comment by Bill H as absurd as it is. What I said is the truth, the Bill effectively raised the maximum building height from 50 feet to however tall a four story building can be built – 60 feet in this case. The CCRC could have just as easily proposed a three story building (under 50 feet) with the exact same design as the planned four story building. No they were not satisfied with that, they greedily felt the need to go 60 feet. The law did not allow that though. So rather than asking for a variance or actually abiding by the law, they just used their connections and got the law changed. Simple. Same thing you and I would have done if faced with a similar situation right?
The truth will set you free William. I’m so glad you are finally embracing it.
William, just keep the truth out there and people will see is. (And for some reason, I hit the thumbs down for BillH, but it showed as a like…I truly do not want to encourage such nonsense.)
Still waiting on your evidence Mr .Wagner. Billy Onorato tried for you, but didn’t produce any.
Unless it is the residents of Harford County electing and holding accountable the new “Zoning Court of Appeals”, it sounds like the same or worse than the current situation.
Mr. Guthrie – Thank you for your comments on this issue. It is good to know that other members of the Council share our view on this issue. Clearly this is a topic worthy of more discussion. One thing we are fearful of is a knee-jerk reaction to this issue that only creates more problems. I think this issue without a doubt needs to be addressed but it needs to be done in a thoughtful way with careful consideration. Part of me says “what is wrong with the current system?” You could not make the County Charter more clear in stating that Council members may talk and assist citizens up until the point an appeals case is actually filed. Because one Council member completely misinterprets the law and may have another agenda, we are now going to change the whole system? Perhaps just some minor tweaks to the existing system are needed. In any event, we would love to have a dialog with the Council to discuss the alternatives to solving this problem. You should have my email should you want to discuss. I hope this is an issue that we can work together on and effect a positive change for residents in our situation down the road.
Thank you again for your comments on this issue.
Why is the site plan picture the Dagger used the old plan? Didn’t they change the location based on the communities input?
Wipe the slate clean….. Vote in June for change, get rid of Slutzky all together…..get the dirty players out !
No one has brought up about the schools. I was looking at the attendance areas of the elementary schools and I do believe that the property in question is in the Hickory Elementary attendance area. I looked at the capacity of the school and saw that it is at 105% of capacity. I do not know at what percentage a area goes into moratorium. If the area is close to being in moratorium what will the school system do? I hope that they will not consider redistricting. If the Mr. Slutsky and the rest of the Council had not forced the BOE to build the school at Red Pump then this would not be an issue. I would like someone else to look at this and let me know if I am correct.
School attendance is a very big issue. The Eva Mar farm is in the Hickory Elementary School district. The current rule is that if a school is either or is projected to be in the next three years in excess of 110% capacity, then a moratorium shall be put in place in that district. The rule was 105% but they changed it 110%. An argument for another is day is what the correct percentage should be. In any event, in the July 2013 release of the “2012 Annual Growth Report” Hickory was projected to be at 724 students for the 2015 school year which put the district over 110% and under a moratorium. That report is updated every six months and was, as scheduled, updated in December 2013. Well, that report showed a 70 student drop in the projected enrollment for the 2015 school year which lifted the moratorium and paved the way for Eva Mar. Obviously, the CCRC does not impact schools, but the 144 homes do.
So the valid question to ask is what caused the 70 drop in the projection? It seems odd in light of all the new homes going up in the district. And don’t forget that Kelly Glenn on Route 1 is also in the Hickory district. One could immediately be skeptical and cry “conspiracy!!” in light of all the other shady things going on. But in fairness, we have looked into this and the numbers do jump around a bit at other schools as well. So there might very well be a valid explanation as to these numbers.
The main players involved with preparing the numbers, reviewing them and approving them are Richard Slutzky as chairman of the Adequate Public Facilities Advisory Board, Joe Licata at Harford County Public Schools and Pete Gutwald with director of Planning and Zoning. All three are members of the APF board and while there are other members on the Board they do not seem to play a huge role in the actual calculation of the numbers.
To date, we have not been able to obtain an answer to the very simple question “what factor changed from the July 2013 report to the December 2013 to cause a 70 student drop?” Joe Licata was very forthcoming with broad general answers but when pressed for details indicated that he can no longer help me and broke off communications. So there you have it. I am not crying conspiracy as I do see that there may be valid reasons for the changes. The issue is that no one seems to want to actually answer the question. If the numbers are right they are right, fair enough. But this is a statistically significant change based on multiple statistical tests. It deserves an answer before we make the mistake of approving another 144 new homes in the district and adding to a chronically over-crowded school. Hickory I believe has only been under 100% capacity two times in the past 12 school years.
The district line is evamar, by moving the boundary 300yards north the problem is solved and effects no children presently attending school. The reality is, just like Fox Chase, the last house to be built in evamar is probably more than a decade away. This is a non issue.
BillH, how is this a non issue? I can’t see the population of children declining and with more housing being built, it will increase. Unless you are planning on moving away, this will be an issue, whether it be today or tomorrow, one must look at the big picture, not a single frame of the movie.
I am sure all the elementary school children that will live in evamar will be going to the newly enlarged school at oak grove baptist church and will have zero impact on Hickory elementary.
Isn’t Oak Grove Baptist a private school? Last time I checked, parents make the choice to send their children to public school or pay extra for a private school. That’s a big of a jump to think all parents will pay for their children to go to a religious/Baptist private school….nope, schools will still be an issue, but good try.
Seriously Wally, all the future residents have said their kids are going to the Baptist school and to top it off they are all going to walk so no traffic concerns.
All future residents? Obviously not the CCCR folks, but the residents of the single family homes. You’ve spoken to people who haven’t even moved into the area?
You’ve just proven that you are posting to annoy serious readers. Take your show on the road- this is a serious issue that you are mocking. Your credibility has been shot down by your own ridiculous comments. Please step away from the keyboard and go be constructive somewhere else.
Wally, You have figured out what many already have – BillH usually offers little if any substance to a topic or conversation.
Oh Wally I was just mimicking the absurd statements of you concerned citizens. You have no real facts just your NIMBY rants and substance less concerns. You are a few adults acting like petulant children that quite frankly the majority of the county could care less about.
Sorry but those are the real facts.
That is very easy to say. It is not that easy to just move an attendance area boundary line
Why?
Because when you move one boundary line then you affect another schools capacity. Not only now but also all future projections.
Prospect mill is currently below capacity. At its all time high prospect mill had as many as 1037 students 357 above today’s capacity. Moving the line 300 yards is no big deal.
Sorry you are once again trying to make a point while remaining uninformed, What is it with you concerned citizens and the facts? It’s not like this stuff is secret.
William Onorato, great job with the article…. ignore those with negative thoughts, and keep focus on the matter at hand…..Those others, they just need a little extra attention.
Sorry BillH but you are the one that is uninformed. Having been very much involved in setting boundary line for schools in Harford County in a previous life the process is very complicated and involved. As I said previously the moving of a boundary line will not only affect that school but the surrounding schools also. It would be like a domino effect to all of the surrounding schools. Not only student levels in the classroom, but bussing cost and staffing levels. Moving a boundary affects the operation of not only one school but several.
It is hysterical how the concerned citizens don’t understand Boniface not wanting the airport expansion and are actually using it as a talking point.
The hypocrisy is dumb founding and they don’t even get it.
I would also like to mention that a lot of my post on other threads are to create conversation, some are meant to be funny etc., this subject is very personal and I’m determined to follow thru on what I have stated on this thread, not getting any sort of valid answers is unacceptable, these people were voted in by us, they work for us, I really don’t understand who these people think they are.
Gee, Hedley, I thought you knew everything. I base that on your glib comments, and I have never found you funny.
That’s your problem dipsht
I would love to see someone with the right information blow this whole thing wide open. Something smells rotten.
It’s all a big conspiracy..;)
In some counties, people run for public office to cash in on the campaign contributions, under-the-table kick backs, and high-pay no-work post-office consulting jobs with development firms, but I’m sure that doesn’t happen here in Harford.
@ Jackrabbit, sounds like you are one of the imbeds, perhaps within county government or the development industry. Who knows and who cares… but your comment was just plain naive and outright stupid. That’s what our current local government is counting on…that people will be too unsophisticated to put things together. Don’t think for a minute that the county didn’t know what was going on. In fact, they helped to spearhead it through and the county council was complacent in letting it sail on through. Remember that one of the functions of the county council is to be a check and balance for the executive branch and in this instance, they failed Harford County citizens miserably.
The changes are beneficial to the community. I applaud the County council for changing them to make a better Harford county.
@BillH, what an arrogant thing to post that “The changes are beneficial to the community.” Harford County was once a beautiful, peaceful place to live and raise a family. Now, it is busting at the seams with housing development after development and all of the sprawl that goes with it, leading to sheer gridlock on the roads. There is nothing “beneficial to the community” about this project. The only ones that will benefit from this are the sellers (I don’t begrudge them their right to sell their property), the corporate buyers who will squeeze out every dollar that can be made on the deal and of course, Harford County government. Plain and simple.
If you are of the background of many Harford County citizens, you wouldn]t be here if everyone before you felt this way. You think we should be able to sell our private land, that is big of you. What do people buy land for? Usually homes, businesses, and hardly ever open land.
Tell me you don’t drive on the roads or live in a housing community that occupies once beautiful farmland? tiredofthebullsh#t you, your home and your cars are the problem. The only one being arrogant here is you and your concerned citizens whining like small children that won’t get their way.
Quite a wide ranging discussion this topic generated.
It started with a criticism of a specific member of the County Council, and by inclusion, the other members as well. The criticism cites a failure of the Council to intervene in a proposed development project. Various postings also cite the Councils actions on three specific pieces of legislation, each of which are beneficial to that same proposed development. Absent from the discussion is the role of the elected County Executive and the appointed Director of Planning and Zoning, who proposed the legislation, for somebody. That the Council passed the legislation, without truly understanding the consequences and implications, is a valid criticism. What is not clear from the article is the specific relief that the author seeks from the Council. Absent that, it is difficult to determine what the Council could have done to render any assistance, and so the criticism of failing to provide support may not be valid.
Next up is the discussion of the impact the proposed project will have on the schools, under the present attendance area boundaries. In fact the project will affect the attendance of the school within the attendance area boundary. It will in all likelihood put that school into an over capacity status. One poster opined that changing attendance area boundaries to alleviate the over capacity status would not be a major effort. Another, perhaps more qualified, opined that it would be a major effort. In this case all are correct. It is not a major effort to reconstruct boundaries. Witness the current situation in the Ukraine. Stroke of the pen, boundary changed. The larger and much more difficult task is to make the reconstructed boundaries socially and economically acceptable, to all stakeholders. No easy task, that. The Board of Education and the HCPS have, to their great credit, demonstrated that they have the technology and capacity to successfully undertake the task.
Roads and traffic congestion resulting from the proposed project were discussed. Clearly, the proposed project will impact the major roads, Routes 543 and 22. The more severe impact will be on the residential roads that will now become major carriers, and serve as a bypass for all those seeking a shortcut. One poster opined that improvements on Route 543 and 22 are long overdue, and that is true. While it is clear is that there is a technical fix for the situation, it is equally clear that the fix may not be socially and economically acceptable. Regardless, neither the State, nor the County, has demonstrated any capacity to successfully undertake the task of alleviating traffic congestion on most of the roads in Harford County.
The economic benefit from the project was presented. While there could be, it is all based on projections fed back from a methodology, and assumptions not further identified. Looking at the two elements of the project this is what is apparent. The 144 houses will consume more in resources than they will pay for. The incremental costs incurred to support them will far outweigh the added tax revenue, impact fees, transfer taxes and recordation fees they will provide. The CCRC, which is unlikely to contribute any tax revenue, is a start up. There is no one on the staff that has any experience in operating a facility of this size. Neither is there anybody on the board of directors that has any experience overseeing operation of a facility of this size. The prevailing assumption is that the Presbyterian Home facility in Towson, which may operate well serving about 100 clients, can transition, seamlessly, into the much larger 500 plus clients facility. That remains to be seen. Whether the CCRC will in fact provide any economic benefit is questionable. The problem with the whole project is that nobody has validated any of the numbers. Both the Harford County administration and the County Council have developed a habit of accepting numbers regardless of their validity. Refer to all the BRAC projections, the Beechtree TIF projections, the James Run TIF projections for substantiation. The still unresolved question is what financial support both elements of the project will seek from the County.
One of the more interesting postings was on the aesthetics of the architecture of the CCRC. One poster opined that the proposed CCRC “would be pleasing to the eye”. The picture provided by Presbyterian Homes is visually pleasant, as are the elevations. There is more to architecture, however, than just a visually appealing building. One of America’s, and in fact the world’s, greatest architects, Frank Lloyd Wright, understood this better than most of his peers, and many of today’s architects. While many of his designs were controversial, he had a great grasp of construction and building materials and was able to present a functional building. His greatest talent was that he could make his building blend in with their surroundings, to be part of them, and not just placed on them. The 4 story 60 foot high CCRC does not, and will never fit in with its surroundings.
So after all is said and done what is left. It appears that both elected and appointed officials have shredded their credibility. The residents of Harford County are left to solve the capacity problems of schools. Neither the State, County or developers have the capacity, nor requirement to alleviate the traffic congestion, and turn to the residents of Harford County with: ”It’s your fault, you trusted us. Now you fix it or learn to live with it”. Another economic projection that promises gum drops and lollipops, without any validation. A startup enterprise, in a garish building, that may not provide any tax revenue for the County services it consumes. Some deal.
THNX
John P. Mallamo
Keep putting the idiot back in office, he laughs at you every election year !!
This is easy for mr. Wagner to say after he got his property re zoned for high density residential out of the envelope while on the council and mr oranoto and his hundreds of folks who live on former Harford county farmland and has congested our roads for 20 yrs. i may be an old timer but I know a hypercrite when I see one. Ms Trotta needs a lesson property rights also is she wants to stay a c4l radical.
R-1 and RR zoning is hardly “high-density zoning”. INSIDE the development envelope with water and sewer, work on your FACTS. My family’s farm (one-half) was planned, and developed in keeping with all the laws and guidelines of the county. There were NO slam-dunks and, no laws were changed to make it happen. Wagner’s Farm development was never a secret. At the time (some12 or so years ago) we went through more obstacles than the any other project.
In the case of Eva Mar, guidelines and laws being changed for a specific project, public officials lying to their constituents with regard to being “unaware” of the proposed Eva Mar project or the need for the changes they just made—that is hypocrisy. Furthermore, some actions should certainly be evaluated for unethical behavior and possibly worse.
I would like to see that happen but unfortunately it is not going to be initiated locally because the good ole’ boys’ network is alive and well. Any ideas on the matter?
It boggles my mind so many people voluntarily live in Belcamp/Riverside.