The following two letters were sent on successive days by Bill Onorato to each member of the Harford County Council. Copies were provided to The Dagger for publication:
Council Members,
Back in January when Bill 14-1 was being considered, we voiced our concerns about the lack of teeth contained in this bill as it pertained to protection of trees. You ignored our concerns and passed the bill without any amendments. Apparently, you concluded that none of what we were predicting would actually come to fruition. Well flash forward six months to today and everything that we have been screaming about has come true exactly as we predicted.
There are a total of 129 protected trees on the Eva Mar property not including numerous trees that were not properly identified on the Forest Stand Map. The developers are now proposing to cut down nearly 40% of the protected trees on the property including the ones not identified on the map. The reality is that the nearly 100% of the trees in the path of bulldozers will be cut down if the developers are allowed to have their way. The developers will surely try to argue that 60% are being saved. But those trees are all in areas where they cannot build anyway. The number of trees they are voluntarily saving is minimal at best and only when it does not cost them money. If a protected tree sits where they can build, it is coming down. Just that simple. You cannot spin it any other way.
The more upsetting aspect of this is your refusal to require a more stringent variance process for something of this scope. I get that a variance is not appropriate for a homeowner with one protected tree on a lot. But for sizeable developments, like Eva Mar, a variance process should be used. That has now led to the developers being brazen enough to simply submit a one-page letter in support of their waiver request. The reason the waivers are needed? They simply state that they cannot make enough money unless the trees are removed and, therefore, are experiencing undue hardship. One sentence. There is no offering of proof. There is no statement as to why alternate plans won’t work. Just a bald assertion. Would this hold up in a court of law? NO WAY! My message to the developers – “Tough luck! You should not have paid so much for the property then!” The protected trees on the property were NO secret. The forest stand map was done in 2012 before the property was under contract. That you failed to do your due diligence and made a bad business deal SHOULD NEVER BE AN ACCEPTABLE BASIS FOR UNDUE HARDSHIP. NEVER! And that is exactly what the developers are alleging in this case.
Think about it. If I stood up in a variance proceeding and said that a particular development would diminish my property value, what would you as the Board of Appeals ask for? You would ask for proof by the submission of a statement by a qualified appraiser. You would never accept my unsubstantiated opinion which is what the developers have presented to planning and zoning in support of their waiver request.
Not so in this case, because you failed us yet again and did not require a variance proceeding, the findings of fact required for the granting of a waiver are minimal at best. A bald assertion like this will apparently suffice. A developer can simply walk into planning and zoning with the mindset that all they need to do is make bald assertions and nothing more. This shows a total lack of regard for the environment and the law. All decisions made by the planning director are made outside of public view. Keeping these decisions inside a black box is contrary to having a transparent government.
If developers are allowed in this county to be granted waivers on such thin evidence, then the forest protections rules should just be repealed. Why go through the exercise at all? This is just another example of how developers have gotten the upper hand in this County.
We have been trying to get across to anyone who will listen is that these are not just ordinary woods. They are old, they are deep and they contain the beginnings of streams and other habitats. They contain deep forest dwelling birds such as the pileated woodpecker. They deserve more consideration than a simple one-page letter that says we can’t make enough money. These woods are what makes Harford County special. They should be an asset to the community. Instead they are being completely disregarded by money hungry developers whose only goal is to make as much money as possible off the land.
Please give these trees and the trees elsewhere in the County the respect they deserve. Please strengthen the reforestation sections of the zoning code as we suggested to prevent developers from making a complete and total mockery of the law. And more importantly do not sit idly by while the Eva Mar developers make a mockery of the laws you pass. Do not allow their waiver requests to be granted under these circumstances.
Thank you for your consideration.
Bill Onorato
Council Members,
In follow-up to my email from yesterday, attached is the waiver request for the protected trees filed by the developers. I stand corrected the request is technically two-pages, but substantively it is only one-page.
Again it simply should not be this easy to obtain a waiver to cut down that many protected trees. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever found in this letter.
For example, they state that water quality will not be affected. There is no proof at all for this statement. How can you say that when many of the trees for which waivers are being requested sit on slopes next to actual stream or in areas where streams begin? I sent the contour map yesterday so that you can see the slopes on which many of these trees sit. My understanding is that one of the reasons these trees are protected is because of their ability to hold soil and filter water. They are saying that cutting down 47 of these trees will have ZERO impact on water quality. Really? Prove it.
What are the solutions?
1. The developers should be made to suck it up lose a few lots. We do not owe them a living. If they only make $5 million instead of $5.5 million, then so be it.
2. The developers should be forced to provide proof as to why larger wooded lots are not an option?
3. Why not provide for a park where the protected trees are most concentrated? My understanding is that County parks and rec has a goal to maintain a certain number of acres of park space per 1,000 residents. You are putting 1,000 residents on Eva Mar in one shot. Why not have Parks & Rec buy some of the land for park space? And don’t tell me you don’t have the money because the County can find it to bail out other developers – see Water St. in Havre de Grace and Rock Glenn Park in Aberdeen. See attached proposal for park space. The area marked in green represents park space. This would benefit the residents of the CCRC in numerous ways as well. In addition it would cut down on density and thus alleviate traffic issues.
Again it simply should not be this easy for developers to avoid the requirements of the law. If the developers in this case are granted waivers for all 47 trees, then you might as well just take the law off the books because it will be rendered meaningless.
Those trees are the property owners. If they want to cut them down and turn them into the furniture you buy at Gavaganns so be it. If you don’t like it then you buy the property and save those trees.
Hey Onorato if one of those trees is knocked down in a storm can we count on you to pay for the cleanup?
just another NIMBY trolling about. No Walmart and no new housing in perfectly developable land. The county needs the money to pay teachers and employees in the years to come or raise your property taxes but I gather that you would be opposed to raising property taxes too. The county needs to allow development near the development envelope, isn’t that the reason there is a planning and zoning department?
I wonder if I can get some free fire wood from the developer or at least some mulch. All these people that move into Harford County and live in a development that used to be a farm need to STFU. Go back where you came from.
Hazzard County, First let me say that I am not one of the NIMBYs to which you refer. I live far from that development and it will have no effect on me whatsoever. Still, as a Harford County tax payer, I find that I have to take issue with part of your support for this development.
You wrote, “The county needs the money to pay teachers and employees in the years to come or raise your property taxes but I gather that you would be opposed to raising property taxes too.” I am not an accountant, but I can see no way in which nearly any housing development in this county is going to bring about a net increase to the county coffers. It costs the county over $12,000 per year for each new student. the average family has 2.4 children. That is a cost to the county of $28,800 per year for education alone. The county also has to provide police, support for fire and ambulance services, road repairs and improvements, and a whole host of other expensive services for the folks who will be living in those homes. Between my wife and I we make well above the average income for the county, and we don’t pay anywhere near 28K in taxes.
Now it is true that the process of building the homes will bring some jobs into the county, but they are transient jobs, and those construction jobs don’t pay like they used to. That is why nearly any residential building site has so many foreign workers. The local adults can no longer afford to work for what the the builders pay and still raise a family in our county. Given the location, I would expect that the houses built would be nice houses and the folks living there would have well paying jobs. But where do they work to afford those homes. I don’t know if you have noticed, but we have APG and a couple of hospitals in the county but not many other high paying jobs. So are these new residences being used to lure in more industrial and technical businesses? If you build them they will come?
So what I am seeing here is a situation where a farmer gets a big cash payout for his land, a developer and or builder gets a tidy profit and you and I get the big bill for all the services they use. It’s funny, the State of Maryland won’t allow building permits in areas where the schools are overpopulated. I can’t understand why they don’t pin the permits to the number of good paying private jobs are in the area. Between the taxes the workers pay AND the large companies pay, we can afford more housing. Without those businesses we go a little further in the hole with each new house. When we go into the hole we raise taxes or lower services. Then companies don’t want to come here. So far, our politicians seem to be trying to cover the gap through volume. It didn’t work in the old joke, and it doesn’t work in reality either. Maybe the reason we keep building ourselves into a financial hole might be because the developers and builders are the number 1 campaign contributors to both political parties in the state? Nah, I’m just getting cynical in my middle age? I’m sure they have their reasons, but I still don’t want to pay for it
Does the average family have 2.4 kids? Is like saying that between me and my dog we have 3 legs. The reality is that growth is needed in the county to support retail and other jobs in the county, not just to pay teaches as that was an example that local costs need to be factored in as well. Population brings business and industry as well. Even families with kids will eventually be families with no kids, your argument is null and void once you factor in income taxes from families in the county and sales taxes from economic activity and lets not even county that less families are having kids or send their kids to private schools. There are far more employers in the county than 20 years ago and a larger percentage of residents are also working in Harford County. Harford County is not in a financial hole and there isn’t a spending deficit, at least so far. I am not talking about unfettered development without limits but managed and controlled as I see in this case. Development within the development envelope should not be restricted or if you prefer, go and purchase the land and keep it for the cows.
Student enrollment has decreased steadily and is not project to increase anytime soon. People are having less kids or wanting to go childless. Harford County is I think in dire need of a mall such as Arundel Mills or additional retail as a lot of people end up in White Marsh or other outlets. It makes no sense for the county to think so smallish that our county remains a bedroom community which would leave us with the educational tab but without the employer’s taxes to go with it. Business is what the county needs and one way to increase economic activity is to let the private market develop land around the development envelope.
Student enrollment, in general, may be down. Hickory Elementary School (which is where this development will attend – as well as the two new ones in the process of being built and Prospect Green and Kelly Glen which are partially complete) is one of, if not the only, elementary school still over capacity since the redistricting a few years ago. I believe it is 55 students over capacity…. I don’t know if enrollment numbers are posted yet for this year since school hasn’t started yet…
If the projections are accurate (which doesn’t seem possible based on all the new construction) that would be fantastic! Traffic would still be a major problem.
And you have 20 homes in each of Anne’s Meadows and Sandy Ridge that will also be going to Hickory. Hickory has been chronically over-capacity even after redistricting for Red Pump it quickly shot back up. It had been projected to continue increasing up until the December 2013 APF reports that dramatically reversed the upward trend. Coincidently the trend reversed right when the Eva Mar plans came out. We have yet to get an answer from anyone at HCPS as to what caused the reversal. You are correct to question the reversal in light of all the new construction. But people get pretty testy when you start asking questions on this issue. Not saying there is a conspiracy but the facts are there to start a case.
Save the trees! Save the frogs! No Wal Mart! Bane is Best!
Barf.
Here is a great website showing aerial photos, they have one for the area from 1970.
Can you find your house?
http://www.historicaerials.com/aerials.php?scale=2000&lon=-76.294403076172&lat=39.552341461182&year=1970
Such a ridiculous argument. If you go back far enough, you won’t find any development. How far back do you want to go? 1950? 1900? 1850? Further? You only seem to want to go far enough back to support your argument/position. That is why it is faulty… At some point, there were no farms. It was all undeveloped.
The problem is not with development in general. The problem, specifically, is with the type/size of THIS development. A proposed additional 3000 vehicle trips PER DAY!!! On already congested 543/22. Imagine the accidents and congestion in store for all of us. No real plans (right now) to adjust/widen 543 to accommodate the increased traffic…
This is about the trees.
And if 543 is “ALREADY” congested that means those already there are the problem and not something that doesn’t exist yet. Make 543 5 lanes, problem solved EZPZ.
Don’t worry about the road expansion. It will happen.The State Highway Administration will do its best to make sure that the developer attempts to alleviate the problems it is creating, in terms traffic management. 543 and 22 will be expanded, one way or another.
The largest problem with that reality will be dealing with the number of people who think that forcing a developer to pay its share is unfair and contrary to property rights.
Today things are much different and we’ve gotten smarter. Used to be we spread pesticide all over anything and then we learned that’s not smart. Used to be we removed vegetation along waterways and then we learned that’s not smart either. There is a common good even to private property and that’s exactly why we have zoning and building regs. To pretend the developers in this area will suffer over saving a few trees is ludicrous – I’ve seen where the players involved in this process live and they’re doing just fine thanks. Who’s front yards will you seize to make your 5 lane road and then since property rights are absolute that would require intervention by government and that undermines the absolute private property rights you espouse. I smell hypocrisy…
No front yards need to be seized, the right of way already exists for much more than 5 lanes
Having a right of way and seizing the land are two entirely different things. I also beg to differ as a right of way does not exist along much of 543 so it would require the use of eminent domain. Absolutists such as yourself in regard to property rights ought to be repelled by such an idea.
Beg all you want the power poles tell where the right of way exists.
There’s more than enough room for 5 lanes.
A right of way for power poles only allows for the crossing of a property line to maintain those poles and has zero to do with the ability to seize land. Some of those homes particularly beyond the college have been there before power poles and unless those owners ceded lands by deed and through a formal process and been paid fair price for the loss of value the county can’t just build a road – that’s beyond the scope of a utility right of way by leaps and bounds. This is the second time you’ve referred to the utility poles as some line of demarcation that suggests a loss of private property rights. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
I know exactly what is being talked about. Meanwhile you prattle on about houses by the college. Ok honey lets talk about something you do know. What is the proper setting to iron a cotton shirt?
Always a sure sign an obnoxious person is wrong and has run out of intelligent retort when they resort to the sorts of comments you are prone to gurgitate.
The only things that has run out is your ability to realize you are so far in over your head on this topic you no longer are making sense. This isn’t the tough stuff moneytree, this is basic information that 99% of property owners know. For once you can say you are a 1 percenter…. unfortunately in this case it means you are clueless.
Stop digging you are embarrassing yourself, do you have something to say about the trees? maybe you are an expert on wood, impress us all with your knowledge.
You stated that their are beginnings of streams and other habitat and wildlife, have you tried contacting the Army corps of engineers and DNR to see if there is something that they can do? They could put a hold on everything until its determined what is going on their.
We have met with Army Corps of Engineers. Their responsibility basically is to map and identify the streams under federal definitions in the Clean Water Act. The County has its own definitions of what constitutes streams that arguably is broader the federal definitions. We do have arguments for the expansion of the designated streams under the County definition in certain places. The rule is that developers are not allowed to build within 75 feet of a designated stream. Many of the trees however lie close to the streams but not within the 75 foot limit. They still have an impact on soil retention, runoff, etc. Any one might not make a difference. But you add up the impact of 47, I think it would be difficult to say as they baldly allege that it will have ZERO impact. And that is the point of the law in protecting those trees. We just want to make sure that this is given full consideration and not just a cursory glance as the County Council set up to happen.
A number of points to be made here:
1. First and foremost, as I have explained numerous times in comments before in the Dagger, we are not arguing for no development on the Eva Mar Farm. I have no problem with development next door to me (or even a smaller CCRC) to the extent it is respectful of the zoning laws and surrounding community. The problem is that the developers are constantly pushing the envelope to put more money in their pockets. I don’t fault them, that is their job. But when the envelope is pushed too far to our detriment somebody needs to push back. That has to come from us as homeowners because our elected officials could care less about us and are more worried about their campaign contributions. To be fair, the people in planning and zoning, particularly Moe Davenport, have been extremely helpful and patient with us. But they are not advocates for the people. They are more in the nature of mediators and can only work within the confines of the zoning code. Arguing for no development is totally unrealistic. What we want is for developers to be responsible and for growth to be better managed.
2. The point I am trying to make is apparently being missed by some here. We have a law on the books that says trees that meet certain criteria are of greater value to the environment and therefore should NOT be touched by a developer unless a showing of undue hardship is made and a waiver is granted. This law is a mandate from the State of Maryland and the Department of Natural Resources. Every county in the state has a variation of this law. Some stronger than others. My point is that Harford County’s version of this law will be rendered virtually meaningless if a developer, as in this case, is able to obtain a waiver based on the thinnest of evidence with no process.
In January, the County Council updated our version of the law in advance of the Eva Mar project knowing there were protected trees standing in the way of that development. We pointed that out to them at the public hearing on the bill. They had a choice: either impose a simplistic waiver process or a more stringent variance process. They said that they as Board of Appeals do not want to be bothered with hearing such matters and opted for the waiver process. To which I partly agree. It is burdensome to go through a variance process for a single tree.
But in this case where you have 47 protected trees that are under consideration, how is it not worth the Council’s time to have a variance hearing? The wholesale clear cutting of so many acres of trees has a far more significant impact to the environment than just one tree. This certainly deserves more consideration than a simple one-page letter.
3. I further get that it completely unrealistic to expect that every single protected tree will be saved. But on the flipside, we need to make more than a cursory effort to protect as many as possible. The developers have simply said in this case, we are bulldozing the entire area up Falstaff Road and we don’t care what is in the way. That to me is just irresponsible. But the Council paved the way for that attitude by not having imposing a more stringent process and only requiring minimal proof.
4. All that we are asking for is that the laws we have in place be enforced to the fullest. If you grant waivers for all 47 trees in this case based on the evidence provided, you might just as well repeal the law altogether. The precedent this sets will have an impact on every future development in this county. And that is something we should all be concerned about. If developers are allowed to do whatever they want with no regard to the community or the environment, where will it stop?
So go ahead call me a NIMBY and tell me to STFU, I don’t care. No matter how you look at it, there needs to be a greater balance between developer’s rights and resident’s rights in this County. The scales are currently tipped too far in favor of the developers largely due to the actions of the Craig administration and our County Council both of whom are heavily indebted to developers through campaign contributions. Eva Mar is but one of many illustrations of this. The shallow and easy response to our arguments is to just call us NIMBYs. If you actually took the time to research what is going on in this County with respect to development, you would see that the problems in this County are deep and that what we are arguing about is much more than the cries of a bunch of NIMBYs.
William when you boil it down to it’s basic elements the problem is you want rights to property you do not own, do not want to own and have no intentions of ever owning.
Sorry but that’s just not the way this country works.
I have observed that many a concerned citizens about development and growth could really care less about traffic they cause, pollution they contribute and the need for services their community already requires. I am sure they are glad that their subdivision or development was built and not the county needs to lock up the barn because there are too many consumers demanding services, but actually the county seems mostly well balanced with growth and related issues around traffic, sewage and supports such as fire, schools and police. these guys will not want more government dictating their lives and will use current laws to protect the environment as a crutch to stop development but if they are so concerned about the environment then the rain tax would have been supported more broadly? No, of course not. These guys are the height of hypocrisy and will cry about any development in their habitat as long as trash dumps are built someplace else or sent to Baltimore County.
It is easy to call the bluff. On a county level, mandate road construction and traffic abatement to keep pace with development without any waivers for the developer. If you remove traffic from the table, that is one less objection for them to have.
But what you both are missing is that our argument in this case is not “Don’t build Eva Mar” The argument is that if you are going to build it, you better make sure the road system can handle it both from a congestion standpoint and from a safety standpoint. And we have a process by which we make sure that the road system can in fact handle it. That is one issue to be addressed at the DAC hearing next Wednesday. We do, to some degree, have mandates that require the developers to make road improvements. As you can imagine the developers resist as much as possible making any improvements because that cuts into their bottom line. If it were up to them they would make no improvements. They are going to argue for the bare minimum at the upcoming DAC. If we remain silent then yes that is what they will get – the bare minimum. Unfortunately, that is the way the process works. You have to speak out or you get steamrolled. The developers care about one thing – the almighty dollar. That is fine we all deserve to make a living, but not at the expense of others which is what happens if you sit back and let them have their way. People on the outside I guess will just never get this until it happens to them.
What frustrates me is that the moment we speak out in any public forum to counter the developer’s side, we get labeled as NIMBY’s. That is so shallow coming from people who are not impacted by the development in question. You have no idea what is going on behind the scenes in this case. I guarantee you that if a project of this magnitude were going up next door to you AND if the developers were doing things like getting the zoning code changed to their benefit two days before making their plans public, you absolutely would have something to say about it. There is no way you would sit idly by if this project were going in on the farm next to you. No way!
I agree with you, but I think my statement may be unclear.
There are those who believe that any legitimate complaint about traffic is a ruse to stop development. As a result, these individuals have gone to great lengths to convince themselves that any mention of traffic abatement is the result of some kind of anti-development mentality. (While there are people who probably feel this way about development, they appear to be a minority, at least in Harford County.)
By having a county traffic abatement process similar to that of the SHA, which is without appeal, this solves two problems. One, it guarantees at least the statutory minimum will be done regarding traffic concerns. Two, it ends the whole conversation regarding the conspiracy theory that all traffic concerns are being sponsored by anti-development, anti-free market malcontents.
As for Eva Mar, the DAC will probably do little regarding traffic, other than mention it. 543 and 22 are state roads and in the domain of the SHA. It will do its traffic studies, take in opinions, and will try to arrange for a compromise plan that suits most of those involved. Any failings in the plan will have to be taken up by the County at a later date, as I cannot imagine the County ever being more strict than the state.
What I’ve learned from the Wal-Mart issue in Bel Air is that because of the SHA, the County will get a good number of the road improvements it needs while Wal-Mart gets the store that it wants.
What the professor said, we know it hurts NIMBYs, but that rings true.
Excellent analysis Bill Onorato. This isn’t about abridging property rights. It’s about assuring that there’s a planning model for the future that includes agriculture, mature forests, business, recreation, schools, new and existing development, natural habitats, wetland protection all within developmental envelopes. We’ve graduated as a nation from dumping raw sewage into creeks, clear cutting forests, destroying wetlands, spewing air pollution into the atmosphere because of lessons learned. It’s time to repair the damage of the past and ensure that future development is responsible. We need to build a better future that preserves what’s good of Harford County for future generations. Development should be intelligent, be sustainable, add value to the surrounding area, preserve public safety, and not degrade quality of public services or life because of poor planning or low standards. To do otherwise, is contrary to what’s best about this country. We set high standards. We shouldn’t set low standards and fail to meet them as some would suggest. Set the bar higher.
Admitting that the existing developments of Harford country are the real problem is admirable. Would it not be in our best interest to clean up the errors of our past? 150 Acre development is a mere pimple on the face of the bigger problem you describe. If that farm land is left alone are we not dealing with the very real existing problem you describe plaguing our county. Shouldn’t we look closely at the hundreds of developments over the last 40 years in order to raise the low standard and poor planing they were held to? Can we count on you Jet, to carry on the crusade county wide? Or do you live in one of those old low standard poorly planned offending neighborhoods you describe that happen to be close to Eva Mar and the overall good of the county really isn’t your true goal.
Looking at the historical maps using the above link shows Tudor Manor to have been all forest prior to being houses.
Instead of focusing just on the big trees, if I read the submitted plans correctly there are currently 48.72 acres of forest on the property, none of which is protected from the farmer harvesting them for lumber. My understanding is the zoning law only puts in some measures to help protect trees IF the property is to be developed. It appears they plan to clear 21.33 acres of forest, but plant 37.5 acres of new forest. So the net effect is that after development there will be 64.89 acres of forest with conservation easements as compared to the 48.72 acres of forest without a conservation easement. That doesn’t sound so bad.
What they are replanting is not forest. Yes they are replanting trees but replacing a 100 year old 40+ inch Beech tree with a 2 inch sapling is not exactly a fair trade off, at least not in our lifetime. Many of the trees to be replanted are simply the Bradford Pear-type trees to be put along sidewalks. What they are counting as acres is segmented areas that do not amount to real forest like we have now. But I do get your point. Ultimately 50 – 100 years, in theory if the saplings survive the deer, we should have pockets of wooded areas that would not otherwise be there. Fair enough. And I will give them credit, one of the trees they have managed to save apparently is the 58 inch Black Cherry tree that is among the top five largest in the entire state.
But my point is that we have a law on the books that says the big trees should not be touched unless a waiver is granted due to “unwarranted hardship” and that law is basically being completely disregarded the developers with respect to the section coming up Falstaff Road in particular. My understanding is that this rule applies to the farmer as well. That law will essentially be rendered meaningless if a developer can simply get a waiver by saying “I can’t make enough money unless the trees are removed.” My frustration is the ease at which such a tree can be cut down the way the law is currently written. And here we have 47 of them. I get it for one tree, but not for 47. If you haven’t actually walked the property which we were allowed to do when the owners were alive, you have no idea how big some of these trees are on the property. A 100 year old 40+ inch Beech Tree is worth more than just a cursory effort at saving.
And saving them does not mean NO development. Nobody including me is saying that the entire section of woods should remain pristine. But why can’t a neighborhood be designed in such a way as to incorporate the trees? Like Tudor Manor, like Vineyard Oak, like Leeswood, like parts of Hampton Ridge. Why do we need to simply mow down every tree in the path of a bulldozer without any consideration? Why can’t we use a little creativity to develop a plan that allows for development but also respect for the environment? And no you are not going to save every single tree, but I do think we can do better than 47 in this case.
So go on keep calling me a hypocrite and a NIMBY. I would challenge you though to dig a little deeper into the nuances of what is going in this County before just labelling the people who speak out about development a NIMBY. We are not all NIMBYs and yes we recognize that our neighborhoods were once farmland and woods. IF TUDOR MANOR II WERE GOING IN NEXT DOOR WE WOULD NOT BE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION. We do recognize the rights of developers. But what people don’t seem to realize unless a development of this magnitude goes up next door to them, is that the developers in their quest to make as much money as possible have no problem steam rolling the rights of the surrounding neighbors at every opportunity. The developers don’t care because they just move on the next project with loaded pockets and leave us with the mess. We have rights too and that is largely why we have a zoning code. The developers will try to bend and twist the zoning code as far as they possibly can to their benefit and our detriment. When that happens as is the case with Eva Mar we have no choice to push back. And to those not living near a proposed development that comes across as a NIMBY argument if they do not actually take the time to learn the facts. The reality is that the arguments we are making not intended to stop the bulldozers. They are intended to force the developers to respect the laws that were put in place for our protection and the protection of the environment. Development if done right should be a win-win.
William prove to us all you are no text book NIMBY. What other developments have you so strongly been against.
We shall all anxiously await your reply.
Do you have a link to the law defining big trees?
There is a zoning code defining specimen tree and state definitions of specimen and champion trees by species. Go to the MD DNR site. This is part of the Maryland Forest Conservation Act which fully defines the Maryland Big Tree Program. It also includes how to measure the trees and size of champion state trees that help define what a specimen tree is. Specimen Tree: trees having a diameter measured at 4.5 above the ground of 30 inches or more, or trees having 75% or more of the diameter of the current state champion tree. Champion Tree: the largest tree of its species within the United States, the state, county, or municipality as determined by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
The following land-types are deemed priority areas for forest
protection and restoration:
• 100-year floodplains
• Intermittent and perennial streams and their buffers
• Steep slopes (greater than 25 percent grade)
• Critical habitats for endangered species
• Non-tidal wetlands
• Contiguous forest that connects the largest undeveloped or most vegetated
tracts of land within and adjacent to the site
• Coastal bays and their buffers
The following forest stands or individual trees are also deemed
as priority items for retention:
• Forest stands identified as priority areas by local or county authorities
• Trees, plants, and shrubs listed on the State or Federal lists of rare, threatened,
or endangered species
• Trees associated with a historic site or structure
• Champion trees
• Specimen trees
Thank you. A 30″ diameter would be a 94.25″ circumference. That’s a fairly large tree. Truth be told, I think this is one of those stupid intrusions on our property rights. If I have a tree on my property, I should be able to cut it down if I want to, or if I need firewood.
You can cut down a tree for firewood. You’re not cutting down a large established forest on a non-tidal wetland or a steep slope or in a natural resources district…. Haven’t looked at zoning code for exemptions on single tree. Doesn’t matter. This is more complicated than one tree. They’ve developed a Forest Conservation Plan. It’s time to review it. There will be disagreements based upon the context.
Unfortunately our world mostly runs on greed and self interest.
If I lived on 543, I wouldn’t be happy about turning fields into homes either. This is your self interest.
The developers want to create as many lots as possible. That’s their self interest.
The Builders want to build the houses, as cheaply as possible, and sell them for a maximum profit. That’s their self interest.
The new homeowners want to pay as least as possible, that’s their self interest.
I, along with friends, are thinking about moving into Eva Mar. That’s our self interest.
So basically, everyone is going to root for their home team.
Almost forgot. Politicians will either take the side of development, or residents, depending on who most benefits their self interest of getting elected….or reelected.
So, fight as you will, but there is no changing greed and self interest.
In a hundred years, nobody will even care……
Unfortunately our world mostly runs on greed and self interest.
If I lived on 543, I wouldn’t be happy about turning fields into homes either. This is your self interest.
The developers want to create as many lots as possible. That’s their self interest.
The Builders want to build the houses, as cheaply as possible, and sell them for a maximum profit. That’s their self interest.
The new homeowners want to pay as least as possible, that’s their self interest.
I, along with friends, are thinking about moving into Eva Mar. That’s our self interest.
So basically, everyone is going to root for their home team.
Almost forgot. Politicians will either take the side of development, or residents, depending on who most benefits their self interest of getting elected….or reelected.
So, fight as you will, but there is no changing greed and self interest.
In a hundred years, nobody will even care……
Actually if the developers were truly into geed and self interest they would ditch the CCRC, keep the minimum amount of woods and precious trees they had to, sell off the junk land and turn the rest into 800 low cost town houses with just some minor zoning manipulations.
I do believe there is a last ditch plan in the works for just such a situation.
Not possible. Nice try, though.
read the zoning code.
I have. Please point me to the section where you think they could put 800 townhomes on R1 property (with the NRD bump up)…
Reading R1 code is your problem.
Enlighten me. Why? I can’t argue your point any further until I can adequately research your legislative support.
If you can’t give me the supporting sections in the Code or won’t articulate your position more factually, I can only presume that you are full of hot air and just trying to scare people with thinly veiled threats.
I look forward to your future posts citing your statutory references on the following:
1. 800 town homes (on the “rest” of the property after “ditch[ing]” the CCRC, keeping the minimum woods and “precious trees”, and selling off the “junk land” — on exactly how much acreage do you think they will be building these 800 low cost town homes???)
2. Why I shouldn’t be reading the code as it pertains to R1 property
Have a nice day!
You are both correct. Vic is right in that they can put townhomes in using the NRD bump up. Nosy Neighbor is right in that they cannot put up 800. The NRD bump does not allow unlimited construction. They still cannot exceed the maximum number of units that would be allowable under R1 if they bumped up to R2.
The real issue with the NRD bump up is that just before this got started the developers got the rule changed to allow them to use the R2 bump up on the property as a whole if the CCRC goes away. Under the old, rule a property had to contain 30% or more NRD in order for the bump up to be used. Eva Mar as a whole has 26% NRD. It would not have been allowed with a 30% threshold. No problem says the well-connected developer. We will just get the County Council to lower the threshold to 25%. That bill was passed on November 12th along with the bill the raised the maximum building height for CCRCs. The developer sent out the notice letters to the residents on November 14th. And David Craig insists there is no connection to Eva Mar and no benefit. Billy Boniface and Richard Slutzky both defend the bills by saying well they don’t benefit the project that much.
Long explanation but Vic and Nosy Neighbor are both partially correct.
I did use the 800 number to be dramatic. If they dump the CCRC they can build 489 townhouses.
And if they can get it to R3 we are talking 1200+ townhouses.
Kinda makes a 4 story CCRC look attractive doesn’t it.