NAIVE NO MORE

For those that missed it, the following letter appeared in the Maryland Coast Dispatch on Friday, October 13. I seem to have caused a stir.

Editor:
As a consultant for nearly 20 years helping guide local developers and property owners through the thicket of environmental regulations, I thought I had seen most of the follies of politicians, but recent revelations about the County’s Critical Area Law and the Riddle farm have left me shaking my head.

But before I reveal to the world just how naive I can be, a little background is in order.

When Centex began work in earnest along the waterfront of Herring and Turville Creeks, many of my clients and neighbors told me it appeared that the Riddle development didn’t seem to be following the same rules as everyone else. Trees were being cleared very close to the water, and nearby property owners were upset, especially those who were impacted by the Critical Area law. I remember one angry lot owner who was forced to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals to request a variance from Critical Area Law to build a fence to keep his toddlers from falling into the canal. Many others had to pay thousands of dollars in buffer fees, for no real benefit to the environment that I could see.
I had not paid much attention to the portion of the law that affected the Riddle farm, but my clients began raising questions that I didn’t know how to answer.

About this time, Jay Charland, the former Coastkeeper of the Assateague Coastal Trust (ACT), began looking into what he called environmental "irregularities" on the Riddle farm, and he asked for my help understanding some of the more complicated regulations.

Commissioner Bud Church was being asked some of these same questions by his constituents along the creeks, and he also asked me to help him understand what was going on.

Reading the portion of the law that exempted the Riddle farm from many of the Critical Area regulations, I noted that the development was not exempted from the requirement for buffers from tidal wetlands and waters. The law states that "85% of the dwelling units must comply with the 100' buffer." But then someone pointed out that the word waterfront was not included. Bingo! Was the omission of waterfront just an oversight, or did somebody pull a fast one?

Surely this must have been an oversight, I reasoned, since applying the 100' buffer to 85% of the more than 500 lots in the development would allow many of the waterfront lots to not have this buffer. Also, it was clearly absurd to apply such buffers to lots in the middle of the development. Or so I thought.

Bud Church and Joe Fehrer, Act’s President, were also curious. I wrote a letter on their behalf to the five County Commissioners who signed the law in 2002 asking what their intentions were. Did they intend the buffers to apply to waterfront lots or not?

Of the five, two responded immediately. To their credit, both Sonny Bloxom and Louise Gulyas called and said of course they meant waterfront lots, and they both expressed surprise that this was not how the law was being interpreted. The other three Commissioners, Jeanne Lynch, Virgil Shockley, and James Purnell, did not respond.

Bud Church worked hard to set up a meeting with County staff so that he and ACT could know how the law was being applied. Lo and behold, the County attorney said the staff had no choice but to interpret the law exactly as it was written and that the 100' buffer did not apply to many of the waterfront lots.

Jeanne Lynch attended the meeting. When asked what her intentions were at the time, first she said she couldn’t remember; then she said it was "time to move on," and later she admitted that "maybe" she was snookered. As I recall, Mrs. Lynch was a prime architect and booster of this law.

We also discovered that even on the lots planned with buffers, clearing of trees within the buffer was allowed to take place before a home was built.
Of course Centex was not the only national developer exempted from portions of the law. Several other projects by large corporations were also exempted, some completely, although it must be said that they were either re-developments of existing projects or took place on disturbed sites. They were not projects impacting a pristine area like the Riddle farm.

And what is the practical effect of this wording? Well, on a high tide I paddled my kayak right up to a silt fence on the Riddle farm. I took pictures. Behind the silt fence was fresh fill dirt, which will no doubt become a typical Centex chemo-lawn when a house is built. Stuff applied to that lawn will end up in the bay.

So that’s the sad story, and the bottom line is this: Owners of single recorded lots, those we in the consultant trade call "mom and pop," are bearing the brunt of the Critical Area law while the big outside corporations get a pass. The little guy and the environment took a hit.

What can be done? Three things.

First, those property owners who feel they have been unfairly impacted by the Critical Area law should fight for their rights. Take your case to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Show how your family is not hurting the environment by building an addition or a fence. And when you are asked if you are being unfairly restricted from doing something others are allowed to do, just point out the exemptions in the law for the big money boys. Do not be afraid; the members of the Board are your fellow citizens.

Second, Centex should be asked by the current commissioners to plant some additional native vegetation between manicured lawns and the creeks. Now that Centex is established in our community, they seem to be trying to improve their image and be better neighbors.

And third, beware those who use the environment as a political weapon to advance themselves or their allies. They are often hypocrites and usually misinformed. When you hear them talk, don’t be as naive as I was. Hold your nose and hang on to your wallet.