EASTON — On Wednesday, the Talbot County Planning Commission reconsidered two resolutions pertaining to the Lakeside at Trappe development that it previously found to be inconsistent with the county’s comprehensive plan.
This time, both Resolution 347 and Resolution 348 were found to be consistent with the comprehensive plan, as was Resolution 353, which also was reconsidered Wednesday despite the Planning Commission’s April 2 finding of consistency.
The Planning Commission’s findings follow the recent Talbot County Council approval of Resolution 338, a long-pending resolution amending the Talbot County Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan and requiring county oversight of any future expansion of the new Lakeside wastewater treatment plant. Resolution 338 passed with a 4-1 vote at the council’s April 9 meeting.
Planning commissioners said 338’s passage caused them to reevaluate their previous decisions on Resolutions 347, 348 and 353. They decided to reconsider the measures “based on the fact that 338 did pass,” Commissioner Phillip Councell said.
All four resolutions attempt to provide clarifications on the housing development’s plans and wastewater discharge permit, which were requested by the Maryland Department of the Environment.
Before the introduction of the recently approved resolutions, attempts were made to amend Talbot County’s comprehensive plan to reclassify certain portions of the development’s property for immediate priority for water and sewer service. This was done through a resolution created called Resolution 281.
The MDE approved the resolution in November 2020. However, a month later, the agency sent a letter stating that Resolution 281 did not provide the number of equivalent dwelling units for the different phases of Lakeside’s construction — information needed for further development.
In December 2020, MDE issued a final wastewater discharge permit for Lakeside’s new wastewater treatment plant, approving a flow of 540,000 gallons per day — the number the developer requested in its application.
Following public outcry, the Talbot County Planning Commission rescinded its approval of an amendment to Resolution 281, which split the property into two sections for differences in water and sewer classifications. In late October 2022, MDE issued a revised discharge permit for Lakeside, approving a significantly smaller wastewater treatment plant.
Letters were sent by MDE seeking clarification on some specifics of the development. The county debated the best way to address MDE’s requests last summer, eventually settling on tackling them via comprehensive plan amendments via introduced resolutions 347, 348 and 338.
Resolution 348 addresses incorrect water and sewer classifications shown in two exhibits — maps displaying updates to Trappe’s proposed water and sewer service areas — to Resolution 281.
Resolution 347 provides the number of equivalent dwelling units across all six phases of the Lakeside development’s construction. A later amendment to 347 incorporates wording from Resolution 338.
Resolution 353, introduced by council Vice President Pete Lesher and council member Lynn Meilke at a Feb. 27 meeting, “combines Resolutions 338, 347 and 348 into a single resolution,” according to County Attorney Patrick Thomas. It was found to be consistent with the county’s comprehensive plan on April 2.
At the April 2 meeting, Resolutions 347 and 348 were deemed by commissioners to be confusing on their own, and 348 and 347 were voted to be inconsistent with the Talbot County Comprehensive Plan.
However, at the meeting Wednesday, Planning Commission members said that the recent approval of 338 by the County Council caused them to feel 347 and 348 deserved another look.
The commission made a motion to reconsider Resolutions 347, 348 and 353 during its May 1 meeting.
When reconsidering Resolution 353, Talbot County Attorney Patrick Thomas said the council was essentially looking for clarification in the motion and recommendation that the Planning Commission provided initially and whether or not they found 353 in its current configuration as consistent with the comprehensive plan “not subject to conditions.”
The commission found the resolution to be consistent with the Talbot Comprehensive Plan and approved it unanimously.
The commission then moved on to Resolution 347. Vice Chairman Phillip Councell said he feels better about 347 since 338 passed. He said he doesn’t have the same “heartburn” about it anymore.
“We’re not going to control what happens in 20 years,” Councell said. “We’re just not going to rule from the grave; it’s not going to happen. Therefore, I would support finding 347 and 347 Amendment 1, and leave it up to the council to choose whichever one they like to be consistent, given that 338 did pass.”
Councell made a motion to find Resolution 347 and its amendment as consistent with the Talbot County Comprehensive Plan “based on the fact that Resolution 338 did pass.”
The motion was passed 3-1, with Commissioner William Boicourt voting against it.
The commission then discussed Resolution 348 and its amendment. They came to the conclusion that Resolution 348 is consistent with the comprehensive plan, but not its amendment.
Councell clarified that the amendment was at the request of the Public Works Advisory Board to “kind of clean some things up.”
“I think (the County Council) weren’t completely satisfied with the way that came out,” Councell said. “So my motion is going to be in regard to 348 only, not 348 Amendment 1. Therefore, I would move that resolution 348 is consistent with the Talbot County comprehensive plan and seven relevant standards based on the fact that Resolution 338 has passed.”
“... I still think Resolution 353 is a better solution,” Councell added.
The motion passed unanimously.
These resolutions will appear before the Talbot County Council on May 14. If approved by the council, the measures will go to MDE, which can approve, modify or reject them.
Most Popular
Comments / 0