MENU

Sections

  • Home
  • About
    • The Chestertown Spy
    • Contact Us
    • Advertising & Underwriting
      • Advertising Terms & Conditions
    • Editors & Writers
    • Dedication & Acknowledgements
    • Code of Ethics
    • Chestertown Spy Terms of Service
    • Technical FAQ
    • Privacy
  • The Arts and Design
  • Local Life and Culture
  • Public Affairs
    • Ecosystem
    • Education
    • Health
  • Community Opinion
  • Donate to the Chestertown Spy
  • Free Subscription
  • Talbot Spy
  • Cambridge Spy

More

  • Support the Spy
  • About Spy Community Media
  • Advertising with the Spy
March 26, 2023

The Chestertown Spy

An Educational News Source for Chestertown Maryland

  • Home
  • About
    • The Chestertown Spy
    • Contact Us
    • Advertising & Underwriting
      • Advertising Terms & Conditions
    • Editors & Writers
    • Dedication & Acknowledgements
    • Code of Ethics
    • Chestertown Spy Terms of Service
    • Technical FAQ
    • Privacy
  • The Arts and Design
  • Local Life and Culture
  • Public Affairs
    • Ecosystem
    • Education
    • Health
  • Community Opinion
  • Donate to the Chestertown Spy
  • Free Subscription
  • Talbot Spy
  • Cambridge Spy
News News Homepage

About John Griep

John Griep has spent more than 25 years as a reporter and editor covering Talbot County and the Mid-Shore, including county and town governments, courts, police, planning and zoning, business and real estate. Contact him at john@spycommunitymedia.org.

CDC: How to Safely Celebrate the Holidays

November 24, 2021 by John Griep

Share

With COVID-19 numbers increasing in recent weeks, the CDC is offering suggestions on safer ways to celebrate the holidays.

The best way to minimize COVID-19 risk and keep your family and friends safer is to get vaccinated if you’re eligible, according to the CDC. This is particularly important for holidays and other family events where many generations gather.

The CDC offers these general tips:

• Protect those not yet eligible for vaccination such as young children by getting yourself and other eligible people around them vaccinated.

• Wear well-fitting masks over your nose and mouth if you are in public indoor settings if you are not fully vaccinated.

• Even those who are fully vaccinated should wear a mask in public indoor settings in communities with substantial to high transmission.

• Outdoors is safer than indoors.

• Avoid crowded, poorly ventilated spaces.

• If you are sick or have symptoms, don’t host or attend a gathering.

• Get tested if you have symptoms of COVID-19 or have a close contact with someone who has COVID-19.

If you are considering traveling for a holiday or event, visit CDC’s Travel page to help you decide what is best for you and your family. CDC still recommends delaying travel until you are fully vaccinated.

• If you are not fully vaccinated and must travel, follow CDC’s domestic travel or international travel recommendations for unvaccinated people.

• If you will be traveling in a group or family with unvaccinated people, choose safer travel options.

• Everyone, even people who are fully vaccinated, is required to wear a mask on public transportation and follow international travel recommendations.

Special considerations:

• People who have a condition or are taking medications that weaken their immune system may not be fully protected even if they are fully vaccinated and have received an additional dose. They should continue to take all precautions recommended for unvaccinated people, including wearing a well-fitted mask, until advised otherwise by their healthcare provider.

• You might choose to wear a mask regardless of the level of transmission if a member of your household has a weakened immune system, is at increased risk for severe disease, or is unvaccinated.

• If you are gathering with a group of people from multiple households and potentially from different parts of the country, you could consider additional precautions (e.g., avoiding crowded indoor spaces before travel, taking a test) in advance of gathering to further reduce risk.

• Do NOT put a mask on children younger than 2 years old.

“By working together, we can enjoy safer holidays, travel, and protect our own health as well as the health of our family and friends,” the CDC states on its website.

The Spy obtains information for the above chart between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. Statewide data is updated about 10 a.m. each day; counties may update data throughout the day until 5 p.m., although some counties do not update on weekends. Johns Hopkins updates its data throughout the day.

Key points for today

• Talbot County’s level of community transmission of COVID-19 is high. Everyone should wear a mask in public indoor settings when the community transmission level is substantial or high, according to the CDC.

• You can use the COVID-19 County Check Tool for a snapshot of your county’s level of community transmission over the past 7 days. The tool also displays guidance on masking based on how the virus is spreading in your county.

• The county’s 7-day average positivity rate is 7.29%. The state’s 7-day average positivity rate is 3.9%.

Vaccinations

• CDC 18+ population with at least one dose : 88.4%

• To pre-register for a vaccine appointment, visit www.marylandvax.org or covidvax.maryland.gov or call 1-855-MD-GOVAX (1-855-634-6829).

• State Vaccine Information Page: https://coronavirus.maryland.gov/pages/vaccine

• Vaccination Site Search: https://maryland.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/nearby/index.html?appid=0dbfb100676346ed9758be319ab3f40c

Filed Under: News Homepage Tagged With: coronavirus, Covid-19, hospitalizations, positivity rate, vaccination, vaccine

Cambridge Commissioners Ask Mayor to Resign Following ‘Revenge Porn’ Charges

November 18, 2021 by John Griep

Share

The Cambridge commissioners voted unanimously Tuesday night to have the city attorney draft a letter asking Mayor Andrew Bradshaw for his resignation.

The vote came following a Tuesday night emergency meeting that went into closed session for consultations with the city attorney and city manager.

“It is the sincerest hope of all of the Commissioners that the Mayor will do what is best for the City of Cambridge and its citizens and tender his resignation,” the commissioners said in a joint statement. “Should he fail to do so, then the Commissioners are prepared to pursue all available options under Maryland Law and the City Charter.”

The joint statement from Commission President Lajan Cephas (Ward 2) and Commissioners Brian Roche (Ward 1), Jameson Harrington (Ward 3), Sputty Cephas (Ward 4), and Chad Malkus (Ward 5) was posted on the city’s website.

Section 3-35 of the city’s charter sets forth the procedure for removals from office:

“The commissioners may remove from office, or discharge from employment, the city manager, the chief bailiff and any other officer or employee that may be elected or appointed under the authority of the charter, or any ordinance or order of the commissioner (whether be the term of service under which he holds his office or employment), for neglect of duty, for incompetence, or for any other misconduct, which, in the judgment of the commissioners, constitute reasonable and sufficient ground for removing him from office, or depriving him of employment.

“In all cases, where the official or employee has any fixed or definite term of service, a charge or complaint, in writing, shall be presented to him, and evidence as to the facts alleged in such charge or complaint, shall be taken before the commissioners if he denies the correctness or truth of same.”

If Bradshaw were to resign or be removed, the commission president would assume “all rights, powers and duties of the mayor,” according to the charter, and the commissioners would need to schedule a special election to fill the mayoral vacancy.

In a previous statement, the city noted that Cambridge has a council-manager form of government with the appointed city manager, not the mayor, serving as the city’s chief executive officer and heading its administrative branch.

Bradshaw, 32, was charged Monday with 50 counts of “revenge porn,” accused of creating multiple Reddit accounts with usernames that were permutations of a former romantic partner’s name and birthdate and posting intimate photos of her that were “captioned with racial slurs and sexually explicit language, on those Reddit accounts and various Subreddit forums that were related to sexual activity, humiliation, degradation, race, and other topics,” according to the state prosecutor’s office.

“Maryland’s Revenge Porn Statute, Maryland Criminal Law Article § 3-809, prohibits the nonconsensual distribution of a private visual representation of another which exposes their intimate body parts or displays them engaged in sexual activity, with the intent to harm, harass, intimidate, threaten or coerce the person depicted,” the Office of the State Prosecutor said in a press release.

Bradshaw was released Monday without having to post bond.

According to charging papers:

• The photos were posted in April and May.

• The woman contacted police in mid-May to say she had learned nude photos of her had been posted on Reddit. She told police that the photos were posted without her knowledge or consent and had only been sent to Bradshaw.

• She said the photos were sent when she and Bradshaw were in an intimate relationship, she did not give him consent to re-distribute the photos, and she is no longer romantically involved with Bradshaw.

• The accounts used to post the photos were from an IP address that provided internet service to Bradshaw’s Cambridge home.

• The photos were posted to subreddits named RacePlay, “with racial slurs in several of the posting titles,” and HumiliatingComments, among others. Charging papers allege that nine posts were made to the RacePlay subreddit and there were racial slurs in seven of the titles or captions.

Bradshaw’s home and the mayor’s office at city hall were searched by police on Aug. 4.

 

 

 

Filed Under: Top Story Tagged With: andrew bradshaw, Cambridge, charges, commissioners, mayor, photos, reddit, revenge porn

Cambridge Mayor Charged with 50 Counts of Distributing Revenge Porn

November 15, 2021 by John Griep

Share

Cambridge Mayor Andrew Bradshaw has been charged with 50 counts of distributing revenge porn, the state prosecutor’s office said in a news release.

Bradshaw is charged with posting nude photographs of a former romantic partner to various forums on Reddit without her knowledge or consent and with the intent to harm her, according to the release.

The criminal information filed Monday in Dorchester County Circuit Court alleges Bradshaw made multiple Reddit accounts with public usernames that consisted of permutations of the name and birthdate of the woman, and then posted the photos, “captioned with racial slurs and sexually explicit language, on those ‘Reddit’ accounts and various ‘subreddit’ forums that were related to sexual activity, humiliation, degradation, race, and other topics,” according to the press release.

“Using someone’s private images without their consent is a serious breach of trust and invasion of privacy, and the power and breadth of the internet makes such a violation even more egregious,” State Prosecutor Charlton T. Howard III said in the news release. “Our office is committed to protecting victims from those who abuse their positions of power and trust.”

Maryland’s Revenge Porn Statute, Maryland Criminal Law Article § 3-809, prohibits the nonconsensual distribution of a private visual representation of another which exposes their intimate body parts or displays them engaged in sexual activity, with the intent to harm, harass, intimidate, threaten or coerce the person depicted. If convicted, Mr. Bradshaw would face a maximum penalty of two years’ incarceration and a $5,000 fine for each count.

According to charging papers:

• The woman contacted police in mid-May to say she had learned nude photos of her had been posted on Reddit. She told police that the photos were posted without her knowledge or consent and had only been sent to Bradshaw.

• She said the photos were sent when she and Bradshaw were in an intimate relationship, she did not give him consent to re-distribute the photos, and she is no longer romantically involved with Bradshaw.

• The accounts used to post the photos were from an IP address that provided internet service to Bradshaw’s Cambridge home.

• The photos were posted to subreddits named RacePlay, “with racial slurs in several of the posting titles,” and HumiliatingComments, among others.

Charging papers allege that nine posts were made to the RacePlay subreddit and there were racial slurs in seven of the titles or captions.

Bradshaw’s home and the mayor’s office at city hall were searched by police on Aug. 4.

City officials, in a notice posted on the city’s website, said: “The City is aware of the matter involving the Mayor. The City is currently gathering information and will cooperate fully with the Maryland State Police and the Office of the State Prosecutor.

“As the City has a Council-Manager form of municipal government whereby the City Manager serves as the chief executive officer of the City and the head of its administrative branch, the business of the City is unaffected.

“As this is an active legal matter, no further comments will be made at this time.”

City commissioners were scheduled to meet Monday night for a work session to discuss the composition of the board of the Cambridge Waterfront Development Inc. but that meeting was cancelled Monday afternoon.

The commissioners are now scheduled to meet Tuesday night in a closed session.

Maryland State Police and the Easton Police Department assisted the Office of the State Prosecutor with the investigation.

Filed Under: News Homepage, News Portal Highlights Tagged With: andrew bradshaw, Cambridge, charge, charges, circuit court, mayor, photos, reddit, revenge porn, subreddits

Crowd Urges MDE to Deny Permit for Trappe East Sewer Plant

November 1, 2021 by John Griep

Share

More than 150 people largely filled the curling rink at the Talbot County Community Center to urge state environmental officials to deny a wastewater discharge permit for the Trappe East/Lakeside wastewater treatment plant.

Nearly three dozen spoke during the Thursday night public hearing on the Maryland Department of the Environment’s draft permit for the project, which would allow an annual average of 540,000 gallons per day of treated effluent to be sprayed onto farmland near the Miles Creek.

The crowd applauded every speaker, who each supported the denial or withdrawal of the permit, with most concerned about the environmental impact on the relatively pristine Miles Creek. The condition of Miles Creek is dramatically different than La Trappe Creek and an unnamed tributary of La Trappe Creek into which Trappe’s existing wastewater treatment plant discharges its effluent.

The unnamed tributary, La Trappe Creek, and the Choptank River — into which La Trappe and Miles creeks flow — are all impaired and conditions in the Choptank have been getting worse, not better.

Several speakers also challenged MDE on its failure to enforce permit limits of existing sewer plants and to ensure compliance with the federal Clean Water Act.

Tom Hughes said he has been concerned about the town’s existing plant for more than 20 years.

He said he had stood up in a similar meeting two decades ago and “asked the MDE representatives there how they could consider allowing Trappe to increase its wastewater plants discharged into La Trappe Creek when there was already way too much nitrogen, phosphorus and fecal bacteria in it.

“Here we are 23 years later, and absolutely nothing has changed,” Hughes said. “La Trappe Creek is still grossly impaired and the town is reportedly again violating its discharge permit. We have an ongoing public health hazard in La Trappe Creek and the MDE has known about it for decades.”

He said he had sought 2021 data about La Trappe Creek or the unnamed tributary to compare to data from 1998 and 2003 and had gotten little response and no information from MDE.

“Six weeks have now passed and I still haven’t gotten a direct answer to my simple question,” Hughes said.

Choptank Riverkeeper Matt Pluta said the permit should be “withdrawn and reprocessed as the surface water discharge permit that it is.” (The permit is being processed as a groundwater discharge permit as the treated effluent will be spray irrigated onto farmland.)

“MDE is responsible for setting the limits and conditions for discharging treated sewage in the state,” he said. “And these groundwater discharge permits are issued under the assumption that no pollution will end up in the groundwater or the river.

“This idea that zero discharge will occur is legal fiction. For too long the state of Maryland has been hiding pollution loads under these permits that are damaging our rivers,” Pluta said. “The Choptank River is already impaired and recognized by the state and federal agencies as trending in the wrong way and incorporating more pollution; water quality conditions in the Choptank are getting worse. And it seems that we’re prepared, through this permit, to let that pollution trend continue.

“In fact, in 2015, USGS reported that 70% of the nutrients in the Choptank come from groundwater, which is exactly what this permit is regulating,” he said. “Here we’re talking about a groundwater discharge permit for which the state believes zero discharge to the groundwater will occur.”

He said more than half of the groundwater discharge permits on the Eastern Shore are in non-compliance with permit limits and conditions.

Pluta also said groundwater discharge permits for treated effluent aren’t “even applying common farming practices.

“When the farmer puts down nutrients they do it at the right time and the right rate,” he said. “When a wastewater operator applies nutrients, they do it to control volume, their incentive is to control volume and put as much down as they can.”

While comments largely focused on the permit for the new treatment plant, Tom Alspach of the Talbot Preservation Alliance argued that MDE could not consider the Trappe East project separately from the town’s existing plant.

“You can’t do that. It’s not intended to be a separate undertaking by this developer for this one particular permit,” he said. “It is integrally related to the existing plant. The two facilities are going to be connected by a pipe. It is is intended that flows will go back and forth for an indefinite period of time.

“Ostensibly the first 120 houses from this new development to be served by the spray field are to be connected instead to the existing plant,” Alspach said. “That 120 can be an illusory number, there is no limit on how many houses can actually be connected. The only people that can limit it are the Town of Trappe and the developer. They may have no interest in limiting it if the circumstances are such they can accommodate more.

“There is no period of time limiting for how long the new houses in the Trappe East project may be connected to the existing plant. Those things, again, are a matter of contract between the town of Trappe and the developer,” he said, suggesting home sales would be slow and the spray field would not be developed “for a long, long time” and the developer would pay connection fees and send sewage to the existing Trappe plant “for as long as they can.”

“So in essence, you’ve got to look at these two things together, they’re going to be part of one system,” Alspach said. “And you gotta find a way to keep the new houses from connecting to this existing plant and exacerbate the problems you’re already having.

“I know you applaud yourselves for the fact that despite testimony that the (town’s current) plant is failing that there has not been that many exceedances under the permit,” he said. “That’s because the permit has such lousy standards. It’s not an ENR (enhanced nutrient removal) plant, which is the state of the art (and which) the new facility is going to be built to.

“It’s not even a BNR (biological nutrient removal) facility. It’s less than BNR,” Alspach said. “It’s so bad that MDE would not even allow 11 houses on Howell Point Road to be connected to the plant that have septic systems, because it’s not at least a BNR standards. And you can’t use Bay funds to do that connection.”

Anne Hill said she lives on La Trappe Creek and worries about her grandchildren.

“I’m not a scientist. I’m not an activist. I hate public speaking. I would rather be home. But I came out here because I’m a grandma,” she said. “And I live in constant fear that one of my grandchildren is going to fall into that creek and get seriously sick. It is that bad. You’ve seen the reports. This is a real issue for me. I have a well, it’s a real issue. I’m not talking about maybe, maybe not; this affects my life today.

“I really get upset because every single person has kicked this can down the road. I listened to the planning commission. I listened to the county council. They all said whoa, MDE will take care of it,” Hill said. “You are all gatekeepers. Every single one of us is a gatekeeper to these waterways and we cannot keep kicking the can down the road.

“Where’s the person that’s going to say no, I am responsible for these waterways. It is my job … to stop these things from polluting our waters. You are all gatekeepers, please be a gatekeeper. I’m just a grandma.”

Jim Smullen focused his comments on the need for “quantitative enforceable language” in the permit. Smullen has worked in water resources, engineering and science for 49 years, representing large dischargers for the last 31 years.

He said the state agriculture department”has requirements for 75 days of no nutrient application by farmers on cropland and pasture land.

The Trappe East permit talks about 75 days of storage, but does not detail December 15 to February 28, as a no-spray period, Smullen said.

“The permit needs to do that, that’s critically important,” he said. “The other thing that permit needs to do is to tell the applicants that there is no other way to get rid of sewage once the prohibition is on for no spraying. The permit should say they should have contracts in place for waste haulers for when they can’t spray that’s taken away to other sewage treatment plants. You cannot have a situation where they argue that we need to spray because the tank’s full.”

Smullen also said prohibitions against spraying based on precipitation, high winds, freezing conditions, or saturated soil conditions needed quantitative limits “to make those an enforceable part of the permit.

“So much rain. Stop. Such a temperature. Stop. (D)on’t allow the operators to make subjective decisions about when to spray and when not to spray,” he said.

Alan Girard of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation said there were issues with several analyses in the permit and some factors, such as historic precipitation and extreme weather potential, had not been considered.

At the start of the meeting, Dr. Suzanne Dorsey, MDE’s assistant secretary, said the “hearing is focused on the proposed discharge permit” for Lakeside/Trappe East, but acknowledged concerns about the town’s existing plant.

“MDE regulates the Trappe plant under a separate permit for discharge to surface water. And when our inspections of early last summer found excessive nitrogen levels, we required immediate action to fix the problem,” she said. “An inspection later in the summer determined that the plant had returned to compliance. MDE continues to investigate the cause of this failure and to determine what additional action or corrections may be needed. Continued inspection and oversight will ensure that the plant is capable of managing the existing waste stream and any additional load allocation from growth approved by the local authorities.

Dorsey also noted that the permit “review process is rooted in science, engineering and state regulation and law” and MDE has no authority over land use decisions.

“We do require a permit applicant to demonstrate that a proposed facility has received county and town approvals, such as zoning and land use. Once a local government approves the land use for the facility, MDE evaluates a permit application,” Dorsey said. “And we evaluate it to ensure that the proposed facility’s engineering capacities will lead to results that meet the standards of state and federal law, including limits in the water discharge itself and limits on pollution to any affected groundwater and waterways.

“If MDE’s science-based review finds that all such requirements are met, then the draft permit is open and available for public comment. That’s why you’re here tonight,” she said.

Written comments on the draft permit (19-DP-3460) must be emailed by 5 p.m. Monday, Dec. 6, to mary.dewa@maryland.gov or mailed, with a postmark no later than Dec. 6, to: Maryland Department of the Environment, Water and Science Administration, Attn: Mary Dela Onyemaechi, Chief, Groundwater Discharge Permits Division, 1800 Washington Blvd., Suite 455, Baltimore, MD 21230-1708.

Permit documents are available online at https://mde.maryland.gov/programs/Water/wwp/Pages/19DP3460.aspx.

The MDE permit is one of two ongoing processes related to Trappe East, a mixed-use project of up to 2,501 homes and commercial uses on about 800 acres on the northeast side of Trappe.

While the MDE is reviewing the discharge permit, one Talbot County Council member has introduced a resolution to rescind changes to the county’s water and sewer plan related to the Trappe East project.

A public hearing on Resolution 308 was held Oct. 12 and will be continued at a future meeting of the county council.

Filed Under: News Homepage Tagged With: discharge, groundwater discharge, lakeside, mde, permit, spray irrigation, Trappe, trappe east, treatment plant, wastewater

Talbot Council Hears from Petitioner, Public on Rescinding Resolution 281

October 14, 2021 by John Griep

Share

The county council heard public comment from two fronts Tuesday night on the rescission of Resolution 281.

Resolution 308, introduced by Talbot County Council Vice President Pete Lesher, would rescind Res. 281, which amended the county’s sewer plan to include the Lakeside/Trappe East project.

A public hearing on Res. 308 began Tuesday night and will continue on

The council also heard the presentation of Petition 21-1 from Dan Watson, representing several hundred Talbot County residents petitioning the county council to rescind Res. 281.

Watson had filed the petition on May 7 and since then has been asking the council to follow its rules of procedure allowing him to present the petition with witnesses.

When the hearing for Res. 308 began, County Attorney Patrick Thomas said Watson would go first, presenting the petition, since it had led to the introduction of the resolution.

During Tuesday night’s meeting, Watson said he was informed by email on Friday that the petition presentation was set for the Oct. 12 council meeting and noted it was the council that decided to schedule the presentation for the same night as the hearing on Res. 308.

He noted that 349 people had signed the petition thus far and if each person “took their allotted three minutes for public comment” on Res. 308 that would be nearly 18 hours of comment. The council’s rules for presenting a petition have”no limitation on my time to present a wealth of important, new information, but I assure you, I won’t be anywhere near that,” Watson said.

Watson outlined five reasons why the petitioners believe Res. 281 must be rescinded:

  • Res. 281 connects Lakeside to the town’s existing plant, which he argued is inappropriate since a) La Trappe Creek is already polluted, b) data shows e. coli and extremely high nitrogen levels, c) the current sewer plant and system have operating problems, “including terrible infiltration,” and d) hooking up more homes to the existing plant would be “outrageous.
  • Res. 281 assumes the new plant to be built at Lakeside/Trappe East will work properly as designed.
  • Res. 281 is flawed because it reclassified properties erroneously.
  • Res. 281 misrepresented the change being made to the sewer property classifications.
  • Res. 281 was predicated on “gross misunderstandings.”

Witnesses questioned by Watson included Choptank Riverkeeper Matt Pluta, who detailed water quality testing on La Trappe Creek and an unnamed creek that feeds into it and into which the Trappe plant discharges its treated wastewater; Gene Lopez, a kayaker who said photographs he had taken of the feeder creek showed “all sorts of discharge discoloration, and something brownish, that’s floating on the water;” and Dr. Jim Smullen, a wastewater professional for four decades who said no additional homes should be connected to the existing plant until the town fixes the water and sewer system’s inflow and infiltration problem.

After a lengthy presentation, Watson and the council agreed to set another date for the presentation to continue and public comment began on Res. 308.

Calvin Yowell urged the parties to consider a new suggestion, sending the town’s wastewater to the Lakeside/Trappe East plant to be treated and then sent back for discharge into the unnamed creek.

Other speakers included Phil “Chip” Councell, Talbot planning commission president; William Anderson of the county’s public works advisory board; Lisa Ghezzi, county planning commissioner; and Tom Alspach of the Talbot Preservation Alliance.

The public hearing on Res. 308 also will be continued at a future date.

Filed Under: Eco Homepage

Talbot Council Holds Hearing Tonight on Rescission of Resolution 281; Planning Commission Majority Reaffirmed Support for Sewer Plan Changes

October 12, 2021 by John Griep

Share

The county council will hold a public hearing tonight on a resolution that would rescind sewer plan changes for the Lakeside/Trappe East project.

Council Vice President Pete Lesher introduced Resolution 308, which would rescind Resolution 281.

Resolution 281 was approved 4-1 by the Talbot County Council in August 2020; Lesher voted against approval. Resolution 281 included several amendments to the county’s comprehensive water and sewer plan, most notably in connection with the proposed 2,500-unit residential and mixed commercial development proposed for the northeast side of Trappe.

Those changes included a new wastewater treatment plant for the Trappe East project. The plant would treat wastewater at an enhanced nutrient removal (ENR) standard and discharge up to 540,000 gallons of wastewater per day as spray irrigation on adjacent fields.

Opponents are concerned about the environmental impact on nearby Miles Creek, which feeds into the Choptank River, and note the abysmal water quality of La Trappe Creek, another Choptank River tributary into which the existing Trappe sewer plant discharges its treated wastewater.

Environmental concerns were heightened earlier this year after problems at the town’s existing plant. Those concerns led the county planning commission this summer to seek additional information from the Maryland Department of the Environment, the town of Trappe, and the developer.

The Talbot County Planning Commission heard public comment Wednesday morning on those concerns and voted 3-2 Thursday night against a motion recommending that the county council rescind Resolution 281.

All five members had concerns about the town’s existing plant and the current condition of La Trappe Creek, but three agreed that the panel had been correct in voting last year to certify that Resolution 281 was consistent with the county’s comprehensive plan.

Those three members — Chairman Phil “Chip” Councell, Paul Spies, and Michael Strannahan — had voted to certify that Resolution 281 was consistent with the comprehensive plan. Commissioners William Boicourt and Lisa Ghezzi voted last year against certification and voted Thursday night to recommend rescission of Resolution 281.

Councell said he was trying to reach a middle ground that would result in the most timely upgrade to the existing Trappe plant and an improvement in its discharge.

Councell noted the commission had not been formally asked to review its decision on Resolution 281, but “felt we had to do something” when new information came to light.

“And that something in my opinion, was what can we do to protect La Trappe Creek?” Councell said. “(I)f we vote to rescind, it probably goes to court… (I)f this gets tied up in litigation, it goes on and on and on. The existing Trappe wastewater treatment plan continues to pump the water.

“So I’m struggling here right now, trying to figure out what is the fastest way to get that plant upgraded,” he said. “And no matter what happens today, tonight, no matter what happens next Tuesday, every citizen in this county needs to be committed to getting that plant where it needs to be, whatever it takes.

“And I think … it makes no sense to compound the problems that we know is a problem,” Councell said. “So we’re going to add one-third of the capacity to the existing plant…. But if we hold the process up for one year or two years, more than that, it’s going to go into La Trappe Creek anyway.

“I think I’m willing at this point to do everything in our power … short of rescission, because I honestly think that would be the worst thing for the Trappe wastewater treatment plant,” he said.

Attorneys for the Town of Trappe and the project’s developer noted they are looking at the possibility of using the Trappe East plant to treat the town’s existing wastewater to ENR standards and then sending the treated discharge back to the town’s discharge point. That option may be the fastest and cheapest way to upgrade the town’s wastewater treatment to ENR standards, which would significantly improve the town’s discharge into La Trappe Creek.

Ryan Showalter, an attorney for the developer, said Wednesday, “that’s an option that’s being studied, and one reason why it’s being studied as it may be the fastest way to replace or upgrade the town’s treatment process.

“The Lakeside plant is modular, so adding two additional modules could create 200,000 gallons of capacity in the existing Lakeside plant,” he said. “Nobody’s proposing changes in the discharge at this point.

“So the concept would be whatever comes from the the existing town’s collection system would be treated at Lakeside and would be discharged at ENR levels to La Trappe Creek,” Showalter said. “If one day there’s 150,000 gallons coming from the town collection system, that 150,000 gallons would be discharged under the town’s existing point discharge at ENR levels.”

Showalter also noted that nearly all of the Lakeside property has been designated as a future growth area for Trappe since 1973.  The entire property has been in the town’s planned growth area since at least 2002 and in the county’s growth area plan for Trappe since at least 2005.

Bruce Armistead, an attorney for a neighboring property owner, said his clients — Dr. and Mrs. Steve Harris — were primarily concerned about the location of the spray irrigation fields.

“The Harrises are an adjacent landowner to the proposed Lakeside project and potentially the most affected by the entire project,” he said Wednesday. “That doesn’t mean that they’re unconcerned about the information you’re receiving about the existing Trappe plant, but their principal concern is the location of the spray fields that are proposed for the Lakeside project.”

Armistead said it appeared the planning commission may have received incomplete or inadequate information during its 2020 review of Resolution 281.

“And it really doesn’t matter whether that was inadvertent, intentional, sloppy, or whatever,” he said. “The fact is, if you agree that there was incomplete or incorrect information that was used to make your decision previously on 281, then you have an obligation to the county to support taking another look.

“Real people and property rights are going to be seriously affected by this proposal,” Armistead said. “We’ve only got one chance to get this right. And frankly, Dr. Harris does not want to be the canary in the mineshaft.”

The Talbot County Council meeting begins at 6 p.m., with public hearings scheduled to begin at 6:30 p.m. The council meets in the Bradley Meeting Room in the south wing of the courthouse, but seating is limited and is available on a first-come basis.

The meeting may be viewed online by going to the county’s website at https://talbotcountymd.gov, then scrolling down and clicking on the photo of the county council under the heading “Meeting Videos.” On the meeting videos page, click on video or live/in progress next to the listing for the council’s Oct. 12 meeting.

Filed Under: News Homepage Tagged With: discharge, lakeside, planning commission, rescission, resolution 281, Talbot County, Trappe, trappe east, wastewater treatment plant

Easton Historic District Commission Unanimously OKs Removal of Confederate Monument from Talbot Courthouse Grounds

October 12, 2021 by John Griep

Share

Easton’s historic district commission voted unanimously Monday night to allow the removal of the Confederate monument from the county courthouse square.

The Easton Historic District Commission voted 7-0 in favor of a certificate of appropriateness that will allow Talbot County to remove and relocate the monument.

Commission members noted the town’s historic district guidelines have little guidance on statues, but a national historical preservation organization supports removal of Confederate monuments from public spaces.

The monument outside the entrance to the Talbot County Court House is believed to be the last Confederate monument on public property in Maryland.

Attorney Dan Saunders, representing Talbot County, said a majority of the Talbot County Council had determined it was in the best interest for public health, safety, and welfare to move the monument from the courthouse grounds

“The statue is on county land. It is controversial. It is divisive sadly,” Saunders said. “And it is hurtful to certain citizens of the county. So the county council has made this determination…. They are the elected officials charged with making that kind of public policy decision. And it would not be inappropriate for this body to give some deference to their thought process….”

“Because it’s controversial, it needs to be someplace where people can choose to go see it or choose not to go see it, not in a place where they have to go see it in order to conduct the business that is conducted at the courthouse,” he said.

Three residents spoke against removing the statue.

Lynn Mielke said statues for Talbot County’s Confederate and U.S. troops were erected in 1884 and 1888, respectively, at Culp’s Hill at the Gettysburg battlefield.

After the county’s Civil War veterans visited Gettysburg in 1913 for the 50th anniversary of the battle — and no doubt saw the two statues, Mielke said — efforts began to raise funds for Confederate and Union monuments at the courthouse.

The Confederate monument was funded and built; the Union one was not but a new fundraising effort is underway for such a monument, she said.

A rendering of a proposed monument to Talbot County residents who fought for the United States during the Civil War. The proposal also would include informational plaques about Talbot County’s role in the Civil War.

“108 years later a group, Build the Union Talbot Boys, has investigated, designed, and begun to raise money for a Union Talbot Boys companion monument to complement the Talbot Boys in gray monument, with informational plaques, to make a complete statement on the courthouse lawn about Talbot County’s unique role in the Civil War, (including) the Talbot Boys, the Union Talbot Boys, the USCT (United States Colored Troops), including the Unionville 18, and Frederick Douglass,” Mielke said.

“The Talbot Boys memorial is is not a memorial to traitors,” Mielke said. “And it is not a memorial to non-veterans.”

Clive Ewing noted that the town’s historic district booklet includes two photos of the Confederate monument.

He said the county council’s resolution removing the monument only refers to the statue and argued that language doesn’t include the monument’s base.

David Montgomery, president of Preserve Talbot History, said moving the monument 200 miles away “to a battlefield in the Shenandoah Valley” does not help tell the story of Talbot County’s divided loyalties during the Civil War.

Commissioner Grant Mayhew said the historic district commission should look at guidance from the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

The National Trust issued a statement about Confederate monuments after the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer sparked protests “in support of racial justice and equity.”

In its June 18, 2020, statement, the National Trust said:

“This nationwide call for racial justice and equity has brought renewed attention to the Confederate monuments in many of our communities. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has previously issued statements about the history and treatment of Confederate monuments, emphasizing that, although some were erected — like other monuments to war dead — for reasons of memorialization, most Confederate monuments were intended to serve as a celebration of Lost Cause mythology and to advance the ideas of white supremacy. Many of them still stand as symbols of those ideologies and sometimes serve as rallying points for bigotry and hate today. To many African Americans, they continue to serve as constant and painful reminders that racism is embedded in American society.

“We believe it is past time for us, as a nation, to acknowledge that these symbols do not reflect, and are in fact abhorrent to, our values and to our foundational obligation to continue building a more perfect union that embodies equality and justice for all. We believe that removal may be necessary to achieve the greater good of ensuring racial justice and equality.

“And their history needs not end with their removal: we support relocation of these monuments to museums or other places where they may be preserved so that their history as elements of Jim Crow and racial injustice can be recognized and interpreted.

“We recognize that not all monuments are the same, and a number of communities have carefully and methodically determined that some monuments should be removed and others retained but contextualized with educational markers or other monuments designed to counter the false narrative and racist ideology that they represent, providing a deeper understanding of their message and their purpose.

“Our view, however, is that unless these monuments can in fact be used to foster recognition of the reality of our painful past and invite reconciliation for the present and the future, they should be removed from our public spaces.”

Filed Under: News Homepage Tagged With: civil war, confederate, county council, Easton, historic district commission, monument, removal, slavery, statue, Talbot County

Talbot Planning Commission Will Discuss Resolution 281 on Trappe Development Thursday

October 6, 2021 by John Griep

Share

The county planning commission heard public comments Wednesday morning on Resolution 281 and will discuss Thursday night what actions, if any, it will take on the matter.

Resolution 281 amended Talbot County’s water and sewer plan to:

• reclassify and remap certain areas of the Lakeside/Trappe East property from W-2 to W-1 and from S-2 to S-1. (W-1 is immediate priority status for water; S-1 is immediate priority status for sewer.)

• add the Trappe East water and sewer systems to the list of capital improvement projects.

The commission’s agenda for Wednesday described the issue as “Discussion of Planning Commission’s previous certification of consistency with the Talbot County Comprehensive Plan with respect to Resolution 281 and possible recommendations and/or other actions, including undo, consider, reconsider, rescind or amend the previous certification.”

After hearing Wednesday morning from environmental groups and attorneys for a neighboring property owner, the developer, and the Town of Trappe, among others, Talbot County Planning Commission Chairman Phil “Chip” Councell asked for another meeting to be scheduled for the planning commission to consider the comments and discuss its course of action.

Councell asked for that meeting to be held before Tuesday, when the county council will hold a public hearing on Resolution 308, which would rescind adoption of Resolution 281. Resolution 308 was introduced by Council Vice President Pete Lesher, the sole council member to vote last year against Resolution 281.

Resolution 281 had been introduced Dec. 17, 2019, by Talbot County Councilmen Chuck Callahan, Frank Divilio, and Corey Pack, with public hearings held Feb. 11, 2020, and July 21, 2020.

The Talbot County Planning Commission considered the resolution in January, May, and June 2020, and voted 3-2 that an amended resolution was consistent with the comprehensive plan.

The county council voted 4-1 on Aug. 11, 2020, to approve the resolution as amended, sending the matter to the Maryland Department of the Environment for its approval, which the state agency subsequently granted. Councilwoman Laura Price joined Callahan, Divilio, and Pack in voting in favor of Resolution 281.

Earlier this year, petitioners asked the county council to rescind Resolution 281, claiming the county council and the planning commission were not provided with full information last year and noting that the discharge permit for the wastewater treatment plant that will serve Lakeside has been sent back to the state environment department for additional public comment and a public hearing.

Filed Under: Eco Homepage, Eco Portal Lead Tagged With: development, environment, lakeside, mde, plan, sewer, Trappe, trappe east, wastewater treatment plant, water

Talbot Council Rejects Petition Seeking Repeal of Confederate Statue Removal

September 29, 2021 by John Griep

Share

The county council voted 3-2 Tuesday night to deny a petition asking the council to change its mind on moving the Confederate monument off the courthouse lawn.

The petition for rescission called on the Talbot County Council to introduce a resolution to rescind its Sept. 14 decision to relocate the monument to a Civil War battlefield in Virginia.

Shortly after the petition was read, Councilman Corey Pack made a motion to deny the petition, which was seconded by Councilman Frank Divilio.

Councilwoman Laura Price took issue with the rapid pace of the process.

“I thought we were just having discussion because now the first person to get to make a motion … nobody else has an opportunity to make a motion,” she said. “I thought we were just discussing and asking questions at the moment. But like the game show, we have to press the button fast enough.”

Price and Council President Chuck Callahan reiterated concerns from the Sept. 14 meeting at which a council majority voted to approve the administrative resolution to relocate the monument on the same night it was introduced and without first having a public hearing. Callahan and Price had voted Sept. 14 against relocation; Council Vice President Pete Lesher joined Divilio and Pack in voting for moving the statue.

Council members split along the same lines over the motion to deny the petition.

“I think public process was important, is still important. And I certainly would have liked to have seen this resolution go through a public process, especially with information that has that has come to light,” Price said. “Again, I guess I didn’t hit the buzzer fast enough, because I know the way this motion to deny is going to go down. It’s been motioned, it’s been seconded, it’s going to go the same way as the vote did two weeks ago. And once again, the public is going to get shut out of this process. And I wholeheartedly disagree with that.”

Callahan agreed.

“So it’s kind of a shame that the public didn’t get the opportunity to do this. And it’s not the right way to go, in my opinion,” he said. “And I guess we’re just gonna keep moving forward.”

Pack, as he did Sept. 14, said the county council had opportunities to hold public work sessions on the Confederate monument “(a)nd it was not, it was not, was not done. So I think it’s not fair, it’s not appropriate, to now say that the public has been shut out. So that I just take issue with that characterization.”

But Price argued there was a difference between a public work session and a public hearing on a bill or resolution.

“We’ve heard about the entirety of the subject for the last year and a half when people come,” she said. “And I appreciate them coming and speaking at the end of you know, at the end of our meetings, absolutely. We’ve heard from it. And we know that nobody’s opinion was going to change.

“But when there is a bill or a resolution on the floor, I believe in transparency and a public process to come and have your three minutes to speak to the council in this setting, as opposed to just a work session,” Price said.

The three residents who filed the petition for rescission were among several people who spoke during the public comment period of the Sept. 28 meeting.

Lynn Mielke, David Montgomery, and Clive Ewing questioned the process and asked at least one council member to ask the county attorney to draft a resolution to rescind the monument’s relocation.

Mielke said a May 28 legal opinion from the county attorney outlined the process, “which is that a council member … can introduce a resolution or ask the attorney to write a resolution consistent with the request of the petitioner, which is what we thought we would get a vote on today, not to be railroaded by an out-of-order motion to not consider the petition.

“It was wrong. It was the wrong process,” she said. “I think it was out of order under Robert’s Rules of Order.

“And I can only think of the saying that democracy dies in darkness. Well the sun’s setting on Talbot County,” Mielke said.

Ewing said he was “exceptionally concerned regarding the lack of transparency to adopt the administrative resolution to relocate the Talbot Boys statue out of state.

“The manner of how this action was accomplished brings into doubt the legitimacy of the process, which is why I and others have petitioned this council to rescind this administrative resolution,” he said. “I’m baffled why the majority of the council continues to disregard the input of and the questions from so many in the community in this matter. I am baffled why there was even a vote tonight on that, when all that was requested was that a single council person instruct the attorney to draft a resolution.

“I’ll humbly submit that that vote was taken out of order. Alright, I’d ask y’all to revisit that. And I think after this meeting, you certainly can direct the attorney to do just that,” Ewing said. “There’s no doubt there’s powerful forces most if not all, from outside the borders of Talbot County that have found their way to influence this council. Of course, local councils like this one, are intended to represent the interests of the actual local citizens, not third parties, not Annapolis, politicians, certainly not the well-connected individuals who have chosen Easton and Talbot County to fulfill their own vision and interpretation of history.

“I thank the members of this council who have acted in good faith and resisted the meddling of those who have targeted this county for their latest political or social cause,” he said. “For the remainder of the council, I certainly hope you will reconsider if it is truly in the best interest of the community at large to send this monument out of state. I submit to you that the vast majority of Talbot countians believe this monument dedicated to Talbot County men must remain in Talbot County.”

Montgomery said the petitioners “will submit the petition again, a new petition for a new number and ask the same thing and hope it’s dealt with properly procedurally, but maybe we could just move forward.

“All it takes is for one county council member in an open session or in writing to ask the county attorney to draft a resolution in form and substance like the petition requested,” he said. “So I would just like to ask one member of the county council to make that request between now and the next meeting.”

Filed Under: Maryland News Tagged With: confederate, council, monument, removal, Talbot County

Talbot Seeks OK for Confederate Monument Removal; Statue Supporters Ask for Relocation to be Rescinded

September 28, 2021 by John Griep

Share

Talbot County has filed its application seeking approval from the Easton Historic District Commission to relocate the Confederate monument from the county courthouse grounds.

The county’s application for a certificate of appropriateness was filed Monday, Sept. 27, the deadline for applications to be on the historic district commission’s Oct. 11 meeting agenda.

In its application, the county said a council majority had adopted an administrative resolution to relocate the statue to the Cross Keys Battlefield in Harrisonburg, Va.

The town’s historic district guidelines allow the historic district commission to “approve the moving of historic resources if it finds ‘that it is not in the best interests of the Town or a majority of its citizens to withhold approval,'” according to the county’s narrative in support of removal.

“For profound reasons, it is not in the best interests of the Town of Easton (the ‘Town]) or a presumed majority of its citizens to withhold approval of the County’s’ removal of the Statue from the County Courthouse grounds,” Talbot County said in its narrative. “The Statue, dedicated in 1916, is a Confederate monument on the County Courthouse grounds that commemorates individuals from Talbot County who served in the Confederacy during the Civil War.

“As is well known and highly publicized, the Statue’s presence on the County Courthouse grounds has generated significant controversy and division among many citizens of the County, including citizens of the Town,” according to the narrative. “By way of example, the County is currently defending litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland filed by certain individuals, governmental agencies, and entities who seek to have the Statue removed. Thus, the County Council seeks to relocate the Statue from the County Courthouse grounds.”

The county said its intent is for the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation “to take possession of the Statue where it can be displayed on the Cross Keys Battlefield on the ridge where Maryland troops fought, including troops from Talbot County.

“The Statue can then be repurposed as a monument to all Maryland troops engaged at the battle of Cross Keys with additional interpretation added,” according to the narrative. “The Cross Keys Battlefield is private property; however, it is open to the public year round. Thus, the Statue can be preserved and viewed in a better historical context along with other monuments commemorating the Civil War.”

The county also said moving the statue “to another location outside the Town’s Historic District will not change the general character of the County Courthouse or the Town’s Historic District as a whole. The historic character of the County Courthouse will remain intact, and the Statue’s relocation does not affect any other historic sites, buildings, or other structures in the Town’s Historic District.”

Historic District Application Packet (relocation of Talbot Boys Statue)

While the county is working through the administrative process to relocate the Confederate monument from the courthouse lawn, opponents of its removal are asking the county council to change its mind or accept a Talbot County site for the monument.

Lynn Mielke, David Montgomery, and Clive Ewing, longtime advocates for keeping the statue at its current location, have petitioned the council to rescind the administrative resolution calling for the statue’s relocation to Virginia. The petition for rescission is on the council’s agenda for tonight’s meeting.

Members of Preserve Talbot History, meanwhile, are looking for a suitable site for the monument in Talbot County and have asked the county council for greater transparency on the matter.

In a Sept. 23 press release, the group said the county council needs to answer these questions:

1. Has the cost of moving the memorial been estimated, and on what basis?

2. Is there a written commitment from some individual or organization to pay that cost?

3. What is the basis for claim that no one in Talbot County would accept the memorial?

4. Was any request for proposals to take the memorial ever posted?

Filed Under: News Homepage Tagged With: confederate, council, historic district, monument, statue, Talbot, Talbot County

Next Page »

Copyright © 2023

Affiliated News

  • The Cambridge Spy
  • The Talbot Spy

Sections

  • Arts
  • Culture
  • Ecosystem
  • Education
  • Health
  • Local Life and Culture
  • Spy Senior Nation

Spy Community Media

  • About
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Underwriting

Copyright © 2023 · Spy Community Media Child Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in