Letter to the Editor from the Cecil Land Use Alliance

August 17, 2007

Letters to the Editor
The Cecil Whig
Elkton, MD 21917

Dear Editor:

There are some promising signs that, as far as smart growth is concerned, our elected county officials are beginning to “get it”. The joint meetings between the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Commission continue to show promise. The BRAC Action Plan is a solid, coherent plan for dealing with growth in the county (BRAC or no BRAC) and has been endorsed in its entirety by the Cecil Land Use Alliance (CLUA). This year’s appointments to the Planning Commission are good, thinking people with a county-wide perspective.
However, one of the most important things the County Commissioners will do this year is appoint the committee to review and revise the county’s Comprehensive Plan. The process by which the committee for the Comprehensive Plan is being assembled is neither transparent, fully representative of all stake holders, nor well thought out, and we have expressed our disappointment to the Commissioners.

At the joint Commissioners-Planning Commission meeting on July 24, there were public assurances that the original list of organizations that was published in the Whig on July 4 -- assembled by Planning and Zoning chief Eric Sennstrom and County Administrator Alfred Wein – was just a first cut. That list has a distinctly pro-development tilt. Yet it now appears that the organizations listed in that article have been contacted and that many have already nominated representatives. That is, the committee is indeed being assembled according to the Sennstrom-Wein list, rather than using objective and balanced criteria that conform to a strategic vision put forward by the elected County Commissioners.

There are many questions that can be raised about the Sennstrom-Wein list and we believe that a more representative committee could be assembled.

For example, we wonder why the Chamber of Commerce and the Economic Development Commission both have representatives, when their interests are nearly identical? In contrast, why does the agriculture industry, which is quite diverse, have only a single representative? Are all the incorporated towns also to be represented by a single person? Who will speak for historic preservation? How does Bainbridge Development Corporation merit its own seat? Why does the school system (or School Board) not have a representative — the schools are on the front line of growth pressures, and are struggling to deal with growing enrollment. Similarly, the health system needs representation: two areas in the western county most vulnerable to BRAC growth have been declared Medically Underserved Areas by the Federal government, and the BRAC Action Plan recommends that the county apply for a designation as a Health Professional Shortage Area. We also believe that the committee needs an environmental professional, particularly one familiar with the Bay’s issues and the state’s strategy. An expert on water resources (professional hydrologist) should also be on the panel, given the county’s water supply needs and heavy reliance on groundwater.

We ask the County Commissiones to assume leadership over this process and to start from square one. This is not a task that should be left to county staff. The Comprehensive Plan will guide the county’s future for many years, and the Commissioners need to take ownership of the committee appointments.



Sincerely,


George H. Kaplan
President, Cecil Land Use Alliance

Jim Mullin files for 1st District County Commissioner Seat

Jim Mullin filed to run for the 1st District County Commissioner seat in 2008. This is his second attempt, in 2004 he lost to Democrat Bill Manlove. The mayor of Cecilton has filed earlier this year as a Democrat to run for that position.

No one has yet to file for the 5th District, Mark Guns position. Also the voters will have an opportunity to elect school board members to represent Elkton and Bohemia Manor. And here is the rest of it.

Mayors seek to strengthen county’s growth buffer plan

By Eugene Paik epaik@cecilwhig.com

Officials from the county and municipalities will re-form a subcommittee to iron out details on a plan that would keep residential growth in lock-step with county infrastructure.

Local leaders decided at Thursday’s Council of Governments meeting to return to a previous draft of the adequate public facilities ordinance crafted by the group.

The call to focus again on the old proposal came after several Cecil County mayors took issue with a draft created earlier this year by the county.

“Myself, I felt it was not enough and not nearly adequate for what we wanted to cover,” said Cecilton Mayor John Bunnell.

The county’s version came in much smaller than the one envisioned by a Council of Governments sub-committee, which included officials such as Bunnell, County Commissioner Mark Guns and Rising Sun Mayor Judy Cox.

Focusing mainly on roads and schools, the county’s draft relied heavily on the ability to obtain an impact fee to pay for infrastructure expansions.

The differences were severe: The original version was much broader in scope, focusing on roads, public safety, water and sewer and schools. It was also dependent on a new comprehensive rezoning in the county.

County Commissioners President William C. Manlove said the county’s version was scaled down so that an incremental approach could be taken.

“We worried about stretching things too far,” he said. “My thought was that this was a beginning rather than an end.”

Still, Cox said she was disappointed by the stark changes between the two versions.

“We were given a task to do, and it seemed it kind of fell on deaf ears,” she said.

By being too ambitious with the proposal, Guns and Manlove said, the county could open itself to construction obligations that it could not afford to honor.

They said an impact fee, assessed on each new home built in the county, would be needed for the plan to work.

“You cannot require a developer to pay for a school or a room in a school,” Guns said.

Bunnell argued that the county could avoid being solely responsible for major capital costs by piggy-backing the proposal with carefully crafted development zones. The action would prevent any loopholes that could be exploited by developers, he said.

The catch, however, is that the county’s eight towns must also be on board with the plan and participate in the rezoning.

Thursday’s workgroup expressed hope that refining the joint public facilities ordinance would persuade the county’s state delegation to be more sympathetic to enacting a local impact fee.

Cecil ranks 3rd in Growth

Cecil County ranks 3rd in population growth in the state. Is this something that we should be proud about?

Maryland County Population Estimates

County        07/01/2006 07/01/2005  Percent Change



Allegany          72,831     73,245   -0.6

Anne Arundel*    509,300    509,397    ---

Baltimore        787,384    783,405    0.5

Calvert           88,804     87,622    1.3

Caroline          32,617     31,805    2.6

Carroll          170,260    168,397    1.1

Cecil             99,506     97,474    2.1

Charles          140,416    138,106    1.7

Dorchester        31,631     31,351    0.9

Frederick        222,938    220,409    1.1

Garrett*          29,859     29,863    ---

Harford          241,402    238,850    1.1

Howard           272,452    269,174    1.2

Kent              19,983     19,908    0.4

Montgomery       932,131    927,405    0.5

Prince George's  841,315    842,764   -0.2

Queen Anne's      46,241     45,469    1.7

St. Mary's        98,854     96,868    2.1

Somerset          25,774     25,666    0.4

Talbot            36,062     35,630    1.2

Washington       143,748    141,563    1.5

Wicomico          91,987     90,252    1.9

Worcester         48,866     48,599    0.5

Baltimore City   631,366    636,377   -0.8

      

Maryland       5,615,727  5,589,599    0.5