Permit Input for Abingdon Business Park Project

Friends of Harford submitted comments identifying deficiencies of the Nontidal Wetlands and Waterways Permit No. 19-NT-0228/201961268 issued by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) on June 11, 2020 to CREG /Westport I LLC (Abingdon Business Park property).  

We believe permitting this project contradicts Harford County’s Master Land Use Plan and the goals of Maryland’s tax incentive designated Enterprise Zone areas.

The project negatively impacts Otter Point Creek (a Tier II watershed) and further degrades water quality in the Bush River and the Chesapeake Bay. Overall the project harms the quality of life for Harford County’s citizens.

Friends of Harford requested that MDE revoke the Wetland and Waterways Permit.

Why We Asked

Friends of Harford- Why we asked the Candidates these questions:

Unless you’ve been personally affected by a County land use decision, you may be wondering why we asked these particular questions of local candidates.  The following links provide reasons for the questions asked.

View the candidate responses HERE. 

Reasons we asked the County Executive Candidates these questions

Reasons we asked the County Council Candidates these questions

2017 Comprehensive Zoning Review WRAP-UP

Comprehensive rezoning is over for another 6 to 8 years.  This round there were 115 requests by residents or their agents.  Every Councilman introduced amendments to grant a more intense use for a property than the one received in the legislation as presented by County Administration. 

It should be noted that a Land Use Study conducted by the County in 2011 and again in 2014 declared that there was more than adequate land available for every use, be it residential, business or commercial-industrial available well beyond the next CZR era. The study also showed there will be a need for more Residential zoning long before there is a need for more Business or Industrial zoned land. 

Rezoning to a more intense District (up-zoning) often means additional facilities/services will be required from the County.  The cost of funding these new roads and other required infrastructure will be borne by the taxpayers.  Harford County elected officials are responsible for balancing the citizens’ quality of life and taxpayer funding for future infrastructure requirements caused by approved zoning changes. 

In all, 836 acres received requests for rezoning.  Approximately 250 acres were up-zoned from less intense to more intense categories of zoning, e.g., from agricultural to residential, from residential to business, or business to industrial.  Approximately 80 acres were up-zoned in intensity, e.g., R1 rezoned to R3, B1 rezoned to B2, etc.

Comprehensive Zoning Review Bill 17-015 with Amendments CHART

To sum up by District:

FOH is satisfied with the District A results.  District A had 20 requests for more intense rezoning.  Three up-zonings were supported by the County, two of which had the endorsement of the community.  One additional up-zoning was by amendment from the Councilman. About 8 acres went from Residential to Business or Industrial zoning, while about 10 acres went from B2 to B3 zoning.

FOH is severely disappointed with District B rezoning. District B had 25 requests with 2 requests withdrawn.  About 57 acres were granted more intense kinds of zoning, including 50 Agricultural acres converted to Business or medium-intensity Residential zoning. Plus, 14 acres increased intensity within the same zoning category (majority were from B2 to B3, the Highest Business Intensity).

FOH strongly opposed the high intensity up-zoning of about 45 acres at the outer edges of the Development Envelope (intersection of Mountain Road (Route 152) and Route 1), recently added and approved July 2016 by Harford County Council.  Severe up-zoning was granted even though there are rural homes and a farm in Agricultural Preservation on the Development Envelope’s boundary in this area .  The decision was in violation of HarfordNEXT, and contrary to the rationale applied in District F, where the County reduced an owner’s request for R2 zoning to only R1 at the Development Envelope boundary near rural homes.  FOH is disappointed with the representation and lack of explanation from District B County Councilman and Administration regarding the approval of intense up-zoning to R2 and B3 in the Fallston Community area.

FOH was reasonably satisfied with the results of District C.  District C had 17 requests.  While we disapproved of the conversion of 3 R2-zoned properties to B2 or Commercial Industrial,  these totaled less than 1.5 acres. 

FOH is pleased with the results of District D.  District D had 23 requests.  We supported the community in their work to insure that the 3 properties at the intersection of Routes 23 and 24 were restricted to R1 zoning, and that the Madonna property remained AG.

FOH was also content with the results of District E.  District E had 11 requests.  We agree with the amendment to rezone the 6 requests next to Ripkin Stadium to B1, and the zoning has been coordinated with the city of Aberdeen.

FOH was very disappointed with District F results.  District F had 20 requests.  In spite of Harford expecting to need residential units long before the county runs out of either Business or Industrial-zoned land, District F sacrificed 122 acres of Residential land in favor of yet more Industrial land.  There was a net loss of 100 acres of high-density (primarily R4, some R3) residential land converted to Industrial, partially offset by a loss of 21 acres of  Agricultural land that was rezoned to R1 (lowest density).  The only good news was the Treese Way development off Laurel Brook was not up-zoned and remains R1;  it has many  Natural Resource Districts.

In summary, Districts A, C, D and E were largely acceptable and we thank the Administration and Council members from those districts.  We remain strongly opposed to the rezoning results of Districts B and F.

Final Bill 17-015 Chart with Amendments & FOH Evaluation

Transparency & Public Input

The latest example of Harford County enacting legislation without full open and transparent public input was the County Council’s approval (6-1) of the HarfordNEXT Master Plan on June 21st 2016.

The public was allowed to comment on the plan on June 7th.  However, 16 amendments were made on June 14th, 15 were presented by Councilman Mike Perrone, and 1 amendment was provided by the County Executive.  Private letters, phone calls and emails were admissible for comment about the bill and the amendments provided, however no public speeches or comments about the bill or its amendments were allowed during the subsequent Council meetings on the 7th, 14th or 21st by the Council decree as provided by Council President Slutzky with approval by the 6 Councilmen.

On June 21st, County Council members and the County Executive presented a further 34 amendments.  The public was not allowed to view any of the amendments, nor could they comment on them.  Some of the amendments created major changes in the bill.

That evening, the Council voted on each amendment and then voted for passage of the bill.  Again, that evening, no citizen was able to speak publicly about the bill, the amendments or the vote.  The Council then adjourned for the summer allowing only 2 sessions until September.

Under the County Code, Chapter 4: Administration of Government, Section 4-19 Sessions of Council, A., it states that “such additional days as the Council may determine, are designated as legislative sessions days for the enactment of legislation”.  It further states that no more than 45 sessions may occur during one year.  To date, 21 sessions have occurred, leaving ample opportunity for special sessions to listen to citizen comments concerning amendments prior to voting on legislation.

We believe this right of public input needs to be expanded to allow comment on all amendments.  The habit of springing a change at the last minute without warning and without comment is unwarranted.

The Comprehensive Rezoning legislation will be forthcoming. This can affect every single piece of property and could impact every Harford County citizen in some manner, be it good or bad. The County Council should require adequate time for public comment before, during and after introduction of legislation and its amendments.  The Council needs to plan ahead and be ready for legislation, not wait until the eleventh hour.

Stormwater

On June 21, 2016, Harford County Council passed a state required financial assurance plan which described how the County will accomplish the stormwater runoff control required by Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) by the end of the County’s pollution permit, also called the EPA Clean Water Act Permit. This requirement is part of the larger program to clean up the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries (e.g. Winters Run, Broad Creek, Bush River) by 2025. The reduction of stormwater runoff pollution is important because it is the only source of water pollution that is increasing. 
 
Harford’s financial assurance plan clearly stated that the County intended to remediate only half of the stormwater pollution it is required to stop.  The reason for this shortfall was described as inadequate finances. Finances are inadequate because the County Executive and County Council eliminated the stormwater management fee, without identifying an adequate funding source to replace it. In addition, the County is appealing the terms of its current permit so that it does not have to comply with current and future pollution control requirements. 
 
The County has submitted a financial assurance plan that may be unacceptable and misleading about what will be accomplished with available funding. EPA administrators have already stated that EPA will not accept unused sewage treatment capacity as credit for stormwater runoff control as proposed by the County. More important, such a claim for credit does not reduce pollution in any way and especially not pollution caused by stormwater runoff.
 
The County also proposes to obtain pollution control credit for connecting septic systems to sewers or by converting septic to the best available technology. This exchange of pollution control seems reasonable and will probably result in a reduction of nutrient pollution, but it does nothing to reduce the siltation of our waters or reduce the risks of flood damage from stormwater runoff. An example of a much better trade is to assist farmers in planting cover crops and/or stream side wooded buffers in exchange for urban stormwater management where urban management is not feasible. Cover crops and wooded stream side buffers reduce erosion, sedimentation, nutrient pollution and increase stormwater infiltration, thus reducing the risk of flooding. But of course, this kind of action requires funding.
 
Finally, the financial assurance plan claims that grants will provide some of the funding needed. If the granting agency is the federal government and it considers septic system – sewer connections and unused sewage treatment capacity claims for pollution reduction credit as a reallocation of funds, rather than funding of genuine pollution control, additional grants are very unlikely. 
 
The financial assurance plan seems to be part of a pattern of avoiding stormwater runoff control. The plan clearly states that the County does not have the finances necessary to reduce sedimentation and nutrient pollution required by state and federal plans. The County also acknowledges this situation in the new Master Plan – Harford Next Water Resource Element Plan – Appendix 2. The County has budgeted a hundred thousand dollars to  join some other counties to litigate the requirements of the state and federal water pollution control plans rather than develop a replacement for the funding program it completely canceled. In addition, a recent survey revealed that developers complied with the County’s Erosion and Sedimentation Act only 34% of the time, and the County has presented no plans to increase the compliance rate either through education or enforcement. 
 
So it appears that Harford County is unwilling to develop adequate funding sources for needed  programs that result in significant water quality improvement. For example, County administrators used and are still using the term “Rain Tax” to mislead the public about the problem and the need for solutions.  Rain is an uncontrollable natural process – but hot, dirty, destructive runoff from heavy rain is created by people and their impervious roads, parking lots, and buildings.  Government must participate in educating our citizens about the problem and take the lead in developing fair, equitable and effective stormwater control programs. 
 
The stormwater runoff control fee had many problems and needed revision or replacement instead of total elimination. Corrective efforts, so far, have been grossly inadequate as evidenced by the financial assurance plan and the County Master Plan. Unless the current County Administration and Council believe that government, landowners and businesses have a right to pollute and to flood downstream properties, we must accept that we have an obligation to change our ways and fix these man-made problems.