|
-News
Archive
DWI
Hit Parade September News - Index to archives, sections News or Advertising Call 301 535 8624Linda's Cafe |
|||
|
 |
 |
Clean Up, Mitigate, Reimburse Taxpayers
To the Editor:
St. Mary’s County Board of Commissioners
August 15, 2006
Dear Commissioners:
It was just a year ago that St. James residents met with you (July 12, 2005) regarding the poor condition left behind by the developer, Home Builders Inc. (HBI), and your follow up visit to St. James (July 19, 2005). At the open forum meeting, I requested three things in conjunction with my fellow St. James residents:
1) Clean up of the mess left behind by the developer
2) Mitigation of the damage to the Forest Conservation Easement
3) Prevention so that a similar messes will not be created in future development
I would like to report that most of the homeowners are very pleased that most of the mess was cleaned up. Now that it appears that development has begun in the last section of St. James, Section 5, I would like to request your assistance in assuring that the same mistakes made by the developer and County in Sections 3 and 4, which caused undue burden on the county’s tax payers to clean up, be prevented. I would both like to request your attention to the development begun in Section 5 as well as your enactment of the appropriate laws to ensure the Forest Conservation Act is enforced so that problems like this do not continue to occur on into perpetuity.
As a result of our experience in St. James, I believe that a number of the residents understand, unfortunately, intimately that the Forest Conservation Act is as much about enlightened development as it is conservation. In Section 3 and 4, the development of a Forest Conservation Plan should have included a Tree Stand Plan as outlined in the Maryland State Ordinance. The Tree Stand Plan could have identified the Virginia Pines (or other varieties with weak root systems identified by an arborist) on the edge of the clearing which would likely fall once the opening for the house had been cleared. These trees could have been dropped into the opening before it was cleared. It would have then been very convenient and profitable for them to be harvested versus falling on the new houses or requiring costly cleanup.
My second request was for mitigation. There has been no action, of which I am aware, regarding this matter. The Forest Conservation Act clearly spells out the process and terms for mitigation. The Maryland Department of Natural Resources has stated (and I believe that you saw for yourselves) that the Forest Conservation Easement on my lot had been cleared and graded (as well as likely on other lots). Although not a lawyer, I believe that this is a clear violation of the spirit if not the letter of Maryland State law. Additionally, in spite of the best efforts of the homeowners in St. James, erosion continues to go on as a result of this as well as the poor condition of the lawn which the county permitted. I consequently respectfully request that you take up this matter, specifically enforcing the mitigation clauses of the Forest Conservation Act to re-establish trees where they are supposed to be as well as fixing the last of the erosion issues.
My last matter regards the cost of the clean up. I respectfully request the costs incurred by the County as well as the cost share by the builder (and / or the instructions for how to get these numbers). As a tax payer in St. Mary’s County, I believe that myself as well as the other tax payers in the County deserve the opportunity to see how much was spent by the County versus how much was spent by the developer (who I believe is ultimately responsible). The best estimate which can be assembled from the limited information which we have is that the developer had one work crew on site one day while the County provided approximately two crews for two weeks. This does not seem like a cost share but rather the County picking up the bill for a developer’s mistake. St. Mary’s County has a reputation for being “developer friendly”. However, I would appreciate your assistance in sharing the costs of the cleanup to show that in fact “friendly” does not mean using tax payers’ dollars to pay the bills which the taxpayers had intended be borne by developers.
Thank you again for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Hackert