If possible, attend the Tuesday evening Commissioner's meetings and watch your elected Commissioners in action!  If you care to speak directly to the Commissioners, public comments are usually taken at 6pm (but check their meeting agenda to be sure). 

Please keep sending the letters, phone calls, faxes and emails. 

The following is text from two statements made at the Commissioners meeting Tuesday, October 22, 2003.  The first is from Rick Moser, President of KIDL.  The second is from Winn Krozack, Vice President of KIDL.

Commissioners :

I read that you had filed a notice of appeal on the DRRA ruling to protect the County while you negotiate.

This issue is the direct result of a planning effort that started to go awry in 1997.

The 1992 Planning Act stated that development was to be concentrated in suitable areas, that sensitive areas were to be protected and that stewardship of the Chesapeake Bay was a universal ethic.

The 1993 Comprehensive Plan, in effect at that time, included stated policies to reduce the growth trend on Kent Island and to protect Chesapeake Bay Critical Area resources, including 100% of the floodplains, 100% of the wetlands, and 100% of the stream and shore buffers. 

The 1996 Master Water & Sewer Plan indicated that a sewerage priority was southern Kent Island.

In 1997, the Community Planning process started. Citizen Advisory Committees were told of nice projects to come, but were not informed of the actual plans that were being devised. The Planning Staff was working directly with developers. Their files indicate that they knew which specific properties were under contract and which specific properties had contracts pending. The deed filed on one of the Four Season’s parcels indicates it went under contract on August 5, 1997, while the community planning process was just beginning. The resulting zoning ordinances set few standards and allowed the Planning Commission unchecked discretion. The proposed projects resulting from these Community Plans contradict the will and the desire of many citizens.

In the summer of 1999 former County Commissioners and staff attended community meetings and publicly expressed their support for this project, before they had collected all the relevant information through the process of public hearings. This was not appropriate.

In the fall of 1999, former elected officials publicly stated that our sewer plant was failing, and we were being required to upgrade the plant - this was a blatant misrepresentation to justify a sewer plant expansion that would support several large-scale projects. Those Commissioners did not mention they had ignored, and then removed, the 30,000 gpd allocation limit and that they were quickly exhausting all available sewer capacity to support new development. This was not appropriate.

In December 1999 our former Planning Commission Chairman, who was also QAC’s representative on the state’s Critical Area Commission, testified in emphatic support of the Four Season’s Critical Area Growth Allocation at the Critical Area Commission hearing. After testifying, he did not vote - what was the public to think?

In May 2000, there was also the matter of zoning ordinances that were changed by text amendment to accommodate this development - what was the public to think?

On November 7, 2000, 2,198 voting citizens signed a petition that stated "Because of my concern over environmental, quality of life, financial, traffic, and emergency services issues, I petition the QAC Commissioners to deny Growth Allocation for the Four Seasons project."

In September 2001, 4,409 voting citizens, 20% of the registered voters in this County, signed a referendum petition to place the Four Season’s Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Growth Allocation on the ballot. 

It is very clear that this project contradicts the will and the desire of the citizens on Kent Island. Please pursue this DRRA case through the appeals process. There is no win-win solution to negotiate for. The only gift that the citizens of QAC will receive through this DRRA is the gift of inadequate roads, inadequate emergency services, inadequate government services, and a degraded natural environment. 

Richard Moser, President Kent Island Defense League LLC

Commissioners :

I read that you had filed a notice of appeal on the DRRA ruling to protect the County while you negotiate.

In the spring of 2002, we had former County Commissioners unremorsefully taking campaign contributions from developers, while some of these developer’s projects awaited review and approval.

In the summer of 2002, the former Commissioners declared a moratorium on development, but the work on this DRRA continued.

In September 2002, our former Commissioners signed a substantially revised DRRA that had not been approved by the Planning Commission. 

This DRRA did not state that the plan complied with development regulations as required by state statute and county code. This statement could not be made because the plan never completed the review and approval process established in the county code. Our former Commissioners acted prematurely, and in so doing, have placed a huge burden on this Board of County Commissioners.

This DRRA attempts to eliminate the QAC Commissioners statutory authority to modify it for public safety, health and welfare concerns.

There are also legitimate issues relative to private roads, community linkages, excessively large condominium buildings, senior housing placed in the floodplain, and several other items. This agreement does NOT provide for a $40 million gift for QAC - there is NO GIFT for QAC. In March 2001, Mr Cassell reviewed the Four Seasons Fiscal Impact Study and concluded it would probably be a fiscal breakeven for the county over 20 years. This DRRA does not say Hovnanian is paying for the sewer plant, in fact, the sewer plant will be funded with general obligation bonds guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the county taxpayers. K Hovnanian of Kent Island LLC is the principal to this agreement. We don’t even know about their financial condition because our negotiating team didn’t request financial statements.

We are also spending taxpayer money on value engineering to reduce the cost of the sewer plant expansion. Grant money - which is derived from taxpayer funds, as well as these cost reductions will be passed on to Hovnanian through lower sewer connection fees. The taxpayers will not be happy about that.

In summary, you are now deciding whether you should appeal Judge Sause’s ruling on the DRRA, or throw in your hand, bow to the powerful developer, build them a high-tech sewer plant, and turn their building crews loose to start this massive development.

Please remember that the citizens were supposed to get something nice, but instead are looking at a project larger than the town of Centreville that will overwhelm our roads, our emergency services, our senior services and overwhelm the environment. We could easily end up in a sea of escalating debt and taxes. The development and approval process has been abused by internal and external interests for apparent financial gain. This project is not good for this county. This DRRA is not good for this county.

Citizens would like you to follow through and have the DRRA case reviewed by higher authority.

If you negotiate, you are granting approval to a process that allows for deceit and misrepresentation, and for financial gain for the few. You will be granting approval to a process that does nothing positive for many of the good and decent people of this county. We ask that you right the wrongs of the past, do what is best for the citizens of this county, and appeal this DDRA ruling.

Winn Krozack, Vice-President Kent Island Defense League LLC