March 6, 2003

Good evening. I am Richard Moser, president of the Kent Island Defense League. We are a local citizen's group with over 500 individual and family members. Thank you for this opportunity to discuss items related to the permits requested for this project.

Environmental Concerns/Economic Concerns : Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas 
Land within 1,000 feet of the shore of the Chesapeake Bay and it's tributaries was designated as Critical Areas by state law in 1985. Depending on their existing use, areas were designated either Intense Development, Limited Development, or Resource Conservation. The law allows each County to reclassify a small amount from Resource Conservation to Intense Development through a process known as "Growth Allocation". Because of the limited acreage allowed to be reclassified, Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Growth Allocation is a scarce, and therefore valuable, commodity. It should be used wisely for the long-term benefit of the County and its existing Communities. 

In this case, an excessive amount of Critical Area Growth Allocation was granted for the benefit of this one project and this one developer. 

1) the 300 acre Growth Allocation for this project is approx 1/3 of remaining acreage available in QAC's pool. 

2) excessive Growth Allocation was required for this project because the developer and Queen Anne's County Planning staff, and Queen Anne's Planning Commission determined that the stormwater management ponds needed to be placed inside the required 300 foot Shore Buffers. Apparently they could not find any place else within the 562 acres of this project to place them. 

3) excessive Growth Allocation was required for this project because the QAC planning staff indicated that this 562 acres was a "small building envelope" and the road system was "confusing". They solved this problem by reducing the 300 foot required shore buffer to an average of 150 feet on the Chester River. This solution required more Growth Allocation than necessary and reduces the amounts available for future use. 

4) any financial benefit to be gained by the County from this project is questionable because of the substantial costs to be incurred to provide infrastructure for the potential 2,000 to 3,000 new residents likely to be generated by this development. This needed infrastructure includes sewer, water, roads, police, fire, emergency medical, senior services, and general government. These costs will likely far exceed any benefits anticipated. The County relied on a Fiscal Impact study submitted by the developer's consultant that included this disclaimer "No responsibility is assumed for inaccuracies in reporting by the Client, its agent and representatives, or any other data source used in preparing or presenting this study. Therefore, no warranty or representation is made that any of the projected values or results will actually be achieved. This report is not to be used in conjunction with any public or private offering of securities." The report also indicates that "Debt service was based on budgeted per-capita amounts for (fiscal) 2000 and excluded any consideration of specific capital items." In other words, future debt service was not projected forward, and the consideration of specific capital items were excluded. In my opinion, many of the assumptions made, and estimates used in that analysis were questionable and the likely benefits overstated. Queen Anne's County is currently considering authorizing millions of dollars in general obligation bonds to provide infrastructure for this proposed project and several others. I hope the Commissioners read the disclaimers. 

Environmental Concerns : Stormwater Management and Pollutant Loadings 
Pollutant loadings from stormwater runoff and sewage effluent from 1,350 new housing units and 6 miles of new roads and thousands of additional automobiles will likely be worse than from 562 acres of existing farmland, woodlands and wetlands. I am submitting for your review a copy of estimated nutrient and heavy metal pollutant loadings for stormwater that was submitted to the previous Commissioners on February 27, 2000. I am also submitting for your review a copy of a report by W. R. Carter, a retired fisheries and marine biologist with 35 years experience. This report was originally submitted to the previous Commissioners on February 27, 2000. This report documents the existing eutrophic and over-enriched condition of Cox Creek. This condition causes filamentous algae which creates foul odors and robs the water in Cox Creek of oxygen necessary to support aquatic life. This project will likely aggravate these conditions. 

Environment/Aesthetics/Navigation Concerns: 490 foot "Community" Pier 
1) The first question is why the pier is even placed there. The QAC Staff Technical Advisory Committee indicated that because of wind fetch from the northwest, this would not be a "safe location to moor boats for other than discretionary short periods". The applicant's agent stated that "the pier in its proposed location will require a breakwater. If permits cannot be secured, they still plan on having a fishing pier".  That would be quite some fishing pier! 
2) The second question is why it is so large. The charts I looked at indicate there is about 14 feet of water 450 feet from shore. That is a lot more water than a normal pleasure craft requires for mooring. The size of that pier could be significantly reduced. The size of this proposed pier will likely have negative affects on subaquatic vegetation. 

3) That area of the Chester River is well known as a waterfowl concentration and staging area for geese, swans, surface and diving ducks. This pier will likely interfere with that natural, and centuries old, usage. 

4)Please also consider the cumulative affect that this pier, combined with another similar pier proposed by a nearby planned development, will have on aesthetics and the natural characteristics of this area. 

5) Please also consider that the Chester River has been designated as an "impaired waterway". Steps need to be taken to improve its condition, not add to its degradation. 

Environment : Wetlands and Mature Woodlands 
The plans call for the removal of approx. 24 acres of mature woodlands in addition to wetlands. This will eliminate established and needed habitat for many forms of wildlife. Creation of immature replacement woodlands and wetlands is not an adequate mitigation. 

Floodplains : Non-compliance with the Comprehensive Plan 
Over 150 acres of this site is within the floodplain. It appears that many structures will be placed within the existing flood plain. The 1993 Comprehensive plan, under which this plan was submitted and processed by QAC, indicates on page 51 that the following items in the Critical Area are to be protected : 100% of riverine floodplains, 100% of tidal and non-tidal wetlands, 100% of streams/buffers, 80% of woodlands and 100% of the shore buffer. The components of this project do not meet these requirements. I am submitting copies of excerpts of the Comprehensive Plan for your review. 

Non-conformance with the Stevensville Community Plans 
This statement was submitted to the former QAC Commissioners on February 27,2000
 for Peter Holland, chairman of the Citizen's Advisory Committee to the Stevensville Community Plan. (read statement). 

Historic Sites 
Several known sites and structures of potential historic value are located on the property. Please insure that these sites are adequately inventoried and protected if appropriate. 

Water Supply 
The drinking water wells of many residents in this area went dry last summer. This issue has not been addressed by local or state officials. This issue should be resolved before any large-scale development progresses.

General Items related to this project 
1) Non-conformance with the 1992 Economic Development, Resource Protection and Planning Act which requires development in suitable areas, protection of sensitive areas, and stewardship of the Chesapeake Bay. 

2) Non-conformance with many parts of the Chester Community Plan 

3) Non-conformance with many parts of the 1993 Comprehensive Plan 

4) Non-conformance with the 1996 Comprehensive Water and Sewage Plan, as this property was not slated for water or sewage service 

5) Non-conformance with many parts of QAC's Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Program, one specific item is use of "cluster development" in Critical Areas

6) This project is contrary to desires of the existing citizens : 
        November 2000 petition regarding this project signed by 2,198 voters 
        September 2001 petition regarding this project signed by 4,408 voters 
        September 2002 primary elections when our 3 incumbent Commissioners were not reelected 

Other Items you should be aware of : 
1) The plans originally submitted to the Critical Areas commission incorrectly identified a stream as an agricultural ditch. 

2) In August 2000 a contractor on this property was cited by MDE for grading out approximately 500 feet of asphalt shavings 25 feet from the Chester River. The contractor had no permits or sediment control in place.

3) I am also submitting an article from The Capital  titled " Developer accused of misleading public", published on 12/03/2000 which indicates much public concern over this project.

In summary, 
The components of this proposed high-density development when considered cumulatively, and in conjunction with other development proposed in the immediate area, has significant detrimental impacts on the environment and on the quality of life of the existing citizens. The financial implications of this proposal to the citizens of QAC are immense. Our local authorities have not listened to citizens' prior requests, and this project continues to move forward. We ask that you not issue the permits requested until these items are adequately addressed.

Thank You.