Critical Choices in the Critical Area

by Tom Pelton, Chesapeake Bay Foundation

(This story can be found on page 40 of the September issue of Spinsheet)

More than 1000 new homes are proposed in an environmentally critical area beside the Chesapeake Bay, on Kent Island, MD.
The developer of the proposed Four Seasons project, the New Jersey-based Hovnanian Enterprises, is promising to be responsible about handling stormwater pollution that will pour off the waterfront project. But three years ago, Hovnanian paid a $1 million penalty to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) because of stormwater pollution violations at 591 development sites, including 161 in the ChesapeakeImage by K. Hovnanian Development Company Bay watershed, according to the federal agency.

The development on the small, increasingly crowded island doesn’t make sense from an environmental perspective, or from a planning viewpoint. Kent Island is already overwhelmed with sprawl, and the low-lying development site next to the mouth of the Chester River is vulnerable to flooding, especially with sea level rise.

A more than decade-long war over the Four Seasons project flared up again July 24 at the Maryland Board of Public Works. After hearing more than five hours of testimony, Governor Martin O’Malley and state officials sent the project back down to the Queen Anne’s County government to resolve questions about land preservation and permitting before the state will consider a license to destroy wetlands for the construction.

Will Baker, President of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF), was among several people who advised the board not to approve the wetlands license. “We work in six states at CBF, and Maryland has always been a leader,” Baker says. “But I don’t know of any other state that has a project of this scope, and importance, and potential damage to the Bay or its tributary rivers.”

The three-member board (made up of the governor, Comptroller Peter Franchot, and Treasurer Nancy Kopp) has been forced to reconsider a wetlands permit for the project because the Maryland Court of Appeals in 2012 overturned a 2007 decision by the board to deny an approval. The court said the state officials exceeded their authority when they voted 2-1 six years ago against the Four Seasons project (with the two votes by O’Malley and Franchot).

After losing that vote, the developers modified the project to reduce its size. The project now being discussed by the board consists of 1079 homes on 425 acres of what are now farm fields north of Route 50 in Stevensville, instead of the 1350 homes on 556 acres as proposed back in 2007. And the developers say they will eliminate a bridge to reduce the project’s harm to wetlands and create a 131-acre park on part of the land where they once planned houses.

Four seasons site 3

“Hovnanian is committed to creating an environmentally friendly, sustainable project here,” says Charles Schaller, an attorney for the development company. “It certainly understands the sensitivity of the area. The (developers) heard the concerns, voiced by many, and tried to create a win-win situation."
Kopp said that it would be wiser to build such a large housing project farther away from the water, in an area less vulnerable to flooding and sea-level rise. “It shouldn’t be there,” she says. But the state treasurer added that the Maryland Court of Appeals has ordered state officials a narrow focus on consideration of the developer’s application for a state license to destroy 820 square feet of wetlands for the project, not the overall merits of the project or its location.

“I agree. It shouldn’t be there,” O’Malley says. “But that’s not what’s before us.”

The state officials said they will reconsider the wetlands permitting issue after Queen Anne’s County Board of County Commissioners creates permanent protections on the 131 acres that the developers say they will preserve as a park. The commission also needs to resolve other questions raised by neighbors and conservation groups, including whether another public hearing and vote by county board is required for the modified development proposal.
Read CBF’s blog, Bay Daily