Councilman David Marks
400 Washington Ave
Towson, MD 21204
CC:
C. Pete Gutwald, Director, Department of Permits, Approvals and Inspections
Stephen Lafferty, Director, Department of Planning
David V. Lykens, Director Environmental Protection and Sustainability
~Via email~
Re: Opposition to BC Middle River Park PUD
Date: 2/23/2023
Dear Councilman Marks,
The Gunpowder Riverkeeper submits this letter to your office and that of Pete Gutwald, Director, Department of Permits, Approvals and Inspections and Stephen Lafferty, Director, Department of Planning and David V.Lykens, Director Environmental Protection and Sustainability in opposition to Project Name BC Middle River Park PUD at 633 Earl’s Rd that would allow the applicant to redevelop a portion of the “Lafarge Quarry” comprising a total of 400.8 acres currently zoned RC-8 with an industrial/office park containing 2.82+/- million square feet with associated infrastructure in Baltimore County.
The Gunpowder, Bird and Middle River watersheds are important ecosystems for Baltimore County and provide significant recreational, aesthetic and environmental services for supporters of Gunpowder Riverkeeper. This project, and the addition of impervious surfaces on the site would harm these services and negatively impact the surrounding air, water quality and quality of life for Gunpowder Riverkeeper supporters and the affected communities in the area.
Riverkeeper’s following comments in opposition to the PUD and related Development Plan arise largely from recent public sources; namely the January 19th 2023 letter from Director Gutwald to the applicant and the Meeting Notes from David V. Lykens, the Director Environmental Protection and Sustainability on the Concept Plan Conference/Environmental Impact Review on January 24th, 2023.
Without the mining reclamation plan in hand and completed, the project, related permits and approvals should be halted.
Neither the Reclamation plan nor the schematic plan with “contents” has been filed with the Department of Planning for review pursuant to Baltimore County Code Section 32-4-501 (c), 32-4-501(b) and 32-4-501(d)(1)&(2).
The County’s Director’s signature on the Environmental Impact Review states that the project must conform to requirements of Article 33, Section 33-3-101 through section 33-3-120 of the Baltimore County Code: Law for protection of Water Quality, Streams, Wetlands and Floodplains.The following must be approved by this Department prior to submitting the Development Plan:
It goes on to specify no less than 17 reports, analysis, easement notes, setback requirements, Storm Water Management specifications, variances granted prior to Development Plan submittal, an alternative analysis for activities in the Forest Buffer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits, conditions and that, “this site is subject to Baltimore County Forest Conservation Law with the following to be approved by EIR prior to Development Plan submittal: A Forest Stand Delineation report, a Forest Conservation Worksheet, a Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan and a Special Variance in accordance with 33-6-116 of the Code to permit impacts to specimen trees and/or their critical root zones.” That, “This site is subject to the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Law” and that, “Any Forest Buffer and/or Forest Conservation areas must be recorded as Easements and “An Environmental Agreement (EA) must be submitted prior to building or grading permits.”
Perhaps most importantly is the requirement that, “Until the Reclamation Plan has received final approval from the State, this department will not be able to evaluate the development’s potential impact to streams, nontidal wetlands, steep slopes, erodible soils, major vegetation, and proposed buffers and setbacks.”
Director Lyken’s letter goes on to further state that, “This Department recommends that Baltimore County not consider a Development Plan prior to the completion of the Reclamation Plan.”
Riverkeeper is in full agreement, to consider the Development Plan “in absentia” of all of the required information under the county code would be premature, uninformative a counter to the code’s requirements.
The County must apply more scrutiny and review of the proposed community benefit.
The proposed community benefit, dedication and “gift” from the applicant to Baltimore County of 221 +/- acres should not sway the County. In fact, more scrutiny should and must be applied in this analysis, especially as it relates to soil samples, compaction of the reclaimed areas, forested areas, buffers, surface water streams, stormwater and groundwater on the site. Also of concern is that some of the proposed “gifted” area falls outside of the URDL, is constrained by busy roadways notably Earls and Ebeneezer, could negatively impact the bike pedestrian master plan and appears to lack adequate and necessary water, sewer and electric services. The uses of the PUD seemingly run counter to the Master Plan description. Further the proposed development within the PUD plan has the potential to negatively impact the Windless Run and Bird River Road Area Community Plans.
The PUD and proposed uses appear to be speculative and not well settled as a development plan, and instead reads like a wish and a prayer.
From Director Gutlwald’s letter, That; “The applicant is requesting flexibility to allow other uses and/or allow the layout to vary as the project progresses, allowing it to respond to market demands.”
An opened ended development plan only provides direct benefit to the developer, subverts public participation and therefore cannot that cannot be responsive to community needs or input.
For these reasons the county should require that the proposed development plan provides a robust accounting of planned stormwater controls and groundwater quality and how they will impact the EPA approved MDE Total Maximum Daily Load ( TMDL) Water Quality Plans.
In adjacent Harford County, successful litigation against a similarly scaled warehouse project impacting resident’s around “Abingdon Woods” led by Gunpowder Riverkeeper’s appeal on the related Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) Wetlands and Waterways permit and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s appeal of that County’s Forest Conservation Act approval has in part prompted Harford County’s Executive to propose a bill that, if enacted, would put a six month a moratorium on permits and approvals for Mega-warehouses.
Gunpowder Riverkeeper asserts that we have entered an era where development projects of this scale should be strongly discouraged in close proximity to the tidal Gunpowder, Bird and Middle River areas that together support spawning habitat for 26 species of finfish and especially in light of the County’s MS4 impervious surface reduction requirements.
The county should also require the applicant to provide ambient air quality, noise and complete traffic studies to further characterize existing site conditions and provide projections on as-built impacts to the surrounding communities.
For all of the aforementioned reasons, approval by the County of the Development Plan of the PUD before the reclamation is finalized by the State and before the entire file is complete so that the interested parties may elicit meaningful comment into this process, will irreparably harm Gunpowder Riverkeeper’s organizational interests and that of its supporters by a hasty and unsupported action that has the potential to contribute further to the degradation of the environment.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at gunpowderriverkeeper@gmail.com or 410-967-3526.
Sincerely,
/s/ Theaux M. Le Gardeur
Theaux Le Gardeur
Executive Director & Gunpowder RIVERKEEPER®
16829 York Rd
Monkton, MD 21111