By Ally Lanasa, Staff Writer

(Oct. 22, 2020) A heated discussion about the proposed addition of a resilience element marked the Berlin Planning Commission’s review of the town’s comprehensive plan last Wednesday.

“What we thought we’d do is, in the comprehensive plan, is have whatever summary like what we’re working on now, the shorter version, and refer back to that resilience element document 2020 for more detail,” said Planning Director Dave Engelhart.

The commission previously reviewed an extensive resilience document, which was drafted by the town with the assistance of the University of Maryland Environmental Finance Center through a $20,000 grant from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

This time, the commission reviewed a nine-page executive summary of the extensive resilience element.

The Maryland Department of Planning only requires the town to review the comprehensive plan from 2010 this year, Engelhart said.

“We can amend the comprehensive plan any time we want,” he added.

Commission member Pete Cosby began the meeting by proposing text changes, but commission member Newt Chandler suggested discarding the entire resilience document.

“It looks like it’s more regulation and more taxation upon the citizens of this town for things that we can’t afford and don’t need,” Chandler said. “This whole thing about climate change—you can’t deny there’s climate change—but it’s still up in the air about what effect it has. I see no big thing around here.”

Chairman Chris Denny agreed with Chandler.

“It’s duplication,” he said. “All kinds of stuff we’re doing anyway.”

Chandler called the document garbage and said it would cost too much to implement in town.

Cosby said that while thinking about resilience isn’t a bad idea, he agreed with Chandler and Denny that the resilience element isn’t necessary.

“What we’re trying to do is make people aware that resiliency is becoming something we should think about in our planning,” Cosby said. “We should be thinking about climate change and what impact it’s going to have. I think we could do without it. I agree with you. I don’t think we need it. I think it’s common sense. I think we’ll react to whatever conditions we’re faced with. I agree with you. I’d just as soon not have all these words everywhere and too much law,” said Cosby, who is an attorney.

Chandler offered to make a motion to discard the resilience element.

Engelhart said the University of Maryland Environmental Finance Center helped other municipalities with studies about resiliency, and he discussed the concept of the resiliency.

“It should be part of your thinking going forward to have money set aside in your budgets to prepare …,” he said. “Resiliency is adapting to whatever comes along.”

Chandler argued that the town could be more prepared financially for emergencies if funds were spent wisely.

“We don’t need a multi-page document to accomplish that,” he said. “Our city council should be doing that anyway.”

Chandler continued, stating that the resilience element was a typical document from “people across the bridge that want more regulation, more control, more codes.”

Although the resilience element is not law, Chandler is concerned that if the resilience element is added to the comprehensive plan, it, like the rest of the plan, could be used by lawyers to support projects in town.

“They’ll be pointing to this,” he said.

Commission member Ron Cascio argued that the resilience element does not require the town to do anything. Rather, it serves as a guideline for the future.

Commission member Matt Stoehr said he is in favor of the executive summary, but the commission must remember it is connected to the extensive resilience element.

“We shouldn’t factor in this big document. If it’s not included in these 10 pages or an exact reference point, it shouldn’t be there because we could open ourselves to so many different options,” he said. “I think we’re putting ourselves in a risky situation by saying this thing that these people wrote is now what we’re putting in the town five-year plan.”

Denny agreed with Chandler and Stoehr that the document was too far reaching. He mentioned that it addressed topics like increasing tree canopy.

“Look at California,” he said. “It’s on fire because of their increased urban tree canopy, and now they’re bringing that crap here.”

Commission member D.J. Lockwood said he supported smaller resiliency projects in town, like golf carts, but he said the resilience element is too extensive.

“Really resiliency is about protecting what you have,” he said. “It’s looking forward and trying to see what could possibly happen and then being ready for it.”

He added that the town could also plant more in areas to help save the environment.

“You don’t have to really make mandates. You just make suggestions to save yourself,” he said. “It’s small things to kind of look out for yourself. That’s the resiliency that I see, not doing a bunch of crazy stuff.”

Chandler agreed, but he said the commission and mayor and council tackle those problems every time they meet.

“We don’t need a multi-page document of people across the bridge telling us how to run our deal here,” he added. “We do a pretty good job I think.”

Cascio asked Town Administrator Jeff Fleetwood what happens if the planning commission agrees to discard the element. Fleetwood said he wasn’t sure. The council will review it as well and make a decision because the planning commission is only an advisory committee.

“I think you’ve got some good points, and I think we need to regroup and think this through again,” he said.

Engelhart said a public hearing must be held because the resilience element would be an amendment to the comprehensive plan. The commission could then make a motion to not recommend it to the mayor and council.

“After that, I have to advertise a public hearing of the mayor and council to amend the comprehensive plan,” Engelhart said.

“It’s a public hearing to consider the amendment by the addition of this,” he continued. “Your recommendation for or against has to be the subject of a public hearing.”

Stoehr encouraged the public to review the executive summary and the extensive resilience element on the town’s website prior to the public hearing. He said Berlin residents need to understand that adding the summary means they are also adopting the extensive resilience element.

“That was the way we thought it would be. It doesn’t have to be that way,” Engelhart replied. “The amendment to the comprehensive plan could be just that shorter version.”

Engelhart reminded the commission that the resilience document is a guideline, not code.

He acknowledged that the commission is already concerned about most of what is in the resilience element, such as stormwater, density and trees.

“It’s aspirational,” he added.

Chandler maintained that the resilience element was unnecessary.

“If you give a government official a document that says you should be spending money on this, guess what, they’re going to spend money on it,” he said. “That’s just their nature. We don’t need any more regulation [and] we don’t need any more taxes encumbered by things we shouldn’t have bought to start with. We’re out of money now, and we don’t need people across the bridge telling us what we have to do and what we shouldn’t do.”

Denny agreed, saying, “This is a solution in search of a problem.”

Cascio said he didn’t understand his peers’ fear about the resilience element and reiterated that the document is not law.

Cosby, as a lawyer, said he references comprehensive plans in his work all the time.

Although comprehensive plans aren’t law, he said they provide a directive to make a case for something you want to accomplish. He argued that the town should set a new precedent.

“We don’t need more law, we need more precise law stated more concisely,” he said.

The commission then turned to review the town’s comprehensive plan in the following areas: current designated growth areas, future growth areas, highway and transportation corridors, downtown parking, pedestrian and bicycle accessibility, possible greenbelt surrounding the community, commercial development and sustainability of town services and the draft resilience element.

Cascio wants the town to communicate with Worcester County to ensure agreement on growth areas. He added that the public should have input as well.

“Since we represent those people, we should hear from them,” he said.

Denny said the public has been notified that the meetings are open with a limited capacity, yet no residents were in attendance. He compared the situation to the multiple objections filed to the ethics commission a couple weeks ago regarding the appointment of Austin Purnell to the planning commission.

“I don’t want to hear how they don’t have access to the information,” he said. “They had plenty of information about Mr. Purnell down here.”

Cascio added that residents may not be aware that they can attend meetings now to offer their opinions.

“They can sit there and fire off snotty little things about him online all the time, but they can’t bring their ass in here?” Denny said, adding that he’s served on the commission for 20 years. “The participation level out here is pretty much nil.”

Chandler, who has been on the commission even longer, disagreed and said the public participates when it’s a big issue.

“Certainly, when you walk around town and people know you’re on the planning commission, they certainly voice their opinion,” he said. “I’m hearing a lot of people don’t want any more residential annexations, especially these high-density projects.”

The conversation turned back to the comprehensive plan, when Cosby said he approves of the current comprehensive plan.

The commission members agreed that protecting the integrity of Berlin and the quality of life in the community is vital.

“I hear today, and I heard it then: ‘We want Berlin to stay as much as we can like it is,’” Cosby said.

He stressed again that the county and town have to work together to come to an agreement on growth areas.

Cosby and Cascio also discussed the possibility of buying and transferring development rights to protect green space in town.

At this time, a public hearing about the resilience element has not been scheduled.

According to the town calendar, the planning commission is scheduled to meet on Nov. 11, but Engelhart said that will be postponed because it is a state holiday.