Testimony of the Sierra Club Howard County
November 2, 2017
Project Name: Oak Hill Manor, SP-15-012
PB Case No. 428
The developer of the Oak Hill Manor property wants to build 8 single-family homes, the maximum allowed, and is requesting a waiver of the environmental regulations for this property in order to do so.
The Sierra Club strongly opposes waiving environmental regulations so that builders can squeeze the maximum number of houses onto a given parcel of land.
There is no necessity to build 8 houses on this property. As the maximum allowed, it must be assumed that 8 houses would also generate the maximum profit for the developer. The developers have given no other justification for the request.
Maximizing profits at the expense of the environment is the exact opposite of the intent of the regulations. Construction of any kind is deleterious to the environment, due to removal of trees and other vegetative cover, erosion, and replacement of ground cover with the impervious surfaces of roofs and driveways, and the semi-pervious surfaces of lawns. The development also requires re-routing the access road onto Ilchester Road, necessitating another destructive impact to the parcel in addition to the houses themselves.
Besides these destructive measures, the developer is asking to build on slopes greater than 25%, to cut down 4 specimen trees, and to reduce the buffer along the road.
The result of all of these destructive actions is likely to be erosion, uncontrolled storm water runoff, a greater risk of flooding, and diminished diversity and sustainability of the open space that remains, including that of the nearby Patapsco Valley State Park.
The laws governing development of this parcel, zoned Residential: Environmental Development, also provide for historic preservation and protecting the scenic properties of Ilchester Road. The developer has suggested that because the proposal preserves historic features of the property, therefore environmental regulations should be waived.
There is no provision in the regulations for trading historical preservation for environmental protection.
Historic preservation is a requirement for development, equal to the requirement to safeguard the environment. It’s not a substitute for environmental protection. It’s not a favor to the public which should be reciprocated with a favor from the Planning Board.
The regulations don’t allow builders an either/or alternative. It’s not a matter of preserving history instead of the environment, or sacrificing the environment in order to preserve history. Both requirements must be met: historic preservation AND environmental protection.
The notion that there can be “extra” historic preservation, which should be exchanged for reduced environmental protection, is completely specious and should be dismissed out of hand.
The owner decided to build 8 modern single-family homes on an historic property, destroying all but one of the historic buildings. This is not an altruistic decision that will preserve the historic character of the property or the environmental integrity of the area for future generations. It’s an attempt to make money while preserving history and the environment to the minimal extent allowed by law. The current request for a waiver of the environmental regulations is an attempt to make money while doing even less than the minimum allowed by law.
The regulations exist to protect public resources – historic artifacts, scenic views, and the environment itself -- for the benefit of the public. Private housing developments offer no public benefit. Turning an old farm into a new subdivision diminishes those public resources irrevocably, with no other benefit to the neighbors, the community, or the county as a whole.
Please deny the environmental waiver for the proposed buildings.