Opinion ID: 1461769
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Board Hearing & Decision

Text: Petitioner argues that at the Board's hearing he testified that he located the buildings in a position where he needed to remove only two live trees, [and] that he had also cut 15-20 dead, diseased or falling-down trees (alteration added). He also stated that he cleared some of the understory, mostly greenbriar, but that he left the eastern end of the island untouched, i.e., he did not cut or clear that area. Petitioner additionally presented expert witness testimony regarding the island and the absence of adverse impacts on the surrounding environment if he were allowed to retain the structures as built and use them as a private personal hunting camp. One of petitioner's experts, Mr. Launay, testified that the island had many typical characteristics of islands within marshes of Wicomico County. He reasoned that these characteristics, including sparse inland understory vegetation, existed because the island is elevated, well-drained, has little nutrients reaching the understory and that the dense tree canopy blocks out sunlight to the inner areas of the island; the existence of all of these factors would likely inhibit dense understory growth. In reference to the environmental impacts of the hunting cabins themselves, Mr. Launay performed various environmental tests and assessments to discern any adverse impacts that the cabins might have on the environment. He testified that their construction was placed to minimize any adverse impact on the forest. In fact, he said that the buildings have little, if any, adverse impact on the tree canopy. In addition, Mr. Launay testified that the type of soil on the island is of a consistency that would potentially absorb rain run-off from the rooftops of the cabins, thus minimizing the adverse environmental impact of the cabins. When asked if the building would adversely impact the quality of the surface waters abutting the island, Mr. Launay stated that he found no adverse effects. [12] He testified as to six reasons why the camp would not produce a pollutant source, including that the construction produced no site grading, there was no meaningful excavation as five of the six buildings have no conventional foundation, the buildings are comprised of all natural materials, the shingles on the cabin roofs are natural cedar and not asphalt, the camp is to contain no concrete and all pathways in the camp are made entirely of mulch. Mr. Launay also testified to the impervious nature of surfaces in the campsite. He found only the roofs to be classified as impervious,as defined by § 125-7 of the County Code. He found, however, that the roofs did not have the normal consequences of a typical impervious surface, i.e., problems associated with rain run-off. He stated, the underneath of the building is open ... to accept run-off that might percolate or pass through from higher portions of the site ... there's no grading, and there's been no change in the topography. During his inspection of the site, as the cabins were already partially constructed, Mr. Launay observed the actual impact of the camp's cabins on the environment of Phillips Island. He observed no formation of gullies, no erosion and no other evidence that run-off from the cabins was reaching the water protected by the Buffer. The rain, according to Mr. Launay and his soil tests, was absorbed into the ground, thus preventing the run-off of rain into the streams and waterways adjacent to the camp. Mr. Launay did testify that the camp had some impact on the surrounding habitat. He said that while any human presence would somewhat impact an area like Phillips Island, he observed that petitioner's removal of greenbriar and other understory species of plant somewhat altered the habitat of the island. According to Mr. Launay, however, the removal of such species actually improve[s] tree quality. He observed that the camp was in a very natural state and that little appreciable change to the wildlife species had occurred as a result of the building of the cabins. He summarized by saying, I really can't say that ... what Mr. Lewis has constructed out there has any real significant impacts on either water quality, the wildlife value of the site or the plant habitat. Mr. Launay, in fact, testified that the habitat of Phillip Island would fare better with the buildings located in their current position, rather than moving them to the inner portion of the island, i.e., within the narrow, noncontiguous strips of land outside the Buffer. He stated that the habitat there differed very little from the Buffer and that the difference in a few feet had little difference in the impact on the wildlife. He did state that, in the context of Phillips Island, the actual effects of moving the buildings out of the Buffer would be more devastating to the environment than leaving the cabins in their current location as the move would require petitioner to cut down several large, mature trees that impact large areas both inside and outside the Buffer. Removal of these trees, according to Mr. Launay, would open up large portions of an otherwise undisturbed canopy, thus changing the landscape of the forest, i.e., the oaks, pines and holly occupying the non-Buffer area. Finally, Mr. Launay testified that mitigation of certain native shrubs, coupled with precluding development on the other two upland islands, would have the greatest beneficial effect on the habitat of the property. The Commission presented two expert witnesses to the Board. LeeAnn Chandler, a natural resources planner for the Commission, included testimony from a letter she submitted to the Board comprising her review of the statutory factors to be considered by the Board in variance cases. She also testified as to the purpose and importance of the Buffer in the scheme of the County Code. Her testimony purported to refute the testimony of petitioner's experts' testimony that the run-off from the cabin roofs did not adversely impact the habitat. She testified to her observations of petitioner's removal of the understory and of its later recovery when new vegetation had grown in those cleared areas. On cross-examination, the following question was asked by petitioner's counsel, do you have any empirical evidence to support the statement that there's any increase in the volume or velocity of run-off on the roofs on these particular structures on this site? Ms. Chandler answered, I can't quantify a specific number, no. The testimony further elicited that Ms. Chandler had no factual basis, in the form of tests, samples or data, to support her conclusions: Q. [13] And we don't have any concrete or asphalt driveways or sidewalks on the site, do we? A. No, we have a lot of treated lumber. Q. Treated lumber? Where is that? A. All the cedar shakes, I'm sure they're treated with something. Q. Do you know whether they're treated? A. No, but Q. Okay. Did you hear Mr. Launay testify that they were natural cedar siding and natural cedar shakes roofing? A. Well, they seem to be very regular for being natural. They were in the same shape, size, everything, so they're not completely natural. Q. You mean because they're cut the same size or shape? A. And I'm sure they're treated with something. Q. Like what? A. Chemicals that help protect it from, from degrading in the environment over time. Q. But that, that is your speculation? A. Yes. Further questioning elicited that Ms. Chandler was relying on potential cumulative impacts of development generally and not site specific data regarding the Phillips Island site. Q. And you referred to cumulative impacts? A. Yes. Q. Have you determined and are you able to quantify any adverse impact of these particular six buildings on any aspect of water quality in either ground water or the adjacent stream waters of the tributaries of the Nanticoke River? A. The whole idea of cumulative impact is not to look at each specific little thing. It's the idea that over time Q. No, that wasn't my question. A. it causes an effect. Q. My first question, though, is have you determined whether and have you done any testing or have any quantifiable way to show that these buildings have caused any increased levels of pollutants, nutrients or toxins to the base system? A. I have not conducted any studies. Q. Nor do you have any such data? A. I know that there's 333370 square feet of less area of infiltration and for habitat. Q. That's correct. The question, though, is do you have anything from which you can show or demonstrate that that 3300 square feet has caused an increase in the levels of pollutants, nutrients and toxins to the base system? A. No. Q. Okay. All right. Now, then, let's look at what the statute says.... It doesn't talk about just cumulative impacts, does it? Doesn't the word cumulative impacts refer to human activities that have caused increased levels of pollutants, nutrients and toxins? A. It states the cumulative impacts of human activity, yes, you're right. Q. Okay. So only those ... activities that have caused increased levels of pollutants, etc., are the concern that brings them within this umbrella of cumulative effects? A. No, it's the cumulative effect that causes the pollutants to have effects. It's ... the assemblage of allI mean, if there were ten million of these cabins, that would be cumulative effects, but we don't have to look at this one little, this one island when you're talking about cumulative effects. [Emphasis added.] The Commission's other expert, Russ Hill, a Department of Natural Resources habitat manager, testified that petitioner had cut vegetation in an area greater than needed to build the cabins of the camp. [14] Mr. Hill, however, went on to state that the vegetation was recovering and the new vegetation will again be a source of food and cover for wildlife, after it fully grows back. He went on to agree with petitioner's expert's advice regarding mitigation and that the species recommended by Mr. Launay would enhance the area's wildlife value. He did state, however, that the buildings altered the current state of the island as vegetation under and immediately surrounding the buildings would not likely remain the same because of the increased human traffic. This, he stated, could adversely affect the native animal species in those areas of human activity. Mr. Hill admitted, however, that this would be true of any building placed in or outside of the Buffer. Other testimony was brought out by members of the public. The only part of this lay testimony to bring out empirical data was the testimony of Don Jackson, an employee of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. While the county planners themselves found that only several trees had been cut by petitioner, Mr. Jackson testified that he counted 114 tree stumps of five inches or greater in diameter, of which 27 were dead trees. According to Mr. Jackson, twenty one of those stumps were under or near petitioner's buildings although exhibits entered into the record depict photographs of the island and its full tree canopy. Mr. Jackson also testified that the property was used for hunting, fishing and once as a residence, prior to its purchase by petitioner. At the conclusion of the testimony, several members of the Board indicated the evidence they used in determining their decisions. In referring to a letter Ms. Chandler submitted to the Board, Board Member Ennis stated, in part: And the rest of my comments I'm going to make is in the context of that we, or I will be trying to view this and am viewing this as if the buildings were not already there. However, I want to say that I think as far as my opinion goes, ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Somebody should have known better, and I think somebody did know better. I believe that within the Chesapeake Bay critical areas report, the cumulative impact, to meI could be interpreting it wrongmeans general impact and not site specific. I think we're talking about cumulative meanings wherever, and it's just a, it's just what it says. I think that Don Jackson made a good point that the specific impact, negative impact, let's just say, should be disproved by the Applicant. It's not proved by the opponents, because I do also believe that the burden of proof rests on the Applicants. I think that we do risk a dangerous setting of a dangerous precedent with this case if we were to approve it. I don't think that this is a case of unwarranted hardship, and I think it's self-imposed. This is not a home we're talking about building. This is a place to go duck hunting, and in that regard, I don't think that this is a denial of a reasonable and significant use of property because that's what they want to do. They want to have recreation ... and if there is to be accommodations for sleeping ... there's space to do that ... outside the buffer.