Published: January 06, 2009
With no options, it’s either new bridge or nothing,
officials say
Controversial, costly Little Orleans
crossing draws more than two dozen residents
Kevin Spradlin
Cumberland
Times-News
CUMBERLAND
— Allegany County officials made their case Monday during a public meeting with
the District 1 legislative delegation in attendance that an often washed-out
86-foot span in Little Orleans needs to be replaced.
It could be a case of now or never, as there is a sunset provision on the
federal government’s funding of the $5.7 million project, which includes a
complete bridge replacement for $2.7 million and realignments to Little Orleans
Road Southeast and Appel Road.
The county has the opportunity to use more than $4.5 million in federal bridge
funding unused by other Maryland jurisdictions. Allegany County’s share would
be roughly $1.2 million.
The project as proposed would replace the single-lane crossing with a bridge
spanning 205 feet with two 9-foot lanes each and 2 feet of shoulder space. The
structure would be elevated to meet the requirements of a 50-year storm. “We’re
damned if we do, we’re damned if we don’t,” said Commission President Jim
Stakem after an informal poll of local residents who attended the meeting
indicated that 12 supported the project as proposed and four opposed it. “We’re
trying to get this resolved. It sort of leaves us in a dilemma.” Steve Young,
county director of the Department of Public Works, said the 70-year-old bridge
needs replaced for multiple reasons. The crossing has the lowest federal
sufficiency rating of any county bridge — a 26.5 on a scale of 100 — and does
not meet safety standards. There is unpredictable flooding, no guardrail and
it’s only a single-lane thoroughfare. On top of that, Young said the last
several biannual inspection reports have recommended the structure’s replacement.
He said the bridge is due up for inspection again this year. Federal officials
could demand the bridge be closed permanently.
“If nothing’s done, that’s probably the ultimate disposition,” Young told the
commissioners, delegation members and residents in attendance. Young presented
a hastily drafted three-dimensional pictorial showing what the area would look
like if a new bridge is constructed and the two roadways are realigned. “It
boils down to, do we go ahead and build (and) meet standards (and) do it the
right way or do nothing,” Young said. Young said creating another low-water
crossing like the one in place is impractical and would not receive the
necessary permits. Such designs do not conform to current construction
standards, he said. Delegate LeRoy Myers said he’s visited the site, taking
along an engineer who works with his commercial and industrial construction
firm. The engineer estimated it would cost approximately $500,000 for a
temporary fix. Young said it’s a matter of using federal dollars now that might
not be available in the future. “You have the money,” Myers said. “Why is there
even a decision?” Young said federal funding remains $500,000 short as federal
officials determine whether the Appel Road relocation can qualify as part of
the bridge project. Little Orleans resident Bill Schoenadel, owner of Bill’s
Place grocery store, who has lobbied many years for improvements to the
existing structure, continued Monday to balk at the project’s high cost. But
Ann Worsham said not all area residents feel the same way Schoenadel does. “I’m
100 percent for it,” Worsham said. “I’m like her,” said Stanley Snyder. “They
don’t know what they’re talking about,” he said of critics of the project. Pat
Wallizer, owner of Little Orleans Campground with his wife, Donna Wallizer,
said he advertises his business as “the eastern entrance” into Green Ridge
State Forest. Wallizer said he owns most, if not all, of the property affected
by road realignments and while disappointed in the high cost of the project, it
is “a very necessary bridge.” “Are there any other options?” Stakem asked Young
as the presentation drew to a close. “I think that’s pretty much it,” Young
said. “I don’t see any other way of doing it.”
Contact Kevin Spradlin at kspradlin@times-news.com.
Published: January 31, 2009
Terrapin Run bill backs counties
Local planning decisions ‘should
have teeth’
Kevin Spradlin
Cumberland Times-News
CUMBERLAND — The much-anticipated
Terrapin Run bill might not be so bad after all.
Senate Bill 280, introduced by Senate President Thomas V. “Mike” Miller at the
request of Gov. Martin O’Malley, is to “overturn the Court of Appeals ruling in
David Trail, et al., vs. Terrapin Run LLC.”Two locals who often differ on
land-use issues in Allegany County appear to agree on the fact that this bill
shouldn’t raise too many eyebrows.Phil Hager, planning coordinator for Allegany
County, said it was “expected that the Maryland Department of Planning was
anxious to see some sort of new legislation directed at enhancing the
relationship between comprehensive plans and their implementation.”“The
position of the Maryland Department of Planning has been some aspects of the
court case have eroded the connection between the comprehensive plans and what
actually results after land-use issues play out after adoption of the plan,”
Hager said. “Most people don’t seem to read it quite that way. I think that
most of us who have had serious discussions ... don’t read this court decision
with the same extreme viewpoint that MDP appears to view this in that this does
not throw comprehensive planning and land-use back to the dark ages. All the
same, they have a concern and they’re hoping to address it. Personally, I think
they’re going about it the wrong way.”The March 2008 Court of Appeals decision
ruled that local comprehensive plans should be “in harmony” with but may not
necessarily “conform to” the state’s master plan. Hager said it was the
county’s position that the concept of Terrapin Run — built to its limit, it
would be 4,300 homes, a recreation center and hiking and biking trails on land
adjacent to Green Ridge State Forest — was included in the county’s 2002
comprehensive plan.Hager said he and the county Planning Commission “support”
the idea of local comprehensive plans having a strong impact on land-use
decisions. When asked whether to the point of conformity, Hager said,
“absolutely.”“We would not want to spend resources and time ... if we didn’t
see them actually being implemented.”It was “puzzling,” Hager said, why MDP so
adamantly opposed the county Board of Zoning Appeals decision to allow Terrain
Run in the first place when the local comprehensive plan is what the board used
to make their decision, which was a 2-1 split.“I understand why MDP had
reservations about the actual project,” he said. “But what they’re after right
now has nothing to do with the actual project. It has to do with the portion of
the decision that was handed down that they feel erodes the power of the
comprehensive plan.”Dale Sams, a Cumberland resident and co-founder of Citizens
for Smart Growth in Allegany County, echoed Hager’s sentiments.“What I think
the bill is saying is that once the plan is developed and adopted, it should
have teeth,” Sams wrote in an e-mail. “Clearly, (county residents) want to
participate, and are participating, in the development of the county’s
comprehensive plan, which is the blueprint for future growth and development.
They are looking for consistency and predictability when they choose where to
live.”If passed, Senate Bill 280 and SB 273, which implements the state’s 12
visions for Smart Growth planning, “should go a long way toward ensuring that
expectation,” Sams said. “I don’t see either of these bills as the state
intruding on the ability of counties to make their own land-use decisions.”Hager
agreed, but noted there are “specific statues on the books that mandate, that
provide the framework for comprehensive planning to be followed.”
Contact Kevin Spradlin at kspradlin@times-news.com.
