Standing in the Magothy
The Dobbins Island case has been one of the most interesting tests to the Critical Area Law, and it's not over yet.
To recap: two brothers, Jim and Ed Wilson, purchased Dobbins Island, Little Island and some shoreline property a few years ago. They sold the shoreline land fairly quickly, and a developer bought Little Island.
In plain sight of pretty much everyone, this developer, a man named Daryl Wagner, built a home complete with a lighthouse replica, a pier, boat ramp, driveway, pool, gazebo, and even a hovercraft. Anyone who tried to get close to sneak a peek was scared off by Wagner's many dogs. Subtle it wasn't.
But for some reason, no one in Anne Arundel County's permitting department put two and two together and realized that Wagner never got the needed permits. When county officials finally noticed, years after construciton was complete, they threatened to tear the structure down. A court case ensued (well, a couple), and Wagner was eventually allowed to keep the structures up.
Now comes the owner of Dobbins Island, who is seeking to build a pier, driveway, well and septic system. The Magothy River Association and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation have challenged that, just as they did in the Wagner case; but the county's board of appeals have said the environmental groups have no standing to do so, just as it did in the Wagner case. CBF's Kim Coble laments that in an editorial today, saying that someone has to have the right to speak for the trees, the grasses, the crabs and all the other living creatures in the river.
Here's the thing though: when Jim and Ed Wilson bought the two islands and the shoreline property, they couldn't give Dobbins away to the environmentalists. They tried, calling DNR and every other place they could think of to sell it or donate it. Nobody wanted an eroding hill that had long ago become a de facto public park; the liability issues alone were too daunting.
Here, in fact, are then-DNR-spokeswoman Heather Lynch's exact words: "The Department of Natural Resources is not interested in purchasing it, protecting it or preserving it. From our perspective, it presents a patrolling and enforcement headache."
The owner of Dobbins isn't trying to build something new-Dobbins already had a house on it, back when the island was owned by the original family and the children could walk to school on the mainland over a sandbar.
There is no explaining how Anne Arundel officials missed the Little Island faux-lighthouse, which sticks out even in the increasingly McMansion-heavy Magothy. But it doesn't sound like the Dobbins guy is trying to do the same thing. And hey, at least he's asking for permits. Let him bring back the goats that used to roam the place, and he won't even have to expend emissions to mow the lawn. Now that would be something.
Comments
It is a false premise that either DNR or the enviros must purchase or own or take some sort of active responsibility for any property with environmental sensitivity that should be protected. It is also a false premise that anyone who applies for a permit should automatically get one. In fact, that sort of thinking is how the Bay got to be in the condition it's in.
If we allow a "pier, driveway, well and septic" where, if we're serious about protecting the Bay, they shouldn't exist at all, then why are we even bothering with the facade of a permit system? The regulatory agencies need to have the authority to simply say no to things that will harm the Bay.
CBF and the Magothy River Association deserve credit for at least trying to stop the damaging development that Anne Arundel County can't seem to deal with on its own.
Posted by: TJH | August 7, 2007 7:23 PM
A year ago we approached the owner of Big Dobbins to ask if we could use his PRIVATE land for a terrapin nesting sanctuary. The owner agreed and we repatriated three terrapins (salvaged from the market) to the island. This past June, one was recovered nearby on the mainland presumably trying to nest. Despite this glimmer of hope and reported nesting attempt, plans for Turtle Island in the Magothy are on hold. Once we became aware of the magnitude of the controversy and boat traffic off shore of the island, we decided it would be a cruel hoax to free more terrapins to the Magothy. The last time I was on the island (with permission from the owner) we found a dirty diaper. Debris like that doesn’t just wash up – it’s placed there by trespassers. Regardless of what boaters used to do, i.e. trespass, they are no longer allowed to do on either Dobbins.
It would appear that in the case of Big Dobbins, the concern is more boating recreation than terrapins, grass beds, or natural shorelines. At most other points along the Maryland tidewater, hundreds of new piers from PRIVATE property do not concern anyone. Rock piles jetting over 200 feet from the CRITICAL AREA into the public domain go unnoticed and uncontested. Shallow water habitat is displaced on a routine basis and no one seems to mind.
The persistence of the Dobbins Island case may illustrate a key impediment to successful Bay recovery. We’re all for Bay restoration as long as we don’t have to give up anything or change our behavior. Until we are all prepared to forfeit our riparian rights and leave our private beaches undisturbed so that terrapins might nest and/or hatch, the energy focused on Dobbins Island might be better spent elsewhere.
Posted by: The Terrapin Institute | August 8, 2007 11:58 AM
Recent articles and published remarks by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Magothy River Association would have us believe that one pier and one home on Dobbins Island will ruin the entire ecology of the Magothy River watershed, and perhaps even the Bay! One pier and home won't ruin the Magothy River or undo the work of the CBF in the Magothy watershed! No credible evidence has yet been presented showing that the Dobbins island construction will be any more damaging to the watershed than any other home or pier being built there. If the MRA and CBF are going to protect the Magothy by zealously opposing the Dobbins construction, then they should be as consistent in opposing ALL of the piers and constructions in the Magothy River watershed, and not just one! All piers block light and kill or prevent recovery of bay grasses and habitat equally. Has the MRA or CBF opposed the piers or home constructions of their own 100's of members living on the Magothy River, or have they singled out only one person for this new standard? The MRA and CBF have chosen to treat one landowner incredibly unfairly, as if they owned his land. It was on the market for years. If it was so important, they should have bought it, or at least made a credible offer when the owner recently asked for offers. They haven't done so, and instead resort to the press, and propaganda to advance a weak and unfounded position using fear, misinformation, and innuendo. Shame on the CBF and the MRA for behaving like schoolyard bullies!!
Edward Wilson Annapolis Md
Posted by: Ed Wilson | August 8, 2007 1:42 PM