Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public comment: petition effort to referendum Maryland SB931 and developers defend past violations
Summary
During the county's public‑comment period, Jay Falstad of the Queen Anne's Conservation Association urged residents to sign a petition for a referendum on Senate Bill 931, and developers and industry representatives responded to earlier criticism about stormwater and conservation violations.
Public comment at the May 27 Queen Anne's County meeting featured a petition drive to place Senate Bill 931 on the ballot and responses from local developers addressing accusations about past regulatory violations.
Jay Falstad of the Queen Anne's Conservation Association said Gov. Moore recently signed Senate Bill 931 and urged county residents to help qualify a referendum to put the measure before voters. Falstad described SB931 as "the greatest threat to Maryland's agricultural areas and its farmland in the state's 247 year history," saying the law "throws open the door to widespread solar projects on farmland" and that petitioners face an imminent signature deadline to reach the first threshold. He told the commission he carried physical petitions and asked commissioners and members of the public to sign.
Developers and business representatives used public comment to respond. Mike Irons, division president for KME Homes, disputed an earlier allegation about a large count of clean‑water violations attached to his company, saying the allegation was "totally inaccurate." Irons described a February 2018 storm event that dropped six inches of rain in 24 hours at a Kent Island site and said the company has since installed a stormwater filtration system and had no further issues at that community. He also said his firm reported illegal tree cutting to the sheriff's office and expected an investigation.
John Villiani (D & F Development) and other speakers urged commissioners to consider pending land‑use projects favorably, saying they had followed planning commission guidance. Several residents also spoke in opposition to the water and sewer amendments covered later in the meeting, arguing new development would stress schools and roads.
Why it matters: The petition effort seeks to change state land‑use outcomes by referendum; developer rebuttals signal continuing local debate about stormwater performance, environmental compliance and trust between residents and builders. Commissioners recorded the comments as part of the public‑comment record; no formal county action on SB931 was taken at the meeting.
