EXTRA
Supervisors Hear Intense Opposition to Rezoning

Some of the 150 zoning opponents who rallied at the old courthouse prior to a meeting of the Northampton County Board of Supervisors. (Wave photo)

Some of the 150 zoning opponents who rallied at the old courthouse prior to a Northampton County Board of Supervisors meeting December 9. (Wave photo)

By DORIE SOUTHERN
Cape Charles Wave

December 11, 2014

Some 150 Northampton County residents rallied December 9 against plans for a sweeping rezoning that opponents say could change the Eastern Shore way of life. The crowd than attended a Board of Supervisors meeting where it was standing room only in the usually nearly vacant meeting room.

In the face of intense opposition to the zoning proposals developed by county staff, the Supervisors voted to take up to six more months to decide what to do. During public comment time, almost all of the 19 speakers asked the Supervisors to just withdraw the proposal instead of extending the deadline. But only Supervisor Granville Hogg voted against the deadline extension.

Public speakers called for the Supervisors to request input from county residents as well as research studies on what proposed changes might mean to the economy.

Virginia Shorekeeper Jay Ford, one of the rally organizers, said that more than 500 people had signed a memo calling on Supervisors to completely withdraw the rezoning applications. The zoning applications were filed in the name of all county residents, but in fact were drawn up by county staff without consultation with the public.

Cape Charles Mayor George Proto was among speakers calling for the Supervisors to withdraw the zoning proposals. Proto said he was speaking for himself and not for the Town of Cape Charles. The proposed changes are inconsistent with the county’s Comprehensive Plan and the desires of a large portion of the county’s citizens, Proto charged, calling for public input and verifiable data to address issues of concern.

Cape Charles Business Association President Andrew Follmer said that his Board of Directors, representing 60 members comprised mainly of small businesses, had voted unanimously to request the Supervisors to completely withdraw the zoning code applications. “We further request a new process be launched to update the county zoning code in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and based on relevant data,” Follmer said.

Exmore Mayor Douglas Greer also voiced his opposition. “You don’t have a good reputation when it comes to getting the Shore where it needs to be,” he told the Supervisors. “You have a good chance to turn this county around. . . . You need to listen to the people of the Eastern Shore. . . . Open your minds and don’t ignore the people here. Think before you act. That’s all I ask,” he said.

CONTINUED FROM FIRST PAGE

At the beginning of the meeting, Board Chairman Larry LeMond proposed changing the agenda in order to vote on extending the zoning amendment timeframe before any public comments were heard. But before LeMond could rule, a voice from the audience called out, “I would like to speak to that matter. You took that out of order.” It was Roberta Kellam, a former member of the Planning Commission whose term was not renewed after she voiced opposition to the proposed zoning changes. “What are you afraid of? You won’t hear from the public first?” Kellam asked LeMond.

LeMond responded, “I’m not afraid of anything. We can hear the public first. We were trying to, for instance, help you all out.” To which an audience member responded, “We’re here to help you all out.”

“All right,” LeMond said, “As Chairman I am going to table this matter and let you all speak,” and the audience burst into applause.

Public comments included the following:

ROBERTA KELLAM thanked Chairman LeMond for allowing the public to speak before voting on a six-month extension, but she told Supervisors they had painted themselves into a corner with the current proposals. She recommended that they withdraw the current amendments and gather public input before proceeding with any zoning changes.

Shorekeeper JAY FORD thanked the Board for delaying its vote, but complained that the concerns of citizens are not being met with a two-way discussion. He noted that he comes every month to the Board of Supervisors meetings, but they do not respond to his concerns. “Not once have we had an opportunity for meaningful dialogue,” he said, pointing out the need to address the effect of zoning changes on aquaculture, agriculture, and tourism, the county’s economic engines.

Northampton High School student HANNAH DEMARINO agreed with Ford’s call for dialogue between county residents and the supervisors.  She invited the Board to hold their next meeting at the high school, “so that students can see our local government and how it operates.” She said she wonders if there will be jobs after college or if she will have to leave Northampton County to find employment.

SHANNON ALEXANDER of Painter, who runs an eco-tourism company, said she loves the Shore for its lack of development. If the highway becomes just another collection of strip malls she will consider leaving.

MARTINA COKER, a former Planning Commissioner who resigned in protest over the way the Supervisors were handling the zoning amendments, expressed her concerns “with the process whereby this zoning ordinance was developed — behind closed doors and with no public input.” A great deal of taxpayer money was being wasted on this, and the ordinance would possibly harm the local economy, she said.

REVELL WALKER of Willis Wharf told Supervisors that when his family began spawning clams in the 1980s the water was too polluted to open a hatchery. “It took years to clean the water up,” he said, asking Supervisors to keep that in mind and not do anything to harm the aquaculture industry.

Former Supervisor ANDREW BARBOUR said it was his understanding that the zoning ordinance amendments are driven by hopes that it will drive economic development, but that in his estimation they would produce the opposite effect. Rezoning would harm the few county industries that are succeeding – tourism and aquaculture. He questioned the sense of encouraging development on Route 13, which could lead to traffic congestion. He called for the Board to withdraw the proposal, follow the Comprehensive Plan, and get citizen input.

ROBERT MEYERS of Exmore said the county needs to heed the advice from the company it hired to address economic development and not undermine the economic engines of agriculture, aquaculture, tourism, and small businesses. He questioned why the Supervisors did not support the industries that the county currently has, noting that some Supervisors oppose AFDs (Agricultural and Forestal Districts) and aquaculture. “Stop making decisions behind closed doors,” he said.

ART SWARZCHILD, head of the UVA Coastal Research Center in Oyster, said it is time to throw out the old proposals. “Let’s start from the beginning. Let’s get the scientific justification for it. Let’s get the economic justification for it. Let’s get public input for it,” he said.

DEBORAH BENDER of Cape Charles raised concerns not only about the zoning ordinance but the Public Service Authority plans to lay a sewer pipe from Route 13 to Cape Charles. She noted that some of the property that will be part of the commercial project is currently zoned agricultural. “Why would the county rezone properties from agricultural to commercial?” she asked.  “Did the owners of the properties ask to have their property rezoned? We may never know because the county is doing the rezoning. None dare ask why. It looks like a backroom deal,” she charged.

KEN DUFTY of Exmore, one of the rally organizers, said that what the county is calling an “amendment” to the zoning ordinance is actually a “complete revision of the zoning ordinance, not an amendment.” He said that state law cited by County Administrator Katie Nunez includes a requirement that amendments to the zoning ordinance be “reasonably consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.” “That will be a point of law, believe me,” he said.

KATHERINE CAMPBELL, a real estate agent from Virginia Beach who owns property in Machipongo, was the only speaker in favor of the zoning changes. “Everyone loves the rural character of the Eastern Shore.” But “the tax base is shrinking,” she said. “This has to open the door for smart development. I’m actually impressed with all the changes you’ve made.”

Former Planning Commissioner MARY MILLER requested that a Planning Commission report be made public that concerned researching land-use impacts on seaside water quality.

Rally co-organizer DAVE KABLER described how much he uses the current zoning ordinance as a Realtor. “Why hasn’t [County Director of Economic Development] Charles McSwain come to me and talked to me about economic development?” he asked. “I ask you please to withdraw this ordinance. All of us are gathered here and you decided to move the vote to extend this ordinance. How does that look?” He asked audience members to stand if they wanted the ordinance withdrawn and not extended. Most of the audience stood. “Why haven’t you made a motion, Mr. Hogg, to withdraw this ordinance?” Kabler asked.

DONNA BOZZA, executive director of CBES (Citizens for a Better Eastern Shore) recalled that the last time the zoning ordinance was changed, “everyone was brought to the table.” She also called on the Supervisors to withdraw the proposal, not extend it.

Share

Comments

13 Responses to “EXTRA
Supervisors Hear Intense Opposition to Rezoning”

  1. Deborah Bender on December 10th, 2014 11:41 pm

    At the grocery store I ran into Supervisor [Rick] Hubbard. I asked him how many people speaking out against the rezoning plan would it take to stop it — 200? 500? 2,000? He told me that he felt that the rezoning would move forward no matter how many people voiced their negative opinions!

    This is the United States of America — not Russia or China. What is going on around here? The only person that spoke in favor of the rezoning was a real estate agent! I think we need to turn up the heat!

  2. Tony Sacco on December 11th, 2014 9:23 am

    My first time in the new court house, at 88 my hearing is in decline and it was almost impossible to hear the voice of the chairman and his comments in the order of speaking and I apologize for speaking out of turn. I was very impressed with that young student Hannah DeMarino inviting the board to her high school to carry on the business of government so that the student body could see and hear how government operates. Ms. DeMarino was concerned if jobs would be here when she graduates from college. The students are also concerned about their livelihood to stay here or leave after graduation, so please, Board of Supervisors, take Ms. DeMarino’s advice and go to her school and hear from the young leaders of the future — an opportunity I grant you that you will be proud that you did so.

  3. Ken Dufty on December 11th, 2014 10:14 am

    Yes, in response to Rick Hubbards comments that he didn’t care how many people spoke against their plans to change the lower Shore into an Ocean City (as Katie Nunez announced last year) , it is rather maddening to think these supervisors begin each meeting by asking God during their invocation (Bennett) to help them do the right thing and then place their right hand over their hearts (be careful!) and pledge allegiance to “Republic for which it stands”…..wow! Anyone who went to the recent Board of Supervisor’s meeting and watched that show of arrogant disregard for anything their constituents had to say, left shaking their head in disgust. And it was rather telling when Bennett, after listening to 18 speakers during the public comment period, many of whom were former county officials, say that there “were a couple of people” in the room whose opinions he respected. Note on that remark he cleared the room. This is the supervisor who stated that he opposed any support for tourism (one of our core industries) because it didn’t do anything for “my people”, delivered in a sort of Moses-like tone.
    There is a multi-faceted approach to restoring the integrity to our local government. And the first step on that journey is to educate our friends and neighbors, as well as everyone in the county, on the facts of the Board’s destructive and disastrous development plans that are being driven by Katie Nunez and Charles McSwain., who are joined by real estate developers and industrialists who only wish to profit from the re-zoning scheme. We all need to write letters or comments to our local and regional newspapers (like the Wave, Eastern Shore News (*esn@dmg,gannett.com), The Virginia Pilot (letters@pilotonline,com) and the EasternShore Post ([email protected]). We also need to send comments to the county, asking our comments to become part of the record. The comments sent into the county will be important for our legal pleadings to the courts if the BOS continues this horrendous assault, and that pending challenge will be based on procedural and substantive violations by the BOS.
    But most of all, we need to regroup and seriously consider a recall election, challenging the entire Board of Supervisors, save for Mr. Hogg. Supervisor Hogg, standing alone, still believes he is a servant of the people and not of those special interests who only wish to profit at the expense of Northampton County’s sustainable future.
    Note that Mr. Hubbard, in all likelihood, will assume the role of Chairman of the Board of Supervisors in January, and his cavalier attitude of arrogance towards his constituents will take another step towards the dismantling of our democracy.
    In closing, let me repeat what I said during the public comment period at the December 9, 2014 meeting of the BOS: the supervisors are not evil, nor are they “bad” people. They are upstanding and otherwise fine members that support the fabric of our community. However, that said, they have been strongly and repeatedly influenced by the woodpecker-like din from private interests that think Northampton County can catapult into a vibrant, bustling metropolis like Virginia Beach or Ocean City. These private interests want to accomplish their goal by getting permission to do whatever they want, whenever they want and wherever they want with our sensitive lands and ecosystem. The hypnotic trance that has cast a spell over the Supervisors appears to be a team effort, apparently led by Katie Nunez, Bill Parr, Charles McSwain, members of the PSA, Mike Ward, and most if not all of the current Planning Commission. Note the latter is just wrapping up a complete re-write of our Comprehensive Plan which will, not by accident, closely match the proposed complete revisions of our current protective zoning ordinance. Note the re-writing of the current Comp Plan is being orchestrated in the same manner as the zoning re-write…with no input from the general public.
    Thank you, thank you, thank you to the hundreds of people who showed up at the Board of Supervisors meeting on Tuesday, December 9th. For many of you, this was an eye-opening glimpse behind the curtain of the folks who we elected to represent our interests. It was rather telling when nearly the entire room, almost in unison, rose and left the room after being insulted by Supervisor Bennett and immediately before the vote that went against everything the majority of speakers asked of the Board. Great night..and marked just the beginning of taking our local government back.

  4. Jean Flynn on December 11th, 2014 12:48 pm

    A reminder to the Board of Supervisors of Northampton County, VA, in case you’ve forgotten you represent your constituents:

    “The power under the Constitution will always be in the people. It is entrusted for certain defined purposes, and for a certain limited period, to representatives of their own choosing; and whenever it is executed contrary to their interests, or not agreeable to their wishes, their servants can, and undoubtedly will be recalled.”
    -George Washington

  5. Katherine Campbell on December 11th, 2014 3:32 pm

    Yes as you say, I am a real estate agent, but it’s a small part of who I am. My other interests are in the outdoors. We are raising 5,000 oysters in Mattawoman Creek. My gardens are planted to support pollinators in all stages of their lifespan. When I did waterfront improvements in Virginia Beach, I exceeded CBPA [Chesapeake Bay Protection Act] requirements, before the CBPA was even enacted, because I didn’t like the way Linkhorn Bay was being bulkheaded into a giant swimming pool. My garden club worked relentlessly and we raised $200K to provide exhibits for the Welcome Center at First Landing State Park, where children from all over Virginia can experience and learn about the natural world. As a real estate agent, if I depended on working with developers for my livelihood, I’d be like the Maytag repairman. You can be in favor of the BOS rezoning process to promote smart growth and not be for over-development. Yet not all development is bad. If it weren’t for developers we would all have to grow our food because there wouldn’t be a Food Lion. My support for the proposed ordinance is about jobs. I work with businesses to find locations. This year I worked with someone looking to open a business on Route 13 at Parsons Circle. They were okay with the cost of digging a well. They were okay with the cost of putting in septic. These are expenses they didn’t expect. But when the restrictive zoning required that they purchase 3.5 acres instead of one acre, they said they couldn’t keep adding onto the cost. They determined that ‘the risk was too great in a county where the population was shrinking, and the demographics were bad, the second poorest in the Commonwealth. They walked away and are looking at locations further north. I’m not sad about losing the deal — it was a small fee. I am sad that county zoning prevented eight to ten jobs from being created for NH County residents who can’t find a job in aquaculture, on a farm, or in tourism. The supervisors took a lot of flak Tuesday night about aspects of the proposed zoning ordinance that they’ve already removed during their work sessions, with people shouting at them for something that is already off the table. They are being accused of not listening, but clearly they are listening. I believe that at the end of the day, the final version will satisfy the concerns being voiced, since their progress so far shows it is already being incorporated. Good people can disagree without acrimony. It would be wonderful if we could express our concerns to them without rancor and ridicule, and in that respect we can take a civics lesson from student Hannah DeMarino who expressed her concerns and request eloquently.

  6. Donna Bozza on December 11th, 2014 3:39 pm

    Thank you again Cape Charles Wave for your comprehensive and informative coverage of this pressing issue. Zoning impacts every citizen in our county now and for generations. Its creation needs to be an open process that includes the very people it will affect, and the proposed ordinance must be backed by reliable data. This is not the case with Northampton County’s Proposed Zoning.

  7. Jim Welch on December 11th, 2014 5:34 pm

    First, I’d like to thank the Wave for its excellent coverage of this event. The venue you provide the Shore citizens is critically important. The free flow of information on this zoning issue not only allows us all to express our outrage and concern, but provides a platform for the citizens to develop strategy and solutions to this multifaceted problem. The antithesis of the Board of Supervisors actions.

    After the recent Northampton County Board of Supervisors meeting and preceding resistance rally at the Court House, well-attended by over 150 very concerned, verbally concise, expressive taxpaying citizens, it’s very clear that the Board, with one exception, Mr. Granville Hogg, does not represent the majority of the citizens in this county. It’s also very clear that they are motivated solely by and represent a select few special interest groups of developers, Realtors, engineering and construction businesses. These people, including County Administrator Katie Nunez, and strangely absent, highly paid County Economic Development Director Charles McSwain, have shown themselves to be incompetent, wasteful, and unresponsive to the public. It’s actually quite amazing to behold their official behavior.

    It’s very clear in the minds of a growing citizenry that they need to be replaced, now. A Recall Election is the most direct means. The longer these individuals rule over the decision making process and the purse strings of this county, the deeper into debt the county will slide, and the more difficult it will be to pull out from the growing debt burden. These individuals have no successful track record of efficiency or of past successful projects; quite the opposite in fact. They sit in their seats of power because they were elected to their positions and/or appointed. It is time to reverse that process so that progress in Northampton County can be made in our time of economic scarcity, dishonesty in government, and continuing flagrant violations of US Constitutional intention and the people’s mandate.

  8. Deborah Bender on December 11th, 2014 8:34 pm

    Taken from the recent VDOT traffic safety report :Strategy: Improve safety and mobility along U.S. 13 through land use planning by discouraging development directly along the corridor, especially strip development. As the Eastern Shore Corridor on the Eastern Shore becomes more developed, there is a call by both counties to discourage strip development or even discourage development altogether directly along the corridor. Discouraging strip development and encouraging more clustered commercial and industrial development is important to avoid future access management issues, such as multiple driveways and median crossovers along the roadway. As this is the only major north-south corridor through this region of Virginia, this roadway needs to remain viable for through traffic and for tourist traffic. Safety should not be compromised along U.S. 13, and capacity should be compromised as little as possible to keep traffic moving.

    Here is a link to the full report:http://www.vtrans.org/resources/eastern_shore_corridor_u.s._13.pdf

    Seems like VDOT doesn’t want any development along the highway but I am sure Katie Nunez and the BOS will try to walk all over VDOT too.

    If I can help in any way with the recall please make contact.

  9. Donna Bozza on December 12th, 2014 9:44 am

    Thank you Debbie for including the VDOT study. Route 13 corridor issues were at the forefront of the formation of the zoning that Northampton currently operates under. I agree it seems to be virtually ignored in the proposed zoning. Once our main artery is over-developed, there is no going back. Another way smart growth points to limited development on 13, with growth concentrated in the towns.

  10. Colin Cowling on December 12th, 2014 12:04 pm

    The current zoning ordinance was passed by the then six member Board of Supervisors with a vote of 5 to 1. Of those six members only one remains on the current five member board. He is the one who voted against it.
    Included in the crowd at the meeting on Tuesday of approximately 125 people I only saw two who are members of our African American community and two I believe are members of our Hispanic community.
    On the several occasions over the years I have seen far larger crowds pack the courthouse on zoning issues.
    Mr Ford made numerous mistatements of fact before the Accomac Board of Supervisors that were so egregious he had to write an apology.
    Mrs. Kellam is a New York lawyer formerly employed by the Nature Conservancy.
    The current zoning ordinance was in fact largely written by a Northern Virginia law firm.
    The state of Virginia projects a continuing decline in the population of Northampton County
    These facts seem to be ignored by those opposing zoning change but you can bet it has been duly noted by the Board of Supervisors.
    And for the record; I actively opposed the current zoning ordinance nor do I support the amendments as currently written.

  11. Patricia Lilliston on December 12th, 2014 9:13 pm

    Still no good explanation about why a Virginia Beach real estate broker comes here, fights to get everybody’s zoning changed and turns herself into the poster child for this destructive county rezoning scheme. Maybe she’s a real estate money investment adviser looking for new fields to plow? Or maybe she just bought some property here and doesn’t like the way it’s zoned? Still no good explanation about why she came here and wants to wreck my zoning.

  12. Jim Welch on December 13th, 2014 10:10 am

    This is all about making money by whatever means possible. It has nothing to do with administering the will of the people, who elected these politicians, to administer their desire and concern for the county and to use common business skill, which they haven’t proven they possess, to spend hard earned tax dollars properly. There are some people involved that don’t have much money, wanting to make money on commissions, and there are those that have substantial funding at their fingertips but want to own the county and beyond. What’s transpiring in Northampton County is a reflection of how the Commonwealth is run; how the Commonwealth of Virginia is run is a reflection of how the US government is run. There are solutions to any problem, but first the people need to truly understand what’s transpiring in the world around them, and then, importantly, want to change it for the better.

    The Northampton County problem is interesting because it’s only one county in the Commonwealth. Consider: both the Governor and Lt. Governor are supposed to be concerned about the environment? If they can’t or don’t make a phone call to stop these thieves of the people’s tax dollars and trust, which became very obvious at this last meeting, well, then things become a bit clearer. There is no way the BOS can do what they’re doing if the Governor and Lt. Governor don’t allow them to proceed. There is a consensus of “closed door” agreement in full operation; the only question is, how high does it go?

    The December 18 Chamber of Commerce’s Eggs and Issues event would be an excellent opportunity to present to our elected officials the overwhelming concern about the Northampton County situation: http://www.esvachamber.org/eggs-and-issues.html

  13. Roberta Kellam on December 15th, 2014 10:15 am

    Please allow me to provide, in its entirety, correspondence that I received from the Executive Director of the Virginia Shellfish Growers Association, related to the Economic Impact of the aquaculture industry on the Eastern Shore. It should be noted that jobs in the aquaculture industry are a good match for the County workforce, and seafood in general has excellent potential for vertical expansion.

    The proposed County-wide Rezoning, if adopted (even with the proposed “consensus” changes), would have a significant negative impact on the aquaculture industry by: (1) greatly reducing the minimum shoreline lot width, which allows high density development on the waterfront and a substantial increase in the amount of docks that would impede aquaculture operations (for more information, please visit the National Working Waterfront Network online); (2) setting the stage to eliminate the water quality protections of the Bay Act on the seaside; and (3) cumulative impacts on water quality from high density population and boating increases in the watershed, among numerous other administrative details that impact all of us.

    An important point to remember is that the Aquaculture Industry success depends upon the success of the hatcheries, and success of the hatcheries depends on water quality!

    Here is the letter, dated Sept. 18, 2012:

    Dear Ms. Kellam,
    On September 11, 2012, a joint meeting of the Northampton County Planning Commission and the County’s Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) occurred. During the course of that meeting, some misconceptions regarding shellfish aquaculture were expressed. In particular, shellfish aquaculture was characterized as providing no economic benefit to the County, primarily because shellfish aquaculture does not contribute to property taxes or pay sales tax on the shellfish produced. This statement totally ignores the very substantial indirect economic contributions made to the County. These amounts have actually been calculated by personnel at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science and were presented to the Northampton County Board of Supervisors on February 8, 2011. I’d like to refresh your memories and highlight the economic importance of shellfish aquaculture to Northampton County.

    Any “business” will generate direct and indirect economic impacts from their activity. Direct impacts are fairly easy to understand; these are the result of sales of products. For instance, in 2011 the hard clam aquaculture industry generated approximately $26 million in farm-gate sales, with direct employment of 144 full-time and 46 part-time jobs (Murray, T.J. and K. Hudson. 2012. Virginia Shellfish Aquaculture Situation and Outlook Report – Results of 2011 Virginia Shellfish Aquaculture Crop Reporting Survey. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Marine Resource Report No. 2012-04, 20 pp.). Northampton County is the location for a great majority of hard clam aquaculture in Virginia and, thus, a major benefactor from these sales. However, in addition to this direct impact, employees within the hard clam culture industry generate economic activity when they spend their income on housing, food, and other goods and services. These indirect economic impacts extend into the local community. This further expands and generates economic activity for suppliers, accountants, etc. whose employment supports the operation of retail enterprises. Essentially, the activities of the shellfish aquaculture industry will generate multiple rounds of economic activity, including non-clam aquaculture industry sectors such as retail trades, eating and drinking establishments, banking, hospitals, real estate, and more.

    These same direct and indirect economic impacts are generated by the rapidly expanding oyster aquaculture industry within Northampton County.

    At the February 8, 2011, Northampton County Board of Supervisors meeting, Thomas J. Murray, a marine business specialist with the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, presented an overview of the economic activity associated with clam and oyster aquaculture on the Eastern Shore. His presentation is a matter of record. I would, however, like to highlight some of the information that Mr. Murray presented to the Supervisors. Mr. Murray’s report was an update, using data from 2009-2010, of a comprehensive study done in 2004 (Murray, T.J. and J.E. Kirkley. 2005. Economic Activity Associated With Clam Aquaculture in Virginia – 2004. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Marine Resource Report No. 2005-05, 21 pp.). In his report, Mr. Murray stated that the initial sales of farm-raised hard clams and clam seed generated a direct impact on local economic output of an estimated $30.5 million in 2010. The total direct employment associated with these hard clam farm sales was estimated to be 380 in 2009. Personal income associated with these initial clam aquaculture sales was $9.2 million in 2009. When taken together the economic impacts resulting from hard clam aquaculture during 2009 resulted in overall increases in: economic output of $50.3 million; added employment of over 600 individuals, yielding an overall increase in personal labor incomes of over $15.0 million throughout the State. During 2009 over 7 million aquaculture oysters were produced on the Eastern Shore, yielding $1.82 million in additional farm revenue, with an expectation that this would more than double in 2010. Taken together, the total economic impact of Eastern Shore hard clam and oyster aquaculture in 2009 was an output of $54.4 million, generated employment of 620 individuals, and an income of $16.0 million.

    Just because shellfish aquaculture may not pay property or sales taxes does not mean that it does not contribute to the local economy. In fact, it is just the opposite. Shellfish aquaculture is a huge economic engine for Northampton County. When developing rules, regulations or ordinances, great consideration and care must be taken to ensure that the shellfish aquaculture industry continues to be the vital revenue source for the local economy.

    Thank you for this opportunity to provide factual information regarding the importance of the shellfish aquaculture industry to the local economy of Northampton County. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of additional assistance in your understanding of shellfish aquaculture.

    Sincerely,

    Michael J. Oesterling
    Executive Director