Sidewalk Snow Removal
Who’s Responsible? Maybe You.
Many are unaware of a St. Mary’s County ordinance regulating the responsibility for removing snow from public sidewalks. In 2015, the County Commissioners passed Ordinance No. 2015-32 to “Regulate the removal of frozen precipitation from public sidewalks and streets.” Commissioners serving at the time were President Randy Guy (R-At Large), Tom Jarboe (R-District 1), Mike Hewitt (R-D2), John O’Connor (R-D3), and Todd Morgan (R-D4). Hewitt was the only vote against the resolution.
Covered sidewalks on January 9th, and the same area without snow.
The ordinance states “the owner of any real property…which is adjacent to any public sidewalk shall remove…any snow, ice, or other frozen precipitation…within 72 hours after the end of the precipitation.” Should the sidewalk be covered by a snow plow clearing roadways, the property owner has another 72 hours to remediate the situation. The Department of Public Works & Transportation (DPWT) is authorized to enforce the rule. DPWT will investigate any complaints of non-compliance, and inform the property owner of any violations. If the property owner fails to act, DPWT can clear the sidewalk and bill for the costs or issue a citation not to exceed $1,000. An information memo, released after ordinance approval, says it “protects the safety of every individual in St. Mary’s County.”
Snow is a rare event in the area, but the latest storm dropped up to a foot in some parts of the county. Sidewalks throughout St. Mary’s County remain uncleared, with a particular concentration in and around the California-Lexington Park area. The snow is sticking around for some time due to low temperatures. Community members have been spotted walking in roadways to catch the bus, including children heading to bus stops. Anyone without a vehicle who relies on the safety of sidewalks and crosswalks cannot get to the store, or even to work in some cases.
Sidewalks along Chancellors Run Road are still impassible.
The Commissioners, and DPWT, have been working to expand sidewalk accessibility in recent years. Efforts focused on connecting sidewalks, extending those that weren’t finished, and promoting walkability in densely populated areas. As a result, more miles of sidewalk now exist, crossing in front of residences, commercial centers, vacant commercial properties, and even wooded areas.
In theory, making property owners responsible for sidewalks could be a good idea. It reduces the workload of DPWT, reduces costs for the county for payroll, equipment, and supplies, and promotes a neighbor-helping-neighbor atmosphere. It also releases the county from any liability for injuries or damages caused by unsafe sidewalks and places that burn on a property owner. But, there are some downsides.
Success of the ordinance depends on people knowing it exists. Without informing the public, execution and compliance lack consistency. Enforcement adds labor and material costs. It seems unlikely enforcement could even take place in enough time to make a difference, creating a no-win scenario for DPWT and an unsafe one for pedestrians. The ordinance makes the property owner responsible, but is that burden passed to a tenant who leases the property? How much time and effort would county staff invest to answer questions in order to enforce the ordinance?
Great Mills Road, in front of the pool.
For example, the sidewalks spanning the corner of Chancellors Run Road, bordering Sheetz, are uncleared. But Sheetz does not own that property, they presumably ground lease it. The owner is Michael Hewitt LLC, which is owned by Commissioner Hewitt. Sidewalks in front of the Great Mills Pool, where there is an STS bus stop, and continuing down Great Mills Road in front of the Great Mills High School are also blocked. The pool is owned by the County, while the school is owned by the Board of Education. What about the old, vacant Lexington Park Ford location, or any other commercial or residential property that remains vacant? How much time and effort would county staff invest to answer these questions in order to enforce the ordinance?
Someone walks on the side of the road because sidewalks aren’t clear.
This situation doesn’t happen often, so it might not seem like a big deal. But it is for those people who regularly walk these routes, folks whose access to services, income, and even life may be affected. Non-compliance comes from not knowing about the ordinance. I’d argue, however, it's caused more by our assumption that the county provides this service. Shouldn’t we expect it?
What do you think? Are you affected by the unsafe sidewalk conditions? Should the county enforce, or repeal this ordinance?
