In his May 23 commentary, Thomas Lynch attempts to cast illusions, build straw men and further polarize growth and development issues — the very things he suggests we rise above.

Lynch unfairly characterized the recently adopted comprehensive plan, and Frederick County government in general, as being unfriendly toward the business community. As a business owner who moved to Frederick County specifically to start a business, I can tell you that nothing could be further from the truth.

The hundreds of properties that Lynch refers to as being “downgraded” constitute less than 1 percent of the properties covered under the comprehensive plan. In addition, within that 1 percent, a large number of the properties were reevaluated as a result of new, updated flood-zone maps issued by FEMA. Most reasonable people would agree that properties in a flood zone are not good candidates for development.

Furthermore, the county commissioners specifically acknowledged that some of the rezoned properties could still be developed if annexed by the adjacent municipalities as part of their growth plans. This ensures that new development can be serviced by adjacent municipal infrastructure.

In the end, there were only a handful of property owners out of the approximately 230,000 residents in Frederick County who were adversely affected. Little consolation for those individuals for sure, but not a bad track record for elected officials trying to balance the desire of individuals with the best interests of the community at large.

The business community in Frederick County is diverse and made up of more than just developers. For example, Frederick County has more farms than any other county in Maryland. The number of farms in Frederick County is also up 13 percent from 2002, unlike many other counties.

Those counties that focused on development as the main engine of growth have suffered the most as a result of the bust in the construction industry.

The industry was premised on people continually upgrading to the next most fashionable neighborhood or floor plan. Studies have shown that land zoned agricultural puts money in the bank for local governments. They pay more in taxes than they consume in services. The opposite is true for new development, which costs existing taxpayers more than it brings in.

The county commissioners spent two years and countless public meetings updating the comprehensive plan. The process was fair and open. All voices were heard. The final comprehensive plan does exactly what it is supposed to do. It accommodates the population growth that is projected to occur in Frederick County over the next 20 years. It aligns growth with existing infrastructure, minimizing the cost to existing residents and taxpayers.

If developers are looking for something to do, look no further than the Golden Mile or any other half dozen communities in Frederick County that are in desperate need of redevelopment.

William Morrow

writes from Whitmore Farm, Emmitsburg

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/opinion/display_lte.htm?storyid=106102

06-16-2010 7pm City Hall  City’s Mayor and Aldermen to meet with Board of County Commissioners to discuss costs of 20-year municipal growth plan

What will the planned development cost citizens of this county and city?

The following cost analysis of Frederick City’s Municipal Growth Element was prepared by FoFC for the April 13, 2010 workshop with City and County officials.

Frederick City Officials decided to do a thorough cost analysis of the projected growth and present those costs to the Frederick County Board of Commissioners on June 7th.

Will there be a Big Red Road?

A road that will connect north Rte 15 with I 70 SE of Frederick, and go through over 160 properties – in some cases houses would need to be remove

Mandatory Adoption

Every municipality in Maryland is required to adopt a “municipal growth element” as part of its comprehensive plan.  The initial deadline for meeting this requirement was October 1, 2009.  For good cause shown, the Maryland Department of Planning may grant up to two six month extensions of this deadline — to either April 1, 2010 or October 1, 2010.

The Maryland Legislature has provided for the suspension of zoning authority in any municipality that fails to adopt a municipal growth element within the prescribed time limits.  By establishing this extraordinary penalty, the Legislature has underscored its commitment to sound planning at the municipal level.

Download the Municipal Growth Element Fact Sheet here.

Purpose

In developing its growth element, a municipality must, among other things, evaluate and disclose the potential impacts of its planned growth on county-wide services and facilities (e.g. roads; schools; water and sewer; parks; fire and emergency services etc.).  This information, in turn, will enable the county to project the likely costs of accommodating proposed municipal growth plans.

Mandatory Consultation

A municipal corporation is required to consult with the county in developing a municipal growth element.  In the course of this consultation, the county may provide the municipality with information related to the cost to the county of accommodating proposed municipal growth.

Mandatory Period of Review and Comment

A municipal corporation is also required to provide a copy of its proposed municipal growth element to the county and, for a period of 30 days thereafter, to accept comments from the county.  In its comments on the municipal growth element, the county may request additional information on the impacts of planned growth on county-wide services and facilities.  The county may also request that the municipality decrease the size of its planned growth area where (i) county-wide services and facilities are not sufficient to accommodate municipal growth plans; and (ii) the county will not in the foreseeable future have the resources to expand its infrastructure to accommodate this planned municipal growth.

Mandatory Meeting of County and Municipal Officials

Within 30 days following the close of the comment period, the county and the municipal corporation “shall meet and confer regarding the municipal growth element.”

This meeting provides the county and municipality an opportunity to resolve differences of opinion regarding (i) the likely costs to the county of municipal growth, as proposed; and (ii) the appropriate size of the planned growth area.  According to the Maryland Department of Planning, “HB 1141 mandates that jurisdictions meet and confer on this subject before the municipal growth element can be adopted.”

Mediation by the Maryland Department of Planning

Following this meeting, “on the request of either party”, the county and the municipality shall employ the mediation and conflict resolution office of the Maryland Department of Planning to resolve any remaining differences of opinion.  The Maryland Department of Planning has stated that:

Good planning dictates that the municipality and county agree on those land areas that will someday become part of the municipality.

City of Frederick

101 North Court Street

Frederick, Maryland 21701

Re:         The City’s Municipal Growth Element

Dear Mr. Mayor:

Based on information that only recently came to our attention, we believe that the City of Frederick failed to comply with Maryland law in its adoption on November 19, 2009 of a “municipal growth element” to its comprehensive plan. In particular, we understand that the City, under the prior Administration, did not fulfill its obligation to “meet and confer” with the county, as required by Section 3.05(e)(6) of Article 66B.  We therefore write to request that the City’s municipal growth element be rescinded and made subject to further proceedings, as required by state law.  We ask that you respond to this request within 10 days so that we may consider further appropriate steps at that time.

We would also note that under Article 66B, a municipality’s zoning authority is suspended by operation of law after October 1, 2009, unless a valid municipal growth element has been adopted by that date, or an extension of the October 1, 2009 deadline has been granted by the Maryland Department of Planning. Section 3.05(f)(3).  If, as we believe, the City’s process for adopting its municipal growth element was deficient, any zoning actions taken by the City thereafter would appear to be subject to successful legal challenge, absent an extension of the initial statutory deadline.  Our views in this matter are more fully explained below.

Section 3.05(a)(x)(1) of Article 66B requires that every municipality in Maryland adopt a municipal growth element which, among other things, depicts planned growth, including annexations.  A primary purpose of this growth element is to fully disclose the potential impacts of proposed annexations on county-funded public services and facilities, such as schools, water and sewer, parks, law enforcement, and fire and emergency medical services.

In the past, these impacts have largely been ignored and resulted in both a severe decline in the adequacy of county services and facilities and dramatic increases in the tax burden on county residents.  To ensure that these “hidden costs” of annexations and sprawl are no

longer overlooked, state law now requires “a far more detailed and quantitative analysis of future growth” and an “examination of the effects of growth on infrastructure [both] within and adjacent to the present municipality and on future growth areas that may be annexed.” (Maryland Department of Planning, “Managing Maryland’s Growth: Writing the Municipal Growth Element to the Comprehensive Plan”, May 2007, p.1.)

Prior to adopting a municipal growth element, a municipality is required to “meet and confer” with the county in regard to proposed annexations.  As noted by the Maryland Department of Planning,

HB 1141 [amending Article 66B] mandates that jurisdictions meet and confer on this subject before the municipal growth element can be adopted. (Id. at p.3)

As part of this meeting, a county may request additional, detailed information on the impacts of proposed annexations on county-funded public services and facilities.  Based on this information, the county may also request that a municipality decrease the size of, or even eliminate, proposed annexations from planned growth areas.  Such a request would be particularly appropriate where (i) existing county-wide services and facilities were not sufficient to accommodate these proposed annexations and development; and (ii) the county was not prepared to accept a decline in the adequacy of its public services and facilities or to require that county taxpayers further subsidize the infrastructure costs of municipal growth.  As the Maryland Department of Planning has put it,

Good planning dictates that the municipality and county agree on those land areas that will someday become part of the municipality. (Id.at p.3)

Where agreement on proposed annexations is not reached at this meeting, a municipality and county are required, “on the request of either party”, to employ the Mediation and Conflict Resolution Office of the Maryland Department of Planning.  A municipality may not adopt a municipal growth element prior to the conclusion of this process.  Article 66B, Section 3.05 (e)(6)(ii).

As you know, the Board of County Commissioners strongly opposes municipal annexations which pose risks to the public health and safety or may impose additional tax burdens on the residents of Frederick County.  In her letter to the City dated September 2, 2009, for example, Jan H. Gardner, President of the Board of County Commissioners, expressed Frederick County‘s opposition to the  COPT/Thatcher and Crumland Farm annexations on grounds that they would (i) “only exacerbate an already dangerous situation” on U.S. 15; (ii) “worsen school overcrowding”; and (iii) jeopardize the adequacy of county fire and emergency medical services.  Ms. Gardner also noted that “it is premature to assume that sewer capacity for these properties will exist.”

Finally, in closing, Ms. Gardner requested that the Mayor and Board of Alderman “set aside time to discuss these issues” with the Board of County Commissioners. That request was never honored.

Under HB 1141, a municipality may no longer simply refuse to “meet and confer” on its plans for future growth.  In this case, the county was already on record in opposition to two of the City’s proposed annexations.  The county had also expressed on many occasions its concerns generally about plans for municipal annexations and the financial hardship that annexations may impose on county taxpayers.

Despite the express requirements of Maryland law, however, and the clear disagreement over issues of municipal growth, the City’s prior Administration ignored its responsibility to “meet and confer” with the county and thereby circumvented its obligation to submit any unresolved conflicts to Maryland’s Office of Mediation and Conflict Resolution.  We believe these failures to comply with state law will have a direct bearing on the amount of taxes assessed by the City and county in future years.

In these circumstances, we believe that the municipal growth element adopted on November 19, 2009 is legally invalid and that the City’s zoning authority has  been suspended by operation of law. To remove this legal cloud over its zoning authority, and forestall judicial challenges to its zoning decisions, the City must rescind its municipal growth element and proceed to comply fully with the requirements of  Maryland law.  We respectfully request that it does so.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Richard Wiles, 22 Clarke Place, Frederick MD  21701

Ed Hinde, 601 Magnolia Av, Frederick MD  21701

Felix Flanagan, 1033 N Market St, Frederick MD  21701

Ken Eidel, 425 N Market St, Frederick MD  21701

Aaron Valentino, 412 N. Market St. Apt. 12, Frederick MD  21701

Amy Farber, 1600 Marker Rd, Middletown, MD  21769

Kate Carter, 10696 Oakridge Ct., New Market, MD 21774

Marcel Aillery, 3710 Tuck Avenue, Point of Rocks MD   21777

As individual property owners and taxpayers of the City and County of Frederick  and as representatives of Friends of Frederick County.

cc:         The Board of Alderman: Shelley Aloi, Carol Krimm, Michael O’Connor, Kelly Russell, Karen Young

“At present, the extension of public water and sewer service into annexed land need only be consistent with either the County’s Comprehensive Plan or the annexing municipality’s Comprehensive Plan.

Example 1:
Greenacre is a 200 acre farm adjacent to Townsville. Greenacre is designated as “No Planned Service” on the County’s Water & Sewerage Plan. Greenacre lies outside of any 20-year community water & sewer service area on the County’s Comprehensive Plan. Green Acre is designated as “Agriculture” on the County’s Comprehensive Plan. However, Townsville’s Comprehensive Plan designates Greenacre for development as garden apartments on community water & sewer. Townsville annexes Greenacre. Since the extension of community water & sewer into Greenacre is consistent with Townsville’s Comprehensive Plan, an amendment to the County’s Water & Sewerage Plan indicating that community water & sewer service for Greenacre appropriate would likely be approved.

Under my proposal, the extension of public water & sewer service into annexed land would have to be  consistent with both the County’s Comprehensive Plan and the annexing municipality’s Comprehensive Plan.

Example 2.
The facts are the same as in Example 1 except that the County adopted my proposal. Since the extension of community water & sewer into Greenacre is not consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan, an amendment to the County’s Water & Sewerage Plan indicating that community water & sewer service for Greenacre appropriate would likely be denied.”

Winchester Hall / 12 East Church Street

Frederick, Maryland 21701

CONTACT: Robin K. Santangelo

Public Information Officer

301-600-2590

TTY: Use Maryland Relay

rsantangelo@fredco-md.net

PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT

The Frederick County Division of Planning today announced the release of the 2009 Countywide Comprehensive Plan public hearing draft titled, “Frederick County’s Future: Many Places, One Community

With guidance from the Division of Planning, the Frederick County Planning Commission recently completed preparation of the public hearing draft plan to update the Countywide Comprehensive Plan.

The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to receive comments on the draft plan on Wednesday, July 15, at 7:00 p.m. in the first floor hearing room of Winchester Hall, 12 East Church Street, Frederick, Maryland. The public may submit comments directly to the Division of Planning prior to the hearing at planningandzoning@fredco-md.net or by mail to the division, also located at 12 East Church Street, Frederick, MD 21701.

• Accessory apartment – we support this specifically for the use of a farm operator; for example adjacent to a greenhouse where someone would provide round the clock monitoring of greenhouse conditions.
• Aircraft landing and storage area – We understand that this is for private planes on private land; we would object to a commercial airport on agricultural land
• Animal hospital/vet clinic – not for production of food or fiber or resource conservation; more appropriately sited in a commercial zone.
• Antique shop – not for production of food or fiber or resource conservation; more appropriately sited in a commercial zone.
• Artisan and craft shop – we support this if it supports sale of on-site food/fiber production
• Assisted living facility – not for production of food or fiber or resource conservation; more appropriately sited in an institutional zone.
• Auction sales – if this is for large animal sale then this is appropriate and necessary for husbandry management.
• Batting cage/range – not for production of food or fiber or resource conservation; more appropriately for a zone designated for recreation.
• Bed and breakfast – also not agriculture or related although could be “ag tourism”; special conditions should apply to ensure small footprint and character that blends with the agricultural zone.
• RV and tent campground – not agriculture or RC related, more appropriately in a zone established for recreation or park.
• Caretaker apartment – how does this differ from accessory apartment?
• Carnival or circus – not agriculture or RC related, should restrict to fairgrounds
• Childcare center/nursery school – institutional not agriculture or RC
• Civic Service Club – institutional, not agriculture or RC
• College or University – institutional, not agriculture or RC
• Community Center – institutional, not agriculture or RC
• Continuing care retirement community – institutional, not agriculture or RC
• Country Inn – institutional, not agriculture or RC.
• Family day care home – institutional, not agriculture or RC
• Farm equipment sales or service – - retail/commercial, not agriculture or RC
• Golf Course/driving range. Miniature Golf Course – commercial, not agriculture or RC
• Group home – residential, not agriculture or RC\
• Hobby Shop – commercial, not agriculture or RC
• Indoor Sports Recreation Facility – institutional, not agriculture or RC
• Kennel – institutional, not agriculture or RC
• Landscape Contractor – if the contractor is growing plants on his/her land then yes, it should be allowed.
• Motorcycle Hill Climb – recreation, not agriculture or RC
• Museum Gallery – institutional, not agriculture or RC
• Nursing Home – institutional, not agriculture or RC
• Outdoor Club – recreation, not agriculture or RC
• Outdoor Recreation Center – recreation, not agriculture or RC
• Outdoor Sports Recreation Facility – recreation, not agriculture or RC
• Pet Training/Grooming – commercial not agriculture or RC
• Roadside Stand – yes, as it supports the sale of food/fiber off farms. Allowing this eliminates the need and expense for farmers to undergo site plan review.
• Rodeo – yes, part of the culture and can be used for sale of farm goods
• Rustic Retreat/Camp – perhaps on RC; not on agriculturally zoned land
• Sawmill – depending on size, if on farm small production should be permitted; if large then should be in commercial zone
• Private and Public School – institutional, not agriculture or RC
• Shooting Range/Club – recreation, not agriculture or RC
• Sludge Pit/Holding Tank – perhaps to support dairy operations (as manure holding tanks), but otherwise not agriculture or RC.
• Solar Array – yes, to allow new options for solar power in agricultural areas
• Solar Collection System – same as above
• Solid Waste Composting – soil for food production; currently we haul manure and shavings to West Virginia – we could use them for composting here.
• Gasoline Storage Tank – not for commercial operations, perhaps for on farm property diesel storage (to use for farming operations)
• Wind Energy System/Owner/Rotor Diameter/Total Height, wind generator and wind tower – yes (letter submitted 2/23/09 by R. Rush)

In conclusion, we are pleased that the BOCC is closely scrutinizing the activities allowed on agricultural and resource conservation – zoned land. It is our hope that every attempt will be made to allow only those uses that promote agriculture, farming and equestrian related activities as well as protection of the resources on RC land.

From the Desk of Friends of Frederick County