Send us your thoughts and comments.

The issue in New Market is not the activities of Friends of Frederick County, but the town’s sprawling growth plan that will, in some form or another, ultimately impact every resident of Frederick County through crowded schools, traffic gridlock and higher taxes to subsidize the services and infrastructure needed to support growth.

Everyone can agree that economic vitality is needed, and now. But with over 5,300 vacant houses sitting on the market in Frederick County, annexing farmland to build even more is a road to nowhere.

Friends of Frederick County is a coalition of concerned citizens, farmers and business people who have brought a refreshing mandate of accountability to locally elected officials which is simply this: Follow the law. The sprawling, costly, unhealthy, environmentally and socially destructive growth planned for New Market is not only contradictory to the town’s own stated objectives but also out of compliance with state law.

Town leaders did not analyze and plan, as required by law, for the costs of services and infrastructure, such as roads, schools, emergency services, water and sewer service, and the impact of growth on environmentally sensitive areas. The law requires this assessment for a good reason: because taxpayers are often left footing the bill for future costs of residential and commercial sprawl. Unfunded mandates are routinely foisted on the public by many developers in Frederick County, where for years citizens have unwittingly paid higher taxes to cover the cost of more schools, more roads, sewer and water services, and more pollution.

Compliance with the law is something we should demand of all elected officials, along with a healthy dose of fiscal common sense. New Market’s plan throws that all overboard and reaches far beyond their own growth projections of 468 houses by the year 2030. The Smith Cline annexation alone plans for 925 homes. With 5,300 vacant homes in the county, you have to wonder why.

The “if you build it they will come” mentality of the past is simply not viable in the wreckage of vacant subdivisions dotting the countryside. But reality has not yet reached the leaders of New Market who cling to the notion that bulldozing and building creates jobs, even if no one happens to be buying. The New Market plan is not about progress or smart growth, it is a desperate attempt by developers and special interests to go back to the bubble economy days when real estate speculators could turn a profit selling futures in massive, budget-busting subdivisions — the public interest be damned.

Moving the county economy beyond its dependence on real estate speculation is why Friends of Frederick County came into existence more than seven years ago. That is why Friends is supporting a citizens initiative to prepare a plan for New Market that will meet New Market’s stated objective for “orderly, compact, phased and compatible growth as an alternative to suburban sprawl, automobile-dependent development that has consumed hundreds of thousands of acres of valuable land across our county” (see p. 5 New Market Municipal Growth Element addendum June 9, 2010).

The consequences of land-use decisions almost always fall on the shoulders of citizens. It is reasonable for them to have a voice in these affairs. That’s not demagoguery, or “meddling,” as Mr. Koehler puts it, it’s democracy.

Janice Wiles is the executive director of Friends of Frederick County; Amy Farber is a member of the board of directors of FoFC

Originally published March 13, 2011

Cline Farm, New Market (Harry Richardson, artist)

This letter is in response to Mark Koehler’s Feb. 28 letter titled “Not Friends …” in which he takes to task Friends of Frederick County’s involvement in the politics of New Market. I, too, have a New Market mailing address, albeit not in the Town of New Market; however, I live very close to the town and have had the opportunity to attend their Town Council and planning and zoning meetings. I have followed very closely many discussions and decisions by the New Market elected officials as they pertain to the surrounding environment in which the residents of New Market live.I am a concerned citizen who is writing to factually rebut Koehler’s accusations against Friends of Frederick County. HB 1141 is a clearly defined law that outlines how municipalities are to address their Municipal Growth Element (MGE). After the town submitted their MGE, the Maryland Planning Department’s, as well as the State Highway Administration’s, response to the town’s submittal outlined in very clear terms how poorly this document was executed and provided very distinct recommendations for aligning the town’s MGE with HB 1141.

Town officials chose to ignore the majority of these recommendations. During their Nov. 17, 2010 meeting an individual who was providing guidance to the town officials stated that “if the Maryland Planning Department doesn’t write their response in bold then we don’t need to worry about it.” Perhaps it would have been more helpful to suggest that the Maryland Planning Department, as well as the State Highway Administration, were much more versed in the requirements of HB 1141 and as such their comments should be taken seriously.

Friends of Frederick County has not been “frequently meddling in New Market’s affairs” as stated by Koehler, but rather became involved once it became apparent New Market town officials chose to ignore the recommendations made by the Maryland Planning Department with regard to their MGE.

The fact of the matter is, had town officials worked with the State Planning Commission, as well as the State Highway Administration, to design their MGE to meet the requirements of HB 1141, the Town of New Market would not now find themselves in the position of being sued. I would also venture a guess that if town officials would be willing to reconsider the wording of their MGE so that it unequivocally met the requirements of HB 1141, no monies would be have to be spent defending a plan that appears to be fallible.

I would invite all concerned citizens to visit the Maryland Planning Department’s website to gain factual insight into this situation.

Vitriolic rhetoric accomplishes nothing. I believe if everyone comes to the table with an open mind we would understand that everyone is seeking quality of life. This is not about stopping development but rather about developing our community in a smart, well-thought-out way that does not force us to live in an extended Montgomery County. If we all try to work together I believe we can all achieve that which matters most to us.

Brenda Harlow lives near New Market.

Originally published March 05, 2011

With the approval of the New Market Municipal Growth Element (MGE), the Town of New Market is now able to annex the Delaplaine, Ganley and Smith/Cline farms.  These annexations would more than double the size of the Town  from about 434 acres to about 880 acres.  The 925 residential units proposed for Smith/Cline alone will almost triple the population of the Town by adding approximately 2,451 people and increasing the number of residents from 1443 residents (at full build-out of existing subdivisions) to 3,894 residents.

The location of these farms are shown in purple cross-hatching on the Land Use map below. These proposed annexations are contiguous or very near to the Meadows, the Orchards, Brinkley Manor, Royal Oaks, Sponseller’s Addition, New Market West and New Market Farms.  They are also contiguous or very near to municipal recreational facilities, parks and open space; and an Audubon Bird Sanctuary (there may be a few alterations on the road location but FoFC doesn’t have the new map yet.  Even though the plan was approved last night citizens/residents still haven’t been able to actually SEE the plan that affects their home values, quality of life etc).

The Town proposes that Delaplaine and Ganley be developed for commercial and industrial purposes which, under the Town’s development regulations, include heavy manufacturing, heavy vehicle repair, truck stops, public heliports, recycling and storage, public works yard/garage, warehouses, fast food drive-thru restaurants, motels, commercial parking lots and gasoline stations.  The heavy traffic, air pollution, noise, dust, glare, smoke, toxic chemicals and visual impacts associated with these uses would severely impact the surrounding communities, recreational facilities, parks, open space and sanctuaries.
The 925 residential units proposed for Smith/Cline would generate about 9,000 additional car trips per day, greatly worsen traffic on Boyers Mill Road, lead to far more “cut-through” traffic in adjoining neighborhoods, and exacerbate traffic congestion and safety hazards on narrow, winding road segments and local intersections.

The Smith/Cline development would yield 583 pupils. As a result, Smith/Cline would  severely exacerbate school overcrowding and require the construction of at least one new public school whose cost would exceed by $10 Million the revenues generated by developer impact fees. According to the Frederick County Public School System, the cost of educating each public school student is about $12,000 per year.  These costs would amount to a total of $6,996,000 annually for the Smith/Cline development.  For these and other reasons, the Frederick County Board of County Commissions recently classified and zoned these properties for agriculture use only in its 2010 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map.

Read the review comments:

Maryland Department of Planning’s comments on New Market MGE and cover letter

Frederick County Division of Planning

Maryland Department of Transportation

New Market Citizen Comments on MGE

Friends of Frederick County Comments on MGE

To become involved or express your concern please contact: friends@friendsoffrederickcounty.org

They concluded that they need to talk more. Mayor Randy McClement made a list of topics to discuss at future meetings: the city’s adequate public facilities ordinance; the income tax projections from the prospective new residents of 10,000 houses; the phasing of development and road needs.

The two governing bodies agreed to collaborate on how to provide housing, schools and jobs for the people who are predicted to move to the city over the next 20 years.

The meeting was the state-mandated conference between the two bodies to discuss the municipal growth element section of the city’s updated comprehensive plan. The plan was approved in November as a guide to development over the next 20 years.

The municipal growth element section divides the development potential into two tiers: Tier 1 is for infill and redevelopment; tier 2 is for planned growth in the northeast and covered by the Potomac River Water Supply Agreement.

A swath of land in the county that borders on the city’s north and east boundary, designated as Tier 3, is shown on the land use map in the plan. Tier 3 land is not projected for city annexation or development for more than 30 years and is not part of the official growth element, said Joe Adkins, the city’s deputy director for planning.

County Commissioners President Jan Gardner disputed whether Tier 3 land could be included on the map if the city did not officially account for the cost of its potential development. A long-discussed but not officially planned north-south road lies in that swath.

Gardner said that if Tier 3 is included on the map the city must provide economic analyses of potential development of the land, as it had for Tiers 1 and 2.

Tiers 1 and 2 are predicted to be built out in 20 years. Over that time they are estimated to generate an average of 500 houses per year; 300,000 square feet of commercial development per year; 18,000 employees; two elementary schools, one middle school, and three-quarters of a high school; school impact fees worth $150 million, or 60 percent of the cost of those schools; a need for 54 police officers; an additional $4.5 million in revenue for the fire tax.

County commissioners David Gray, Kai Hagen, John L. Thompson Jr. and Gardner told city officials all taxpayers bear the burden of the cost to provide the schools, roads and fire-rescue services of development. City aldermen Michael O’Connor, Karen Young and Shelley Aloi said job growth would provide revenue that had not been included in the analysis.

“There’s no single-bullet answer to this,” O’Connor said.

“There’s a lot of minutiae to discuss,” Hagen said.

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/display.htm?StoryID=106259

Originally published June 17, 2010

By Patti S. Borda

News-Post Staff

In his letter to your newspaper on May 23, Thomas Lynch, a principal in the law firm of Miles and Stockbridge, issued a call for “serious, honest and consensus-seeking discussion” about development in our county. We support this call — an informed and respectful exchange is long overdue.

Topic number one in our mind is the cost of development. By cost, we mean the financial costs of public services and facilities required to support development.

We believe that much of the development inFrederick County — particularly subdivision and commercial sprawl — costs far more than the tax revenues it generates. This gap between costs and revenues largely explains, in our judgment, why our roads and schools are overcrowded, why our taxes keep going up, and why we face the most severe budgetary crisis in decades. After all, if sprawl development actually paid its own way, then none of these problems would ever arise.

One reason this gap persists is that the full costs of development are often overlooked during planning and approval of large-scale development. A case in point is the 2010 Comprehensive Plan proposed by the City of Frederick . The city’s “financial analysis” of this plan projects a surplus in revenues for the city if the plan is implemented.

This projection was made, however, only after most of the cost of building and maintaining county and state roads, and the cost of building and operating county public schools, had been excluded. These costs, which have been reliably estimated to exceed $1 billion over the 20-year life of the plan, were apparently ignored because they would be paid by some other agency or jurisdiction, and not by the city itself.

As we know, however, the cost of development all comes out of the same pocket — that of the county taxpayer — regardless of which government agency or jurisdiction pays the bill. Any projected surplus in revenues under the city’s plan is misleading because it would depend entirely on a subsidy by county taxpayers of hundreds of millions of dollars. In other words, the city’s plan would simply rob Peter to pay Paul.

We ought to be able to accurately calculate the cost of development. It can’t be that hard. Roads and schools are the big-ticket items. Fire and emergency services, libraries, parks, and water and waste management facilities are also costly. As Lynch points out, our community is home to many informed, talented and resourceful citizens. Working together, as he proposes, we can begin to distinguish between those developments that we can afford and those that we cannot.

Fortunately, Maryland law now requires precisely this kind of analysis. The goal of this new requirement is to ensure that all costs of development — and not just those paid by one jurisdiction or agency — are fully disclosed and considered in the municipal land-use planning process. Under these new requirements, for example, the county and the city are currently evaluating the development costs associated with the city’s proposed 2010 Comprehensive Plan and will present their findings at a public workshop at 7 p.m. Monday, June 7, in the boardroom of Frederick City Hall, 101 N. Court St.

We are fortunate that the Board of County Commissioners foresaw four years ago that, when it came to development, we were living far beyond our means. By acting immediately to correct the mistakes of the past, the board avoided further risks to the fiscal integrity of our county and gave us a plan for a balanced and, above all, an affordable future.

We welcome Thomas Lynch’s call for a new dialogue. Let’s start with the math.

Janice Wiles is executive director

of Friends of Frederick County.

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/opinion/display_lte.htm?storyid=105837

Often I hear the statement, “Frederick County will grow by 50,000 people in the next ….years…we have to be ready for that…”  Then, the discussion ensues about land annexations, road expansions, services, schools, etc., without any real discussion about the very first statement…that Frederick Co. will grow.

My concern is that first statement.  We have a say in that growth…it is NOT a fait accompli. Those 50,000, 100,000, 150,000 people are NOT just going to arrive at our doorstep.  They will NOT come if there are not the jobs, housing, roads, etc. to accommodate them.  At first, I realize that that sounds harsh and backward, but in reality, SMART growth concerns the PLANNED increase in population…not just the reaction to it!

I will leave the statistics about jobs, taxes and the hidden costs of growth to others.  I DO think they are important; however, my passion is about something a little less tangible and nonetheless important. It concerns our legacy.  No one reading this will be here 100 years from now, and in 100 years, no one currently on this planet will remember us.  Whether we’re here 10, 50, or 100 years, it’s over quickly.  We will be known only by our legacy.  Beyond our own children, are our childrens’ children, and their children, and theirs. What do we want to leave them to remember our having been here?

I grew up in the countryside of Baltimore County.  I ran and played for hours in the woods, beside the streams, in the fields.  My family ate the lambs we raised, corn from the local farmer, drank milk from the local dairy and bought eggs from the lady nearby who raised chickens.

We were lean and healthy.  Our water was pure, and the air was fresh and clean.  Television had just been invented, so the outdoors was our world.

What will tomorrow’s children know of these things?  As I watch the farmland disappear; the woods, too; and learn of the pollutants in our lakes and streams; the high rate of cancer in our state and this county, especially; when I see the obesity of our children (and adults), and the lack of outdoor areas for children to play, other than the little playgrounds in the developments (small concessions to the need for exercise); when I see the paucity of food available that is not filled with chemicals, genetically modified, filled with antibiotics and whose actual freshness is unknown; when I see the deer lying on the road because of our destruction of their habitats; I cry deep inside.

In our striving for “growth”, which seems to mean more and more – more cookie cutter housing, more Wal-Marts, more shopping malls, more money in developers’ pockets and votes at the ballot box for those who supported them – I see gross examples of man’s mismanagement of the planet. It’s a runaway train.  We must stop it now, and it starts with US.  While we are satisfying our desires for more and more, we are leaving our children and our children’s children with less and less of lasting value.  We can have growth, and have it responsibly and thoughtfully.  Let’s preserve our resources and leave a legacy of thoughtful growth that generations to come will enjoy.

Kate Carter, New Market

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