Read more!

To read more on Thatcher and Crum development plans search either name on the FoFC home page search tab.

Frederick News Post article:  Annexed farmland clear for developing Originally published January 27, 2012  By Pete McCarthy

Photo by Staff file photo by Sam Yu  This June 2009 photo shows U.S. 15 running left to right with Willow Road perpendicular at lower right. The Board of County Commissioners voted Thursday to allow the City of Frederick to annex the Crum farm, to the left of Willow Road, and the Thatcher property, on the far side of U.S. 15. The City of Frederick is about to gain some acres.For more than a year, two large farms just north of the city have been approved for annexation, but the city and previous county officials disagreed on zoning so developers were told they would have to wait five years. The Board of County Commissioners voted Thursday to end that mandatory waiting period and allow the developers to proceed immediately. The two farms — known as the Crum and Thatcher properties — total nearly 400 acres. Both are north of the city limits along U.S. 15. Frederick Mayor Randy McClement was at Thursday’s meeting and called the commissioners’ decision a positive one for the city. “We need the growth area,” McClement said. “Everything is set in place. We are looking forward to the ability to give our residents an opportunity to stay here and work here.” The city approved annexation of the land in 2009. The properties are ripe for development, according to Commissioner C. Paul Smith. “I think this will be a great benefit for the city,” Smith said. “It had been planned for some time.” Commissioner Billy Shreve said, “I think it is a good example of planning.” Before significant construction can proceed, the developers would need to make improvements to a U.S. 15 interchange and other road enhancements. “I think it takes care of the important traffic problems we have,” Smith said. Construction at either site is still years away. Both developers will need a year or two to finalize their plans, according to land-use attorney Bruce Dean. The Crum property, just north of Willow Road, is 285 acres, and the plan is to build up to 1,200 homes and a mix of commercial and retail space, said Dean, who represents both developers. Up to 400 of those homes could be built before the interchange is completed, he said. The Thatcher farm is across U.S. 15 on Biggs Ford Road. The plan there is to build up to 1.3 million square feet of office space, which could result in thousands of permanent jobs, Dean said. Both developers are excited to get started, he said. “The focus was the proximity to Fort Detrick,” he said. “That is the No. 1 economic driver in Frederick County.” Both companies should have plans developed in the next two years, but there is no way to know when construction could begin, Dean said. “There is no huge impetus to be building a lot of houses right now,” he said. “It’s dependent on economic factors that are out of our hands right now.” Commissioner David Gray was the lone dissenting vote. “Classic sprawl,” Gray said. “Look for problems to come.” Friends of Frederick County — an activist group opposed to the annexation — filed a lawsuit against the city in 2010. The group alleged the city did not properly prepare for the potential growth and did not complete an appropriate plan. The case is still pending in court, Friends of Frederick County Executive Director Janice Wiles said Thursday. “I still have the same concerns that I had before,” Wiles said, referring to the dangers of added congestion on U.S. 15 and other factors. “Taking good farmland out of production and sprawling out into the countryside is not a good idea.”

If developers are willing to “promise” that they will cover the cost of new school construction, then what was the point of repealing that part of the APFO?

Our BoCC is supposed to act in the best interest of the citizens of Frederick County — not developers. What possible benefit will the county derive from this action? How will it benefit the average person/family in Frederick County?

Those aren’t rhetorical questions; I’d really like to hear some answers.

The APFO should be made stronger, not weaker. The current APFO already passes a significant portion of the cost of growth on to existing residents. Property taxes continue to increase at a rate greater than inflation. We are tired of paying for development that we do not need and do not want, and angry about being forced to pay for residential sprawl that reduces our quality of life.

Just 25 years ago violent crime was very rare in Frederick and Frederick County. Now, it is a daily occurrence and murders are commonplace. The traffic is ridiculous. Even with the current APFO in place, schools are embarrassingly overcrowded — classes are held in trailers that resemble mobile homes. In short, Frederick County has gone downhill since residential development began in earnest about 20 years ago.

Originally published March 07, 2011

SHERMAN JOHNSON

Middletown

My family moved here from Rockville when I was 14, My parents saw the beauty and potential of Frederick. They purchased commercial property, invested in the community and made this place home.We moved to a 90 acre farm in New Midway. As a 14 year old pre-teen, I fought this move and cried for months. I knew that when I was old enough I would “get out of this place”. But as I grew up, what I and many of my friends realized is that Frederick is the most amazing place to live, work and raise a family. Now over 20 years later, I am proud to call Frederick my home.

I want you all to know that I understand your position that you are “doing what you said you would do if you were elected”. You want to be “business friendly” and “create jobs”. I grew up in the business world here in Frederick. My parents own and operate a business here.

If you want to be business friendly then make businesses accessible. Building more commercial and residential space without proper planning will crush existing business. If I have to fight traffic to run simple errands, I will stop shopping locally.

I chaperoned a field trip to Washington Dc today. It took 2 hours to get there. I had plenty of time to notice a Lease sign on almost every building from TJ drive to Rt 109. There is so much space available that is unoccupied. These spaces are in planned business parks that are accessible and STILL they are vacant.

If you allow building without proper planning for schools, you will collapse an already overcrowded system. You have to understand that my son’s school, Lewistown Elementary, can’t handle 1 more student. You can only fit 2 buses in the front at a time. At dismissal, Hessong Bridge road is blocked at the school because of busses and car riders.

You need to know that I didn’t vote for you and don’t have the same vision for Frederick County as you do. You are obligated to be the voice of me, my husband and my 2 young boys. The decisions you make have true, irrevocable impacts on the daily quality of life of every Frederick County and city resident.

I live and work and volunteer here because I can organize my day to be across town in 15 minutes. If new homes and businesses make Rt 15 any more congested or dangerous, I will pull my kids out of activities and stop volunteering because I can’t get places without getting stuck in traffic. Local businesses will suffer if kids aren’t signed up for activities. If I can’t be a part of community activities because it’s impossible to get across Rt 15 what good is it to live here? If I can’t get anywhere, I will stop investing here. When I speak, I speak for my friends who have young kids who can’t be here tonight. You are looking at the future of Fredrick County in me. I shouldn’t have to fight with you to see my side. You are my representative, no matter what my beliefs are. That is the meaning of democracy. You are all responsible to do no harm to this county and leave it in better shape than when you took office.

A simple analysis of the BOCC’s idea to use “mitigation fees” to cover the school costs – we use the Crumland Farm annexation  - which demonstrates that developers will pay for only a small part of the school costs their developments will demand:

• There are 1100 housing units of varying types planned for construction on the Crumland Farm
• With those new homes there will be an estimated 550 new school children
• School capacity at Monocacy Elementary School (the school that will house those children) – based on December 2010 enrollment figures would be insufficient;  Monocacy Elementary School is currently at 109% capacity (in other words that school is already overcrowded).
• Neither the County’s Capital Improvement Plan nor the Frederick County Public School’s  10 Year Facilities Plan  have budgeted for a new elementary school  
• Cost of a new elementary school costs between $23 and $25 million.

The FC Builder’s Association has proposed the following fees for elementary school mitigation:

• single family home  $3870
• Town home  $4053
• Multi family home $897

There will be 550 single family homes, 275 townhomes and 275 multi family homes.  The total mitigation fee the Frederick County Builder’s Association proposes for the Crumland Farms annexation development is $3,489,750

Even with the developer’s mitigation fees the County will be $20 million short of what it needs to build a school for these new children. Even if the impact fee revenue from Crumland development project – estimated to be 11.9 million we would still be $7.5 million short.

Taxpayers will pay the difference.

I would also like to reiterate that the $20 million shortfall is only on the cost to CONSTRUCT the school.  We still have to educate the children –  ie the cost of school operation.

• The cost to operate an elementary school PER YEAR is $8.4 million.
• The cost to operate a middle school PER YEAR is   $10.8
• The cost to operate a high school PER YEAR is $19.3

Taxpayers will pay for additional school operating costs.

And, if you are a parent of youngsters who will attend Monocacy Elementary School you might ask how the school system will deal with these additional 550 children when they enter Monocacy Middle School and then TJ High School?  The “mitigation fee” proposal is only applicable to those school levels that fail the APFO.  Currently Monocacy Middle and TJ are not overcrowded so they would not receive any mitigation funding.  Yet, presumably – and if all goes well – our grade school students continue onto those levels!  So what will happen when these kids move on, especially to Monocacy Middle which is at 88% capacity?  It is likely that Monocacy Middle would need a multi-million dollar addition to accommodate the additional kids.

We use Crumland Farm as an example of just ONE development in Frederick County.  There are many more that would follow similar calculations and add additional burden to the county coffers to pay for new schools and their operations.

Where will this money come from?  Your wallet.

There are many issues to discuss tonight with respect to repeal of referenced ordinance:  sovereignty, fairness, legality, concurrency, redistricting, phasing etc, but of all these issues there is one no more important than the bottom line – maintaining equity among our schools and high standards within each one.  To do that we need to be as fiscally responsible as we can be and to us that means a complete financial analysis and disclosure /vetting of that to the public.  When it comes to our children, our taxes and quality of life we are asking for transparency.

It is our understanding that you have and are considering using  a “mitigation fee” – to be paid for by developers –  for school construction or additions.  If the “mitigation fee” is the same as that proposed by the Frederick County Builder’s Association on February 10, 2011 then mitigation is not a solution, in other words the mitigation fee will not cover the construction costs of building new space for new kids.

A simple analysis of your idea to use “mitigation fees” to cover the school costs – we use the Crumland Farm annexation  - which demonstrates that developers will pay for only a small part of the school costs their developments will demand:

• There are 1100 housing units of varying types planned for construction on the Crumland Farm
• With those new homes there will be an estimated 550 new school children
• School capacity at Monocacy Elementary School (the school that will house those children) – based on December 2010 enrollment figures would be insufficient;  Monocacy Elementary School is currently at 109% capacity (in other words that school is already overcrowded).
• Neither the County’s Capital Improvement Plan nor the Frederick County Public School’s  10 Year Facilities Plan  have budgeted for a new elementary school 
• Cost of a new elementary school costs between $23 and $25 million.

The FC Builder’s Association has proposed the following fees for elementary school mitigation:

• single family home  $3870
• Town home  $4053
• Multi family home $897

There will be 550 single family homes, 275 townhomes and 275 multi family homes.  The total mitigation fee the Frederick County Builder’s Association proposes for the Crumland Farms annexation development is $3,489,750

Even with the developer’s mitigation fees the County will be $20 million short of what it needs to build a school for these new children. Even if the impact fee revenue from Crumland development project – estimated to be 11.9 million we would still be $7.5 million short.

Please tell the taxpayers of this county how this will work for them and their families.

I would also like to reiterate that the $20 million shortfall is only on the cost to CONSTRUCT the school.  We still have to educate the children –  ie the cost of school operation.

• The cost to operate an elementary school PER YEAR is $8.4 million.
• The cost to operate a middle school PER YEAR is   $10.8
• The cost to operate a high school PER YEAR is $19.3

And, if you are a parent of youngsters who will attend Monocacy Elementary School you might ask how the school system will deal with these additional 550 children when they enter Monocacy Middle School and then TJ High School?  The “mitigation fee” proposal is only applicable to those school levels that fail the APFO.  Currently Monocacy Middle and TJ are not overcrowded so they would not receive any mitigation funding.  Yet, presumably – and if all goes well – our grade school students continue onto those levels!  So what will happen when these kids move on, especially to Monocacy Middle which is at 88% capacity?  It is likely that Monocacy Middle would need a multi-million dollar addition to accommodate the additional kids.

I used Crumland Farm as an example of just ONE development in Frederick County.  There are many more that would follow similar calculations and add additional burden to the county coffers to pay for new schools and their operations.  Where will this money come from?

For public information benefit I add that municipalities hold none of the financial responsibility for ensuring school adequacy or education.

As Frederick County’s Commissioners, who were elected to look out for the taxpayer interest, please keep your campaign pledges and do not repeal Frederick County Ordinance 09-28-532.  Please do not  jeopardize our childrens’ education, overburden our school system, its teachers and administrators, and the taxpayers of this county.

Thank you.

The ordinance was not applied in practice before several municipalities challenged its legality in December 2009. Petitions for judicial review of the ordinance were filed by the municipalities of Frederick, Thurmont, Brunswick, Emmitsburg and Myersville, the burgess and commissioners of Middletown, Woodsboro, Summers Farm LLP and Crum Commercial Farm Development LLC.

The county’s stated purpose for adopting the ordinance was to ensure that schools would be built before development could overburden them in areas the City of Frederick annexed — the Summers and Crum farms among them. Municipal leaders balked at the suggestion that they do not plan for school needs when approving development, presented arguments that the county had overcrowded schools in unincorporated areas before 2009, and that the county may have no legal right to impose the ordinance.

On Tuesday, many municipal leaders and builders told commissioners that the previous Board of County Commissioners had soured the relationship between the county and municipalities, and the ordinance worsened the situation. Mayors, burgesses, builders and land-development lawyers assured commissioners that they would work cooperatively with the county to plan for school capacity and would withdraw the legal action if the county would rescind the ordinance.

That order of events is wrong, said Commissioner David Gray. He advocated ideas from speakers who urged commissioners not to repeal the ordinance until something was written to replace it, a memorandum of understanding or an agreement to set certain standards that limit development according to school capacity.

Opponents of the repeal said Gray is the only one who is thinking of the effect that overcrowded schools would have on children. Commissioners President Blaine Young and Commissioner Paul Smith said they have children in public school, and they are taking into account the effect the repeal will have.

Lawyer Rand Weinberg said the commissioners should repeal the ordinance because it did not foster cooperation but represented an attempt to negotiate with a hammer over the heads of municipalities.

“The least productive way to negotiate a good solution … is with a threat,” he said.

Frederick Mayor Randy McClement, whose municipality was at the heart of the original matter before he took office, said he would work closely with the county on a solution. He said he was not speaking for the city aldermen, but believed they would be willing to work with the county to set an adequate public facilities ordinance for the city that would meet county approval.

The ordinance repeal went into effect Tuesday.

Originally published March 02, 2011
By Patti S. Borda

By Patti S. Borda The Frederick County Commissioners voted 4-1 Tuesday to repeal the ordinance that has applied the county adequate public facilities schools test to certain properties in municipalities since November 2009.The ordinance was not applied in practice before several municipalities challenged its legality in December 2009. Petitions for judicial review of the ordinance were filed by the municipalities of Frederick, Thurmont, Brunswick, Emmitsburg and Myersville, the burgess and commissioners of Middletown, Woodsboro, Summers Farm LLP and Crum Commercial Farm Development LLC.

The county’s stated purpose for adopting the ordinance was to ensure that schools would be built before development could overburden them in areas the City of Frederick annexed — the Summers and Crum farms among them. Municipal leaders balked at the suggestion that they do not plan for school needs when approving development, presented arguments that the county had overcrowded schools in unincorporated areas before 2009, and that the county may have no legal right to impose the ordinance.

On Tuesday, many municipal leaders and builders told commissioners that the previous Board of County Commissioners had soured the relationship between the county and municipalities, and the ordinance worsened the situation. Mayors, burgesses, builders and land-development lawyers assured commissioners that they would work cooperatively with the county to plan for school capacity and would withdraw the legal action if the county would rescind the ordinance.

That order of events is wrong, said Commissioner David Gray. He advocated ideas from speakers who urged commissioners not to repeal the ordinance until something was written to replace it, a memorandum of understanding or an agreement to set certain standards that limit development according to school capacity.

Opponents of the repeal said Gray is the only one who is thinking of the effect that overcrowded schools would have on children. Commissioners President Blaine Young and Commissioner Paul Smith said they have children in public school, and they are taking into account the effect the repeal will have.

Lawyer Rand Weinberg said the commissioners should repeal the ordinance because it did not foster cooperation but represented an attempt to negotiate with a hammer over the heads of municipalities.

“The least productive way to negotiate a good solution … is with a threat,” he said.

Frederick Mayor Randy McClement, whose municipality was at the heart of the original matter before he took office, said he would work closely with the county on a solution. He said he was not speaking for the city aldermen, but believed they would be willing to work with the county to set an adequate public facilities ordinance for the city that would meet county approval.

The ordinance repeal went into effect Tuesday.

There is something deeply troubling about a Board of County Commissioners that would allow residential and commercial real estate developers to simply “promise” to provide adequate funding for school sites, roads and other public facilities in their plans.

Real estate developers usually consider such infrastructure last — they are, after all, in the business of generating profits for themselves and their shareholders. Building a pool or widening a road or providing sidewalks or a school site is an expense rather than an investment for the development.

In addition, what evidence is there that municipalities would ensure adequate services are provided for new residential or commercial developments with the same rigor that Frederick County has shown? Frederick County has invested a great deal of time and money in planning for future growth — in five-, 10-, 15- and 20-year increments. Have incorporated municipalities done similar planning?

Lastly, how is abrogating the authority already vested in the Frederick County Commissioners to local municipalities in the best interest of Frederick County? It is not. A centrally controlled, countywide growth plan was the best course of action for past commissioners. Clearly this board is different.

Although this story was buried on page A-5 of the paper, it is just the beginning of a major effort by the majority of the commissioners (many with deep roots in real estate development) to deregulate the growth of Frederick County and uncouple that growth from the Frederick County Growth Plan.

Fair warning.

Paul Landon

writes from Frederick.

Originally published February 20, 201

Residents filed the complaint last June, charging that the annexations and rezonings are unlawful.  A case in point is the failure by local leaders to prepare and adopt annexation plans, a key legal element that would demonstrate the needed public facilities to serve the annexed areas, and, more important, who would pay for them.  State law requires this essential information to avoid overcrowding of roads and schools, as well as to ensure that the true cost to taxpayers will be known before a decision to annex is made.

The Crum annexation would allow 285 acres of agricultural land to be rezoned and used for 1200 dwellings and 1,300 square feet of nonresidential development. The Thatcher annexation would allow 151 acres of agricultural land to be rezoned and developed for manufacturing and office use. State law does not permit such zoning changes for at least five years, unless the County consents, and the County did not consent in this case.

The court proceedings are open to the public.  ”People who are concerned about dangerous traffic on Rt 15 and over crowded schools may wish to attend.  Our local government needs to follow the law and show the true cost of this annexation and how it will be paid for.  Frederick county taxpayers don’t want to spend our limited tax dollars subsidizing development,” said William Morrow, county resident and Friends of Frederick County chairman of the board.

The oral argument is scheduled to be heard at the Frederick County Courthouse, courtroom # 4, at 9 a.m. on February 16, 2011.