Glade Valley, 804 acres, Kelly and Staley Properties, 302 acres and Kemp Lane Assemblage, 161 acres.  Read the letter here.

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 support of an Environmental and Natural Resource Reserve in Southern Frederick County – that will protect agricultural land, fragile sole-source aquifer and area wells and prohibit large scale industrial development in that area.

This proposal for an Environmental and Natural Resource Reservewould protect land east of the Monocacy, west of I-70 and North of the Montgomery County line. It would protect the Sugarloaf Mountain, the Monocacy Battlefield, hundreds of acres of farms, prohibit large institutional development, protect areas around the Monocacy River and foster the continuation of agricultural preservation contiguous with that in Montgomery County. Click here for a rough rendition of the proposed area (courtesy of Montgomery Countryside Alliance).

The Board of County Commissioners is poised to move ahead with the proposal by the end of June. Please send them letters expressing your support for the Environmental and Natural Resource Reserve as soon as possible:

Jan H. Gardner: jgardner@FrederickCountyMD.gov
David P. Gray: dgray@FrederickCountyMD.gov
Kai J. Hagen: khagen@FrederickCountyMD.gov
John L. Thompson, Jr.: lthompson@FrederickCountyMD.gov
Blaine R. Young: byoung@FrederickCountyMd.gov

Please send a copy of your letter to friends@friendsoffrederickcounty.org.

The recently ratified Frederick County 20-Year Comprehensive Plan mandates increased protection for environmentally sensitive areas, and those – like this – that are under pressure to change. This proposal is the first initiative to implement the action item NR-A-14 in Chapter 3 – Conserving Our Natural Resources and Green Infrastructure.

Wednesdays, 3pm in the old Carmack Jay’s parking lot, between 3rd and 4th streets on Market St. Cut flowers, berries, vegetables, herbs, fruit, beef, pork, eggs, baked goods, lamb, rabbit, wool, yarn, chocolates, and hand made knits.

All items raised, grown or made within 120 miles of Frederick.

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

Download the Deannexation Petition for Referendum Here!

Contact FoFC to learn more:  deannexation@friendsoffrederickcounty.org  Read more about the effort below. 

Gazette, June 3, 2010  Annexations that were an issue in last year’s city election could play an encore in county election this fall, candidates say

Conventional and organic produce, eggs, baked goods, specialty baked goods
(gluten and dairy-free with some vegan options), plants and fresh cut
flowers, local crafts and so much more!
Bring home dinner and food for the week at one location!
For questions or about vending, contact Beth Johnson at 301-712-4137

I’ve lived in this county most of my life. I’ve seen a lot of change around here since the ’70s, but some things don’t change. Many of those speaking out against the comprehensive plan appear to have a financial interest to protect. My guess is that there will also be a lot of money flowing into the upcoming County Commissioner election to support a pro development slate of candidates. The rest of us also have a financial interest. Our taxes go to support infrastructure and growth.

Growth needs to be more that just a business opportunity for a select few. Our community needs to grow, but how we grow will impact the quality of life in Frederick County for generations. The new comprehensive plan is a good road map. Developers and their lawyers seem not to like the new comprehensive plan. I recall a campaign slogan from Commissioner John L. Thompson Jr., “When developers win, you lose.” That slogan is a little over the top for my liking, but maybe it deserves consideration in the current “conversation.”

RICHARD MARANTO

Middletown

Originally published June 01, 2010

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/opinion/display_lte.htm?StoryID=105616

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

Friends of Frederick County Position on Crum and COPT/Thatcher Annexations into Frederick City

We believe that our county and city should protect the Monocacy River corridor, productive farmland, scenic vistas, and a buffer between Frederick and Walkersville. At this time there is adequate development planned in the existing “pipeline” of future development in the city and we should develop that first, see that it is done in the most economically, socially and environmentally sustainable manner, and evaluate its impact before bulldozing greenfields.  FoFC believes that existing roads to the north are inadequate, congested and dangerous, and there’s no financial plan to solve that anytime soon.

Background

In September 2009 the City of Frederick’s Mayor and Aldermen[1] voted to annex two farms (total 436 acres) along Route 15 north of Frederick City for 1200 new homes and approximately 2.3 million ft² of non-residential (office, retail, manufacturing, hotel) space. During the Fall 2009 citizens made a good faith effort to gather 20% of city voter signatures to put these annexations to referendum but fell short of our target due to the 45 day time allowed. Judging from overwhelming citizen involvement in that effort and interest in signing the petition for referendum it was clear that citizens of Frederick City do not agree that the development plans for the Crum and COPT/Thatcher properties promote the health, safety and welfare of our city nor county.

Petition to DeAnnex the Crum and COPT/Thatcher Properties

For these reasons, on May 20^th 6:30pm Frederick City Hall Friends of Frederick County launches a petition drive for a charter amendment to change the boundaries of the City of Frederick, MD to exclude the Crum and Thatcher properties.This petition effort, to “de annex” these properties, when put on the ballot will give citizens the opportunity to vote their preference.   The petition can be downloaded off the Friends of Frederick County website (http://www.friendsoffrederickcounty.org/by-campaign/petition-deannexation-referendum/ ) and delivered or mailed to our office.  Petitions will be available at events;  petition drop off points will be announced during the petition drive.  Hear what citizens have to say.

Why deannex the Crum and COPT/Thatcher properties from the City limits?

• Route 15 is one of the most dangerous roads in Maryland – and there is little funding for improvements.  The northern annexations will add 12-15,000 car trips/day to Route 15 and arterial roads.[2] The Maryland State Highway Administration strongly recommended that the cost of planning, design and construction of the Biggs Ford Road interchange be included in the annexation agreements, that cost is estimated at $75-80 million. It was not. The Monocacy Boulevard completion (to cost $75-$80 m) is not even funded yet.[3]
• There are 3500 homes and millions of square feet of commercial space within Frederick City that should be built first before expanding outward.  These approvals include Brick Works, Northgate, Clemson Corner, Market Square, the Ballenger Creek Center and the SAIC-Frederick/NCI facility.  For a complete list of commercial projects see:  http://www.businessinfrederick.com/site_selection/development.htm
• The annexation agreements for Crumland Farm and COPT/Thatcher do not adequately address sewer, schools and fire and rescue services. There is no planned sewer service for the Crum and Thatcher properties at this point [4] and no detailed plans for school and emergency services.
• This farmland has excellent soil for growing food.  If the properties are under Frederick County jurisdiction they will be in an Agricultural Priority Preservation Area (PPA), according to the recently signed Frederick County Comprehensive Plan.

Positions from Voices of Authority

Maryland Department of Planning[5] (7/22/2009) Asks the city to look into potential sewer constraints, the expansive floodplain and the road network impacts in light of the I270/Rte 15 Multi Modal Study.

State Highway Administration[6] SHA strongly recommends that the cost of planning, design and construction of the Biggs Ford Road interchange and park and ride lot be included in the requirements for annexation, as well as dedication of Rte 15 right of way and plans for arterial roads that will need to be constructed once Sunday’s Lane is closed.

Frederick County Board of Commissioners[7] letter dated 9/2/2009 2, 2009:  Without concurrent construction plans for an interchange and the elimination of the at-grade crossings “will only exacerbate an already dangerous situation and jeopardize the safety of City and County residents.” “The Crumland Farm Agreement (pg 5) does not obligate Petitioners (meaning the developer) to fund any portion of the US 15/Biggs Ford Road interchange. The County Commissioners and the State Highway Administration believe the developers, rather than the taxpayers, should pay for this interchange.”  There is no planned sewer to either property.  Absent private funding for a new school this development will worsen school overcrowding.

Frederick County Fire and Rescue Services Division[8] (5/5/2009)on Crumland Farm annexation:  “With the potential increase in traffic traveling to the site, thus requiring vehicles to cross Route 15, the potential for accidents will increase. An increase in accidents on Route 15 may have an effect on the fire and rescue services, therefore, the Biggs Ford Road interchange should be constructed and operational before the first Use and Occupancy permit is issued for the proposed site.”

Town of Walkersville[9] (8/31/2009)  The Walkersville Burgess and Commissioners voted 3-2 in opposition to both the Crum and COPT/Thatcher annexation proposals and urged the Frederick City Board of Alderman to vote to deny them.

Monocacy Scenic River Citizens Advisory Board River Board (5/11/2009) expresses concern about the proposed alteration of the natural landscape in the 100-year floodplain on the COPT/Thatcher property and the disruption of environmental processes and functions that follow from grading, filling, and building in a floodplain—mainly the natural storage and conveyance of flood waters.

Does your organization have a position?  If so, please send it to deannexation@friendsoffrederickcounty.org.

[2] Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 7^th Edition, pp 268-269.

[3] Thomas, John B. (Pers Comm May 2010).  Cost for Biggs Ford Road interchange at Route 15, and the Monocacy Boulevard interchange, Frederick County Division of Planning.

[4] Tax map 57 and 48 at: http://www.frederickcountymd.gov/index.aspx?NID=1326.

[5] Conrad, Peter G., Director, Local Government Assistance, Maryland Department of Planning.

[6] Slater, Gregory I, Director, Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering, State Highway Administration

[7] Board of County Commissioners, September 2009 (Jan Gardner, David Gray, John L Thompson, Kai J Hagen and Charles Jenkins), Frederick County MD.

[8] Dmuchowski, Michael P, Battalion Chief/Fire Marshall, Frederick County MD

[9] Hauver, Susan J, Planning and Zoning Administrator, Walkersville MD