Frederick County citizens vs the City of Frederick/Crum and Thatcher annexations (June 2010)
FRIENDS OF FREDERICK COUNTY V THE CITY OF FREDERICK (JUNE 2010)
- Citizens file complaint against the City of Frederick 6/10
- City of Frederick answers complaint 9/10
- City of Frederick submits exhibits 9/10
- City of Frederick files motion for summary judgement 9/10
- Developers file motion to intervene 9/10
- Citizens file motion for summary judgement 11/10
- Frederick City replies to citizen motion for summary judgement 12/10
- Frederick City lawyer submits letter 6/11
- Citizens make first request for admissions 6/11
- Notice of August 2011 hearing date 8/11
- Citizens challenge adequacy of defendant answers 9/11
- Citizens reply to City’s opposition to citizen motion 10/11
- 2nd admission response from Frederick City
- Plaintiff’s request compliance to answer questions 2-7-12
- Plaintiff’s opposition to Motion for Summary Judgement 9-7-12
October 2, 2012 Judge Dwyer decided not to take the complaint to trial. Instead he will present his opinion within 60 days.
Febr 2012 On Dec 8, 2011 2pm Frederick County Circuit Court Judge Stepler ruled that the defendants (City of Frederick) must respond within 30 days to the plaintiffs admissions. Present for the Defense: Victoria Shearer (Private Counsel) and Scott Waxter, Assistant City Attorney. Present for the Plaintiffs: Norman Knopf (Knopf and Brown). Official court transcript 12-8-11 The Defendants filed their 2nd round of answers which the plaintiffs found still incomplete. On Febr. 7, 2012 Plaintiff’s request compliance to answer questions 2-7-12.
Background: Friends of Frederick County (FoFC) et al filed a complaint asserting that the City annexed the Thatcher and Crum properties without complying with state law. State law required that the City prepare and adopt an Annexation Plan prior to making a decision on whether to approve an annexation. An Annexation Plan is provide information on such matters as to whether the annexed property and its new development could be accommodated by existing public facilities, e.g. schools, roads, sewerage treatment plants, what new facilities would be needed, at what cost, who would pay for the needed improvements, environmental adverse effects arising from new development on the annexed property. FoFC ‘s complaint alleged, among other violations, that the City never adopted an Annexation Plan and did not even prepare one.
The City had submitted to the Court a large quantity of documents and video tapes of City proceedings asserting that these materials showed the City had complied with the law. FoFC’s attorney served admissions on the City requesting the City to admit certain facts as true. Most of these facts addressed whether the City did or did not turn over to the Court specified documents and whether the materials that were submitted contained specified statements. FoFC believes that these facts support its position that the City did not adopt an Annexation Plan and did not even prepare one. All the admissions were answerable by a simple yes or no. The City objected to almost all of the admissions as not proper and refused to answer. FoFC asked the Court to find that the City’s objections were without merit and order the City to answer each admission by simply admitting or denying the truth of the facts stated. The Court ruled that all of FoFC’s admissions were proper and ordered the City to answer them within 30 days.
