Annexation limits for cities and towns proposed

How much, where to develop is at center of dispute

Friday, Feb. 10, 2006

by Thomas Dennison

Staff writer

ANNAPOLIS — A powerful coalition of state senators is pushing a bill that would restrict a municipal government’s authority to annex land for development.

The legislation has sparked a heated battle between the state’s influential local government lobbies — the Maryland Municipal League and the Maryland Association of Counties — while opening a debate on the volatile issue of land-use policies in an election year.

The bill calls for more collaboration between county and municipal governments when it comes to annexing land for development. It wants to set a growth boundary around the municipality to limit how much land could be developed. Another provision would allow the county government to delay for 10 years — instead of the five years under current law — an annexation outside the designated growth area of a municipality.

Two powerful committee chairmen are leading a bipartisan group of senators in sponsoring the bill.

‘‘Hopefully at the end of this process, we’ll have both sides coming to a consensus,” said Sen. Paula C. Hollinger (D-Dist. 11) of Owings Mills, who chairs the Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee.

The bill is a response to several controversial land-use disputes on the Eastern Shore and between the City of Annapolis and Anne Arundel County, but it would have statewide impact. Annexation policies of towns throughout Maryland ranging from Rockville and La Plata to Laurel and Aberdeen would be affected.

‘‘The bill is a balanced approach to a real problem that has many citizens frustrated,” said David Bliden, executive director of the Maryland Association of Counties, a main proponent of the measure. ‘‘It’s not just an Eastern Shore problem. It’s a statewide issue ... because annexations should be done according to a plan and through an inclusive process with county governments and citizens groups.”

Bliden was quick to point out that the legislation would have minimal impact on towns in Montgomery and Prince George’s counties. Rural counties on the Eastern Shore and in Southern Maryland, where there is more undeveloped land, would be more affected.

There is talk around the State House that the bill is a so-called hammer, meaning that it is not likely to pass with all its restrictions. Rather, the bill is intended to make a statement — in this case, bring collaboration between municipalities and counties on land-use decisions.

‘‘We’re here to referee an issue that the counties and cities can’t work out,” said House Speaker Michael E. Busch (D-Dist. 30) of Annapolis. ‘‘Both sides have not been able to come to a consensus on some of these [land-use] issues, so they’ve passed it along to the legislature to work out.”

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Thomas McLain Middleton, a former president of the Charles County Commissioners, said he is co-sponsoring the bill to emphasize that growth policies need to be hammered out between counties and towns.

‘‘The whole reason I co-sponsored the bill is to bring the two together,” said Middleton (D-Dist. 28) of Waldorf.

The bill also highlights the sometimes contentious relationship between county and municipal governments when it comes to land development. County officials say that municipal governments annex land without weighing how a development would affect roads, public safety and schools.

Municipal leaders contend that annexations are carried out in an environmentally sensitive way and are in line with the state’s Smart Growth strategy, which directs growth where proper infrastructure exists. County governments, they say, are allowing growth that pushes housing and commercial development into rural areas creating sprawl.

The Maryland Municipal League, which represents the state’s 157 town and municipal governments, accuses the Maryland Association of Counties of using heavy-handed tactics in pushing the legislation.

‘‘The bottom line: Counties are frustrated because they feel they have little or no control over municipal growth because municipalities are legally equal to counties with regard to sovereignty and governmental authority,” according to MML issue papers.

MML is aggressively working against the legislation, contending that limiting a town’s ability to annex land would mean that growth would be shifted only to rural areas. The league says a larger discussion needs to be had on how growth policies are applied and what needs to be fixed.