Journalist @baltimoresun writer artist runner #amwriting Chaplain PIO #partylikeajournalist

Journalist @baltimoresun writer artist runner #amwriting Chaplain PIO #partylikeajournalist
Journalist @baltimoresun writer artist runner #amwriting Md Troopers Assoc #20 & Westminster Md Fire Dept Chaplain PIO #partylikeajournalist
Showing posts with label Governance Planning Sprawl Growth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Governance Planning Sprawl Growth. Show all posts

Thursday, October 27, 2011

MarylandReporter.com: Groups share opinions on tax hikes



MarylandReporter banner
Thursday, October 27, 2011  

Increased tax proposals get mixed reception

Proposals to raise the gas tax and flush tax are getting a mixed reaction, with business groups divided and other groups saying they are reasonable, but shouldn't preclude tax hikes for other needs.
Quick Links

Today's State Roundup: Strategizing against PlanMaryland

Rural politicians to strategize against PlanMaryland; proposals for tax hikes and new fees to pay for roads and Bay cleanup continue to make news; massive new State Police facility near Hagerstown almost complete; Ehrlich takes the stand for Currie; and Charles County focuses on light rail line to D.C.

Have you checked out our new Government Meetings Schedule? It might save you a few clicks.

Editor and Publisher: Len Lazarick; Associate Editor: Megan Poinski; Roundup Editor: Cynthia Prairie
  
MarylandReporter.com is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation, and contributions are tax-deductible. Donate here.




*****
Kevin Dayhoff Soundtrack: http://www.kevindayhoff.net/ Kevin Dayhoff Art: http://www.kevindayhoffart.com/
My http://www.explorecarroll.com/ columns appear in the copy of the Baltimore Sunday Sun that is distributed in Carroll County: https://subscribe.baltsun.com/Circulation/

*****

Thursday, August 12, 2010

Gazette - Sherry Greenfield: Adam Avery adds ‘Inc.' to ‘Friends of Frederick County' in bid to support development

Thursday, Aug. 12, 2010

A new fight is brewing in the politics of growth in Frederick County, this time revolving around how one defines "friend."

Adam Avery of Frederick, host of 930 AM WFMD's "Senior Talk Radio" and an emerging outspoken figure in local politics, announced this week that he is president and owner of a new organization called "Friends of Frederick County Inc."

Avery's new group is intended to be the opposite of "Friends of Frederick County," which emerged in the 2006 election to fight what it considers to be urban sprawl and poorly planned development.

Instead of fighting development, however, Avery said his group will encourage it and highlight the benefits growth brings.

"I found [Friends of Frederick County] to be poorly organized and poorly funded," Avery said. "And I wanted to bring a positive light to the men and women who risk their [financial] lives to bring businesses to Frederick County."

But Friends of Frederick County is not pleased with Avery's move... http://www.gazette.net/stories/08122010/frednew154724_32535.php

*****

Kevin Dayhoff Soundtrack: http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/ = http://www.kevindayhoff.net/ Kevin Dayhoff Art: http://kevindayhoffart.blogspot.com/ or http://kevindayhoffart.com/ = http://www.kevindayhoff.com/ Kevin Dayhoff Westminster: http://kevindayhoffwestgov-net.blogspot.com/ or http://www.westgov.net/ = www.kevindayhoff.org Twitter: https://twitter.com/kevindayhoff Twitpic: http://twitpic.com/photos/kevindayhoff Kevin Dayhoff's The New Bedford Herald: http://kbetrue.livejournal.com/ = www.newbedfordherald.net Explore Carroll: www.explorecarroll.com The Tentacle: www.thetentacle.com

Friday, May 07, 2010

Growth Supported by Mayoral Candidate Pat Rockinberg Will Not Pay For Itself by John Medve

The Mt Airy Blog by Donnamarie Needle

Saturday, May 01, 2010

Growth Supported by Mayoral Candidate Pat Rockinberg Will Not Pay For Itself

Contributed by John Medve, Mount Airy Resident

Pat Rockinberg supports a 600 Acre Expansion of Mount Airy adding 200 houses, roads that need 500k in improvements, lifestyles that don't conform to Town code, and failing septic systems that could be the Town's responsibility down the line. His opponent, Wendi Peters, is not in favor of this annexation, however on the campaign trail, Mr. Rockinberg continues to call his opponent "big growth" and a proponent of raising taxes.

Read the rest here: http://mountairyblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/growth-supported-by-mayoral-candidate.html

http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/2010/05/growth-supported-by-mayoral-candidate.htmlLabels: , , , , , , *****

*****

Kevin Dayhoff Soundtrack: http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/ = http://www.kevindayhoff.net/ Kevin Dayhoff Art: http://kevindayhoffart.blogspot.com/ or http://kevindayhoffart.com/ = http://www.kevindayhoff.com/ Kevin Dayhoff Westminster: http://kevindayhoffwestgov-net.blogspot.com/ or http://www.westgov.net/ = www.kevindayhoff.org Twitter: https://twitter.com/kevindayhoff Twitpic: http://twitpic.com/photos/kevindayhoff Kevin Dayhoff's The New Bedford Herald: http://kbetrue.livejournal.com/ = www.newbedfordherald.net Explore Carroll: www.explorecarroll.com The Tentacle: www.thetentacle.com

Friday, March 09, 2007

Carroll ‘unprepared’ to attract new jobs by Kelsey Volkmann


Carroll ‘unprepared’ to attract new jobs by Kelsey Volkmann, The Examiner Mar 2, 2007

Carroll County - Carroll “is wholly unprepared to take advantage” of opportunities to attract new jobs, a new study reveals.

“Despite its size, location [and] educated and affluent population, Carroll’s economic performance is still that of a rural residential suburb,” according to a report from consultants Parsons Brinckerhoff, an international planning firm that built New York City’s first subway.

“Carroll’s current inventory of zoned industrial land is in the wrong places, too broken up and outside existing sewer and water services areas.”

Consultants presented their findings Thursday to the Economic Development Commission. The county hired them to:

» Evaluate the obstacles blocking new businesses from moving in.

» Offer suggestions on breaking Carroll from its status as a bedroom community.

» Help update the Pathways Plan, or road map for growth.

Land prices and the build-out of neighboring jurisdictions will push development here, consultants found, but Carroll has a “sparse network of state roads,” and 90 percent of its commercial parcels are five acres or smaller.

Consultants recommended that Carroll create more types of industrial and commercial zoning. Carroll has five basic kinds, while most nearby counties have between eight and 11.

This prevents Carroll from offering more mixed-use options where, for example, a factory sits next to offices, county spokeswoman Vivian Laxton said. The more businesses Carroll fosters, she said, the less of a tax burden residents will have to shoulder.

If officials don’t change their zoning, they will perpetuate tax-base imbalances, lose potential employment lands to houses and increase rush-hour traffic, the study shows.

All economic development hinges on Carroll finding more water sources in the face of looming shortages, County Planning Director Steve Horn said.
Meeting water and sewer demands for 2030 will cost $153 million, according to the study.

Tax bases

Commercial and industrial assessable tax bases by county

» Baltimore: 19 percent

» Howard: 18 percent

» Harford: 14 percent

» Carroll: 12 percent

Source: Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation

(Parsons Brinckerhoff used counties closest to Carroll for comparison)

Percentage of commuters who work outside county

» Carroll: 51.7 percent

» Howard: 51.6 percent

» Harford: 44.6 percent

» Baltimore: 29.5 percent

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

20070302 Carroll unprepared to attract new jobs kvbe

Kevin Dayhoff: www.westgov.net Westminster Maryland Online www.westminstermarylandonline.net http://kevindayhoffwestgov-net.blogspot.com/

Saturday, March 03, 2007

20070302 Carroll unprepared to attract new jobs


Carroll unprepared to attract new jobs

Growth and Development

March 3rd, 2007

Kelsey Volkmann, writing for the Baltimore Examiner has an article in the March 2nd, 2007 edition of the paper about Carroll County’s current inability to attract jobs and commercial tax base.

Attracting meaningful jobs and employment and tax base in Carroll County is critical to Carroll County’s future. Yet getting the public policy in Carroll County to chart a different course that takes into consideration the importance of attracting jobs and employment is like changing the course of the Titanic in our county - considering the present level of rampant NIMBYism.

And zoning laws in Carroll County are tantamount to that acronym, something to the affect of BANANAS – “Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything.”

Hardly a month goes by when folks do not rally against any new business and economic development in a negative contagion that has its roots in a sea change of public opinion against any new housing development.

As much as I have personally had enough of the new houses folks must begin to understand that there is a difference between economic development and residential development.

If that understanding does not develop soon, we will never be able to pay the necessary property taxes to keep the ever-increasing level of services in Carroll County.

Not to mention the enormous “transportation tax” Carroll County citizens are paying to commute to meaningful employment outside of the county.

See my post from December 9th, 2000: 20001209 Transportation 2nd Biggest Family Exp.

A report released November 30 by the Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP) finds that households in the Baltimore region spend, on average, 14.7 percent of their budget, or more than $5,000 per year, on day-to-day transportation. That places transportation costs higher than health care, education, food, or any other household expenditure except shelter.

The report, "Driven to Spend," compiled data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and found that the poorest fifth of Americans pays a significantly larger percentage of income -- 36 percent—on transportation.

_____

Carroll ‘unprepared’ to attract new jobs

Kelsey Volkmann, The Examiner

Mar 2, 2007 3:00 AM

Carroll County - Carroll “is wholly unprepared to take advantage” of opportunities to attract new jobs, a new study reveals.

“Despite its size, location [and] educated and affluent population, Carroll’s economic performance is still that of a rural residential suburb,” according to a report from consultants Parsons Brinckerhoff…

“Carroll’s current inventory of zoned industrial land is in the wrong places, too broken up and outside existing sewer and water services areas.”

Consultants presented their findings Thursday to the Economic Development Commission.

Read the rest of her article here.

####

Thursday, October 19, 2006

20061018 Workforce Housing in Carroll County

20061018 Workforce Housing in Carroll County

Workforce Housing Issues in Carroll County
October 18th, 2006

Kelsey Volkmann of the Baltimore Examiner wrote a piece the other day on the challenges of a dwindling inventory of workforce housing in Carroll County.

This issue has been much discussed in the last number of years.

I’ve always felt that one of the major impediments to developing additional workforce housing in Carroll County was government red-tape and zoning. I still feel that way. Often workforce housing requires a higher density in a given development and zoning laws and, to get real about it, much of the Carroll County public is in no mood for higher densities.

The key issue not covered by the article is that Carrollinians have no interest in any housing in Carroll County these days. To be certain, I have no doubt that there is a bias in Carroll County against workforce housing. But to be candid, many of the folks that are moving into many of these half-million dollar mansions in Carroll County are presenting as quite “elitist.”

One of the latest cutting edge models is a mixed use overlay that allows for housing to be included in a commercial development. The idea, which, to the best of my knowledge, has not been discussed, is to put housing above the stores in retail and commercial developments, read: shopping centers.

The beauty of it is that facilitates home ownership, albeit a condo-type housing, but it is nevertheless, home ownership, where the jobs are and the commercial portion of the development helps bring down the construction costs and makes the housing more affordable.

Of course, the challenge in Carroll County is the knee-jerk reaction to ANY development in Carroll County, residential, commercial, employment-base or whatever.

And actually, unless a developer brings overwhelming return for the community, in terms of additional water, open space and recreation, school pad sites or some such infrastructure improvement, I guess I’m not interested in the houses either.

Now commercial tax base and employment opportunities, that’s a different story…

Anyway, Ms. Volkmann’s story can be found here.

It begins: “Both the waiting list for housing vouchers and the demand for affordable housing continues to grow in Carroll County, but stereotypes about work force housing will have to be shattered before it is embraced, housing advocates say.

People “visualize ... 70-year-old black women who are going to come in from Baltimore and shoot up the neighborhood with AK-47s,” said James Upchurch, president of Interfaith Housing Alliance Inc., a nonprofit that has built affordable housing in Westminster, Hampstead, Union Bridge and Taneytown. “But the typical person is more likely to be their Aunt Milly.””

One of the key paragraphs, for me, was: “The key to work force housing is making zoning “inclusionary” — where developers are encouraged to build a certain percentage of affordable housing in each development — a model first adopted in Montgomery County 30 years ago, [James Upchurch, president of Interfaith Housing Alliance Inc.,] said.”

Read the rest of “Affordable housing faces hurdle of bias;” it is well worth the time.

Kevin Dayhoff writes from Westminster Maryland USA. E-mail him at: kdayhoff@carr.org http://www.thetentacle.com/ Westminster Eagle Opinion and Winchester Report http://www.thewestminstereagle.com/ www.kevindayhoff.com has moved to http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/

Monday, May 29, 2006

20060528 Disappointment with suburbs leads some back to small towns by Diane Reynolds Carroll County Times

Disappointment with suburbs leads some back to small towns

By Diane Reynolds, Times Staff Writer Sunday, May 28, 2006

As Americans fled to the suburbs in the decades after World War II, small towns suffered, according to Linda Semu, associate professor of sociology at McDaniel College.

As small towns became depopulated, many downtown retail stores closed, said Semu. Family-owned businesses were unable to compete with large chains that could buy products at deeper discounts and sell them at lower prices.

But some began to sour on the suburbs. As described by Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk and Jeff Speck in their book "Suburban Nation," the suburban dream for many turned out to be a nightmare.

Suburban migration continues, however. Much of it is now exurban migration as people move beyond suburbs ringing cities to suburbs on cornfields near towns far from major urban centers.

With a better understanding of the social costs of suburbanization, rising energy prices and a growing appreciation of the livability of small towns like Union Bridge, some residents express optimism that the coming wave of suburbanization can be managed in a way that will enhance life for everyone.

Sobering reality

Many sociologists and urban planners have taken a close look at the suburban building binge of the last half-century and found it wanting.

A scathing 1996 article by Karl Zinsmeister in The American Enterprise sums up many of the problems caused by suburbanization.

Individuals and families get isolated in cul-de-sac communities. People become dependent on cars, because there is nowhere to walk, no sidewalks to walk on, and no community to walk in. People don't see their neighbors.


Men began working far from their homes, and, Zinsmeister argued, mothers quickly fled the overwhelming isolation of the suburban lives - where they were trapped with the daunting task of raising children without the traditional supports of friends and family - to seek jobs where at least they interacted with other adults. As women left the home, children were increasingly farmed out to paid caretakers, and large suburban houses stood empty day after day.

Children suffered, too. With nowhere to walk, they became completely dependent on adults with cars to do the simplest things. They turned to television to experience the community that was missing from their lives, Zinsmeister argued.

"In this respect," quotes author Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, "families living in today's richest suburbs are barely better off than families living in the slums."

By 1996, a Gallup poll showed that more people - 37 percent - wanted to live in a small town than wanted to live in a suburb - 25 percent.

But suburbanization had led to boarded-up main streets in the very small towns people decided they were longing for.

In the 1990s, new urbanism began to become more popular as planners discovered that houses on smaller lots, with big front porches and garages tucked behind homes, led to more neighborliness and interaction, improving people's quality of life, according to Philip Langdon, author of "A Better Place to Live: Reshaping the American Suburb."

Small-town alternative

Read the entire article here: Disappointment with suburbs leads some back to small towns

Governance Planning Sprawl Growth Development Strain

20060528 Disappointment with suburbs leads some back to small towns by Diane Reynolds Carroll County Times

Friday, January 21, 2005

20050121 The Hoff Naganna Annexation – the rest of the story

20050121 The Hoff Naganna Annexation – the rest of the story

January 21, 2005


In light of the comments made by the County in the January 21st newspaper articles in the Baltimore Sun and the Carroll County Times
[i], it would be to our mutual advantage to further review the record and documentation pertaining to the development in the year 2002.

The Hoff-Naganna development was forced upon the City by the actions of County Staff and the Carroll County Panning and Zoning Commission (CCP&Z) in a series of concerted actions in 2002. What is particular troubling and egregious about the County’s actions in 2002, is that this all occurred in the context of one of the worse droughts in Westminster history.

Now, to add insult to injury, the County expresses its dismay in the press about a development that the County forced upon the municipality. A development that the City did not want and will constitute a pronounced strain on our ability to provide adequate public services.

Pertinent details of the Hoff Naganna Farm Development. The site is 146 acres in three different zoning classifications. 117 acres is R-10,000, 7.45 acres is R-20,000 and 21.4 acres is Conservation. The site is in W-1 and W-3 for water and S-1, S-3 (formerly S-5 and S-7) for sewer. The number of units is 300 - 350 units. This would involve about 100,000 gpd for water at full build-out.

Where is the 100,000 gpd for water at full build-out, going to come from?

Current Zoning: The property is currently zoned R-10,000 Residential, R-20,000 Residential and C Conservation Zone - - (so no waiver of Zoning will be required from the County under Article 23A, Section 9?). What this means is that this development will go forward, whether or not it is in the Westminster city Limits, whether or not it is annexed by the City of Westminster. The County cannot easily block either annexation or development.

The development is not consistent with our 1998 Comprehensive Plan. The development represents a strain on the municipalities ability to provide future water and sewer service, and it’s lack of continuity would constitute a strain on future ability to provide fire and EMS, police, and public works administration.

I personally have no interest in annexations for residential development unless, the residential development is impossible to stop for reasons of property rights exercised under current law. In such a situation, I will, of course, respect the law and want to do everything possible to ensure that the residential development be in the City limits, so that Westminster may govern the impact on our community.

That stated, now that the development has been enabled, if not encouraged (read: forced upon Westminster), by the County, the municipality is the best governing body to oversee its development. It is critical that any and all development in the Westminster environs, which will impact the quality of life of our municipality, be governed by our municipality.

If the property is not annexed by the City, will the County guarantee the City a revenue stream for the purpose of finding additional water to service the development and fund the necessary fire, EMS protection?

1. Westminster tried to remove this property from the Westminster water and sewer service, in 2002 and County staff approached city staff about not removing it in its entirety in light of the January 28th, 2002 action by the Westminster Mayor and Council; but rather reclassify 86 acres of S-5 (7 – 10 years) and 10.30 acres of S-7” No Planned Sewer Service” to S-3 (0-6 years), which would have severely limited the development opportunity.

As I understand the position of the County Staff, the Hoff-Naganna Development would enable the County to Segment F of the Westminster Area Roadway Planning initiative, as presented to the Westminster Mayor and Council on August 27th, 2001, paid for by the developer.

1a. On December 11th, 2001, Naganwest LLC made a request to amend the Carroll County Water and Sewer Master Plan.


1b. On page 4 of the January 24th, 2002 Westminster Final Report for the Carroll County Triennial Update provided to the CCP&Z, Westminster denied the amendment request to reclassify 86 acres of the s-5 (7-10) and 10.30 acres of S-7 “No Planned Sewer Service” of the Naganna Property to S-3 (0-6 years), thereby terminating this application, as it was inconsistent with the 1998 Comprehensive Plan.

1c. At the January 28th, 2002 Westminster Common Council Meeting, Mr. Beyard presented the triennial update of the Carroll County Master Plan for Water and Sewerage. The following specific recommendations to amend the Plan were accepted, on Motion of Mrs. Albert, seconded by Mr. Ferguson and unanimously passed: “Naganna Property

Request: Reclassify 86 acres of S-5 (7 – 10 years) and 10.30 acres of S-7” No Planned Sewer Service” to S-3 (0-6 years).

Location: South side of Old Westminster Pike, approximately ¼ mile west of MD Route 97.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the amendment

request to reclassify 86 acres of S-5 (7-10 years) and 10.30 acres of S-7 “no Planed Sewer Service” of the Naganna Property to S-3 (0-6 years), thereby terminating this application. This proposal is inconsistent with the recommendation of the planning and Zoning Commission and the goals of the 1998 City of Westminster comprehensive Plan.”

1d. On January 30th, 2002, Ms. Moser was advised that the City denied the reclassification request as inconsistent with our 1998 Master Plan.

1e. At the June 18th, 2002, CCP&Z Meeting, Mr. Preston asked the CCP&Z to overturn the January 28th, 2002 decision of the Westminster Mayor and Common Council. Mr. Preston’s request was granted on July 16th, 2002.

1f. In a July 3rd, 2002 letter to Ms. Moser and the CCP&Z, Westminster advised the CCP&Z that under Section 2 of Carroll County Procedures for amending the CC Master Plan for Water and Sewer, if the City did not certify that the requested amendment as being consistent with the municipality’s Master plan, the request for amendment was to be denied. Westminster once again, reminded the County that Westminster denied the reclassification on January 28th, 2002.

1g. At the July 16th, 2002 meeting of the CCP&Z, the CCP&Z recommended approval of the Draft 2002 Carroll County Water And Sewerage Master Plan, accepting the December 11th, 2001 application for amending the Triennial Water and Sewer plan to include the S-3 designation for the Hoff-Naganna Farm over the objections of Westminster Staff and over-ruling the vote of the Westminster Common Council of January 28th, 2002.

2. August 29th, 2002 Two alternate petitions for annexation were filed.


2a. On December 9th, 2002, the Westminster Common Council accepted introduction of Resolution No. R02-15 and Resolution No. R02-16 – Annexations No. 48 and 51, respectively, of the Naganna property.

2b. Annexation Petition/Consent

Section 19 of Article 23A of the Annotated Code of MD deals with the Annexation procedure. Section 19(c) of Article 23A causes the petition to be introduced by resolution. An annexation petition signed by at least 25% of the qualified voters along with 25% of the owners of assessed property in the area to be annexed may be filed with the municipal legislative body.

Under subsection (d) of Section 19, Westminster government will conduct an advertised public hearing prior to any decision with respect to the proposed annexation.

(d) Notice and hearing—After the introduction of the resolution into the legislative body of the municipal corporation, the chief executive and administrative officer of the municipal corporation shall cause a public notice thereof to be published not fewer than four times at not less than weekly intervals in a newspaper or newspapers of general circulation in the municipal corporation and the area to be annexed, briefly and accurately describing the proposed change and the conditions and circumstances applicable. The public notices shall specify a time and place at which a public hearing will be held by the legislative body on the resolution; the hearing shall be set for not less than 15 days after the fourth publication of the notices and shall be held either within the boundaries of the municipal corporation or within the area to be annexed.

The public hearing may be continued or rescheduled for a subsequent time not to exceed 30 days from the day for which the meeting was originally scheduled, or the day on which the hearing commenced but was not completed. In the event of a continuation or rescheduling, a single public notice shall be given at least seven days prior to the continued or rescheduled date in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipal corporation and in the area whose annexation is to be discussed, briefly and accurately describing the property whose annexation is to be discussed, and specifying the day, time, and place of the public hearing.

Immediately upon the first publication of the public notice, a copy of the public notice shall be provided to the governing body of the county and any regional and State planning agencies having jurisdiction within the county. Each of these agencies and jurisdictions shall have the first right to be heard at the scheduled public hearing, after which the hearing shall be open to the general public.

After conducting the required hearing, the municipal elected body may pass (or reject) the resolution which becomes effective 45 days after its passage unless it is petitioned to referendum.

Annexation Zoning—The Five-Year Rule

Cities and towns authorized to exercise and exercising planning and zoning powers under Article 66B of the Annotated Code of Maryland have exclusive authority over planning and zoning in newly annexed areas. However, Article 23A, Section 9 of the Annotated Code (see page 21) provides that no city or town may for five years following an annexation place newly annexed land in a zoning category that permits a substantially different land use from that contained in the current county.
[i]
20050121 Commissioners likely to oppose annexation sun

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/carroll/bal-ca.naganna21jan21,1,2782676.story?coll=bal-local-carroll

Westminster: Commissioners likely to oppose annexation

300-home plan raises traffic, resource concerns

By Athima Chansanchai, Sun Staff, January 21, 2005

Carroll County commissioners said yesterday they probably would not support Westminster's plans to annex about 146 acres for a new housing development because adding up to 300 homes would drain resources and bring increased traffic to a mostly rural area.

The commissioners said that annexing the unincorporated area of the county into Westminster hinged on a questionable assumption - that a single connecting road was enough to declare the property contiguous to the city limits.

"We're talking about a significant increase in the density of the city of Westminster without being contiguous to the city of Westminster," Commissioner Dean L. Minnich said. "It's a surgical strike without touching the people on the county's side of the annexation. It's a crafty little strategy by whoever thought of it, and I object to it here, on the record."

Before the property can be annexed, the county commissioners have to approve the plan.

Westminster planning officials introduced the proposal for annexing the Hoff/Naganna property in September, but plans for the development have dragged since mid-2002.

The developers of the property, located just outside the southeast city limits, asked the city for annexation to gain access to water and sewer lines. Future homeowners would also be entitled to other city resources such as police and fire protection, as well as trash pickup.

Westminster will provide those services only to properties already within city limits or to those the city approves for annexation. The minimum requirement for an annexation is that the property be contiguous to city limits.

That's where the problem begins, county officials said.

"This annexation will look a lot like a lollipop," Steven D. Powell, county chief of staff, told the commissioners.

Powell was referring to the fact that the only thing connecting the development area to Westminster is a single street, Willow Avenue.

The proposed development is bordered by Old Westminster Pike to the north, Mark Drive to the west, Poole Road to the south and Woodside Drive to the east.

A public hearing on the annexation is scheduled for Monday night. Momentum has been building among county residents to oppose the development.

"The city is bulldozing through," said county resident Michelle Jefferson, who lives in a neighborhood adjacent to the proposed development. "There are way too many subdivisions that will be affected by this."

She gave commissioners a copy of a petition that she and more than 270 other residents have signed, opposing the annexation.

"I don't know how much can be preserved at this point. I know there's going to be growth, but 300 homes is too many to stick in there," said John Everett, a county resident who has lived on Willow Avenue with his wife for a decade. "Maybe we could live with half that amount, but still you end up with traffic, school and water problems."

He worried about the addition of up to 600 cars - two per household - because there are already too many commuters using side streets like his, he said, trying to get around congested major arteries.

Everett also wondered how nearby schools at or near capacity could accommodate the influx of children from such a development.

Westminster's planning staff maintains that the city can absorb the demand on its water resources and emergency services. Staff members said the development "will not have an adverse impact on public schools in the Westminster area."

But some city council members expressed reservations.

"Water resources were a major issue on that property. Expectations were high at first to find a major water source, but they couldn't find a well to produce enough gallons," said council President Damian L. Halstad. "With all the development today, resources become an issue - and not just natural, but also our police and fire resources and infrastructure. They're obviously going to be some difficult questions for the developer on this project. I personally think the commissioners' concerns are legitimate."

City officials estimate that up to $275,000 a year could be generated in tax revenues on the proposed development.

County residents said property taxes for city coffers would come at their expense, with the loss of their quality of life.

In meetings with Westminster's Planning and Zoning Commission, city planners said the developer was willing to pay $1.5 million to help offset the project's effect on water and sewer facilities. In planning documents, the money is called a capital utility improvements contribution.

After the public hearing, city council members will set a date to discuss the proposal and consider its adoption.

Copyright © 2005,
The Baltimore Sun

20050121 Hoff annexation challenged cctk

Hoff annexation challenged
By Greg Guenthner, Times Staff Writer

Friday, January 21, 2005

County officials are asking the city of Westminster to allow time for additional comments on an annexation proposal for 146 acres near the intersection of Md. 97 South and Md. 140.

County planners raised questions at Thursday's Board of Carroll County commissioners meeting involving the ownership of Willow Avenue, part of the proposed annexation.

It is unclear whether the county or the original owner of the land on which Willow Avenue sits - owns the road, said county comprehensive planner Scott Graf. The county maintains Willow Avenue, he said.

If a private interest owned the road, permission would be required before it could be officially annexed, Graf said.

Westminster needs to annex Willow Avenue because the 146-acre Hoff property, which fronts the south side of Old Westminster Pike, is not contiguous to Westminster's corporate boundary. City planners have proposed the annexation of Willow Avenue to connect the 146-acre property to the city. The annexation proposal does not include any of the homes on either side of Willow Avenue.

County Commissioner Dean Minnich called the Willow Avenue connection a surgical strike by Westminster and said he is concerned about the potential increase in residential density in the city.

City planners estimate nearly 300 homes could be developed on the property. Tentative plans have been made for residential development on the property, according to city planners.

Minnich also said he would like to see county staff meet with the appropriate Westminster officials to take a look at the annexation process. The city has scheduled a public hearing for 7 p.m. Monday to allow for public comment on the proposal.

The city's Planning and Zoning Commission granted the plan a favorable recommendation on Oct. 14.

Westminster Mayor Kevin Dayhoff said the city is not opposed to the county's suggestion of keeping the public record open longer.

"We're going to be very deliberative about this," he said.

Westminster Council President Damian Halstad said he is concerned about how far the annexation would stretch city resources. The council will need to assess whether the city can adequately provide water, sewer and emergency response services to the parcel once it is developed, he said.

Halstad also said the council will need to consult with the city's attorney to find out if the Willow Avenue right-of-way is a large enough parcel to connect the Hoff property to the city to support the annexation.

Some residents are preparing to fight the annexation at Monday's public hearing.

"With them not establishing ownership [of Willow Avenue], I don't see how they can move forward," said county resident Michelle Jefferson.

Jefferson, who lives on Sycamore Street across from the city line, near the Hoff property, said she and other county residents who live nearby should have been notified of the public hearing directly.

The public hearing has been advertised, Dayhoff said, and it is not city policy to send individual letters to adjacent property owners. It is difficult for planners to gauge which residents will think they are affected by an annexation, he said.

Willow Avenue resident Elaine Everett said she has circulated a petition to help raise awareness of other residents who might be affected by the annexation. Everett said she has more than 270 signatures of residents who oppose the move.

She said she plans to present the petition to city officials on Monday evening.

Reach staff writer Greg Guenthner at 410-857-7886 or
gregoryg@lcniofmd.com.

Hearing

What: Public hearing on the Hoff property annexation

When: 7 p.m., Monday

Where: Westminster City Hall, 1838 Emerald Hill Lane


####

Friday, March 05, 2004

20040304 Linganore teens take a stand against further development by Brad Pierce, Gazette Staff Writer


Linganore teens take a stand against further development

by Brad Pierce, Staff Writer, Mar. 4, 2004

Public hearings for region plan updates tend to be long, boring affairs chock-full of talkative attorneys and property owners discontent with the invasion of bulldozers in Frederick County.

So it's unusual to see teenage girls hanging out at them.

And it is even more unusual to hear teenage girls speak about the planning process in such an earnest way that demands attention from everyone in the room. But at a New Market Region Plan public hearing held before the Frederick County Planning Commission last week, that's exactly what happened.

Several Linganore High students took the stand to speak about residential development in the area.

Jamie Dorrance, a 14-year-old freshman, talked about protecting the woodlands behind her house.

Sarah Lilly, a 15-year-old sophomore, spoke about the need for better schools.

And Amy Grimes, a 16-year-old junior who could not attend the public hearing, asked her mother to read into the record a letter Amy wrote about how important it is to improve roads.

"I was very impressed with their testimony," said Frederick County Commissioner Michael L. Cady, who attended the public hearing.

Although a teen lobbying for increased school funding at budget meetings is fairly common in Frederick County, Cady said seeing youths show up at a planning hearing is rare.

"I hope we'll see a great deal more of this," he said, adding that the girls set a good example taking an active role in community issues.

Frederick County Commissioner Jan H. Gardner, who also attended the hearing, said she thought it was wonderful to see teenagers get involved in planning issues.

The girls "demonstrated good citizenship," she said.

" ... It's important to engage our young people in the public process," she added.

The girls maintain their parents did not push them to the podium. And all three have stressed that they chose on their own accord to become involved because the county has neglected far too many problems for far too long.

"I just really think that it's a big issue," Lilly said, explaining that even as a teenager, she has a responsibility to take care of her community.

Farms are shrinking, forests are disappearing, and the county's wildlife is running out of room to live, Dorrance said, and it's all happening because development is moving too fast to consider the consequences.

Dorrance spoke out to protect 86 acres of woods behind her house from development, which she says would wreck her rural neighborhood.

"In 20 years, there's probably not going to be any woods left around here," she said.

The woods, like much of the land surrounding the girls' neighborhoods, is up for consideration to be re-zoned from agriculture to residential, which is why the girls sprang into action.

Last week's public hearing was, after all, held Feb. 25, a school night. There's homework to do, friends to talk to, and reality shows on television to watch. But instead of settling for the usual teens' Wednesday night, Dorrance and Lilly headed to Winchester Hall clutching speeches.

"I can't think of a better way to spend a Wednesday night," Dorrance said. "If I don't say anything, who's going to do it?"

Dorrance teamed up with Lilly and Grimes and got down to business. They did their research online, knocked on doors in the area, and circulated a petition to slow down development.

Even Dorrance's 13-year-old sister, Melissa, has gotten into the action by spreading the word at New Market Middle School. And after surveying residents, Dorrance said the trio couldn't find anyone who supported development of the woodlands.

"I haven't met one person who actually lives here who want it to be developed," Dorrance said. "Most people were violently against it."

And besides depleting the area's woodlands, further development in the area would cause an already damaged well system in the area to be stressed beyond the capabilities of underground water sources, Dorrance said.

Lilly also made a passionate plea last week for the county to take care of what it already has and accommodate its current residents before building more homes and worrying about new residents that development will bring.

"It's a really important issue," Lilly said. "If people don't speak out on this they'll just keep building more homes."

Linganore High is already at 120 percent capacity with 12 portables used as classrooms this year, she explained. Next year, five more portables will be added the school's collection of inadequate facilities, she said. Portables are not intended for long-term use, but at Linganore, that's exactly what they're set up for, she said.

"I've never gone to a school that doesn't have portables," Dorrance said.

Grimes could not attend last week's hearing because she was already committed to sing at a church, but her belief in speaking out on the poor conditions of roads in the area is just as deep as Dorrance's love for trees.

The two issues are connected, because, according to Grimes, development of the woods would further strain already busy and poorly maintained roads, mainly Sidney Road and Md. Route 144.

"Where the two roads intersect is a very dangerous place, as a new driver myself I can testify to having difficulty safely pulling out on one road to the other," Grimes said.

She explained that accidents are common; one neighbor recently fell due to the poor condition of the road and broke her leg.

"Doing anything that would increase traffic on these two busy roads wouldn't be good for anyone currently living in the area, as it is, these roads aren't safe for drivers or pedestrians," Grimes added.

A continuation of region plan public hearing will be held at 7 p.m. Wednesday in the first floor meeting room at Winchester Hall.

Saturday, December 09, 2000

20001209 Transportation 2nd Biggest Family Exp.

Transportation 2nd Biggest Family Exp.

From: Baltimore Regional Partnership 12/9/2000 Newsletter

TRANSPORTATION SECOND BIGGEST ITEM IN HOUSEHOLD BUDGET

A report released November 30 by the Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP) finds that households in the Baltimore region spend, on average, 14.7 percent of their budget, or more than $5,000 per year, on day-to-day transportation. That places transportation costs higher than health care, education, food, or any other household expenditure except shelter.

The report, "Driven to Spend," compiled data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and found that the poorest fifth of Americans pays a significantly larger percentage of income -- 36 percent—on transportation.

The report shows that 98 percent of day-to-day transportation costs are associated with owning and operating an automobile and that three quarters of those expenses, such as loan and insurance payments, tend to be unrelated to how often or far the car is driven.

The report points out that the most effective way to reduce household transportation costs is to own fewer cars, but that such a choice requires other transportation options to be available.

The report also cautions families that seek so save money on housing by investing in a cheaper house further out in a metropolitan area, pointing out that such a choice may lead to unavoidably larger transportation costs.

Among the report's recommendations is greater government investment in public transportation, bicycle facilities, and walkable neighborhoods, rather than increased highway capacity in outer suburban areas. T

he report also urges employers to provide free or subsidized transit passes to their employees, taking advantage of federal tax incentives and local measures such as Maryland's new Commuter Choice tax credits.

Full text of report available at http://www.transact.org/. Baltimore and other metro fact sheets available at www.transact.org/Reports/driven/metro.asp.

Baltimore, MD

To read the local press release - Click Here

Summary

Ranking: 26
Portion of Family Budget Devoted to Transportation:
14.7%
Annual Household Spending on Transportation:
$5,236
Total Household Expenditures on Transportation in Baltimore: $4.8 billion

Breakdown of Transportation Expenditures


Annual Household Spending

Percent of Total Transportation Expenditures

Vehicle Purchases

$2,236

42.7%

Other Vehicle Expenses

$1,956

37.4%

Gasoline and Motor Oil

$952

18.2%

Public Transportation

$92

1.8%

Breakdown of All Household Expenditures

Households in Baltimore spend more on transportation than on any other category except shelter


Annual Household Spending

Percent of Total Household Expenditures

TRANSPORTATION

$5,236

14.7%

Shelter

$7,304

20.5%

Food

$4,793

13.5%

Utilities

$2,361

6.6%

Other Household

$2,285

6.4%

Insurance & Pensions

$4,773

13.4%

Health Care

$1,600

4.5%

Entertainment

$1,830

5.1%

Apparel & Services

$1,650

4.6%

Education

$657

1.8%

Miscellaneous

$2,806

7.9%


Transportation Choice

Baltimore, has 1.10 miles of hourly transit service per mile of roadway.


Transportation Facts for Baltimore

Annual miles traveled by car per household: 20,170 miles
Percentage of trips taken by car: 82.2%
Percentage of trips taken by transit: 2.6%
Percentage of trips taken by foot: 8.1%
Percentage of trips taken by bicycle: 0.2%

Area covered is Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA).
For boundaries, visit
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/mapGallery/ma_1999.pdf

To choose another Metro Area Click Here
To go back to the Driven to Spend homepage,
Click Here

####