The City of Salisbury has submitted the planned grown part of its draft “comprehensive plan” for review by the County Council, which happened this week. It envisions expanding the city by annexations to include a much larger area that would extend out to the Route 13/Route 50 “Bypass” on the north and east and even further along Old Ocean City Road and Mt. Hermon Road (to Walston Switch Road) and Zion Road and Dagsboro Road (to Brown Road and Rum Ridge Road). Included in that area are the homes in existing subdivisions located on or accessed from those roads and from West Road, Lake Street-Jersey Road, Parker Road, Johnson Road, Dykes Road and Morris Mill Road, among others.
On the west side of Salisbury the potential annexations include the 500 acre plus “Homestead Farm” on Nanticoke Road, that could be developed with 2,000 or so residential units. To the south, the Pine Bluff and Hunting Park areas could be annexed into the City. The Tony Tank and Shad Point areas are included in Fruitland’s proposed annexation growth areas.
If annexed into Salisbury (or Fruitland) homeowners could be made to use and pay for water and sewer services if mains are installed along the street frontage, and the city property taxes would apply if not waived in the annexation process. And if you want to build a home on a vacant lot in Salisbury, the City’s special impact fee for water and sewer ($8,500, at present, for a standard home) would apply as well as the County’s school impact fee (about $5,200).
The suggested reason for annexing the existing subdivisions is that they may have failed septic systems or wells and the lot owners may want (or be forced) to use the City’s systems in the future. And then there’s the bit about straightening out the City line so that it is not jagged. Not surprisingly, there is no backlog of folks who want their home or lot to be annexed, because most County residents are happy to be on the outside or wish that they were.
At present, under Maryland law annexation cannot be done by a city or town without the consent of the property owner or the majority vote of a group of owners, and other rules apply that limit the City’s power to annex property. But there’s no guaranty that the law and rules won’t be changed to allow annexation to occur more extensively, and possibly without the need for the property owner’s consent. Take with a grain (or several) of salt the refrain that “it will never happen to you.”
A map of Salisbury’s proposed growth area (and part of Fruitland’s) is attached. The County Council has expressed concern that the growth area is too large, but apparently does not object to it being annexed.
To provide your comments to the County Council, get the e-mail address and telephone for Council members posted on the County’s website and also for the County Exec, Rick Pollitt, who has also reviewed and apparently approved the growth plan for both Salisbury and Fruitland. And you can contact the Planning Commission at 410-548-4860 or its new Chairman, Charles (“Chip”) Dashiell, who is an attorney in Salisbury.
****************************************************
Note on Maps:
1. The “Future Land Use” shows both the present City of Salisbury and the “growth area” that it proposes to annex if possible.
2. Map 11-3 focuses on the “growth area” (the existing City area is colored gray) – this map is available on the City’s website and can be enlarged for a specific area for which individual street names appear – http://www.ci.salisbury.md.us/SalisburyComprehensivePlan/tabid/621/Default.aspx
go to this menu item: City Comprehensive Plan Map Suite (Draft) then go to page 21 of the .pdf file for Map 11-3 and put the cursor on a location and “right-click” once or more to get more detail.
48 comments:
Joe:
Kudos for getting the word out -- have seen nothing about this scam in the Daily Slime.
Even with new mayor Iretin, it's the same "Salisbarrie" folks!
This is just the normal growth of a city. If you look very closely they are doing what they said all along and developing the "Metro Core". No big deal here.
The city can't treat the sewage they have now, let alone the growth areas. It sounds like they want to expand the tax base more than anything else. Thanks for the heads up... I live in one of those areas and will begin the petition fight.
Sali./Fruitland will have all it can handle if they try to come south of Dykes Rd.
Don't be surprised if they run sewer and water lines out to serve that proposed "Waller Landing" project at Route 50 and Porter Mill Road, and area in between.
How much would it be to connect the wastewater treatment plant (whenever it is fixed to work properly) to provide service to Hebron, which is almost out of capacity for more growth, like the "Waller Landing"?
Looks like my place on Levin Dashiell Road is in the "danger zone".
When they developed down Camden Avenue (Huinting Park, Druid Hill) the city made a special deal to provide "urban services" at higher than the normal rates without being annexed, so we may be able to block any attempt to make us pay city taxes too.
9:59 My thoughts exactly!! Thanks Joe-----We'd better start the calls & petitions too or else they'll get what they want! EW
Pollitt & Ireton (and Fruitland):
The genie is out of the bottle, thanks to SBYNEWS
This is an end run around the tax cap in Wicomico County. If these areas are annexed, the County won't have to serve them, except schools, and the City can raise its taxes and sewer and waqter fees whenever it wants.
THIS is the big news? Thought you would be coming out of the closet, you pink clad homo!
10:01--
The sewer and water lines could be run to Hebron in the old railroad right-of way, now used by DP&L for its elevated HT line.
Let's put this on the agenda for that "Neighborhood Congress" that Pollitt and Ireton started.
People 10:28 is correct. You all are assuming here that they are forcing you to be annexed but that has not been stated as such and is not fact. Please find out the facts before you take up torches and pitch forks. Just think you would have a nice option if you septic system failed and needed a replacement but that would more than likely be your choice.
Every day I thank my spouse for making us leave Wicomico for Sussex County, and just in time, it seems.
Expect the "planners" and the consultant that the County and City are making very rich to tell us that it is only a pipe dream and won't happen -- I guess that's "good planning" for "smart growth."
of course there is no metion of growth of infrastructure. i guess emergency services (fire, police, ems) will stay at the same staffing, with the same pay and twice the work. and why are we adding on to the sewer system when the one we have is not up to par and we keep getting fined?
It may not be for the City to plan for, but "planning" should be done to put a bridge over the Wicomico River for the west side (all the Nanticoke traffic) to get to the south side of Salisbury and Fruitland. Probably where Upper Ferry is now would be ideal. That would relieve the Nanticoke Road congestion problem tremendously, especially in light of all the building that has been done and is planned for the west side. Going into Parsons Road and Rt 50 to get over those bridges to go south is a disaster, and getting worse every day.
The Homestead Farm Project is huge. I have seen some of the plans ,it is a small town with it's own school. Her lease is almost up on the property. Can you say cluster FK !
considering what it costs to replace a septic system these days, maybe it's better for the homeowners.
If anyone would take the time to look into what a comprehensive plan is, you'd find that towns, cities/municipalities are REQUIRED by the state to provide these "plans". They are normally at a minimum of 5 yrs "projected". These plans are as they say..."projected"!! Nothing is being decided behind closed doors. Some properties considered county have water and/or sewer tie ins. If you don't understand...stop running your mouth or stirring up you know what that you know nothing about!!
As a professional AICP certified planning consultant with over 15 years of planning experience throughout Maryland and Delaware, I can tell you that it is not intended to be a "scam" what-so-ever. If you understood the planning principles and guidelines behind the municipal growth element required by the State in every municipal Comprehensive Plan you would understand why the growth areas are delineated the way that they are. Under State guidelines, in order for land to even be considered for annexation into the City it must be included in the designated growth areas within the Comprehensive Plan. All these guidelines are described in recent legislation for municipal comprehensive planning. Go look up MD Housebill 1141 and Article 66B in the MD Code; maybe then you will all understand a thing or two about planning. Better yet, how about you actually READ the Draft Comprehensive Plan and know what you are talking about BEFORE you make your uneducated comments. Those maps are useless to you if you don't know the planning justification behind them.
Salisbury Comprehensive Plan Draft
For those of you too lazy to read it for yourself, I provide you with a direct quote from the Municipal Growth Element in the Draft Plan on the City's website:
"It is important to note that after completion of this element an area may not be annexed into the City of Salisbury unless the area has been identified in this Plan. See Map 11-3. That is, inclusion of an area in this Plan is a prerequisite for any consideration of annexation in the future, until this Plan is amended. Just because an area has been included in this element does not commit the City of Salisbury to proceed with an annexation for any particular area."
The plan is also required to project and allocate growth for the next 20 years; that is why the growth area is so extensive. Designating growth areas also helps prevent certain annexation issues that could arise from unmanaged growth such as "pipe-stem" annexations and County enclaves within the City.
In addition, a lot of you all were complaining about Water and Sewer capacities. There is another requirement by the State called the Water Resources Element that addresses and evaluates the impact of growth on water resources and availability. AGAIN, read the plan BEFORE you make your uneducated responses.
Joe was correct in stating that the City must have consent from the property owner(s) in order to annex the property into the City-The City cannot force you to annex. Joe was also correct in stating that failing septic issues are reflected in portions of the proposed growth areas.
I would also like to add that this Comprehensive Plan has been in the works for well over a year now. There have been numerous public input meetings, some of which I attended myself. There was never an outstanding public turn out at any of the meetings I attended. The public input was requested; however very little was provided from a very few. I'm not sure if it is still there, but there was also a survey on the City website. The public had ample opportunities to provide input and feedback but apparently, from these comments, the public failed to speak up. This is another prime example of the public being REACTIVE instead of PROACTIVE. You all want to complain about what is being done here, but how many of you that posted a comment thus far attended a single public input/interest meeting and/or completed the survey? The planning consultant and Planning and Zoning staff cannot read your minds. I can almost guarantee you that few, if any, of your comments from this point forward will be considered. While Joe provides an excellent outlet for anonymous public criticism, your comments on this blog will probably not be reviewed or considered anyway. I suggest that if you have a valid argument or suggestion that you formally contact the City's planning office.
I have actually read over Salisbury's Draft Comprehensive Plan on the City's website and I can tell you that most, if not all, of the comments here are addressed somehow.
Just read it idiots! I rely on Joe for a lot of my news and information too, but I don't automatically adopt Joe's opinions as my own. I know how to develop my own opinions, you all should do the same sometimes.
(No offense meant to you Joe-opinions are opinions, but some people are just plain ignorant because they don't read)
It is my understanding that 100% of the people residing in the area proposed for annexation must consent. If there is one holdout on your block for example, your block can't be annexed.
As a municipality, annexation puts more tax revenue into coffers. As a property owner, it takes more money out of your wallet. If you are protected by the Sheriff's department and State Police, you'll gain a 3rd police force. You will also gain a Salisbury or Fruitland property tax bill as well. It's all a matter of whether you feel any gains are worth the costs.
Newsflash...Homestead Farm is no longer owned by the Toadvine family, it is owned by Tom Ruark. If Ruark wants to be annexed he'll be annexed and he won't pay any impact fees...bank on it.
The city can't afford to provide services to it's present citizens. Will Mayor Pick increase police, fire, ems, public works staff? Where will Mayor Pick get the funds to increase staff to provide services to the expanded areas?
The last thing the city of Salisbury wants or needs is the outspoken citizens of the county to become city voters.
Mo taxes, mo taxes, mo taxes.
I would like to know what the typical city resident pays for water and sewer fees. When we bought our current house, we knew it was in the county, but that it had city water/sewer services (that we would have to pay for) because the surroundings streets are city-owned. What we did not know is that that we would pay $1,000 year for water and sewer services. We were told that it is because we don't pay city taxes, so we get charged a higher rate. This just seems ridiculous and unfair to me. I can see paying a higher rate- but $1,000 year? We don't have a leak, both adults in the home work full time, and are conscious of water usage. It is becoming cost-prohibitive- and it completely irritates me that even with a higher rate, the city can't seem to get the problems resolved at the WWTP.
Yeah, this actually looks like one of the best comprehensive plans in the State, Joe. I'm really not being sarcastic. As much as I'm for growth, this is a really measured plan. I almost hate to say it. Thanks for sharing, though!
1:56-
Your data does not sound right-what was the surcharge (percentage) when you were outside of the City?
It used to be that the City had better roads and law enforcement and life safety than the County, but that is no longer so.
History records that Hitler promised not to invade Poland, too.
3:51--
The County comes out ahead because it no longer to furnish any services, except schools, to homes in the City of Salisbury, although Mike Lewis goes the extra mile, thank goodness.
Anon 2:08,
Stop freaking out, they can't annex your land without your consent. They aren't trying to "grab" your land either. I suggest you go forward with your plan to sell out if you can curb your ridiculous skepticisms!
I can't say this for all professional planners, but I know that I am formally educated with a planning degree and I understand and practice proper planning procedures, ethics and principles-this plan is certainly up to par in regards to those aspects. This plan in no way restricts the property rights of property owners in and around Salisbury. Everybody is so quick to accuse planners for "stealing" their property rights, but in all reality without proper planning our communities would be out of control. Unfortunately, the reason why Salisbury and Wicomico's current planning efforts seem so obscure is because special interests and poor planning practices plagued our area during the 80s, 90s and into the 2000s. The special interests still plague our community, but at least the planning is shaping up. The growth that the Eastern Shore has seen, particularly Salisbury, is part to blame. This being the case, planning now is directed more to proper growth management and redevelopment. Trust me, I can confidently say that you can, you don't want our community's growth to run ramped and I guarantee you that this plan will not hinder or obstruct your existing property rights. In addition, it is a fact that most of the communities in America with higher property values and a higher quality of living practice proper planning -do some research to verify if you don't believe me. If fact, those same communities often have much more strict planning and zoning regulations. For example, try looking into the effort you have to make and the restrictions you have to deal with when building a house or development in places like Bethesda, Rockville, Chevy Chase or Silver Spring (some of the most restrictive zoning regs and planning but have the highest property values in the State). Now compare that to the effort you have to make and the restrictions you have to deal with when building a house or development in Salisbury. It will blow your mind to see how much easier it is to do it in and around Salisbury!
In addition, the comprehensive plan is not regulatory; it is simply a guideline for future planning legislation, policies and procedures. The comp plan could say that all of the land within Salisbury is to be converted to commercial use and it wouldn't mean nothing until they rewrote the zoning. Zoning is what you all should be concerned about. Generally speaking, a comprehensive plan is followed by a comprehensive rezoning. I'm not sure what the City's intentions are in regards to that, but I can tell you all this much for sure, the rezoning is what you want to be on the look out for-That's where they can get you!
Bottom line, this plan isn't trying to take anything away from Salisbury and Wicomico citizens. In actuality, it is trying to improve the citizens' investments and quality of life.
Anon 2:32 PM,
The comp plan is a guideline and is not regulatory. If you own a residential property completely surrounded by commercial, you property is considered what they call a "non-conformity" or a "non-conforming use." Generally, in a comp plan or a land use plan, that non-conforming use will be changed to a compatible use. In this case, you residential property would most likely be changed to a commercial use. This is essentially a recommendation that future uses on that property should be commercial and that the zoning should reflect such. It does not mean that they are going to suddenly come and kick you out and put up a convenience store. Also, land use (not zoning) is a general concept. It is not an exact representation of the actual use, but more or less depicts the general pattern and "look" of land use throughout the community. In my city's comp plan, my property is designated as a commercial use, but my zoning is medium density residential-it doesn't bother me any because I know that it is generalized by my surrounding areas and my zoning will never change to commercial. Does that clear things up for you?
I moved into the city limits from the county and have been sorry ever since. I pay double the taxes, plus a water and sewer bill and a ridiculously high hoa fee. The builder developer realtor lied when talking about the tax liability sitation. Now I can't even sell my home without a significant loss to move back to a county residence safely out of the annexation jurisdiction. I feel screwed. My bad.
I am in a nice community. I have seen my property value drop since I built my home in 2004. My county property taxes have gone up about $300-$400 each year. I have home that in our market is out of the average price range. If I woud try to sell I would end up loosing money. I know because the few neighbors that have tried to sell end up either staying or end up auctioning the house with a loss. Now to add in City taxes, water and sewer fees will lower my selling ability even more. For what gain... Water when I already have TWO wells. Sewer...when I have a perfectly maintained newer septic system. I am totaly against this. I don't need any more governing. The city needs to just stay where they are at. They can't handle what they have. There is too much government involvement with everything we do these days. I am only 30 years old but not stupid. So someone tell me again what are the benifits of this to County homeowners that we don't already have taken care of, and at what cost is it to us. Let me guess, This money can cover some of the holes in the budget that was created by the same mismanagemen that we will become part of.
4:37-
The state annexation code can be changed to allow wide open annexation (as occurs in some states). This is clearly "planning" for that in the future.
This needs to be stopped in its tracks, right now.
So all the screaming mimi's here want NO plan? Oh that's real smart.
These plans have been going on for years. How many of you turned out for any, even one, of the many public meetings held on this? Or plan to attend the next ones (I think there are more.)
They can't force you to annex.
Keep screaming against impact fees too so your taxes can go up more when the developers eat up land, put more people in and more cars on the road on your dime.
Joe, you're a great guy, but you don't know jack about growth issues.
anonymous 6:36, this coming from a guy named "anonymous." Thanks for the laugh tonight.
4:38pm You say the comp plan is a guideline and not regulatory. Don't think so. I believe legislation was approved at the state level last year mandating that jurdictions SHALL follow their comp plans. Check it out.
@6:36 you are right it is E.S. Adkins Company that owns Homestead. No difference there, if they want annexation without impact fees the fees will be waived just like they did for Ruark at Sassafras Meadows. The city even paid for running the water and sewer lines for him.
I love Sussex County!!!
1900 sq ft home with full basement.
1.08 acres
In a development but can still have my backyard totally private.
Out of town with sidewalks into town at a leap of 1 mile.
Five houses from a state park with a fishing pond.
My own well. My own septic system.
Mostly retired neighborhood watch.
$950.00 a year in taxes.
Thank you Sussex County muah!
why do they want to annex anything. they can't manage what they have now.
Justin Case,
Sorry, but YOU are wrong-that's what you get for "believing." The comprehensive plan is legislatively mandated by the State meaning that every county and incorporated municipality is required by the State to have one and update it (if neccessary) every 6 years. The comprehensive plan itself is not regulatory. Like I said, the zoning is regulatory; however, since the comprehensive plan should (not shall) be used as a guideline the zoning should be reflective of the guidelines and recommendations within the comprehensive plan. A municipality could adopt a comprehensive plan to satisfy the State's requirements, but simply leave it on the shelf and never use it.
Here's the catch though. The municipality is the donkey and the State holds the carrot. If the municipality wants money or approval from the State then the State will say "well why haven't you done what you said you were going to do in your comprehensive plan?" The State, like always, will use money as the bait or motive to get municipalities to do what the the State wants them to do.
Here's another tip for you. If you ever have to go before the planning commission or council for something and they try to deny you of something by saying "well the comprehensive plan says that you're not allowed to do that on your property" then that's when you say that the comprehensive plan has no legislative powers and the zoning code says I can. They legally can't deny you of something because of what the comprehensive plan says.
Anon 5:14 PM,
Do you honestly believe that the State is going to just allow "wide open" annexation? Planning in Maryland is a top priority and the State's efforts in planning are amoung the top in the nation. "Wide open" annexation is not good planning and the State would never promote such ridiculous practices. This practice would also totally contradict the State's environmental and land conservation initiatives. Your skepticisms are ludicrous and ridiculous! I bet your wear one of those tin foil hats to prevent aliens from controlling your mind...lools like it didn't work!
Anon 6:36 PM,
I agree, the public had their chance to provide input. It's typical that they all want to complain after the fact-I have no sympathy for them. As for impact fees, they are a must! Developers take advantage of "free" City services but as we all know, nothing is free. Somebody (the tax payers) is paying for it. I must add though, I believe that some proposed projects (such as the Brewery that was supposed to go next to the ES Adkins building) that will create and promote economic activity that will benefit a community as a whole should have impact fees waived or reduced. Infill developement and redevelopment projects that better our community should be considered for a waiver or reduction of impact fees. Other than those few exceptions, the developers should incur the cost of impact fees, not the other tax payers of the City. Why should I pay more to extend services to in a residential development when I get absolutely no benefit from it and they do?
Joe, can you re-post this thread to the top of your blog so that more people can and comment on it? I find this topic and its discussions very interesting and I want to see more reactions.
Thank you in advance!
NO WAY do I ever want to be annexed into the city. I live on Outten Rd and that's close enough.
Post a Comment