(1/27) Thurmont residents flocked to the January Planning and Zoning Commission meeting where Daniel Cross, of Cross and Company, once again asked for annexation of the 24.5-acre Simmers property off Apples Church Road while simultaneously suing the residents of the neighboring Albert Courts Community, the Town of Thurmont, Frederick County, two HOAs and a construction company.
The controversial annexation has been before the Commission as well as the Town Council multiple times over the last few years with various proposals.
The property consists of seven acres zoned R-5 (high density development) in Town, and another 16.7 acres zoned agriculture in the County.
Thurmont is unique in that one requirement for any annexation request is a detailed concept plan for the property. In early 2022, Cross presented the required plans to develop the 24.5 acres into at least 172 residential units, as well as an assisted-living facility. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the annexation of the 16.7 acres and rezoned it to R-5 which matched the other seven acres later that year. In response, residents pushed for the decision to be put to a referendum. Two months later a petition was submitted in opposition to the annexation which triggered a vote on the Annexation Resolution 2022-03 and the annexation was overturned in January of 2023.
More than a year later, Cross unveiled a new concept plan specific to the seven acres already within Town limits calling it ?Albert Meadows?. The Plan offered the Town a choice: develop the seven-acre portion already within Town limits and leave the 16.7 acres for a stormwater management facility or, once again, ask for annexation of the 16.7 acres and build a smaller development of 102 dwellings instead of the original 172, a decrease of 42%. Under the second option, Cross and Company intended on addressing a derelict silt pond that was part of a larger stormwater facility on the Simmer?s parcel that is left over from the construction of the Albert Courts Community from 1992.
This facility is the center of a lawsuit filed by Cross and Company in May of 2024 where they demanded the defendants remove the abandoned facility because its presence on the Simmers property prevents it from being developed.
According to the lawsuit, former owner of the Simmers property, Kenneth Simmers, granted permission to Gateway Enterprises (responsible for the Albert Courts community) a temporary stormwater drainage and management easement to temporarily serve Albert Courts while the community was being built. The Town of Thurmont also had a similar agreement with Gateway and the agreements placed both Gateway and Thurmont as responsible for any maintenance, repairs and operations of the facilities.
Once the Albert Courts community was completed, the Simmers property was supposed to be returned to its original condition and the easements cancelled. In 1996, Gateway built a temporary stormwater management facility with a portion of it within the easements and another portion outside. However, Cross and Company allege that after competition in 1997 Gateway and Thurmont failed to maintain the facility, thus abandoning it.
Albert Courts resident Alicia Kuchinsky questioned why the proposed annexation was even on the table when there is a pending lawsuit. ?My fear is if the Town of Thurmont has another referendum, he [Cross] will hold us hostage,? she said. ?Until this [the lawsuit] is settled, nothing should be going forward.?
Resident Deborah Schray was appalled at the news of a lawsuit. ?That really says, ?I have money and I?m going to make you be quiet? doesn?t it?? she asked. She also pointed out the challenge the sued homeowners have if they wanted to sell their homes with a pending lawsuit in place, ?It really is a hostage situation,? she said. She agreed with Kuchinsky that nothing should go further with the annexation or development until the lawsuit is taken care of.
Of the over 30 residents that came to the meeting the most common concerns were increased traffic, school overcrowding, and the too high density. Concerns over affordability also prevailed at the meeting, with most wondering how much ?affordable? really was. Other residents pointed out the possibility of the lawsuit being a direct retaliation to the referendum and wondered if it would be dropped if the annexation was approved for the second time. ?This is a bogus lawsuit against the residents,? said resident Judy Miller. ?We are being used as pawns.?
(The point of the discussion was to introduce annexation for the second time with a concept plan that has a lower density than before.)Given the whole article, feel this sentence is not necessary and distracting, think should just end with the last sentence as a closing. The Planning Commission opted to wait on any further discussion and hold a workshop in March to specifically discuss the issue.
