Preview:

Headnote: Mayor and Council of Berlin, Maryland Barrett, et al., No. 1774, September Term 1999.

v.

James

G.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS - CREATION, ALTERATION, EXISTENCE, AND DISSOLUTION - A municipality may not annex multiple noncontiguous tracts of land in a single annexation proceeding by combining the consents of the real property owners from the noncontiguous areas.

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

No. 1774 September Term, 1999 _________________________________ __

MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF BERLIN, MARYLAND

v.

JAMES G. BARRETT, ET AL.

_________________________________ __ Moylan,* Thieme,* Sonner, JJ. _________________________________ __ Opinion by Sonner, J. _________________________________ *Moylan, J. and participated in the Thieme, hearing J. and

conference of this case while active members of this Court; they participated in the adoption of this opinion as retired, specially assigned members of this Court.

Filed: February 28, 2001

This appeal involves the failed annexation of four parcels of land by appellant, the Mayor and Council of Berlin, Maryland (the "Town"). Appellees, James G. Barrett and several owners of

real property located within two of the annexed parcels (the "Owners"), grounds. filed a complaint to void the annexation on two

First, the Town did not obtain the minimum consent

required for annexation, and second, the Town annexed parcels that were not contiguous to each other, as appellant maintains is required by the annexation statute. The Circuit Court for

Worcester County granted the Owners' complaint for declaratory relief and voided the annexation, holding that the Town did not comply with the annexation statute. The Town has raised two

issues on appeal, but because we affirm on the ground that the Town cannot "tie" together the consents of multiple non-

contiguous parcels to reach the required minimum consent for annexation, it is not necessary for us to decide the second issue. On November 9, 1998, the Town passed, by a 3-2 vote, Resolution No. 1998-12, which effected the annexation of four

separate parcels of land to the corporate limits of the Town of Berlin. Each parcel is contiguous and adjoining to the Town's and consists of multiple lots under separate

boundaries ownership.

The lots located within the annexed parcels are not

contiguous to each other, but they all abut the Town's water and wastewater parcels lines in it different has a areas. of The Town annexed the

because

policy

extending

its

municipal

boundaries to areas for which it uses public funds to construct and maintain water and sewer lines. Parcels 1 and 2 consist of

several lots located to the south of Maryland Route 346 and U.S. Route 50, east of U.S. Route 113. Parcel 3 consists of several

lots located to the north of Maryland Route 346, just west of the point at which it merges with U.S. Route 50, east of U.S. Route 113. Parcel 4 consists of several lots located on both

the north and south sides of Maryland Route 346, west of U.S. Route 113. The owners of the real property located in parcels 1, 2, and 3 gave consent to the annexation in the following percentages: approximately 10% for parcel 1, 36.3% for parcel 2, and 5% for parcel 3.1 On December 14, 1998, the owners of lots located in

The record is not clear as to whether the Town's annexation of parcel 4 complied with the statutory requirements. In any event, appellees did not complain below that the annexation of the fourth parcel was defective, and they do not (continued...) 2

1

parcels 1 and 3 filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Worcester County, asserting that the annexation violated the

Maryland Annexation statute.

The Owners argued that the Town

did not obtain consent for annexation from the owners of 25% of the assessed valuation of the real property in parcels 1 and 3 and, furthermore, all four parcels to be annexed were not The

contiguous with each other, as required by the statute.

Owners sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as a writ of mandamus. On December 17, 1998, the court denied the Owners' request for injunctive relief on the ground that the Owners had not sufficiently demonstrated that they would be irreparably harmed by the denial of such relief. The matter went to trial on

August 30, 1999, and the court declined to hear testimony from either party and held that the issue in the case was exclusively legal. After argument, the court granted judgment in favor of

the Owners on the ground that the annexation statute requires annexed parcels to be contiguous to one another, rather than to the annexing municipality and, because parcels 1 and 3 are not contiguous to parcel 4, the court declared the Resolution void with respect to those parcels. The court also held that the

(...continued) do so on appeal. 3

1

Town did not obtain the statutorily required consent from 25% of the owners of the assessed valuation of real property in parcels 1 and 3 and, for that reason as well, the annexation was void as to parcels 1 and 3. The annexation of parcels 2 and 4 were

excepted from the court's order by the consent of the parties. The Town noted this appeal. The Town contends that "area," as used in the annexation statute, refers to the total area to be annexed in a single annexation proceeding. municipality single may annex Therefore, the Town further argues, a multiple and non-contiguous "tie" together parcels the in a

annexation

proceeding

consents

from the several non-contiguous parcels in order to meet the statutorily required minimum consent from the property owners in each contiguous area. The Owners argue, and we agree, that

"area" refers to each contiguous parcel, and therefore the Town cannot "tie" together consents from multiple non-contiguous

areas, but must obtain the statutorily required consent from each contiguous area to be annexed. The applicable statute provides, in pertinent part:

(b) Initiation by legislative body. -- The proposal for change may be initiated by resolution regularly introduced into the legislative body of the municipal corporation, in accordance with the ususal requirements and practices applicable to its 4

legislative enactments, and also in conformity with the several requirements contained in subsections (b) and (c) of

Download Berlin, MD v. Barrett.pdf

Maryland Law