(5/8) At its May 4 workshop, the Taneytown City Council held a public hearing for the Sewell farm annexation.

Several years into the consideration for the property annexation, citizens packed city hall for the next phase of the development.  Citizens both supported and opposed the annexation of the property. Those supporting the annexation highlighted additional tax revenue and continued community growth as reasons to approve the measure.

Heavy traffic and scarce water resources were the main concerns of those who opposed the annexation. The annexation involves two parcels of the Sewell’s land totaling approximately 126 acres that lie adjacent to the boundaries of the city. The annexation will allow for construction of a housing development, currently proposed for no more than 340 homes units. The proposed new homes would have access to the city’s public water and sewer services.

Ronald Sewell, co-owner of the property, said that he "would hope that this development would be an asset to the town." He added that the family has tried to get their property annexed to the town for years and it is only now coming to a vote. Co-owner Lori Sewell noted that because the property is part of the city’s master plan for future growth, it is not eligible for agricultural preservation status.

The potential housing development will hopefully give the city an edge for prospective residents coming into the city, she said.

Clark Shaffer implored the council that now is the time to approve the annexation. Shaffer represents both the Sewells and the housing development company involved in the project, NVR, in legal matters.

Citing how "strict" the annexation agreement made with the council is, Shaffer emphasized that the town will have "little or no control over this property" if it does not lie within town limits.

"When this property comes in, it will be subject to the sovereignty of the city of Taneytown. It will only develop if it meets the criteria that you’ve established in your ordinances," Shaffer said.

Several citizens opposed to the annexation voiced concerns about potential strain to the town’s water resources caused by adding new wells for additional housing units. Ann Ness, who lives across from Meade’s Crossing, told the council the construction of that development negatively affected her neighbors’ water supplies. One, a dairy farmer, had his well pumped dry and had to bring in water from tractor trailers, according to Ness. Another had a well that turned to mud.

Michael Smith, of Finger Road, referenced a period in the late 1990s when citizens emptied water from washing machines to supply water for their yards because wells were so dry. "I just want to warn the town when the citizens out on RT. 140 and Harney Road, when their wells go dry because they have to supply more water to a development," Smith said.

Having moved from Baltimore County four years ago, Joe Bivens cited the relatively higher cost of his water bill as a determining factor in whether the annexation should be approved. "If this whole deal . . .adds to the strain of the water, then it shouldn’t be done. If this helps it, more people paying toward the water . . . maybe it’s a good thing."

After first expressing his belief in the importance of property rights, Chris Tillman noted a few concerns "from a public safety and public policy" standpoint, including whether Harney Road is routed in a safe way to eventually meet Rt 140. He also cited concerns about school capacity being able to handle new students moving into the area.

For Tillman and Ness, the primary issue is the increase in traffic congestion a development will cause when they say there are already enough traffic problems going through town. "It’s a heck of a mess," Ness said.

"If you’ve sat in the line coming up Baltimore Street in either direction towards the light in morning or afternoon, is now the time to add another 500 cars to it?" Tillman asked.

Before opening the public comment period, Mayor Wantz asserted several points about the annexation proposal.

"Annexing a property does not change the ownership of the property. We just simply move boundary lines around it to include it in the city, typically at their request," Wantz stated. "This does not create an enclave. The maps have been approved by the county commissioners and the county attorney."

The council will approve or deny the proposal at its July workshop.