Mayor of Berlin v. Barrett

SONNER, Judge. 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”), filed a complaint to void the annexation on two grounds. 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 ⁶⁷⁸ separate parcels of land to the corporate limits of the Town of Berlin. Each parcel is contiguous and adjoining to the Town’s boundaries and consists of multiple lots under separate ownership.

The lots located within the annexed parcels are not contiguous to each other, but they all abut the Town’s water and wastewater lines in different areas. The Town annexed the parcels because it has a policy of 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 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 contiguous with each other, as required by the statute. The 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 ⁶⁷⁹ 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 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. Therefore, the Town further argues, a municipality may annex multiple non-contiguous parcels in a single annexation proceeding and “tie” together the 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