Milford City Council approved a request from the Revocable Trust of Pamela Davis Thompson to annex property located at 2 North Brandywine Road. The request was due to a fully failing septic system at the property and will allow the property owner to connect to city septic. The request was unanimously approved by the Annexation Committee.
“I represent Miss Pamela Davis, and she has a septic system that completely failed, all three components,” Joanne Milton, a realtor who also lives in Shawnee Acres, said. “We performed all the due process with all of the interested parties and necessary input to arrive at applying for annexation to connect to city water.”
Nora Mastrosimone, who lives on Lexington Drive, spoke against the request.
“I’m just a little perplexed by all of this, that one property in the development is being annexed, and no one seems to be concerned of what could happen down the road to the rest of us in the development, if our septic system fails, are we going to be slowly annexed into the city of Milford?” Mastrosimone said. “I feel like the city is going through the back door to slowly annex Shawnee acres and Shawnee acres addition, and that concerns me. I really didn’t want to be annexed, and I feel the path that we’re taking by doing it individually is that we are going to lose our right to be able to vote for or against it as a development.
Mastrosimone continued.
“If we’re doing it piecemeal, there are many people in our development now who have water and sewer as I do. I haven’t heard anyone else being forced to have to annex in order to hook up and pay for it to be hooked up,” Mastrosimone said. “And then my concern was also, you have one house now in the whole development. So, the city of Milford police will answer the call of a 911 for that one house, and the rest of us will get state police. What happens to the trash? I’m assuming these people at 2nNorth Brandywine going to have to pay city taxes now, so one house in the development gets picked up by city trash, and the rest of us have our private trash. I don’t think that was very well thought out.”
Julie Morris, who gave an address on East Street, also spoke against the annexation.
“So, this was sold to you as a simple septic emergency with no other option but annexation. But when you look at the facts and the long-term implications, it’s anything but simple. First, these are large built out county HOA neighborhoods that have been very clear in the past that they do not want to be in the city. They don’t want to be annexed,” Morris said. “Annexing one existing home in the middle of them does not serve a coordinated planning it carves a hole in a county neighborhood, and it drops it into the city limits.”
Morris stated that false information had been given to the Annexation Committee and to council about DNREC requirements. According to Morris, DNREC has no record of a denied septic application for the property and that the property owner could have filed a permit and been granted a hardship. However, according to DNREC, they will likely deny a septic permit if public septic becomes technically and legally available to a property, the property owner shall directly connect “to the public sewer in compliance with this chapter.”
“There were other options besides annexation. And we still don’t know if the state was ever clearly told that, because has the city spoken to anyone else, other than a realtor,” Morris continued. “This is magnet for a lawsuit, a lawsuit from a huge HOA. So, now the most troubling part is we’re being told that many of these homeowners in Shawnee Acres and Shawnee Acres additions, who connected to the city utilities 20 years ago supposedly signed an agreement saying that once hey become contiguous to the city limits, that they then must annex.”
Milton provided the city with a 2003 agreement to Rob Pierce, City Planner, regarding that requirement.
“I’ve asked Rob for it, I’ve asked Katrina White, and I’m not given that 2003 agreement. Where is that agreement? It should be public record. This is not transparent. Nothing should be voted on without this agreement provided to Shawnee Acres and Shawnee Acres addition,” Morris said. “The document has never been produced to the public, despite multiple FOIA requests, multiple residents, not just recently, but previously, even by the attorney of Shawnee Acres, no one has seen the actual language yet.”
Morris believed that this would create significant issues down the road and suggested that council go discuss the matter with the Shawnee Acres HOA. Her comments accused Milton of trying to backdoor the annexation and stated that Milton had given council false information.
Marion Chandler, secretary of the HOA for Shawnee Acres, had mixed feelings about the annexation.
“I would like to be annexed into the city so that I can vote I city elections,” Chandler said. “I realized it is not about me. It is about our entire community. The HOA has 184 homes, and the Shawnee Acres additions has another 42 homes. We have all consistently voted no to annexation over the 50 years we have been there. We do have houses that are already connected to sewer and water, but none have been forced to annex. I would suggest tabling the motion and talk to residents about why it would be a good idea to annex.”
Councilman Dan Marabello asked the City Solicitor Greg Morris if there were any legal ramifications and was told that it had gone through the various stages, and this was the last stage. Morris did not feel there were any legal ramifications as long as code was followed.
“The charter outlines the process for annexation into the city,” Pierce said. “There’s a process for a single petition, so a written petition submitted by the property owner, which is what occurred in this particular instance. In your packet, there is a signed and notarized petition wishing to voluntarily annex.”
Pierce continued that in the ten years he had been there, annexation have been by petition, owner-by-owner, upon request. Councilman Jason James asked if there had not been a request from the property owner, it would not be before council and Pierce stated that was true.
“Ms. Milton provided some copies of some information that she was provided when she moved into her home 22 or 23 years ago,” Pierce said. “That information came from the city engineer and in my review of it, doesn’t require anyone to annex. It is basically saying that the city was constructing infrastructure to accommodate growth, primarily Orchard Hill, Hearthstone Manor and the Meadows at Shawnee. As a result, city water and sewer would be constructed within the roadway.”
Pierce stated that the documents told residents that they could connect at that time at a reduced cost, but if they chose not to connect then, if a septic failed, they could be required to annex.
“Since I have been here, anyone who wishes to connect to city utilities has to sign a utilities agreement with the municipality and come before council,” Pierce said. “We have made people sign agreements that if and when they become contiguous and they are connected or want to connect to city utilities, they are agreeing to annex in the future.”
Councilman Madula Kalesis asked why DNREC would deny a permit for a failing septic system. Pierce stated that if a sewer line is within 200 feet of the property, it is technically available, and they are not obligated to issue a septic permit. The property owner can file for a hardship, but in Pierce’s experience those are only granted if it is not feasible to connect, such as line that is across Route 1. Kalesis asked if the city was forcing the property owner to annex or was the property owner requesting annexation.
“It is a written petition that was voluntarily submitted to the city,” Pierce said. “The applicant would like to connect to city utilities due to a failing septic system, but that also provides longer term benefits for the property. They don’t have to contend with a drain field if they want improvements in the back yard.”
Kalesis asked if the city would send a trash truck for one residence.
“We would pick up refuse and there are other areas of town where we’ve annexed properties, portions of streets that we pick up trash and others on the same street we don’t,” Pierce said. “North Shore Drive would be one example of that. As for police service, the chief could answer that, but we’re required to obtain a letter from the police department, the fire department, the water, sewer and electric directors and Kent County sewer. The police gave us a letter stating they could serve this property.”
Councilwoman Lori Connor asked if annexation and connecting to city sewer as the less costly option. Mayor Todd Culotta stated that a septic system could cost as much as $20,000 so it may be cheaper to connect to the city. Kalesis pointed out that other properties in Shawnee Acres were connected to city services but were not annexed.
“Over the last several years, it’s been council’s stance that if you’re going to connect to utilities, you have to annex,” Pierce said.
Culotta pointed out that if properties were allowed to connect to city services without being part of the city, there is no incentive to join the city. They would be using city services without paying taxes into the city. Kalesis made a motion to table the matter so council could get more information from residents.
“It should be their right to request annexation. We should not deter them, we should welcome them that they want to be a part of our space,” Councilwoman Wilson said during the roll call vote. “They want to be a part of our city with all the amenities instead of some of them on the outside, they use all of our amenities, at least they are paying into them. I just think this is a no brainer. It’s your option to want to come into the city. And I think that it’s really not a good thing for us to have these annexations in place and for us to deny them. It sets a bad precedent. So no to tabling.”
James also voted against the motion to table, stating the property owner made a request and his understanding of the code was that no one can be forced to annex. Councilman Danny Perez also voted no to tabling, agreeing with Wilson that it was a “no brainer.” Stewart, Kalesis, Marabello and Connor voted to table while Councilwoman Nadia Zychal voted against tabling. The resulting tie was broken by Culotta who voted against tabling the matter as he did not feel there was any reason not to decide.
James made a motion to approve the annexation and it was seconded by Wilson. During the roll call vote, Marabello, Zychal, Perez, Wilson and James voted yes for annexation. Connor, Stewart and Kalesis voted no, passing the measure with a vote of five to thr
