(7/20) The Simmers property has been a controversial topic for the Town of Thurmont over the last few years. Developer Daniel Cross of Cross and Company of Frederick introduced two options for the property's future at a special meeting in June.
The farmland property, owned by Patricia Simmers, is approximately 24.5 acres and is located southeast of the intersection between Apples Church Road, Roddy Road, and Elyer Road and borders Graceham Road. Seven acres are in town and currently zoned R-5, while the other nearly 17 acres lie in the county and are agriculturally zoned.
Thurmont’s 2022 Master Plan identified the property in its future growth area as high-density residential. This designation was not new, as it was also deemed this designation in the 2010 Master Plan. Residents, however, have voiced concerns that the high-density residential development did not match the feel of Thurmont’s small-town atmosphere. The original plan for the Simmers property included at least 172 residential units, an assisted-living facility, and a daycare center.
The proposed annexation was first presented to the Town’s Planning Commission in January 2021, which found the potential annexation in conformance with Town Code. In September 2022, they voted to annex the 16.7 acres of farmland into town limits and rezone it as high-density residential development. Residents pushed for the decision to be put to a referendum.
In November 2022, leaders of Evasion Thurmont, a group formed following the September vote, submitted a petition with 1,253 signatures to the Town Council, all opposed to the annexation. The petition was successful with the requisite number of signatures to trigger the requirement that the annexation be voted on in a referendum by the residents. In January 2023, residents of Thurmont voted on the Annexation Resolution 2022-03 and the annexation was overturned.
In March 2023, Cross unveiled a new concept plan for a 40-unit intergenerational neighborhood to be built on the seven acres within Town to the Thurmont Economic Development Committee’s monthly business network meeting.
The proposed community would include 10 "senior independent living" townhouse dwellings with garages and thirty 3-story, 20-foot wide townhouses with garages. The neighborhood would include a playground, walking trails, a dog park, and common areas.
By eliminating the original plan of 172 units, the $505,680 that was to be provided to the Town for street infrastructure improvements and $337,120 that would have been used to expand the Town’s water storage and supply capacity were also eliminated.
In June 2024, Cross held a public information meeting with 45 people in attendance, stating, "This is a binary choice. You cannot do option one then option two, it’s either one or the other, not both." He introduced two options to be considered for the future of the seven acres in Town, calling them "Albert Meadows."
Option one mirrored his plan from March a year before and includes 38, two and three story senior independent living villa style townhomes. The remaining 17 acres stays in the County to be used for the required large quantity Storm Water Management facility (serving Albert Meadows only) and for a rear exit to Luther Drive (in Albert Court). The balance remains fallow farm field.
Option two harkens back to Cross’s original proposition of 172 single family homes and requires an annexation of the 16 acres in the County into the Town of Thurmont to be combined with the seven acres already in the Town. It would be a community of 102 dwellings on approximately 24 acres: 11 single-family homes, 21 two-story senior townhomes, 70 three-story open market townhomes, and a Senior Assisted Living Facility with an additional 54 small studio apartment units.
According to Cross, the Sewer and Water infrastructure necessary for either option already exists, however Cross & Company will pay for any required enhancements to Sewer and Water infrastructure, if any.
He also pointed out that the two prior traffic studies were for over 177 dwelling units and both demonstrated no traffic problems, so either option should not represent a traffic issue.
The biggest difference between the two options is that under option two, Cross & Company will address (under County approval) the derelict silt pond on the Simmer’s parcel that is left over from the construction of the Albert Courts Community in 1992. Cross pointed out that if they are not allowed to annex and proceed with option two, then the silt pond will not be addressed even though it violates County and State Storm Water Management regulations.
Cross reiterated that his presentation was informational only and not an official introduction of any plans.
