When residents petitioned to annex their neighborhood into a Maryland town, did they have to pay for the official metes and bounds survey?

Plain-English summary

The town attorney for Indian Head, Maryland asked the Attorney General whether residents petitioning to annex their neighborhood, Woodland Village, to the town had to pay for a metes and bounds survey, the precise legal description of courses and distances that Article 23A, §19 required to be included in a municipality's annexation resolution. The town had refused to proceed with a petition-initiated annexation because the petitioners had submitted detailed maps rather than a formal metes and bounds survey. The opinion concluded that petitioners bore only the burden of presenting a reasonably definite and accurate description of the area sufficient to let the municipality verify that enough residents and property owners had signed, not a full metes and bounds survey, because the statute's plain terms placed the duty to prepare the metes and bounds description in the annexation resolution on the municipality, and assigned the presiding officer of the municipality's legislative body, not the petitioners, all of the tasks connected with verifying signatures and introducing that resolution.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1983. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

The opinion interpreted Article 23A, §19 of the Maryland Code as it existed in 1983, and expressly noted that Maryland courts had not previously addressed this precise question. Maryland's municipal annexation statute has likely been recodified and possibly amended since 1983; verify the current version of Article 23A (or its successor provisions in the Local Government Article) before relying on any specific description of who bears the cost of an annexation survey.

Common questions

Did residents petitioning for annexation to a Maryland town have to hire a surveyor before the town would even accept their petition?
No, according to this opinion. It concluded that petitioners only had to submit a reasonably definite and accurate description of the area to be annexed, sufficient to let the municipality verify the required 25% threshold of resident and property-owner support, not a formal metes and bounds survey.

Who had to pay for the metes and bounds survey required in an annexation resolution?
The opinion placed that responsibility on the municipality itself. It read Article 23A, §19(b) and §19(c) together to assign preparation of the metes and bounds description, along with verifying petition signatures and introducing the annexation resolution, to the presiding officer of the municipality's legislative body, not to the residents who petitioned for annexation.

Would a municipality that itself initiated an annexation, rather than residents petitioning for one, have to get a survey before asking residents to consent?
No. The opinion found that even a municipality initiating its own annexation under §19(b) could rely on an accurate map or other reasonably precise description when obtaining the required 25% consent from residents and property owners, and needed the full metes and bounds survey only afterward, for the resolution itself.

Background and statutory framework

Article 23A, §19 of the Maryland Code allowed a municipal annexation to be initiated either by the municipality itself, under §19(b), or by a resident petition, under §19(c). Section 19(b) required that a municipally initiated annexation resolution "describe by a survey of courses and distances . . . the exact area proposed to be included in the change," while §19(c) did not repeat that language directly but required a petition-based resolution to "conform in form and content" to the requirements of the section generally, meaning it too ultimately had to contain the metes and bounds description.

The opinion reasoned that under §19(c), residents had only one express obligation: presenting a petition signed by the required 25% of registered voters and property owners "in the area to be annexed." Every other step, verifying the signatures, confirming the statutory thresholds were met, and introducing the resolution containing the metes and bounds description, was assigned by the statute's text to "the presiding officer" of the municipality's legislative body. The opinion found nothing in the statutory language suggesting residents should bear the cost of any of those officer-assigned tasks, and drew support from a Pennsylvania case, Petition of Freeholders of Barry Township, holding that a metes and bounds description is not required of petitioners when the annexation statute does not expressly demand one. The opinion also noted a textual clue: the statute used the phrase "the area to be annexed" when describing what residents and property owners had to consent to or petition for, but switched to "the exact area proposed to be included in the change" only when describing what the resolution itself, prepared by the municipality, had to contain, suggesting that greater precision was required only at the later, municipality-controlled stage.

Citations

Statutes:

• Article 23A, §19 (municipal annexation procedures generally)
• Article 23A, §19(b) (municipality-initiated annexation; metes and bounds survey requirement)
• Article 23A, §19(c) (resident petition-initiated annexation)
• Article 23A, §19(p) (official registration of the boundary change)

Cases:

• Petition of Freeholders of Barry Township, 157 A.2d 410 (Pa. 1960)

Source

• Landing page: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Pages/attorney-general%E2%80%99s-opinions.aspx
• Original PDF: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Documents/pdfs/Opinions/1983/Volume68_1983.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain, the linked PDF is authoritative.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Municipal Corporations—Annexation Procedures—Petition for Annexation—Survey—Statutorily Required Metes and Bounds Survey to Be Obtained by Municipality, Not Petitioners.

February 16, 1983

Joseph L. Ely, Esq.

In your capacity as town attorney for Indian Head, you have requested our views on whether, under Article 23A, §19 of the Maryland Code, those who petition for annexation to a municipal corporation must pay for the "survey of courses and distances", i.e., the metes and bounds survey, that must be incorporated into the annexation resolution.

For the reasons given below, we have concluded that the petitioners are required to provide some reasonably definite and accurate description of the area to be annexed, sufficient to inform the municipality of what area is involved and to permit verification of the requisite number of petition signatures. This description, however, need not be a metes and bounds survey; under the statute, the municipality itself must obtain the metes and bounds survey for its annexation resolution.

I
Background

As we understand the pertinent facts, the Woodland Village Civic Association has submitted a petition requesting annexation of Woodland Village by the Town of Indian Head. This petition was accompanied by detailed maps showing the area to be annexed, albeit not by a metes and bounds survey. Indian Head has declined to proceed further with the requested annexation until the petitioners obtain such a survey.1

1 We do not address allegations, now pending at the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, that Indian Head's refusal to annex predominantly black Woodland Village constitutes racial discrimination. These allegations are not relevant to the question of statutory construction addressed below.

II
The Statute

Under Article 23A, §19 of the Maryland Code, enlargement of a municipal corporation by annexation may be initiated either by the municipality itself or by petition from residents of the area to be annexed. If the municipality initiates the annexation, the following procedure is specified by §19(b): "The proposal for change may be initiated by resolution regularly introduced into the legislative body of the municipal corporation . . . but only after the legislative body shall have obtained the consent for the proposal from not less than twenty-five per centum (25%) of the persons who reside in the area to be annexed and who are registered as voters in county elections and from the owners of not less than twenty-five per centum (25%) of the assessed valuation of the real property in the area to be annexed. The resolution shall describe by a survey of courses and distances, and may also describe by landmarks and other well-known terms, the exact area proposed to be included in the change, and shall contain complete and detailed provisions as to the conditions and circumstances applicable to the change in boundaries and to the residents and property within the area to be annexed." (Emphasis added.)

This procedure requires the municipality to prepare the annexation resolution, and it is only this resolution that must contain a metes and bounds description of the area to be annexed.

When a proposed annexation is initiated by the residents of an area, however, §19(c) specifies the following alternative procedure: "The proposal for change also may be initiated by a written petition signed by not less than twenty-five per centum (25%) of the persons who reside in the area to be annexed and who are registered as voters in county elections in the precinct or precincts in which the territory to be annexed is located, and by the owners of not less than twenty-five per centum (25%) of the assessed valuation of the real property located in the area to be annexed. Upon the presentation of a petition to the legislative body of the municipal corporation, the presiding officer thereof shall cause to be made a verification of the signatures thereon and shall ascertain that the persons signing the petition represent at least twenty-five per centum (25%) of the persons who reside in the area to be annexed and who are registered as voters in county elections in the precinct or precincts in which the territory to be annexed is located, and the owners of twenty-five per centum (25%) of the assessed valuation of the real property located in the area to be annexed. Upon verifying that the requirements of this subsection have been complied with, the presiding officer of the legislative body shall promptly cause to be introduced therein a resolution proposing the change of boundaries as requested by the petition. The resolution in form and content shall conform to the requirements of this section." (Emphasis added.)

Section 19(c) does not expressly refer to a metes and bounds description. It nevertheless does require that the annexation resolution, to be prepared by the municipality, conform "in form and content ... to the requirements of this section"; this means that, as required by §19(b), the resolution must "describe by a survey of courses and distances . . . the exact area to be included in the change". However, §19(c) does not expressly state who must bear the cost of obtaining this survey.2

2 From an informal survey, we understand that, in recent years, those who have petitioned for annexation to various municipalities in the State have generally obtained the metes and bounds survey themselves, but the practice is neither uniform nor in any way determinative of the question of whether petitioners are legally obligated to obtain the survey.

III
Construction

Under Article 23A, §19(c), the residents of an area who seek annexation must meet but a single requirement: to present to the legislative body a petition signed by 25% or more of the registered voters "who reside in the area to be annexed" and by owners of 25% or more of the real property "located in the area to be annexed". The other requirements of §19(c) are expressly to be undertaken by "the presiding officer" of the municipality's legislative body. He or she must: (i) verify the signatures on the petition; (ii) ascertain that the required minimum of residents and property owners "in the area to be annexed" have signed; and (iii) having done so, promptly introduce the annexation resolution, containing a metes and bounds description of "the exact area proposed to be included in the change".

We see nothing in the statutory language to suggest that the costs of any of the last three tasks, all responsibilities of the presiding officer, not of the residents, are to be borne by anyone other than the municipality itself. This provision no more obligates the residents to pay for the metes and bounds survey than it obligates them to pay for the time that an official might spend comparing petition signatures to tax rolls.

Obviously, in complying with their obligation to proffer the requisite minimum number of petition signatures, the proponents of annexation must present some reasonably definite and accurate description of "the area to be annexed". Otherwise, the municipality would not know what change of boundaries is requested and would be unable to carry out the required verification. However, the statute does not require that this description be in the form of a metes and bounds survey. See generally Petition of Freeholders of Barry Township, 157 A.2d 410 (Pa. 1960) (description by metes and bounds unnecessary when annexation statute does not so specify).

Under Article 23A, §19(b), when the municipality itself initiates the annexation, it must first obtain the consent of 25% of the residents and property owners "in the area to be annexed". To obtain these consents, the municipality obviously must avail itself of an accurate map or some comparable means of ascertaining "the area to be annexed". But even it need not undertake the expense of preparing a metes and bounds survey prior to obtaining these consents. As indicated in the statute, that is a prerequisite only for the annexation petition, and the petition is introduced "only after" the consents are obtained. If, under §19(b), the initiating municipality may rely on a geographical description of "the area to be annexed" less precise than a metes and bounds survey in obtaining consents, so too, under §19(c), the residents may rely on such a geographical description in circulating and presenting their petition.

Our reading of the statute is supported by a slight, but perhaps significant, difference in phrasing. As we have noted, when the statute refers to the residents and property owners who must consent to, or petition for, an annexation, it speaks of "the area to be annexed" [§19(c)]. By contrast, when the statute requires that "a survey of courses and distances" be included in the resolution, it speaks of "the exact area proposed to be included in the change" [§19(b) (emphasis added)]. Presumably, such exactness is required at this stage, and only at this stage, in anticipation of the later time when the boundary change is later officially registered by the municipality. See Article 23A, §19(p).

IV
Conclusion

In summary, it is our opinion that those who present a petition for annexation need not obtain a metes and bounds description of the area that they seek to have annexed to a municipality. Certainly, they must present a description of the area sufficient to inform the municipality of what area is involved and to permit verification of the residency of the petitioners. If the petitioners from Woodland Village have presented such a description, they have met their statutory obligation. Under the statute, after the petition is filed and verified, the municipality, here, Indian Head, must itself promptly obtain the metes and bounds survey data needed for the annexation resolution.

Stephen H. Sachs, Attorney General
Avery Aisenstark, Chief Counsel
Opinions and Advice
Jack Schwartz, Assistant Counsel
Opinions and Advice

Editor's Note: The preceding Opinion was originally written as a letter of advice. Because the issue has not previously been addressed by any Maryland authority, it is published here in a slightly revised format.