Seven file suit against Aberdeen over annexation

The seven plaintiffs in the case allege that the city is violating the “will of the voters,” according to the lawsuit, by accepting a second annexation petition from the Wetlands Aberdeen Group, the group that petitioned the city last year to annex more than 500 acres into the city.

The Aberdeen City Council approved the original annexation request, triggering a backlash in which residents opposed to the annexation succeeded in getting the issue put to a referendum vote in December. Voters rejected the annexation.

However, in September, while the referendum was still pending, the Wetlands Aberdeen Group submitted another annexation request.

“To consider a second, similar annexation request shows complete disregard for the referendum process,” Karen Heavey, one of the plaintiffs, said in a written statement Thursday.

“Anybody can petition for an annexation,” said City Council President Mike Hiob. “It’s outlined in our charter.”

Calling the lawsuit “frivolous,” Hiob expressed frustration upon hearing of the lawsuit.

“Some of these [plaintiffs] are the same people that call us out any time we inadvertently violate the charter. Now they are asking us to directly violate the charter, and incur perhaps a bigger lawsuit. What do they want us to do?” he said.

The second annexation petition differs from the first in excluding the neighborhood of Locksley Manor, where many residents had vocally opposed the annexation.

But by excluding Locksley Manor, the petition creates an illegal “enclave” that would be “surrounded by the city of Aberdeen,” the lawsuit charges.

“It’s the same annexation; they just chopped out the opposition,” said Bobbie Randles, a Locksley Manor resident and another plaintiff in the suit.

Hiob said that the new Wetlands petition has not come before the Aberdeen Planning and Zoning Commission, which would be the first step in the process.

mplum@baltimoreexaminer.com