Board of County Commissioners - public_hearing

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. It is Thursday, September 3rd, 2026, and welcome to a set of public hearings relating to proposed amendments to Chapter 155, Cluster Subdivisions, proposed amendments to Chapters 155, 156, and 158 regarding changes related to accessory dwelling units, and proposed amendments to Chapters 91, 155, and 158 regarding changes related to retirement villages and retirement homes. As we always do, we'll begin with a Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silent reflection.

indivisible with liberty and

My name is Joe Vigliotti. I'm the Carroll County Commissioner from District 1 and President of the Board of Commissioners. I'm joined this evening by my colleagues, Commissioner Mike Guerin, District 4, and Vice President of the Board of Commissioners, Commissioner Kenny Kyler, District 2, Commissioner Tom Gordon, District 3, and Commissioner Sue Krebs, District 5. We're also joined by Acton County Administrator Deb Effingham, County Attorney Tim Burke, and Chris Hine and Daphne Daly from the Department of Planning and Land Management. We'll be dealing with each of the previously mentioned proposed changes to code one by one. If you're interested in commenting this evening, please fill out a card at the back of the room and get it up to Deb here at the front of the room. As we come to each of the proposed amendments this evening, we'll go through them one by one. And as we come to each, I'll go through the order of that particular hearing, pass things over to Tim Burke for further details, including public comment guidelines, and then we'll get moving. We're all incredibly grateful that you joined us here tonight, and we're all incredibly looking forward to hearing what you have to say. So without further ado, I'm going to open the public hearing for proposed amendments regarding cluster subdivisions. The order of the public hearing this evening will be the call to order, which just occurred. I'll kick things over to Tim again for a brief introduction and comment guidelines. Then I'll kick things over to Chris Hein and Daphne Daly for a brief summary of the proposed legislation. And then we'll open the floor to comments from the public. Tim.

Good evening, commissioners and members of the public. As stated earlier, the purpose of tonight is to hear from you on some proposed amendments to Chapter 155 concerning cluster subdivisions. We advertised this hearing in the Carroll County Times on Thursday, August 20th, 2026, and Thursday, August 27th, 2026. In addition, it was advertised on the various Carroll Communications sites and sources and the website. With us here tonight are Director Chris Hine, and Daphne Daly from our Department of Planning. They're going to give you a brief synopsis of what's being proposed to this amendment.

And the public guidelines, Tim?

The public guidelines, we ask you to, if we wish to speak on a particular topic, make sure you fill out your orange card and brought it up. We ask you to limit your comments to three minutes each, and we ask that you speak once on each topic. So those are our guidelines for speaking.

Thank you very much, Tim. Chris, Daphne? All right, thank you very much. Yes, good evening, everybody. Again, my name is Chris Hine, the Director of Planning and Land Management. The first hearing that we'll be discussing is for cluster subdivision. So for those of you who are not familiar, cluster subdivisions are a development type whereby dwellings are focused on the more buildable areas of a parcel. in order to protect environmental resources and the like. The way those are clustered is that smaller lot sizes are allowable, but that reduction in lot size must be used then as open space for the benefit of the community. So I'm gonna quickly go through how we got here, how this correlates to our freedom plan, and then the proposed code amendment that has been recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and then what our next steps will be. So the cluster subdivision codes are from Chapter 155-036, and those codes have been in place in the county for several decades. Back in December of last year, the Board of County Commissioners expressed some concern with how cluster subdivisions were being implemented in the county, and eventually, in December, issued a deferral for processing of new cluster subdivisions in the Freedom area. SO WITH THAT DEFERRAL, WE THEN TALKED WITH THE COMMISSIONERS AS FAR AS WHAT THEIR CONCERNS WERE. AND THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE RELATIVELY RECENT CHANGES IN 2022 TO THE CLUSTER CODES. AND SO THEY DIRECTED US TO DISCUSS THOSE RECENT CHANGES WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND COME BACK WITH RECOMMENDATIONS IF ANY OF THOSE SHOULD BE CHANGED. IN PARALLEL WITH THAT, WE The county hired a consultant, Michael Baker International, related to several different land uses, including cluster subdivisions. And they are in the process of doing more of a deep dive into our codes and looking at how they conform with the freedom plan and recommendations related to other jurisdictions and so on. So that study is currently ongoing. We had those discussions with the Planning and Zoning Commission July 8th and July 21st in open meetings and from that came back some recommendations from the Planning Commission which we then presented to the board and they directed us to have this public hearing. So in our discussions with the Planning and Zoning Commission, we did reference back to the Freedom Plan and the Freedom Plan speaks in generalities about the concepts of cluster subdivisions and touches on things such as having flexible lot size, bulk regulations and so on to enable development and housing design desirable for residents at all stages of life. IT REFERENCES CLUSTERING, BUT IT ALSO DOES POINT OUT THAT DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FABRIC OF EXISTING COMMUNITIES AND NOT OVERBURDEN ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES. IT ALSO TOUCHES ON THE BENEFITS OF CLUSTER SUBDIVISIONS RELATED TO PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES. So in our discussion with the Planning and Zoning Commission, we reviewed those changes that occurred in 2022. And the recommendation that came back from the Planning Commission was they recommended to leave those changes in place. They did actually add an additional condition that they're recommending for consideration. And that text amendment would allow the Board of County Commissioners that if there is a project that has a significant community benefit, that it would give the Board of County Commissioners the ability to adjust REQUIREMENTS FOR OPEN SPACE DENSITY AND MINIMUM LOT SIZE. BUT THAT WOULD ONLY BE THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES AGREEMENT WHICH THE COUNTY IS NOT OBLIGATED TO ENTER INTO WITH DEVELOPERS. IT'S SOMETHING A DEVELOPER CAN PROPOSE AND IT'S PURELY AT THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF THEY WOULD ENTER INTO SUCH AN AGREEMENT. So that is the only text amendment that's being proposed for the cluster subdivision and basically is the topic of the public hearing for tonight. So the next steps, we have the public hearing tonight. We anticipate that on September 17th, we will be back before the Board of County Commissioners in open session to discuss and potentially they may choose to adopt this change. If they do so, the code goes into effect within 10 days, which is in advance of October 1st, which is when new regulations from the state regarding early vesting of development projects goes into effect. AS I MENTIONED, THIS IS A VERY HIGH LEVEL CHANGE TO THE CLUSTER SUBDIVISION AND IN PARALLEL OUR CONSULTANT CONTINUES TO WORK AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THEM ON MORE NUANCED CODE, POTENTIAL CODE CHANGES TO CLUSTER SUBDIVISIONS AND WE WOULD OF COURSE BRING THOSE TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION AT A LATER DATE. So regarding comment, obviously we're here today to hear any comment in person. If you would like to submit written comments, the easiest way is by email. Please feel free to send those to the Board of County Commissioners, the email address is there, and to myself, and we'll make sure that those get conveyed to the Planning and Zoning Commission and other staff who are working on this. And with that, I believe we're ready for public comment.

All right, thank you very much, Chris. And I don't know whether it's you or Matt who's controlling, but we want to make sure to get the timer up on the – there we go. All right, thank you very much. All right, Deb.

The first card that I have is Ed Ruck and also Mark Krebs on the same card.

Where's Eddie? Make sure they say their name.

I just don't mind them saying their name.

Okay, I guess this doesn't go up. Mark Krebs, Eldersburg, speaking on clustering. So the main thing I have to say about clustering is that it should be based on net acreage, net buildable acreage, not gross. Using gross just amplifies how many houses can be built in such a small area. And, you know, the, the BD property is proposed. There is number one, when you look at that, what's the, the, the area that's going to have the town home is built on it. Uh, probably more than half of that area is unbuildable and it's being used. to increase the density tremendously. So not only does it not, as Chris Hines just said, it doesn't fit in the fabric of the neighborhood. It also, that increased density puts a strain on the roads where they're already strained. It puts a strain on the EMS services, which either I or Ed Ruck will speak about at the retirement session. And so one of the big things, and I don't think this is in the proposal, is we need to be using net acreage not gross acreage and i'm not sure how we got there i think most every other county uses net and it just doesn't make any sense to jam all those homes into one area thank you thank you very much next we have brad w

Hello, commissioners. I'd like to echo the previous speaker's comments about using net acreage rather than gross acreage. That's not for the environment at all. That's for the builder's profit line, and that doesn't help the residents. Another thing I'd like to mention is the intersection of 32 and Bennett and 32 and Progress is a disaster. It's like going into the locks of a canal. If you get through both lights, without stopping, it's like hitting a lottery. And this would only exacerbate that even more. And I'd also like to comment and say that I think the zoning commission and whoever's pushing for this is actually going the wrong way. Ag should never be rezoned into cluster zoning. It should actually have a minimum rezoning of R40. and I know this was R20, and I'm not sure how AG gets rezoned to R20, but it should be R40, or you should create another classification called R80. AG should never be able to be converted to such a small lot size for each houses. That doesn't do any of the residents in this area any service, and the problem with that, I don't remember what the name of it was, but that agreement that you can enter with the builder THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS IT'S TOO SUBJECTIVE TO WHAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO THE RESIDENTS. ANY TIME YOU ADD THAT MANY VEHICLES ON TO OUR ALREADY OVERBURDENED ROADS WOULD NEVER BE BENEFICIAL TO THE BUILDERS OR TO THE RESIDENTS AND THERE WOULD BE NO POINT TO EVEN HAVE THAT AT ALL, THAT AGREEMENT PROCESS AT ALL BECAUSE IT WOULD ALWAYS HURT THE RESIDENTS JUST LIKE THE ZONING BOARD HAS REPEATEDLY DONE IN THE LAST, I WOULD SAY, TWO DECADES. Lastly, I would like to suggest that the zoning board members become an electable position so they're accountable to us and that it's done every two years, not every four years, so that we can hold them accountable quickly and they will actually be accountable to the residents and not to the people that it appears to me are lining their pockets with bribes. Thank you.

Marty Burns.

Hello, I'm Marty burns from eldersburg, Maryland And I would just also like to echo the support for the net acreage as well as for the zoning to be a unelected position and For all the reasons that the previous two speakers have already mentioned Especially with the the net acreage.

Thank you Timothy cease It's like a S-E-I-S-S. Hello, my name is Tim Seuss.

I live at 7367 Pershing Place in Marriottsville, which is part of Eldersburg. I live in the Flanders-Amberly community adjacent to a parcel of land that is currently being considered for a development proposal related to this revised subdivision. Though this meeting is supposedly at a high level to discuss the subdivision change, I'm going to address a specific example, and I mentioned a developer who has a proposal before the county commissioners to develop a parcel of land. I'd like to bring up a couple of points of concern. And objection, the first being the environmental impact. The increased number of residences mean less undeveloped land that can absorb rainwater. This will result in overloaded natural drainage conveyance into the Pony Run and the Patapsco River areas. Of course, I understand that the intent is to condense more homes into a smaller area, therefore allowing more open space, but the reality is What is considered that open space is often unusable land, wooded land, slopes, stormwater management, ponds, and that is not open space to the community. The second thing I'd like to address is the traffic flow through the Flanders, Amberley neighborhoods and also Slack's Road. The Freedom's Grant Development Proposal, which is the specific proposal that I am referring to, names, Oregon drive is one of the three access points. Um, the traffic impact study done in sometime in 2020, which is right at the very height of the COVID 19 pandemic. When residents were not going to work, schools were not open is not indicative of the real world situation that we have. We are already doing this Bob and weave maneuver and opening this up to two way traffic. or gone dry and slacks road, it's not possible. They will not support two way traffic. They are not marked for two way traffic and it's just not physically possible. Second, third point I'd like to make is the obvious violation of Carroll County P 20 zoning regulations. Um, the proposal that was amended in 20, uh, in two and approved in 2005 approved a 101 single family homes on a half acre lot. Uh, sometime during 2021, that proposal was amended to 237 residences, some being multi-level homes. And that's a clear violation of the P 20 zoning standards is not compliant with the allowed residential density. This is not specified or allowed by the Carroll County master plan. Dated 2018.

Thank you, Michael Bloom.

David from Eldersburg. I'm against clustering. They're trying to put five pounds of material in a one pound bag. It doesn't work. You've got a 20 acre lot and acres are not buildable. You still got 10 homes should not be changed. You're just packing more houses in a smaller area and we don't want it. Thank you.

David Bauer socks.

Good evening commissioners members of staff. Can you hear me. I'm here tonight. I'm David bar socks. I'm in a local attorney. I represent a number of individual property owners and developers in Carroll County, including some who would be directly impacted by any modification to cluster regulations in general. I think these appear to be fairly benign as I've read them. And as Mr. Hein described them, I proposed and submitted to you earlier today, a revision to these amendments that accomplishes two things. First of all, it makes it really clear that with the inclusion of the DRA language in it, that, it is an elective opportunity for a developer and the county to enter into. And it's not that a developer is compelled to enter into a DR array. Maryland's land use article section seven dash three Oh six indicates that a County has no authority to compel anybody to enter into an agreement. So it provides the County some protection from any kind of claim. Um, under that code. The second thing I've done, the, um, amendment as proposed and repeals a 1 55.0 3 6.0 1 I think I have that right which was adopted in December. Including the provisions that grandfather for lack of a better description those projects which were submitted and compliant with code prior to December of 2025. That grandfathering was something that this the board of County commissioners and stakeholders, um, who are implicated, uh, thought mutually was a good idea and fair. Now maybe there's no intention to throw out the baby with the bath water, But if you repeal what you adopted last December, you're also repealing the recognition that they will be grandfathered. The second part of my proposed revision is to add that language back in. To be clear, we're not changing the compact we've made with each other last December. This is county-wide legislation. Please remember that. It affects all the citizens of Carroll County, and it should be regarded as that and having a broad countywide effect. Thank you for your time tonight.

That's all I have for cards for first topic. Any more?

And remind me, we do have access to the phone line here, or we don't?

We don't.

Okay. So I just wanted to make sure before I... So does anybody else want to make a comment on this particular topic? All right, hearing none, I need a motion to bring this public hearing to a close and keep the record open for a period of 10 calendar days from today's date.

Move the board, conclude the public hearing, and keep the record open for 10 calendar days. Second.

All right. We have a motion. We have a second. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries unanimously. All right. I'm now going to call to order the public hearing for proposed amendments regarding changes to accessory dwelling units. That is, proposed amendments to chapters 155, 156, and 158 regarding changes to accessory dwelling units. I'll kick things over to Tim for a brief introduction once again, and then we'll kick things over to Chris and, uh, what do we have, Brenda? We have Daphne with us, right?

Yes.

And then we'll open the floor to comments from the public. Tim?

Good evening again. The purpose, as stated earlier, is to hear from you. We want your comments on a proposal that would amend the accessory dwelling unit section of our code. We advertised this hearing in the Carroll County Times on Thursday, August 20th and Thursday, August 27th of 2026. It was also publicized on the county's websites and on the various county platforms. Again, with us are Director Chris Hine and Deputy Director Brenda Denny from our Department of Planning and Land Management, and they can give you a brief summary of the proposal. What did I say? Brenda Denny. They're all starting to look alike. After 30 years, they're all starting to look alike. Blame Joe.

It's my fault. I take total responsibility.

They're all good people.

That is true. Thank you. With that... Chris, Daphne?

Thank you. So as with the cluster subdivision presentation, we're going to run through a series of slides that give you a little bit of background information as well as covering how the proposed amendments relate to our master plan. what those code amendments cover, and then some next steps of how you can continue to review the proposal and make public comment. So very briefly, the primary catalyst for this series of code amendments was the passage of house bill 1466 on April 22nd, 2025. This state legislation was designed to meet the state's housing needs by promoting and encouraging the creation of an accessory dwelling unit on land with a single family detached dwelling unit. The legislation requires local jurisdictions to adopt a local law authorizing this to happen by October 1st, 2026. As a result, a review of the Carroll County Code was necessary to identify any amendments that might be needed to meet the state requirements. On April 23rd, 2026, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to work with the Planning and Zoning Commission to develop proposed code amendments that would meet the state requirements. The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed these amendments at five meetings throughout May, June, and early July of this year. Their recommendations were presented to the Board of County Commissioners on July 30th, at which time the Board authorized a public hearing on those recommendations. The amendments that are the subject of this public hearing, while driven by state legislation, also will address the housing goal contained in the Carroll County Master Plan. This goal is to encourage a range of housing types, density and affordability. The proposed code amendments related to accessory dwelling units affect three chapters of the Carroll County code. These include chapter one 55, our development and subdivision of land regulations in the definition section and a chapter one 56 adequate public facilities and concurrency management in the residential development database and annual report section. And lastly, Chapter 158, zoning regulations in the definitions. Regulation of accessory uses in ag and conservation districts. Regulation of accessory uses in the residential districts. And it also creates a new section entitled accessory dwelling units where all of the associated regulations will be grouped together. As for next steps, they're very... Oh, I'm sorry. Certainly. The next steps for this set of code amendments is similar to the cluster subdivisions that were just shared. Of course, we have the public hearing here tonight, and we anticipate direction and adoption by the board on September 17th, with the code going into effect by October 1st. You can find the full code on our website. There's a QR code here as well as some directions on how to find it. You can email comments to the commissioners and to Director Hine as well, and those email addresses are on the screen.

Thank you, Daphne Daly.

Commissioners, have any questions of staff? No, but we want to get that clock up so we can hear from our citizens.

Brett Hackett.

Brett Hackett, professional engineer at CLSI, located at 439 East Main Street here in Westminster. Dear commissioners, we are a local civil engineering firm with more than 40 years of experience providing land development, civil engineering, and environmental services to private property owners and businesses throughout Carroll County. In recent years, we have seen a significant increase in inquiries from homeowners interested in detached accessory dwelling units, or ADUs. some families wish to accommodate multiple generations on the same property while others seek an opportunity to offset the increasing cost of home ownership through rental income historically carroll county's adu regulations have been among the most restrictive in the state particularly regarding bedroom limitations dwelling size and placement requirements these restrictions have made it difficult for property owners to meaningfully utilize the adu provisions of the zoning ordinance we applaud the county's efforts to modernize the regulations believe the ordinance currently under consideration this is a significant step forward however we remain concerned about two provisions that continue to impose unnecessary limitations on property owners those are section 158 176 D which states that the accessory dwelling unit shall have no more than two bedrooms section 158 dot 176 and which states accessory dwelling unit shall not be located more than 50 feet from the primary dwelling and shall not be located closer to an existing primary dwelling on an adjacent lot than it is to the primary dwelling on the subject property Property owners should not be required to pursue Board of Zoning appeals, variances, or administrative adjustment requests simply to overcome standards that are unnecessarily restrictive. Since the 2022 regulatory changes, homeowners have often devised creative approaches to work around the bedroom and size limitations. These workarounds are increasingly creating complications during property sales and transfers. Our firm has advocated for revisions to these provisions for several years because they remain among the most restrictive ADU regulations in Maryland. We have also raised these concerns with county staff over the past several months. We respectfully request that the commissioners remove the two-bedroom limitation and the maximum distance requirement from the ordinance before its adoption. Doing so would better align the ordinance with state policy, provide greater housing opportunities, and offer property owners the flexibility necessary to develop compliant accessory dwelling units on their properties. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Martin W. Hackett, President, and Linda D. Alexander, Vice President.

Thank you.

Matt Shipley.

Matt Shipley, I'm an associate with CLSI. Prior to being with CLSI, I was actually the Deputy Director of Environmental Health at Carroll County's Health Department, and specifically dealt with on-site well and on-site septic, so I kind of wanted to follow up what Brett just said. The two problematic things that I see most often are the two bedroom size restriction and the distance from the main dwelling that create an unnecessary restriction that makes these ADUs sort of undesirable to to people that are looking for affordable housing. All of these ADUs on well and septic are going to require 10,000 square feet of septic area. And there is enough square footage in there for a bare minimum of three bedrooms. And the setback distance requirement could at any time It could create issues where PERC tests are just not possible. So just two things that I feel like could create unnecessary restriction. Thanks.

Michael Davis.

Hello, I'm Mike Davis from Finksburg and only two items on this. First was a little technical confusion because the document references section 158176 and then I went into the current code and that was data center deferrals. Yes. So I was trying to see what had changed. It was a little confusing. But I assume when you merge this in, the numbering gets shuffled as it needs to be. It will. The second, in the new section 158176, letter L states the floor area of the accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 75% of the above ground living area of the primary dwelling unit. And then has the same 75% ratio applied to the square footage total footprint of the primary dwelling unit. And it seems kind of large to me for an accessory dwelling unit. And if I'm correct, the prior code has limits of 33% and 800 square feet. So unless the state mandates 75%, I would ask that you reconsider that.

Thank you.

Brad W.

Hello again, commissioners. I would like to propose some changes to, or at least some things to consider for the ADUs. One, that you require anybody applying for that, that they actually live in the primary. So it's not a boon for people like Berkshire Hathaway. They're just going to be putting things up so they can make more money on their properties, their rental properties. Two, that there is a property tax reassessment so that the people that are having an extra set of families or whatever it may be are paying more property taxes than the rest of us that have a single family home. I guess I don't have a third, so that's my only two. Thanks.

Joe Kuhn.

Good evening. My name is Joe Coon. I live in Woodbine. We own a farm, and we have tried to put development for a child's lot, and I'm not sure where all this fits in. But we have a couple issues that came up, and I just think you need to look at it. One is a minimum width of a lot. We had an area where a daughter of one of our owners wanted to put a house in, which we did, but the minimum width was so wide that it took up where two houses could have very well gone in Still had plenty of room for septic and well separation with the minimum width. We could only get one there, so the next one's going to have to go somewhere back on the farm, which again is what we're trying to eliminate. So I would ask some look at that while you're going over this. One of the other things that came up, We were trying to put our farm in ag preservation to finally get that north end put in. And when I applied my application, I was denited on 1.34 acres. And I had no idea what that was about.

Well, it turns out to be about a 10-year-old law, as I understand it, called Royal Villages.

They drew a line behind most of the properties that were developed, Plants were made back in the, I think 1930, and it was a fairly straight line, and then they came up to our property, and went across our lane, part of our farm, over to another house that's in the turn and on up Woodbine Road. But that actually takes 1.34 acres out. Now, maybe with the changes, I can build a house on it. I don't know. So maybe it's a good thing. Maybe I'll have to wait and see. But things like this happen. I don't know. I didn't know anything about it. So I guess I didn't pay close enough attention back 10 years ago. I don't know. Anyway, this is stuff that comes up when you try to work within the regulations, and people need to look at this and see what they can do about making it reasonable. The one area I think should be looked at is back in the 70s. I'm getting too old, I know. But there were a lot of three-acre lots. which was supposed to be big enough to take care of all the runoff from the property. There's a lot of those out there that could use a additional house for reasonable housing in this county, which is badly needed, although I don't want the more traffic, but it's just another area I think should be looked at. Thank you.

Joe Kuhn.

But you just got it. Oh, Roger. I'm sorry.

Yeah, Roger Coon, can you hear me okay? Yes, sir. From Woodbine also, a few houses up from Joe. I just have a few comments about the new regulations. One, I noticed that in the ag areas, and of course ours is an ag zone, but our house is there, so... We're not farmers, so we can't have farm stores or that kind of thing. But I noticed in the ag area, ag districts, I guess is the right word, isn't it? You limited it to just dwelling units, not small shops or not cottage industry units. And I see no reason for that. So I would suggest you look at that again. I don't see any reason why my acre and a quarter or whatever it is, I couldn't put a cottage industry out of sight like you asked people in the town to do, or I couldn't have a you know, a small shop of some sort. I see no difference between what's in the town and my house, which happens to be in an Ag area. So I would respectfully ask you to look at that and consider that. Assume that nothing in this limits what farmers can do so if I'm wrong you can correct me on that So I'm not so worried about there What they can do although I own part of the farm as well The other comment I had was I about the last thing in that section says that lots allowed and ag preservation land can't do this. Now I'm assuming, because we just separated a lot off for one of our children, that since that lot is now separate from our preserved farm, that this doesn't affect us. But if it does, if that language is to say if it ever was in preservation and got split off, then I think it's unfair to those people who are split off. So you might want to consider making that language very clear, because it says lots on something like lots on ag preservation land, and that's a little ambiguous. I mean, this is off, I agree with that, but think it would be better to clarify that and then this comment I've got a half a minute left this comment is actually I know really for the state but I assume that the counties talk to the state some sometime I think one of the biggest things that could be done to get more housing is to get rid of that extra 10,000 if you want to put a square feet that Matt was referring to, if you want to put an auxiliary unit in. Our system's working fine.

It's been there for 60-some years.

Thank you. Kelly Miller.

Good evening commissioners, Kelly, Schaefer, Miller, 73 East main street, Westminster, Maryland, 2 1 1 5 7 similar to Matt and Brett. I've had several clients over the years who have either successfully developed or been interested in accessory dwelling units. All of my clients have done so for either younger children or aging parents. Um, I, I bring to your attention some of the similar comments that you've heard here tonight. The first provision that I'd suggest you take a look at and either change or modify or eliminate is 158, 176M. That is that 50-foot distance limitation. Here's a scenario for you that has been a real scenario that I've dealt with. you have a property that is several acres in size. It so happens that your primary dwelling unit is located 20 feet from your side yard line. You then have a septic in the front, you've got a well in the back. You might have a driveway, you might have some other structure on the left. Meeting that 50 feet is incredibly difficult if not impossible. And Matt used the word undesirable in terms of making it difficult for somebody to do that. I'd go even further and say that makes it either not feasible or financially Uh, prohibitive basically. Um, so that seems contrary to this and I know that there's a variance allowance in our code, but I will tell you, I've been on the side of this where they've been denied. So under that scenario that you just heard. So I think it's important to take that into consideration. And I do think that you've heard comment from the health department because I've spoken with them as well, that they share a similar concern about that 50 foot. because of some of those site constraints. It's a site specific constraint, but it does happen. Um, I also, I raised this issue for you. I have not looked into this, uh, in any detail, but from an ag preservation perspective, as you well know, when the county purchases an ag pres easement for a property, they are compensating that property owner for the development rights of that property. If ag property is otherwise allowed to have the accessory dwelling units, have we provided for that? Or are we restricting, if someone has an ag pres easement and we are restricting their ability to do an ADU, have we restricted something that they've not been compensated for? So I think it's just something that warrants consideration as you go through this amendment process. Thank you.

That was the last card.

Thank you very much, Deb. I'll give one last call for anybody who might be interested in commenting on this particular topic.

I'd like to say something, and I'll be real quick.

And, sir, if I may, after you're done, please do fill out a comment card and bring it up to Deb when you're done commenting. What's his name? Yes, thank you, Sue.

I'm Mark Pratt. I live on Fairmount Road in Hampstead, 28 years. I have a building. And I have an acre and a third, and I always wanted to make that a dwelling for my son and my grandson and my daughter. They lived with me at one time, not my grandson. He wasn't born. I mean, the same house, so it's the same driveway. It's the same well. It's the same septic. I actually almost was going to do that, but I didn't want to get in trouble.

That being said, I mean, I'm not hurting anybody. I live in the country.

The Ambers brought the farm across from me, they built a farm next to me, and they've got a farm behind me. That's all in preservation. When you do think of this, I was told it had to be three acres. I don't understand. I've got a cornfield behind me, I've got woods next to me that they're not going to do anything with. They've already told me that. I've got a pumpkin field. I just, when you think of it, it should be, it is beneficial for, you know, your constituents because it's a little tough. Where my son lives now, I'm not happy where he's at. That's what he can afford. So just think of that when you make your decision. And I hope you do what's right for everybody.

Just make sure to give us your name, where you live, and then fill out one of those cards after the comment.

Understood. Thank you. My name is Kevin Davis, 135 Hollow Rock Avenue here in Westminster. I'm a local architect, and I just want to echo some of the things we've heard today, specifically the 50-foot thing is a big deal, which if you look at – A lot of these existing farms and everything, they have outbuildings that people are trying to convert into dwellings as opposed to build a whole other house. Now, realize there's variances in everything that can happen. It requires a process. Oftentimes, it gets denied. And I just want to echo that it's hindering that possibility for development. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Lynn Allen, and my family moved up here in 1980, and they own the last piece of undeveloped property in Eldersburg, 1640 Liberty Road, June Allen Realty. My mom was a realtor for 50 years. My father was a builder. He also built the office buildings at 1000 to 1030 Liberty Road. And these were great comments tonight, but no one's talked about the infrastructure, okay? Like today when I went home, you know, it said, oh, it's a heavy load on the grid, you know, do you want to participate in decreasing your usage? So with all these ADUs, you know, the clustered subdivisions, retirement houses, Where is BGE on this? Now, the other thing I want to bring up is Carroll County Hospital. If anybody's had to go into that emergency room, when you get taken back, they have not only all the rooms full, but people are lined up in the hallways waiting to be seen. So if you're going to bring up, you know, let's find families, older folks, let's look at the infrastructure. The other thing is all the property tax money that Carroll County has earned from all these townhomes, the one at Springfield, the Central Laundry, and everything that's being proposed, where is that money going? Because it's not coming back to Eldersburg. And I'll give you a prime example. In front of our office buildings from 1000 to 1030 Liberty Road, They're culverts, okay? They are deteriorating the front part of one culvert. The big cement piece is picked up and setting on the culvert. We used to have the roads nicely mowed. No more. We've got weeds on the median strip in Georgetown Boulevard. All of us used to get, you know, a little coupon to go to the dump at least one free time. That completely disappeared. Where is our money going? not coming back to eldersburg i would like to see somebody here actually care about the people still in eldersburg because we're the ones paying for it we're the ones suffering okay from 1980 till now oh that traffic has changed dramatically i've watched liberty road be you know widened Okay, I was here when they did the first bridge redo when they were shutting down the lanes both way back in the 80s. And now the traffic that comes up to Eldersburg and has to be stopped at that light between the bridges and then the next light, it'll be backed up even more when they stop the traffic and do the one way. It's already unbearable. Then that retirement community home right there by the bridges, they can't even make a left-hand turn. They want a light there.

Thank you for filling out a card. All right, with no more comments for this particular topic, I need a motion to bring the public hearing to a close and keep the record open for a period of 10 calendar days from today's date.

Move the board conclude the public hearing and keep the record open for 10 calendar days.

Second. We have a motion. We have a second. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you, everybody. All right. I will now call to order the public hearing for proposed amendments regarding retirement villages and retirement homes. That is proposed amendments to chapters 91, 155, and 158 regarding changes related to retirement villages and retirement homes. As with the other two, I'll kick things over to Tim Burke for a brief introduction, and then we'll kick things over to Chris and Daphne for a brief summary of the proposed legislation, and then we will open up the floor to public comments. Tim?

Yes, as we all know, this is the time of the night that we want to hear from you on these proposed amendments concerning retirement villages and retirement homes. Like the other hearings, we advertised this on August 20th and August 27th in the Carroll County Times, and we advertised it on the county website and the various county platforms. With us tonight are Director Hine and Deputy Director Daly from our Department of Planning and Land Management. They can give you a brief summary of the proposals. Chris Steffen.

Thank you. Okay, as with the last presentation, we'll run through a couple of milestones here, how the proposed code amendments relate to our plans, what the proposed code amendments are, and then our next steps. So the driver behind this series of code amendments was concerns about age-restricted housing codes related to scale and compatibility of projects, a lack of required community amenities, the need for features that allow for aging in place, the density bonus that current code allows for this use, and regulations related to emergency access. These concerns led to the enactment of a deferral ordinance for this use in the Freedom Area on December 18th, 2025. The county hired Michael Baker International Consultants to assist with the review of current codes and recommend code changes to address the concerns. On April 28th, 2026, the board of County commissioners directed staff to work with the planning and zoning commission to develop proposed code amendments that would reflect the consultants recommendations. The planning and zoning commission discussed these amendments at five meetings throughout June and July of this year. Additionally, a public survey and open house meeting were conducted in late June to gather public feedback on the consultant's findings and recommendations. The Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendations were presented to the Board of County Commissioners on July 30th, at which time the Board authorized a public hearing on the recommended code amendments. The proposed code amendments related to age-restricted housing address housing needs identified in the Freedom Community Comprehensive Plan. These needs include providing a variety of housing choices for an aging population and revising the zoning and subdivision codes to meet that need. Similar intent is found in a number of recommendations contained in the Freedom Plan's housing chapter that describe the need for a variety of housing types to serve all ages, including senior citizens. This plan also recognizes the need to encourage development that is in character with the existing housing in Freedom's established neighborhoods. The proposed code amendments affect three chapters of county code. Chapter 91, fire protection, in the definitions and fire lane requirements sections. Chapter 155, development and subdivision of land, in the parking design standards section. And chapter 158, our zoning regulations. in the definitions, the minimum number of parking spaces, the regulation of uses in our residential districts, the regulation of uses in commercial industrial and employment campus districts, and specific uses related to age-restricted communities and age-restricted homes. This last section contains new text that addresses the purpose and intent of the section, density and unit mix requirements, design standards, parking and design connectivity standards, open space requirements, and amenity requirements. As with the other code amendments, our next steps will be the public hearing tonight, the adoption, if directed by the board, by September 17th, with anticipated effect of any adopted codes by October 1st. All of these codes that we've been talking about here tonight are available on the same page of our website. So if you looked at any of the previous slides, did the QR code or anything like that, they're all there. They're listed in sequential order and you can find them all there for further review. And we encourage you to take a look at those and send in comments via email as shown on the screen here if you want to do that after the public hearing.

Thank you both very much. Deborah, are we set?

We're set. Kathy Barnett.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Kathy Barnett. I live at 1692 Amberley Court in Marriottsville, where I have lived since 1992. I'm a Carroll County resident, and Freedom's Grant is my backyard. Let me be clear, I am not opposed to development. I have always expected this property to be developed. What I am opposed to is development that is allowed to move forward without addressing known safety concerns and clear violations of zoning and the master plan. I will quote from the testimony of Joe Dennis, Deputy Fire Chief of the Sykesville Freedom Fire Department, as he stated on December the 16th, and I quote, the lack of clear and specific requirements and planned developments directly and severely impacts the ability of first responders and their apparatus to execute basic and fundamental life safety and property protection operations." That is not a casual statement. It is serious. Commissioners, how can you hear his words and believe it is appropriate to allow Eldersburg Overlook and Freedom's Grant to move forward under the current definitions? How many warnings do you need For the record, I have two requests. First, I object to grandfathering these developers under the current definition of retirement village. The developers are operating within the rules you established, but you are in control of those rules, not the developers. If the rules are inadequate, fix them before the communities are built. Second, I support Commissioner Krebs and her proposals to correct the retirement village and retirement home zoning definitions and establish appropriate standards for age-restricted active adult communities. Her proposals address the issues that matter. Safety, the original R20,000 land use designation, the county master plan, the appropriate design for age-restricted active adult communities. You have already had your work session. You know the issues. She's done the hard work. Your part now is having the courage to stand with her. I accept growth. I expect growth. What I am asking for is responsible growth. District five contributes significantly to the finances of Carroll County. We are not asking for special treatment. We are asking you to respect us enough to do the right thing. Thank you.

Terry Harrigan.

Hi, my name is Terry Harrigan. I live in 5001 Helton Drive. I've lived in Carroll County since 1982, and I have been elected secretary of the Nell's Acres Board. Nell's Acres is a 129-unit age-restricted community built under these very provisions you're addressing tonight. My one question to you is, does the fire engine get through? 20 feet is the minimum clearance Carroll County Emergency Services requires for fire apparatus. When the county reviewed our final site plan, emergency services looked at our 25 foot streets, 23 curb to curb, and wrote that on-street parking should not be allowed. Two plans are in front of you. Eldersburg Outlook, 156 townhomes, shows 24-foot private streets with no parking signs. Freedom's Grant, 237 homes, has townhomes fronting 16-foot one-way loops and zero guest spaces in the parking table. One parked car on a 20-foot wide street leaves 16 feet under the minimum. On a 16-foot loop, there is nothing left to subtract, one car and the engine does not get through. So it is safe only if no one parks there, and no one can guarantee that. These streets are private. County parking ordinances don't apply, and the sheriff can't ticket. The association's only tool is a tow truck, and cardiac arrests don't wait for a tow truck. People will park there because there is nowhere else to park. Nell's Acres, for example, has zero guest spaces. The code gave the director discretion to require them. It was never used. By the standards your own consultants use, 129 homes will generate 25 to 30 visitor cars on an ordinary Saturday evening. Every one of them will be on the street. Now consider who lives there. By law, we are over 55, the age group with the highest ambulance call rate, and the most visitors, home health aides, hospice nurses, and their own children. A guest has to park somewhere. There is no guest lot, and the driveways are private, so they will park on the street. The fix is simple. Require guest parking within 300 feet and accepted code distance and build streets wide enough that one parked car does not stop the fire engine. After October 1st, whatever is on the books governs every application for the next five years. Thank you.

My name is Donna Harrigan. I live in Eldersburg, 5001 Helton Drive. I'm speaking in support of the proposed code amendments to age-restricted housing. These amendments will improve a lot of conditions present in existing communities. The amendments will improve access for emergency services with wider roads and multiple road access if needed, based on the fire department's approval of safe plans. Safety of residents in age-restricted communities must be the first consideration with planning. In addition, all homes in these communities need to have a level entry without steps. Why would you have an over 55 community and have steps at every entrance? I hope it makes sense. Um, universal design standards to include 36 inch doorways and halls, um, lever handles and safety bars in the showers and bath would be expected in a 55 and older community. Um, that's not the case. It's definitely not the case at Nell's acres. Basic amenities such as walking paths, gathering areas, and recreational areas should be included in open space areas rather than having all the open space used for stormwater management. The developers and builders need to make these communities safe for the population living there and need to give some benefits back to the community in exchange for the higher density of homes. Thank you.

Nancy Kaufman.

Hello, I'm Nancy Kaufman and I live on Armistice Way that is adjacent to Freedom's Grant. The Freedom's Grant project violates the Freedom Comprehensive Master Plan and does not allow townhouses on R20 zone land. Freedom's grant was originally proposed to have 101 residential single-family homes on that land. It's zoned R20. For some reason, the plan changed to a 237-unit age-restricted retirement townhouse community. Why? What changed? Why an age-restricted retirement community? Why not just submit plans for a townhouse community? Are there loopholes that will benefit the builder if they build age-restricted as opposed to regular townhomes? We need retirement communities that make sense. one level detached retirement homes with zero step entries and showers, 32 to 36 inch doorways, open space that includes wider sidewalks for walking with walkers, amenities to complement aging in place, similar to the ones Lennar built in Gettysburg, PA, Amberbrook. Beautiful, beautiful. Who thought it would be a good idea to approve a policy that would encourage multi-level townhouses for retirees in R20, but not allow them in non-age restricted buyers? The plans show Freedom's Grant will connect to the Flanders community. Are the planned roads in Freedom's Grant and leading into the Flanders neighborhood wide enough to accommodate street parking along with EMS and fire equipment? Right now, Argonne Drive and Armistice can't handle two-way traffic as an access road to and from Freedom's Grant. Carroll County royally messed up with Nell's Acres. Let's learn from our mistakes and not repeat them. I'm asking you to stick to the original land use on the Freedom Master Plan. I'm asking you to implement fire and EMS recommendations and enforce that the builders are incorporating those plans. I'm asking that the definition and the requirements for age-related communities be clearly defined. I'm asking that until the current definition and requirements for age-restricted communities are revised, that no further age-restricted communities should move forward. I'm asking you, the commissioners and the planning and zoning commissions, to be transparent. This all reeks of what can we sneak by the citizens of Carroll County.

Please make this make sense.

First of all, hello, everybody. I am Jean Ruch. I live in Eldersburg. I'm across the street from the Beattie property. I just got back from three weeks in Maine, and I found out about this yesterday, and I cannot be as eloquent as some of these people have been before me. I want what you have for dinner. I have... I'm going to specify, I agree with everything that they've said, and I'm going to ask that what's in the pipeline be deferred. Why? Because the pipeline should never have been created. R20 is for single-family homes, and that's what the BD property is. Back in 2018, our esteemed, um, commissioner, Doug Howard and the planning commission sent us a letter, wrote it down that town homes would never be built on our 20. Now, why do I know this? I was very instrumental in the freedom area, um, uh, council. I was very active in that until I started working in the school system. And then I couldn't attend the meetings at nine o'clock in the morning or 11 o'clock in the morning. or at 4 o'clock in the afternoon. However, we have been working this battle for years. Let's talk about some of the issues that surround the Beatty property. Bennett Road, which I live off of, and 32 and Johnsville. I know there are traffic studies. Have they done a traffic study when the high school gets out?

No.

When the Freedom Old Man gets out? We don't need 150 some odd town homes with elderly people. I'm retired, I don't consider myself elderly, but I am not gonna age in place in a three story town home, okay? What we need is a community, another community inside a community. Just imagine what St. John's could build there, a community that supplements what we already have. Have you been down at Georgetown Boulevard on that hairpin turn? Is that where that community's gonna exit? From what I understand, St. John's is not going to mitigate that exit. It'll be left to the county. And what happens then? I've been here long enough to know It's not going to happen. We have five failing intersections. Do we really want to put aged people, over 55, in a community of 155 homes with, what, 50 some odd single family homes? We can do better. We can do better. And if you think it just happens here in the Southern Carol, because we have, quote unquote, no representation, We do now we do. And so many things have been passed through the night during COVID. We didn't know about it. We have amendments and changes made in 2021 that makes exceptions to the rule. It can't go on any longer. Please. You're our representatives stand up for us. Now is the time.

Michael Davis.

Hi, Mike Davis from Finksburg. I first want to say I'm in strong support for all the changes being proposed. And I want to thank the Commissioner's Planning Department and the consultants for getting it done in the critical timeframe. and have a few comments um first again it's just a technical matter in section 158075.01 uh there are buildings constructed before and after 2021 or separated i'm not sure that's still necessary so maybe that could be cleaned up In section 158.075.03, letter C, number 2, this sentence is cut off in the middle. It looks like a cut and paste error, but I'd like to be into the sentence, put back on. In section 158.161.C.8, Section A and B are separated into required and encouraged items, and I suggest that some of the encouraged items that would be more difficult or costly to do later, that are pretty inexpensive and easy at time of construction, perhaps we could consider sliding some of those into required. Specifically, I looked at grab bars in the bathrooms, lowered electrical controls, and exterior lighting. And in section 158.161.C.9, which is safety and security, to me it was ambiguous whether they were encouraged or required. So I think we need to add verbiage in there to make it clear that they are in fact required, which I think was the intent. And in section 158, 161, 101, it is the temporary deferral. And this section still says that deferral ends six months from December 18th of 2025. It's my understanding the deferral was extended to October 1st of 2026. after the board of commissioners approved it at the june 11th public hearing so this section should be changed to reflect the correct ending of the deferral and i also encourage us to hold everything in the pipeline to the new standards of others have said and um and finally i really ask that you bring back the coupon for maybe at least one trip to the dump when you get your property taxes i really miss that

Ed Ruff, Mark Krebs.

Mark Krebs, Eldersburg. I am speaking on behalf of Chief Ed Ruck and Deputy Chief Joe Dennis of the Sykesville Freedom Fire Department. And I know they sent this, what I'm going to read, I'm not going to read it all because it's like eight minutes, but I'm going to read some of it. I know they sent this all to you and the Planning Commission, so you have this already. emergency services concerns in Sykesville-Eldersburg area. The delivery of emergency services to the area continues to be affected by the continuing development. While we understand that the area will continue to experience growth and development, we advocate and desire that the county take into consideration specific items outlined below as they review and approve this continued growth. First one is road accessibility and parking. We continue to be concerned about road accessibility, not only within the planned developments, but also the routes of travel to these developments, both new and established neighborhoods. The narrow width of access roads, combined with permitted parking on both sides, which limits the actual effective width of the roads to less than eight feet, can impede or even prevent fire and EMS vehicles from reaching emergencies promptly. Painting of curbs with no parking is not a sustainable solution as the HOAs are limited in their ability to effectively manage that restriction. It is recommended that new developments incorporate adequate parking in front of residences and or include wider access roads to accommodate parking on both sides and allow unimpeded emergency responses. We recognize that this may encompass changes in the plan density of the plan development. However, we believe that the current development and building requirements should be revised to incorporate these beneficial changes due to the direct impact on the accessibility of the residential units by emergency vehicles. Um, uh, residents design of aging population, new residences targeting individuals aged 55 and over are often not designed with wider doorways, stairwells, or basement entrances, uh, slash exits. These design limitations hinder efficient and safe patient, remove patient movement during emergencies to reiterate the current development and building requirements should be revised to incorporate these beneficial changes. And just to summarize, to reiterate with respect to the Eldersburg Overlook BD Property and Freedoms Grant, the proposed solution of painting curbs with no parking or posting no parking signs to ensure adequate passage space for emergency apparatus is not a sustainable solution as the HOAs are limited in their ability to effectively manage the restriction, nor is it practical. Thank you.

Leatherwood.

Hi, my name is Karen Leatherwood, and I'm a resident of Commissioner District 5, the Freedom District, and what I affectionately call East Eldersburg. You have to excuse me for reading, but I was afraid I'd go off script and run out of time and say something snarky that I didn't want to say or something like that. And now here comes the snark. Five commissioners by district is showing its weakness right now. Four commissioner districts, which is 80% of the votes. Almost all of your designated growth areas are within towns that have their own planning and zoning that closely looks and analyzes the projects with the community perspective. As a resident of the major anomaly, a large designated growth area without real local management Our only hope is that at least two of you side with our Commissioner Krebs. I'm not a NIMBY. We just had three new houses built right next to us. And another one is going to be built soon. And we're looking forward to the fourth house. And we are excited about our neighbors. And we had to put in a very costly fire truck turnaround. But that's a whole different subject. OK. So that being said, Freedom Area is near capacity in many of our public facilities. Our roads are crowded. and our intersections are overworked. It's not uncommon to sit through more than one light cycle at a number of our intersections, and there are regularly accidents. My granddaughter lives in central Eldersburg, so I am keenly aware of how long these lights are and how much traffic stands between me and all the cuteness. I'm not really that familiar with the details of the other public facilities, but other people have spoken about that. I understand that the property owners and developers want to maximize the number of units in their developments, But it appears that this senior living concept is being exploited. Yeah, the half million dollar three story, three townhouses in the newly constructed community on Liberty Road sold out, but not everybody has the means to afford that price tag, nor the interest in that size of a unit. as I'm aging and thinking about where I'd like to live a single story rancher or a little quad unit with a much more affordable price is much more what I'm thinking about. I'm still trying to figure out how retired people afford the property taxes on 500 to $700,000. Okay. So in my opinion, the retirement village housing exception was not intended to be a mechanism for placing super dense townhouses in already crowded communities. LAST NIGHT WHEN I WAS DRIVING HOME FROM SEEING MY GRANDDAUGHTER, I PASSED AN ACCIDENT AT A LIGHT ON 26TH AT MONROE BY WEISS WHICH ISN'T EVEN USUALLY BENEFIT AND NO CONSIDERATION WHEN ANYTHING IS EVER DONE.

I FEEL LIKE THE ZONING BOARD CONSIDERS GROWTH ALWAYS AS PROGRESS AND THAT'S NOT THE CASE. BECAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC ON 26TH, YOU MIGHT AS WELL JUST PULL OVER AND SAY YOUR LAST WORDS. THE TRAFFIC IS RIDICULOUS. I am also against the rezoning, or I would say a violation of the county code for the art in Greece people's palms. They get that through under some backdoor deal. I would also like to say something to you that I said to, who was our previous commissioner?

Yeah. Yeah.

um ryan rawstein i would like to say that uh the conditionally removed that should never be a conditional use for a residential area i think uh the one that was built on oklahoma road is a primary example of how that's a problem the egress there is ridiculous and the way that you have to navigate the roadway it's almost a a hard 45 degree just to get around that because r20 and r40 is not designed for that it's a perfect example so i would ask for you to amend the county code that way. Thank you.

Linda Musiani?

Hi, I'm Linda Musiani, and I'm here with my husband, Bert. I did want to show up because I believe in community. And what's happening in the Eldersburg area is not beneficial for community. You know, we're just getting overpopulated, over... Everything that we came here for is being saturated. You know, the resources, the safety. In preparation to this, you know, I did review all the paperwork, I reviewed Susan's plans. I reviewed Joe Dennis and what his concerns are with safety. Nell's Acres, that's a black eye for our community. That was not done properly. And I did send a detailed email to the commissioners, and I know that you probably got many of them. Many people couldn't show up tonight, but I do urge you to take a look at them and really, really let our voices be heard. I live in the Amberley Court community. I've been here for 32 years. I've raised my children. My children are still here and raising grandchildren. When we came, we are educated people and we looked at the zoning behind our property when we bought. Again, I'm not opposed to development, but it has to be done right. And at that time it was, uh, proposed to be our 20 individual homes on one eight, one half acres. There has been, I don't know, four or five developers that have come in with interest in that land. And none of them have proceeded with it. I am still at a loss for why. And, and a couple of them were individual homes and I know it was an impact on the schools at that time, but there's also led in that property that I don't understand completely. I don't know if that's the stop for development, but that, that should be considered and not bypassed. Um, so again, I wanted to show up. Because I'm urging all of the commissioners to come together and stop this. planning that is on the books, just stop it until you can get a better hold on it and understand what needs to be done. Back to the freedom master plan, stop the deviations, stop the loopholes, let's get it right so we don't have another black eye on the community because it was done wrong. So, thank you.

Michael Bloom. Michael Bloom, okay, I didn't see you.

Michael Bloom, Eldersburg, plain and simple, R20, single family homes, half acre lots, nothing else. No townhouses, no multifamily dwellings, period. Age-restricted communities under R20 zoning. If they're single-family homes only, no townhouses. It does not fit. For the master plan, new developments must adhere to existing neighborhoods. For example, the Eldersburg Overlook on the Beatty property is against the master plan. There's an established R20 single-family neighborhood next to the proposed retirement village that have townhouses with the plans. They do not fit into the established neighborhood. It needs to stop. Traffic studies are a joke, as proven in the last Zoning Appeals Board. They need to be redone during high traffic times and done several times per each location, not just one.

Just read it.

They also need to have in consideration a proposed new developments. In the proposed zoning changes on a residential age-restricted community, including age-restricted home is not allowed, but the next line says age-restricted community is allowed. A little confusing. Townhouses not in a planned unit development or age-restricted community. This will allow townhouses in an R20 section. It should not be. What is a planned unit development? I can't find an answer for that. Age-restricted community definition says a development shall include accessibility and other age-friendly features and may consist of mixed housing types. What kind of housing? More townhouses? No. In short, no townhouses in R20. We don't want clustering. We want our roads safe. We need a new elementary school and freedom area. There's still lots of work to be done on this thing. Please do not let it go through without changing it. Thank you.

Sally Taylor.

Hi, Sally Taylor, Guilford Road, Eldersburg. I'm here actually to support the neighbors that are more directly impacted by the new developments and express just a couple concerns that might not have been brought up already. First off, I remember participating with Julia Gouge in one of her smart workshops about 20, well, better than 20 years ago. And the vision for Liberty Road being a tree lined with median, green median down the road. And that was a quite lovely aspiration which has not occurred. In fact, I live in Stone Manor, which is, I think, a very lovely neighborhood, well-planned. But I take Bennett Road a lot between my development to get over to the Walmart area. And I'm concerned about the 32 and 26, but I'm equally concerned about the other end of that Bennett Road at Oklahoma, because I think that is with a large curve and something that needs to be perhaps remediated in some way. I watched the workshop one Tuesday. I certainly appreciate Commissioner Krebs' purpose and I think all of our codes and to make our visions like the smart growth from Julia Gouge error to be put into some sort of historical document that we can all see would be very, very useful. Finally, I really, I've looked at a lot of plus 55 neighborhoods And I would definitely encourage having single or duplex homes rather than any type of a townhouse that's just counterintuitive in what any plus 55 development should be. I think that's pretty much what I have. I am concerned about some of the backfill, and I think if we need to really look at those neighborhoods and make sure that the backfill is done properly with whatever, whether we're doing clustering or whether we're trying to fit in a couple plus 55 neighborhoods, a few houses here and there. Course corrections are very, very painful. I really appreciated you all coming down December to hear what we had to say. But I really think if we do this right, long term, our pain will be a lot less. And I really appreciate your time.

Chris Armstrong.

Good evening. Chris Armstrong with Lenore 7035 Albert Einstein Drive, Columbia, Maryland. I'm here to talk about our community known as Freedom's Grant. Freedom's Grant is a proposed age-restricted community with a combination of attached and detached homes. We are currently in our third review of the final site plan. We've been processing this site plan for over five years now. Included in the approvals that we have are fire IDMS, Lennar has worked with staff, planning commission, and planning commissioners for many months now to find a middle ground for this community that addresses all safety-related code amendments, as well as many other subjective code amendments. Given the amount of time, resources, and money that Lennar has invested in entitling this community, as well as our efforts to work with the county to find a middle ground, it is our opinion that Fram's grant should be grandfathered from these tax amendments. Thank you.

Lynn Allen.

I don't think I need another introduction. Um, I want to apologize for my zeal and my delivery last time, but I hate public speaking. So I'm short and this is just, uh, anyway.

Um, so my first question is Maryland is losing more people than we are gaining.

Okay, we're like one of the top states, California, New York. So where is all the need for this housing coming from? I mean, we understand, you know, we're a sanctuary state, but the current administration is slowly you know, moving those folks to, you know, wherever. And, you know, the cost of these townhomes is really outrageous. And, you know, personally, if they move forward adding all this housing, because again, remember, I remember it was like in 1980, why haven't our property tax gone down? Okay, you had all these more houses, all this income, Why is our property tax still going up and Eldersburg is not benefiting? Now, the other thing is, with all this open farmland that's just been bought, this is a great opportunity to give the folks in Eldersburg more green space. All the other communities have large open community areas of green space. Why can't we get some more down here? I mean, there's tons of acreage that's going to be quote unquote developed. So again, I would like to see something that benefits us. I will say my 90-year-old father just died in May, and he predicted that Eldersburg, at the rate it was going, was going to be just like Olney. Now, who likes driving through Olney?

All right? I don't know anybody.

Now let's see. Sorry. Now I actually have to check for my notes. I would ask that, I believe in the federal government post, they open things for like 30 or 60 days comment. I think the 10 days of comment is very abrupt. Because by the time we talk to folks and people get the time to write something, let's see. I would like to say, what about all these bike lanes to nowhere? They go, stop, go, stop, stop.

Okay?

You know, I think that's wonderful. And we all know that five-story storage building is still coming. Did we get a new fire truck that can go up five stories? You know, that doesn't conform to the existing buildings that we have here in Eldersburg. remember when there were no townhomes in eldersburg again when my father built he conformed with what was in around the office buildings he could be multiple stories one story one story so i'd like the current people of eldersburg to be respected and represented represented thank you marty burns

Hello, my name is Marty Burns. I live in Eldersburg on Guilford Road. And for the past 24 years, I have owned and operated a business that provides care for people to be able to age in place in their own home. So while I'm excited at the possibility of having more clients, it has to be done safely. And three-story townhouses are not safe for people who need to age in place. There are, over 24 years, I've never had a client come to me and say, hey, I'd like to, I'm so glad my bedroom and bathroom are upstairs because it increases the chance that I'm going to fall and break my hip and end up at Carroll Hospital Center. So when you, townhouse buildings, three-story buildings are not safe to age in place. The people that live there will fall. They will tax the emergency system. They will tax the hospital. And it's not safe for their own well-being. So I think that they should also be designed with the universal, there's some universal design features where the doorways are wide enough, the access to the bathroom and the tubs and the showers are not up. You don't have to step over a tub to get in because those are the two places that people fall are in the bathroom and on the stairs. So to have single-family living with safe design features is what you should aim for and not to put your residents at risk of falling and going to the hospital and hurting themselves. I think that's about all I have.

Thomas P. Long.

Good evening, my name is Thomas Pilon. I'm executive vice president development for st. John properties business address 2560 lower, Baltimore Drive, Windsor Mill, Maryland St. John is the developer of the Beatty property which is comprised of four parcels of land that are being processed as four development plans. Two of the development plans are for retirement villages, Eldersburg Overlook, and Reservoir Run. St. John has consistently talked about the Beatty property as a whole, having included the, excuse me, Having included the master plan for the site and presentations related to each development project, and has prepared a comprehensive traffic study for the site, along with a corresponding mitigation plan, both of which have been reviewed and approved by the county and the State Highway Administration. We began preparing and processing plans for the Beatty property in 2021. the past five years we spent many millions of dollars preparing and processing plans acquiring land paying real estate taxes and fees and entering into binding contracts our plans are consistent with the county master plan and the freedom community plan they are designed to comply with the county code the regulations and the design manuals we've had countless meetings with county staff to discuss our design clarify review comments, and address issues related to site layout, design, density, traffic, stormwater management, and the layout and design of Georgetown Boulevard, a master planned road. We have attended more than a dozen public meetings during which the public was invited to speak, offer comments, and or engage in question and answer sessions related to our projects. With all that in mind, we have reviewed the proposed text amendments, related to age-restricted communities, and we believe that our plans either comply or could comply with the majority of the proposed changes. However, there are certain of the proposed changes that would not be reasonable in nature for projects like ours that have been in the review process for multiple years. Since the requirement to comply with such revisions to the code would require us to revert back to the first step of the concept phase. Given the extensive effort and expense that we have invested in the advancement of our plans to this point, we believe that it would only be fair and appropriate, as well as consistent with the past actions of this body, to grandfather our two projects from any code amendments, and we respectfully ask that you do so. Thank you.

Gus Bauman.

I am Gus Bauman of the law firm Beverage and Diamond, representing St. John Properties regarding to propose age-restricted housing amendments to the zoning ordinance. Given the Board's unprecedented rush in drafting complex zoning amendments with enormous countywide ramifications targeting our ongoing age-restricted housing development in Ellsworthsburg, given that for five years in good faith reliance on the county master plan the freedom community comprehensive plan the zoning ordinance and the planning and zoning commission's affirmations of our development plan we have invested millions of dollars in our projects. Given that we have received and relied upon, at the cost of millions of dollars, county BZA approval for our carefully tailored senior housing development that meets a critical housing need, and given that the board has routinely included grandfather clauses in previous zoning ordinance amendment proposals that would otherwise disrupt ongoing heavily invested developments, we urge you to include the following grandfather clause should you adopt some form of the draft amendments. Any development plan for an age-restricted community formerly known as a retirement village or an age-restricted home formerly known as a retirement home submitted prior to December 18, 2025 shall be subject to the laws, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of such initial submittal. and any subsequent submittals in connection with and or amendments to the development plan made thereafter shall be subject to the laws, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time the initial submittal was made. Accordingly, given all that has transpired over the past five years, not to grandfather, our mature development project would, in point of fact, be illegal, unconstitutional, and manifestly unfair. Thank you.

Karen Donaldson.

What they did was illegal.

Good evening. I'm Karen Donaldson and I live in Westminster and I'm here this evening because my granddaughter looked at me last year and told me I was old. So I totally understand aging in place because I'm old. But I think the commissioners need to take a giant step back and get it right this time. And yes, unfortunately, that means stopping the multi-level fake over 55 homes that are currently in the pipeline. And I say fake because old people can't live in homes that don't have a first floor master bedroom. We just can't. My brother tells me that. Furthermore, commissioners, you're not representing the constituents' best interest if you allow these townhouses that don't have adequate parking for people that live in the units. Lives are at serious risk when fire and EMS cannot reach the properties. And there's already over 55 communities where that exists. I'm glad I don't live in one. The zoning board of Carroll County has failed its citizens, though, and I don't have a clue why. But you're our last resort, okay? This is it. Don't allow communities to be built that will be unsafe for elderly. That's me. Please don't let the zoning board play crazy games and basically allow units to be built on gross acreage instead of net acreage. That's already been addressed, thanks goodness, a couple of times. But most of the properties in the pipeline do contain some floodplain wetlands. All of them need buffers. And if the calculations are based on gross acreage, then none of that is considered. I know your task is not easy. I know you take a lot of crap from people. I take crap from people, too. Please don't take the easy road and fail Eldersburg, because Westminster's next, and that's why I came down. Also, since I have a whole other minute left, which I won't take all of it, but I know the attorneys lined up in the back certainly have more degrees than I do. But the question tonight is, do you have common sense? Because if you had common sense, I don't think you'd be asking us to turn our 20s into freaking townhouses. Thank you.

Bob Leatherwood.

Ladies and gentlemen, it's a pleasure for me to speak with you today. I'm here to say this. I hear people been living here since 1980. Okay, I'm a fifth generation Carroll County. And when I came home from school, We used to go out of school and jump on our horse and ride down Bennett Road. But listen, we've got a serious growth issue here. I don't have a general problem with growth, but we need to define what senior housing is. A third, three-story townhouse is not senior housing. It might be fine when you're 55, but I'm 75. It doesn't work for me. We need to, as a county, we need to define what that is. We are moving, we're having all this discussion, but my understanding is we have no real definition, at least definitions like other counties have around us. And so we need to stop this until we figure out exactly what we're doing and what we're going to do. I'm a lot older than you guys, except for maybe Kenny. But I will tell you that Carroll County needs to take a breath because I'm not against townhouses. I mean, some people want to live in a townhouse. That's fine. I just don't want them shoved down their throat anywhere they want to put them, whatever you want. I want you all to Consider what you've heard here tonight. Think about it. Sue, I know she's been working on it, and she's been talking to the community because I've heard from other people she's talked to, and I've talked to Mark a couple times. But I'm not saying that there isn't something that can be done, but what can be done is not what's being suggested here tonight. Thank you all very much.

Amy Easter.

Bob, that applause was for your shirt, by the way.

My name's Amy Easter. I live on Freedom Avenue, Sykesville, Maryland. I'm new to reading glasses, so I've been wearing my distance, and now I'm on readers. I've enjoyed listening to you guys talk. Yeah, everybody's blurry back here. I've enjoyed listening to you guys talk about living in this place for so long. I've lived here 20 years. Some of you have a lot of land. You have like one house on an acre. Across the street from my house, they want to put 15 townhomes on one acre with a total of 31 townhomes on two acres. And half of them are going to face our house. And we have single family homes, and we're going to stare at townhomes. But the other 14 or 15 townhomes are going to be on an internal road and face each other. And then we don't have any parking left on our street. And then we don't have anywhere to plow the snow. And we don't have anywhere for the fire and EMS to come through. So this comment is in regards to the Freedom Avenue Johnsville retirement villas, age-related, where they're going to do 31 homes on two acres of green space. And to be to be totally transparent, there's geez, these classes, there's going to be three acres, but the other acres supposed to be forest land and they want to get rid of that. The proposed structures that are to be built on Freedom Avenue will negatively impact the community in various ways. There are several 55 plus communities in Eldersburg that are sitting empty. There aren't enough buyers for these homes. The only rationale for adding more is that the developer can skirt the school capacity requirements when they build. Out of 31 homes, 50% of them will have driveways that empty onto Freedom Avenue, which is already very narrow to begin with. I live in the cul-de-sac, and there's barely enough space for rescue vehicles to turn around, and adding more vehicles to the street would further restrict that access. This jeopardizes the residents of the community. This is without any snow accumulation. This would double the houses on that side of Freedom Avenue. Traffic on Johnsville and freedom's already dangerous as commuters use freedom Avenue as a shortcut to bypass the intersection of 32 and 26. There is an elementary school at the intersection of Johnsville and Freedom. That's Piney Ridge Elementary School. And increasing traffic at that intersection is potentially dangerous to the many children who walk there. There's a church at the other intersection. It's Wesley Freedom and then there's St. John's Catholic Community behind us. Increasing traffic at this intersection is potentially dangerous as well and has had multiple accidents on Johnsville and Piney Run Parkway. I'll start talking faster. The water table is unable to support 31 new residences. The proposed development on Freedom Avenue plans to remove healthy mature trees that are not even in an area slated for those townhouses. Then they want to replant those trees somewhere else in a different location. This agreement is of no benefit to the residents of the street or the neighborhood who would like to maintain the current forest area. This part's important. I'm sorry, I'm running out of time. There has been a consistent and reasonable request with the developers about access to the roadway and parking. The driveways that face us could be turned around on an internal street that they are planning to build and face their other townhouse neighbors instead of facing freedom avenue this would preserve our street parking and ability to plow snow get the trash trucks down and ems the developer claims this is simply not feasible despite the road being built specifically for that field for those townhomes Turning around the 14 townhomes would preserve the street parking and EMS access. As a community, we've had so many meetings with developers, with you guys, and sent emails with requests. Unfortunately, the developer refuses to incorporate any of the changes we've requested and has actually said, just be happy it isn't a four-story condo building, which was their original plan. We find that to be rather dismissive stance for the existing neighbors and really wish they would turn the town homes around to all face inward on that field and plant some trees along Freedom Avenue. Thank you, and I'm sorry I went over.

Michael Anderson.

Oh, good evening. My name is Mike Anderson. I live on Freedom Avenue. I am a neighbor of Amy Easter. We've, just to give some more background on that property that's been across our street, we've been in our house for a little over 20 years, and it's always been like an open field. So the church used to own it. They ended up selling it. The person that bought it Originally was going to put a seafood restaurant there that served alcohol next to an elementary school and two churches That property was sent sold to another developer Then they were going to put in a four-story condominium along with some other townhouses From what I understand the soil couldn't support it. So then it was reduced and now we're down, you know to townhouses so Because I'm over 55 plus, it's like, okay, where's the 55 plus community going over there? But I still work. So I can't keep going to all these different meetings with all the different changes and all the different plans to voice my concerns about what's going on. So there have been so many changes that it's like, okay, is everything still being considered? Is it infrastructure? EMS? The traffic studies? Can BG&E support it? Can the water support it? With all these multiple changes, it should be looked at each and every single time. With that property, it's going to be non-HOA, and we're in an HOA. So if we have an issue with a neighbor across the street, our HOA really isn't going to be able to do much. If the houses are turned and facing inward to each other, we're going to face the back end of that house. And we know the back end of the backyards, you're going to have sheds, you're going to have pools, decks, you're going to have parties back there. So there's not going to be a separation between us looking at our front door to other people's backyards. But that doesn't mean we want an 8-foot fence put up all the way down Freedom Avenue. And we don't necessarily want 30-foot pine trees lining that street either to hide the back of the houses. We really need to look and see how this is placed, how it's going to affect the neighbors across the street. Is it going to be aesthetically pleasing? Is it still going to be the character of a neighborhood? When you drive down the street, you expect to see houses facing each other. So there's just a lot of things that need to be considered before these developments go in. You know, just kind of take a look at Homeland Drive on Freedom Avenue. That 55-plus community was put in in 2000. Sure, back in 2000, traffic wasn't that bad. Five o'clock, you could probably still make a left turn out of that road. My mom lives there. I have another friend that lives there. Around 5 o'clock, they'll take the right to go down to Walmart to make the U-turn to go west. That's not good planning. So, you know, that's really what I want to stress is that we need to look at things and how they're going to be 20 years from now. and fast forward and say is this going to be feasible is it going to be you know able to be sustained eldersberg is growing we need to do it smartly thank you kelly miller

Good evening, commissioners. Kelly Schaefer-Miller, 73 East Main Street, Westminster, Maryland, 21157. I was here last night. This is like my leg workout. Tonight, I provided to you packets of paper documents. These were electronically submitted to you as well. These are all previous submittals that were made to your body or to the Planning and Zoning Commission, and I would ask that these all be included as part of tonight's record. I have two big picture concerns that I want to point out to you as part of tonight's proposed amendment. First of all, I ask you, have the procedural implications of the proposal been considered? What do I mean by that? For example, the proposal includes a required amenity report submittal. This is a new requirement. This is not in the code right now. Who will be reviewing this? Does this create the need for additional review staff? Do existing staff have the expertise for this review? How will that report be amended? Are we putting some obligations on a future HOA or condo association group? These plans, as you've heard testified to tonight, have taken years in the process. I would say to you that any plan to reach final approval takes years in the process. It's concerning to see an amendment that proposes additional elements of review without hearing a concurrent conversation on how that will be handled procedurally. So I think that's important for you all to take into consideration as you move forward. I have been active through the planning and zoning commission review of this text amendment. Through that review process, the planning and zoning commission requested a test fit be done of this text amendment. To my knowledge, one has not been done. If it has, I have not seen it. BUT I SHARE WITH YOU AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT THAT THE FREEDOMS GRANT PLAN, FOR EXAMPLE, RIGHT NOW IN YOUR PROPOSED AMENDMENT, YOU HAVE A MANDATED 30% SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED UNIT PROVISION. AND YET YOU HAVE A DENSITY PROVISION. THAT PLAN CANNOT ACHIEVE THE DENSITY PROVISION with that mandate. So I ask you, does this match your intent? Maybe it does. But I think that it's important to understand how the proposed amendment is going to work and ensure that it works the way you are intending it to if you are going to be adopting this. During your work session on September 1st, which I watched Commissioner Krebs reference the plans in process and said you can't put lipstick on a pig It's clear to us that there are differences of opinion on desirable product and site design We've heard that here tonight as well That said, there have been several misstatements about the product type, and I'm not going to address all of them tonight, but I will say one example is every single product proposed has main floor living. There is no primary suite on a second floor that's being proposed in any of these plants. So the difference of opinion does not negate the fact that these plans have relied on longstanding existing code and have been prepared in accordance with all county requirements. You've heard from those processing these five plans and you've heard from your staff in the work session on September 1st that adoption of this amendment would reset all of the plans. That's why we are here tonight requesting grandfathering of the plans in process. And briefly, I'll remind you of the three past text amendments, the comprehensive rezoning for the commercial industrial, the bulk requirements text amendment, and the solar text amendments, all of which recognized grandfathering for plans in process. Thank you.

I will give one last call.

Good evening, Mike Kalanock, JPB Partners, Hanover, Maryland. I live in Columbia, so a lot has been discussed today. I was not planning on speaking, but I wanted to kind of clarify a couple things. So we're the developers of the Piney Ridge Parkway project, which is 31 lots on six acres, zoned commercial, and our 10,000 acres. uh the project had been previously proposed for a banquet facility etc so what we're doing we feel fits extremely well within that community we're surrounded by apartments for rent townhome apartments we're surrounded by churches and single-family homes on freedom avenue's been discussed this evening I'm glad Mrs. Miller mentioned that the product types that are being considered here all have main level primary. And even we've studied this senior industry for several years. Three level townhomes that are called will have elevators. Those have nothing to do with what we're doing, but I just want to make sure people do understand that nobody is living as a primary resident unless they choose to on an upper level. Now for us, I don't want to discount anything that's been said, because safety, without a doubt, we appreciate, we respect, we think our project works extremely well. We will do anything from a safety standpoint to make it work. But as I was driving up here, and I live in Columbia tonight, I started just It's been so troubling, this process. We're not a big developer. We pick and choose where we do things. We try to do it right. We met with the community numerous times over the last five years. But you start thinking about it. And I was trying to come up with an analogy. And the only one that kind of came to mind is I picture I have three kids. And had I put my oldest daughter had she wanted to go to medical school. And she spends five, six, seven years, which we have on this project. And then all of a sudden, the dean of the school comes and says, you know what? We think there's a better curriculum for you to get your medical degree. We're going to ask you to just go back to your first semester. Forget the several hundred thousand dollars you just spent. We think it's justified because there's a better way. Now again, I don't want to take this to take away from the safety issues and a lot of issues that have been impactful. But it's just not right. It's not right what's being proposed. I think every project that played by the rules for several years, we've spent millions of dollars when you include the land costs. We would never have done that if we knew the rules were going to change. So I ask that all these projects, including ours, be grandfathered through. Thank you.

All right. Hearing nothing else from the floor, I need a motion to bring the public hearing to a close and keep the record open for a period of 10 calendar days from today's date.

Move the board conclude the public hearing. Keep the record open for 10 calendar days. Second.

We have a motion. We have a second. All those in favor?

Aye.

All those opposed? Motion carries unanimously. I now need a motion to adjourn for the evening. Motion to adjourn for the evening. We have a motion. We have a second. Second. We have a motion. We have a second. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. We are adjourned. Thank you, everybody.