Carroll County Board of Commissioners Public Hearing on Zoning Amendments – September 3, 2026
Carroll County Board of Commissioners Public Hearing on Zoning Amendments – September 3, 2026
The Board of County Commissioners of Carroll County held a public hearing on the evening of Thursday, September 3, 2026, to receive public comment on three sets of proposed amendments to the county code: (1) Chapter 155 regarding cluster subdivisions, (2) Chapters 155, 156, and 158 regarding accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and (3) Chapters 91, 155, and 158 regarding retirement villages and retirement homes. The hearing was called to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Reagan Room (Room 003) of the County Office Building. Acting County Administrator Deb Ethingham, County Attorney Tim Burke, and Department of Planning and Land Management Director Chris Heyn and Deputy Director Daphne Daly were present. For each topic, staff presented a brief summary, followed by public comments (in person only; no virtual comments were accepted). Each hearing concluded with a unanimous motion to close the public hearing and keep the record open for ten calendar days.
Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to Chapter 155 – Cluster Subdivisions
- Staff explained that the amendment, recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission, would allow the Board of County Commissioners to adjust open space, density, and minimum lot size requirements for a cluster subdivision if the applicant enters into a Development Rights and Responsibilities Agreement (DRRA) that provides a significant community benefit. No other changes to the 2022 cluster subdivision code were proposed.
- Several members of the public (Mark Krebs, Brad W., Marty Burns, Timothy S., Michael Bloom, David Bauer Sox) spoke in opposition to current cluster subdivision practices. Key positions included:
- Density calculations should be based on net buildable acreage, not gross acreage, to avoid overbuilding.
- Existing traffic congestion (e.g., at Route 32 and Bennett Road) would be exacerbated.
- The proposed DRRA process was criticized as too subjective and unlikely to benefit residents.
- David Bauer Sox, an attorney representing property owners and developers, submitted a proposed revision to the amendment to clarify that a DRRA is elective and to preserve grandfathering for projects submitted before December 2025. He urged the Board not to inadvertently repeal that grandfathering.
- No other public comments were offered. The Board voted unanimously to close the hearing and keep the record open for ten calendar days.
Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to Chapters 155, 156, and 158 – Accessory Dwelling Units
- Staff stated that the amendments were driven by state House Bill 1466 (passed April 22, 2025), which requires local jurisdictions to adopt ADU regulations by October 1, 2026. The proposal amends definitions, adequate public facilities provisions, and zoning regulations to allow ADUs on single-family lots.
- Public commenters included Brett Hackett and Matt Shipley (CLSI), Michael Davis, Joe Kuhn, Roger Coon, Kelly Miller, Kevin Davis, and Lynn Allen. Key positions:
- Several speakers (Hackett, Shipley, Miller, Davis) requested removal of the two‑bedroom limit (Sec. 158.176D) and the 50‑foot maximum distance requirement between the primary dwelling and ADU (Sec. 158.176M), arguing these restrictions are among the most restrictive in Maryland and make ADUs financially or physically infeasible.
- Joe Kuhn and Roger Coon raised concerns about minimum lot widths, septic requirements, and the impact on agricultural preservation properties.
- Lynn Allen highlighted infrastructure strain (electric grid, hospital emergency room) and asked where property tax revenue from new development is going, stating Eldersburg does not see benefits.
- No one spoke in favor of the current restrictions. The Board voted unanimously to close the hearing and keep the record open for ten calendar days.
Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to Chapters 91, 155, and 158 – Retirement Villages/Retirement Homes
- Staff explained that the amendments address concerns about scale, compatibility, lack of amenities, aging‑in‑place features, density bonuses, and emergency access. The Planning and Zoning Commission held five meetings, and a public survey and open house were conducted. The amendments include new density and unit mix requirements, design standards, parking and connectivity standards, open space, and amenity requirements.
- Many residents from the Freedom District (Eldersburg) spoke in strong support of the amendments, urging the Board to adopt them and to reject grandfatheroing for projects already in the pipeline. Speakers included Kathy Barnett, Terry Harrigan, Donna Harrigan, Nancy Kaufner, Jean Roosh, Karen Leatherwood, Brad W., Linda Mussiami, Michael Bloom, Sally Taylor, Marty Burns, Karen Donaldson, Bob Leatherwood, Amy Easter, and Michael Anderson. Key positions:
- Several speakers cited safety concerns raised by the Sykesville Freedom Fire Department regarding narrow streets and lack of guest parking; they argued that painted no‑parking curbs are not enforceable and that emergency vehicle access is compromised.
- Multiple residents stated that three‑story townhouses are not appropriate for age‑restricted communities; they want single‑story or ranch‑style homes with universal design features (zero‑step entries, wide doorways, grab bars).
- Many objected to the use of R20 zoning (single‑family residential) for townhouses, calling it a violation of the Freedom Community Comprehensive Plan.
- Speakers demanded that projects already in the pipeline (e.g., Freedom’s Grant, Eldersburg Overlook, Reservoir Run, Freedom Avenue/Jonesville) be held to the new standards and not be grandfathered.
- Representatives from developers (Chris Armstrong of Lennar, Thomas Pelon of St. John Properties, Gus Ballman of Beveridge & Diamond, and Mike Calianok of JPB Partners) asked the Board to grandfather their projects because they have invested millions of dollars over several years in reliance on existing code. They argued that the proposed amendments would require them to restart the approval process, which would be unfair and possibly unconstitutional.
- Kelly Schaefer Miller, an attorney, raised procedural concerns about new requirements (e.g., amenity reports) and asked for a “test fit” of the amendments to ensure they work as intended. She noted that the Freedom’s Grant plan, with a 30% single‑family detached mandate, cannot achieve the proposed density.
- The Board voted unanimously to close the hearing and keep the record open for ten calendar days.
Key Outcomes
- All three public hearings were concluded with a unanimous vote to keep the record open for ten calendar days (until September 13, 2026).
- The Board is expected to deliberate and potentially adopt the proposed amendments in an open session on September 17, 2026.
- No votes were taken on the substance of the amendments during the hearing.
Meeting Transcript
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. We're also joined by Acting County Administrator Deb Ethingham, County Attorney Tim Burke, and Chris Hein 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 public hearing, 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 Burr 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 proposed 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 Hine 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 early, that the purpose of tonight is to hear from you on some proposed amendments to Chapter 155 concerning cluster subdivisions. We advertise this hearing in uh the Carroll County Times on Thursday, August 20th, 2020 2026, and Thursday, August 27, 2026. In addition, it was advertised on the various Carol communication sites and sources and the website. With us here tonight are Director Chris Hine from our and Daphne Daly from our Department of Planning. They're going to give you a brief uh synopsis of what's being proposed to this amendment. And in the public guidelines, Tim? The public guidelines. We ask you to uh if you we wish to speak on a particular topic, make sure you fill out your orange card and brought it up. Uh we ask you to limit your comments to three minutes each, and we ask that you uh speak once on each 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. Uh, the first hearing that we'll be discussing is for cluster subdivision. So for those of you who are not familiar, cluster 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 for as open space for the benefit of the community. So I'm going to quickly go through how we got here, um, how this correlates to our freedom plan, and then the proposed code amendment that uh has been recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and then what our next steps will be. So uh the cluster subdivision codes are from Chapter 155, 036, and those codes have been in place in the county for several decades. Uh 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 uh eventually in December, issued a deferral for processing of new cluster subdivisions in the freedom area. So with that deferral, we then uh talked with the commissioners as far as what their concerns were. And um there were some concerns about the recent, relatively recent changes in 2022 to the cluster codes. And so they directed us to uh discuss those recent changes with um the planning and zoning commission and come back with recommendations if any of those should be changed. In parallel with that, uh 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 uh and looking at how they conform with our the freedom plan and recommendations related to other jurisdictions and so on. So that study is on is currently ongoing. We took the we had those discussions with the planning and zoning commission uh July 8th and July 21st in uh 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, uh we did reference back to the Freedom Plan and uh the Freedom Plan speaks in generalities about um 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 uh consistent with the fabric of existing communities and not overburden adequate public facilities. And uh it also touches on the uh the 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 uh they recommended to leave those changes in place. Uh they did actually add an additional condition uh that they're recommending for consideration.
openpublica.com