More News

Development issue confuses judges

Thursday, March 9, 2006

Last week, three judges on the Maryland Court of Special Appeals listened to both sides of the Carrolltowne 4B development case that Carroll County planners and residents have opposed for more than a decade.

Security Development Corporation’s proposal to build 254 back-to-back rental townhouses along Md. Route 26 and backing to Kali Drive has been in limbo as the county has tried rezoning, cajoling and finally going to court. County officials and Eldersburg residents cite limited water resources, overcrowded schools, limited emergency service personnel and congested roads as reasons to halt the plan.

Last summer, Carroll County Circuit Court Judge Michael M. Galloway ordered the Carroll County Planning Commission to approve the plan based on a 1999 order. The plan was reluctantly approved by the commission under threat of jail.

On March 2, the judges of the Court of Special Appeals questioned the county’s role in the dispute and expressed confusion as to why there was not more communication between the Planning Commission and the developer during the preliminary stages when the project’s plans should have been presented.

County officials said that the developer did not act on the process and allowed too much time to pass – a violation of the county’s sunset provision that makes a plan null and void after a certain time period after approval.

Both the developer, the county commissioners and the planning commissioners are at fault in this situation. They all messed up. We could also throw in Judge Galloway, but there is probably some letter of the law that he had to follow. Of course, we still do not understand how he could order approval of the site when the current plan does not meet many of the planning regulations now in effect in the county.

At the March 2court hearing, it was apparent that the judges do not realize that the folks in charge of the county 10 years ago and those today are different entities.

Development approval 10 years ago did not take into account all the services that were needed. Since the original plans were approved in 1995, the infrastructure of the area has changed dramatically, calling for zoning changes and a better development alternative. At one point, this developer wanted to build a Target at the site, but could not get direct access onto Route 26.

So if the judges’ decision goes against the county and if there is no water, what does the county do? Perhaps the best solution is to let the townhouses be built but to not issue occupancy permits until vital services are available.

But, as we said in July, we think the best course of action is for the developer, the residents and the county to all work together for the benefit of everyone. That is happening somewhat with the developer and Carrolltowne United (a local group of residents) but whatever decision is handed down, everybody needs to get more serious about cooperation.