[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6519597,"mediaKeyId","5350058-060a049a941dfc608b0b40f2ba6287f8","parentId",5350058,"title","Commission reviews draft solar and front‑of‑meter energy‑storage code changes after state regulatory preemption","audioSeconds",3850,"startMs",3387000,"endMs",7237000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5350058-060a049a941dfc608b0b40f2ba6287f8&start=3387&end=7237","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5350058-060a049a941dfc608b0b40f2ba6287f8/thumbnail_3387000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6519597/Carroll-County/Maryland/Commission-reviews-draft-solar-and-frontofmeter-energystorage-code-changes-after-state-regulatory-preemption","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6519597-c26b2b6e33728797a6428f0f6443faa5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771184508&Signature=lH7f96ucN~AWeuPzQNwRvAPOfd7YQT7~yhwChnd4MNE7g2zoJKm9reARYx3Q3fJbEFokxlX0lxBN63DwIi1S4IxZmu5Lg~PBKS~V~VsAktB5WInZnrQ~6wKH-aeYmNP9uostPEJ3peuHIR~YLnSHi21YuXP8qvknIB5kx7sOwPvBMGpka8vhBWsr8wqgx6nM0olBTFHx~zh76tSWzg10RVlOZ7Gp6jIMxs0xneW6YwuyiCQDEgNvMOFTY3kxvEybdmdtBmNBBEvO~T82dzKMQVunNrnR9QRVR3N-5EDbMXk2QW6twVn3CwwzNjRzsYg9zdAl2JmQmOrK6sPkUJQc5Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Carroll County, MD","date","2025-07-07T16:56:18Z","article","Carroll County planning staff on July 9 presented a draft set of zoning revisions that would align county code with recently enacted Maryland state rules for solar energy generating systems and front‑of‑meter energy storage devices.

Staff told the Planning and Zoning Commission the state has limited local authority to prohibit and to set design standards for solar projects: staff said the Public Service Commission (PSC) issues Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for projects of roughly 2 megawatts or larger and that the state's recent rules require certain solar projects to be treated as principal permitted uses across local zoning districts. Staff said the county must therefore revise its code where state law preempts local prohibitions or limits local design discretion.

Key points staff presented and commissioners discussed:

- State preemption and application thresholds: Staff said a CPCN is typically required for projects of about 2 megawatts and larger; staff also said the state\u0000rule requires treatment of projects in certain size ranges as principal permitted uses in zoning districts (staff discussed a 1–5 megawatt band and noted state variations). County code must be revised to reflect these thresholds and the county\u0000role in permitting smaller projects under local process where allowed.

- Setbacks and buffers: Carroll County previously set a 400‑foot setback for some solar installations; staff said the state bars local setbacks larger than 100 feet in some instances. The proposed draft reduces the county maximum to match state limits while adopting a state provision that no panel or structure be within 150 feet of the nearest wall of a residential building. Commissioners asked whether variance authority should be limited; several commissioners urged that any setback reductions be non‑waivable and that landscape buffer requirements be strengthened where allowed.

- Visual impact and community meetings: For projects located in state‑identified overburdened or underserved communities, staff proposed adopting the state requirement that applicants hold at least two public meetings in the affected community. Staff also proposed retaining a requirement for visual impact studies (the PSC requires such a study for CPCN projects) and asked the commission whether the county should require visual studies for locally permitted projects under 2 megawatts; commissioners asked staff to consider what a required visual study would look like in local review.

- Grandfathering and alterations: Staff reported that projects already in review under the county's earlier fall 2024 requirements were intended to proceed under the prior rules. To avoid creating permanently nonconforming sites, staff proposed language allowing future alterations or expansions to those earlier projects without penalizing them as nonconforming, subject to specified review.

- Agrivoltaics and limitations: Staff noted the state code excludes agrivoltaics from some site‑design limits; staff recommended not creating an extensive separate agrivoltaics code but asked commissioners whether any special treatment is warranted.

- Energy storage (front‑of‑meter battery facilities): Staff proposed adding definitions and design standards for front‑of‑meter energy storage devices as principal permitted uses where state law requires. The draft cross‑references NFPA 855 (National Fire Protection Association standard for energy storage) and includes requirements to notify Fire & EMS of isolator switches and site maps, bonding and decommissioning language, maximum fence heights, and other site controls. Staff said the county has asked the local Fire & EMS and will require applicants to provide any specialized training or equipment necessary for emergency response.

- Landscape, screening and maintenance: The state restricts some planting height requirements; planning staff proposed a 35‑foot buffer where required but noted the state limits plant heights for initial installation to four feet and allows full screening to be achieved within five years. Staff also proposed bonding and survival rate inspections at year 5 (release 50% if 90% survival) and year 7 if needed.

- Decommissioning surety: Staff said state practice on who holds decommissioning surety (county vs. PSC) is not always consistent in guidance; the draft allows decommissioning surety to be held by either the county or PSC pending clarification.

Commissioners asked about taxation of former agricultural land converted to solar, inspection regimes, fire risk and incidents at storage facilities, security measures (cameras, alarms), and whether local tiers or designated growth‑area language could allow prohibiting larger projects in growth areas; staff noted Carroll County did not adopt the state's tiering system and recommended instead prohibiting >5 megawatt projects in \"designated growth areas\" to meet the intent of state allowances without wholesale code adoption of tiers.

Staff said they will produce a redline of the proposed zoning changes, return to the commission with answers to outstanding questions (tax assessment implications, NFPA 855 specifics, fire‑response requirements and security considerations) and present the draft for further comment before forwarding recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning & Zoning Commission Work Session July 9, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Carroll County staff presented a draft zoning update July 9 to align county solar and front‑of‑meter energy‑storage requirements with recent Maryland rules, covering setbacks, visual impacts, buffers, decommissioning, and battery‑storage design standards.","taxTitle","Carroll County, Maryland","taxId",7748,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6519601,"Planning commission directs staff to draft Employment Campus zoning amendments to increase flexibility",1928,1414000,3342000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5350058-060a049a941dfc608b0b40f2ba6287f8&start=1414&end=3342","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5350058-060a049a941dfc608b0b40f2ba6287f8/thumbnail_1414000.jpg","/articles/6519601/Carroll-County/Maryland/Planning-commission-directs-staff-to-draft-Employment-Campus-zoning-amendments-to-increase-flexibility","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6519601-d50fe88e003f5bea40f826acc486dfb7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771184508&Signature=OB2ZPiba8dIsjnqR6-3Re-XyZXx-xZX7wrzRrOP2aHQpnyXObyHdNwRyJc2OYVFUHrF3V3fdX-5xfhWLb8SPDCyz8Ac79MEZkh7pobzzgLuL-mDNEBFg3eUb8HoX9ShvCNKEKsTjli4Dr5n6cv5GYaS5oQjIbX2fdYzIMvcKRU3ciE6x1E9Mk9dQflA8Fud8ym4dej2OsYkMENKSpf43AVDBMysZnBo~zqPMoF13JFAlA-WHfGISNcW-sxQOWjlLCugKcbm7oQ-pgDdRZaLhDP3k15zbXzczrqFYf~faNIVqn7o1f1SEpqTyXu1enrLxGBx6woRIfbB6u2RJgn-3OA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Carroll County planning staff told the Planning and Zoning Commission on July 9 that they will prepare a draft text amendment to the Employment Campus zoning district aimed at adding flexibility to the development review process and expanding marketable uses.

Staff said the Board of County Commissioners requested a reexamination of the Employment Campus district focused on (1) the development review sequence and (2) uses allowed in the district, while preserving the district\u0000purpose as described in the county code. Staff summarized the current rules: the code requires a comprehensive development plan for an entire employment campus before site plan review; the plan must show approximate building locations, architecture, parking, signage, landscaping and more. Economic development and the Industrial Development Authority (IDA) told staff that requiring a full campus master plan up front discourages the flexible, parcel‑by‑parcel marketing approach the IDA uses for long build‑out horizons.

Under the commission discussion, staff proposed removing the compulsory, campus‑wide development plan requirement and deferring those design showings to site plan review for individual lots, with a required written or graphic explanation from the developer showing how the proposed work meets the Employment Campus\u0000purposes in the zoning code (higher development standards, integration of green space and trails, harmonious relationship with surrounding neighborhoods, etc.). Staff warned that piecemeal review could complicate proving comprehensive conformity and suggested commissioners could add conditions on individual site plans to maintain overall campus intent.

Commissioners raised concerns about leaving insufficient planning for subsequent parcels (for example, borrow/fill and grading changes) and asked how the county would prevent economic waste or unusable remnants on later parcels. Staff and representatives of economic development and the IDA said normal site‑plan technical reviews (stormwater, grading, sediment control, forest conservation) and bonding requirements would apply at the lot‑level and would address disturbance when it occurs; staff also noted that the only currently developable Employment Campus land in the county is the Delaney property owned by the county and typically marketed by the IDA.

On permitted uses, economic development requested moving light manufacturing from a conditional use to a principal permitted use so the IDA can market the Employment Campus to a wider range of employers. Commissioners discussed bulk and height limits (the code currently caps building height at 60 feet) and whether additional protections should be added where campus development adjoins existing residential or institutional uses.

Commissioners indicated informal consensus and directed staff to prepare a redlined text amendment for the commission to review at the next meeting. Staff said the draft will revise the code to (1) remove the mandatory campus development plan and require a site‑plan‑level written/graphic explanation demonstrating how proposals meet the Employment Campus purpose and (2) move light manufacturing to a permitted principal use; staff will return with a draft redline at the next meeting and then, if the commission supports it, forward a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.

","County planning staff will prepare a draft text amendment to the Employment Campus zoning district that would remove the early-stage campus development plan requirement and allow light manufacturing as a principal permitted use, in response to economic development concerns about attracting employers and IDA marketing needs.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6519606,"Planning commission backs Westminster annexation for 1012 Baltimore Boulevard",673,710000,1383000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5350058-060a049a941dfc608b0b40f2ba6287f8&start=710&end=1383","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5350058-060a049a941dfc608b0b40f2ba6287f8/thumbnail_710000.jpg","/articles/6519606/Carroll-County/Maryland/Planning-commission-backs-Westminster-annexation-for-1012-Baltimore-Boulevard","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6519606-243bf191d145ddbcf2b53f3a8757339b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771184509&Signature=Lxmf4TLJJjA~Aci55ScpY7fWj3JCueaAZIBO219mhWu~2~UZuwrSMU1lpVFpiDjadAaaAvnd4hBBplYwh5x9WJA7LG~LHtTl14S8ahxl2GMahT2KwnG~lHttxNXlRaB2WtxnqfWaYWQXhWLxgqroguX5Oxtr3A95zuhiu4rRiFzo8AyiDnEym6y3YZu59uaus59vPEHFRHAxAC0VnQb57fCiyFhNv1q53kiwlZsSiRVVv3VSadH6O~hKm9DGu9fu70GAtraYMU4pVXtBenxJR4TH28DYPQ~vJAKF5AGaMWcOeLDBiY~hpoot1b3EuRLnygNn~56RP7lUSN2xvwqnKA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Carroll County Planning and Zoning Commission on July 9 voted to convey support to the Board of County Commissioners for the City of Westminster\u0000annexation of 1012 Baltimore Boulevard.

County comprehensive planner Javier Toro said the property, the former RE/MAX building at 1012 Baltimore Boulevard, would be repurposed by the owner as an adult day‑care facility. Toro told commissioners the annexation area is contiguous to Westminster\u0000corporate limits and totals 1.2 acres; it lies in the Seventh Election District and Third Commission District and appears in the City of Westminster\u00002009 comprehensive plan.

Planning staff told commissioners the property is shown as W‑1 (existing water service) and S‑1 (existing sewer service) in the 2003 Carroll County Water and Sewer Master Plan but is not currently connected to public water or sewer. Staff said the county health department has allowed continued use of an on‑site well to serve the proposed adult day‑care facility until the property connects to Westminster\u0000utilities. Staff recommended that the county ask the city to post public notice, notify adjoining property owners and proceed with the annexation process.

Commission discussion focused on land use and service connections. A commissioner asked whether the existing structure would be demolished following a prior fire; Toro said the city informed staff the owner intends to repurpose—not demolish—the building, but he could not confirm details about modifications. Commissioners also clarified that site plan, building safety and utility hook‑ups would be addressed by Westminster after annexation, not by the county.

Commissioner Peter moved that the planning commission approve annexation number 87 (1012 Baltimore Boulevard) as presented by county staff; the motion was seconded and passed on a voice vote with six yes votes and one abstention. The commission recorded \"6 yes, 1 abstain.\" The advisory letter of support will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners, which will receive the annexation on July 10, 2025.

The county staff presentation and maps cited the City of Westminster 2009 comprehensive plan and the Carroll County 2003 Water and Sewer Master Plan as the bases for staff\u0000findings about contiguity, land use designation and service areas.

What's next: The Board of County Commissioners will receive the commission's advisory comment on July 10, 2025; if annexed, the city will oversee site plan review, building safety and future connection to Westminster water and sewer.

","The Carroll County Planning and Zoning Commission voted to support the City of Westminster's request to annex a 1.2-acre former REMAX property at 1012 Baltimore Boulevard for conversion to an adult day‑care facility; the commission's advisory recommendation goes next to the Board of County Commissioners.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission reviews draft solar and front‑of‑meter energy‑storage code changes after state regulatory preemption

Planning commission directs staff to draft Employment Campus zoning amendments to increase flexibility

Planning commission backs Westminster annexation for 1012 Baltimore Boulevard