Neighbors and commissioners contest 3-story Carol Highlands self‑storage plan over traffic, height and runoff

A developer seeking to build a three‑story, internal self‑storage complex along Maryland Route 26 in the Freedom area presented a concept plan to the Carroll County Planning and Zoning Commission on Aug. 19, drawing hours of public comment and detailed review by county staff.

The plan, branded Carol Highlands Self Storage in county files, would sit on roughly 3.25 acres and feature about 30,000 square feet of enclosed storage space in a single three‑story building with approximately 650 units, a reduced parking count and a single access from Route 26. David Beecraft of the county’s Bureau of Development Review described the layout and the project’s recent changes from an earlier, five‑story proposal submitted in 2023.

Why it matters: Residents who live within walking distance told commissioners the project would change the character and safety of a residential area, add traffic onto a state highway that already has a history of accidents and raise flooding concerns. County staff said some technical issues — stormwater, forest conservation and sidewalk connections — have received concept approval but will require more detail at final review.

County staff and the developer emphasized changes from an earlier, taller design. Beecraft said the current plan reduces height and overall unit count from what was proposed two years ago and shows landscaping and building elevations intended to reduce visual impacts on neighboring properties. Developer representative Rick Williams and contract purchaser Scott Cooper said they recessed parts of the structure into the hillside to lower apparent rear elevations near houses.

Public concerns focused on traffic, safety and neighborhood impacts. Several nearby residents described long‑standing drainage issues and said their yards and solar installations already suffer from flooding and shade. “I sit in my backyard… and I’m going to look at a massive structure,” Sarah Penn told the commission, citing children and wildlife in the backyard and asking that the parcel remain compatible with a single‑family neighborhood. Other speakers asked the commission to require a traffic study and called for more substantial screening rather than tall signs and lighting.

Developers and staff responded in turn. Kelly Schafer Miller, representing the contract purchaser, said the proposed use does not generate trips at the level that triggers a county traffic‑impact study: “This use is not a big trip generator,” she said, noting Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) is an active reviewer because Route 26 is a state road. Beecraft confirmed SHA had not required a traffic impact study at concept stage. The developer said state highway staff required relocation of the site access to MD‑26 to eliminate an earlier access onto Carroll Highlands Road.

Parking and operational details drew repeated attention. County code requires a parking ratio for internal storage that would have produced about 70 spaces for 650 units; the developer previously received a variance from the zoning administrator reducing required parking to nine spaces, per staff presentation. Cooper said the reduced parking ratio aligns with how similar modern, internal facilities operate, and that interior loading docks and two elevators are included in the design. The facility would not be open 24/7, Cooper said; hours would be roughly 6:30 a.m. to 10 p.m., with after‑hours customer access by personal code.

Stormwater, grading and future roads: Staff noted the plan preserves most existing vegetation and routes stormwater to three management basins on the east side of the site that would discharge to existing drains along MD‑26. The plan also shows a county master‑planned major street alignment (Rydenauer Way) that crosses part of the site; county and developer representatives clarified that road is a long‑range master‑plan alignment and is not being built with this project. The developer said the building and stormwater layout were designed to avoid blocking future construction of that alignment should the county pursue it.

Security and screening: The developer described a multi‑camera security system and opaque fencing; Cooper said facilities he manages typically invest in sizable security budgets and employ cameras focused along building façades and the immediate parking/entrance area rather than broad neighborhood‑facing surveillance. Commissioners and residents asked the developer to increase rear landscaping and the size of plantings; the applicant agreed to consider larger specimen trees and additional screening.

Review status and next steps: County staff granted concept approvals or comments from several technical reviewers, including stormwater, floodplain management, water and sewer, Office of Public Safety and the Bureau of Comprehensive Planning subject to final engineering and forest conservation banking. Beecraft said final site‑plan approval would include a detailed demonstration of adequacy of public facilities before final approval. The commission declined to delegate final approval authority to the chair after the public hearing, and the project will return to the commission with additional materials.

Ending: The commission heard roughly a dozen residents speak and received three written letters before the meeting. Commissioners urged continued neighborhood engagement and confirmed the developer would return with revised plans and additional technical details — including any information from Maryland SHA — before any final decision.