Developers present plan for private sports complex; Mount Airy planning commission continues annexation review

Developers proposing a private athletic complex on the Warfield property told the Mount Airy Planning Commission on Sept. 29 that annexation into the town is necessary to obtain town sewer and to build an 8-field complex they say would address local field shortages and support local businesses.

Tim Park and Brian McKenna, the project principals and operators of Elite Baseball Maryland LLC, said the proposal would include four full 90-foot (high-school) diamonds, two artificial-turf youth diamonds, and two grass multipurpose fields, plus courts, playgrounds, pathways and a small indoor training facility. Park said the complex is intended to serve local athletes and families as well as regional tournaments. "Our goal is simple. We wanna show what this athletic complex can mean for Mount Airy," Park told the commission.

The petitioners asked the commission to recommend annexation and R-1 zoning so the project could pursue town water and sewer rather than an on-site septic layout the developers said would sharply limit field layout and restroom capacity. Attorney Andrew Bowersox (presenting for the petitioners) told the commission the parcel27s septic location and grading would make a large private facility impractical without sewer service.

Speakers who addressed the commission during earlier public comment raised worries about water supply, traffic and weekend congestion. Troy Shekels and Ted Nettles, both non-residents who said they live adjacent to or near the parcel, cited capacity of nearby wells and cut-through traffic on Waterville Road. Mount Airy resident Mara Shell Payne Gassaway said water reliability in the town was already a concern.

The petitioners presented supporting studies and comparisons. They cited a Patriot Park North (Fairfax County) economic-impact summary showing direct visitor spending of about $4.4 million in 2023 and $5.9 million in 2024 as an example of the regional tournament-economic model. The developers also provided water-use comparisons, saying managers of several regional multi-field parks reported peak three-month water use totals that are lower than the estimated water use for a seven-house residential subdivision on the same land; in the petitioners27 materials they concluded a sports complex could use less potable water than certain residential buildouts.

Traffic was a central concern during the commission27s discussion. Lennar Traffic Consulting presented a traffic analysis that the petitioners said used accepted Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip-generation rates. The study focused on five intersections: Waterville Road at MD-27 (Twin Arch area), Waterville at Butler, the proposed site access, Waterville at Runkles, and Waterville at West Waterville. The consultant reported the site would generate about 131 vehicle trips during the busiest weekday evening hour and about 300 trips in the peak Saturday hour (in/out combined). Consultant Nick Triban told the commission the existing roadway and the modeled volumes met county and state standards under their methodologies; under Mount Airy27s stricter level-of-service methodology the MD-27/Waterville intersection would operate at the commission27s adequacy threshold but was modeled as acceptable.

Commissioners and residents raised other topics: potential noise and light spillover, field buffering and layout (petitioners said fields would be sited toward the property interior and separated from lot lines), emergency-service impacts (petitioners provided county examples showing a low incidence rate of EMS/fire responses at comparable complexes), and open-space and park-credit questions (petitioners argued a private athletic complex does not create the same residential park demand the town27s ordinances address and said they would preserve 25 to 33 percent of the parcel as undeveloped open space). Petitioners also proposed operating rules intended to limit weekday-morning conflict with school travel (they proposed no site activity during school morning peak hours and suggested ending lights and amplified sound by 10 p.m. when fields are in use).

The planning commission did not vote on annexation. Chair and commissioners agreed to absorb the presentation and the Q&A, fold the petitioners27 responses into the commission27s annexation-criteria worksheet, and continue the matter at a future meeting. The chair said the commission may open that future session to public comment after commissioners have had time to evaluate the petitioners' materials. Town staff and the petitioners said they would remain available to answer follow-up technical questions (water, traffic and emergency-service details were the most frequently requested clarifications).

The petitioners said they would welcome town guidance on detailed site-plan matters should annexation proceed. The commission set no timetable for a recommendation; a separate statute gives the commission 120 days to recommend for council consideration but the chair said the commission may request an extension from the council if more time is needed.

No formal action on annexation was recorded at the Sept. 29 meeting.