Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Employment Campus topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission directs staff to draft Employment Campus zoning amendments to increase flexibility
Summary
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.
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 districtpurpose 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 Campuspurposes 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.
