The Mount Airy Area Planning Commission spent most of its Oct. 27 meeting on a petition to annex 50.98 acres on West Wattersville Road for a privately operated sports complex proposed by Elite Baseball LLC, hearing roughly a dozen residents and stakeholders in a public‑comment period that produced sharply divided views.

Chair Ralph Kent opened the discussion by reviewing process and deadlines, telling the public the commission received the petition in late July and must issue a recommendation within 120 days (the current deadline is Nov. 24) unless the commission asks the town council for an extension. Kent said the council — not the planning commission — will make any final annexation decision and will hold a separate public hearing if the commission forwards a recommendation.

Why it matters: the proposal would change the land from county agricultural zoning into the town and authorize a mix of recreation uses that petitioners say will host tournaments and local programming. Neighbors and town residents raised traffic, lighting, noise and water concerns; petitioners and local coaches said the region needs additional quality fields and that the complex would bring recreation opportunities and business to town.

Supporters and coaches described the complex as a regionally competitive facility with ancillary amenities. “More fields is better for the kids,” Mount Airy resident Alvin Zumbrunn told the commission. Jason Gasway, a high‑school coach and travel‑baseball organizer, said quality fields reduce rainouts and let coaches focus on skill development. Brian Compton, who identified himself as president of a local youth sports organization, asked whether his group could receive priority scheduling and said extra fields would let teams have additional practice time rather than crowding existing town fields.

Neighbors and others opposed or skeptical about the plan. Several speakers who said they live adjacent to the parcel described long waits on Wattersville Road and the MD‑27 intersection and questioned whether local roads and intersections can handle tournament traffic. “This isn’t the facility where the neighborhood kids are going to come after school…These are going to be rental fields,” said Steve Lickman, who said he lives next door. Multiple residents described weekday and weekend congestion already experienced at Twin Arch Road and Wattersville Road, and worries that peak tournament traffic could overwhelm local streets and spill onto narrow back roads.

Petitioners and their consultants addressed key technical issues but stressed that many details would be decided at later site‑plan stages. They said an illustrative parking sketch in an early handout was not a final design and that engineering assumptions anticipate roughly 60–62.5 parking spaces per field (which the petitioner said would produce on the order of 500–600 spaces, not the 1,135 shown on the early sketch). Petitioners’ traffic analysis (their consultant’s work) cited a weekday/after‑school peak case with roughly 86 vehicles entering and 45 leaving in one peak hour; public commenters said weekend tournament volumes could be much higher and described observed congestion in town during other large events.

Utilities and environmental concerns were a second major theme. Petitioners said the parcel needs town sewer because the ground does not percolate adequately for septic systems; town staff and engineers confirmed sewer and any water connections would be evaluated in the later concept‑plan and APFO (adequate public facilities) review. Residents raised questions about turf infill and PFAS; petitioners replied that newer infill options (cork and other non‑rubber systems) and mitigation measures are available and would be considered in design.

Lighting and noise mitigation drew technical comment from a lighting firm retained by the petitioner. John Windsor of Musco Lighting described photometric design, International Dark‑Sky best practices and approaches that limit spill light at property lines. Petitioners and staff discussed perimeter screening, buffer plantings, fence placement and restricted hours as potential conditions and said a photometric plan and noise/screening details would be required at the site‑plan stage.

Next steps: the commission did not vote on annexation. Chair Kent said staff will compile tonight’s public comments, written submissions and commissioner input into a draft recommendation for discussion at the commission’s Nov. 24 meeting; if the commission cannot finish that recommendation it may formally request a 120‑day extension so the petition will not default. Kent also reminded the public that the town council will schedule its own public hearing if the commission forwards a recommendation.

What the record shows: the commission asked many technical questions but repeatedly noted that land‑use specifics (final field layout, parking configuration, photometrics, buffering and off‑site traffic mitigation) will be resolved at the concept‑plan / site‑plan stage if annexation is approved.

No formal action on annexation was taken by the planning commission on Oct. 27.