Mount Airy planners refine annexation addendum for proposed sports complex, press petitioners on traffic, lighting and open‑space conditions

The Mount Airy Planning Commission spent its Nov. 24 meeting refining a 60‑plus page addendum to guide the town council’s decision on Annexation Resolution 2025‑47, a petition to annex land for a privately owned multi‑sport complex. Commissioners and staff concentrated on transportation impacts, lighting and open‑space requirements and drafted conditions the council can accept, modify or reject.

The addendum will be delivered to the council and the public before the commission’s next meeting on Jan. 26, when commissioners hope to vote on a formal recommendation. The commission stressed it is advisory; final certifications for traffic, water, sewer and other public facilities will occur at the APFO (Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance) and site‑plan stages and require MDOT/State Highway Administration and town staff review.

Commissioners pressed the petitioner’s traffic consultant, John Nick of Linhardt Traffic Consulting, for detail about peak‑hour impacts. Nick directed the commission to Exhibit 5 of the submitted traffic memorandum, which projects the Saturday midday peak hour at roughly 300 peak‑hour trips (144 inbound, 156 outbound) and a weekday PM peak hour of about 131 total trips (86 in/45 out). He said typical weekday AM and PM peaks were counted using the county’s definitions (AM 7–9 a.m.; PM highest hour within a 4–7 p.m. window) and that Saturday midday volumes are typically measured between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. Nick cautioned the study’s initial scope may not have fully captured school dismissal times and recommended expanding analysis (for example to 2–7 p.m.) where dismissal overlaps are a concern.

Chair Ralph Gantt emphasized the traffic memo before the commission is preliminary and that an MDOT/SHA‑approved traffic impact study will be required at the APFO/site‑plan stage. He also noted the town engineer will review any formal study. Commissioners asked for clarifications that were added to the addendum: labeling which trip counts refer to Saturday peaks versus weekday peaks and explicitly describing that total intersection figures (existing volumes + background growth + site trips) are presented in exhibit tables.

Lighting and noise were other focal points. The petitioner presented Musco lighting technology and the commission agreed to require photometric plans for both field and parking‑lot lighting that comply with the town code and dark‑sky principles; commissioners accepted a requirement that photometrics show minimal spill beyond the property line. The commission and petitioner also negotiated operational language: rather than an absolute curfew, the addendum adopts a compromise—"make every effort to schedule events so that lights are extinguished by 10 p.m."—with flexibility for legitimate tournament or weather/emergency needs.

Security and neighborhood protection provisions were also drafted. Commissioners agreed in principle on a landscaped earthen berm and plantings to mitigate sound and light, and discussed a minimum 10‑foot perimeter fence around fields to reduce trespass and late‑night activity. After discussing safety tradeoffs, they removed a proposed requirement for a parking‑lot gate (concerns it could create queueing on Wattersville Road).

Open‑space obligations were clarified with the town attorney: because the parcel would be annexed into the town’s R‑1 residential zone, code §98‑23(b) requires provision of open space. Commissioners removed a fixed (10‑acre) minimum from the addendum and instead will require deeded open space consistent with town code, with the location and uses (trail, playground, etc.) to be defined during subsequent site‑plan review.

The commission also removed several items that would be decided later or considered town‑wide policy issues: references to fines for exceeding Maryland Department of the Environment water allocations and PFAS‑specific requirements were struck as either premature or more appropriate for broader council action. On PFAS, the petitioner said manufacturers and some independent labs offer PFAS‑free turf testing; commissioners noted regulatory gaps and agreed materials will be reviewed during site plan.

Next steps: the commission will finish edits to the addendum and produce a final compilation for public review. If four commissioners can attend Carroll County’s WRE hearing on Feb. 4, the town may participate there; otherwise the commission will hold the required WRE public hearing locally in January. The commission plans to deliver the addendum to Town Council and the petitioners for the council’s consideration, with the commission’s goal to finalize its recommendation on Jan. 26.

Actions recorded during the meeting included approval of the Oct. 27 minutes and internal procedural votes to edit language in the addendum. The commission elected its 2026 chair and vice chair by voice vote before adjourning.

Commissioners and staff emphasized that the addendum reflects preliminary judgments and that any final determinations on traffic, water/sewer capacity and public‑facility adequacy depend on future MDOT/SHA approvals, town‑engineer review and the APFO/site‑plan process.