Neighbors press Carroll County planners over ‘Sanctuary’ subdivision, citing well and traffic worries

The Carroll County Planning and Zoning Commission heard a packed public comment period Jan. 21 over a concept subdivision called The Sanctuary, a two‑parcel plan southeast of Westminster that would create 10 lots and extend Maple Crest Drive to a new cul‑de‑sac called Sanctuary Court.

Kirsten DeMarple of the county’s Bureau of Development Review described the project as a concept plan on about 73.59 acres proposing lots ranging from about 1.3 acres to 6.4 acres with private wells and septic. She told the commission, “This is the Sanctuary Subdivision,” and emphasized that the project is in a private water and sewer area and will be reviewed by the health department for well and septic requirements.

Dozens of nearby residents who signed up to speak urged the commission to slow the process and investigate water impacts before approving any records or permits. Richard West, a Hook Road resident of 24 years, questioned recent perk‑test results and said, “I am worried to death about my water, and I’m not gonna let this happen.” Multiple other residents said neighbors have previously had to replace wells and asked who would pay if new development caused existing wells to fail.

Applicant representatives and county staff responded that larger lots and current testing methods can make private wells feasible and that the health department will not issue building permits if site tests show inadequate water. John Limmerman, the applicant’s planner, said the lots under review “are between 1.3 acres and 3 plus acres,” and described two years of perk testing and grading permits already issued for an access drive. Staff added that the health department attended the technical review committee meeting and is aware of concerns.

Residents also raised safety and traffic worries on Hook Road (Route 97), citing speeding and a recent fatal crash. Ann Edwards, who lives across from the proposed entrance, said traffic and safety make the proposal “a real problem” for families. Neighbors asked whether the large roadside For‑Sale signage was allowed; staff and the applicant said the sign is in the state right‑of‑way, appears to meet real‑estate advertising rules, and is separate from the 10‑lot concept.

Staff repeatedly noted the distinction between the 10‑lot subdivision now under review and other parcels the owner owns to the south that are listed for sale; the county termed those lots of record eligible for separate approvals, but said those sales would be subject to existing code and health‑department checks. DeMarple said the county’s review continues and that the concept plan must later satisfy preliminary and final plan criteria, including concurrency and engineering checks.

The commission did not vote on the Sanctuary concept at the Jan. 21 meeting; staff indicated they expect to see the plan return in revised form. The county encouraged residents to provide written comments and reminded the public that future hearings and technical reviews will allow additional input.