Union Bridge seeks to shrink growth boundary as wastewater limits constrain development

Union Bridge representatives told the Carroll County Planning Commission on Feb. 5 that a proposed amendment to the town's 2008 comprehensive plan would reconfigure — effectively shrink — the municipal growth-area boundary because the town lacks wastewater treatment capacity to support the earlier, larger growth expectations. Ned Huff, representing the town, said the amendment reflects updated population and infrastructure realities and would limit the growth area until the town secures adequate treatment capacity.

The amendment, described by Huff as the town's "Fourth Amendment" to its 2008 plan, would move some lands out of the municipal growth area and reclassify a small number of parcels. Huff said the most significant change is the growth-area reconfiguration, prompted by the town's inability, at present, to expand wastewater treatment. "If you're gonna have a town that needs to get its treatment plan expanded, in today's world, you've got a world of hurt in front of you," Huff told the commission.

Huff outlined options the town is pursuing. The town has budgeted to exercise an option to purchase an R6-zoned parcel across from the town office as a potential wastewater-plant site; the comprehensive-plan land-use map would show that area as industrial, but zoning would only change if and when the option is exercised. He also said certain parcels currently shown inside the growth area will be moved outside the growth boundary, making them eligible for agricultural-preservation programs if the council and landowners choose that route.

Huff emphasized that infrastructure funding is the limiting factor. He recalled that the existing wastewater plant was built in 1962 and that past public-works projects relied heavily on federal and state assistance; he identified a $5,000,000 state capital grant secured with the delegation's support as an "initial installment" toward a replacement plant but said $5 million is far from sufficient to build a new treatment facility or cover full user costs and rate implications. "When New Windsor went through this process, the rates had to go up so high that ... the state had to come back with another grant," Huff said, describing previous cases in which supplemental grants became necessary.

Commissioners pressed for details about cooperation with neighboring towns and design approaches that would allow staged expansion. One commissioner asked whether neighboring towns could consolidate treatment to avoid duplicative small plants; Huff said shared or phased designs are possible but require careful design so the plant can be expanded as new areas (for example, Jackson Ridge) come on line. The presentation also covered local land-use fixes: moving a parcel at Green Valley Road/North Main from Conservation to General Business, small land-use changes near the town office tied to an option to purchase a future plant site, and the Bow(man) property zoning (R10), which Huff said could accommodate a large schematic plan but would require further approvals and infrastructure capacity to build out.

Huff framed the change as pragmatic realignment: "We have a much more realistic land-use plan now," he said, adding that the town still contains developable land within corporate limits but cannot permit new connections until treatment capacity is resolved. He urged the commission and county to continue coordinating on master-plan alignment and grant opportunities.

The commission did not take a formal vote on the plan amendment at the Feb. 5 meeting; Huff said the town council will hold its hearing at the end of February and may act after that hearing. The county staff did not present a formal recommendation in the public record at this meeting.