Mount Airy planning commission opposes Warfield annexation, lists conditions if council approves

The Mount Airy Planning Commission voted on Feb. 23 to oppose resolution 2025-47, the petition to annex the Warfield property for a commercial sports-complex development, and forwarded a package of conditions it wants the Town Council to consider if the council nonetheless approves an annexation agreement.

The opposition followed a months-long review and a public-comment period during which residents repeatedly raised traffic, noise, lighting, groundwater and quality-of-life concerns. "This proposed sports complex will impact us from the perspectives of our roads, our water costs, the noise levels in and around our community," Michael Rasch, a Nottingham resident, told commissioners during public comment.

Chair (speaking for the commission) framed the vote as the commission's advisory recommendation to council: the commission's motion opposed annexation resolution 2025-47 while also offering specific conditions that, the commission said, should be included in any annexation agreement the council approves. Commissioners voted on the motion by roll call; the motion passed without recorded nays.

The addendum accompanying the commission's recommendation compiled a set of policies the commission said would mitigate likely impacts if annexation occurs. The commission approved the following condition texts for consideration by the council: - Traffic mitigation at the West Wattersville Road/MD-27 intersection (screening and agreement language to address peak-event congestion). - Lighting pollution controls (measures to limit spill and skyglow toward neighboring homes). - Noise-mitigation provisions (operational restrictions and technology or barriers to reduce amplified noise). - Enhanced security and safety requirements for an event site adjacent to a major neighborhood. - Field-priority commitments for Mount Airy youth and town sports organizations (community access guarantees). - Open-space contributions to address the town's open-space deficit.

The commission recorded individual voice votes and, on multiple condition items, used a voice or roll-call method to show support; several conditions passed unanimously while one (a safety-and-security provision) recorded a single opposing vote during that item's separate tally.

Town staff said the commission's work is captured in a 70-page addendum that documents traffic analysis, environmental concerns and potential mitigation language. Town attorney Tom McCarron told the commission the process was routine for an advisory body: "It's usual and customary for planning commissions to first take a position one way or the other and then go on and make recommendations on conditions should the town council decide to approve," he said.

Commissioners and residents pushed the council to weigh the commission's findings before scheduling its public hearing. Council member Kelly, serving as the commission's liaison, praised the commission's transparency and recommended the staff's efforts to place the item on a council agenda in early March so the public can hear a formal debate.

Next steps: the commission's recommendation and the addendum will be forwarded to the Town Council, which will decide whether to hold a public hearing and whether to accept, modify or reject the commission's recommendation and proposed conditions.