City and county officials debate revisions to two-mile zoning agreement after county petition

At a Carroll City Council meeting on Sept. 30, Carroll County Chair Stephanie Housman and District 2 Supervisor Mike Anderson presented two options for revising the city'county 208 (two-mile) zoning agreement after county residents delivered a petition asking for change.

Housman said the memo her office circulated offered two non-ranked options and urged cooperation: "I'm hoping this presents an opportunity where we can bridge that gap and we can work together ... and do what's best for the citizens." County staff said the petition contained more than 120 signatures and that many signers described concerns they characterized as "government overreach."

City council members pressed supervisors and county staff for specifics. Council member Carolyn asked "what specific problems have Carroll County citizens endured within the two-mile radius?" and requested a copy of the petition and more detail on which signers live inside the two-mile area. County staff said they would provide the petition for review.

The discussion focused on the difference between zoning and building-permit authority. County zoning administrator Sarah Hell clarified that the flow chart presented was for zoning requests and rezonings, not for building permits, and said building permits and inspections in much of Carroll County are handled differently than in the city. Council members noted the city administers a municipal building-code process within its limits; county staff said the county had not adopted the same building-code ordinance and therefore lacks the same inspection program.

Council members and supervisors also debated how large the two-mile footprint should be. Officials used competing figures in the discussion: council staff said the city currently covers about 6.5 square miles, that the two-mile addition would add roughly 28.5 square miles (bringing the total area under the joint arrangement to about 35 square miles), and that the larger area would represent about 6% of the county's total land area. Several council members said cutting the agreement back to one mile or a quarter mile had been proposed by residents; one council member warned that a quarter-mile buffer could affect many adjacent property owners and should be surveyed.

County Attorney John Wen pushed back on one recurring concern—that livestock operations would suddenly be sited next to city neighborhoods—and said DNR permitting would remain a separate limit: "Nobody's going to put hogs and cattle next to the city of Carroll; you have to pass the Department of Natural Resources matrix." Wen also told the council that portions of the existing 208 agreement appeared to have problematic language (rounding of mileage) and that the supervisors were aware the document likely needs to be updated or clarified.

There was no council vote on the substance of the 208 agreement at the meeting. Council and county officials agreed to exchange documents (including the petition) and to hold further discussions. The council asked staff to place a dedicated work session on the calendar promptly so council members could review the petition, compare relevant zoning-code sections (setbacks, allowable building sizes and employee limits were mentioned), and prepare options for a formal decision.

Next steps: county staff will provide the petition and additional documentation; the City Council will hold a work session to review the options and determine whether to propose amendments to the two-mile agreement or to pursue other remedies.