Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan Eotc Bachmanvalley topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission pauses Bachman Valley church site plan, orders traffic study and fire/EMS review
Summary
After hours of public testimony describing traffic, water and public-safety concerns, the Carroll County Planning & Zoning Commission voted to withhold final approval of the EOTC Bachman Valley site plan and require a developer-funded traffic impact study and review by county fire/EMS before returning for action.
The Carroll County Planning and Zoning Commission on June 16 deferred final action on a controversial final site plan for the EOTC Bachman Valley property and asked county staff to require a developer-funded traffic impact study and a fire and emergency medical-services review before the plan can proceed.
David Beecraft, a county development reviewer, told the commission the proposal sought final approval for expansions to an existing religious facility served by private wells and septic and accessed from Maryland State Route 496. Beecraft said county reviewers had approved stormwater and septic plans but that the site required improvements to its entrance apron and other measures to provide adequate sight distance and emergency access.
Neighbors and public officials urged caution. "I’m here to oppose it, and also to oppose the proposed use in terms of the sports complex" — Michael Rasch was speaking to an earlier annexation item, but similar concerns were repeated during the Bachman Valley discussion — and sheriff Jim DeWeese told the board his office had responded dozens of times to the property in recent years, citing traffic complaints, noise and safety incidents. "We have been to this location since 2019 — 57 times," DeWeese said, detailing prior responses and urging the commission to require stronger traffic controls.
Attorney Alex Fotop told the commission the board does have legal authority under county code to require a developer-conducted traffic study and to deny applications that fail to demonstrate compliance with local and state requirements. Several residents and technical witnesses raised questions about fire sprinkler capacity, access for large water tanks and the adequacy of on-site septic and stormwater systems.
Commissioners debated whether the issues were within county authority (access to the road is on a state highway) but said the county could require studies and conditions. A motion to require a traffic impact study and to request an EMS/fire assessment passed on a roll call vote; the commission recorded four yeas and one abstention. The motion postponed final approval until those analyses are completed and reviewed by county staff and emergency services.
What happens next: The commission’s action does not grant or deny the plan; it conditions further processing on the traffic and fire/EMS reviews. Staff said these analyses will be coordinated with State Highway Administration materials where appropriate and that the county would not issue a certificate of occupancy until required emergency-access and safety conditions are met.
