Residents press council to reject annexation for proposed Elite Baseball complex

Mount Airy residents filled the council chamber and delivered repeated public comments opposing the proposed annexation of the Warfield property to allow a large Elite Baseball complex.

An Elite Baseball representative told the council the company would build two natural-grass fields for the local Maya organization and up to six artificial-turf tournament fields, maintain the fields at its expense and prioritize town scheduling at no cost. The presenter said PFAS-free turf is widely available and the company would work with state, county and town agencies to satisfy traffic and site-plan requirements, adding: "Judge this project on facts, engineering, and the standards established by the state, the county, and the town of Mount Airy, not on assumptions or speculation." (Presenter)

Speakers living near the proposed site said the project would harm their quality of life. Amy Gray, a resident and transportation professional, said the applicant's traffic estimates downplay real-world effects and warned that Wattersville Road could be overwhelmed: "Wattersville can simply not hold all of that traffic of the cars trying to enter and exit the ballpark and at the same time allow for emergency services to get through." (Amy Gray)

Troy Shekels, who lives directly adjacent to the site, raised water-supply concerns, estimating weekly irrigation needs could range from tens of thousands to more than 200,000 gallons in hot periods and noted the property's wells previously limited house building. Ralph Gannon cited the Maryland five-year rule for annexations, arguing that if the proposed use is ‘‘substantially different'' from county zoning the annexation could bar development of the property for five years.

Multiple speakers pointed to recent county action: Michael Rasch and others noted that at least some Carroll County planning and zoning officials opposed the proposed sports use at their June review. Linda Polzin, who lives adjacent to the site but outside town limits, read a letter stating she found more local opposition than support at prior hearings and praised the planning commission's unanimous recommendation against the project.

Council members and the town attorney discussed procedural next steps and a discrepancy in the acreage reported to state and county reviewers (59.98 vs. 50.98 acres). Staff said revised plats and letters had been submitted and that corrected documents would be posted for public review before the council takes any formal annexation vote in August.

The council did not vote on annexation at the July meeting; members said they had received county and state review letters only shortly before the meeting and would continue deliberations in August after staff posts required corrections and additional documentation.