Fate of houses rests on planners

Thursday, Nov. 17, 2005

Click here to enlarge this photo

The most recent proposal for development of the land along Md. Route 26, which backs to Kali Drive, by Security Development Corporation calls for construction of 254 back-to-back rental townhouses.

Residents and the county have opposed the project, citing limited water, overcrowded schools and congested roads. The planning commission was forced to approve the project or be held in contempt of court and face jail time by order of Carroll County Circuit Court Judge Michael Galloway, whose ruling was in accordance with a 1999 Carroll County Circuit Court ruling.

‘‘We as the Board of Commissioners are not in charge,” Commission President Julia Gouge (R) said at a forum hosted by Carrolltowne United on Nov. 9. ‘‘The planning commission has to be independent in [its] decision.” She added the system keeps the decision bipartisan.

Commissioner Dean Minnich (R) said the community needs to understand the process to make headway on the issue. ‘‘The process is set up to ensure the integrity [of the planning commission] and keep politics out as much as we can.”

A group of residents who live near the proposed development formed Carrolltowne United in July, and has been working with the county and developer to come up with a solution.

‘‘We want to work with the developer to come up with a win-win solution for everyone,” said Michele Carroll, president of the group. ‘‘We don’t want to use the word ‘compromise’ anymore, because it sounds like each side has to give something up.”

Carroll and Carrolltowne United spokesman Dave Sherwood led the Nov. 9 question-and-answer session with the commissioners. Many of the residents who attended the meeting were surprised to find that the commissioners’ hands are tied as the county waits to hear from the Maryland Court of Special Appeals. The county is appealing the decision to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, and is waiting for the trial to be scheduled.

In the meantime, Gouge said the developer does not seem to want to ‘‘play by the rules.” Gouge said members of Security Development sent a letter to the commissioners asking for a private meeting.

‘‘The advice that was given to us [by legal counsel] is to have any type of meeting in public,” Gouge said. ‘‘This has been a public issue for 10 years, and to meet in closed session — it does not feel like the right thing to do. We would have no way to let the public know what was going on.”

Gouge said the discussions that occur in a closed meeting could not leave the room. She said that talks could be misconstrued, and there would be no way to back them up.

Minnich agreed. ‘‘We are not going to do a special deal or have a special meeting with them. We want to open the process up and draw a bigger circle so that this is done with integrity.”

The commissioners said that they hope to have a public meeting with the developer.

‘‘Our invitation is still open for a public meeting,” Gouge said, adding that a letter is being sent to the developer denying their request. ‘‘We want the opportunity for the press and people to be there.”

In a phone interview Wednesday, Rob Moxley, a principal with Security Development, said that he and his staff were hoping for a private meeting with the commissioners because they feel it is the best way to reach a compromise.

‘‘A private meeting is our best hope of having a candid discussion in a private setting,” Moxley said, adding that Maryland law allows parties involved in a lawsuit to meet in private. In ‘‘a private meeting ... no one has to worry about posturing. It’s a much more viable forum, which might lead to a compromise.”

Commissioner Perry Jones (R) said commissioners do not have a say in what the land is used for. ‘‘The county cannot pick and choose the type of development. The type of development does not have to meet the approval of the commissioners.”

County staff are also hopeful the developer will agree to an open discussion. ‘‘We can only reach a win-win if there is cooperation,” said Steven Horn, the county’s director of planning.

Horn said the planning department could set aside the proposed plan to take a look at a new plan without making the developer go back to the drawing board.

‘‘These are not just willy-nilly rules and regulations,” Horn said. ‘‘We are going to work with them by doing a quality project for the community. We can’t allow them to proceed and ignore local law.”

Moxley said his staff is not working on a separate plan. ‘‘There is only one plan, and that is the one that has been subject of the lawsuit,” he said.

Commissioners and planning staff are hopeful that a compromise can be reached. Minnich said that in order for everything to work out, the county’s process must be followed.

‘‘I believe that the processes that are in place will work,” Minnich said. ‘‘We have to pursue the process.”