County attorney outlines legal steps for proposed closure of portion of Gooden Road; commissioners raise utility, maintenance concerns

County Attorney Stuart Barrow briefed the Caroline County Commissioners on May 12 about a request from landowners (the Mandiz family) to close a portion of Gooden Road near Henderson Road.

Barrow explained the process: under the county code and the Local Government Article of the Maryland statutes, an application to abandon or close a public way requires detailed documentation (his draft package runs in the dozens of pages), public notice in the Star Democrat for at least three consecutive weeks prior to filing, written notice to potential utility holders, and an opportunity for counter‑petitions and a public hearing before the commissioners decide.

"A public way cannot be closed without prior notice to the public and also a public hearing," Barrow told the board and said the forms and notices he has drafted would be sent to the applicant and affected parties. He noted the ordinance requires applicants to identify parcels and owners so those people receive direct notice and have the opportunity to respond.

Commissioners questioned whether utility poles, Verizon pedestals and electric lines run the length of the proposed closure and whether keeping utilities in place would require a condition of any approval. The board also pressed for clarity about the two houses that front Gooden Road and whether they would retain access and where cul‑de‑sac construction would be sited. The road length was discussed (commissioners estimated about 0.6 miles).

Several commissioners expressed that the county should not bear unexpected costs. One commissioner said he would not support closing the road if it imposed maintenance or construction costs on the county, and suggested the applicant should provide the necessary rights or fund cul‑de‑sac construction or hard‑surfacing for any retained segment.

Barrow recommended that the applicant or surveyor include a plat that shows land to be granted to the county to accommodate a cul‑de‑sac and suggested possible ordinance amendments to make the applicant responsible for public‑notice tasks and to establish a filing fee to cover staff review time.

No vote or final direction to join a joint application was taken. Barrow will provide a draft application template for the applicant and recommended the surveyor reach out to public‑works staff to resolve route and drainage issues before a formal filing.

What’s next: applicant and surveyor to supply parcel ownership details, utility notifications and proposed cul‑de‑sac design; county attorney suggested ordinance clarifications and a possible filing fee to recoup staff review time.