[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6664166,"mediaKeyId","2383648-2850c4d74ef8164dd8e35d939bd2b59e","parentId",2383648,"title","Officials say developer will grant right‑of‑way but not fund state‑standard bypass; traffic study and FlowServe easement remain unresolved","audioSeconds",862,"startMs",3301000,"endMs",4163000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2383648-2850c4d74ef8164dd8e35d939bd2b59e&start=3301&end=4163","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2383648-2850c4d74ef8164dd8e35d939bd2b59e/thumbnail_3301000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6664166/Taneytown/Carroll-County/Maryland/Officials-say-developer-will-grant-rightofway-but-not-fund-statestandard-bypass-traffic-study-and-FlowServe-easement-remain-unresolved","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6664166-646b5787b39636922740e3dfd031c2f1/orig.mp4?Expires=1772748636&Signature=AGVr~ySp5HS8e6OwWPoDGxlNo4dH0n1h2go8tHt~Spbo2ijZu1TmCL2cxXvmFPr3KKgetNGqd5wRYx7KNH-~R3Kouv8APTYfFfEAVfeo0SCS-SYyvJHtx-mGF7N0zN2LgxDfFaNGKHDyCYYgoYZakgdD0vXaPlhJ-BmN4ryQug3HwF0WAeEbMN05J3Z9WSQLq6ZWo7pTH31C-KRtqn9NAi1G7BPfBRRU8og0KVZTwc~rT401gkyVOQkFTDnh~YJ5Xk1~LlRILIBsdiz76rORraT7-4d8OkKahGWxvx0TmaGwwYS0L3JUbWf5CnvB8lYxAUACa~jOpXSZVEsHez2wGw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Taneytown, MD","date","2025-02-25T02:37:32.383Z","article","The Planning Commission received an extended update on the Mountain Brook Farm project and a draft Developer Rights and Responsibilities Agreement (DARA). Staff and the town’s legal and planning representatives said the developer is willing to provide a right‑of‑way for the future bypass road, but expressed reluctance to pay the additional costs required to build that road to state‑highway standards. Commission members and staff emphasized that an independent traffic study and further negotiation are needed before a formal DARA can be signed.

What the commission was told: Jay (town legal) said the team has made progress but that the most significant unresolved questions are about the road: who will pay to build it, what standard it must meet, who will review it and whether it will be built in phases. “The big ones were, were quite hefty. They were the issue of the road,” he said, and summarized the developer’s position: the developer “did not mind giving the easement…However, they did have a problem building the road to state highway standards.”

Developer and city positions: According to staff, the developer indicated it will grant the right‑of‑way but that its traffic generation does not justify the higher construction standards and costs the state would require for a state road; the developer therefore expects the town or another party to pay the incremental cost if the town wants the road built to state standards. Town staff said the state has indicated it would consider accepting the completed, end‑to‑end road as a State Road only if the entire connection from FlowServe/Route 140 to the existing terminus at Antrim Boulevard and Trevanion is built to the state’s specifications and reviewed by the State Highway Administration.

Traffic study, timing and risk: Legal and planning staff described an outstanding traffic study prepared with CDM Smith; a preliminary follow‑up meeting of traffic engineers occurred but the formal report remains outstanding. Staff warned that if the traffic study does not show a need to justify a second exit—i.e., an exit at each end—the developer will argue it is not required to build both connections. Commissioners noted the public‑safety and circulation implications: one commissioner observed that 450 homes could end up served by a single exit if a second connection is not required by mitigation measures proven in the traffic analysis.

FlowServe easement and expectations: City staff reported FlowServe’s corporate counsel is reviewing a draft easement. Staff said FlowServe understands a connection across its property is expected to occur as part of Mountain Brook Farm’s second phase, but FlowServe is not seeking immediate construction of the road; the easement negotiation is ongoing.

Budgetary and implementation concerns: Staff and commissioners raised the fiscal risk the city could face if the developer phases expensive off‑site improvements into a late phase, making later phases financially infeasible for the developer. Speakers pointed to a local precedent where delayed expensive off‑site improvements contributed to project shortfalls. Commissioners emphasized the need for mayor and council budget discussions if the city is expected to subsidize any portion of road construction.

Next steps: Staff said the city will continue monthly progress meetings with CDM Smith and the developer, finalize the traffic study parameters and continue easement negotiations with FlowServe. Legal counsel said that absent clearer agreement on who pays for state‑standard improvements, a DARA is unlikely to be finalized in the near term.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Commission Meeting for the month of February 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Planning commissioners heard an update on the Mountain Brook Farm project and a Developer Rights and Responsibilities Agreement, where staff said the developer will grant right‑of‑way but is not willing to cover the extra cost to build a bypass road to state standards.","taxTitle","Taneytown, Carroll County, Maryland","taxId",71667,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6664169,"Commission reviews preliminary site plan for storage facility; asks for renderings, clarifies flood‑plain and trash handling",690,1487000,2177000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2383648-2850c4d74ef8164dd8e35d939bd2b59e&start=1487&end=2177","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2383648-2850c4d74ef8164dd8e35d939bd2b59e/thumbnail_1487000.jpg","/articles/6664169/Taneytown/Carroll-County/Maryland/Commission-reviews-preliminary-site-plan-for-storage-facility-asks-for-renderings-clarifies-floodplain-and-trash-handling","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6664169-fd9b4fc0b67c660c9306a54fb3db1946/orig.mp4?Expires=1772748636&Signature=jyuCvP19tbZLQtD~rHe5IMCTUhLKQVacllLQ-VfBYaF24~tj~MTOMZ7jQJYbMl~fRoA1cWuCdaZjq1heWGxzoAaoGAGs4FGnu8mjlaqtHO-ccLIrpDDEtm68KUEKFXm4eh7T2IzLPlxyXzJptT8KNtMuzBlsKlpnQXXISMgBsdFs-yOGbJ53nULTL19PdahzBLmB5CA2U3DoLKu2c-~HPqkgVbrXsgZCCX8jndr-Wv~4T-xxgM~~Pk1epx0pOAo8fB6md3TXExHM~Dho~rhpn6Yeny5RdBPgFS8ARPwKw0Bt-mxhDBy9~9T1xqwKO9yT7pMEeRnW8Pc7QL6~EhAIfw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Bill Brennan of B & R Design Group updated the Taneytown Planning Commission on a proposed self‑storage facility, saying the project has a concept plan approval and that a preliminary site plan has been filed with county and state agencies. The presentation was for information only; commissioners raised several technical and design questions and asked the applicant to address county comments before returning for additional review.

Brennan said the project team refiled the preliminary site plan with county and state agencies and that the state has not returned comments since it previously approved the entrance; the project is awaiting county planning and DPW comments and must manage an MDE wetlands permit that the team needs to modify before an upcoming permit expiration. “We refiled a preliminary site plan with the county and the state,” Brennan said. He added that the MDE permit will need to be modified and that the existing permit is due to expire in May.

Commission questions and staff direction: Commissioners asked the applicant to correct references on the landscape plan that currently list Frederick County requirements rather than Carroll County; Brennan said he would revise that. On parking, staff pointed out the plan shows an ADA space; Brennan said operations will not rely on on‑site parking and that customers are expected to park at their units, but he acknowledged the ADA space is required by code for a commercial site and will remain. Commissioners asked where trash would be handled; Brennan said the owner anticipates customers hauling waste away and that the operator prefers not to provide a dumpster, citing past problems with illegal furniture and debris at other sites; the commission asked the applicant to provide a clear trash plan for the file.

Design and safety items: Commissioners asked to see color renderings of building elevations and illustration of the sign the applicant will seek under a separate sign permit; Brennan agreed to provide graphics. The applicant agreed to remove barbed wire from the top of the proposed perimeter fence after a commissioner objected to that detail. On floodplain requirements, Brennan said the county letter requests a floodplain study because the site is within 10 vertical feet of the floodplain elevation, but he said MDE and the town engineer have indicated the state permit and their review do not require an additional floodplain study; the commission asked staff to clarify that point with the county and record the determination.

Next steps: Brennan said the team will address landscape, grading and other county comments and return to the commission. The item was informational only; commissioners did not take a vote on site approval at this meeting.","Bill Brennan of B & R Design presented a preliminary site plan for a self‑storage facility on behalf of owner/contract purchaser Eric Kinerman; the Planning Commission treated the item as a presentation and raised questions about landscaping references, an ADA space, trash handling, signage, barbed wire fencing and floodplain study requirements.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6664174,"Planning commission declines to recommend on proposed in‑home daycare; forwards concerns to Board of Zoning Appeals",996,472000,1468000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2383648-2850c4d74ef8164dd8e35d939bd2b59e&start=472&end=1468","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2383648-2850c4d74ef8164dd8e35d939bd2b59e/thumbnail_472000.jpg","/articles/6664174/Taneytown/Carroll-County/Maryland/Planning-commission-declines-to-recommend-on-proposed-inhome-daycare-forwards-concerns-to-Board-of-Zoning-Appeals","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6664174-37a0b860159b37e893f7b32a729a43d0/orig.mp4?Expires=1772748636&Signature=B1FzqRZIvqw3LVDDXJ9ZT4b35WPMIUrstp3eV-L9veWqHOwh4PrYhMtK9YL5WylhFEb2tySq90ibLH5l6-3FlxfEUFse7PIzBs5jhUFYeTXYSq2P9IH4r-BXipTE1SVCX7nnR3frdVYrZ9~6lUGwWKheaBV~OxBEekhgWvE3q1AgebAfSk-3sIUl-oXMxocztU9y1GlmUnssvOlGzMdGeew2WduCZA~lg4YKHb8YMRJTkHdbXJOuX2KFDPJLJuTqhKK8e0sOiYdfHaGmr1eTww~yjYelxcgln5uJ-Z78grzUfjQLhgWZAQo3AyLhkV0ZN2jdV4A64UcarswzGjtnFw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Kelly Hess, who lives at 27 Fairview Avenue in Taneytown, asked the Planning Commission for a favorable recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals to operate an in‑home daycare from the 27 side of a duplex. Commissioners voted to withhold a recommendation and let the Board of Zoning Appeals decide after receiving additional documentation and public notice.

The issue: Hess told the commission she wants to open an in‑home daycare to provide lower‑cost infant and toddler care. “My passion is children. I love children,” she said, and described the unit she proposes to use, saying the daycare would operate only on the 27 side of the duplex, with a porch in front and a backyard that has a swing set but no pool. She said she rents the property: “I don’t. My dad does. We rent from my dad.”

Why it matters: Commissioners identified several zoning and safety questions they want addressed before recommending approval to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Those included how many children the state will license at the site, how the town zoning code’s floor‑area occupancy rule applies, restroom access, supervision when children use an upstairs bathroom, and parking and drop‑off logistics.

What the commission heard and flagged: Daryl, a planning staff member, advised that state licensing can set the number of children and told the commission the state “has allowed to have up to, if that's what your coordinator agrees with, up to 8 children.” Commissioners noted an earlier inspection by the fire marshal had referenced six children. The commission also cited a town zoning provision (cited at the hearing as “20‑205‑708”) that they said limits home‑occupancy uses to no more than 25% of the first‑floor gross floor area; commissioners observed that the applicant’s first‑floor area was recorded at 544 square feet, and that 25% of that area would constrain usable program space.

Hess said she has one restroom located upstairs and plans to accompany children who need assistance to the toilet; she also said she will install a gate and use cameras to monitor children when she escorts one child upstairs. She told the panel she has permission from the property owner to operate the daycare and indicated she had not yet finalized licensing with the state or the fire marshal.

Commission action and next steps: After discussion the commission voted to take no formal position and to let the Board of Zoning Appeals make the decision. Commissioners asked staff to record the commission’s comments for the Board of Zoning Appeals file, and staff said the BZA hearing will be posted, property owners will receive mailed notices and the hearing will be advertised in the paper once the packet is complete.

Commissioners asked staff to relay specific comments including concerns about: the small first‑floor area relative to the cited 25% limit; the single restroom location; how diapering and food preparation would be separated; supervision protocols for children going upstairs; and whether additional written consent from adjacent residents would be available. The commission did not record a roll‑call vote for its motion; the outcome was recorded on voice vote as in favor of leaving the matter to the Board of Zoning Appeals.

What the applicant must provide: Staff and commissioners requested that Hess obtain any written guidance or approvals from the state licensing specialist and the fire marshal addressing the number of children and the site’s safety, and that she collect any written comments from neighbors if available, to be included in the BZA packet. The commission also noted the town code citation so the BZA can consider the 25% floor‑area occupancy provision when it rules.

Looking ahead: The BZA hearing will be scheduled after staff receives the outstanding materials and completes the required public notices.","An applicant seeking to operate an in‑home daycare at 27 Fairview Avenue presented to the Taneytown Planning Commission; commissioners voted to leave the decision to the Board of Zoning Appeals and asked staff to forward concerns about usable floor area, the town occupancy rule, restroom access and supervision.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Officials say developer will grant right‑of‑way but not fund state‑standard bypass; traffic study and FlowServe easement remain unresolved

Commission reviews preliminary site plan for storage facility; asks for renderings, clarifies flood‑plain and trash handling

Planning commission declines to recommend on proposed in‑home daycare; forwards concerns to Board of Zoning Appeals