[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-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],{"_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",6656988,"mediaKeyId","5107724-0f1af0819fa8fbffff8f33109e77a24c","parentId",5107724,"title","Planning staff outlines county water resources element; commission debates growth, density and infrastructure trade-offs","audioSeconds",1807,"startMs",2290380,"endMs",4097700,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5107724-0f1af0819fa8fbffff8f33109e77a24c&start=2290&end=4097","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5107724-0f1af0819fa8fbffff8f33109e77a24c/thumbnail_2290380.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6656988/Taneytown/Carroll-County/Maryland/Planning-staff-outlines-county-water-resources-element-commission-debates-growth-density-and-infrastructure-trade-offs","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6656988-ff1fc3738daa1236a8e7f83f4e485e97/orig.mp4?Expires=1771198992&Signature=mLgtH~dXwUQFL3CRcJ9q1xDqKY4TBx440ilTiDB6Jbg0YY~XHzqqBiMdZJLr5FvydPLYpAEXFbSJG8~wqtp5xrE7D6beT9e0DjpYTNM69HAFxothb8ysVrIKKj~Cqs~hRIuyIV5i3PGZmQlrx9gufIV9xRobpumi8I8tH~Ee1KlJEdd~SsGYz0C2mtD6N2jM349hTcCoZJS3edyj3MQkEE~71m2~AZHbssFOhviY1FU~uP8QQEeKIWBMgUIGkzCXDYItffukKf71girVKR4gczlo1WrzsTafxhvfkDYSOm6AQAIAo8FsKAdHngx6DVHUA0JB5yy~Yvo-ioFG1c5Xhg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Taneytown, MD","date","2025-06-27T17:26:42Z","article","Planning staff presented an overview of the county’s Water Resources Element and discussed implications for Taneytown’s comprehensive plan, focusing on potable water supply, wastewater capacity, inflow-and-infiltration (I&I) reduction and regional reuse alternatives.

The staff presentation explained that the county planning department’s analysis concluded there is enough water in Carroll County, in theory, to support the planned growth reflected in municipal comprehensive plans. “After all the number crunching, the county planning department has determined that, you know, there is there is adequate water within Carroll County to support the planned growth,” planning staff said. The presentation cautioned that developing new sources — reservoirs or additional wells — and permitting remain practical challenges.

Staff summarized short- and long-term strategies: protecting existing drinking water and wellhead areas; identifying new supplies for planned growth without overallocating; pursuing I&I reductions in sewer collection to free capacity; and monitoring emerging wastewater reuse technology illustrated by Westminster’s indirect potable reuse pilot. The presentation noted that Westminster’s pilot used membrane technology and would return treated water to the Cranberry Reservoir because state rules currently disallow direct potable reuse. Planning staff said that while technology exists, higher treatment costs and nutrient-permitting limits will shape future municipal choices.

For Taneytown specifically, staff described that buildout calculations draw on a buildable land inventory and zoning assumptions; the county slide deck showed the additional wastewater capacity that would be needed to support ultimate buildout for the collectively mapped sewer service area (an additional 121,832 gallons per day was cited on one slide). Staff also reported ongoing sewer system work to address inflow and infiltration and said a manhole rehabilitation project for the main interceptor has been signed off for design to reduce stormwater inflow.

Commissioners debated growth-area designation, density and the community’s survey results. Several commissioners said they perceived a mismatch between public survey responses favoring lower-density, single-family development and draft plan text that they felt emphasized higher-density or townhouse-style options. Commission members asked staff to ensure property owners in identified growth areas have an opportunity to comment — including owners who may wish to pursue agricultural preservation rather than development — before the commission finalizes plan recommendations.

A resident, Chris Tillman, addressed the commission to clarify how density rules would affect unit counts under a community-village overlay. “When you talk about density… in terms of number of units, that doesn't change,” Tillman said, explaining that many design options concentrate units on part of a parcel but do not necessarily increase the total number of dwellings that a site’s zoning allows.

Staff said the Water Resources Element is lengthy and that they would provide the full document to commission members to review over subsequent meetings. They also noted that some county numbers predate recent local projects and that more recent figures have been supplied to Arrow (the county consultant) after the element’s data cutoff; the commission was urged to consider both the county element and town-specific clarifications when drafting Taneytown’s final plan.

No formal commission votes were taken on the element or on comprehensive plan modifications at this meeting. Staff and commissioners agreed to continue the comprehensive plan discussion in future meetings and to solicit property owner input where appropriate.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Commission Meeting for the month of June 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Planning staff presented an overview of Carroll County’s Water Resources Element and discussed implications for Taneytown’s comprehensive plan, highlighting water supply adequacy in theory, wastewater capacity needs and the role of reuse and I&I reduction.","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},6656993,"Taneytown reviews concept plan for consolidated Public Works complex",1967,63049,2030759,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5107724-0f1af0819fa8fbffff8f33109e77a24c&start=63&end=2030","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5107724-0f1af0819fa8fbffff8f33109e77a24c/thumbnail_63049.jpg","/articles/6656993/Taneytown/Carroll-County/Maryland/Taneytown-reviews-concept-plan-for-consolidated-Public-Works-complex","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6656993-721d0cb01b330ef325b0b57c6e8fec91/orig.mp4?Expires=1771198992&Signature=j0u8Dqd6jxFP87gGsA~LXyNihlnszJLCYCHEoMjHtYX~zjI~LqoXvBO0qYjJ8~cVhpmMqjOfXxoum4ue4vEjrwyULdX8X8YP6ALuSAtssdojf2EdLUqGcsBhPg3h6yXIN3xWUaDkb5DIjLr1n0cUmjTwd63Tpx62rTLnqAj4JAenZ4lQ92pgEtKRSxDeivvQi3kKHzG~H5GKBTVYM2HY9iZBVFaXXslnD5FUcSDAbeQJgfLiJpFeM3KW7LEojGAOl6-MMSzv0moXRJThWTxHMIa1ZA-U5a8Ko5WZ367WjYP8sIk0XcVuuTCcSVdp0DtNjioAC9BwwL7uI7RiP9-u5w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Taneytown Planning Commission members heard a presentation on a concept plan for a consolidated Taneytown Public Works facility that would replace seven aging buildings with one primary service building and a separate salt barn.

The concept, presented by Morton Buildings representatives and introduced by Randy Myers, assistant director of public works, would house vehicles, a welding station and classroom space and include a state-rated chlorine storage room. “I'm Randy Myers, assistant director of public works. Just so everyone's aware, we're taking 7 buildings and putting in this 1 building and getting rid of some buildings that nothing fits anymore,” Myers said.

The presentation said the primary building is designed to accommodate current and larger future vehicles and equipment, with a separate salt barn to be used only for salt storage. Morton Buildings representatives described a 40-seat training room intended for multi-department classes and cited a separate, code-rated chlorine cylinder storage room. “The goal was to be able to house everything in in 1 building,” a Morton representative said during the presentation.

Design details shown included conceptual elevations, staging for plows and hoppers, a welding station, a backup IT room for the city and consolidated records storage. Presenters said parking was sized to support a 40-person class (they cited 48 spaces, with some uncertainty about whether that count includes required handicap stalls) and that the site plan drawings are in advanced concept stage with civil engineering, stormwater and permitting discussions already under way.

Commissioners asked for additional callouts on building dimensions and peak height, clarification on parking counts and confirmation that the civil plans will show the sidewalk and required accessible stalls. Commissioners also asked why spare chlorine cylinders would be stored at the Public Works site rather than at water treatment locations; Myers said the city keeps spare cylinders at wells and treatment sites and maintains a stock on hand. A presenter explained the city keeps spare cylinders at multiple locations “so we we keep 10 on hand at all times.”

Financing and timing were raised repeatedly. Presenters said the project had been modeled using the Maryland local government infrastructure financing program — a low-interest loan option administered through the Maryland Department of the Environment — and that the city could have accommodated debt service without a tax increase, but that the mayor directed a change in how available funds and debt positions were being used; that directive has left the project “on hold for the time being,” presenters said. No construction start date was set and the commission was told the schedule is open-ended while permitting, budget and council direction are resolved.

The commission did not vote on the concept plan at the meeting. Staff said county agencies are already reviewing the submission and that the plan would return to the commission for possible concept approval at the earliest next-month meeting; if comments substantially change the plan, revised sheets will be distributed.

Less technical items discussed included signage (presenters said a monument or building-mounted sign is planned), phasing (Morton said phasing is feasible so the salt barn or portions of the build could be completed separately) and salt-handling details (presenters said the salt barn will be enclosed with concrete block walls and overhangs to limit exposure and runoff). Presenters also noted Morton Buildings’ local manufacturing presence in Gettysburg, Penn., and use of local subcontractors.

The meeting opened with approval of minutes (motion and second recorded; verbal “aye” vote), and closed with the commission setting the presentation to return for formal concept consideration next month. The project remains subject to county permitting and any additional revisions requested during that review.","Morton Buildings presented a concept for a consolidated Taneytown Public Works facility — one main service building plus a salt barn — covering equipment storage, a 40-seat training room and chlorine storage. The commission did not vote; county agencies are reviewing the site plan and concept vote is scheduled for next month.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning staff outlines county water resources element; commission debates growth, density and infrastructure trade-offs

Taneytown reviews concept plan for consolidated Public Works complex