Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners approve waiver for concept review fees on two Taneytown-area subdivisions after split vote
Summary
After a debate about asynchronous municipal and county plan reviews, the board voted 3–2 to waive the county concept-review fee for two projects (Garnet Ridge and Mountain Brook) that submitted 65% plans to Taneytown and the county.
The Carroll County Board of Commissioners voted 3–2 to reduce development review fees for two specific projects by effectively waiving the county concept-review fee for those filings.
Commissioners debated how Taneytown’s review schedule — which requires earlier municipal concept signoff — interacts with the county’s three-phase development-review process (concept, preliminary, final). County staff described the standard process (roughly 35%, 65% and 100% plan stages) and said the city of Taneytown typically reviews a 35% concept before developers submit 65% preliminary plans to the county. Developers argued that when Taneytown performs concept review, the county should not charge a separate concept-review fee; staff warned county review work still must be done even when municipalities review early plans.
Two projects were the subject of the motion: Garnet Ridge (a 50-unit project) and Mountain Brook (a 281-unit residential subdivision). The motion on April 24 — limited to those two projects, not to future filings — proposed reducing fees by waiving the county concept-review fee for the projects that had already submitted 65% plans. The motion received a second and passed on a 3–2 roll call; the commissioners counted the vote as “3 to 2.”
County staff said they will pursue a coordinated approach with municipalities through the new ProjectDocs electronic submittal platform and will meet with municipal staff (Taneytown staff meeting was scheduled) to explore closer synchronization of reviews. Commissioners also directed staff to compile a broader review of permitting and development-review fees across departments at a later date; staff acknowledged county review fees do not fully recover county costs and said a comprehensive assessment would be appropriate.
The board did not adopt a general change to fee schedules at the meeting; the action applied only to the two named projects. Staff was asked to return with recommendations on fee structure and potential delegation-of-authority adjustments later.
