Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developers ask commissioners to reduce duplicate review fees for Taneytown projects; board to revisit next week
Summary
Developers and engineers told commissioners that Taneytown's local review process effectively produces near‑final plans before the county sees them, prompting a request to reduce duplicate county review fees; the board asked staff for more analysis and scheduled the item for next week's meeting.
Developers seeking relief from what they described as duplicative development‑review fees told the Carroll County Board of County Commissioners on April 17 that two Taneytown subdivision projects had effectively completed most engineering work before county reviewers saw the files.
County planning staff briefed the board about the county’s three‑phase review process—concept, preliminary and final—and explained that fees are assessed at each phase to offset county review costs. Laura Mathias, bureau chief for development review, explained that municipalities differ in approach and that Taneytown requires a planning‑commission level concept review and then directs developers to submit a preliminary plan that the town and the county both review.
Engineer Linda Alexander of CLSI, representing the Mountain Brook and Garnet Ridge projects, said Taneytown’s process typically brings plans to the town as near‑final ("almost 85% complete") before the county ever sees them. "When it comes into the county the very first time they're seeing a preliminary plan that with this particular set on Mountain Brook's a 150 sheets," she told commissioners. Alexander asked the board to waive or reduce the county's concept fee for projects where the town has already completed an intensive review.
Commissioners and staff discussed how fees are structured: county engineering review fees are not charged where a municipality performs the same engineering review, but concept and preliminary fees remain separate line items under county policy. Several commissioners said they wanted a follow‑up analysis and recommended deferring any decision so staff could return with options for fee adjustments or a one‑time relief for the two projects. The board directed staff to bring the matter back for consideration at the next meeting.
Public comment on the item came from Alexander and other stakeholders in the room; the board said it would accept written input and that any change would apply only to the projects under consideration unless and until a broader fee policy change is approved.
Why it matters: Developers said the current sequencing increases developer cost when town and county reviews overlap for projects in some municipalities. Commissioners flagged broader policy questions about municipal–county coordination and administrative efficiency.
Next steps: Staff will prepare additional information and options for the board to consider at the next meeting; no fee changes were made April 17.
