Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Town legal counsel: council to draft ordinance requiring two entrances for large developments; Flowserve easement could complicate implementation
Summary
Taneytown’s legal counsel reported the council discussed Mountain Brook connectivity and directed staff to draft legislation requiring two access points for developments; the report said getting a second connection may depend on acquiring easements from private owners such as Flowserve and that condemnation could be a last-resort option.
Town legal counsel reported to the planning commission that, after previous public discussion about Mountain Brook, the mayor and council in closed session directed staff to draft legislation that would require developments to provide two separate access points.
Legal counsel (identified in the meeting as Jay) told the commission the planned ordinance will emphasize safety rather than traffic-count thresholds: “we want 2 connections. That’s gonna happen,” Jay said, summarizing the council’s intent to require two points of ingress and egress for multi-phase developments. Counsel said the draft could appear in the town’s standards manual or development code and is expected to be introduced at an April meeting.
Counsel warned that implementation could be complicated where the second access would cross privately held industrial land (Flowserve): the town had expected the owner to provide an easement, but counsel said Flowserve may seek payment to sell land or could refuse, raising the potential need for condemnation proceedings in the future. Counsel characterized condemnation as rare, costly and politically sensitive, and said the town is assessing whether it wants to reserve that authority and under what financial expectations.
Commissioners discussed details staff might include in the ordinance, including minimum spacing between two access points so the second entrance cannot simply be placed immediately adjacent to the first. Commissioners asked staff to research standards in other jurisdictions and relevant technical guidance from state highway reviewers and fire protection engineers. Counsel and staff said they are reaching out to other municipalities and to county reviewers for model language and that the draft will be brought to council and likely return to the planning commission for review.
No ordinance vote occurred at the meeting; the item was a report of council direction and next steps.
