Taneytown planners press developer for clearer traffic study, timetable on Mountain Brook proposal

Taneytown Planning Commission members said the Mountain Brook developer must provide a more complete traffic study and clearer commitments on road design and timing before the commission can recommend approval.

Commissioners and city staff said the developer’s traffic submission lacks key elements — including queuing analysis at proposed access points and mitigation options — and that the State Highway Administration has asked the town to wait for its concurrence on potential additional egresses. Daryl, a city planning staff member, told the commission the town has asked its consultant, CDM Smith, to review the study and that a meeting with the developer’s traffic engineers is pending.

“We asked, CDM Smith, our consultant engineer, to have their folks in their traffic area, their transportation engineers, look at it and provide comment on it,” Daryl said. “There’s actually a meeting pending with the consultant that did the study, our consultant engineer and the developer, to try to help out all the revisions that need to be made to the study.”

Legal counsel Jay said the developer has provided a draft Developer’s Rights and Responsibilities Agreement that would lay out obligations, securities and who pays for improvements. He urged early, coordinated review so the planning commission’s concerns are addressed before the mayor and city council consider adoption.

“They actually want the city to process this draft as soon as it possibly can,” Jay said. He added the staff will review the draft, circulate it to the commission and the mayor and council, and identify “big-ticket” items — such as who builds and pays for a bypass or road to state standards — that must be resolved early in the process.

Commissioners and staff also flagged other variables the traffic analysis must account for: planned local projects such as an expected park entrance on Allendale Lane and a possible future connection (referred to in the meeting as Denali Boulevard) that could change traffic patterns at the 140/194 intersection. Daryl said the traffic study should evaluate both current conditions and plausible near-term improvements, and should present mitigation measures — for example, turn lanes or signal changes — if projected levels of service fall below local thresholds.

State Highway Administration involvement complicates design and cost questions. Jay said the developer has been told that if parts of the new road must be built to state specifications, construction costs will rise; who pays for that “extra” work remains unresolved. He warned the commission that the town must avoid becoming responsible for an unbuilt portion of a larger road network.

Timing was also discussed. The developer reportedly hoped to have the agreement adopted in March; Jay said that schedule is now optimistic. He and staff reiterated that even if an agreement is adopted, the development would still need phased plan reviews and approvals before construction could begin, and those could take many months or longer.

The commission asked staff to produce a memo summarizing outstanding issues, and Jay and staff said they would circulate the draft developer agreement and a list of the commission’s concerns once staff finishes its initial review. The commission did not vote on the proposal at the meeting.

Background: The Mountain Brook proposal is proceeding through concept and preliminary stages. Staff and commissioners noted the project is phased and that some elements — such as who will ultimately build an off-site connection across private property (including property owned by Flowserve) — are still being negotiated. The developer previously provided a phasing exhibit that, according to staff recollection, projected the entire project could take many years to complete.

Next steps: staff will coordinate CDM Smith’s review with the developer’s traffic consultant, circulate the draft agreement with annotations for planning commission input, and request clearer traffic mitigation proposals before the commission schedules a substantive public hearing or recommendation vote.