Developer seeks community-village overlay for 126-acre Taneytown tract, proposes roughly 340–375 homes

Verdon Companies and planners from CLSI on March 5 introduced a concept plan for a roughly 126-acre property in Taneytown and asked the City Council to consider establishing a community village overlay to guide future development.

The CLSI representative said the parcel could yield about 375 dwelling units under the overlay, with roughly 100–105 townhomes and the balance single-family detached homes; later comments in the presentation referenced about 340 units. The developer said the plan would preserve roughly 40% of the site as open space and include amenities such as a clubhouse, pool, multipurpose courts, community gardens, dog parks and a trail network that takes advantage of the site’s overlook of Piney Creek.

The overlay request is an early step in a multi-stage process. The development team said the overlay would establish the concept and “ground rules” before later, more detailed submissions. Marty Hackett, with CLSI, said “we really did try to preserve as much open space as we could,” and described the proposal as lower gross density compared with conventional subdivision layouts historically used in the area.

Traffic and corridor preservation dominated council feedback. The developers said they completed a traffic study and submitted it to state, county and town staff. They also discussed the master-plan bypass alignment (referred to in the meeting as the Worthington Boulevard/master-plan street) and said they would preserve right-of-way for a future corridor even if the town elects not to construct the road as part of the project. The team suggested it might be willing to contribute financially toward a strategically valuable segment of the bypass on the opposite side of Route 140, where other properties—identified in the presentation as FlowServe and Mountain Brook parcels—could deliver more immediate traffic relief.

Council members and the developers discussed environmental constraints. Hackett noted a primary environmental area and floodplain north on the site and pointed to an existing well the owner drilled years earlier; the team marked protection area(s) around that well in case the town later decides to investigate or maintain it. Council members expressed concern about alignments that would cross floodplain and wetlands, and emphasized preserving corridor options so future connections are not foreclosed.

Panelists addressed housing type and affordability. The developers said they do not plan to create a mixed-age project combining 55+ and general-occupancy segments, saying age-restricted communities typically require a larger, amenity‑supported critical mass. They also said the site would not likely qualify for low-income housing tax-credit programs under the current state Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP), because the location is not near mass transit—though they acknowledged QAP priorities change periodically.

The developers indicated willingness to continue working with town staff and the council on alignment, open-space layout, the barn/house preservation question and other design refinements. They said the community village overlay must be approved for the project to proceed under the proposed form and that they will return to the council for future reviews and approvals.

Next steps: the developers will continue coordination with town staff and the council; the council did not vote on the overlay at the workshop and will consider future applications and public hearings as required by the town’s review process.