The Taneytown Planning Commission heard an update on the Mountain Brook development and related traffic analysis, and staff and the city attorney urged commissioners to review a draft developers' rights and responsibilities agreement before the commission’s formal review.

Planning staff said they had received a comment letter from the State Highway Administration asking the town to wait for state consensus on access to routes 140 and 194 and recommending further traffic analysis, including queuing analysis for the site accesses and the intersection around the square. Staff said they asked CDM Smith, the city’s consultant engineer, to review the submitted traffic study because the town lacks in-house transportation engineering expertise.

City attorney Jay said the developers provided a draft developers’ rights and responsibilities agreement that “lays out the road map for the development, their obligations, the cost, the securities” and that the document must be vetted by staff, the mayor and council before it comes to the planning commission for its role under the town’s process. He warned the commission that the agreement contains “big ticket” items — including how and when roads will be built and who will pay for them — that need to be resolved early so expectations are aligned among the developer, the town and State Highway.

Commissioners and staff discussed specific traffic-study issues the town expects addressed: whether the study should include background projects and future improvements such as a proposed park entrance, whether turn lanes or left‑turn arrows (including a possible State Highway addition at West Baltimore/Route 40) should be considered, and whether a planned connector (referred to as Denali Boulevard in the study) that would run to Route 140 should be simulated in analysis to show potential improvements at the 140/194 intersection.

Jay and staff noted that the prospect of the road being accepted by the State would change design requirements and construction cost: roads built to State Highway specifications generally have heavier pavement and more robust storm systems than local streets. Jay said that change would affect construction costs and raise questions about who pays the “difference” when a road must be built to state, rather than city, standards.

Staff and the attorney described an upcoming approach: city staff will meet with the developer’s team to identify and negotiate the major unresolved items, then circulate a summarized memo and the redlined agreement to the mayor, council and the planning commission at the same time so all bodies can comment before formal hearings. Jay said the developer hoped for adoption of the agreement in March but acknowledged that timeline appears optimistic given the outstanding technical and interagency issues.

Commissioners asked for a clear, stepwise timeline and for staff to share the developer’s phasing exhibits and any proposed construction schedule. Staff said the developer had previously shown a multi‑phase buildout concept that could extend several years; one participant said the conceptual phasing shown earlier projected a multi‑year (possibly eight to ten years) horizon to completion.

The commission did not take formal action on the project during the meeting and was told that further review and joint staff/developer meetings are pending.