Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Evapco Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Taneytown panel approves EVAPCO off‑site parking concept, asks for sidewalk easement
Summary
The Planning Commission approved EVAPCO’s concept plan for a new off‑site 153‑space parking facility and asked the applicant to consider granting a future sidewalk easement along Francis Scott Key Highway (MD 194) to preserve the option to build pedestrian access.
The Taneytown Planning Commission on a voice vote approved concept site‑plan review for EVAPCO’s proposed off‑site parking facility, while asking the company to consider a sidewalk easement along Francis Scott Key Highway (Maryland 194).
Staff briefed the commission on the October 22 Board of Zoning Appeals action and on site‑plan considerations the commission should weigh before final approval. “The commission may wish to discuss whether a sidewalk requirement along Francis Scott Key Highway, Maryland 194 is necessary,” planning staff said during the presentation, noting the nearest sidewalk is roughly 1,100 feet from the property.
EVAPCO’s representative told the commission the new lot will connect to an existing adjacent sidewalk and that pedestrians would use the provided pedestrian crossing to reach the existing campus. Commissioners and staff discussed right‑of‑way constraints at the property line and whether the project should secure an easement now to preserve a future sidewalk alignment. One commissioner said obtaining an easement is “probably the most prudent way forward” given that the parcel’s right‑of‑way does not align with previous site plans.
The commission moved to approve the concept plan “with a request for consideration to the sidewalk easement,” and a voice vote in favor was recorded.
Next steps: staff noted that, if the commission waives preliminary site‑plan review (pursuant to the code provision cited in the staff report), the applicant may move to final site‑plan consideration but would remain bound by both preliminary and final site‑plan requirements. Staff also asked the project engineer to confirm whether any enforceable deed restrictions or covenants affect the property before final approval.
