Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Mc Donalds topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Taneytown council reviews attorney memo after Board of Zoning Appeals grants McDonald’s parking variance
Summary
City staff delivered an attorney memo concluding an appeal of the Board of Zoning Appeals’ decision on a McDonald’s parking-variance is unlikely to succeed; planning commissioners say the BZA received different information than the planning commission and urged council to consider next steps. (Not adopted tonight.)
Taneytown — City staff and planning commissioners on Wednesday told the mayor and city council that the planning commission is concerned the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) received different information during its review of a proposed McDonald’s site, and that the planning commission is considering whether to pursue an appeal.
The city manager, Jim, summarized an attorney memo saying the planning commission and the BZA reached different conclusions on parking requirements for the proposed McDonald’s. “The success of an appeal is unlikely,” Jim said, noting the city would need to hire separate special counsel because the existing counsel previously represented the BZA in that case.
Why it matters: the planning commission had recommended conditions tied to any off‑site or shared parking — including a written agreement, a crosswalk and adequate lighting — that were not included when the matter went to the BZA. Planning commissioners told council they received testimony about employee parking and several reserved mobile‑pickup spaces that, they say, the BZA either did not hear or did not treat the same way.
Chairman Parker told council the commission’s key concern was employee and service‑related spaces that were not relayed to the BZA. “We were told … their employees was required to park on McDonald’s parking lot,” Parker said, adding that when those employee spaces are removed the net public parking available would be significantly reduced.
What council heard: staff and commissioners described the McDonald’s redesign as a smaller indoor footprint and a larger drive‑through, which reduces the number of dining seats and therefore changes the traffic‑generation calculations in the developer’s traffic memo. Developers presented a traffic consultant’s analysis arguing that, because the building footprint shrinks and service is more drive‑through oriented, vehicular trips would not increase; commissioners said the study also referenced adjacent shopping‑center parking that lacks a formal cross‑parking agreement.
Next steps: because the BZA has already granted the variance, city staff advised that pursuing an appeal would be costly and likely unsuccessful. Council did not direct immediate appeal action; instead staff said the issue and the attorney memo will be distributed to planning and council members and discussed again at upcoming meetings. The public hearing on the related ordinance (Ordinance 21‑2025, an amendment to the restricted industrial district) remained open at the meeting but council deferred adoption to allow further edits and to align language with state law and county guidance.
