Wieprecht said that if the City really wanted to see development done in a more traditional way, as opposed to "just the standard 34 foot wide streets and 10,000 square feet lots," then the alley requirement would need to be addressed.

The city code for Community Village development states, "Driveways, except as hereinafter provided, shall be prohibited in any front yard setback area of a single-family detached dwelling, semidetached townhouse, condominium or apartment building, and any driveway access shall be provided from use-in-common alleys or lanes only and not streets."

The intent of the Community Village ordinance was to encourage development reflective of a true, old style community with closer packed homes, which would promote a small town community environment, while minimizing the footprint of the development. Minimizing the development’s footprint, Wieprecht said, will reduce the cost to the city through street and infrastructure maintenance while maximizing the tax base and proceeds from the water and sewer services the city will be providing.

Wieprecht suggested that the City should consider an alternative Village Ordnance that would allow developers to still build old style communities, but not require rear loaded garages in alleyways.

While the alleyways do take away from the amount of land developers have to build upon, and therefore reduces the number of homes that could be developed, that is not the primary issue for developers. Instead the main concern was over the increased storm water management issues that come with the increased impervious surfaces associated with the alleys, and the lack of customer interest in having detached garages. "People want their garages attached to their homes, not behind them, it’s hard to sell a house with a detached garage," Wieprecht said.

Wieprecht reminded the Council that there are currently three subdivision developments under consideration that have been designated to be built under Village Ordinance requirements, that currently do not have alleys in their site designs.

Mayor Wantz echoed Wieprecht’s concerns, adding that alleys not only increase the square footage of impervious surfaces, but increase the amount of city services, e.g. snow plowing, that the City needs to perform, and questioned if having alleys in a development was in the City’s best interest. "People want a rear yard, not a rear alley," Wantz said.

Councilman Hand said while he liked the idea of a hybrid option for Town Home developments, where an alley would not be necessary, he didn’t want homes in Taneytown developments to take on a cookie cutter appearance, which the alleyway requirement was designed to prevent. "Varity in the presentation of the front houses are important, when the City is trying to maintain a small town ‘vibe’."

At the Regular City Council meeting, Wieprecht expanded upon the ‘catch-22 ‘ of the Community Village ordinance: "The community village is a type of development that can be applied or overlaid to several different zones – R-7,500, R-10,000, and R-20,000, it’s a designation that overlays one of the above mentioned districts. While there are some non-residential uses permitted in those 3 districts, like doctors’ offices, churches, etc., most of what one thinks of as commercial, like retail stores or restaurants would need to be in something other than one of those residential districts, but community village isn’t an option in our commercial districts."

Wieprecht said the town staff will come up with some suggested changes to the ordinance to make it more feasible for developers and the City and present it to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their consideration.