HomeMy WebLinkAboutH_1971_ComprehensivePlanPlan for the County
PSH' �NG
rO
t0 u N �=
Washington County, Maryland
CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION
I, Donald R. Frush, Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission for
Washington County, Maryland, having been duly sworn and appointed, do Hereby Certify
that the following is a true and correct copy of a Resolution passed by the Planning and
Zoning Commission for Washington County, Maryland, at a meeting duly called and
regularly held, approving and adopting the Plan for the County, Analysis Map and Policies,
and that a true copy of the same is attached hereto, and made a part hereof by reference:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Article 66B of the Annotated Code of
Maryland entitled Maryland Planning and Zoning Enabling Act, the Planning
and Zoning Commission for Washington County, Maryland was charged with
the authority and given the responsibility of preparing a comprehensive plan
for Washington County, Maryland;
WHEREAS, Pursuant to said Powers and Authority, the Planning and
Zoning Commission for Washington County, Maryland has compiled said
Plan for the County, Development Analysis Plan Map and Policies;
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Planning and Zoning
Commission for Washington County, Maryland does hereby adopt and
approve the attached Plan for the County, Development Analysis Plan Map
and Policies; and the same is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety
and made a part hereof; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the entire Plan for the County,
Development Analysis Plan Map and Policies made a part hereof and the
entire text of same be certified and attested to by the Chairman of this body
on said entire text as required by law;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified and attested
copy of the Plan for the County, Development Analysis Plan Map and
Policies incorporated herein by reference shall be transmitted to the County
Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland, and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified and attested copy of
the Plan for the County, Development Analysis Plan Map and Policies shall
be transmitted to the Clerk of the Circuit Court for Washington County,
Maryland, as provided for by law.
XIICW�11-
Donald R. Frush
Chairman,
Washington County Planning
and Zoning Commission
October 12, 1971
Plan for the County
P'SN�NG\
Z�'OuN'%,-;
Prepared for the Washington County Planning and Zoning Commission • Hagerstown, Maryland
By 9 William C. McDonnell 9 Baker-Wibberley & Associates • Hagerstown, Maryland
The preparation of this report was financially aided through a Federal Grant
from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, under the Urban
Planning Assistance Program authorized by Section 701 of the Housing Act
of 1954, as amended. The report was administered by the Maryland
Department of Planning.
GENERAL CONTENTS
Introduction
Development Analysis, Plan Map and Policies
Part 1
- Introduction ......................................
I
Part 2
- Current Development ...............................
3
Part 3
- Updated projections ................................
19
Part 4
- Current Major Planning Efforts and Issues ...............
43
Parts
-Growth Prospects..................................67
Part 6
- Alternative Patterns of Development ..................
107
Part 7
- The Environment Determines Future Form .............
113
Part 8
- Planning Devices and Controls .......................
133
Part 9
- Four Observations on Future Development .............
169
Part 10 - Plan Map, Plan Policies for Land Use and Circulation. ,
. . 181
Part 11
- Immediate Action Program ..........................
223
Appendices.............................................
227
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Part 1 - Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Part 2 - Current Development
Land Use .........................
....... 3
Land Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. , . . . . . . . . . . 3
Land Use Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . .
. . . . . , . . , , . . 3
Washington County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 3
By Planning Sectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 4
Planning Sector I - Metropolitan Hagerstown . .
4
Planning Sector II'- Mid County . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 6
Planning Sector III - Southeast . . . . ,
7
Planning Sector IV - Northeast . . . . . . . .
. , . . . . . . . . . 8
Planning Sector V - Central . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Planning Sector VI - Western . . . . . . . . . .
, . , . . . . , . . 9
Real Estate Activity . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 10
Land Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 14
Part 3 - Updated Projections
Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. , 19
Market Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
, 19
Population Changes 1960-1970 . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . , , , 19
Planning Sector I - Hagerstown Metropolitan Area
. . . . . . . . , . . , 19
Planning Sector II - The Middle Area . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . , . , . . . 22
Planning Sector III - The Southeast . . . . . . . . .
. . 23
Planning Sector IV - The Northeast . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . , , 23
Planning Sector V - The Central Area . . .
, 24
Planning Sector VI - The Western Area . . . . . ,
. . . . . . . , 24
Land Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Retail Market Potential . . . . . .
, . . . . . . 24
Study Approach and Methodology . .
. . . . . . , . . . 25
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
, 26
Supporting Findings . . . . , . . ,
. 29
Office Space Potential . . . . . , . , . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Supporting Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Industrial Market Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Residential Market Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Supporting Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Recent Subdivision Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Part 4 - Current Major Planning Efforts and Issues
Countywide Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Antietam Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Implications for Planning Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Maryland Open Space and Recreation Concept Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Implications to Planning Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Scenic Rivers Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Some Implementation Techniques Proposed . . . . . . . . . . . .
Implications to Planning Policy . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . .
Chesapeake and Ohio National Historic Park . . . . . . . . . .
Implications to Planning Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Potomac Valley Park Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Implications to Planning Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Antietam National Battlefield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Implications to Planning Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Open Space and Recreation Potentials . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
County Towns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Boonsboro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Issues................................
Clear Spring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Issues .........................
Funkstown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . . .
LandUse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Issues ..................................
Hancock. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LandUse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Issues ..................................
Keedysville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Land Use . . . . . . .
Issues ..................................
Sharpsburg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Issues . . . . . . .
Smithsburg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LandUse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Issues .................................
Williamsport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Land Use .............................
Issues ..................... ...........
Hagerstown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Implications for Planning Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Part 5 - Growth Prospects
43
43
43
43
44
45
45
45
46
48
48
51
51
52
52
53
53
53
54
55
55
55
56
56
57
57
57
58
58
58
59
60
60
60
61
61
62
62
62
63
64
65
Priming Actions for Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Transportation . . 67
Highways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Current Master Plan of Highways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Major Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Other Major Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
69
In General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
69
Local County Roads System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
70
Proposed Improvements to County Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
70
Average Daily Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
71
Implications to Planning Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
71
Highway Classifications and Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
73
Expressway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
77
Major Highway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
77
Arterial Highway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,
78
Collector Highways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
79
Secondary Highways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
79
Railroads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
79
Bus Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
80
Air Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
81
Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
81
Existing and Programmed Water Supply
and Waste Water Disposal Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
81
Water Supply Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
82
Existing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
82
Required in Immediate Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
83
Programmed to 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
84
1980 to 2000 Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
85
Beyond the Year 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
85
Sewer Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
86
Existing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
86
Required In Immediate Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
87
Programmed to 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
89
1980 to 2000 Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
91
Beyond the Year 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
92
Implications for Planning Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
93
Industrial Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
93
Implications to Planning Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
94
Combining Pressures for Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
94
Dynamics of Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
94
Development Factors and Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
95
Interchange Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
95
Railroads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
95
Potomac River Park and the C & O Canal Planning Program . . . . . .
96
Antietam National Battlefield and Expansion Proposals . . . . . . .
96
Extractive Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
96
Industrial Site Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
96
Annexation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
97
Landfill Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
97
Community Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
§8
Cabin -type Subdivision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
98
Mountain Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
98
Little Antietam Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
99
Southern Mountain Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
99
New Interchanges on the Interstate System . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
99
New Commercial Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
100
Interstate Industrial Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
100
Office Employment Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
100
Property Susceptible to Residential Development . . . . . . . . . . •
100
Development Value of Improved Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
101
Benefits and Costs of Uncontrolled Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
102
Owners of Undeveloped Land . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Current Residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Future Residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
The County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
The Spectre of the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Conflicts with Nature in Current Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Part 6 - Alternative Patterns of Development
Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Highways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . , . . . . . . 107
Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 107
Commercial Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Open Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . , . . . 108
Residential Development . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Alternative Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Scattered Linear Development . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 109
Concentrated Development . . . . . .
. . 110
New Communities . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Conclusions and Guidelines . . . .
. . . . . . . . . • 110
Part 7 - The Environment Determines Future Form
Geography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
113
Slope ..............................
114
Soils ...................................
114
GroupI...................................
114
Group II ..................................
116
Group III ...................................
116
Group IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . .
117
Group............................ ......
118
Group VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
119
Marsh.................. . . . . . . . I . . . . . . ..
119
Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
119
Ground Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
120
Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
121
Cambrian System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
121
Tomstown Dolomite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
121
Waynesboro Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
121
Elkbrook Limestone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
121
Conococheague Limestone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
122
Ordovician System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
122
Stonehenge Limestone (Beekmantown Group) . . . . . . . . . . . .
122
Rockdale Run Formation (Beekmantown Group) . . . . . . . . .
122
Pinesburg Station Dolomite (Beekmantown Group) . . . . . . . . .
122
St. Paul Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
122
Chambersburg Limestone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
123
Martinsburg Shale . . . . . . . . _ . . .
123
Quaternary Sedimentary Rocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
123
Mountain Wash (Alluvial Fans) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
123
Potomac River Alluvium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
123
Surface Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
124
Flood Plains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
125
Land Unsuitable for Septic Tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
126
Special Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'
127
Topography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
127
Principles for Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Dam Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
The Potomac River Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Part 8 - Planning Devices and Controls
Public Measures Possible Under Existing Legislation . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 133
Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 133
Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 134
Slope Density Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 135
Shore Land and Flood Plain Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 137
Natural Resource Zoning in General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 138
Density Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 139
Large - Scale Development Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 139
. Historic Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 140
Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 141
Large Lot Zoning . . .
141
Federal New Community Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 143
Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 145
Taxation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 148
Public Utility Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
152
Public Measures Requiring New Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 152
Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 152
View Protection Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 152
Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 153
Money Payment as Alternative to Land Dedication . . . . . . .
. . . 154
Shift in Level of Government Authorized to Regulate . . . . . .
. 154
Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 155
Land Reserve System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 155
Eminent Domain for All Less -Than -Fee Open Space Acquisitions
156
Excess Condemnation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 157
Public Development Corporations . . . . . . . . .
. 157
Possible Operation i the Antietam Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 158
Taxation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 159
State Capital Gain Tax on Land Sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 159
Special Assessment Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 162
Private Measures Possible Under Existing Legislation . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 163
The Real Estate Syndicate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 165
The Conservation Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 165
Multi -Lateral Voluntary Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 166
The Hartford Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 166
Part 9 - Four Observations on Future Development
A Case for New Communities . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Potential for Recreational Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Annexation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . 173
Rural Land Sales Strategy . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Part 10 - Plan Map, Plan Policies For Land Use and Circulation
Overall County Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 181
Economic Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 182
Resource Preservation Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 182
Community Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 183
Elements of the Plan Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 183
Development Concept for Washington County . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 183
Transportation Plan and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 187
Highways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 187
Description of Highways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 189
Interchanges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
191
Justification for Proposed Modifications & Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . .
192
The Hagerstown Beltway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
192
The National Freeway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
192
The Halfway-Chewsville Highway and the Greencastle Highway . . . .
192
U.S. 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
193
The Battlefield Parkway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
193
Chewsville Pike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
193
Highway Interchange Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
195
New Highway Planning Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
196
Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
197
Railroads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
197
Airports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
198
Terminal Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
199
Other Plan Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
199
Retail and Commercial Space Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
199
Neighborhood Business Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
201
Community Business Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
201
Urban Business Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
201
General Commercial Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
202
Industrial Development Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
203
Residential Development Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . .
205
Residential Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
206
Single-family Residential Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
207
Multi -family Residential Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
207
Mobile Home Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
208
Open Space Development Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
209
Local Open Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
210
Community Park and Recreation Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
210
Special Water Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
211
Regional Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
212
Public Building Development Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
213
Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
213
Elementary Schools Serving Kindergarten Through Fifth Grade . . . . . . .
214
Middle Schools Serving Sixth Through Eighth Grades . . . . . . . . . . .
215
Senior High Schools Serving Ninth Through Twelfth Grades . . . . . . . . .
215
Coordination Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
216
Other Community Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
217
Health. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
217
Fire Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
217
Police Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
218
Library Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
218
Utilities Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
218
Zoning Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
220
Housing Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
221
Part 11 - Immediate Action Program
In Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
With Citizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
Appendices
Appendix A - Computer Print-out of Land Use Data . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Appendix B - Suggested Program for Determining Road Priorities . . . . . 228
Appendix C - Section -By -Section Review of New Article 66B . . . . . . . . 233
LIST OF PLATES
Plate
Title Follows
1
Not Included . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
General Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
3
4
Planning Sectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
General Development
4
5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Raw Land Sales - 1962, 1966 and 1969 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
10
6
Subdivisions (Since 1964) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
38
7
Highway Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
68
8
Water Supply Facilities - Existing and Proposed . . . . . . . . . . . . .
82
9
Sewerage Facilities - Existing and Proposed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
86
10
Environmental Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
94
11
Development - Primary Factors and Conflicts With Nature . . , . . . .
106
12
Physiographical Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
114
13
.
Development Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
128
14
Farmers Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
176
15
Plan Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
184
16
Highway Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
190
TABLES
Table
Page
1
Existing Land Use - WACO - 1968 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
2
Real Estate Sales By Planning Sector - 1962 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11
3
Real Estate Sales By Planning Sector - 1966 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
4
Real Estate Sales By Planning Sector - 1969 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
5
Percent Distribution of Total County Real Estate Sales By Planning
Sector 1962,1966, 1969 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
6
Real Estate Sales To Outside Buyers Washington County 1962, 1966,
1969 .................................
15
7
Actual Population Change Washington County By Election Districts
and Planning Sectors 1960-1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20
8
Actual Population Growth Washington County and Percent Change By
Planning Sector 1960-1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
9
Revised Population Projections By Planning Sector, Washington County
197 0-2 000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
10
Retail Space Estimates, 1970-2000 "Shopping" and "Convenience"
Goods Sales Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
11
Distribution of Retail Space Potential By Planning Sector, 1970-2000
(In Square Feet) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28
12
Retail Acreage Requirements (In Acres) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29
13
Local Office Space Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32
14 Local Office Space Acreage Requirements (In Acres) . . . . . . . . . . 32
15 Industrial Land Absorption Estimates 1970-2000 (In Acres) . . . . . . 34
16 Value/Rent Profile of Housing Demand, Washington County, Maryland . 36
17 Residential Market Potential Dwelling Unit Demand and Acreage
Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
18 Residential Subdivision Development, Washington County, 1964-1969. 39
19 Washington County Average Daily Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
20 Classification of Roads and Highways in Washington County . . . . . . 75
21 Summary of Natural Areas and Features . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
22 Residential Land Marketing - vs. Land Sale Present Value of Land Sale
Proceeds (All Monetary Values At 1971 Dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
23 Comparative Present Value of Land: Five Owners . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
0 50 100 MILES
SCALE
RELATIVE LOCATION OF WASHINGTON COUNTY
IN MARYLAND
INTRODUCTION
Washington County is still today primarily agricultural in character. However,
pressures for urban development will continue to increase in proportion to expanding
metropolitan regions. South Mountain is no longer a physical barrier to the east. It may
rather be viewed as a lookout for Washington Countians from which they can view the
encroaching sprawl of megalopolis and its inhabitants who seek to escape a pressure -cooker
way of life. The natural barriers to Washington County have been overcome by the
interstate roads system. The County's physical beauty and economic potential may now
have been discovered.
An upsurge of land development is occurring. Industrial and manufacturing concerns
have turned from in -city locations, where taxes are high and services of diminishing quality;
urban dwellers seek relaxation in mountain cabins "only 90 minutes from Baltimore;"
Suburbia and exurbia continue to expand. For the rural property owner, land values have
increased dramatically. It is a seller's market. A quiet but highly significant confrontation of
land uses, people and values has ensued. The rural property owner, if he has devoted his land
to agricultural use, has been guided and shaped by elemental, non-negotiable facts: the
growing season, precipitation, terrain, soil conditions. The planners of rural areas, the soil
conservationists, county agents and local farmers' councils, draw from this set of conditions
have, in effect, a bedrock which informs their proposals and decisions. Moreover, the rural
owner, from long and intimate proprietorship of the land, thinks of it as his in a way that
the owner of a suburban residential lot cannot comprehend. Because he is known in the
area, the rural dweller is subject to social pressures exerted by his fellow property owners.
These pressures are extremely effective in restraining him from permitting the type of
development of his property which would cause the approbation of his neighbors. Therefore
he sees no need for zoning, which he sees as unnecessarily restrictive. But in the rural -urban
confrontation, lines are blurred. Outside interests develop property nearby, identity is lost,
and in the anonymity afforded by higher populated areas and rapid transfers of property,
the sanctions of neighbors are discarded. The urban dweller is perhaps more aware that
man's needs fluctuate and his values alter, according to a constantly changing complex of
interacting pressures, influences and assumptions. Man constantly seeks and discards,
sometimes in recognizable patterns of action and reaction, but often not so predictably.
Therefore, the static, fixed -arrangement plans, the "comprehensive" land use plans,
are based on the fallacy that man's economic and social composition can be finally fixed at
some optimum point and all measures employed to the attainment of that end. But man
contradicts this embalming process. Planning may be more aptly viewed as a contest in
which time is the antagonist.
The community of interests in a given area is not easily summarized. In the
urban -rural confrontation, different groups, as suggested above, will have different values.
Some members of the area will seek to develop its maximum economic potential; others will
aim at the preservation of amenities and an environment conducive to a particular life style.
A plan for the area, then, must be a complex of alternative proposals which will serve to
arouse opinion and influence expectations from the people. It must be a process rather than
a specific set of solutions for a specific future.
This report presents the results of several years of study of Washington County's
population, housing, economy, community facilities, land use, natural features and
highways, and proposes a plan with guidelines for future development. It is intended to be a
flexible instrument which the County's present and future citizens and government can use
for the purpose of making decisions about the location of development, what natural
features of the landscape to preserve, and what might be done to coordinate the growth of
the County's economy.
DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS,
PLAN MAP AND POLICIES
PART 1
INTRODUCTION
The study thus far has examined the problems associated with a growing population,
a place to work and to live. Overall, the human condition. We turn now to the physical
aspects of the environment... land and water, its use, what is currently proposed and what
might happen in the immediate and long-range future.
This volume studies the current extent of land development, real estate sales activity
and land values. Updated projections of population are presented resulting from 1970
Census data received too late for inclusion in the earlier section. Nearly one dozen major
conservation and development proposals are analyzed in light of their implications to the
development of planning policy. The physical composition of each town and the major
issues now current within each is examined.
Growth prospects for the county with special reference to highway; utility and
industrial development proposals are presented with conclusions regarding the effect of
these elements in shaping the future Plan. Alternative patterns of development are then
developed resulting in the emergence of preliminary proposals. After examining in depth the
natural forces which will influence future form, a set of development principles are
presented. A series of private and public implementation devices, some tried while others are
innovative, are recommended for study for application at the appropriate point in time.
Four observations on future development concerning New Communities,
Annexation Procedures, Recreational Potential and a Rural Land Sales Strategy are
discussed. This chapter concludes the process of examining issues and facts which go into
the development of the Plan.
The Plan Map and a set of 159 Plan Policies are proposed for adoption for use by the
county in framing current and future decisions. An immediate Action Program of citizen
and government review completes the report.
PART 2
CURRENT DEVELOPMENT
Land Use. The following discussion of the Land Use pattern of Washington County
results from an extensive survey made during 1967 and 1968. Data from this study were
recorded on computer cards and the resultant print-outs displayed detailed material for the
entire County for assessments, acreage, etc. by particular use. Appendix A lists the various
print-out reports made available to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Land Values. The sale of raw land in Washington County to outside buyers rose
dramatically in the seven year period between 1962 and 1969 from 12 to 29% of all real
estate sales. The increasing popularity of Washington County as a speculative real estate
venture is at once alarming and certainly indicates the need to apprise resident land owners
of opportunities in land sales for their own and for countywide benefit.
Land Use Pattern
The term "land use" refers to the activity which takes place on a given area of land.
The use of land determines the development pattern of communities and ultimately the
total county pattern. Influences such as economic and social factors as well as physical
constraints all affect the activity which takes place on the land. One of the objectives of any
responsible community development plan is to provide for the arrangement of a variety of
uses so that each will function at its maximum potential. Such foresight will insure adequate
acreage for residential, commercial, and industrial uses in addition to agricultural and
recreational reserves. Compatible uses can be achieved which will enhance the total
environment for all citizens.
Washington County. Washington County contains a total of 295,680 acres excluding
the City of Hagerstown. Today, 66% of the county is in some form of agricultural use.
Despite the trend of decreasing agricultural land use and increasing demand for urban land,
Washington County will in all probability remain agricultural in character. Its fertile
Hagerstown Valley and forested mountains to the east, south and west will continue to
exert a dominant influence on its physical character.
Institutional, recreational and governmental land use approximate 32,000 acres of
Washington County.
Land classified as residential accounts for 24,692 acres. This includes lots ranging
from as small as one quarter of an acre to lots of 10 acres or more. Land use for commercial
purposes outside of Hagerstown totals 3,246. Industrial land now uses about 1,556 acres or
5% of land outside of the city. Until 1950, however, almost all industry in the county was
concentrated in the city.
Transportation and utility uses also occupy a considerable amount of county land.
This includes roads, railroads, airports, utility transmission lines and stations rights of way.
3
It is estimated that approximately 7,000 acres fall in this category. As urbanization
increases, the amount of land in these types of uses will also increase. (Table 1)
By Planning Sectors
For purposes of the present study, the county was subdivided into six planning
sectors, each comprising a number of Election Districts. The boundaries for the sectors were
arrived at after a thorough consideration of physiographic characteristics, existing natural
land use features, as well as economic and demographic potentials. Each planning unit
exhibits somewhat similar land use characteristics which makes for a more integrated
approach to the various regions of the county.
Planning Sector I - Metropolitan Hagerstown comprises Election Districts 2, 9, 10,
13, 18, 24, 26, 27, the northern portion of the Hagerstown Valley. All of the suburban areas
around the city have been and still are to a great extent influenced by the City of
Hagerstown and the surrounding systems of transportation.
Four major railroads have exerted their influences also on land use and the
transportation network which evolved through the years. Railroad lines bisect the city and
countryside and may act as barriers or channels to growth activity.
Most of the residential, commercial, and industrial development has taken place
along and near the corridor of U. S. 11 from Williamsport to the Pennsylvania state line.
Subdivisions have flourished along this route both north and south of the city line along
with several major employment centers including Mack Truck and Fairchild Hiller at the
city owned airport. The north -south linear pattern is further reinforced by the construction
of Interstate Highway 81 whose interchanges will become focal points for commercial and
industrial activity. Strip commercial development with its billboards, endless gas stations,
and mixed development represents growth at its worst - wasteful, expensive and hazardous.
Another linear pattern is also obvious along the other major traffic radials to the
City of Hagerstown, U. S. 40, Md. 60, Md. 64, with the latter route east of the city a major
corridor of residential growth. U. S. 40 east has attracted commercial expansion in the form
of small and large businesses, gas stations, motels, restaurants and other services which cater
to the tourist and traveller as well as metropolitan residents. Other municipalities in the
sector include Williamsport and Funkstown along with other communities of Leitersburg,
Chewsville, Cedar Lawn, and Maugansville. Hagerstown maintains its own water system and
sewage treatment facilities. Most of the domestic waste treatment plants, sewer interceptors,
and mains south of Hagerstown are serviced by Funkstown, Williamsport, and the
Washington County Sanitary Commission.
Undeveloped land, used mainly for agriculture, is predominant in this Planning
Sector as well as all other sectors in Washington County. In addition to community parks in
Hagerstown, Williamsport, Funkstown and Maugansville, the county maintains Doubs
Woods, a recreational park south of Hagerstown. Public recreational space accounts for 152
4
A LL EGANY
COUNTY
W E S T
q
WASHINGTON COUNTY, '� , N , A
MARYLAND
GENERAL LAND USE
Industrial Area
QSlale Lands
MResidentlal Area
S-1 Sideline Hill Wildlife Management Area
M Woodlands
S-2 Tonoloway State Park
_Municipal and County -Owned Lands
S-3 Indian Springs Wildlife Management
A. Town of Hancock -Future Use Unknown
S-4 Fort Frederick Pork
B Town of Hancock -Land FIII B Sewage Treatment Plant
S-5 Maryland Slate Penal Farm
C. Town of Clear Spring -Watershed
S-6 Greenbrier Slate Park
D Town of Williamsport - Land FIII
S-7 Washington Monument Stale Park
E City of Hagerstown -Water Treatment Plant
S -B Gothland State Park
F. City of Hagerstown -Land Fill
S-9 Trout Hatchery
G. County Land FIII
Unnumbered Parcels- Future Watershed Land
H City of Hagerstown -Airport
I. City of Hagerstown- Industrial Park
EMFederal Government Lands
J City of Hagerstown -Watershed
F -I Fort Ritchie
K City of Hagerstown -Watershed
F-2 Fort Ritchie Site "B°
L Washln glon County Sanitary District -Sewage Treatment Plant Silo
F-3 Anlletam Battlefield B Cemetery
M Town of Funkstown -Sewage Treatment Plant
F-4 Harper's Ferry No Park
N Town of Booneboro -Future Use Unknown
F-5 C B 0 Canal ( Parallels Potomac River
P. Town of Boonsboro - Reservoir Site
on Maryland Side.)
0 Town of Boonsboro -Watershed
R. Washington County Sanitary District -Water Treatment Plant Site
S Town of Smithburg - Sewage Treatment Plant
Nate All land nol listed above is primarily agricultural and rural.
BAKER-WIBBERLEY AND ASSOCIATES
WILLIAM C. MC DONNELL
CONSULTING PLANNER
M1
w k W
�r } 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
LJ1
+ O t
SCALE MILES
i•1r' j
a:
" 7s
Y ;k
r�(
+r
2
HANCOCK �..
5
F-- — s
NDIAN SPRING
15
WASHINGTON COUNTY
MARYLAND
PLANNING SECTORS
BAKER-WIBBERLEY AND ASSOCIATES
WILLIAM C. MC DONNELL
CONSULTING PLANNER
CLEAR SPRING CONOCOCHEAGUE FOUNTAIN
4 13 HEAD
WILSON
23
2
3
CEDAR
LAWN
Lu
24
rr
X
HALFWAY
26
` FUNKSTOWN
L. 2 10-21 10-1
WILLIAM ORT 1
DOWNSVILLE TILGHMANTON
`►_ 20 12
t
LEITERSBURG
9
18-2 /
CHEWSVILLE
r—J
18-1
16
BEAVER CREEK I
BOONSBORO
6
KEEDYSVILLE
19
SHARPSBURG
I
ow 8 w
J
_J
ct
W
c
2
Ir f�
SANDY HOOK
II -2 II -1
1 r
/
RINGGOLD
14-1 !(14-2
_)
CAVETOWN
7
0 1 E 3 4 5 6
SCALE MILES
3
Planning Election
Sector District
9 ((la 32
10(7,214
13 12,012
18 10,361
242,696
27 3;203
Sub -Total
II 1 (11,
6 9,344108
19 6,479
20 (11,514
Sub -Total
III 8 (7,634)
11 (4,171)
Sub -Total )
IV 14 4,647)
Sub -Total �11515J
V15 18,75823 13,225
Sub-Total
VI 5 (17,340)
Total (No Hagerstown)
Hagerstown
Total
17,162 713 5,194 47 54 80 332 248 2,434 58 201 522 2,135 204 4,24 33,598
193,269 3,246 1,556 37,117 736 2,005 1,923 4,729 3,450 11,849 644.8 1,457 4,635 6,352 431 3,175 13.598 290,172
1 5,508
* Election District 18 - 508 Acres are existing quarry operations.
+ Election District 27 - 86 Acres of Hagerstown Municipal Airport.
++ Election District 13 - 345 Acres of Hagerstown Municipal Airport.
CA
Source: Baker-Wibberley & Associates, Inc., 1968
295,680
TABLE 1
EXISTING
LAND USE - WACO
- 1968
Institutional
Governmental Recreational
Ag.
Cm.
Ind.
Vac.
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
Public
Private
Federal
State
Local Public
Private
;' Total
6,$87
70
482
623
68
114
58
114
90
164
62.5
250
100
64
9,145
10,533
39
162
6
86
85
171
102
317
12
67
11,580
8,207
177
71
360
90
171
142
188
60
110
41
105
55
9,777
12,278
118
110
657
28
110
154
341
264
318
9
345+ 26
18
14,776
9 ,9 82
324
627*
792
55
229
127
254
153
282
131.5
7
230
13,194
2,951
100
62
80
5
32
20
43
20
10
3,323
2,521
35
244
191
302
83
93
32
10
14
20
++
3,545
3,536
505
167
189
46
298
121
72
32
46
32
86
12
51255
56,895
1,368
1,519
3,107
489
1,342
790
1,276
753
1,257
229.0
410
100
105
431 152
37jj
70,595
10,769
47
2,596
41
63
70
225
89
369
5.1
1,299
21
36
15,630
10,276
66
1,217
44
94
95
294
239
571
67
66
324
153
5
13,511
9,101
9
244
8
33
92
186
158
331
.5
144
768
230
22I
11,327
8,244
317
3
2,2.62
5
32
94
299
303
352
3
511
1,608
78
14,111
6,853
8
723
11
22
27
90
107
109
4
38
172
i
f
8,164
10,489
495
3
26
68
151
67
535
2.4
473
537
12,846
55,732
447
3
7,537
112
270
446
1,245
963
2,267
82.0
759
1,772
2,700
654
600
75,589
8,460
3,302
4
32
74
243
291
836
1.0
135
227
13,605
4,923
18
2,528
8
22
69
250
202
1,195
16.8
1,052
10,284
13,383
18
5,830
12
54
143
493
493
2,031
17.8
1,052
135
227
23,889
8,211
86
34
2,603
33
113
90
321
246
425
91
14
617
25
12,909
5,181
13
2,276
17
60
131
255
228
233
10
494
57
8,955
13,392
99
34
4,879
50
173
221
576
474
658
101
14
494
674X2�5
21,864
10,258
84
2,652
17
40
69
233
179
963
144
68
1100
21DI
17,908
12,408
4
7,273
2
21
70
351
197
1,679
466
1,277
6,2
29,992
14,039
513
645
7
51
104
223
143
560
13
73
161
164
1
16,737
36,705
601
10,570
26
112
243
807
519
3,202
157
73
695
1,277
1,264
8,3
6
64,637
17,162 713 5,194 47 54 80 332 248 2,434 58 201 522 2,135 204 4,24 33,598
193,269 3,246 1,556 37,117 736 2,005 1,923 4,729 3,450 11,849 644.8 1,457 4,635 6,352 431 3,175 13.598 290,172
1 5,508
* Election District 18 - 508 Acres are existing quarry operations.
+ Election District 27 - 86 Acres of Hagerstown Municipal Airport.
++ Election District 13 - 345 Acres of Hagerstown Municipal Airport.
CA
Source: Baker-Wibberley & Associates, Inc., 1968
295,680
acres while private recreation areas constitute another 373 acres. Government ownership of
land in Sector I, Federal, State and Local, totals the 636 acres. Public institutional land such
as the Hagerstown Junior College Campus and other school sites account for 229 acres and
private institutional establishments take in 410 acres.
Planning Sector I contains the bulk of residential and economic potential of
Washington County. It also represents an area where efficient land use planning faces its
greatest challenge as the urban pattern expands. According to the 1968 land use inventory,
56,895 acres were used for agriculture, 1,368 acres were in commercial use and 1,519 were
in industrial use.
The following chart indicates residential acreage by lot size:
Class
Size
Acres
Percent
R1
1/4 ac.
489
8.27
R2
1/a 1/2 ac.
1,342
22.71
R3
1/2-1 ac.
790
13.37
R4
1-5 ac.
1,276
21.60
R5
5-10 ac.
753
12.74
R6
10+ ac.
1,257
21.31
Total
5,907
100.00
Planning Sector II - Mid County comprises Election Districts 1, 6, 12, 16, 19, 20 and
is located in the southern part of the Hagerstown Valley. The extreme eastern portion of
this sector is in South Mountain while the western border is the Potomac River. The
distinguishing feature is the location of three towns, Boonsboro, Keedysville, and
Sharpsburg, each with a unique individuality but linked by an arterial highway, Maryland
Route 34, and the small town character each has in common with the other.
Sector II is essen.'Jally agricultural in nature and is bisected by several streams;
Antietam Creek, Marsh Run, Beaver Creek and many other tributaries. Major developed
open space, recreation and institutional areas of the county are located in this sector;
Greenbrier State Park, Washington Monument State Park, the C & O Canal, and the
Antietam Battlefield represents significant tourist attractions on a regional basis. Below
Sharpsburg several recreational large -lot type subdivisions are in process. Evidence suggests
the increasing demand for lots and farm land which are to be used for vacation homes by
out of county residents. Many Baltimore and Washington families are looking to Washington
County to provide a place "to get away" from the pressures of urban living.
Residential sites include. the three towns in addition to the villages of Downsville and
Tilghmanton. However, dwelling units, including single family homes and trailers, are
scattered along the major and minor arterial highways throughout this sector. This sprawling
pattern represents a threat to free and safe traffic flow and to the pastorial appearance of
rol
the Hagerstown Valley. The implications of this type of development should be fully
examined and action initiated while there is still time for planned guidance. The following
chart shows residential acreage by lot size.
Class
Size
Acres
Percent
RI
1/a ac.
112
2.3
R2
1/4 1/2 ac.
270
5.0
R3
1/2-1 ac.
446
8.5
R4
1-5 ac.
1,245
23.4
R5
5-10 ac.
963
18.1
R6
10+ ac.
2,267
42.7
Total
5,303
100.0
According to the 1968 land use inventory, 55,732 acres were used for agricultural
purposes, 447 acres were in commercial use, and industrial acreage was negligible. However,
an area of approximately 1,200 acres north of Keedysville and west of Boonsboro is owned
by U. S. Steel. This land is presently in agricultural use but has the potential of becoming a
major mining facility in the future due to limestone sub -strata.
Planning Sector III - Southeast contains Election Districts 8 and 11. This sector
comprises most of the Blue Ridge Mountain and portions of South Mountain to the east.
These two heavily forested mountains and the intervening valleys are the dominant features.
Most residential development is restricted to the valley in scattered pockets east and west of
Md. Route 67. There are small concentrations of development in the villages of Dargan and
Rohersville, and Sandy Hook.
Harpers Ferry National Park, 763 acres, is located at the southern most end of the
county in this sector. Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, opposite, is a major tourist attraction.
The recreation potential of this sector is seen by the demand for cabin -type lots for hunting,
fishing and other sportsman related activities. The following chart indicates acreage by lot
size of residential development:
Class
Size
Acres
Percent
R1
1/a ac.
12
0.37
R2
1/a 1/2 ac.
54
1.67
R3
1/2-1 ac.
143
4.43
R4
1-5 ac.
493
15.28
R5
5-10 ac.
493
15.28
R6
10+ ac.
2,031
62.97
Total
3,226
100.00
7
The large percentage (62.97%) of large acre lots reflects the essential rugged and
rural nature of this sector. According to the 1968 land use inventory, 13,383 acres were
classified in agricultural use and only 18 acres in commercial use. Industrial usage is
practically non-existent.
Planning Sector IV - Northeast containing Election Districts 7 and 14, is located in
the northeast corner of Washington County. The eastern portion of the sector is
mountainous; the western section is in the Hagerstown Valley. The southeastern portion
contains the municipality of Smithsburg and its surrounding territory which is mainly
residential in character and is an extension of the linear residential pattern along Md. Route
64 and is dotted with numerous modern type housing subdivisions. Hagerstown's water
supply is located in the watershed of South Mountain in this sector which has contributed
to the growth of residences. The communities of Highfield and Pen Mar in the northeast
corner are the only other significant clusters of residential development. Residential acreage
by lot size is shown as follows:
Class
Size
Acres
Percent
R1
1/4 ac.
50
2.32
R2
1/41/z ac.
173
8.03
R3
1/2-1 ac.
221
10.26
R4
1-5 ac.
576
26.76
R5
5-10 ac.
474
22.02
R6
10+ ac.
658
30.61
Total
2,151
100.00
Ft. Ritchie is located in Sector IV and along with certain industrial areas around
Smithsburg represent most of the employment potential in the area. Pen Mar is presently
the site of a County Park. Thirteen thousand, three hundred ninety two (13,392) acres were
in agricultural use, 99 acres in commercial use and approximately 34 acres in industrial use
in 1968. Maryland Route 66 is a major traffic corridor to employment centers in
Pennsylvania.
Planning Sector V - Central. This sector comprises Election Districts 4, 15, and 23. It
extends roughly from the Conococheague Creek to a few miles west of Licking Creek. The
eastern part of the planning sector lies within the Hagerstown Valley; the western portion is
Mountainous. These two physical features coupled with the influence of U. S. 40 and I-70
are the dominating features of this sector. In addition to the town of Clear Spring, the
communities of Conococheague, Indian Springs and Pectonville are the major
concentrations of residential uses. As in Sector II, Planning Sector V also contains much
scattered development of housing along the arterials which criss-cross the Hagerstown
Valley. Acreage by lot size is as follows:
8
ALLEGANY
COUNTY
Te
P
r
a �
w s T
.G�
WASHINGTON COUNTY
MARYLAND
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT
LEGEND
A. RESIDENTIAL AREA
COMPLETED SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT
SUBSEQUENT T01965
FREE STANDING DEVELOPMENT
EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
B. AREAS IN FIXED USE
PERMANENT INSTITUTIONAL,
COUNTRY CLUB,SCHOOL,OR
OTHER FIXED USE
Jf+� PROPOSED INSTITUTIONAL,
CLUB,ETC.
ORCHARDS
C. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS
EXISTING INDUSTRIAL
PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL
- EXISTING COMMERCIAL
® PROPOSED COMMERCIAL
D. MINERAL EXTRACTION AREAS
EXISTING MINERAL EXTRACTION
® PROPOSED MINERAL EXTRACTION
BAKER-WIBBERLEY AND ASSOCIATES
WILLIAM C. MC DONNELL
CONSULTING PLANNER
_ PENNSYLVANIA
MARYLAND
j'
t
tr
.l 1.
�isti: 'YT fi
. ' N
WtLLIAMSPORT � I 3'9 • j
y
V 4 R U I N 1 A w • :. "
-ny o
k.
tq
I % ti ••S. I�EDY5VILLE
r
jw
n
a, • p
5 7� 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
+5 0
SCALE MILES
i
r
4i4
r
s
' b
z
,
i�1•t-tom �" ,�C �
�
�;}
AGER$TOWN
4 •N
�isti: 'YT fi
. ' N
WtLLIAMSPORT � I 3'9 • j
y
V 4 R U I N 1 A w • :. "
-ny o
k.
tq
I % ti ••S. I�EDY5VILLE
r
jw
n
a, • p
5 7� 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
+5 0
SCALE MILES
Class
Size
Acres
Percent
R1
1/4 ac.
26
.52
R2
1/41/2 ac.
122
2.28
R3
1/4-1 ac.
243
4.95
R4
1-5 ac.
807
16.43
R5
5-10 ac.
519
10.57
R6
10+ ac.
3,202
65.25
Total
4,909
100.00
Scattered residential areas are also situated in portions of the mountainous terrain
west of Clear Spring.
The largest concentration of outdoor recreational and natural environmental areas in
Washington County are located in Sector V. The Indian Spring Wildlife Management Area
contains 3,772 acres of mountainous terrain which also includes Blairs Valley Lake. Ft.
Frederick, presently 275 acres, is one of the most popular parks in the State of Maryland
and is significant in the State's Open Space Program. Both Licking Creek and the
Conococheague Creek offer outstanding scenic and recreational potential as well as
important natural resources to be protected.
The 1968 land use inventory records 36,705 acres were used for agricultural
purposes, 601 acres were in commercial use and industrial use was limited to a quarrying
operation in the southeast portion of the sector.
Planning Sector VI Western is Election District 5..It is the westernmost section of
the county and its most distinguishing features are Sideling Hill, Sideling Creek and
Tonoloway Ridge. In addition to the Sideling Hill Wildlife Management Area (2,136 acres),
several private sportsman oriented private clubs own large amounts of land as well as a Boy
Scout Camp. The greatest potential lies in its wild, natural and scenic environment relatively
unspoiled by man's development.
Sector VI contains the most compact housing development of all planning areas.
Residential growth has primarily located in and around the town of Hancock.
The residential acreage by lot size for Sector VI is:
Class
Size
Acres
Percent
RI
1/4 ac.
47
1.47
R2
1/41/2ac.
54
1.69
R3
1/2-1 ac.
80
2.50
R4
1-5 ac.
332
10.39
R5
5-10 ac.
248
7.76
9
R6 10+ ac. 2,434 76.19
Total
3,195 100.00
The land use inventory indicates 17,162 acres in agricultural use, 713 in commercial
use, with industrial use confined to the corporate limits of Hancock. However, Pennsylvania
Glass Sand Company of West Virginia owns a substantial portion of Tonoloway Ridge which
represent holdings for future mining operations. Factors such as economic value and
ecological damage will have to be weighed in the ultimate decision for use of this land.
Real Estate Activity
Land values have a significant bearing on the kind of plan that can be developed in
Washington County. To estimate these values and how they have changed, land sales of 10
or more acres were analyzed for the years 1962, 1966, and 1969. All information developed
from the analysis is based on the actual market value of unimproved land. (Table 2)
Planning Sector I, the Hagerstown Metropolitan area, contains the largest percentage
of urban development in Washington County. The highest unimproved values are located
near or adjacent to the major interstate highways, I-81 and 1-70, with actual market value
ranging from $1,000 to more than $8,000 per acre. Another area of this sector which has
recorded sales in the same range is the corridor of Md. Route 64 east of Hagerstown to
Smithsburg. (Table 3)
In December, 11969, a realtor obtained a one year option to purchase 50 acres on
Potomac Street, north of Northern Avenue extended at a $20,000 per acre value. Land sales
in the eastern, western and southern portions of Planning Sector I ranged from $225 to $99
per acre with the size of the parcels being larger than those in the immediate Hagerstown
area.
Generally, value per acre of unimproved land in this sector is highest near existing
subdivisions and major road frontages. Whereas in 1962, the percentage of the total number
of acres sold in Washington County was 18.9% in Planning Sector II, in 1969 this figure
increased to 35.8% of the acreage sold. Of all the Planning areas, Sector lI recorded the
highest frequency of sales in 1966 and 1969. This sector contains perhaps the most desirable
land for recreational development potential, i.e., Antietam and Little Antietam Creek,
Antietam Battlefield, the Potomac River and C & O Canal. At present, there already exists
several recreational type subdivisions of 3 acres or more lots whose market value is in excess
of $1,000 per acre. (Table 4)
Of the 43 individual sales to outside buyers in 1969, 26 or 20.2% occurred in
Planning Sector II. This is in part due to the increasing demand of persons who live in major
metropolitan regions (Baltimore -Washington) for vacation sites "in the country". No doubt,
another reason is the investment in land which some day might bring handsome profits to
those able to buy now. The 33.3% of total sales in the county (in 1969) to outside buyers
10
�+
.y. �:.�jjt--�3gf:'vr l : rY�, h,;�33`� iI t ( a.♦§-1Yl.xr!:i,'
},ld)i3ir,{''y;.T*Fty• t. •y��.�,"A4 T}�6e�%^,'�.+;��. .4(�i$7t '.
: r� Y�,G _•��'�'r,'�iJ1,1. i€.�+A^N1l�,,r�. �;. r '- `:k, �+"fi.4
eJ�! [ R.1 ' . S�. �, `�}�r�i11u •3rr�.4p'..� '�"-i4 Y�S3�.(LC_ 2r .^��F,"'"1` + �4 •Lt1h`•idY'";yc gG yt i •I�T: i�ke�Xr.:. :'r . C` �,C�y��yy,',• f�,L'Lr: + ,a• h,, ;r•k-,a5}y�.rS.rr ....x't" xi_"�
Pr'rEN. GNGS.aY. YL.' nV„4A1N
I4A
MARYLD
r i;h• ;,• 66 '4 66ALLEGANY
LL6�3y6
92 69
66 aCOUNTY 62 62
6s 69
F 62 sz 42
69 fig 66
? I d�.66
69 x}7
•.e7�O..+
•!
�•:
'GB 6
V o s k
/ . n --� 1. .i�F•�. eY• �.v-...—.ar/ "3• :fi.G LV
��ir
69 46
62 t •( ,;�., Gx a :l•R_'ya.
it i hr1 A ,.�. ■�q�yw jC W CLEAR SPRING
• r
`` -- : , ,Z ;; �����• , . �� � � � r�fi� cs�, � � `''�9 a `6e_��;, .,�+...,s,_„"� "'� L L � y S � 3 GG LCL`
gg Syltl Sli'�e1tlNNd
69xuLtA
Y. !..— hi Kry.,' ''189 ;., +.•':
'.''rc`
66
62. s. �.qti 6�, � •c
a..."' a}'t. �• 'l�xtM1 W F. 5 T f G 62'ykitlAGEIiSiOWN $FSk,.' frF •'f dE t� y�SY....
'$... .'!' Sy+�{.{ 66 66
//,f Ste.• t
���:..� � � � ..'�"ti..�a �}��i Mw _.+" vhplr' s �• r h ti: t'... _ ,. / :;aY _. �c
WASHINGTON COUNTY
MARYLAND
RAW LAND SALES
1962, 1966, AND 1969
LEGEND
UNDER $ 225 per ACRE
$ 225 — 499 per ACRE
mmm $ 500 — 999 per ACRE
Vim $ 1000 — 4000 per ACRE
$ 4000+ per ACRE
BAKER-WIBBERLEY AND ASSOCIATES
WILLIAM C. MC DONNELL
CONSULTING PLANNER
I lb 'F U.NK
ryl Fy-a r �+ e9�
"•riLrw. 66
WILLIAMSPORT� �'�}. •,,,�. 4
■ 6
4
V R G I N 3 A •:k _�� '69
r�
62 y 62 66
69
89 66 .3
6966 69 .•,�,�.
;h
r`s
_-
+ b6 ox,
66
66 69
66
66
e 6G
R 66 66
6
01
'a 66
69
{; ,� pv :9NApp y..ks+r'.✓ff/'%�+ r4
69 Y 6{
66
62
h
62 r 'T
66
s, t
Yf
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
SCALE MILES
LS
6
66y y ca � f7f
Y*
�
S
664•
� W
x
212
}�
'°166
r
9 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
SCALE MILES
TABLE 2
REAL ESTATE SALES
BY PLANNING SECTOR - 1962
Source: Washington County Tax Assessor's Records
11
Unimproved Market
Planning
Election
Total No.
Number of
Average
Average Value
Sector
District
of Sales
Acres Sold
Tract Size
Total
Value/Acre
I
2
5
594
119
$
110,275
$ 927
9
7
411
59
40,527
99
10
5
423
85
119,180
282
13
3
268
89
37,947
142
18
7
330
47
931,951
2,824
24
1
123
123
21,900
178
26
1
142
142
78,012
549
27
2
116
58
31,250
269
Sub -Total
31
2,407
78
$1,371,042
$ 569.6
II
1
4
111
28
11,161
$ 101
6
8
324
40
46,330
143
12
4
449
112
40,347
90
16
5
364
73
42,904
118
19
2
110
55
14,136
129
20
3
212
70
19,688
93
Sub -Total
26
1,570
60
$
174,566
$ 111.1
111
8
7
243
35
$
15,282
$ 63
11
3
223
74
16,460
74
Sub -Total
10
466
46
$
31,742
$ 68.1
IV
7
9
262
29
$
80,192
$ 306
14
2
241
120
31,496
131
Sub -Total
11
503
46
$
111,688
$ 222.0
V
4
5
896
99
$
54,785
$ 61
15
8
1,318
165
79,025
60
23
6
491
82
34,944
71
Sub -Total
23
2,705
118
$
168,754
$ 62.3
VI
5
7
636
91
19,038
$ 30
Sub -Total
7
636
91
$
19,038
$ 29.9
Grand Totals
108
8,28776
.7
$1,876,830
$ 226.4
Source: Washington County Tax Assessor's Records
11
TABLE 3
REAL ESTATE SALES
BY PLANNING SECTOR - 1966
Source: Washington County Tax Assessor's Records
12
Unimproved Market
Planning
Election
Total No.
Number of
Average
Average
Value
Sector
District
of Sales
Acres Sold
Tract Size
Total
Value/Acre
I
2
2
224
112
$
38,370
$171
9
6
401
67
71,426
178
10
6
611
102
240,686
394
13
5
330
66
49,287
149
18
4
244
61
50,418
207
24
4
328
82
125,350
382
26
0
0
0
0
0
27
3
68
23
53,567
788
Sub -Total
30
2,206
74
$
569,104
$257.9
II
1
15
1,980
132
$
309,284
$156
6
14
605
43
195,506
323
12
8
968
121
130,141
135
16
5
252
50
45,612
181
19
7
502
72
94,925
189
20
5
786
157
104,614
133
Sub -Total
54
5,093
94
$
880,082
$172.8
III
8
20
1,991
99
$
296,075
$149
11
7
473
68
69,350
147
Sub -Total
27
2,564
95
$
365,425
$142.5
IV
7
11
623
57
$
93,020
$149
14
4
154
38
26,130
170
Sub -Total
15
777
51
$
119,150
153.3
V
4
8
1,562
195
$
148,265
$ 95
15
10
1,187
119
109,252
92
23
4
317
79
51,648
163
Sub -Total
22
3,066
139
$
309,165
$100.8
VI
5
10
612
61
$
65,980
$108
Sub -Total
10
612
61
$
65,980
$107.8
Grand Totals
158
14,21889
.9
$2,308,906
$162.3
Source: Washington County Tax Assessor's Records
12
TABLE 4
REAL ESTATE SALES
BY PLANNING SECTOR - 1969
Source: Washington County Tax Assessor's Records
13
Unimproved Market
Planning
Election
Total No.
Number of
Average
Average Value
Sector
District
of Sales
Acres Sold
Tract Size
Total
Value Acre
1
2
1
22
22
$
9,900
$ 450
9
4
341
85
68,585
201
10
4
402
100
150,900
375
13
10
554
55
429,870
776
18
6
130
21
77,726
598
24
0
0
0
0
0
26
1
83
83
90,000
1,084
27
0
0
0
0
0
Sub -Total
26
1,532
59
$
781,981
$ 510.4
II
1
13
325
25
$
134,155
$ 413
6
16
804
50
368,359
458
12
7
903
129
210,067
233
16
3
54
18
24,797
459
19
3
158
53
47,800
303
20
4
686
171
174,030
254
Sub -Total
46
2,930
64
$
959,208
$ 327.3
III
8
11
561
51
$
198,899
$ 355
11
6
91
15
41,360
455
Sub -Total
17
652
38
$
240,259
$ 368.5
IV
7
6
212
35
$
44,540
$ 210
14
3
67
23
18,195
272
Sub -Total
9
279
31
$
62,735
$ 224.8
V
4
5
127
25
$
41,080
$ 323
15
9
1,409
157
179,167
127
23
8
655
82
144,691
221
Sub -Total
22
2,191
99
$
364,938
$ 166.5
VI
5
9
605
67
$
119,949
$ 198
Sub -Total
9
605
67
$
119,949
$ 198.2
Grand Totals
129
8,18963
.5
$2,529,070
$ 308.8
Source: Washington County Tax Assessor's Records
13
also represents 37.3% of the total unimproved land value of the transactions. (Table 5)
TABLE 5
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF
TOTAL COUNTY REAL ESTATE SALES BY PLANNING SECTOR
1962, 1966, 1969
Source: Washington County Tax Assessor's Records
N
The lower portion of the county, Planning Sector III, seemed to reflect the same
general trends as its adjacent area, Sector II. In 1966, Sector III recorded 21 transactions by
outside buyers which represented 2,173 acres. Several parcels whose value ranged between
$500 to $999 per acre were sold in 1969 near Dargan and Harper's Ferry National
Monument. The sale of land along Blue Ridge Mountain may indicate continued demand for
recreational development land. (Table 6)
Smithsburg is the most significant urban area in Planning Sector IV and the cost of
land is highest. In 1969 only 6.917o of the total sales recorded occurred in this sector.
The highest value per acre of unimproved land in Sector V occurred around the area
of Clear Spring and reflects the impact of I-70 and its interchange south of the town.
Analysis of this sector indicates that for all three years studied (1962, 1966, 1969) the
largest average tract size per sale occurred in this area. For the three years the average sizes
were 139, 118, and 99 acres per sale respectively.
In Planning Sector VI, the westernmost portion of Washington County, the lowest
frequency of sales occurred in all the years examined. The area is heavily wooded and too
mountainous to be considered prime development land. Interest in land by outside buyers in
this sector was non-existent. Except for a few purchases around Hancock, Sector VI seemed
to be the most unaffected area in the general trend of increasing land values.
Land Values
The above information served as a background for estimation of current market
14
1962-% of Total
1966-17, of Total
1969-17o of Total
No. of
Unimproved
No. of
Unimproved
No. of
Unimproved
Planning
Total No.
Acres
Total Market
Total No.
Acres
Total Market
Total No.
Acres
Total Market
Sector
of Sales
Sold
Value
of Sales
Sold
Value
of Sales
Sold
Value
I
28.7
29.0
73.0
18.9
15.5
24.6
20.2
18.7
30.9
II
24.1
18.9
9.3
34.2
35.8
38.1
35.7
35.8
37.9
III
9.3
5.6
1.7
17.1
18.0
15.8
13.2
7.9
9.5
IV
10.2
6.1
5.9
9.5
5.5
5.2
6.9
3.4
2.5
V
21.3
32.6
8.9
13.9
21.6
13.4
17.0
26.8
14.4
VI
6.5
7.7
1.0
6.3
4.3
2.9
6.9
7.4
4.7
Source: Washington County Tax Assessor's Records
N
The lower portion of the county, Planning Sector III, seemed to reflect the same
general trends as its adjacent area, Sector II. In 1966, Sector III recorded 21 transactions by
outside buyers which represented 2,173 acres. Several parcels whose value ranged between
$500 to $999 per acre were sold in 1969 near Dargan and Harper's Ferry National
Monument. The sale of land along Blue Ridge Mountain may indicate continued demand for
recreational development land. (Table 6)
Smithsburg is the most significant urban area in Planning Sector IV and the cost of
land is highest. In 1969 only 6.917o of the total sales recorded occurred in this sector.
The highest value per acre of unimproved land in Sector V occurred around the area
of Clear Spring and reflects the impact of I-70 and its interchange south of the town.
Analysis of this sector indicates that for all three years studied (1962, 1966, 1969) the
largest average tract size per sale occurred in this area. For the three years the average sizes
were 139, 118, and 99 acres per sale respectively.
In Planning Sector VI, the westernmost portion of Washington County, the lowest
frequency of sales occurred in all the years examined. The area is heavily wooded and too
mountainous to be considered prime development land. Interest in land by outside buyers in
this sector was non-existent. Except for a few purchases around Hancock, Sector VI seemed
to be the most unaffected area in the general trend of increasing land values.
Land Values
The above information served as a background for estimation of current market
14
TABLE 6
REAL ESTATE SALES TO OUTSIDE BUYERS
WASHINGTON COUNTY 1962, 1966, 1969
Source: Washington County Tax Assessor's Records
15
Percent
Percent
Percent
Planning
No. of
Total
Total
Value
Total
of Total
of Total
Year
Sector
Sales
Acres
Value
Per Acre
Value
Area Sales
Properties
1962
I
2
178
$
98,012
$ 550
5.2
1.8
.01
II
1
15
1,075
76
.1
.9
.02
III
4
254
18,832
74.1
1.0
3.7
.27
IV
1
18
4,417
276
.2
.9
.04
V
4
768
33,522
43.6
1.8
3.7
.17
VI
1
128
4,300
34
.2
.9
.06
Sub -Total
13
1,361
$
160,158
$ 117.7
8.5
11.9
.57
1966
I
7
274
$
157,753
$ 575.7
6.8
4.4
.05
II
19
1,766
328,231
185.8
14.2
12.0
.41
III
21
2,173
331,339
152.5
14.4
13.3
1.46
IV
3
109
25,400
233
1.1
1.9
.12
V
6
729
95,031
130.4
4.1
3.8
.25
VI
1
75
7,220
96
.3
.6
.06
Sub -Total
57
5,126
$
945,034
$ 184.4
40.9
36.0
2.35
1969
I
4
190
$
231,516
$1,218
9.1
3.1
.03
II
26
1,446
408,386
282.4
16.1
20.2
.57
III
7
517
159,997
309
6.3
5.3
.48
IV
1
35
10,000
285
.4
.8
.04
V
4
800
106,242
132
4.2
3.1
.17
VI
1
15
30,000
2,000
1.2
.8
.06
Sub -Total
43
3,003
$
946,141
$ 315
37.3
33.3
1.35
Grand Totals
113
9,490
$2,051,333
$ 216
30.5
28.6
4.27
Source: Washington County Tax Assessor's Records
15
values of unimproved land within Washington County. Value classes were established and
general assumptions were developed. The value classes were developed with the following
general description of land falling within each:
$0-$499 Primarily farm land value, mostly in the western and southern
ends of the county, land suitable for large farms,. includes land
particularly unsuited for development, land beyond range of
current development pressure.
$500-$999 Large acreage available for developers with fair access, some
future access to water and sewer facilities, varying
physiographic obstacles to development, recreational potential.
$100044000 Land adjacent to access points on expressways, good drainage,
areas easily sewerable or obviously in the path of imminent
development, highly speculative land.
Over $4000 Land already recognized as ripe for intensive development with
excellent location, particularly with commercial potential
and/or high rise, garden apartment possibilities, possible
motel -hotel sites.
Assumptions:
1. Land will continue to be available at current market rates provided present
"tight money" inflationary pressures will begin to ease.
2. Land values present along expressways near metropolitan areas will continue to
be prime areas of interest for development purposes by a variety of major and
minor industries.
3. Land along the Potomac River and in southern portion of county, will have
increased pressure for development as recreational and vacation home type
activity. Sales indicated that potential buyers could include individuals from
Washington, D. C., Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey,
New York as well as other regions in Maryland.
4. Additional development of park areas (e.g., Ft. Frederick) will create further
demands for tourist and service oriented type industry to be built at major
access points.
5. Institutional land (schools, churches, clubs, etc.) will more than likely remain in
their present uses and will not be marketed. The demand for more of such land
may even increase (e.g., Boy Scouts, Church, recreational camps, nature centers,
etc.).
16
6. Land values around growing municipalities will rise with anticipated growth.
7. Municipalities and local government (Board of Education) pay the highest rates
when they are required to acquire additional land for schools, parks, annexation
purposes and will probably continue to do so in the future due to the necessity
of buying land in and near developed areas.
Washington County is still today primarily agricultural in character. However,
pressures for urban development will continue to increase in proportion to expanding
metropolitan regions. South Mountain is no longer a physical barrier to the east. It may be
viewed as a lookout for Washington Countains from which they may view the encroaching
sprawl of megalopolis and those seeking to escape its pressure -cooker way of life. The
natural barriers to Washington County have been overcome by the interstate roads system.
The attraction of its physical beauty and economic potential may now have been discovered.
17
18
PART 3
UPDATED PROJECTIONS
Since the preparation of Volume I of the Washington County Planning Program on
population, economics and housing, the 1970 census data became available which required
the revision of population projections and land use requirements in light of the census.
Population - Although reliable sources of information such as school enrollments,
building permits, and utility installations indicated a much higher population in Washington
County in 1970, the total population during the ten year period between 1960 and 1970
grew to only 103,829. Estimates for future years have accordingly been revised as have
future land use requirements.
Market Analysis - Volume I of this study stopped short of specific market analysis
due to the imminence of the receipt of the 1970 census figures. Accordingly, a complete
analysis was done after these data became available.
Population Changes 1960-1970
Preliminary census figures for 1970 confirm the trend of population exodus from
major cities to outlying suburban and rural areas. Many of the nation's largest cities lost
significant numbers of residents. (Tables 7, 8, and 9)
An examination of the population changes by Planning Sectors within the County
follows.
Planning Sector I - Hagerstown Metropolitan Area
Approximately 60% of Washington County's growth in the last decade occurred in
this metropolitan sector. This represents an actual increase of population of about 6,100
residents. However, the shifts of inhabitants within the area are significant. Hagerstown, for
the first time in several decades, lost 4% of its population. Hagerstown's loss reflects
nationwide trends of people seeking to acquire more space or "breathing room" and the
amenities associated with suburban living. An antiquated downto'W" shopping district,
congested narrow city streets, lack of city transportation service, the poor condition of
much housing, all contribute to the desire of city dwellers to find newer and more
convenient patterns of living.
The greatest percentage of growth, in Sector I, 60%, occured in Election District 27
north of the City. This district also contains most of the conveniences and amenities
associated with suburban -living attractive modern subdivisions, a sense of open space, fairly
good access to employment centers and shopping center activities. The two districts with
the next highest growth percentage, approximately 35%, are Election District 26, Halfway,
and Election District 9, Leitersburg. Halfway could be described as typically suburban with
19
TABLE 7
ACTUAL POPULATION CHANGE
WASHINGTON COUNTY BY ELECTION DISTRICTS
AND PLANNING SECTORS, 1960-1970[l]
Election
District 1960 1970
Total County
I Metro
Hagerstown
II Middle
2
9
10
13
18
24
26
27
1
6
12
16
19
20
III
South East
8
11
IV
North East
7
14
V
Central
4
15
23
VI
Western
5
91,219
62,499
36,660
3,529
1,677
4,124
3,402
3,931
682
5,236
3,528
11,442
2,051
3,105
2,612
1,700
910
1,064
2,804
1,440
1,364
5,321
2,445
2,876
5,644
1,909
1,592
2,143
3,509
3,509
101,280
68,581
35,154
4,080
2,260
4,628
4,057
5,085
830
7,273
5,214
12,937
2,005
3,314
3,352
2,149
992
1,125
2,923
1,575
1,348
7,464
3,359
4,105
6,053
1,927
1,577
2,549
3,332
3,332
[1 ] 1970 data from Preliminary U. S. Census of Population for Maryland.
20
Percent
Change
11.0
9.7
-4.1
15.6
35.6
12.2
14.1
29.4
21.7
39.0
60.0
13.1
-2.3
6.7
28.3
26.4
9.0
5.7
4.2
9.4
-1.2
40.2
37.4
42.7
7.2
0.9
-0.9
18.9
-5.0
-5.0
TABLE 8
ACTUAL POPULATION GROWTH
WASHINGTON COUNTY AND PERCENT CHANGE
BY PLANNING SECTOR 1960-1970 [ 1 ]
Planning
1960-1970
1970 Proportion
Sector
1960
1970
Change
of Total County
I - Metro
62,499
68,581
+9.7%
67.7%
II - Middle
11,442
12,937
+13.1%
12.7%
III- South East
2,804
2,923
+4.2%
2.9%
IV- North East
5,321
7,464
+40.2%
7.4%
V- Central
5,644
6,053
+7.2%
6.0%
VI- Western
3,509
3,332
-5.0%
3.3%
Total County
91,219
101,280
+11.0%
100.0%
Hagerstown [2]
(36,660)
(35,154)
(4.1%)
(34.7%)
[1 ] 1970 data from Preliminary U.S. Census of Population for Maryland.
[2] Hagerstown figures included in Sector I - Metro.
TABLE 9
REVISED POPULATION PROJECTIONS
BY PLANNING SECTOR, WASHINGTON COUNTY
1970-2000 [ 1 ]
Planning
Sector
1970
1980
1990
2000
I -Metro
68,581
71,000
76,610
82,940
II - Middle
12,937
14,650
15,800
18,150
III- Southeast
2,923
3,380
3,650
3,890
IV- Northeast
7,464
12,400
13,380
14,500
V - Central
6,053
6,770
7,300
7,780
VI- Western
3,332
4,500
4,860
5,085
Total County
101,280
112,700
121,600
132,345
Hagerstown [2]
(35,154)
(36,000)
(38,000)
(40,000)
[1] Based upon 1970 Preliminary U. S. Census of Population for Maryland.
[2] Hagerstown figures included in Sector I - Metro.
21
good access to the interstate system while being centrally located for city or suburb activity.
The Leitersburg District is more agricultural in nature, with its population center more along
the lines of a country village or hamlet. Washington County residents are especially fond of
the small town atmosphere and community spirit fostered by such villages. The areas north
and northeast of Hagerstown will no doubt continue to increase in population at a high rate.
Already extremely high land values -in this portion of the metropolitan area are reflecting
the potential market value of suburban living.
Another significant growth area is the Md. Route 64 corridor east of the city.
Election District 18 showed a 30% increase in population, no doubt due to the proliferation
of subdivision activity along the Smithsburg Pike. Lack of sewerage services, increasing
congestion of the two lane highway, and additional housing construction all point to the
necessity for planning to give this section high priority for governmental services and action
by private citizens and organizations.
Election Districts 10, 13, and 2, Funkstown, Conococheague and Williamsport
respectively, all indicate lower growth rates within the metropolitan area. In part, saturated
land uses in the Williamsport and Funkstown area do not permit significant increases in
residences or business activity. Also, the physical constraints of the Interstate Routes 70 and
81, act to prohibit growth by denying access to potential areas of development. The
Conococheague district has a high potential for residential and commercial and industrial
growth which has yet to be exploited. In the next decade this portion of the metropolitan
area will see an increasing growth rate as other areas become more stable.
The fluctuations in population are directly affected by the economic health of the
county and, in turn, the region as a whole. Recent inflation and unemployment have no
doubt had their effect on the population counts. More information and study will be needed
before assuming the complete validity of the recent census.
Planning Sector II - The Middle Area
The second most populous area of the county is in this sector which is located below
I-70 and includes the towns of Boonsboro, Keedysville and Sharpsburg. The growth rate for
Sector II was 15%, or third highest in the county. As in Sector I, however, the rate varies
greatly within election districts. Those showing the most gain in population were Election
District 12, Tilghmanton and Election District 16, Beaver Creek, both with an increase of
27%. New housing continues to spring up along Md. Route 65, the Sharpsburg Pike, and is
primarily limited to single family homes and trailers. Not unlike Leitersburg in Section I,
Tilghmanton is a small community where new housing has occurred and again reflects the
individualistic nature of the Washington Countian in his desire for an essential rural
character which has dominated the county in the past. Beaver Creek District also is dotted
with small hamlets such as Wagners Crossroads, Mt. Lena, Mt. Aetna along the collector
routes of the county highway system. The inherent complication of this type of
development along major and minor arterials is examined in the section on the
22
transportation system. At this point, suffice it to say that it represents a trend which
unchecked could prove detrimental to the orderly growth of Washington County.
Election Districts 6, Boonsboro, 19, Keedysville, and 20, Downsville have increased
in population approximately 7% which is below the total county average. Sharpsburg and
Keedysville do not contain the economic opportunity and jobs sufficient to attract
increasing numbers of residents to these communities. Boonsboro has increased in
population however by over 14%, annexation accounting for a large measure of this change.
The location of several small industries, an educational campus (senior, junior high schools,
elementary school), and the location of some shopping and convenience services make
Boonsboro the focal community in the lower portion of Washington County. Of all the
municipalities outside of Hagerstown, Boonsboro has the higher percentage of newer
housing in primarily old communities. Downsville is another village but is dominated by the
bends of the Potomac River and its several large private recreational clubs along its banks.
The population here increases or decreases according to the cycles of recreational activity
and climate. Another district affected by this cycle is the Sharpsburg area, Election District
1, which suffered a loss in population of 2% in the last decade. The most significant factor
in the decrease seems to be the apparent shift of agricultural land to recreational activity.
Residents in Election District 2 have shown a desire to sell their lands to out of state
residents for vacation cabin -type lots taking advantage of the tremendous scenic and natural
features sought by increasing numbers of city dwellers. So, while the permanent population
has decreased, there apparently is a much larger percent increase of persons in seasonal
cycles. This trend is borne out by further studies on land values in another phase of the
report.
Planning Sector III - The Southeast
Sector III gained an actual 119 in population or a 4% increase. Election District 8,
Rohersville, gained 9% in its many hamlets and villages located primarily along Md. Route
67. The fact that this district increased at the same approximate percentage as the county
indicates continued interest in rural settlements and no major shift to urbanized areas.
Election District 11, Sandy Hook, is in many ways similar to the Sharpsburg District
in Sector II. It lost about one percent population but studies also indicate significant
amounts of land being sold for recreational and vacation activity to out -of -county residents.
The many tributaries to the Potomac River, the river itself, rugged mountainous terrain and
abundant wildlife are all resources which are being sought by more and more people.
Planning Sector IV - The Northeast
Planning Sector IV, comprising Election Districts 7 and 14 showed the largest
percent of increase in population from 1960 to 1970. The Cavetown District which includes
the town of Smithsburg and its surrounding area grew by 37% to approximately 3,359
persons. Smithsburg itself grew by 9% reflecting that most growth occurred outside its
boundaries along Md. Route 64. Many new subdivisions and individual homes around the
23
town support the trend of families seeking housing near urban centers but not in them.
Smithsburg has the potential of offering commercial, educational, and governmental services
to residents who may be employed in Washington County or in surrounding regions which
offer employment potential.
Ringgold, District 14, has increased 42% and in part may be a housing area for those
who work in Pennsylvania but live in Washington County. Ringgold and Pen Mar are two of
the villages which serve as communities for out of state workers as well as those in
Washington County. There have been no major or minor industrial or commercial
relocations in this section of the county which might account for the high percentage
increase in population.
Planning Sector V - The Central Area
Planning Sector V, the area west of Conococheague Creek, increased by 7%. Two
districts, Election District 4, Clear Spring and Election District 15, Indian Springs, had little
measurable population change. The Town of Clear Spring also reflected the static character
of the two election districts. Sector V is mainly rural, agricultural and mountainous in
nature and continues to be so. Interstate 70 has the effect of carrying travelers through this
region, giving it a scenic character, not one where subdivision or housing activity would be
likely to occur.
Election District 23, Wilson, increased in population by 18% as much new housing
continues to locate along major and minor arterial highways. Sector V is simply not close
enough to major employment centers and too valuable for agriculture to offer high potential
for major population changes. Vacation housing potential, however, is possible.
Planning Sector VI - The Western Area
The Western Area is wholly contained in Election District 5, Hancock. Since 1960
this sector has lost 5% of its population. The only urban center, Hancock has lost 18% of its
inhabitants since 1960. The orientation of the region is more north -south with many of
those employed traveling from or to West Virginia and Pennsylvania. Physical constraints
such as the Interstate highways and rough terrain act as deterrants to significant expansion
of Hancock for either housing or industry. Natural resource mining has the potential for
increasing employment and thereby population. However, the economics of such operations
are difficult to predict and should not be conclusive weight to any justification. The
remoteness of Hancock and its lack of economic opportunity may account for its decreasing
population. Excepting a major industrial or rural resort development, the trend is likely to
continue.
Land Requirements
Retail Market Potential. Analysis of retail market potential for the county includes
the estimation of current and future retail space for "shopping" and "convenience" goods. or
24
Study Approach and Methodology. Two kinds of retail goods have been considered:
1) "shopping goods," which include general merchandise, apparel and furnishings, and 2)
"convenience goods", including all other retail trade categories, according to the U. S.
Census of Retail Trade definition.
Whereas "convenience" goods sales usually rely on "local" populations, (i.e., market
areas of small geographic size), "shopping goods" sales are oriented to larger regional
populations. That is, the normal convenience goods trip for the consumer is shorter than
that for a shopping goods trip, e.g., 5 minutes versus 20 minutes.
The history of retail sales in Washington County, according to the U. S. Census of
Retail Trade for the years 1958, 1963, and 1967 was reviewed, and the current level of sales
was compared with expected retail sales based on County population and income levels.
This allowed estimation of "primary" and "secondary" retail trade areas.
The "primary" retail market area used in this analysis comprises all of Washington
County. In addition, parts of Pennsylvania and West Virginia must be considered to be part
of the County's retail market area. The "primary" retail market area is observed to account
for 80% of total sales. This is consistent with experience in most regional shopping centers,
where 60% of sales come from within a 10 minute driving time area, and + 20% originate in
a 10 - 20 minute driving time area. Analysis of shopping and convenience goods
expenditures in the U. S. as percent of disposable income indicates that shopping goods
account for 13.8% and convenience goods for 39.4% of the disposable income of a market
population.
Comparison of Washington County population sales potential with actual retail sales
levels in the county substantiates that retail sales equivalent to 20% of total sales can be
attributed to non -County population. It is this additional sales amount which is said to
derive from the "secondary" market area.
Estimates of retail space potential for the study area over the planning period of
1970-2000 were made based on the following information:
1. Population estimates.
2. Per capita disposal income estimates, (effective buying income, Sales
Management).
3. "Shopping goods" space potential, based on observation of share of total retail
sales in the U. S. and each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
4. "Convenience goods" sales potential, per above.
Overall sales potential for the "primary market area" was adjusted to reflect the
additional sales potential accruing from the " secondary market".
25
Total sales potential was translated into building square feet potential, using an
average of $60.00 per square foot, consistent generally with average overall sales for retail
outlets.
Building space was allocated to the six Planning Sectors for both shopping and
convenience goods. The allocation was based on the following assumptions:
1. That Hagerstown would continue to account for approximately 85% of
shopping goods space in the County. This assumption is supported by the
County highway network which shows two Interstate highways intersecting
near Hagerstown - Planning Sector I - implying a logical location for expanded
regional shopping facilities. If planned new communities are constructed in
other sectors as portrayed in the General Plan, such communities would create
markets and doubtless capture sales of their own residents and could possibly
create their own secondary trade area.
2. That additional shopping goods would be distributed in relation to larger
population centers in the County, for example, Planning Sectors II and IV.
3. That convenience goods would be distributed according to the percent share of
each Planning Sector in total County population, based on the assumption that
convenience space serves local markets. This is supported by the fact that
Hagerstown currently comprises 68% of County population and accounts for
64% of convenience goods sales.
Land requirements for retail space were estimated for the County based on estimates
of existing retail space, * (total sales divided by $60.00 p.s.f.) and total land currently used
for commercial purposes in the County. It was assumed that all land recorded for
commercial use, exclusive of that used primarily for office space, established separately in
this study at 15 acres represents retail activities. This would include, of course, large land
users, such as auto sales facilities and furniture stores.
The F.A.R. (floor -to -area ratio) resulting from this comparison proved to be 0.02. A
distinction was made between land requirements for shopping and convenience goods,
recognizing that shopping goods stores normally require less floor space on -the -average than
do convenience stores. An F.A.R. of 0.18 was used for shopping goods and an F.A.R. of
0.015 for convenience goods.
Conclusions
1. The Hagerstown area represents a regional retail center that serves a trade area
* It is unlikely that the County contains retail space commensurate with current sales levels,
given the above assumption.
26
which is coexistent with Washington County and includes areas in Pennsylvania
as far north as Chambersburg, as far south as Martinsburg in West Virginia and
in Maryland east to Frederick.
2. Nearly 20% of all retail sales in the County can be attributed to non -County,
"secondary trade area" population.
3. Total shopping goods space to be added between 1970 and 2000 is
approximately 1,730,000 sq. ft. Convenience goods space added during the
same period is estimated at nearly 5.0 million sq. ft. (See Table 10).
4. Approximately 85% of all shopping goods space added in this period would
likely occur in Planning Sector I. An additional 3,120 sq. ft. of convenience
space is likely to accrue in this Planning Sector. The total square feet of added
space in Planning Sector I implies the possibility for at least one large regional
retail center to be located there, or approximately 1 million square feet. (See
Table 11).
5. The estimated retail space potential over the planning study period implies a
need for some 7,900 acres of additional retail land. (See Table 12).
TABLE 10
RETAIL SPACE ESTIMATES, 1970-2000
"SHOPPING" AND "CONVENIENCE" GOODS SALES POTENTIAL
Planning Period
1970 1980 1990 2000
Population Reference
101,280
112,700
121,600
132,345
Per Capita Effective Buying Income-($)
2,554
3,498
4,792
6,517
Total Disposable Income{$000's)
258,669
394,225
582,707
862,493
Shopping Goods Sales Potential{$000's)
44,820
88,000
100,517
148,780
Convenience Goods Sales Potential -($000's)
127,394
194,155
286,983
424,778
Subtotal
172,214
282,155
387,500
573,558
(Below, in Sq. Ft.)
Shopping Goods Space, @$60/sq.ft.
750,000
1,465,000
1,675,000
2,480,000
Convenience Goods Space, @$60/sq.ft.
2,125,000
3,235,000
4,785,000
7,080,000
Total Space Potential
2,875,000
4,700,000
6,460,000
9,560,000
Space Added Per ten year period
—
1,825,000
1,750,000
3,100,000
Cumulative Space Added
Shopping Goods
—
715,000
925,000
1,730,000
Convenience Goods
—
1,110,000
2,660,000
4,955,000
Total
—
1,825,000
3,585,000
6,685,000
27
28
TABLE 11
DISTRIBUTION
OF RETAIL SPACE POTENTIAL
BY PLANNING SECTOR, 1970-2000 (IN SQUARE FEET)
Planning
Period
1970
1980
1990
2000
Population Reference, Study Area
101,280
112,700
121,600
132,345
Planning Sector I
Shopping Goods Space
625,000
610,000
180,000
680,000
Convenience Goods Space
1,440,000
700,000
975,000
1,450,000
Total
2,065,000
1,310,000
1,155,000
2,130,000
Cumulative Total
2,065,000
3,375,000
4,530,000
6,660,000
Planning Sector I1
Shopping Goods Space
80,000
60,000
20,000
65,000
Convenience Goods Space
270,000
145,000
200,000
295,000
Total
350,000
205,000
220,000
360,000
Cumulative Total
350,000
555,000
775,000
1,135,000
Planning Sector III
Shopping Goods Space
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Convenience Goods Space
60,000
35,000
50,000
70,000
Total
60,000
35,000
50,000
70,000
Cumulative Total
60,000
95,000
145,000
215,000
Planning Sector IV
Shopping Goods Space
45,000
45,000
10,000
60,000
Convenience Goods Space
160,000
120,000
170,000
250,000
Total
205,000
165,000
180,000
310,000
Cumulative Total
205,000
370,000
550,000
860,000
Planning Sector V
Shopping Goods Space
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Convenience Goods Space
125,000
65,000
95,000
140,000
Total
125,000
65,000
95,000
140,000
Cumulative Total
125,000
190,000
285,000
425,000
Planning Sector VI
Shopping Goods Space
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Convenience Goods Space
70,000
45,000
60,000
90,000
Total
70,000
45,000
60,000
90,000
Cumulative Total
70,000
115,000
175,000
265,000
28
TABLE 12
RETAIL ACREAGE REQUIREMENTS
(IN ACRES)
Cumulative Retail Space Added, Study Area
Cumulative Shopping Goods Acres*
Cumulative Convenience Goods Acres**
Total
Acres Required By Ten -Year Period
Shopping Goods
Convenience Goods
Total
* F.A.R. = 0.180
** F.A.R. = 0.015
Planning Period
1970
1980
1990
2000
—
1,825,000
3,585,000
6,685,000
90
185
215
315
3,140
4,950
7,325
10,835
3,230
5,135
7,540
11,140
95 30 100
-- 1,810 2,375 3,510
-- 1,905 2,405 3,630
Supporting Findings. Distribution of specific kinds of retail space for the
County -at -large can be estimated as follows, based on the observed share of sales per retail
category in total retail sales of a region:
Retail Category
Department Stores
Variety Stores
Furnishing
Apparel
Food Stores
Drug Stores
Other
Total Added
Retail Space
1970-2000 (sq.ft.)
790,000
110,000
335,000
415,000
1,500,000
235,000
3,315,000
Office Space Potential. Analysis of office space potential for the County is based on
estimates for "local" office space demand, versus regional/national headquarters office space
or specialized office space serving regional business and industry.
Normally, one would distinguish between office space serving strictly the local
population, e.g., lawyers, doctors, realtors, etc. (here, called "local office space"); office
space serving business and industry, e.g., personnel agencies, market research firms, data
29
processing firms, etc.; and office space comprising regional or national headquarters of
corporations, large institutions or associations.
Whereas "headquarters" space is difficult to estimate, given that such locational
decisions on the part of major users tend to be discrete and non -perceivable from normal
market data, office space serving business and industry is difficult to estimate given the
uncertainties of agglomerations of major industries in a given location. This is relevant to
Washington County which is currently experiencing cut-backs in employment among its
major firms.
Therefore, analysis of office space has been limited to "local" office space potential.
"Local office space" estimates have been made based on population growth and
assumptions regarding the percent of total employment in the study area which represents
office jobs.
Without special investigation of the distribution of office jobs among total
employment in the study area, the following generalized assumptions have been made, based
on experience in other geographic areas in Maryland and New Jersey.
Percent
Employment Category Office Jobs
Construction
5
Manufacturing
5
Transportation, Commu-
nications and Utilities
5
Wholesaling
15
Retail
10
Finance, Insurance
and Real Estate
95
Government
75
Services
30
"Other"
5
Using these assumptions in estimating office employment in the study area,
(according to employment estimates given in Table 32, Vol. I) the equivalent of 20% of
total employment is assumed to be "local office" employment.
Local office employment was estimated for each year over the planning period.
Office space was estimated using 180 square feet per employee, which represents a
national average.
kul
Land required to support additional office space in the study area was based on an
assumed F.A.R. of 0.45.
Conclusions
1. Table 13 shows estimates for "local office space" for the County and for each
of the six Planning Sectors. Space was allocated among the Planning Sectors
according to population distribution.
2. A total of some 1,000,000 square feet of office .space is estimated to be added
in the study area between 1970 and 2000.
3. Average annual office space potential over the planning period is estimated at
33,000 square feet.
4. Not all of the space added, of course, can be assumed to represent structures
used exclusively for offices, since a substantial amount would be included in
buildings whose primary uses are other than office, for example, industrial
buildings.
5. Land requirements for local office space for the County are given in Table 14.
Supporting Findings
1. The total office potential in the County is not represented by these estimates.
Careful examination of office space serving business and industry should be
carried out by the Commission' staff.
2. Nevertheless, this study indicates marginal potential for "speculative" office
space, especially in light of current employment cut-backs among the County's
major employers.
3. Growth in "local office space" over the planning period indicates an increase of
from 15 square feet per capita population in 1970 to 20 square feet per capita
in 2000. This increase can be interpreted to indicate that because per capita
income increases at a higher rate than population, * demand for local office
space increases.
Industrial Market Potential. Estimates of industrial space potential, in terms of
acreage absorption have been based on employment estimates for certain industrial
classifications.
* Annual compound growth rate for population of 1% versus 3.2% for personal per capita
disposal income.
31
TABLE 13
LOCAL OFFICE SPACE POTENTIAL
Planning Period
1970 1980 1990 2000
Population Reference, Study Area 101,280 112,700 121,600 132,345
Local Office Employment 8,700 9,930 12,125 13,960
Study Area Local Office Space
Potential (In Square Feet): 1,500,000 1,785,000 2,200,000 2,500,000
Local Office Space Potential
Per Planning Sector:
Planning Sector I
1,000,000
1,125,000
1,400,000
Planning Sector II
200,000
230,000
285,000
Planning Sector III
45,000
50,000
65,000
Planning Sector IV
115,000
195,000
240,000
Planning Sector V
90,000
110,000
130,000
Planning Sector VI
50,000
75,000
80,000
Space Added Per Ten -Year Period,(Sq.Ft.)
-
285,000
415,000
Cumulative Space Added:
285,000
700,000
Average Annual Space Potential,
Per Ten -Year Period:
-
28,500
41,500
TABLE 14
LOCAL OFFICE SPACE ACREAGE
REQUIREMENTS (IN ACRES)
Cumulative Local Office Space Added
Total Acres Required
Acres Required By Ten -Year Period
32
Planning Period
1970 1980 1990
- 285,000 700,000
- 15 35
15 20
1,5 70,000
340,000
75,000
275,000
150,000
90,000
300,000
1,000,000
2000
1,000,000
50
15
Industrial space potential has been based on employment in the following industries:
Percent Workers
Located in
Industry Industrial Areas
Manufacturing
94%
Contract Construction
10%
Transportation, Commu-
nications and Utilities
54%
Wholesaling
50%
The above percentages of total employment reflect observations concerning workers
in these industries who actually work in facilities located in industrial areas. (Other workers
are located in office space, "in the field", etc.).
These factors were used in estimating the number of employees in the County who
would be located in industrial zones. (See Table 32, Vol. I).
The impact of in -commuters to jobs in the County was not taken into account due
to the fact the in and out -commuting tends to be equivalent, or not significant in absolute
terms.
Land absorption for industrial use over the planning period was based on
independent estimates of land currently in industrial use in the planning area. 'The average
number of workers per industrial acre in the County is estimated to be 11 workers. This
compares with observations in other parts of Maryland:
Workers per
Industry Industrial Acre
Manufacturing 15
Contract Construction 10
Transportation, Commu-
nications and Utilities 10
Wholesaling 10
The above ratios "weighted" for County employment would produce an overall
density of 14 workers per industrial acre, instead of 11 per worker.
Industrial land absorption is not equivalent to the amount of land actually utilized,
due to the fact that industries often allow for future land expansion, some land is
unbuildable, or a firm's plans change.
33
This analysis has pointed to the following conclusions:
1. A total of 930 acres of industrial land can be expected to be absorbed in the
study area over the planning period. (See Table 15)
2. Average annual industrial land absorption is approximately 30 acres per year
over the planning period.
3. Manufacturing firms will require the greatest share of industrial land in the
study area.
Industrial land absorption was not distributed among the six planning sectors,
believing that such a distribution requires an in-depth analysis of land suitable for specific
kinds of industries, in terms of their peculiar locational criteria, e.g. access, utility provision,
labor requirements.
However, it seems likely that Planning Sector I will account for a substantial portion
of total industrial land absorption over the planning period, due to superior highway and air
transportation facilities and availability of labor in this sector.
TABLE 15
INDUSTRIAL LAND ABSORPTION ESTIMATES
1970-2000 (IN ACRES)
Planning Period
1970 1980 1990 2000
Employment in Industrial Zones
Manufacturing
14,660
16,540
19,850
23,030
Contract Construction
200
290
355
410
T. C. U.
1,530
1,980
2,370
2,750
Retail
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Wholesale
710
870
970
1,125
F.I.R.E.
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Services
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Government
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Other
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Total
17,100
19,680
23,545
27,315
Industrial Land Absorption, Cumulative
1,555
1,790
2,140
2,485
Industrial Land Absorption, Per Ten -Year
Period:
—
23.5
35.0
34.5
Average Annual Industrial Land Absorption:
—
23.5
35.0
34.5
34
Residential Market Potential. Analysis of Washington County's housing market
entailed estimating dwelling unit demand for the area population over the planning period,
and translating this demand into residential acreage requirements.
Existing occupied dwelling units in the county were documented, based on the 1970
U. S. Census of Housing, Advance Report, Maryland.
Dwelling unit demand was based on population projections for the County; demand
for dwellings was derived by using people per occupied dwelling unit ratios, according to the
1970 Census. This method allowed that current vacancy levels (@ 5% for the total County)
could be taken into account while the ratio of people per "occupied" dwelling unit was
assumed to decline over the planning period.
Owner -occupied and renter -occupied dwelling unit demand were estimated for the
County over the planning period, again on the basis of 1970 Census data. No attempt was
made to vary the proportion of owner -to renter -occupied units, over time, due to
uncertainties associated with the County's current employment profile.
Land requirements for new residential construction were estimated:
1. Assuming that current density of dwelling units per gross residential acre would
remain constant over time, and
2. Assuming that density of dwelling units per gross residential acre would increase
over time.
Conclusions
1. Current dwelling unit vacancy in the County is highest in Hagerstown, 5.717o.
The bulk of County vacancy is in units -for -rent, reflecting the current
employment down -turn.
2. Renter -occupied units are not, of course, limited to structures of 2 or more
dwelling units. However, it may be assumed that the bulk of rental units are not
single family. According to Table H-4, Vol. I, of this study the majority of
multi -family units in the County, exclusive of Hagerstown, are duplexes.
3. There appears to be only marginal demand at this time for garden apartment
development.
4. The bulk of demand for renter -occupied units appears to be in contract rent
ranges of from $40.00-$100.00 per month (70%). This implies a housing market
that is distinctly serviceable through government housing subsidization
programs. (See Table 16).
35
TABLE 16
VALUE/RENT PROFILE OF HOUSING DEMAND
WASHINGTON COUNTY
MARYLAND
Owner - Occupied
Value Range Percent of Total Demand
Renter - Occupied
Value Range Percent of Total Demand
$5,000- $15,000
42%
Less than $40
14.0%
$15,000 - $25,000
43%
$40-$60
26.0%
$25,000 - $35,000
10%
$60-$100
44.0%
$35,000 - $50;000
4%
$100-$150
12.7%
Over $50,000
1%
$150-$200
3.0%
Over $200
0.3%
Source: 1970 U. S. Census of Housing, Advance Report, Maryland.
5. According to the 1970 Census of Housing Advance Report for Maryland, the
proportion of renter -to -owner occupied units in Hagerstown is the converse of
the total County profile; that is, 60:40 in Hagerstown and 40:60 in the County
as a whole.
6. The overall share of residential acreage in the County of total land is 8.5%,
(excluding Hagerstown). This highlights the predominantly rural character of
the County. (Urban areas evidence a 20% residential acreage). Current estimated
dwelling unit density per gross residential acre is as follows for the Planning
Sectors:
Planning Sector D.U. Density.
I
3.5
II
0.8
III
0.3
IV
1.1
V
0.6
VI
0.3
7. Assuming no increase in overall dwelling unit density, Table 17 shows "new"
acreage requirements for the study area and the planning sectors.
By increasing dwelling unit density at an annual rate of 1.0% over the planning
period, the following acreage requirements obtain:
36
TABLE 17
RESIDENTIAL MARKET POTENTIAL
DWELLING UNIT DEMAND AND ACREAGE REQUIREMENTS
Population Reference, Study Area
Number of Occupied Housing Units
Dwelling Demand by Planning Sector
Planning Sector I
Planning Sector 11
Planning Sector III
Planning Sector IV
Planning Sector V
Planning Sector VI
Dwelling Demand Per Ten -Year Period
Average Annual Dwelling Demand
Cumulative Owner -Occupied Dwelling Demand
Cumulative Renter -Occupied Dwelling Demand
Average Annual Renter -Demand
Residential Acres Required Planning
Sector, Per Period
Planning Sector I
Planning Sector 11
Planning Sector III
Planning Sector IV
Planning Sector V
Planning Sector VI
Subtotal
Cumulative Residential Acres Added
- 370
Planning Period
600
1970
1980
1990
2000
101,280
112,700
121,600
132,345
32,463
36,950
40,533
44,115
21,982
23,278
25,536
27,647
4,150
4,803
5,267
6,050
940
1,108
1,217
1,297
2,381
4,066
4,460
4,833
1,942
2,220
2,433
2,593
1,068
1,475
1,620
1,695
--
4,487
3,583
3,582
-
450
360
360
20,127
22,909
25,130
27,357
12,336
14,041
15,403
16,764
--
170
135
135
- 370
645
600
- 815
580
980
- 560
330
265
- 1,530
360
340
- 460
355
265
- 1,360
480
250
- 5,095
2,750
2,700
- 5,095
7,845
10,545
37
Constant D.U.
Planning Increased D.U. Acreage Increase Density Acreage
Sector Density Range 1970-2000 Increases 1970-2000
I
3.50-4.65
1,315
1,615
II
0.80- 1.07
1,950
2,375
III
0.30-0.40
1,010
1,155
IV
1.10 - 1.47
1,935
2,230
V
0.60-0.80
910
1,080
VI
0.30-0.40
1,820
2,090
Total
8,940
10,545
Supporting Findings. Since population is assumed to increase in the study area over
the planning period while the ratio of "people per occupied dwelling unit" declines, the
effect of housing demand at current density's of dwelling units per acre is to increase the
amount of land required for housing and concurrently, to decrease the average density of
people per residential acre.
However, urbanized (metropolitan) areas have experienced increasingly higher
dwelling unit densities over the past 20 years, implying that as the study area, and
particularly Planning Sector I, becomes more urbanized, average dwelling unit density
should increase. According to the above illustration, if dwelling unit density increased over
time at the same rate as that of population growth, total land required for residential
development would be decreased by more than 15%.
Recent Subdivision Development
Over the six year period between 1964 and 1969 inclusive a total of 2,290 units
were built in 85 subdivisions in the County for an average of 382 units per year. It is no
surprise that the largest number of subdivisions were constructed in the Hagerstown
Metropolitan area where some public water and sewer facilities are available. The next
largest area of development was in the Middle area south of Hagerstown where an average of
74 units per year were constructed in 24 subdivisions. In addition to this form of
development, housing has also occurred along existing roads throughout the County.
Enforcement of the Subdivision Regulations will require the review of all subdivision
proposals be they totally designed or in a small sporadic development along the roadside.
This beginning effort of land use control, if complete cooperation between individual,
developer and public agencies can be achieved, should lead to a sense of balance in the
development of the County.
Certain decisions on the part of industry and possible institutional development
could work toward the altering of earlier projections. For example, if a large industry should
locate in the County, the resulting demand for housing for a wide range of persons
associated with such a facility would substantially alter our calculations. Final decisions on
38
1,
A
ALLEGANY
COUNTY
w E s T
WASHINGTON COUNTY
MARYLAND
SUBDIVISIONS
SINGE 1964
LEGEND
UNDER 10 LOTS
10 50 LOTS
OVER 50 LOTS
LOTS OVER 3 ACRES
BAKER—WIBBERLEY AND ASSOCIATES
WILLIAM C. MC DONNELL
CONSULTING PLANNER
T MARYLANC
a to i'xis .,
:Ak SPRING
41�
-3
v t R 13 4 N I A
t
0
J
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
SCALE MILES
0
TABLE 18
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT
WASHINGTON COUNTY, 1964-1969
Planning
Number of Lots
Planning
Number of Lots
District
Subdivision Name 1964
1965
1966 1967
1968 1969
District
Subdivision Name 1964
1965 1966 1967
1968 1969
1
John R. Oliver 6
Grafton Downs
4
Metro
Clearview
8
Conoco Heights
18
Fairview Acres
30
Andy Stamper
7
Mountain View Manor
68
Rice's Development
10
Dual View Acres
7
Potomac Manor
(100)
Sakech Acres
33
Woodmoor
36
Cumberland Valley
Conococheague Manor
9
Hatchery
51
Oak Ridge Estates
150
Greenberry Hills
48
Brightwood Acres
74
Paradise Homes
116
Fountaindale
29 Town -
Sycamore Heights
48
houses
Martin Builders
15
30 12/u
John R. Oliver Co.
5
Apts.
Robin Wood
93
Allen Martin
5
Oak Ridge
8
Mill Village
21
Hilltop Acres
8
Arboranda Estates
10
Thomas Blickenstaff
71
A. L. Decker
5
Day View
18
Clarence Hurd
25
Orchard Hills Extended
25
Spring Valley
53
Sub -Total
46 Subdivisions 6
530 433 153
105 464
Van Lear Manor
70
Sunset Acres
48
Avg. -282 units/year
29 Town -
Northridge Manor
61
Houses
Edison's Development
28
30 12/u
Spring Valley Wooded
Apts.
Estates
35
Houpts Development
4
Raleigh Hoch
12
II
Benevola Park 6
St. James Village
153
Mid.
Golden B. Leatherman
7
Pleasant View Hts.
35
Marie K. Moser
10
Leo Riffle
13
Scenic View Homes
9
Cloverton
14
Westview
15
Greenhill Acres
33
David W. Litton
4
0
Planning
Number of Lots
District
Subdivision Name
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
Northeast
Luther Davis
7
10
El Rancho Knolls
25
13
Horshoe Bend Estates
92
50
Sub -Total
Pemberton
4
0
0
8
23
50
Woodland Park Estates
18
V
Potomac Vistas
5
14
Central
Emmett Abbott
6
23
Potomac Valley Farms
3
97
James B. Hull
9
6
Greenbriar Heights
26
Hurley Estates
5
Walter J. Stouffer
4
Elmer A. Stone
5
Sub -Total
Potomac Woodlands
0
5
6
0
12
11
Antietam Overlook
18
VI
Braeburn South
8
Western
Green Briar Vistas
14
Sub -Total
The Lookout
0
0
0
0
0
9
Sub -Total
24 Subdivisions
6
45
124
40
23
203
Grand Total
Avg. -73.5 units/year
16
585
563
193
163
770
III
Southeast
Pleasant Valley Tract
5
Sub -Total
1 Subdivision
0
5
0
0
0
0
Avg. -.8 units/year
IV
Vernon L. Leather
4
Planning
Number of Lots
District
Subdivision Name
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
Northeast
Rice's Development
10
George F. Carl
13
Havenwood Hills
50
Sub -Total
4 Subdivisions
4
0
0
0
23
50
Avg. -13 units/year
V
Stanley Haines
5
Central
Susie Seibert
6
Daniel Secrest
3
Norman L. Halteman
9
Paul Deeds
6
C. William Hetzer
18
Chester Albright
6
Joseph Boyd
8
Sub -Total
8 Subdivisions
0
5
6
0
12
38
Avg. -10 units/year
VI
Theresa Heights
8
Western
James P. Vantz
7
Sub -Total
2 Subdivisions
0
0
0
0
0
15
Avg. -2.5 units/year
Grand Total
85 Subdivisions
16
585
563
193
163
770
Total Average - 2,290 units/6 years = 381.8 units/year
the extension of water and sewer facilities in many portions of the County would create
availability of large tracts for building which might be associated with the increased activity
of new employment. This too would have the effect of altering our projections for land
requirements.
Implied in these projections is the probability that new development will scatter
itself over a considerably larger area than necessary to satisfy housing demand under existing
available controls. It would tend to develop first along existing roadways as in the past, and
would work against the retention of areas earmarked in the plan for preservation and would
tend to destroy the essential character of the County unless additional controls are
accepted.
41
42
PART 4
CURRENT MAJOR PLANNING EFFORTS AND ISSUES
A number of public and private efforts have been underway in the County over the
past several years. Some continue and some have fallen by the wayside through either a lack
of interest or discontent on the part of citizens of the County with proposals for the use of
certain land areas. Presented below are seven major projects.
Countywide Programs
Antietam Watershed
The Antietam Watershed Association was formed as an outcome of the 1956
flooding of Boonsboro with the view to drawing up plans for flood control and the
constuction of dams for multi-purpose water use. Four sites have been selected and would
need to be acquired with local money while federal funds would be available for
construction of the impoundments. Although there has been a continuing debate for the
past 15 years resulting in no concrete decision, interest has been revived more recently and
the project is going forward.
The construction of these impoundment areas would create alternative water
supplies for the towns of Boonsboro and Keedysville. Although it was at first thought that
the present water supply at Keedysville would be sufficient for the area for years ahead, a
number of citizens of the towns have indicated a positive desire to see the project go
forward. Accordingly, a fund of $11,000 was allocated by the County Commissioners for
survey purposes and a number of people in the area seem convinced that eventually the
mountain structures might be needed as a water source, in addition to providing protection
against flash floods. There is an additional potential for these impoundments and that is for
recreation purposes.
Implications for Planning Policy. The Antietam Watershed area is the first area to be
delineated for detailed planning and engineering studies in Washington County. It would
seem that this area could represent a prototype of planning coordination between the
citizens and the various government agencies that are now and will certainly be involved
here. In addition, many private institutions and individuals have volunteered countless hours
of time to survey plant life, floodplain development, environmental resources. A number of
the major elements of the general development plan are proposed within the Antietam
Watershed area and it would seem then appropriate that all these forces and issues could be
combined to promote an intensive planning effort.
Maryland Open Space and Recreation Concept Plan
Washington County is included in the Western Maryland region with Garrett,
1 Allegany and Frederick Counties for the purposes of state planning for open space and
43
recreation. "Varied topography, clear rivers and streams, extensive virgin forests, abundant
wildlife and invigorating climate already exist; from these, such recreational pursuits as
sightseeing, hiking, mountain climbing, fishing, hunting, boating and winter sports activities
have developed. Because of this rich endowment, the region offers a tremendous range of
recreatioiial opportunity."
The Concept Plan indicates existing parks and recreation areas and potential sites of
significant natural features and resources which should be protected. In Washington County
the potential open space and recreation areas are:
Appalachian Trail on South Mountain
Antietam Creek
Conococheague Creek
Additional acreage of Indian Springs
Wildlife Management Area
Sideling Hill Creek
The C & O Canal National Park
Ft. Frederick Park
The above features mainly stream valleys, ridges and slopes. Intensive development
can pose a threat to the continued existence of these valuable resources. Hence, some goals
to achieve:
Provide extended open space corridors
Preserve abundant wildlife areas
Protect underground water supply
Control erosion, sedimentation and pollution
Preserve reservoir sites for water supply,
recreation and flood control
Secure and/or protect natural and
historical areas
Protect unique geologic formations
Protect steep slopes and wooded areas
The Department of State Planning recommends that the Western Maryland Region
emphasize public and private development of recreational facilities within existing state
owned parks and forests such as proposed plans for expansion of Fort Frederick. Some of
the sources of funding include: General Revenues, Bonding, Grants -in -Aid (Program Open
Space 1969, Watershed Act which provides monies to counties within a watershed to
acquire acreage for open space within the area). Some other financing methods are gifts or
donations, dedication as may be required by subdivision regulations, lease, special taxes such
as motor boat fuel tax.
Implications to Planning Policy. The proposed plan for Washington County accepts
the proposals of the state's Open Space Concept Plan and proposes methods for It
implementation.
44
Scenic Rivers Plan
To provide management of river resources and protection of their scenic qualities
"development should be limited to activities such as fishing, hunting, hiking, horseback
riding, nature and geological interpretation, scenic appreciation and other programs through
which the value of these areas as scenic rivers could be appreciated by the general public and
enjoyment would be provided for the public by a setting of natural solitude."[ 1 ]
Rivers possess unique scenic, fish, wildlife and other recreational value.
Recommendations for various uses along the rivers.
1. Natural Use - nature oriented, untouched by man.
2. Limited Human Use - sparse housing blended with rough topography.
3. Moderate Human Use - recreation, residential activities.
4. Intensive Human Use - whole range of urban development.
Each river was examined as to its (a) physical features, (b) biological and water
quality and (c) human use and interest. Once done uses are assigned in the form of a
development plan for the river.
Some Implementation Techniques Proposed:
1. Outright Purchase, Installment Purchase, Long Term Lease (with option to
buy), Purchase and Lease Back, Purchase and Resale under restrictive covenants,
Condemnation through eminent domain, Donations, Land Exchange, Voluntary
Agreements, Easements.
2. Taxation: Tax Exemptions, Preferential Assessment, Tax Foreclosures, Special
Districts.
3. Planning and Regulation: Zoning, Flood Plain Zoning, Steep Slope Zoning,
Subdivision Regulations, Official Maps.
Implications to Planning Policy. The General Development Plan for Washington
County recognizes the need for the retention of the County's rivers in their natural state.
[ 1 ] Maryland's Scenic Rivers Act Article 66-C "Natural Resources".
45
Chesapeake and Ohio National Historic Park
A bill was passed in the Congress on December 14, 1970, designating the C & O
Canal as a national historic park. There are presently 5,250 acres of the park in federal
ownership with the need to acquire an additional 9,750 acres which would yield a total
acreage of 15,000.
The park would begin at the District of Columbia and continue to Cumberland,
Maryland. The majority of federal ownership is now between the District line and Seneca,
Maryland. The purpose of the park is to preserve, restore for public recreational use the
scenic and natural features of the C & O Canal. The Secretary of the Interior has been
authorized to acquire land through donation, purchase, and easement. Other surplus federal
lands may be exchanged for interests in lands along the Canal. Access to privately owned
lands will be granted subject only to such restrictions or requirements as the Secretary may
find essential to the preservation and sound management of the park. No fees will be
charged the public for day use or for recreational purposes.
A C & O Canal National Historic Park Commission has been established and will be
comprised of 21 non -salaried members appointed for terms of five years each. The
Commission may advise and consult with other federal agencies, state agencies, local
governments and others on matters relating to public recreation, historic preservation, scenic
protection, wildlife propagation and conservation and protection of natural resources
including the water resources within and in the vicinity of the park.
The following is a breakdown of the five year development costs for the C & O
Canal National Park as it effects areas in Washington County.
First Year: None in Washington County
Second Year:
Williamsport Area $41,500
(Parking, road, boat ramp, interpretive
shelter, signs)
Praether's Neck $1,711,400
(visitor center, roads, parking, picnic
sites, marina, camp sites, etc.)
Canal Restoration $3,040,000
(Acquaducts over creeks, lock and lock
house at Williamsport, Edwards Ferry,
Hancock, Dam No. 5 Complex,
70 miles of towpath)
46
Third Year:
Hancock Area $165,000
(Road, parking, boat ramp, comfort sta-
tion, picnic sites)
Antietam Creek $306,600
(Road, picnic sites, parking, boat launch-
ing, interpretive center)
Fort Duncan Area $840,100
(Road, parking, residents, comfort sta-
tions, picnic sites, camp sites)
Canal Restoration $3,040,000
(4 locks and 2 locks complex, acquaducts, (Breakdown for WACO
Paw Paw Tunnel Complex, lift locks, lock for Locks Area is not
houses, Dam No. 3 Complex, Monocacy given -Just total cost.)
River Complex)
Fourth Year:
Canal Restoration
(3 acquaducts, stabilized dams No. 2 and
No. 4 which is in WACO, restore 30 miles
of canal and towpath, reconstruct 25 miles
of towpath.) (Again, only Dam No. 4 is in
WACO and its cost is not broken down.)
Praether's Neck*
(Stable, roads, parking, camp roads, picnic
sites and camp sites)
Fifth Year:
Dargan Bend Area
(Roads, parking, visitor center, mainte-
nance area and residents, boat ramps, trails,
comfort stations, picnic sites,
camp grounds)
Canal Restoration
(Dam No. 6 Complex, 10 miles of canal
prism and towpath, stabilize miscellaneous,
structures)
$3,000,000
$200,900
$1,845,800
$3,000,000
47
Praether's Neck Area $125,000
(Install comfort stations)
* The State may acquire land within a two
year period from Four Locks to Big Pool if
park plans are compatible with National
Park survey plans.
Total acquisition costs are given only for the entire canal from Cumberland to
Washington, D.C. and not broken down by County areas. The total acquisition costs are
$20,382,437 which includes the acquisition of 7,398 acres, 384 improvements, easements,
and other contingencies. The estimated number of ownerships for the entire Canal area is
940 and the estimated tax loss is $121,373.
Implications to Planning Policy. The General Development Plan for the County
recommends the establishment of a special planning district encompassing the C & O Canal
as well as the Potomac River. In order to simplify the process, a half -mile area beyond the
riverbank on the Maryland side has been set out on the map. This of course would require
refinement as time goes forward. It is proposed that the County be involved through its
Planning Commission in coordinating plans with all other public agencies and individuals
with respect to the C & O Canal as well as to the preservation of the Potomac River.
Potomac Valley Park Plan
The federal interdepartmental task force on the Potomac River of the U. S.
Department of the Interior has proposed the establishment of a Potomac National River as a
park for the preservation of scenic and historic values and as a national area for outdoor
recreation. The proposed green sheath of parkland would include both banks of the
Potomac River, the islands in between, the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal and adjacent lands
and additional lands where recreation or other public use values are high.
Some methods for accomplishing the above objectives would be scenic, preservation,
and development easements. The Potomac National River has been conceived not as a
federal project alone but as a cooperative program of combined federal, state and local
action to protect and acquire the needed lands and to administer them.
The establishment of scenic rivers for conservation proposed on the certain major
tributaries of the Potomac, mainly the Conococheague and Antietam. Scenic easements
would be acquired to a depth of approximately 500 feet along the banks of the rivers
although the depth would vary according to the physiographic limitations. A trail
right-of-way would be acquired along each bank of the river and in the form of an easement
on a strip of land. Public recreational uses should be established at appropriate sites and
intervals along the river for boat launching, picnicing, camping and swimming.
In addition to these proposals the establishment of two major parkways, the George
Washington Parkway, which would be a 675 mile loop south of Washington, D.C. along the
48
Potomac and north to Harpers Ferry which would eventually connect with the Skyline
Drive and the Allegany Parkway, a 632 mile long parkway facility which would provide
access to a wide range of recreational activity beginning at Harpers Ferry and traveling along
the Potomac River and West Virginia, sometimes on its western bank with fine views of the
river and mountains and sometimes away from the river in woods or farmlands.
A Potomac River Trail system was proposed to give residents of the rapidly
expanding metropolitan areas access to the Basin's outdoor heritage of varied natural,
historical and cultural features. This proposal combines the planning for the river with the C
& O National Historical Park and in addition would extend the Appalachian Trail along the
ridge of the Catoctin Mountains between Washington and Frederick Counties.
Recommendations of the Washington County Potomac Basin Planning Committee
were made in response to the proposals for the Potomac Valley Park and were as follows:
1. Prime farming lands in the Potomac Basin should be protected from loss to
urban and industrial development. However, changing circumstances will need
to be considered.
2. Heavy industries that require water sources could be located on strategic higher
elevations of the Basin adjacent to the River (with proper control of pollution).
Lighter industries could be located elsewhere in the County. "Certain types of
industry in the Basin ...i.e. mineral extraction, have little flexibility in location.
Where continued development of such an industry would be greater
economically than any other possible use of the land, compromise will be
necessary". Industries which extract from the land should plan so that the
terrain can be returned to suitable condition for future generations, without
causing pollution or interfering with natural processes during their operation.
3. There should be a general upgrading of standards for County roads in the
Potomac Basin to insure safety and convenience of residents and visitors as they
enjoy the scenic and recreational opportunities of the Basin.
4. Overhead power lines should not obstruct or detract from recreation, historic,
scenic sites.
5. Cooperation should be given to the State and industries to coordinate
comprehensive programs for land management and pollution control. Secondary
treatment facilities for sewerage and industrial waste treatment should be
considered.
6. Junk piles, billboards, slum development along the river banks are increasing.
County ordinances should be enacted and enforced to prevent such occurrences.
7. Efforts in the recreation field should be Countywide and coordinated (federal,
M
state and local). "We would recommend County efforts in this field along
tributary streams or at other points in the County where landscapes and other
factors create sites of high recreational potential'.
8. Lands within the park should be limited to those absolutely necessary to
protect the river scape and to provide for public use development. Purchases
should be accomplished through negotiation. Established clubs should retain
their uses provided sewer and water plans are satisfactory. Helter-skelter
development of private boat docks, shanties, along the river should not be
permitted.
9. C & O Canal, Fort Frederick, etc. should be developed to use full potential.
10. A County map should be developed showing present and future sites for all land
uses. Buffer areas should be planned to prevent undesirable encroachment.
11. Plan should be reviewed periodically and the public should be consulted before
final action.
12. Scenic easements should not be acquired by condemnation but by negotiation.
13. The banks of the tributaries (scenic rivers) in Washington County leading into
the Potomac be deleted from the Plan.
14. As park and recreation area widens, it becomes increasingly difficult and more
expensive to obtain water from the Potomac for agriculture purposes.
Historic interests (committees, etc.) supported the plan, particularly the Antietam
Battlefield site. Preservation of the sites could be maintained by County enforced protective
zoning.
The Washington County Economic Development Commission recommended that
four sites be set aside for industrial development along the Potomac.
1. 125 acres in Ernstville area - along the river.
2. 1,200 acres in the Charlton area - along the Conococheague.
3. 1,000 acres upstream from Whitings Neck.
4. 500 acres west of Sharpsburg.
Industrial Corporations in Washington County provided the Basin Commission with
a description of their operation or future plans for operations and recommended that these
areas be excluded from the Potomac River Park Plan.
50
1. These industrial holdings, mostly extractive in nature, are felt to be vital to
economic growth in Washington County.
2. The geological nature of the properties dictates their location. Conflict with the
Basin Plan could be resolved by buffer areas around sites with solid conservation
practices by the industries involved.
3. There are several industrial sites along the tributary streams which would also
conflict with the proposed scenic rivers. Industry wishes not to have
recreational areas near the sites not scenic easements.
Implications to Planning Policy. It is clear that there is considerable interest amongst
a broad spectrum of organizations, individuals and government in this plan. This area should
be set aside to consider not only the C & O Canal development activity but also any future
activity and proposals for the Potomac River as a whole.
Antietam National Battlefield
Recently, the staff of the Washington County Planning and Zoning Commission
prepared a report with reference to the impact of the Department of the Interior National
Park Service proposal to acquire 2,000 acres of additional land for the Antietam Battlefield.
This report gives an excellent perspective on the Battlefield, its importance and its potential
as an open space and as well as a financial resource to Washington County. A bill was
recently introduced into the House of Representatives to implement this proposal.
The National Park Service now owns 795 acres of land at the Antietam Battlefield.
Large tracts of land to the north and south of the existing federal land are, according to the
County report, more significant to the actual Civil War Battle as are the present holdings.
The existing battlefield is a compacl area of 795 acres contiguous to the easterly town limits
of Sharpsburg. An additional 2,000 acres now in private ownership lies to the north and
south of land owned presently by the federal government. The total assessed valuation of
the 2,000 acres proposed to be acquired is valued at $256,345. If the federal government
were to acquire the land, approximately $6,300 per year would be lost in tax revenues to
the County. Approximately the same acreage was required for the recent construction of
Interstate Route 70 and 81, which was purchased at an average market value of $1,000 per
acre for the approximate value of $1,870,000. In this sense, the report argues that $27,700
is lost per year in tax revenues. However, in all fairness, this loss could result ultimately in
the County's gain in terms of access and future land development possibilities with specific
reference to the Interstate highways. Visitors to both Harpers Ferry and the Antietam
Battlefield are estimated to have spent $1,275,000 in 1969. Expenditures at Antietam,
however, have nearly doubled in the last four year period.
The report concludes that the addition of 2,000 acres to the Antietam Battlefield
will arouse renewed national interest in this historic area so that many former visitors will
return to view again the actual area where the "bloody battle took place". It is assumed that
51
the addition of 2,000 acres of the battlefield would attract a dramatic increase in
out-of-state visitors to the site over the next few years and peripheral land might very well
increase in value and will tend to offset the negligible original loss of tax revenue on the
2,000 acres.
Implications to Planning Policy. The General Development Plan for the County
proposes a recreation and tourist center for the Battlefield and a similar center at Harpers
Ferry. The purpose of this is to control the commercial development of the area so that it
will not act as a deterrent to the natural features of the surrounding Battlefield and the
Harpers Ferry area. Additional discussion of this proposal is found in Part 10.
Open Space and Recreation Potentials
Recently a combined effort on the part of individuals and public agencies and
private institutions produced a report entitled "An Appraisal of Potentials for Outdoor
Recreation Developments in Washington County". This excellent guide reports information
which will be of help to individuals as well as governments in determining potential
recreational development.
Its major points include:
1. Potentials for developing 12 different kinds of recreational activities was
determined with each given a rating on a scale of from one (1) to ten (10).
These enterprises are vacation cabins, cottages and home sites, camping grounds,
picnic and field sport areas, fishing waters, golf courses, hunting areas, natural
scenic and historic areas, riding stables, shooting preserves, vacation farms,
water sports areas and winter sport areas. Key elements include such factors as
climate, scenery, soils, wildlife, physiographic features, and various land use
patterns. Using a guide prepared by the U. S. Department of Agriculture each
recreational potential was given a rating.
2. The following are areas with the greatest potential for recreation in Washington
county according to this report:
a. Vacation cabins, cottages and home sites have a high potential for
development. This conclusion is supported by the investigations into real
estate and the analysis of ten acre lot development reported above.
b. Camping, picnic areas, and field sports are also high in potential for
recreation in the County.
c. Hunting and fishing also rank at the top. This supports recommendations in
the Plan for natural and wildlife areas along South Mountain and the western
portions of the County. With the many private fish and game clubs and state
wildlife management areas already located here, this would further reinforce
52
the need for preservation of such areas.
d. Natural scenic and historic acreage all have high potential and warrant
further study according to the summary of the report.
3. Lesser potential is indicated for some of the following activities:
a. Water sport areas are popular but are limited by climate factors. However,
with the development of the C & O Canal National Park, more people will be
brought into contact with the Potomac River as a potential source of water
recreation. Water sports may increase with the establishment of additional
impoundment sites.
4. The three most applicable recreational development potentials are: (1) Vacation
cabins, cottages, home sites; (2) Camping grounds; (3) hunting areas; and the
three least applicable enterprises are: (1) Vacation farms; (2) Shooting
preserves; (3) Golf courses.
County Towns
During the course of the study for the development of the Plan for the County the
mayors and several individuals in each town were interviewed to determine current town
problems and expectations and aspirations. In addition the town meetings conducted by the
Planning and Zoning Commission were reviewed carefully and the following information
concerning the town issues was developed.
The land use data was inventoried for each town in the overall County survey and is
recorded here because of its relevance to town issues.
Boonsboro
Land Use
Use
Acres
Percent
Agriculture
75.9
24.3
Commercial
13.0
4.2
Industrial
5.9
1.9
Vacant
27.8
8.7
Residential:
Under 1/4 acre
36.1
11.5
1/4 to 1/z acre
54.6
17.3
1/z to 1 acre
17.0
5.4
1 to 5 acres
21.9
7.0
5 to 10 acres
5.8
1.9
53
10+ acres
27.3
8.6
Institutional:
Public
9.0
2.9
Private
8.8
2.8
Government:
Federal
-
-
State
-
-
Local
.3
.2
Recreational:
Public
10.0
3.2
Private
-
-
Total
313.4
100.0
Issues
1. An area east of Route 66 northeast of Boonsboro of approximately 40 acres has
been annexed recently by the town. This section is being planned for a
subdivision called Kinsey Heights with approximately 70 houses in the $22,000
R
to $35,000 range. In addition, garden apartments and a small shopping area are
proposed for construction.
2. Sewage lagoons are located on a 148 acre tract owned by the town. The mayor
feels that this portion of land could be utilized for industry if prospects are
interested.
3. Many residents desire to see an adequate health center in this portion of the
County. The lack of medical services and doctors around Boonsboro dictates
that patients must travel to Hagerstown for their health needs. An adequate
drug store is needed.
4. The possibility of hiring fulltime paid firemen by the County should be
examined. When fires occur during daylight hours, especially during a weekday,
it is difficult to get a sufficient number of volunteers to turn out.
5. The Maryland State Route 66 is badly in need of immediate attention and is
particularly irritating to the residents of Boonsboro since many travel that route
to and from work. The State Roads Commission 20 year program indicates that
this will receive a priority "A" rating; i.e., reconstruction will be accomplished
in the immediate 5 year program. A new entrance to Greenbriar State Park
which would be more convenient for town residents is desirable. At present, the
only entrance is off of Route 40A, through Wolfsville Road might be possible
although this route may be difficult to develop due to the severe topography in
the area.
54
6. Growth is more visible in Boonsboro than in the other smaller municipalities in
Washington County. Several new subdivisions with fairly modern homes are
evident around the outskirts of the town. The town has indicated a willingness
to work with those who are interested in developing smaller industry and
housing in the region. The improvement of town roads may lead to the
development of remaining land in the town.
7. The Town of Boonsboro has adequate subdivision regulations. It is felt that the
ordinance is sufficient for controlling growth and development.
8. Park facilities at 10 acres is felt to be adequate for the present.
Clear Spring
Land Use
Use
Acres
Percent
Agriculture
-
-
Commercial
7.7
10.0
Industrial
1.7
2.5
Vacant
4.2
5.0
Residential:
Under'/4 acre
14.5
18.8
A 1/4 to 1/2 acre
10.3
12.5
1/2 to 1 acre
.6
.7
' 1 to 5 acres
1.2
1.2
5 to 10 acres
-
-
10+ acres
-
-
Institutional:
Public
32.5
40.5
Private
7.5
8.8
Government:
Federal
-
-
State
-
-
Local
-
-
Recreational:
Public
-
-
Private
-
-
Total
80.2
100.0
Issues
1. The town has no library
and must depend
on the Washington County
bookmobile.
55
2. The City Council expressed a desire to see residential development occur
westerly toward the mountains with industry and commercial areas along Route
68 and 65. Vacant tracts within town are limited to new housing.
3. With development of Blair's Valley Lake as a recreational center, traffic volumes
through Clear Spring will increase and may cause pressures for a new route or
re-routing on an older artery.
4. There may be drainage problems on the 160 acre site owned by the Board of
Education.
5. The town's close proximity to I-70 gives it an added growth potential with
possible demands for more commercial activity and housing.
Funkstown
Land Use
Use
Acres
Percent
Agriculture
-
-
Commercial
1.9
1.9
Industrial
.5
.9
Vacant
12.5
11.1
Residential:
Under 1/4 acre
29.5
27.8
1/a to 1/z acre
19.7
18.5
1/z to 1 acre
7.5
6.5
1 to 5 acres
4.2
3.7
5 to 10 acres
9.8
9.2
10+ acres
-
-
Institutional:
Public
1.0
.9
Private
3.1
2.8
Government:
Federal
-
-
State
-
-
Local
1.4
.9
Recreational:
Public
14.0
13.0
Private
3.0
2.8
Total
108.1
100.0
56
Issues
1. The residents of Funkstown feel that access to Route I-70 at Route U. S. 40-A
is necessary for convenience and town growth. If constructed, pressures for
development of the area between Route 70 and Funkstown would increase.
Potentials include motels and commercial establishments.
2. There are several trailer parks located within the town. One is considered
attractive and the other is viewed as a blight on the neighborhood. An ordinance
was passed as a result that prohibits any further trailers in town. A difficulty lies
in trying to clean up what has already been established.
3. The town presently has a park with water and sewer facilities, pavillion, and
baseball field. It is hoped that in the future a parking lot, pavilion and
swimming pool will be constructed on this site. Other community facilities, that
is, fire, police, etc., are adequate for the town.
Hancock
Land Use
Use
Acres
Percent
Agriculture
99.8
14.7
Commercial
23.5
3.5
Industrial
8.8
1.3
Vacant
274.5
40.4
Residential:
Under'/4 acre
46.7
6.9
1/4 to 1/z acre
43.8
6.4
1/2, to 1 acre
25.9
3.8
1 to 5 acres
34.1
5.0
5 to 10 acres
9.0
1.3
10+ acres
73.7
10.8
Institutional:
Public
8.9
1.3
Private
9.2
1.3
Government:
Federal
-
-
State
1.5
.2
Local
5.0
.7
Recreational:
Public
16.0
2.3
Private
-
-
Total
680.4
100.0
57
Issues
1. The possibility exists that Hancock will annex a total of 585 acres which it
presently owns. This property includes:
a. A 235 acre farm northwest of town where a sewage lagoon is located.
b. One hundred thirty-five (13 5) acres north of town (Fulton Farm) to be used
for residential purposes.
c. One hundred fifty (150) acres west of town to 6e developed into a year
round recreational area - normal park facilities and a golf course, ski -area.
2. The only access on Interstate 70 to Hancock is a left lane ramp to the eastern
section of town on the approach from Hagerstown. There are no right lane
access roads in either direction along the expressway. Townpeople feel if better
access was developed, Hancock would have a far better growth potential.
3. Within the town limits, Pennsylvania Avenue to the northern section of town is
too narrow. Since residential and industrial growth seems likely in this area, a
bypass may be needed to accommodate additional traffic.
4. The lack of adequate housing presents a problem. Some feel that Washington
County subdivision regulations are too strict for a rural area such as Hancock.
Therefore, they attempt to annex areas for residential purposes to circumvent
the regulations and water and sewer facilities are extended only to those areas
which will be annexed.
5. Property owned by the Pennsylvania Glass Sand along Tonoloway Ridge is felt
to be far enough away so that any mining operation would not affect the town.
This might be more closely examined with reference to possible dust problems
and visual blight along the ridge.
Keedysville
Land Use
Use
Acres
Percent
Agriculture
446.9
79.5
Commercial
4.5
.9
Industrial
.5
.1
Vacant
34.0
6.0
Residential:
Under 1/a acre
10.4
1.8
58
Issues
1/a to 1/z acre
16.0
2.8
1/2 to 1 acre
11.0
2.0
1 to 5 acres
15.0
2.7
5 to 10 acres
7.5
1.4
10+ acres
-
-
Institutional:
Public
4.1
.7
Private
5.5
.9
Government:
Federal
-
-
State
-
-
Local
-
-
Recreational:
Public
7.0
1.2
Private
_
-
Total
562.4
100.0
1. Residents of Keedysville wish the town to remain permanently residential in
character with no indication of any desire for industry or other type of major
growth. The people enjoy the small town atmosphere and prefer to avoid urban
development.
2. Housing appears to be in well kept condition. Only 2 or 3 dwellings in the town
could be considered dilapidated. There is concern for junk yards which have
appeared around the countryside, in addition to one small lot in the town.
3. An area of primary concern is a property of approximately 1,200 acres north of
the town which is owned by U. S. Steel. This land which is now in agricultural
use will probably never be used for mining operations. However, if mining
should begin here, it would create a significant air pollution problem. The
townspeople would probably oppose any such mining operation.
4. Keedysville is without a sewer system. The possibility of the concentration of
small private systems failing is apparent.
5. Residents of Keedysville, as well as other municipalities, are concerned about
the possible proliferation of trailers around the countryside. Most people
generally favor strict controls by the County to govern this type of
development.
59
Sharpsburg
Land Use
Use
Acres
Percent
Agriculture
-
-
Commercial
2.8
2.9
Industrial
-
-
Vacant
15.9
15.5
Residential:
Under 1/a acre
30.1
29.1
1/a to 1/a acre
30.3
29.2
1/z to 1 acre
13.4
12.6
1 to 5 acres
7.6
7.8
5 to 10 acres
-
-
10+ acres
-
Institutional:
Public
-
-
Private
2.0
1.9
Government:
Federal
-
-
State
-
-
Local
1.0
1.0
Recreational:
Public
-
-
Private
-
-
Total
103.1
100.0
Issues
1. The concentration of private sewage disposal systems could lead to failure and
numerous health hazards. An earlier priority of building such a system should
be re-examined. The lack of a sewerage system and water supply could be a
primary reason why commercial development (motels, restaurants, etc.) has not
taken place to accommodate increasing tourism to Antietam Battlefield. It is
interesting to note that a portion of land adjacent to the battlefield is being
advertised as prime motel land at $7,500 per acre.
2. Character of the town.
a. Residents would like Sharpsburg to remain primarily residential perhaps
with the possibility of its being zoned as a historical area. They would prefer
to see new development conform to the colonial and 19th century
60
•
Smithsburg
Land Use
atmosphere of the surroundings. Many townspeople do not want commercial
expansion. Some would like to see a buffer area of approximately 1 mile
around the town limits with Sharpsburg having a voice in deciding what
development might take place.
b. Drainage is a pressing problem. The town is built in a basin and receives a
run-off of most of the major streams north of town. Several impounding
dams may solve this problem.
c. Around and below Sharpsburg there are several subdivisions with 3 to 5 acre
lots on which vacation cabins will -eventually be built. These types of
development will no doubt increase in the future as demand for recreational
land continues. This phenomena is likely to produce pressures for
commercial and service oriented activities and with the increasing numbers
of visitors to the Antietam Battlefield, additional demand for this type of
activity will increase.
d. The need for medical service is evident in this general area. At present, all
emergency cases are taken to the Washington County Hospital in
Hagerstown. House calls by physicians are not made.
e. A town policeman is needed. The county and state police are under -manned
and the area of Sharpsburg is in need of attention. Principal problems
include reckless driving along the fairly good country roads. In addition, the
added traffic during the summer months put quite a burden on the town.
Use
Acres
Percent
Agriculture
11.2
7.2
Commercial
4.1
2.5
Industrial
8.9
6.0
Vacant
41.5
28.0
Residential:
Under'/4 acre -
16.4
10.6
1/4 to 1/z acre
27.0
18.0
1/z to 1 acre
9.5
6.6
1 to 5 acres
5.8
4.0
5 to 10 acres
5.4
3.3
10+ acres
-
-
Institutional:
Public
10.5
6.6
61
Issues
Private
6.9
4.6
Government:
220.4
51.0
Federal
-
-
State
-
-
Local
.7
.6
Recreational:
Public
2.5
2.0
Private
-
-
Total
150.4
100.0
1. Physical housing conditions in Smithsburg are not as critical as that of
Hagerstown. Superficially the houses are maintained in a good condition. The
town itself has only two main streets and the buildings in its center are much
older than the rest of the town. More moderate rent type housing, townhouses,
apartments, etc. is needed.
2. Most people in the town prefer that the area remain residential in nature,
although they would not object to a small industrial use.
3. The lack of public transportation to Hagerstown is a concern. Transportation
now is nonexistent.
4. The large junk yard located on Md. 64 approaching Smithsburg is undesirable.
Williamsport
Land Use
Use
Acres
Percent
Agriculture
220.4
51.0
Commercial
9.2
2.1
Industrial
15.2
3.5
Vacant
54.0
12.5
Residential:
Under 1/a acre
40.3
9.3
1/a to 1/2 acre
36.8
8.6
1/2 to 1 acre
13.2
3.0
1 to 5 acres
5.6
1.4
5 to 10 acres
-
_
10+ acres
16.2
3.7
62
Issues
Institutional:
Public 3.5 .9
Private 2.5 .7
Government:
Federal - -
State _
Local - -
Recreational:
Public 14.0 3.3
Private -
Total 430.9 100.0
1. Interstate Industrial Park.
a. This park planned by the Economic Development Commission of
Hagerstown, is located northeast of Williamsport adjacent to and east of
Route I-81. At present the park has a tenant and could have an effect on
Williamsport once it is fully developed.
b. Tributary to the Halfway sewerage system are the subdivisions of Cloverton,
- Tammany and Van Lear which will require public sewage facilities in the
future. In addition to these, the remaining undeveloped areas are expected to
build up and require extension of the existing collection systems, increasing
the loading on the plant.
2. A plan is current to build 92 apartment units in the immediate future with
approximately 100 units and later to include a shopping center. This will be
located north of Williamsport, behind the Cloverton subdivision. There is the
possibility of annexation to extend water and sewer service to this area.
3. A major concern of the Town of Williamsport is housing. There are a number of
areas containing dilapidated buildings which should be demolished
4. Water pollution of the Conococheague by several plants have been a continuing
problem. Recently the state has enforced pollution control regulations on the
major sources and it is felt that the problem is now under control.
5. A new access is needed off of Interstate Route 81. The State Roads
Commission's 20 year need study, recommends an interchange at Md. 68 and
I-81 will be constructed late in the next 20 year period.
6. Some form of subsidized nursing home is needed for the large number of elderly
people who reside in the area. The town has only one doctor.
63
7. A new park is being planned for property near the water tower. A baseball
diamond and other park facilities have been constructed.
8. The construction of a new fire company is needed as population and housing
increase.
Hagerstown
Several years ago a Master Development Plan was prepared for the City of
Hagerstown by the firm of Marcou, O'Leary and Associates. The plan presented a five point
program for community improvement which called for:
1. Immediate actions to replace or renovate substandard buildings, to create the
amenities necessary for residential neighborhoods, and to provide more
satisfactory community facilities.
2. The improvement of the central area of the city through replacement and
remodeling of buildings in order for Hagerstown to maintain its role as a
primary shopping center of the region.
3. The acquisition of land for the construction of new and enlarged playgrounds in
the areas surrounding the central area of the city.
4. The completion of Burhan's Boulevard and the construction of the
Northeastern Bypass and the extension of Northern Avenue westerly and
southerly to the Cearfoss Pike in the city.
5. The plan recommended the establishment of strong controls over land use and
points of access on roads intersecting with Interstate 81 and Interstate 70.
All of the proposals for the plan for the City of Hagerstown should be of interest to
the residents of Washington County. Of particular importance, however, are those proposals
which recommend a coordination of efforts between the City and the County and the
control of access to interchanges and the development of zoning controls beyond the City in
a coordinative way with the County and a proposal to establish a coordinated regional
planning program. For example the plan states:
"Some of the major elements of the comprehensive Plan (for Hagerstown) and
program will be greatly influenced by the development in Washington County,
outside Hagerstown's jurisdiction. New roads, schools, subdivisions, and industries
locating outside the effective planning area of the City will affect patterns of
growth inside. Furthermore, the City has a stake in such things as protecting the
municipal airport from encroaching development and assuring preservation of
adequate recreation areas in the nearby hills. Therefore, the City should enter into
discussions with the County with the purpose of agreeing upon, policies for
64
coordinated and effective planning and zoning in the areas in the path of the City's
spreading development. The discussion should include a definite attempt to apply
reasonable zoning protection to the urbanizing areas outside the scope of City
jurisdiction."
The plan for Hagerstown strongly urged the establishment of controls which relate
directly to the interstate systems now to the south and west to the City. It recommended
three ways of accomplishing this:
1. Through commercial zoning in the County where "commercial centers" would
be developed as opposed to strip commercials along access routes to
interchanges thereby minimizing potential interruptions to traffic.
2. Through its zoning and subdivision regulations, the plan proposed that the City
enforce its ordinance regulating the size and number of "curb cuts" on major
streets for any one tract of land and in addition to provide necessary setbacks
for buildings sufficient to allow future street widening and the development of
special access roads.
3. Of particular interest to the plan for Washington County are the proposals for
interchange zoning. Similar proposals have been included in the proposed
zoning ordinance for the County and if carried out, a series of interchange
districts would be established along Interstate Route 81 and 70 which would
attempt to control the development and design of construction in those vital
areas.
Implications for Planning Policy. Apart from the details of the Plan for Hagerstown
which are many, it would seem to be extremely valuable to pursue a combined City -County
planning effort especially for the rapidly developing areas around Hagerstown. Such a
coordinative effort would consider not only land for potential development but also review
in particular past annexations by the City and with a view toward developing a policy that is
beneficial to both units of government. This is especially urgent in light of the proposed
water and sewer utility extensions beyond the City limits into areas that are fast developing
of which will have a major effect on the City's own growth.
65
66
PART 5
GROWTH PROSPECTS
The foregoing discussion of planning proposals, which include primarily recreational
and institutional types of development, does not take into account those priming actions
that are generated by more intensive development. This chapter discusses the prospects of
growth and whether they would be controlled or not.
The term "controlled" indicates that a plan would be adopted and necessary
implementation measures, both private and public, would soon follow in order to
implement the plan.
Uncontrolled growth means growth planned at the level of current subdivision
development and that which would occur through zoning should the County adopt an
ordinance, but it would be uncontrolled in sequence or a larger pattern without any
comprehensive plan or process for creating coherent communities with adequate open space.
Under this method, the County and the various towns would continue to play a "waiting
game" and follow development with needed public investment which in all probability
would not be sufficient to accommodate needs.
Priming Actions for Development
Transporation
Highways
As Hagerstown is called the "Hub City", so may Washington County be known as
the focal point of the Regional Interstate Highway System. Interstate 81 passes through the
County from north to south and is part of a network which extends from the deep South to
the New England states. Interstate 70 crosses the County in an east -west direction and
connects the major metropolitan areas of Baltimore and Washington with a network of
interstate highways which extends westward through Pennsylvania. These two major
trunklines intersect approximately 3 miles southwest of Hagerstown and represent a major
factor which will affect growth in Washington County.
The two interstate freeways in Washington County represent first class
transportation facilities. Land values and development will increase along the interstate
routes, particularly near the interchanges. Historically, industries, motels and shopping
centers have located adjacent to Interstate highway interchanges. This development has
already begun in Washington County with the construction of a new motel near the Route
40 and I-70 interchange and there is a possibility of a shopping center at the Halfway
Boulevard interchange at I-81. Development of industrial activity in Washington County
similar to the General Motors Plant near Martinsburg, can be anticipated.
67
Two Appalachian Development Highways are proposed in the nearby West Virginia
counties which will affect regional traffic patterns. One, the George Washington Parkway, is
to be extended up the Potomac to Harpers Ferry from its present terminus at the Capital
Beltway serving Washington, D. C. The second proposal is the Allegany Parkway, which will
run west from Harpers Ferry along the Potomac River and across the northern section of
Berkeley County, West Virginia. These national parkways will be either two or four lane
roads designed primarily for connecting recreational areas and providing scenic drives.
Current Master Plan of Highways. A Master Plan for Highways was adopted by the
County Commissioners in 1963. A number of modifications have been made to the plan
over the past eight years. The following is a discussion of some current problems and
complications of the current plan:
Major Roads
I. The location of the intersection of I-70 and the proposed Hagerstown Beltway
is still unclear. State Roads Commission proposals and the Master Plan indicate
a new interchange be constructed between Route 40 and Route 66 at Beaver
Creek. A final plan will be determined when current engineering studies are
completed.
2. Antietam Battlefield Memorial Highway - This project is listed as priority C in
the State Roads Commission (SRC) 20 year program. (Not critical until early in
the next 20 year period, approximately 1980.) This facility is proposed as a 4
lane freeway from Route 70 south to U. S. 340 to include a Sharpsburg bypass.
Possibly this could be amended to extend the freeway just to Sharpsburg and
the Sharpsburg bypass to the west of the town with a 2 lane reconstruction of
Harpers Ferry Road south to Route 340. This last section is currently in poor
condition and the rough terrain may prohibit freeway construction in this area.
Residents of this area of the County at Dargan, register constant complaints
about the unsafeness of the road due to its poor design characteristics.
3. The current plan shows an extension of the above highway running east from a
point above Sharpsburg east to Boonsboro including a bypass to the south of
Boonsboro and thence northeasterly and would intersect I-70 in Frederick
County to provide for high speed traffic for the Boonsboro, Keedysville,
Sharpsburg strip. This may be an undesirable element for the land use plan since
our goal would be to preserve the essentially small-town characteristics and
integrity of each of these three towns.
4. Boonsboro Bypass - This would extend from Route 40A above Boonsboro on
the west side of the town, between the town owned parcel and the town itself,
to intersect at Maryland Route 67 below Boonsboro. Average daily traffic
studies indicate increasing volumes of traffic from the southern portion of the
County to the north passing through Boonsboro. A bypass here would facilitate
68
4
P E N N 3 Y L V A N A
�V-- M A R L k N tl r—
ALLEG ANY 1, //,'per■ %l
COUNTY ` \e. / ■ i.� _'7'.. C��`1
w C S T
WASHINGTON COUNTY
A.
MARYLAND Y R 6 N
HIGHWAY CLASSIFICATION
LEGEND
INTERSTATE
® OTHER RURAL PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS
RURAL MINOR ARTERIALS
® RURAL MAJOR COLLECTORS
RURAL MINOR COLLECTORS
BAKER-WIBBERLEY AND ASSOCIATES
WILLIAM C. MC DONNELL
CONSULTING PLANNER
Le .r
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
SCALE MILES
traffic, decrease the growing congestion in Boonsboro, and possibly open up the
town owned area to development with good access to county roads.
5. East-West Freeway - The State Roads Commission rates this priority D, 1990
and beyond. The route would intersect the proposed Hagerstown Beltway at a
point opposite the Hagerstown Junior College.
Other Major Needs
1. A Ring Road would travel from I-81 at Maugansville west along Salem Road and
then in a southerly direction along Salem Church Road, McDade Road, and
Hopewell Road. Several severe bends in this road would be straightened to form
a smooth flowing pattern. This minor arterial or collector ring road would
extend along Hopewell Road to below the intersections of I-81 and I-70 to
Doub Road and then westerly to Sterling and Wrench Road along Poffenberger
Road to either U.S. 40A or U. S. 40. The ring road would be necessary in order
to facilitate traffic in the growing suburban areas west of Hagerstown. This area
contains prime developable land and the present disjointed road system would
hinder its development. Development of a high intensity use at Halfway
Boulevard and I-81 will further add to development pressures west and south of
Hagerstown. In addition, the Interstate Industrial Park which is located below
Doub Road would benefit from the ring road concept, allowing additional
access points for a freer flow and distribution of traffic.
2. The Northwest Bypass, east of Hagerstown, which would be a limited access
expressway, will be needed to facilitate traffic in the already congested eastern
section of Hagerstown. In addition, this could be extended to form another
inner -ring loop which might connect Long Meadow Road and Maugans Avenue
with the western portion of the ring road. This bypass will serve residential
traffic in this section of the city and county in addition to opening other
possible areas for development. The north and northeastern section of the
metropolitan area are also the most rapid growing section of the entire County.
In General
1. Additional interchange areas may be needed at U. S. 40A below Funkstown; a
more rational interchange system at Hancock; and a possible interchange at St.
Paul's Church Road, the corridor leading to the Mercersburg, Pennsylvania area.
2. Most of the apparent needs of the Washington County highway system are
covered in the State's current 20 year Highway Program. This program is under
constant review by the Planning Staff to coordinate their local road building
programs with that of the state.
3. Of Primary importance is the maintenance of the integrity of the County road
69
system through subdivision regulations, zoning, and other necessary ordinances.
Development must be limited to as few access points as possible in order to
reverse the trend of linear growth along Washington County roads. A safe,
free-flowing, integrated road system is necessary for the proper development of
efficient land use in Washington County.
Local County Roads System
The Washington County Roads Department is responsible for minor roads not under
State jurisdiction (system) -and coordinates its construction with State and Federal roads
authorities. Roads in private subdivisions, if built to County standards, are maintained by
the County. With a few exceptions, construction and maintenance of the main roads in
Washington County is good. The greatest need is to provide improvements on certain
important roads to accommodate larger traffic volumes in the future.
Proposed Improvements to County Roads. The Washington County Roads
Department has several scheduled needed improvements for the near immediate future.
Some of these projects are as follows:
* 1. Reconstruction of approximately two miles of Robinwood Drive to Facilitate
the increase traffic to Hagerstown Junior College. 2.0 miles
*2. Reconstruction of Beard's Church Road from Md. 62 to Smithsburg Road to
provide adequate access to new elementary school being built. 1.2 miles
3. Reconstruction of Salem Road from Maugansville Road to Cearfoss Pike. 1.1
miles
*4. Construction of Leitersburg Bridge over Antietam Creek on
Leitersburg-Smithsburg Road.
*5. Reconstruction of approximately one nile of Harpers Ferry Road below
Sharpsburg. 1.0 mile
*6. Reconstruction of approximately 1.2 miles of Coseytown Road. 1.2 miles
7. Completion of improvements to Long meadow Road to Marsh Pike. .3 mile
8. Reconstruction of approximately 1 mile of Mt. Aetna Road from Route 40 to
include relocating the intersection at Robinwood Drive. 1.0 mile
9. Reconstruction of West Oak Ridge Drive from the Downsville Pike to Md. 65.3
mile
* These improvements have been given a high priority and reflect a concern for
keeping pace with urban development.
70
10. Dualization of Halfway Boulevard at I-81 to accommodate traffic generated by
the proposed Hagerstown mall.
Average Daily Traffic. The accompanying table lists the average daily traffic (ADT)
at various points on the main roads of Washington county for the years 1960, 1962, 1964,
1966 and 1968. The period runs from October 1, of the preceding year until September 30,
of the listed year. This information is based on traffic counts made by the State Roads
Commission for the years mentioned and provides an overall picture of traffic movement.
(Table 19)
The opening of Interstate 81 in 1966 resulted in an immediate reduction of traffic
flowing along Rt. 11 to and from West Virginia. Most of the through travel was shifted to
I-81. Similar shifts of traffic to I-81 were noted on U. S. 11 north of Hagerstown. ADT on
U. S. 11 at the Pennsylvania line dropped from 9400 in 1962 to 4600 in 1968 while I-81
showed an increase from 2060 in 1962 to 9300 in 1968. Another noticeable decrease in
usage has occurred on Md. 63 north of Williamsport. In general it may be stated that one of
the effects of the interstate system (I-70 and 81) has been to reduce traffic flow along
secondary routes which parallel the system.
An area of prime concern for traffic flow is that corridor east of the City of
Hagerstown. Daily traffic along Md. 64 has steadily increased with the urban expansion
which has occurred toward Chewsville and Smithsburg. The traffic on Md. 64 at the City
Line has increased from 2875 in 1960 to 8200 in 1968. Continued urban growth along this
corridor will add further to the traffic congestion and safety hazards.
Another major traffic corridor runs the entire eastern length of the County and
consists of Md. 67 and Md. 66. Improvements are now being made to Md. 67 and will be
required in the immediate future for Md. 66. This state road serves as an access route to the
north eastern section of Washington County as well as to Pennsylvania for residents of
Sharpsburg, Keedysville, and Boonsboro. Traffic volumes on both roads have indicated
increase usage by motorists and deterioration of parts of roadway.
A similar north -south route (Md. 65) runs from Hagerstown to Sharpsburg and it
also has shown a steady .increase in daily traffic. Maryland 65 is the best and most direct
route to Antietam National Battlefield from Interstate 70. As tourism and interest in
historic areas increases this will become a more heavily travelled route. Already, housing and
commercial development has occurred and will continue to cause problems for the free flow
of traffic. Below Sharpsburg, Harpers Ferry Road is the only access route west of the Blue
Ridge Mountain range which runs to the southern end of the county and West Virginia.
Harpers Ferry Road itself is a narrow, winding road not suitable for more than small
volumes of traffic. Consideration for improvement of this corridor should be given to attract
visitors and others whose interest in recreational development is growing.
Implications to Planning Policy. One of the major highway problems in Washington
County is the absence of access control along its main roads. As development with access
M
71
TABLE 19
WASHINGTON COUNTY
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
Route
Location
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
Md.64
City Line East
2,875
4,850
6,850
7,600
8,200
Chewsville
4,600
4,850
5,100
Cavetown
2,350
2,700
4,125
4,400
4,700
Md.62
S of Md.60
350
450
575
650
750
Md.66
Boonsboro
1,425
2,075
1,575
1,150
1,500
S of Cavetown
1,200
950
1,050
1,100
Md.67
S of Boonsboro
1,200
1,750
1,850
1,850
2,350
Md.34
W of Boonsboro
2,000
2,525
2,575
2,800
2,675
E of Sharpsburg
975
2,300
2,300
2,500
2,550
W of Sharpsburg
4,175
5,000
3,800
3,925
4,000
Md.65
N of Sharpsburg
2,600
2,775
2,800
2,900
3,075
N of Md.68 intersection
2,925
3,575
3,500
4,100
4,150
S of Md.68 intersection
3,125
3,350
3,525
4,000
4,100
Md.68
E of U.S. 40A
800
850
950
E of Md.65
825
800
825
925
1,025
W of Md.65
1,050
1,050
1,200
1,200
Md.632
N of Md.68
906
1,000
1,600
N of Downsville
575
900
1,000
1,075
1,100
Md.63
N of Williamsport
2,325
2,600
3,475
4,000
2,050
S of U.S. 40
1,950
3,450
3,300
4,700
1,900
S of Cearfoss
1,950
2,200
1,225
1,525
1,325
Md.58
SE of Cearfoss
3,350
3,575
2,000
2,625
2,750
Md.494
WofCearfoss
1,175
1,325
900
1,100
1,225
E of Md.57
450
400
450
425
450
Md.57
N of U.S. 40
575
650
600
650
600
N of Md.494 intersection
750
725
625
725
650
Md.68
NW of Williamsport
800
900
875
950
950
SE of Md.56
600
550
825
650
Md.615
N of I-70
275
325
325
350
350
US 11
Potomac River Bridge -Williamsport
3,450
4,275
4,600
4,875
1,575
SW of 1-70
7,275
9,950
11,100
7,000
S of Penna. Line
8,375
9,400
3,925
4,125
4,600
US 522
Potomac Bridge at Hancock
6,650
6,025
6,000
6,500
US 40
E of Indian Springs
5,525
6,725
7,450
1,175
1,400
I-81
Penna. Line
1,900
2,060
5,500
7,350
9,300
W.Va. Line
8,500
S of US 4 West
11,600
N of Md.58
12,900
I-70
Between Md.632 & Md.65
12,500
W of I-81
12,400
SW of Clear Spring
10,400
11,300
Millstone Station
11,000
12,000
S of Penna. Line
11,000
Source: Maryland State Roads Commission
72
r
a
directly to a road increases, the traffic -carrying capabilities of the road will be reduced and
safety hazards will increase. Rapid movement of through traffic volumes and the provision
of access to property adjacent to a road are two distinct and separate functions. In the case
of expressways or freeways, acquisition of wide rights-of-way insures proper access control.
Unfortunately, funds are often not available to secure rights-of-way in rural areas, resulting
in new housing and commercial uses developing along major highways. A good example of
this is Md. 65 south of Hagerstown. Individual lots have direct access to this major arterial
route to Antietam Battlefield and with increased tourist traffic will create additional hazards
to the rapid movement of vehicles.
As population and automobile ownership continue to increase, the traffic volumes
will become increasingly affected. To prevent such wasteful practices to continue, new
developments should be planned with only a few entrances directly to main roads. One need
only point to the proliferation of access points on Rt. 11 north of the City as an example of
the hazards and frustrations which might occur in all areas of the County. Through
subdivision regulations, zoning and County policy, this type of detrimental activity can be
controlled.
The growing concern for environment and a "quality of life" lead to the
establishment of achievable goals. For a coordinated roads system in Washington County
some of these bench marks to achieve should be: the promotion of sound land development;
maintenance of high health and safety standards; reduction of capital and operating costs;
reduction of time spent in highway travel; promotion of convenience in travel for residents
as well as visitors. Proper planning and the use of judicious controls are a means of insuring
the good life for all taxpayers.
These proposals are subject to amendment due to changing conditions and events.
The location of a new major industry in Washington County may necessitate new roads
plans as well as the development of new housing on sites not now anticipated. An example
might be the planned expansion of Fort Frederick State Park where the volume of tourist
traffic is expected to greatly increase. Improvements, therefore, to Md. 56 which are
currently of low priority should possibly be timed to coincide with the park's development.
Also with the development of the Interstate Industrial Park near Williamsport, pressure for
an interchange at I-81 and Md. 68 may require a higher priority than is presently assigned by
the State.
Additional discussion of these proposed amendments to the current program will be
found below as noted.
Highway Classifications and Standards. The highways, roads, and streets required to
serve the community extend from the unimproved country lane and the local street that
serves a few nearby or abutting properties to roads carrying increasing volumes and requiring
higher standards, ranging to the freeway which demands the maximum in respect to criteria.
The function of each type of highway must be understood, those of similar purpose
grouped and appropriate standards for each class established. There are many terms, such as
73
freeways and expressways or major, primary and arterial, that are used loosely and often
interchangeably, and it is important to develop a nomenclature which is definite and
meaningful.
Five classes of highways have been established earlier in Washington County. To this
group was added, by the county planning commission a sixth classification for secondary
highways, which are important to limited areas of the County. The following description of
each class of highway identifies the types included in each category, the function of each
class of highway, the principal characteristics and some of the standards. Not all of the
standards are given since many of these are of importance only when preliminary
development or construction plans are in preparation. It should be noted that the
classification is not concerned with jurisdiction. However, most highways falling in the
limited -access, expressway, major and arterial highway categories are State roads, while the
majority in the collector and secondary classes presently are in the County road system.
(Table 20)
The term "limited -access" highway is a thoroughfare for high speed motor vehicle
traffic, serving major through -traffic and, where appropriate, major urban -suburban traffic
movements, designed to eliminate principal traffic hazards and having the following
characteristics:
1. A right-of-way width of at least 200 feet;
2. Two or more traffic lanes in each direction, with opposing lanes separated by a
median divider; r
3. Grade separation structures at all intersecting highways to eliminate conflict
with cross streams of traffic;
4. Control of access to abutting properties;
5. Access (ingress and egress) to intersecting highways limited to those approved
by the agency having jurisdiction over the limited -access highway and with such
ingress and egress points made accessible at interchanges comprising a system of
ramp and/or service roads connected to accelerating and decelerating lanes to
and from the main roadway of the limited -access highway, all in accordance
with appropriate standards and controls established by the agency having
jurisdiction over such limited -access highway;
6. Vertical curves of length to provide long sight distances;
7. Shoulders of width adequate and safe in emergencies to permit vehicles to stop
or park off traffic lanes;
S. In the case of a parkway, generously landscaped and planted areas in the median
separator and marginally along the parkway and, at the discretion of the agency having
74
TABLE 20
CLASSIFICATION OF ROADS AND HIGHWAYS IN WASHINGTON COUNTY
Classification
Designation
From
To
Mileage
Freeways
I-70
E.Wash.Co.line
Pa.line N.of Hancock
43.2
I-81
S.of Williamsport
Padine N.of Hagerstown
13.6
Sub -Total
56.8
Major Arterial
US 40
Intersection of I-70
Hagerstown City line
2.3
US 340
Weverton W. & S.
Sandy Hook
2.3
US 40
I-70 at Hancock West
Allegany Co. line
12.1
US 40
Hagerstown City line
I-81
.8
Sub -Total
17.5
Minor Arterial
Md.67
Weverton North
US 40A S. of Boonsboro
13.6
Md.34
James Rumsey Bridge -NE
US 40A SW of Boonsboro
10.6
US 40A
Turners Gap -NW
Funkstown-H City Line
12.1
Chewsville Rd.
Funkstown-NE
US 40
•8
Md.65
Hagerstown City line -S
Sharpsburg
12.1
US 11
E.Williamsport-NE
Penn.R.R.tracks S.of
Hagerstown
3.0
Md.63
N.Williamsport-N
US 40 Huyett Crossroads
4.5
Md.64
Hagerstown City line -E
SE of Smithsburg
8.3
Md.60
Marsh Pike -NE
Penna. Line
7.6
US 11
Maugans Ave. N
Showalter Rd.
1.5
Maugans Ave.
US 11 W
I-81
.8
Md.58
Hagerstown City Line -NW
Cearfoss
3.8
US 40
I-81 W
Clear Spring
7.6
Md.68
US 4 at Clear Spring -S
I-70 intersection
.4
US 522
S.of Hancock -N
I-70
1.1
Sub -Total
78.8
Major Collector
Md.66
Boonsboro -N
Cavetown
11.4
Md.77
Smithsburg-E
Wash.Co.Line
3.0
Md.64
Intersection of Md.77-N
Penna. Line
5.7
Md.491
Rt.64 E.of Smithsburg-NE
Penna.State Line
5.3
Md.418
Leitersburg-NE
Penna.State Line
5.3
US 40
E.Wash.Co.Line-NW
Intersection of I-70
6.8
Edgewood Dr.
US 40 NE
Md.64
3.0
Md.68
N.of Boonsboro -NW
I-70 S. of Clear Spring
11.4
Ridge Rd.
US 40A Funkstown-E
US 40
"8
Ridge Rd.
Md.632-E
US 40A Funkstown
1.9
Md.632
Hagerstown City Line -SW
Downsville
6.8
Marsh Pike
Intersection of Md.60-N
Penna.State Line
4.2
Longmeadow Rd.
Marsh Pike -E
Md.60
1.1
Showalter Rd.
US I-81
US 11
1.1
V&
Classification
Designation
From
To
Mileage
US 11
Showalter Rd. -N
Penna. State Line
1.5
Maugans Ave.
Maugansville Rd.E
US I-81
.8
Md.63
Huyetts Crossroads -N
Penna.State Line
6.1
Md.58
Cearfoss-NW
Penna.State Line
2.3
Md.494
Cearfoss-W
Md.57
6.8
Md.57
US 40 N
Penna.Statc Line
5.3
Md.56
Md.68-W
Indian Springs
10.6
Big Spring Rd.
Clear Spring -S
Md.56
2.3
US 40
Clear Spring -W
Pectonville Rd.
6.8
Penna. Ave.
Hancock
Penna.State Line
1.9
Sub -Total
112.2
Minor Collector
Gapland Rd.
Md.67-E
Wash.Co.Line
1.1
Old Wolfsville Rd.
Boonsboro
Greenbriar State Park
3.4
Harpers Ferry Rd.
Sharpsburg -S
Harpers Ferry
12.1
Sandy Hook Rd.
Sandy Hook -E
Weverton
3.0
Md.63
S.of Williamsport -SE
Fairplay
7.6
Bakersville Rd.
Md.63 SE
Bakersville
2.3
Keedysville Rd.
Bakersville-SE
Keedysville
4.5
Mt. Aetna Rd.
Edgewood Dr. -SE
Mt.Lena Rd.
5.3
Beaver Creek Rd.
Ridge Rd. E of Funkstown
SE US 40
1.5
Wolfsville Rd.
Mt.Lena Rd. S of Smiths -
burg -SE
Wash.Co. Line
2.3
Edgemont Rd.
NE Smithsburg
Penna. State Line
5.3
Leitersburg-Smiths-
burg Roads
Smithsburg-N
Penna.State Line
6.8
Md.62
Chewsville-N
Md.60 Leitersburg
4.5
Maugansville Rd.
I-80 N
Penna.State Line
4.5
Salem Rd.
Md.58 E
Maugansville Rd.
1.5
Md.144
Hagerstown City Line -W
US 40
2.3
Broadfording Rd.
Md.58 and I -80-W
Blairs Valley Rd.
12.1
Mercersburg Rd.
Blairs Valley Rd. -N
Penna.State Line
4.5
Blairs Valley Rd.
Broadfording Rd. -N
Penna.State Line
4.5
Indian Springs Rd.
Indian Springs -N
Penna.State Line
6.8
US 40
Pectonville Rd. -W
Park Head Rd.
.8
Hollow Rd.
US 40 NE
Penna.State Line
3.8
Md.615
Orchard Ridge Rd.W&N
Penna.State Line
5.3
Woodmont Rd.
Potomac River N at
Woodmont
US 40
6.8
Sub -Total
112.6
Total
377.9
76
a
jurisdiction, with traffic limited to passenger vehicles.
Development within the right of way of the limited -access highway would be in
accordance with standards established by the State Roads Commission (and the Bureau of
Public Roads, in the case of routes in the Interstate System).
In plans recently prepared by or under the State Roads Commission's direction, two
two-lane travelways have been provided, separated by a median strip at least 76 feet in
width. Each travel way has a pavement width of 24 feet, and two 13 -foot -wide shoulders.
When third lanes are added, or where required for initial construction, the median strip may
be reduced to a width of 50 feet and each roadway increased to 37 feet in width with two
13 -foot -wide shoulders. Each 37 -foot roadway is divided into three lanes, the center lane
being 13 feet in width.
Expressway. (Including controlled -access arterial highways): The "expressway" is a
thoroughfare for high-speed motor vehicle traffic, serving both major through -traffic
movements and, where appropriate, major urban -suburban traffic movements, designed to
eliminate or reduce the principal traffic hazards and having the following characteristics:
1. A right-of-way width of at least 200 feet;
2. Two or more traffic lanes in each direction, with opposing lanes separated by a
median divider;
3. Crossing intersections limited to those designated by the agency having
jurisdiction over the expressway. Such intersections may be at grade, with
channelization where necessary, or in cases where traffic volumes warrant, may
be grade separated without access to the crossing highway, or with access at
interchanges as provided for in the case of the limited -access highway (see
limited -access highway definition, item 5);
4. Control of access to abutting properties, with such access subject to appropriate
standards and limited to those abutting properties designated by the agency
having jursidiction over the expressway and with such access points made
accessible by accelerating and decelerating lanes to and from the main roadway
of the expressway, and provided that there shall be no crossover of the median
separator at or in connection with such access point except at a designated
crossing highway or other location approved by the agency having jurisdiction
over the expressway.
Development within the right of way would be as indicated for the limited -access
highway.
Major Highway. (Including primary highways): the term "major highway" shall
mean a thoroughfare intended for major movements of both through and intra -community
77
traffic, generally connecting with other major and arterial highways and providing
connection to expressways and to limited -access highways at interchange points, and having
the following characteristics:
1. A right-of-way width of at least 150 feet;
2. Two or more traffic lanes in each direction, with opposing lanes separated by a
median divider, and where only two lanes have been built in the initial
construction, with the roadway offset from the center line to permit future
dualization;
3. No control of access to abutting properties except at intersectional and
channelization areas and at approaches to or in the vicinity of interchanges or
other critical portions of the highway (such as at dangerous curves or areas
where differences in elevations between the highway and abutting property
make access difficult and dangerous).
Development within the right of way, generally, would consist of two two-lane
travel ways separated by a median strip at least 16 and probably not over 50 feet in width.
Each travel way would have a pavement width of 24 feet (37 feet in the case of three lanes)
and two 13 foot wide shoulders. In urban areas, the shoulders would be eliminated and
curb, gutter and sidewalk installed (the last, generally, at local expense). Although control
of access is limited, generally, to the areas noted in Item 3 above, all driveways and
entranceways to parking lots, automobile filling stations, shopping centers, etc. shouid be
located, designed and built in accordance with State Roads Commission requirements.
Arterial Highway. A thoroughfare carrying through traffic and inter -community
traffic and linking other arterial highways and state collector routes with major highways
and expressways with limited -access highways at interchanges, or serving a major traffic
movement in a local area, such as a commercial or industrial section, and having the
following characteristics:
1. A right-of-way width of at least 100 feet;
2. One or more traffic lanes in each direction, generally without physical
separation between opposing traffic lanes, but constructed initially so as to
facilitate such opposing lane separation if required;
3. No control of access except as in the case of major highways (see major
highways, item 3).
Development within the right of way generally would consist of a two-lane
pavement 24 feet in width, offset from the center line at least eight feet to provide for
possible future dualization, and two 13 foot wide shoulders. In urban areas, especially in
commercial sections where right of way is restricted, installation of the median separator
78
may not be feasible. In such cases, a pavement width of 48 feet is recommended with curb,
gutter and sidewalk.
Collector Highways. A thoroughfare generally linking other collector or secondary
highways with arterial or major highways and occasionally with expressways and limited
access highways, and having the following characteristic"§:
1. A right-of-way width of at least 80 feet;
2. A travel way having one lane in each direction, with no physical separation
between opposing lanes of traffic;
3. No control of access except at intersections with arterial, major highways and
expressways and approaches to interchanges or other critical areas.
Development within the right of way generally would consist of a two-lane
pavement 24 feet in width and two 13 foot wide shoulders.
Secondary Highways. A thoroughfare generally serving a limited area or providing a
connection between other secondary, collector and/or arterial routes, and having the
following characteristics:
1. A right-of-way width of at least 50 but generally 60 to 80 feet;
2. A travel way with one traffic lane in each direction with no physical separation
between opposing traffic lanes;
3. No control of access except at intersections with arterial or major highways or
other important roads or in critical areas.
Development within the right of way would provide for a pavement width ranging
between 20 and 24 feet, with shoulders 10 to 12 feet in width. The 20 -foot pavement width
and 10 -foot shoulders should be used only on roads having extremely low volumes and on
which no significant increase in traffic is anticipated within the foreseeable future. Other
roads should have a minimum pavement width of 24 feet, with 12 -foot shoulders.
Railroads
Washington County is served by four major railroads; Western Maryland,
Penn -Central, Baltimore & Ohio, and the Norfolk and Western. The general alignment of
railroads is in a north -south direction with all lines running through the City of Hagerstown.
According to Maryland Department of Economic Development, the lines in Washington
County are primarily used for freight transportation. The daily average traffic is as follows:
Western Maryland 29 trains
79
Penn Central 8 trains
Baltimore & Ohio 1 train
Norfolk & Western 6 trains
The City and County have an unusually high number of railroad grade crossings
which cause numerous disruptions in traffic flow. The State Roads Commission, the
railroads, and the local government have been working together to eliminate this problem.
Two more grade separations and major crossings on the Downsville Pike and Wilson
Boulevard will be given high priority in the immediate future.
Railroad lines represent an important factor in the economic growth potential of the
County. Adequate land should be reserved adjacent to railroads to provide for new
industries which require rail services.
Bus Service
In March of 1970, the privately owned and operated bus transportation system in
Hagerstown and Washington County ceased operation. In March of 1971, the County
Commissioners appointed a Transportation Feasibility Committee to investigate the
possibility of restoration of public transportation for Washington County.
Legislation was passed by the Maryland Legislature, giving the Commissioners the
power to set up a Transportation Authority to implement a bus system, the law to take
effect July 1, 1971.
The Traffic Feasibility Committee has met regularly since March and will make
recommendations to the County Commissioners on the economic feasibility of restoring bus
transportation. At the last meeting of June 17, the feasibility committee will recommend
that the County Commissioners set up a transit authority.
On the recommendation of the County Commissioners, the Feasibility Committee
have hired ATE and a final report from that management firm is forthcoming.
The Feasibility Study will be prepared at a cost of $7,500.00, of which the cost to
the City of Hagerstown will be $2,000.00, the Downtown Improvement Committee
$1,500.00 and the County Commissioners $4,000.00.
The current thinking is that the publicly owned system, privately managed, is the
best alternative of the methods studied by the Committee. The Committee surveyed
potential users during telephone and news surveys and elicited 1,400 responses for the need
of buses. The Committee is leaning heavily toward getting a privately owned management
survey to do a study of the economic feasibility of a bus system.
80
Air Service
Washington County enjoys the advantage of having a potentially excellent air
transport facility. The Hagerstown Municipal Airport is owned by the City and is located 2
miles north of the city line. The airport is contained in a 130 acre industrial park area and
has a north -south runway of 5,450 feet. The operator of the municipal airport is Henson
Aviation, Inc., which also owns seven hangars at the facility. The City of Hagerstown owns
one hangar which has steadily decreased in capacity. This has occurred due to the need for
additional space for offices, storage areas, and an airport lounge.
The Hagerstown Airport is a base for approximately 50 private planes as well as
Allegheny Commuter Lines, which is run on contract by Henson Aviation. Allegheny
operates 14 daily flights to Baltimore and Washington airports. Through high frequency
connections with National (Washington, D.C.) and International (Dulles,
Friendship -Baltimore) airports, the commuter line offers its regional customers connections
to any destination in the world. The airport also maintains two fulltime instructors with 8
training planes for those seeking pilot's licenses.
Present City plans for 1970-75 call for construction of new taxi ways, a runway
lighting system, extension of both runways approximately 800 feet and a new air terminal.
The cost of the latter project is tentatively to be split between City and County funds. A
new terminal is necessary to replace the presently overcrowded building and to make it
more attractive to potential users. Also, the commuter line is planning to replace its present
aircraft with new, faster, pressurized planes which will have greater capabilities for passenger
and freight carrying. These steps are needed in order to keep Washington County's economic
growth potential competitive with the surrounding regions in Pennsylvania, West Virginia,
Virginia and Maryland. Modern air service has proven to be an attractive asset to commerce
and industry seeking new locations.
An airport study by the Maryland Department of Economic Development which was
recently announced will indicate a feasible path to follow in the development of the
Municipal Airport.
The question of City -County ownership is a significant one which will need
consideration in the near future. An airport with its facilities is an important spoke in the
transportation wheel and should receive due consideration of an integral part of a whole
system.
Utilities
Existing and Programmed Water Supply and Waste Water Disposal Facilities. In
August of 1970, the Washington County Commissioners adopted a Comprehensive Water
and Waste Water Plan prepared by Baker-Wibberley & Associates, Inc., in Hagerstown. The
plan was prepared in conformance with Article 43 of the Annotated Code which required
each political subdivision of the state to prepare plans in order to provide for the expansion
and extension of community water supply systems and community sewerage systems in a
81
manner consistent with needs and plans of each area. In addition, safe and sanitary
treatment of sewage was required and community water supply systems or sewerage systems
were to be delineated. It is required that water and sewer planning for the County includes
all towns, municipal corporations, and sanitary districts within the area to the extent that
such inclusion is in the interest of public health, safety and welfare.
Water Supply Facilities
Existing. There are presently six public water systems in Washington County plus
five institutional or special purpose systems. These latter comprise Camp Louise, Fort
Ritchie, Greenbrier Park, the Mt. Aetna Academy and the St. James School for Boys.
The six public water systems include the Town of Hancock, the Town of Clear
Spring, the community of Highfield, the Boonsboro system serving the Towns of Boonsboro
and Keedysville, the Town of Sharpsburg and the City of Hagerstown system serving
Hagerstown, the Towns of Williamsport, Funkstown and Smithsburg, the Maryland
Correctional Institution for Men and a large suburban area around the City of Hagerstown:
The Town of Hancock system is adequate for the existing service area and for the
projected service areas until the year 1980;
The Town of Clear Spring system is adequate for the present service area and for the
projected service areas to the year 2000;
The community of Highfield system by itself is inadequate for present and future
demands and storage. However, it is interconnected with the Blue Ridge Water
Company in Blue Ridge Summit, Pennsylvania which provides sufficient supply for
the immediate future. Additional supply will be required in the future as will
additional storage;
The Boonsboro system which also supplies Keedysville is adequate for the existing
service area and for the projected service areas beyond the year 1980;
The Sharpsburg system has just been put in service and is adequate for the existing
service area and for the projected service area to the year 1980. However, storage
available is less than recommended by the National Board of Fire Underwriters for
fire protection;
The present City of Hagerstown system is adequate for the existing population and
service area and for the projected growth of this area nearly to the year 1980. While the
capacity of the plant is less than the maximum daily demand it is sufficient for the average
daily demand and the large storage quantity will make up for the difference between the
average and maximum daily demands. The City of Hagerstown has already started
engineering studies leading to enlargement of the treatment plant.
82
P E N N S Y L V A N A
A R Y L A N 11 0
ALL€GANY
d M
ti i°,}-9 f
COUNTY (((
HANCOCK ~ '1.r
y CAE R SPAINo L 4+acar
Mt � ISAGf RgTtlWN
y3M+'TH5WRD
� J
0
r�
Y
W € 6 T 1`4n I
AI^TiRHATE a
•� \ -129 i
1
b a,
W&LIAMSPD
WASHINGTON COUNTY
MARYLAND R g N I A
j � r
r 141
s �v
1 � — N
yll
J
2P*yl
WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES -EXISTING AND PROPOSED 4` a
LEGEND AND INDEX: ■ aar�n5-3 Y�
YnmN1o1. Te r.pr I Yeer Te r pr Beypne yea ALTERNATE A
SERVICE AREA CATEGORIES
RivllY_ 19T5 19G0 2afb 2000 •l I_ a
w•1 hleenl SetlNlpF reel •1 /f /
SPRING g,. yll-{
WELL � W-2 Amoe to be .er,ze by ne. or improvetl Ipcililie. preeenlly
hn n5M eoa,«sa ehgbrr fWYy R�Ichr 1 rb r..d.r..ew
TRANSMISSION MAIN ._�q� �• �•�� �Yf� �n� gI! 9 IB -I
■OOfiClr —.0 bT4b10N K•3 x en..q N Item ee .e.... ..leir. 3-12A
,RTER n mew I"l- . . s . - iN IS", }e 5001"0901,16 LITTLE AN TMA PROJECT
GROUND STORAGE • • f • • W-4, to bI4
e ,ervee b101011prpprp mee for 11, —1
CLCNATCO MTORAbC 1 1 Zeno Yepr pere.mllp 19501 .11 t r �� •'• - �1
T T W-5
SERVICE AREAS Hr, poo H Iit nHar. na„MY t.a e—M—ill • �,�EV$IE
W-1 W-2 W 5 {
WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
O..ian D4P 15-2
1-1 Camp —4, 0.09 MGD 15-3 Lit 1. AeMan W.IWYMe Pr*.I
2-1 Forl Rilcbie 04 MGD }pA Nppr.lnn ` - "•,x Y
3-I Hop 1. it 10.0 MGD }I2B Nppw.lo.n SNA
44 HalNoch OS MGD
S".�/•�
5.1 Greenbrier Se Porh 014 MOD
lq•Y Sbprei.hkl p.A.4 So No^ilpry
GW4 023 M60 IA•1 }`r U
1!
ELEVATED STORAGE
GROUND STORAGE (E -El., TOM 5.511Mpipe)
ei. �32V:i w.IC:7 F., 4ewb '. ••-'�"a:y ns_a. _ Fumre f W r]
2-2 Forl Ritchie I.0 MG 15.3 me. ArM+ WM.ree, ft* 0— 1-2 Camp Louise 005 MGI51 3.5 Ho 0... � O 1 2 3 4 5 6
2-3 For: Rilcbie 0.3 MG 15-2 L'nbe AMMIan Wbe lbld Prol.cl Dan 3-5 .........^ 02 MG(S) 3-9 Nob.r.l own
2-4 Fal Rihhie 79.D MGY21-6 3-6 H41er.lo.n OOG MO(5) 3-10 N"Itie n
3-2 Hobaelo.n 1000 MG 4-2 Np^cpee OS MG(S) 3 -II No4.r.lown O
3-3 Npber.lp.. 20.0 MG 5-2 Greenbrier l— Pah 0.5 MG(S)
3-9 H.perelo.n 11.5 MG II -1 Fal Rilcbie"Site 5" 006 MISE)
4-3 Honcoch 0.5 MG 1!•1 MR Calnlvpl 4
5-3 Geenbrier Lee. 326.0 MG I^.Iiluli0^ For Me^ 05 MG(E) SCALE MILES
-I Boonsboro 1.5 MG 12-2 Me Comeclion4l W
7-1 CNpr Sp1.b 1.5 MG In.11lution Fa Men 023 MGIE) { +
B-1 Hi9 isle O.IB MG 13-1 Willlpm.pal 03 MGIE)
b•. IN 4.N U." 0.04 MG 14-2 S1vpeWr4 Sonil.ry
10^I SmSNburq 0.13 MD S— 1,10 M. 4 02 NUIT
3-T 11-0— 1. MG ISI
4
BAKER-WIBBERLEY AND ASSOCIATES y
WILLIAM C. MC DONNELL
CONSULTING PLANNER
Required in Immediate Future. Water facilities required in the immediate future
include water main extensions in the City of Hagerstown water system to complete loops
for improved service:
1. A booster pumping station adjacent to Northern and Potomac Avenues and a
water main extending north along Marsh Pike to the Spring Valley subdivision
completing a loop with the main in Longmeadow Road and providing supply to
the Spring Valley subdivision from two directions.
The Spring Valley subdivision and the development adjacent to Longmeadow
Road are presently served by a 12 -inch water main extending from the 12 -inch
main in Pennsylvania Avenue, easterly in Longmeadow Road to Marsh Pike and
Spring Valley. The present arrangement has a number of disadvantages; first in
case of a break in the single water main a large and growing area would be
totally without water until repairs could be made and second the demand on
this main adversely affects the hydraulics of the system in the Pennsylvania
Avenue area north of Longmeadow Road. The need for extending a main along
Marsh Pike to complete a loop to alleviate the existing condition has been
recognized for some time and was recommended for future construction in the
Pitometer Associates report of 1966. Because of the different pressure zones
connected by this main a booster pumping station will be necessary.
2. Providing a second supply main to the Town of Funkstown by either of the.
following plans:
Plan A: Extending a water main from the Alternate U. S. Route 40 through
Funkstown to U. S. Route 40 connecting two City mains to the Funkstown
system.
Plan B: Extending a water main from the Sharpsburg Pike, Maryland Route 65
easterly to the Funkstown system. This Plan B is contingent upon the
construction of Item 3 below in order to be beneficial.
The Town of Funkstown is presently served by a single main. In the event of a
break in this main the town is without water until repairs are made. Item 2 is to
correct this situation and to improve the hydraulics of both the Funkstown
system and the Hagerstown system in the adjacent area and provide service for
future growth. Plan A above, connects the Funkstown system to a loop
extending from the Hagerstown system near the Industrial Park on U. S. Route
40A to the 10 -inch main in the Dual Highway, U. S. Route 40. Plan B connects
the Funkstown system to the Hagerstown system by a main extending from the
Sharpsburg Pike to Funkstown. Because the main in the Sharpsburg Pike serves
the Maryland Correctional Institution for Men and an area along the Sharpsburg
Pike it is not sufficiently large to also serve Funkstown. Therefore, the
connection under Plan B is contingent upon construction of the water mains
under Item 3 below.
83
3. Extend a water main from the existing 16 -inch main on the Downsville Pike
along Maryland Route 632 (Downsville Pike) to Maryland Route 68 (Lappans
Road) and along this road to Maryland Route 65 (Sharpsburg Pike) and
northerly along Route 65 to connect to the existing main serving the Maryland
Correctional Institution for Men. An elevated tank should be installed adjacent
to the intersection of Maryland Routes 632 and 68. The tank capacity would be
500,000 gallons.
The water main extensions above comprise a loop, extending the Hagerstown
system at the Downsville Pike to connect with the existing 10 -inch main in the
Sharpsburg Pike now serving the Maryland Correctional Institution for Men.
This existing main does not satisfactorily serve the Correctional Institution.
Shortages of water at the Correctional Institution resulted in Senate Resolution
No. 98 on March 21, 1968, in which the Maryland State Planning Commission,
the State Department of Public Improvements and the City of Hagerstown were
ordered to confer to remedy the situation. The problem is the result of
increased growth along the Sharpsburg Pike and increased water use at the
Correctional Institution. A similar loop was recommended in the Pitometer
Associates report of 1966 and again in the Whitman, Requardt and Associates
report of 1969. In addition to correcting the existing problem the loop will
open up new areas for future development.
Programmed to 1980. Water facilities recommended to be programmed for
construction in the decade ending in the year 1980 are extensions of the City of Hagerstown
water system and one additional water supply for the Boonsboro-Keedysville area.
The two water main extensions to the Hagerstown water system include:
1. A water main extending north along the Leitersburg Pike to Leitersburg and an
elevated storage tank at Leitersburg.
2. A water main extending west along U. S. Route 40 from the existing 24 -inch
main at Huyetts to Wilson and an elevated storage tank near Huyetts.
These items comprise the extension of water mains into areas where there is
presently considerable development and which are expected to continue to develop. From
the projected population and growth of these areas it is anticipated that the water main
extensions will be economically feasible in the latter part of the decade ending in 1980.
3. The proposed additional water supply for the Boonsboro-Keedysville area is the
Little Antietam project comprising two multi-purpose (flood control and water
supply) dams under a Soil Conservation Service Program. These are the
proposed Reeder Site 6 impoundment east of Keedysville and the proposed
Mousetown Site 1 impoundment northeast of Boonsboro. In addition to the
two dams a raw water pumping station at the Reeder Site 6 and a raw water'
84
transmission main extending to the Mousetown No. 1 site would be required
and a water treatment plant at the latter site. In addition to the above a finished
water transmission main would be required to the point of use. The safe yield of
the two dams is 0.86 mgd, based upon the latest Soil Conservation Service data.
This, in addition to the existing water supply, would be adequate for the
anticipated maximum daily demand of the Boonsboro-Keedysville area beyond
the year 2000. These two communities have agreed to use this water supply
when water demand requires an additional supply. An additional method of
reinforcing the Boonsboro-Keedysville water supply, and interconnecting the
water systems, are the two connections to the Hagerstown system projected for
the period from 1980 to 2000 and beyond the year 2000.
1980 to 2000 Programs. Projected facilities for this period are:
1. Water main extension from the Downsville Pike, Lappans Road and Sharpsburg
Pike loop extended to the community of Downsville.
2. Water main extension southeasterly along Alternate U. S. Route 40 to
Boonsboro with water main spurs extending to the communities of Beaver
Creek and Mt. Lena. A booster pumping station would be required with an
additional water storage tank at Mt. Lena. The extension to Boonsboro would
be a reinforcement of the Boonsboro supply.
Beyond the Year 2000. Projections beyond the year 2000 reflect the probable
growth and development in the County:
A water main extension south from Lappans along the Sharpsburg Pike to
Sharpsburg, connecting to the Sharpsburg system. A water main extension along
the Sharp sburg-Keed ysville Road with a booster pumping station connecting the
Sharpsburg and Keedysville-Boonsboro systems. This would complete a loop to
two points in the Hagerstown system. - r
2. A water main extension extending from Leitersburg to Smithsburg, completing
another loop in the Hagerstown system.
3. The City of Hagerstown water treatment plant will become too small for the
expanded water system. It will be necessary either to enlarge the existing plant,
supplement it with another plant or replace it with a new plant.
Two alternate sites for either a supplementary plant or a replacement plant:
Alternate "A". A new water treatment plant located on the Potomac River above
Dam No. 4 with a transmission main extending north through Downsville and thence
to a connection with the existing 24 -inch transmission mains near Williamsport.
85
Alternate "B". A new water treatment plant located on the Potomac River above
Dam No. 5, with a transmission main extending north to Clear Spring and then east
to Huyetts to connect to the existing 24 -inch transmission main.
The long-range plans relative to water supply indicate the Potomac River will
continue to be the primary source of raw water for Washington County. The County's
geographic position in the Potomac River Basin places over 35% of the Basin's 14,670
square miles tributary to the Potomac River-Conococheague Creek confluence, a point
about midway along the county's 84.5 mile frontage on the river. This geographic position
together with the major reservoir projects proposed for the Potomac Basin should assure the
County of an adequate and equitable share of the Potomac River Water resource.
Sewer Facilities
Existing. There are presently seven municipal or public sanitary sewerage systems
having sewage treatment facilities in Washington County plus nine institutional or special
purpose systems with treatment facilities. In addition, there are four industrial waste
treatment facilities and two electric generating plants using river or creek water for cooling
purposes. All of these have treatment facilities with adequate capacity for the present
service area. All but the Town of Williamsport and Sanitary Subdistrict No. 1 - Halfway, ,
have secondary treatment facilities or lagoons and presently yield a satisfactory effluent.
The Town of Williamsport and Sanitary Subdistrict No. 1 - Halfway have primary
treatment plants which will not yield an effluent of such quality as required to meet
the standards set for the Potomac River into which both effluents are discharged;
The Washington County Sanitary Commission has instituted a program for enlarging
and adding secondary treatment facilities to the Subdistrict No. 1 - Halfway sewage
treatment plant, design of which is in progress;
The Town of Williamsport, by agreement, can discharge either primary effluent or
raw sewage, at it's option, to the Halfway plant for treatment, or secondary
treatment facilities should be constructed;
The City of Hagerstown has under construction an enlargement of its sewage
treatment plant to a capacity of 9.5 mgd, adequate for the existing service area to
the year 1980;
There are three incorporated towns in Washington County having public water
systems but no sewer collecting systems but instead private septic tanks or other
private facilities - Keedysville, Sharpsburg and Clear Spring. Keedysville and Clear
Spring have had public water supply systems for some time but the Sharpsburg
water system has just recently been put into operation. While the private facilities in
Keedysville and Sharpsburg seem adequate now a public system will probably be
necessary by 1980;
86
ALLEGANY
COUNTY
�-s
S„1.�
W E S T
WASHINGTON COUNTY
MARYLAND
N 9 YL V A N A
M A R Y L A N D
V [ A a I N I A
SERVICE AREA CATEGORIES
f •I M1asene 3er.laAe
54 Areae Ip be L"de.. by n. or p prod lacilili<e pee nlly
I, M.o il.." H.P.
S-3 Areae 1. be ..—d! by b6iiliee m immemale 1U1ure
Ila 1_)
S-0 .be : v by d6lilie. yraarammed Iar b.n 1
ver
1..Pee1W iW Hill
t -'A Msp .Mry sryekf IV Mr rspfaeYl Teras pllN M.BI
.ee 11 IspW.euaa N. IM peI eM re. Hill
INDUSTRIAL WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES
• Cpem. • ,M�-.�..
IW - I Fairchild -HIM, Corp,
IW -2 Dyable day P Imbere
IW -3 Byrbn Tannery
IW -9 Polpmd[ Etliepn
IW -5 I_ Md. RAllraad
BAKER-WIBBERLEY AND ASSOCIATES
WILLIAM C. MC DONNELL
CONSULTING PLANNER
Y.
HId1/Mb
C.GP c`
IW-{ L.W.
d Fw NiNYeel
13
oll%
k ♦'��
Kwm TO
'f! {w'a J1 � �, •'- SMITH Una
ti4F
'iV11�BT N ¢a
IIllHlyyq � .w
VA. Aodi.mr,_
r
Ime
rti
Ae�Ary
i
Ifs iP G
r.vaRlw O
WIN
u W
I'% �
A— 1
s
T rK€POYSVILL0-SHARPSBURG
w. ALTERNATE
IN LIEU OF SEWAGE
TREATMENT PLANT"S'
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
SCALE MILES
VI
SEWERAGE
FACILITIES4-EXISTING AND PROPOSED
LEGEND
AND
INDEX:
Eeielino
Hxnedime
P .My
To Ypr I Year
HITS isso
Ta Ypr Billy—Yew
2000 2000
SEWAGE PUMPING STATION ■
Y
I, ■
■ ■
scww 1mg MAIM ee•—eve
ern—e..
e.. ...
.... e.. e......
INTERCEPTOR SEWER
DOMESTIC WASTE •
TREATMENT FKLLRY
•
• •
IIYVCTIIAL WASTC
•
Ts1EA"EAT rKU1T' •
SEPVICE AREAS
D
Pb
DOMESTIC WASTE TREATMENT
FACILITIES
• E.Wi g
D.eipn Cop
• leeiT.e n Hq
FUlpre
A Bppn.barp 02 MGD
P Clprewirp
E. fwpAMB-IMIIn cw o.n wo
aid
S- Rpdwd
C. Fbrl Rikhie 0.35 POO
D. Fpnheld.n 0.12 MGD
T. Sh.,e ,
U. Opwnrille Sl Jamp TISMnpnlan pnd
E 61-11.1 Sidi. Porti OA5 111E
f.......lb.n 0.6 MGD
InWaas Arep
V Conpcocheapue Geeh
0...c h 025 moo
N - NyMMN Vp. f'i a W MIB
J.—w Wil A,NNUN s tidos M50
K ra cp.pPl
I.Hil.Hl Far Men 0” MGD
LS.Hb.bp 0" M00
M Wpe mg1ln C—ly
S ,Pw s Al M IN 104 Map
N w "" 0 3 —
P U-1-1 P.bliehere I)= w0
0 Fairchild -Hiller Carp 002 M00
N 9 YL V A N A
M A R Y L A N D
V [ A a I N I A
SERVICE AREA CATEGORIES
f •I M1asene 3er.laAe
54 Areae Ip be L"de.. by n. or p prod lacilili<e pee nlly
I, M.o il.." H.P.
S-3 Areae 1. be ..—d! by b6iiliee m immemale 1U1ure
Ila 1_)
S-0 .be : v by d6lilie. yraarammed Iar b.n 1
ver
1..Pee1W iW Hill
t -'A Msp .Mry sryekf IV Mr rspfaeYl Teras pllN M.BI
.ee 11 IspW.euaa N. IM peI eM re. Hill
INDUSTRIAL WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES
• Cpem. • ,M�-.�..
IW - I Fairchild -HIM, Corp,
IW -2 Dyable day P Imbere
IW -3 Byrbn Tannery
IW -9 Polpmd[ Etliepn
IW -5 I_ Md. RAllraad
BAKER-WIBBERLEY AND ASSOCIATES
WILLIAM C. MC DONNELL
CONSULTING PLANNER
Y.
HId1/Mb
C.GP c`
IW-{ L.W.
d Fw NiNYeel
13
oll%
k ♦'��
Kwm TO
'f! {w'a J1 � �, •'- SMITH Una
ti4F
'iV11�BT N ¢a
IIllHlyyq � .w
VA. Aodi.mr,_
r
Ime
rti
Ae�Ary
i
Ifs iP G
r.vaRlw O
WIN
u W
I'% �
A— 1
s
T rK€POYSVILL0-SHARPSBURG
w. ALTERNATE
IN LIEU OF SEWAGE
TREATMENT PLANT"S'
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
SCALE MILES
VI
i
Clear Spring has programmed a collection system and treatment facilities which are
presently being designed and will be ready for construction in the near future.
The unincorporated community of Fountain Head located just north of the City of
Hagerstown and having a 1967 population of over 4,000 persons, has no public sewer
system but private septic tank and field systems. The area is quite densely built-up in some
sections and some difficulty has been experienced in the operation of the septic systems.
The desirability of a public sewer system in this area has been recognized by a number of
the residents who have petitioned the Washington County Sanitary Commission to provide
such facilities.
The nine institutional or special purpose systems with sanitary sewage treatment
facilities are Camp Louise -Fort Ritchie, Greenbrier State Park, Highland View Academy,
Hunter Hill Apartments, Maryland Correctional Institution for Men, the St. James School
for Boys, Doubleday & Company, Inc. and the Fairchild Hiller Corporation.
There are four industrial waste treatment plants discharging into the waters of
Washington County, including: W. D. Byron & Son, Inc., Doubleday & Company, Inc.,
Fairchild Hiller Corporation and the Western Maryland Railway Company. All of these are
considered adequate except the Byron Company Tannery. The Byron firm is currently
conducting a research and development program authorized by the Department of Water
Resources which will eliminate pollution from the tannery.
There are also two electric power generating plants which cause thermal pollution,
the Potomac Edison Company and the City of Hagerstown. The Department of Water
Resources has made field investigations of these but have not established the degree of
pollution. Corrective action may be required in the near future.
Required in Immediate Future. Six projects, two in the planning stage, two are
programmed for construction and two recommended for reasons of public health or to meet
water quality standards are proposed. The projects are not listed in order of priority as all
should be constructed almost simultaneously prior to 1975.
1, The unincorporated areas located north of Hagerstown known as Fountain
Head and Orchard Hills have public water supply from the City of Hagerstown
but no public sewer system. Each house has a private septic tank and tile field
system, many of which are not functioning properly. A sewage collection
system should be constructed to serve these two subdivisions. Also required will
be a sewage pumping station and force main, serving a small part of the area,
and an interceptor sewer connecting to the City of Hagerstown's interceptor
sewer leading to the City's sewage treatment plant. Because the City's
interceptor sewer nearest the Fountain Head area is presently carrying nearly
capacity flow it will be necessary to construct the new interceptor sewer parallel
to the existing City interceptor to a point where the existing City interceptor is
sufficiently large to carry the combined sewage flow. Since future interceptor
87
sewers will connect to it, the new interceptor should be sized for the ultimate
expected sewage flow. This project should be started immediately. The existing
situation presents a hazard to public health in certain sections and without
public sewerage facilities future growth in this area is now, and will be in the
future, seriously restricted.
2. The western section of the City of Hagerstown and an area contiguous thereto
should be provided with a sewage collection system. To convey sewage to the
City sewer system and treatment plant, some five sewage pumping stations and
force mains will be required in addition to the sewers. This project is presently
programmed by the City of Hagerstown.
The need to sewer this area has been recognized by the City of Hagerstown for
some time but sewers have not been constructed, mainly due to problems of
funding. These have been resolved and construction plans are nearing
completion.
3. The Washington County Sanitary District is presently planning an interceptor
sewer, sewage pumping station and force main to serve Subdistrict No. 5 -
Potomac and convey sewage to the existing force main connecting to the
existing Halfway Sewage Treatment Plant. Subdistrict No. 5 - Potomac
comprises an industrial park, a home for the aged and adjacent land.
Sewerage facilities are very important to the industrial park, which already has
roads constructed to it and water service provided by the City of Hagerstown.
However, without sewerage facilities it lacks one of the important requisites for
attracting industry and probably will not have an industry locate in the park
until sewer service is available. The home for the aged has recently been
enlarged and is presently operating a private sewage system under a temporary
permit and will require sewer service shortly. In addition to these specific needs,
this project will enhance the future development of the adjacent area.
4. The Washington County Sanitary District is presently planning an enlargement
of, and adding secondary treatment to, its existing Subdistrict No. 1 - Halfway
Sewage Treatment Plant.
This project accomplishes two purposes, first to obtain an acceptable effluent
from the plant to comply with the Water Quality Standards adopted by the
State of Maryland, and second to enlarge the treatment plant sufficiently to
serve the growing area tributary to the plant. An effluent of acceptable quality
for discharge into the Potomac River can only be obtained by secondary
treatment of the sewage. The area served by this treatment plant is expected to
grow rapidly in the near future. Subdistrict No. 5 - Potomac will bring in a
rather extensive area immediately. There is also the possibility of treating either
raw sewage or primary effluent from the Town of Williamsport and its growth
88
area. Also tributary to the Halfway system are the subdivisions of Cloverton,
w Tammany and Van Lear which will require public sewerage facilities in the
future. In addition to these the remaining undeveloped areas in Subdistrict No.
1 - Halfway are expected to build-up and require extension of the existing
collection systems increasing the loading on the plant.
z
5. The Town of Williamsport should add secondary treatment to its existing
primary sewage treatment plant or pump either primary effluent or raw sewage
to the Washington County Sanitary District's Halfway Plant. An agreement has
been made between the two bodies whereby the Town of Williamsport has the
option of delivering its sewage to the Halfway Plant for treatment.
The Maryland State Department of Health has by letter; advised the Town of
Williamsport that secondary treatment of its sewage will be required to comply
with the Water Quality Standards as adopted.
6. The Town of Clear Spring has a public water supply but no sewage collection
system. A sewage collection system, interceptor sewer and sewage treatment
plant should be constructed. This project is presently programmed by the Town
of Clear Spring.
The Plant Site has been selected and contract drawings and specifications are
being prepared by the Town's consulting engineers.
Programmed to 1980. Sewage facilities recommended for programming for
construction in the decade ending in the year 1980 include seven projects; three are sewer
extensions in growth areas, two are sewer systems in unincorporated areas and two are sewer
systems and treatment plants in incorporated towns. There is no order of priority in the
listing below, the order in which sewer service will be required being dependent on the
growth patterns of the respective areas and the effectiveness of existing private septic
systems in these areas.
1. Extend interceptor sewer eastward from the Funkstown system and extend the
sewage collection system to serve the area east of Funkstown towards U. S.
Route 40 East (Dual Highway).
This area is presently beginning to develop and additional future growth is
anticipated, particularly adjacent to the Dual Highway where one commercial
establishment is already locating.
4 2. Extend interceptor sewer from Subdistrict No. 1 - Halfway interceptor and
install sewage collector system in Tammany subdivision located along the west
side of U. S. Route 11, north of Williamsport and south of Halfway.
A
This subdivision has at present a relatively densely built-up area and is
89
expanding yearly. Water is supplied to the area from the City of Hagerstown
system. Sewerage facilities are private septic tank systems. Although troubles
with these systems have not been extensive to date, it is anticipated that due to
the -growth in the area and the increasing age of the existing private systems,
failures will become more frequent and present a health hazard. Some of the
land adjacent to this subdivision in which expansion is expected is in a low lying
area and not conducive to effective operation of tile field systems.
3. Extend interceptor sewer from Subdistrict No. 5 - Potomac interceptor sewer
and install sewage collector system in Van Lear subdivision located along east
side of U. S. Route 11, north of Williamsport and south of Halfway.
The conditions existing in this subdivision are similar to those in the adjacent
Tammany subdivision. Water is supplied by the City of Hagerstown system and
sewage facilities are private septic tank systems. Increased development will
bring the problems previously encountered in other developed areas of the
County where public water supply was available and private tank sewerage
facilities became inadequate.
4. Construct sewage collection system in community of Highfield and construct
interceptor sewer to existing Fort Ritchie sewage treatment plant.
Highfield is a developing community in the northeastern section of the County
having a public water supply but only private sewerage facilities. As the area
develops the concentration of septic tank tile field systems will cause saturation
of the soil and eventually lead to failure of the private facilities, necessitating
public sewerage facilities. Highfield is adjacent to Fort Ritchie which has an
existing sewage treatment plant. Because of the close proximity of Highfield to
Fort Ritchie it is proposed to use and expand if necessary the Fort Ritchie plant
instead of constructing a separate plant for Highfield close beside the existing
Fort Ritchie plant. This will of course require negotiations with the Federal
Government agencies concerned.
5. Extend interceptor sewer from Fountain Head interceptor sewer along Jefferson
Boulevard cast of Hagerstown and construct sewage collection system to serve
Bridgeport -Jefferson Heights area. Also two sewage pumping stations and force
mains will be required.
The Bridgeport -Jefferson Heights area is similar to the Fountain Head,
Tammany, Van Lear and Highfield areas, in that it is an area where public water
supply is available with only private septic tank and the field sewerage systems, 10
and is a continuously developing area. The increasing concentration of private
systems eventually leads to their failure and the necessity of providing public
sewage collection systems
90
6. Construct sewage collection system in the Town of Keedysville together with an
interceptor sewer and sewage treatment plant.
7. Construct sewage collection system in Town of Sharpsburg together with
interceptor sewer and sewage treatment plant.
The Towns of Keedysville and Sharpsburg both have public water supplies but
no public sewerage facilities. Keedysville has had a public water supply for some
time but the Sharpsburg system has just recently been placed in operation. The
soil conditions in these adjacent towns are not conducive to effective tile field
systems. In addition, both are old towns where the population is concentrated
in a smaller area than the newer subdivisions discussed before. This
concentration greatly affects the adequacy of private systems and makes the
need for public facilities more urgent.
At such time as either the Keedysville or Sharpsburg sewage facilities are
contemplated an alternate to 5 and 6 above, of constructing one sewage treatment plant
near Sharpsburg and extending an interceptor sewer northward to convey the Keedysville
sewage to the treatment plant, should be investigated with regard to economic feasibility,
cooperation between the Towns and other pertinent factors. At this time, there also should
be considered the possibility of Boonsboro using the same treatment plant at some time
beyond the year 2000.
1980 to 2000 Program. Projecting facilities for this period are predicted on the
growth patterns of the several areas following the predictions previously made. On this basis
the facilities anticipated to be required are shown on Plate 20 and listed below.
1. Early in this period or even in later years of the period ending 1980 that area to
the north of Hagerstown, in the Spring Valley subdivision and the community
of Leitersburg northeast of Hagerstown, will require sewage collection systems
together with interceptor sewers and two sewage pumping stations and force
mains. These would connect to the Fountain Head interceptor, with the sewage
flowing to the Hagerstown sewage treatment plant.
2. The the community of Chewsville will require a sewage collection system
together with an interceptor sewer, a sewage pumping station and force main
connecting to the Bridgeport -Jefferson Heights interceptor, the sewage flowing
to the Hagerstown sewage treatment plant.
3. The community of Cavetown on Maryland Route 64 southwest of the Town of
Smithsburg will require a sewage collection system, a sewage pumping station
and force main and an interceptor sewer extending to the Smithsburg sewage
system and treatment plant.
4. Further extensions of the sewage collection systems in Subdistrict No. 5 -
91
Potomac and the adjacent Van Lear subdivision requiring additional interceptor
sewers, a sewage pumping station and force main.
5. Development in the Conococheague watershed plus sewage collection systems in
the communities of Maugansville and Cedar Lawn will require an interceptor
sewer, extending southwest from Maugansville, three sewage pumping stations
and force mains, connecting to the existing Wright Road Sewage Pumping
Station with the sewage being treated at the Sub -District No. 1 - Halfway Plant.
6. Development in the Downsville, St. James, Tilghmanton and Lappans area south
of Hagerstown will require sewage collection systems in the above communities,
interceptor sewers, four sewage pumping stations and force mains; the
interceptor sewers extending to a sewage treatment plant on the Antietam
Creek below its confluence with Beaver Creek.
7. An enlargement of the Hagerstown sewage treatment plant or an interceptor
sewer extending from Hagerstown south along Antietam Creek to a new sewage
treatment plant combined with the Downsville, St. James, Lappans and
Tilghmanton area plant mentioned next above.
Beyond the Year 2000. Projections beyond the year 2000 are presented generally,
reflecting probable further development of previously discussed areas:
1. Further development in the Conococheague watershed in the area of Wilson and
Huyetts would require an extension of the interceptor in -the area and two
sewage pumping stations and force mains.
2. The next above with additional development along the Conococheague
interceptor will require an additional sewage treatment plant located on the
Conococheague Creek.
3. Further development of the Greensburg area, north of Smithsburg, would
require collector sewers, a sewage pumping station and force main and an inter-
ceptor sewer extending to the Smithsburg system and sewage treatment plant.
4. Development in the Beaver Creek and Mt. Lena areas southeast of Hagerstown
would require collector sewers, a sewage pumping station and an interceptor
sewer extending southwest to the sewage treatment plant proposed on Antietam
Creek under the 1980 to 2000 period.
5. Should the Boonsboro area develop sufficiently to require extensive
enlargement of the Boonsboro sewage treatment plant, the feasibility of
extending an interceptor sewer southwest to the Keedysville and/or Sharpsburg
sewage treatment plant and enlargement of this plant should be investigated as
an alternate to enlarging the Boonsboro plant.
92
Implications for Planning Policy. The consultant's report indicated that other
planning inputs were needed since this report was prepared in advance of the County's
General Plan.
Section 10, below which discusses the plan will indicate that some of the proposals
of the Water and Waste Water report should be reconsidered in order to conform upon its
adoption.
Industrial Development
There is ample evidence that employment in Washington County has recently fallen
dramatically. The level of unemployment today, 1971, is dangerously close to the recession
level of 1957-1960 when post-war demand for aircraft at Fairchild slackened to the point
where the community experienced thousands of layoffs.
Late in 1959, the County established an Economic Development Commission in an
effort to coordinate planning for the relief of the unemployment problem through the
selection of sites and the promotion of industrial location. The singularly most successful
result was the location of the Mack Truck plant in Hagerstown in 1961. Currently, this new
industry also shares in the nationwide economic downturn and this year has been forced to
temporarily layoff approximately one-half of its total employment force.
In its continuing program of promoting industry, the Economic Development
Commission studied all vacant land in the County and concluded that 890 acres were found
suitable for prime industrial development. An additional 2,250 acres qualified at varying
degrees for in based on accepted rating criteria. In all, 3,140 acres of raw land were
found to be suitable as high quality industrial acreage.
A more recent survey by the Economic Development Commission revised earlier
estimates and proposed 15 prime sites for industrial use. Some of these sites currently have
all necessary utility services available, including water, sewer and electricity, while 13 or
86% have public water supply on the site but no sewerage. This analysis reveals that 1,421
acres of prime industrial land are now available with sufficient access and favorable
topographic and land development criteria.
Earlier projections in this report indicate that at least for the immediate future, an
average of 25 acres of industrial land per year for manufacturing purposes can be expected
to be added to the active supply. In light of this, the 1,421 acres of prime land now
proposed to be in reserve could represent a half century supply of such land.
The problem of selecting and zoning land for industry is complex and the problem is
not as easily solved as reference to simple statistical projections as noted above. For
example, a supply of land must be reserved for industrial purposes but the actual type of all
industries that may wish to locate in the County in the immediate and long range future is
not yet known. What policies these industries themselves may have or may wish to pursue in
93
their development programs is also unknown. Perhaps the idea of combining a package
development of residential, commercial and industrial uses may be appealing and necessary
to some while not to others. If this is the case then projections for future land use
requirements as noted earlier would have to be modified in light of these requirements.
Implications to Planning Policy - The General Development Plan will consider some
broad issues and details in offering guidelines to the County and the Economic Development
Commission in an attempt to solve this problem. It is apparently reasonable to assume that
all forms of development may have to be "promoted" relying on the traditional industrial
promotion techniques in order to sponsor orderly development.
Combining Pressures for Development
The combination of proposed highways, sewer and water line extensions, the status
of public transportation and proposals for industrial land use combine as a dynamic which
can illustrate fairly succinctly what might happen if the County were to continue to develop
under current policies and lack of land use controls.
Dynamics of Development
The analysis of the dynamics of development involves the process of combining all
of the factors for development, together with the susceptibility of land to development.
Assumptions of probabilities are used and they are as follows:
1. Further urbanization will take place on undeveloped and vulnerable land
adjacent to existing developed areas, particularly those with prestige.
2. All currently active subdivisions will probably be completed within the next five
to six years.
3. Areas easy to serve with utilities, with good access and no particular site
development problems and whose property status shows a susceptibility, would
be approved for subdivision at densities similar to adjacent developed land.
4. Development will likely control if other factors are favorable around the City of
Hagerstown with the extension of utility service and on a lot -by -lot basis
throughout the County if buyers and rural land owners agree on price.
5. Property recently sold, for sale or owned by development companies or
individual developers (the majority of this type of property is located around
the City of Hagerstown) will probably represent the next series of subdivisions
after (3) above. The rate of subdivision applications, approvals, and property
sales for development, will occur somewhat in excess of the market rate of
absorption of houses built. However, these two must be related in the long run,
and the market forecast figures presented earlier represent reasonably accurate
94
ALLEGANY
COUNTY
peripheral Hancock
small lots
slope
west of Hancock
slope (but no density
to create problems)
w E S T
O
� n
Big Pool
high water
WASHINGTON COUNTY
MARYLAND
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
LEGEND
POOR SOIL CONDITIONS — POOR PERC —
POTENTIAL FAILURES
ROCK OUTCROPPINGS
BORDERLINE AREAS
FAILURES
FAIR d MODERATE
GOOD PERC
BAKER-WIBBERLEY AND ASSOCIATES
WILLIAM C. MC DONNELL
CONSULTING PLANNER
y ...
seasonal high we
_ PENNSYLVA14
crc fairly good
T u Ali Y,I�A 0
Tamhigh
,Peenp
xt
qurry
O—
wry, fllgp.
u MM7�1
10 r In 4."
,i+`++'.•nw
�..-Qn
high
y ...
.^ aterior I `t s"•.
S*nzy,speor �
Fall=
Tamhigh
qurry
O—
n.H
eeills,
10 r In 4."
.� �
/`�f
777111
/Area not too bad '
{ 7
if off flood - +�
plain WILLIAMSPORTy
.. c
I
llyrf
v t R
l N belos Hollway `
as
q
r
density J
some high water loot
r rl
e
to )
l
h 46
Vi
L
A
p ra
a.
rock visible outcrops
cluster density
summer cabins
'4 e
Potomac River --f
H.• .•rd+ C
small cabin lots
• 4 y. {
poor pe
ifuuJ`[
Trailers spread out
-
in this area. .. +
ti
seasonal high water
slopealong west side
of mountain
- n -
f
i
Limited repair area
(Sandy Hook)
small lots
excess slope —South Mountain
�f
r�.
sell–'
slope
high water
(Highfield,
Cascades
slope
small lots
narrow frontage
U
S I
all private wale_
no public
high density
small lots
y slope 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
fJ °
�w
SCALE � MILES
IP
public water line (Fred. Co.)
no hook–up to Wash. Co,
residents
—Brunswick Water Supply
I limited expansion possibilities
11
assumptions regarding the rate of growth. The result will be a more expanded
growth and a normal one as projected.
6. The market for multi -family development will be absorbed largely in areas
closer to employment centers to the south and north of the city. As the
industrial development program becomes increasingly more successful,
additional multi -family development will occur to the point where it may
represent a higher percentage of the total housing starts than has been the case
in the more recent past.
7. Regulations are needed now unless the County develops regulations with
reference to strictly controlling the construction and operation of sewage
treatment plants, this form of sewage disposal will become increasingly more
popular in the outlying areas and higher densities, without the benefit of plans,
may develop. In the meantime, the County's immediate needs will gradually be
met with the extension of sewers to currently developed areas now served by
septic tanks. Continuing rural development without proper disposal methods
will undoubtedly aggravate the health situation to the point where County
policy will develop to control these situations.
8. Major commercial development will undoubtedly occur in those areas now
proposed for such development. Concentrations of new planned development
will have to rely on capturing resident sales with provision for expansion as the
total commercial retail market grows.
9. Until plans for highways, utilities and other forms of development are
coordinated, industry will develop on the basis of the decisions of new entries
into this market rather than in areas that will provide the necessary services
prior to their development.
Development Factors and Constraints
1.. Interchange Areas - In the majority of interchange areas along Interstate Route
70 and 81, ownership patterns of land are in large blocks which could facilitate
land assemblage under controlled conditions. In some instances clusters of
existing development could make planning for the future development of these
areas difficult.
Goal - The establishment of interchange control districts could work
toward the coordination of development with public and private
interests, and possibly exchange state owned condemnation land for
private development in these areas.
2. Railroads - The long range economic value of trackage to the various systems
serving the County is not clear at this time. If necessary, alternative uses of
95
-railroad rights-of-way through the rural areas might be considered as trails in a
park system.
Goal - Coordinate rail transport plans with the carriers and work
toward gifts of land to the County or low cost reuse lease back of the
rights-of-way. On those more active lines where traffic will continue for
a longer period, an attempt should be made to correct negative safety
factors along the right-of-way, especially at grade crossings through the
towns and in the city.
3. Potomac River Park and the C & O Canal Planning. Program - There are a
number of areas already in conflict with tentatively proposed acquisitions of
land to implement these programs.
Goal - Establish a review procedure vis-a-vis private and public
development proposals to determine local and state costs and sources of
funds to manage long range planning program for these critical areas.
The river and canal should be considered as a separate planning district
in the County's ongoing program.
4. Antietam National Battlefield and Expansion Proposals - As indicated above,
these proposals commit additional land to national park and generate the
demand for tourist and related commercial facilities thereby raising asking
prices for land and inviting speculation.
Goal - Speed-up sewage treatment and trunk sewers for the Sharpsburg
area to coincide with development demands of tourist promotion, create
a special planning district for this and other similar areas and develop
detailed plans with financial help from other government agencies in
order to limit speculation which could negate proper development to
serve this and other areas.
5. Extractive Industries - Extensive acreage near Keedysville, west of Hagerstown
and in mountains beyond Hancock is held by various extractive industries. The
proposed zoning ordinance represents only a beginning of a direction to permit
and control these necessary operations.
Goal - Establish a realistic acreage of land for potential extractive use
but create a process whereby preliminary plans must be approved
through the public process. Possibly private covenants with adjacent
private land owners and institutions should be required in order to
assure proper rehabilitation of the land.
6. Industrial Site Proposals - Less than 20% of these sites have water and sewer
immediately available to them. In order to decide on prime potential areas for
96
A,
industrial development, the EDC should coordinate its plans with those of the
Planning and Zoning Commission and the County Commissioners' decisions to
extend water and sewer service over the next five years.
Goal - There is an urgent need to coordinate development proposals
therefore at all levels of government. Although there are exemptions
from property and real estate taxes for industry current in the County,
such exemptions are limited in time and as development approaches
sites reserved for industry which have not yet realized their potential,
assessment policies may dictate the assessment of such vacant tracts at a
rate commensurate with the proposed use thereby causing landowners
to withdraw and downshift the zoning on their properties. Many prime
sites could possibly be eliminated in this way. For this reason and others
stated, a few exceptional sites should be selected and zoned at this time
while others can be kept in a ready reserve for future development.
7. Annexation - Currently there are four imminent annexations by municipalities
within the County. While annexation by the city or a town often indicates an
opportunity for additional revenues and growth potential, this action also
initiates a responsibility to provide services. Often new revenues do not balance
with costs and land withdrawn from County tax rolls often requires County
investment to maintain services at a loss to the County. In addition, existing and
proposed capacity to water and sewer facilities could be "used up" for such
annexation and thereby eliminating development on utility systems elsewhere
which might be more feasible from an economic and design point of view.
Goal - The County and municipalities should develop a policy on
annexation procedures prior to any action in order to determine public
costs and benefits with reference to capital improvement programs and
land use. If necessary, state legislation should be introduced with
reference to reinforcing current annexation laws. In the future it might
be possible that annexation of County land would be considered by a
"New Community" development placing additional requirements on the
County if such development is not properly coordinated. An attempt to
hold existing municipalities to current levels in order to maintain their
integrity could be thwarted through poorly executed annexation
procedures. The plan should consider, therefore, the establishment of a
hierarchy of community size and scale.
8. Landfill Sites - The County is now attempting to establish landfill and waste
disposal sites in all four major areas of the County. There may be little
objection to the establishment of such sites in remote rural areas where
urbanization has not yet taken place. However, in deciding on the acquisition of
land for this purpose, the County should consider the growth potential of
specific areas. Also, the need for avoiding contamination of the ground or the
surface water resources at or in the vicinity of the sites should be stressed.
97
Goal - Ultimately, the County will have to consider incineration at
least as a part of the waste disposal program. Until that time, the
selection and use and reuse of land fill sites should be well coordinated
especially with the County's Park Program where the reuse of public
land for recreation purposes could be achieved at a very small
investment.
9. Community Parks - Keedysville, Sharpsburg and Williamsport have indicated a
need for town parks. Whether these will be developed on present land within
the towns or land will be annexed for this purpose has not yet been determined.
These requirements for municipalities along with others indicated earlier in this
report underscore the need for a detailed study of each town within the County
in order to accommodate its own needs as well as coordinate them with County
programs in order to effect economy wherever possible.
Goal - Examine the towns in detail as an ongoing part of the County's
coordinative ongoing planning program and develop uses of flood plains
and stream valley preserves for the use of nearby towns for recreational
purposes and this should also be applicable to the unincorporated towns
of Washington County.
10. Cabin -type Subdivision - Heretofore most recreation "cabins" were developed
along the river or on ridges with views of the river. Lately substantial tracts of
land away from the river have been acquired for such development. Often, this
form of development does not conform to adopted subdivision regulations and
the implementation of these controls are difficult to implement. This is not to
say that the market does not exist for vacation housing in Washington County.
Goal - Develop permissive yet firm policy on vacation and recreational
individual housing and communities with special reference to needed
utilities and proper access. Such communities could possibly be
developed on public lands on a lease basis with an economic advantage
to both the public and private entrepreneurs.
11. Mountain Issues - Continuous speculative acquisition of mountain slopes by
speculators as documented in the real estate section of this report, may destroy
the natural features of the County to the point where public investment will be
high in order to correct the damage that may be done. In addition, the
establishment of state parks in the mountain areas have evidenced a growth in
the number and value of land sales in adjacent towns and rural areas. There is in
addition, the threat of continuing use of trailers in remote mountain areas
without regard for proper waste disposal and other housekeeping functions.
Goal - Such development on mountain slopes and summits should be
restricted to conservation use with minimum well-planned large lot
development based on slope regulations. It is also possible, with proper
98
design and maintenance, to develop villages within mountain and hill
areas and with proper legislation, this type of development should be
encouraged. It could represent a second. "industry" for Washington
County which may have great economic potential.
12. Little Antietam Watershed - Itwas indicated earlier that considerable planning
and investigative activity is now occurring in the Antietam Watershed area. This
portion of the County also contains many of the major land features and
problems of annexation, utility extension, mountain slope development, etc.
which occur elsewhere. For this reason, it would appear that a prototype sector
planning program could go forward here with very little additional effort which
might benefit the future planning of other natural areas.
Goal - It would be useful to the County's current and future planning
program to establish the Antietam Watershed area as a planning sector
with appropriate resident organization and government and private
coordination.
13. Southern Mountain Valley - There is ample evidence that continuing
development in the southern portion of the County, especially on mountain
slopes and within the two major valleys, could result in ground water pollution
and problems of sewage disposal. The display of current development tied to
the environmental constraint of flood -plains in that area indicates that some
serious drainage problems and contamination already exist. Coupled with the
advancing activity of large scale speculative land acquisition, it would appear
that this area can not be bypassed with reference to utility and other public
works programs.
Goal - There is an urgent need for County policy with reference to its
Capital Improvements Program.to consider these problems with respect
to outlays for public works programs here. In addition, the recreational
and tourist potential of Harpers Ferry on the Maryland side should not
be ignored, this being a major generator of new developmentofor this
area.
14. New Interchanges on the Interstate System - The addition of interchanges on
the present interstate system are of course governed by regulations of the
Bureau of Public Roads and the State Roads Commission policies. A proposal to
construct a new interchange at Funkstown on U. S. Route 40-A should be
considered, however, as well as the expansion of interchange and thereby access
in the areas of Williainspoi L and Hancock, in particular.
Goal - It is apparent that all interchange areas especially where
interchanges occur on the system within a short distance of one another
will soon create major development problems. It would seem that the
99
County would be wise to create an extensive interchange district on the
southern and western sides of the City of Hagerstown so that city and
County development can be coordinated to the benefit of all.
15. New Commercial Sites - Several new commercial sites are now proposed in
areas with good access and now served by public utilities. Although the
projections for commercial land use in this report are conservative at this time,
continuing industrial promotion would have a domino effect in the housing
construction industry thereby creating the need for large commercial centers.
These proposals present a complex problem which will require high design and
development standards and continuing public-private coordination. The
Planning Commission's low budget indicates that staff design services are not
readily available and it will have to rely heavily upon the integrity of developers
to maintain high design standards.
Goal - The Commission should exercise cautious judgement here,
especially in applying zoning for proposed commercial development
which may or may not materialize. The plan will indicate commercial
development now but actual zoning should be deferred to the rezoning
process so that guarantees for proper development can be maintained.
16. Interstate Industrial Park - The development of this park is imminent with the
extension of utilities and the construction of access roadways. The site was
acquired and construction is being accomplished by a development corporation
and could very well represent a prototype of public-private cooperation.
Goal - The promotion program for this site should be considered as a
prototype involving all levels of government and private cooperation.
This could be to industrial site development as the Antietam Watershed
could be to sector planning.
17. Office Employment Center - The Potomac Edison Company's employment
center and proposals for a residential community represent a good beginning for
the implementation of a hierarchy of community size and scale.
Goal - Encourage the development of this employment community as
another prototype of good planning. Combined with Antietam and the
interstate park these developments could set the pace for imminent
development of the same kind elsewhere in the County.
18. Property Susceptible to Residential Development - These properties are either
on the periphery of existing development or are owned by construction firms or
other firms and individuals dealing in the development process and are therefore
considered to be susceptible to fairly imminent development. If all of these
tracts of land represent proposals they would consume a considerable amount
100
of the projected market but on a tract -by -tract basis. It is reasonable to assume
if two or three of these fairly large tracts develop now, the market will absorb
what demand there is, some units will stand idle, and others will never get built.
Supply will come in surges, at times exceeding the demand and at times falling
behind.
Goal - The Plan must consider some of these holdings as the continuing
pattern of development within the context of reasonable market
expectations, soils conditions and utility extension polity.
Development Value of Improved Land
As the land is improved, its value increases by virtue of its improvement, its use, and
the uses around it. No attempt is made to predict these increases by detailed locations for
several reasons. First it would be conjectural at best. Second, any pattern of planned or
controlled growth that accommodates the same population should develop at least the same
aggregate increases in land values. Finally, since all land values will be appreciating over the
next twenty and forty years, no current owner is likely to suffer under controlled any more
than under uncontrolled conditions. This of course, assumes that devices will exist for
equitably distributing the increases in value to all owners in accordance with the (then)
current real (rather than speculative) development potential of their land.
Considering values in the aggregate avoids the problem of speculative value. When
the precise location of development that is expected for a general area is fixed, floating
value settles on the developed area and simultaneously leaves other sites. Speculative
increases may be further encouraged in the undeveloped areas, or wiped out.
Thus value changes are tied to actual or expected development. If development is
predicted, value predictions follow. In light of the difficulty of locating exact value changes,
and because of the possible undesirable effects such predictions might have at the present on
the possibilities for control of growth, value increases are considered only in the aggregate.
The value of improved land includes the price of raw land, improvement costs,
entrepreneurial return, and whatever value is attributed to the improvements placed on it
and general growth of an area. While appraisers disagree on whether improved land values
can be easily separated from total value of improved property, they are in agreement that
increases occur.
Practice varies, but usually developers pay costs of on-site utilities and internal road
costs, and the County pays for sewer and water mains and external road costs. Development
value is considered here to be the full value of unimproved land when ripe for development,
with all facilities available.
101
Land Improvement Costs
Land improvement costs include the costs of wells, septic tanks, site planning, legal
fees, storm drains, sidewalks, roads, grading, etc. These costs vary according to land use and
the density of development. Under certain conditions water and sewer may or may not be
required generally in subdivisions developed at the density of two dwelling units per acre or
less, while all development at four units per acre or more should require utilities.
Improvements costs are influenced by many variables, a few of which include: a) the
possibility of developing along major roads, to reduce internal road construction, b) the sale
of timber, top soil and sod from cleared land, c) the practice of placing the balance of
temporarily undeveloped land in the Agricultural Soil Bank to decrease tax costs, d) when
applicable, the sale of unimproved acreage for public school use and the prorating of the
profit to developments costs, and e) the creating of ground rents on individual lots, the
income from which is taxed as personal income. These all are considered in the averaging of
costs.
A final cost would be added to represent average entrepreneurial return in
developing raw land. An average of 15% of the total purchase price and improvements costs
could be used to represent the developers' expected profit from development. In actual fact,
he usually also makes a profit from at least part of the increment of land value increases or
capital gains attributable to the growth of the community.
Benefits and Costs of Uncontrolled Growth
The major purpose of this discussion is to examine the possible benefits and costs of
unplanned growth in contrast with those of various planned alternatives. On the one hand, is
uncontrolled growth so bad? On the other, can planned patterns show demonstrably more
benefits at the same costs, or the same benefits at lower costs?
Benefits and costs of growth can be considered to accrue to different groups: to the
owners of undeveloped land, to current residents, to future residents, and to the current
population as a whole through their government.
Owners of Undeveloped Land
1. Benefits
The owners of undeveloped land benefit largely through increases in
land value. These increases occur partly by virtue of "normal" inflation.
Speculation results in values being set by the most optimistic, with land thereby
being held off the market, contributing to a self-fulfilling prophecy. Since
present values are equal to the discounted value of the expected stream of
future earnings, as development approaches, the value of land rises to its
development value. Speculative increases are associated but different from this
gradual upward trend. '
102
Owners of undeveloped land can, if they hold their land long enough,
expect to be able to sell it at its development value.
Owners who sell their land to a developer at less than its development
value or before it is ripe for development will share the increases in value with
the developer. Much land in the County is now held by speculators whose
primary purpose is to capitalize on the increases. Some of them enjoy the use of
the land as residents during the waiting period, selling and moving to the next
further out cheap land as development nears and their land "ripens". They both
have their cake and eat it too.
2. Costs
However, to many of the resident owners of undeveloped land, the
character of their land represents a way of life which they give up with
reluctance, albeit profiting somewhat from the sale. In most instances, they sell
long before their land has reached its development value, and speculators reap,
along with the ultimate developers, the majority of capital gains.
To these resident owners, the loss of the natural beauty and openness is
a real cost which they pay unhappily. Perhaps their recognition of this cost is
partly measured by the amount of increase in land value which they give up by
moving long before their land is "ripe".
Current Residents
Current residents who do not own undeveloped land gain few if any benefits from
uncontrolled growth. They are in much the same position as resident owners of undeveloped
land, but without the consolation of capital gains on sale of land. Unfortunately their cost
cannot be given a dollar value. As their views of open land disappear, as the narrow country
roads widen and the trees fall before the developers' bulldozers, as their taxes rise and values
drop, the current residents are the ones to whom the spectre of the future is the darkest.
Slim consolation comes from the increased County services and improved assess, for which
they must help pay through the County's share of development costs and maintenance of
community facilities.
Future Residents
The first families who move into the new developments will share in the current high
level of amenity. Later home buyers will be progressively less fortunate as the amenity they
sought rapidly disappears. Finally, these subdivisions will become just another part of the
urbanized area of the County, indistinguishable from the rest except as nostalgic postal
addresses.
103
The issue as to whether uncontrolled growth will make the County more available to
people of moderate incomes than would planned growth is relevant here. If planning of an
area this large were to have such a result, its public purpose might well be questioned.
Public policy can and should ensure that a wide variety of housing types will be
built. However, high building standards in Washington County are important factors in
pushing new house prices of any type beyond the reach of low and many moderate income
families. Higher suburban transportation costs further discourage cost-conscious families
from home -buying in the County, although County taxes currently operate in the other
direction. The market mechanism will be the most important selective influence operating
under either planned or uncontrolled conditions. Perhaps the most quantifiable costs to be
paid by future residents for uncontrolled growth will be the higher taxes necessary to
support a less efficient and desirable pattern of development. If the same population is
spread over twice the area, the utility and road network becomes much more expensive per
unit.
The benefits of dispersed growth - - presumably more private open space - - are
usually negated by bad subdivision design and loss of natural vegetation and amenity. On
the other hand, more concentrated development, as long as it does not require major
departures from the market -preference mix of housing types, can easily be designed to
retain the benefits of private open space; add public and semi-public open space, and save
substantial costs in streets and utilities passed on by the developer to the consumer and his
government. These savings to the ultimate consumer should go far toward offsetting the cost
of the open space itself.
The County
For the population as a whole, benefits for development of the County accrue from
the taxables created, and costs are in the form of services necessary. In this regard, the fact
that the County is one "accounting unit" is important. With Hagerstown's popu4ation
numerically stabilized, the County has a monopolistic position regarding development. The
majority of the regions population growth will occur somewhere in the County.
Therefore the issue of a balance between residential and industrial land use, and
between tax return from growth in relation to services rendered can be largely discounted.
The efficiency and amenity of the pattern in relation to its costs is the important question
of public policy, since, at any given standard of service, the facilites will be provided
somewhere in the County.
The most appropriate position of the County would appear to favor increasing
densities, all other things being equal. Although land used by streets rises as a percent of
total land used as density increases, it declines on a per unit basis. Utility lines are shorter.
Schools can be more efficiently organized with less bussing. Costs in internal transportation
systems are reduced.
104
However, higher densities are limited by the variety of market preferences over time.
To propose an extreme of all apartments, of all large -lot single family houses is to deny the
nature of the market, and the effective demand for housing. In this regard, the County must
recognize the nature of its future residents, and accommodate to their needs.
The Spectre of the Future
Although many areas contain very livable houses, in the aggregate, they represent
considerably less than an optimum environment.
The random scatteration of development will eliminate any vestiges of present
natural character. Houses will eat up vast acres at low densities, creating inefficient road and
utility patterns. Access from homes to shopping, and to schools will be more difficult than
in planned and more compressed communities. Present landowners will have long since
moved on, having been literally forced to sell their property with the uneasy feeling of
having violated a natural heritage. Present residents will no longer want to remain in an
environment so foreign to their preferences. And future owners and residents will only
know what the County once looked like from tales of the "good old days".
It is now possible to stand in the Hagerstown Square and see the mountains,
knowing full well that hundreds of acres of open space stand between the viewer and the
mountains. If you could look in all directions from the city square, without obstruction, the
same view would be possible. What then is the point? Let's go to another site.
Traveling westward on Interstate 70 over South Mountain at night immediately
proves the point. The lights of houses presents a view of a vast street system as far as the eye
can see throughout the'Hagerstown Valley. While this development is nestled behind hills
and trees in the daytime, the dark is a great revealer. It is true, now, that most of the
frontage along roads in the Hagerstown Valley from the Pennsylvania line to Tilghmanton
are developed. This continuing process will force the sale of interior lands between major
roads to the point where speculation and unknown plans of present and future buyers will
create development pressures in the Valley to the point where it will become a vast grid
system of streets and the County's principal asset ...its beauty and natural resources ...will
be forever lost.
Conflicts with nature in Current Development
The physiographic determinants of the future form of the County will be discussed
in a later chapter and will hopefully present an idea of how the existing form of the land is
considered to be a positive factor in future development.
Current environmental constraints indicate that:
1. Many rural residential areas are now or will soon evidence problems of poor
septic tank operation, pollution of ground and well water supplies and are in
danger of surface flooding.
105
2. Earlier low-density developments in these areas, while at the time of selection
represented a wise choice of site and environment, are now being encroached
upon to the point where high density development is undermining the
environment and thereby negating earlier location decisions.
3. Currently isolated enclaves which represent the fulfillment of an "ideal" living
situation will soon become subject to the above process of despoliation.
4. The continuation of such development without some regulatory constraints by
the County would represent an irresponsible stance on the part of government
in that private investment would be destroyed (i.e., lose its current and future
real estate value) and would set the stage for enormous public capital outlays.
5. Unless current landowners choose to stand the cost of orderly development by
withdrawing land sales to speculative interests, and this is unlikely, a process of
public and private control will be necessary.
106
Flint choice better access
Travel Park
700-e0ooc > -•+nlerchan le dJ.Miirl
s r
A LL EGA NY
COUNTY
a•�; ii'� �., g interchange dislricl
trailer PerN-- �
a..
W E S T Md 40960`- (5.'
Trailer Park 'F
C
interchange districl—}
WASHINGTON COUNTY
MARYLAND
DEVELOPMENT PRIMING FACTORS
AND CONFLICTS WITH NATURE
LEGEND
CONFLICTS WITH NATURE
FLOOD PLAINS
®
WET LANDS
MOUNTAINS
• •
WATERSHEDS
PRIMING FACTORS
r�
RADIAL SPRAWL
......••
PRESENT SEWERS
PROGRAMMED SEWERS
XE
EXISTING EMPLOYMENT CENTERS
moi'
PUBLICLY OWNED VACANT
OF=
INSTITUTIONS & PUBLIC USE
l�
PROBABLE GROWTH
V1
i
EXISTING HIGHWAY INTERCHANGES
�OOGQ
POSSIBLE CORRIDORS FOR
�?
a
HAGERSTOWN BELTWAY
BAKER-WIBBERLEY AND ASSOCIATES
WILLIAM C. MC DONNELL
CONSULTING PLANNER
R.1lle Run
`Fan--
s
— Conococheague -
Conservation
District
PENNSYLVANIA
needed air Iraffic
control corridor
& slopes
«
poor percolation, poor
pR,
water supply cloys,etc
moi'
`�
L 1
i
r�
,�y 'y
a' .} Y• 5` ft
a
� �
J
r},�
SCALE MILESf
pd ro
P - en
{�/�y�
•7fe
ly(
uI P
k f
PC itkr3
S
00r PBrf,Olai
/' ox •4'ea. Park r, t a" ryx�s�} 9 G
L9 c. Co Park f c
McCoys Ferry INILLIAMSPani
V I R G I 'N IPoiomaeA River District- +r f
i Polnnt
r.r f
f _
i Pa211
F �: �{' •�
hew 0
'-�r ` CanarlFl rat �..
u sr
� e
P
t,
poor to moderate droinoge
percolation
n Jit-' M�n llq
a� s
R
�r
high water, rock,
poor percolation
poor percolation
mountains 8 wellands
ly poor percolation,
y poor water supply
J
o �
4
s
C,mountains
& slopes
«
poor percolation, poor
pR,
water supply cloys,etc
L 1
ifj•ri^i. a♦
SCALE MILESf
PART 6
ALTERNATIVE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT
Those factors used in anticipating the distribution of uncontrolled development
must be considered in determining other countywide region -serving facilities and land uses
that should be located in the County. Although no large scale private or public development
proposals are at a firm enough stage to consider their effects, there are considerable public
works projects and proposals for new industries along with other natural factors that should
be considered here.
Elements
Highways
The current 20 Year Highway Needs Study by the State Roads Commission
indicates the reconstruction and construction of 68 miles of highway facilities in
Washington County between 1973 and 1992. Over a third of this mileage would be new
construction, all of which has been determined without the benefit of the ordering of land
uses developed out of a plan for the County.
The proposed reconstruction of existing roads is very much in line with the existing
County's highway plan. New construction proposed, principally the Hagerstown Beltway
and the East-West Expressway represent major revisions to the earlier adopted highway
program.
Most of the network of highway facilities as proposed would appear to support the
current urbanized patterns with the exception of the two possible new construction
projects.
The plan will suggest a revised treatment of Route 11 north of Hagerstown to the
Pennsylvania line; the elimination of the East-West Expressway as now proposed and the
development of this facility in conjunction with the improvement and reconstruction of the
Leitersburg Pike; a revised alignment of the Hagerstown Beltway; the deferment of planning
for the Boonsboro and Sharpsburg bypasses until more detailed land use commitments can
be made, and in particular, until the Little Antietam Watershed planning sector project
advances beyond its present stage; and a shift in priorities with a proposal for new
construction of the Antietam Battlefield Highway with a continuing routing to the east and
south to Harpers Ferry.
Industry
The currently proposed sites for industrial location although well chosen, could
compete with one another if coordination of road construction and the extension of water
and sewer services are not considered. In addition, the idea of promoting new communities
107
with "built-in" industry as a primary employment generator for those communities should
be considered and if so, would influence a different pattern of sites than those now
proposed.
Commercial Centers
The major centers to the north and south of Hagerstown with an additional smaller
center proposed for Northern Avenue and for the intersection of Interstate Highways 70
and 81 would appear to accommodate retail market needs for sometime to come. As in the
above case, the addition of one larger major center at this time may very well interfere with
the potential for the development of new communities with commercial service within
them. All current proposals, therefore, should be considered in light of such a program.
Institutions
The major institutions in the County are largely region -serving, but all of a low
intensity of use. Few of them generate large numbers of people from outside. They are all
on large, open sites, and form an important part of any pattern of open space.
New institutional uses of this same character could be considered. On the other
hand, the consideration of a system of additional junior colleges or full four-year colleges
could, if placed incorrectly in a developing pattern in the County, cause additional public
investment in order to serve the additional traffic and activity which such uses could
generate. Such is the case of the Hagerstown Junior College ...a well designed and well -sited
complex of buildings in an extremely attractive environmental setting but with poor access
which will require an investment on the part of the County to correct. The earlier Land Use
Plan for the County appropriately proposed such uses with direct access to the expressway
system. Consideration of future educational complexes should receive the same
consideration.
Open Space
The County is now predominately open and continuing new programs of private and
public investment indicate that much of the open mountain areas at least will be preserved
in their natural state for some time to come.
However, more consideration needs to be given to the Hagerstown Valley and its
future role as an open space and agricultural preserve. For example, if the proposed
combination of the East-West Expressway and other highway facilities for the northeastern
section of the County materialize, it would be reasonable to assume that development
would occur very quickly in this area, thereby destroying the prime agricultural area of the
County. The construction of the Hagerstown Beltway, with proper access controls, should
not work to the detriment of the preserve, however. A pattern of broad stretching
circumferential routes around the middle portion of the County in the pownsville area and
southeast of Williamsport also indicates a high potential for development in these areas. A
108
R
major portion of the floodplain and stream valley systems exist here and it would seem that
if better access were given simply on the basis of the reconstruction of existing roads, that a
public investment would undoubtedly be required to convert many of the potential park
areas to serve following development.
Residential Development
The more recent projection of population indicates that by the year 2000 the
County will grow moderately to 133,000 persons. This could require an additional 10,000
acres of land for, residential development purposes to accommodate approximately 45,000
new dwelling units to serve the new population. These projections are admittedly
conservative and if the various promotional programs now being pursued or soon to be
pursued in the County are,successfut, land use requirements could triple over the next thirty
years.
Accordingly, while the County has a capacity of many hundreds of thousands of
people in terms of the land resource, the consideration of its open space quality and its
environment should be carefully considered and a target capacity of no more than 250,000
persons should be adopted at this point in time.
Alternative Forms
Several patterns of development should be considered as a guide for future form of
land use in the County. Examination of these alternative patterns concerns itself with the
existing development, trends and current and potential methods of implementation of
future patterns with the consideration of the cost and benefits involved. Radical new types
of patterns might not work well here and this might suggest that modifications would be
more feasible.
Scattered Linear Development: This would be a continuation of the existing
development pattern. It would continue to spread outward along the main roads of the
County, producing a sprawling, low-density growth pattern which poses safety problems for
highway traffic and unrealistic public investment to meet the attendant problems created.
The pattern could be termed uncontrolled since it reflects minimum standards of public
enforcement of zoning and subdivision regulations. It is a fairly easy matter for farmers to
sell off parcels of land for housing development along the edge of their properties thereby
realizing immediate profits while still maintaining the integrity of their farms. There is a
time limit on this, however, and as interior lots develop behind road frontage the economic
value of the farm diminishes and the cost of public facilities and services to serve a relatively
small portion of the population spread out over a large area increase. Opportunities for
establishing communities in cohesive neighborhoods are lost. This pattern is costly,
inefficient and its use of land, a threat to natural resources and should therefore be
discouraged.
109
Concentrated Development: This is an alternative to the above. An effort would be
made to guide all new development into areas adjacent to Hagerstown and other large
municipalities. If concentrated, this development would result in less costs for the extension
of roads and utilities and other public services and would facilitate the provision for
neighborhood and community facilities. A small portion of land would be required from the
agricultural preserve but given the character and composition of Washington County, this
concentrated pattern of development would be difficult to implement with its lack of
existing land use controls. More importantly, this form would run counter to many of the
desires of present County residents. The integrity of the small town atmosphere, rural living
and the traditional American values of "doing what you want with your own land" are all
attitudes which are clearly reflected by rural counties. This alternative concentrated pattern
might be impractical in the long run and undesirable for the County. Undoubtedly, land
values would rise in the developing areas leaving little choice for the acquisition of cheaper
land for the building of more economically feasible communities which could provide
services as a unit and where current and future residents could anticipate their environment.
New Communities: This alternative pattern is a combination of both the above. It
would cluster major amounts of new growth near the City of Hagerstown with additional
growth areas in the vicinity of other towns and villages. This pattern recognizes the
inevitability of some scattered growth but attempts to give a more compact form to r
development in the areas near Leitersburg, Downsville and the major municipalities of
Sharpsburg, Keedysville and Boonsboro. Prime farm land would be retained in agricultural
use and non-farm residential development in rural areas would be discouraged. The
Hagerstown vicinity would continue its role as the principal commercial center of the
County with sub -centers in Hancock, Smithsburg and Boonsboro. Limited access to County
roads through the use of subdivision regulations and zoning would be emphasized in order
to assure an efficient road system for the future.
Conclusions and Guidelines: The earlier goals, the possible alternatives presented
here and additional principals developed later in the report work toward a controlled growth
pattern.
I . The County should accommodate as full a variety of housing types as possible,
within the reality of market preferences for housing. It is evident that
considerably more effort must be made to develop low and medium cost
housing here, some through private and public programs now available while
new methods of housing construction should be explored. It would seem that
such a program would be appropriate to the state's new Department of
Architecture at College Park.
2. The population growth will undoubtedly result in increases in land value that
will more than meet the current expectations of owners of undeveloped land.
3. Regional shopping facilities and employment opportunities will have to be
provided here. Additional institutional uses of a region -serving and state -serving
110
nature can also be provided. The county's recreational and historic area
potential has yet to be exploited to the degree where it too becomes a basic
industry of Washington County.
4. Development should be concentrated as much as possible to reduce costs,
provide more efficient patterns and permit open space and natural resource
retention.
5. The character of the land should dictate which area should be developed and
which left in as natural a state as possible.
111
112
PART 7
THE ENVIRONMENT DETERMINES FUTURE FORM
This chapter considers the physiographic features of the County for the purpose of
discovering the essential natural amenity and using these features as additional determinants
or the physical fact or economic or social trend which acts or should act to guide and
influence growth. For example, development of mountain slopes is inhibited when better
sites are available. These slopes then "determine" the nature and location of development.
Geography
Washington County lies in the west -central part of Maryland and with Allegany and
Garrett Counties comprises, what is generally called "Western Maryland". The shape of the
County is not unlike that of the State of Maryland. It is bounded on the west by Allegany
County, on the east by Frederick County, on the north by Pennsylvania along the
Mason-Dixon Line, and on the south by the Potomac River which separates it from parts of
both Virginia and West Virginia. The land area is about 462 square miles or 295,680 acres,
making it the eighth largest county in the State of Maryland.
Millions of years ago this area was part of vast inland seas which, from time to time
in geologic history, inunated the region, providing both marine and possibly non -marine
sedimentary rock materials. These rock materials are characterized by many marine fossils,
especially in the limestones of the area. All of the surface rock strata, and most of the
subsurface rocks in Washington County are of sedimentary origin and consist of limestones,
shales and sandstones of Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian and Devonian ages. Initially the
sedimentary rocks were deposited in essentially horizontal layers, but have subsequently
been subjected to great lateral forces acting from a south-east direction. This has produced a
pattern of parallel north -east -southwest anticlines and cynclines. However, because of
stream erosion and weathering we have the present landscape. The northeast -southwest
pattern is still evident in the topography and location of minerals and soils.
Geographically, Washington County is in the Cumberland Valley, and a part of the
"Great Valley" sloping southwesterly through the Potomac Valley. The topography ranges
from level lands in the broad Hagerstown Valley, which forms a part of the Great Limestone
Valley System of the Eastern States, to the steeply sloping hills and mountains of the
Appalachian Mountain system. Elevations range from the highest point in the County,
Quirauk Mountain, at 2,145 feet, to an elevation of approximately 300 feet in the
Hagerstown Valley near the Potomac River. The Appalachian part of the County is a series
of narrow ridges, with three outstanding ridges being noted: Bear Pond Mountain at 2,000
feet, Fairview Mountain at 1,700 feet and Sideling Hill at 1,600 feet. About 13 percent of
the County is rough and very rocky or stony. Much of this land is suitable only for forestry.
Approximately 1 percent of the County is too steep and rocky even for economical forest
management.
113
Slope
Slope is an important determinant of land development. Industrial and commerical
development and multi -family housing require level or almost level land. Single family
housing can be built on steeper sites, but a slope of 15 percent is generally considered a
practical limit. Land with a slope greater than 15 percent is normally considered unbuildable
and can be used only for resource activities and some forms of recreation.
Slopes are steepest along the eastern border of .Washington County, and in the area
between Licking Creek and Little Conococheague Creek, along the Little Tonoloway Creek
and along the western boundary of the County, Sideling Hill Creek. In the Hagerstown
Valley, which comprises more than half of the land area of the County, the land is largely
level or almost level.
Nearly 30% of the County's total land area or 87,250 acres have a slope greater than
15% with an additional 8,000 acres on slopes above 30%.
Soils
The physiographic determinant of soils must be viewed in relation to other
determinants such as geology and ground water, surface water, flood plains, soils unsuitable
for septic tanks, steep slopes and topography. These are all related in a system of natural
processes. When the system is interrupted by haphazard development, it is disrupted.
Soil surveys are of great use to officials responsible for planning suburban
development and for resolving the numerous problems arising from changes in land use. In
addition, the reports are valuable sources of information for engineers, architects and
individual homeowners, and others. Information can be obtained from the accompanying
maps as well as from the descriptions and tables.
The maps and tables are guides on the basis of which some sites can be eliminated
from consideration for building, commercial, industrial, agricultural, or residential purposes.
However, they do not supplant direct, detailed, on-site investigation of each area. Only soil
features are treated in this report, and the primary emphasis is placed on the suitability of
land for building purposes. It was decided, because of the complexity of soil classifications,
to reduce the eleven soil categories, developed by the United States Department of
Agriculture, to six groups, divided on the basis of buildable and non -buildable, or buildable
with severe limitations. This will render interpretation more practical and feasible.
The description of each of the six groups that follows is concerned with depth,
slope, internal drainage, nature of parent material, stoniness, and representative soil series.
Group I
This group consists of deep, well -drained, permeable soils that have slopes of 0 to 15
percent with slight to moderate erosion.
114
`_� '� �� ✓�:.. ¢ .nom I,i �r.e � � .. i } • �,� _ z"n° „"'a'��'a� �1�" .t �'.. .,5�
I N , p�� '�f . ••r I t r"' -r! i f1� ;�. _ fir ,`� i. r f':'.� �" y' . & �:�1
R.'.t& l i h �,.,��" .r. ' l J y �� .t ' rte•` i s rl �� - ., �r 4`'' � ��
r�. A ^' --+ r " ��� ''.,` • w: is )� it ,���r r� y. �S ��
VI� IY
WASHINGTON COUNTYR ''' t H l A
MARYLAND
PHYSIOGRAPHIC FEATURES
LEGEND
MAJOR FOREST COVER
50 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
IMPERVIOUS SOIL
WETLANDS
n�rrrrrruryrr+, STEEP SLOPE, 25% OR MORE
BAKER-WIBBERLEY AND ASSOCIATES
WILLIAM C. MC DONNELL
CONSULTING PLANNER
�All
rl
t.
rAl
Y
� a
r w
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Irl a
SCALE MILES
a
Group I comprises more than 106,000 acres or 36 percent of the total land area of
Washington County. The major soil series are the Hagerstown, Duffield and Murrill.
Together these three account for 76,791 acres of land, or about 73 percent of Group I.
The Hagerstown series consists of deep, well -drained, reddish soils that have been
developed in materials weathered from hard, fairly pure limestone. In some places there are
scattered to numerous outcropping ledges of limestone.
Soils of the Hagerstown series are the most extensive and important in the County.
They comprise almost 24 percent of all the total land area of the County. They are
important in the highly developed agriculture of the limestone areas.
In this series, Hagerstown silt loam, HeB2, 0 to 8 percent slopes, with moderate
erosion, is by far the most extensive. (22,661 acres)
The Duffield series has a profile similar to that of the Hagerstown soils, but they are
dominantly yellowish and the subsoil is not quite so finely textured. The Duffield soils are
most extensive in the central and eastern parts of the Great Limestone Valley. They are
excellent agricultural soils and, next to Hagerstown, they are the most extensive soils in the
County. They are fertile and highly productive, and their use is limited only by the hazard
of erosion or, in some places, by stones and rock outcrops. DmB2, Duffield silt loam, 3 to 8
percent slopes, with moderate erosion, accounts for more than 16,000 acres of County land.
The Murrill series makes up about 6 percent of the County. They are fertile and
fairly easily managed. Besides being deep, well -drained, and productive, they have a high
capacity for furnishing moisture to crops. These soils occur at many places on the fringes of
the limestone valley, but they are most extensive in the Clear Spring area just east of
Fairview Mountain. The major representatives of this series are Murrill gravelly loam; MoA,
MoB2 and MoC2, covering over 15,000 acres of land.
As sites for large commercial, industrial, institutional and residential development,
these soils have fewer limitations than any other soils in the County. Bedrock is ordinarily at
a depth of 3 to 7 feet. Excavations for residential developments do not usually require
bedrock quarrying, except in some of the stony and very stony soils and possibly in the
Hagerstown soils which may have solution caverns in the underlying rock and consequently
require careful investigation. Grading the stony soils tends to become expensive. In the
Talladega soils, the lower part of the subsoil is micaceous and slightly elastic.
Normal loads of septic tank effluent can be disposed of satisfactorily in most of
these soils. However, the Hagerstown soils will again require careful consideration. Because
of the presence of large channels in the bedrock, contamination of the ground water is
possible if soils of this series are used for disposal of waste. The soils on the stronger slopes
of this group are generally not suitable for disposal of industrial waste and even those on the
milder slopes may become saturated and subject to slippage.
115
The exposed subsoil, especially that of the soils derived from limestone, is a good
medium for the growth of grasses, trees, and shrubs. Mulching, adding topsoil, applying lime
and fertilizer as needed and constructing temporary diversions will help to get vegetation
established. Surface drainage is good, but the loams and the severely eroded soils are
somewhat droughty.
Group II
Moderately deep, well -drained, permeable soils and deep, very stony soils on the
slopes of 0 to 15 percent characterize this second group. They account for only 4 percent of
the total land area of the County.
On the milder slopes most of these soils are suitable for large commercial, industrial,
institutional and residential development. However, on the stronger slopes the soils are fairly
satisfactory for residential developments only. For foundations, they are generally good,
bedrock being ordinarily at a depth of 2 to 4 feet. Thus, quarrying may be required.
Normal loads of septic tank effluent can be disposed of satisfactorily, but because of
their limited depth and sometimes strong slopes, these soils should not be used for the
disposal of industrial waste.
The exposed subsoil is a fairly good medium for the growth of vegetation. Grasses
are likely to need fertilizer and lime while the steeper slopes and the severely eroded soils
are somewhat droughty, runoff is rapid enough to cause extensive gullying.
All of the soils in this group except the very stony ones are moderately productive
when used for agricultural purposes.
The most representative soil series of this group is the Frankstown and Duffield
Soils. They are generally similar to each other and except for the extremely rocky and very
stony soils, similar phases of the soils of both series have the same capability classification.
Frankstown and Duffield channery silt loams, FwB2, FwB3, FwC2 and FwC3 signifying
varying degrees of erosion and slope, account for 92 percent of the soils in this group.
Careful management of these rocky and moderately eroded soils will insure productivity.
Group III
This group consists of shallow to moderately deep, fairly well -drained soils on slopes
of 0 to 15 percent, and very to extremely rocky soils.
Because of several factors, these soils are not suitable to only fairly suitable for any
type of development. A bedrock depth of 0 to 4 feet makes quarrying necessary for most
excavations, and the very and extremely rocky soils cannot be graded or excavated with
standard earth moving equipment. This makes the preparation of a foundation very
expensive.
116
None of these soils are suitable for the disposal of industrial waste and because of
their limited depth to bedrock, they are poorly suited to disposal of septic tank effluent.
Waste may seep to the surface, or it may sink into cracks in the bedrock and contaminate
the ground water. Excess water in the infiltration field is likely to cause seepage on the
lower hillsides of the strong slopes. On approximately 6 percent of the soils of this group,
buildings should be connected to established sewerage and water systems since the high
water table may prevent, for extended periods of time, the normal operation of septic tank
infiltration fields.
Grasses, shrubs, and trees for planting on these soils must be carefully selected as the
exposed subsoil of this group is a very poor medium for their cultivation.
All of the soils of this group are moderate to moderately low in productivity when
used for agriculture.
Thus, while approximately 66,200 acres of land or 22 percent of the County area,
fall within this category, it is the poorest of the buildable soils.
The Berks, Hagerstown, and Calvin soil series account for 40,000 acres or 61 percent
of Group III. The Hagerstown series is limited in this group by rockiness and often extensive
outcropping ledges and reefs of hard limestone. Thirty-four percent of Group III is
composed of Hagerstown soils with Hagerstown silty clay loam and very rocky silty clay
loam, HgC2 and HhC2, being the principal representatives.
The Berks series consists of soils that have developed primarily from acid shales. The
soils occupy rolling valley floors and rather steep ridges. They are extensive in Washington
County in the areas that border Conococheague Creek and in the ridge and valley section
west of Fairview Mountain. The underlying shale is relatively soft and fairly readily
incorporated into the soil by plowing and cultivation. Shally silt loam, BeB, Be132, BeC2, is
the predominant soil type of this series.
The Calvin series is found principally in the western part of the County, generally
along with soils of the Berks, Litz and Montevallo series. Most areas of Calvin soils are found
to be forested, but some are used in agriculture, orchards, and pastures. These soils are very
well drained so they may be droughty in time of limited rainfall. They account for 8,500
acres of 13 percent of Group III.
Group IV
} This group accounts for less than one percent (1,474 acres) of the total soil area of
Washington County. Those soils occurring on the steeper slopes, 8 to 15 percent, consist of
deep to moderately deep, moderately well -drained soils, while those having slopes of 0 to 8
percent, found on uplands, are characterized by poorly drained shallow soils.
r
117
None of these soils is suitable to commercial, industrial, institutional or residential
developments. They are very slowly permeable in the subsoil and are subject to seepage on
the lower hillsides in winter and early spring when the water table is high. These soils
generally do not provide satisfactory foundations for heavy structures. For lighter
structures, fill can be used to raise foundations above the water tables. Basements are
feasible only in limited cases.
These soils are completely unsuitable for the disposal of industrial waste and septic
tank effluent.
When the subsoil is exposed, these soils are a poor medium for the growth of
vegetation, and only with much assistance will a cover of carefully selected plants be
established. Woodland, natural parks, and game preserves are the best uses for these soils.
Some sites would be excellent for ponds or lakes.
There is no representative soil series in this group, but the Brinkerton and Buchanan
series account for approximately 50 percent of the total of 1,474 acres, and these occur in
small isolated tracts.
Group V
This group consists of soils that occur on flood plains and colluvial slopes and have
slopes of 0 to 8 percent. They occupy almost 22,000 acres of land, or about 7 percent of
the total land area of Washington County.
These soils are completely unsuitable for any type of buildings. All are flooded
frequently or occasionally. Some of the soils are affected by seepage from adjacent slopes
for much of the year.
The well -drained and moderately well -drained soils in this group have considerable
value as cropland and pasture. Some soils on the wider flood plains are well suited to
development as habitats for wildlife that require a wet environment.
The major series of Group V includes the Huntington and Pope series. The
Huntington series is found, as are all of the other soils in Group V, on flood plains along
rivers and streams. Huntington soils are composed of fine materials washed originally from
areas in which the major characteristic was the presence of limestone. These soils,
represented by Hu, Hv, Hw and Hx, are excellent for most kinds of farming. They include
sandy, gravelly and silt loam. Together they account for almost 40 percent of Group V.
The Pope series, represented by Pn, Po, Pp, Ps and Pt, all ranging from fine sandy
loam to stony gravelly loam, comprise approximately 15 percent of the area of Group V.
They are found mostly in the western section of the County, in widely scattered areas along
streams. They are excellent also for all types of agriculture.
118
I
Group VI
This group consists of generally well -drained soils, all of which have slopes greater
than 15 percent. However, soils in Groups I, lI, III and IV, with their varying soil
characteristics are included in Group VI if their slopes are greater than 15 percent. Thus,
because the principal limitation here is slope, these soils are unsuitable for buildings except
in isolated residential cases. Their best uses in suburban areas are woodland, parks, game
preserves, and open spaces. A few of the non -stony can be carefully used as pasture.
Selected areas can be used for high-cost luxury housing. Special investigation and custom
design will be required for each site.
The Edgemont and Hagerstown series comprise 40 percent of Group VI between
them. The single largest soil type is EgD, Edgemont and Ladig very stony loam with a slope
of 15 to 35 percent.
Marsh
The lowlands along many of the streams in Washington County are subject to
flooding. Some of the low areas have small marshes, but there are no true marshes or
swamps in the County.
Drainage
Washington County is entirely within the drainage system of the Potomac River and
is traversed by a number of streams that follow a general southerly flow. The most
important of these are Israel Creek, Antietam Creek, Little Antietam Creek, Marsh Run,
Downey Branch, Lanes Run, Conococheague Creek, Licking Creek, Tonoloway Creek, Little
Tonoloway Creek, and Sideling Hill Creek.
The predominant watershed is the Antietam watershed, with a total drainage area of
292 square miles. Over 60 percent of this watershed lies within the County, which portion
covers 40 percent of the County's land area and contains over 65 percent of the County's
population.
Major watershed delineations are.
Drainage Area (Sq. Mile)
Watershed Total Washington County
Antietam Creek 292 187
St. Jones -Marsh Run 20 20
Conococheague Creek 563 65
Little Conococheague 18 16
119
Licking Creek 214 27
Tonoloway 114 2
Little Tonoloway 26 16
Sideling Hill Creek 104 9
Israel Creek 14 14
Ground Water
Washington County has been divided into three geographically separate water
provinces: (1) South Mountain -Elk Ridge; (2) Hagerstown Valley; and (3) Hancock -Indian
Springs.
The quantity and quality of ground water varies among the three ground water
provinces. While it has been estimated that twenty to fifty percent of total precipitation
s permeates the soil strata to recharge ground water reservoirs, good aquifers are not present
in all rock formations and the flow from the approximately 200 springs in the County varies
considerably. Most of the springs fall within the under 10 to 100 gpm group. The ground
water in the County is considered hard and the chemical quality varies. In some areas,
organic pollution is a problem. The total current use of ground water is about 5 million
gallons per day with springs providing about 78 percent and well the remainder.
The South Mountain -Elk Ridge water province extends from the Frederick County
line westward to include the Pleasant Valley and Elk Ridge areas. The geologic structure of
the province is made up of Precambrian and Cambrian rocks. A major development of
ground water resources exists in the Fort Ritchie -Highfield area where a number of wells
and springs are used as sources of public water supply.
The Hagerstown Valley water province covering an area of approximately 33 square
miles extends from South Mountain and Elk Ridge on the east to Fairview and Powell
Mountains on the west. The structural geology of this province includes the Cambrian
system, the Ordovician system and Quaternary rocks.
The predominant rock formation within the province is limestone which has been
broken and folded. It is this deformation of the limestone deposits that are largely
responsible for the complex hydrology of this area. The intricate system of channels and
caverns common to this formation allows ground water to move readily from one formation
to another and there is good indication that some of this flow through channels and caverns
extends for several miles.
This water province has a variable soil cover and the terrain is rolling to undulating.
Ground water recharge is primarily by seepage of precipitation downward through the soil
V
120
and subsoil. However, some surface water finds its way into the solution channels and
caverns through crevices and sinkholes which exist in a few areas in the Hagerstown Valley.
Organic pollution of the ground water in this province is quite common due to the fact that
the channels and caverns through which the water circulates have little or no filtering
qualities.
The largest producing wells are concentrated primarily in the
Hagerstown-Smithsburg area and are used mainly for industrial purposes.
The Hancock -Indian Springs water province includes Fairview and Powell Mountains
to the east and extends westward to the base of the eastern slope of Sideling Hill. The
structural geology includes the Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian and Wuaternary systems.
Shale is the predominant rock type of this province. The terrain is mountainous to rolling
and thin shaley soil covers the ground, giving only a low to moderate moisture -holding
capacity. Direct surface run-off is high.
The shales of this province supply sufficient quantities of water for domestic and
agricultural use but the low storage capacity and inadequate transmissibility of the
formations prohibit development of large water supplies. Inasmuch as the limestones and
sandstones in the area have not been adequately tested, their water -producing qualities are
unknown.
Geology
Cambrian System
Tomstown dolomite. The outcrop of the Tomstown dolomite of Early Cambrian age
ranges from one to three miles in width. The formation is composed principally of
alternating massive and thin beds of dolomite and limestone, some shale beds, and in the
Eakles Mills -Locust Grove area, white and pinkish marble. The thickness of the formation is
estimated to be about 1,000 feet. Structurally, the formation shows numerous shallow folds
and intense eastward dipping cleavage. Near the contact with the Antietam quartzite, the
Tomstown is probably highly fractured and probably contains many solution channels.
Waynesboro formation. The Waynesboro formation of Early Cambrian age extends
from the Pennsylvania line to the Potomac River, except for a small part of the formation
removed by faulting 1 mile northeast of Benevola. The thickness of the formation is about
600 feet. Its width of outcrop is greater at some localities than other due to variations in its
angle of dip. The formation consists of a lower unit of interbedded dolomite shale and some
sandstone, and an upper unit of shale and sandstone. The formation has undergone intense
folding and some faulting and many structural irregularities occur in the outcrop area.
Elkbrook limestone. The Elkbrook limestone of Middle and Late Cambrian age
occurs in two belts: an area east of the Conococheague Creek Valley which ranges from 0.3
121
mile to 2 miles wide and an area west of Conococheague Creek, where it is 0.3 to 0.6 mile
wide and faulted against the Martinsburg shale. Due to deformation and the lack of
complete stratigraphic sections, the exact thickness of the Elkbrook is not known. It is
estimated to range from 2,000 to 3,000 feet.
Conococheague limestone. The Conococheague limestone, the youngest unit of the
Cambrian system in the province, is widely distributed in the eastern part of the Hagerstown
Valley. This is a silty, laminated dark -blue limestone, with interbedded dolomites in a basal
sandy part. Estimated thickness of the formation are 2,000 feet and 2,600 feet. The
formation has been complexly folded into numerous small anticlines and synclines, and its
normal sequence, underlying the Beekmantown group of formations, has been interrupted
by faulting.
Ordovician System
Stonehenge limestone (Beekmantown group). The Beekmantown group includes the
Stonehenge limestone, the Rockdale Run formation, and the Pinesburg Station dolomite.
These three units crop out along belts totaling about 90 square miles, east and west of
Conococheague Creek. The thickness has been estimated at about 3,600 feet for the group.
The water -bearing properties of the formations are similar, and the differences that do exist
are probably due chiefly to differences in the lithology of individual beds rather than to the
character of the formation as a whole.
The Stonehenge limestone, the basal unit of the Beekmantown group, contains
massively bedded clayey limestone at its base and thick conglomeratic beds in its upper part.
It ranges in thickness from 500 to 880 feet and covers a large part of the eastern belt.
Rockdale Run formation (Beekmantown group). The Rockdale Run formation is
the most extensively exposed formation of the Beekmantown group. It is exposed in two
belts in the Hagerstown Valley. The eastern belt is the more extensive. Its outcrops cover an
area of 58 square miles, or nearly twice the area covered by the Stonehenge limestone. The
formation is a heterogeneous sequence of limestone and dolomite beds. Its thickness ranges
from about 1,680 to 2,250 feet. The basal part of the formation is marked by a cryptozoon
chert limestone that contains layers of algal rocks; the upper one-third consists of dolomite.
Pinesburg Station dolomite (Beekmantown group). The Pinesburg Station dolomite
is a cherty, laminated dolomite whose thickness ranges from 370 to 500 feet. It crops out
primarily in a belt west of Conococheague Creek and covers an area of only 2.5 square
miles. In its outcrop area the formation occurs in thin, steeply dipping bands.
St. Paul Group. The St. Paul group consists of the Lower Row Park limestone, and
the overlying New Market limestone. The Row Park is an impure, cherty limestone. The
New Market is a fine-grained, light-grat, laminated limestone. These formations are exposed
in narrow outcrops on the west side of the Conococheague Creek Valley and in a small area
122
along the northeastern edge of the valley. The group ranges in thickness from 400 feet near
the Potomac River to about 1,000 feet at the Pennsylvania line. The beds dip steeply and in
some locations are nearly vertical or overturned. Strike and cross faults are common.
Chambersburg limestone. The Chambersburg limestone of Middle Ordovician age
crops out as narrow bands on both sides of the Conococheague Creek Valley. The maximum
width of its outcrop belt is 0.5 mile near Hicksville a few miles south of the Pennsylvania
line. The thickness of the formation is estimated to be 100 to 250 feet. The formation is a
thin -bedded, agrillaceous limestone with clayey partings. It is greatly disturbed by complex
folding, overthrusting, and normal faulting.
Martinsburg Shale. The Martinsburg shale of Middle and Late Ordovician age crops
out along a belt about 2.5 miles wide in the central part of Washington County. A much
narrower belt crops out from St. Paul Church northward to Fairview. The meandering
Conococheague Creek is entrenched within Martinsburg. The thickness has been estimated
at more than 2,500 feet and the formation consists of a lower section of thin black
limestone and calcarerous shale and an upper section of light-colored sandy shale and
sandstone. Structural deformation of the shale has been intense.
Quaternary Sedimentary Rocks
Mountain wash (alluvial fans). The distribution of the the Quaternary sedimentary
rocks is shown on the accompanying map. The sources of the sediments are South Mountain
to the east and Fairview and Powell Mountains to the west.
Along the foothills of South Mountain, the alluvium generally overlies the contact of
the Antietam quartzite and the Tomstown dolomite along a belt 0.5 to 0.7 mile wide. On
the north side of U. S. Route 40, southeast from Mount Lena towards South Mountain,
there are excellent exposures of the alluvium. The sediments are a mixture of sand, silt, clay,
rounded gravel, and boulders.
At the base of Fairview and Powell Mountains, the mountain wash occurs in alluvial
fans, which are distributed over Martinsburg, Elbrook, Conococheague, Stonehenge, and
Rockdale Run formations.
Potomac River alluvium. River terrace deposits of Recent and Pleistocene age occur
chiefly in the flood plain of the Potomac River. The largest area underlain by the deposits
extends from Pinesburg Station to Williamsport, a distance of about 2 miles, and is about
0.5 mile wide. Two auger holes bored in the deposits at the Hagerstown water plant near
Williamsport indicated that the deposits consist chiefly of brown, poorly sorted, fine to
medium sand and silt, with some gravel. Bedrock was encountered at 21 feet in one hole and
at 27 feet in the other. Because of their relative imperviousness and thinness, the terrace
deposits do not appear to be an aquifer. Locally, a few farm wells may obtain meager water
supplies from them.
123
Surface Water
The basin of the Potomac River covering an area of approximately 14,670 square
miles lies within the Atlantic slope between the Allegany Mountains and the Chesapeake
Bay. Twenty-six percent of this area is within tlae State of Maryland which corresponds to
36 percent of the whole state area. Washington County alone constitutes only 3 percent of
the Basin's land area.
The aggregated area drained by the Potomac River tributaries in Washington County
is 342 square miles, and the Potomac River proper drains 120 square miles within the
County. The tributaries mentioned above drain an area of 995 square miles to the north in
Pennsylvania before entering Washington County.
The Potomac flows 390 miles through five physiographic provinces: the Appalachian
Plateau, the Valley and Ridge, the Blue Ridge, the Piedmont, and the Coastal Plain.
Washington County lies principally within the Valley and Ridge Province and to a smaller
extent in the Blue Ridge Province. The Hagerstown Valley comprises most of Washington
County area. The average daily flow in the Potomac at Sandy Hook near the Frederick
County line has been estimated at just under 6 billion gallons. Statistically, figures such as
this present an optimistic picture of surface water supply within Washington County.
However, since the stream flows affecting the County are presently uncontrolled, the
dependability of the supply is erratic as the streams themselves. The Potomac River and
many of its tributaries are "flashy" streams, subject to flooding as well as periods of
extremely low flow.
Summarization of the County's ground water resources:
Major Springs (county -wide)
Wells (South Mountain -Elk
Ridge Province)
Wells (Hagerstown Valley)
Discharge
Range (gpm) Quality
30-2,450 Generally good*
1-60 Suitable for
most purposes
2-400 Objectionable hardness; or-
ganic pollution common
Wells (Hancock -Indian Springs 1-200 Generally good; objection -
Province able hardness in some areas
* Springs in Hagerstown Valley are subject to organic pollution but otherwise
generally good and suitable for most purposes.
124
Flood Plains
That area of land, occupied by water, when bankfull stage in the watercourse is
exceeded, is described as the flood plain. In Washington County the 50 year (or 2%
probability) flood is the "design" flood, and that area inundated on this occasion is the 50
year flood plain. Precise engineering delineation of flood plains is laborious and expensive.
No flood plain delineation had been accomplished for the area. The State's Water Resource
Department recently requested the Corps of Engineers conduct a flood hazard study of the
Potomac in the County. Flood plain information studies are to begin in 1971 on Antietam
and Conococheague Creeks. As a preliminary indication of the location of 50 year flood
plains, information available from the Soil Conservation Service County Soil Survey was
utilized. The presumption i� that the flood plain is usually characterized by the presence of
alluvial soils.
The definition used by the Soil Conservation Service is as follows: "The flood plain
is composed of recent alluvium found adjacent to present stream courses. These stream
deposits are essentially horizontal and usually stratified. (They) are usually composed of
particles with a wide range of sizes sorted into discontinuous, intermingled layers. The grain
size may vary from clay and silt to sand and gravel. This alluvium has been transported to its
present location by surface water and stream flow ... (The) land form (of these alluvia) is
characterized by flat lowlands adjacent to streams.
This definition was applied to certain soil type numbers for the County which were
selected by the Soil Conservation Service as flood plain indicators. These soil type indicators
of flood plains, mapped on air photographs by the Soil Conservation Service, were
interpreted, consolidated, then transposed to the Physiographic Features map. This method
lacks the precision of elaborate engineering studies.
Land in the flood plain is unsuitable for development in many respects: potential
danger to life, threat to property, the deleterious effect upon channel capacity resulting
from development. Such lands are also unsuitable for development using septic tanks.
Recent Maryland State Health Regulations prohibit development on 50 year flood
plains, where the area is not sewered.
Development on 50 year flood plains may be permitted only if "adequate"
precautions are taken for the prevention of flooding and protection of downstream land
uses. This protection is largely accomplished by construction of conduits. However the
analysis necessary to establishing "adequacy" does not take into account long range or
comprehensive downstream considerations. Further, the costs to a developer of really
adequately channellizing floods and providing conduits, and the public costs in larger and
necessarily less efficient storm sewer systems raise additional doubts as to the common sense
of development in flood plains. This is particularly true in light of the effect of development
on aggravating flooding conditions.
125
Physiographic determinism suggests that the 50 year flood plain be prohibited from
development, and that the only land uses permitted on the flood plain be agriculture,
forestry, institutional open land and recreation.
Land Unsuitable for Septic Tanks
Extensive experience has demonstrated that use of septic tanks requires stringent
regulation and supervision. As stated by Dr. Perry F. Prather, former Commissioner of the
State Department of Health, "Concentration of overflowing septic tanks can saturate the
ground and eventually seep into nearby streams and wells. There is evidence to indicate that
effluents from septic tanks that seem to be working properly find their way into
underground water -bearing formations from which our water supply is
derived ... Geologists are in agreement that it is a virtual impossibility to put sewage into
the ground without expecting that it will get into the water supply, the source of water
from wells ... even when percolation tests indicate satisfactory soil conditions, failures
occur ... in view of Maryland's rapid urbanization ... the individual water supply and
sewage disposal system, well and septic tank, must be considered obsolete."[ 1 ]
In order to ascertain for the study area the location of soils unsuitable for septic
tanks the inventory of such soils was obtained from the Soil Conservation Service.
The area of these soil types has been delineated by field survey by the Soil
Conservation Service for the County. They were mapped on air photographs, transposed to
the map of Physiographic Features, and identified as soils unsuitable for septic tanks. These
particular soils are preponderantly silt loams, having low permeability, and are considered to
be impervious at this stage of general planning.
Examination of their distribution discloses that there are quite extensive areas of
them in all the valley bottoms. They are frequently contiguous to flood plains. As flood
plains are themselves unsuitable for development with septic tanks both categories can be
considered as one, united in being unsuitable for such facilities.
Septic tanks, except in tightly controlled situations, pose serious problems of public
health. They are often a public nuisance and may cause a distinct offense. It is equally clear,
as stated by Commissioner Prather, that standard percolation tests are no certain guarantee
of performance. Indeed the Commissioner has described the septic tank as an obsolete
device.
Recent Maryland State Regulations has particular relevance to the County in this
regard: "In all subdivisions when individual sewage disposal facilities are proposed, if in the
opinion of the approving authority, the disposal area will contaminate the water bearing
[ 1 ] Release from Dr. Perry F. Prather, M.D., Commissioner. State of Maryland Department
of Health, January 25, 1963.
Y
126
strata to be utilized for potable water supply, all or part of the subdivision shall be
rejected."[1]
Special Characteristics
Even if development on the valley floors was prohibited but permitted on the valley
walls, the effect would be quite catastrophic. Retention of the valley walls, substantially
free of development is essential for the insurance of the current open character of the
valleys. Limitation of development on the steep walls or mountain slopes depends on the
arguments cited previously. Limitation of development on any walls, irrespective of slope
depends upon preservation of amenity.
Physiographic determinism, based on preservation of amenity and natural process,
would Beverly limit development on all valley walls and mountain slopes and prohibit
development on steep slopes of 25% or more.
Topography
Consideration of topography is a more inducive aspect of physiographic features,
and includes steep slopes and flood plains. Analysis of topography deals with differences in
elevation, continuity of character, areas which have singularily and identity, and distinctions
between areas.
Designation of "natural" planning areas rests on these distinctions. The U.S.G.S.[2]
maps (reduced to 1 inch = 1/2 mile) were checked by field inspection and were found to be
substantially up to date.
Analysis of topography permitted the identification of seventeen natural planning
areas and within each area a series of "blocks" were developed which essentially are major
holdings of land without regard to ownership completely surrounded by County, state and
interstate road systems. Each of these "blocks" were numbered and analyzed in terms of
flood plains, slope of 15% or more and an assessment based on soils maps was made as to
the acreage that was either good or poor for development purposes.
Of the 128,750 acres, 62,395 were suitable for development using septic tanks at
low densities while approximately 40,000 would not be suitable; nearly 12,000 acres are in
flood plain and 15,000 acres in 15% slope or greater. In conclusion, approximately half of
the available land resource of Washington County is suitable for development purposes with
septic tanks if public sewer service were not available. (Table 2 1 )
[ 1 ] Maryland State Department of Health, Regulations Government Water Supply and
Sewerage Systems in the Subdivision of Land in Maryland. Paragraph 3.2.
[2] United States Geological Survey maps at 1:24,000.
127
TABLE 21
SUMMARY OF NATURAL AREAS AND FEATURES
More realistically, with the availability of existing and future utilities only 10,000
acres or one sixth of the total available developable land need be used to accommodate a
population of 132,000.
Principles for Development
The housing market analysis projected the anticipated population over time. It is
clear that a much larger population could be accommodated in Washington County than
that now projected without either violating physiographic principles of conservation and
development, or the market preferences for types of houses, lots and apartments. The
problem then is to locate development where it will create the least destruction and is most
advantageous to the area in the future. It has been well documented that large areas of the
County are now violating the natural environment and will soon suffer the consequences if
they remain unchecked. To continue this trend into the future would seem senseless.
Physiographic principles of conservation and development are therefore proposed.
These principles derive type of structure and density appropriate to the various situations as
distinguished by physiographic features. The principles are then applied to land in the
128
A C
R E
A G E
Natural Cell
No
Development
For Development
Areas No.
Flood Plain
15% Slope
Total
Good
Poor
Total
TOTAL
A
1,765
1,765
B
50
2,030
2,380
C
512
325
837
8,225
1,205
9,430
10,267
D
2,155
2,155
E
1,375
1,850
3,225
4,170
1,418
5,588
8,813
F
2,315
4,195
6,510
15,050
3,705
18,755
25,265
G
3,590
2,575
6,165
9,960
1,735
11,695
17,860
H
1,305
560
1,865
6,250
1,075
7,325
9,190
I
930
205
1,135
7,045
860
7,905
9,040
J
275
2,525
2,800
825
3,885
4,710
7,510
K
1,285
1,460
2,745
7,020
4,115
11,135
13,880
L
3,200
3,200
M
6,025
6,025
0
5,220
5,220
P-1
175
175
775
50
825
1,000
P-2
150
1,000
1,150
2,090
795
2,885
4,035
P-3
20
20
985
440
1,425
1,445
11,807
14,870
26,677
62,395
39,678
101,943
128,750
More realistically, with the availability of existing and future utilities only 10,000
acres or one sixth of the total available developable land need be used to accommodate a
population of 132,000.
Principles for Development
The housing market analysis projected the anticipated population over time. It is
clear that a much larger population could be accommodated in Washington County than
that now projected without either violating physiographic principles of conservation and
development, or the market preferences for types of houses, lots and apartments. The
problem then is to locate development where it will create the least destruction and is most
advantageous to the area in the future. It has been well documented that large areas of the
County are now violating the natural environment and will soon suffer the consequences if
they remain unchecked. To continue this trend into the future would seem senseless.
Physiographic principles of conservation and development are therefore proposed.
These principles derive type of structure and density appropriate to the various situations as
distinguished by physiographic features. The principles are then applied to land in the
128
rpll
TAI
v n
• i
N
x, trtr•, �t '3^f`y"z try ' _ �t � �� � +A;,'..J f •,r,1�
r.
r •i t%} k` .Lusa I�,I f - p' � ++��
r� J ���lc�iaa, � r ' �.. T s ._� •:' 1'� .rr.Gf ht;� Y� {'�',t�, r � � . ,�/ �' ..
WASHINGTON COUNTY R4 I R M Q
MARYLAND
DEVELOPMENT GUIDE
EGEND
COMMITTED TO CURRENT DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL:
PRIME
MODERATE
NO DEVELOPMENT
WETLANDS
MAJOR GOVERNMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL
!!� WATERSHED AREA
Induelrlal Area pSlate Londe
MRseldenllal AreaMunici al and
_ p county—Owned Londa
aMWoodland. ®Federal Government Lands
BAKER-WIBBERLEY AND ASSOCIATES
WILLIAM C. MC DONNELL
CONSULTING PLANNER
a
r
%w
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
SCALE MILES
13
development of an optimum land use plan to determine capacity, and housing type
necessary to accommodate the required population.
1. In the Hagerstown Valley - It would appear that continuing development along
state roads is inappropriate and should be avoided. Concentrations of
development however, might be possible even without public utility services
under current regulations. An example of how this might be accommodated is
expressed in Section 9.
2. Fifty Year Flood Plain - This should be exempted from all development except
for agriculture, open space of institutions and recreation.
3. Mountain Slopes - These lands should be prohibited from development and
should be reforested where necessary. Forested slopes exclusive of slopes of
25% or greater, could be developed at such a density and in such a manner as to
perpetuate their present wooded aspect. A maximum density permitted for
development should be one house per 10 acres or an appropriate Slope
Ordinance should be devised to guide this form of development.
4. Slopes of 25% or Greater - Development should be prohibited here.
5. Development with septic. tanks should be prohibited on all soils unsuitable for
septic tanks.
6. On other soils, a density of development using septic tanks should be regulated
as provided for by law.
7. On open, unforested land which enjoys good slope and soil characteristics and is
of sufficient elevation not to be considered valley flood land, densities and
types of development would be determined by economic and design factors
with relation to availability of public utilities and no physiographic restraints as
to density would apply.
8. Land under forest cover should be developed at a density commensurate with
agricultural conservation areas or at a maximum of one house per acre where
steep slopes and non -septic tanks soils are absent. This is the maximum density
at which forest cover can be substantially retained.
9. The preservation and control of the natural processes of water and land balance
call for the construction of dams to control water run-off. The lakes thus
impounded will have multiple uses.
Dam Sites
If the 50 year flood plain areas and lands that are not suitable for septic tank
129
development are set aside in permanent open space a considerable amount of land in
Washington County will be exempted from development. In some instances many of these
lands would be retained in grass, either as private farmland, public parks or institutional
open space. Depending on topography, certain areas could be impounded and the resultant
lakes could be used not only for flood control but for recreation and reserve water supply,
fire fighting and scenic beauty.
Such developments are not without their economic value. For example, the
development of lakes as a central portion of planned communities is becoming extremely
popular throughout the United States. In one example, in Montague, New Jersey a 150 acre
lake was developed at a cost of one million dollars. The developer determined a rough
formula for evaluating the value of the lake by indicating that the lake increased the land
value in his development three times for an area four times the size of the lake. For
example, if land is acquired for $1,000 an acre and a 150 acre lake is constructed, 600 acres
around the lake will be worth $3,000 per acre. Other developers have indicated that because
of the open space characteristic of lakes, they have been able to increase densities in the
vicinity by 25% thereby paying back in the cost of construction due to increased allowance
for saleable units. In addition, lakefront lots usually increase in value by approximately 45
to 50% over other lots in developments which feature the lake site,
During the course of the consultant's study on the Water and Waste Water Plan of
Washington County, approximately SO impoundment areas were delineated within the
County. The distribution of potential lake sites is fairly uniform throughout the County and
some appear to be appropriate to future development. Accordingly, the Plan indicates the
number of potential lake sites that could be constructed together with a planned form of
development or new community enhancing the environment of the community and at the
same time developing an attractive marketing package.
This analysis then suggests that several sites offer valuable opportunity for resolving
problems of land control, future land uses, flood control and water supply programs
combined with the creation of new recreational opportunities and scenic enhancement.
The Potomac River Area
It is certainly within the long run interest of the County and the state and the entire
Appalachian Region as a whole to preserve the natural beauty of the landscape, and features
of the Potomac River. Various plans have been proposed which were discussed above for the
planning and control of the river by various levels of government. Irrespective of the success
or failures of such proposals it is incumbent upon the County to support a general goal of
preserving the river landscape in its natural condition, while permitting some more intensive
development when it can be compatible with the river.
Perhaps the County itself should prepare a detailed Potomac River District Plan to
help guide implementation of its Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance. A more detailed review
of soils, topography, site lines, natural features and existing development beyond that which
130
is possible in this study should be pursued. Doubtless, prototype methods for evaluating the
river landscape and outlining appropriate controls could result. As a physiographic
determinant to the principles of planning for Washington County, further development prior
to the establishment of logical development and conservation areas would be unfortunate
and lead to the ultimate destruction of this resource of the County and all of the areas
which it serves along its course.
131
132
PART 8
PLANNING DEVICES AND CONTROLS
The success of any plan depends upon the extent to which it embodies the wishes of
the bulk of those who will be affected by it. Taking the assumption to represent middle
ground, the two polar points of view are: 1) that no development is desired and financial
gain from land value appreciation is to be disregarded; and 2) that maximum financial gain is
to be sought regardless of the amenity consequences. The success of any major effect by the
County to control land development will turn in large part upon the accuracy with which
the objectives embodied in the land use pattern reflect the desires of the majority of
landowners.
Assuming that the Optimum Land Use pattern reasonably represents the goals of the
large property owners, what implementing resources are available to provide these property
owners with the form of development they desire along with approximately the
development gain which would accrue without the Plan? The measures later discussed -
regulation acquisition for open space purposes, preferential assessment, and private action to
preserve natural resources - are important mechanisms for influencing land use, mechanisms
which must be relied upon to aid in plan implementation. However, they will not begin to
exercise the control on location of development essential to execution of the proposed plan
nor do they provide any means of transferring gain from the land developed to the land
remaining open. For these purposes private measures are necessary to supplement the public
controls and devices.
This chapter considers both public and private means of plan implementation. It
comments in general on the alternative methods and their potential advantages and
shortcomings. The Implementation Program considers them in combination and in a
sequence necessary to approach as large a measure as possible of the Land Use Plan.
The alternative methods are subdivided into four categories: 1) public measures
possible under existing legislation; 2) public measures requiring new legislation; 3) private
measures possible under existing legislation; 4) private measures requiring new legislation.
None of these are sufficient by themselves. A combination of methods will be
required to implement any plan, and the best combination will vary from plan to plan.
Public measures are considered first.
Public Measures Possible Under Existing Legislation
Regulation
Zoning and subdivision controls are the principal regulatory codes which currently
influence land development. The County has already adopted a subdivision ordinance and a
proposed zoning ordinance accompanies this report. Building, fire and other codes affect the
133
N
character of structures but have comparatively little influence on land use. However, the
current BOCA code, now under_ consideration by the County Commissioners is strongly
recommended. The requirement for mandatory building permits is an important part of this
code now under study, and it is hoped that it will be adopted at an early date. The state
health regulations that do have a significant influence on land development were discussed
earlier with reference to the physiographic determinants of form.
Zoning. The 1970 Session of the Maryland General Assembly passed a significantly
revised version of Article 66B - the basic enabling legislation for planning and zoning in the
state. The amended Article 66B became effective January 1, 1971. It is largely the result of
the work of the Maryland Planning and Zoning Law Study Commission, which began work
in 1967.
The amended Article 66B is a major revision of the basic planning and zoning law,
but it is not a radial departure from earlier zoning legislation. It represents a "clean-up" of
the old Article 66B, with a few significant additions. It does not create a new land
development code, as had been suggested, nor does it provide for any major new land use
controls. In fact, it is clear that some of the more advanced concepts of the Study
Commission were discarded in favor of retaining the basic structure of the existing Article
66B.
Zoning enabling legislation was first adopted in Maryland in 1927, and the existing
Article 66B is the result of piecemeal additions and changes over the years. It is a
hodge-podge of often confusing and sometimes overlapping provisions. The major
improvement of the new 66B is to pull the old provisions together in a more orderly and
understandable form eliminating overlaps and obsolete provisions, improving and clarifying
the wording in many cases, and providing a new numbering system. Over the years, a
number of special local provisions were written into Article 66B - these are now dropped
(with one exception) and this action alone is a great aid to better understanding of the
Article.
134
Among the major improvements are the following:
1. Authority for conditional zoning;
2. Authority to use zoning hearing examiners;
3. A better definition of a plan;
4. A requirement that the plan shall be adopted by the local legislative body;
5. A requirement that the Planning Commission prepare an annual substantive
report on development trends.
There are a number of other useful changes and additions of a less significant nature.
However, there is one major backward step, a requirement that a zoning map amendment
require a finding of a change in the neighborhood or a mistake in the existing zoning. The
old "change or mistake" rule has thus been written into law just when the courts were
moving away from it.
There are also some significant ommissions. For example, no mention is made of
planned -unit developments. There is also no mention of overlays or special districts, such as
airport zoning or highway interchange zoning. These districts have been included in the
Proposed Zoning Ordinance for Washington County.
A section -by -section review of Article 66B, 1970 Edition is included in the
Appendix.
While the proposed ordinance represents a beginning to regulate land use in the
County, a number of additional zoning classifications are necessary if the proposed goals are
to be carried out. For example, any future development in mountainous areas, especially on
slopes, will require a more detailed guide with reference to slope densities and design
treatment for such development.
The following classifications will soon be needed.if the County wishes to minimize
public investment and to maximize development opportunities:
Slope Density Regulations. If the County wishes to maintain its rural environment,
minimize disturbance to natural terrain, minimize removal of natural vegetation and to
create the maximum compatability of development with the natural environment through
site design, architecture, and landscaping, there are certain major problems associated with
the steepness of land and development opportunities that must be faced:
1. Cutting and filling is more extensive in order to achieve the same type and
intensity of development.
2. Cutting of trees is more noticeable.
3. Surface erosion is greater where slopes or vegetation are disturbed, assuming the
surface material is the same.
4. Longer streets and driveways are required in order to reach building sites once
slope exceeds 15 percent (assuming a 15 percent grade to be the maximum
desirable).
5. More difficulty is encountered in developing septic tank drainfield sites.
Low density rural type development places major importance on native terrain and
vegetation because they are required to perform a variety of functions including:
135
1. Supplying beauty in land form and vegetation.
2. Handling drainage in natural water courses without flooding adjoining lands.
3. Handling sewage effluent from septic tanks.
4. Preventing erosion.
In high density urban areas these problems are handled through man made devices
and through landscaping. Such solutions, however, are too expensive for low density rural
areas. It would seem that it is reasonable to decrease density as the steepness of the slope
increases and that the density of development should vary from one acre to zero percent
slope to approximately five acres at 60 percent slopes or more.
It would appear then that the County should very seriously consider the adoption of
slope density controls if it wishes to maintain much of the natural quality of the
environment in the undeveloped portions of the area and to minimize destruction caused by
grading and clearing of vegetation and to minimize problems of overburdening roads,
increasing run off and erosion. For example:
1. Allow the total number of dwelling units to be permitted on a parcel of land to
be calculated based on the average slope of the entire parcel involved, thus,
given a 50 acre parcel with say two gross acres required per dwelling unit, 25
dwelling units would be developed. The ordinance could then indicate that
parcels may range in size so long as the minimum size parcel permitted is one
acre and that they be adjusted to fit the terrain. This would probably result in
the smaller one acre parcels on the more level areas and would tend to preserve
the mountain slopes as parts of larger parcels. To ensure that there would not be
further pressure for resubdivision of the larger parcels, dedication of
conservation easements across those portions of the larger parcels to remain as
open space or some other suitable guarantee should be required.
2. Require' that each lot within a subdivision have a size within a given percentage
of the size required for the average slope of that particular lot under the
slope -density standards, provided, however, that larger lots could be created
if adequate guarantees against resubdivision were given. In other words, if a
proposed lot had a 25 percent slope, and the ordinance required two acres for
such a slope, the lot could be either slightly less or slightly more than two acres.
This flexibility allows more freedom in design than requiring strict adherence to
the two acre figure and does not impose an undue burden on the designer in
laying out a subdivsion. It would be suggested that a reasonable deviation would
be perhaps 20 percent of the acreage required, thus, on a slope requiring a two
acre parcel the lot could range from 1.6 to 2.4 acres. This approach has an
advantage in that in the case of future requests for resubdivision the zoning
ordinance can be directly referred to and the slope of the parcel measured
136
which would indicate that there was not enough land for any further division.
If, however, a lot was to be created that was larger than the 20 percent
deviation, conservation easements or other guarantees would be required to
provide assurance against future divisions.
3. A third possibility would be to permit, subject to a use permit, the clustering of
development and the preservation of common open spaces as separate parcels
held in common. This type of provision is included in other ordinances.
It would appear that all mountain slopes less than 30 percent and possibly less than
50 percent in tree cover might be considered for the application of these regulations.
Additional study would have to be made in order to develop a proper formula for a given
area. However, the application of the existing sediment control regulations would be
brought to bear here and also certain revisions to the recently adopted subdivision
regulations might also have to be considered.
Shore Land and Flood Plain Protection. The Potomac River, the Conococheague,
Antietam Creek and the associated flood plains represent major resources in Washington
County especially in terms of recreation and scenic beauty. However, there has been
considerable controversy in recent years concerning the two proposals which effect the
Potomac, namely the National Park Service proposal for development of a national river
which would involve the purchase of considerable lands along the river for park and open
space purposes and the Potomac River Basin Compact, which would give certain powers to a
regional Potomac River basin commission. The status of both of these proposals is at present
uncertain. However, we believe it is necessary for the County to take steps to plan for the
preservation of lands along the river. Such plans would consider permitting only agricultural
and open recreation use, and the infilling of existing residential lots by right. Other types of
development, including new residential subdivisions could be permitted as special
exceptions. Requirements for several of these unique types of development, such as water
oriented industry, might also be considered.
The County might consider either a three district or multi -district approach in
attempting to regulate shore land zoning:
1. the three district approach requires less detailed planning and mapping than
multi -district zoning. The districts would include: a) a conservancy district
composed of wetlands; b) a residential -recreational district for the shore lands
of lakes, flowages, and streams with residential and recreational potential.
Residential uses are automotically permitted if they comply with standards set
forth in the regular zoning text. Certain commercial uses are permitted in this
district as special exceptions after public hearing and finding of fact by the
Planning and Zoning Commission according to standards contained in the
ordinance. This gives the County control over the types of non-residential uses
locating in the shore land area; c) a general purpose district which would include
the shore lands of those portions of rivers and streams where the land is suited
for a wide range of potential uses.
137
2. The multi -district approach divides the permitted uses into more than three
categories. Residential uses could be separated into seasonal residential and
permanent residential districts. Commercial uses could be divided into several
appropriate classifications. One or more industrial and agricultural districts
could be established. The requirements applying to each district would be set
forth in the text of the ordinance and the location of each district shown on the
zoning map.
Flood plain zoning is included in the proposed County zoning ordinance. In addition
to those requirements, the flood plain could be more definitively defined based on historical
records, soil surveys as in the proposed ordinance and in addition, engineering studies. * The
preparation of a separate flood plain zoning ordinance would require surveys and plans of
the flood plain areas to determine the most appropriate uses of land and how these uses
should be regulated to reduce flood damage. Adoption of a comprehensive zoning ordinance
should be preceded by these, however, but extended to cover all lands in the community
with similar special modifications of the use regulations within the flood plain areas.
The chief difference between the shore land protection and flood plain regulations
lies in the relatively greater difficulty of delineating a flood plain and the consequent need
for state and federal assistance in terms of funding necessary studies. While the shore lines
are rather precisely defined in most cases, except where they are also flood plains,
development in a flood plain may change the boundaries of the plain, not only where the
development is taking place, but perhaps also both upstream and downstream from the area.
Consequently, a flood plain once mapped is not necessarily determined on a permanent
basis but may have to be reviewed and revised at a later date.
Natural Resource Zoning in General. Natural resource zoning can be used to prevent
uses of natural resource areas which would be inimical to the users. It should be emphasized
that such zoning will not be sustained if its sole purpose is to protect natural resources.
Because of this, it is perhaps more accurate to refer to zoning of this class as Health and
Safety Zoning or Hazard Zoning rather than Natural Resource Zoning. Under present
decisions throughout the nation, if proscribed uses of a natural resources area do not pose a
direct hazard to the health and safety of potential users the zoning will not be sustained.
Courts hold that, if no such hazard exists, restriction by natural resource zoning is
unreasonable as a taking without just compensation. If the public wishes to preserve natural
resources, it must compensate the owners of the land where they are situated for restrictions
placed upon their use.
Natural resource areas which may pose health and safety hazards to users, and which
thus may be subject to control by zoning, are flood plains, marshes, steep slopes, and
impermeable soils. In each instance, if the threat from use is to other than the users, zoning
* The State's Water Resources Department recently requested the Corps of Engineers
conduct a flood hazard study of the Potomac in the County. Flood plain information
studies are to begin in 1971 on Antietam and Conococheague Creeks.
138
is inappropriate. For example, if house construction on a steep slope would create a threat
of landslides or erosion of foundations to house purchasers, construction might be barred by
zoning. On the other hand, if house construction on a steep slope would increase erosion
and water runoff, thus affecting the community water supply, zoning to prevent
construction may not be sustained and other devices may need to be used. Recent decisions
also indicate that zoning may not be used to prevent conversion of a currently hazardous
area to a site safe for development.
An additional, practical guide to apply in determining whether zoning is a suitable
method of protecting a natural resource is the percent of drop in market value of land which
would be caused by imposition of the zoning. A very considerable drop is almost certain to
be found unreasonable, while a slight drop would probably be sustained.
Density Zoning. Density zoning under which maximum residential densities are
fixed for given areas, is used to permit more flexibility in subdivision design and to
encourage preservation of open space. As a concept, it presents no legal problems. In
operation, the same problems can arise as under conventional zoning. If adequate provision
for health and safety is not made in an ordinance, the ordinance would be invalid.
Alternatively, the concepts of health, safety and general welfare could not be stretched to
cover unreasonable restrictions any more than they could under conventional zoning. If 4
acre minimum lots would fail in court, so too would a maximum average density of 4 acres
per dwelling unit.
In considering what desnity zoning might accomplish in distributing development in
accord with a plan, one must not lose sight of the fact that the choice o distribution of
density rests with the developer. If the developer happens to own a tract which is half
wooded hillside and half open meadow, the planner may wish him to cluster all of his
houses on the hillside, leaving the meadow untouched. Nothing is in the density zoning
provision to prevent the developer from doing the exact opposite.
Further, if developers find it economical to cluster development under density
zoning, there is no assurance the open space preserved in each subdivision will bear any
meaningful relationship to open space preserved in other subdivisions.
Large -Scale Development Zoning. Large scale development zoning establishes
separate zoning criteria for the development of all tracts above a given minimum size. The
zoning may be automatically operative for all tracts above the minimum acreage, or
opera=tive upon the approval by the governing body of a particular development plan. In the
first instance, the ordinance must include detailed specifications for land use, while in the
latter the terms of the ordinance may be more general with its application resting .with the
governing body. This latter form may be more flexible but is also more open to abuse than
the former.
No legal obstacles to use of large scale development zoning in the County are
apparent. However, what will it achieve in terms of plan implementation? It may encourage
139
mixed land use within density limits. It may encourage better structure for neighborhood
and community units. It may encourage open space preservation. Unless the governing body -
retains the power of approval over each plan, there is no way of bringing together a desired
form of development and the desired location for such development. If the governing body
approves one proposal because the location of the development conforms with the plan and
rejects a similar one because the location is wrong, a charge of arbitrary and unreasonable
behavior would probably be sustained. Therefore, it would seem judicious to consider
application of large-scale development zoning only to those areas in the County where
development is sought.
Article 16 of the Proposed Zoning Ordinance for Washington County recommends a
planned residential district. However, as proposals for this form of development are received
by the, Planning and Zoning Commission it may be necessary to revise the regulations to
include not only a more definitive statement on planned development but to combine it
with density zoning as well in order to achieve optimum design and development
opportunity for the owner.
Historic Districts. Washington County has a number of buildings and areas which
have historical significance in the development of the county, state, and nation. Recent
years have seen increasing interest, on the local and national scene, with the preservation of
historic sites and buildings. Properly protected and utilized, historic sites can provide a vivid
record to present any future generations of our country's heritage. In addition, historic
preservation often provides the bonus of aiding the local economy by attracting visitors
from outside the area. This can be especially true in Washington County, since many local
historic sites have national significance.
A number of local historic areas are briefly discussed in the recent study, Report of
the Washington County Advisory Committee. The report lists a number of major historic
areas in the County which should be protected. In addition, a report by the Maryland
Historical Trust lists over 600 historic buildings in the County, including houses, barns, and
other structures. An active program is needed to aid the preservation of these historic
buildings.
Historic buildings and areas can be protected to some extent by adopting historic
preservation zoning districts. The proposed zoning ordinance includes provision for
establishment of historic preservation districts. This type of historic zoning will be most
useful in helping preserve a historic area containing a relatively concentrated grouping of
historic structures. However, historic zoning alone will not solve all preservation problems in
Washington County. Many of the historic sites in the County consist of primarily open land,
battlefields, such as Antietam, the Mason-Dixon Line, Maryland Heights and related
fortifications, and similar areas. The goal in these areas is to restict development as much as
possible, and that cannot be accomplished with historic zoning alone. Purchase of these
properties, or at least the purchase of development rights, will be necessary in most cases.
The proposed zoning ordinance provides for formation of a Historic District. The
140
Commission should actually undertake a much larger role in the historic preservation
program in cooperation with the County's Historical Advisory Committee. It should be
responsible for inventorying and maintaining records on all historic sites in the County, and,
using public and private funds, acquire historic sites when necessary. The Commission
should actively work with other local, state and federal agencies, and with private
individuals and groups to encourage preservation of historic sites. The historic preservation
program should be closely coordinated with the County's open space and recreation
program, since often the land acquired to protect the historic character of an area can also
serve a recreation purpose.
Policies
1. Historic preservation should be a major element in the County's development
program.
2. Provision for establishing and protecting historic districts should be included in
the zoning ordinance.
3. A Historic District Commission should be created to administer historic
districts. In addition, the Commission should be responsible for a broader
preservation program, including historical research and record keeping, and the
acquisition of key historic properties.
Large Lot Zoning. The lowest density zoning category proposed for the present is
the one -acre lot which is included in the Conservation, Agricultural and Rural Residential
district of the proposed zoning ordinance. At some point in time, however, the Commission
will be required to examine much lower density zoning primarily as a tool for securing open
space which itself is valuable for recreation, conservation and structuring development. To
the extent low density zoning can meaningfully achieve any or all these results, such zoning
would be regarded as useful and beneficial.
In attempting to predict how far it is safe to go, constitutionally, under the general
welfare umbrella, if such zoning would cause a severe drop in the market value of land, it
will probably be found not to promote general welfare. Under this hypothesis, a 25 acre lot
area minimum, exclusive agriculture and forest district at the outer fringe of the urbanized
area might be valid, while the same restrictions imposed on land closer to Hagerstown would
be almost certainly held invalid.
Courts have rarely enunciated the hypothesis as a rational for decisions. Therefore,
one also finds decisions .which adopt the outcome of another case without examining the
basis for the prior decision. Another question yet to be resolved is the impact upon the
validity of the zoning ordinance of increasing land values. If 25 acre zoning were valid
today, would it remain valid 10 years from now when urban growth pressures have created a
market for the land for development? Owners who would not be injured by large lot zoning
at present and have always had the option of selling their property and reinvesting elsewhere
141
if their prime interest is capital gain and therefore that zoning reasonable when imposed
remains reasonable. Under this situation, if urban areas were to zone at their peripheries far
enough in advance of development, most restraints upon use of land would be valid. The
alternative argument is that it is unreasonable to remove the potential for appreciation of
land value without compensation based upon an estimate of future worth, even though
current value is future worth discounting to the present. Zoning two adjoining tracts of rural
land, one for 25 acre minimum lots and the other for industry, may have no immediate
impact on the market value of the two tracts. When urban development pressures settle on
the area, however, the market value of the site zoned for industry would have greatly
increased while the market value of the 25 acre site might even have declined.
The fact remains that there are market preferences for large lot developments and if
the Planning Commission at some future date wishes to map zones to accommodate these
developments, these must be done with care. Apart from areas with obvious topographical
characteristics which prohibit large scale development such as the steep slopes of mountains
and indeed the summits.
It would be difficult legally to apply such zoning at this time. The possibility should
be considered, however.
There is precedence in Maryland in the case of County Commissioners versus Miles
(246 Md. 355) where a five acre minimum lot size was upheld. Significant facts in this case
include:
1. There was a zoning ordinance passed by the legislative body of the County in
accordance with a comprehensive plan after numerous public hearings.
2. There were five residential zones, one of which imposed a five acre minimum lot
size.
3. The five acre lot size applied to 6.7% of the entire county area. The key factors
considered by the court included the geographical area, including the size of
Queen Anne County as compared to other counties in the state and the area
subject to a five acre minimum lot size, the population of the County, including
its proportion to the state as a whole, the growth rate of the county, nature of
the economy, topography, history, uniqueness of the property, adjoining area
including the fact that continguous land in Talbott County was subject to a five
acre minimum lot size, and the degree of non-conformance (only three of 50
properties were under five acres in size; the average size of the effected
properties was 320 acres). In deciding this case the court noted that five acre
zones were located some distance from the most densely populated sections of
the County, the properties are relatively highly assessed, and produce good tax
revenues for the community while requiring very little general cost to the
municipal government and the many historical sites within the five acre zones
contributed to the general cultural and historical importance of the County.
142
J
The court, in upholding the five acre minimum lot size, indicated that conditions in
the County might change, as cited in the discussion above with reference to 25 acre zones,
and the court implied that they would uphold a five acre minimum lot size in a rural county
not subject to strong population pressure, but did not mean to imply they would uphold a
similar restriction in a metropolitan county such as Baltimore County.
Federal New Community Policy. The new Community Act of 1968, Title IV, the
Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, authorizes the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development to guarantee up to 75% of land acquisition costs and 90% of the cost of
development, not to exceed 80% of the estimated post -development value for new
community development projects. In addition, HUD is authorized to make grants for up to
70% of water and sewer facilities and open space projects in support of new towns
undertaken with Title IV guarantees. Since the initiation of this program HUD has issued
guarantees for financing of three such projects - Johnathan, Minnesota in the Minneapolis,
St. Paul metropolitan area; St. Charles, Maryland in the Washington, D. C. metropolitan
area; and Park Forest South in the Chicago metropolitan area.
Guarantees are available only to private developers (including non-profit
organizations).
The purpose of the Act is to encourage the development of new communities which:
1. Contribute to the general betterment of living conditions through the improved
quality of community development made possible by a consistent design for the
provision of homes, commercial and industrial facilities, public and community
facilities, and open spaces;
2. Make substantial contributions to the sound and economic growth of the areas
in which they are located;
3. Provide needed additions to the general housing supply;
4. Provide opportunities for innovation in housing and community development
technology and in land use planning;
5. Enlarge housing and employment opportunities by increasing the range of
housing choice and providing new investment opportunities for industry and
commerce;
6. Encourage the maintenance and growth of a diversified local homebuilding
industry; and
7. Include to the greatest extent feasible, the employment of new and improved
technology, techniques, materials, and methods in housing construction,
rehabilitation, and maintenance under programs administered by the
143
Department of Housing and Urban development with a view to reducing the
cost of such construction, rehabilitation, and maintenance, and stimulating the
increased and sustained production of housing under such programs.
In addition to Federal loan guarantees and grant support which is authorized
specifically for new community projects, other assistance generally available for education
and health facilities, roads, pollution control, and the like could be employed to assist in the
development of the infrastructure of new communities.
On September 29, 1970, the United States Senate passed the 1970 Housing Act
which includes major new assistance for community development. Title IV of the Bill
(S.4368) is addressed to urban growth and new community development. Immediately
pertinent to new community development in Maryland are the provisions in the Bill which
would make Federal Loan guarantees available to state and other public land development
agencies. The Bill also authorizes direct Federal loans to state land development agencies
and private new community developers to cover interest charges during the early years of
approved community development projects. Repayment of such loans could be deferred for
up to 15 years and repaid with interest at an annual rate pegged to the interest rate on U. S.
Government securities. This would reduce cash flow requirements in the early years of
development.
The Bill would also expand grant assistance for new communities to include mass
transportation facilities, highway construction, airport development, medical facilities,
libraries, higher education facilities, neighborhood centers, land and water recreation
development, open space, sewage treatment projects and, finally, public works. In addition,
new grant support would be available for various types of planning for new community
projects. Similar legislation has been reported by the Banking and Currency Committee of
the House of Representatives and is expected to be passed by the House before the end of
the 91 st Congress.
Thus, the Congress is moving toward the provisions of direct support to state
government in the sponsorship of new towns.
The report of the Senate Banking and Currency Committee on this legislation sets
forth four types of projects to be undertaken.
1. Economically balanced new communities within metropolitan areas as
alternatives to urban sprawl;
2. Additions to existing smaller towns and cities which can be economically
converted into growth centers to prevent decline and accommodate increased
population;
3. Major new -town -in -town developments to help renew central cities, including
144
the development of areas adjacent to existing cities for an increase in their tax
base; and
4. Free standing (frontier) new communities where there is a clear showing of
economic feasibility, primarily built to accommodate population growth.
The Bill reported by the House Banking and Currency Committee not only extends
the new community loan guarantee program to state development agencies, but also
provides that such guarantees may cover 100% of the funds borrowed by a state agency to
develop a new community project.
Thus, the bonds or debentures of state -charted public agencies would be
Federally -guaranteed. The pending legislation does not permit the traditional exemption of
interest on such securities from Federal income taxation. However, the legislation provides
for grants to public agencies for the differential in interest rates owing to the loss of the
exemption.
There is firm and tangible evidence of potential Federal support for new state
initiatives in the development of new urban areas.
Acquisition
Plans for Washington County will be influenced strongly by public land acquisition
decisions of the federal government, state, county and local municipal authorities. Each has
broad powers to acquire land for public purposes. These acquisitions, for purposes such as
highways, sewer lines, a community college campus, schools, parks, and reservoirs, are
certain to have a major impact upon the character of development in the County. If a future
development plan endorsed by residents of the County is to be implemented, it will be
essential to obtain support of the plan from each public agency exercising land acquisition
powers in the areas. Only if public acquisition is coordinated with the land use plan does the
plan stand a chance of succeeding.
It is vital never to overlook the importance, for realization of any plan, of the choice
of sites for public acquisition. Location of highway rights of way and intersections probably
has the greatest influence of any of these public acquisition decisions on land development
and therefore merits special attention.
It is not necessary to review the existing conventional enabling legislation for public
acquisition for public purposes since all are familiar with its general scope. Enabling
legislation for less than fee acquisition for open space purposes and redevelopment
legislation are both relatively new, so additional comment on their use as aids in plan
implementation in the County is warranted. Installment purchase, used elsewhere in
Maryland to acquire open space, also warrants special consideration.
Less -than -Fee Acquisition: Less than fee acquisition is the purchase or
145
condemnation of a right to some use or restriction on land but title and all other rights not
specifically sold or deeded stay with the owner of record. For example, it is possible to sell
or deed away the right to develop land. Maryland was one of the first states to pass so-called
"development rights" enabling legislation. The Maryland law (66C Annotated Code of
Maryland 357A) authorizes the state or local governments to acquire any interest in land
less than the fee to preserve open space of (1) great natural scenic beauty or (2) whose
existing openness, natural condition or present state of use, if retained would enhance the
present or potential value of abutting or surrounding urban development, or would maintain
or enhance the conservation of natural or scenic resources. Eminent domain may be used
only when the acquisition is for parks, forestry, or recreation. (66C Annotated Code of
Maryland 372).
There are several points to be considered with relation to this enabling legislation:
(a) what is the utility, for plan implementation, of less -than -fee acquisition; (b) how might
the existing legislation be used; and (c) is any change in the law needed to make it fully
effective for plan implementation?
Less than fee acquisition has long been common to achieve a number of public
purposes. Flooding easements at Federal reservoirs, rights of way to provide access to public
forests, and leases of farm and woodland to provide public hunting areas are but a few
illustrations. Use of less than fee acquisition, and particularly of easements, for the primary
purpose of preserving open space has been advocated by William H. Whyte for the past
several years. Thanks in large part to his effort, roughly a dozen states have passed enabling
legislation for open space preservation by less than fee acquisition.
A number of assumptions underlay Whyte's efforts, assumptions which seem
incontrovertible: regulation of land use could not preserve anywhere near the amount of
urban open space needed without being confiscatory; a program of fee acquisition of
enough urban fringe land to control the location and timing of urban growth is not
immediately saleable to state legislatures; the threat to urban fringe land is immediate yet
funds for open space preservation were limited and should be spread as far as possible; and
preservation of urban open space entailed public control but not necessarily public use.
Therefore, to meet an urgent and immediate need, why not spread public funds as far as
possible by adopting the legal device of easements to achieve public control of private land
for open space purposes?
Despite the acceptance of this approach by a number of state legislatures, use of
easements for open space preservation has been disappointingly sparse. At last information
is beginning to accumulate on operation of Wisconsin's easement program, and perhaps
these data will stimulate action elsewhere.
In Washington County, less than fee acquisition might be used to control the nature
of development as well as to preserve open space. The interest in land acquired would not
always be an easement. Easements would be one part of a less than fee acquisition program,
146
so a few of the problems arising in connection with their use should be mentioned. [ 1 ]
First, as with all acquisitions by a public body, they must be acquired for a public purpose.
Second, the nature of the interest acquired must be strictly stated and cannot thereafter be
expanded without another acquisition proceeding or be relaxed with either a loss of
public funds or an action for their recapture. Third, the amount paid' for what is a
restriction on future development rights is necessarily an estimate, not subject to adjustment
in either direction when the actual impact on value becomes known. Fourth, this
uncertainty of actual effect in an area with urban development potential will raise the price
demanded by property owners for these rights.
If Washington County decided to acquire an easement over all bottom land in one of
the valleys to prevent its subdivision into parcels smaller than twenty-five acres in order to
preserve the amenity value of the valley, the acquisition could be challenged as not being for
a public purpose. Fortunately, the broad language of the enabling law, combined with
recent judicial decisions throughout the nation, would probably overcome that challenge.
Next, as to the interest' acquired: if the easement restricted subdivision to parcels of
twenty-five or more acres, property owners might still sell bill board advertising along the
roads and thus cripple the amenity value of the easement unless a further easement were
acquired. All restrictions desired should be imposed at the time of the initial acquisition.
Alternatively, if subsequently it appeared that a ten acre minimum lot restriction would be
sufficient for the area, how could the County determine the difference in value between the
easement originally acquired and the less restrictive one which it wished to substitute, and
how can it recapture this difference? In acquiring the easement initially, the County should
pay the difference between the then market value of the land and its value as restricted by
the easement. Unless there have been sales of land subject to similar easements to serve as a
basis for comparison, the value as restricted is very difficult to estimate. Use of sale prices
for farm land not subject to urban pressures is not an accurate guide. Further, now and at
what rate should the future market value of the land for development be estimated and
discounted into present worth of the fee? In actuality, all of the land over which the
easement is acquired might not be developed in the near future, but each owner, in
negotiating the price for the easement of his land, will attempt to allocate maximum
development value to his property. The owner can't prove that his allocation is accurate, but
neither can the County disprove him.
Pointing out the difficulties inherent in use of easements to control urban land use
for open space purposes does not imply that they should not be used or that less -than -fee
acquisition does not have utility. Less -than -fee acquisition of land subject to development
pressures would probably be most useful for retricting the nature of development and
acquiring limited rights to use private land rather than for preventing development. Use of
easements to acquire rights sufficient to prevent development may be feasible in rural areas
where development value has not settled.
[ 1 ] See Krasnowiecki and Strong, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, May
1963, and Karsnowiecki and Paul, 110 U. of P LR 179, for details on the legal and
practical problems raised.
147
It is necessary to examine the Land Use Plan for the County and, after indicating
which portions of the plan might be implemented by regulation, determine what other
features could be implemented by less -than -fee acquisition of a limited nature. For example,
where flood plain zoning seemed too restrictive, the County and an owner might negotiate
an easement barring filling, drainage, or construction in areas subject to occasional flooding.
The owner might also be willing to sell an easement granting the public the right to come
upon these areas for fishing or hunting. If a subdivider could not be required to dedicate
land for a hiking and riding trail passing through his subdivision, a public right of way could
be taken and the subdivides compensated. In each of these instances, payment for the
interest taken should not be too costly, because the property owner retains the bulk of his
land for realization of its development value. By the same token, however, vast parcels of
urban fringe land will not be kept undeveloped by use of this approach.
The present Maryland enabling law covers all of the purposes for which it is
proposed that less than fee interests be acquired. The language quoted above is very broad
and, in fact, raises the interesting question of what the legislature meant by the word
"value" in the clause " ...would enhance the present or potential value of abutting or
surrounding urban development ..." The only shortcoming of the present law for
acquisition of interests of less than the fee is lack of the power of eminent domain for the
purposes of preservation of scenic or natural resources or enhancing the value of nearby
urban development.
Installment purchase: The Maryland National Capital Park and Planning
Commission, operating in suburban Washington has had success with the use of installment
purchase to secure land and continue use of it for the duration of the ten year purchase
period. By negotiating the installment purchase agreement before maximum development
value has accrued, the Commission is able to negotiate a satisfactory purchase price. By
paying ten percent of the purchase price yearly, the Commission avoids a lump sum
payment at the time of entering into the purchase agreement, yet secures the total
acquisition by the initial agreement. This approach could be used in the County where
public fee ownership of land is the ultimate objective.
Taxation[ 1 ]
Tax policy can be a useful tool for preserving open space and improving
development patterns when it is applied selectively and in concert with other policies to
achieve development objectives. At the present, though, the usefulness of tax policy is
greatly limited by preferential farm assessment.
Whereas most tax schemes alone cannot prevent, delay, or accelerate development
significantly, they can provide incentives and sanctions to encourage and help assure the
[I ] As suggested in Meyers, Carl S., Taxation and Development, Washington Center for
Metropolitan Studies November, 1968.
148
desired type and quality of land use at the desired time and place. Far more than anything
else, urban demand, the location of sites and their developability, and public investment and
zoning decisions govern the rate and pattern of development. Where these factors indicate
high development potential, the dollar significance of most taxes is usually so small relative
to the returns from the more intensive uses that few landowners will agree to limit
development in exchange for tax concessions. Where these market forces and other,
"noneconomic" factors retard or limit development, tax programs designed to speed
development are also relatively insignificant. However, tax policy can be combined with
public investment and decisions about land use to encourage private investment in certain
forms of development at specific points in time. This possible complementarity between tax
policy and other development policies is seen, for example, in the concept of the
development district suggested by Henry Bain in his accompanying report to the Planning
Commission. [ 1 ]
Unless preferential farm assessment is greatly restricted in its applicability or is made
far less preferential, tax policy will have little leverage in undeveloped and developing areas.
With a revision in the Statute, and perhaps the Constitution, tax policy could have
important leverage in three general situations:
1. Where the development is fifteen years or more away.
2. Where the financial position of the owner(s) or potential buyer(s) is illiquid or
where the owner(s) or buyer(s) would be constrained by a severe, overall capital
shortage without lower taxes.
3. Where there is limited development potential.
Given the inability of most landowners to plan ahead or foresee market changes for
more than fifteen years at most, immediate, permanent tax concessions may be exchanged
for development rights of fee simple interest in areas which are not expected to develop
within the next fifteen years. If landowners in these areas who prefer to remain are short of
cash, such an enchange would be even more likely.
In areas where development is expected sooner, landowners who prefer to continue
the low-density use, but who need continued tax concessions to do so, may also be willing
to exchange their development rights for a tax break. If accelerated development is in the
public interest, and landowners are short of liquid capital, denial of the concession in the
case of undeveloped land, and a rise in taxes in the case of underdeveloped land in built-up
areas, should help achieve more intensive land uses. If those owning raw land about to be
[ 1 ] Henry Bain, The Development District: A Governmental Institution for the Better
Organization of the Urban Development Process in the Bi -County Region A report to
the Maryland -National Capital Park and Planning Commission submitted by the
Washington Center for Metropolitan Studies, August, 1968.
149
developed need cash, offering tax relief conditional on staged development of a specified
quality should prove great incentive for joining such a program.
Owners of land with limited temporary or permanent development potential due to
physical, economic, or legal conditions, might be willing to exchange further, limited
temporary or permanent restrictions on development in return for lower taxes. In such
situations tax "concessions" are merely a means of compensation.
Although tax policy could have leverage, its consensual nature means that the public
must be willing to assume a sizable risk of failure. Not all contractual programs will be
subscribed. Neither will all other tax programs produce the intended effects, since many
other forces operate in the land market. In some cases, success in one location will mean a
high failure rate elsewhere, since retarding or discouraging development in one area increases
demand in other areas. For this reason, it is hard to envision tax programs operating
successfully without the backstop of credible zoning. On the other hand, if zoning is an
effective and finely honed tool, in many cases special tax policies may be superfluous.
As a tool to improve development patterns, tax policy has some real drawbacks.
First, there are constitutional limitations on setting forth the criteria.for preferential farm
assessment. [ I] Although revising the Statute may solve this problem the'revisions must be
done well to meet many conflicting demands. Second, aside from the repeal of preferential
farm assessment, many or major changes in the present tax system are difficult to achieve,
because they entail sacrifices in public revenue and many tax concessions. That major
changes may also involve windfalls and unexpected burdens could also conflict with popular
notions of equity. Third, the repeal of preferential farm assessment and the introduction of
other tax measures to reduce inequity may conflict with development objectives such as the
prevention of forced sales in certain areas. Last, tax policy is a relatively inflexible tool; the
inertia which characterizes it is a result of a relatively slow legislative process and a general
reluctance to depart from the familiar.
Notwithstanding these drawbacks, tax policy should still be considered part of an
open space and development program. It should supplement other, more powerful and more
flexible tools of implementation by allowing the most effective use of these tools. Where
possible and appropriate; tax policy should complement other tools by delaying and
accelerating development, by compensating landowners for accepting restrictions, and by
encouraging particular kinds and timing of investments. The conflict between changes in tax
policy to reduce inequity and changes to help achieve development objectives should be
reconciled. To these ends the following specific recommendations are made:
[I ] In Supervisor of Assessments for Montgomery County V. Alsop, 232 Md. 188 (1963),
192 A. (2d) 484, criteria defining bona fide farm operation were disallowed, and only
whether the land was in farm or agricultural use throughout the year was considered
within the meaning of the constitutional and statutory provisions.
150
1. Any major change in tax policy should be introduced gradually, over a period of
at least five years.
2. The receipt of the preferential farm assessment should be restricted, if possible,
to -those landowners whose apparent intentions and real financial need coincide
with public objectives for the rate and pattern of development.
3. In the place of the present, broad program of preferential assessment, there
should be a battery of tax policies designed to serve specific, limited functions
on a contractual basis:
a. Owners of farmland that is now preferentially assessed and removed from
development for about 20 years who do not qualify for any other
preferential treatment should be given the opportunity to sell their fee
simple interest to the County while retaining a life estate. Otherwise the land
would be assessed on an ad valorem basis.
b. Preferential assessment and temporary tax abatement should be used to
encourage not only large-scale, mixed-use developments but also other forms
of development deserving subsidy, such as middle and low-cost housing. The
tax concession should be granted only under a contract specifying the exact
nature and timing of the development and containing effective sanctions.
Liability for unpaid taxes would not discourage all violations of the contract.
c. Permanent and less -than -permanent tax abatement should be used to acquire
development rights and open space easements on minor portions of property
in developable areas and to secure temporary limited public access.
4. The present program of deferred taxation for country clubs on a renewable
contract basis should be extended to other commercial open space uses, such as
private camps, parks, recreation areas and golf driving ranges.
5. The practice of assessing communally -owned open space within cluster
subdivisions and larger developments at a much lower rate should be extended
to smaller sites in more developed residential, commercial and industrial areas.
6. If zoning policy becomes more credible and sectional map amendments more
frequent, the taxation of land should increase relative to the taxation of
improvements.
7. If the legislature decides to rectify inequities by taxing development gain,
taxation of capital gains from land sales or land value increments would be more
useful tools of development policy.
8. The full considerations involved in real property transfers should not be taxed
151
at rates that will produce revenue in excess of the public administrative cost of
the transfer.
Public Utility Policy
The County's Water and Waste Water Study recommends the extension of water and
sewer lines throughout the Hagerstown metropolitan area and beyond over the next 40
years. This plan will most likely be revised in the fairly near future upon adoption of the
County's General Development Plan. However, the when, where, how and who pays
questions of the provisions of public utility services do not come under quite the same
category of controls as those above, the County's policy regarding them as potentially a
critically important device for the control and guidance of growth.
The County is under no legal obligation to provide public services to any property
owner. At the same time it is legally empowered to do so subject to the appropriate legal
and policy procedures. Usually, of course, the provision of such services is in response to
pressures for urbanization. If the County policy were to be developed in accord with a
generally agreed on plan that met the test of being in the public interest, the County could
not be attacked as arbitrarily or capriciously providing services one place and not another.
It would appear feasible, therefore, to establish such County policy, based on an
approved public plan, that would sewer the certain areas for development but not provide
sewers to the areas that the plan established as properly open space. The plan would have to
demonstrate the advantages to outweigh the disadvantages in the general public interest.
A similar kind of policy decision would be possible at the state level, but is not
analysed here because of the special complications of inter -governmental relations.
Public Measures Requiring New Legislation
The expanded public powers which are necessary to provide an adequate kit of land
use controls range from modest alterations in existing laws to adoption of new concepts.
Passage of the former may be fairly routine, while extended education campaigns will be
necessary to promote the latter.
Regulation
View Protection Regulations. In 1966 the American Society of Planning Officials
[ 1 ] presented a report outlining steps taken by some cities to protect views of outstanding
topographical features. The report mentioned that some communities have been largely
indifferent and potential views have gone by default: "Hills have been leveled, civic
[.l ] ASPO, View Protection Regulations, Planning Advisory Service Report No. 213,
Chicago, 1966.
152
buildings have been hidden, monuments have been dwarfed, billboards have obscured
scenery, and high rise structures have been placed indiscriminately in the urban landscape.
In still other communities the process of urbanization has left few views worth protecting."
The report summarizes the experiences of a number of communities with the
proposed plans and developed zoning regulations to safeguard public and private views.
Information was obtained from questionnaires sent to 76 planning agencies representing 60
municipalities, 13 counties and 3 states. Eleven municipalities, 5 counties and 2 states were
found to have adopted or proposed regulations to protect views. Two municipalities
protected views through the control of signs and outdoor advertising, and two other
municipalities indicated that certain regulatory provisions operated indirectly to protect
views. Six cities have adopted or proposed regulations relating to environmental design
rather than view protection. A third state reported that recommendations for revisions of its
municipal planning and zoning enabling legislation included provisions for the protection of
views.
One way to accomplish such a program through zoning would be through the
overlay district process whereby more restrictive standards for certain areas than the
standard specified under the basic use districts would be applied especially through the
regulation of the height of buildings in certain scenic areas. In another instance, special
zoning districts have been created such as conservation, forest -recreation, open space,
agricultural and green belt districts. While these districts contribute indirectly to the
preservation of views and are more specifically designed for the preservation of open space
they do accomplish both purposes.
Both San Francisco and Seattle, concerned with the impact of development on the
cities' skylines, gives special attention to the location of high-rise apartment buildings which
create new view potentials while obstructing existing views. Other categories of view
protection are found in Cincinnati which is limited to the protection of panoramic views
from bluff areas in the city; Portland, Oregon and Fairfax County, Virginia control new
development in certain districts to protect views from adjacent residential districts and the
State of Vermont and Alameda County, California deal with the views from roads.
Oklahoma City has developed regulations to protect the view of one particular landmark or
monument, the visual approach to the monument is emphasized.
It may appear that such detailed regulations at this point in time are not
appropriate. However, continuing development over the landscape also continues the
obstruction of traditional views and disrupts the environment. Although such regulatory
devices may be essentially aesthetic they do affect the appearance and visual quality of the
human environment and human appreciation of views is reflected both in private property
values and the overall prestige of the community.
Access Control. Although both the County's Master Plan and the State Road
Commission's 20 year Capital Improvement Program proposed the reconstruction of Md.
Rt. 64 from Hagerstown to Smithsburg, the project is virtually impossible to accomplish
153
along the existing right of way. Development has occurred in such high density along this
right of way that the acquisition of additional land to the north and south of the existing
road would indeed wreak havoc on the established linear communities. It was well
documented earlier in this report that the continuing sales of lots along County and state
roads throughout the County creates traffic problems and decreases the capacity of roads
and thereby subverts their functions. It would appear that access controls should be
considered on these major thoroughfares through more intensive regulation of access to
them from bordering properties. The City of Hagerstown has an ordinance to regulate the
size and number of "curb cuts" on the street or any orie tract of land. Zoning and
subdivision regulations can provide for setbacks of buildings sufficient to allow future street
widening but some form of control is needed for continuous development on major
thoroughfares without the consideration of service roads which might run parallel to them.
If various tracts of land in the County which are now surrounded by County and
state road systems were developed in cluster form where fewer access points to the highways
were needed to serve a number of dwellings or another high intensity use, the present public
investment in these thoroughfares would be more likely to enjoy a longer term, work
toward the convenience of residents within these areas and surely increase safety factors.
It would seem that the State Roads Commission and the County Commissioners
might both consider access control regulations to limit access points on a mileage separation
basis depending upon the length of road between intersections.
Money Payment as Alternative to Land Dedication. One of the legislative changes
which should be simplest to obtain is an amendment to the statute which enables Anne
Arundel County to require a money payment in lieu of dedication of open space by
developers. Broader support for such an amendment might be obtained if it were applicable
to all Maryland counties. On the other hand, broader opposition might also be stirred up
among home builders who, often with good cause, mistrust such legislation.
Once the legislative change has been obtained, the County can amend its subdivision
regulations. The regulations will prove most helpful if the option between land and a money
payment rests with the County rather than with the developers. Since this is an area of the
law currently subject to litigation in other states, the County would be well advised to
provide detailed standards for dedication, covering how the amount of the money payment
is to be determined, relating the size of the dedication to the volume of the need generated
by the subdivision, and specifying a distance factor for location of the open space with
reference to- location of the development. Within these limitations, use of a money payment
alternative to required dedication can enable the County to acquire the fee or lesser interests
in land planned for public open space use. For instance, the money payment might finance
acquisition of scenic easements along roads leading to the development or acquisition of a
bridle trail right of way.
Shift in Level of Government Authorized to Regulate. In most urban areas, the need
is urgent to shift some of the allocations of power to regulate land use to other levels of
154
government. Transfer of certain regulatory powers to the state or to a regional public agency
may be desirable. State power to zone major highway interchanges, a state regulatory
program to control stream pollution, and state zoning of flood plains on major streams are
examples of state regulation which would influence land use.
Acquisition
Land Reserve System. This would include several kinds of land acquisition for both
public and private land use activity including:
1. Lands acquired in advance for specific public facilities such as highways,
libraries, schools and parks;
2. Lands acquired in advance for unspecified public facilities;
3. Lands acquired in advance for future resale or leaseback to the private sector for
specific land use activities such as planned new communities;
4. Lands acquired in advance for future resale or leaseback to the private sector for
land use activities which may or may not be identified at the time of purchase.
This concept can be viewed as an arrangement by which specific lands within the
jurisdiction are systematically purchased and set aside in advance by the public sector for
some future land use either public or private. This "advance" land acquisition usually refers
to land purchased more than two years before need. The reserve system can apply to a
limited land holding program, such as an industrial land reserve program similar to the
Interstate Industrial Park now being promoted in Washington County by quasi
public-private basis, and also to an extensive land holding program such as setting aside sites
earmarked for future planned new communities.
In Richmond, Virginia the advance acquisition program has, since 1949, aimed at
protecting sites for public facilities identified by the City Master Plan. In this program, the
city purchases the sites through a public real estate board before private property holders
make any improvements. Sites have been acquired in many cases ten years in advance of the
target date for public land activities thereby producing great land cost savings for the city.
The industrial land reserve program in Philadelphia, implemented by the
Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation (PIDC), a non-profit partnership of the
City of Philadelphia and the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce, began with about
2500 acres of city owned industrial land no longer needed for industrial purposes. Today
through a 19 million dollar industrial development fund, a revolving source of capital has
been provided by PIDC for the acquisition and development of 5,500 additional acres. This
method has assured a constant supply of new industrial sites at reasonable land cost to serve
future private industrial needs. At any given time the reserve's program is prepared to make
available approximately 1,000 acres of prime industrial tracts.
155
The Maryland Constitution clearly states that the use of eminent domain is allowed
to acquire lands for a public purpose. It does not state that "public purpose" means only a
public use. The state legislature in May, 1968 granted the Montgomery County Council the
authority to operate a limited land reserve system thereby transmitting this power of
interpretation by a statute to the counties.
be:
Some important benefits of the land reserve system for Washington County might
1. The capacity to lower the cost of the land input per unit of out -put of any
government service. These economic benefits include: appreciation in value of
land required; return on temporary use of land during the waiting period; the
beneficial effects on other public or private land use accruing from advance land
acquisition;
2. Social benefits whereby the land reserve system can accomplish objectives that
would be virtually impossible otherwise. A prime example would be
construction of low-income housing thereby reducing the number of economic
and political obstacles to effective planning in general and to land use planning
in particular.
There are doubtless many problems involved in considering such a system. For
example, public purpose needs to be defined, the problem of cost and site selection and
forecasting for actual use of the sites acquired. However, land for private development and
public facility improvements will not be as abundant a decade from now as it is today in
Washington County. The longer it takes to begin a reserve program the less feasible this
program will become.
One of the most important aspects of such a program would be the combination of
the acquisition of land for both industry and new community development as a package. If
the promotional program in Washington County is successful, prime land may be reserved,
making it attractive to potentially new industry with the provision of public support for
plans by industry for a combination of uses. It would seem appropriate, as we have stressed
throughout this report, to plan for not only the site for increased employment capacity but
also an immediate provision for the housing of new employees of future residents of the
County.
Eminent Domain for All Less -Than -Fee Open Space Acquisitions. Currently, use of
the power of eminent domain for less -than -fee open space acquisitions is limited to state
acquisitions for parks, forests, or recreation. Of course, recreation can be interpreted very
broadly, but the success of any state or county less -than -fee acquisition program would be
further enhanced by amending the existing "development rights" law [ 1 ] to include the
[ 1 ] 66C Annotated Code of Maryland 357A.
156
power of eminent domain. At present a scenic easement program or a program for securing
public rights of way to bodies of water could founder for lack of the power of eminent
domain.
States and local governments with less -than -fee open space acquisition programs
have found lack of the power of eminent domain a considerable handicap. California, for
instance, is experiencing difficulty in some areas in acquiring rights of way for its hiking and
riding trail. Initiation and securement of passage of an amendment to the existing
legislation, would augment the state's and county's powers to acquire interests in land for
open space purposes. These increased powers could be used in the County's easement, right
of way, and lease programs to conserve private open space for public enjoyment.
Excess Condemnation. Other than the state's power to acquire land to protect
highways or their scenery, Maryland governments lack the power to acquire extra buffer
areas to protect public acquisitions. Extending the power of excess condemnation to state
and County agencies acquiring land for such purposes as highways, parks, reservoirs, and
public institutions would make it possible to assure compatible uses of land surrounding
these public areas. The excess condemnation could take the form of fee acquisition followed
by sale or lease with use restriction or of less -than -fee acquisition of interests which would
satisfactorily limit land use.
Excess condemnation might be used to secure preservation of a vernal environment
about a community college campus or other public institutions, a publicly constructed lake
and/or reservoir, or a public park or nature preserve. In this fashion, additional portions of
the land use plans for the County could be realized. Therefore, it would be useful to the
state and counties for acquisitions for recreation, conservation, highways, or public
institutions.
The Land Use Map of Washington County indicates a number of scattered holdings
by the State Roads Commission resulting from excess condemnation for the construction of
Interstate Routes 81 and 70. Through the application of highway interchange districts,
perhaps some form of swapping of these lands, either through private -public negotiation or
using the medium of a land bank could be instituted making productive and economic use
of these properties where it is properly indicated. The possible sale of these tracts for private
development and the earmarking of monies received through these sales for the acquisition
of additional watershed areas in the mountains for either the Hagerstown forest or the
Appalachian Trail program might be considered.
Public Development Corporations. Although a land bank has been proposed, a
vehicle must be established for it to operate. The simplest means for executing a
development plan which would produce a development pattern substantially different than
that produced by market forces would be through a public development corporation. This
statement does not imply, however, that enabling legislation for public development
corporations would be simple to obtain. In looking at the range of possible new legislation,
that which would be the most efficacious also would demand the most intensive educational
157
campaign, largely because it poses the greatest shift in methods of controlling land use.
The public development corporation could be empowered to acquire land, by
eminent domain if necessary, to control development. Development would be required to be
in accord with a publicly adopted comprehensive plan. The public development corporation
could execute the plan in one of several ways: (1) it could carry out all development itself,
selling or leasing developed land and open land for use in accord with the plan; (2) it could
install roads and utilities and then sell or lease land for development or open space use in
accord with the plan; (3) it could act solely as a land assembler, selling or leasing land for
improvement and development or opep space in accord with the plan. Financing
arrangements for the corporation would vary with the type of operation, since the
expectation of corporate profit, and the need for public financing, would turn upon the
extent to which the corporation engaged in development.
The logical starting point for communicating the concept of the public development
corporation, is the urban renewal program. Urban renewal incorporates the concept of a
public authority enabled to acquire land and to control its future use through restrictions on
those purchasing from the authority for redevelopment. In addition, precedents in Europe
and Puerto Rico and the legislative proposals of the Federal Housing and Home Finance
Agency, the Urban Renewal Administration, and California can be used to illustrate possible
formats for a program in Maryland.
The public development corporation would be an excellent mechanism for executing
the proposed plan. The difficult problems of compensation and betterment, which must
otherwise be tackled through less -than -fee acquisition, compensable regulations, preferential
assessment and deferral, and capital gains tax, or through the private real estate syndicate,
can be resolved through an areawide public taking and resale. Since the property of all in the
area is taken simultaneously, all receive compensation computed on a comparable basis.
Land to be restricted to open space uses can be resold, subject to restrictions., for a price
which may be below that paid the prior owner, depending upon whether development value
has already accrued. Losses sustained in this manner may be balanced by sales for or
following development.
The public development corporation is a mechanism of land use control which
merits detailed exploration and support. It probably cannot be brought into being in the
immediate future and therefore should be thought of for later use as a replacement for more
immediately available control measures.
Possible Operation in the Antietam Watershed
Rather than for Boonsboro to annex the land which it now owns to the northwest
of the town containing the sewage treatment facilities, it is recommended that:
1. The development corporation purchase this land for development of a
residential neighborhood in the town.
158
2. That the corporation hold this land in the town's interest for sale to a single .
developer subject to a specific program for community development.
3. In addition, the corporation would purchase acreage within the boundary of the
existing town for the purpose of expanding commercial activities.
4. In addition, the corporation would develop a certain percentage of the newly
acquired tract as an employment center.
5. The corporation will be prepared to donate land for an additional school and
needed health facilities for the Boonsboro, Keedysville and Sharpsburg area.
To accomplish this a marketing strategy must be developed and implemented and in
all liklihood it should be done through local realtors. In addition, the site of the industrial
park should be carefully selected and developed concentrating not only upon the present
but also upon future developments with respect to transportation routes and accessibility.
Appropriate services and utilities are now available and this factor should present no
particular problem.
Such a program should be developed in the context of countywide needs and
aspirations and specifically within the context of the sector plan and program. As stated
earlier, the Antietam area holds most of the planned elements within its boundaries which
have been proposed for the County as a whole, the problems and opportunities of mountain
slopes and summits, the preservation of flood plain areas, the construction of multi-purpose
water facilities, the prospects for improved highway access, land owned by the city with
utility service available, proposals for industrial location and a mine set that would permit
such use of land, and if such development were successful the need for additional
residential, commercial and recreational opportunities.
In pursuing this process, Boonsboro would not be competing dramatically with
Hagerstown in any way. In fact, it is conceivable that Hagerstown too, on a larger scale,
could begin the same process in the context of its own plan or where modifications are
needed.
Taxation
Public measures requiring new legislation considered here include taxing powers in
three forms: a state capital gains tax on land sales; redistribution of taxing powers; and
special assessment or conservation districts.
State Capital Gain Tax on Land Sales. A proposal enjoying some current favor is
that a capital gain tax be levied on land transfers to capture part of publicly created
development profits and use them to pay for public improvements necessitated by
community growth. This has been referred to above in the considering of the development
value of land. The idea has initial appeal, but it poses a number of difficulties, both legal and
159
conceptual. It would be advisable to examine these difficulties before deciding whether to
proceed with a legislative proposal and, if a proposal seems desirable, before selecting the
terms of the proposal.
The Theory in Brief: Development, particularly residential development, places great
financial burdens on local governments, which must provide schools, sewers, water, parks,
and roads to serve the development. Large profits are made from development by sellers and
developers of open land. Therefore, it is only fair that a portion of these profits be skimmed
off by the public to pay part of the cost of these new public facilities.
This theory raises two questions for comment here. The first is whether such a tax
would constitute an abandonment of the principle of taxing according to the means of those
taxed in favor of taxing in direct relation to the services provided. If the capital gain tax on
land development is such a change in tax principle, is it a desirable change? The second
question, closely linked to the first, is whether this form of taxation would capture a
portion of the land development profits. If a capital gain tax is imposed on land sales, how
much of the tax is likely to be borne by the land sellers and developers, and how much will
be passed on to home purchasers? It seems reasonable to assume that developers will pass on
as much of the tax as the market will bear, either in the form of cheaper construction for
the same selling price or the same construction with a higher price tag. To the extent that
the ultimate purchaser pays the tax, it is a regressive one. Whether a capital gain tax on land
sales is to be imposed should not be decided without an exposition of who would bear what
proportion of the tax. This breakdown should then be related to the type of services .to be
paid for by the tax and the matter of whether these services are to be enjoyed solely by the
occupants of the land supporting them, by other landholders in the taxing jurisdiction, or
by the public at large. It would be an extreme reversal of principle to tax only newly
developed land to provide a park open to and used by the general public, but might this be
one source of revenue for such a park?
The Appropriate Taxing Body: Assuming that it is decided that a capital gain tax on
land transfers may be a desirable form of financing a portion of the cost of some public
improvements among the subsidiary questions is what level of government should administer
the tax. Various proposals have advocated (a) an additional federal capital gains tax on land,
with the proceeds employed for open space acquisition in the areas from which the revenues
are derived, (b) a state capital gains tax on land with the proceeds either spent by the state
or returned to urban communities to provide public facilities, or (c) a local capital gains tax
on land with the proceeds spent locally. The idea of a special federal capital gains tax is
rejected without further discussion: it would be cumbersome, politically awkward, legally
problematic, and could not be readily tailored to the needs of one state or one urban area.
In Maryland, as between the state and the County, it would appear better for the state to
impose such a tax. The public costs of land development may well not be confined within
the boundaries of one County. Reservoirs may be built and paid for by the state or by a
regional authority. Open space for recreation may not be available in the County where
development occurs. If the County levies the tax, it will be the unit of government which
spends the revenues, yet the County would be limited in its power to acquire land outside
160
its border for community facilities and may have insufficient land available within its
borders. If the state levies the tax, greater flexibility in allocation of revenues would be
possible.
Transactions Subject to Taxation: Since one is seeking to recover a portion of the
cost of public facilities required to serve new development, logically the tax might be
imposed only on land going into more intensive use. Yet how is one to identify and classify
such land, and would the classification be a reasonable one from a constitutional
viewpoint? [ 1 ]
The least troublesome system, both legally and administratively, would be to impose
the tax on all land transfers. However, the tax is then paid by all .persons selling at a gain
over the basis, whether or not a more intensive use of land results. Should the seller of a
single house, purchased for a pittance in 1934, pay a substantial capital gain tax even though
his vendee continues single family usage of the premises? One proposal approaches this
problem by using as the basis for determing gain not the purchase price but the assessment
in effect at the time of sale. This is not satisfactory because it assumes underassessment and
then gives the land owner the possibility of getting his assessment raised in contemplation of
sale so as to avoid the tax.
If one rejects application of the tax to all transfers and assumes for the moment that
the constitutional uniformity problem can be resolved, how can the transfers which will
result in more intensive use be identified and subjected to the tax? Taxation limited to land
zoned for use more intensive than that existing clearly won't do, since many transfers occur
in contemplation of a zoning change to permit more intensive use. In addition, many urban
fringe sales occur in unzoned areas.
It would be possible to apply the tax only to land which had been developed for
more intensive use during the seller's term of ownership by following a similar procedure to
that developed for compensable regulations. A special assessment of all land would be made
at the time the capital gain tax becomes effective. This special assessment would serve as the
basis for computation of the tax, much. as the owner's guarantee serves as the basis for
computing compensation under compensable regulations. When any land was sold, the seller
would be required to file a statement indicating whether there had been an increase in
intensity of use during the period of his ownership. Land subdivision records and building
permits would be sources of evidence for checking the accuracy of the statement. Sellers of
all land which had been subject to an increase of intensity in use during the seller's tenure
would be liable for payment of a capital gains tax. The tax would be computed on the
difference between the special assessment, allocated if necessary to plots in a subdivision,
and the sale price. On subsequent sales of land on which a capital gain tax had previously
been paid, the basis for computation would be the difference between the selling price less
[ 1 ] Maryland Constitution, Art. 15: " . . .The General Assembly shall, by uniform rules,
provide for the separate assessment, classification and sub -classification of land ...".
161
the total gain from prior sales attributable to more intensive use, and the special assessment.
Thus, if the special assessment was for $10,000, sale A following more intensive use was for
$15,000, and sale B following still more intensive use was for $18,000, to compute the
amount subject to taxation following sale B one would take the following steps: (1) subtract
from $18,000 the total gain from prior sales, here $5,000; (2) subtract from the $13,000
remainder the special assessment, here $10,000. Thus $3,000 is the amount on which a
capital gain tax is payable following sale B.
Use of Tax Revenues: The subject under discussion is not a general revenue measure
but a tax imposed to cover some of the public costs arising from the specific circumstance
of development. Which public costs might appropriately be covered by this tax? Sewers,
water open space, fire and police, libraries, and schools are the principal public services
needed as a by-product of development, with the need varying according to the nature and
intensity of development. These public services have both capital and operating costs and
are customarily financed by a range of methods including public indentures, authority
bonds, general tax revenues, user charges, and subdivision charges. Would a capital gains tax
be a useful additional or alternative means of financing some of these services? It would
provide "cheaper" money to the public community than revenue bond financing, which in
turn is cheaper than authority bond financing, though to the extent that the tax is passed on
from developer to home owner, the latter will be carrying the cost of the tax in the form of
a larger mortgage. Sewers and water are usually paid for by a combination of three charges:
(a) the developer installs and pays for lines within his subdivision and connects with the
main systems, (b) the builder of the system, either a local government, an authority, or a
public utility, issues bonds to cover construction costs and pays off these bonds from user
charges, and (c) operating costs are also paid from user charges. By custom, these services
are now paid for by developers and users, with a tie between volume of use and the charge.
Therefore, the basic principle here of imposing more of the cost of new public services on
those creating the need is already being met for sewer and water service.
Public open space is currently obtained through dedication by subdividers and by
purchase, either from general revenues or by bond financing. User charges are not
customarily employed, and are suitable for the most part, only for active recreation areas.
Since open space obtained by dedication should bear a demonstrable relationship to the
subdivision paying for it, not all needed open space can be obtained in this manner. Could
capital gain tax revenues, levied to provide facilities purportedly needed as a result of
development, be used to buy this additional open space? Possibly it can be said that there is
a general open space need, not allocable to any particular subdivision, arising from
development and payable from these revenues. This is the argument which would be made
in attempting to allocate capital gains tax revenue to acquisition, development and
maintenance of non -neighborhood open space. Because police, fire, libraries, and schools are
traditionally paid for on an ad valorem tax base rather than a user base, the safest in -road
for a new user oriented tax would be open space, and therefore it is suggested that use of
the capital gain tax revenues be limited to open space in the initial legislation.
Special Assessment Districts. Special assessment districts are in widespread use,
162
usually to enable communities to provide services otherwise beyond their statutory financial
capacity or to provide special facilities for a limited portion of the community. A number of
municipalities are using special assessment districts to finance open space, taxing residents of
the district for acquisition and maintenance costs and limiting use of the open space to
district residents. Drawbacks to the special assessment district are that it adds to the
fragmentation of local government and that services provided in this fashion, tend to be
more costly than those financed directly by local government.
Nonetheless, the special assessment district might prove advantageous. In a county
with as diverse public open space needs as Washington County, residents of the urban
section of the County might support a program to provide them with public open space for
their neighborhood while other residents of the County might think such a program
unnecessary. Therefore, a district might be created encompassing only a portion of the
County and the residents of this district could vote to fix a mileage rate to provide funds to
acquire and maintain open space for use of district residents. Elsewhere, developers have
dedicated open space to special assessment districts and district funds have been applied to
development and maintenance.
Some proposals for the levy of special benefit assessments have been proposed in
Washington County for the purpose of providing the construction, reconstruction of roads,
bridges, streets, and gutters with storm drainage incident to such construction or
improvement and to construct, maintain and operate storm drainage systems for the control
and disposition of surface waters within the County.
Doubtless this proposal stems primarily from the fact that in the major post-war
construction, era, without subdivision regulations, many roads within private subdivisions
and flood control drainage projects were not accomplished because of the lack of
regulations and now, at this point in time, the results of this lack of concern is evidenced in
severe flooding problems within residential areas and inadequacies of certain private streets
and roads. To accommodate these problems now will require a tremendous public
investment. It would be appropriate at this time in light of the adoption of the plan to
consider such regulations.
Private Measures Possible Under Existing Legislation
Over 25% of the total land area of Washington County is presently in private
recreation use. The County is generously endowed with natural features that lend
themselves to this type of activity. Because of the well established organizations throughout
the County, and with a parallel program of public use and continuing acquisition of
recreational sites, little need be said here about the establishment of the need to preserve
natural resources in the private sector. However, while public and private programs to
preserve open areas in the County continue potential interruptions to these programs may
be imminent. There are several large areas of the County now held by mining firms. The
proposed zoning ordinance attempts to develop beginning regulations so that the firms can
proceed to exploit, with controls, their economic resources. However, a very serious
163
situation can develop if such areas that are mined are not properly reclaimed. Mining
operations have improved to the point where natural resources are continuously preserved
during the actual process and reclamation is simplified thereby. However, it would seem that
continuing research into methods of the preservation of resources is needed on the part of
the industry itself and some additional public regulation may also be required.
Private Planning Actions. Experience indicates that natural resource preservation
groups can be an important adjunct to other methods of plan execution through private
acquisition of land or of development rights for the purpose of withdrawing land from the
development market. Since they operate without public cost to preserve open land and
often protect the immediate environment of adjacent public lands in the same use, they
should be employed in the County on a larger scale.
Private action to implement a plan for land development has several recent
precedents, successful as far as development has taken place. All of the illustrations,
however, are development of new communities or towns by a developer either in the
business or real estate development or organized for this purpose to develop a particular site.
Reston, Virginia and High Meadow, Valley Green and Skyline Forest, Monterey County,
California are examples of new communities being built by development corporations
without a publicly endorsed plan as a basis for the location and type of development.
Whether or not this new town or new community development implements a land use plan,
there is a common feature which must not be overlooked: the developer was able to acquire
a vast tract of land without recourse to the public power of eminent domain for land
assembly. Reston, for example, includes 6,800, acres, previously all in single ownership.
Organization of property owners throughout a large sector of an urban fringe area
for the purpose of land development in accord with the plan has won direct precedent in the
United States and it exists in Baltimore County. The Valleys Planning Council, was formed
by a group of residents of the 75 square mile area of the Green Spring, Caves and
Worthington Valleys area of Baltimore County. A plan was developed and a full time
implementation program has been in effect since 1964. To date, this effort has been
successful in coordinating the plans of private developers, landowners and to a large extent
directing public policy toward the implementation of the proposed plan which was adopted
by both County and Regional agencies some years ago.
It is inconceivable that this form of citizen activity could begin in Washington
County through the establishment of planning sectors whereby plans for these sectors, using
the overall general plan as a guide, could be developed with private and public funds.
Perhaps the area with the highest potential for accomplishing this at the moment would be
the Little Antietam watershed area which has already experienced considerable
public-private coordination and has, throughout this report, been recommended for
preliminary consideration as an established planning sector by the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
The problem facing private, large scale plan effectuation is preparation of a
164
sufficiently enticing scheme to obtain the voluntary participation of major landowners.
Particularly for those who react negatively to extension of government control of land use,
this represents an extraordinary opportunity to demonstrate whether private citizens can,
on a voluntary basis, achieve a form of land use representative of a majority consensus
among the residents of an area.
The Real Estate Syndicate. Central to the proposals in the Plan For The Valleys in
Baltimore County is the establishment of a real estate syndicate which would operate
throughout the area in acquiring land for development and also in preserving in perpetuity
certain natural areas as regional open space. The central proposal was that the landowners of
the Valleys act in concert through a private organization, the Real Estate Syndicate. The
syndicate would consist of a general partnership in either sub -partnerships or joint ventures.
The general partners are few in number, exercise joint control over investment in property
management, and are individually liable for partnership obligations.
The syndicate would have a twofold purpose: (a) to control the timing and location
of development in the Valleys; and (b) to secure an equitable distribution of the profits of
development. The former would be accomplished by acquisition of property interests in
selected land in the Valleys and laws, followed by development of appropriate land by the
Syndicate or by vendees of the Syndicate on the plateau or upland areas which would be
more suitable for development purposes. It was proposed that public and private powers be
joined in a process of preservation, compensation and development, both necessary and
sufficient to implement the plan.
It appears at this time that the originally proposed large scale syndicate will not be
successful, at least not for the present. However, because of the thrust of new development
and the wish to retain natural amenity in this area, several landowners in Baltimore County
controlling four to five thousand acres of land are discussing the possibilities of forming
small area syndicates to accomplish the purposes spelled out in the plan. This is indeed
possible, it would assure development under the original proposal, and effectively
coordinate County operations with respect to the extension of sewers, construction of roads
and acquisition of sites for community facilities. Great savings to the County would accrue
through this process and it now appears that such a process will begin.
The Conservation Trust. A private, non profit organization established to acquire
open land and to guarantee its retention. Such a trust could receive gifts of land and/or
development rights, and act as a central management organization for land use in common
or owned by a home association. Property interests donated to secure permanent open space
would include the fee, fee subject to a life estate, fee subject to a reversion on failure.to use
for the stated open space purposes, easements for conservation and recreation purposes, and
covenants to preserve open space character. Persons anxious to make a gift of interest in
their land, possibly because of the desire to receive a charitable deduction from their income
for purposes of a federal income tax, could take advantage of the trust for this purpose.
Those who wish to receive compensation in return for an assurance that their land would
remain in permanent open space use might be offered a choice of alternatives, both as to
165
property interest to be relinquished in method of compensation. The Real Estate Syndicate
could offer to buy the fee, fee subject to a life estate, a first refusal on the fee, or a
conservation easement or other less -than -fee acquisition which would restrict use of the land
in accord with the plan. From the syndicate's point of view, the fee would be preferable
where land values are still comparatively low. Land acquired in fee could be sold by the
syndicate subject to restrictions on use in accord with the plan. The payment to property
owners would be in cash or interest in the syndicate, at their option.
Multi -Lateral Voluntary Agreements. It is possible that many owners of large tracts
of land, whether their primary interest is in farming or in simply conservation of the land,
are willing to enter into voluntary agreements for a short term to restrict their land from
development, subject to certain future conditions. Such a device is recommended for
Washington County where groups of property owners whose lands are contiguous would
agree not to develop their properties over a set period of years whether utilities would be
available or not. This would indicate to government that public investment might be better
spent elsewhere to accommodate existing problems as opposed to the extension of the
utilities into areas where development is not desired.
The Hartford Process. In the summer of 1970 a group of Hartford, Connecticut
businessmen "recognizing that it was not possible for business to take the place of
government and in an attempt to pull together the business community to create a strong
partner for the government effort, created the Hartford Process which was underwritten by
the American City Corporation, a subsidiary to the Rouse Company". The purpose of the
organization was to create a community development corporation, a dependable, public
oriented developer large enough to carry through major development programs. A kind of
"public utility in real estate". Its immediate aims were to acquire and then develop land and
to create new communities.
The Hartford Process might possibly sketch detailed plans for rebuilding a section of
the ghetto of the city while constructing a model of cost of financing such a project. It
might also measure the hidden cost of inadequate career program in the schools as they
cropped up in terms of welfare, manpower training and crime. It might also explore the
possibility of using non-professionals for simple police and health work.
In addition a peoples' forum was established a council of citizens who are normally
left out of consultation, planning and policy making.
Plans to approach the problems of urbanization in Washington County and
especially in the City of Hagerstown have been stunted due to the continuing day-to-day
need to overcome the city's economic problems. There is no doubt that the scale of
problems in Hagerstown are not as great as those in Hartford, Connecticut nor will some of
the solutions in the latter city be of value to this area. It might be well to "tap -in" to the
process to see what applications may be appropriate for this area. Hartford also suffers from
a decline in the activities of the defense industry as does Hagerstown and the resultant
effects filter through the balance of the economy.
166
Hagerstown has been hard put to decide on the adoption of a planning program even
though a plan has been prepared. Private efforts of cooperation have been difficult to
achieve.
It is recommended that a consortium of major industry and citizens be established
to implement City and County Plans.
167
168
PART 9
FOUR OBSERVATIONS ON FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
In essence, four major areas of concern have been expressed thus far: the
consideration of the potential for New Communities, the development of the County's
Recreational Potential, the concern over continuing Annexation and a sensitive policy
regarding the development of Rural Areas.
A Case for New Communities
The New Town Movement had its beginnings at the end of the 19th century. The
Garden Cities Movement is attributed to Ebenezer Howard in his work, Garden Cities of
Tomorrow. A slim volume but forceful enough to have begun an international movement
which has resulted in a formulation of new town policies in several countries.
Until recently, a new town strategy based upon the construction of.new settlements
was not developed. However, the "greenbelt towns" of the 1930's constitute the most
concerted attempt to realize some of the planning principles and concepts advocated by the
new towns of the Garden Cities Movement. For example, as in the case of the "atomic
communities", the federal government was directly involved in the site selection, planning
and development in communities like Norris, Tennessee. Other communities, such as
Radburn, New Jersey were almost completely private efforts to implement the New Town
idea. The development of these communities was connected with some type of special
purpose, ranging from the development of dams and atomic bombs to demonstrations of
planning and land development principles. Almost all new town and new town -like
development today is related almost exclusively to the phenomenon of suburb anization. For
example, the Levittowns and Park Forest emerged within the communing orbits of large
metropolitan centers immediately following World War II. These were among the first
attempts at large-scale development and merchandising by private development
corporations.
The definition of a New Town is quite broad and there does not appear to be any
widely accepted definition of just what constitutes a New Town. Definitions range from the
very general to rather specific descriptions. A number of subjective elements may be found
in definitions which compound the problem of understanding, such as
"socially-balanced","self-sufficient", or "innovative".
Some claim that New Towns can be employed to conserve our land resources,
provide for social experimentation, and allow new design and land use planning and
development concepts to be employed free of the constraints of existing development
patterns. On a larger scale, the New Town idea is offered as an answer to sprawling urban
developmerit. It is also believed that since population projections indicate that the nation
will need to double its present urban stock, a significant amount of this development should
take place in the form of New Communities, thereby relieving pressures from existing
169
metropolitan centers. The case is also made that the New Town provides a somewhat
constraint -free situation to which might be applied the spin-off of aerospace technology,
such as the systems approach. Arguments related to defense from nuclear attack appear to
have faded quickly although some recent research on optimal patterns was commissioned by
the Department of Defense in recent years.
In general, the New Town idea offers a clean slate for the planner to implement his
concepts and designs, which obviously invites the application of a variety of innovative ideas
that would be difficult to apply in existing urban areas.
The New Town concept cannot be employed to its full potentials and embrace
certain public objectives without the involvement of government as principal or assistant to
the process. The variety of opinion holds that the New Town concept can be employed to:
form the basis for national urbanization policies; institute state programs; fight urban
sprawl; decentralize metropolitan regions for defense purposes; help minorities find homes
and jobs outside urban ghettos; or improve inner city areas; preserve open space; and
implement bold innovations in urban planning and technology. Some proposals envision
significant changes in land use controls and public control of private development. In
general, the arguments contain the reasoning that New Towns offer the advantage of a
strategy which appears to coalesce a number of generally accepted public objectives and
programs ranging from urban renewal and mass transit to open space preservation and even
civil defense.
Two regional planning agencies within the Maryland area have proposed New Towns
within the last ten years; Metro Towns for the Baltimore Region by the Baltimore Regional
Planning Council; and, The Nation's Capital - A Plan for the Year 2000 proposed by the
National Capital Planning Commission in 1961. Local planning agencies within the area of
jurisdiction of both the Baltimore and Washington regional groups have implemented, to
some extent, earlier proposals for New Towns. The Town of Columbia, Maryland, which
falls between both the Baltimore and Washington region, was established on the basis of its
creating its own market and did not necessarily result from a public planning effort.
Private New Towns are an outgrowth of trends. The general growth of urban regions
is at the roots as in the Baltimore Washington case above, but the automobile, rise in
income, decentralization of economic activity, availability of credit, growth in scale of real
estate corporations, flexible land use controls, the availability of large parcels of land in
single ownership, the highway program, and a variety of other factors are more specific
reasons. There has also been significant interest in New Towns by corporations whose major
operations are not directly connected with urban land development.
The basic dilemma for developers in private New Town development appears to be
the relationship between the size and location of the project, the financing and the rate of
sales. If, for example, the developer opts for a large project he is usually forced to look
further into the metropolitan hinder land for large size land holdings. Virtually all New
Town projects, with the most notably exception being Columbia, Maryland are being built
170
4
on land under single ownership or control. (In the Columbia venture, close to 100 separate
parcels of. land totaling 12,000 acres were quietly assembled for the implementation of that
project). Although he may find the land cheaper and might realize other economies owing
to the size of the project, the developer may be incurring risks related to the lack of public
facilities in the area that will slow the development of the project. Too, adequate access is
often non-existent where an appropriate site is available. A too slow rate of sale, given the
heavy rate of investment in land and facilities, can be disastrous financially. On the other
hand, land closer to the metropolitan center will tend to be more expensive and less
available than sizeable parcels under single ownership.
There are many sites in Washington County which qualify both economically and
from a design point of view but if the rate of growth of the County consonant with the
more conservative projections made in this report, it is doubtful that a private developer or
one combining public and private funds, could develop an interest in such a development.
Therefore, a combined program of promoting new employment centers and new town
growth is essential.
There are generally four alternative public roles in the development of New Towns:
1. Extensive public direction and control, similar to the British programs, in which
the central government exercises the initiative for the development and follows
it through with complete control over the project throughout the building stage.
2. Indirect public involvement. The New Communities Act cited in Section 8
above is a federal response to the initiative taken by private developers in this
country toward building New Towns. The legislation casts government in the
position of assistant rather than principal in the initiation, planning and
development process.
3. Other government assistance includes mortgage insurance for land development
of "new subdivisions" and "new communities". In 1965 the provision for new
subdivisions was enacted and the New Communities Program did not emerge
until 1966 and has since been amended, again, as discussed earlier.
4. Public-private partnership for the development of new communities were
provided for in Congressional Housing Bills in 1965, 1966, and 1967 where
state land development agencies were proposed and this evidentally flowed from
earlier urban legislation. The rationale for such a program appears to be that this
type of program would place initiative in planning for development in the hands
of a public agency, thereby overcoming two of the basic weaknesses of the new
communities program. This type of program was proposed for California in
1962 but the only state presently with a chartered agency empowered to
develop New Towns in New York. Several moves have been made in the
Maryland legislature to create a form of a land development agency but were
either enacted and defeated through referendum or failed to pass the legislative
vote.
171
In Washington County there is obviously a strong preference for home ownership
and it appears that this demand will continue. However, the increased demand for housing
from lower and middle income families is not presently being met by the standard
single-family structure but by mobile homes. A number of problems arise from this type of
development, principally the lack of public water supply and sewage disposal services.
However, there is a potential for growth here and the supply of conventionally built housing
for lower and medium income is less than adequate. As new industries move into, the
County with a high percentage of middle income payrolls the resultant demand for housing
that such income levels can generate will increase. Obviously, the least expensive method of
providing cheap housing quickly, the mobile home, will become increasingly more popular.
It would seem that a detailed analysis of the potential of new communities which can meet
not only high and low and medium income housing in an economic mix of development but
can also provide for necessary community facilities should be of prime concern to the
Planning and Zoning Commission and its staff.
The Plan suggests four alternative sites for new community development which are
related to site selection criteria of water supply, sewer service, the potential impoundment
of dams and creation of lakes, surface and sub -surface conditions, the possibility of
additional school construction and other community facilities and present and proposed
access by urban boulevard or expressways. In selecting sites for new communities it is
important to consider that current problems of utility service and highway development
must be met at the same time creating a potential for New Town development. In each of
the proposed alternative sites in the Plan, this criteria has been rigidly adhered to ...they
fall within an area that will, within the next five to fifteen years be provided with utility
service and where existing highway service is adequate or proposed facilities will in all
probability be provided.
Potential for Recreational Development
Simply stated, the second -home market can be divided into two areas of
development, the cabin and lot market where land with few improvements is sold in
highland areas or areas in mountains or near lakes or along the river in Washington County
where a developer is involved on a short-term basis, normally four to five years with a
reasonable profit. Usually this market contains lower priced cabins, trailers and cottages for
vacation use. According to a census study in 1967, three out of every five second homes
located in this country were considered vacation homes by their owners. The second type is
usually composed of large, well planned developments where medium to high priced housing
is the norm. Such housing could be used for vacation or second homes or permanent year
round retirement homes. Usually this type of development will be found, as in the earlier
case, near lakes and mountains and is especially popular on the Atlantic East Coast in
Florida near large metropolitan areas.
In contrast, an artifically created environment, at a reasonable cost, within two or
three hours driving time from large metropolitan areas also holds promise. Washington
County is within an hour and a half driving time of Baltimore and Washington and the area
could undoubtedly attract the second home or retirement home buyer.
172
The combination of several forms of recreation increase a development's marketing
potential and a balanced combination of recreational activities insures year round
desirability. It is not inconceivable that certain areas on the Washington County side of
South Mountain have potential for skiing activity, impoundment and lake construction
taking advantage of rapid mountain water run-off and, in addition, offer unlimited hunting,
wildlife and passive recreational activities.
In Maryland, most skiing activity is conducted in Garrett County, approximately
two hours drive to the west. Various recreational -ski resorts within a hundred mile radius of
Washington County have not been too successful due to unpredictable weather conditions.
It would seem, however, that this potential should be explored, especially in the
northeastern section of the County and hence the proposal of an alternative recreational
community in this area combining mountains, lakes and other forms of environmental
enjoyment. Successful resorts can be built in totally undeveloped and little known areas.
High standards of construction, conservation and development are possible and comfortable
accommodations in places of charm and beauty are much in demand. An economic aspect
of such development is the utilization of local labor forces to provide heretofore unknown
jobs in the secondary services market.
The two proposals for recreational communities in the northeast and the other near
Fort Frederick could establish oases with accommodations running the full spectrum from
low rate camping and other inexpensive accommodations to luxury quality, convention and
education oriented resorts - the linking of business incentives with the policy of
development and conservation.
Annexation
Growth areas have been allocated adjacent to the existing municipalities in the plan.
Heretofore, growth beyond the town limits has been accomplished to a great extent in
Washington County through the annexation process. It would seem appropriate at this point
to discuss this extremely important aspect of the County's future, especially if new growth
is expected occur in this manner.
Annexation is the process by which usually contiguous territory is added to an
existing municipality. Considerable acreage has been added to Hagerstown, Williamsport and
Funkstown through this process and the municipalities have, accordingly, gained control
over developing territories on their periphery. Annexation here employs the popular
determination method, or voter approval with a minimum of judicial or non judicial review.
Since none of the present municipalities are involved in formal long range planning
programs, the usual preliminary studies of the future use of land, population densities,
required services to support a future population, investment and operating costs in these
services are not sufficiently done. Apparently, the only major requirement is that services
must be extended to the annexed area as a condition to annexation. This raises the question
of timing. To extend services prior to annexation may reduce interest in annexation, and
173
municipal plans for extensions subsequent to annexation may not always meet the statutory
requirements. Then again, a municipality may have a very low public service level, with the
result that annexation may have depressed rather than enhanced the quality of government
in •the annexed area.
Land that is annexed by county towns through the legal process are no longer
subject to the County's land use regulations (currently the subdivision ordinance) since this
County has no jurisdiction within municipalities. This is often quite advantageous to the
speculator who acquired a tract of land adjacent to a (own and then petitions ...as a
majority of one ...for his holdings to be annexed to the town. The resultant development
quite often works against the town's present environment and results in a quick -profit to the
investor and a continuing headache for government. Criteria needed to determine when an
adjacent area is "ready" for an urban form of government is a matter of disagreement. In
addition, the cost -benefit calculation ...whether the area annexed can raise sufficient
revenues to pay its way for services and capital investments ...is often not clear. If costs
incurred in the annexed area are attributed to that area, rather than apply that area's share
of expense of total community cost, a revenue surplus might "be produced. Such an
accounting ignores the burden to the community at large.
Four courses of action may be considered, one or several of which may represent
fact rather than conjecture in recent decisions by county municipalities: if the city or town
takes no action little vacant land remains within their boundaries and the demand for land
with city services will use up this land within a few years. Developed areas begin to age,
values decline and decreasing tax resources and continuing service demands result in either
higher taxes or a lower quality of services. Unless city water and sewers are provided,
suburban residential development will have to take place on larger lots which in turn tend to
increase housing costs.
The overall probable effect of taking no action causes a decline in the continued
healthy growth throughout the area to the point of its being permanently damaged.
Eventually, a planned program of growth must be embarked upon. Municipalities that
follow this course merely postpone the day of reckoning.
A second course of action concerns the annexation of areas which can pay for
themselves and would therefore return sufficient revenues. Usually, most of the land coming
into the city would be developed land. Little vacant land remains in the city and in the
adoption of this policy, the city would be taking the chance that land needed for future
industrial development is not taken up with other less appropriate uses. If annexation is
delayed until they are fully developed, and in the absence of any land use control in the
suburban area, additional costs will be incurred to straighten out faulty street patterns,
replace inadequate water lines and sewage disposal facilities and install storm drains.
The city will continue to grow under this decision. The time will come, however,
when it is ringed about with unhealthful, unattractive suburbs which detract from its
reputation. Vacant industrial land may be unwisely developed, undermining the future
174
economic well-being of the city in the metropolitan area. If a policy of annexing only those
areas which will pay for themselves is combined with a policy of selling services outside the
city, any increment for annexation will have been removed. Once all vacant land is gone in
the city, the city will have great difficulty in annexing outside areas, because those areas will
have the services they want.
In following the course of annexing areas having prospective need for municipal
services would bring both developed and undeveloped areas into the city. The amount of
territory annexed would depend largely on how fast the city could finance extension of its
services and population within the city would increase substantially. Unless the city secures
extra territorial planning jurisdiction it would have no control over this new fringe
development.
Thus, the policy aimed at keeping the city boundary co -terminus with development
of the density requiring municipal services, is preferable to those considered so far. It falls
short, however, of meeting the problems of development throughout the metropolitan area.
The last possible course of action of those under consideration would be the
annexation by a municipality to outer reaches of the metropolitan area. Because of the
shortage of vacant land within the municipality, the city will move to an overbundance of
vacant land. Much of this land will not be developed for several years although it would be
subject to city taxes. The property owner will be forced to assume an additional burden for
many years without promise of return and population and development will move forward
to the city, but it will be more scattered because there will be more choice of land where
services are available.
Land development outside the City of Hagerstown, for example, to the east along
Md. Route 64, despite the extension of city boundaries would take in many square miles of
vacant and undeveloped land. Some development will leap -frog the vacant city land and take
up just beyond its limits. As long as this development is not subject to planning controls, the
same dangers noted under the proceeding policies will be present.
A too ambitious annexation policy will lead to higher costs because services must be
scattered; it will create dissatisfaction in subjecting large areas of vacant land to city taxes;
and it will not accomplish the purpose of controlling all new development.
Most of what is said here is certainly not new to residents of the County. It is
therefore, an attempt to "inventory" the many facets of a complex problem in Washington
County. No- specific solution is offered. Even if the elements of the general plan are
accepted and adopted, the problem of the need to annex may again arise. However, it is
hoped that the pursuance of a policy of containment, redevelopment where necessary and
the establishment of a range of "total" new communities will prove beneficial to the
economy and to the condition of life.
175
In the discussion of possible strategies and controls for new development a brief
discussion on the application of the development corporation concept as applied to
Boonsboro was presented. This might be considered as an alternative to annexation both
here and in other areas adjacent to existing county towns.
Rural Land Sales Strategy
Agricultural preserves are proposed for the general belt extending from the
Pennsylvania line in a southwesterly direction toward Sharpsburg and the Potomac River
and also in the area west of Hagerstown. The preserve has been determined from soils
analysis and class 1 and class 2 agricultural land as delineated by the Soil Conservation
Service. This is not to say that development will not occur here even though a conservation
zone might be applied. It is perhaps more appropriate and reasonable to consider alternative
ways in which development might occur which would both serve market demand and
investment requirements of present land holders.
The Commission might wish to approach small groups of landowners holding
contiguous land in rural areas where the possibility of public utility service is unlikely for
the foreseeable future. In doing so a consideration of the following strategy might be
employed.
Assuming that land sales will reflect continuing interest on the part of speculators
for raw, unimproved land in the more rural areas of Washington County, a 2,000 acre tract
of land surrounded on four sides by state roads was selected and the following was
developed:
1. Five land owners control a contiguous tract of 2,000 acres, of which 250 acres
are in a flood plain.
2. Of the remaining 1,750 acres, 50 acres are to be allocated to educational,
recreational and possibly to future commercial use. The remaining acres
represent land which will support some 1,400 dwelling units under the most
restrictive zoning now proposed.
3. The owners agree to sell their land over an extended period of time, in a manner
which reflects comprehensive land planning studies for the total of 2,000 acres.
The owners will market parcels of land based on physical analysis of the
suitability of land to support development and any one parcel might include
combinations of single ownerships.
4. Given the above assumption, proceeds from land sales over an extended period
of time would be distributed among the owners according to their percentage
share of the ownership in the total 2,000 acres.
5. It is assumed that the owners establish covenants on the land comprising the
176
I. FEATURES OF TRACT
CLA;
'S. FRONTAGE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
IL
2. ROAD FRONTAGE
4. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
100 AI
80 LO
FUTURE SCHOOL SITE
DR PARK
RES
TS
14
flood plain which restricts use of the land or provide for recreational use. The
50 acres assumed for educational, recreational use might be sold separately to
quasi government bodies. A small parcel might be sold for commercial use to
serve the community that would be established through this process. (Table 22)
Table 22 presents a comparison of proceeds from land sales given (1) out -right sale
of the 2,000 acres by each owner independently, and (2) retention of some land for
concerted sale by the five owners over an extended period of time.
Line 1 shows appreciated market land values for raw, unimproved land over a ten
year period. Raw values are assumed to reflect what a "speculator" would be willing to pay
for land for development in Washington County. The land values were appreciated at an
annual compound rate of 19.8% to 1975, which rate reflects observed appreciation in
market land values in the County over the period 1964-1967. For the period 1975-1983, a
rate of 10% was used, reflecting the assumption that appreciation rates will tend to compare
to nation-wide rates observed in urbanizing areas.
Line 2 presents land sale proceeds in thousands of dollars for the five owners,
assuming differing acreage ownership, (lines 3-4). Proceeds assume the per acre market value
in 1971, or $1,240 per acre. Total proceeds, then, are shown as $2.48 million.
Line 5 shows assumed acres to be sold over an extended period. The "pace" of land
sales should be interpreted to reflect:
1. That land planning studies have been carried out to identify "parcels for
development" in increments totaling 125-150 acres in any one period; and
2. That "parcels for sale" reflect market demand in the County for speculative
"land -holding" or immediate residential development.
Line 6 shows land sales proceeds to the five owners over a ten-year period, given the
appreciated per acre market land values. Total land sales proceeds, then, are estimated $5.8
million.
In order to compare the financial value to the owners, over time, the present value
of the land sales proceeds was calculated. Present value analysis (or discounted value)
concerns the value of $1.00 over time given varying rates of interest. In this illustration, the
present value of an owner's land is viewed in terms of what future income he could realize
by investing the current cash value of that same land. In the case given here, the future value
of the owners' cash land value, invested at 8% returns over a ten-year period, would be
$5.35 million. (Base cash value, $2.48 million).
On the other hand, the value of land sold over an extended period of time is $5.8
million (line 6). The present value of land sold over an extended period of time, at a rate of
8%, is approximately $3.0 million, (line 8). This compares with $2.5 million, or nearly 2017o
177
TABLE 22
RESIDENTIAL LAND MARKETING - vs LAND SALE
PRESENT VALUE OF LAND SALE PROCEEDS (ALL MONETARY VALUES AT 1971 DOLLARS)
1 -Land Value Appreciated at 19.8
to 1975; at 10% 1975-1983
(Dollars per Acre):
2 -Land Sale, 2,000 Acres, 1971,
($000's)
3 -Farmer A @ 700 Acres
B @ 300 Acres
C @ 500 Acres
D @ 275 Acres
E @ 225 Acres
4 -Sub -Total
5 -Acres to be Sold
6 -Land Sale Proceeds @ Market
Land Value, ($000's)
7 -Present Value Factors @ 8%
8 -Present Value Land Sale
Proceeds @ 8%
1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 Total
1,240 1,485 1,780 2,130 2,550 2,800 3,005 3,390 3,730 4,100 4,510 4,960 5,460
870 870
370 370
620 620
340 340
280 280
2,480 - - - - - - - - - 2,480
- 125 125 125 125 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 1,700
- 185 225 265 320 400 465 510 560 615 680 745 820 5,810
1.000 .9259 .8S73 .7938 .7350 .6806 .6302 .5835 .5403 .5002 .4632 .4289 .3971
- 170 195 210 280 260 295 300 305 310 315 320 325 2,960
higher. This higher value accrues even though 300 acres of land are not assumed to be sold
in the extended sales case. Realistically, additional proceeds would probably pertain to these
additional acres.(Table 23)
Y
0
Distribution of the land sales proceeds for an out -right land sale and for sales over an
extended period are given in Table 23 for each of the five land owners, according to their
proportionate share(s) in the total 2,000 acres.
179
TABLE 23
COMPARATIVE PRESENT VALUE OF LAND: FIVE OWNERS
Value of
Present Value
Ownership
Outright
of Extended Land
Acres
Land Sale
Sale @ 8%
Farmer A
700
$ 870,000
$1,040,000
Farmer B
300
370,000
445,000
Farmer C
500
620,000
740,000
Farmer D
275
340,000
415,000
Farmer E
225
280,000
320,000
Total
2,000
$2,480,000
$2,960,000
Y
0
Distribution of the land sales proceeds for an out -right land sale and for sales over an
extended period are given in Table 23 for each of the five land owners, according to their
proportionate share(s) in the total 2,000 acres.
179
180
PART 10
PLAN MAP, PLAN POLICIES FOR LAND USE AND CIRCULATION
This section of the report carries forward earlier statements and reasoning which
supports the specifications and principles of the plan. These are classified according to
overall County requirements, economic considerations, preservation of amenity, health and
natural resources, community organization and public and private decisions.
The plan is presented in two parts; 1) The Plan Map delineates how areas might
possibly develop over the next 30 years; and 2) a series of Plan Policies which are
recommended for adoption by the Planning and Zoning Commission and other appropriate
areas of government.
The County's continuing program should now develop a series of detailed plans for
smaller units of the county or Planning Sectors.
Overall County Growth
1. Estimates of population by the year 2000 range between 133,000 and 184,000.
The more conservative and lower estimate is based on the fairly moderate
growth in the County between 1960 and 1970 while the higher estimate
assumes energetic promotional programs for economic growth.
2. The County should accommodate a full variety of housing types and price
ranges within the realities of market preferences for housing.
3. Apart from Hagerstown, there will probably not be as large or larger city
located within the County over the next 30 year period, although there is a
potential for new community centers especially in the rapidly growing
metropolitan areas.
4. Both public and private programs of open space and natural resource
preservation should continue and in some instances should tie to new public and
private recreation communities and to resort -tourist cehters.
5. Three new major freeway systems will be required to accommodate the
County's growth over the next 30 year period: the Hagerstown Beltway; the
Antietam Memorial and Battlefield highways, a limited access facility from the
south of Hagerstown to Sharpsburg and continuing to a new community near
Rohrersville connecting with a third facility running north and south from the
Hagerstown Beltway and Interstate 70 to Harpers Ferry.
181
Economic Considerations
1. Despite the unknown nature of preferences for housing 30 or 40 years from
now, the plan must be adaptable to later preference changes in land uses and
housing types.
2. Development should be concentrated, as well as possible, with the balance of
land remaining relatively undeveloped in order to reduce County and developer
costs and to preserve natural resources.
3. The County must combine the promotion of the development of all of its
resources, specifically, industry, new communities, recreational areas and
natural resource preservation.
Resource Preservation Concept
1. The major mountain formations and their forested and unforested slopes should
remain undeveloped except where specific conditions permit and appropriate
slope or other regulations are available.
2. All forests and major stands of trees should be retained in the valley areas of the
County, beyond the mountains and where development will occur in these
areas, it should be of extremely low density so that this resource will be
preserved.
3. Major development should be concentrated in a pattern of new communities,
where possible, and in rural areas, with respect for the preservation of stream
valleys and forests , on land with good permeability and high economic
advantage.
4. The selection of potential lake sites as one of the criteria for the location of new
communities or centers supplements the present amenity of the area and could
provide for community recreation and water supply in certain specific areas.
5. All stream lines should be kept in natural form, and their immediately adjacent
areas prohibited from development.
6. Steep slopes should be prohibited from development and reforested if not
already in forest cover.
7. The density of development should be governed by the principles outlined
earlier and the maximums for development should be one house per three acres
on forested walls within the valley area, one house per acre on forested uplands
area other than mountains, development in mountains in accordance with
conservation and additional land use controls and flood plains should be
prohibited from development.
182
0
Community Development
1. The current pattern of development should be continued in Washington
County. More specifically, the City of Hagerstown, the present town system and
villages and hamlets. Added to this would be the creation of new centers or new
communities.
2. Schools, health facilities and other community serving facilities should be
clustered primarily at new centers and towns.
3. Growth should take place in a planned sequence as much as possible to reduce
inefficient development of highway and sewer systems.
Elements of the Plan Map
Development Concept for Washington County
Earlier in this report it was suggested that three forms of development would be
possible in Washington County:
1. Scattered Linear Development,_ a continuation of the existing pattern;
2. Concentrated Development, an alternative to the above which would be an
effort to guide all new development into areas adjacent to Hagerstown and
other large municipalities; and
3. The Development of New Communities, essentially an alternative pattern, a
combination of both of the above which would cluster major amounts of new
growth near the city with additional growth areas in now rural areas of the
County.
There is no doubt that there will be a continuing demand for scattered linear
development similar to the current pattern. However, as policies are adopted with reference
to the location of the extension of major utilities and new major facilities are constructed
following a Policy Plan, the possibility of changing the patterns of development will become
more feasible.
The plan, therefore, proposes the adoption of a policy to promote and develop new
community centers which are shown generally on the proposed Land Use Map which might
develop in the following order:
1. College Community (CC) - The Hagerstown Community College is currently
planning an expansion program for its academic facilities. It has a considerable
inventory of vacant land, public utilities are presently available at the site, and
the current proposed Capital Improvements Program has indicated the
183
rebuilding of Robin Hood Drive to serve the present community. It would seem
possible that a combination of academic, residential and some commercial
service uses could be developed here for use of the academic and the immediate
peripheral community. If accomplished, through either public or some form of
public-private sponsorship, the orderly development of this portion of the
metropolitan area could be realized.
2. New Community -1 (NC 1) - A new community is proposed west of the major
intersection of Interstate Highways 70 and 81. There is considerable pressure
for all forms of development without land use controls within the highway
interchange areas and the County would be well advised to reorder its priorities
of sewage facility extension to this area to accommodate the development of
such a community. Within the next ten years, to 1980, enormous pressure will
be brought to bear on the development of the interchange areas and it would be
unfortunate to mix a residential environment with industrial and other freeway
related uses while the potential for a much higher quality environment exists.
3. New Community -2 (NC 2) - A second community would be located by the
Hagerstown Beltway northeast of the city which would represent an intensive
development thereby absorbing a good deal of the market that would develop
on a lot -by -lot basis resulting in a deterioration of the agricultural reserve in that
area. This might occur somewhere in the time span beyond 1980, in accordance
with sewer extension plans. The construction of the Hagerstown Beltway,
however, would be essential to this development.
4. New Community 3 and 4 - The community at Downsville (NC 4) and another
near Rohersville (NC 3) would be developed well into the future. The
Downsville site could take advantage of an environment surrounded on three
sides by the Potomac River and C & O Canal Park while the southern
community near Rohrersville would present great design potentials for including
a community within both the valley and uplands area within the context of the
Little Antietam Watershed Planning Project.
S. Coordinated Growth Areas - A filling-in of present suburban areas and the
expansion of towns will doubtless continue. These should be coordinated
through the application of current regulations, the adoption of proposed Plan
Policies, and the creation of the Development Coordination Committee, as a
first step. Sector Planning activities could enhance the orderly continuing
development of these areas. It is expected that most of this type of
development will occur primarily around Hagerstown, Williamsport,
Funkstown, Smithsburg, Boonsboro, Keedysville, and Sharpsburg. The
successful promotion and establishment of New Communities, which respond to
realistic market potential should gradually curtail the Growth Area form of
development.
184
ENN'; YL VAN
`•r -�• +�y-;,Pjh.9rL rl ir' f _� S� —� 31 AMBp`aLJI+1OIA
,�^--• — '� i IIT -
ALL EGA NY �. '� yi j1� Y. S
.
COUNTY J '•r r .;': •,'.£ +",. r •I: �� �~_t ( (. :C: <`' f
i
' rr
p
A � I
' 1
- � e �� .:• f '& +'�� µ.ms' � � '�+",.�.� t�"�`:."" ti•'- � i • gr�
J .r I' �, "+'K,va •li � • r .- _ _. i ys4s � X '[tlfrH �Sy. � A .
!? i T
w o •. 4 .ry ` y'r 91ti ' jas
lk
�` � I.4^`� j_�`'. .A ..��. .• - } .i ♦ r1.� '��L���6I e>.�'�C� ':�3•r �a.�.=3
WASHINGTON COUNTY v I R'''Q I N I A
MARYLAND
PLAN MAP
LEGEND
sCHOOLs�t.Ml DDMILE NEW COMMUNITIES RIVER DISTRICTS
L♦SENIOR
�•'[.� COMMERCIAL CENTER
RECREATIONAL COMMUNITIES EXISTING TOWNS
0 RECREATIONAL (TOURIST- GROWTH AREAS
COMMERCIAL) COMMUNITIES
INDUSTRIAL RESERVE
l i COLLEGE COMMUNITY
+f CAMPUS FACILITIES * VILLAGE
AGRICULTURAL PRESERVES Z= PROPOSED IMPOUNDMENT
MAJOR PUBLIC & INSTITUTIONAL WET LANDS
EXISTING
PROPOSED EXPANSION HIGHWAY INTERCHANGE
CORRIDORS
FOOTNOTE LIGHT GREEN AREAS TO BE DETERMINED IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT GUIDE
MAP ON PLATE 13.
BAKER-WIBBERLEY AND ASSOCIATES
WILLIAM C. MC DONNELL
CONSULTING PLANNER
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
SCALE MILES
6. Hill Villages - Several small hills "or mounds" in the Great Valley Area offer
interesting design opportunities for the establishment of Hill Villages or
Hamlets. Such development will require careful selection and citing on the
summit and sides of hills based on detailed studies of topography, slopes,
orientation, access and soils. Housing clusters could be arranged where a
minimum of disturbance would be experienced due to grading and tree
clearance. Such villages should fit into the natural landscape in an economical
and aesthetic way.
7. Industrial Uses - A concentration of new industry is proposed for the
Hagerstown Airport area, the area immediately northeast of Hagerstown in
conjunction with the new community and sites within the freeway districts
south and southwest of the City of Hagerstown. An additional site is proposed
to be developed in conjunction with the new community northwest of the
intersection of I-70 and I-81. It is also possible that a new industrial area can be
created northwest of Boonsboro. Sites within the New Communities are not
specific since they would have to be promoted in conjunction with the
community's total development.
8. Community Facilities - The non-residential uses of land for schools, colleges
and health facilities and retail land requirements are discussed in more detail
under the section on Planning Policy. If the Commission adopts the policy of
promoting new communities, it is hoped that a public or public-private form of
development of these communities would incorporate the provision for school
sites to be dedicated free of cost to the County government. Development
would have to be of a substantial acreage in order to accomplish this.
This policy coupled with the recently passed state legislation requiring the state
to pay all but the federal share of school construction costs should substantially
reduce the County's financial commitment thereby permitting funds to be
diverted to other public purposes.
9. Open Space - The proposed open space system for Washington County
develops out of its natural environment. Through the use of soils maps and land
capability determination, a series of stream valleys related to flood plains were
developed. In addition, the major rivers mentioned above are included, as well
as existing agricultural preserves, mountains, mountain wetlands, and major
institutional uses. Proposals for the preservation and extension of County, state
and federal preserves are also included.
River Conservation Districts - The Potomac River, Conococheague
Creek, Licking Creek, Antietam Creek, Tonoloway and Little
Tonoloway Creek all present opportunities for the preservation of major
interstate resources. There was considerable discussion above of the
various plans now current, some of which have been implemented by
185
federal and state legislation. It is proposed that both the Potomac River,
including the C & O Canal, and Conococheague Creek and the other
major water courses cited above be considered major river conservation
districts. The Potomac area has been delineated more or less arbitrarily
to extend one-half mile beyond the edge of the river into Washington
County. This area would include the river itself. In the case of the
Conococheague, both the river resources and soils data presented earlier,
indicate a poor development potential for this total area and a belt
generally 3 miles wide running north and south should be considered.
Strict enforcement of State Health Department regulations and soil
conservation techniques should be considered here. Policies to
implement these proposals are set forth below.
Agricultural Preserves - The major working farm areas within the
Hagerstown Valley east of the city and west of the Conococheague
Creek are proposed for continuing agricultural activity. Low intensity,
planned development is proposed through the application of the Rural
Land Sales Strategy discussed in Part 9. These areas will function as
prime farming areas, as a frame for existing villages and New
Communities and will represent the retention of the basic amenity of
the county while growth occurs in more compact units.
Mountain Preserves - The application of slope densities and the
continuing acquisition of land for watershed protection, recreation and
wildlife preservation through public and private interests combine to
retain the County's mountainous areas in their natural state. Mountain
wash or wetland areas at the foot of the western slope of South
Mountain and portions of the valley east of Boyd, Johnson and Powell
Mountains, would be observed as areas where continuing development
should be prohibited.
Expansion of Present Facilities - The plan anticipates the continuance
and expansion of public facilities such as Fort Frederick, Antietam
Battlefield, Greenbrier State Park and the acquisition of additional
mountain land for the Appalachian Trail. Additional acquisition of land
in the western mountains for state game preserves and the retention and
additional acquisition of land in these areas for private preserves and
parks is also proposed.
The Plan Map supplemented by the Plan Policies discussed below should be adopted
to form an Implementation Program to guide the current and future development of the
County.
The proposed policies represent both a set of standards and a commitment to the
procedure to be followed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and other appropriate
186
governmental agencies in carrying out the planning work program. Although they number
159 they are sufficiently flexible to permit government and private interests to negotiate
development proposals but within the framework of a plan. In addition, they establish a
procedure in the timing of the acceptance of new laws and planning techniques.
The Land Development Plan, once established, begs the question of the kind of
transportation system needed to make it work. Accordingly, policies on transportation and
the Highways Plan are presented first followed by land use, utilities, zoning, and housing
policies.
Transportation Plan and Policies
Highways
The Washington County Commissioners adopted a Major Highways Plan in 1964.
Included in the plan were the completion of Interstate Route 70 and 81 and the
construction of the proposed North-East Bypass, the Hagerstown Beltway, the East-West
Freeway, the Antietam Memorial Highway and Battlefield Highway. All were proposed to
be built as limited or controlled access facilities.
Successive State Roads Commission plans have implemented two of the major
proposals in the 1963 plan; the completion of Interstate Routes 70 and 81. None of the
remaining major facilities which were proposed have been implemented to date with the
exception of the Hagerstown Beltway. The latest State Roads Commission 20 Year Plan
includes the construction of this facility but in a corridor different from that now proposed
by the County's Master Plan.
Changing land use patterns require a revised system of transportation. In addition,
the plan now proposed would modify certain proposals and their priorities and would
eliminate others.
The purpose of the Highways Plan is to guide transportation planning, route
establishment, project programming, and selection of route design criteria so that each
project will be able to fulfill its correct role in the overall system. Immediately below, a
series of policies are proposed as an aid in this process. Appendix B recommends a
programming and priority selection system which the County and State Roads Commission
should consider in its future planning programs.
The following objectives are developed, not necessarily in order of priority, for the
use of Commission in determining policies for the development of the transportation
system:
T1. All parts of the transportation system should be coordinated with city, state,
federal and unincorporated areas within the County and adjoining counties.
187
T2. All parts of the transportation system should be scaled to the function they
are to perform in conformance with the density and total population of an
area and its related land use requirements.
a. The County should commit themselves to a long range program to increase
the capacity, safety and efficiency of our present County Roads System by
utilizing our existing County roadways.
T3. Routes and facilities of the transportation system should be so located and
designed as to meet the demands of both existing and proposed land uses with
the most beneficial effect on such uses.
T4. The transportation system should provide balanced and integrated facilities for
all modes of travel.
T5. Transportation routes should have adequate reserve right-of-way to
accommodate expected, as well as existing, traffic volumes.
T6. Major transportation routes and existing or proposed public transportation
systems should be coordinated even to the extent of adding rights-of-way for
future rail systems in combination with other routes where such are deemed
desirable and feasible.
T7. Rights-of-way for major transportation routes should be acquired or legally
established in advance or at the time of development in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan. Lesser transportation routes, which directly serve and are
dependent upon the design of adjoining land uses, should not be established
until the time of land development.
TS. The freeway, expressway and parkway should be located:
a. To connect major population centers or other major traffic generators.
b To provide for relatively unimpeded traffic flow through urban areas.
c. Serve as bypass routes around communities.
d. Not located so as to bisect a community, neighborhood or business area,
park or any other homogeneous area.
T9. The controlled and major highways should be located:
a. On community boundaries where possible and always on neighborhood
boundaries.
b. Serve as a connecting link to accommodate the principal traffic volumes
generated between residential communities.
c. As a connecting link also between residential areas and their major service
188
facilities such as community business areas, community civic or cultural
centers, and secondary schools at the senior high, college or technical school
level.
d. Located where it can collect and distribute traffic from freeways or
expressways to less important streets or directly to the larger trade centers.
T10. The arterial system should be located on neighborhood boundaries:
a. Serve as a connecting link between residential neighborhoods as well as
accommodating the lesser traffic volumes generated between residential
communities.
b. Serve as a connecting link between residential areas and those facilities which
serve primarily one community or parts of several neighborhoods.
c. Located where it can collect and distribute traffic from major arterial streets
to less important streets or directly to traffic destinations.
T11. The collector street should be designed so as to discourage through traffic
between communities, and should be located:
a. Within neighborhoods where designed to collect and distribute
neighborhood traffic only and serve those facilities located within the
neighborhood such as the elementary school.
b. Where designed to serve more than one neighborhood or larger facilities such
as junior high schools, community park and recreation centers, and churches.
c. Located in accordance with good design principles at the time of land
subdivision. They should be designed to serve local traffic only.
Description of Highways
1. Freeway - A divided highway for through traffic, with full control of access by
grade separations at intersections. The right-of-way is recommended to be a
minimum of 300 feet and may range up to 600 feet. A freeway has only one
function - to carry high-speed traffic of large volumes primarily for long or
medium distances.
Ip 2. Parkway - A traffic -way which performs the function of providing a route for
recreation travel through corridors of scenic interest in addition to any other
traffic function for which it is designed.
3. Controlled Major Highway - A divided highway, designed for medium-high
189
speed, with controlled access and some or all intersections at grade. Access is
limited to selected highways and intersections are spaced at intervals of 1500 to
2000 feet. (Access to abutting properties is generally not permitted). A
minimum right-of-way of 150 feet is required.
4. Major Highway - A divided highway, the geometric design and traffic controls
of which are used to expedite the movement of through traffic, with
intersections at grade and direct access to abutting properties. The right-of-way
for this type of highway is normally 120 feet.
5. Arterial highway - A multiple -lane highway, designed to handle through traffic
between major highways and to provide access to major traffic -generating areas.
Its function is to connect neighborhoods and their local street systems with the
major highway system. The required right-of-way for this type of highway is 80
feet.
6. Collector Highways - A two-lane facility designed to link other collector or
secondary highways with arterial or major highways.
7. Secondary Roads - A two-lane thoroughfare generally serving a limited area or
providing a connection between other secondary, collector or arterial routes.
Posing the plan against the Master Plan of Highways and the state's recent
1973-1992 20 Year Highway Needs Study indicates the necessity to recommend ten
modifications and changes in priorities. If these proposals are adopted, the MasterPlanwill
require revision and the proposed 20 Year Program of the state will need modification.
Equally as important is the need for the adoption of policies for future road priority
selection and construction and the acceptance of planning techniques to be employed in this
program by all levels of government.
Proposed revisions to the County's Master Plan of Highways:
Federal and State Facilities Priority
Class Facility 1973-1977 1978-1982 Beyond 1982
1 -No. 1 Hagerstown Beltway
1.1 I-70 to I-81 X
1.2 I-81 to Greencastle Pike X
1 -No. 2 The National Freeway X
3 -No. 3 Halfway-Chewsville Hwy.
•3.1 U.S. 40 northeast to Md. 64 and
Beltway X
3.2 U.S. 40 southwest to Halfway Blvd. X
190
t
ALLEGANY T
COUNTY
w E 5 T
WASHINGTON
p E3p} 1. N Y7,4ju. I K S. Y V A N
1A
l
COUNTY w
MARYLAND Y t R G N i A
e°
HIGHWAY PLAN "'°
LEGEND `� n
EXISTING PROPOSED uygyuE'" �✓
SENSE SWISS FREEWAY
NONE SOME PARKWAY
SOME CONTROLLED MAJOR HIGHWAY
SOON MAJOR HIGHWAY
wIllilliIiIIIII11% ARTERIAL HIGHWAY �` r
�sHa�x Burt f
- ■���� COLLECTOR p
OM���� SECONDARY
INTERCHANGE/ACCESS
} 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
SCALE MILES
(r
� r 4
BAKER-WIBBERLEY AND ASSOCIATES
WILLIAM C. MCDONNELL'
CONSULTING PLANNER1
16
4 -No. 4 U. S. 11 from city to Pennsylvania line X
4 -No. 5 Northeast Bypass Connector from
Halfway Chewsville Hwy. No. 3 to
proposed Northeast Bypass X
5 -No. 6 Fort Frederick access from Clear
Spring Interchange to Park X
3 -No. 7 Reconstruction of Greencastle Pike
from Showalter Rd. to Williamsport X
2 -No. 8 Battlefield Parkway
8.1 Interstate 70 to Sharpsburg X
8.2 Sharpsburg to Md. 67 X
4 -No. 9 Chewsville Pike Md. 64 City Line to
Smithsburg X
County Roads
7 -No. 10 Improvement of Blairs Valley Rd.
from Clear Spring north X
7 -No. 11 Improvement of Pecktonville Rd.
from U. S. 40 to Camp Harding X
Interchanges
New
1. I-70 and U. S. 40A
2. I-70 and Md. 632
Reconstruction
3. I-81 and Md. 63
4. 1-70 at Hancock
The proposed East-West Scenic Highway should be eliminated from the County's
Master Plan. It would appear that the construction of this facility as presently planned is not
needed and, in addition, combined with other proposed facilities of more urgent need, it
would consume, in total, too large a quantity of land in the northeast section of the County.
The resultant construction would segment too many areas here and would lead to the
despoliation of the agricultural preserve.
The balance of the Master Plan elements as now adopted should be retained and are
reflected in Map 16.
191
Justification for Proposed Modifications and Changes
The Hagerstown Beltway - If the continuing consumption of open areas, especially
agricultural preserves, is to be at least curtailed, markets must be created for the
accumulation of land for more intensive development but in a compact pattern such
as the new community proposals discussed earlier. Central to the location of these
communities are good access, high-speed expressways that would make available to
residents not only employment centers within those communities but those
elsewhere already established in the County and where new centers will develop. The
Hagerstown Beltway would seem to fulfill these requirements at the same time
accommodating existing demands for east and northbound traffic around
Hagerstown and thereby relieving other arterials in the area. By connecting existing
radials such as the Marsh Pike, Leitersburg Pike, the Chewsville Pike and other
existing facilities, the beltway would facilitate movement throughout this area.
Essential to controlled development, however, is the institution of highway
interchange districts at access points. Any proposals at this date will compete with
succeeding proposals for different forms of development at these interchanges but
without control, the outer circumferential may very well defeat its own purpose. It
is essential then that this facility be planned with the advancement of proper land
use controls.
It is important too that this major "new" facility which will be constructed without
particular reference to an existing right-of-way be given proper attention in its design
so that ecological balances will not be upset. A technique for accomplishing this is
suggested below. (See Page 196).
The National Freeway - Although this improvement would complete an integral
segment in Maryland's freeway system and overcome existing hazards such as the 25
mile per hour curve at Sideling Hill, more importantly it would serve a social
function of developing an opening to Appalchia from the East Coast. The State's 20
Year Needs Study indicates that this facility should be programmed beyond the five
year critical needs. It is recommended that it be included in the critical five year
needs program for the reasons cited above.
The Halfway-Chewsville Highway and the Greencastle Highway (numbers 3 and 7) -
These two facilities combined and with the addition of the Northeast Bypass and a
connector to it (number 5) could resolve a number of current traffic movement
problems near the city. The portion of the highway to be built between U. S. Route
40 and the Hagerstown Beltway would serve to eliminate the access problem at the
Community College and would also direct traffic away from residential development
north dnd east of the college on the Chewsville Pike. It would also give ready access
to the dual highway in that area. A connector to the proposed Northeast Highway
would facilitate movement in the north and south direction to the east of
Hagerstown which, undoubtedly will continue to develop over the next five to ten
years. The continuation of this route southwestward and westward to join the
19?
existing Halfway Boulevard would provide a much needed east -west movement
south of the city between the city limits and Interstate 70 where additional
industrial and higher density land use proposals are certain to emerge. With a
connection to a reconstructed Greencastle Road to the west an inner circumferential
route would be completed. The Greencastle Road would serve an additional purpose
of connecting the new community proposed northwest of the intersections of
Interstate 70 and 81 with employment centers to the north, south and east.
U. S. 11 - This is proposed for new construction north of the city line to the
Pennsylvania state line (number 4). Although the road has been relocated once to
the east around the extension of the East-West Hagerstown Airport runway, if
proposals for the airport are accepted it will need a further extension to the east
since an additional extension of the runway will be required. When the first
extension was anticipated, it was suggested that a tunnel be built under the runway
in order to eliminate the movement around to the east. It is proposed now that a
tunnel be constructed so that the continuing movement to the east will be avoided,
that existing prime industrial land can be developed and not be eclipsed by
development on an extended easterly and southerly moving Route 11. In addition, it
is proposed that a route be chosen between the existing Route 11 and Interstate 81
to serve the Fairchild and Mack Truck employment centers but at the same time to
give more simplified movement between the city line and Pennsylvania on this road.
The widening and reconstruction of the existing Route 11 would seem to be
extremely uneconomical for almost its total route today due to the lack of setbacks
of existing structures along the route, most of which are commercial.
The Battlefield Parkway - The Battlefield Parkway (number 8) originally proposed
to join Sharpsburg and Boonsboro to the east. It is recommended instead as a
continuation of the Antietam Memorial Highway and would move south and east
from Sharpsburg to Md. Route 67 combining the improvement of Md. 67 from the
southern area of the County to Boonsboro and northward. In addition, a
combination of the Antietam Memorial and Battlefield Highways would facilitate
movement to and from the Antietam Battlefield site and would also serve the
proposed new community at McClellan's Lookout.
Improved access is needed to the Fort Frederick Park and a reconstruction or a new
road is suggested between the Clear Spring Interchange and the Fort (number 6)
Since appropriations for the development of the Plan for Fort Frederick were not
approved in the latest session of the legislature, a priority of 1978-1982 was selected
for this facility. There is an excellent possibility, however, that the park will be
improved in advance of this time and perhaps this priority will require
reconsideration.
Chewsville Pike - (number 9) The Chewsville Pike is in urgent need of
improvement. Due to the continuing development along this road and the building
of driveway access to houses on both sides of the right-of-way it is difficult if not
193
impossible to acquire sufficient right-of-way to warrant an investment to widen it.
This presents a difficult problem from the standpoint of detailed land use design. It
is suggested that the policies enumerated above with respect to highway planning be
reviewed and that a detailed design study for the Chewsville Corridor be conducted
by the Planning Commission staff. It would be possible to consider the
Halfway-Chewsville Boulevard as a partial solution to this problem. It might also be
possible to extend a new road paralleling the Chewsville Pike either to the north or
south of Md. Route 64 as in the case of the proposal for U. S. 11 but the traffic
volumes do not seem to warrant this and a good deal of valuable industrial land and
agricultural preserves would be disturbed through this process. Another alternative
might be the construction of a small one-way route on either the north or south side
paralleling the Pike and directing all traffic on the existing road in one direction and
traffic on the new facility in another direction. However, this would have the
distinct disadvantage of probably increasing the speed of traffic through this long
residential strip area, thereby creating hazardous and unsafe conditions.
In addition to the County's Proposed Capital Improvements Program for local road
construction, it is suggested that the Blair's Valley Road be improved from Clear Spring
north to the lake and that the Pecktonville Road be improved to give better access to Camp
Harding from U. S. 40 in the western area.
Two new interchanges are proposed for the intersection of Interstate 70 and U. S.
40A at Funkstown and the intersection of Interstate 70 and 632 at the Downsville Pike. The
relocation of Md. 66 between Boonsboro and Interstate 70 may relieve the pressure for the
Funkstown interchange since improved access would be given from the southern area to the
north and thence west on Interstate 70. However, this is a temporary solution and as the
County develops both in the Boonsboro area and along the U. S. 40A corridor, assuming
that this will occur prior to committments to new community construction, demand for
access to the interstate system at this point will increase. In addition, the Funkstown
community would benefit from such an interchange.
The present employment center of the Potomac Edison Company on the Downsville
Pike just south of Interstate 70 and its possible expansion and development would put an
additional demand on access to the interstate system at that point. In addition, the long
range proposal for a new community near Downsville would indicate the need for further
later improvement of the Pike and better access to the interstate system at that intersection.
If the proposed improvement to the Spielman Road from Williamsport to Md. Route
68 is implemented, the construction of an intersection at Interstate 70 and the Downsville
Pike may be delayed. However, the potential development at Potomac Edison and the
continuing development in the Halfway area and areas to the north and on the southern
periphery of Hagerstown not yet developed will require an additional access point to the
expressway.
194
There have been many complaints concerning the present interchange at Hancock.
Specifically, it does not give proper access to the Town of Hancock and hopefully, with the
construction of the National Freeway and especially since this facility will undoubtedly
generate additional traffic moving from the west of Hancock the interchange should be
modified.
Highway Interchange Areas. The Plan Map indicates three broad corridors
surrounding the interstate system and the proposed Hagerstown Beltway. Since
development potential in the 81 and 70 corridors is highly more likely during the first
phase, more attention should be given to these areas, especially to the north near the airport
and at the intersection of the two interstate expressways. The beltway, as mentioned earlier,
will require conirols but probably not to the degree of that required for the others. Since it-
is to impossible to anticipate all types of development throughout the County, it is equally
difficult to develop definitive plans for these corridors. However, the area around the
intersections and the airport were chosen for some preliminary planning and are presented
below.
Since access to these three major highways is and will be controlled, impacts in
terms of traffic generation and land development are focused at the interchange points.
Highway plans call for future construction of limited access highways around the east and
north sides of Hagerstown with additional access interchange points. Experience throughout
the country indicates that new development is attracted to interchange areas because of the
increased accessibility and also because of the advertising value of being visible from the
interstate highway. The same process will undoubtedly occur in Washington County and
indeed it is occurring on a limited scale. For example, the southwest quadrant of the 70 and
81 interchange area is rapidly developing as a truck terminal area, various proposals have
been made for the northwest quadrant for residential development and also to the east, a
shopping center and other facilities have been proposed. The recently completed airport
plan suggests the establishment of industrial uses that would serve and be served by the
airport. The Economic Development Commission has chosen several sites along the route of
Interstate 70 east of 81 and the new community proposal on the Little Antietam near the
Hagerstown Beltway will be an additional factor.
The overall location and design of new development in interchange areas has often
left much to be desired. In some cases, strip development near the ends of interchange
access ramps has hindered traffic flow, resulting in traffic congestion and safety hazards.
Haphazard development has often been so located so as to preclude the full utilization of
the complete interchange area. Finally, much of the new development clustering around
interchanges has been unattractive, creating a poor impression of the local area to the
traveler leaving the modern interstate highway.
The existing and future interchange areas in Washington County represent special
development opportunities. The County should respond to this opportunity by making a
concerted effort to obtain an efficient, attractive and well planned pattern of development
in the areas adjacent to major highway interchanges. The proposed zoning ordinance
c
195
includes a Highway Interchange District, to be mapped around existing and future
interchanges. In most cases, an interchange district would extend for approximately one-half
mile around each interchange, with exact boundaries determined on the basis of individual
site conditions. Within the Interchange District, the Planning Commission should give
detailed study to the design and location of new development.
New Highway Planning Techniques. Currently, greater attention is being paid to the
ecological effects of highway development both before construction and after. In the latter
case, a study was recently conducted of the Alpine Parkway in Portola Valley, California in
order to determine what effect development was having on the parkway. The report
suggests:
"Deterioration of the familiar beauty of Alpine Road would be a loss to those who
now go this way daily, seeing the changes of season reflected in budding of trees,
browning of grasses and turning of leaves, watching for weather signals of bright
horizons, clouds, fog fall or haze on the mountains. The loss of this natural scene
which now compliments the nearby urban pattern would be incalculable."
Accordingly, a study was conducted and developed a schematic guide for the
conservation and development of the parkway and developed the following elements:
1. Delineated the approximate outlines of the parkway corridor.
2. Included road, trail and path facilities in general locations.
3. Proposed activities appropriate within the parkway.
4. Identified particular problems and opportunities regarding the parkway.
5. Suggested some of the values of the parkway to the communities it touches and
identifies its importance to the larger mid -peninsula community.
In so doing additional new zoning regulations were developed, adopted and applied
to the parkway corridor. A series of vista corridors were developed through field inspection
and mapping which developed a sense of the lands in view beyond the roadside and
determined the character of the parkway.
A study of the Interstate 95 corridor between the Delaware and Raritan Rivers in
New Jersey proposed an improved method to incorporate social values, resource values,
aesthetic values in addition to the normal criteria of physiographic, traffic and engineering
considerations. The method was developed to reveal the highway alignment having the
maximum social benefit and the minimum social cost. This posed many difficult problems.
It is clear that many new considerations must be interjected into the cost -benefit equation
and that many of these are considered non -priced benefits. Yet, the present method of
highway cost benefit -analysis merely allocates approximate money values to convenience, a
commodity as difficult to qualify as either health or beauty.
196
This study attempted to maximize public and private benefits by:
1. Increasing the facility, convenience, pleasure and safety of traffic movement.
2. By safeguarding and enhancing land, water, air and biotic resources..
3. By contributing to public and private objectives of urban renewal, metropolitan
regional development, industry, commerce, residents, recreation, public health,
conservation and beautification.
4. By generating new productive land uses and by sustaining or enhancing existing
land uses.
The study then, indicated that these criteria include the orthodoxy of route
selection but placed them in a larger context of social responsibility. The highway was no
longer considered only in terms of automotive movement within its right-of-way but in
context of all physical, biological and social processes within its area of influence.
This method resulted in the mapping of the topography, land values, urbanization,
residential quality, historic value, agricultural value, recreational value, wildlife value, water
values and susceptibility to erosion, physiographic obstructions and scenic value. According
to the authors the method revealed the alignment of least social cost, it can perform an
important role in management of ground water resources, it should tend to locate new and
productive land uses where these are most welcome and finally, it can provide a most
satisfactory scenic experience for both residents and travelers crossing between the Delaware
and Raritan Rivers.
Recommendation: It would seem that preliminary planning for the development of
the Hagerstown Beltway corridor should utilize the methods developed in the report
sketched above. This facility, while serving an extremely useful economic and social
purpose, is as important to the landscape as is the retention of the Potomac River and its
environs. Accordingly, the corridor itself -should be considered as a planning sector in the
County's continuing planning program.
Railroads
Approximately 50 trains pass through Washington County each day. Most of the rail
lines are routed through the City of Hagerstown although two roads run the full length of
the County on both sides of the Potomac River. Railroads traditionally have been less
subject to change than many other types of land uses and circulation routes. The following
policies are recommended for further railroad development:
T12. Examination of any proposed diversions of rail rights-of-way to other uses
should be made prior to such diversion in order to determine if the public
might benefit from a public acquisition.
197
T13. Parallel rail lines should be located in corridors wherever possible in order to
reduce the number of grade crossings and reduce access and usability problems
of the land otherwise located between such lines.
T14. The location of proposed new rail lines, except for spurs feeding directly into
adjoining industrial property, should be coordinated with the Comprehensive
Plan in order that conflicts between such lines and adjoining land use and
circulation patterns may be minimized,
T15. Grade crossings should be discouraged in order to reduce losses due to traffic
delays and accidents, increase the efficiency of railroad operation, and reduce
inconvenience and annoyance to the public. The elimination of grade crossings
should be correlated with street and utility plans in the vicinity of such
crossings.
T16. Where railroad rights-of-way pass through or adjoin residential property, steps
should be taken by screening, subdivision design, or other methods to
minimize adverse effects due to noise and dirt.
T17. Where feasible, in areas where there is serious conflict between railroad lines
and adjoining land use and where no functional relationship exists between
such lines and use, the relocation of the lines or use should be encouraged.
Airports
A recent study completed by the Maryland Department of Economic Development
should set a course for the future development of the Hagerstown Airport. Air traffic is
playing a considerably more important role in the economy of the County. Industries
related to this mode of transportation should be considered for location at the present
airport and additional air facilities will be required.
T18. Airports should be so located as to avoid interference with the air space
requirements of other airports.
T19. They should be located where approach zones may be so oriented as to
minimize hazard and nuisance to present and potential adjoining land uses.
T20. Approach zones should be over water, open space land or other land use of an
extensive rather than intensive nature such as agriculture, parks, greenbelts and
industrial uses. (These criteria are recognized in the Plan).
T21. Where expansion of an airport facility can be foreseen, land for such
expansion should be acquired in advance of need.
198
U
Terminal Facilities
Since railroad passenger service has been essentially eliminated, there is no
consideration here for terminal facilities for this particular use. The major bus terminal in
the City of Hagerstown adequately serves passengers at that location but if this mode of
travel should become more popular with an increasing population, another facility may be
sought. In addition, truck terminal facilities are becoming increasingly popular in the
Hagerstown metropolitan area, especially near the intersection of the two major interstate
systems. The following are suggested as guides to the enlargement and location of new
terminal facilities:
T22. All freight terminals should have sufficient space within their own site for the
parking of employees, visitors and the maneuvering, loading, docking and
storage of all carriers involved.
T23. Freight terminals involving the transfer of goods between or to motor vehicles
should be on or functionally connected to a major truck service arterial and
should be convenient to freeway or expressway interchanges.
T24. All freight terminals should be located in or functionally convenient to areas
utilized or planned for other industrial purposes.
Other Plan Policies
Retail and Commercial Space Development
Over the next 30 years approximately half a billion square feet of retail space will be
required to serve the growing population of Washington County. An additional one million
square feet of office space is estimated. Although projections of the various types of stores
needed to serve an expanding population were made, it is difficult to be specific about the
needs and buying patterns of the future population.
The Commission will be faced with the necessity to decide where business should
locate in the County, whether in new community developments or in a linear pattern along
public rights-of-way. The following policies are suggested for adoption as a guide to these
decisions:
In General:
Cl. Business areas should be located at the junction of residential neighborhoods,
rather than within.
C2. As retail and personal services and business use is dependent on walking
traffic, they should be encouraged to group together, preferably within
planned centers to maximize sales and pedestrian movement within the
concentration.
199
C3. The success and vitality of a shopping area is dependent in part on the
maximum movement of pedestrians, the location of non -shopping
establishments (such as offices and and general commercial uses) and such uses
should be discouraged within the retail core.
C4. Business areas should be functionally separated from an existing or planned
school in order to aid in the control of students during school hours as well as
provide for their safety.
C5. In order to improve the traffic bearing capacity of streets designed for through
traffic, the indescriminate stripping of commercial uses along their frontage
should not be permitted.
C6. Business development should occur only after sufficient right-of-way
improvements, and special control of access points have been assured to
accommodate the added traffic generated.
Four specific types of commercial development are envisioned:
1. Neighborhood business which would consist of neighborhood shopping.
2. Community business - a combination of a community shopping center and
related general commercial uses.
3. Urban business including an urban shopping center or district and related
general commercial uses.
4. General commercial, a grouping of related heavier commercial uses, retail or
wholesale.
It is conceivable that a new community, four of which are proposed for ultimate
development in the, County could,contain all four commercial types. A rule of thumb would
indicate that a 4,000 acre site which would house an ultimate population of 33,000 people
in 10,000 housing units would contain 200 acres of shopping or 1,200,000 square feet. A
community this size, therefore, could absorb approximately one sixth of the total
commercial space projected for the 30 year planning period. Since planning and
development programs have not yet gone forward for new community sites, it is difficult to
measure their impact on the County in terms of land use requirements since they might
range anywhere from several hundred acres to five to eight thousand acres in size, depending
on market demands at the time of proposals and the availability of public or
privatedevelopers to proceed.
The following guides, therefore, are offered as basic criteria in planning for business
areas throughout the County irrespective of their location in compact units or in a broader
type, less restrictive development.
200
0
Neighborhood Business Area. This would contain approximately 15 stores including
a supermarket and other typical drug and variety stores for convenient shopping. Such a
center would serve a limited geographic area and its size would be related to the population
it serves. Approximately 4 acres of developed business land could adequately provide for the
shopping needs of 10,000 persons.
C7. Neighborhood business areas should be designed to serve an area with a
potential population of 8,000 to 15,000 persons residing within
approximately a three-quarter mile radius, although the size and shape of the
trade area will vary depending upon its population density or physical
features.
C8. Such centers should be located from one and a half to two miles apart.
C9. The neighborhood business area should locate at the junction of two
secondary arterial roads or a secondary and a major arterial road, central
within its trade area and at a point best serving two or more elementary school
neighborhoods or parts thereof.
Community Business Area. Such areas would serve the more specialized shopping
needs of the larger community. This might contain a shopping center with supplementary
and related general commercial uses and in addition, community related governmental or
semi-public services and cultural facilities such as libraries, parks, churches and other public
offices and buildings.
C10. The community shopping center size should range from 16 to 50 stores with a
junior department store and other speciality type facilities similar to those
found in the neighborhood center.
C11. The center should be designed to serve a potential population of 15,000 to
40,000 persons residing in a trade area of approximately one and a half mile
radius.
C12. The size of the center could range from 9 to 24 acres of developed business
land containing 100,000 to 200,000 square feet of gross rentable floor area.
C13. Community business areas should be located from 2 to 3 miles apart and
should serve the function of a neighborhood business for the immediate area
in which it is located.
C14. Such centers should locate at the junction of a secondary and major arterial or
at the intersection of two major arterials.
Urban Business Areas. Urban business areas such as Hagerstown can serve a larger
segment of the urban population and thereby offer greater selection of shopping goods.
201
Over the last ten years commercial development had moved beyond the center core of the
City of Hagerstown to its periphery in two large shopping centers. Two additional centers
are now proposed. As the periphery of the city develops, annexation is employed and the
city continues to retain the major business floor space for the County.
The proposed plan for Hagerstown delineates the rehabilitation of the central
business core of the city and centers on a radial pattern on five sides of the city within its
present limits. Undoubtedly, a portion of this pattern of commercial development will
continue and will absorb a great deal of the developing business market.
However, if the new community program is successful and if annexation procedures
by the city terminate, or are modified. the market for the core of these communities will
thereby be established. Since the urban business area anticipates a center designed to serve
30,000 to 100,000 people, no further comment is given here since the major region serving
facilities will continue to be contained in Hagerstown and another city of that size for
Washington County is not anticipated.
General Commercial Uses. These contain uses often times found beyond planned
centers such as commercial recreation, business and professional offices, highway oriented
business, automotive and allied sales and service and distribution business services and light
fabrication. A considerable amount of this type of use is now developing along U. S. 40
southeast of the city and it appears that this will continue. Ideally, most of these uses
should be located as part of the business areas noted above. Some might be located
adjoining an industrial area where they would be complimentary as in the case of wholesale
establishments. Others may have specialized requirements such as marinas or amusement
parks and must be related to the arterial system and surrounding land uses in such a way as
to minimize traffic and use conflict.
In General.
C15. Intensive commercial recreation facilities should be located in conjunction
with urban or community business areas.
C16. Extensive commercial recreation facilities which could consist of tracts of
relatively open land may be compatible with other open space uses or areas of
unstable soil conditions. They may be compatible with residential uses where
the physical characteristics of the land or the design of adjoining residential
areas is such as to insure adequate protection from noise, traffic or other
undesirable conditions.
C17. Extensive commercial recreation facilities that generate peak traffic loads
should be functionally convenient to major traffic arteries.
C18. Major business and professional offices should be encouraged to develop in
concentrations and locate in conjunction with urban and community business
areas.
202
I
C19. Professional offices and allied services often serve local residential areas, and
should be encouraged to locate in conjunction with any type of business area.
C20. Highway oriented businesses should be located functionally convenient to
intersections of major arterials as part of other business areas. Preferably, the
location should be on the edge of the business area convenient to freeway or
expressway interchanges.
C21. The extension of highway oriented businesses in strips along arterial
traffic -ways should be discouraged.
C22. Automotive and allied sales and services should be encouraged to locate
together in fringes of the central business district of the city or town and as
outlined portions of the larger urban business areas.
C23. Facilities and services related to water craft may locate in fringes of business
districts and in those water front locations which have convenient access to a
major arterial street and adjoin an area of heavier use.
C24. Distribution business service and light fabrication types of uses should be
located with access provided to expressways or major arterial truck routes so
that traffic will not pass through residential areas.
Industrial Development Policies
Earlier a goal was proposed to coordinate development proposals at all levels of
government. Less than 20% of the currently proposed industrial sites now have sufficient
utilities for efficient operation. There is an urgent need to coordinate planning policies, the
promotion program of the Economic Development Commission and decisions on the
extension of water and sewer services.
It is proposed that sufficient land for planned industrial parks should be provided
with adequate space for industrial operations, future expansion, off-street parking for
employees and visitors, loading and docking facilities, storage, landscaping, utilities,
separation of buildings, and other requirements. It is, therefore, suggested that space for
industry should be reasonably scaled to the demonstrated demand and need. In 1969
industrial land use in Washington County outside of Hagerstown averaged 15 acres per 1,000
population. Projections indicate that 930 additional acres can be absorbed in Washington
County by the year 2000 under the more conservative population projections. Combining
industrial and new community promotion, however, and if the real estate findings of this
report are any indication, demand for land will generate dramatically for additional
industrial, commercial, recreational purposes. In light of this the following policies are
proposed:
I1. Industrial areas should be encouraged to develop primarily on large, level sites.
203
Prime level agricultural land should be subject to special analysis to determine
proper timing of use change in order to avoid premature 'curtailment of
agricultural production and loss of permanent open space.
I2. In order that residential areas may be free from industrial traffic, industrial
areas should be located with access provided only to major transportation
routes which include major arterial truck routes, expressways and major rail
lines.
I3. Industrial areas should be located only where they can be adequately served by
necessary major utility lines, including electricity, trunk sewer, trunk water and
trunk gas lines.
I4. Land use types other than industry or industrially related uses should be
discouraged from industrial areas, with the exception of commercial
convenience uses. Those industrial uses which generate heavy traffic, noise,
smoke or other nuisances should be located where it is feasible to provide
adequate transition, such as light industrial areas, commercial areas or open
space to adjoining land use types.
An industrial park is defined in the proposed zoning ordinance as a site which is
eminently suitable for industrial use and which is divided into small tracts or parcels
according to a comprehensive plan for occupancy by a group of industries and has necessary
streets and utilities. Such districts are intended to accommodate a wide range of
manufacturing, processing, research and development, office and other uses which can be
built and operated with a minimum of noise, smoke, odor and other nuisances and can be
designed to high aesthetic standards.
I5. The County should encourage industrial parks to have adequate architectural
provisions in order to prevent visual blight.
I6. Special requirements and standards should be required by the County with
respect to streets; curb, gutter or sidewalk design and construction, design of
off-street parking and design of loading and docking facilities.
I7. Special conditions should be required by the County with respect to the
installation of necessary utilities such as water, sewer, gas, electricity and storm
drainage.
Vast areas of the County have potential for extractive industries. They are rich in
natural resources and must be reserved, otherwise they will be lost for other purposes. Two
principles should be applied: 1) that natural resources should be allowed to be exploited;
and 2) that land should be reconditioned for other use after exploitation.
I8. In order to insure continued development of natural resources prior to
204
development of the land for other purposes, extractive industries should be
allowed to locate in areas known to have deposits of minerals and materials.
I9. After the industry has depleted the raw material, the land should be
reconditioned in such a fashion that it can be used by some other type of land
use.
I10. Because of the heavy equipment necessary to remove raw materials from the
site, extractive industries should operate only when the site is located on or has
direct access to at least a secondary arterial in urban areas.
I11. The County should establish a realistic acreage of land for potential extractive
use but create a process whereby plans must be approved prior to operations.
I12. The County should explore the possibility of creating private covenants with
property owners adjacent to extractive holdings so that proper operation and
rehabilitation of land is guaranteed.
Residential Development Policies
The New Community Center concept proposed earlier indicates that over the next
30 years there could be four new centers of activity within Washington County in the
northeast on the Little Antietam, 'southwest of the city near the intersections of the
Interstate system, at Downsville and at Rohrersville. It is expected that commercial, cultural
and governmental activities would occur at the centers of these developments and that
higher density housing types would be encouraged to develop adjacent to these centers with
density decreasing away from the center to the point of the agricultural preserves or
mountains. The principle of reserving stream valleys and flood plains and prohibiting
development from steep slopes and controlling development in forested areas form a base
for these policies and should be closely adhered to.
R 1. Residential areas should be encouraged to develop primarily in the uplands
and plateau areas of the valley and on gentle slope areas.
R2. Land which is suitable for residential use in terms of physical characteristics,
but which is beyond the foreseeable urban area, should be considered as a
residential reserve and be subject to special analysis to determine proper
timing of urban -type development. The application of subdivision regulations
at this point will be necessary. The application of the rural land development
strategy would also be an important factor in making these decisions.
R3. The development of a variety in residential areas will be encouraged within
each major segment of the urban area by:
a. The retention of the natural variety inherent in the landscape through
topographic variation, views, water areas, etc.
205
b. Allowing for a range of housing types from single family homes to
multi -family structures and providing for variations in the design of these
areas and their related facilities.
c. Encouraging the use of new techniques in the land development pattern as
proposed earlier in Chapter 8.
Residential Density. Residential density is primarily determined on the availability
of water and sewer and other urban utilities. Although the Plan identifies, generally, a
residential density pattern, it avoids specific proposals simply because the market
mechanism, the policies employed by the County and the availability of future utility
service will be the major determinant of the ultimate pattern. It is anticipated that the New
Community Centers will contain a variety of densities depending upon the markets at the
point in time in which they are developed and no attempt is made to be more specific.
Three basic policies should be adopted by the Commission with reference to
determining the density of development:
R4. Residential areas shall have varying densities dependent upon the type of
development, location and, degree of publicimprovements available.
R5. The proposed Zoning Ordinance and zoning map will determine, generally, the
gross densities for specific areas of the County.
R6. As slope increases, residential density should decrease in order to avoid,
partially or completely, the problems of drainage, siltation, flood control, and
accessibility, which frequently are attributable to over -development of slope
areas.
The general pattern of residential development, other than New Community
Centers, ranges from 4 to 5 housing units to the gross acre to one dwelling unit per acre in
rural areas. It is anticipated that experience will prove that much lower densities will be
required if the agricultural preserves and mountainous areas are to be retained in a condition
that approximates their natural state. In addition, as stated earlier, development must be
denied to certain areas of the County which fulfill a natural resource function.
The highest densities are proposed for the now vacant tracts on the periphery of
Hagerstown where water and sewer services will become available and where there is no
interference with the natural feature, such as flood plain, steep slopes and forest cover. In
addition, higher densities would undoubtedly develop around the existing towns and
municipalities and in some village centers. The City of Hagerstown will continue to contain
the highest density of residential development throughout the planning period.
206
Single-family Residential Areas
R7. Residential densities in predominantly rural areas, a density of one unit per
acre, should be encouraged except where such development adjoins an existing
town and where proper utilities are available to serve them.
R8. Where large lots are already established although they are close to the
urbanized area, such as the area north of the City of Hagerstown. The
continuation of low density should be encouraged even though public utility
service may be available. A determination of an economic limit will be
required.
R9. Maximum densities of one unit per acre should be employed in areas of the
County where a neighborhood character of the state type uses and interest is
already established.
R10. Where slopes exceed 30% additional land use controls should be developed
and densities may be mixed but averaged on a much lower gross acre coverage
basis.
R11. A maximum density of two housing units per acre should be employed where
a substantial majority of lots are already developed to a density not greater
than two housing units per gross acre and permanent protection in order to
maintain community identity is desirable. The two acre density should also be
applied in areas proposed for development where permanent protection of
lot -size is desired.
R12. In rural areas of the County adjoining streams, lakes or river frontage, a
maximum density of no more than three housing units per acre should be
permitted, this allowance depending upon the subdivision regulation process
and other planning studies.
R13. The highest allowed density of five units per acre should be permitted in
single-family residential areas.
Multi -family Residential Areas. A maximum of 20 dwelling units per gross acre is
proposed for multi -family residential areas. Such development, however, must be related to
the circulation system and other land uses and should meet the following criteria:
R14. Multi -family residential areas should be located convenient to a major or
secondary arterial highway.
R15. Adequate streets should exist prior to or be developed currently with the
establishment of such uses.
R16. They may be developed adjacent to business centers.
207
R17. Multi -family areas may be located in certain permanent open space areas only
when the multi -story structures are so located and designed as to not destroy
the amenities of view, water access, etc. for adjoining or potential residential
areas.
R18. Higher densities of multi -family residences should be located within the
community centers proposed adjoining or convenient to major highways with
preference given to those routes which provide the most convenient and direct
access to the major trade and employment centers of the area. For example,
such routes as the Hagerstown Beltway, Interstate system and other proposed
major freeways.
R19. High densities of multiple residential use should be located adjoining either
major shopping areas, cultural centers where locations having special amenities
of view, water access or permanent open space.
R20. The lower densities of multiple residential use should be located:
a. Adjoining or convenient to major or secondary streets.
b. Adjoining either business areas, cultural or community centers or locations
having special amenities of view, water access, or permanent open space.
c. As a transitional use between higher density multiple family areas and single
family residential areas.
El
Mobile Home Parks. Mobile home parks are similar in density to multi -family
residences, especially in terms of space allotted to each trailer. The trailer park is extended
across the land and tends to break the area into many small open spaces.
R21. Because of the heavy equipment required to move the larger mobile homes,
and since they are subject to and capable of being moved periodically, they
should not be moved through adjacent residential neighborhoods, locations
for such homes should be functionally convenient to a major arterial highway.
R22. Adequate protection should be afforded to the residents of mobile home
parks from the adverse influence of adjoining streets and non-residential uses
through proper landscaping, screening, or set -backs from such streets or uses.
R23. Although some mobile home parks may be occupied by families without
children, not all are and therefore, should be located so that they may be
served adequately by such normal residential services as schools, playgrounds,
and business areas.
The design factors found in the County's Subdivision Regulations and Proposed
Zoning Ordinance should be considered an extension of the policies set forth above.
I
208
Open Space Development Policies
Most of the land in Washington County is in open space use: farm lands, wooded
mountain land and institutional and private uses. Even with the projected urbanization and
residential, commercial and industrial growth, the County in 30 years will still have as major
uses, pastures, farm lands and woodlands. However, scattered development which disregards
the landscape could result in significant losses of aesthetic and recreational potential.
The open space system proposed for the County is based on a natural features
approach which aims at preserving natural resources such as stream valleys, major mountain
preserves, wooded areas and steep slopes. Mountain preserves include Sideling Hill,
Tonoloway Ridge, Hart Stone, Fairview, Powell and South Mountains. The open space
system also proposes the retention of the major stream valleys and flood plain areas as
delineated on the plan map of the Antietam, Little Antietam, Conococheague, Licking
Creek, and Sideling Hill Creek and the Tonoloways. The stream valley system and wooded
mountains are valuable resources, a portion of which could be developed for recreational
use.
Land in the open space system should remain in its essential natural condition.
Development of these natural areas would not be encouraged due to the steep slopes, danger
of flooding, unsuitability of certain soil types for septic systems and other factors that
would destroy their condition. One of the most important natural resource areas, the
Potomac River, with the C & O Canal National Park and Scenic Rivers Program should be
treated as an independent planning sector so that its preservation is guaranteed.
If these proposals are followed the following policies should be adopted to
implement them:
01. Open space should be distributed throughout the urban area to insure a relief
within the urban environment, provide sufficient space for passive and active
recreation and help curb the spread of urban blight and deterioration.
02. Open space elements should be combined to form a visual and physical
separation between major sectors of the urbanized area in order to discourage
continuous urban sprawl and preserve natural features of the land.
03. Strips of open land such as scenic routes, trunk utility lines, hiking or nature
trails, and bridle trails should be retained between residential neighborhoods
or communities and between residential and adjacent non -living areas.
04. The function and size of open space areas and facilities should be related to
the density and total population of the area to be served and to the
transportation system.
05. Open space areas and facilities should be coordinated with the County, towns
and adjoining counties.
209
06. Multiple uses of open space land should be encouraged, provided that the uses
are compatible and adequate area is provided for each specific function.
07. Areas designated for open space purposes should be held inviolate against
diversion to non open -space uses and should not be considered as a reserve for
such uses. If an over-riding public purpose by another governmental agency
requires the taking of open space land, compensation should be made for the
area taken by the provision of an equal or better area and facilities.
08. The County should pursue a program of examining excess condemnation
along the interstate system and other federal and state and local roads with a
view toward exhanging this land where development potential exists under the
Plan for a comparable site in an area earmarked for preservation.
09. Any public owned land should be examined for their potential open space use
before their disposal.
010. All recreation facilities of a local nature should be planned, to the greatest
extent possible, in conjunction with existing and planned school facilities so
that they may compliment each other in function, thus avoiding costly and
wasteful duplication of facilities.
Local Open Space. These facilities consist of playgrounds, parks, indoor centers and
could serve elementary school neighborhoods.
011. Developers of subdivisions should be required to set aside a percentage of land
for local open space such as tot -lots and local playfields with an average of one
half to three acres for 150 people per space serving a radius of 450 feet.
012. Neighborhood park and recreation facilities acquired through dedication of
developers or County acquisition in built-up areas should be established where
none exist or where locations prevent intense use. A tract of one to four acres
in size which would serve approximately 3,000 people, would have the service
radius of one quarter to one half mile. The size and function of neighborhood
park and recreation facilities will vary according to the composition of
population served.
Community Park and Recreation Centers. These facilities should be located in or
convenient to secondary arterials so that traffic generated by the facility need not intrude
into residential neighborhoods and where such facilities are located on or near major
thoroughfares, adequate provision should be made to insure the safety of pedestrians
crossing the thoroughfares.
013. Indoor centers should be separate facilities or a part of or combined with a
junior or senior high school and should be as centrally located as possible
within one to two miles distance of the population to be served.
210
Y
r
014. There should be one center for each 15,000 to 30,000 population.
015. Playfields should be developed as part of a school site or as a separate facility
where school sites do not fulfill the playfield need. There should be a playfield
in conjunction with every community indoor center. The playfield normally
includes space for both baseball and softball fields, football, and paved courts
for volley ball, tennis, basketball, but may be varied on the basis of specialized
community needs.
016. Larger community parks should be acquired for varied recreational activity.
Eight to 20 acres of camping, picnicking, and ballfields with a service radius of
one mile. Elementary, middle and high schools should continue to provide
indoor as well as outdoor recreational activity with a service radii of from
three quarters to one mile or by bus.
It is anticipated that over the next ten year period the County will require from 65
to 115 acres in neighborhood parks and approximately X60 acres in community parks.
Rather than to fix permanently on the plan map the location of these facilities, it will be
necessary for the Planning and Zoning Commission, following the policies set forth above
and in the earlier Community Facilities Report, to designate parks as development occurs.
Special Water Areas. The Potomac River presents special opportunities for water
oriented recreation and as the plan for this resource is developed specific areas for
swimming, boating, water skiing, and fishing should be located and designed so as to not
conflict with one another. Accessible water frontage of reasonable size should be acquired
through the Plan and utilized for its appropriate recreation function.
017. Beach areas, which may also be a part of a major or regional park, such as Fort
Frederick, should have sufficient area to accommodate necessary and related
facilities such as parking and picnicking areas.
018. Suitable open space adjacent to streams and waterways throughout the
County should be reserved to partially meet the potential recreation demand
for the County as a whole and for individual towns according to location
while at the same time safeguarding the natural drainage -areas within the
County.
019. Boating facilities may take the form of small boat docks, launching ramps,
mooring sites or perhaps a complete marina which contained facilities for
mooring and servicing all types of river craft and a provision for supply,
storage and fueling facilities.
020. These facilities which generate peak traffic loads of both passenger cars and
boat trailers should be functionally convenient to a major or secondary
arterial and all connecting roads should be paved if possible.
211
021. Adequate parking and maneuvering space should be provided for boating
facilities and for spectator parking.
Regional Facilities. It has been underscored throughout this report that many public
and private regional recreation areas exist in the County and current programs will both
enhance and expand these facilities. Current legislation in the U. S. Congress for the
acquisition of additional lands of the National Antietam Battlefield site should generate
interest in developing a formal recreational and tourist program for this area. If this occurs,
the County will have to proceed cautiously in terms of development which will follow such
interest, especially with regard to the extension of 'public water and sewer facilities. The
potential for a recreational and tourist center in the soutl(ern portion of the County which
would serve the Harpers Ferry National Monument could utilize the recreational potential
for this area and enhance the economy here. Other recreational centers combining public
and private development near Highfield and at Fort Frederick represent additional regional
recreational resources that could fortify the economy through the creation of new
secondary industry. These forms of development should go forward only with the
application of certain policies for their development:
022. Regional parks and recreation areas should be several hundred acres in size
while reservations controlled by the state or national government may range in
size up to many thousands of acres.
023. Although the location of regional parks and recreation areas and reservations
is dependent on available areas of scenic and inspirational quality, such areas
desirably should be within convenient travel time from all major portions of
the urbanized area in order to provide necessary relief from urban living.
024. Preserves which are areas of historical, ecological, archaeological, or other
areas of outstanding scenic or wilderness character, must necessarily be
acquired where they occur with no relationship to population or development.
025. Any reduction in amount of national forest or park lands, intermingling
private forests, or state forest lands should be discouraged and any steps taken
to preserve natural characteristics of natural park areas should be supported.
A major portion of the open space plan includes the scenic routes which are
proposed for the County. These include the Hagerstown Beltway, the Antietam National
Highway and the Battlefield Highway and parts of the proposed newly constructed Routes
66 and 67 which together with a portion of Interstate 70 form a series of scenic spines in
the great valley of the County. The earlier proposals for specific design and investigation
suggested in the Highways Plan should be applied to these routes.
026. The scenic route should be coordinated with the cities and towns through
which it passes.
212
027. The location of a scenic route, its alignment, design and other related features
should be in harmony with the setting.
028. In planning scenic routes, sufficient area to provide viewpoints, rest areas, or
picnic areas in appropriate locations should be included to enhance their view.
029. The social costs of such highways should be considered in light of their
uniqueness, as proposed in the Highway Plan (See Page 196).
Public Building Development Policies
Washington County's Public School Planning and Construction Program is well
advanced. Many innovative ideas have been promoted and developed in the- school system
here beginning in the early 1950's. The Board of Education projects enrollment by four or
five different methods, naively birth rate, mobility, industrial index, public services - both
present and planned and national and state indices. Every five years consultants to the
Board update projections. In developing estimates of total future school needs for
Washington County, it is difficult to forecast the exact number of schools and types of
facilities far in advance but on the basis of population projections, it is possible to establish
the order of magnitude of such needs. By the year 2000 the County and city together (the
City of Hagerstown is within the jurisdiction of the County's school system) will have an
excess of 30,000 public school pupils.
Schools
According to the Board of Education emergency school. construction projects
include elementary schools at Fountain Rock, Mt. Lena and Greenberry Hills, a middle
school at West End and the construction of the Clear Spring High School with an addition
to the Boonsboro High School. An estimate of $7 million was made to implement
construction and to make necessary improvements but was subsequently reduced in the
state legislature to $3 million.
Current building programs include:
Fountain Rock Elementary School - Under construction and to open in September,
1971.
Kemp Horn Vocational Center - Under bid.
Vocational -Technical High School - In final working drawings stage.
Mt. Lena Elementary School - In final working drawings stage.
Boonsboro Addition - Site purchased, program in process.
213
West End Middle School - Investigating school sites.
Greenberry Hills Elementary Schools - Investigating school sites.
Capital Improvements would include additional classrooms and space areas which
are being planned for several other schools.
The community college, is expanding and will be assuming the operation of old
vocational buildings in approximately two years. New facilities are being planned for
the college and the County's Board of Education is involved in these programs.
Each of the proposed New Communities would require at least one elementary
school to serve the immediate environs. In addition, several middle schools and at least two
new senior high schools will be required to serve a moderate growth in population over the
next 30 year period. If new construction parallels the advancing rate of speculative land
acquisition in the County, school requirements would be greatly multiplied but without the
benefit of a coordinated and planned approach.
Accordingly, the following policies are suggested for adoption by both the County's
Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of Education in order to develop
economies in planning and land acquisition in the immediate and long -run future:
P1. Schools should be located to best serve the existing and potential needs of
students, irrespective of existing school district boundaries, incorporated area
boundaries, or other political or district boundaries.
P2. Schools should be located withinliving areas functionally separated from
unrelated commercial and industrial areas.
P3. Schools should be provided with means of safe access, either by reasonable
location or by instituted safety measures.
P4. All school locations should be coordinated within the County and with
adjoining counties.
P5. It is desirable to coordinate future school locations with park and recreation
facilities to permit multiple use of facilities as cited above in the open space
program.
Elementary Schools Serving Kindergarten Through Fifth Grade
P6. Each school should be as centrally located as possible within its service area on
or convenient to the collector street and be within one half mile or three
quarters of a mile maximum walking distance of all students.
214
FJ
P7. Each school should be planned to serve an enrollment of from 700 to 750
students.
P8. Each school site should be between 15 to 20 acres in size.
In Rural Areas:
P9. Each school should be related to an outlying town as centrally as possible
within its service area, within one half hour bus travel time. It should be
conveniently located for both walking and transported students.
Middle Schools Serving Sixth Through Eighth Grades
P10. Each school should be as centrally located as possible within its service area,
usually a combination of several neighborhoods, on or convenient to a
collector or secondary street and be within one mile maximum walking
distance.
P11. Each school should be planned to serve an enrollment of from 1,200 to 1,500
students.
P12. Each school site should have an area ranging between 30 to 35 acres.
In Rural Areas:
P13. Each school should be related to an outlying town as centrally as possible
within its service area consistent with transportation routes servicing the area
and be within one hour bus travel time of all students. Community use of the
school facilities should be considered.
Senior High Schools Serving Ninth Through Twelfth Grades
P14. Each school should be located so as to be easily accessible to vehicular as well
as pedestrian traffic because of the traffic generated by student drivers, as well
as school personnel, and by inter -scholastic events at the school. A location on
a secondary arterial is highly desirable. A central location within its service
area is desirable but of less importance than in the case of elementary or junior
high schools.
P15. Each school should be planned to serve an enrollment of from 1,600 to 2,000
students.
P16. Each school site should be between 40 to 50 acres in size.
215
In Rural Areas:
P17. Each school should be located within one hour maximum bus travel time of all
students. The community use of the school facilities will influence its location.
Schools specializing in the instruction and farming and forestry operation may
require a larger than 50 acre site. Such schools should have specialized site
requirements. For example, a school could be a portion of the proposed
recreation community near Ringgold so as to take advantage of the watershed,
mountain and lake resources in that area.
Coordination Committee. Important to the success of planning for future school
location and construction is the coordinative program that should be developed in the
County between the County Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of Education.
After the plan is established and adopted a school site referral process should be established
which will include the following procedure:
1. Representatives of the Board of Education and the planning agencies should be
assigned to a selection committee.
2. All vacant public and private land within the general area of the location for a
proposed school site should be examined using land use and tax maps as an aid.
3. The Selection Committee should select several sites for each proposed school.
4. Sites should be examined systematically by using a check -off list which would
include detailed items concerning the environment of the school service area
and an analysis of the site.*
5. Results of the examination would be tallied and sites ranked in order of priority
of selection. Additional field checks of the highest ranking sites for each
proposed school would be made to confirm the results of their analysis and a
final recommendation would be made to the Board of Education for
acquisition.
The Board of Education is currently involved in updating their five-year planning
and projection program for new school requirements. Accordingly, no specific program is
recommended here nor are sites selected. The land use pattern and policies which are
proposed should aid the Board of Education and the Planning Staff in deciding where
additional sites should be sought. It is safe to assume, however, that if the New Community
Program is not adopted, a continual catch-up program of school site selection and
* (See for example School Plan Technical Report No. 6 Anne Arundel County General
Development Plan).
216
acquisition will be the norm at considerable cost to the County. In the medium range
future, policies which will determine the extension of utilities must be well coordinated
with the site selection program of all agencies involved.
Other Community Facilities
Apart from schools, facilities for health, fire, police and libraries are more dependent
upon state and local funding programs and often, unfortunately, do not receive the
priorities due them. The community facilities inventory section of this report, Volume II,
indicated several policies and needs for Washington County with respect to these elements
of the Plan.
Health
In summary, the Plan recommends:
P18. Additional health facilities should be planned for the communities of Sandy
Hook, Fort Ritchie, Williamsport, Smithsburg, and Boonsboro. Auxiliary
health centers in Washington County are not adequate and should be replaced
with modern space.
P19. The County should adopt a comprehensive County level program for care of
the mentally retarded implemented through the creation of a comprehensive
mental health center.
P20. In zoning for additional hospitals, surrounding areas should accommodate
secondary service uses such as doctor's offices, pharmacies and private clinics.
It is strongly urged that the State Health Department require the development of a
Comprehensive Health Services Plan for each of the counties, similar to the plans developed
for water and sewer facilities. The administration of such plans would be the responsibility
of the Development Coordination Committee* so that comprehensive service to all areas can
be assured.
Fire Facilities
P21. The County is now covered by thirteen volunteer fire companies located in
strategic positions throughout the County. It is advisable that the County
should consider a policy in the future of having a volunteer fire department
and one fire station for 20,000 to 25,000 people, to be utilized in conjunction
With the now existing volunteer fire companies.
* See Utilities Policies No. U6.
217
Police Protection
P22. The County -wide police force is recommended. However, additional emphasis
should be placed on mobility and the acquisition of the latest communications
equipment.
Library Service
P23. Community libraries should be planned to serve a 25,000 to 35,000
population with a minimum square footage of 12,000 to 15,000 square feet
per facility.
P24. The establishment of temporary neighborhood book centers in shopping plazas
and developing areas of the County should be considered.
Comprehensive plans for each of the new communities should require the proper
attention to community facilities. The policies outlined above should be fortified depending
upon the size of the communities developed.
Utilities Policies
In July of 1970 the Washington County Board of County Commissioners adopted a
Comprehensive Water and Waste Water Plan which was to provide for the orderly expansion
and extension of community water and sewerage systems and essentially to correct present
deficiencies and to meet future needs. One of the policies adopted was the assignment of the
implementation of all matters pertaining to the utility policy to the Washington County
Sanitary Commission. The report proposed, however, a coordination between the County's
Sanitary Commission, Health Department, and Planning and Zoning Commission for the
purpose of coordinating the activities and pursuits of the participating agencies. Such a
coordinative organization would also be responsible for the maintenance and revision of the
County's Utility Plan.
Considering these facts and proposals and also that difficulties exist in coordinating
the extension of utilities into rural areas from municipalities, this report suggests a set of
policies to assure the stability of developed areas, the maintenance of property values, the
preservation of the tax base and the ultimate coordination of all development plans:
U1. In urban areas where full or adequate utilities are now lacking, plans and a
priority system for improving or adding to the present utility system should
be carried out by the appropriate public or private agency.
U2. In newly developing areas, developers and/or public and private utility
agencies or companies should be encouraged to provide as complete a utility
system as possible commensurate with the type of development.
218
U3. Trunk utility lines should be installed in advance or at the time of
development in accordance with the general plan for the area.
U4. The solution to specialize utility problems created by a particular type of use
should be worked out by the community and the parties responsible.
U5. Where pollution conditions now exist, all possible steps should be taken to
correct such conditions through current law and additional legislation as
required.
U6. To implement this and the coordination of proper utility service, a
Development Coordinating Committee should be established and should be
composed of members and staff of the Board of Education, Planning and
Zoning Commission, Sanitary Commission, County Engineer and the County's
Health Department and all other appropriate agencies. Such a committee
should have the necessary authority to act on proposals and problems related
to physical development in the County and report directly to the Board of
County Commissioners.
U7. When feasible, the County Commissioners should establish a Director of
Development with the necessary authority to coordinate the planning of all
public and private investment.
In developing an implemental device that is clearly the most important in ordering
the location of new development, the County should currently consider the modification of
its Water and Waste Water Plan to conform to the Land Use Plan. To accomplish this the
following policies are proposed:
U8. Immediate priority should be given to reinforcing the present ten inch sewer
line now serving the Hagerstown Junior College area. This area has a high
potential for immediate development and if appropriate services were
available, it could absorb much of the current and immediate future market.
U9. More immediate attention should be given to the priority of sewering the
Chewsville Pike or the Md. 64 area with appropriate extensions to the new
community planned beyond that area.
U10. Additional capacity may be required in the existing 21 inch line now at the
northwest quadrant of intersections Interstate 70 and 81 so that the new
community proposal in that area might be given a high priority for
development in conjunction with current proposals for the specific
interchange area and the new community adjacent to it.
U11. Since the Antietam Creek is proposed primarily for preservation as is the
Little Beaver Creek area, long-range projections for the sewering of these two
water courses should be eliminated.
219
U12. If proposals for a recreation and tourist center at the Antietam Battlefield and
the expansion of the battlefield are successful, immediate facilities will be
required here.
U13. Consideration should also now be given to the establishment of a sewer system
and water supply for the new community at Rohrersville using, if necessary, a
treatment plant which would not be related to the Boonsboro, Keedysville,
Sharpsburg systems.
U14. Additional consideration should be given to the recreational community
proposal near Ringgold which may tie to the Fort Ritchie -Highfield system or
might operate independent of that system.
U15. Depending upon the success of the new community proposal at Downsville,
necessary revisions might have to be made in the priority given to the
extension of the sewer system into that area.
U16. Develop a central sewer system to serve the Hagerstown Airport area is present
and projected industry.
U17. Develop a Storm Water Management Plan to meet the requirements of the
Federal and State Agencies.
While it is incumbent upon the County to meet existing deficiencies in water and
sewer service, the sizing of lines into areas that have a potential for development which
might be disorganized and not in conformance with the Plan, should be closely watched.
Sizing of interceptors and mains is perhaps the simplest method to employ in order to
accomplish this. Other areas wi' h high potential for development such as the New
Communities, should receive attention with respect to the design of the capacity of the
systems proposed. It will be difficult to maintain open areas where public utilities would
normally be extended and would exist actually in advance of the construction of new
centers. This may indicate that increased use of packaged treatment plants operated
preferably by a public authority, will be necessary so that lines will not be extended to
vacant areas inviting development and capture a market intended primarily for the new
community. Policies concerning the operation and maintenance of plans will have to be
developed by the Development Coordinating Committee to insure continuing efficient
operation of these plants.
Zoning Policies
Upon adoption of the Plan Map and Policy Plan, the Commission should examine
the proposed Planning Devices and Controls for application. It is conceivable that the basic
legal device of zoning may be applicable to only certain portions of the County rather than
to the entire County at one time. It is expected that the developing areas around
Hagerstown would warrant zoning while other rural areas may not. The following phasing of
zoning application is proposed:
1. Hagerstown area, bounded on the west by the Conococheague Conservation
220
A
District and Interstate Route 70 on the south; the Hagerstown Beltway Corridor
on the east and north, adding the airport and associated industrial district and
an approximate one and one-half mile belt southwest to the Potomac River.
2. The Little Antietam Watershed Sector after a detailed plan has been adopted.
3. The remaining areas within a one and one-half mile radius of Keedysville and
Sharpsburg.
4. The eastern, southern and western mountains as conservation areas.
5. The balance of the County, as appropriate.
The Commission should therefore:
Z 1.Apply zoning to the County on a Planning Sector or other area basis rather than
to zone the County as a whole at one time.
In deciding which areas to zone and not to zone, the Commission should consider:
Z2. The current extent of development in the area to be zoned and its potential
for containing immediate development.
Z3. The timing of the implementation of the various elements of the Plan.
Z4. The need to communicate the advantage of land use controls to the citizenry
at large and more specifically to smaller areas.
Housing Policies
The combination of the adoption and enforcement of subdivision and zoning
regulations and the proposed policies to be applied in the development of residential areas
are not sufficient to guarantee the improvement of the conditions of existing and future
single and multiple family housing in the County.
Hagerstown is indeed a part of the County and the city contains the majority of the
County's sub -standard housing. Approximately 25% of the housing beyond the city is in a
deteriorating condition.
It is therefore appropriate that the City and County proceed together to attack the
housing problem. The following policies are proposed:
HI. Adopt density zoning within the zoning regulations permitting flexibility in
housing design and densities.
221
H2. Adopt uniform codes throughout the County to apply in all municipalities
and non -incorporated areas.
a. First adopt a uniform building code.
b. Secondly, adopt a housing code.
H3. Explore the creation of a County -wide enforcement agency, the NGS vices of
which could be made available to individual municipalities on a contractual
basis.
H4. Explore the creation of a quasi -public corporation, a public-private venture
composed of government and major employment commercial and
manufacturing firms to match public funds with private money to:
a. Meet the needs of low and moderate income housing.
b. Other low and medium income needs of day care, health and educational
centers.
H5. Consider the application of tax incentives, especially the lowering of real
property tax for private participation dependent upon the degree of
participation.
222
1
PART 11
IMMEDIATE ACTION PROGRAM
Washington County is now only 10110 developed. Projections of future population
ranging from 130,000 to 180,000 can be accommodated here while adding only 10,000
acres for development purposes over the next thirty years. This possibility would yield a
total development of only 15010 of the County while reserving countless areas for the
preservation of the County's natural resources. If certain guides are studied, modified,
adopted, public investment in new development could be minimized, agricultural
production could continue, indeed, expand; a second "industry", recreation, could be
exploited and reinforce the economy.
A program is proposed for implementation by the Planning and Zoning Commission
to be conducted simultaneously within Government and with citizens and special interest
groups within the County:
In Government With Citizens
1, Create a Development Coordinatiui,
Committee (D.C.C.) composed of
representatives of the various agencies
of government: Planning & Zoning,
Health, Sanitary Commission,
Engineer, Education, Economic
Development Commission, and the
Solicitor's office.
2. Committee Review the concept and
implications of the Plan and Policies.
3. Obtain support of the Development
Coordination Committee for the Plan
and Policies and set ground rules for
the Committees continuing operation.
1. Create Planning Sectors and
Committees within each sector based
on watershed areas throughout the
County.
2. Conduct public forums on the Plan
and Policies within Planning Sectors
and with industry, commerce and
other private interests groups.
3. Obtain citizen support in advance of
the official Public Hearing.
*4. Planning & Zoning Commission
conducts Public hearings on the Plan
and Policies.
5. Planning & Zoning Commission adopts 5. Establish the Little Antietam
resolution in favor of Plan and Policy Watershed as a prototype Planning
adoption. Sector.
223
6. County Commissioners adopt the Plan
and Policy Plan.
7. Planning and Zoning Commission
reviews implementation devices and
controls and:
a. Decides which proposals, if available
or if adoption is necessary, could
apply to the County as a whole or
to the prototype Planning Sector.
b. Review with Development
Coordination Committee.
c. Endorse, introduction of local
and/or state legislation.
6. Create a Planning Program to
inter -lock with current Watershed
Program developing the economics,
design and implementation of
development and apply appropriate
Plan Principles. This would represent
the first of a series of "Sector Plans".
7. Antietam Sector Planning Program
continues.
8. County Commissioners require 8. Antietam Sector Planning Program
revision in Water and Waste Water Plan continues and reports status of
to conform to adopted Plan and Plan program.
Policies.
9. Planning and Zoning Commission
disseminates information on Sector
Planning Program.
10. D.C.C. reviews the proposed Zoning
Ordinance.
ll.Obtain support of D.C.C. for the
Proposed Zoning Ordinance.
224
10. a. Antietam Sector Planning Program
continues.
b. Conduct public forums on the
proposed zoning ordinance and
with industry, commerce and other
private interest groups.
11. a. Antietam Sector Planning Program
continues.
b. Obtain citizen support in advance
of public hearing.
r
A
j
12. Planning and Zoning Commission
conducts Public Hearings on the
Proposed Zoning Ordinance.
13. Planning and Zoning Commission
adopts resolution of Proposed Zoning
Ordinance with recommended
quidelines for application.
14. County Commissioners adopt the
Zoning Ordinance and sets policies on
application.
13. Sector Planning Program determines
application of zoning to Antietam
area.
14. Antietam Sector
continues and
Sector is selected.
15. Actions continue by all agencies and
organizations.
* Where an item is centered the action
involves the simultaneous participation
of all in the planning process.
Planning Program
second Planning
The continuing program to be developed by the Commission should include the
selection of implementation devices from the list of proposals (Vol. III, Part 8) and the
continuation of the development of detailed Sector Plans. In the latter case, it is strongly
recommended that sector planning be coordinated with the Corps of Engineers flood plan
and flood hazard studies and the programs of the Soil Conservation Service.
225
226
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Computer Print -Out of Land Use Data
Table A - Housing and Population
Location
References
Tax Map
Aerial
Election District
Unincorporated and Incorporated Areas
Acreage
Number of Dwelling Units
Average Family Size
Non -Institutional Population
Institutional Population
Dwelling Condition - 1967
Deteriorating
Dilapidated
Table B - Lai.d Use
Location
References
Tax Map
Aerial
Election District
Unincorporated and Incorporated Areas
Land Use Code
Land Use Acreage
Commercial Floor Area
Industrial Floor Area
227
APPENDIX B
Suggested Program for
Determining Road Priorities
The problem of programming highway capital improvement projects becomes
increasingly more difficult as public travel demands increase. The most common problem
facing governing bodies today is the expanding population and the related highway demands
relative to the amount of available funds. To compensate for this inadequacy, highway
agencies in general have been in recent years searching for a factual, consistent method of
evaluating their facilities as an aid to the decision making process needed to allocate the
available funds. In addition, such a program would be the tangible evidence for defending
funding decisions which are not always popular.
In the search for such an evaluation process highway agencies across the country
have tried many methods. The states of Minnesota and Washington are currently conducting
extensive programs successfully using programs which they have perfected over the last ten
years.
As an initial step into this primarily unexplored field, the basic formula and process
developed by J. E. Baerwald in his studies in 1955 have been utilized with modifications.
The work performed by Mr. Baerwald appears as the first serious attempt to apply a
mathematically statistical analysis to the priority rating of a network of roads. His major
contribution was to develop a method of combining the physical condition of a road with
the service provided by the road to obtain meaningful results. The relationship of physical
condition and service capacity of a road is very complex. The research and studies
undertaken and proven by Mr. Baerwald might be considered for future programming in
Washington County and elsewhere in the state with the premise that as this priority program
is used, many practical modifications would undoubtedly be found and incorporated into
the analysis.
The Priority Rating Analysis should consider the following essential steps;
1. Select Major, Secondary and Collector Arterial Roads.
2. Inventory land use, physical status and traffic data on all county roads with
special attention to the Arterial Roads.
3. Develop a long range highway transportation plan based on economic
prospects, system consideration of state and city plans, physical and traffic
data, and appropriate design standards.
4. Determine physical needs and cost of improvements required for each road
system and functional class over a period of at least five years ahead.
228
5. For each year of the period, estimate total income and nonconstruction
expense (administration, engineering, maintenance and debt service) to
determine net for construction.
6. For the long range percentage of available construction funds that should be
applied to each road system and functional class, based on needs of each class
weighted by functional importance and related to income.
7. Analyze and inventory facts for each project location, separately for each type
of defect, based on physical traffic and economic data.
8. Array projects in sequence listing of engineering priority, separately for each
functional class, and make initial selection of five advance annual programs by
choosing projects from top of the list down to the limit of funds.
9. Evaluate and check other consideration that may affect timing of particular
projects, preparing a report sheet for that purpose.
10. Fit final choices into five annual schedules of work such that annual funds will
be used but not exceeded, and provide for systematic revision and annual
extension of schedules as conditions, revenues, and data changes with time.
The method used to evaluate the condition of the existing roads must be complete
and consistent with existing high quality design standards. The method used is as follows:
1. Establish a uniform highway design standard to grade the existing roadways
against those which are acceptable to the County and state as well as being
practical relative to the topographic conditions which exist.
2. Divide the roadway system into sections which have limits that could be
utilized for construction projects.
3. Visually evaluate the existing roads against the standards established. This work
shall be accomplished by an experienced highway design team including a
licensed professional engineer which reviews the sections of road to be
evaluated and rates them in the following categories: a. The quality of of the
a. The quality of the pavement with consideration of existing and potential
traffic usage.
b. The width of the existing pavement including shoulder with consideration
to adjacent land usage and existing and potential traffic.
c. The horizontal alignment of the road with respect to radius of curvature,
cross -slope, and adjacent topographical features.
229
d. Vertical alignment of the road with respect to steepness of grade
considering the existing and potential traffic as well as the adjacent
topography.
e. Passing sight distance available to road users with consideration of the
existing and potential traffic volume as well as the adjacent existing land
usage.
f. Stopping sight distance which is presently available along the entire road
and especially at all dangerous intersections and in areas of heavy adjacent
land usage.
g. The ability of the roadway to be adequately drained during storms and
periods of heavy runoff so that normal travel and traffic capacity can be
maintained. In addition, improperly drained roadways deteriorate more
rapidly and require more maintenance.
The sections of road evaluated within the framework described above would be on a
scale of 0 to 10 in each category. The highest rating, equivalent to excellent condition is 10
with decreasing ratings for poorer qualities.
The method suggested to be used to evaluate the condition of the existing bridges,
which would be of sufficient size to be considered individual projects, should be consistent
with high design standards. The method rates the bridge in the following areas:
1. Where vertical clearance is applicable, structures are rated for adequacy.
2. The roadway widths on or under a specific structure are rated for traffic
adequacy.
3. The facilities for pedestrian traffic are rated.
4. The overall condition of the structure as indicated by observation of the
concrete, steel and timbers visible.
The structures evaluated within this framework would be rated on a scale of 0 to 10
in each category similar to that done for roadways.
The ability of a rating team to consistently rate varied roadways in unavoidably the
weakest element of the evaluation, however, the utilization of a highly qualified team
consisting of the same members for the entire evaluation minimizes this weakness.
Equally important to the condition rating of a road is the service rating. The most
logical indicator of serviceability is the traffic volume which uses a particular road. However,
the entire roadway system must be reviewed overall before evaluating the significance of
230
Traffic volumes since the alleviation of one or more critical areas in a road system may
completely change the traffic trends on all the other roads. The basic use of traffic volumes
as input to the service rating is acceptable, however the volumes used should be projected
for the future and weighted to reflect the importance of such traffic as mail delivery, school
buses, commercial buses, and fire routes.
The evaluation of service rating is broken into four broad categories to reflect the
different traffic seasonal and daily tendencies. These are as follows:
1. Access to industry includes the utilization of a specific roadway by industrial
vehicles traveling to and from industrial facilities.
2. Utilization of a road as a commuter route primarily, indicates that the road is a
relatively direct route between commercial and business concentrations.
3. The utilization of a roadway as access to recreation facilities is especially evident
in lake and mountainous areas, where forest and parks are located.
4.. Access to commercial facilities is especially relevant in urban areas which attracts
large volumes of shopper traffic.
These four categories would be rated on a scale of 0 to 10 similar to that described
for the condition rating. The categories may be weighted to reflect the importance of one
over another if necessary. This adjustment is available to the analyst if he deems it desirable.
The conversion of available traffic volumes attributable to the above categories, to establish
a rating, is understandably difficult and requires a large degree of experience.
The combination of the service rating and condition rating through the use of
Baerwald's formula creates the raw Priority Rating. This formula has been designed to give
consistent weight to both ratings. The results showed that a road with a high service rating
and a low condition rating will have a high priority rating. The priority rating for a road
with a high condition rating and a low service rating would be very low.
The Priority Rating formula utilized in this analysis is as follows:
Priority Rating = 2.5 (Service Rating) 1.25 x Log 100
Condition Rating
This formula has been programmed into a computer thus providing the maximum
degree of versatility in the variation of constants and the provision of extremely rapid
processing. The use of a computer system in the priority rating analysis is a basic necessity
to adequately maintain the program as a reflection of the changing highway needs.
For the optimum benefit from this program data must be kept up to date and fed to
the computer for current evaluation as frequently as practicable. The combination of factual
data and every improving techniques will more nearly similate actual conditions and will
231
provide unlimited dividends for the future.*
Doubtless the preparation of highway programs is a complex task and a number of
the suggested procedures have been followed. However, whatever has been prepared was
done without the benefit of an adopted plan for the County and it is suggested that in the
future a program similar to the one illustrated here might be attempted.
Quoted fromPassaic County Highway Improvement Program 1970-1975, prepared by
Richard P. Browne Associates, with permission.
232-
APPENDIX C
Section -By -Section Review of New Article 66B
Note: Section numbers refer to sections in the new Article 66B.
Section 1.00 Definitions: New definition added in easy -to -read form. Note especially the
clear definitions of "plan", "special exception", "subdivision", and "variance". Definition
of "city manager" as a local executive deleted.
Section 2.00 Zoning -Baltimore City
Section 2.01 Grant of Power: This section is now limited entirely to Baltimore City. The
addition of "aesthetics" as a purpose was stricken in the final version. Authority to regulate
off-street parking and signs was added. Proposal to authorize conditional zoning in
Baltimore City was struck out.
Section 2.02 Districts: The authority for the local legislative body to establish districts is
changed to Mayor and City Council. This may indicate some broadening of executive power.
The term "buildings" is changed to "development", a broader and more accurate term.
Section 2.03 Purposes: Some clarifications and additions. The purpose, "to promote the
conservation of natural resources" is added, and the prevention of "environmental
pollution" is substituted for prevention of "overcrowding the land". The term, "prevention
of environmental pollution", should be capable of wide interpretation. Again, the proposed
addition of "aesthetics" was struck from the final version.
Section 2.04 Method of Procedure: Minor changes in wording. Most important is the change
from "a" to "at least one" public hearing, seemingly opening the door for a number of
hearings on sensitive issues.
Section 2.05 Changes:
(a) The old provision for a three-fourths vote in the case of a twenty percent
protest by property owners is eliminated.
New wording is added requiring that the legislative body make certain findings
of fact. Requires a recommendation of the Planning Commission and the Board
of Municipal and Zoning Appeals. Requiring a recommendation from the Board
of Appeals seems unnecessary. Then comes, in my opinion, the major blunder
in the new law - a written requirement that a zoning change be based on "a
finding that there was a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood
where the property is located or that there was a mistake in the existing zoning
classification." In other words, the old "change or mistake" rule is now codified
into law. This appears to be a major backward step.
233
(b) This part of Section 2.05 deals with mandatory referral of zoning map changes
to the Planning Commission. New wording adds the Board of Appeals, as noted
previously.
(c) New section providing that a denied rezoning request shall not be accepted
again for 12 months.
(d) Clarification that procedures for hearings and notice outlines in Section 2.04
shall apply to all changes or amendments.
Section 2.06 Hearing Examiner: A new section of major importance. Provides that the City
Council may appoint hearing examiners to hear zoning cases, and then submit a written
recommendation to the Council.
Section 2.07 Zoning Commission: Minor changes. Provides for a Zoning Commission to
recommend original zoning boundaries, and the appropriate regulations for each district.
Section 2.08 Board of Zoning Appeals:
(a) Changes power to appoint members to the Mayor, with the advice and consent
of the City Council.
(b) No change.
(c) Simplifies variance power, and makes other minor changes.
(d) Minor change.
(e) No change.
(f) No change.
(g) No change.
(h) Clarifies point that four votes are needed to reverse any order.
Section 2.09 Appeal to Courts:
(a) Minor changes.
(b) Minor changes.
(c) Minor changes.
(d) Minor changes.
234
(e) Minor changes.
Section 2.10 Enforcement and Remedies: Minor changes. Adds "sign" to "building" and
"structure" list.
Section 2.11 Conflict With Other Laws: Some material deleted.
Section 3.00 Planning
Section 3.01 Grant of Power:
(a) Clarifies point that grant of power extends to counties as well as municipalities.
(b) Adds new section providing that municipalities may participate in county
planning programs.
(c) Minor changes.
Section 3.02 Membership of Commission: Changed to allow five or seven members on a
planning commission, and states that one may be a member of the local legislative body.
Adds provision that members may be appointed by such person or persons as the legislative
body may designate (allowing city managers to receive appointive power). Adds provision
that local legislative body may provide compensation to Planning Commission members. A
number of old provisions dealing with individual counties are deleted (including a provision
that the Washington County Planning Commission would consist of seven members.)
Section 3.03 Organization and Rules: No changes.
Section 3.04 Staff and Finances: Makes expenditures of the Planning Commission more
subject to conditions established by the legislative body.
Section 3.05 General Powers and Duties:
(a) One of the most important new sections. Provides that the planning commission
shall approve a plan and recommend it to the local legislative body for
adoption. The question of whether a plan should be legally adopted by the local
legislative body has been argued for many years. Many officials in Maryland
have felt that the plan would have more power if adopted by the legislative
body. New wording is added indicating that the plan may include related areas
outside the commission's political jurisdiction. A lengthy new section outlines
the minimum elements of the plan. The minimum plan elements outlined are
still related to physical development, but there is a clause in the last sentence
which would open the door to social and economic plans.
(b) Indicates that the planning commission may approve a plan for one or more
major geographic sections of the jurisdiction.
235
(c) Clarifies point that recommendations may include land acquisitions, as well as
structures and improvements. Other minor changes.
(d) Clarifies the planning commission's role on recommending zoning district
boundaries. The planning commission is to hold at least one public hearing.
Section 3.06 Purposes in View: See comments under Section 2.03.
Section 3.07 Procedure for Adoption of the Plan: Provides that the Planning Commission
may recommend adoption of the plan as a whole or in parts. Provides for coordination by
providing that copies of the plan, and all amendments, shall be referred to all neighboring
planning jurisdictions, and the state and other local jurisdictions with a role in implementing
the plan. Their recommendations and comments shall be included in the Planning
Commission's report to the legislative body. Procedural wording is clarified.
Section 3.08 Legal Status of the Plan: Clarifies the requirement that proposed projects must
be submitted to the Planning Commission for review, and that the Commission shall
communicate its decision to the legislative body. The legislative body can overrule the
Planning Commission, but that requires a two-thirds vote.
This section makes it clear that the local legislative body is to adopt the plan.
Note that the right of the Planning Commission to exercise the power of eminent domain is
removed. In fact, few if any commissions ever used this power.
Section 3.09 Inclusion of Annual Report: This is a new section requiring that the Planning
Commission prepare and adopt an annual report, and submit it to the local legislative body.
This section has three main parts. The first part outlines the type of material to be included
in the annual report. The Commission is directed to show on a map all changes in the local
development pattern, and to indicate whether the changes are consistent with the last
annual report and with adopted plans. Meeting this requirement will call for improved data
systems. The second major provision is that the report include recommendations for
improving the development process. The third part requires the local legislative body to
review the report and direct that appropriate studies or actions be undertaken.
This could be the most important new addition to the basic legislation. If a precedent is
established that planning commissions are to make meaningful (i.e. critical, if necessary)
reports, a basis for a productive continuing planning process would be established. On the
other hand, if the reports are simply statistical summaries or public relation blurbs, their
value will be greatly reduced.
Section 4.00 General Development Regulations and Zoning: Title only - note change from
"building" to "development".
236
Section 4.01 Grant of Power:
(a) Reference to aesthetics was added in draft but stricken in the final bill.
Authority to regulate off-street parking and signs is specifically listed.
(b) Key new section. Provides for conditional zoning. Last sentence requires that
conditional zoning can only be exercised if the local legislative body adopts an
ordinance providing for enforcement of conditions, and requirements for
adequate public hearings. Guidelines from the State Department of Planning are
clearly needed here.
Section 4.02 Districts: Minor changes. Clarification that the law applies to counties as well
as cities. The term "buildings" is changed to "development".
Section 4.03 Purposes: Minor changes which improve and broaden the meaning of the
purposes outlines - see comments under Section 2.03.
Section 4.04 Method of Procedure: Minor changes. Clarification that the regulations can be
"modified or repealed". Wording change to "at least one public hearing" opens door to a
number of hearings on sensitive issues.
Section 4.05 Changes:
(a) The old requirement for a three-fourths vote in case of a twenty percent protest
by property owners is stricken. New section added requiring that the legislative
body make certain findings of fact. Requires a recommendation from the
Planning Commission. Then, as in the Baltimore City section (2.05), there is a
requirement that an amendment can be granted upon "a finding that there was
a substantial change in the neighborhood or a mistake in the existing zoning."
Again, the old "change or mistake" rule is written into law. As mentioned
previously, I consider this a major backward step.
A sentence is added requiring a complete record of the hearing and the votes of
the legislative body.
(b) New section providing that a denied zoning request shall not be accepted again
for 12 months.
(c) Minor changes - provisions that public hearing and official notice requirements
shall apply to all reclassifications.
(d) Zoning Classification in Talbot County: Retains old provisions for towns in
Talbot County to have zoning jurisdiction over land one mile outside its
boundary. This provision is to continue until, but not after, July 1, 1972. If
city limits are extended after July 1, 1971, the one -mile area does not move
237
outward. This section (4.05d) is unique because it is the only section in the new
Article 66B (except for those sections on Baltimore City) which refers to a
specific locality. All the other special provisions for individual counties have
been deleted.
Section 4.06 Hearing Examiner: New section of major importance. Provides that the local
legislative body may appoint hearing examiners to hear zoning cases, and then submit a
written recommendation to the legislative body.
Section 4.07 Board of Appeals:
(a) Membership: Provides for a Board of three or five members, to be appointed by
the local executive, and confirmed by the legislative body. Allows
compensation as the local legislative body deems appropriate.
(b) Minor changes.
(c) Rules and Meetings: Minor changes.
(d) [General Powers of Board: Simplifies variance power - tends to broaden possible
use of variance power.
(e) Appeals: Minor change.
(f) No change.
(g) No change.
(h) No change.
Section 4.08 Appeals to the Courts:
(a) Adds section clarifying point that a person or persons aggrieved by a
reclassification by the local legislative body may appeal to the court. New
sentence that appeals shall be taken as provided in Chapter 1100 Subtitle B of
Maryland Rules.
(b) Regrouping of existing sections, minor changes.
(c) Regrouping of existing sections, minor changes.
(d) Regrouping of existing sections, minor changes.
(e) Regrouping of existing sections, minor changes.
238
Section 5.00 Subdivision Control.
Section 5.01 Subdivision Jurisdiction: Ends old one -mile jurisdiction of municipal planning
commissions for subdivision control, but provides that one -mile jurisdiction may be
exercised by a municipal planning commission if the county has not provided "functional"
subdivision regulations.
Section 5.02 Scope of Control of Subdivision: Minor changes - provides that after a
legislative body adopts the transportation element of the plan, and has filed a copy in the
office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court (changed from County Clerk) no subdivision plat
shall be filed until approved by the Planning Commission.
Section 5.03 Subdivision Regulations:
(a) Adds that regulations may provide for "sediment control and protection from
flooding."
(b) Minor changes.
(c) Minor changes. Note that a new section providing for authority for dedication
of school, park, and playground sites was deleted in the final bill.
Section 5.04 Approval of Plat: Minor changes. The wording of this section, even with the
additions, is not clear. It seems to allow some form of planned developments. If this is so, it
could have been stated much clearer.
Section 5.05 Penalties for Transferring Lots in Unapproved Subdivisions: Minor changes.
Section 5.06 Clerk of the Circuit Court's Duties: Changed from County Clerk to Clerk of
the Circuit Court. Changed wording strengthens role of subdivision review by stating that a
plat or deed of an illegally recorded subdivision shall be void.
Section 5.07 Status of Existing Platting Statutes: Minor changes.
Section 6.00 Development in Mapped Streets.
Section 6.01 Reservation of Locations of Mapped Streets for Future Public Acquisitions:
Wording is broadened from public street to include other parts of the transportation
element of the plan. This could include pedestrian walkways, bicycle paths, rapid transit
rights-of-way, and special bus lanes. Other minor wording changes are included.
Section 6.02 Control of Development in the Bed of Mapped Streets: Minor wording
changes.
239
Section 7.00 General Provisions.
Section 7.01 Enforcement and Remedies: Minor changes. Includes specific reference to a
sign.
Section 7.02 Conflict With Other Laws: Minor changes. Makes clear that the provisions of
Article 66B do not apply within the Maryland -Washington Regional District in Montgomery
and Prince George's County. Makes it clear that nothing in Sections 3.00 to 8.00 applies to
Baltimore City.
Section 7.03 Powers Supplemental to Powers of Chartered Counties: Provides that
provisions of Article 66B shall not apply to chartered counties.
Section 7.04 Severability Clause: Minor wording changes.
Section 7.05 Repeal of Inconsistent Law: Minor wording changes.
Section 8.00 Historic Area Zoning: Section 8.01 - 8.15: Only minor wording and numbering
changes.
APPROVAL AND CERTIFICATION
This Plan for the County - Development Analysis Plan, Map and Policies, is hereby
unanimously approved and adopted by the County Commissioners of Washington County,
Maryland, this 12th day of October, 1971 at 2:45 p.m., and shall take effect immediately.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND
BY -
Lem E. �r , Presiident
ATTEST:
W. Carlton Parsley, Clerk
240
Pa6r- ihhrrltV & �kssvriates, aur.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
P. O. BOX 1657. NORTHERN STATION
560 NORTHERN AVENUE
HAGERSTOWN. MARYLAND 21740
July 15, 1971
Mr. Donald R. Frush, Chairman
Washington County Planning
and Zoning Commission
Court House Annex
Hagerstown, Maryland 21740
Dear Mr. Frush:
TELEX
710.803.6806
CABLE ADDRESS
"BAW I SS"
Our firm, with our planning consultant, has undertaken
a series of studies of Washington County in accordance with our
Third Party Contract, Urban Planning Assistance Project, Number
Md. P-69, dated February 10, 1968.
We believe that our proposals, which emphasize the
adoption of planning policies, will encourage consistency in
administrative action and development control. In addition, the
establishment of citizen planning committees should facilitate a
public-private4 process to implement the Plan.
It is our opinion that the County now has an extraordinary
opportunity to determine whether private citizens can; on a voluntary
basis, achieve a form of land use representati4e of a majority, con-
sensus among the County's residents.
We wish to thank you for the opportunity to serve your
Commission and the County.
WCMcD:er
PREPARED BY:
Baker-Wibberley & Associates, Inc.
William C. McDonnell, A.I.P.
Project Staff:
Richard E. Keister
Gerard Croteau
Joseph Gamba
Stuart Mahler
Emil Piekle
Richard Swoboda
Joyce McArtor
Joan Fowler
Margaret Hartung
Sincerely,
BAKER-WIBBERLEy & ASSOCIATES, INC.
H. E. Wibberley
President
/i4lti^
V4.),ww
William C. McDonnell
Consulting Planner
WASHINGTON COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
Lem E. Kirk, President
John E. Easterday, Vice President
Harold L. Boyer
Rome F. Schwagel
Calvin H. Shank
W. Carlton Parsley, Clerk
James F. Strine, Attorney
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION
Donald R. Frush, Chairman
Richard D. Walla, Vice Chairman
Rome F. Schwagel, Ex -Officio
William E. Dorsey
Richard W. Gross
John C. Herbst
James F. Strine, Ex -Officio
John F. Tritle
Harry R. Zimmerman (Deceased)
Leroy R. Burtner, County Planner
Marion Snyder, Adm. Asst.
William D. Jones, Planning Du. (Resigned)