HomeMy WebLinkAboutH_1997_AnnualReportWASHINGTON COUNTY
% PLANNING COMMISSION
County Administration Building
100 West Washington Street, Room 320
Hagerstown, Maryland 21740-4727
Telephone: 301--791-3085
TTY/Hearing Impaired: 301-791-3070
FAX: 301-791-3017
Board of County Commissioners
for Washington County, Maryland
100 West Washington Street
Hagerstown, MD 21740
Dear Commissioners:
This report submitted pursuant to the provisions of Article 66B of the Annotated
Code, summarized the activities ofthe Commission from July 1, 1996 through June 30, 1997.
In addition to the routine review and approval of subdivisions and site plans, the
Commission continued to implement the Comprehensive Plan that was adopted in 1981. The
various elements of the Plan worked on by the Commission in Fiscal Year 1997 are
described in this report along with the numerous other tasks undertaken during this fiscal
year.
As in the past, the new Work Program that has been formally adopted by the Planning
Commission lists all those tasks the Commission plans to address.
BLI/dsk
Sincerely,
4
Beand L. Iseminger, Chairman
asington County Planning Commission
R RECYCLED PAPER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
PIanning Organizational Chart .................................................... i
Agency Inter-Relationships.....................................................
ii
The Comprehensive Plan ......................................... ...............
I
Planning Commission Work Program ..............................................
3
Agricultural Land Preservation Program ............................................
4
Metropolitan Planning Organization ...............................................
7
Town Planner Assistance Program ................................................
8
Forest Conservation Program ...................................................
10
Water and Sewerage Plan ......................................................
14
Highway Interchange Study.....................................................15
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance .............................................
16
ParkPlanning................................................................17
Historic District Commission ...................................................
18
Community Development ......................................................
21
Housing Repair Loan Programs ............................................
21
Elderly Rental Housing Development .......................................
22
Community Development Block Grant Program ..............................
23
Technical Assistance....................................................23
Project Management....................................................23
Development Activity.........................................................
24
Rezoning Cases..............................................................25
Board of Zoning Appeals Statistics ...............................................
27
Agriculturally Significant Land Converted to Development ............................
28
Agricultural Preservation Districts ...............................................
29
FY 1996 Subdivision Summary ..................................................
31
FY 1996 Subdivision Detail ....................................................
32
Subdivision Trends...........................................................34
Planning Sector Map.................................................... Appendix
FY 1997 Development Map ................................................ Appendix
FY 1997 Rezoning Map.................................................. Appendix
Agricultural Preservation District Map...................................... Appendix
Washington County Planning Commission
1997 Annual Report
Board of County Commissioners
Gregory 1. Snook, President
John S. Shank, Vice -President
Ronald L. Bowers
R. Lee Downey
James R. Wade
Planning Commission
Bertrand L. Iseminger, Chairman
Bernard L. Moser, Vice -Chairman
James R. Wade, Ex -Officio
Robert E. Ernst, II
Paula Lampton
Don Ardinger
R. Ben Clopper
Published, June 3)0, 1998
Washington County Planning Commission
100 West Washington Street
Hagerstown, Maryland 21740
Ln
9x
"m
Ln
Lia
1.4
z
Q
H
E
1
1
1
E
F
I
1
1
3
E
L9
�4
� y
0
RE i�3
pa F �
h�
r-1
A W R'i
U
H
M—W
N Uo
N A
F
Q
w C W W
U Ln MLn
U Muw
W
x
L4
H
N
�0 N
m
N04
W
W
�0 04
P4Ln
HH
F
rg
i.7 .4UC�3t7
H
O L4
Yz1
H�
t 7 H 44 9X x
L7r1�
W
W
xf-4AFM
A x wA
ct4
v�q HN
N o U pqZ �q
G4 H W'a�
xa+
�x
W W
H o WU0
C0�4�4W�4
u
x LO
00P4
0494
NmtuWx9w
a Oto
x
x P4
F
Lr)
4 PA
LncU)PWN
�q
Ln Ln A
+
Ga g F"
W A U
WHO
PIA
L9
u UA En
H(n 0 Mtn
I-4
P4
"x
04
R: W 4od +�
0
H04 H 04
L17 R {g
UH
17 E* U C±
a!Pig OwF'E
x Lr)H F
En
ox
U H
Ln
�q
O
FA
O
W
t9
tnLn
A
NL
14
P4 U
Sq
C7 W
O
A
H
UL
Lr1 W
U
m tn
0
[-+ 64
A
�
cn
p U
U wa A
L3
H
O
C�
W
114
�q----------w
i
s�
0
rp Iv
rr
q p k A �►
of.
D r i ` a 4 .? Oho p4141,
r
d� �p
y6 IPPto
o
Ae
IL
c �
'Pao IV
r � A arm c ,;cam Q6
41 Op
°ra
��
A 4,�y' 101,
'4 �l�3 ��
11014. ! �r1 D4
r Q)
�irr ®d 16
Q]
TCNktSY
A DEPiRT1k NT -Co
[�A7 .r e
CO 96
U) JAL
ppox
N t
R
ve�hy
e Si
Ee�R o``voa 4 < s r4 y�
a a 4
s js`
,�`���`' � : of ,i�� �►
40
r -ell
aTe iry ZCob P C r dy1 �ti7
x 22dc
19
'ate oAw
u A.-
0 edIL v
ii
THE COMPREHENSIEVE PLAN
Implementation of policies with the Comprehensive Plan continued through FY 1997. Many
items which are outlined in greater detail in other sections of this report are directly related or reflect
some aspects of the implementation of the policy and goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
During FY 1997 the Planning Commission worked to implement the policies of the
Comprehensive Plan through adoption of amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and completion of
the rezoning process for Group III and Group V of the Highway Interchange Comprehensive
Rezoning.
Several amendments to the Comprehensive Plan were adopted in FY 1997 in order to obtain
compliance with the Planning Act of 1992. These include: the "7 Visions", adoption of a Sensitive
Area Element and adoption of a Regulatory Streamlining Element. In addition, an amendment to
designate Fort Ritchie as a Special Planning .Area for Economic development was also adopted. This
action was an outgrowth of the need to develop a reuse plan for the military base as a result of the
decision to close the military facility.
Work progressed on the completion of the Transportation Element during the fiscal year with
anticipated option in FY 1998.
Since the Comprehensive Plan adoption in 1981, the Planning Commission and the Planning
Staff have worked continuously to implement its strategies for growth management and
improvement of the quality of life in Washington County. The attached work program for FY 1998
is designed to continue that effort along with meeting the planning requirements of the "Smart
1
Growth" adopted by the State. One item of particular emphasis will be the start of the updating of
the Comprehensive Plan with the first step being the completion of a fiscal analysis study of the cost
of new development as it pertains to County Services.
PA
0
0
x
a
a
0
m
a,
m
li
W
14
a
W
5
0
H
W
W
U
P4
z
W
DaW
d
H
N
H
W
z
W
W
W
F
3
W
y
W
W ar a s
H °x0z
0ZHHZ W
A
r0-1 H 11 a H
a
zH
HM
P4
iW-, z too 7 W
W
w>
0
O
naw°WAa az
Www
P: O a L4 t7 W ,7. $ H 'vi H
H W W
a a a H d U 0
W {4 EJ F,H H
z 0
U
F d' H O .l H
W W P U O a 0 m a
KG
94 O F H W H 'z U U H
a' W 6'
(�
z H a H W P Z0 0 CWS Maw
0 0
w SL' W W [a z N a w¢
U w z
a
a W
O
> H
H
0
w PS
G] U
E4
a
14 M
El
Er
H
a
a W
p0,
N z�z
papd�
rF/]
CO7
W
W
G
U F4
p
[7
F
O
C7
H
N
$4 O
.4
O
0:
O W
3
W
y
W
W ar a s
H °x0z
0ZHHZ W
B 4F4 04
r0-1 H 11 a H
a
zH
HM
iW-, z too 7 W
W W N a 0
w>
"z
naw°WAa az
Www
P: O a L4 t7 W ,7. $ H 'vi H
H W W
a a a H d U 0
W {4 EJ F,H H
z 0
U
F d' H O .l H
W W P U O a 0 m a
m
W F
94 O F H W H 'z U U H
a' W 6'
(�
z H a H W P Z0 0 CWS Maw
0 0
w SL' W W [a z N a w¢
U w z
AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION PROGRAM
Washington County's efforts to preserve valuable farmland via the Maryland Agricultural
Land Preservation Program (MALPP) began in April 1978 and has continued to date. The Program
was established and is regulated by Agricultural Article, Sections 2-501 through 2-515 of the
Annotated Code of Maryland. It is administered through a Planning Commission staff member, by
the Washington County Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Board, the County Commissioners,
and the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation (MALPF) of the Maryland Department
of Agriculture.
The program encourages landowners to voluntarily enter into an Agricultural Land
Preservation District in which it is agreed that the land will not be developed for a period of at least
five years (to receive County tax credits, the landowner is required to commit his property to
agricultural use only, for a period of ten years). In return for the restriction, the landowner receives
protection from nuisance complaints and becomes eligible to sell a Development Rights Easement.
A landowner may exercise the option of selling a Development Rights Easement to the Agricultural
Land Preservation Foundation provided that his offer to sell is recommended by the County's
Advisory Board and the County Commissioners.
At the local level, the Agricultural Advisory Board reviews and ranks easement applications,
assigning point value to such items as farm size, soil quality and development pressure indicators
on its easement checklist. During FY 1997 the Board of County Commissioners again limited the
number of applicants sent to Annapolis for easement sale since funds are still in short supply. If
purchased by the State of Maryland, the easement will remain effective in perpetuity.
4
During FY 1997, total acreage in the program increased to 23,971 acres with a total of 175
agricultural districts.
Under the MALPP easement purchase program, contracts were issued during FY 1997 for 3
additional farms, bringing total easement properties in the program to 23, equaling 5,012 acres. In
addition, Federal, State, and private conservation easements around Antietam Battlefield effectively
preserve an additional 4,600 acres of agricultural land in perpetuity.
A potentially significant source of funding for farmland preservation is the Rural Legacy
Program (RLP). Washington County is currently developing a joint application with Frederick and
Montgomery counties to receive funding. Even though preserved properties will include
environmental and cultural/historic parameters in addition to prime soils, blocks of farmland will
be permanently preserved, adding to the above mentioned efforts near Antietam Battlefield.
Washington County continues to monitor agriculturally significant land lost compared with
farmland permanently preserved. During FY 1997, 422 acres were preserved. As the enclosed figures
show, we lost 177 acres of agriculturally significant land during the same period.
5
AGRICULTURAL SIGNIFICANT LAND CONVERTED TO DEVELOPMENT
1980 TO MUNE 30,1997
Total Developed
ACREAGE LOTS
Total Converted
ACREAGE LOTS .,CONVERTED
1980
1,359.6
365
487.8
95
36.0
1981
1,137.1
332
251.3
59
22.0
1982
964.9
150
194.4
33
20.1
1983
895.3
220
305.6
127
34.1
1984
1,092.3
235
409.6
68
37.5
1985
1,144.6
231
439.8
65
38.4
1986
946.9
250
138.8
60
14.6
1987*
2,254.6
995
363.1
94
16.1
1989
1,714.8
770
301.3
86
17.5
1990
1,769.1
820
318.6
102
18.0
1991
1,115.4
339
321.6
104
28.8
1992
1,246.9
565
203.5
46
16.3
1993
793.5
1,005
156.8
45
19.8
1994
833.2
312
121.0
42
14.5
1995
598.6
342
208.6
76
34.8
1996
995.9
506
191.8
37
19.3
1997
760.8
224
174.0
39
22.9
TOTAL 19,623.5 7,661 4,587.6 1,178 23.4
23.4% of the land developed between 1980 and June 30, 1996
has been converted from agriculturally significant land.
*Reporting period of 18 months was used to change the Planning
Commission's Annual Report from a calendar year to a fiscal year.
2
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
During FY 1997 the Hagerstown/Eastern Panhandle Metropolitan Planning Organization
officially came into being. This organization is composed of representatives from Washington
County, Maryland; Berkeley County, West Virginia; Jefferson County, West Virginia; and Franklin
County, Pennsylvania.
Within this time frame work continued on development of the Long Range Transportation
Plan for the region as well as reorganization of the MPO. The first combined Unified Planning
Work Program for the HEPMPO was prepared and a combined TIP for FY 1998 - 2000 was
developed. This included the identification of four special study projects across the region: impact
analysis of new I-70 & MD 632 Interchange on city intersections, identification of a formal
preliminary alignment for the Funkstown Bypass, development of an alignment for a bicycle trail
from Charles Town to Harper's Ferry in West Virginia and identification of historical routes within
the region with particular emphasis on routes which were traversed by Civil War armies.
The completion and adoption of the revised Transportation Element for the Comprehensive
Plan should follow closely the completion of the Long Range Transportation Plan. It is anticipated
that the Long Range Plan will be adopted in FY 1998.
7
TOWN PLANNER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
The Assistance Program is nearing its sixth year of service and assistance to municipal
governments in Washington County. The Town of Boonsboro continues to be the most active
participant in the program. The town has found the program to be a viable option to employing a
Rill -time staff person. The Town Planner organizes the monthly agenda, analyzes and coordinates
the review of development proposals and assists in long term or comprehensive planning goals of
the Town.
In late FY 1997, the Mayor and Council and Boonsboro Planning Commission conducted
public information meetings and a public hearing on the Town's new Comprehensive Plan. The Plan
was adopted and became effective June 23, 1997. Staff was responsible for the preparation of the
document, coordination of the governmental and public review process and all legal notification
requirements.
The Commission anticipates minor amendments to the Zoning Ordinance in FY 1998-1999
as a result of the Comprehensive Plan update (mandated by the Planning Act of 1992). The
complete rewrite of the Subdivision Ordinance is scheduled for FY 1998.
The most significant residential development approved by the Commission during the fiscal
year was the preliminary and final plat approval of Graystone Hills Section E. Section E is a 23 lot
single family development which represents the final phase of Graystone Hills. The final section
(86 lots) of the Crestview Subdivision remains on hold until the completion of a water filtration
plant. The Town Planner also assists the Utilities Commission on water and wastewater planning
issues and presents quarterly updates to the Commission on capacities and utilization of the systems.
0
The Town Planner continues to provide assistance to the Mayor and Council and Town Manager on
various projects.
The Town of Smithsburg also participated in the Town Planner Assistance Program for the
third year. The focus of the Smithsburg Planning Commission's efforts this year has been to start
a complete rewrite the Town's Zoning Ordinance. The Commission reviewed and granted
preliminary approval to a 32 semi-detached single family development known as Mountain Shadows
II.
The Smithsburg Mayor and Council conducted a public hearing and adopted several
Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance amendments which specified certain financial responsibilities
of developers during the development review and construction phase of a subdivision or site. The
proposed amendments were drafted by the Town Planner at the request of the Mayor and Council.
These new amendments are being administered for the first time by the Town's Development
Coordinator during the subdivision review and public infrastructure improvement process of the
Mountain Shadow II development project.
K
FOREST CONSERVATION PROGRAM
Washington County continues to implement the local version of Maryland's Forest
Conservation law. Through the inventory of existing forest on development sites and the
calculation of minimum forest cover based on existing forest and proposed development, the law
is designed to slow the loss of valuable forest land in the State of Maryland.
Several options for meeting obligations under the Ordinance are available. The first
preference is to prevent forest disturbance and the retention of existing forest or planting of new
forest on the development site. Planting new forest and placing easements on existing forest off
site are also available. Payment of a fee in lieu of planting or retention is also allowable.
In the past fiscal year the Washington County PIanning Department processed 242
subdivision and site plan applications covering 3,629.74 acres of land. 195 or 81% of those
applications, an increase from the previous year's 78%, were exempt from the requirements of
the Forest Conservation Ordinance (FCO). The chart below indicates the number and type of
exemptions granted in the past fiscal year.
A. < 40,000 SQUARE FOOT PARCEL 4
B. SIMPLIFIED PLAT
54
C. APPLICATION BEFORE EFFECTIVE DATE 5
D. OWNER/IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER DWELLING 32
E. EXISTING LOT OF RECORD
19
F. PUD BEFORE EFFECTIVE DATE 3
10
G. AGRICULTURAL, ACTIVITY 0
H. REAL ESTATE TRANSFER 20
I. REPLATS 58
TOTAL SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN
REVIEW EXEMPTIONS 195
47 plans remain that must comply with the Ordinance in some other manner.
Payment of the fee in lieu of planting is chosen most often. Of the 47 plans not exempt,
17 used the fee in lieu of planting choice. The payments generated an additional $ 240,625.42 for
the Forest Conservation Fund. The Staples Distribution Center made the largest single payment
in the history of the law, $ 205,167.60, which accounts for the unusually large balance for the
year. The past year's accumulation of the fee in lieu of is payment for the equivalent of 55.24
acres of forest that was not required to be planted on the development sites. Since adoption of
the Forest Conservation Ordinance in February 1993 the fee in lieu of option has generated a
total of $ 351,742.15 for the Forest Conservation Fund. {Fund balances reported in the FY 96
Annual Report were incorrect. Collections for that year totaled $ 46,455.18 and the cumulative
total was $ 111,116.73.)
A portion of the Forest Conservation Fund is earmarked for reforestation of the West
Woods at Antietam National Battlefield, an arrangement that was approved by the Planning
Commission and the Board of County Commissioners in November 1994. $ 2,167.01 was
disbursed to the Battlefield during the fiscal year, bringing the total expenditure to date to
$ 24,394.85. The reforested area is now 12 acres in size which equates to a cost of
11
approximately $2,032.00 per acre. The total amount spent is equivalent to the fee in lieu of
planting 5.6 acres. The labor was volunteered.
In cooperation with the Soil Conservation District, Washington County is developing a
formal, long term program to expend fee in lieu of funds to create new forest or permanently
protect existing forest on private properties. Use of the fund is restricted by Maryland law to
these efforts. The program proposal was tested on two small pilot sites to aid in fully evaluating
the concept and identifying any adjustments before formal adoption of program. guidelines. The
pilot program cost a total $25,968.00, a fee in lieu of planting 5.96 acres and resulted in the
planting of 6.79 acres of new forest in priority areas.
20 plans, a slight reduction from the previous year, required no fees or planting because
there was sufficient forest on the site to allow some clearing with no mitigation or no clearing
was proposed or necessary. Deferral of obligations to a point in the future was permitted by the
Planning Commission for 2 site plans, both for lots in industrial parks. Comprehensive forest
conservation plans are under development for this area, known as Newgate, and will
accommodate forest conservation requirements for the entire park including the two lots already
approved. The arrangement is permitted because it will produce forest planting or retention of a
size and in an area more consistent with the intent of the Forest Conservation Ordinance than
trying to meet obligations on individual lots in the park.
The remaining 8 plans met forest conservation obligations in a previous phase of the
development or plan review already included in the tabulations above or in a previous fiscal year.
New planting, a final method of compliance was not used at all in the past fiscal year.
12
All methods of compliance generate a plan review fee. There is no fee when a plan is
exempt. The Planning Department collected $ 4,824.85 in Forest Conservation Plan review fees
during the past fiscal year.
An additional 13 exemptions from the Forest Conservation Ordinance were granted for
timber harvest activities which are not considered development activities.
13
WATER AND SEWERAGE PLAN
The Planning Department reviewed one application to amend the Water and Sewerage
Plan during FY 1997.
WS -96-01 was submitted by Victor Peeke, the developer of a proposed residential
subdivision on property located partially within the Town of Keedysville. The application was
to expand the existing Rural Village water and sewer service area to include approximately 65.3
acres and to change the service priority designation from No Planned Service (W-7, S-7) to
Planned Service (W-5, S-5). This application was found to be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and was approved by the County Commissioners on February 11, 1997.
The approval was conditioned upon the applicant presenting legally sufficient evidence of
permission to proceed with construction by the appropriate service providing agencies.
In late FY 1997, the Planning Department Staff began preliminary work on the State
mandated update of the Water and Sewerage Plan. This work will continue into FY 1998 with
a public hearing and adoption anticipated by mid 1998.
14
HIGHWAY INTERCHANGE STUDY
During FY 1997 a public hearing was held on Group III and Group V of the Highway
Interchange Comprehensive Rezoning. This hearing occurred in October, 1996 at Clear Spring
High School. Testimony was provided both for and against the Comprehensive Rezoning as
proposed. The Planning Commission went on record in April as recommending adoption of the
proposed comprehensive rezoning plans for all the interchanges except for I-81/N4D 58
Interchange at Salem Avenue. The Planning Commission's recommendation was to make
substantial revisions as requested by the residents and to then take the interchange back to
another public hearing since the revisions were substantial in nature. At the time of completion
of the fiscal year no action had been taken by the Board of Commissioners on the
recommendation of the Planning Commission.
15
ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE
During FY 1997, the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) was assessed by the
Planning Commission for need and recommended for continuance. The Planning Commission
also recommended that the Board of Commissioners revisit the issue of impact fees. No
substantive amendments were approved during the fiscal year.
However, a consultant Tischler & Associates was retained to provide input on
developing an RFP for a Fiscal Analysis Study which would also look at impact fees and
special taxing districts. A $40,000 grant was obtained through the Maryland Office of Planning
to help the Fiscal Analysis Study. It is anticipated that the Fiscal Analysis Study will be
completed in FY 1999.
16
PARK AND ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
Park and environmental planning during FY1997 included a variety of projects and
activities. Updating and revision of the 5 year Land Preservation and Recreation Plan for
Washington County was begun. All municipalities as well as numerous leagues and sports
associations were contacted by letter and invited to provide input on recreational needs and
facilities. Revisions included noting consistency of the land preservation policies with the
Visions of the 1992 Maryland Planning Act and converting all graphics to the GIS database.
Park acreage numbers and population projections were updated as required. Public land
inventory data was also provided on computer disks to the State Office of Planning. Public
review meetings on the draft plan will be scheduled early in 1998, with adoption to follow a
public hearing and comment period.
County representation on the Hagerstown fairgrounds Committee was provided at
several meetings during two months of development of the concept plan for the site. A
landscape buffer plan was also prepared for the site. Assistance was given to the County Parks
Department by providing a County GIS map showing federal, state, and County parks facilities
as well as with an analysis and report of potential additional Conococheague Creek canoe
access locations. Advice on planning of the new town park was provided to Smithsburg.
The County Convention and Visitors Office was assisted by preparation of several themed
"scenic byways" descriptions, along with route maps. These were submitted to the State
Highway Administration for use in updating the statewide Scenic Routes highway road map.
17
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
The Washington County Historic District Commission continues to pursue its
responsibilities and concerns regarding historic preservation through a variety of permits,
applications and assignments from individuals and agencies. The Commission and the County
can influence and encourage preservation through several different levels of review and
incentives.
Property tax credits are available for restoration, preservation or improvements to
structures located in the County's Historic Preservation zoning designation. Proposals must be
designed according to adopted standards and approved by the Commission. Two tax credit
applications were submitted by property owners. One was denied because it was determined to
be routine maintenance, and therefore ineligible for credits. The second resulted in over
$15,000.00 worth of restoration to a dwelling in an historic district and more than $1,500.00
worth of credit toward the owner's County property tax bill.
The Commission reviewed several demolition applications and offered several different
types of recommendations following County policy. The Commission took a stand in
opposition to demolition of a stone structure, formerly a dwelling, dated 1818. The
Commission paid for a newspaper advertisement offering a log structure to any interested party
willing to move it to a new location to prevent its proposed demolition. For several other
applications, the Commission recommended dismantling and reuse of the parts but did not
oppose the demolition. Two design review applications for signs in the AO -2 area of the
Antietam Overlay zoning district were approved. A building permit to rehabilitate a home in
the AO -1 district that was heavily damaged by fire was also approved.
18
Among the many responsibilities accompanying Certified Local Government (CLG)
status is participation in the National Register nomination process. The Hoffinan Farm , a 19th
century farm complex with strong Civil War associations, was ultimately listed based, in part,
on recommendations from the Commission with concurrence from the Board of County
Commissioners. Other CLG activities included substantial completion, excluding final billing
and reimbursement, of the FY 97 project funded jointly with CLG funds and. County
appropriations. It was Phase I of the Rural Community Survey, a detailed historic sites survey
and documentation of the Maugansville and Rohrersville communities. Additional phases for
other rural communities are planned for the future.
The Commission's participation in the development review process remained level over
this past fiscal year. The Commission reviewed a number of Preliminary Consultations,
subdivisions and site plans and occasionally made recommendations to protect existing
structures listed in the Historic Sites Survey. It also made recommendations on a significant
rezoning application, a request to rezone over 600 acres containing several survey listed farm
complexes from Agricultural to Highway Interchange and Residential classifications. The
Commission stressed retention of the complexes with sufficient acreage and adaptive reuse. An
application to remove the HP designation from approximately 100 acres of farmland
surrounding Rose Hill Manor, an early 19th century dwelling, was approved by the County
Commissioners during this period also.
The Commission continues to discuss the distinction between routine maintenance
activities and preservation/rehabilitation/restoration. It is attempting to draw clear lines between
the issues in order to make reliable and consistent decisions on tax credit applications. The
entire Commission met it's training requirement this fiscal year by way of Renovator's
19
Roundtable , a pre-packaged, scripted, slide presentation and text developed by the Maryland
Association of Historic District Commissions. Staff Fielded a multitude of requests for
information and direction throughout the year.
20
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
The Division of Community Development provides direct assistance to individuals,
organizations and municipalities in providing housing opportunities for low and moderate
income families, community infrastructure and facilities, and assists in the economic
development of the County where federal and state funds are utilized. These programs and
activities provide a general framework for combating neighborhood and community
deterioration through sound redevelopment efforts.
Housing Repair Loan Programs:
Housing Preservation Grant
Maryland Housing Rehabilitation Program
Washington County Revolving Loan Program
These loan programs have been effective tools for providing essential home repairs and
stabilizing the housing stock in neighborhoods and small communities. Rehabilitation expands
the community's tax base, extends the economic value of the housing stock and stimulates
additional construction activities. Loans are both deferred and interest bearing, and repayment
terms are flexible.
Housing Preservation Grant:
This program of the Rural Economic and Community Development Administration,
provides assistance to low and very low income homeowners in the County. Funds are mostly
reserved for use by the County's elderly population who do not have the income necessary to
21
support conventional loan terms. Loan proceeds are made available to help with property
repairs which are primarily health and safety related issues.
Maryland Housing Rehabilitation Program
This program of Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development,
offers funds for the rehabilitation of homes and rental properties that serve income eligible
occupants. General repairs and major renovations are eligible activities. This program seeks to
meet rehabilitation needs mainly by providing low-cost rehabilitation financing to owners.
Revolving Loan Fund
Utilizing the repayments from previous loans, the department can continue to assist
eligible households with rehabilitation efforts. This program is more flexible in the use of its
proceeds and can be used for residential, business, and public renovations.
Elderly Rental Housing Development
The department promotes the production of affordable rental housing for the elderly and
non elderly disabled which may be unavailable through the private sector due to income
limitations. Our developments provide coordinated supportive services to allow the elderly
population to maintain their independence and avoid costly alternatives. The department is
proactive in project oversight throughout the development process.
22
Community Development Block Grant Program
This federal program provides grants and loans to counties and municipalities for the
development or expansion of economic opportunities, public facilities and various housing
activities. Local government can apply directly or undertake in joint projects on behalf of a
larger application. The department can provide assistance with application preparation, project
development, financial packaging and project management.
Technical Assistance
The department is available to assist public, private, not for profit groups and
individuals who may be interested in gaining access or better understanding of the state and
federal programs. Assistance is available to examine the feasibility of projects, funding avenues
and regulatory requirements.
Project Management
The Department has assisted the Town of Hancock in acquiring state and federal
funding for a pedestrian park along Main Street as part of a downtown revitalization effort. The
project entails the purchase and demolition of a deteriorated building, design and architectural
plans for the pedestrian park, coordination with Maryland State Highway Administration for
new sidewalks, coordination with Maryland Department of Natural Resources on the
construction of a Rails to Trails project, and the completion of new utilities service along Main
Street. This project came together from a coordinated, successful partnership of town, county,
state, federal and community groups working towards a committed and carefully structured
plan.
23
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
Development proposals were reviewed by the Planning Commission in both concept
and final form. The Commission reviewed and approved 101 residential, commercial,
industrial or institutional subdivision plats involving 224 lots representing 208 dwelling units
on 760.8 acres. In addition, the Commission approved 28 site plans and held 15 preliminary
consultations. Some of the conceptual forms have not resulted in a firm design while others
have proceeded through final approval.
There were several subdivisions or development plans of significance (final approval of
twenty or more lots or units) granted during FY 97. They include: Kings Crest Section B -
Phase 2; Sterling Oaks Phase 2; and Quail Run II.
Site Plans representing significant private investment within the County were approved
for: the Bowman Group, Citicorp -Child Care Center, Ted's Rent It, Talley Metals, Hub Labels
and Save -A -Lot.
A site plan reflecting public project investment was approved for the Lincolnshire
Elementary School.
24
REZONING CASES AND ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
Between July 1, 1996 and June 30, 1997, the Planning Commission acted on 13
applications. Joint hearings with the Planning Commission and the Board of County
Commissioners were held regularly on a quarterly cycle or special hearings were held as
necessary to provide for efficiency in the hearing process. The Commission rendered
recommendations on 6 map amendments and 1 text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, 4 text
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and 2 map amendments to the Water and Sewer Plan.
A listing of the Planning Commission's recommendations and the Board's actions for the cases
heard in FY 1997 are as follows:
CASE APPLICANT TYPE OF ACREAGE REQUEST COMMISSION BOARD
AMENDMENT ACTION ACTION
RZ-96-03
RZ-96-06
RZ-96-07
RZ-96-08
RZ-96-09
RZ-96-11
Ethel V. Small
Jane Hershey
Virginia Tritch
Albert Sheets
Planning
Commission
Larry Artz
RZ-96-13 Bd of County
Commissioners
Map
11.5 acres
A to HI -1
Map
100 acres
HP to A
Map
27,834 sq.ft.
RU to BL
Map
1 acre
RU to BL
Text
Sensitive
Areas
Map
612 acres
A to HI -1 and
RR
Text
Art. 6, Sec. 6.1,
6.2,6.5; Art.7,
Sec.7.2, 7.5;
Art.8, Sec. 8.2,
8.5; Art.9, Sec.9.2
9.5; Art, 28,
Sec 28.0059
25
Withdrawn
App'd App'd
App'd Denied
App'd Denied
App'd App'd
Withdrawn
Withdrawn
CASE APPLICANT TYPE OF ACREAGE REQUEST COMMISSION BOARD
AMENDMENT ACTION ACTION
RZ-97-01 Mack Trucks Map
RZ-97-02 Triad Properties Map
RZ-97-03 Artz Property Map
CP -95-01 Planning
Commission
CP -95-02 Planning
Commission
CP -97-02 Board of
Commissioners
CP -97-03 Planning
Commission
WS -96-1 Victor Peeke
WS -97-1 W.C. Water
and Sewer Dept.
Text
Text
8.68 acres RU & IG to BG App'd App'd
18 acres A to RS
App'd
App'd
611.8 acres A to RR (145 ac.
)App' d
App'd
A to RR (26 ac.)
App'd
App'd
A to HI -1 (276.8ac)
App'd
Denied
A to HI -2 (64 acres)
App'd
App'd
A to IR (100 acres)
Denied
Denied
The 7 Visions
App'd
App'd
Sensitive Areas Element App'd App'd
Text
Creation of Special Planning App'd
App'd
Area for the Fort Ritchie/Cascade
Area
Text
Regulatory Streamlining App'd
App'd
Element
Map
Change from "No Planned App'd
App'd
Service" (W -7,S-7) to "Planned
Service" (W -5,S-5)
Map
Change from "No Planned App'd
App'd
Service" (W-7) to "Planned
Service"
26
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STATISTICS
FISCAL YEAR 1996197
GRANTED
DENIED
WITHDRAWN
TOTAL
VARIANCES
127
7
2
136
SPECIAL
EXCEPTIONS
42
4
1
47
EXPANSION OF
NON -CONFORMING USE
3
0
0
3
CHANGE OF
NON -CONFORMING USE
4
1
1
6
ADMINISTRATIVE
ERROR
2
2
0
4
APPEAL FROM
PLANNING COMMISSION
0
0
0
0
APPEAL FROM ADEQUATE
0
0
0
0
PUBLIC FACILITIES
APPEAL FOR FLOOD PLAIN
1
0
0
_l
TOTAL
179
14
4
197
FISCAL YEAR 1995-1996
174
14
3
191
27
WASHINGTON COUNTY MD
AGRICULTURALLY SIGNIFICANT LAND CONVERTED TO DEVELOPMENT
4.1
FOR PERIOD 07/01/96 THRU 06/30/97
PLANNING ELECTION
AGRICULTURAL
13.8
NEW USE
SECTOR DISTRICT
ACREAGE LOST
LOTS
(TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT)
1
19
13.0
6
9
9.0
5
SF
10
1.1
1
SF
13
72.2
1
LL
13
4.7
3
SF
18
2.7
1
SF
TOTAL
89.7
11
1,
3
5
C
1
4.1
4
SF
12
13.8
4
SF
16
31.9
8
SF
19
13.0
6
SF
TOTAL
62.8
22
8 6.3 2 SF
TOTAL 6.3 2
4 3.4 2 SF
TOTAL 3.4 2
5 10.5 1 LL
5 1.3 1 SF
TOTAL 11.8 2
GRAND TOTAL 174.0 39
28
29
WASHINGTON COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICTS
DISTRICT NO
DISTRICT NAME
FARM TYPE
ACRES
DATE
TYPE EASEMENT ESTABLISHED
AD -80-061-
FORD—
--CR=-
-frM
07M7U0
T
AD -80-002
CARR
DAIRY
245.64
07/11/80
5
12/21/82
AD -80-004
ST JAMES SCHOOL INC
CROP
279.14
04/21/80
5
AD -80-006
HARSHMAN
CROP
232.44
08/07/80
10
04/16/96
AD -80-007
LOHMAN
CROP
146.00
08/15/80
10
AD -81-002
MARTIN
CROP
140.00
08/28181
5
05/15/84
AD -82-003
ANKENEY
CROP
460.00
05/11/83
10
02/18/86
AD -83-002
WEISENBAUGH
BEEF
314.00
06/28/83
5
12/19/86
AD -83-002
WEISENBAUGH
BEEF
314.00
06/28/83
5
12/19/86
AD -83-003
HAYES
BEEF
200.55
03/19/84
5
09/06/85
AD -84-002
ROBBINS
BEEF
448.00
05/14/85
5
12/31/86
AD -85-001
WOLFINGER
BEEF
149.63
04/07/86
10
AD -86-001
ROSENBERRY
CROP
127.51
08/12/86
10
AD -88-001
MAIN
CROP
142.26
06/16/88
5
06/30/89
AD -88-002
ROWLAND
FOREST
700.04
03/09/89
5
03/07/91
AD -88-003
CORCORAN
CROP
158.42
03/22/89
10
05/01/97
AD -88-004
RITCHIE
DAIRY
237.99
04/12/89
5
09/24/90
AD -89-001
GOLDEN
ORCHARD
457.67
06/20/89
5
AD -89-002
STRITE
DAIRY
192.43
03/18/91
10
AD -89-003
BYERS
DAIRY
164.61
09/13/89
5
02/15/91
AD -89-005
HERBST
DAIRY
183.99
04/16/91
10
AD -89-005A
HERBST
DAIRY
172.12
04/16/91
10
07/26/95
AD -90-001
EMSWILER
CROP
100.00
09/20/90
10
05/01/97
AD -90-002
CORCORAN
CROP
150.14
09/20/90
10
06/30/93
AD -90-005
SCHOOLEY
FOREST
101.05
03/20/91
10
AD -90-006
HARP
CROP
124.70
09/20190
5
06/29/92
AD -90-007
HARP
CROP
150.51
09/20190
5
06/30/92
AD -90-008
WILES
CROP
190.88
03/20/91
10
AD -90-009
SCHOOLEY
FOREST
21.60
03/20191
10
AD -90-010
ENGSTROM
CROP
38.59
04/16/91
10
AD -90-011
BURTNER
DAIRY
108.81
04/16/91
10
AD -90-012
DURBIN
CROP
100.38
03/20/91
10
01/13/95
AD -90-013
WEAVER
DAIRY
174.05
08/05/91
10
AD -90-014
WEAVER
BEEF
82.34
11/20190
10
AD -90-015
CLINE
CROP
145.25
08/05/91
10
AD -90-017
PRICE
CROP
149.64
11/20/90
10
AD -90-018
LONG
DAIRY
163.88
04/16/91
10
AD -90-019
STRITE
DAIRY
140.04
11/20/90
5
AD -90-020
TRUMPOWER
DAIRY
125.00
11/20/90
10
08/16/94
AD -90-021
SHIFLER
CROP
157.00
05/29/91
10
AD -90-022
HEIMER
CROP
67.00
08/05/91
10
AD -90-023
LITTON
DAIRY
145.00
03/20/91
10
AD -90-024
HOWELL
FOREST
146.81
03/20/91
10
AD -90-025
CHURCHEY
CROP
186.32
05/29/91
10
05/01/96
AD -90-026
FLETCHER
CROP
104.80
03/20/91
10
AD -90-027
NIEMYER
CROP
75.38
03/20/91
10
AD -90-028
BAKER
BEEF
17.06
03/20/91
10
AD -90-031
BARR
ORCHARD
70.72
05129/91
10
AD -90-032
BARR
ORCHARD
115.62
05/29/91
10
AD -90-033
STONE
DAIRY
165.00
05/29/91
10
AD -90-034
SECREST
CROP
117.42
05/29/91
10
AD -90-036
HENDERSHOT
CROP
166.83
05/29/91
10
AD -90-037
HENDERSHOT
CROP
116.00
08/02/91
10
AD -90-038
ROTH
DAIRY
124.27
05/29/91
10
AD -90-039
STOCKSLAGER
CROP
144.33
03/20/91
10
AD -90-041
MARTIN
DAIRY
120.00
03/20/94
10
AD -90-042
FAITH
BEEF
129.62
03120!91
10
AD -90-043
FAITH
FOREST
132.63
03/20/91
10
AD -90-044
FAITH
FOREST
17.00
03/20/91
10
AD -90-045
MANUEL
CROP
63.63
03/20/91
10
AD -90-046
MANUEL
CROP
41.20
03/20/91
10
AD -90-050
RITONDO
FOREST
135.00
05/29/91
10
AD -90-051
STONE
CROP
109.50
05/29/91
10
AD -90-052
STONE
DAIRY
99.50
05/29/91
10
AD -90-053
STONE
DAIRY
104.78
05/29191
10
AD -90-054
STONE
CROP
93.15
05/29/91
10
AD -90-055
STONE
CROP
129.13
05/29/91
10
AD -90-056
HULL
FOREST
107.21
05/29/91
10
AD -90-057
HOSE
CROP
26.00
07/02/91
10
AD -90-060
LOHMAN
CROP
270.91
05/29/91
10
AD -90-062
LOUDENSLAGER
CROP
145.04
05/29/91
10
AD -90-063
MARTIN
DAIRY
100.61
05/29/91
10
AD -90-064
BOWERS
CROP
118.90
08/05/91
10
AD -90-065
BOWERS
DAIRY
141.31
08/05/91
10
AD -90-066
OSWALD
DAIRY
75.75
08/05/91
10
AD -90-067
GROSS
DAIRY
53.44
09/16/91
10
AD -90-069
GROVE
CROP
185.00
10/11/91
10
AD -90-070
STIVERS
BEEF
135.00
08/05/91
10
AD -90-073
SCHULTZ
BEEF
189.55
08/05/91
10
AD -90-074
OSWALD
DAIRY
58.90
08/05/91
10
AD -90-075
OSWALD
DAIRY
34.65
08/05/91
10
AD -90-077
SNYDER
DAIRY
100.00
08/05/91
10
AD -90-078
KRETZER
DAIRY
171.65
08/05/91
10
AD -90-079
WINDERS
BEEF
225.00
08/05/91
10
AD -90-084
BURGER
CROP
301.00
08/05/91
10
AD -90-086
BURGER
FOREST
182.42
08/05/91
10
29
DISTRICT NO
DISTRICT NAME
FARM TYPE
ACRES
DATE
TYPE EASEMENT ESTABLISHED
AD-90-087-
SUR=
-BEEF-
X66
oi95791
LTi
AD-91-001
PRICE
CROP
274.00
09/16/91
10
AD-91-004
SHOCKEY
CROP
72.21
08/05/91
10
AD-91-005
BRITNER
CROP
193.20
09/16/91
10
AD-91-006
PRYOR
DAIRY
108.51
09/16/91
10
AD-91-007
MARTIN
DAIRY
156.84
09/16/91
10
AD-91-008
DEBAUGH
DAIRY
122.22
09/16/91
10
AD-91-009
DEBAUGH
DAIRY
48.25
09/16/91
10
AD-91-010
OATES
CROP
62.98
09/16/91
10
AD-91-011
BUHRMAN
HOG
180.46
05/05/92
10
AD-91-012
MCALLISTER
BEEF
83.43
03/26/92
10
AD-91-013
WORTHINGTON
DAIRY
108.92
09/16/91
10
AD-91-014
NEWCOMER
DAIRY
113.28
10/11/91
10
AD-91-015
NEWCOMER
CROP
21.94
10111/91
10
AD-91-016
NEWCOMER
CROP
72.22
10/11/91
10
AD-91-016A
NEWCOMER
CROP
25.76
10/11/91
10
AD-91-017
NEWCOMER
DAIRY
55.50
10/11/91
10
AD-91-019
POFFENBERGER
CROP
78.00
10/11/91
10
AD-91-020
BELZ
DAIRY
247.63
10111/91
10
AD-91-021
COHiLL
CROP
78.68
10/31/91
10
AD-91-022
CUSHWA
CROP
138.90
12/03/91
10
AD-91-023
TRITAPOE
CROP
73.86
12/03/93
10
AD-91-024
TRITAPOE
CROP
81.00
12/03/91
10
AD-91-026
CLINE
BEEF
65.00
12/03/91
10
AD-91-027
DOWNS
CROP
145.00
32/03/91
10
AD-91-028
DOWNS
CROP
130.00
12/03/91
10
AD-91-029
DOWNS
CROP
118.00
12/03/91
10
AD-91-030
FLOOK
DAIRY
280.76
12/03/91
10
AD-91-031
FLOOK
DAIRY
126.25
12/03/91
10
AD-91-032
WARNER
CROP
79.30
12/16/91
10
AD-91-033
ERNST
HOG
143.68
12/03/91
10
AD-91-034
HALLER
CROP
23.00
01/08/92
10
AD-91-035
CONOCOCHEAGUE SPORTSMENS FOREST
126.54
02/03/92
10
AD-91-036
MORGAN
CROP
134.17
12/16/91
10
AD-91-037
MORGAN
FOREST
160.55
12/16/91
10
AD-91-038
MORGAN
CROP
152.66
12/16/91
10
AD-91-039
SCOTT
DAIRY
227.27
12/03/91
10
AD-91-040
MATHESON
BEEF
163.95
01/08/92
10
AD-91-042
BELZ
CROP
135.15
01/08/92
10
AD-91-044
BOWMAN
DAIRY
175.25
02/28192
10
AD-91-046
SHANK
BEEF
134.33
01/08/92
10
AD-91-047
MURPHY
DAIRY
309.50
02/12/92
10
AD-91-048
GREEN
CROP
145.10
07/07/92
10
AD-91-048A
GREEN
CROP
49.73
07/07/92
10
AD-91-0488
GREEN
CROP
10.45
07/07/92
10
AD-91-049
CHARLES
CROP
59.93
03/26/92
10
AD-91-050
WOLFORD
DAIRY
119.59
04/06/92
10
AD-91-052
BARNHART
CROP
166.77
02/21/92
10
AD-91-053
KEFAUVER
DAIRY
167.52
03/26/92
10
AD-91-054
KEFAUVER
CROP
114.00
03/26/92
10
AD-91-055
CAVANAUGH
DAIRY
237.76
07/03/92
10
AD-91-056
HALL
FOREST
30.29
11/16/92
10
AD-91-057
BOWMAN
CROP
39.80
07/07/92
10
AD-92-001
LUDLUM
FOREST
40.00
12/15/93
10
AD-92-002
WINTERS
DAIRY
175.00
09/21/92
10
AD-92-003
WINTERS
DAIRY
57.09
09/21/92
10
AD-92-004
SHANK
DAIRY
165.00
09/21/92
10
AD-92-005
SHANK
CROP
115.90
09/29/92
10
AD-92-006
SHANK
CROP
32.10
09/21/92
10
AD-92-007
KENDLE
CROP
85.00
12/01/92
10
AD-92-009
WILLIAMS
DAIRY
100.75
06/29/93
10
AD-92-010
LEATHER
CROP
178.91
03/03/93
10
AD-92-011
ROHRER
DAIRY
123.80
06/22/93
10
AD-93-001
CASTLE
CROP
56.21
07/12/94
10
AD-94-003
AUSHERMAN
DAIRY
176.00
08/10/94
10
AD-94-004
BERGER
FOREST
64.02
12/19/94
10
AD-94-005
EBY
HOG
120.16
12/19194
10
AD-94-006
TAULTON
DAIRY
130.00
12/19/94
10
AD-94-007
HORNBAKER
CROP
107.09
12119/94
10
AD-94-008
RINEHART
DAIRY
145.39
05/19195
10
AD-94-008A
RINEHART
DAIRY
96.51
06128/95
10
AD-94-009
RINEHART
BEEF
120.41
05/19/95
10
AD-95-001
REEDER
DAIRY
180.61
12/08/95
10
AD-95-006
CARBAUGH
CROP
190.30
07/24/96
10
AD-95-007
CARBAUGH
CROP
199.51
07/24/96
10
AD-96-002
HERSHEY
CROP
100.95
03/06/97
10
AD-96-003
GARDENHOUR
ORCHARD
153.20
01/07/97
10
AD-96-004
MYERS
CROP
142.00
03/06/97
10
AD-96-005
YOUNG
CROP
43.00
08/19/97
10
AD-96-006
FISHER
CROP
57.00
08/19/97
10
AD-97-001
MORGAN
FOREST
24.20
08/39/97
10
AD-97-002
MORGAN
FOREST
6.04
08/19/97
10
AD-97-003
CLARK
DAIRY
101.00
08/11/97
10
AD-97-004
ARENA
CROP
130.20
08/11/97
10
AD-97-005
NORRIS
CROP
48.31
08/11/97
10
Records printed: 171 05/15/98 TOTAL 23362.68 file: PAP0LJGY4AGRNAGPRE35PAT.DBF
30
SECTOR/
TYPE
SECTOR 1
5 5
0
CM
0
DX
0
IN
1
LL
13
SF
0
TH
SECTOR 2
25 2
23
LL
2
SF
SECTOR 3
1 1
0
LL
4
SF
SECTOR 4
1 0
1
IN
18
SF
SECTOR 5
5 0
5
IN
1
LL
1
SF
SECTOR 6
3
0
LL
21
SF
SUBDIVISIONS BY
PLANNING SECTOR
FOR PERIOD 07/01/96 THRU 06/30/97
DEVELOPMENT PLATS
PLATS
TOTAL URBAN
RURAL
5 5
0
2 2
0
4 4
0
1 0
1
23 10
13
1 1
0
2 0
2
25 2
23
2 0
2
3 0
3
1 1
0
5 1
4
1 1
0
1 0
1
18 0
18
2 0
2
5 0
5
LOTS
TOTAL
URBAN
RURAL
8
8
0
3
3
0
7
7
0
1
0
1
103
83
20
12
12
0
2
0
2
40
4
36
3
0
3
4
0
4
3
3
0
5
1
4
1
1
0
3
0
3
21
0
21
2
0
2
6
0
6
ACREAGE
TOTAL
URBAN
RURAL
i
21.1
21.1
i
0.0
0.6
0.6
0.0
167.1
167.1
0.0
72.2
0.0
72.2
93.3
48.2
45.1
1.4
1.4
0.0
40.2
0.0
40.2
123.0
6.7
116.4
55.6
0.0
55.6
11.7
0.0
11.7
14.8
14.8
0.0
23.0
0.4
22.6
4.7
4.7
0.0
36.2
0.0
36.2
53.2
0.0
53.2
25.5
0.0
25.5
17.0
0.0
17.0
TOTALS 101 27 74 224 122 102 760.8 265.1 495.7
TYPE BREAKDOWN
Cm
DX
IN
LL
SF
TH
TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT PLATS
CM
COMMERCIAL
DX
DUPLEX
IN
INDUSTRIAL
LL
LARGE LOT
SF
SINGLE FAMILY
TH
TOWNHOUSE
31
AVERAGE LOT SIZE
URBAN
RURAL
2.64
0.20
23.88
72.22
0.58
2.26
0.12
20.12
1.67
3.23
18.53
2.92
4.93
0.43
5.64
4.70
12.08
2.53
12.77
2.83
2.17 4.86
2.64
0.20
16.97
20.89
0.63 2.92
0.12
SUBDIVISION FILE BY PLANNING SECTOR
FOR PERIOD 07/01/96 THRU 06/30/97
ELEC ZONE TYPE OF URBAN/ DWELL GROSS APPROVAL
SUBDIVISION NAME DIST DIST DEVELOP RURAL LOTS UNITS ACRES DATE
PLANNING SECTOR 1
ARTZ FARM LOT 3
10
A
CM
UG
1
0
5.0
05/12/97
ARTZ FARM LOTS 1 & 2
10
A
SF
UG
2
2
5.5
10/29/96
BLACK ROCK ESTATES SEC B BLOCK 3
18
A
SF
-UG
8
8
5.6
04/03/97
BRITNER OLIVER I & ROSE M LOT 1
2
A
SF
UG
1
1
1.2
10/15/96
BUHRMAN SAMUEL S
9
A
SF
RA
1
1
1.0
08/29/96
BUHRMAN SAMUEL S ET UX LOTS 20
9
A
SF
UG
2
2
3.1
10/09/96
BUHRMAN SAMUEL S LOT 4 & PAR A
9
A
SF
RA
1
1
2.7
12/30/96
BURGESSER SUBDIVISION LOTS 3,4&5
13
A
SF
RA
3
3
3.3
12/02/96
CORDERMAN LOUISE H LOT 1
18
A
SF
UG
1
1
2.9
08/16/96
COVENANT PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
18
RR
SF
UG
2
2
1.5
02/13/97
CREATIVE INVESTMENTSIHARTLE FARM
9
A
SF
RA
2
2
10.6
05/06/97
EBY KENNETH & FANNIE LOTS 1 & 2
13
A
SF
UG
1
1
1.8
11/07/96
EVERSOLE ROBERT B LOT 1
2
A
SF
RA
1
1
1.6
07/30/96
FORSYTH RONALD & BEVERLY
13
A
SF
RA
1
1
5.1
05/22/97
FORSYTH RONALD LOT 7 PAR. A
13
A
SF
RA
1
1
5.3
12/02/96
FORSYTH RONALD LOTS 5 & 6
13
A
SF
RA
2
2
3.1
09/13/96
GHATTAS ENTERPRISES
13
HI
CM
UG
1
1
2.0
12/12/96
GIANNARIS NICHOLAS A LOT 1
27
RR
SF
UG
1
1
4.9
09/30/96
HAYMES MARK D LOTS 1 & 2
10
RU
DX
UG
2
2
0.3
11/08/96
HUNT RIDGE BUSINESS PARK LOT 3
24
HI
IN
UG
1
1
5.6
09/25/96
HURD BARBARA & JEFF LOT 1
18
A
SF
RA
1
1
1.2
05/14/97
KEENER MARK F LOT 1
27
RS
DX
UG
1
2
0.3
06/23/97
KINGS CREST SEC B PHASE 2
18
RS -P
SF
UG
22
22
2.5
08/19/96
MARSH RUN FARM LOT 2
18
A
SF
RA
1
1
2.7
03/14/97
MAUGANSVILLE ELEVATOR & LUMBER
13
RR
CM
UG
2
0
1.5
02/03/97
MCCAULEY RAY LEWIS & DONNA KAY
13
A
SF
RA
4
4
5.9
11/04/96
MILLER EARL & KATHARINE LOT 1
13
A
LL
RA
1
1
72.2
06/18/97
NEWGATE IND PARK LOT 2
24
IG
IN
UG
1
0
30.0
07/30/96
RUST-OLEUM CORPORATION
2
PI
IN
UG
1
0
8.6
02/03/97
SOUTH POINTE PUD PHASE II BLK B2
10
PD
TH
UG
12
12
1.4
09/25/96
SOUTHSIDE DEVELOPMENT LOTS 1-2
18
BL
CM
UG
3
0
11.7
05/05/97
SPICHER CARL E LOT 1 & PAR A
13
A
SF
RA
1
1
1.5
08/09/96
STAPLES INC
2
HI -1
IN
UG
4
0
123.0
07/01/96
STAUCH FAYE LOT 1 MARCUM ESTATE
10
A
SF
RA
1
1
1.1
12/18/96
STERLING OAKS - PHASE II
26
RR
SF
UG
43
43
19.3
06/17/97
VANCE JACK LOT 1
10
BG
CM
UG
1
0
1.0
02/03/97
36 TOTAL FOR PLANNING SECTOR 1
134
122
355.9
PLANNING SECTOR 2
BARR JACQUELINE LOT 1
16
C
SF
SP
1
1
3.1
04/09/97
BITTINGER CECIL LOT 1
16
C
SF
RA
1
1
3.5
10/03/96
BROWN DIANE K & ELLEN L GILBERT
6
A
SF
RA
1
1
1.0
05/14/97
BUTTS JENNIFER D LOT 1
1
A
SF
RA
1
1
1.9
12/27/96
DUNKIN CHARLES R & HAZEL M LOT 1
19
C 03
SF
RA
1
1
2.0
10104/96
FULK DENNIS AND BELINDA
12
A
SF
RA
1
1
1.3
03/03/97
GLENN JAMES JR & SHARON D LOT 1
1
C
SF
RA
1
1
4.8
02/05/97
GOWER PEGGY EST. OF LT 7 & PAR B
12
A
SF
RA
1
1
2.8
08/22/96
GRIFFITH JOHN LOT 2
6
A
SF
RA
1
1
1.8
08/09/96
KIFER STANLEY L & ROBIN LOT 1
16
C
SF
RA
1
1
1.0
07/15/96
LUPPI HOBART LOT 1 - 3
16
A
SF
RA
3
3
27.6
11/04/96
MARTIN EARL T LOT 1
16
C
SF
RA
1
1
2.0
03/06/97
MOBLEY LEISTER E JR LOT 2
6
A
LL
RA
1
1
10.4
01/27/97
MYERS MARY LOTS 1 - 3
1
C
SF
RA
3
3
10.4
12/02/96
MYERS ROBERT N ET UX
20
C
SF
RA
1
1
4.8
07/25/96
PARRISH CHARLES P & MARY LOT 1
16
A
LL
RA
1
1
29.8
04/08/97
PERROT VIRGINIA ESTATE LOT 1
12
A
SF
RA
1
1
2.0
04/07/97
PRICE LEON LOTS 1 -4
1
A
SF
RA
4
4
4.1
10/07/96
PRYOR EDGAR LOTS 3,4 AND 5
16
A
SF
UG
3
3
3.6
05/22/97
ROBINSON BRIAN D ET UX LOT 1
12
A
SF
RA
1
1
6.0
07/22/96
32
33
ELEC
ZONE
TYPE OF
URBAN/
DWELL
GROSS
APPROVAL
SUBDIVISION NAME
DIST
DIST
DEVELOP
RURAL
LOTS
UNITS
ACRES
DATE
SHAULL JAMES LOTS 2 & 3
12
A
SF
RA
2
2
4.6
01/21/97
SHIFLER JAMES LOT 1
6
A
SF
RA
1
1
1.2
05/09/97
SINGLE JOHN E LOT 2
6
C
SF
RA
1
1
3.1
05/23/97
STILES MIKE LOT 3 & PAR E&F
6
A
SF
RA
1
1
8.6
10/21/96
STONER JAMES R & LOIS O LOT 1
12
A
SF
RA
1
1
5.9
08/05196
TRAILS OF LITL ANTIETAM LTS 1-6
19
P/O
SF
RA
6
6
13.0
12/02/96
WASHINGTON FOUR LOT 10
20
A
SF
RA
1
1
3.0
02/14/97
27 TOTAL FOR PLANNING SECTOR 2
42
42
163.3
PLANNING SECTOR 3
HIGDON RUSSELL & PHYLLIS LOT 1
11
C
SF
RA
1
1
2.4
07/10/96
JO-DEMAR INC LOT 1
8
C
LL
RA
1
1
21.3
06/18/97
OAKLEY MARTIN LOTS 3 & 4
11
C
LL
RA
2
2
34.3
05/08/97
TAULTON ROBERT LOTS 1 & 2
8
C
SF
RA
2
2
6.3
10/18/96
WHITE OAKS - LOT 5
11
C
SF
RA
1
1
3.0
02/12/97
5 TOTAL FOR PLANNING SECTOR 3
7
7
67.3
PLANNING SECTOR 4
BUSCHER LOUISE LOT 1
14
C
SF
RA
1
1
5.0
08/21/96
HOVERMALE RICHARD & TRISHA
14
A
SF
RA
1
1
4.6
02/07/97
K.K.T.M_ CO INC LOTS 1-3
7
IR
IN
SM
3
0
14.8
06/02/97
KLINE SHIRLEY V LOT 1 & PARCELA
7
C
SF
RA
1
1
8.6
07/03/96
WILLIAMS MARTHA LOT 1
7
RR
SF
SM
1
1
0.4
09/23/96
WOOD THRUSH RIDGE LOT 1
14
C
SF
RA
1
1
4.4
09/05/96
6 TOTAL FOR PLANNING SECTOR 4
8
5
37.8
PLANNING SECTOR 5
ALBERT EUGENE & GWENDOLYN LOT 5A
4
A
SF
RA
1
1
1.5
12/20/96
ANDREWS JOHN LOT 3
23
A
SF
RA
1
1
1.2
02/27/97
BRAGUNIER FARMS SUB LOTS 1 & 2
4
HI
SF
RA
2
2
2.0
10/09/96
CHANEY PAUL A LOT 1
4
A
SF
RA
1
1
2.5
08/05/96
DIVELBLISS RICHARD LOTS 1 & 2
4
A
SF
RA
2
2
2.6
04/17/97
FAITH ADRIAN C LOT 2
4
A
SF
RA
1
1
1.7
01/31/97
FAITH ADRIAN C LOT 3
4
A
SF
RA
1
1
1.9
03/10/97
HUYETT BUSINESS PARK LOT 10
23
HI
IN
UG
1
0
4.7
04/07/97
MASON CAROL LOT 2A
15
C
SF
RA
1
1
4.1
04/21/97
MEADOWS AT ST.PAUL LOTS 24-26
4
A
LL
RA
3
3
36.2
01/06/97
MICHAEL ANDREW IV & CONNIE LOT 1
15
HI
SF
RA
1
1
1.2
10/23196
MICHAEL ANDREW J LOT 7
4
A
SF
RA
1
1
7.7
09/24/96
MICHAEL DEVELOP LOT 1
15
A
SF
RA
1
1
3.0
10110196
MULLINIX CHARLES GUY LOT 1
4
A
SF
RA
1
1
1.9
06/18/97
MYERS SUBDIVISION LOT 10
15
C
SF
RA
1
1
3.2
09/06/96
ROWE'S RETREAT LOT 1 SECT 1
23
A
SF
RA
1
1
5.9
02/20/97
ROWLAND ANNA LOUISE MRS
4
C
SF
RA
2
2
6.7
03/17/97
ROWLAND ANNA LOUISE PARCEL B
4
C
SF
RA
1
1
1.9
09/24/96
SCHNEBLY SETH K & GENEVIEVE G
23
A
SF
RA
1
1
1.4
08/12/96
WOLFORD JOSEPH T JR LOT 1
15
C
SF
RA
1
1
3.0
09/25/96
20 TOTAL FOR PLANNING SECTOR 5
25
24
94.1
PLANNING SECTOR. 6
BRADLEY RALPH C JR LOT 1 OD
5
A
SF
RA
1
1
2.3
01/20/97
FLOWERS DAVID SUBDIVISION
5
A
SF
RA
1
1
1.3
03/14/97
HENDERSHOT EVA M LOT 2
5
C
LL
RA
1
1
15.0
03/03/97
MANN BELVIN LOT 1
5
C
SF
RA
1
1
3.0
10/17196
MOUNTAIN VALE LOT 2 & 2A
5
A
SF
RA
2
2
7.1
11/19/96
SHIVES RONALD & RUTH ANN LOT 1
5
C
LL
RA
1
1
10.5
07/29/96
WELLER, GLADYS LOT 3
5
A
SF
RA
1
1
3.3
01/06/97
7 TOTAL FOR PLANNING SECTOR 6
8
8
42.5
101 GRAND TOTAL
224
208
760.8
33
34
rn
li
rn
r
�
I
a
m
L
i�
-
O
U)
rn
a�
a
E
CO
o
r
r �
VJCD
o
�
M
Yw
>
cri
CD
c
L
EN
�
Q
'
N
CD
r
�
U
I L
E
E
' O
'U
I s
li
0
as
rn
CD
_I I
LO o ' o
N
r r
S��Id
34
35
j I
CM
�
I
CM
r
ca
CD
d'y
cn
iN
o_
rn
rn
r
J
�
E
T
1
7O
�
ca
CD
IW
I
1�
:C
N
03
Y
�U
L
E
�U
r
rn
rn
r
—
i
I
I
o
rn
i
i
rn
r
0
CD
0 0 o a 0
oco
r
coo
S}0l
35
36
ti
i
i
i
C
N
I�
LO
i
61
cu
�-
U
Q rn
❑
�-
CO
3
N
f5
,U
i
U
I
C
CD
�
O
i
O O O O
O
N
fn O 10
r
saaoy
36
AINnoo
,w omw
4 t
e
� � 3
1
n�
� I
Ix
ol
Ilk
z
z_
LLI
l 3 3 ICE�
CD
{ CRY
Ch
CL
C
0 LU
o
CD
co o c-q a4' N CR
HcoLLI
`i
z
40
OLLI
v+PV 4-J
a�Ac9�
t0 C- CV M
O O O O
(� O O L7 O
ca
c3)¢M 41 r
W ; m
a tlo.
Cs�
M
N
t
LLAiNnOO
v
n
w
rc
a��
a o
s
a z
0
T
0 0
�
0
1
R
4
4 R
4 4
4 4
v�
U
AIN=
ANVOTM
EY
b,
•rim � '�' �
91
0
CD
co Ma
t(,D
x CD —6 0 0 <
� Z
oio ol°IeEo€ "jofQ g! Z; !� ojm a!A �fm
fl4 I I �� I ij
i 1 I I E E i M I0I
Fl � z= m
a.,i , x �l Fi ij . .i al H� iE di a of a sic dj vj
;6 a I 'I WI wi
I [
AA
Lai �oja alajolajo oj"io oie oiioio elf dio a a!�I
�m
Ul
llll� i Aa1 a 41 a3 a a3 a al .s�
m
C � �
E
C
y CL
opY�
_0 a
I
Y�Q
ci 13
�J `f
•rim � '�' �
91
0
CD
co Ma
t(,D
x CD —6 0 0 <
� Z
oio ol°IeEo€ "jofQ g! Z; !� ojm a!A �fm
fl4 I I �� I ij
i 1 I I E E i M I0I
Fl � z= m
a.,i , x �l Fi ij . .i al H� iE di a of a sic dj vj
;6 a I 'I WI wi
I [
AA
Lai �oja alajolajo oj"io oie oiioio elf dio a a!�I
�m
Ul
llll� i Aa1 a 41 a3 a a3 a al .s�