HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 Minutes202
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -JANUARY 8,2001
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,
January 8,2001 in the County Commissioners Meeting Room.
Members present were:Chairperson,Paula Lampton;Vice Chairperson,Robert Ernst,II,
Robert Nichols,R.Ben Clopper,Timothy Henry,Don Ardinger and Ex-Officio,Bertrand
Iseminger.Staff:Director,Robert C.Arch;Chief Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich;
Senior Planners,Timothy A.Lung and Lisa Kelly Pietro.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairperson at 7:00 p.m.
Before proceeding with the meeting,Mrs.Lampton stated that the Clean Rock Industries
Site Plan would be eliminated from the agenda.
MINUTES:
Mr.Nichols made a motion to approve the minutes of December 4,2000.Seconded by
Mr.Iseminger.The vote was unanimous.So ordered.
OLD BUSINESS:
Set Date of Site Visit for Tammany Manor Development
Mrs.Lampton stated Mr.Myers,a representative for the Tammany Manor Development,
requested a Saturday site visit.The Board set the date of January 27,2001 at 9:00 a.m.
for the site visit.The meeting location would be the F&M Bank on Virginia Avenue in
Williamsport.Mr.Arch stated he would notify the developer of this date and time.
Forest Conservation Acreage Summary
Mr.Goodrich presented and discussed a 5-year summary of Washington County's Forest
Conservation program provided to address Mr.Iseminger's request during the last
meeting.He asked about the amount of forest cleared versus that saved and planted.The
sunnnary mailed with the Commission's agenda was excerpted from a report provided to
the Department of Natural Resources on the County's program.
NEW BUSINESS:
Subdivisions:
Millyville (Lots 11 -26)Preliminary Final Plat and Forest Conservation Plan
Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary and final plat and preliminary/final Forest
Conservation Plan for Millyville (Lots 11 -26)for approval.The site is located on the
northwest side of Ashton Road near Clear Spring.The Developer is proposing to create
16 single-family lots with sizes ranging from 1.2 to 2.4 acres.The total acreage is 27.8.
A total of 57 acres remain.The sites will be served with individual well and septic
systems.All lots except 11 and 26 will have access onto a new street called Rhodes
Court.Lots 11 and 26 will have direct access to Ashton Road.A total of 5.56 acres has
been set aside for forest conservation requirements.2.2 acres of existing forest will be
retained and 3.6 acres will be planted in new forest.An access to the site will be from the
remaining lands.All approvals have been received.A 1.6 acre area has been set aside
for storm water management.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the
preliminary/final plat.Seconded by Mr.Henry.The vote was unanimous.So ordered.
Mr.Iseminger made a motion to approve the Forest Conservation Plan.Seconded by Mr.
Nichols.The vote was unanimous.So ordered.
Myers Limited Partnership (Lots 3R &4)Preliminary Final Plat and Site Plan
Mr.Lung presented a preliminary and final plat for Myers Limited Partnership Lots 3R &
4 and a site plan for Lot 3R.The site is located in the Interstate Industrial Park off of
Industrial Lane.This is are-subdivision of previously approved Lot 3.The lot size of
Lot 3R is 2.4 acres.Lot 4 is 2.53 acres.Access to Lot 3R will be off of Partnership
Court.Access to Lot 4 will be determined when a site plan is submitted.Public water
and sewer is available.Stormwater management will be handled by an existing pond.
Forest conservation was addressed with the previous subdivision approval of Lot 3.The
site plan includes a building on Lot 3 R.The building size is 80'x 130'.The business
203
that will be located in the building will be Automated Office Equipment,which involves
the sales,service and warehousing of automated office equipment.Hours of operation
are Monday through Friday,7:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.There are 6 employees proposed.
There are 23 parking spots provided;9 are required.The entrance is off of Partnership
Court.Building mounted security lights are proposed.A screened dumpster is located at
the side of the parking lot.Landscaping provided around the building and along the side
yards.All agencies have approved except for the Permits Department who are reviewing
a revision per their comments.A discussion followed.The parking lot is paved.Mr.
Nichols made a motion to approve the preliminary and final plat contingent on the
Permits Department approval.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.The vote was 6 yes and 0 no.
Mr.Ardinger abstained.So ordered.Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve the site
plan for Myers Limited Partnership Lot 3R.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.The vote was 6 yes
and 0 no.Mr.Ardinger abstained.So ordered.
Preliminary Consultations:
Valley Daycare Center
Mrs.Pietro presented a minor site plan for Valley Daycare Center.This site is located on
the west side of Rohrersville Road (Route 67),near its intersection with Brownsville
Road.The zoning is conservation.The site was originally a one story single family
home.It is now being proposed for a daycare center for a maximum of 44 kids.The lot
area is 3.08 acres.There are 14 parking spaces proposed and required.All the spaces
and driveway will be paved.Solid waste will be inside containers with a private hauler.
Lighting will be building mounted.The hours of operation will be 6:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday.There will be 7 employees.Site is served by individual well
and septic.Landscaping is adequate.A 4 x 6 foot sign is proposed to be posted near the
site.There are no fence plans for the site.The site is exempt from the Forest
Conservation Ordinance.Staffis currently waiting on Health and Engineering
Departments approvals.All other approvals have been received.Mrs.Lampton asked if
there are any problems anticipated with the Health and Engineering Departments.Mr.
Fred Frederick answered questions regarding the approvals with the other departments.
The parking and driveway will be paved and provide ample entrance for emergency
vehicles.The owner's grandparents and brother owns the surrounding property and the
brother has sent a letter of approval to use the existing drive for the daycare center to the
Plarming Department.Mr.Iseminger stated he would like to require testing on the well
armually.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to accept the site plan for Valley Daycare Center
contingent upon Engineering and Health Departments approvals with armual well testing.
Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.The vote was unanimous.All in favor.
PRELMINARY CONSULTATION:
Mt.Aetna Subdivision
Mr.Lung presented the concept plan for the Mt.Aetna Subdivision.The Consultation
was held on November 9,2000.Mr.Todd Easterday,the developer,is proposing to
create a 25 lot residential subdivision on property owned by Mr.David Negly located
along the south side of Mt.Aetna Road,east of Mapleville Road.The property contains
181.61 acres.The majority ofthe property is zoned agricultural.There is approximately
13 acres of Conservation zoned property in the north east corner.The concept plan calls
for 15 lots ranging in size from 2.3 to 61.7 acres.A 3,000-foot long cul-de-sac street will
serve 21 of the lots.The Conservation zoned piece of property is to be divided into 4 lots
with direct access onto Mt Aetna Road.
Mr.Lung stated that the Plarming Department Staff and the reviewing agencies had many
concerns regarding the proposed development.The Plarming Staff and Soil Conservation
District were concerned about the lot layout in regard to the environmentally sensitive
areas on the property including both steep slopes and stream buffers.Mr.Lung noted
that the property is located in the Upper Beaver Creek Basin Special Plarming Area and
reviewed the requirements for a hydro-geologic study.The Health Department will
require a hydro-geologic study if 5 or more lots are proposed.The Engineering
Department is opposed to the 3,000-foot long cul-de-sac and expressed the need for a
second access.The Mt.Aetna Fire department indorsed the Engineering Department's
comments.Mr.Lung reviewed concerns regarding the proximity of the development to
the existing Industrial Mineral district and open pit quarry owned by H.B.Mallott,and the
issue of encroachment of incompatible land uses.He also commented that the State is in
204
the process of preparing a zone of de-watering influence around the quarry and that
according to preliminary information,the western third of the property may be in the
zone.The Staff is concerned about the ability to provide a safe and reliable source of
water to lots whose wells may be located in the zone of influence and that the quarry
would not be responsible for replacing new wells that are in the zone.
Mr.Lung stated that it is the Staff's position that the proposed development is too
ambitious for this site due to on-site constraints and its location.He recommended that
the developer redesign the plan to address the many concerns.A discussion followed.
The Planning Commission concurred with the Staff's comments.Mr.Fred Frederick,
consultant for the developer,stated that Mr.Easterday is now only proposing creating a
total of 8 lots and that none of the lots are in the zone of influence.Mr.Lung asked for
the Commission's direction regarding the hydro-geologic study.The Commission
concurred with the Health Department's recommendation that 4 lots may be created out
of each parcel without a hydro-geologic study and that de-nitrification septic systems
should be used for all the lots.The Commission indicated that any subdivision plats for
lots on this property should include notes warning potential lot owners of the property's
location in regard to the quarry and the possible impacts.Mr.Arch stated that as long as
the 8 lots currently being proposed are not in the zone of influence,a water supply study
would not be necessary.Mr.Iseminger stated that there should be no additional
subdivision approved on this site.Mr.Frederick asked if the Planning Commission
would consider granting approval to a lot on the north side of Mt.Aetna road where the
septic area would have to be located within an easement on the south side.Mr.Lung
suggested that the Planning Commission review the request in the form of a variance
once all of the agencies involved have a chance to review and comment on the proposal.
The Commission concurred.
Garden View #2 (Gene Albert)
Mr.Goodrich discussed the second Preliminary Consultation for Gene Albert that was
held on December 14,2000 concerning 63 acres along the north side of Garden View
Road.This time the developer is proposing only 23 single-family lots that will range in
size from about 17,000 to 23,000 square feet.The site is zoned Rural Residential and is
in the Urban Growth Area.The development is designed to provide individual lot access
directly to Garden View Road for 15 lots.There are two new road access points to
Garden View Road also.The Forest Conservation proposal consists of a 35 foot strip
around the outer edge of the site.
Mr.Goodrich focused the remainder of the presentation on three concerns,the design of
the forest conservation proposal,the lot access to Garden View Road and future
development ofthe remainder of the site.He said that the Staff recommended the forest
conservation area be more compact and "forest like"to achieve more water quality
benefits.There are no priority areas on the site.Guidance was requested from the
Planning Commission.The Planning staff recommended,as it did during the first
consultation,that all of the new lots be provided access from new interior streets instead
of Garden View Road.Section 405.11A of the Subdivision Ordinance was cited as
giving the Commission authority to require modification of the lot design.Mr.Goodrich
suggested that the current and all future review should take into consideration previous
proposals and potential for development of the remainder of the site.The number oflots
has been reduced from 124 to 23 due to adequate public facility issues with the road and
the sewage pumping station.A traffic study,potentially significant road improvements
and expensive improvements to the sewage pumping station contributed to the
developer's decision to reduce the number oflots.
A discussion followed regarding open space and recreation areas,sidewalks and road
width.Mr.Fred Frederick discussed the need for the Board's direction regarding the
forest conservation as a buffer and the lot access issue.He said that as long as the
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance requirements remained as they are now there would
be no further development.Mr.Frederick also stated that the Subdivision Ordinance
discourages double frontage lots.He cited their intention to use common use driveways
100 feet apart and the existing 15 driveways on the other side of Garden View Road as
support for the developers proposal.Mr.Iseminger said it was his opinion that the
Commission has the ability to require lots to be served by interior streets if it promotes
205
the general health,safety and welfare of the citizens.William C.Wantz,attorney for the
developer,was prepared to address the Commission regarding ordinance requirements
that support the developer's design and disallowed double frontage lots.Mr.Arch stated
that it is still possible to redesign to address the access concerns without using double
frontage lots.
The chairperson,Mrs.Lampton stated that the Commission's opposition to the road
stripping is not a new position.She told Mr.Wantz that the Commission's
recommendation is evident and the developer needs to modify the design to address the
opposition to the individual,multiple lot access directly to Garden View Road.She also
said that it appears there is a general consensus that the Forest Conservation proposal is
adequate.Mr.Ardinger suggested that all comments from the Planning Commission
should be sent to and go through the County Attorney.Mr.Arch stated the Planning
Commission is only in the comment stage and that the developer can still submit a plan
for approval.The Planning Commission can deny if they feel there is an inconsistency
with their recommendation or the ordinances.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Water and Sewerage Plan Administrative Amendment
Mr.Lung reviewed the administrative amendment to the Water and Sewerage Plan (WS-
00-003).The Planning Commission has the authority to grant administrative
amendments.The purpose ofthe amendment is to update information in Table 10 of the
Plan regarding the waste-water treatment plant for Farhney-Keedy Memorial Home and
Village.A new treatment plant has been built as part of an upgrade and expansion
project for the retirement community.The updated information will include the type of
treatment facility,the new design flow,and the amount of sludge production.Mr.
Iseminger remarked that the existing service area will remain the same,the new plant will
improve water quality,and that the proposal would be consistent with the rural
development policies of the County.Mr.Hemy made a motion to approve the
administrative amendment.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.The vote was unanimous.So
ordered.
Policy:Procedure for Review of Site Plans with Minimal Change
Mr.Arch discussed the procedure previously addressed on site plans with minimal
changes,similar to Valley Daycare Mrs.Pietro presented earlier tonight.A year and a
half ago we required all site plans to go through the Planning Department for our review.
Mr.Ernst made a motion to approve with an added "quarterly review of all approved site
plans to the Planning Commission".Mr.Arch suggested that the Planning Department
will send the monthly report of all development plan activity to the Planning
Commission.This report is currently run monthly on all subdivision and sites going
through the review process.The Board agreed.Mr.Ernst made a motion to approve the
procedure for review of site plans with minimal changes as a policy.Seconded by Mr.
Ardinger.The vote was unanimous.So ordered.
Mr.Arch mentioned two additional items that need to be addressed by the Board.One is
the Comprehensive Plan update.A joint meeting between the Planning Commission and
County Commissioners will need to be set up in March for a presentation by the Staff on
the Comprehensive Plan.The draft Comprehensive Plan will probably approach 300
pages,including maps.There will be a complete version and a smaller 20 -30 page
condensed version to be released to the general public.
The other item was consideration of a Staff proposal to change road adequacy criteria for
areas outside of growth areas.The Staff will provide additional information on this item
in the future.
ADJOURMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 9:12 p.m.
f~/t
Paula A.Lampton
Chairperson
206
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -FEBRUARY 5,2001
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,
February 5,2001 in the County Commissioners Meeting Room.
Members present were:Vice Chairman,Robert Ernst,II,R.Ben Clopper,Don Ardinger,
Timothy Henry and Ex-Officio,Bertrand Iseminger.Staff:Director,Robert C.Arch;
Senior Planners,Timothy A.Lung and Lisa Kelly Pietro;and Associate Planner,Jill
Balcer.Absent were Chairperson,Paula Lampton and Robert Nichols.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Vice Chairman at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES:
Mr.Iseminger made a motion to approve the minutes of September 11,2000.Seconded
by Mr.Clopper.The vote was unanimous.So ordered.
Mr.Clooper made a motion to approve the minutes of January 8,2001.Seconded by Mr.
Henry.The vote was unanimous.So ordered.
NEW BUSINESS:
Subdivisions:
Valley Ridge Estates
Mr.Lung presented the preliminary plat and Forest Conservation Plan for Valley Ridge
Estates.The site is located along the north side of Trego Road and is zoned conservation.
All lots are served by private wells and septic.The plat involves 19 lots ranging in size
from 3 -9 acres.The developer will build a new cul-de-sac street to serve 15 of the lots.
Four lots will have direct access onto Trego Road.Buffers are provided around the flood
plain,streams,spring and pond.Sensitive areas are noted around areas of steep slopes.
Approximately 19 acres are required for Forest Conservation.The developer will retain
approximately 5 acres of existing forest and will plant additional 14 acres of new forest.
This property is classified as prime long-term farm land and is located in the County's
Rural Legacy Area,however,the subdivision meets all current regulations.No APFO
issues are involved.The Staff is waiting on approvals from the Health and Engineering
Departments.Soil Conservation has approved.No complications are expected.Mr.
Ardinger made motion to approve the preliminary plat for Valley Ridge Estates
contingent upon Health and Engineering Department approvals and to grant the Staff
authority to approve the Final Plat.Seconded by Mr.Henry.The vote was unanimous.
So ordered.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve Forest Conservation of Valley
Ridge Estates.Seconded by Mr.Iseminger.The vote was unanimous.So ordered.
Huyett Business Park (Lot 2C)
Mrs.Pietro submitted the preliminary and final subdivision of Huyett Business Park Lot
2C for approval.The subject site is located on the south side of Business Parkway near
the Williamsport Pike.Zoning is HI-I.The site plan was approved by the Planning
Commission in October 2000 under the name Quarles Petroleum.The developers would
like to subdivide the .617 acres from the remaining 13.8 acres.The site will utilize public
water and sewer.Two approved access points are on Business Parkway.The Zoning
Board of Appeals approved in September 2000 the ability of the developer to reduce
minimum front yard requirements and to eliminate plantings.All approvals have been
received by the Planning Department.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant subdivision
approval for Huyetts Business Park Lot 2C.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.The vote was
unanimous.So ordered
Porterstown Meadows (Lots 5 -11)
Mrs.Pietro presented Porterstown Meadows Lots 5 -11 subdivision for preliminary and
final plat approval and approval of the final Forest Conservation Plan.The site is located
at the northeast corner of Porterstown Road and Geeting Road.Zoning is agriculture.In
September 2000,a concept plan was presented to the Planning Commission.The
206
207
Commission discussed concerns with shared driveways and the possibility of
constructing a cul-de-sac.The developer is proposing to create 7 single family lots
ranging in size from 1.6 to 28 acres on a total site acreage of 70 acres.Lots 5 -14 were
originally proposed.The developer is now proposing Lots 5 -11.The panhandle on Lot
6 has been widened.There will be 3 shared access points on Porterstown Road plus the
existing drive onto Lot 11.Forest Conservation for this site is 19.3 acres.All lots will be
served by individual well and septic.Waiting for approvals from the Health and
Engineering Departments.All Forest Conservation will be on-site.A discussion
followed regarding shared access points.Mr.Iseminger made motion to grant
preliminary and final subdivision approval for Porterstown Meadows contingent on
Health and Engineering Department approvals and with a further stipulation that these
lots cannot be further divided.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.The vote was unanimous.So
ordered.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant final Forest Conservation approval for
Porterstown Meadows.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.The vote was unanimous.So
ordered.
Hamptons of Brightwood
Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary and final plat for the Hamptons of Brightwood
subdivision.The site is located on the northside ofMt.Aetna Road adjacent to
Brightwood Acres East.The zoning is RS.The developer is proposing to create 119
single family lots on 50 acres.The lot size ranges from .2 to .4 acres.The lots will be
served by public water and sewer.2.45 acres have been set aside for storm water
management.In order to meet Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements,payment in
lieu will be done.For screening,plants will be placed along Mt.Aetna Road,the storm
water management area and along the northern property line.The Staff is waiting on
approvals from the Health and Permits Departments and Funkstown Fire Department.A
discussion followed regarding fire hydrants within the development.Mr.Iseminger made
a motion to grant approval of the Forest Conservation payment in lieu of.Seconded by
Mr.Clooper.The vote was 4 -yes and 0 -no.Mr.Ardinger abstained.So ordered.Mr.
Iseminger made a motion to grant preliminary and final plat approval for the Hamptons
of Brightwood contingent on all Department approvals.Seconded by Mr.Henry.The
vote was 4 -yes and 0 -no.Mr.Ardinger abstained.So ordered.
Site Plans:
Martin Marietta Aggregates,Boonsboro Ouarry
Mr.Lung presented a site plan for Martin Marietta Aggregates,Boonsboro Quarry.The
site is located along south of Benevola Church Road and west of Mapleville Road.The
purpose of this site plan is to bring into compliance,a portion of the Boonsboro Quarry
operation that had received State mining permit approval,but was never approved by the
County.This issue was discovered when Martin Marietta applied for 1M zoning on 186
acres in September 1999.The 1M zoning was approved in November 2000 upon remand
of the Court.The area of the site is 19.1 acres and is located at the southeast corner of
property.The site plan includes 13.5 acres to be mined.Some extraction has already
occurred on a portion of this area.There will be a 100 ft.buffer area from extraction area
to the property line.The site plans calls for a 4 foot high berm around the perimeter of
the property in the vicinity of the new mining area.There will be a vegetative screen
planting area between the berm and the property line.Along the property line there will
be a 5 foot high chain length fence topped with barbed wire.There are no occupied
dwellings within 500 feet of the property line or within 1000 feet of the extraction area.
There will not be any additional truck traffic above that which was previously approved.
This plan does not include any other changes to the existing operation.The County does
not currently hold a maintenance bond for the County road serving this site.The County
Engineer has approved the site plan with a comment that the County has required road
maintenance bonds for other quarries.Maintenance bonds are required to address
concerns for above average road maintenance associated with these types of operations.
According to the standards established under the 1M section of the Zoning Ordinance,the
County Commissioners have the authority to require a bond based on the Plarming
Commission's recommendation.All other agencies have approved including State
agencies.A discussion followed regarding the maintenance bond.Mr.Ardinger moved
to approve the site plan for Martin Marietta Aggregates,Boonsboro Quarry including a
recommendation that the County Commissioners require a road maintenance bond.Mr.
Henry seconded.The vote was unanimous.So ordered.
208
HCC Student Executive Center
Ms.Balcer presented a site plan for the HCC Student Executive Center for review and
approval.The site is located within the 312 acre HCC campus.Zoning is RS.The
developer is proposing to renovate the existing old library building,add a new 800 square
foot mechanical room in the back,a 3,000 square foot patio area and small docking area.
The total construction area is 23,000 square feet.There will not be any new employees
therefore no new parking spaces are required.Hours of operation will be Monday to
Friday 7:00 a.m.to 9:00 p.m.and Saturday 7:00 a.m.to 12:00 p.m.No new landscaping
is proposed nor is required.Water and sewer service is existing and provided by the City
of Hagerstown.Stormwater management will be addressed through an existing on-site
pond.Recyclable materials and solid waste will be collected throughout the building in
receptacles and then disposed of in the dumpster already existing on campus.Freight
and delivery will be minimal,i.e.UPS.Existing building mounted lights will be removed
and replaced.Forest Conservation requirements have already been met through previous
development plats.All agencies have approved.Mr.Ardinger made motion to approve
the site plan for HCC Student Executive Center.Seconded by Mr.Iseminger.The vote
was unanimous.So ordered.
Boonsboro Bible Church
Mrs.Pietro presented a site plan of Boonsboro Bible Church for approval.The site is
located on the north side of Old National Pike near its intersection with Mousetown
Road.Zoning is agriculture.The purpose of the plan is to show a proposed building
addition for handicap,classrooms and additional parking.The addition approximately
doubles size of the area of the church.The site acreage is 5.3 acres.The church is served
by water and sewer supplied by the Town of Boonsboro.Hours of operation are Sunday
mornings and Wednesday evenings.Current lighting is building mounted with no new
lights proposed.The building allows 100 people maximum.Parking provided is 34
spaces,20 are needed.The existing brick sign will remain.Trash is disposed of by staff
and stored inside.Landscaping is to be added adjacent to the proposed parking lot and
along the east of the site.The plan is exempt from Forest Conservation.All agencies
have approved except the Permits Department.A discussion followed regarding the
location of the church.Mr.Henry made a motion to approve the site plan for Boonsboro
Bible Church contingent upon Permit's approval.Seconded by Mr.Clooper.The vote
was unanimous.So ordered.
Ethan Webber
Mrs.Pietro presented a site plan for Ethan Webber for approval.The site is located along
the east side of Sharpsburg Pike.Zoning is agriculture.Mr.Webber is proposing to
construct 3 greenhouses,a storage shed and a fruit stand on a 24 acre parcel.An existing
house and garage is also located on the site.The proposed access if off of Sharpsburg
Pike.The parking area will be in front of the produce stand.Nine spaces will be
provided.Also proposed is a mulch stock pile.These proposed improvements will
comprise 4.6 acres.Storm water management will be provided by a pond.Number of
employees will be 2.Hours of operation are seasonal,April to October,Monday through
Saturday,dawn to dusk.A sign is to be constructed at the entrance.There will be no
building mounted lights or commercial deliveries.No dumpsters are to be provided.The
site is exempt from Forest Conservation requirements.A waiver was granted by the
Plumbing Board to not require an employee restroom with further stipulations.All
agencies have approved.A discussion followed regarding this wholesale operation.Mr.
Clopper made motion to approve the site plan for Ethan Weber.Seconded by Mr.
Ardinger.The vote was unanimous.So ordered.
Clean Rock Industries
Mrs.Pietro presented a site plan for Clean Rock Industries for approval.The site is
located on the south end of Oale Ridge Place near Funkstown.Zoning is HI -I.The
purpose of the revised site plan is to show the addition of a 8 foot berm with landscaping
on top with an addition of a gravel equipment storage area and new entrance,and a new
diversion ditch to the storm water management pond.The gravel/equipment storage area
will be near the entrance and will include operable equipment and container storage only.
No storage of inoperable machinery will be permitted.The parcel area is 13.67 acres.
There are 3 existing buildings on site.The number of employees is 25.The parking
provided is 36 spaces.Solid waste will be talcen care of by an existing dumpster.
209
Individual well and septic service is on-site.The projected use is 25 trucks per day.
Hours of operation is 7:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.Monday through Saturday.The site is
exempt from Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements.All approvals have been
received.A discussion followed regarding the concern for the stock pile height being
increased from 28 feet to 34 feet.The State does not have a restriction for stock pile
height.The County Zoning Ordinance doesn't specify a restriction on stock pile height.
The original site plan includes a 28 foot stock pile height.The Commission was
concerned about the extra 6 feet with wind blowing debris.Mr.Arch discussed that the
Staff had concerns along with the Permits Department regarding the visibility issue of
increasing the height of stock piles.A discussion followed.The Commission stated that
they would like further information from Staff on heights of stock piles.Mr.Ardinger
made a motion to approve the site plan of Clean Rock Industries with the requirement of
limiting the stock piles to a maximum of 28 feet.Seconded by Mr.Iseminger.The vote
was unanimous.So ordered.
OTHER BUSINESS
Rezoning Recommendations -RZ-00-009 CBahega Ganim)
Mr.Lung presented the Staff Report and Analysis following the public hearing for the
Map Amendment RZ-00-009 rezoning case of Bahega Ganim.The Staffs position is
that the property is not located along the Dual Highway where the greatest amount of
commercial activity is taking place and that it abuts lots which are currently occupied in a
residential maimer.The Plmming Commission felt that the proposed rezoning request is
not logical or appropriate for this particular piece of property at this time.The
Commission did not believe at this time,that changes had risen to a level where a change
in the character of the neighborhood had occurred.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to
recommended to the Board of Commissioners to deny this request stating that HI-l
would not be logical and appropriate at this time and accepted the Staff s findings as the
Plmming Commission's findings.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.The vote was 4 -yes,0-
no.Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered.
Site Plan Paving Policy
Mr.Arch stated that Mrs.Pietro did some research on other County's policies on paving
and put together some points to look at regarding the request from the Commission to
include some type of site plan paving policy.Mrs.Pietro presented her findings to the
Commission to review regarding the paving policy.For example,in Howard County all
site plans include paving,Frederick County has no requirements and Carroll County has
partial requirements within business districts.Mrs.Pietro had a meeting with Mr.
Prodonovich and discussed this paving policy and came up with three proposals.
Proposal I requires paving of all parking areas in the R,B and HI-I and HI-2 districts.
Uses in the IR,IG districts and part ofthe HI-I district would require employee parking
only to be paved.The A and C districts would have a cut off number for paving
requirements.Proposal 2 would be to pave it all.Those with problems would need to
come before the Commission to ask for a waiver.Proposal 3 would be to require
employee paved parking only.A lengthy discussion followed.The Commission
discussed sending the policy recommendation in the March meeting agenda.
Mr.Arch discussed that at the August meeting with the Plmming Commission and the
City of Hagerstown that it was discussed to have the next joint meeting six months later.
This would be February 21 st.The Plmming Commission decided to wait until there was
items to discuss such as the Comprehensive Plan before scheduling a meeting.
ADJOURMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
_..;;I·A .,
....~·-Ij
Paula A.Lamptll'm
Chairperson
210
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -MARCH 5,2001
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,
March 5,2001 in the County Commissioners Meeting Room.
Members present were:Chairperson,Paula Lampton,R.Ben Clopper,Don Ardinger,
Timothy Henry,George Anikis and Ex-Officio,Bertrand Iseminger.Staff:Director,
Robert C.Arch;Senior Planners,Timothy A.Lung and Lisa Kelly Pietro;and Farmland
Preservation Administrator,Eric Seifarth.Absent was Robert Ernst,II.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairperson at 7:00 p.m.
Mrs.Lampton introduced and welcomed Mr.George Anikis to the Planning Commission
Board.Mr.Anikis will be the new member of the Board replacing Mr.Robert Nichols.
MINUTES:
Mr.Henry made a motion to approve the February 5,2001 minutes.Seconded by Mr.
Clopper.The vote was 5 yes,0 no.Mr.Anikis abstained.
AG DISTRICTS:
John B.Clagett et.al.(AD-OO-O 11)
Samuel C.Hunter (AD-00-012)
Mr.Seifarth discussed the two agricultural land preservation district applications for Mr.
John B.Clagett and Mr.Samuel C.Hunter.The applicants are applying to enter their
farms into ten-year ag districts in exchange for non-development for ten years and
receiving property tax credits.The Advisory Board has approved both applications.
Both farms are outside ten-year water and service areas and urban growth areas.Mr.
Clopper stated the additions of these farms would be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and recommend that these farms be developed into ag districts.Seconded by Mr.
Iseminger.The vote was 5 yes,0 no.Mr.Anikis abstained.
NEW BUSINESS:
Subdivisions:
Ghattas Enterprises (Lots 4 &5)
Mr.Lung presented a subdivision plat creating lots around two existing businesses
located on property owned by Ghattas Enterprises.No new development is proposed.
The site is located near the interchange of 1-81 and Maughans Avenue off of Crayton
Boulevard and north of Peak Circle.The property is zoned Highway Interchange I.Lots
have previously been subdivided out of the original property for Taco Bell,Waffle House
and Hampton Inn.Lots 4 and 5 will be for Penske Truck Leasing facility and Office
Suppliers office building and warehouse.Lot 4 is 5.5 acres.The site plans for the
Penske Trucking facility was approved 1997 and expansion of the parking area was
approved in 1999.Lot 5 is 3.72 acres.The site plan for the Office Suppliers was
approved in 1999.The plat also includes the dedication of approximately 800 linear feet
of Crayton Boulevard to the County.A Forest Conservation Plan for all of the Ghattas
Enterprise's property was previously approved.There is existing water and sewer service
to the property.Storm water management is handled by a regional facility.Several
agency approvals are outstanding,however,no problems are anticipated.A discussion
followed regarding storm water management and the status of traffic studies.Mr.
Iseminger made a motion to grant approval of the subdivision of Ghattas Enterprises Lots
4 and 5 contingent upon agencies approvals.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.The vote was 5
yes,0 no.Mr.Anikis abstained.
Hagerstown Washington County Industrial Foundation
Mr.Lung presented a preliminary and final subdivision plat for the Hagerstown
Washington County Industrial Foundation and Sun/Dic Corporation.The site is located
in Interstate Indnstrial Park off of Industrial Lane and is zoned Planned Industrial.The
211
purpose ofthis plat is to combine a 14.9 acre parcel owed by the Industrial Foundation
with a 12 acre parcel to be taken out of lands of SunJDic Corporation to create a new
26.04 acre industrial use lot.No development is proposed at this time.A site plan would
be required once any development is proposed.Public water and sewer is available.
Forest conservation was addressed previously for the 14.9 acre parcel which included
approval to remove the existing forest.A forest delineation has been done for the other
12 acre parcel.A small area meeting the definition of a wetland was discovered on the
12 acre parcel.This area is of a size that would make it eligible for permission from the
Maryland Department of the Environment to disturb it.The developers are waiting for
this approval.Wetlands are considered priority areas for forest conservation.The
developers are requesting payment in lieu of forest conservation to mitigate for the
removal of 3.42 acres of existing forest.All agency approvals have been received.A
discussion followed regarding the wetland area and the Mary land Department of the
Environment waiver.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the subdivision of the plat.
Seconded by Mr.Clopper.The vote was unanimous.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to
approve the payment in lieu of forest conservation contingent on approval of a waiver
from the Maryland Department of the Environment for disturbance of the wetland area.
Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.The vote was 5 yes,0 no.Mr.Anikis abstained.
Site Plans:
Tom Greenfield/Unitarian Universal Church
Mrs.Pietro presented a site plan for Tom Greenfield/Unitarian Universal Church.
The site is located on northeast side of Cearfoss Pike.Zoning is agriculture.The
developer is proposing to convert an existing garage into a church and add a 400 square
foot addition onto the garage which will include a restroom.The total parcel area is 7.29
acres.There will be two access points onto Cearfoss Pike.There is an existing driveway
that will be used.Private well and septic is available.There is an existing dwelling that
will be used for a Sunday School and office.An existing barn and shed is on site and will
be used for storage.The church will have approximately 50 members.Twelve parking
spaces are required and 27 total will be provided.A handicap space will be closest to the
church.The lighting will be existing building mounted.Sidewalks will be installed
around the church.The roadside sign will be 6 x 6.Hours of operation are Slmday
morning and by appointment.Solid waste will be taken care of inside the buildings.
Number of employees will be 2.An appeal was granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals
which reduced the front yard setback from 100 feet to within 51 feet from the existing
structure.There will be no freight or delivery.The site is exempt from forest
conservation.Storm water management was waived.The Staff is currently waiting on
Health and Permit approvals.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the site plan for
Tom Greenfied/Unitarian Universal Church.Seconded by Mr.Henry.The vote was 5
yes,0 no.Mr.Anikis abstained.
Paul Williams
Mrs.Pietro presented a site plan for Paul Williams for review and approval.The site is
located on the northside of Dual Highway.This site was the subject ofRZ-99-15.The
subject site was rezoned from RU to BG.This was approved by the COlmty
Commissioners in January 2000.The owners will use the-dwelling as a residence and an
office for a palm reader.The parcel area is .41 acres.Parking required and provided is 5
spaces.There is existing public water and sewer servicing the site.The lighting is
building mounted.A proposed 6 x 8 foot sign which will be less than 35 feet in height
will be placed in front of the house.Existing access will be used.Solid waste will be
disposed of inside the buildings.I-lours of operation are 9 a.m.to 10 p.m.,seven days a
week or by appointment.Employees proposed is one.The site is exempt from Forest
Conservation ordinance requirements.Mrs.Pietro mentioned the statement that was
placed on the site plan regarding the screening on the back of the property.If removed,it
is to be replaced with screening.All agencies have approved except Permits.Mr.
Clopper made a motion to approve the site plal1S for Paul Williams.Seconded by Mr.
Henry.The vote was 5 yes,0 no.Mr.Anikis abstained.
Robinwood Medical Center -Phase III
Mr.Lung presented the site plan for Robinwood Medical Center Phase III.The site is
located at the corner of Robinwood Drive and Medical Campus Road.The site is zoned
Residential Suburban.This use is permitted by a Special Exemption that was granted in
212
1991 by the Board of Zoning Appeals.Phase III will include a 165 x 360 foot building to
adjoin the other buildings in the Robinwood Medical Center.There will be 739
additional parking spaces provided.700 parking spaces are required.The building will
house approximately 69 additional physicians and 242 employees.Physicians Court will
be extended to provide additional access to the parking lot.Deliveries and dumpster
locations will be provided in a service court area.There is extensive landscaping
provided.Public water and sewer is available.Stormwater management is provided by a
regional pond that is located near Eastern Elementary School.The pond will be rebuilt to
accommodate the additional run off from this site.The Staff is also reviewing a
subdivision replat to combine two existing lots with additional land owned by the
Hospital Endowment Fund to create one 29.51 acre lot.This lot will contain all of the
buildings.There will be additional Forest Conservation retention areas to address Forest
Conservation requirements for the new phase of development.Mr.Ardinger made a
motion to approve the site plan for Robinwood Medical Center Phase III contingent upon
all agency approvals.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.The vote was 4 yes,0 no.Mrs.
Lampton and Mr.Anikis abstained.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant Staff
authority to approve the subdivision plat and Forest Conservation Plan.Seconded by Mr.
Clopper.The vote was 4 yes,0 no.Mrs.Lampton and Mr.Anikis abstained.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Fountain View PUD Revised Development Plan
Mr.Lung presented a minor revision for the Fountain View PUD Development Plan.
The Zoning Ordinance requires Planning Commission approval for any Development
Plan changes.The developers are asking for approval to include a residential dwelling
unit in the existing barn which is currently designated for commercial use only.A site
plan will need to be submitted for any development.Mr.Clopper made a motion to
approve the revision to the Final Development Plan to allow for the inclusion of a
residential dwelling unit within the designated commercial area for Fountain View PUD.
Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.The vote was 4 yes,0 no.Mr.Henry and Mr.Anikis
abstained.
Mrs.Lampton presented the Board with the thank you card received from the Planning
Staff for the Valentine's/Christmas gift luncheon.
Mrs.Lampton reminded the Board about the Joint Rezoning Hearing with the Board of
County Commissioners and the Planning Commission will be held Monday,March 12,
2001 at 7:00 p.m.in Courtroom 1,3rd Floor of the County Courthouse.
ADJOURMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 7:57 p.m.
1~A 1f?3~
213
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -APRIL 2,2001
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,
April 2,200 I in the County Commissioners Meeting Room.
Members present were:Chairperson,Paula Lampton;Vice Chairman,Robert Ernst II,R.
Ben Clopper,Don Ardinger,Timothy Henry and George Anikis.Staff:Director,Robert
C.Arch;Senior Planner,Timothy A.Lung and Associate Planner,Jill Baker.Absent
was Ex-Officio,Bertrand Iseminger.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairperson at 7:00 p.m.
Mr.Arch mentioned the addition to the agenda would be under Other Business,Text
Amendment Staff Analysis After Public Hearing,RZ-O 1-0 1.
MINUTES:
Mr.Anikis noted that he abstained from every vote during the March 5,2001 meeting.
Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve the March 5,2001 minutes.Seconded by Mr.
Henry.The vote was unanimous.
NEW BUSINESS:
Variances:
Mark Meyers
Ms.Baker presented the variance request for Mark Meyers.The property is located
along the east side of Harpers Ferry Road north of Lock Hill Road.Zoning is
Conservation.The purpose of the variance is to reduce access spacing along Harpers
Ferry Road - a major collector-from 300'to 180'(a 60%reduction).Mr.Myers
claimed hardship due to the topographic conditions of the property adjacent to Harpers
Ferry Road.Ms.Baker stated that an inspector from the Washington County Engineering
Department went to the site to verify site distance.She stated that the Engineering
Department confirmed that the proposed access would be acceptable.A discussion
followed about further subdivision of this property.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to
approve the variance for Mark Meyers.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.The vote was
unanimous.So ordered.
David Repp
Ms.Baker presented the variance request for David Repp.This property is located to the
south side of Hicksville Road,approximately 1200 feet from Spickler Road in the Clear
Spring area.The property consists of a 2 acre lot and is zoned Agriculture.The purpose
of the variance is to reduce the width of a panhandle for a proposed Lot 1.The owners
are requesting a reduction from the required 25 foot to 15 foot (40%reduction).Ms.
Baker indicated that the owners are claiming irregular shape as their hardship.According
to the property owners,the western side of the property,where the panhandle would be
more appropriate,is encumbered by their well and a transformer/generator station.Ms.
Baker also stated that the Washington County Engineering Department sent an inspector
to the site to ensure sight distance can be met.The Engineering Department confirmed
that a new access at this point would be acceptable.A discussion followed regarding
emergency vehicle access and panhandle size.Mr.Clopper made a motion to table this
variance until next month.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.The vote was unanimous.So
ordered
Subdivisions:
South Pointe PUD -Phase 2 Commercial
Mr.Arch presented the site plan for South Pointe PUD -Phase 2 Commercial.The
subdivision is located on the north side of Oak Ridge Drive.The zoning is RS-PUD.
The developer is proposing to construct a commercial building on 6.45 acres,37,400
square feet in area.The site is served by public water and sewer.The number of
employees proposed is 15.Parking required is 158 spaces with 187 spaces provided.
214
Freight and delivery anticipated is 4 per day.Solid waste will be disposed of in an
enclosed dumpster.The hours of operation are 8 a.m.to 10 p.m.Monday -Saturday,12
pm to 8 pm Sunday.Combined entrance and exit area.A proposed sign will be placed in
center of the front access.Lighting will be pole and building mounted.A 4 foot
walkway will be installed along the front of the site.The Board of Appeals granted a
variance on 02/27/00 to allow for a sign within the 25 foot right away.The site is exempt
from Forest Conservation.Landscaping will include 6 foot white pines along the rear
boundary property,along with sugar maple,dogwood,crab apple,spruce and burning
bush planted throughout the site.All approvals are in except Engineering,Permits and
Soil Conservation.No complications are expected.A discussion followed regarding
buffering and screening.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the site plan and
preliminary plat of South Pointe PUD -Phase 2 Commercial contingent on outstanding
agency approvals.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.The vote was 5 yes.Mr.Henry abstained.
So ordered.
South Pointe PUD -Phase 4 Block A
Mr.Arch presented the South Pointe PUD -Phase 4 Block A for preliminary plat
approval.The subject site is located north of East Oakridge Drive.Zoning is RS-PUD.
The developer is proposing to create 47 townhouses on 9.8 acres.Minimum lot size is
3,176 square feet.The site will be served by public water and sewer.The new public
road that will be created to serve the site is Windy Oak Drive.The storm water
management area will be located to the northeast.A 4 foot sidewalk servings this area
will be adjacent to South Pointe Drive.Five foot walkway easement will be located
between various lots.A total of 2.3 acres have been set aside as open space area.The
site is exempt from Forest Conservation.All approvals have been received except for
Engineering.A discussion followed regarding school adequacy.Mr.Ardinger made a
motion to approve the site plan and preliminary plat contingent upon Engineering
approval.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.The vote was 5 yes.Mr.Henry abstained.So ordered
Site Plans:
Glenn Shindle
Ms.Baker presented the site plan for Glenn Shindle.The site is located at the southwest
corner of the intersection of Edgewood Drive and Langley Drive.The parcel contains the
municipal boundary line that divides the property between the City of Hagerstown and
Washington County.The parcel consists of a total of 0.58 acres.The jurisdictional area
of the County is 0.46 acres while the remainder of the parcel is in the City limits.The
zoning within the County jurisdiction is Business Local.The developer is proposing to
demolish the existing building that is located on the property and create a 3200 square
foot office building.Along with the office building,an 18 space parking lot is proposed.
The hours of operation will be 8 a.m.to 6 p.m.,Monday through Saturday.Waste
disposal will be removed from the site by a private hauler and contained in an enclosed
dumpster located to the rear of the parking lot.There will be a pole mounted light
installed by the parking light and a few building mounted lights around the new building.
The site is served by public water and sewer by the City of Hagerstown.The site is
exempt from Storm Water Management.New landscaping will consist of ornamental
trees to replace trees that will be removed.The freight and delivery requirements will be
approximately one per week taking the form of small delivery trucks such as UPS,
Federal Express.There will be a temporary top soil stock pile located in the northwest
corner of the lot.Forest Conservation is exempt due to the lot being less than 40,000
square feet.All approvals have been received except County Engineering,City Water
and Soil Conservation.A few revisions may be necessary,but no complications are
expected.Mr.Ernst made a motion to approve the site plan for Glenn Shindle contingent
upon all agency approvals.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.The vote was 5 yes.Mr.Henry
abstained.So ordered.
Preliminary Consultations:
Ted and Sharon Lapkoff (Includes Variance Application)
Mr.Lung presented the summary of the Preliminary Consultation for Ted and Sharon
Lapkoff.The proposal is for a 5 lot subdivision on approximately 20 acres of
conservation zoned ground located south of Locust Grove Road.There is an existing
farmstead on the lot designated as Lot 5 which contains a house,bank barn and a couple
out buildings.The house and barn are listed on the historic sites survey.The remainder
215
of the property is undeveloped farm land with some forest area.Mr.Lung reviewed
agency comments presented at the preliminary consultation.One issue with regards to
the Subdivision Ordinance included the panhandle length associated with Lot 3.This has
been resolved by a change in the proposed lot lines.Another issue was the stacking of
the lots.Section 405-11-G.4 of the Subdivision Ordinance prohibits stacking lots more
than 2 deep.Mr.Lung discussed how the proposed lot layout may be interpreted as
having 3 tiers.A variance would be needed if the interpretation is that there is 3 tiers.
Robert Angle,consultant for the developer explained that the perc locations dictated the
lot arrangement and that the portion of the portion of the lot that is stacked 3 deep
contains only the septic reserve area and that there is no buildable area.A discussion
followed regarding access to these lots,existing historic homes and the stacking of
lots/houses.Mr.Anikis recommended that a note be placed on the subdivision plat
indicating that the existing house and barn is listed on the Historic Sites Survey.Mr.
Clopper made a motion to grant the variance for Ted and Sharon Lapkhoffbased on the
hardship created by the perc test locations.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.The vote was 3
yes and 2 no.Mr.Henry abstained.So ordered
OTHER BUSINESS:
Map Amendment -Williamsport Storage Bin,Inc.
Mr.Arch discussed the Map Amendment for the Williamsport Storage Bins,Inc.(RZ-O 1-
01).Mr.Henry made a motion that the Planning Commission concurs with the
neighborhood as defined by the applicant;that the Planning Commission accepts the
Staff's findings of fact as their findings of fact;and the Planning Commission believes
that there has been demonstrated by the applicant that the change in the character of the
neighbor has occurred based upon the activity and development taken place since the last
.comprehensive rezoning of the area and that the rezoning is logical and appropriate for
the area.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.The vote was 5 yes.Mr.Ernst abstained.So
ordered.
Fountain View PUD Revised Development Plan
Mr.Lung presented a request for a revision to the Fountain View PUD Development
Plan.Mr.Lung mentioned that at the March meeting,the Commission approved a
change to allow a portion of one of the commercial areas to be used for a residential
dwelling unit.The developer is now requesting a change to the Development Plan to
allow for commercial parcels 2 and 3 to be converted to residential use.The proposal is
to locate a 36 unit garden apartment building on parcel 2 and a 24 unit garden apartment
building on parcel 3.The parcels are located along Pennsylvania Avenue at the
intersection of Massa Terrace.This change will result in an increase of the residential
density of the PUD and a decrease in the commercial area.The open space area is
unchanged.Traffic generation will be reduced.The County Engineer and State Highway
Administration do not object to the change.The Planning Staff notified some of the
neighboring property owners along Pennsylvania Avenue of the proposed change.There
wasno objection to the change;however,some residents were concerned about the need
for screening of the parking lot to prevent headlight glare onto their properties.Mr.Lung
stated that the developer is also requesting a modification to the setback requirements
associated with the one of the tot lots needed for the apartments.The Staff does not
object to the reduction in the setback as long as safety can be maintained through the use
of fences,walls or grading.This would need to be addressed on the site plan.The Home
Owner's Association documents may also need to be revised to account for the
apartment's use ofthe common open space areas.Mr.Lung stated that the original
concept plan called for an earthen berm along Pennsylvania Avenue to screen the parking
lot of the commercial area.This may not work for the apartments because there is not as
much space between the parking lot and the right of way for Pennsylvania Avenue.Mr.
Steve Zoretich,consultant for the developer stated that they believe that screening can be
provided by using a wall or vegetative screening and that the elevation of the parking lot
may end up being lower than the road,thus making a berm unnecessary.There was a
discussion regarding the tot lot locations,and screening of the parking lot.The
Commission concurred with the Staff's comments regarding the need to screen the
parking lot from Pennsylvania Avenue and safety issues regarding the tot lot location.
Mr.Ernst made a motion to approve the revision to the original Final Development Plan
to allow the substitution of residential units in place of commercial development and to
216
approve the modification to the setback requirements for the tot lot.Seconded by Mr.
Anikis.The vote was 5 yes.Mr.Henry abstained.So ordered.
Woodbridge PUD -Setback Revision
Mr.Arch presented the setback revision for the Woodbridge PUD.The developer is
requesting a variance for the front setback for Apartment Building C for 21 feet versus 25
feet.A discussion followed regarding receiving various requests from this developer
after construction has started.Mr.Henry made a motion to approve the Woodbridge
PUD setback revision.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.The vote was 5 yes and 1 no.So
ordered.
Text Amendment After the Public Hearing RZ-O 1-02
Mr.Arch presented the text amendment for the Staff Report After the Public Hearing for
RZ-OI-02.Mr.Arch read paragraph two on page 2.A wording change indicating a
maximum of 10 percent of the area could be additionally developed on existing sites
before the new regulations would apply.Mr.Clopper stated he is opposed to this
amendment for the County at this time.A discussion followed.Mr.Ernst made a motion
to approve the text amendment with the changes noted.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.The
vote was 5 yes and 1 no.So ordered.
Mr.Arch stated on May 15,2001 at 7 p.m.at HCC ajoint County Commissioners and
Planning Commission meeting will be held for the Comprehensive Plan Review.There
will be 18 meetings throughout the County to take input on the updated Comprehensive
Plan.The details of the dates and places of these meetings will be presented in the near
future.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
rJ)tI<.(~)
Paula A.Lampton
Chairperson
217
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -MAY 7,2001
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,
May 7,2001 in the County Commissioners Meeting Room.
Members present were:Chairperson,Paula Lampton;Vice Chairman,Robert Ernst II,R.
Ben Clopper,Dort Ardinger,Timothy Henry,George Anikis and Ex-Officio,Bertrand
Iseminger.Staff:Director,Robert C.Arch;Senior Planners,Timothy A.Lung and Lisa
Kelly Pietro and Associate Planners,Jill Baker and Misty Wagner.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairperson at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES:
Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve the April 2,2001 minutes.Seconded by Mr.
Anikis.The vote was unanimous.
OLD BUSINESS:
David Repp
Ms.Baker presented a variance request for David Repp.This property is located to the
south side of Hicksville Road,approximately 1200 feet from Spickler Road in the Clear
Spring area.The property consists of a 2 acre lot and is zoned agriculture.This variance
request was tabled at the April Planning Commission meeting due to issues with the
emergency vehicle access and panhandle size.Ms.Baker stated that letters were sent to
the Fire and Rescue Services in Clear Spring regarding this proposed subdivision.She
stated that their response indicated that contingent upon the plan remaining as it is shown,
as a straight lane back to the proposed new lot,that there was no objection to the
approval.Mr.Ardinger approved the variance contingent upon the condition stated by
Fire and Rescue response.Mr.Henry seconded.The vote was unanimous.
NEW BUSINESS:
Variances:
General Walker Brvson
Ms.Wagner presented the variance.request for General Walker Bryson.The property is
located along the south side of US 40,National Pike,and is zoned Agriculture.The
purpose of the variance is to request approval for a septic reserve area of 7,250 square
feet.Ms.Wagner stated Staff will enforce the Health Department's on-site sewage
disposal ordinance requirements of a minimum of 10,000 square foot septic reserve area.
The Health Department has approved the 2,250 square foot reduction.The Staff has not
received information as to why the 10,000 square foot requirement cannot be met.Ms.
Wagner said that there is adequate land on the proposed lot.Mr.Frederick presented
additional information regarding the variance request.A discussion followed regarding
the parcel size.Mr.Iseminger made motion to grant the variance request contingent on
letter from David Barnhart,Washington County Health Department,to specifically
mention the 7,250 feet and state no further subdivision of the larger lot.Mr.Clopper
seconded.The vote was unanimous.So ordered.
Valley World,Inc.-Lot 4
Mr.Lung presented the variance request for Valley World,Inc.-Lot 4.The property is
located south of Halfway Boulevard and west of Valley Mall.The purpose of the
variance is to allow a new 2.5 acre commercial lot to be subdivided without public road
frontage.The property is currently being used for a storage lot.Zoning is Highway
218
Interchange 1.If approved,the new lot will be developed as a hotel site.Access to the
property is off of the private internal access road for Valley Mall at the Montgomery
Ward side.The developer has obtained an access easement.Mr.Ardinger commented
on the access for all the Valley World parcels and any possible safety concerns by using
the Valley Mall access road.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to
grant the variance request for Valley World Inc.Mr.Ardinger seconded.The vote was
unanimous.So ordered.
John and Ryan Benisek
Ms.Baker presented the variance request for John and Ryan Benisek.The property is
located on the north side of San Mar Road,just south west of U.S.40 and Mt.Lena Road.
Zoning is Agriculture.The variance request was two fold:1)create a panhandle greater
than 400 feet and 2)a 3-tier configuration.The Beniseks noted irregular shape and
topographic conditions as the hardship.Issues to be noted are as follows.Greenbrier
Elementary is directly north.Dennis McGee,Director of Facilities at the Board of
Education,was consulted and they do not object to the request,however,he made several
comments as to regular operations at the school and noted that the owners should be
aware of possible conflicts.The County Engineering Department feels the site distance
has not been met due to brush that would need to be cleared out.A historic site is on the
property and is listed on the Connty Historic Site.No demolition of the site is intended.
Finally,Fire and Rescue in Boonsboro have not yet responded regarding the layout.A
discussion followed regarding additional possible access to Lot 3 to the north.Mrs.
Lampton had concems with the 3-tier stacking on a long panhandle,the site distance
problems and the school issues.Mr.Anikis discussed the panhandle,slope and driveway
entrance locations.Ms.Baker stated that Lot I would have a new entrance and Lots 2
.and 3 would share an entrance.Mr.Ardinger discussed the Board's previous issues on 3-
tier developments and length of the panhandle.A discussion followed regarding an
easement on the backside of Lot 3.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to deny the variance
request for John and Ryan Benisek based on the comments returned by the agencies.Mr.
Ernst seconded.The vote was unanimous.
Subdivisions:
Lime Kiln Estates -Section B
Mr.Lung presented the preliminary subdivision plat and forest conservation plan for
Lime Kiln Estates -Section B.There are 26 existing lots in Section A,19 additional lots
proposed in Section B.The lots range in size from approximately 2 acres to 6 acres.The
site is located west of Nicodemus Mill Road.Zoning is Agriculture.The lots will be
served an extension of Thacker Drive and construction of a new cul-de-sac street.Permits
Department and Soil Conservation District have approved.Off-site road improvement to
Nicodemus Mill Road and King Road will be required to meet APFO standards.The lots
will be served by individual wells and septic systems.The property is located on prime
agriculture land and is in the Rural Legacy Area.The owners were encouraged to pursue
alternative to development however,they have decided to develop.Regarding forest
conservation,12.37 acres of afforestation/reforestation is required.Two planting areas
are provided along with a small retention area One of the planting areas is in a stream
buffer.An existing tree line adjacent to the adjacent farm land will be retained.to provide
a buffer.Mr.Anikis expressed concern regarding the possibility that the trees in the
planting area might block the view from an adjacent property.Mr.Lung stated that the
trees were being planted in a priority area according to the Ordinance.Perhaps the
consultant could look into using a different species of tree.Mr.Iseminger asked the
developers if there would be a problem with addressing the tree height issue.Mr.
Townsley of Fox and Associates stated that they would look into it and work with the
staff to come up with a solution.Mr.Clopper asked that the retention of the tree line be a
requirement and that a note be placed on the plat regarding the location of the
development next to an intensive agricultural area.A discussion followed.Mr.Clopper
made a motion to grant preliminary plat approval with the requested additional note
regarding adjacent agricultural activity and grant the staff authority to approve the final
plat.Mr.Henry seconded.The vote was unanimous.So ordered.Mr.Clopper made a
219
motion to approve the forest conservation plan with the condition that the tree height
issue be addressed.Mr.Iseminger seconded.The vote was unanimous.So ordered.
Homer Bivens -Lots 13 -25
Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary and final plat and final forest conservation plan for
Homer Bivens -Lots 13 -25.Lots 7 -12 were approved in November 2000.The site
plan is located along the west side of Greencastle Pike (Route 63).Zoning is Agriculture.
The developer is proposing to create 13 single family lots on a total of 22 acres.The lot
sizes range from 1 to 2.4 acres and 22 acres will remain.Lots will be served by public
water with individual septic systems.Lots 17,18 and 19 will have access on to Cearfoss
Pike.All other lots will have access to Bivens Lane.1.5 acres are set aside for storm
water management.A portion of Lots 20 and 21 are located within the flood plain.A
total of 7.09 acres of forest are to be planted on the site to meet forest conservation
requirements.All approvals have been received.Mr.Ardinger discussed the forest
conservation area and the future areas of the remaining lands.Mr.Iseminger made
motion to grant the preliminary and final plat for Homer Bivens.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.
The vote was unanimous.So ordered.Mr.Ardinger made motion to approve final forest
conservation for Homer Bevins.Seconded by Mr.Iseminger.The vote was unanimous.
So ordered.
Tammany Heights North -Section I
Mrs.Lampton addressed the audience in attendance and discussed that this was not a
public hearing.There will not be an opportunity for numerous people to speak.She
stated Mr.Gary Baker will have an opportunity to address the Planning Commission as a
representative for the Tammany Heights residents.Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary
plat for Tammany Heights North -Section I.The subject site is located in the southeast
quadrant ofl-81 and 1-70 interchange,northwest of Virginia Avenue.Zoning is Hl c2.A
concept plan was submitted to the Commission in the Fall of 2000.This plat is for 14
lots.The total area of the site is 27.27 acres.Section I is 2.3 acres.The only section that
will be discussed is Section I which is proposing single family and duplex lots.A total
of 4.2 acres of forest is required to meet Forest Conservation Ordinance Requirements for
the entire site.2.14 acres will be given in payment of $9,322.2.06 acres will be planted.
21,780 square feet of forest is required for Section I and payment in lieu will be paid to
meet this obligation.Lots will be located along Cavalry Drive which will connect with
Davis Drive.Sites will be served by public water and sewer.No sidewalks are proposed
here in this section,although it was suggested at the preliminary consultation to construct
them in the apartment/townhouse section.Noise management or barriers would not
protect those lots for sections along 1-70 due to topography.Noise issues should be
reviewed.All approvals have been received.Terry McGee from the Washington County
Engineering Department discussed the traffic study.He stated this Section will not have
any traffic issue problems,however,Donelson Drive will be an issue when the further
sections are presented.The State Highway Department also has potential problems with
the further sections on Donelson Drive.Mr.Anikis addressed the issue of noise
management and whether or not noise measurements have been made.Mr.Arch
mentioned that the County does not have a requirements to address noise.Mr.Cump,
consultant for the developer,stated the developer will test for noise measurements.Mr.
Downey,developer,stated the prices for the single family homes will range from
$100,000 to $125,000,the prices for duplex will range from $75,000 to $100,000.He
said Tammany homes currently range in value from $100,000 to $190,000.A discussion
followed regarding sidewalks.Mr.Gary Baker,representative for Tammany Manor
Association,addressed the Planning Commission with a presentation on behalf of the
residents of Tammany.Mr.Clopper felt that placing multi-family houses within the
development is not logical.Mr.Downey stated he would work on a compromise with the
community.His compromise would be to not place duplexes against the existing single-
family homes and to eliminate the apartment buildings.These concessions will be taken
into consideration in a meeting between Gary Baker and Mr.Downey.The Planning
Commission discussed tabling this for now.Mr.Iseminger asked if Mr.Downey wanted
to take action on Section I.Mr.Downey would be comfortable to table this until the June
meeting.Mr.Ardinger motioned to table.Seconded by Mr.Henry.The vote was
unanimous.So ordered.
220
Site Plans:
Dr.Paul McAllister,DDS
Mrs.Pietro presented a site plan for review and approval for Dr.Paul McAllister,DDS.
The site is located on the southeast side of Robinwood Drive.Proposed is a 6,000 square
foot dentist office with a total of three employees.Twenty (20)parking spaces will be
provided.Lighting will be building mounted.The site is served by public water and
sewer.One access is on Robinwood Drive.A sign will be building mounted.The site is
exempt from forest conservation.Landscaping will include a burning bush,flowering
cherry trees,and spiraea.All approvals have been received.Mr.Ardinger made a
motion to approve the site plan for Dr.Paul McAllister,DDS.Seconded by Mr.Henry.
The vote was unanimous.So ordered.
Oliver Homes.Mini Storage Building
Mr.Lung presented a site plan for review and approval for Oliver Homes to create a 200'
by 20'mini-storage building off of Leitersburg Pike.There are six existing storage
buildings at the site.Zoning is Business Local.The plan also includes enlargement of
the storm water management pond and a row of screen plantings.All agency approvals
have been received.A discussion followed regarding the number of mini-storage
facilities in the County.Mr.Henry made a motion to approve the site plan for Oliver
Homes.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger seconded.The vote was 5 yes and 0 no.Mr.Ernst
abstained.So ordered.
Preliminary Consultations:
Westone Estates -PC-OI-002 (Elmer Stone)
Ms.Baker presented a summary of the preliminary consultation of Westone Estates.The
property is on the west side of Mt.Carmel Road and is zoned Agriculture.The owner
proposes to subdivided the 34.1 0 acre parcel into 14 lots.All comments from agencies
are included in the summary.Ms.Baker stated that recommendations were made to the
developer by that since the lots are larger than required,notes should be added to the plat
that no further subdivision may occur.She stated that even though the lot sizes are larger
than required the plan is comparable to other subdivisions in the area.Staff noted that all
lots should be served on an internal roadway.Forest Conservation would be off-site
retention.The major issue in this plan is that the parcel is currently in a 10-year
agriculture district.The owners wanted a partial termination of the agriculture district,
however,the Agriculture Advisory Board and County Commissioners denied a partial
termination of agriculture district.The owners are being encouraged to stay in the
agriculture district,however,the owners have indicated that they.will continue with the
plan to subdivided even if the partial termination is denied.A discussion followed
regarding the agricultural district.Mr.Arch asked if clustering was explored as an
option.Ms.Baker stated that she asked the owner/developer about clustering and they
indicated that they were not interested for various reasons.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Fountain View PUD -Setback Modification
Mr.Lung presented a request for setback modifications to the Fountain View PUD.The
Final Development Plan established the setbacks and was approved several years ago.
The request involved three duplex lots in Phase II.A final subdivision plat has been
approved for this section.The developers are requesting a reduction of the 20 foot front
yard for Lot D-l along Wavy Hill Lane to 8 feet,and a reduction ofthe 40 feet rear yard
setback for Lots D-15 and D-16 to 27 feet.Mr.Davis from Davis,Reno &Associates
representing the developers stated that the modifications are needed to accommodate the
standard unit design of the buildings and that the reduction in setbacks would not
adversely affect any of the adjoining property.Mr.Lung inquired about the status of the
sidewalks to be installed along Sweet Vale Drive.A discussion followed.Mr.Clopper
made a motion to grant the request for modification to the setbacks for Lots D-l,D-15,
221
and D-16 of Fountain View PUD.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.The vote was 5 yes and 0
no.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.
Mr.Arch reminded the Planning Commission that the joint County Commissioners and
Planning Commission meeting will be held for the Comprehensive Plan Review
Presentation on Tuesday,May 15,2001 at 7:00 p.m.at the Kepler Theater.
Mr.Arch mentioned the calendar that was sent to the board members regarding the
meetings the he/she would like to attend.If you do not have those with you,please fax to
the Planning Office as soon as possible.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 9:32 p.m.
----r;w,t-IJ rl~'-JV .
Paula A.Lampton
Chairperson
222
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -JUNE 4,2001
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, June 4,
2001 in the County Commissioners Meeting Room.
Members present were:Chairperson,Paula Lampton;Vice Chairman,Robert Ernst II,R.Ben
Clopper,Don Ardinger,Timothy Henry,and George Anikis.Staff:Director,Robert C.Arch;
Chief Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich,Senior Planners,Timothy A.Lung and Lisa Kelly
Pietro,Sandy Coffman,Secretary.Absent was Ex-Officio,Bertrand Iseminger.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairperson at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES:
Mrs.Lampton stated the approval of the regular Planning Commission meeting minutes for
May will be postponed until the next meeting to allow more time for preparation and review.
Before proceeding,Ms.Lampton noted the revised agenda,which omits the Road Adequacy
Policy Revision and an addition under Site Plans to include offices for the Washington
County Landfill.Mr.Arch also added the addition of Glen Erin Subdivision under Other
Business.
OLD BUSINESS:
Tammany Heights North -Section 1
Ms.Pietro advised the Planning Commission that the developer brought forth changes as a
result of last month's meeting and presented for approval the preliminary plat for Tammany
Heights North -Section 1.The subject property is located in the southeast quadrant of 1-81
and 1-70 interchange,northwest of Virginia Avenue.Zoning is HI-2.The developer is
proposing thirteen residential lots,five lots are single family and eight are semi-detached.
The original plan designated three lots for duplexes,however,due to concerns by the
adjacent neighbors of the existing subdivisions,the developer agreed to take the duplexes
off and replace with all single-family lots.Total area of this section is 3.5 acres and the
average area of the duplex lots is 5,500 square feet.Single family lots are .2 acres.All lots
will access Cavalry Drive and be served by public water and sewer.The management pond
is located in adjacent lot 1.Forestry of .5 acres is required for Section 1 and its obligation
will be met by paying the fee of $2,178.00 in lieu of.All approvals have been received and
the stormwater issues have been addressed.In regards to the noise issues,Ms.Pietro
advised that currently nothing could be done to deflect the interstate noise such as a wall or
landscaping,but in future sections when the road becomes even with the property the noise
issue can be addressed.Mr.Ernst questioned the developer,Mr.Downey,as to what his
proposed schedule for the balance of this project.Mr.·Downey responded they would
probably be working this summer into the fall on another section and is looking at three to
five phases entailing five to seven years depending on the economy.Mr.Anikis stated that
previously when a subdivision was planned for a heavily farmed area,the Commissioners
required a note on the subdivision plat that the residents could expect odor,dust,and noise.
Mr.Anikis questioned whether the Commissioners would support the following statement to
be added to this plat,"These homes are adjacent to an interstate highway as such,residents
can expect to be exposed to high levels of traffic noise,as well as annoying levels of diesel
fumes periodical,"Mr.Anikis added he believed the County would be protected from
nuisance complaints by adding this statement,which would eliminate handling these types
of complaints by future residents moving into the County.Mr.Ernst added it would be
beneficial to have the County Attorney take a look at this issue of posting warnings on
subdivision plats.Mr.Arch stated the Commission could come back at the final approval
and address the pending issue with the County Attorney.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to
approve the preliminary plat.Mr.Ernst seconded.The vote was unanimous.Mr.Cump
presented for the record a statement of agreement simply stating no opposition to any
issues discussed this evening regarding Section I.
Ms.Lampton expressed the Commission's appreciation to Mr.Cump and Mr.Downey for
their efforts in working with the community on Section 1 of Tammany Heights North.
NEW BUSINESS:
Site Plans:
Valley World Motel
Mr.Lung presented the preliminary subdivision plat and site plan for a proposed motel for
Valley World,Inc.The property is located on the west of the Valley Mall,near to the former
223
Montgomery Wards,east of 1-81,and south of Halfway Boulevard.Zoning is Highway
Interchange 1.A preliminary subdivision plat has been submitted for approval to create a
new 2.15-acre lot for the motel site known as parcel four.A variance was granted last
month to allow this lot to be created without any public road frontage.Access would be via
the Valley Mall access road,which is a private road serving the mall.The applicant has
obtainad all necessary right of ways and easements to use this road.The plat also involves
two,small,358 square foot parcels to be swapped between parcel four and an adjacent
property to the north also owned by Valley World to straighten a property line.No
development is proposed on these parcels.The site plan portion of the application involves
a 120-unit motel to be located on parcel four.The height of the bUilding will be 51 feet.
The parking lots will contain 120 spaces,which includes handicap spaces.The entire
parking area will be curbed.Parking is located on three sides of the building and
landscaping will be provided around the building and also in the parking lot islands.
Storm water management will be handled by an existing regional stormwater management
facility.PUblic water and sewer is proposed and available to the site.Water will be from
the City of Hagerstown.Sewage will go to the Conococheague Treatmant Plant by lines
owned by the County.There is a screened dumpster along with a loading area provided on
the north end of the building.Access to the site is at the northwest corner.This access
road will eventually provide access to the other undeveloped parcel.The road currently
serves parcel three,which includes several small businesses as well as a mini-storage
facility.Parcel three also has access to Cole Road.Staff is concerned about the gO-degree
parking spaces directly adjacent to the access road.Mr.Lung suggested this area could be
designated as employee parking,or a traffic calming device such as a speed bump be
installed.The small businesses on parcel three appearto be low traffic generators.He also
noted that the traffic lane through the parking lot is 30 feet wide.There are no sensitive
areas or existing forests on the site.The site is eligible for the Expressed Procedures of the
Forest Conservation Ordinance.There is a .32 acre planting requirement for Forest
Conservation,which would translate to approximately $1,400.00 payment in lieu of
planting.Approval has been received from the Health Department and Engineering
Department.Verbal approval has also been received from Soil Conservation District,County
Water &Sewer Department,and State Highway Administration.The Hagerstown Water
Department is still working out some details with the developer regarding water service and
it appears they have worked out an agreement with some minor revisions needed to the
plan.Staff is awaiting approval from the Permits Department and no comments have been
received from Fire and Rescue or the Halfway Fire Department.The owner,Mr.Cohen,
informed the Commission that he considers the mini-storage as a "destination businesses"
and the light industrial buildings incur only light traffic.He suggested that they pollee the
area themselves and if a problem occurs with excessive speed they would add a speed
bump.He further added they would designate the north side of the parking area as
employee parking and post the necessary signs.Mr.Clopper made a motion for approval of
the preliminary plat and site plan pending approval from all agencies.Mr.Anikis seconded.
The vote was unanimous.So ordered.
Camp Manidokan
Ms.Pietro presented the site plan request for Camp Manidcikan.The property is located on
the west side of Harpers Ferry Road.The owners are proposing to construct two cabins
with parking area.Each cabin will consist of eight bedrooms and a common area.The
access road will be off the existing lane.The existing site is located on 425 acres which
contain a dining hall,cabin,caretaker's residence,swimming pool and other existing
campsites.Individual well and septic,1g parking spaces and 2 handicap spaces will serve
the site.Paved walkways will connect the parking area to the cabins.Lighting will be
building and pole mounting around the new parking lot.No new signs are proposed and the
existing signs are at the entrance of Harpers Ferry Road.Solid waste will be disposed of in
the existing dumpster.There will be two full-time and three seasonal employees.Number of
campers will total 32 for the new section.Freight and delivery will be one truck per week.
The site is exempt from Conservation Ordinances.All approvals have been received.Mr.
Ardinger inquired of Ms.Pietro if the lot would be paved to meet the paving regulations.
Ms.Pietro advised the paving regulations have not been formally adopted,and the lane from
Harpers Ferry Road is to remain gravel with the exception of the handicap parking spaces.
Mr.Arch confirmed the new paving regulations are on the agenda for the upcoming County
Commissioner's meeting.Mr.Ardinger moved to approve the site plan.Mr.Anikis
seconded.The vote was unanimous.So ordered.
Administrative Offices for the County Landfill
Mr.Lung presented the site plan for the 40 West Landfill Administration Building.This
proposal is for a 60 x 40 foot office building to serve as the administration offices for the
Washington County Solid Waste Department.The building will be located on 28 acres
zoned Conservation.The building will be located approximately 400 feet off of U.S.Route
40.Access to the building will be off of Earth Care Road,which is the access road serving
the landfill.A paved parking lot is provided to accommodate thirteen parking spaces,which
includes one handicap space.The building will be served by a private on-site well and septic
system.There is a small storm water management facility to be located to the south.
224
Landscaping will be provided around the bUilding along with trees in the parking lot area.
This site is exempt from Forest Conservation requirements because it is located on an
exiting lot of record and no existing forest will be disturbed.Shielded building mounted
lights will be located on the corners of the building.Approval has been received from the
County Engineering Department,Soil Conservation District,State Highway Administration
and the Permits Department.Mr.Lung stated the approval from the Health Department
should be forthcoming.The perc tests and septic location have been approved.Mr.
Ardinger questioned if there wes any remaining plans to be approved at the landfill site.Mr.
Lung commented that there may be some additional structures yet to be approved.Mr.
Arch stated that an overall site plan had been previously approved for the landfill and
detailed site plans would need to be submitted for each of the individual uses.Mr.Ernst
made a motion to approve the site plan for the Landfill Administration BUilding.Mr.Anikis
seconded.The vote was unanimous.So ordered.
Preliminary Consultation:
Maple Valley Estates -Section B
Ms.Pietro presented the preliminary consultation plan for Maple Valley Estates -Section B
and future sections.This site is located on the north side of Longmeadow Road and east of
Paradise Church Road.Section B is proposing 29 single-family lots with future sections
proposing 73 single-family lots for a total of 102 lots.Total acreage of the site Is 57 acres.
Zoning is Residential Suburban.Terry McGee with County Engineering recommended a
mini-roundabout to eliminate any excessive speed in the area.The developers are proposing
to connect with Wood Haven Drive.Ms.Pietro indicated she had advised the developer that
the right-of-way be set aside for this purpose as to not infringe on any neighbors and to
verify if there were any legal issues.The developer is planning to plant trees to meet their
obligation with the Forest Conservation and it should be noted on the plat if the trees are to
be included with the lots.Water and sewer will be public and the developer will make those
connections and extensions.Mr.McGee's issues and comments have been discussed with
the developer and the necessary changes are agreeable.Mr. Ardinger stated with the
amount of Mr.McGee's comments and the necessary changes needed that this site is
subject to change quite a bit before the Commission would see it again.The Commission
at this time took no action.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Glen Erin Subdivision
Mr.Goodrich presented a request for the Glen Erin Subdivision consisting of 9 single-family
lots located on the eastside of Marsh Pike,north of the intersection of Longmeadow Road
and Paramount Elementary School.Mr.Arch noted a Preliminary Consultation was
previously held for this site last September.At that time.there were some concerns about
how they planned to provide public sewer to these lots.The proposed arrangement for
public sewer is consistent with Water &Sewer Department's plans.This site is zoned
Agriculture,but will be serviced by public water and sewer.·All the utilities will be installed
and paid for by the developer and turned over to the public utilities system.Sewer service
is subject to the City of Hagerstown standard policies.The County owns the infrastructure,
but the effluent is treated by the City and both agencies are involved with the approval
process.Only seven of the lots are for new development.Lots 1 and 2 already have
existing dwellings and they will be reconfigured to conform to the new road pattern.The
storm water management lot is approximately 40,000 square feet.Roads will be built to
County standards and the developer will completely curb the area with 6-foot grass strip
and 4 foot sidewalks.The curbs and sidewalks will be the owner's responsibility for
maintenance.A divided entrance at Glen Erin Drive will include landscaping.There will be
acceleration and deceleration lanes on Marsh Pike as well as bypass lanes for traffic turning
left into the property.The Forest Conservation will be addressed through retention of
existing forest on the remainder of the property from the developed area.The existing
forest is in a flood plain area.There will also be some forestry retained on the owner's lot.
A total of 2.3 acres of existing forest would be retained which are approximately 20%of
the developed area.City Water Department,City of Hagerstown Water Pollution,County
Sewer Department.and State Highway Administration have approved the subdivision.The
Engineering Department had a significant number of comments that need to be addressed
regarding the determination and accuracy of the floodplain delineation and its effect on
stormwater management and construction permits.It has been determined that the
developer and the engineer will need to provide the Permits and Engineering Departments a
more accurate floodplain delineation.Mr.Goodrich brought to the Commission's attention a
letter from Mr.Urner,an adjacent property owner who has personal knowledge of the
storm water flow and flooding conditions.Mr.Urner verbally addressed the Commission
regarding his concerns and expressed he does not believe the issues are as easy and
solvable as discussed without studies being done.He further explained his experiences of
heavy rains and flooding incidents and how they have historically affected his property.The
Commission discussed approving the plan with the condition that it be returned for further
review if significant design changes were made or withholding approval until all agency
225
concerns have been addressed.Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve,as presented
contingent upon Permits,Soil Conservation and Engineering's approval and any significant
modifications to the plan would come back the Planning Commission for further review.Mr.
Ardinger seconded.The vote was unanimous.So ordered.Mr.Arch suggested that an
additional meeting be scheduled with all parties involved.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Mr.Arch updeted the Planning Commission on the Comprehensive Plan town meetings.The
first meeting Was held at the Weshington County Administrative Building and the main
comment offered Was on Forest Conservation.The second meeting was held in Sharpsburg,
one gentleman spoke in opposition to the proposed preservetion area with the one lot to
thirty-acre ratio.The bulk of discussion at Fountain Rock Elementary focused on concerns
and opposition to the Bowman Development in that area.Some of the comments and
concarns raised at this meeting may be productive at the Roundtable discussions.The last
meeting was.held at Cascade,and discussions were basically focused on the economic
rehabilitation of the entire area as it relates to Fort Ritchie.To date,one letter has been
received regarding Forest Conservation.The Board of County Commissioners would like to
see a recommendation on the proposed plan by the end of the year.
Mr.Arch further commented that he was looking at August or September for work session
meetings to discuss changes and the scheduling of public hearings.If revisions were
completed by the end of September,public hearings would be advertised and held In
October.If there were additional revisions,hearings could be held in November or early
December before forwarding the recommendation to the Board of Commissioners.Mr.
Anikis suggested an all day work session.Mr.Arch agreed that one full day is workable
rather than two or three evenings.Ms.Lampton agreed with this suggestion.
Mr.Henry informed the Commission the Chamber Board is forming a task force to study the
Comprehensive Plan and would most likely ask Mr.Arch or a Planning staff member to
address the Chamber at their August meeting.
REZONING MEETING:
Ms.Lampton reminded the Planning Commission that a Rezoning meeting would be held on
June 11,2001 at 7 p.m.There is only one item on the agenda,which is a text amendment.
This amendment deals with a case of senior citizens living in an adult housing unit project.
Planning proposed an amendment to serve as a consistency to some other issues and as a
compromise to satisfy all parties.
MISCELLANEOUS:
Mr.Anikis provided a recent article from The Washington Post on Montgomery County's
Planning Board.A copy of the article will be disbursed to members.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 9:12 p.m.
Paula A.Lampton
Chairperson
rw"~A ~~
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -JULY 2,2001
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,July 2,
2001 in the County Commissioners Meeting Room.
Members present were:Chairperson,Paula Lampton;Vice Chairman,Robert Ernst II,R.Ben
Clopper,Don Ardinger,and George Anikis.Staff:Director,Robert C.Arch,Senior Planners,
Timothy A.Lung and Lisa Kelly Pietro.Absent wes Timothy Henry and Ex-Officio,Bertrand
Iseminger.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairperson at 7:00 p.m.
Mr.Arch noted Cumberland Valley Heating and Air Conditioning had been removed from the
agenda.
MINUTES:
In regerds to the minutes of May 7,2001,It was noted that Tammany Manor North should
read Tammany Heights North.Mr.Ernst made a motion to approve the minutes as
amended.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered.
Approval of June minutes will be postponed until the next meeting to allow additional time
for preparation and review.
NEW BUSINESS:
Subdivisions:
Walnut Point Heights Section 4
Mr.Lung presented the final subdivision plat for Walnut Point Heights-Section 4.Walnut
Point Heights is located west of Maryland 63,north of 1-70 and east of Walnut Point Road.
Section 4 will be located north of Hibiscus Drive.The property is zoned Residential Rural.
The preliminary subdivision plat for the entire 228 lot development was approved in 1995.
Final plats for Sections 1,2,and 3 have also been previously approved.Section 4 involves
10.29 acres to be divided into 20 additional residential lots ranging In size from 15,000 to
40,000 square feet.This section also involves the construction of two new public streets,
Gardenia Court and Stag brush Court.The lots will be served by public water and sewer.
This subdivision is exempt from Forest Conservation because a preliminary plat was
approved prior to the adoption of the Ordinance.All agency approvals have been received
except from the Permits Department.Mr.Ardinger asked if there have been any changes to
this section since the approval of the preliminary plat.Mr.Lung responded that there were
no changes made to the previously approved design ..Mr.Ardl.nger made a motion to
approve the final plat for Walnut Points Heights-Section 4 contingent upon agency
approvals.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.The vote was unanimous.So ordered.
Tammany Heights North -Section 1
Ms.Pietro presented the subdivision plat for Tammany Heights North -Section 1.The
subject property is located in the southeast quadrant of 1-81 and 1-70 interchange,
northwest of Virginia Avenue.Zoning is HI-2.The developer is proposing to create eight
duplex lots and five single-family lots.All will be served by public water and sewer.Total
area of Section I is 2.23 acres.All lots will access a new public street called Cavalry Drive.
All approvals have been received and all storm water issues addressed.Mr.Ardinger made a
motion to grant the final plat contingent on approval of Water and Sewer and approval by
the State.Mr.Clopper seconded.So ordered.Mr.Anikis previously suggested adding a
note to the subdivision plat concerning the odor,dust,and noise in the area.This was
presented to the County Attorney,Mr.Douglas for review.Mr.Douglas reviewed the note
and drafted the wording.The Planning Commission reviewed the idea and decided against
adding the note to the final plat.Mr.Anikis and Mr.Ardlnger voted aye and Mr.Ernst,Mr.
Clopper and Ms.Lampton voted nay.So ordered.
South Point -Lots 5-60 &22
Ms.Pietro presented the revised final plat for South Point -Lots S-60 &22.The subject
property is located off Plantation Drive.Property owners of Lots S-60 and 22,Sharon Eby
and Mr.and Mrs.Ronald Kerns,submitted a revised final plat for review and approval,
which shows the revision of the lot line between the two lots.Mr.and Mrs.Kerns planted
pine trees along the west side of their home,but were unaware they did so on their
neighbor's property.Ms.Eby has agreed to convey a portion of her property to allow the
trees to remain,which encompasses approximately 275 square feet.In adjusting Ms.Eby's
2
property line,the setback between her shed and the rear lot line has been reduced from
eight to five feet,The minimum requirement is eight feet.Permits advised Ms.Eby that she
would need to either relocate her shed or file a varianoe,Ms.Eby has requested a veriance,
The varianoe would be from Article 16 "PUD"Planned Unit Development requirements listed
in the Zoning Ordinance.This section states that the Planning Commission has the right to
modify setback and other requirements set forth in the Ordinance.Variance was granted to
allow for the reduction of the rear yard setback from eight (8)feet to five (5)feet on lot S-
60,Mr.Ardinger made a motion to grant the revised final plat approval.Mr.Clopper
seconded.So ordered
Site Plans:
Sheriff Patrol Facility
Ms,Pietro presented the site plan for the Washington County Sheriff Patrol Facility.
This site Is located on the south side of Western Maryland Parkwey.This proposal is for the
expansion and renovation to the existing Sheriff's Patrol facility.Zoning is Industrial
General.Public water and sewer will service the site.The purpose of this site plan is to
show the expansion of the existing building.No new employees are proposed.The new
addition is 6,800 square feet and will bring the total area to 13,300 square feet.Existing
sign will be used.Hours of operation are 24 hours per day.Lights on addition will be
building mounted.There are currently 209 parking spaces and an existing dumpster located
at the Detention Center,All approvals have been received.Mr.Anikis made a motion to
approve the site plan.Mr.Ernst seconded.So ordered.
D.M.Bowman Warehouse
Mr.Lung presented a site plan for a proposed addition to an existing warehouse owned by
D.M.Bowman.The site is located at the former Rohrer Industries facilities north of
Showalter Road and east of 1-81 in the vicinity of the airport.The property is zoned HI-1.
The entire facility is now owned by D.M.Bowman,and includes several existing buildings on
56 acres.The applicant is proposing to construct a 220'x 240'wareholJse to be added to
the front of an existing building on the site.The plan also includes some additional loading
area and a new access road.There will be 20 new employees.There will be 26 additionai
parking spaces provided.There will be building mounted lights.Landscaping is provided at
the front of the building.Access will be to Showalter Road via the existing entrance road.
Existing public water and sewer facilities will be utilized along with the existing storm water
management facility.The project is exempt from Forest Conservation because it is on an
existing lot of record.All reviewing agencies have approved except for the Permits
Department and City of Hagerstown Water Pollution Control.The FAA consultant has
reviewed the site plan due to its location near the airport and has no objection.There was a
discussion regarding how the other building on the site was being used.Mr.Ardinger made
a motion to grant the site plan.Mr,Anikis seconded.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.
Preliminary Consultations:
Paul Redmond Subdivision
Mr.Lung presented the summary of a preliminary consultation for Paul Redmond.The
property is located on the west side of Itnyre Road,north of Cave Hill Road and is zoned
Agricultural.The site is located in the Rural/Agricultural Area as defined by the
Comprehensive Plan and is on the edge of the Smithsburg Town Growth Area.The property
is also classified as Prime Long Term Agricultural Land by the Agricultural Inventory Map.
The concept plan calls for 18 single family residential lots ranging in size from 0.92 acres to
1.4 acres,and will include the construction of a new cul-de-sac street approximately 1,300
feet in length.The subdivision will utilize approximately 20.3 acres out of the existing 74.4
acre farm.The lots are to be served by individual wells and septic systems.Mr.Lung
stated that the Engineering Department requested that there be provision made for an
access off of the proposed street for the purpose of constructing an additional public street
in the future to provide access to any future residential development on the remaining land
to the north.He indicated that the intersection could possibly be used as a turn around
location for emergency vehicles since it is located near the mid-point of the cul-de-sac and
that he would try to obtain comments from the local fire department.There is no existing
forest on the property.Approximately four acres of afforestation would be required to meet
Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements.The developer indicated that he would like to
use payment in lieu of on-site planting to address this requirement.Mr.Lung stated that the
Planning Commission would need to approve of payment in lieu of planting.There was a
discussion regarding the benefits of on-site planting and bUffering from adjacent agricultural
activities.Mr.Clopper commented on the nearby dairy farm and manure spreading issues.
Mr,Anikis asked about the review process for water appropriations permits.Mr.Ardinger
commented that the Engineering Department should be consistent when requiring second
accesses for residential development.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission
that they would allow the use of payment in lieu of on site planting to address forest
3
conservation ordinance requirements for this subdivision.No additional action was required
at this time.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Road Adequacy Policy Revision
Mr.Arch addressed the Commission regarding the Road Adequacy Policy as outlined In his
memorandum of June 20,2001.The proposed policy revision would have to be acted Llpon
by the Board of Commissioners.The propsed change would in essence require mitigetlon
for horizontal and vertical curves after five or more proposed vehicle trips would be
generated by a proposed development instead of twenty-five vehicle trips as currently
written.No action was taken by the Planning Commission.The Planning Commission
requested Mr.Arch talk to some private engineering consultents to obtain their perspective
on the proposed revision.
Comprehensive Plan
Mr.Arch updated,the Commission on recent Comprehensive Plan town meetings.A
discussion took place as to the types of issues being raised at the Comprehensive Plan
informational meetings as well as the holding of work sessions by the Planning Commission
to develop revisions to the draft plan.An all day work session to review input from the
meetings as well as written responses was decided upon.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Mr.Ardinger made a motion to nominate Paula Lampton as Chairperson.Seconded by Mr.
Clopper.So ordered.Mr.Clopper made a motion to nominate Robert Ernst II,Jr.as Vice-
Chairman.Seconded by Ms.Lampton.So ordered.
ADJOURNMENT
.There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Pt'vJ.Ii ~Y(J~~
Chairperson
4
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -AUGUST 6,2001
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,August
6,2001 in the County Commissioners Meeting Room.
Members present were:Chairperson,Paula Lampton;Vice Chelrman,Robert Ernst II,R.Ben
Clopper,Don Ardinger,George Anikis and Ex-Officio,Bertrand Iseminger.Stall:Director,
Robert C,Arch,Chief Senior Plenner,Stephen T.Goodrich,Senior Planner,timothy A.
Lung,Associate Planner,Jill Baker and Secretary,Sandy Coffman.Absent was Timothy
Henry.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was callad to order by the Chairperson at 7:00 p.m.
Before proceeding with the meeting,Ms.Lampton stated the site plan for the New Covenant
Fellowship Churc!]would be omitted from the agenda.
MINUTES:
Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve the June 4,2001 meeting minutes as presented.
Seconded by Mr.Ernst.The vote was unanimous.
Approval of July minutes will be postponed until the next meeting to allow additional time
for review.
NEW BUSINESS:
Variances:
John Durr
Mr.Goodrich presented the variance request for John Durr.The property is located on the
south side of Woburn Road,east of Dam 4 Road.The current property is approximately
10.5 acres.Mr.Durr is proposing to create two new lots with panhandles to Woburn Road.
Mr.Durr's daughter and son each live in existing mobile homes on the property.The new
lots will be created around an existing mobile home and a barn structure to be converted for
residential use.The mobile home of Mr.Durr's son will be moved to the remaining 8 acres,
which creates one use per each of the three parcels.The variance request is needed
because the gUidelines limit lot stacking to two tiers and this proposal creates three tiers.
The other variance issue is the panhandle that serves the remaining lands,which will be
approximately 500 to 600 feet long,and the limit is 400 feet.There are two previously
subdivided lots along Woburn Road with a 25 foot right of way between them as one of two
access points to the remaining land.The lower right of way entrances are already
established with paved entrances.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant the variance
request with the stipulation that no further subdivision of the lots occur,and the two lots
given to family members contain the statement they cannot be sold for ten years.
Seconded by Mr.Anikis.So ordered.
Thomas S.Michael
Ms.Baker presented the variance request for Thomas Michael and Paul Miner.Mr.Michael
is proposing to subdivide a single lot of 50 acres from his current farm of 98 acres.The
variance request is to create a lot with a panhandle length of approximately 1,035 feet,
which exceeds the 400 feet limit.The remaining land has an established right of way for lot
1,which will be used for the purpose of ingress/egress.The remaining lands will also retain
.ownership of an existing panhandle to the east and may in the future use the panhandle for
ingress/egress.No new development is planned,and the existing drive is in good condition.
During the review process,the plan was sent to the Williamsport Fire and Fire &Rescue
Companies.Chief Will Ball did not foresee any problems with the overall subdivision plan,
however,he has requested that the easement panhandle to the remaining lands be named.
Currently the Funkstown Rod &Gun Club,Hagerstown Beagle Club,and a private residence
use this panhandle.Mr.Arch advised Mr.Miner the Planning staff would work with him
regarding the naming of the panhandle.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant the variance
with the condition that the panhandle be named.Mr.Ernst seconded.So ordered.
Todd &Michael Easterday
Mr.Lung presented the variance for Todd and Michael Easterday.This variance request
from the Subdivision Ordinance is to allow the creation of a building lot without an approved
onsite septic area.The property is located on the north side of Mr.Aetna Road,east of
Maryland Route 66 and is zoned Agricultural.Mr.Easterday recently purchased this
property along with a larger parcel of land along the south side of Mt.Aetna Road.The
5
parcel on the north side consists of 1.55 acres identified as parcel A,and was created as a
part of a Simplified plat approved in 1989.The purpose of the Simplified plat was to add
the 1.55 acres to the other lends of the previous property owner on the opposite side of Mt.
Aetna Road.This Simplified plat wes approved with the standard "not for development
statement."Mr.Easterday would like to convert this parcel to a building lot,however,a
perc test could not be obtained on the parcel.Mr.Easterday is requesting permission to
establish a septic area for this bUilding lot on an easement across the road via a pipe under
Mt.Aetna Road to connect to the residence.Health Department has verified that a parc
could not be obtained on the 1.55 acre lot and a perc did pass on the property across the
road on the south side of Mt.Aetna Road with the condition that it be a sand mound
system.The Health Department regulations do not address where a septic system can be
located in regards to the lot,therefore,this request is being brought before the Planning
Commission.·The Engineering Department did not object to the proposal,however,they did
have several conditions as follows:no easements will be granted across the right of way;
the property owners will be placing tha septic lines across the right of way at their risk;all
costs associated with the installation and maintenance of this septic line which included all
items effected with this instailation within the right of way will be either the responsibility of
the developer,or subsequent lot owners,and not the County;installation details must be
approved in advance by the County and inspected/approved by the County with all
applicable permits obtained by the developer;and the installation must be done in such a
manner to not hinder or adversely effect maintenance effects or ability to improve Mt.Aetna
Road at a later date.Discussion ensued how the lot was previously recorded,location of
the future dwelling,and appearance of the sand mound.Mr.Easterday advised the
Commission he had sold the lot on the south side of the road approximately two weeks ago
and assured them the new owner was fully aware of the septic easement and sand mound
area to be located on this lot.The consultant advised that there was an easement recorded
with the deed for the lot,indicating the reserve area.Mr.Lung suggested that Development
plat for parcel A include a replat of lot 1 showing the easement for the 10,000 foot reserve
area.This would insure that all affected parties would be aware of the easement and that a
plat would be on record.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to grant the variance for an offsite
septic system on lot 1 to service parcel A contingent upon lot 1 being replatted as part of
the approval of the development plat being submitted for the simplified plat of 1.55 acres
north of Mt.Aetna Road and also being contingent on Engineering comments including the
language that the County will not be responsible for any costs for installation and
maintenance of the system.Mr.Iseminger seconded.Vote was unanimous.So ordered.
Subdivisions:
Hunters Green -Lots 5 &6
Mr.Lung presented the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plat for Hunters Green -Lots 5 &
6.The site is located in Hunters Green Industrial Park,which is located west of Hopewell
Road,north of Interstate 70,and east of Maryland 63.The property is zoned Highway
lnterchange-l.Proposed lot 5 contains 40 acres,and is primarily located along the south
side of Hunters Green Parkway.Lot 5 is the proposed site for the Lenox,Inc.Warehouse.
Lot 6 contains 11.8 acres and is located off of the end of Hunters ·Green Parkway via a
panhandle with no development proposed at this time.Two simplified conveyances will
include 7.2 acres known as parcel B to add to the lands of Tiger Development off of French
Lane,and 1.5 acres known as parcel C be added to lot 5 as a option.The site is served by
public water and sewer.A Forest Stand Delineation was submitted and ·approved showing
some existing forest on the site.In order to meet Forest Conservation requirements for this
area,5.5 acres of existing forest will be retained and 3.8 acres of reforestation will be done
on lot 5,parcel B and parcel C.All reviewing agencies have approved the subdivision with
the exception of the Water and Sewer Department.Mr.Lung spoke to Jim Bishop and he
does not foresee any problems with serving the proposed lots,however,they are still
reviewing how these lots may effect the location of a possible future pumping station to
support future development in Hunters Green and Hopewell Valley.Mr.Ardinger made a
motion to approve the Final Subdivision Plat and Forest Conservation plan for lot 5,lot 6,
.and the associated Simplified Plats contingent upon approval from Water &Sewer.Mr.
Clopper seconded.Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered.
Site Plans:
Lenox.Inc.Warehouse
Mr.Lung presented the site plan for Lenox,Inc.Warehouse.This site is located on the
south side of Hunters Green Parkway,north of Interstate 70.This proposal is to construct a
598,000 square foot warehouse in two phases on lot 5.Phase one encompasses 494,418
square feet,which wiil accommodate a 1,084 by 456 foot building.Phase two is located
on the west side consisting of an additional 103,403 square feet for construction of a 226
by 456 foot warehouse.There will be an 11,000 square foot office area associated with
the phase one building.Access will be from two points onto Hunters Green Parkway.A
total of 350 employees will be working shifts twenty-four hours a day in combination with
6
phase one and two.A total 351 parking spaces are provided in lots on the north and east
side of the building.including handicap spaces.The plan indicates that there will be 75
trucks per day serving the site.The loading docks are located on the south side facing
Interstate 70.There is also a truck/trailer parking area on the west side of the building.The
site will be lit with building mounted lights on all sides of the building.Waste and recycling
dumpsters are provided.A freestanding sign will be located at the entrance of Hunters
Green Parkway.and a building mounted sign on the corner facing 1-70.Storm water
management will be handled by a pond located on the north west side of the building.
Public water and seWer are provided to the site via the existing mains.Mr.Lung
commented that the Soil Conservation District is currently reviewing a revision per their
comments and the Stete Highway -Hydraulics Division Is reviewing the stormwater
management to determine the impact on 1-70.Water &Sewer Department review Is still
pending,however.there are no problems with service anticipated.The Halfway Fire
Department issued some comments regarding fire hydrant placement and they will be
forwarded to the consultant to be addressed on the plan.The Permits Department
comments included a .need for technical revisions to the site plan per Zoning Ordinance
requirements and some design comments.The staff is concerned about the building
mounted lights an!!their ability to light the entire operation,including the parking lots,
without any glare onto 1-70 and Hunters Green Parkway.Staff is also concerned about the
appearance of the site from 1-70 regarding the location of the truck loading areas and the
front this provides to the motoring pUblic on 1-70.There is no requirement that this site be
totally buffered from the road.Staff believes that additional landscaping to soften the
impact of this huge building would be appropriate.Additionally,staff is concerned about the
dumpster locations and the need for screening of those areas.Approval is pending from Soil
Conservation,State Highway,County Water &Sewer and the Permits Department.The
consultant,Mr.Hockman.advised the Commission they have addressed staff concerns on
the lighting issue by adding pole lighting on the east side and lighting on west side of the
building.The lights on the south side will be aimed downward to prevent glare.He further
advised that seven trees have been added to enhance the landscape buffer,however,Lenox
·wants visibility from 1-70 and they are prepared to work with staff on this issue.Mr.Anikis
stated the proposed trees at 175 feet apart do not do much for landscaping and appears to
be tokenism.Mr.Hockman advised a fence will be placed around the dumpster area,and
added it is an enclosed self-contained trash compactor unit.Additionally,he stated to
enhance the appearance from 1-70,most of the equipment on the roof has been minimized
with the majority of the HVC units placed on the inside.Mr.Clopper made a motion to
approve the site plan contingent on approval from the outstanding agencies and the
comments given regarding lighting,screening of the dumpster.and additional landscaping to
enhance the appearance from the highway.Mr.Anikis seconded.Mr.Iseminger abstained.
So ordered.
Mvers Limited Partnership -Lot 1 Shell Building
Mr.Lung presented a site plan for Myers Limited Partnership -Lot 1 Shell Building.This
site is located in the Interstate Industrial Park along 1-70,east of Williamsport.This
particular site is located off Industrial Lane at the corner of Partnership Court.The proposal
is for a 150 by 235 square foot prefabricated metal shell building for commercial/industrial
use.A specific tenant and use has not been identified.Access to this site will be from
Partnership Court.Parking will be provided along the front and side of the building for 80
employees.A landscaped screened dumpster pad is located in the corner of the site.
Landscaping is provided around the site per the Planned Industrial Zoning standards.Building
mounted lights are proposed to light the parking area and the site.The plan includes a note
that the lights shall be directed not to create any glare on adjacent roads.Public water and
sewer is provided via existing lines.There is an existing stormwater management pond to
the west side to serve the facility.Forest Conservation was previously addressed with the
subdivision plat that created lot 1.All agency approvals have been received except from the
Permits Department.A revision has·been submitted to address their comments.Once a
tenant is identified for the building an additional plan will be required by the Permits
Department to verify that the actual tenant for this building.the number of employees,and
the use for the building will work for the approved number of parking spaces.Mr.Ardinger
made a motion to approve the site plan conditioned upon the Permits Department approval.
Mr.Iseminger seconded.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.
Myers Limited Partnership -Lot 4 Shell Building
Mr.Lung presented a site plan for Myers Limited Partnership -Lot 4 Shell Building.This
site is located in the Interstate Industrial Park along 1-70,east of Williamsport,which .is a
previously approved 2.125 acre lot.The proposal is for an 80 by 125 foot spec building for
commercial/industrial use.A specific tenant has not been identified.Access to this site will
be off Grumbacker Lane.Parking is provided along the front and side of the bUilding for 72
employees and 18 customers.Landscaping is provided per the plan industrial requirements
of the Ordinance.Building mounting lights and sign are proposed.Forty-four percent of the
area is impervious,but fifty percent is the maximum allowed.Forest Conservation was
addressed previously at the subdivision stage.Storm water management is provided in the
7
regional facility located on lot 1.Water and sewer is available by existing facilities.All
agency approvals have been received with the exception of the Permits Department,
however,they have reviewed it and issued comments.A revision has been submitted and
Permits needs to verify that their comments have been addressed.Mr.Iseminger made a
motion to approve the site plan contingent on outstanding agency·approval.Mr.Clopper
seconded.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered
Eastern Section Highway Building
Ms.Baker presented the site plan for the Eastern Section Highway Maintenance Building.
The site is 1.5 acres In size and Is zoned Agriculturel.The maintenance building was first
established on this site prior to zoning So it is now considered a non-conforming use.The
existing building was formally the Greensburg School.This school'is slated for demolition
and will be replaced with a 5,280 square foot pre-engineered metal building.The plan
provides for 20 parking spaces,including a handicap space.The proposed lighting plan calls
for ten wall-mounted packs,which will be located around the perimeter of the bUilding.
Signage will be building mounted.Landscaping currently exists along the eastern border of
the property in the form of mature white pine trees,and new shrubbery will be placed in
front of the building.Five existing trees will be removed during the excavating process for
the on site stormwater management pond,however,they will be replaced at the end of the
construction.An eight foot high regal style fence will remain around the entire perimeter of
the property and the site will be served by a new on site well and septic system.Solid
waste disposal and recycling will be on site and will be removed by employees and taken to
the nearby Greensburg Transfer Station.All agencies have responded and approved the
plan.Ms.Baker further added that the existing building,formally the Greensburg School is
on the Historic Site Survey for the County.Steve Goodrich on the behalf of the Historic
Commission advised that the proposed demolition was reviewed approximately a year ago.
The Historic Commission stated they understood the need for a new building supported by
studies completed by the Engineering Department finding the physical constraints of the
school could not be overcome to rehabilitate it.However,the Historic District Commission
could not recommend the school be demolished,which is considered their signoff at this
stage.The Historic Commission requested a historic marker be placed at the site to
commemorate the existence of the school.Engineering advised that a design of the
proposed marker be submitted to their office and they would attempt to incorporate the
,marker into the plan.Ms.Lampton inquired if anoffielal signoff was needed from the
Historic Commission.Mr.Goodrich further explained the County's policy requires that when
a demolition permit is applied for,and the structure is listed on the Historic Site Survey,that
the request will go before the Historic Commission,and if they recommend against it then
the request will go before the Planning Commission.That review has been accomplished
although a demolition permit application has not been made.Mr.Anikis expressed his
disappointment on the demolition of this building in regards to the new Comprehensive Plan
with the recommendation that the County should take a lead in recycling and rehabbing
buildings.Mr.Ernst questioned the size of the new building.Ms.Baker advised the total
area would be 7,760 square feet as opposed to 3,700 square feet of the existing building.
Mr.Clopper stated this site has been an eyesore for years,and believes more screening is
needed.Ms.Baker advised that the new building would provide additional bays for parking
and storing equipment,however,she will request further screening and landscaping.Mr.
Ardinger stated for the record that any time the Historical Society knows that there is a
demolition permit being contemplated,he would like them to take action before the
Commission has the site plan for approval.Mr.Iseminger stated he would discuss this issue
at the next County Commissioner's meeting,and will report back to the Members at next
month's meeting.Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve the site plan.Mr.Ardinger
seconded.Mr.Anikis abstained.So ordered.
Preliminary Consultations:
South Mountain View Estates
Mr.Lung presented the summary of the Preliminary Consultation and a revised concept plan
that has been submitted as a result of the comments from the Consultation.The
owner/developer has also submitted a variance request.The property is located along the
south side of Mt.Aetna Road,west of Maryland 66.The proposal is for six residential lots
on 36 acres that is zoned Agricultural.A previous owner had proposed 19 lots,however,a
subdivision plat was never submitted.The current owners,the Marts'are proposing six
lots.This site is located in the Upper Beaver Creek Basin Special Planning Area.The main
discussion at the Preliminary Consultation was the lot design as it related to the street,
which involved a very short public street feed by numerous,very long panhandles to each of
the lots.A redesign was submitted per the comments received,which proposes a longer
street and reduced the number and length of the panhandles.The Health Department did
not see a need for a Hydro-Geologic study for development,nor did the Soil Conservation
District to determine the impact on the Beaver Creek Basin.Denitrification septic systems
would be reqUired and the stormwater management would address the water quality and
quantity from the runoff.Written comments were also received from State Trout Hatchery
8
in regard to the development in the Beaver Creek Basin and their concern regarding the
impact on the Beaver Creek stream.Mr.Marts submitted a written response to the
hatchery and provided a copy to the Commission Members,and advised them of his recent
conversation with Mr.Woronecki of the DNR.The property does not appear to be located in
the nearby H.B.Mellott,Inc.zone of de-watering influence associated with the quarry
according to a phone conversation that Mr.Lung had with Mr.Larimore of the Department
of the Environment.A Forest Stand Delineation was.completed on the site,which Indlceted
that none of the existing tree cover qualifies as forest.There will be 7.26 acres of
afforestation required.The developer is proposing on-sita planting,doWnstream from the
development.Staff is concerned with the portions of lots 1 and 6 near Mt.Aetna Road,
which are essentially left over parcels and would prefer these pieces be conveyed to
adjoining property owners instead of being isolated pieces.Mr.Lurig further explained that
the applicant has submitted a variance request from the SUbdivision Ordlhllnce to allow 3
panhandles exceeding the 400 foot limit.Lot 1,710 feet,lot 3,590 feet and lot 5,790
feet.Mr.Lung noted that had spoke with the chief of the Mt.Aetna Volunteer Fire
Department,and he was not opposed to the lot design and believed that his department
could adequately serve the development.Mr.Lung stated that the applicant's claim that the
location of the septic areas dictates the lot design and that the proposed lots are larger and
the density of the development lower that what is allowed in Agriculture zoning.In response
to staff comments,Mr.Marts stated that he would be willing to convey the leftover parcels
to nearby owners,but would prefer to keep the parcels In order to maintain the landscaping
appearance of the entrance to the development.Mr.Arch stated given the situation,
conveying it to the adjacent property owners would be the easiest way to address the
matter with an easement for the landscaping.Mr.Iseminger stated that it should be noted
on the plat that the Soil Conservation District make the homeowners aware.of Best
Management Practices as to spray,fertilizer,environmentally safe products usage.Mr.
Iseminger stated he would like to see a notation made on the plat that there be no additional
subdivision.Mr.Ernst requested that the standard statement be added that residents may
be subjected to the odors and noises associated with modern agriculture.Ms.Lampton
requested that Mr.Lung contact Mr.Woronecki of the trout hatchery and verify his
conversation with Mr.Marts.Mr.Ernst suggested of the owner/developer to exercise
excellence in design opportunities by having shared access points.Mr.Arch stated that
limiting the access points would be addressed at the time of the subdiVision plat.The
,variance request would be simply for the length of the panhandles.Mr.Marts agreed to
take the comments given under advisement.Mr.Ernst made a motion .to approve the
variance subject to the comments made regarding shared access.Mr.Anikis seconded.So
ordered.
Preliminary Consultations:
Bonnard J.and Peggy R.Morgan
Ms.Baker presented the summary of a preliminary consultation and request for approval on
offsite Forest Conservation for Bonnard J.and Peggy R.Morgan.This consultation was for
a two-lot subdivision.All agencies have approved the plan with the usual stipulations.Staff
comments included the continuation of lots three and six with further subdivision may cause
a 3-tier configuration.Also,this is the second panhandle being created out of the original
parcel and notified them that the maximum allowed is four.Again,Ms.Baker added the
stipulation that any further subdivision of the remaining lands would require a preliminary
consultation.The consultant and developer are proposing the Forest"Conservation easement
be on an offsite retention area located on a steep slope with spring heads in a prime forest
area wherein other Forest Conservation easements already exist.Mr.Anikis inquired how
many acres are left to be developed at this location.Ms.Baker advised the future
development potential is approximately 46.83 acres.Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve
the Forest Conservation.Mr.Ernst seconded.Vote was unanimous.So ordered.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Mt.Aetna Subdivision -Revised Concept Plan
Mr.Lung presented a revised concept plan for the Mt.Aetna Subdivision.The site is
located along the south side of Mt.Aetna Road,east of Route 66.This site is zoned
Conservation.The total site area is 181.61 acres.The original concept was previously
presented in November 2001 and comments were given thereafter.The developer,Mr.
Easterday,has submitted a revised concept plan for additional comments,and whether the
Commission would concur with the Health Department requirement for a Hydro-Geologic
study since this site is located in the Upper Beaver Creek Basin.The original concept plan
was for 25 lots,including a 3,000 foot long cul-de-sac street.The number of lots has been
reduced by one.The proposed street location has been shifted to the east side of the
property and has been shortened from 3,000 feet to 1,900 feet.There are now larger lots
on the west side with less impact on the sensitive areas of streams and steep slope areas.
All lots now appear to have buildable outside of the Zone Of Influence of the quarry.Mr.
Lung is awaiting a copy of the adopted map of the Zone Of Influence from the Department
9
of Environment.Previously,there were some concerns regarding the commercial use of an
existing barn,however,this business is no longer present.On the original design,the
Engineering Department was concerned about the cul-de-sac length and the need for a
second entrance.The Soil Conservation District was concerned about the impact of the
development on the stream,stream buffers,and the steep slope area.The Health
Department stated that a Hydro-Geologic study would be required to determine the impact
of the septic areas on the ground water in the Beaver Creek Basin.Comments have been
received from the key egencies on the revised plan.The Engineering Department is no
longer requiring a second entrance and concurs with the shorter cul-de-sac length.There
are still Some stream crossing issues that will require special permits.The Soil Conservation
District has indicated this is a better plan,and will have less of an impact on the sensitive
areas,however,there are stili lots that have a considerable amount of steep slopes and
stream bUffer areas.They do not see a need for a Hydro-Geologic study as far as surface
water runoff is concerned,because the stream buffers and the County's new stormwater
management regulations will take Into consideration any surface water issues.The Health
Department comments.are the same as before.They will require a Hydro-Geologic study for
five or more lots,and they also have concerns about the development of the barn lot (lot
23),due to the swale area and the ability to place a septic system on the lot.The Permits
Department has some comments regarding removing.some existing structures that are
located between lots 21 and 22.They also foresee zoning issues depending on the use of
the existing burn structure on lot 23.Mt.Aetna Fire Department supports the Idea of
shorter cul-de-sac and does not see a need for a second entrance and indicated that in the
event of a fire they would lay a line from the existing fire hydrant on Mt.Aetna Road.The
planning staff sees the revised pian as an improvement to the original design,however,has
still have the same Sensitive Area concerns.The developer inquired if the Planning
Commission would consider allowing a shared access to serve lots 18 through 22 onto Mt.
Aetna Road.Mr.Lung agreed this would be a good design to eliminate the number of
access points onto Mt.Aetna Road.Mr.Iseminger inquired what environmental issues the
Planning staff was concerned about.Mr.Lung advised the drainage areas run through lots
·3,5,7,g,11,13,and 14.The buffer associated with the stream appears to severely limit
the buildable area on these lots,and staff questions whether or not the proposed number of
lots is feasible.There is a possibility through the stormwater management requirements,
that some mitigation may be done to allow the area to be recontoured and still be able to
meet the requirements.The consultant,Mr.Cessna,believes a stream buffer will be
required per SCS's criteria,and further stated the stream buffer shown on the original
concept plan did not take into account the soil types.Mr.Cessna also stated there is less
than 100 acres draining to the intermittent stream that is shown on the soil map.The only
stream buffer will be across the already existing lot 2,which is HX soil.The rest of the lots
are outside the HX soil and do not require a stream buffer.Mr.Cessna also stated a water
quality test would be done on lot 23 where the swale is located.Mr.Lung suggested that
the review of the stream buffers from the Soil Conservation District is needed especially
since this area is in the Upper Beaver Creek Basin area.Regarding the Hydro-Geologic Study,
Ms.Lampton agreed if the study is something that the Health Department would like then it
should be done.Mr.Easterday advised that he recently had a meeting with Dave Barnhart
at the Health Department and they discussed the Hydro-Geologic study and he relayed that
Mr.Barnhart stated it was mute point.Mr.Ardinger stated that the Health Department
should place their comments in writing.Mr.Lung stated he would request a letter from the
Health Department and inquire if they would improve any lots prior to the study being done.
Ms.Lampton inquired if the access from Mt.Aetna Road has been reviewed knowing this
road has site distance problems.Mr.Lung indicated that the Engineering Department
commented that road adequacy and site distance worksheets would have to be submitted
with the plat.The entrance for lots 1 and 2 have already been submitted and approved and
that this is where the proposed street would be located.Mr.Iseminger recommended that a
note be added to the plat that no further subdivision occur on these lots.Mr.Lung stated
that a Forest Stand Delineation was completed and there is some existing forest.Mr.
Cessna commented that they would be planting trees in the sensitive areas such as the
steep slopes to meet the requirement.No action was taken at this time.
(Mr.Ardinger left the meeting at 9:33 p.m.)
RZ-01-003.Washington County Dept.of Social Services.Text Amendment
Mr.Arch on behalf of Ms.Pietro stated he had nothing to add to the staff report regarding
the text amendment other than to address Mr.Anikis'question from the hearing regarding
the necessity of consistency with State Law.Mr.Arch stated the State is looking at it from
a licensing issue verses a zoning issue so there is no requirement that the number of
residents have to be the same.Mr.Anikis obtained a copy of the C.A.R.E.law,which
stipulates (3)residents per project home.The Assistant Attorney General confirmed if
placement is made in a project home,no more than three residents can reside in that home,
and if four residents are residing there it is considered a group home.Mr.Anikis made a
motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that they adopt text
amendment RZ-01-003,as it is logical,appropriate and consistent to the Comprehensive
Plan.Mr.Clopper seconded.Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered.
10
Road Adequacy Policy Revision
Mr.Arch sited that the revised concept plan for the Mt.Aetna Subdivision reflects exactly
what was previously discussed relative to this proposed policy.The Mt.Aetna Road
Subdivision (South Mountain estates)is proposed at 24 lots so that road adequacy
requirements for vertical and horizontal curves would not be applicable.This polley makes it
consistent with the major subdivision criteria.Mr.Ernst had requested this be reviewed
with an engineer.No additional action was taken at this time.
Capital Improvement Program -Fiscal Year 2002·2007
The CIP program was adopted by the County Commissioners in Mayas a part of the
budgetary process.Mr.Ernst made a motion that the CIPis consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.Mr.Anikis seconded.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger stated Mr.Arch
played an intricate role in the preparation of the CIP,and commended him for doing an
exceptional job.
Comprehensive Plan Workshop Meeting
Mr.Arch informed the Commission that August 27,2001 is the tentative date for an all day
workshop meeting beginning at 9 a.m.The press will be notified,however,there will be no
public testimony.Mr.Arch further stated he would like comments and suggestions from the
Commission by the end of the week so copies can be forwarded to the other members for
review before the meeting.Additionally,a summary of comments made at the town
meetings identifying key concerns,copies of written correspondence,and form emalls from
the Board of Realtors will also be forwarded.The morning discussion will cover the major
issues presented,and the afternoon discussion will center on the Commission's comments.
Ms.Lampton thanked the Commission Members for their attendance at the town meetings
over the past several months.
REZONING MEETING:
Mr.Iseminger advised the Commission of the joint hearing scheduled for August 21,2001
at 2:00 p.m.on the text amendment regarding the definition of a truck stop and truck
terminal.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 9:57 p.m.
-P!~If
Paula A.Lampton
Chairperson
11
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION &PLANNING STAFF
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORKSHOP -AUGUST 27,2001
The Washington County Planning Commission and Planning Staff held its first workshop at the
Agriculture Center on Monday,August 27,2001 to discuss amendments to the proposed
Comprehensive Plan.
Members present were:Chairperson,Paula Lampton;Vice Chairman,Robert Ernst II,R.Ben
Clopper,Don Ardinger,George Anikis and Ex-Officio,Bertrand Iseminger.Staff:Director,Robert C.
Arch,Chief Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich,Senior Planners,Timothy A.Lung and Lisa Kelly
Pietro,Associate Planners,Jill Baker and Misty Wagner,John Gudmundson,GIS Coordinator,
Jennifer Kinzer,GIS Analyst,William Stachoviak,Park &Environmental Planner,Eric Seifarth,
Farmland Preservation Administrator and Secretary,Sandy Coffman.
Before proceeding with the workshop,Mr.Arch thanked those present for their attendance at the
town meetings,and for their efforts and their time to attend the initial workshop session.He
further emphasized the he,as well as County officials,appreciated all the hours and input provided
by the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission Members.
Ms.Lampton echoed Mr.Arch's sentiments and added her appreciation of the real sense of "class"
and professionalism displayed at the town meetings by staff and members.
Mr.Arch stated the morning session would be a review of the comments received at the town
meetings and written comments submitted on the Comprehensive Plan.The afternoon session
would address some of the member's concerns,and written testimony received from citizens,the
City of Hagerstown and different agencies.The meeting would conclude with discussion of future
.meetings regarding the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr.Arch further stated the plan has begun its transformation process from a document that the
Planning Staff created to a document that the Planning Commission will then acquire ownership,
and would ultimately be making a recommendation to the County Commissioners.In drafting the
document and anticipating changes,the plan was conceived knowing that when the changes
occurred it would provide the ability for some flexibility.The issues are relatively limited with
approximately a half-dozen or so major items derived from the meetings and from comments
received.Mr.Iseminger agreed with Mr,Arch that the goal of the Board of Commissioners is to
take action on the document and the Plan being formally adopted by spring 2002.In order to
accomplish this goal,the Planning Commission is targeting the end of December or early January to
transfer the ownership of the proposed plan to the Board of Commissioners.Changes made by the
Planning Commission should be completed by the end of September or early October so a public
hearing can be advertised and held possibly at Hagerstown Community College.After input from
the hearing and some additional amendment changes,a second hearing will be held late November
or early December.After the second hearing,some minor adjustments will be made and
construction of the recommendation will transpire.Mr.Arch stated if the Board of County
Commissioners requests major changes,then the changes would come back to the Planning
Commission for comments.He further stated that the document is probably 85%complete and
anticipates only some editorial type changes.Once the document is transferred to the Board of
County Commissioners it should be 95%or more complete as a final document.
OVERVIEW OF CITIZEN'S COMMENTS FROM THE TOWN MEETINGS
The initial meeting was held on May 17,2001 at the County Administration Building wherein
concerns centered on Forest Conservation policies and the number of bicycle routes in Washington
County.
The second meeting was held on May 22,2001 at the Sharpsburg Town Hall.The proposed
Preservation Zoning of 1 to 30 acres was the primary issue.Some of the numbers were questioned
and the impact this would impose.Mr.Arch commented on the down-zoning and the legality
effects of this proposal.Contrary to some of the comments discussed,from the standpoint of
Maryland law,there would not be any legal requirement for compensation.To have a
compensatory situation,you have to virtually eliminate the ability to use a piece of property.Down-
zoing or changing zoning does not create this compensatory situation.Sharpsburg citizens
discussed preservation,rural traffic problems,mass transit,and preventing traffic problems from
commuters traveling to/from Jefferson County to utilize the train,employed by new major
employers and students attending Shepherd College.There was some discussion regarding the
impact fees implemented in Frederick County as a factor in driving development into Washington
County,however,it appears the balk of the development is going into Jefferson County and has
had a slight steady effect on the Washington County area.
12
•The third meeting was held at Fountain Rock Elementary School on May 24,2001.There was
discussion regarding the Industrial-Flex around the Williamsport area,and there were some
questions regarding the rural villages and what the impact would be.One gentleman in
attendance discussed the sinkholes and felt they should be classed as a sensitive area.Down-
zoning,National Register properties and scenic portals referencing the proposed truck stop were
other issues raised.The scenic portals are reflective of the major interstate entry areas and the
esthetic quality being used by development.Mr.Iseminger questioned when the Commission
reviews a site plan should they ask for more planting or screening along the interstates.Mr.
Arch commented that the main issue is to have a good,positive image by having a site
landscaped well and believed the County has been rather successful with maintaining a balance
with new development over the last ten years.Other concerns included growth numbers may
be under estimated,insufficient notice of the town meetings,the need for higher paying jobs,
and the air quality.Mr.Arch stated that Washington County is currently under the one hour
standard for ozone,and currently meets this standard.An increase to an eight-hour standard is
being contemplated.This will most likely create a non-attainment for the County.The County
will have to meet some requirements through the MPO.Currently there is one air quality
monitor in Washington County located at the Maryland Correctional facilities.Mr.Arch
explained that our basic air pollution is not generated from here or by vehicle traffic,but it is
actually blown from States west of Maryland.Mr.Arch stated that the MPO would be working
with the Maryland and West Virginia air quality personnel to institute the new initiatives.Mr.
Iseminger questioned if there were enough policy statements through the transportation
element,etc.in the Comprehensive Plan to essentially state that the County is doing their part.
Mr.Arch stated there would be an emissions budget created from the State of Maryland for our
area to be handled through the MPO from the conformity standpoint and the only area where
this would perhaps play any significance would be the widening of 1-81 to six lanes.Mr.Arch
further stated that Washington County is actually one step ahead by already having the
emissions inspection in place.
•The fourth meeting was held at Cascade Elementary School on May 29,2001.Only two
gentlemen attended,however,they presented worthy comments.One of the issues raised was
rail transit in Washington County.Mr.Arch noted there is no plan for rail transit in the near
future for Washington County,and further cited there is not enough commuter interest,
however,you may see additional buses to the rail terminals.Mr.Anikis questioned whether the
County has ever taken realistic approach as to whether there is ever going to be any high-tech
industry in this County verses being the bedroom community to the Frederick and Washington
areas.Mr.Arch commented the proposed plan takes a combination of commuter traffic to other
areas as well as looking at our own industrial base and anticipates high-tech companies in the
near future.The Allegheny Energy site is slated for this tYpe of industry and will ultimately be
zoned as a business office technology classification.Mr.Arch further stated that the biggest
misconception issue brought to light throughout this process was the term Industrial-Flex,
because most look at this term and see smoke stacks,trucking terminals,etc.,but that's not
necessarily the case.Further discussion at the Cascade meeting included the future of the
Cascade Elementary School,programs for fixed income individuals,and preservation/incentives
of historic homes.Mr.Clopper advised that preserving the history of Fort Ritchie was also
discussed.Mr.Iseminger commented that within the redevelopment authority there is a historic
preservation part inside of the base.Mr.Arch confirmed that the Fort Ritchie area would
continue as a Special Economic Development area.He further noted that in the near future the
Parks and Recreation Board would probably be holding a public information meeting to discuss
parks for north County,Kemps Mill,and the Fort Ritchie areas.
•Pleasant Valley Elementary School was the site for the sixth meeting held on June 5,2001.
Opposition to down-zoning and a request for a swimming pool were the items discussed.
•The seventh meeting was held on June 7,2001 at the Maugansville Elementary.Main topics of
discussion were access by emergency vehicles,Mennonite population numbers,and ground
water quality if there is 1 house to 1 acre.Mr.Arch commented that groundwater is a valid
issue of concern.
•Funkstown Town Hall was the site of the eighth meeting on June 12,2001.Discussion
centered on transportation issues with the possibility of the proposed Wal-Mart,and the school
situation.Industrial-Flex and truck stops were also discussed.There was support for the heavy
down-zoning.Importance of the quality of life rather than economic development was
suggested and was a theme that came out of several of these meetings.Also,there were
concerns regarding the widening of roads and improvements to infrastructure leading to
speeding and loss of bicycle/pedestrian routes.
•The ninth meeting was held on June 14,2001 at the Conococheague Elementary School.There
were concerns about down-zoning,air pollution,and road adequacy issues.The Industrial-Flex
area in Williamsport was also discussed.A suggestion for a glossary of definitions for the terms
used in the document.Mr.Arch stated this could be addressed perhaps by way of a first
13
amendment to the plan.Ms.Lampton commented she had also received several comments
regarding the need for a glossary of terms.
•Smithsburg Town Hall was the setting for the tenth meeting on June 1 g,2001.There were
concerns regarding housing projections,future energy needs,road adequacy issues,and
developer impact fees.Additional concerns were Agricultural Policy issues,elimination of the
Agricultural zoning classification,and conflicts between greenways and the agricultural
community.There was support for having a zoning classification for single-family homes only,
and there were also concerns about the economic changes in the County.
•The next meeting was held on June 21,2001 at the Halfway Fire Department.There was
discussion regarding tying density by ratio of structure size to lot size.There was also support
of a single-family district.A statement was made that the previous plan made character,
residents and businesses a high prioritY and the proposed plan does not.Mr.Arch disagreed
with that statement and stated that more emphasis was made in this plan than any other
document as outlined in Chapter 13.Other concerns included the 10/20/30 ratio being
excessive and recommended 1 dwelling per 2 acres.Encouragement to use TOR's,additional
funds for Agriculture Preservation,special taxing districts should only apply to new development
not existing residents or businesses and opposition to additional regulations resulting scenic
byway designations along Alternate 40.
•Boonsboro Town Hall was the site of following meeting on June 26,2001.Comments included
a need for clarification of Special Taxing Districts.Mrs.Schooley compared how the Economic
Development section was written verses the Historic section and believed the one was much
more forceful than the other.She also commented on some grammar problems and she
submitted a few minor changes.Another comment received at the Boonsboro meeting was the
need for timetables within the document.Mr.Arch commented that is difficult to incorporate
timetables,however there are reevaluation periods.Objection was voiced on the Rural Villages
as being a Priority Funding area.Mr.Arch noted this is already designated and will not change.
Comments were also received regarding too many permitted uses allowed in Conservation
zoning.Mr.Swope stated his agreement with the proposed down-zoning and suggested
coordination of all other Ordinances.Again,a request for a swimming pool in the southern part
of the County was made.Mr.Arch noted a swimming pool is on the six-year plan for the town,
and the CountY plans to look at it from a funding standpoint.Another citizen commented the
plan does not include any population studies,which the plan does include five different
projections of actual dwelling units along with other studies.Another comment received
disagreed with the idea of hiding houses on hillsides.Other comments received included the
opposition to down-zoning,the Preservation Program benefits to big property owners.Also,
smart growth equals reduced equity and improving infrastructure will lead to widening the
roads.Another statement received was the need for more of a community plan.
•The next meeting was held at the Keedysville Town Hall on June 28,2001.Main concerns
centered on down-zoning,excessive development in the County,and greenways.A suggestion
for taxing at a lesser rate for the agriculture community so people can save and preserve.Mr.
Arch noted that the tax assessment rate is already lower than the residential rate.There were
also concerns over excess regulations on "right to farm"and issues surrounding the Boonsboro
Library.
•Ringgold Ruritan was the site of the following meeting on June 28,2001.Recommendation
was made for 1:5 down-zoning verses 1:10 for the Agricultural zoning,and support for the real
estate transfer tax to regenerate additional money to purchase easements.A need for more
density inside the Urban Growth Area,and a request for more exact jurisdictional boundaries on
maps.Statements were given supporting more down-zoning and eliminating principle permitted
uses in Agriculture Conservation.A request was received for a formula for brownfields/infills.
Mr.Arch noted that currently the County does not have any areas designated as a brownfield
site other than the one located at the airport.Other comments reflected the need to use vacant
buildings before new ones are built,opposition to Boonsboro Bypass,concerns about Fort
Ritchie,and opposition to paved trails in floodplains.
•The next meeting was held at the Potomac Valley Fire Department on July 5,2001.One citizen
stated there was not enough of rapid growth for a plan.Additional comments included that the
plan was too complicated and takes away personal property rights,and believes Rural Legacy
monies is still sitting somewhere.Another citizen commented that lower densities will prevent
him from subdividing.There was some concern about the 10/20/30 ratios and the belief that
the lot size had to be that big,however,that is not the case it is the ratio number.Another
citizen wants farmers to be compensated for lost property rights.Mr.Anikis commented that a
new citizen to the County was concerned about a vacant,overgrown Bowman Warehouse near
his home in Halfway and wanted information as to who to contact regarding this matter.Mr.
Anikis also added that a farmer who attended this meeting had approximately 50 acres and
wanted to subdivide the property into 3 to 4 acres lots and thought the 1:10 acres was too
14
much,however,he would support 1 :5.Groundwater contamination due to Karst topography
was also discussed.
•Williamsport Town Hall was the setting for the meeting held on July 10,2001.The main issues
were the proposed truck stop and Industrial-Flex areas.Also,some comments were received
regarding vacant buildings in the County,poor facility for the meeting,and the Allegheny
Energy/Rench Road issue.A citizen emphasized that economic development should not take
precedence over the quality of life issues in that particular area.
•The following meeting was held on July 12,2001 at the Hancock Town Hall.Comments were
given about the Raylock Road area,the new Rail to Trail extension being shown on the map,
and a clearer explanation of the density requirements in district/policy areas.Additional
comments included opposition to Industrial-Flex,and the ability to subdivide immediate family
member lots.Mr.Arch commented that the immediate family provision is a key issue needing
further discussion.MARC extension to Hancock was also discussed,which is an item being
coordinating through West Virginia from Martinsburg.
•The final meeting was held at the Frostburg Center on July 17,2001.Numerous concerns were
voiced regarding down-zoning.TOR's were also discussed.A request to map the Agriculture
Preservation District,which has already been done.The Industrial-Flex in the Williamsport area
was a concern.Additional comments included that there should more attention to the City's
role in the plan and a citizen commented that the statement,"South Mountain is no longer a
barrier"is a negative statement.Mr.Ernst commented on the concern of addressing the non-
English speaking population of the County.Mr.Arch stated that currently the diversity number
is low and the projection amount does not appear to be substantial over the next twenty years.
Mr.Henry commented that with the substantial amount manual labor in the County,the
Hispanic population in Baltimore and the Metro area are ready to come here with their families
and he foresees a shift in the numbers.Mr.Iseminger agreed that this factor should be
recognized somewhere regarding diversification.Another citizen stated that by identifying
growth areas in small towns we would obliterate their small town character.Other comments
included that large amounts of land are already under protection,a contradiction in the plan on
page 107 regarding IR,comparison to the FOCUS document,noise abatement,light pollution,
protection of trout streams and designation a of portion of Hopewell Road as environmentally
sensitive.
Ms.Lampton thanked Misty Wagner for compiling the comments obtained from the series of town
meetings held over the past several months.
Mr.Arch noted that Mr.Ernst and Mr.Iseminger would be leaving at noon,therefore,they would be
providing their comments and suggestions before ending the morning session.
MR.ERNST'S COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Mr.Ernst indicated that the main issue heard was regarding the zoning proposals regarding
the acre ratios.Mr.Ernst suggested that perhaps someone with background on property
values would be able to give an analysis of what the actual property value is or would be.
He also voiced concerns regarding the farmers and the down-zoning issues.Mr.Ernst
further discussed the contribution developers are going to need to make when they put
projects in place and the need to develop an overall fairness in the process.Also,he noted
the need for focusing on items already in the plan,and to add the necessary additions to
areas such as transportation capabilities of the area,tourism and the funds generated to the
County and the need to encourage this aspect.Mr.Ernst further stated the historic
revitalization and economic development language needs to be looked at closely and be
balanced within the plan.Mr.Ernst's final comment was the reed to focus on the real
numbers,and not get too excited about fact that we had some good things happen
economically.
MR.ISEMINGER'S COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Mr.Iseminger stated that the key of this exercise is all about staying ahead of the growth
and planning for the future of Washington County.What do we want the County to look like
in 20 to 30 years?Mr.Iseminger emphasized the need for putting policies and procedures
in place that will help achieve what we think is a good mix of commercial,residential,open
space,and farming.After review of all the comments the major issues are:
1)The densities outside the Urban Growth areas and the ratios.
2)Reconcile the equity farmers have in their property.
3)Surplus monies into the Ag Preservation fund to obtain as many easements as
possible in the County.
15
Mr.Iseminger agreed with Mr.Arch that the plan is 85%complete and with some minor
tweaking it would be 95%complete.Mr.Iseminger stated he believes it's really going to
come down to the density issue.He further commented he believed the 1 :30 is appropriate,
and that further discussion is needed regarding the 1:10 and 1 :20.In closing,Mr.Iseminger
stated that with the amount of residents in the County that are on well and septic,the
ground water and watersheds also need protection.
Mr.Arch noted there were several map amendment items to be discussed.One being extremely
important involving the Manny Shoal's parcels situated off the corner of Mt.Aetna road.Two of
Mr.Shoal's lots are already 'Inside the Urban Growth area.His third parcel is impact,but not inside
the area.Mr.Shoal is requesting that the Planning Commission consider the third parcel inside of
the growth area before he submits the PUD for the properties and this change be noted as such on
the new Comprehensive Plan.Mr.Lung advised the Forest Delineation was received and there were
no sensitive areas.The Planning Commission members were in agreement that the third parcel
should be included inside the Growth area.
********************************************************************
AFTERNOON SESSION:
OVERVIEW OF AGRICULTURAL ZONING FOR MARYLAND
Mr.Arch provided an overview of the numbers for Agricultural Zoning for each County throughout
Maryland as of 1999:
Allegheny
Anne Arundel
Baltimore
.Calvert
Caroline
Carroll
Cecil
Charles
Dorchester
Frederick
Garrett
Hartford
Howard
Kent
Montgomery
Prince Georges
Queen Annes
Summerset
St.Mary's
Talbot
Washington
Wicomico
Worcester
5 dwelling units per parcel plus 1 lot for each 50 acres over 100 acres
(1 :20 and then 1 :50 after that)
1 dwelling unit per 20 acres plus 1 lot for any remainder of 10 acres or more plus 1 additional lot
2 dwelling unit per 100 acres {1 per 50}
1 dwelling unit per 5 acres
4 lots permitted from original parcel existed as of December 1,1992;after that 1 per 20
1 dwelling unit per 20 acres plus two offsite conveyances - 1 dwelling unit per 15 acres
1 dwelling per 5 acres in Rural Conservation and 1 per 8 in Resource
Protection
1 dwelling unit per 3 acres
3 dwelling units per acre plus on additional dwelling unit per 15 acres
3 dwelling units for the first 25 acres;then one additional unit per 50 acres;
Plus one additional on parcels existing prior to August 18,1977.
1 dwelling unit per 3 acres *(only County in the State that does not have zoning)
1 dwelling unit per 10 acres
Parcels smaller than 20 acres can be developed at a density ofl unit per 4.25 acres if the development is
clustered;or 1 dwelling unit per 3 acres if not clustered;parcels larger than 20 acres may be developed at
a density of 1 unit per 4.25 acres and the development must be clustered on 1 acre lots,parcels larger
than 100 acres can be subdivided into lots of at least 50 acres
1 dwelling unit per 30 acres for scattered development and 1 for 20 for suburban development,and 1:10
for enclave development
1 dwelling unit per 25 acres
1 dwelling unit per 2 acres
1 dwelling unit per 20 acres
1 dwelling unit per acre
1 dwelling unit per 3 acres
For parcels larger than 6 acres development is allowed for a density of 3 dwelling units per parcel and
then 1 additional dwelling unit per 20 acres
1 dwelling unit per acre
1 dwelling unit per 20,000 square feet,(1 dwelling per %acre)
Maximum of 5 divisions on each parcel created prior to 1967
Mr.Arch commented that Washington County is extremely liberal,and is one of the most
liberal counties in Maryland.He further noted that Loudon County was not included in the
study,however,their information may be accessed via the internet.
OVERVIEW OF WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Eleanor Lakin
Mr.Arch commented he had also spoken to Ms.Lakin by phone.Her primary concern was
the overall density situation and what effect that would have on the farm community.
Historic Preservation,tax credits,and from the economic development standpoint,whether
we had enough land for the future were also some of her concerns.
J.Michael Nye
Mr.Nye,Chairman of Hagerstown's Board of Public Safety,presented an outline submitted
on June 19,2001 to City Council.He is basically striving for more funding of the Rescue
Service.
Allegheny Ventures,Inc.
Mr.Bowsell's letter commented on the language of business and technology parks.He
attached a copy of a Zoning Ordinance from Michigan that outlines the Business,
Technology and Research Districts.Mr.Arch commented that we would consult with
Allegheny for their recommendation when the regulations and description are addressed.
16
Bowers Appraisal Service
Mr.Richard Bowers commented that there would be an impact with a more restrictive
zoning in terms of the equity of the land.
Perini Properties
Mr.Dominick Perini commented that more restrictions on zoning would have an effect on
the value of land and farmers.
John Kendle
Mr.Kendle states he is more interested in having the Kendle Road area developed as
Residential than Industrial.
Washington County Historic District Commission
The suggested one modification in regard to stone fences and their preservation.
Schuster Properties
Mr.Schuster outlined in his letter a proposed map amendment for the Maugansville area.
Century 21 M.G.Realty
Mr.Draper's letter commented on the proposed density,and suggested for Agriculture -
One home on 1.5 or 2 acres;Conservation - 1 home on 5 acres;and Preservation -1 home
on 10 acres.
Kent Oliver,Esquire
Mr.Oliver correspondence outlines a map amendment regarding his parcels of land and the
Urban Growth Area.
Washington County Soil Conservation District
Mr.Elmer Weibley submitted some editorial changes regarding best management practices.
Also,he suggested that the Beaver Creek Speciai Planning Area be expanded.Mr.Arch
noted the suggestions would be incorporated into the plan as recommended.
Home Builders Association of Washington County,Inc.
Mr.Swope's letter comments on the reduction of the Urban and Town Growth areas and
the effect it would have on the industry and available space.The State Home Builders
Association proposed legislation in the last session where you would be required to do a
very detailed inventory anaiysis based on their belief from a study done in Baltimore County
that there is not enough available land to meet new housing requirements.The legislation
never passed,however,in the next session something similar may be introduced which
would create a very debatable situation with all the variables involved.
Funkstown Volunteer Fire Company,Inc.
Chief Kershner's letter outlined several issues including pre-emptive devices should be
installed at all new traffic lights,continue to promote involvement of fire and rescue
companies with plat review,and forwarding building permit plans to ensure fire suppression
systems are in place.He further requested that reflective markers be placed in the center of
the streets to designate fire hydrants,continuing the grid numbering system,and
commitment for the County to require fire hydrants for all subdivisions within the growth
area.He also suggested mandatory smoke detector laws and consideration of sprinkler
laws.Mr.Kershner noted the comments submitted were his opinions and not endorsed by
the Volunteer Fire &Rescue Association.
A.C.&T.Company,Inc.
Their correspondence reflected concerns about the Agriculture,Conservation and
Preservation proposals.
Miller &Stone
Robert Stone's letter basically had questions regarding unapproved lots.Mr.Arch stated
that they would not go away,and further stated there is nothing in the current document to
"sunset"existing lots that have not been used over a period of time.
Gaye McGovern Insurance Agency,Inc.
Ms.McGovern has been heavily involved with the Focus project and her letter states the
need for strategic planning and the need for City,County and Municipalities to work
together.
Funkstown Planning Commission
Chairman,Douglas Stone commented that the Funkstown Bypass project should have a high
priority.Mr.Arch noted that the traffic projects have not been prioritized.The CIP tends to
be the area where the prioritization takes place after identification in the Comprehensive
Plan.
National Park Service
Superintendent Howard's letter outlined their issues of interest.His letter stated the need
for maps of the Antietam Battlefield being consistent to their maps.Reiterated their support
of the Rural Legacy,Heritage Area overlay items and their support of the greenways and
blueways and connecting them into the Battlefield area where it is feasible to do so.They
also supported control on the communication towers.
Washington County Economic Development Commission
The EDC is basically opposed to any type of Special Taxing District in the Hopewell area.
Second,the EDC supports the idea for a 1,OOO-acre long-term future Economic Area that is
shown on the map.
Agriculture Preservation Board
Eric Seifarth gave an overview of the Agriculture Preservation Board views.The Board is
not necessarily opposed to down-zoning,however,if equity is taken away they would like
17
to County to compensate farmers for that equity.They would also like to explore TOR's,
and also the possibility of obtaining tax monies for the current Preservation program.The
Board also discussed setting goals for just the Ag Preservation Program.Mr.Seifarth also
commented the Ag Board had concerns with down-zoning with regards to the value of
easements.
Donald Ebersole
Mr.Ebersole lives on Kendle Road and requests that consideration be given to a Residential
policy for this area.
Daniel Moeller
Mr.Moeller's letter consisted of questions regarding acreages and growth rates for
surrounding Counties.Additionally,he commented on Preservation,and taking property
rights without compensation.
Richard A.Young,M.D.
Mr.Young is a property owner on Kendle Road and is against the Industrial-Flex.He also
suggested that sinkholes be elevated to a status of a Sensitive area.Mr.Arch noted that
approximately 52-53%of the County has Karst topography areas.Sinkholes are not a
reason to stop a development and can be addressed in several ways.First,Stormwater
Management regulations would address the issue of water runoff so it doesn't go into a
sinkhole from a quality and quantity prospective.Then from a constructive standpoint,you
can build on or over a sinkhole by using engineering techniques.Also,spills from a gasoline
pump or something of that nature would in fact be governed by the permitting agencies that
issued permits for those types of facilities.He also noted that a spill could occur by a truck
or train that has the potential to setback development for a number of years,but it is not a
reason to prevent development in an area due to sinkholes.
David Shane
Mr.Shane's letter addresses his opposition to the industrial activity in and around the
Williamsport area.He also recommended trying to attract high-tech firms instead of
trucking firms.
Alice White
Ms.White expressed concern with small towns in the County and whether or not
encouraging development in those areas will destroy some of their characteristics.She also
discussed her concerns with the effects of mining,agricultural in small communities,and
hiking/biking trails.
Taylor and Patricia lemkuhl
Their concerns were mainly on the agricultural and preservation densities and the impact this
would have on farmland.They also stated the need for higher paying jobs in Washington
County.
John Kendle
Mr.Kendle's second letter also expressed his concerns with the Industrial-Flex area in
Williamsport.
Eugene Hornbaker
Mr.Hornbaker expressed concern with regard to Karst topography in the area of the
proposed truck stop and across the road in the storm water management pond.
John A.Stansberry
Mr.Stansberry cited his main concern was citizen's property rights and the effects of
changing the density areas.
Dreama and Mitchell Clifford
Their correspondence reflected their opposition to the Industrial-Flex in Williamsport.
Brenda Shane
Ms.Shane expressed her opposition to the Industrial-Flex proposed for Williamsport.
Dick Bannister
Mr.Bannister requested the Preservation area be extended to lappans Crossroads to include
the Delamere Cemetery.He and his wife are in favor of expanding the more controlled area.
Wilkes Family
Several letters were received from the Wilkes family.Each letter is similar in their opposition
to the Industrial-Flex expansion in the Williamsport area.
E.Andrew Stone
Mr.Stone's letter expressed his concerns regarding property rights and the proposed down-
zoning.
Karen &Michael Cline
They are opposed to the Industrial-Flex in the Williamsport area.
Bob Elliott
Mr.Elliott is against the idea of 1:1 0,1 :20 and 1 :30 ratios.
Jonathan &Karen Kays
The Kays expressed their opposition to the Industrial-Flex in the Williamsport area.
Mr.&Mrs.Kenneth Ferrington
The Ferringtons would like to see the Preservation area expanded to Beaver Creek Bridge
and Route 65 and also through the villages of Breathedsville &Lappans.
Justin Scharf
Mr.Scharf suggested a map amendment to include his property located off of Jefferson
Boulevard be included in the high-density growth area.
18
James &Gladys Fazenbaker
The Fazenbakers stated their main concern is the density numbers.They suggested 1 home
per 8 acres for Agricultural and 1 home per 5 acres in Conservation and no more.
Charles Thompson
Mr.Thompson expressed his opposition to the 10/20/30 ratio.
Harry &Marie Carbaugh
They expressed their opposition to the proposed truck stop.
Unknown
Writer agrees with the limited growth area idea.He/she suggested that earth tones,or
structures that blend in with the land be used.The writer also commented that community
facilities and services are limited in the southern part of the County.
leah Staling
Ms.Staling's letter stated she is in favor of Forest Conservation.
Charles &Margaret Thorne
They are in favor of controlling development and urban sprawl.
Eugene Hornbaker
Mr.Hornbaker's second letter expressed his concerns on land preservation,proposed
acreage and Karst areas.
Fred Allenberg
Mr.Allenberg proposed a map amendment regarding the orchard area in Smithsburg.
James &Mona True
They requested a countywide referendum on agricultural acreage.
Bob Ebersole
His letter supported the Industrial-Flex in the area of Kendle Road and wants his property to
be inside the growth area.
David Bort
Mr.Bort provided several comments regarding the Plan.He also discussed pesticides,
educational programs for best management practices,air quality,and financial incentives to
promote proper techniques for soil erosion and runoff.Mr.Bart also commented that
billboards should be banned and existing ones be taxed.He further commented on the issue
of controlling the rate of growth and changing the growth area boundaries or nature in the
towns of Funkstown,Williamsport,Smithsburg,and Boonsboro,rather than a larger Urban
Growth Area.His letter also commented on the need for maintaining up to date records on
cumulative development,TDR's,regulations to address light pollution,and maintaining
adequate public visibility into waivers.He also suggested exemptions from development
regulations,encourage local jurisdictions to move towards the County's approach for
maintaining the character of new development,and shift the focus from accommodating
growth to taking control of growth.
Phyllis leach
Ms.leach's letter commented on mixing high and low densities in various sections of the
County and suggested small area planning committees.
Daniel D.Creamer
Mr.Creamer proposed revisions regarding buffer issues.
Wyatt Bell
Mr.Bell's letter expressed his opposition to the Industrial-Flex area in Williamsport.
Henry Ellenburg
Mr.Ellenburg commented on the Agricultural and Conservation policy areas.
Jay Roulette
Mr.Roulette of Columbia,Maryland stated his opposition to the Industrial-Flex in the
Williamsport area.
Brenda Thomas Griffith
Ms.Griffith expressed her concern with zoning density.
David &Patricia Schooley
Their letter expressed support for impact fees,opposition to purchasing development rights
for future economic development,oppose floating Rural Business zone and floating Industrial
zone.The Schooleys also support adaptive reuse and Rural Villages with restrictions on
growth.They also recommend that a historic preservation planner be hired and
recommended some grammar changes.
Form letters (162)
162 letters were received stated their opposition to the Industrial-Flex area in Williamsport.
William Reems
Mr.Reem's letter expressed his concern with reducing the size of the growth area.He was
also concerned about the 1 :30 ratio and the impact on farmland and the tax base.He also
commented that Urban Growth boundaries could stagnate business and that down-zoning
would have a financial impact.
Cumberland Valley Cycling Club
Their letter expressed their appreciation of the bicycle routes and the benefits the routes
offer to our community.
City of Hagerstown Comments
Mr.Arch advised the City's comments were broken down into three different attachments.
The first section is a memorandum from Douglas Wright,Chairman,Hagerstown Planning
19
Commission.Mr.Wright offered general support of the Plan particularly the efforts to
restrict development.He cited concern with having enough High-Density areas and
questioned the need for a Moderate Density as well as a Low Density.They are concerned
with the economic growth to the west and residential development to the east.His
memorandum questioned whether there is adequate previsions for a transportation network.
Attachment #1 outlines the City's supporting statements.
The City agrees there is ample area to meet the needs,supports the idea of restricting water
and sewer extensions outside of the growth area,supports the use of a Land Use Plan and
Map and supports the idea of the densities in the Preservation,Conservation and
Agricultural areas.Also,the City commented that the "Special Program Areas"have a
direct impact on the City and their involvement and they want to insure they have adequate
participation in development of functional plans.
Attachment #2 outlines the City's constructive criticism of the Plan.
The City referenced the Tischler study and the trends scenario verses the economic
development in this area and the conflict between them.The City questioned if the
analyses and conclusions upon which many recommendations are based upon would be
different if a single development scenario were used instead of multiples used.Mr.Arch
advised that there really wouldn't be any difference if a different scenario was used.The
City also had concerns about how it may be viewed from the standpoint of "suburban"
verses "inner city"in terms of the schools.Also they reiterated Mike Nye's statement
regarding improvement of fire and medical services and funding.Comments were also made
regarding the amount of sewer and water service provided to different County areas.Mr.
Arch commented that this information would be updated accordingly.The City also
commented on the Land Use Policy in terms that the municipalities not being included in
some of the numbers,however,Mr.Arch advised that the numbers are included.They also
commented on High-Density verses Low Density.They also expressed some concerns
regarding community systems in order to facilitate growth outside of the growth area and
the Rural Villages that are served by the City.The City commented on Chapter 13 of the
Plan wherein finds the statement that many of the vacant properties adjacent to the City are
zoned Highway Interchange,or Planned Business and they would like consideration when
the new zoning is recommended for these areas.
Attachment #3 outlines specific technical corrections or suggestions.
The City suggested on page 15,the need to add "Parks-and Open Space".
Page 43 and 44 summarizes the significant amount of historical sites in the County and
noted there should be consideration given to the sites with in the City.
Page 45 notes the City's Police Department,however,does not recognize the City's Fire
Department.Mr.Arch noted this item would be amended.
On page 46 the water treatment plants in Smithsburg and Williamsport should be listed.
The sidewalk system discussed on page 50 excludes the systems that exist inside the
municipalities.Mr.Arch commented this plan does not deal with what is inside the
municipalities.
On page 65 Downtown Hagerstown is omitted from the County Enterprise Zone.Mr.
Arch noted this could be amended.
On page 71 the City stated Downtown Hagerstown should be listed as one of areas
targeting investment to encourage economic development.Mr.Arch noted this is an
area that is determined by the Commissioners.
On page 73 the City questioned what policies or program would be taken to accomplish
the revitalization.Mr.Arch commented the Commissioners would make that
determination.
Page 86 omits Eastern Boulevard between Mt.Aetna and Route 60,however,it is
shown on the map.Mr.Arch commented this would be amended.
On page 93 the Marshall Street connector has been deleted from the City's priority list
and therefore should be dropped from Map 25.
Page 120 comments the City's plant supplies Smithsburg.
Page 121 inquired whether the Water Quality report has been updated.Mr.Arch
commented there has not been an updated study since 1988.
Page 140 suggests the Brownfields Cleanup Program should be listed.Mr.Arch noted
this is an item that would be better addressed through the City's Plan.
Page 148 notes that Smithsburg source of water is the City's system,not wells.
Page 155 also comments on Smithsburg and that City provides their water supply.
Page 157 suggested the language "provides sewer service inside and outside the
corporate boundaries."
Page 1 58 comments on the Interconnection of the County and City systems
Page 162 comments that the City plays an important part in meeting Open Space
requirements for the County.
On page 188/189 the City recommends a change of word usage to state "such as fire
flow and pressure below standard acceptable levels should be ...."Mr.Arch noted this
amended could be done.
20
On Page 191 the City notes they are not mentioned regarding their preservation plan
and that they were designated a CLG.Mr.Arch noted this could be added to the Plan
Page 205 comments On the inventoried resources
Page 238 recommends an explanation be offered regarding the increase in group
quarters population referring to the prison and elderly population.Mr.Arch noted this
number comes from the Maryland Office of Planning and not aware of any breakdown
between the prison and elderly population.
Page 243 the City comments on "High Density"to create a variety of housing types.
Page 257 the City commented on the analysis of residential units and population
numbers.
On page 266 the City cites two Rural Villages were omitted,however,they are listed
under a different name.
Page 271 also comments on the water service to Smithsburg.
Page 297 discussion of the street lighting available.
On page 309 the City suggested Subdivision Regulations should include language
encouraging road linkages between subdivision.Mr.Arch advised this is addressed by
our Adequate Public Facility Ordinance,which the City does not have.
On page 310 with regards to the APFO,the City suggested language dealing with
municipalities.
On page 311 the City commented on the Community Design Standards language.
SUGGESTIONS/ADDITIONS SUBMITTED BY MR.ANIKIS:
1)Requiring an archeological and historic resources survey as a part of all development
applications to strengthen the County's historic inventory and preservation efforts.This
survey must include a plan for recordation and preservation of identified resources and
measures for mitigation and adaptive reuse.Mr.Arch commented this would be a major
procedure change and would have a significant impact on one hand and on the other
hand some of this proposal is already addressed by part of the Forest Delineation Plan.
Mr.Arch questioned what would the archeological and historic survey consist of.Mr.
Anikis advised this suggestion was taken from Loudon County's Comprehensive Plan
and basically what he is striving for is an insurance policy against the next historic
property being demolished.He further stated he would like to see as much burden be
put on the developer as is put on Steve Goodrich to make sure that someone has looked
at the property and not leave it on the County.Mr.Arch questioned whether this is the
best way to tackle this suggestion and further stated he believed that the County is
taking a more proactive approach in identifying the critical resources.He further stated
the County could come up with a plan or policies to mitigate ahead of time whether the
property is going stay or not.In the areas where the site is not identified make it more
applicable to the residential aspect,which would make it more feasible to accomplish,
and the County do the sites identified as Economic Development type areas.
2)Mr.Anikis recommended the creation of a Preservation fund to perhaps be used
whenever a construction takes place that the developer will pay a fee,which would go
into a fund to help restore historic sites,enhance the preservation efforts,etc.Mr.
Ardinger questioned how would you determine the property value in relationship to the
fee.Mr.Anikis suggested perhaps a fixed value be used.
3)Mr.Anikis suggested addressing noise levels and some sort of reference be made within
the Plan.Mr.Anikis added he believed some type of regulation is needed at the County
level with the potential for future connectors,to protect both the developer/residents to
prevent an another Tammany Heights situation.He also suggested encouragement of
natural barriers.Mr.Arch agreed and advised that probably the Zoning Ordinance would
specifically address the language regarding barriers.
4)He further suggested several changes/additions regarding Rural Villages as follows:
-Page 262 "Without the necessary infrastructure to support increased development,
particularly residential development at densities that may require public facilities to
address health and safety issues,development within the Rural Area should be
limited (emphasis added)
-Page 266 (Rural Villages)...They are definable on the landscape and contribute to
the unique character of Washington County.
-Page 266 "Major public investment by the County in public facilities and services
to encourage substantial new development should not be made.Priority should be
given to correcting existing public health and safety problems that result from failing
septic systems or contaminated wells.
21
-Page 267 "Development should be limited to in fill development in accordance with
the defined boundaries.Additional regulations addressing size,scale and
architectural considerations are anticipated to insure new development compatibility
with existing development."
-Page 304 "The Rural Villages located within the rural area of the County present
an opportunity to provide a means for absorbing a substantial amount of growth in
the rural area (emphasis added).Mr.Arch commented that the term substantial is
related to the rural area and not the overall big picture.
-Page 325 #12.Require development on the edge of a Rural Village to be designed
to extend the fabric of the existing development and insure that the natural edge
between the village and the adjacent agricultural or open space area is maintained.
5)Mr.Anikis commented during the workshop that there is a need for a tighter definition
on Rural Villages and he is concerned that the Rural Villages will no longer exist.If the
developers start focusing on these areas,he is concerned about the groundwater and
continuing problems down the line for the County.He further expressed the need to
control the growth to not more than 10%in these areas.Mr.Arch explained that Fair
Play has the most acreage available.Mr.Gudmundson further explained out of the fifty-
five Rural Villages,nine were located in the Urban Area,three areas have no vacant
land,and 43 remaining areas are ranked accordingly.Fair Play has the most acreage at
129 acres.Pectonville is ranked second then Mt.Briar,Edgewood and Cascade.
MR.ANIKIS'OBERSERVATIONS,COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
1)Mr.Anikis also suggested that any new development in Rural Village areas comply with
the existing architectural characteristics of that village and guidelines are needed to
insure this.Mr.Arch commented this could be addressed by a Zoning Ordinance.He
further commented that a subcategory be created for a historic section within the Rural
Village that would also have additional guidelines for esthetic qualities,etc.
2)Page 15 "Locate &time growth so it does not exceed capacity of public roads"Mr.
Anikis questioned if there could be a moratorium around Funkstown until the traffic
issue can be dealt with.Mr.Arch commented this is a perception verses reality and
most of the roads have adequate capacity from a level of service standpoint in that area.
3)Page 17 also discusses the area around Funkstown.
4)Page 25 questioned what would the per capita income be if the prison population would
be deducted.
5)Page 40 questioned what the equivalent acreages would be for 1500 parcels within the
Urban Growth and 2500 parcels outside.
6)Page 52 regarding the numbers from the Tischler scenarios all producing net revenue
gains.Mr.Arch noted if we were looking at building schools the numbers would have
much more of an impact.
7)Questioned the reason of the conflict between HEPMPO and MPO.Mr.Arch stated there
is no conflict.Section 81 deals with the Urban Area and Section 91 deals with the Rural
Agriculture Area.
8)Questioned the reason why Route 65 needs to be widened to Rench Road.Mr.Arch
commented that the because of the intersection alignment situation at Poffenburger and
Rench and the restricted turning radius and vertical curve that exist there if safety
concerns.The Hilton Smith development included the concept of another road,which
will move the entrance of Poffenburger Road.
9)Questioned the area north of Rench Road on the Land Use Map proposed as Industrial
Flex.Mr.Anikis believes a public hearing should be held regarding the rezoning from
Agriculture to Industrial Flex and that the land owned by Alle9heny Power should remain
Agriculture.Mr.Anikis also stated the area north of Route 68 on Kendle Road should
also remain Agriculture.
Mr.Arch concluded the workshop session and discussion followed regarding the next workshop
session.The next session was scheduled for September 17 at 3:00 p.m.
"tovv-L It,--h~I----
Paula A.Lampton
Chairperson
23
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -SEPTEMBER 10,2001
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,
September 10,2001 in the County Commissioners Meeting Room.
Members present were:Vice-Chairman,Robert Ernst II,R.Ben Clopper,Don Ardinger,
Timothy Henry,George Anikis and Ex-Officio,Bertrand Iseminger.Staff:Director,Robert C.
Arch,Chief Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich,Senior Planner,Timothy A.Lung,
Associate Planner,Jill Baker and Secretary,Sandy Coffman.Absent was Paula Lampton,
Chairperson.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Mr.Ernst at 7:00 p.m.
Before proceeding with the meeting,Mr.Ernst advised the subdivision for Freedom Hills
would be omitted from the agenda and will be brought back at another time.
MINUTES:
Mr.Anikis made a motion to approve the minutes for the regular meeting of July 2,2001.
Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered.
NEW BUSINESS:
Variances:
Norma Malkiewicz -Request to Create a Panhandle Lot:
Ms.Pietro presented the variance request for Norma Malkiewicz.The subject site is located
on the south side of Manor Church Road.The property is zoned Agricultural.The property
owner is proposing to create a panhandle lot of approximately one-acre in size to convey to
her son,Todd Stotler.In doing so,the proposed lot would become the second in a three-
tiered configuration.Ms.Pietro advised that lot 1,which was created in 1984,is also a
panhandle lot and was conveyed to another son of the applicant.The remaining acreage is
approximately 1.4 acres,which will be retained by the applicant.The variance is requested
from Section 405.11.G.5 (4),which states the stacking of panhandle lots for more than two
(2)tiers is prohibited.Ms.Pietro adv"lsed that an existing macadam entranceway that
serves lot 1 would serve lot 2,and if needed in the future,lot 2 would have its own 25 feet
of frontage.Mr.Iseminger suggested that the immediate family member statement be
placed on the plat.Ms.Malkiewicz responded that it is their intention that the property
would remain in their family.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant the variance contingent
on that the family member statement be applied to lot 2 and that no further subdivision
would occur on the lots.Mr.Ardinger seconded.Vote was unanimous.So ordered.
Arthur C.Stanley III -Request to Allow Septic Reserve Areas to be Located Off Site:
Mr.Lung presented the variance request for Mr.Stanley.This request is from the
Subdivis',on Ordinance to permit septic areas for new building lots to be located offs·,te.The
property is located at the northwest corner of Route 63 and Broadfording Road.The
property is zoned Agricultural.Currently the property consists of two parcels,which
contains three existing dwellings.One of the dwellings,a mobile home,is to be removed.
The applicant wishes to reconfigure the property lines and divide the existing parcels to
provide a total of four lots.Two of the lots contain existing dwellings and there would be
two new building lots.In order to achieve this proposed layout,approximately two-thirds of
the septic reserve area for lot 1 would be located on lot 2.All of the 10,000 square foot
reserve area and septic area for proposed lot 3 would be located on lot 1.According to the
applicant's consultant,they were unable to obtain a perc tests thus the reason for the septic
reserve area being located on the proposed lot 1.Public water is available to the site via the
Martins Crossroad system.Mr.Lung stated that the applicant is claiming an extraordinary
hardship.The Washington County Health Department verified that perc tests have been
approved for these locations,however,their regulations do not regulate the location of these
septic areas relative to the lots.The location of the septic areas is regulated under the
Subdivision regulations and thus the reason for this request.The staff has several concerns
regarding this request.1)This request may tend to subvert the intent of the Subdivision
Ordinance,which requires that new lots stand on their own as to meeting all applicable
regulations,including,the ability of the lot to perc.The only foreseen hardship in this case
is that the applicant may not be able to obtain as many lots as he originally anticipated.
2)The septic reserve area that crosses the property line may interfere with the standard
drainage and utility easements that are required along the property lines in new subdivisions.
In this case,there would be an overlapping of easements,which could create a problem if at
such time there had to be drainage or utilities installed.31 There is concern that a
24
way to mend this problem would be to grade the road.Mr.Wolford stated the rumble strips
were not feasible at this time,it would have to go on their projected budget,however,they
have lowered the speed limit to 40 mph.Ms.Baker added that the congregation is currently
meeting at the Ruritan Club so the traffic is already there.Mr.Iseminger stated there is an
upcoming meeting where a yearly tour is conducted of the County and the CIP program is
planned.He advised Mr.Anikis to submit his concerns in writing and he would forward
them to the Secretary of Transportation.Mr.Clopper made a motion to grant site plan
approval.Mr.Henry seconded.Vote unanimous.So ordered.
Cumberland Valley Heating and Air Conditioning:
Mr.Lung presented the site plan for a warehouse addition for Cumberland Valley Heating
and Air Conditioning.The existing business is located on the corner of Bower Avenue and
Gay Street in the Halfway area.The property is zoned Business Local.The applicant has
received approval from the Board of Zon'tng Appeals for a special exception for the
warehouse and also a variance from the side yard setback between the two properties that
Cumberland Valley also owns.The proposal is for a 60'x 65'warehouse that will be 22
feet in height to be located north of the existing building.There is an existing entrance into
Gay Street,as well as the entrance onto Bower Avenue that would be utilized for the
proposed warehouse.The existing stoned parking area will be paved and used for the
proposed warehouse.There will be no increase in the number of employees and no change
in the hours of operation.The building mounted lights will be shielded to prevent any glare.
Screening per the Board of Zoning Appeals requirements is provided along the north property
line.There will also be a vision proof fence installed along the east.A new stormwater
management facility will be provided behind the proposed building.All agency approvals
have been received.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant site plan approval.Mr.Henry
seconded.Vote was unanimous.So ordered.
M.S.Johnston Company,Inc.
Mr.Lung presented the site plan for M.S.Johnston Company,Inc.to add a warehouse and
sheet metal fabricating building associated with their existing business.The property is
located on Pennsylvania Avenue across from Mack TrUCk.This property is zoned Business·
General.There are two existing structures that will be removed to accommodate a new 80'
x 120'building and a 37'x 40'building.Both will be two-story.This site plan also
includes new car and truck parking areas with access roads to connect with the existing
facility.There will be an underground storm water management facility located at the front
of the property.The will be no increase in the number of employees or the hours of
operation.Shielded type building-mounted lights are proposed around the building to
prevent any glare onto adjoining properties.Per the Zoning Ordinance requirements,there
would be vegetative screen plantings of white pines along the south and east property lines,
and Leland cypress will be added along the front.All agency approvals have been received
including a verbal approval from the Water and Sewer Department.Mr.Ardinger questioned
the screening on the east and south sides and whether the buffer areas are adequate to
screen the commercial buildings from the residential properties.Mr.Lung stated that the
spacing and the size of the trees are per the Ordinance.The plantings will be on top of the
hill to the rear of the site.Mr.Henry made a motion to approve the site plan subject to the
Water and Sewer Department's approval.Mr.Clopper seconded.The vote was unanimous.
So ordered.
(Mr.Arch arrived at 7:53 p.m.)
Cross Creek Commercial Area
Ms.Pietro presented the Preliminary Plat and site plan for the Cross Creek Commercial Area.
The subject site is located along the east of the Sharpsburg p',ke and is situated in front of
the residential section of Cross Creek South.Zoning is HI-1.The developer is proposing to
construct a retail shopping center on an 11.98 acre parcel.Access to the center will be off
of Battle Creek Boulevard.The building area will encompass 58,000 feet and will be 20
feet in height.Public water and sewer will serve the site.The projected number of
employees is fifty and the projected number of customers per day is 1,000.259 parking
spaces are required and 262 spaces will be provided which includes eight handicap spaces.
An enclosed dumpster will be located to the rear of the site.Hours of operation will be 8:00
a.m.to 10:00 p.m.seven days per week.Freight and delivery will be four deliveries per
day.Proposed signs will be located at the corner of Route 65 and Battle Creek Boulevard.
The lighting will be building mounted and pole mounted.A stormwater management pond is
located on the site.Landscaping will include 10-foot pines located along the southern and
eastern property lines and a mixture of shrubs on the remainder per the requirements.
Forest Conservation requirements will be met by retaining.77 acres of existing forest on the
remaining lands.All approvals have been received with the exception of the State Highway
Administration,which is currently working with Fox &Associates on a few outstanding
issues.Mr.Iseminger inquired at what point would be the requirement for the developer to
extend Battle Creek Road over to Poffenberger Road.The consultant,Mr.Dick Brill,stated
that the requirement is a part of the provision for this plan and Poffenberger Road will be
closed where it connects to Route 65.Mr.Arch added that Poffenberger Road will remain
25
open but it would be restricted to serve the few existing private residents.The consultant
advised that the owner is currently trying to obtain leases for the shoppi,ng center before
construction begins,however,before any use and occupancy the road connection would
take place.Mr.Anikis stated his concern about the light contamination problem.Ms.Pietro
advised that there is a note on the plat that the light will be deflected.Mr.Iseminger
inquired if fencing had been installed along the railroad tracks.Mr.Brill was unsure if there
was fencing installed.Mr.Iseminger asked Mr.Arch to corroborate with Paul Prodonovich
on this matter since it is part of the approval process.Mr.Clopper made a motion to
approve the Preliminary Plat and Site Plan approval.Mr,Ardinger seconded.Vote was
unanimous.So ordered.
Warehouse &Terminal Properties:
Ms.Pietro presented the site plan for Warehouse &Terminal Properties,The subject site is
located on the south side of Business Parkway in the Huyetts Business Park.The property
is zoned HI-1.The developer is proposing to lease approximately two to three acres of a
13.8-acre tract for a tractor-trailer operation.Baer Trucking has proposed a trailer storage
area and an office trailer for one sales employee.Two parking spaces would be provided for
the office only.The hours of operation will be Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m.to
5:00 p.m.A sign will be building mounted on the office trailer,as well as building mounted
lights.Additional lighting will be provided on the adjacent building.There will be no
restroom facilities provided in the office trailer,and the facilities in the adjacent building
would be used.The solid waste dumpster will be used off of lot 2.The site is exempt from
Forest Conservation requirements.Landscaping will include six foot pines along the western
property line.All approvals have been received.The parking area for the office will be
paved,and Mr.Prodonovich advised that the remaining area would remain gravel for parking
the trailers.Mr.Arch advised he had received a letter from Mr.Bear asking for an
exemption on required planting of trees.He has asked the Planning Commission to give the
Planning Staff some leeway to come up with some other alternatives for landscaping since
he planted the required trees previously and the trees did poorly in the shale soil.Mr.Bear
had also discussed the possibility of making a contribution to Forest Conservation.Mr.
Iseminger made a motion to grant the site plan and to also give the Planning Staff the
authority to negotiate on the planting.Mr.Ardinger seconded.The vote was unanimous
vote.So ordered.
Interstate Warehouse Partnership:
Ms.Pietro presented the site plan for Interstate Warehouse Partnership.The site is located
west of the Williamsport-Greencastle Pike.Zoning is HI-1.The developer is proposing to
construct a warehouse on 5.07 acres.Th',s area will eventually be subd',v',ded into a 20 acre
tract.Phase I would include a site for Ag products and equipment with offices.Access will
be off Wheat Field Lane and public water and sewer would serve the warehouse.Hours of
operation will be Monday through Saturday from 7 a.m.to 5 p.m.Signage will be building
and pole mounted.Number of employees for Phase I will be four,and will be twelve with
the completion of Phase II.A screened dumpster will be provided for solid waste.Freight
and delivery will be approximately four trucks per day for Phase I.Five parking spaces are
required,and thirteen spaces are proposed and the ultimate build-out will be 14 spaces.
Landscaping will include white pines located along the northern property line and honey
locusts located in front of the building.1.07 acres of existing forest will be retained and
4.25 acres w',l1 be planted on the site in order to meet the Forest Conservat',on Ordinance
requirements.All agency approvals have been received.Mr.Clopper made a motion to
grant the site plan approval.Mr.Anikis seconded.Vote was unanimous.So ordered.
Gateway Ministries:
Ms.Pietro presented for approval the site plan for Gateway Ministries.The site is located at
the intersection of Greencastle Pike and Kemps Mill Road.Zoning is Agriculture.The
existing access is off of Kemps Mill Road.The expansion is for a 2,000-seat sanctuary.
The total site area is 9.9 acres.Public water and sewer is currently on site.The existing
building is 34,000 square feet,which includes the church,school,and childcare facilities.
The proposed expansion is 37,000 square feet and 400 parking spaces are proposed.
Lighting is to be building and pole mounted,and no new signage is proposed.The existing
dumpster will be used.The site is exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance.
Landscaping will include maple,weeping cherry,crabapple,euonymus,and mugho pine
bushes.The only outstanding agency is the Washington County Permits &Inspections
office and a revision was recently forwarded to them.Mr.Iseminger questioned how many
total parking spaces were on the site.The consultant,Mr.Holmes advised there were 400
spaces as per the Zoning Ordinance requirements.Mr.Iseminger questioned if there were
any areas for overflow parking other than along the Williamsport Pike and stated his
concerned that there doesn't appear to be enough parking to accommodate the expansion.
Mr.Holmes indicated that there is a grassy area behind the building that could be used,Mr.
Iseminger suggested that Mr.Holmes discuss with the church the necessity to have
provisions for satellite parking.Mr.Holmes agreed with the suggestion and advised that the
church membership is approximately 750 and that he believed there is currently two
26
services being held.Mr.Iseminger made a motion for the site approval contingent on final
approval from the Permits Department and another review of the parking situation by Mr.
Prodonovich.Mr.Clopper seconded the motion.Vote was unanimous.So ordered.
K.L.Grimm Enterprises:
Ms.Pietro presented for approval the site plan of K.L.Grimm Enterprises -Phase I &II.The
site is located along the west side of Greencastle Pike and north of Sheetz.The property is
zoned Agriculture.The owner has proposed a mineral extraction operation of shale on a
twenty-acre tract.The extraction area will encompass Phase I of 4.7 acres and Phase II will
be 4.5 acres.The Board of Appeals approved a spec'lal exception for a moderate volume
mineral extraction on April 11,2001.The project will be performed in five-acre phases.
Each phase must be final graded and stabilized before beginning the next phase.There will
be a 100 foot setback along the east and west property lines.The Board of Appeals
granted the variance for a 25-foot setback for the southern property line.There ',S existing
fencing located on all four sides.Hours are limited to Monday through Saturday during
daylight hours.Trucks will be parked at the existing trucking business and there will be no
full-time employees.The owners will operate the backhoes for extraction and use their
trucks for hauling the shale.No signs will be placed on the site for advertising.The
estimated truck traffic will be ten per day.Landscaping of white pines will be planted on
the eastern property lines at a minimum height of six feet.The site is exempt from Forest
Conservation Ordinance requirements.All approvals have been received along with
approvals from the Maryland Department of Mining.Mr.Ardinger questioned the projected
number of trucks per day.The consultant,Mr.Cump,stated their office calculated the
average by using the total volume by what could be hauled on Grimm's truck to derive the
average per day.Mr.Iseminger questioned if there was a requirement to water the entrance
road.Mr.Grimm advised the main entrance is paved and a water truck will be used on the
remainder to keep the dust down.Mr.Henry questioned the depth of the pit area.Mr.
Cump advised the grades were running 3 to 1 which is fairly flat and the owners intend to
revert these areas.Mr.Ard'lnger made a motion for site plan approval.Mr.Henry
seconded.Vote was unanimous.So ordered.
Preliminary Consultations:
Paul F.Stitzel:
Ms.Pietro presented the Preliminary Consultation of Paul F.Stitzel.Ms.Pietro stated she
had no further information to provide above and beyond the summary previously provided.
Mr.Iseminger inquired if this farm was still on tract for the Agricultural Easement of the
remaining 248 acres.The consultant,Mr.Holmes,stated that it was and made a request
that staff be given the authority to grant the Preliminary and Final Approval when all
agencies have approved based on the concept plan.The consultant further advised they are
ready to submit the subdivision as soon as the property owner clears the fencerow and the
site distance can be reviewed.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant staff authority to
approve the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plat upon approval from all agencies.Mr.
Henry seconded.The vote was unanimous.So ordered.
OTHER BUSINESS:
RZ-O 1-006 -Text Amendment
Before proceeding,Mr.Ernst reminded those in attendance that this meeting was not a
public hearing and not for additional testimony.Mr.Ernst further stated that the Planning
Commission's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners would be based upon
the Staff Analysis Report,comments from public hearing,and the written responses
received.Mr.Ardinger stated his appreciation for all of the public input.He also said he
understood the intent to clarify but expressed concern that past complications in applying
this section that warrant the clarification have not been identified.It is his opinion that the
amendment may have been rushed.Mr.Ardinger also stated he was reluctant to support
the proposal because it was unclear how it would affect a current development proposal and
all future applications for truck stops and terminals.Mr.Clopper inquired if long-term
parking was defined in the amendment or elsewhere in the Ordinance.Mr.Arch said that it
isn't.Mr.Ardinger clarified that only three members would be voting on the amendment,
and that Mr.Ernst,Mr.Henry,and Mr.Iseminger will be abstaining.Mr.Clopper said he
agreed with Mr.Ardinger's comments and stated additional concern for the lack of
definitions and suggested additional time for review was needed.Mr.Anikis believed that a
recommendation should not be delayed and that definitions could be added later.He said
approval of the amendment would not prevent applications for new truck stops but would
allow citizen input during Board of Zoning Appeals review.Staff's only comment was a
correction to the number of responses received noted in the Staff Report from 223 to 225.
Mr.Arch added that staff had struggled with some of the language in the amendment due
to a concern for unintended consequences in the future.Mr.Ardinger made a motion that
the Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners rejection of
the text amendment.Mr.Clopper seconded the motion with a note that more clarification
27
will be necessary.Mr.Ardinger and Clopper voted in favor of the motion and Mr.Anikis
opposed the motion.Mr.Ernst,Mr.Henry,and Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered.
City Annexation
Mr.Arch referred to the letter received from the City of Hagerstown proposing annexation
of the property adjacent to the YMCA property.Mr.Arch stated the proposed annexation
by the City is consistent with the County zoning regulations,however,the City Planning
Office recently submitted a copy of the preliminary development plan for review and
comment and the zoning is not consistence to what is shown in the City's proposal.Mr.
Iseminger stated that clarification is needed from the City on this matter.This matter will be
brought before the Board of County of Commissioners for additional review and comments.
Future Meeting
Mr.Arch advised the joint rezoning hearing is scheduled for September 24,2001 at 7 p.m.
There is one rezoning case scheduled for this date.A workshop session will be held to
continue discussions on the Comprehensive Plan immediately following the hearing.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
-B0v~0..-,4
Paula A.Lampton
Chairperson
t~?r"b'
28
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -OCTOBER 1,2001
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,October
1,2001 in the County Commissioners Meeting Room.
Members present were:Paula Lampton,Chairperson,R.Ben Clopper,Timothy Henry,
George Anikis and Ex-Officio,Bertrand Iseminger.Staff:Director,Robert C.Arch;Senior
Planner,Lisa Kelly Pietro;Associate Planner,Jill Baker and Secretary,Sandy Coffman.
Absent were Vice-Chairman,Robert Ernst II and Don Ardinger.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairperson at 7:00 p.m.
Before proceeding with the meeting,Ms.Lampton advised that the subdivision for Freedom
Hills would be omitted from the agenda.Mr.Arch added a Forest Conservation Plan
modification to lot 27 of Byers Meadows in Downsville under Other Business.
MINUTES:
Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve the minutes for the regular meeting of August 6,
2001,as amended.Seconded by Mr.Henry.So ordered.
NEW BUSINESS:
Subdivisions:
Mt.View Baptist Church:
Ms.Pietro presented the site plan and Prel"lminary Plat for Mt.V',ew Baptist Church.The
subject site is located along the east side of Walnut Point Road and is zoned Agriculture and
Residential Rural.The developer is proposing to construct an 80 x 230 foot church on 5.25
acres.The proposed church will include a new worship area and community room.The
existing church will remain on the site and will be utilized as a children's worship area.
Access will be off of Walnut Point Road.Public water and sewer will serve the site.The
required parking is 100 spaces,however,102 spaces will be provided and the parking area
will be paved.Lighting will be building mounted.The sign on the existing church will
remain and no additional signs will be used.The solid waste will be contained in a screened
dumpster.Hours of operation will be Wednesday evenings and Sunday mornings.The
church will employ the pastor and one part-time secretary.Landscaping around the church
will include a mixture of shad blow berry,white pine,oak,mulberry,yew,and spirera.Ms.
Pietro advised that no priority forest areas exist and that the Forest Conservation
requirements will be met by payment in lieu of,for .20 acres,which equals $871.20.All
approvals have been received except for City Water,which will be forthcoming.Mr.Henry
made a motion to approve the site plan and Preliminary Plat.Mr.Clopper seconded.Vote
was unanimous.So ordered.
Preliminary Consultations:
Bruce N.Hoffman &Sons,Inc.
Ms.Pietro presented the preliminary consultation for Bruce N.Hoffman &Sons,Inc.The
subject site is located along the south side of Broadfording Road.The developer is
proposing 16 single-family lots ranging in size from 1.3 to 2.8 acres.Ms.Pietro stated she
had nothing further to add to the preliminary consultation summary previously distributed.
Mr.Anikis inqu'"ed if the developer had taken the staff's recommendation to change the
driveways.Ms.Pietro stated that the developer had indicated that modification would not
be a problem.Mr.Henry inquired as to the statement that the new owners need to know
that they cannot destroy the "understory".Ms.Pietro advised that the Forest Conservation
regulations state these undergrowth areas cannot be disturbed or removed.She further
added these areas would need to be posted and a note added on the plat.
Meadows Green
Ms.Baker presented for review and comments the preliminary consultation for Meadows
Green,consisting of 47 single-family lots.The site is located on the west side of Mapleville
Road.Total parcel area is 117 acres and is zoned Agriculture.The average lot size is 1.7
acres and four cul-de-sacs will serve the development.All lots will be served by on-site well
and septic.There are currently five stormwater management ponds that take the shape of a
panhandle lot.Ms.Baker said that it is the staff's opinion that the five storm water ponds
should not be included in the calculations for the maximum number of panhandle lots per
subdivision since they will not be for development.The storm water ponds will be conveyed
to the County when it is dedicated into their system.The County will maintain the upkeep
of the stormwater areas.There is 3.7 acres of open space area to be maintained by a
Homeowners Association.The owner is still taking the Forest Conservation mitigation under
29
consideration,however,it is likely the rear of the property along Beaver Creek will be
retained to the degree possible,and additional mitigation will be in the form of aforestation
added as a buffer between the adjacent National Historic property.Ms.Baker advised that
the developer is contemplating two large "farmette"type lots for the remaining lands.Mr.
Henry questioned the role of the Homeowners Association and its history of success.Mr.
Arch stated that all PUD's have an association and that most are workable depending on the
amount of responsibility delegated.Ms.Lampton stated her main concern is the fact that
there is only one access point for this sizable development.Ms.Baker advised that the
proposed access point is most likely the only one that could obtain the site distance required
by the State Highway Administration.Ms.Baker added that the Maryland State Highway
Administration has requested a traffic analysis for the access point,as well as the
intersection of U.S.Route 40 and Maryland Route 66.Ms.Baker stated that she would
report to the developer the need to review the number of access points being proposed.Mr.
Isem'lnger agreed with Ms.Lampton that there were too many lots proposed and agreed that
a hydrologic study was needed.Mr.Clopper stated that with the amount and proximitY of
active farms in this area,the intense farming note should be added to the plat and deeds of
this development.
OTHER BUSINESS:
•David Shaool -PUD Setback Change
Mr.Arch presented the setback modification for townhouse lot #26 in the Fountain View
PUD located off of Pennsylvania Avenue.The developer is requesting the setback for only
this unit be amended to 12 feet 5 Y,inches instead of 20 feet to increase the size of the
townhouse from 30 feet to 38 feet deep.The foundation has already been constructed for
these dimensions.A variance is not applicable since this development is a PUD.Mr.
Iseminger made a motion to table this request to give David Shaool an opportunity to attend
the next regular meeting in person to state the reasons for his request.Mr.Clopper
seconded the motion.Mr.Anikis opposed the motion and Mr.Shaool's request.Mr.Henry
abstained.So ordered.
Byers Meadows-Downsville:
Mr.Arch presented a modification to Forest Conservation plan previously approved for lot
#27 in Byers Meadows in Downsville.Mr.Byers has requested that a portion of the forest
retention area,which is approximately 19,441 square feet,be removed and payment in lieu
of be rendered.Mr.Byers'request is based on his inability to obtain a buyer for this
particular lot because the parties previously interested in this lot have wanted to build where
the forest retention area is presently located.Mr.Arch advised the calculations would be
reviewed to verify whether or not any penalties would be involved.Mr.Clopper made a
motion to revise the Forest Conservation plan to allow payment in lieu of for lot 27 based on
the new calculations.Mr.Anikis seconded the motion.Vote was unanimous.So ordered.
Austin Flook Farm
Mr.Arch stated that as the filming of the "Gods &Generals"movie continues on Mr.
Flook's farm,that some additional trees might need to be removed.There is a particular
area on the farm that may meet the criteria of being a forest area.If so,a request is being
made to the Planning Commission to grant the Planning Staff the ability to develop a
mitigation plan.Mr.Henry made a motion to grant the Plann'lng Staff the authoritY to
determine whether a plan is needed,and to develop a Forest Conservation mitigation plan.
Mr.Clopper seconded the motion.Vote was unanimous.So-ordered.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 7:43 p.m.
MEETING REOPENED
The meeting was called to order at 7:55 p.m.to continue the discussion of David Shaool-
PUD Setback Change.
"David Shaool - PUD Setback Change (continued)
Mr.David Shaool arrived in person to explain the hardship for his request.Mr.Shaool
stated that the site contractor of the project had made an honest mistake.The contractor
poured the concrete for the foundation of lot #27 with the same dimensions as the other
units in this development,however,this particular townhouse was originally designed as a
smaller unit with the dimensions of 30x18 foot because of the smaller lot size.Mr.Shaool
further explained that by modifying the setback for this particular townhouse it would
maintain the consistency of the project by being the same dimensions as the other
townhouses.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant the setback change of PUD lot #27 by
reducing the setback from 20 feet to 12.5Y,feet.He further advised David Shaool that any
future variances would need to be addressed up front,and not after the fact.Mr.Clopper
seconded the motion.Mr.Anikis opposed the motion.Mr.Henry abstained.So ordered.
~
:T
"3
""~'J.
co
'"Q.o·
c
:3
"Q.
'"~
roo
W
"0
3
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION &PLANNING STAFF
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORKSHOP -SEPTEMBER 17,2001
The Washington County Planning Commission and Planning Staff held its second workshop
at the Economic Development Commission conference room on Monday,September 17,
2001 to continue their discussion on amendments to the proposed Comprehensive Plan.
Members present were:Chairperson,Paula Lampton;Vice Chairman,Robert Ernst II,R.Ben
Clopper,Don Ardinger,Timothy Henry,George Anikis and Ex-Officio,Bertrand Iseminger.
Staff:Director,Robert C.Arch,Chief Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich,Senior Planners,
Timothy A.Lung and Lisa Kelly Pietro,Associate Planners,Jill Baker and Misty Wagner,
John Gudmundson,GIS Coordinator,Jennifer Kinzer,GIS Analyst,Eric Seifarth,Farmland
Preservation Administrator and Secretary,Sandy Coffman.Absent was William Stachoviak.
Minutes from the last workshop meeting of August 27,2001 were distributed to the
members and staff.Mr.Arch stated the first workshop meeting was an overview of the
comments received from the general public,and also some comments from the Planning
Commission members.The second workshop is to discuss some of the directives,and
some of the map amendments.The next meeting will follow the Rezoning Public Hearing on
Monday,September 24,2001.There is one rezoning matter scheduled for this date and
there should be ample time for further discussion on the Comprehensive Plan.
PROPOSED MAP AMENDMENTS:
1)Schuster Property
This property is located in the Maugansville area and is recorded inside the Growth Area.
Mr.Schuster's basic request is to change the propertY from single-family (low densitY)
to multi-family (high density).This property is located in the Overlay Area for the
Hagerstown Regional Airport where the goal is to restrict densities and residential
development in that area.Mr.Lung stated that there is currently an apartment complex
already on the property.The remaining undeveloped land consists of eleven lots off of
Green Mountain Drive.Mr.Schuster was granted an extension to the Preliminary Plat
that expired in December 1999.Mr.Iseminger stated that he did not see a reason to
change this policy area at this time.Members agreed with Mr.Iseminger's
recommendation.
2)Ridenhour 1994 Family LLP
This property is the Hagerstown Cinema-10 theater complex located off of the
Leitersburg Pike.Currently this property is outside of the proposed boundary line of the
Growth Area.The property owners expressed their concern for a future need of water
and sewer service.Mr.Arch stated there is approximately 700 feet between the
property line and where current sewer and water service exists.The property is an 18.5
acre tract,and is in an existing intense type use as a theater complex.The owners
advised they are considering expansion of the site,and also the possibility of reopening
the drive-in theater.Mr.Clopper questioned whether both sides of the road would be
included within the boundary.Mr.Arch stated this would be something to look into
further given the small auto business located across the road,and some other small
businesses in that area.Mr.Arch stated the zoning is Agricultural,and could be rezoned
to give it some sort of Commercial designation.Planning Commission members did not
foresee a problem with this request,however,they requested a reworking of the map
for final review.Mr.Arch stated the staff would review both sides of the Leitersburg
Pike,and provide a revised map.
3)Scharf
The Scharf property consists of 34.6 acres off of Trovinger Mill Road.The first drawing
showed this property outside the boundary,and a revision was done to bring the
property within the boundary line.This property has frontage onto Jefferson Boulevard.
Ms.Baker advised that she had spoken by phone to Mr.Scharf,and he was concerned
that his propertY was not in the Growth Area.He advised he has had commercial offers
and expressed his desire to be within the Growth Area given this propertY is in close
proximity to the railroad,Yinglings Golf,etc.It was the general consensus of the
members to leave the property as shown on the map.
4)Stansbury
Mr.Stansbury's property consists of two parcels off of Trovinger Mill Road.One parcel
is 8.87 acres,and the other parcel is 19.07 acres.The old Growth Area is close to this
area,and is the reason for this reconsideration.This was an area where the boundary
line was brought in.There are some issues that may occur in the future such as water
31
32
and sewer service as well as road adequacy issues,Mr,Arch commented that the staff
did not see a need at this time to add this additional area based on the recommendation
of an overall 8%reduction.Mr.Iseminger stated this could be an area that,if needed,
could be reviewed again in six years.Ms.Lampton stated she did not see a reason to
change the boundary at this time.The members agreed with Ms.Lampton
recommendation.
5)Henry Allenburg
Mr.Allenburg's property is adjacent to the Smithsburg area.Mr.Allenburg requested an
Agricultural Policy Area designation instead of Conservation for his property.Mr.
Clopper stated this entire area between Route 64 and Greensburg should be zoned
Agriculture.Mr.Iseminger stated that even in Agriculture zoning there could be areas
that still need to be under the Environmentally Conservation designation due to steep
slopes,and stream buffers.Mr.Iseminger further stated that a more in-depth look at this
area is needed.Commission members were in agreement that further investigation was
needed regarding the properties in this area.
6)Barnes
Mr.Barnes had a request and clarification regarding his property.Mr.Barnes actually
sold a section of property to the County for future expansion of Black Rock Golf Course,
and has requested that this property be included within the designation for Black Rock
Golf Course.He also indicated when he sold this property there were certain
agreements with the County with regard to development on the property as being a part
of the Growth Area.Mr.Arch explained the new proposed growth line would pull the
entire golf course into what will become Urban Open Space,and will tie this area along
with three parcels to Interstate 70.This will satisfy Mr.Barnes'request,and given a
situation in the future where POS funds were used this would enable more flexibility
with the State.All members were in agreement with this new proposed growth line.
7)Kent Oliver
Mr.Oliver's property includes two parcels situated along the Beaver Creek Road.Mr.
Oliver has requested that the two parcels be included within the Growth Area.
Currently the property is zoned HI-1.Mr.Iseminger stated this is an area that if and
when water and sewer is extended across Interstate 70,may be a more appropriate
time to reevaluate this area.Mr.Iseminger suggested that no change be made to the
boundary line at this time.Members agreed with Mr.Iseminger's recommendation.
8)Williamsport Area
This proposed change concentrates on the area of Kendle Road and around the Exit 1
Interchange.Several letters were received from property owners on Kendle Road asking
for consideration for a residential designation.Requests were also received asking for
consideration for revisions to the Growth Area boundaries from residents of this area,
and one Kendle Road property owner indicated a preference of some type of
Industrial/Flex Overlay.Mr.Arch stated the first issue is the location of the Urban
Growth Area boundary which staff has proposed a smaller Growth Area.Ms.Lampton
stated the Kendle Road residents who attended the town meetings were very unhappy
with the proposal and believed this is an area that needs to be closely examined.Mr.
Anikis stated he would like to see this area be changed back to Agriculture or as much
Low Density as possible,and to compensate for this area he suggested the
Industrial/Flex be placed in the Airport Overlay Area.Mr.Iseminger questioned why this
area was proposed for Industrial/Flex.Mr.Arch explained that several considerations
were given to this area,and one of the main reasons was the fact that it is adjacent to
an existing Industrial Park.Additionally,there is substantial railroad access/frontage,
basically flat land,there are only a few houses in this area,and water/sewer service is
available at the Industrial Park.A right-of-way exists off Governor Lane Boulevard and
this area is in close proximity to the intersection.A discussion followed regarding the
pros and cons of the proposed Industrial/Flex and the effects on the current/potential
residents of the Kendle Road and Lappans Road area.Mr.Ernst questioned how many
opportunities exist in the County where there is rail frontage as well as access to the
Interstate.Mr.Ernst also questioned would this be a disservice to the current residents
or a worse disservice to future residents when the pressure of industry occurs.Mr.
Arch stated there is limited access to rail and the interstate system in the County.
Additional discussion followed regarding the possibility of creating a TDR program for
this area.
The Commission members agreed to keep the area along the railroad track north of
Kendle Road to the jagged property line as Industrial/Flex,and to designate the
remainder as Agriculture.On the opposite side of Lappans Road,the property owned by
Mrs.Hershey is currently zoned HI-1.The members recommended that the Urban
Growth boundary be moved up to Lappans Road,and the property be designated as an
Agriculture Policy Area with access off of Lappans Road only.The Urban Open Space
2
area will contain the Redmen Club site and the residential area across from the Redmen
Club will remain inside the Urban Growth Area.The members also agreed that the
Bowman property should remain as Industrial/Flex.
9)Sandy Hook
This vacant property of 24.32 acres is located in southern Washington County at Sandy
Hook,and is currently zoned Business General.Mr.Lung explained that this property
was designated as Environmental Conservation not Rural Village due to the prqperty not
being in the Priority Funding Area.Mr.Lung further explained that it appears that the
State made an error when they established the Priority Funding Area and that this
property should have been included.The property owners already had an agreement
with the State for a discharge permit that was transferred to the County for additional
capacity when the treatment plant was built.The Water and Sewer Plan does not
designate the property as Existing Service because there are no lines or development
there,but it is designated as Planned Service.The reason this was not included in the
Rural Village for Sandy Hook was because the Priority Funding Area boundary was used
to determine the Rural Village boundary.The owners are requesting the designation of
Residential for this area.Mr.Lung explained if the owners were to move forward with
the rezoning process now,the question still remains of what the outcome would be
based on the Comprehensive Plan designation.Planning Commission Members were in
agreement that the owners would need to bring this request in on its own merit through
the rezoning process as a map amendment.
(BREAK)
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
CHAPTER 13 RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr.Arch provided an overview of the chart provided in Chapter 13,page 106 on the Policy
Areas and Zoning Districts and the recommended changes which would be implemented
accordingly.The overview of the densities proposed for the Policy Areas is as follows:
Mixed Use Area is proposed at 8 Units per Acre.IBaslcallya PUD without Commercial)
High Density Residential is 12 Units per Acre.Ii.e.Multi-Family,3-Story Apartmentsl
Low Density Residential is at 4 Units per Acre.
Agriculture Policy Area is 1 Unit per 10 Acres.
Environmental Conservation at 1 Unit per 20 Acres
Preservation at 1 Unit per 30 Acres
Rural Village at 1 Unit per Acre unless public water and sewer service is available.
Special Economic Development is at 4 to 10 Units per Acre.(Ft.Richie areal
Overlay Areas:
Airport -Varies inside the Growth Area;and outside at 1 Unit per 50 Acres Rural
Antietam - 1 Unit per 30 Acres (Preservation Area)
Special Planning -Varies
Economic Reserve -Overlaps the Agriculture Area at 1 Unit per 10 Acres
Mr.Anikis questioned why no Industrial/Flex areas were designated along 1-81 at the
Airport.Mr.Arch explained that there is no public water or sewer,nor any service
proposed for that area and he further explained that the Overlay was created to protect the
airport from unnecessary residential development.Discussion continued on the proposed
areas of Rench Road and Hopewell Valley as Economic Reserve Areas and the possibility of
TOR's in these areas.Mr.Ardinger stated if the County does have Economic Reserve Areas
there would need to be a method that no residential development would occur in these
areas,and would like to see recommendations be brought to back to the Commission.Ms.
Lampton suggested that these areas of discussion be "pink"(Industrial/Flex)and let the
farmers speak at the upcoming public hearing.Mr.Iseminger suggested that the Planning
Staff further discuss the pros and cons on this issue,and continue this discussion at the
next workshop.
DENSITY
The two types of densities are Urban and Rural.Mr.Arch questioned if the Commission had
any problems with the proposed Policy Areas.Mr.Ardinger questioned if Agriculture would
be completely deleted from the Growth Areas and if so,there are areas that are currently
not in the Urban Growth Areas that need to be.Mr.Ardinger suggested that the right types
of zoning are needed for this area in order to "clean"it up.Mr.Arch advised the zoning
designation of Agriculture would be omitted from the Growth Area.Mr.Iseminger stated he
believed the Densities as defined are acceptable,and see the real question is the proposed
1:10,1 :20 and 1 :30 issues.He further stated he is personally okay with the 1 :20 and
1 :30,however,the 1:10 is the "real kicker".Mr.Arch advised the 1 :30 is mainly
government property,and the 1 :20 takes in the steep slopes,floodplains,watershed,and
soil problem areas.
3
33
34
Mr.Henry questioned the role of the Rural Legacy program.Mr.Arch explained this is a
funding prOgram to buy the development rights,and therefore the land cannot be developed.
Mr.Clopper stated that in the Rural Legacy and the Agriculture Preservation programs the
change in density would be cheapening the farm's value.Mr.Clopper stated that some
farms might be depending on the Agriculture Preservation or the bank in the future,and
would this restrict there bargaining power On these two options.Mr.Arch stated that
recently in Kent County they down-zoned a tremendous amount of property and the
Agriculture property values (actual sale price)went up.Since the farm community now
knows that they can now be farmers in that area,the farm community is willing to spend
the extra money because they know they won't have to worry about housing developments
beside them.Mr.Ernst stated the farming community is now struggling,and one the
easiest ways for them to maintain themselves in business for the long term is by selling a
piece of land off.Mr.Clopper stated he would sooner fight with Annapolis than the
residents of Washington County.Mr.Arch noted that omitting the Mennonite population in
Washington County,the amount of on-land farmers is relatively small,and very few
comments were received from farmers on the proposed plan.Mr.Arch commented that it is
the staWs opinion,this proposal will not substantially impact the on-site farming community
overall.He added the real impact is going to be on the person who owns 10 acres who
wants to put 6 to 7 houses on that ten acres,and the problems that could occur from an
environmental standpoint.
Mr.Ardinger stated that what if nO changes were made to the densities for the next six
years,and questioned what is driving force to make these radical changes.Mr.Arch replied
that there two issues would come into play,one being some sort penalties down the line
from the State in terms of cutting back on Rural Legacy funds,other farm programs,and
other State funded programs such as school funding.The other issue is if the County
experiences environmental problems,the State will not supply the funding needed.Mr.
Arch also commented that the State is probably looking at 1 :20 or more for Rural areas for
Preservation purposes across the entire State of Maryland.Mr.Iseminger stated that the
political reality of this is that the majority of the people in Maryland favor the direction the
State is going,and even if this were put to referendum the people of Washington County
would vote for this program.Mr.Iseminger stated that with the impact fees in Frederick
County,it's only a matter of time before the growth comes to Washington County.
Mr.Iseminger suggested the proposed 1 :10 stand,and if the farmer agrees to cluster and
put the remainder of the farm in permanent Agriculture Preservation,the County would give
a bonus density of some sort.Mr.Ernst added if "clustering"is done on cul-de-sacs with
one entrance this should be encouraged somehow throughout this entire process.Mr.Arch
suggested maybe even a waiver on some Adequate Facility provisions could also be a bonus
option.Mr.Ernst stated he does not see a need for 1:10 and suggested a 1:3 or 1 :4 and the
1 :20 and 1 :30 for the areas we truly want to protect.He further added this is an issue that
could be reevaluated in six years which would allow people time to react and readjust.Mr.
Iseminger questioned if the 1:10 is used with the incentives to the development properly
would this allow actually a 1 :3,or 1 :4.
Mr.Iseminger stated the one provision he did not want to see lost is the original intent of
the immediate family member provision.Mr.Ardinger questioned the mechanism for
monitoring the immediate family member provision.Mr.Arch stated that base monitoring
takes place through the attorneys via a title search,or by the subdivision process.It was
the general consensus of the Planning Commission members that the Immediate Family
Provision needs "tighten up"and be applied only to the farming community.
Ms.Lampton stated she agrees with the 1 :20 and 1 :30,but not the 1:1 O.Mr.Clopper has
some reservations with the 1 :20 and 1 :30,and does not agree with the 1:1 O.He further
stated he wanted something "simple"to take to back to the public.Mr.Arch advised the
Planning Staff would look at adding some bonus incentives particularly with the Agriculture
designation and bring back some alternatives.
ADJORNMENT
The second workshop adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Vtvr+--A.'1I7!VV"Jh h-'
Paula A.Lampton
Chairperson
4
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION &PLANNING STAFF
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORKSHOP -SEPTEMBER 24,2001
The Washington County Planning Commission and Planning Staff held its third workshop on
Monday,September 24,2001 following the Rezoning Hearing at the Washington County
Court House to continue their discussion on the Comprehensive Plan.
Members present were:Chairperson,Paula Lampton;R.Ben Clopper,Don Ardinger,Timothy
Henry,George Anikis and Ex-Officio,Bertrand Iseminger.Staff:Director,Robert C.Arch,
Chief Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich and Secretary,Sandy Coffman.Absent was
Vice Chairman,Robert Ernst.
Mr.Arch discussed the article from the Farmland Preservation Report recently forwarded to
the Planning COmmission members.The article,'Task Force:Maryland Counties Must get
Tough with Zoning"basically states that the State of Maryland is looking for its Counties to
change their zoning and the State will reduce the amount of funding that is going to be
available to those Counties who maintain a high density.Mr.Iseminger noted on page 4
that Grant Dehart,policy advisor for the Department of Natural Resources,said studies
show that downzoning can be accomplished without loss of equity for landowners.Mr.
Iseminger questioned how this statement could be backed up,and if studies are available
how would they apply to Washington County.
Mr.Arch distributed a handout titled,Options for Agricultural Policy Area and Options for
Economic Reserve Area prepared by the Washington County Planning Staff.
OPTIONS FOR AGRICULTRUAL POLICY AREA
1)Retain Current Density Proposal of 1 unit/1 0 acres.
2)Retain Current Density Proposal of 1:10,&add Density Bonuses for such things as:
clustering -increase lots allowed by 25%
no stripping of road frontage -increase lots allowed by 25%
forest conservation mitigation as a buffer from road or adjacent uses -increase lots allowed by 25%
agricultural or historic preservation measures -increase lots allowed by 25%
others
3)Amount of Permitted Development Related to Size of Original Parcel.-If 20%of a parcel
were permitted to be developed {density of 1unit/acre)then 20%of a 5 acre parcel =1 acre of development
of 1 unit,20%of 100 acre parcel =20 acres of development of 20 units.
4)Create New Rural Residential Policy Area for Land Use Plan.
Corresponding new zoning district that permits development at a minimum density of 1unit/acre applied to
existing development in the policy area at the time of zoning implementation.The floating zone becomes
available to other land owners who need to develop in Agricultural,Environmental and Conservation policy
areas upon rezoning application and criteria similar to Rural Business proposal in Comprehensive Plan and
current PUD's,(If this is considered,the 1:10 would need to be kept)
5)Create a Transferable Development Rights Program.-Retain current proposal of 1:10 in
Agricultural policy area.
OPTIONS FOR ECONOMIC RESERVE AREA
1.Remove Economic Reserve Area from Land Use Plan.
2.Move Urban Growth Area Boundary to include Economic Reserve -change policy designation
to Industrial/Flex.
3.Retain Economic Reserve and Develop Transferable Development Rights Program.
Discussion followed on the options presented.Mr.Anikis stated that if a farmer had 100
acres with the option to put 10%of the land in 1 acre lots.and the remainder in 5 acre lots,
or if he had 50 acres he could have five 1 acre lots and nine 5 acre lots.This option would
still enable a rural atmosphere,and make the lots size more feasible and affordable.He
further emphasized the need to keep the proposal "simple"and reiterated Mr.Clopper's
statement from the previous meeting.
Mr.Clopper stated that given the proposed options,people as well as farmers are going to
look at the options and state that nothing has changed.Mr.Clopper also stated that the
value determined for the easement value in Agriculture Preservation that the farmer would
loose equity.Mr.Clopper also added that it should be stipulated that the farm will have to
be appraised at 1 house per acre zoning,and then appraised at whatever the zoning will be
when it is approved to account for that loss of equity.Mr.Arch explained that only thing
that is purchased by the easement is the development aspect,and the Rural Legacy uses a
35
36
different formula not necessarily based on appraisal.Mr.Iseminger added that with the
Adequate Facility Ordinance has had an impact,and the landowner is already limited to the
number of lots that can be developed unless they have the capability to spend big dollars
and make major improvements to the roads.
Mr.Iseminger stated he was in favor of a combination of the #2 and #4 options and
believes the 25%bonus is low and would be in favor of 50%and keeping the 1:1°density.
Mr.Iseminger also commented that the new Rural Residential Policy area where you can
reasonable provide fire services and schools are not over capacity I then the landowner could
come in and get the property rezoned for development where the staff has already reviewed
the Concept Plan and the Planning Commission would have the opportunity to improve that
plan.Mr.Iseminger added that the immediate member provision clause needed to be
added.
Mr.Henry commented that recently someone had made mention in passing that with
downzoning the value of the land actually went up and he would try to research this
statement and obtain additional information.Mr.Arch advised that there were some
downzoning studies completed in Kent County.The driving force in Kent County was those
who wanted to be farmers,and their willingness to pay more money for that land because
the adjacent land would not be developed around them.Additionally,they would not have
complaints about sprays or smells and the pure farm land value actually went up.Mr.Arch
commented he would obtain some information on the studies from Kent County at a
meeting he'll be attending later in the week.Mr.Iseminger stated that he foresees that if
everyone knows the rules going in,and knows what type of development is going to occur
in these areas this will accelerate the development in Washington County from the adjacent
counties.Mr.Iseminger also commented that not only are we looking at the farmer's
equity,but also at what it is going to cost the County to move forward and what State
dollars we are going to have available to pay for any growth.
Mr.Ardinger commented on the options presented.He stated the property owners in the
Environmental Conservation and Preservation areas which appears to be approximately 54%
are most likely not looking at selling their lands for development purposes and doesn't think
anything the Planning Commission decides will impact them.He foresees the problem is
with the 1 :10,and further stated that it really goes back to what does the residents of
Washington County want.Mr.Ardinger stated he liked the Planning Staff's attempt to give
some bonuses for clustering,forest conservation,and not stripping the road frontage,
however,he dislikes the 1:1°and would rather see 1 :5,1 :4,or 1:3 with the bonuses.Mr.
Ardinger added that he agrees with the 1 :20,and 1 :30 in the Preservation and
Environmental Conservation policy areas,and would even agree to 1 :50 to heavily
discourage development in these areas.Mr.Ardinger added he would like to see the Urban
Growth areas expanded to bring more utilities outside this area.
Mr.Clopper stated that he has tried to come up with something that he can reasonably
defend to the Ag community.He stated that many farmers realize that it is going to change,
but they are afraid to say 1:5,or 1:10 because they will be viewed as giving.He further
stated that he would like to see in the Preservation areas no more than the 1 :10,and would
like to bring the Agriculture back to 1 :3.Mr.Clopper questions what State funding would
be lost other than Ag Preservation and Rural Legacy monies.Mr.Iseminger explained the
State funding would also be lost from highway,water &sewer,and school construction
funds.
Mr.Arch stated it is up to the Planning Commission to develop whatever they want to
adopt,and the State will review the plan,offer comments,and they will say this is
inconsistent with Smart Growth.The State would like to see the Urban Growth area
condensed even more.The State's view is that you calculate what you're gonna need for
the next 20 years and that is all the space you allot for growth inside the Growth Area only
where you already have services in place.This duty of the Planning Commission is to
determine what do we want our County to be twenty years from now,and there is no way
to satisfy everyone's interest.
Mr.Henry stated there is a fair amount of land mass in Washington County where the
owner does not plan to sell,or the owner attempts to sell their property at such an
absorbent price,hence the reason to push out growth to areas where you have the willing
seller.Mr.Arch commented this is a poor way to do land planning,based on who might sell
or who might not.Planning should be done on what is the best configuration for maximizing
resources that can be used.He added that within the current undeveloped area there is
enough to meet the needs,given the current trend situation,objectives,types of
development,amount of development to meet the requirements.Mr.Iseminger stated that
80%of the development is occurring inside the Urban Growth area.Mr.Arch stated for this
plan the Staff tried to define those areas and were able to work with a lot more information
in trying to come up with boundaries that made sense.Mr.Arch added the staff had to
37
factor in what the employment needs would be in 20 years,and that it was very hard to
project what amount of square footage would be for each person.Mr.Arch further stated
that the need to start stockpiling land is now and it is going to be much more difficult to
obtain in the future especially if the density is 1:1 in some areas.
Ms.Lampton stated she liked some of the bonus ideas presented.She questioned since
the plan is reviewed every six years,why such huge leap in the numbers now and the huge
change in philosophy which is hard to defend.She further stated the person(s)we are really
doing a disservice to is the large landowner.Ms.Lampton questioned since we are making
such a huge change is the State going to look favorable to this.And furthered questioned if
1:5 and 1 :20 what their position going to be.Mr.Arch commented that the State may view
this as a positive change,but still as making less progress.
Mr.Iseminger commented that he would like to see something on the equity issue from Mr.
Henry and information from Mr.Arch on Kent County to try to determine what will be the
effect if the Planning Commission agrees with the current scenario.
Mr.Henry questioned if you could have TOR's within a classification such as Conservation
to Preservation area that would pass from property to property within in the Urban Area,
which would help create clustering.Mr.Arch advised that it was feasible,and this would
create more flexibility.Mr.Henry stated he has no problem with the ratios in the
Conservation area.He further added he does not want to take away the opportunity from
the landowner who finds himself in the Preservation area the chance to develop,or to sell
the development rights,or the ability to go out and buy it from somebody else who had the
TOR's.
Mr.Anikis stated he wants to see the County in twenty years as being rural with minimal
impact on the rural areas.He added that he does not see the "high-tech"companies coming
to this County,and further questioned where is development that is going to attract all the
people who want to live in an Urbanized area given the two hour drive from the Metropolitan
Area.Mr.Anikis stated he supports the 1 :10 with the bonus options,and the 1 :20 and
1 :30 remain as is.
Ms.Lampton suggested that all members bring their thoughts in writing to the next Planning
Commission meeting to continue their discussion immediately following the regular agenda
for that evening.
AOJORNMENT
The third workshop adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
~0v4-A-
Pat\!la A.Lampton
Chairperson
39
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION &PLANNING STAFF
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORKSHOP -OCTOBER 1,2001
The Washington County Planning Commission held its fourth workshop on Monday,October
1,2001,immediately following the regular Planning Commission meeting to continue their
discussion on the proposed Comprehensive Plan.
Members present were:Chairperson,Paula Lampton;R.Ben Clopper,Timothy Henry,George
Anikis and Ex-Officio,Bertrand Iseminger.Staff:Director,Robert C.Arch,Chief Senior
Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich,Senior Planner,Timothy A.Lung,Associate Planner,Jill Baker
and Secretary,Sandy Coffman.Robert Ernst and Don Ardinger were absent.
Unedited minutes from the previous workshop meetings of September 17,and September
24,2002,were distributed to the members.Mr.Arch stated the last workshop ended with
discussion on the density issues.Mr.Arch advised that Mr.Ardinger attempted to fax his
comments since he is out of town,however,his comments were not received,and Mr.Ernst
is also out of town.Mr.Arch questioned whether the members present wanted to continue,
or discuss this matter when all members were present.Ms.Lampton stated that since Mr.
Ardinger and Mr.Ernst had some definite comments it would be a good idea to wait till the
next meeting.Mr.Iseminger agreed that a full board is needed for a final decision on this
issue,and added he believed that only one more session would be needed to complete their
recommendations.Mr.Arch suggested that the next workshop be another afternoon session
starting at 2 p.m.Members were in agreement to the afternoon timeframe.
Mr.Arch suggested that this evening's meeting be utilized to identify the points of discussion
for the next meeting above and beyond the density issues.Also,by identifying particular
points prior to the next session,the other members would be able to give some thought to
the points identified.Mr.Arch stated that hopefully the next session would finalize the
outstanding issues,and the next hearing could be planned.
FUTURE POINTS OF DISCUSSION:
1)Limiting the Development in the Industrial/Flex Area in Williamsport for Railroad Purposes
Mr.Anikis stated that in a previous discussion,Mr.Ernst had made an excellent point
regarding the value of the railroad in the Williamsport Industrial/Flex zone.Mr.Anikis
questioned if there was some way to limit the development of that Industrial Park to only
those sites that would need the railroad for manufacturing purposes.He added that if this
area would remain Industrial/Flex,there would be a strong possibility that there would be a
lot of warehouses that would not utilize the railroad,or they would only utilize it to bring in
sea containers,and then pull them out by truck.He questioned if there would be a way to
limiting it to a reserve area to bring in manufacturing companies that would use the railroad.
Mr.Arch advised that a specific zoning classification would need to be created in the next
phase,such as "Railroad Industrial",which would have specific regulations to limit the area.
Mr.Iseminger questioned if there were other areas in the County this would apply to,such
as the Artz Farm on Rench Road.Mr.Arch added that the site of Hub Labels,as well as the
other side of Maugansville might be areas to look at in the future.Members were in
agreement to Mr.Anikis'suggestion.Mr.Iseminger requested that the staff review Mr.
Anikis'suggestion,and some other areas in the County to see if it would make sense to use
this type of classification.
2)Control Infill in the Rural Villages
Mr.Anikis stated the Rural Villages would be another area for more discussion,and the need
to control the infill area where you have multiple lots,such as the Tilgmanton area.Mr.Arch
stated an additional look was taken at Tilgmanton,and the staff guessed the most you could
get out of the two lots in question would be 31 houses.Mr.Anikis stated his main concern
was the water and septic in this area.He added there had been some trouble in the
Tilgmanton area with new wells having to be sunk,and questioned where the water table
would support this area.Mr.Anikis also stated there are a lot of people in this area that are
on cisterns and cesspools,and as these houses change hands,more wells will be dug that
would have an impact on the water table.Mr.Iseminger questioned if the Health
Department has any information on that area.Mr.Arch stated they probably have some
information,however,they would tell you it depends upon the time of the year and the
different areas where tests are performed.Mr.Anikis stated he is concerned that if the
balance is tipped in that area,the County doesn't want to go back to the State for
assistance.Mr.Arch stated that Mr.Anikis has a valid point,however,it would be hard to
restrict development in this area.Mr.Anikis questioned if there was anyway the two large
areas could be kept Agriculture,and then under whatever the new requirements would be
this would reduce the number of homes.Mr.Iseminger questioned what is allowed in the
Rural Villages.Mr.Arch responded that the recommendation is a minimum of an acre unless
40
you are in an area where there is water and sewer,such as the Cascade area.Mr.Arch
further stated that the answer is probably not here in this document.It may be a
combination of adding some additional stipulations in the Rural Village section,and also
rewriting the regulations.Mr.Arch noted there is not a whole lot of Open Space in these
Rural Villages,because they were never really carved out or had their boundary lines
determined from that perspective.Mr.Arch also stated this area (Tilgmanton)is probably the
worst situation that exists,and is a little bit unique in terms of the Rural Village location.Mr.
Arch stated that Mr.Gudmundson suggested after examining the new ariel photos,there are
a few areas where there is a new dwelling unit,or structure that probably should be given
consideration for inclusion.Mr.Arch added this would probably be worthwhile to do,and
would "fine-tune"some of the Rural Villages.Mr.Iseminger added that it would also depend
on the density,and if Agricultural remains at 1:1,how you stipulate no more than one inside
the Rural Villages.Mr.Anikis stated that if Agriculture is 1 :3,1:4 or 1 :5,and Rural Villages
are at 1:1 then that's where the developer will focus their building.Mr.Arch stated that
another issue is where do the areas of Tilgmanton,Fairplay and Emmertsville start and stop.
Mr.Clopper suggested the 37 acres in Tilgmanton would be a good area for a park.Mr.
Arch added that this area might be a good candidate.Mr.Ankis stated there are other
communities in the County that have more of a need for Open Space,given this area already
has the Ruritan Club in the Old Tilgmanton Woods,Devil's Backbone Park,and the Ag
Center.Mr.Arch stated that the Tilgmanton area still may warrant some additional
consideration.Mr.Iseminger added that Forest Conservation,Stormwater Management
requirements,and other factors would be issues that would also be taken into consideration.
3)Urban Growth Boundary Lines
Mr.Iseminger stated an additional point of discussion would be the Urban Growth boundary
lines.He noted that some modifications have been made from comments received at the
public meetings.Mr.Iseminger questioned if comments were received from all the towns
regarding their town growth boundaries.Mr.Arch advised that the only comment received
was from Jim Brittian.The Mayor of Hancock who attended the public meeting in Hancock
gave no comment on this issue.Mr.Arch advised the staff is currently in the process of
preparing a map that shows the difference between the previous boundary as well as the
Priority Funding Areas.This map will also show what the State thinks should be the Priority
Funding Areas.He added that the State's position is that there is more than enough space
within the growth areas.Mr.Iseminger added that we have a lot of history on our side with
our growth areas,and development patterns over the years.Mr.Arch stated that the
County's biggest success was the fact that the previous growth area boundary lines were
drawn big.The effort this time was not so much to redraw the growth area from a size
standpoint,but to "fine tune"it,based upon the development patterns and where utilities
exist.Mr.Arch stated that the staff crafted the proposed boundary lines by creating artificial
buffers around the urbanized area through the use of floodplains as greenways,and where
the edges of farms within the Preservation or Ag Districts were located.The thought was to
build an artificial boundary around the growth area over a period of time that won't be
penetrated,and this area would become entrenched as to where growth is to occur.By
keeping the growth with a large capacity,you would hopefully develop a separation from the
urbanized area to the rural area.Mr.Iseminger questioned what the population would be for
Washington County in 100 years.Mr.Arch stated based on the number calculations for the
year 2050 the population was 170 to 175,000 for the County.Mr.Iseminger then
questioned what is the ultimate buildout for the County.Mr.Arch advised there is really no
way to know the build out,because of redevelopment prospects that would come into play.
4)Rails to Trails and Greenways
Ms.Lampton stated after a review of some of the comments from the various town
meetings,the items that stood out that had not been previously discussed is the Rails to
Trails and the greenways.She added that they are long-term projects,but there will be
specific questions and concerns as to the future plans for these projects.Mr.Arch stated the
idea would be to create a system of trails along railroads,or through floodplains that will link
with what the State has done.He further added that more and more funds are being made
available,and probably there will be a series of studies over a number of years of how and
where a specific trail should be located.Mr.Arch stated that he ultimately sees a plan being
developed based on small links studied with MPO funds.Mr.Iseminger questioned if there
was a plan to link the bicycle trails in Charlestown,Harpers Ferry,and the southern County
areas.Mr.Arch advised that the MPO has put money into the budget to do a study that
would link Williamsport with Hagerstown,and a study to link Harpers Ferry to Charlestown
was previously funded.He further stated there is also a concept for the new Route 9 to
have a bicycle lane,and eventually there will be a network where the whole region will be
integrated together over a long period of time.Ms.Baker stated that Mr.Kerns,State
Highway Administration commented at the recent Preliminary Consultation of Meadows
Green that the State is starting to implement new bicycle laws.The State is actually making
the developer create more of a right of way,and a bigger accel/decel lane.Mr.Lung advised
that the State is asking for the planner's input on the bicycle,and pedestrian improvements
to the State Highway network.
41
5)Transportation Improvements
Mr.Arch added that another point of discussion should be transportation improvements as
outlined in Chapter 5 of the Plan.Mr.Arch requested that the members review the map,and
advise if they have any concerns regarding the proposed improvements.
6)Special Taxing District in the Hopewell Area
Mr.Arch stated another point of discussion would be the Special Taxing District proposed for
the Hopewell Area,which is piggybacking off the Tischler Study.Members need to decide
whether or not this should be included in the document.Mr.Anikis questioned exactly what
would this proposal involve.Mr.Arch replied that right now the County does not have
enough money to build the road systems and sewer systems in the Hopewell Valley area,
however,the County was able to obtain some grants,and work with the developers to
maximize dollars and cents.He added there would be some extensions from here on out that
would be very costly.This concept was to create a Special Taxing District where the
properties,which would be the primary beneficiaries in that area,would pay a special tax
assessment that would apply funds toward financing these improvements.Mr.Anikis
questioned if this has to go through any State approval,or through County Government.Mr.
Iseminger stated the County Commissioners would have the authority to act on this proposal.
Mr.Arch added a 3-tier approach was created in terms of how you would assess the
properties.The criteria would consist of whether the property had front footage,or if the
property had indirect access,or if the property was just in the general vicinity.The
alternative measures for this area would be grants,County funding,or developer driven dollar
and cents when the improvements took place.Mr.Arch added the consideration that
economic development efforts are trying to give tax breaks to the developers if they locate in
the Enterprise Zone in this area,and this proposal would put another tax upon this area with
may work as a disincentive.Mr.Arch stated that on the other hand,if they do not have the
infrastructure,this is probably just as big of a disincentive.Mr.Anikis questioned if there
was a way to conduct a cost benefit analysis for a warehouse that would be situated on 50
to 100 acres,and employee approximately eighteen people.Mr.Iseminger advised that the
State does evaluate new businesses that come to this County,and determines whether or
not they will receive any funding from the State.The State would run those economic
impact models,and EDC can also run those models.Mr.Iseminger further stated that
when private land is sold for a warehouse there really is not a whole lot that can be done to
restrict that from happening.He further stated that the County needs to be consistent on
who pays to extend the utilities,roads,etc.,and added that the County will not be giving
any big incentives to the developers who bring in additional warehouses.
7)Economic Reserve Area
Mr.Arch stated this topic would be discussed at the next meeting.
8)Foreign Trade Zone
Mr."Henry advised another point of discussion would be the Foreign Trade Zones.Mr.Arch
stated this zone is more of a procedural matter,and not a land use issue.Mr.Henry
questioned if this zone had to be an overlay to a particular land use.Mr.Arch stated that it
would have to be in a zoning district where an industrial or assembly type operation would be
permitted.
FUTURE MEETINGS:
The next workshop session was scheduled for Monday,October 15'h at 2 p.m.in the County
Commissioners Meeting Room.
ADJORNMENT
The workshop meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
~!Nv-f..A_~/W\II
Paula A.Lampton
Chairperson
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION &PLANNING STAFF
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORKSHOP -OCTOBER 15,2001
The Washington County Planning Commission and Planning Staff held its fifth workshop
session on the Comprehensive Plan in the County Commissioners Meeting Room on
Monday,October 15,2001.
Members present were:Chairperson,Paula Lampton;Vice Chairman,Robert Ernst II,R.Ben
Clopper,Timothy Henry,Don Ardinger,and George Anikis.Staff:Director,Robert C.Arch,
Chief Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich,Senior Planners,Timothy A.Lung and Lisa Kelly
Pietro,Associate Planners,Jill Baker and Misty Wagner,John Gudmundson,GIS
Coordinator,Jennifer Kinzer,GIS Analyst,William Stachoviak,Park &Environmental
Planner,Eric Seifarth,Farmland Preservation Administrator and Secretary,Sandy Coffman.
Absent was Bertrand Iseminger.
CALL TO ORDER:
Ms.Lampton called the workshop session to order at 2:10 p.m.
PENDING MAP CHANGES:
1)Smithsburg-Allenburg
A more in-depth look was given to the area east of Smithsburg and the reasons why the
staff designated the area as Environmental Conservation versus Agricultural.Mr.Clopper
stated that Mr.Allenburg's letter requested this entire area in question be designated as
Agriculture.Mr.Gudmundson stated there is one small piece of orchard in this area close to
Route 77 at the very top of the mountain that was not included in Agriculture due to its
steep slopes.Mr.Gudmundson further explained that this area was originally designated as
Environmental Conservation due to its proximity to the mountain,the steep slopes on the
mountain,and to close the gap that existed so the expansion of the Smithsburg Town
Growth Policy Area would not infringe on the Agriculture land.All members affirmed this
proposed map change for this area in Smithsburg from Environmental Conservation to
Agriculture.
2)Williamsport Area-Industrial/Flex Area
Mr.Gudmundson stated that the revision shows the Growth Area Boundary pushed back to
the western edge of Mr.Ebersole's property,north of Kendle Road.The boundary was also
moved back to the existing eastern boundary of the Interstate Industrial Park between
Kendle Road and Maryland 68.The strip of low density residential remained as part of the
Urban Growth area along with the Redman Club's property.Further revisions were made to
the Hershey property by simply drawing a straight line from the southwestern corner of the
Redman property to the intersection of Spielman Road and the railroad line,just south of
Gower's Feed Mill.Clarification was needed from the Planning Commission that these
proposed revisions are acceptable.Mr.Arch stated that one resident off of Kendle Road
requested that his property be designated as Industrial/Flex.Mr.Arch commented on the
previous discussion with regard to creating a specific zone to limit the development to those
who would use the railroad.After a review of the railroad areas throughout the County,
from the staff's standpoint it would not advantageous to have a special designation.The
Williamsport area does not provide a lot of rail frontage.Commission members affirmed the
changes as presented and the Growth Boundary Line be moved as stated above and the
area now excluded from the Urban Growth Area will now have an Agricultural policy
designation.
Mr.Arch stated that a letter was recently received from the owners of Yogi Bear
Campground,which is already in a limited service area outside of the growth area.Staff did
not foresee any impact on this property by the proposed changes in this area.
3)Fairplay Tilgmanton Rural Villages
Mr.Arch stated the following points need addressed regarding the Rural Village areas:
1}Amendment of the boundary lines (Staff did not recommend any changes at this time.)
2)Appropriate density number
3)Historical areas within the Rural Village areas
4)The percentage of development/growth associated with Rural Villages (The State
guidelines reflect no more than 10%growth on undeveloped adjacent property,)
Mr.Arch stated prior to the amendment of three years ago,the previous document reflected
Keedysville and Sharpsburg as the two Rural Villages.They were not mentioned in the
context of the term "Rural Village"that is used now.The term "Rural Village"now is
basically an area,which the County is defining for Priority Funding Area status purposes and
to utilize the maximum amount of area that would qualify for funding.This provided a larger
area in scope than what might be described as a Historical Village within the area,which
43
44
describes the situation in the Fairplay-Tilgmanton area.Mr.Anikis had voiced his concerned
for this area because of the two large vacant parcels that are prime for development that are
clustered in the middle of the Tilgrnanton,Fairplay and Emmertsville areas.Mr.Anikis added
that within this area there is a 37-acre farm that should be designated as Ag,which would
greatly reduce the stress on this area.Mr.Anikis also stated that Rural Village areas need
fayade requirements perhaps with a set of design specs for homes that could be built in a
Rural Village area so they would conform to the rest of the homes.Mr.Arch stated that
inside the Historic Village areas the fayade requirements could be reviewed through the
Historic District Commission,and the Historic Village areas could be regulated by the Zoning
Ordinance.
The Planning Commission agreed to recommend the following:
1)That prior to adoption of a Rural Village zoning district,all the boundaries of the
Rural Villages would be reviewed and "fine tuned".
2)Creation of Historic Rural Villages within the Rural Villages as a subset.
3)Density within the Rural Villages was proposed at a minimum of one (1)acre if no
water and sewer service is available.It could be less density if there is public water
and sewer service available.
DENSITY DISCUSSION:
Mr.Arch advised that Carroll County recently changed their Ag Districts from 1 :20 to 1:3 to
encourage more development in these areas.He further stated that Mr.Henry provided
some information on Loudon County and their proposed new zoning classifications system,
which is similar to what we are proposing here in Washington County.Mr.Arch relayed the
information he received from Gayle Ewing,Planning Director of Kent County,on the effects
of down-zoning in that County.In 1989,Kent County conducted a comprehensive rezoning
which included the down-zoning of Agriculture.More than 80%of the County is zoned
Agriculture.The Agriculture community supported the change from 1:2 to 1 :30,unless
clustered and met some design standards which in that case the density would be 1:1 0.
The value of true agriculture land did not decrease and it is now more expensive than
agriculture land in the other counties on the shore and equal to Cecil County.Farmers who
want to farm are coming to Kent County and buying this land and are willing to pay more
for the land because they will not have the hassles of neighbors,etc.
Mr.Clopper stated he is comfortable with the proposed densities with the bonus options,
however he would like to see more bonus options or improvements to obtain 1:3 in
Agriculture areas and a 1:5 -1:6 range in the other areas.
Mr.Ernst stated he believes the real farmers are concerned whether they will have the
ability over time to borrow money on the value of their land to continue farming and can
they take a piece off of it every so often to make some money to stay in business.
Mr.Henry stated that banks lend to the farmer based on the agriculture value and the cash
flow not on the maximum value of what if the farmer sells off thirty acres and builds forty
homes.
Mr.Iseminger had conveyed his thoughts prior to the meeting to Ms.Lampton.He stated he
favored keeping the proposed densities and adding bonuses across the board for Agriculture,
Environmental Conservation,and Preservation.He also said that perhaps the percentages
should be reviewed and increased.He also stressed the importance of keeping the
"Immediate Family Member"statement.
Mr.Ardinger read his written comments.He favors 1:5 in Agriculture with bonuses,1:4 is
they don't strip the road frontage,1:3 if clustered and no stripping.In the Environmental
Conservation area 1 :20,and in Preservation 1 :40,or even higher.
Mr.Anikis stated his goal is to keep outside the urban areas as rural as possible.He also
favors clustering to keep as much open land as possible within the rural areas.He agrees
with the proposed densities and believes they shouldn't go any lower than 1:5 with
incentives.He further stated the number of incentives should not be limited,however,the
bottom line,such as 1 :3,1:4 or 1:5 should be limited.He questioned how much additional
work would this create for the Planning Staff regarding the incentive measures.Mr.Arch
advised that this should be based on some type of percentage system that the staff could
create.
Ms.Lampton clarified that all members were in agreement to the proposed densities of
1:10,1:20 and 1:30 with a "grab bag"of bonuses for all three classes.Some bonuses
have already been identified,however,the members have requested that the staff create
some additional bonus options.
Mr.Arch stated the "Immediate Family Member Provision"would be addressed under the
Subdivision Ordinance.
FUTURE MEETINGS:
The next workshop session is scheduled for October 22,2001 at 3 p.m.to continue
discussions and to craft the recommendations on the points outlined at the end of each
chapter of the Comprehensive Plan.Mr.Arch stated that the staff has already generated
chapter recommendations,which would be forwarded to the members prior to the next
workshop along with a proposed listing of additional bonus options.
ADJOURNMENT:
The workshop meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m.
icwik~~
mpto
Chairperson
45
I,
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION &PLANNING STAFF
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORKSHOP -OCTOBER 22,2001
The Washington County Planning Commission and Planning Staff held its sixth workshop
session on the Comprehensive Plan in the Seminar Room at the ARC on the HCC Campus on
Monday,October 22,2001.
Members present were:Chairperson,Paula Lampton;Vice Chairman,Robert Ernst II,R.Ben
Clopper,Don Ardinger,Timothy Henry and George Anikis.Staff:Director,Robert C.Arch,
Chief Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich,Senior Planners,Timothy A.Lung and Lisa Kelly
Pietro,Associate Planners,Jill Baker and Misty Wagner,John Gudmundson,GIS
Coordinator,Jennifer Kinzer,GIS Analyst,William Stachoviak,Park &Environmental
Planner,Eric Seifarth,Farmland Preservation Administrator and Secretary,Sandy Coffman.
Absent was Bertrand Iseminger.
CALL TO ORDER:
Ms.Lampton called the workshop session to order at 3:10 p.m.
DENSITY BONUSES:
Mr.Arch provided a handout that detailed the description of the proposed density bonuses
and the bonus percentages as follows:
DENSITY BONUSES
47
11
2)
3)
41
51
6)
71
81
91
10}
DESCRIPTION
Clustering
No stripping of road frontage
Protection of better agricultural soils
Use of historic preservation easements
Visual Buffering along roads
Additional setbacks along permanent preservation easements
Bonus for additional forest conservation mitigation above thresholds
Connection to public water and sewer
Add'i community amenities~(open space,play areas,recreational facilities)
Mixture of affordable housing in subdivisions
%BONUS
50
10
Max 25
25
25
Max 25
Max 25
25
Max 25
50
-Example for 100 Acres:
Policy Area
-Agriculture
-Env.Conservation
-Preservation
wlo Bonus
1:10
1:20
1 :30
w/Max Bonus
1 :5
1 :8
1:10
Discussion continued on the pros and cons of the proposed bonuses and percentages.Mr.
Anikis questioned the feasibility of providing a mixture of affordable housing in subdivisions
and the possible risk taken by the developer.Mr.Arch stated this would be achieved easier
if you had 500 units versus 20 units,and basically the developer would be charging less for
the land.Mr.Anikis suggested a maximum of 50%for this bonus percentage to provide
more flexibility.Mr.Anikis also suggested a maximum of 25%for historic preservation
easements.He further stated that it would be easier to make the proposed density changes
now,versus five years from now.
Mr.Ardinger first commended the staff on the creation of the potential bonus options.He
further stated that no stripping of the road frontage and connection to public water and
sewer,were black and white issues.He added that the theory is good,however,definitions
are needed to prevent some developers from trying to take advantage of the bonuses.Mr.
Ardinger suggested that perhaps it would be helpful to see if the engineers in the County
would have any feedback on the proposed density bonuses.
Ms.Lampton agreed that staff did a fine job on the proposed density bonuses and agreed
with the content as presented.Ms.Lampton questioned if the concept of the proposed
bonuses Were getting too complicated and should the amount of options be reduced.She
suggested that the major density bonus options be designated and proceed with setting the
perimeters.
Mr.Clopper also stated he was looking for 1 :3,1 :6,and 1 :8,however,he was in favor of
the proposed density bonuses and the flexibility they provide.He stated his concerns about
the future of the Preservation program.He also suggested that information on the proposed
densities be distributed prior to a public hearing so the general public would have a better
understanding of the concept.Mr.Clopper favored presenting the proposed densities,and
in the meantime to keep the major density bonus options and increases their percentages.
48
Mr.Ernst also stated that he agreed with Mr.Clopper on the 1 :3,1 :6,and 1:8 caps.He
stated that the major objective is the most reward for the dollar.He also stated that the
proposed density bonuses are a great start,however,the critical ones of clustering,
stripping,and public water and sewer percentage bonuses are too low.He further stated
this is a fairly significant change and would prefer to slowly ease into the changes and
adjust the numbers up if needed.He added the density bonuses would encourage people to
really think about what they want to do,as well as forcing the deveioper to be more
creative and to design better developments if they want to use the bonuses.
Ms.Lampton inquired if the Planning Staff had any comments to add.Mr.Gudmundson
stated the proposal is good in theory,but it would be difficult for staff to implement.Ms.
Pietro stated that she personally would not want to see the policy areas be lower that 1 :10,
1:8 and 1 :5.Ms.Pietro added that she doesn't want the bonus options to be so
complicated that it would be difficult to determine how long it would take to review a plan
and still try to be equal to everyone who comes in the door.Mr.Seifarth stated that the
State of Maryland is still not going to like the proposed densities,especially the 1:lOin Ag
areas.He further added that he agreed with the proposed density with bonus options.He
added that there will probably be some issues with funding from the State,however,he
hoped the State would see this as an improvement.Mr.Lung stated that the proposed
bonus option of connection to water and sewer may pose a problem with the State from a
permitting standpoint and they might question the use of capacity and treatment plants for a
development not designated in the growth area or the priority funding area.
Mr.Arch stated that the density bonuses would be specified in the Zoning Ordinance and
that ratios would be created with regards to the number of houses proposed.Regulations
would also be created to set the perimeters.
Planning Commission members agreed to present the proposed densities with the bonus
option program at the upcoming public hearing.The density bonuses recommendation
would be reflected in Chapter 13 of the Comprehensive Plan with the maximum bonus caps
of 100%for Agriculture,150%for Environmental Conservation,and 200%for Preservation
with percentages to be determined to achieve the 1 :5,1 :8,and 1:10 respectively.
IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER PROVISION
Mr.Arch stated that the Immediate Family Member Provision currently encompasses two
perspectives.One perspective is the family farm with a descendent that actually lives and
works on the farm,and the other perspective is a family member who is a non-farmer and
does not work on the farm.Mr.Arch stated that the members would need to review how
the Family Member Provision should be applied,whether it should be strictly applied to the
family farm,or applied across the board to any particular parcel.
The Planning Commission Members agreed that the Immediate Family Member provision
would be strictly applied to the family farm under the Subdivision Ordinance.The provision
for a non-farmer family member who does not work on the farm would be phased out.
CHAPTER CHANGES:
Chapter 1 -Introduction and Background Information
No changes are necessary.
Chapter 2 -Visions,Goals and Objectives
a)Page 15 -Under Goal 4 add "parks"i ...roads,schools,"parks",and utilities ...)
Chapter 3 -Background Data
a)Employment changes to reflect the new census data
b)Graph 1-Population numbers &Graph 3 -Housing Units
c)Page 46 -Reflects City's change of Water &Sewer change-service area of "Smithsburg"
d)Page 50 -Reflects City'change of extension of sidewalks from towns and add "City"
Chapter 4 -Economic Development
a)Enterprise Zones -(losing one)so that reference will be deleted
b)Page 65 -Foreign Trade Zones -add language-.......,and Downtown Hagerstown
c)Page 69 -Reference the "City Arts and Entertainment"required to be in the County's
Comprehensive Plan for funding purposes
d)Page 73 -Enterprise Zone-language change to "...work with the State to return or
expand Enterprise Zones ....
e)Page 73 -Economic Reserve Area -leave wording as is and rezone that area per
additional discussions ****(See below)
fl Page 74 -Under Airport add ...(promoting development/economic development ...)
Economic Reserve Area refers to the area close to Huyetts Crossroads across from the
Hopewell Valley area.Mr.Arch advised that a Preliminary Consultation recently submitted
is proposing a residential development across the road from this area,which is in the growth
area and zoned Agriculture.Staff discussed requiring sewer line extensions to that area
since water service already exists.Mr.Arch commented that if water and sewer are going
to exist,Planning Commission Members might want to consider changing this area to
Economic type classification since there will be a lot more pressure on that property for a
residential development.Mr.Arch suggested this area of approximately 1,000 acres be
identified as a future Economic Reserve Area by amending the current plan now,which also
could be amended in the future if needed.Mr.Henry stated since some of the
Industrial/Flex area was taken from the Williamsport area that it is arguable that now is a
good time to add it somewhere else.Mr.Arch stated this area is an ideal location because
of the ample sewer capacity,water service along U.S.40 and Route 63,and it is located
across from the Hopewell Valley area which will include the new boulevard that will
eventually connect to U.S.40.Also this area is relatively flat,has plenty of frontage on
both roads,access to 1-70 and 1-81,and ample electrical power service.Members agreed to
propose this area as "Industrial Flex/Reserve"or some other combination that may create an
Economic Overlay for this area.Mr.Arch stated that staff would give this area some
additional thought and consideration.
Mr.Henry inquired if there was a business or office park zoning classification currently in
existence.Mr.Arch advised that currently there is no such classification,however,it is
needed.Mr.Henry also inquired if there is a map showing the fiber-optic system for the
County.Mr.Arch stated that no map exists,however,Washington County has one of the
most high-tech cable facilities in the State,that merges and intersects here,and provides a
tremendous amount of capacity.Mr.Arch also advised it is unknown when the public cable
recently installed through 1-70 would be operational.
Chapter 5 -Transportation Element
a)Page 83 -Highway Plan -delete #11 (Marshall Street connection)
b)Boonsboro map change -MD 66 -Alt.40
c)Page 86 -add Eastern Boulevard
d)Page 93 -Delete #11 (Marshall Street to U.S.11)
Mr.Anikis suggested private bus lines provide service to the new MARC station in Frederick
and also discuss with Prime Outlets the availability to use a parking lot for a bus stop and
parking area.Mr.Arch advised that there is already a bus service utilizing the Park and Ride
at the Sharpsburg Exit.He also advised there was a recent meeting on the Mass Transit
Plan,which included increasing bus service from the Sharpsburg Park and Ride to Shady
Grove and most likely there will eventually be service to Frederick.The County Commuter is
in the process of doing a study and the MPO will also being doing a Long -Range
Transportation Study for the region.Mr.Arch stated that some amendments would be
made to the Plan that will reflect the new information derived from these studies.
FUTURE MEETINGS
The next workshop session to finalize the chapter modifications was scheduled for October
29,2001 at 3:00 p.m.,however,it was rescheduled at a later date to November 5,2001 at
3:00 p.m.prior to the regular Planning Commission meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
The workshop meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
J:!"41~
Paula A.Lampton
Chairperson
49
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION &PLANNING STAFF
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORKSHOP -NOVEMBER 5,2001
The Washington County Planning Commission and Planning Staff held its seventh workshop
session on the Comprehensive Plan in the County Commissioners Meeting Room on
Monday,November 5,2001.
Members present were:Chairperson,Paula Lampton;Vice Chairman,Robert Ernst II,R.Ben
Clopper,Don Ardinger,Timothy Henry,George Anikis and Ex-Officio,Bertrand Iseminger.
Staff:Director,Robert C.Arch,Chief Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich,Senior Planners,
Timothy A.Lung and Lisa Kelly Pietro,Associate Planners,Jill Baker and Misty Wagner,
John Gudmundson,GIS Coordinator,Jennifer Kinzer,GIS Analyst,William Stachoviak,Park
&Environmental Planner,Eric Seifarth,Farmland Preservation Administrator and Secretary,
Sandy Coffman.
CALL TO ORDER:
Ms.Lampton called the workshop session to order at 3:07 p.m.
CHAPTER CHANGES:
Ms.Lampton stated that the amendments and recommendations for Chapters 1 through 5
were addressed at the previous workshop meeting held on October 22,2001.
Chapter 6 -Mineral Resources
No changes are necessary.
Chapter 7 -Sensitive Areas
a)General comments:
Mr.Arch stated that some of the changes have already been made to this
chapter from general comments,as well as some minor changes
recommended by Mr.Goodrich.
b)New Sensitive Area -well-head protection:
Mr.Arch advised the Members that they needed to consider whether a
sensitive area should be included for well-head protection areas in the future,
which refers to a public water system well.The only one that has a defined
public water system well/well-head protection area is the Town of
Boonsboro,which would enable additional limitations of development in that
area.Ultimately,a section would be created to address the well-head
protection areas and provide recommendations to restrict septic systems in
those designated areas.Members agreed with Mr.Iseminger's suggestion
that the staff draft language on the well-head protection areas and staff also
report on how they envisioned this functioning and recommended this area
be amended as a future task to the Comprehensive Plan.
c)New Sensitive Area -Karst Topo (sinkholes):
Mr.Arch noted that several comments were received regarding the Karst
Topography within Washington County.Members agreed not to address the
Karst Topo as a sensitive area in the revised Comprehensive Plan.
Chapter 8 -Environmental Resources
a)Adding Funkstown and Smithsburg to reference the City's service area,per
the City's request.(page 120)
b)Soil Conservation's comments (page 135,141 &146)
c)(Mr.Anikis'suggestion for page 142)-adding ....Noise pollution around the
Urban Areas...becoming more of a problem.Mr.Arch stated that members
could look at adding a recommendation regarding noise abatement and at
adopting some type legislation on noise barriers.(Mr.Anikis provided a copy
of Loudon County's noise regulations)
d)Page 148 -Deletion of Smithsburg in the 1"paragraph of #3,per the City's
request.
Mr.Anikis questioned if illumination standards should be addressed under this chapter.Mr.
Arch stated it would be addressed in Chapter 13 under the design criteria.
51
Chapter 9 -Community Facilities and Services
a)City of Hagerstown comments (page 155,157 and 158)
b)Map 44 -Add Ft.Ritchie,North County and Rubble Landfill (Kemps Mill)and
also add the verbiage for those areas.
c)Under Education Facilities -add Antietam Bible College (page 176)
d)The City requested a reference to the Hagerstown Fire Dept (page 178)
e)Active volunteers under Fire &Rescue will reflect the current number (page 178)
52
f)Commercial Communication Towers-the terminology of "towers"be changed to
"facilities"
g)Page 188 -City's comment to add standard acceptable levels.
h)Page 189 -City's comment to add and promote wise use of water supplies
Mr.Arch noted that the only recommendation regarding education was to review schools for
appropriate size and locations.He added that Mr.Nigh of CRS had requested funding for
the CRS and a joint facility for bookings be addressed under this chapter,however,the
requests are above and beyond this document and perhaps the booking facility could be
addressed under the CIP.
Mr.Iseminger questioned if the Special Operations (Hazmat),County Emergency
Rehabilitation Unit and Emergency Management Agency had been consolidated and if so,
Page 180 would need to be amended to reflect this change.Ms.Pietro stated she would
contact Joe Krobeth to verify if the agencies were consolidated.
(Mr.Henry arrived at 3:40 p.m.)
Chapter 10 -Historic and Cultural Resources
a)The CitY's changes in this chapter are basically references to historical items
within the City
b)Add a new #7 -physical nature of resources.Mr.Goodrich stated this was
derived from the recommendation from the Historic District Commission.
Basically if a historic definition is made,include stone fences as a historic
resource.
Specific Rural Village Historical Areas -Mr.Arch noted that Mr.Anikis had
suggested a separate or additional designation in a Rural Village for the areas
historic in nature.He had also discussed creating some additional guidance for
development in those historic portions,which would require more consideration
of compatibility in terms of scale and design.Mr.Arch added to a certain degree
it is the different philosophical perspective outlined in this chapter that deals
with the County actually going in and designating the historic preservation areas.
Currently,an individual person or a group makes that determination.Mr.
Iseminger questioned what criteria would be used to designate an area.Mr.
Goodrich explained a study of each of the Rural Villages would be needed.A
part of the study would be to determine the period of significance,what factors
contributed to the development,and when those factors occurred to develop a
period of time.Once the required information was established,a review of all
the buildings and sites within the village would be completed to identify the ones
that were constructed during that period of significance and that becomes the
historic village and a boundary would be drawn around each area.Mr.Goodrich
added that 7 to 8 villages have already been analyzed,and the remaining villages
would need to be analyzed for their boundary.After this analysis is completed,
then a determination would be made as to what would need to be regulated
within these areas and how it would effect any existing homes within these
areas.Mr.Goodrich advised the members that basically the Comp Plan would
need to reflect that the County wants to go in the direction to have protection
for the rural areas.Mr.Goodrich suggested that the CountY could take the role
of having the analysis done and then let the communities decide whether they
want to pursue it or not.He added that in the Comprehensive Plan the
recommendation should be that the analysis continue and upon its completion a
formal program would be presented to the communities by a informational
meeting or a education session to describe what might be available.Mr.
Goodrich stated the recommendation was to give more consideration in changing
current policy from being totally voluntary to where the County would take the
initiative.(Page 235)
Mr.Anikis stated that the County would need to prioritize and identify ten
historic properties.He suggested that perhaps the Washington County Historic
Trust or some other group could be asked to identify the top ten properties.He
also suggested that HOC should have the power to impose a fee on a developer
who want to demolish a property that is on the Historic Site Survey and let HOC
decide what that fee should be.Mr.Iseminger stated that a fee would not be
the decided factor for the developer and there is the question of what would be
done with the collected fee.
Mr.Ardinger stated he would be interested in how other Counties in Maryland
handle historic preservation.Mr.Goodrich stated he would try to obtain some
information,however,across Maryland and throughout the whole country you
would find the range of not doing anything to preserve historic structures to
really strict guidelines without any financial benefits and everything in between.
53
It's basically on what the County feels is important and how they want to
achieve that goal.Mr.Arch advised that the HOC has been working on revisions
to the text of the ordinance,which is based upon what the other entities have
done.Mr.Goodrich added that the current Preservation Overlay does not restrict
the use of the property,however it does regulate what the structure looks like
and the changes that can be made to the outside appearance,which is designed
to preserve the historic features of the outside of the building.
Mr.Henry stated that he believed that if the County designates what is historic,
the County is not necessarily putting up the money to keep homes in good
repair,or protecting them.The County would be imposing on the person who
wants to create a barrier to any development without the money behind it to
support it.Mr.Henry stated it should be up to the individuals,not the County.
Mr.Iseminger stated that perhaps there should be some type of compensation,
or tax abatement be given by the County to those properties designated historic.
Mr.Goodrich stated there is already a property tax credit available when you
rehab a building and there is also a recommendation within the plan to look at an
assessment freeze so you are not penalized when a building is rehabbed.
Mr.Henry,Mr.Clopper,Mr.Ernst,and Mr.Ardinger voted in favor of removing
3 (d)on page 235 of the Plan.Mr.Anikis and Ms.Lampton voted in favor of
keeping 3 (d)on page 235 of the Plan to allow the owner to have the option.
Mr.Iseminger abstained.Members discussed that this item could be reviewed
as the County grows and if needed,amend the Plan at a later date.
c)Page 235 under #6 -Members discuss the text of this item and agreed to
remove the term"or abandon".
Chapter 11 Housing
Ms.Lampton provided an overview of a letter she had received from a member of
the Housing Authority,which basically stated that the plan should be revised to
show a greater opportunity for all families to obtain affordable housing throughout
the Hagerstown Urban Growth Area.Mr.Arch stated that he believed that the HHA
basically wants more emphasis placed on moderate price dwelling units.Members
agreed with the recommendations as outlined in this chapter.
Chapter 12 Land Use Plan
al Boundary/Growth Areas -Members agreed to leave map as is to present at the
upcoming Public Hearing
b)Policy Areas -Density (changes made as prE!'viously discussed)
cl Rural Villages Policy -(changes made as previously discussed)
dl Rural Residential Policy Area-(no current policy area &and members will not
advocate at this time)
el Airport Overlay Density -County Commissioners wants control of development
in this overlay area and they are in favor of 1 :50 in this region.
t)Economic Reserve Area -Members previously agreed to propose the area close
to Huyetts Crossroads as "Industrial Flex/Reserve"or some other combination
that would create an Economic Overlay for this area.
Chapter 13 Development Regulations and Community Design
a)Density-Policy Areas on page 288 be amended to reflect the proposed changes
b)Community Design Standards on page 295,which encourages a higher standard
of design in more detail on how new developments would mesh with existing
developments in the Urban Area.In the Rural Area,it would make sure that the
development that occurs is consistent with the main goals of the plan to
preserve open space,agriculture and environmentally sensitive areas and would
be implemented in the Ordinances.Mr.Arch stated this section is where the
illumination standards would be addressed.
c)Special Taxing District (page 3071-Creating this district for the Hopewell
Economic Development Area for infrastructure improvements.Not only in the
Hopewell Valley area,but in some other areas in the County as well.
d)Priority Funding Area -no proposed changes at this time;changes would occur
after rezoning (i.e.Allegheny Energy)
e)Residential Rural Policy Area/Zoning District -members previously agreed to
scratch this proposed area.
fl Railroad Zoning District (as previously discussed,few areas in the County would
be ideal for this district)Mr.Arch stated if the Williamsport area is kept
Industrial,EDC could try to market it to the specific entities that would use the
railroad.He added that the Commissioners might have a policy endorsement
that unless the business uses the rail no incentives would apply.
g)Zoning Ordinances -(page 308)changes as drafted will be made
h)Immediate Family Issue -(changes/language previously discussed)
i)APFO's (Page 318)-Add ...encouragement municipal adoption and coordination
of APFO's
j)Impact Fees -(Page 318)Members agreed to leave the language as is.
FUTURE MEETINGS
Mr.Arch stated that the revisions discussed would be incorporated into the second draft of
the Comprehensive Plan.A "clean"copy of the Executive Summary would be printed for
distribution and the page changes would be sent out to those who received the full edition
of the Comprehensive Plan.A formal public hearing would be held the first or second week
of January at HCC on the revised draft.Mr.Ardinger suggested that some hard rules be
established on how the public meeting would be conducted.Mr.Arch stated that if there
were drastic changes,another public hearing may be necessary,however,the goal would be
that the Planning Commission would make their recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners in late January or early February.Mr.Arch added if major changes were
requested by the Board of County Commissioners,those changes would come back to
Planning Commission for their comments.
ADJOURNMENT:
The workshop meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m.
P'btL~;to~
Chairperson
•
54
55
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -NOVEMBER 5,2001
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,
November 5,2001 in the County Commissioners Meeting Room.
Members present were:Paula Lampton,Chairperson,Vice-Chairman,Robert Ernst II,R.Ben
Clopper,Don Ardinger,Timothy Henry,George Anikis and Ex-Officio,Bertrand Iseminger.
Staff:Director,Robert C.Arch;Chief Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich;Senior Planners,
Timothy A.Lung and Lisa Kelly Pietro;Associate Planner,Jill Baker and Secretary,Sandy
Coffman.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairperson at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES:
Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve the minutes for the regular meeting of September
10,2001.Seconded by Mr.Anikis.So ordered.
NEW BUSINESS:
Subdivisions:
Boonsboro Storage LLC
Ms.Pietro presented the site plan,Preliminary Plat,and Forest Conservation Plan for
Boonsboro Storage LLC.The subject site is located along the south side of Lappans Road
where it intersects with Old National Pike.The property is zoned Agriculture.The
developer is proposing to immediately construct four storage buildings on the site with plans
to construct four additional units in the future.The total tract area is 35.5 acres and the
site will be accessed off of Lappans Road.A 25'aisle would exist between each building.
There will be no water or sewer on site and no trash collection.Hours of operation will be
from 9:00 a.m.to 9:00 p.m.,seven days a week and the site will be accessed by a gate
system that will be unlocked each morning.Security lights will be placed on the COrners of
each building and a sign is proposed for the entranceway.White pines will be planted to
buffer the adjacent single-family dwelling.The Board of Appeals granted a special exception
to allow for an establishment of a mini-warehouse facility and any future expansion will also
require approval from the Board of Appeals.A stormwater management pond will be
constructed and located to the rear of the site.Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements
have been met by establishment of an on-site retention area totaling 2.67 acres.All
approvals have been received except for Soil Conservation and Permits &Inspections.Mr.
Anikis inquired if landscaping could be added along the Lappans Road side to buffer the
buildings from the road.Mr.Barnes,the consultant for the project,advised that the grading
of the terrain would prov',de a buffer.A note would be added to the plat that the
landscaping would be reviewed and addressed when future storage buildings are added.Mr.
Ardinger made a motion to approve the site plan and Preliminary Plat.Mr.Clopper seconded
the motion contingent upon approval from the Washington County Soil Conservation and
Perm"ts &Inspections.Vote was unanimous.So ordered.
Site Plans:
Fountainview Apartments
Ms.Baker presented for review and approval the site plan for Fountainview Apartments.
The site is located along the eastside of Route 11,approximately 1,500 feet south of
Showalter Road.Zoning is Agriculture with a PUD overlay.In April 2001,a request was
brought before the Planning Commission by Mr.Lung to allow apartment complexes on the
two front parcels,which were originally for commercial development.Mr.Lung's request
was approved with the following contingencies:1)The final development plan should be
revised to reflect the changes approved regarding the commercial areas;2)The final
development plan should reference the approval of the setback modification for the tot lot
on lot three;3)The final development plan should include a note regarding the screening of
the parking area along Pennsylvania Avenue to prevent headlight glare;4)The approved
subdivision plats for phase one and phase two should be revised,re-approved,and re-
recorded to address the changes to the commercial areas;and 5)The Homeowner
Association documents would need to be revised to address the apartment buildings,and
their tenant's rights.The developer is proposing to construct a 36-unit apartment building
on lot 2,and a 24-unit apartment building on lot 3.Each building will be three stories tall
with a height of 40'.Public water and sewer will serve the apartment buildings.Previously
approved and constructed regional ponds in the P.U,D.area will process the storm water
management.The Maugansville Fire Company has requested a new fire hydrant be
56
positioned near the apartment buildings.Accordingly,the developer has agreed to add the
new hydrant at the corner of the entrance to lot 3.The developer will provide a total of
164 spaces,including 8 handicapped spaces,and 3 RV spaces,which exceeds the
requirements for off-street parking.Solid waste and recyclable will be collected in an
enclosed dumpsters located ',n each of the parking lots of the two buildings.Pole mounted
lighting will be provided in the parking areas.An uncovered bus stop will also be provided
and built by the developer along Route 11,per the Board of Education's policy.Each of the
apartment buildings will have a tot lot located within the common area.Landscaping will
included a mixture of shrubs along the perimeter of the building,as well as eight maples.
Additional shrubs of the same mixture will also be located along the front of the property
along Route 11 to buffer the glare to the properties across Route 11.Ms.Baker noted that
the proposed buildings would actually be situated lower than the grade of the road,which
would also help buffer the headlight glare.All agency approvals have been received.Ms.
Baker also advised that a note would be added to the plat indicating that the apartment
buildings are located in an airport zone.Mr.Iseminger strongly recommended that additional
insulation be added to these units to help buffer common airport noise.Mr.Clopper made a
motion to approve the site plan subject to the approval of the final development plan and the
recordation of the subdivision plat for phase two.Mr.Ernst seconded.Vote unanimous.So
ordered.
Eshleman Greenhouse
Ms.Pietro presented for review and approval the site plan for Eshleman Greenhouse.The
site is located on the east side of Maugansville Road and is zoned HI-2.The developer is
proposing to construct two greenhouses on 1.67 acres.Retail and wholesale activity will
occur on the site.The general public would not be permitted in the greenhouses.A
customer sales office will be located in the front area of one greenhouse.The Board of
Appeals has granted a variance for the reduction of a 20'side yard setback and reduction of
the lot area from 3 to 1.67 acres.The existing gravel entrance will continue to be used and
six gravel parking spaces and a paved handicap space will also be provided.The Board of
Appeals also granted a variance from the new paving requirements.The hours of operation
will be Monday through Saturday from April through December from 7:00 a.m.to 6:30 p.m.
There will be three employees,all whom are family members and their one-story home is in
close proximity to the proposed site.The site will be served by an on-site well that also
serves the home.There will be no sanitary facilities on the site.A sign is proposed for the
entrance and a dusk to dawn light is proposed on the existing power pole.The owner will
remove all trash and there will be no commercial deliveries,or outside storage facilities.The
site is exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance and also from stormwater
management requirements.All approvals have been received.Mr.Ardinger questioned the
lack of sanitary facilities.Ms.Pietro advised that the Health Department had approved the
proposed site,however,if the Eshleman family hires a non-family member or sells the
business,sanitary facilities would have to be provided.Mr.Clopper made a motion to grant
site plan approval.Mr.Henry seconded.Vote was unanimous.So ordered.
Strategic Communications Services (southeast side of Governor Lane Boulevard)
Ms.Pietro presented for review and approval the site plan for Strategic Communications
Services.The developer is proposing to construct a pre-fabricated equipment shelter and a
195'self-support cell tower along the southeast Side of Governor Lane Boulevard.Zoning is
Planned Industrial.An appeal was granted by the Board of Appeals that reduced the tower
setback to 130'from the required 195'.The site will encompass approximately 10,000
square feet of lease area on a 15-acre site owned by Governor Lane LLC.The Maryland
Paper Company is also located on the property.An access easement will exist over the
remaining lands.A gravel crossing will be added over the railroad and a fence would be
installed around the tower.There will be no lighting on the tower and service technicians
will visit the site two to four times per month.The site would also consist of six potential
lease spaces for the cohabitation of other communication equipment.The site is exempt
from Forest Conservation Ordinance.All approvals have been received.Mr.Kenworthy
from the consulting firm HRG,Inc.,was present and confirmed that an initial tenant (Cellular
One)has been identified.Mr.Anikis questioned if a Section 106 approval was received
from the State Historic Preservation Commission.Mr.Kenworthy advised that approval was
received on the local level,as well as on the State level.Mr.Iseminger questioned why
there was no lighting on the proposed tower,and how would it be marked for airport
purposes.Mr.Stiles,of Strateg'lc Communications advised that the plan was submitted to
the FAA,however,due to recent events the approval process has been delayed.Mr.Stiles
further explained that the guidelines stipulate that a tower would need to be marked only if
it was over 200 feet.Mr.Anikis made a motion to grant site plan approval contingent on
the FAA final approval.Mr.Ardinger seconded.Vote was unanimous.So ordered.
57
Redland Brick,Inc.
Mr.Lung presented a site plan for an additional mineral extraction area for Redland Brick,
Inc.The site is located along the northeast side of Maryland Route 68,west of CSX
Railroad,and west of their existing operation.The site is zoned Industrial Mineral.Mr.Lung
explained that material mined in this area is utilized for the manufacturing of bricks.In
1990,a mining plan was approved for a 32 acre extraction area on the south side of
Maryland Route 68.Redland Brick is requesting approval for an additional 40 acres on the
northeast side to also include some reclamation in anticipation of completion of the current
area.No blasting will occur and the depth of the extraction will vary from 10 to 50 feet.
Approximately 15 acres of land will be open for quarrying at anyone time.All hauling of
materials will occur on-site.There is an existing residential development along Maryland
Route 68.Zoning regulations require 100'setback,however,as a part of the rezoning
approval process of this property in 1989,the applicant proposed a 200-foot setback with
vegetative screening.New plantings of trees will be added to fill in the gaps where trees
were previously planted and are established.All agencies have approved this plan.The
Maryland Department of the Environment is currently reviewing the mining and reclamation
plan,written verification of approval is needed.Mr.Iseminger inquired if the reclamation for
the existing area is a part of the proposed plan.The consultant,Mike Hicks,advised that
there are three reclaim areas of the old original mine that will be reclaimed as the process
continues and confirmed that MDE would monitor the reclamation process.He added that
Redland Brick had also posted a bond,as required by the State.Mr.Arch inquired how long
the new mining plan would last.Mr.Miller of Redland Brick,Inc.stated that they anticipate
the mining of this area lasting approximately 15 years,give or take 5 years.Mr.Ardinger
made a motion to grant site plan approval.Mr.Henry seconded.Vote was unanimous.So
ordered.
Boonsboro Quarry
Mr.Lung presented a site plan to modify the existing mineral extraction operation of the
Boonsboro Quarry for Martin Marietta Aggregates.The site is located south of Benevola
Church Road,west of Maryland Route 66.The site contains approximately 235 acres and is
zoned Industrial Mineral.This site plan does not include any new extraction area beyond
what has already been approved.Last year a rezoning occurred for this property,which
established an Industrial Mineral Overlay on the entire site and cleaned up the previously
approved special exception areas,as well as an area where mining was occurring without
the proper County approval.In February 2001,the Planning Commission approved a site
plan for an extraction area of 13.5 acres.The proposed plan is to update the property
boundaries in accordance with acquisitions that Martin Marietta has made over the years,
and also address the effected areas in accordance with the recent rezoning.The plan also
provides for the construction of a berm around the property along with a chain link fence
and vegetative screen planting.The plan also designates future stockpile storage areas,
processing plant areas and internal access roads.The current mining operation would
eventually swallow up the area that is currently used for stockpile storage and processing
facilities,therefore,these areas would eventually need to be relocated.Mr.Lung stated that
the crusher plant relocation would be a considerable improvement because of its lower
elevation and would be located in the interior area of the site.According to Martin Marietta,
the proposed processing plant is several years into the future.Construction of the berm,
fencing and plantings would occur as the mining progresses,as reflected in the details and
specifications of the plan.No additional traffic would occur and all approvals have been
received.MDA is currently reviewing a modification to the mining and reclamation plan and
are prepared to approve the plan.Mining operations are exempt from Forest Conservation
Ordinance.Mr.Lung stated that this plan and the recent rezoning have brought this
operation into compliance.Mr.Isem'lnger questioned if the previous noise problems,hours
of operation,and setbacks issues have been addressed.Mr.Scott of Martin Marietta
advised that the setback requirements have been met and discussed the pours of operation.
Mr.Anikis questioned if the berm would be completed before the plant is relocated. Mr.
Scott advised that it was unknown at this time whether the berm would be completed
before the plant was relocated.Mr.Lung added that the berm is actuaily constructed from
the materials stripped off of the property,as mining progresses.Mr.Ardinger encouraged
the developer to stay in compliance with the site plan.Mr.Henry made a motion to grant
the site plan approval.Mr.Ernst seconded.Vote was unanimous.So ordered.
Strategic Communication Services (South Hagerstown)
Mr.Lung presented for review and approval the site plan for Strategic Communication
Services.The site plan is for a 195'freestanding lattice cell tower designed for six
telecommunication carriers.The site is located between Maryland Avenue and Oak Ridge
Drive,west of Norfolk Southern Railroad.The site is zoned Industrial General.Commercial
communicaflons towers are princ'lple perm'ltted uses in the IG zoning distr"lct.The proposed
tower will sit in a 70'x 70'fenced compound,which will include space for six 12'x 20'
equipment shelters.The south and west side will be landscaped with thirty-five 6'
58
wintergreen arborvitaes,as a part of the approval process with the Board of Zoning Appeals
on a setback variance from 195'to 50',granted in August 2001.The applicant has
provided documentation that there are no existing structures available for co-location and
presented information to the Board of Zoning Appeals that a gap in service exists south of
Hagerstown.All agencies have approved the site with the exception of the FCC's
permitting procedure for a cell tower,known as 106 review.The Maryland Historical Trust
has requested additional information and recommended that a monopole tower be
considered instead of the lattice tower,which would provide less visual impact.This site is
exempt from Forest Conservation Ordinance regulations.Mr.Kenworthy explained with six
carriers on a tower of this proposed height that a lattice tower is more appropriate rather
than a monopole of this size,which tends to become large and costly.He added that two
carriers have already been designated for the proposed tower.Ms.Lampton inquired if there
were any concerns regarding the tower falling,given the considerable exemption on the
setback by the Board of Appeals.Mr.Stiles,of Strategic Communications explained that a
lattice tower is designed to collapse upon itself,and the mono-pole is designed to sheer off
and fall upon itself.Mr.Clopper made a motion to grant site plan approved contingent upon
the Maryland Historic Trust review being completed.Mr.Anikis seconded.Vote was
unanimous.So ordered.
Christy Enterprizes
Mr.Lung presented for review and approval a site plan for Christy Enterprizes.The
Developer is proposing a wholesale auto parts business to be located along the south side of
Showalter Road,west of Pennsylvania Avenue.The site encompasses three acres and is
zoned HI-l.There is currently a six-unit apartment building located on the property.The
plan is to construct a new 60'x 100'building,20'in height,east of the apartment building.
Customer parking would be provided around the front of the building and additional parking
to address the needs the apartment units,as well as employee parking for a total of 17
spaces which would be located behind the business.Hours of operation will be Monday
through Friday from 8:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.,and 8:00 a.m.to 2:00 p.m.on Saturday.The
stormwater management bio-retention area located on the property meets all the new
requirements.Public water and sewer is provided.There are some existing plantings on the
~ite that will be utilized towards the landscaping requirements and a vegatative screening of
whitepines will be added to supplement plantings along the eastern property lines as per the
HI-l buffer requirements.The property is currently made up of two parcels and a simplified
subdivision plat is required to combine the two properties and is in the approval process.All
agencies have approved the site plan.The airport has also reviewed and forwarded the site
plan to the FAA.The airport has requested that a standard application be filed with the
FAA,which mainly deals with construction practices.Mr.Henry made a motion to grant
site plan approval subject to approval of the simplified plat and also approval of the
application to the FAA prior to the issuance of a building permit.Mr.Ernst seconded.Vote
unanimous.So ordered.
IMr.Iseminger left the meeting at 8:25 p.m.)
OTHER BUSINESS:
Gregory and Beverly Fourtes-RZ-01-005
The Commission received the Staff Report Following Public Hearing with the agenda.Mr.
Goodrich indicated there were no additional comments or information and that the property
was well documented when it was listed in the National Register of Historic places in 1976.
Mr.Goodrich recommended approval of the request for the Historic Preservation Overlay to
the Board of County Commissioners,as it ',s logical,appropriate and consistent to the
Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Vote was unanimous.So ordered.
Larry B.Artz -RZ-01-007
Mr.Arch noted this is the only rezoning matter scheduled for November and will be heard on
November 13,2001 at 10:00 a.m.The staff report on the proposed map amendment will
be forthcoming.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
p~;o-n j,~h
Chairperson
59
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -DECEMBER 3,2001
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,
December 3,2001 ',n the County Commissioners Meeting Room.
Members present were:Paula Lampton,Chairperson,Vice-Chairman,Robert Ernst II,R.Ben
Clopper,Don Ardinger,Timothy Henry,George Anikis and Ex-Officio,Bertrand Iseminger.
Staff:Director,Robert C.Arch;Senior Planner,Timothy A.Lung;Associate Planner,Jill
Baker and Secretary,Sandy Coffman.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by the Chairperson at 7 :00 p.m.
MINUTES:
Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve the minutes for the regular meeting of October 1,
2001.Seconded by Mr.Iseminger.So ordered.
Mr.Ernst made a motion to approve the minutes for the regular meeting of November 5,
2001.Seconded by Mr.Henry.So ordered.
Before proceeding,Mr.Arch stated that a variance request would be added to the agenda
under Other Business.
AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION DISTRICT APPLICAnONS:
Mr.Arch presented collectively the Ag Districts of AD-01-001,Franklin E.Barnhart
consisting of 210.4 acres;AD-01-003,Isabella Hawkins,consisting of 137.852 acres;and
AD-01-005,Bobbie Grimm,Sr.,Bobbie Grimm,Jr.,and Lelia M.O'Neal consisting of 129.7
acres.The applicants have applied for a ten (10)year Agricultural Land Preservation District
establishment in exchange for property tax credits.Mr.Arch advised that all three properties
qualify and have been approved by the Agricultural Advisory Board.Mr.Clopper made a
motion that collectively the three Agricultural Land Preservation District Applications meet
the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and recommended approval to the Board
of County Commissioners.Mr.Anikis seconded the motion.Mr.Iseminger abstained.So
ordered.
NEW BUSINESS:
Subdivisions:
Braeburn West (Preliminary Plat &Forest Conservation Plan)
Mr.Lung presented the Preliminary Plat and Forest Conservation Plan for Braeburn West.
The developer ',s proposing 24 single-family lots located along the west side of Maryland
Route 66.The property contains approximately 60 acres and is zoned Agricultural.Lot sizes
range from 1 to 6 acres.New cul-de-sac streets will be built to County standards by the
developer and dedicated to the County.A single access will be provided off of Route 66.
The storm water management area is located at the south end of the property.Private wells
and individual on-site septic systems will serve the lots.The total Forest Conservation
mitigation requirement is 18.89 acres.The mitigation will be addressed by 8 acres of on-
site planting,5.5 acres of on-site retention of existing forest,and approximately 5 acres of
off-site retention located on a nearby site along Black Rock Road owned by Mr.Young.
When the approval was given for the off-site mitigation,a Forest Stand Delineation had not
been completed.Since its completion,there is a small area that did not qualify as forest on
the off-site area,therefore,some additional planting will need to be incorporated into the
planting plan.During the preliminary consultation review,there were some concerns
expressed regarding the need for substantial buffering between the subdivision the rural
agricultural area and along Beaver Creek Church Road.A mixture of existing forest and
planting of new forest will be added to provide the requested buffering.The County
Engineer had requested a second access onto Beaver Creek Church Road,however,there
were concerns regarding the impact of the development on the road.The plan was
redesigned with a single access onto Maryland 66,as approved by the County Engineer and
the State Highway Admin·,stration.Mr.Lung stated there was also some concerns that this
proposed development may be located in the Upper Beaver Creek Basin Special Planning
Area,however,this development is located downstream from the hatchery and is not in the
Special Planning Area.Denitrification septic systems were required by the Health
Department and are now required on all septic systems in the County.All agencies have
approved the plan with the exception of the Engineering Department and the Soil
Conservation District.Both agencies have commented that they will approve after some
minor revisions are made to the construction drawings.Planning Staff is satisfied with the
60
Preliminary Plat and the only outstanding issue is the minor change to the Forest
Conservation plan to include the additional planting on the off-site retention mitigation area.
Ms.Lampton questioned if the fire department had any comments on the cul-de-sacs and
the turnarounds.Mr.Lung stated that the Mt.Aetna Fire Company had not submitted any
comments and the design meets all of the County's street design requirements.Mr.
Iseminger questioned if the "urban best management practices"notation would be added to
the plat.Mr.Lung stated that this notation was a requirement previously made by the
Planning Commission for developments that are located in the Special Planning Area.Mr.
Iseminger suggested that since the development is in close proxim',ty to Beaver Creek the
note should be added to the plat.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to approve the Preliminary
Plat approval contingent on Engineering and Soil Conservation's approval and the addition of
a note on the plat with regard to urban best management practices.Mr.Anikis seconded
the motion.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to approve the Forest Conservation
Plan with the minor adjustments as indicated by Mr.Lung.Seconded by Mr.Henry.Vote
was unanimous.So ordered.
Site Plans:
Rosewood -Phase II 14-Unit Townhouse)
Mr.Lung presented the site plan for a 4-unit townhouse apartment building to be located in
the Rosewood PUD -Phase II.This property is located off of Robinwood Drive between the
Robinwood Medical Center and the Hagerstown Community College.The 4-unit building will
be located on lot 1,which was previously approved as a part of Phase I located at the
corner of Robinwood Drive and John F.Kennedy Drive.There is an existing 5-unit
apartment building on this lot,as a part of the Phase I site plan.Public water and sewer will
serve the units.A regional storm water management facility was installed to control runoff
for the entire property and Forest Conservation was addressed as a part of the subdivision
approval.All agencies have approved the site plan.Phase I was approved for 77 units and
the APFO road adequacy test was based on that phase.The County Engineer has
determined that the additional 4 units of Phase II will not have any additional impact on the
roads,however,as additional units come in for Phase II they will be required to pass a road
adequacy retest.The last section of Phase I consisting of 20 additional units has been
submitted for review.Mr.Ardinger questioned why only 4 units were presented as a
separate submittal for such a large PUD.The developer,Sassan Shaool,explained this
development was his first project and that he was currently in a situation of attempting to
secure the loan,and by finishing the 4 units he would be able to close the loan.Mr.
Iseminger questioned if the requirements for the first part of a connector road to Eastern
Boulevard or any modifications to the stormwater management pond to address the water
quality control requirement were a part of the phasing plan for the PUD.Mr.Lung stated
that the connector road is a part of the phasing plan and that water quality would be
addressed.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant site plan approval as presented for the 4-
unit townhouse for Rosewood -Phase II.Mr.Ernst seconded.Vote was unanimous.So
ordered.
Preliminary Consultations:
Charles C.H.Chu
Ms.Baker presented the preliminary consultation for Charles C.H.Chu.The subject site is
located along the northeast corner of the intersection at Whitetail Road and Sandstone
Drive.The property is zoned Agricultural.The developer is proposing to subdivide the
remaining 36.12 acres of land for lots 5 through 24.Lots 1 through 4 were approved in
March 2001.Ms.Baker stated she had nothing further to add to the preliminary
consultation summary previously distributed.Mr.Anikis questioned if there was any County
policy on the criteria of when test wells should be drilled.Mr.Arch stated that,as a part of
the preliminary consultation the Health Department reviews the logs for that particular area
to determine if any major issues exist.Mr.Iseminger suggested to Mr.Arch that the Health
Department be contacted and asked to do a presentation on wells and septic systems,
especially since the denitrification system has been implemented to update and educate the
Planning Commission members as well as the development community.No action required.
Black Rock PUD
Mr.Lung presented the preliminary consultation for Black Rock PUD for 993 units on
220.77 acres located off of Mt.Aetna Road across from the Black Rock Golf Course.In
addition to the PUD,the developer also asked for comments from the Planning Commission
on a 43-lot addition to Black Rock Estates.The property is zoned Agricultural.The Pianning
Commission previously determined that this property is considered in the Urban Growth
Area.The 43 lot subdivision has no outstanding issues.There is no existing forest in this
area and the developer plans to utilize the planting area and forest retention within the PUD
to address the Forest Conservation for the additional section of Black Rock Estates.Also,
61
stormwater management runoff will be routed to the existing ponds located on the Black
Rock Golf Course.Regarding the proposed P.U.D.,the developer is proposing 101
conventional single family lots;110 zero lot line single family lots;70 semi-detached two
family lots;223 townhouse lots;and 480 condominiums.The gross density is 4.5 dwelling
units per acre.Twelve dwelling units per acre is the maximum allowed ',n a P.U.D.25%
open space is required,which converts to 55.19 acres in this proposed PUD tract.The
concept plan provides 55.31 acres of open space.Access is provided onto Mt.Aetna Road
and also by a tie-in to an existing road in Black Rock Estates.The County Engineering
Department 'lndicated that a traffic study would be needed and they also ind',cated that a
second access would be required in the single-family residential area.Engineering also
noted that narrower street sections and traffic calming measures may be appropriate in the
development.State Highway indicated that the traffic study should include analysis of U.S.
40 at Mt.Aetna Road,U.S.40 at Robinwood Drive,and U.S.40 at Maryland 66,as well as
the signal system on U.S.40.The City Water Department had water pressure concerns and
provided guidelines for looping of the water main through the property.They also
commented that this development rnay be impacted by new City policies regarding utility
extension and annexation.Planning staff had concerns about the use of private streets in
the townhouse and condominium sections and the design of the townhouse section using
dead end streets with very little connectivity.Staff also has concerns about some of the
townhouse lots backing onto the through road of the development,distribution of open
space and the pedestrian system in the PUD.The Funkstown Fire Department had concerns
regarding the private road design.The Historic District Commission commented on the two
sites listed on the Historic Sites Survey.One structure is a stone house,which is to remain
and the other structure is a brick house that ',s slated for demolition.The Historic District
Commission is opposed to the demolition of the brick house due to its historic significance.
The consultant submitted a revision to the original concept plan,to address some of the
agencies concerns.Mr.Lung stated that he does not anticipate any additional agency
comments on the revised plan.He commented that the revised plan provides some looping
of the roads in the townhouse section,however,they are still proposing private roads.The
revised plan does not appear to address the townhouse lots backing up to the through road.
Mr.Lun9 added that a pedestrian path system had been laid out in the revised plan and will
need to be reviewed.The traffic issues cannot be broached until the traffic study is
completed.Mr.Anikis asked for clarification on the advantages to the developer to have the
townhouse streets private versus turning them over to the County.The consultant,Mr.
Soule stated that private streets tend to encouraged the operator to slow down and added
that the parking spaces would be backing out into a drive aisle versus a public road.Mr.
Shaool added that private streets provide a safer environment,a better presentation and the
maintenance would be handle by the Homeowners Association.Mr.Anikis also questioned
how the stormwater management liability would be handled.Mr.Shaool stated the general
liability would be covered under the Homeowners Association insurance and a fence would
be installed around the pondlsl as required by the Ordinance.Mr.Anikis added his concern
with the proposed demolition of the 19"century brick home.He further explained that the
brick home is perhaps the only home in Washington County that has a bell tower,as
depicted in a 1975 photograph.Mr.Shaool stated he would like to extend an invitation to
the Historical District Commission to visit the property and that the house is in uninhabitable
condition.Mr.Anikis requested permission from Mr.Shaool to visit the home and take
photos.Mr.Iseminger questioned why there was only one entrance off of Mt.Aetna Road,
and if additional access onto other roads had been looked into.Mr.Shaool stated that it
was given consideration,however,there did not appear to be any possibility of connecting
to other existing development adjoining the property.Mr.Lung explained that this property
does not abut the future realignment of Robinwood Drive.There is no other connection point
onto Robinwood unless you would go through another property.Mr.Iseminger inquired if
there was an opportunity to negotiate with other property owners to allow a connection.
Mr.Shaool stated they had already explored this option with Stan Valentine and other
property owners to no avail.Mr.Iseminger requested that the road design be discussed
with Terry McGee,Chief Engineer and that the Planning Staff also reviews the plan for any
additional road connection opportunities.Mr.Iseminger also commented that since this
property is located at the edge of the Urban Growth Area,he would like to see substantial
buffering along that boundary line.Mr.Ardinger commented on the proposed active
recreation area and questioned what was planned for the remaining open space areas.Mr.
Soule explained that in addition to the aforestation,there will also be links via trials and
sidewalks to connect intersecting streets to the active recreation areas,and the rema',ning
open space areas will be unimproved passive recreation areas.Mr.Arch added that from
the staff's standpoint,a sidewalk or path would be required along Mt.Aetna Road to access
the County Park.Mr.Shaool questioned how access to the County Park could be achieved
and that they had planned to establish their own ball and soccer fields as a part of the
substantial amenities to be offered to the Black Rock community.Mr.Arch commented that
the developer would need to come up with a plan to provide pedestrian access to the
County Park.He added that a joint public hearing would be held in March,where the
62
developer may present the proposed PUD to the Board of County Commissioners and the
Planning Commission in the form of a rezoning request.The Planning Commission will then
make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners as to the proposed PUD
zoning.The preliminary consultation is the first step in the lengthy process of establishing a
PUD.No action ',s required.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Variance -Bob Benner
Mr.Arch presented the variance request for Bob Benner.He stated that Mr.Benner is
proposing to create a one-lot subdivision with a panhandle length in excess of 140 feet.
The property is located below 1-70,off of Landis Road.Mr.Arch explained that there is an
existing parcel with a gravel road that had once been a County road prior to the completion
of 1-70.The gravel road was hence cut off,which created a long driveway of 750 feet
servicing the existing dwelling.The proposed one lot subdivision is requesting a variance to
utilize the existing road.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant the variance request for the
panhandle length as presented.Mr.Anikis seconded.Vote unanimous.So ordered.
Future Meeting
Mr.Arch stated that changes were being made to the Comprehensive Plan.A public
hearing is tentatively scheduled for February at the Kepler Theater at Hagerstown
Community College.A 60 day notice period is required for advertising purposes.Mr.
Ardinger questioned if the public hearing could begin earlier than 7:00 p.m.to accommodate
the anticipated number of partic·,pants.Members agreed that the meeting would be
scheduled for 6:00 p.m.
Rezoning Public Hearing Schedule for 2002
Mr.Iseminger noted that Rezoning Public Hearing Schedule reflects a joint hearing scheduled
for November 1 B,2002,which falls shortly after the election.This date may present a
conflict if a transition of newly elected County Commissioners occurs.Members agreed to
omit the last joint hearing and reschedule for January 2003.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 8:03 p.m.
~-R,~/f J~.-:.....::~~_
Paula A.Lampton ----u ...
Chairperson
Ii"