HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013 LPPRP
Land Preservation, Parks, and Recreation Plan
Washington County, Maryland
Prepared by:
Washington County Department of Planning and Zoning Adopted: December 17, 2013
Appendix-i
Acknowledgements
This Plan was prepared by the Washington County Department of Planning and Zoning as an
update to the 2005 Land Preservation, Parks, and Recreation Plan. Assistance was provided by
the Washington County Parks, Recreation, and Facilities Department, and the Recreation and
Parks Advisory Board. The input and comments of citizens, municipal officials, advisory boards, and other organizations are greatly appreciated.
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County
Terry L. Baker, President
John F. Barr, Vice-President
Ruth Ann Callaham Jeff Cline
William B. McKinley
Washington County Recreation and Parks Board
Deborah Murphy, Chairperson
Greg Shank, Vice-Chairperson
Terry Baker, Ex-Officio Richard Hawkins
Chris Malott
Eric Michael
Jeff Semler
Loretta Wright
Department of Planning and Zoning Staff Contributors
Stephen T. Goodrich, Planning Director Jill Baker, Chief Planner
Fred Nugent, Parks and Environmental Planner
Jennifer Kinzer, GIS Coordinator
Meghan Hammond, GIS Technician
Eric Seifarth, Land Preservation Administrator Debra Eckard, Administrative Assistant
ii
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1-1
Section 1.1 – Purpose of the Plan ............................................................................................ 1-1 Section 1.2 – Maryland Land Preservation, Parks and Recreation Plan 2009 ......................... 1-1
Section 1.3 – Relationship to the County Comprehensive Plan .............................................. 1-2
Section 1.4 – Definitions.......................................................................................................... 1-2
Chapter 2: Local Planning Framework .................................................................................. 2-1
Section 2.1 – Physical Characteristics ..................................................................................... 2-1 Location and Physiographic Information............................................................................. 2-1
Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................ 2-3
Forest Resources .................................................................................................................. 2-3
Cultural Features .................................................................................................................. 2-4
Section 2.2 – County Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics ................................ 2-5 Population ............................................................................................................................ 2-5
Socio-Economic Characteristics .......................................................................................... 2-8
Section 2.3 – Comprehensive Plan Framework ....................................................................... 2-9
Forest Land and Natural Resource Conservation .............................................................. 2-13
Land Preservation .............................................................................................................. 2-13 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space ................................................................................... 2-14
Chapter 3: Parks, Recreation, and Open Space ..................................................................... 3-1
Section 3.1 – Goals for Parks, Recreation and Open Space .................................................... 3-1
State of Maryland Goals for Parks and Recreation .............................................................. 3-1
County Goals ....................................................................................................................... 3-1 Section 3.2 – Programs and Procedures ................................................................................... 3-4
Organization and Planning Procedures ................................................................................ 3-4
Section 3.3 – Parkland Needs Analysis ................................................................................... 3-5
Parkland Acreage Standards ................................................................................................ 3-5
Section 3.4 – Recreational Needs Analysis ............................................................................. 3-8 Supply .................................................................................................................................. 3-8
Needs Analysis................................................................................................................... 3-10
Priorities and Recommendations ....................................................................................... 3-11
Chapter 4: Agricultural Land Preservation ............................................................................ 4-1
Section 4.1 – State and Local Goals ........................................................................................ 4-1 State Goals for Agricultural Land Preservation ................................................................... 4-1
Local Goals for Agricultural Land Preservation .................................................................. 4-1
Section 4.2 – Implementation Programs .................................................................................. 4-2
Land Preservation and Easement Acquisition Programs ..................................................... 4-2
Assistance Programs ............................................................................................................ 4-3 Land Use Management ........................................................................................................ 4-3
Section 4.3 – County Program Assessment ............................................................................. 4-5
Preservation Strategy ........................................................................................................... 4-5
Funding ................................................................................................................................ 4-6
Assessment of Performance in Achieving Goals ................................................................. 4-9 Chapter 5: Natural Resources Conservation ........................................................................ 4-10
Section 5.1 – Goals for Natural Resource Conservation ......................................................... 5-1
iii
State Goals for Natural Resource Conservation .................................................................. 5-1
County Goals for Natural Resource Conservation ............................................................... 5-2
Section 5.2 – Implementation Programs .................................................................................. 5-2
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan .................................................................................... 5-2 Comprehensive Plan Special Planning Areas ...................................................................... 5-3
Easement Acquisition, Funding, Planning and Land Use Management Authority ............. 5-3
Watershed Management....................................................................................................... 5-3
Other Regulatory and/or Management Programs ................................................................ 5-4
Eco-tourism and Resource Based Recreation ...................................................................... 5-4 Section 5.3 – Program Evaluation ........................................................................................... 5-4
iv
Executive Summary
There is a wide range of recreational opportunities available to residents and visitors to
Washington County. Facilities and sites are well spaced throughout the county, and currently
meet the acreage requirements established by state and local policies. The challenge lies in the future; rising land prices, limited public monies at all levels and
changing recreational demands may appear to present an insurmountable set of obstacles to park
planning and acquisition; however, these factors can lead the planners, volunteer and
professional, to broaden their definition of allowable activities on recreational sites, and indeed, change their definition of ‘recreation’.
Twenty or more years ago; park planning was in its infancy. Most participants were
primarily interested in facility based recreation; tennis courts, ball fields, general purpose fields,
basketball courts, playground equipment, picnic pavilions, and the like. Now, Rails to Trails are a reality; the Western Maryland Rail Trail draws thousands of riders annually; and the Allegheny Passage Trail completes the connection between Pittsburgh and Washington DC, utilizing the C
& O Canal, with the resultant positive effect on local economies. Dog Parks and Horse Trails
were widely supported by the attendees at the three public hearings conducted in preparation for
the update of this plan.
Throughout this plan, there are references to shortfalls in the availability of county owned
recreational facilities in the four different planning areas. These shortfalls must be tempered by
noting the availability of venues owned by others. For example, a shortage of walking trails in
the Western Planning Area must certainly take into consideration the presence of the federally owned C & O Canal with its towpath, and the state owned Western Maryland Rail Trail.
More aggressive promotion of the use of Board of Education outdoor facilities will
inform residents of the availability of locally sited recreation areas. Many of these are walkable;
reducing green house gas emissions generated by driving to more remote locations, and improving the general fitness of the participants, and possibly, having a positive impact on the
sense of neighborhood and belonging of the residents.
Sports associations, soccer programs, and softball and baseball leagues, among others,
recognized the need for more fields and have developed their own sites throughout the county. Civic, service, and social clubs have built picnic pavilions, often with playground equipment
which are made available to the general public at costs competitive with the county fees.
Planning in a vacuum could result in the duplication of facilities in a given area. Planning
should also recognize that some of these private facilities may become available as the associations change their focus, or dissolve, and provide the possibility of developed sites at a
significant savings in terms of acquisition and development expense.
The park planning team of Recreation Commission members, elected officials, planners and
citizens must be quick to respond to new opportunities for funding, expanded use of existing
v
facilities, and opportunities for acquisition of appropriately sited land to meet the changing
recreational needs of the next generation.
vi
Chapter 1: Introduction
Section 1.1 – Purpose of the Plan
The purpose of the Land Preservation, Parks and Recreation Plan (LPPRP) is to evaluate current
open space opportunities, analyze future impacts from growth, and develop a coordinated plan to address future open space needs. This is important for several reasons:
Public Investment: Due to limited funding and high demand for open space and
recreation areas, it is imperative that investments made in park lands and recreation
programs be as cost effective as possible.
Resource Protection: Recreation and resource protection can be mutually supportive
activities. There are ways to integrate passive and active recreational activities into areas
that also serve as resource protection such as the C & O Canal Towpath. This area
provides opportunities for active recreation while serving as an invaluable buffer to the Potomac River in terms of flooding and bank erosion.
Social Integration: Recreational activities provide an outlet for people with similar
interests to come together and socialize. Long range park plans should contain suitable
flexibility to respond to changing social and economic demographics; while not losing sight of long range established goals.
Health and Wellness: More and more people within the United States are becoming
overweight. With health issues like heart disease and diabetes on the rise, it is important
to provide open space areas and recreational programs for people to play and exercise.
Access and Functionality: Increasing traffic congestion and rising gasoline prices place
special emphasis on park accessibility to and from residential neighborhoods; changing
interests over time have been reflected in changes in the expectations of park users.
Parks with passive uses, playgrounds, tennis courts and athletic fields meet some user’s needs, while other users expect dedicated walking and fitness paths, bicycle trails, dog
parks, and horse trails.
The Maryland Program Open Space (POS) laws and the Federal Land & Water Conservation
Fund Act of 1965 require that all Counties in the State of Maryland produce and maintain an Outdoor Recreation and Open Space Plan. As noted in these laws, all land acquisition and park
development funded through these programs must be consistent with the approved State and
County Land Preservation, Parks, and Recreation Plans. The County’s use of POS funding
requires such a plan to be updated every six (6) years. The previous plan was prepared and
adopted in 2005.
Section 1.2 – Maryland Land Preservation, Parks and Recreation Plan 2009
1-1
During the process of developing this Plan for the County, attention was duly given to the
Statewide LPPRP released in 2009. As noted in the State LPPRP: “The over-arching purpose of
this plan is to ensure good long-term return on public investment in parks, outdoor recreation, agricultural land preservation, and the conservation of natural resources”. In order to implement the purpose of the State LPPRP, several guidelines were established and are outlined
below.
Section 1.3 – Relationship to the County Comprehensive Plan
The County Comprehensive Plan was last updated in 2002 and provides an analysis of long and short term planning needs for a variety of resources. Specific to the topic of land preservation,
parks and recreation planning, the Comprehensive Plan Community Facilities Element in
Chapter 9 analyzes base year (2002) conditions and makes recommendations for future needs
and policies. The County is currently in the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan which conveniently provides the opportunity for congruency between the two documents. Additional
information regarding the relationship of the Comprehensive Plan to the LPPRP is provided in
Section 2.3 of this document.
Section 1.4 – Definitions
Park and open space area include a variety of recreation areas and facilities to meet the various
recreational needs of residents and visitors. Parks and open spaces can also be established to
State Guidelines:
Review goals and objectives of State and local programs for parks and
recreation, agricultural land preservation, and natural resource conservation.
Identify where these goals and objectives are essentially the same, where they
are complementary or mutually supportive, and where they are simply
different;
Evaluate the ability of implementation programs and funding sources for each
element to achieve related goals and objectives;
Identify desirable improvements to policies, plans, and funding strategies to overcome shortcomings, achieve goals, and ultimately ensure good return on
public investment;
Identify the needs and priorities of current and future state and local populations for outdoor recreation;
Determine what would be necessary to achieve the goals of State and local land
preservation programs; and
Ensure that public investment in recreation, agricultural land preservation, and natural resource conservation supports and is supported by State planning
policy, local comprehensive plans, and associated State and local
implementation programs.
1-2
preserve, conserve, and manage natural resources and habitats. The definitions below are
derived from the Maryland Electronic Inventory of Recreation Sites (MEIRS) guidance
document revised in January 2003 that defines the difference between areas used for recreation
vs. those used for resource management.
Recreation Land: Land and/or related water areas that support recreation as a primary
use. This land may also contain cultural, agricultural, or other resources related or incidental to
its recreational purpose. There are two sub-categories of recreational land:
a. Non-resources based recreational land: Land on which the primary
recreational activities do not depend on the presence of natural resources.
This land supports activities that can occur in the absence of intact natural
resources, and are generally more dependent on site improvements than on
natural resources (i.e. public swimming pools, basketball courts, and baseball fields).
b. Natural Resource based recreational land: Land on which the primary
recreation activities depend on the presences of natural resources. Activities
generally do not occur without the presence of natural resources (i.e. public
beaches, backpacking, camping, and hiking).
Resource Land: Land and/or related water areas for which natural resource protection,
conservation, or management is of primary importance. This land may support agricultural,
recreational, economic, or other uses to the extent that they do not conflict with protection or
preservation of the natural resource.
To further refine the classification of lands in the parks system, recreation and resource lands are
classified as follows:
Neighborhood Park: The primary function is to serve as the recreational and social focus of a neighborhood. They are developed for both active and passive activities,
accommodating a wide variety of age groups. Sites are generally small; in the two to five acre
range, and are usually within one half mile or less of potential users.
Community Park: The purpose is larger and broader than neighborhood parks. Their focus is on meeting the recreational needs of several neighborhoods or larger sections of the
community as well as preserving unique landscapes, open spaces, and natural resources. Sites
can range in size from ten to fifty acres depending on rural or urban settings and the number of
potential users. These parks are generally intensely developed to provide both passive and active
recreational opportunities to potential users within a distance of two to three miles.
County/Regional Park: Like the community park, the focus is on recreation as well as
preserving natural landscapes, open spaces, and natural resources. Sites are generally fifty acres
or more and provide both active and passive recreational opportunities to potential users
throughout the County and/or region.
1-3
School Recreational Land: are sites owned and maintained by the Board of Education
and serve to provide for the school’s recreational needs as well as limited community needs. The
school recreational land consists of formal athletic fields and playground equipment with the
primary focus on scholastic sports and in-school recreational activities. An agreement between the Board of County Commissioners and the Board of Education allows additional funds to be
provided to build an expanded gym, storage areas, recreation rooms and offices to support
Recreation Centers which are open to the general public when school is not in session. These
Centers are managed by the County’s Department of Parks and Recreation.
State Park: Areas with natural resources or geographic, topographic, or physiographic
characteristics that are suitable for recreational development and use. These areas are managed
with the primary objective of providing outdoor recreational opportunities for the public in a
natural setting.
Special Use Park: Areas that are generally oriented toward a single purpose use such as
public golf courses, including protection of unique features such as historic or cultural sites,
stream access, wetland areas, and habitat management areas.
1-4
Chapter 2: Local Planning Framework
Section 2.1 – Physical Characteristics
Location and Physiographic Information
Washington County contains approximately 298,800 acres, in the west-central part of the state 5,000 acres of which are in the Potomac River, and includes the narrowest part of Maryland’s
“panhandle”. The northern boundary of the County is shared with Pennsylvania along the
Mason-Dixon Line. The Potomac River forms the southern boundary, and is shared with West
Virginia except for a two mile section shared with Virginia. From east to west, the county stretches from the crest of South Mountain marking the boundary with Frederick County to the Sidling Hill Creek boundary with Allegany County.
The Great Valley, also called the Great Appalachian Valley or Great Valley Region, is one
of the major landform features of eastern North America. It is a gigantic trough—a chain of valley lowlands—and the central feature of the Appalachian Mountain system. The trough stretches about 1200 miles from Quebec to Alabama and has been an important north-south route
of travel since prehistoric times. Washington County contains the Maryland part of the Great
Valley, and is geologically diverse, including parts of two physiographic provinces – the Blue
Ridge, and Ridge and Valley. South Mountain and Elk Ridge, extending north to south along the eastern boundary of the county, are the westernmost extent of the Blue Ridge province. The Hagerstown Valley extends from the west base of South Mountain to Fairview Mountain west of
Clear Spring, where the small ridges and valleys begin and run to the west as part of the Ridge
and Valley physiographic province (See Map). Elevations range from Quirak Mountain at 2,145
feet in the northeast corner of the county, to 300 feet above sea level in the southern end of the Hagerstown Valley near the Potomac River.
2-1
2-2
Geology and Soils
The surface rock strata and most of the subsurface rock in the county consists of limestone, shale
and sandstone. The Hagerstown Valley is underlain mostly by relatively soluble limestone and
shows evidence of the sinkholes and caverns associated with karst geology. As a result, the County has the largest number of known caves in Maryland. The narrower valleys are underlain
mostly by shale, while the ridges are formed by resistant sandstone or quartzite.
The topography of the County varies greatly due to its physiographic location. The Hagerstown
Valley, which includes over half the land area of the County, is primarily flat with gently rolling hills. The eastern border of the County along South Mountain, as well as the beginning of the
Ridge and Valley system starting at Fairview Mountain west of Clear Spring contain the steepest
slopes in the County. Slopes are also steep along most of the creek beds in the County due to
years of erosion as the streams meandered.
The best quality soils for agriculture are primarily located in the Great (Hagerstown) Valley
region of the county extending from the base of South Mountain west to Clear Spring (See Map).
Areas of high quality soils near Clear Spring and in the Southern part of the county east and
south of Sharpsburg have also been targeted for protection through a variety of agricultural
preservation easement programs.
Forest Resources
Before settlement and farming began, most of the County was covered with hardwood forest.
Now, the significant remaining forested areas are along South Mountain and in the western
portion of the County. Forests are primarily located on steep slopes including the Elk Ridge and Red Hill areas in the south end of the County, the ridges north and west of Clear Spring, and the
ridges west of Hancock. Additional forested areas are located in the Hagerstown Valley where
the land is too rocky or steep for development or farming.
Bottomland forests are found along the fertile floodplains of Conococheague and Antietam Creeks, and along the Potomac River. The majority of the forest (75 %) is the Oak-Hickory type.
Remaining forest is classified as Oak/Pine (12.5%), Elm/Ash/Red Maple (6.7 %) and northern
hardwoods (5.6 %).
Forested resource land, including commercial forest, and local, State, and Federal forest preserves comprises 35.9% of the County or approximately 107,300 acres. State owned forest
land is extensive; over 9,000 acres are located along South Mountain protecting the Appalachian
Trail corridor, and containing several state parks. Significant areas of state owned forest are also
located in the western end of the county, including 6,300 acres in the Indian Springs area, and
over 3,000 acres in the Sidling Hill WMA (See Natural Features Map). The City owned areas of the Edgemont Watershed on South Mountain preserve approximately 2,040 acres of woodlands
for water supply, open space, and limited recreational uses. Approximately 7,800 acres are
protected along the east bank of the Potomac River, within the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal
National Park.
2-3
2-4
Cultural Features
Urban Areas:
Nine incorporated municipalities located within the county are shown on the Land Use
Plan Map. With the exception of Clear Spring, which has a county owned park, each municipality provides and maintains park and recreation facilities for its residents. Details
of the local public parks and facilities provided are listed in the Maryland Electronic
Inventory of Recreation sites (MIERS) database and the listing in Appendix A of this
document.
Civil War Heritage Area:
Washington County is part of a larger Heritage Area; The Heart of the Civil War
Heritage Area (HCWHA), that also includes parts of Frederick and Carroll Counties.
The county has received recognition for its Civil War Heritage Areas and Civil War
Heritage Routes, which encompass a significant area of the county, and includes all of the
municipalities. A rail to trail route has been identified and may provide a connection to those sites near the abandoned railroad bed which runs through the great valley from
Hagerstown to Weverton. The Special Program Areas Map in the Comprehensive Plan
depicts the routes and areas. The HCWHA received certification and approval of a
Management Plan in 2006, which created eligibility to receive funding for development
of a detailed plan to increase heritage tourism and preservation opportunities.
Section 2.2 – County Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics
While Washington County has experienced a continued increase in population and households since the 2005 plan, there has been a lull in the construction of new housing in the last several
years due to the recent economic downturn. This cycle is the downside of the economic boom
which occurred during the middle of the first decade of this century. While it skewed some
demographic and socioeconomic data when compared to historic trends, history will show it to
be a short term ‘blip’ in the historic pattern of growth and development in the county. Provided in the information below is a breakdown and analysis of past, present, and future demographic
and socioeconomic population characteristics.
Population
Washington County
Over the last 50 years, Washington County has continued to grow at a slow but steady rate of approximately 0.76% per year. Since the adoption of the last LPPRP in 2005, the County has
grown by an estimated 0.85%. Using projections provided by the Maryland Department of
Planning, the County is anticipated to grow by another 40,470 people (1.08% per year) by 2030.
2-5
Washington County Population
147,430131,923121,393113,086103,82991,219
187,900
169,300
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
YearPopulation
Historic Projected Source: US Census Bureau, 2010 & Maryland Department of Planning
Incorporated Municipalities in Washington County
There are nine (9) incorporated municipalities located within Washington County. The City of
Hagerstown serves as the County seat and is the largest municipality within the County. Table 2.1 depicts the historic population data for each of the incorporated municipalities.
Municipality
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Washington County 91,219 103,829 113,086 121,393 131,932 147,430
City of Hagerstown 36,660 35,862 34,132 35,445 36,687 39,662
Boonsboro 1,211 1,410 1,908 2,445 2,803 3,336
Clear Spring 488 499 477 415 455 358
Funkstown 968 1,051 1,103 1,136 983 904
Hancock 2,004 1,881 1,887 1,926 1,725 1,545
Keedysville 433 431 476 464 482 1,152
Sharpsburg 861 833 721 659 691 705
Smithsburg 586 671 833 1,221 2,146 2,975
Williamsport 1,853 2,270 2,153 2,103 1,868 2,137
Total Municipal Population 45,064 44,908 43,690 45,814 47,840 52,774
% of County Population 49.4%43.3%38.6%37.7%36.3%35.8%
Source: US Census Bureau
Population
Table 2.1 : Municipal Populations
2-6
Planning Areas
For the purposes of park and recreation planning, the County is divided up into four areas:
Western, Central, Eastern, and Southern Planning Areas (See Map). Population projections are
extrapolated from Maryland Department of Planning data. It is important to note that there is an institutionalized population in the Southern Planning area, with 7,731 individuals (2010 Census);
mostly males age 18 – 40, which should be considered when considering demand for recreational
facilities.
2-7
Table 2.2 Population Projections by Planning Area
Planning Area Census 2010 Projected 2015 Projected 2020 Projected 2025 Projected 2030
Central 99174 106530 113886 120142 126398
Southern 25389 27272 29155 30757 32358
Eastern 9095 9770 10444 11018 11592
Western 13772 14793 15815 16684 17552
Washington County 147430 158365 169300 178600 187900
Socio-Economic Characteristics
Male vs. Female
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Male – County 50.5% 51.1% 50.8% 51.1% 51.3%
Female – County 49.5% 48.9% 49.2% 48.9% 48.7%
Male – State 48.5% 48.3% 48.4% 48.3% 48.4%
Female State 51.5% 51.7% 51.6% 51.7% 51.6% Source: US Census Bureau, 2010 & Maryland Department of Planning
White vs. Non-White
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
White – County 93.1% 90.2% 87.4% 84.7% 82.7%
Non-White – County 6.9% 9.8% 12.6% 15.3% 17.3%
White – State 71.7% 66.0% 60.4% 60.5% 58.5%
Non-White - State 28.3% 34.0% 39.6% 39.5% 41.5% Source: US Census Bureau, 2010 & Maryland Department of Planning
Age Cohorts
Comparison of Age Cohorts
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%CountyStateCountyStateCountyStateCountyStateCountyState1990 2000 2010 2020 2030% of Population65+
45-64
20-44
5-19
0-4
Source: US Census Bureau, 2010 & Maryland Department of Planning
2-8
Per Capita and Household Income Characteristics
Total Households 55,524 100.0%2,092,538 100.0%
Income Range
Less than $10,000 3,109 5.6%102,534 4.9%
$10,000 to $14,999 2,887 5.2%73,239 3.5%
$15,000 to $24,999 5,941 10.7%144,385 6.9%
$25,000 to $34,999 5,941 10.7%165,311 7.9%
$35,000 to $49,000 9,050 16.3%255,290 12.2%
$50,000 to $74,999 11,271 20.3%385,027 18.4%
$75,000 to $99,999 7,662 13.8%299,233 14.3%
$100,000 to $149,999 6,441 11.6%366,194 17.5%
$150,000 to $199,999 1,888 3.4%159,033 7.6%
$200,000 or more 1,333 2.4%142,293 6.8%
Median Household Income
Per Capita Income
Washington County Maryland
Household Income Characteristics for Washington County and Maryland
Source: US Census Bureau & MD Dept of Planning, 2009 estimates
$51,962 $69,475
$35,257 $48,247
Section 2.3 – Comprehensive Plan Framework
The 2002 Washington County Comprehensive Plan is a data and policy document that is a foundation for the preparation of several “functional plans” and related documents including the
LPPRP. The Comprehensive Plan presents and analyzes historic and projected population and
land use information in support of establishing goals that encourage controlled and orderly
development in the County.
Since the adoption of the County Comprehensive Plan in 1980, the primary concept of delineated
urban and rural development has been updated and refined into the current goals and policies we
have in today’s Plan. Areas of developable land surrounding the incorporated towns, served by
existing infrastructure, but at present outside of municipal boundaries are defined as
“Urban/Town Growth Areas”. All unincorporated areas outside of the Urban/Town Growth Areas are designated as “Rural Areas”. As shown on the Land Use Plan Map, there are fourteen
(14) land use policy areas defined by the County which provide a guide for future land use
decisions. Based on these land use policy areas, the Comprehensive Plan lists goals and
objectives for development and preservation efforts across the County. Listed below are the
general goals and objectives outlined with the Comprehensive Plan; goals related to land preservation, parks, and open space are highlighted.
2-9
2-10
GOAL 1: PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR INDIVIDUAL CHOICE AND SELF FULFILLMENT
Objectives:
Establish a variety of residential housing types, densities and locations.
Identify and promote the development of sites for economic development
that have the ability to generate a variety of employment opportunities.
Provide recreational locations and sites that will create the opportunity to pursue various active and passive leisure activities.
Promote the location of public safety, emergency service and health care
facilities to foster accessibility to all residents.
Encourage the use of different modes of transportation by providing
facilities that allow for different transportation options.
GOAL 2: PROMOTE A BALANCED AND DIVERSIFIED ECONOMY, INCLUDING AGRICULTURE
Objectives:
Maintain at least 50,000 acres of land in the County in agricultural
production by expanding current agricultural land preservation initiatives
with an emphasis on preserving farming as a way of life and promoting
the agricultural support industry.
Preserve mineral resource areas for continued and future production.
Promote the retention and expansion of existing businesses and industry
while encouraging the development of new manufacturing and hi-tech
industries to broaden the employment base.
Provide locations for new industry that encourage the use of existing infrastructure facilities and that take advantage of the interstate
transportation system.
Encourage and expand opportunities for recreational, leisure and
educational tourism with particular emphasis on development of heritage
tourism attractions as destinations.
Promote educational opportunities that develop and improve the labor
force.
Maximize opportunities for using the airport and railroads in promoting
economic development.
Continue transformation of the former Fort Ritchie military base to the new Lakeside Corporate Center.
GOAL 3: ENCOURAGE THE STEWARDSHIP OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE COUNTY’S HERITAGE
Objectives:
Balance future growth with the need to preserve the historical, cultural and
2-11
scenic beauty of the County for future generations.
Promote the compatibility of the built and natural environments by
ensuring that the scale and character of developments are harmonious with
existing conditions.
Target development away from lands with quality agricultural soils;
thereby, maximizing agricultural potential and limiting conflicts with
existing agricultural operations.
Limit the amount of development in sensitive areas.
Safeguard the unique environmental character of designated special planning areas.
Promote Rural Legacy initiatives in all rural areas of the County.
Maintain, and where feasible, expand forest conservation efforts.
Protect surface and ground water quality through storm water
management, on lot sewage disposal, and wellhead protection regulations.
Encourage recycling and resource conservation.
GOAL 4: ESTABLISH PARAMETERS FOR MANAGING GROWTH
Objectives:
Concentrate development in designated growth areas and coordinate
development to occur in an orderly manner.
Encourage opportunities where infill development can take place.
Promote the reutilization of brownfield sites.
Limit expansion of public water and sewer facilities outside of designated
growth areas to only those extensions necessary to address health issues.
Locate and time growth so that it does not exceed the capacity of public
roads, schools, parks and utilities or so that facilities can be upgraded to
accommodate development as needed.
Promote policies that attribute costs for new services to new users.
Implement policies that avoid the premature conversion of farmland to
non-agricultural uses.
Where feasible develop incentives to encourage development in
designated growth areas or disincentives to discourage development in areas not designated for growth.
Encourage the efficient use of energy and water resources.
Ensure that the Capital Improvement Plan is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Promote intergovernmental and interagency cooperation in land use decision making.
Beyond the general goals and objectives, the Comprehensive Plan also includes specific goals,
objectives, and policies related to land preservation, parks, and open space planning. Because of
the broad influence parks and recreation planning has on all facets of government, goals for implementation are found throughout all the chapters of the Comprehensive Plan. Listed below
is a sampling of the numerous recommendations found in the Comprehensive Plan.
2-12
Forest Land and Natural Resource Conservation
1. Establish a minimum targeted threshold of the total land area of the County to remain in long term forest cover. (Chapter 8 – Environmental Resource Management) 2. Continue use of Forest Conservation Funds for the purpose of obtaining easements
around priority locations as identified in the Forest Conservation Ordinance. (Chapter
8 – Environmental Resource Management)
3. Use Rural Legacy funding as another means of purchasing easements on forested land to support long-term forest cover retention goals. (Chapter 8 – Environmental Resource Management)
4. Develop a program to inform private forest owners of the benefits of establishing
forest management plans. Plans can aid in long-term forest, wildlife habitat, and
watershed protection, and may assist property owners in qualifying for a lower agriculture use tax assessment. (Chapter 9 – Environmental Resource Management) 5. Best management practices that promote native plants or animals, create or restore
streamside habitats and hedgerows, and protect caves and wetlands should be
encouraged to help improve the habitat and timber value of larger forest areas.
(Chapter 9 – Environmental Resource Management)
Land Preservation
1. Agriculture: Use Rural Legacy Program and Agricultural Preservation Program to
reserve large blocks of agricultural land to sustain agriculture as a viable economic activity in the County. (Chapter 4 – Economic Development) 2. Agricultural Support Industries: Promote agricultural support industries (equipment
repairs, supplies and markets, banking, etc.) by promoting preservation of farm
acreage sufficient to sustain their viability and the promotion of land use regulations
that provide for the location of these types of industries. (Chapter 4 – Economic Development)
3. Establish a minimum target threshold of the total land area of the County to remain in
agricultural production. Continue efforts to develop permanent funding sources that
can sustain agricultural easement and development rights acquisition program.
(Chapter 8 – Environmental Resource Management) 4. Continue the Agricultural District program as an interim program to support
agricultural preservation until agricultural easements can be acquired. (Chapter 8 –
Environmental Resource Management
5. Develop setbacks, screening and buffering for residential development proposed
adjacent to agricultural preservation districts or easements that would require mitigation to protect the integrity of the agricultural property and not the proposed
residential development. (Chapter 8 – Environmental Resource Management)
2-13
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
1. Infrastructure Improvements: Target infrastructure improvements such as road
widening to areas where there is a need to facilitate the movement of farm equipment or to facilitate recreational or heritage tourism promotion. (Chapter 4 – Economic Development)
2. Continued development of an urban sidewalk system on State roads utilizing the State
Highway Administration’s statewide sidewalk program should remain a priority.
(Chapter 5 – Transportation Element) 3. Linkage between greenways and facilities for bicycle and pedestrian movement
needed to optimize the use of these resources. (Chapter 5 – Transportation Element)
4. A needs assessment should be done to see if more swimming facilities are needed in
the western and southern portions of the County. (Chapter 8 – Environmental
Resource Management) 5. Assessments should be done along local waterways to determine the possibility of
adding more boat launches along the smaller waterways for non-motorized boating.
(Chapter 8 – Environmental Resources Management)
6. Specific recommendations for recreational water facilities promoting swimming,
boating and fishing should be incorporated in future Land Preservation and Recreation Plan updates. (Chapter 8 – Environmental Resources Management)
7. Interconnectivity, accessibility, and safety should be foremost among the guiding
principles for the detailed study necessary to establish specific greenway trail
locations. (Chapter 9 – Community Facilities)
8. A variety of recreation facilities and programs should be offered to citizens in the county, regardless of sex, age, or race. Both public and private recreation service
providers should coordinate to the extent possible so as to insure efficiency of
services and to avoid duplication. (Chapter 9 – Community Facilities)
9. If an opportunity arises, consider development of a County park with historical
aspects or theme or incorporate historic resources into an existing park where available and appropriate. (Chapter 10 – Historic and Cultural Resources)
2-14
Chapter 3: Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
Section 3.1 – Goals for Parks, Recreation and Open Space
State of Maryland Goals for Parks and Recreation
As noted in the 2009 Maryland Land Preservation, Parks and Recreation Plan, the State and local jurisdictions across Maryland must work together to achieve practical and fiscally responsible parkland resources for all residents of the State. To this end, the State of Maryland has set a
minimum State recreation goal of 30 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons. The following goals
from the state plan expand on how we should achieve this standard through planning and
implementation.
Make a variety of quality recreational environments and opportunities readily accessible
to all of its citizens, and thereby contribute to their physical and mental well-being.
Recognize and strategically use parks and recreation facilities as amenities to make
communities, counties, and the state more desirable places to live, work and visit.
Use State investment in parks, recreation, and open space to complement and mutually support the broader goals and objectives of local comprehensive/master plans.
To the greatest degree feasible, ensure that recreational land and facilities for local
populations are conveniently located relative to population centers, are accessible without
reliance on the automobile, and help to protect natural open spaces and resources.
Complement infrastructure and other public investments and priorities in existing communities and areas planned for growth through investment in neighborhood and
community parks and facilities.
Continue to protect recreational open space and resource lands at a rate that equals or
exceeds the rate that land is developed at a statewide level.
County Goals
The following goals, objectives and policies were adopted by the Washington County Parks
Board as part of the development of this document. These goals, objectives and policies will
continue to guide the Board in its planning, deliberation and decision making of current and future open space and recreational needs.
Goals and Objectives for Parks, Facilities, and Recreation Programs
Goal #1: The County Park system shall consist of a balance of Neighborhood, Community and Regional parks. Objectives
Acquisition of parkland shall be guided by the following ratios: Neighborhood Parks: 2.5 acres per 1,000 persons of population;
Community Parks: 7.5 acres per 1,000 persons of population; Regional
Parks: 5.0 acres per 1,000 persons of population. These standards were
3-1
drawn from research of jurisdictions with growth and development similar
to Washington County locally, and nationwide.
The County should continue to cooperate with local jurisdictions in the
location, acquisition and development of parkland in order to avoid duplication.
Coordination with special interest groups such as historical societies,
preservation groups, non-profit organizations, etc. should be emphasized
to serve the dual purpose of resource conservation and parkland
acquisition.
Goal #2: Efficiently locate and plan recreational facilities for the convenience and benefit of the most people.
Objectives
Locate parks and recreational facilities consistent with known population
distribution, with transportation accessibility, and with anticipated future
growth reflected in the Comprehensive Plan for the County.
Whenever practical and possible, parkland and open space should be linked by a system of pedestrian/bicycle trails, greenways, and/or
waterways.
Consider the adequacy of existing parkland and recreational facilities and
their consistency with generally accepted standards.
Locate parkland by means of a site selection process which is responsive to the physical requirements of the development program.
Goal #3: Provide a safe and secure environment for the users of the County
Parkland System.
Objectives
Whenever practical and possible, walkways, trails and parking areas
should be well lit to deter illicit activity.
Whenever practical and possible, emergency call boxes should be installed in remote areas of parks to assist patrons in case of emergency.
Local law enforcement officials should be included in the development of
new parkland facilities to provide insight into potential hazards.
Playground equipment shall be installed to factory specifications with the
most technologically advanced safety mechanisms in place to prevent injury.
Equipment should be labeled with recommended age ranges that can use
the equipment.
Safety information should be displayed within the area of the playground
equipment to inform its users of proper usage.
3-2
Goal #4: Coordinate recreational programming to meet the diversified needs of County Citizens.
Program County recreational facilities to meet the needs of the general public and of organized recreation.
Promote central coordination and direction of organized recreational
programs to avoid duplication of services and encourage the common use
of all available resources.
Promote recreational opportunities for all ages, sexes, skill levels, and special groups, such as the physically and mentally handicapped.
Goal #5: Provide an efficient and economic strategy for acquisition, operation and
maintenance of recreational facilities.
Locate and develop planned facilities with a strong concern for continual
operation and maintenance costs.
Develop regulations that would seek to require parkland dedication by
developers of major residential subdivisions in the County. Alternatives
to requiring a dedicated amount of land could be tax incentives, fee reductions, or partial donations with some fee simple acquisition made by
the County.
Pursue "sharing" or "host" operation and/or maintenance agreements with
special interest groups, leagues, and other organizations.
The park/school concept shall be given high priority in order to more efficiently meet local park and recreation needs. Joint use agreements
between the Board of Education and municipal officials (where
appropriate) should continue to be established and refined to make all
County schools available for recreation use.
Policies
In addition to the goals and objectives for parks and recreation planning, the Washington
County Parks Board has also adopted specific policies that clarify and strengthen the decision
making process for usage and development of County parks. The adopted policies are as follows:
1. Whenever possible, recreational facilities should be designed to competition standards
to allow for league and tournament use.
2. County recreational facilities should be programmed for maximum use by groups and
organized leagues. Provisions must also be made for use by the general public on a
demand basis.
3. The proportion of Program Open Space funds allocated to municipalities is recommended by the County Commissioners on an annual basis. Historically,
community parks and playground funding has been distributed entirely to the towns.
3-3
However, some consideration should be given to utilizing the POS funds for larger
projects which benefit a wider spectrum of users.
4. A standardized system should be used to rank all projects in a given year on a priority basis. Municipalities and organizations requesting County assistance should submit
applications with sufficient information so as to allow the Parks Board to compare and
prioritize projects.
5. A revolving loan fund should be considered to provide low interest loans for municipal recreation projects.
6. Maximum public use should be made of recreation facilities at all public school sites.
Supervision and maintenance assistance should be provided to the Board of Education by
the Board of County Commissioners in order to implement this policy.
Section 3.2 – Programs and Procedures
This section describes the framework of programs and procedures currently implemented in
Washington County to plan, develop, acquire, and maintain park and recreation programs.
Organization and Planning Procedures
Ultimately, any regulatory or policy documents developed in the County must receive approval
from the Board of County Commissioners for Washington County (BoCC). To assist them in analyzing detailed information relating to land use planning for the County, the BoCC appoints a seven member Planning Commission in accordance with the provisions of the Land Use Article
of the Maryland Annotated Code. In addition, for planning specific to parks and recreation
facilities in the County, the BoCC appoints a seven member Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board. These members are tasked with the responsibility of evaluating existing parks and recreation programs and facilities, and recommending goals, policies, and procedures to the BoCC to implement and advance recreation opportunities for the citizens of the County. During
the development of this plan; the Advisory Board reviews comments gathered from citizens at
public information meetings, which may be the first time county representatives hear about new
uses expected by the public. In the 2012 hearings, for example, the need for dog parks and equine riding trails was raised for the first time.
The Department of Planning and Zoning is responsible for providing Staff assistance to the
Planning Commission; examples of Staff responsibilities include development, analysis and
maintenance of regulatory and guidance documents such as the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, and the LPPRP. The Comprehensive Plan provides a ‘big picture’ analysis of planning programs such as growth analysis, infrastructure planning,
environmental protection, and economic development. The LPPRP narrows the focus of
Comprehensive Planning recommendations related to parks and recreation into a long term
planning document directed specifically at planning for future recreational needs.
3-4
Section 3.3 – Parkland Needs Analysis
Parkland Acreage Standards
Parks are a special kind of open space. They enable people to experience both passive activities such as nature appreciation and picnicking or active pursuits such as softball, tennis or swimming. As described in the Comprehensive Plan, parklands in Washington County are
classified as Neighborhood, Community, County or Regional serving facilities. The basis of
these classifications is the differences in function, service area and service population as defined
in Section 1.4. The purpose of parkland acreage standards, both at the County and Statewide level, is to provide
a quantifiable and consistent way to measure the adequacy of the County and State’s park
acreage to meet the needs of the jurisdiction’s population. As stated in previous sections of this
Plan, the default State Recreation Acreage Goal in Maryland is set at 30 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons in the population. The table below illustrates the default acreage goal for Washington County both currently and projected into the future.
Census 2010 Projected 2015 Projected 2020 Projected 2025 Projected 2030
Washington County Population 147430 158365 169300 178600 187900
Population by 1,000 147.4 158.4 169.3 178.6 187.9
Acreage Goal (population per
1,000 multiplied by 30 acres)4423 4751 5079 5358 5637
Table 3.1: Default State Recreational Acreage Goals for Washington County (2010-2030)
State Standards
As provided in the Guidelines for State and Local Land Preservation, Parks, and Recreation
Planning, October 2010, “If needed, up to 15 acres per 1,000 persons of State and federal lands
present in the County, in excess of 60 acres per 1,000 persons, can be used to meet the default
recommended acreage goal.” There are approximately 22,449 acres of State owned and managed parkland areas and 10,351
acres of Federally owned and managed parkland areas in Washington County. According to
State guidelines, not all State and Federal parklands may be used in calculating the default
recommended parkland acreage goal. After eliminating all non-qualified State and federal lands there are approximately 17,913 acres of qualified parkland. This means there are approximately 121.5 acres of State and federal parkland per 1,000 people in Washington County (17,913
acres/147.43 persons per thousand population = 121.5). As stated before, the State guidelines
only allow for that portion in excess of 60 acres per 1,000 to count toward the default acreage
goal. Therefore, Washington County has approximately 61.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons. When added to the 15.32 acres of parkland the local municipalities manage, there is approximately 76 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons in the County.
While it is good that there are large amounts of parkland available at the higher levels of
government, it is important to realize the opportunities and limitations these large regional parks
3-5
have in serving the needs of our community. In Washington County, significant state lands are
committed to the state parks of Fort Frederick, and Greenbrier, and the historic Woodmont
properties. Each of these facilities has limitations on the activities allowed there. Greenbrier
State Park offers opportunities for beach swimming, camping and other day uses, with a variety of programs for exploring nature and the out of doors. Fort Frederick has more limited camping
facilities; with its primary function tied to the historic French and Indian War fort on site. It
offers access for fishing to Big Pool, and to the C & O Canal. Activities at Woodmont are
limited to various opportunities to visit this historic site. Little, if any field sports are available at
any of these locations. More land is dedicated to the Western Maryland Rail Trail, a very popular, but limited use facility that extends for over 20 miles from Fort Frederick to Pearre
along an abandoned rail road bed.
On the national level; The Antietam National Battlefield protects this hallowed ground by
limiting activities to tours of the site. The C & O Canal provides access for hiking, bicycling, horseback riding, fishing, and primitive camping. The Maryland portion of the Appalachian
Trail offers hiking and primitive camping opportunities for thousands each year, but other
activities are not available.
In general, while these assets can not be discounted, many of the activities allowed are more ‘destination’ sites, attracting participants from the entire region; and are not designed to meet the
regular, even daily, needs of county residents for recreation.
County Standards
As a subset of the default State Recreational Goal it is also required by the State that locally owned recreational lands must make up at least 15 acres of the 30 acres of parkland per 1,000
people of population goal. Locally owned recreational lands are defined as lands under public
ownership consisting of neighborhood, community, county and regional parks, educational
recreation areas (up to 60% of total area provided there is a joint use agreement with the
County), and local natural resource areas (up to 1/3 of the total acreage) including natural resource areas, historic cultural areas, and private open space.
The County standards outlined in this section have been developed and adopted by Washington
County in previous Land Preservation, Parks, and Recreation Plans. These standards are used to
assess current parkland needs and future needs based on the County’s projected population. For the purpose of this section of the Plan the parkland standards are being applied on a countywide
basis rather than by planning region. A full inventory of all known public park land in
Washington County is provided in Appendix A.
County Parkland Inventory and Needs Analysis
As shown in Table 3.2 below, the County currently provides 15.32 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons of population, which is slightly above the minimum goal of 15 acres/1,000 persons. It
appears that there is a gap in the amount of parkland provided vs. what the County goal is in the
area of neighborhood parks. Neighborhood parks serve the community by providing a common
gathering area for members of a community or neighborhood to socialize and enjoy leisure
3-6
activities with their friends and neighbors. These types of parks also provide recreational areas
for otherwise densely populated residential areas with small lot sizes.
There also appears to be a small gap, which has grown larger over time, in the area of community parks. More and more outdoor sports such as baseball, softball, football, and soccer
are gaining in popularity with increased participation in organized leagues and conferences.
Regional and community parks provide the most logical locations for sports fields; they are
typically larger and have the large open flat areas necessary for field development. While
community parks house some of these athletic fields, usually they also contain some feature with environmental, historic, or cultural significance.
Parkland Type Acreage Standard Acreage Population Ratio Acreage Needed
to Meet Standard
Acreage
Deficit/Surplus
Neighborhood
2.5 acres per 1,000
Population 263 147430 1.78 369 (106.00)
Community (including
Educational Facilities)
7.5 acres per 1,000
Population 1020 147430 6.92 1106 (86.00)
Regional
5.0 acres per 1,000
Population 975 147430 6.61 737 238.00
2010 Subtotal 2258 15.32
Parkland Type Acreage Standard Acreage Population Ratio Acreage Needed
to Meet Standard
Acreage
Deficit/Surplus
Neighborhood
2.5 acres per 1,000
Population 263 169300 1.55 423 (160.00)
Community (including
Educational Facilities)
7.5 acres per 1,000
Population 1020 169300 6.02 1270 (250.00)
Regional
5.0 acres per 1,000
Population 975 169300 5.76 846 129.00
2020 Subtotal 2258 13.34
Parkland Type Acreage Standard Acreage Population Ratio Acreage Needed
to Meet Standard
Acreage
Deficit/Surplus
Neighborhood
2.5 acres per 1,000
Population 263 187900 1.40 470 (207.00)
Community (including
Educational Facilities)
7.5 acres per 1,000
Population 1020 187900 5.43 1409 (389.00)
Regional
5.0 acres per 1,000
Population 975 187900 5.19 939 36.00
2030 Subtotal 2258 12.02
2020
2030
Table 3.2 - County Parkland Inventory and Needs Analysis
2010
1. As depicted in Table 3.2, and assuming population projects are accurate, the County will
need to acquire or convert approximately 560 acres of additional parkland over the twenty
year period of this plan to park and recreation use in order to continue to meet the default
State Recreational land goal of 15 acres per 1,000 persons. This deficit averages out to approximately 28 acres of land each year in order to maintain the minimum standard. Financial restraints affecting government agencies over the last several years will increase
the importance of the County’s use of alternative and innovative funding methods to obtain
3-7
additional recreational lands. Additionally, the type of parkland needed will predictably be
community parks with facilities for a variety of recreational uses, and neighborhood parks
serving densely populated areas.
Section 3.4 – Recreational Needs Analysis
A needs analysis is an evaluation which estimates the amount of land and facilities needed, over
and above those currently available, to meet the demand for recreational activities or categories
of use. Four components of the analysis are described and discussed below.
1. Supply is an inventory listing of the lands and facilities available to support
specific recreation activities.
2. Demand is an estimate of the demand for recreation lands and facilities. Demand information can be subjective. While measuring local demand according to
surveys can be costly, a well designed local survey can provide data to keep
planners on track to meet actual community needs. Some demand data cited is
from the Western MD region (Garrett, Allegheny, Washington, and Frederick
Counties) sampling results in the state survey “Participation in Local Park and Recreation Activities in MD” by the Center for Urban Environmental Research
and Education, University of MD, dated May, 2003. Demand is also based on
land and facility requests from elected representatives of municipalities in the
County.
3. Needs determination is based on a comparison of the demand for recreational
activities with the supply of parkland and facilities to meet the demands.
Washington County has utilized an acreage goal based approach in previous Plan
documents and will again use the default state recommended Goal in this Plan.
4. Priorities are land, facilities, and programs that meet identified needs in a way that
supports achievement of state and local goals.
Supply
As defined in the Guidelines for State and Local Land Preservation, Parks, and
Recreation Planning, October 2010, “Supply is generally the total number of occasions/uses
provided by the given recreation facility in a single year.” In choosing which recreational
activities and facilities to be evaluated, the County first included the 4 mandatory categories
(baseball/softball, field sports, basketball, and tennis) as well as a few other facilities that have been increasing in demand according to State and Local public surveys. Table 3.3 below defines the supply and capacity of recreational facilities in the County1.
1 Season length and capacity numbers were determined in consultation with the Director of Recreation, Director of Parks, and the Facilities Coordinator. Season length was estimated based on Parks and Recreation Staff experience. ‘Users’ were assumed to be the number of legal positions or players on the field or court during a game. Games per
day are an average based on weekend games and weekday evening games.
3-8
Activity Facility Types
Number of
Facilities
Season
Length
(Days)
Daily
Carrying
Capacity per
Facility
Annual
Carrying
Capacity per
Facility
Total Supply
All Activities
Field Sports
Baseball/Softball Diamonds 85 150 54 8,100 688,500
Football Field 22 90 88 7,920 174,240
Soccer Field 5 180 88 15,840 79,200
Multi-purpose Field 28 180 88 15,840 443,520
Court Sports
Basketball Indoor Courts 5 300 40 12,000 60,000
Outdoor Courts 51 270 40 10,800 550,800
Tennis Outdoor Courts 66 270 16 4,320 285,120
Volleyball Indoor/Outdoor Courts 14 140 96 13,440 188,160
Fitness Activities
Walking/Jogging 15 140 180 25,200 378,000
Family or Group Activities
Picnic Pavilions 62 240 80 19,200 1,190,400
Playgrounds 85 270 70 18,900 1,606,500
Water Sports
Swimming Pools 4 95 400 38,000 152,000
Table 3.3: Recreational Facilities Supply and Capacity
Demand Increasing populations in the coming years will mean the demand for easily accessible and well-
maintained recreation facilities will be at an all time high in Washington County. Overuse and
overcrowding of existing facilities will not only diminish the recreational experience for the
individual, but lead to the deterioration of the park itself. To determine the estimated demand on recreational facilities, the County used the State
recreational survey, 2003 Participation in Local Park and Recreational Activities in Maryland.
Results were based upon a survey of 400 randomly chosen households in the Western region
(Garrett, Allegany, Washington, and Frederick Counties) of the State. Additional information on demand was provided through the LPPRP public participation process, including personal interviews with County and town staff and recreation providers regarding the supply. Public
information sessions were held in three geographically separate areas to gather citizen input. A
summary of the facility demands is outlined in Table 3.4. Detailed calculations can be found in
Appendix B of this document.
3-9
2012 2015 2020 2025
Field Sports
Baseball Diamonds 275,918 296,383 316,848 334,253
Softball Diamonds 239,043 256,773 274,503 289,582
Field Sports Field 217,944 234,109 250,274 264,023
Court Sports
Basketball Indoor/Outdoor Courts 399,264 428,878 458,491 483,677
Tennis Outdoor Courts 241,313 259,212 277,110 292,332
Volleyball Indoor/Outdoor Courts 110,002 118,161 126,320 133,259
Fitness Activities
Walking/Jogging 8,663,671 9,306,262 9,948,854 10,495,365
Family or Group Activities
Picnic Pavilions 262,720 282,206 301,693 318,265
Playgrounds 451,932 485,452 518,972 547,480
Water Sports
Swimming Pools 696,111 747,743 799,374 843,285
Facility TypesActivity
Table 3.4: Projected Activity Demand 2012-2025
*Combination of three field sports (Baseball, Football, and Soccer) since the multi-purpose field can and are used
for the activity needed.
Activity Demand
Needs Analysis
The needs analysis is a comparison of supply vs. demand of recreational facilities within the
County to evaluate the current and future surplus and/or deficit of specific recreational uses. As
depicted in Table 3.5, the County has two (2) primary areas of deficiency: walking/jogging and
swimming pool facilities. There also appears to be a long term deficiency with regard to court
activities such as basketball, tennis, and volleyball. At least for the short term, field sports such as baseball and softball appear to be meeting current needs, but eventually facilities will be
needed to meet future population demand.
It should be noted that while there appears to be a severe deficit of public swimming pool
facilities in the County, there are several private entities (i.e. YMCA, Mt. Lena Recreation Area, private clubs, and multiple home owner associations) that provide this type of service to assist in
meeting the needs of County citizens. Also not included in these calculations but available to the
public are surface water recreational areas such as Greenbrier Lake and the Potomac River.
Similarly, the apparent shortage of walking and jogging facilities does not include all of the streets in our very walkable communities; the ARCC at Hagerstown Community College, parks
with pathways; and private organizations such as the Valley Mall and the Robinwood Medical
Center where walkers can meet their needs.
3-10
Table 3.5: Projected Needs 2012-2025
Activity
Facility
Types
Facility Surplus/(Deficit)
2012 2015 2020 2025
Baseball Diamonds 3 1 (1) (3)
Softball Diamonds 30 28 26 25
Field Sports Field 13 12 10 9
Court Sports
Basketball Courts (17) (20) (24) (28)
Tennis Courts (16) (22) (28) (33)
Volleyball Courts (9) (8) (9) (10)
Fitness Activities
Walking/Jogging (59) (64) (70) (74)
Family or Group
Activities
Picnic Pavilions 32 31 30 30
Playgrounds (50) (59) (68) (75
Water Sports
Swimming
Pools
(14) (16) (17)
To assist in evaluating more specific needs across the County, the following section, Priorities
and Recommendations, further breaks down the needs analysis into the 4 planning regions of the
County.
Priorities and Recommendations
Countywide
1. Participation Survey:
During the update of this document, it became apparent that the survey conducted by
the State (Participation in Local Park and Recreational Activities in Maryland, May 2003) contained somewhat unrealistic depictions of park use in Washington County. Public comments offered during listening sessions while developing this plan brought out the need for dog parks, and equine riding trails. The discovery of these unmet
needs, and the probability of dwindling funding, emphasizes the need to create and
conduct a survey among as broad a base of county residents as possible; rather than
limiting surveys to current users of the various facilities or a generalized survey of western Maryland Counties.
3-11
2. Joint Use of School Facilities:
Coordinating recreation and education activities at schools is an important part of the facilities plan. Utilizing the buildings and surrounding grounds as joint school-recreation
centers, provides indoor and outdoor facilities for neighborhood activities and interaction,
and allows the center to serve as a focal point for education, recreation and related
activities for the surrounding community or town. This multiple use concept is strongly
endorsed in the Comprehensive Plan for the County and is consistent with several of the State Visions discussed in the Introduction. In practice, the Washington County Board of
Education, (BOE), has joint use agreements with the Parks and Recreation Department
with regard to tennis courts and track use and maintenance, and utilizes a School Facility
Use Agreement to help coordinate use of buildings and scheduling of fields on school
property.
Cooperation between the BOE and the Parks and Recreation Department should be
continued and increased where feasible. This has proven to be a practical and cost-
effective method for helping to meet short term needs for indoor and outdoor recreation
facilities, particularly in the Town Growth Areas of the County. For example, the Hancock High School gymnasium which serves the school and the community with after
school activities, was constructed with POS, BOE and donated funds. In addition,
coordination with other departments within the county, such as Planning and Zoning, and
Public Works, among others, is essential to utilize programs like Safe Routes to School to
improve community access to these facilities.
3. Bicycling and Pedestrian Activities:
Bicycling has been demonstrated to have numerous health benefits for all ages of riders. Washington County has an excellent road network, connecting historic towns and points of interest, while passing through a scenic, pastoral landscape, which attracts recreational
bicyclists from the tri-state and nearby metropolitan areas. The C & O Canal towpath and
the Western MD Rail Trail are additional attractions making the county a well known
destination for bicycle tourists. Bicycle club organized and promoted events have increased in the recent past. Maintaining an updated bicycling map is essential in promoting the County’s scenic assets to local and regional bicyclists.
For children, learning riding skills is the first step in encouraging proper bicycle use. The
Parks and Recreation Department and the schools should consider providing appropriate classes or training to reach older children, building on programs offered by Children's Village which serve as a good first contact for bicycle safety education directed at young
children.
Expansion of routes available for safe riding not only afford riders the opportunity to benefit from the exercise of the ride, but increase usage rates at any of the recreational facilities located at the destination. State and national programs such as Transportation
Enhancements and Safe Routes to School offer education and some funding to aid local
communities. Coordination among school, health, planning, and engineering officials, as
well as community groups, all contribute to the awareness of the many benefits of
3-12
improving facilities and access to them thereby increasing opportunities for bicycling and
walking.
In a similar way, safe walking routes are available in the small towns throughout the
county, in many of the parks and recreation areas, and at school facilities. State and Federal Parks feature miles of hiking trails, including the Appalachian Trail, C & O
Canal, and network of trails along South Mountain.
4. Greenways/Rail Trails/Water Trails:
Local abandoned rail corridors have potential for conversion to accessible walking and
bicycling paths, with possible links to existing trail networks in adjacent states. A Civil
War Rail to Trail, stretching from Weverton to Roxbury, south of Hagerstown, along a
state owned abandoned rail line has opened discussions on this topic again. Proponents
cite the economic benefits and the recreational aspects of this route along with its proximity to a number of Civil War sites in the county. Opponents are concerned about
losing their privacy, land access, and the cost. The City, County and State have shown
support for this concept, however, county planning activities regarding the trail are
dormant at this time.
A new emphasis has arisen concerning the potential for water trails along the creeks and
waterways within the county. Enthusiasts are concerned specifically about access to the
Antietam and Conococheague Creeks for canoes and kayaks.
Other conceptual greenways routes identified on the Comprehensive Plan Special Programs Map should be prioritized and evaluated for easement, connectivity, dedication,
and public accessibility potential.
5. Recreation Center:
Washington County and the City of Hagerstown share a long range goal of providing a
recreation complex (to include an indoor swimming pool, gymnasium, multipurpose
rooms, and outdoor fields) located within the Urban Growth Area. This goal has to be re-evaluated by the relevant departments of both jurisdictions in view of the rehabilitation of the U.S. Army Reserve Armory that is currently underway to provide a new Senior
Center, current financial conditions, and the results of a current, local participation
survey.
Area Plans
1. Western Area Plan
The western planning area consists of the four (4) western most election districts of Hancock (ED #5), Indian Springs (ED #15), Clear Spring (ED #4) and Wilson (ED #23). Historically, this area contains about 9% of the county population. It is
3-13
projected to maintain this percentage through the planning period covered by this
document.
This area contains approximately 377 of the 2,258 acres of parkland toward the County acreage goal of 15ac/1,000 population. This is a ratio of 27.32 acres of
parkland per 1,000 persons of population for this region. According to the regional
area detailed breakdowns in Appendix C, the western region should have a sufficient
supply of land to last well into the future.
Analysis of recreational facilities also reveals a deficit in soccer fields,
walking/jogging areas, and swimming pool facilities in the western region. While
there is a deficit specifically for soccer fields, there is an excess of multi-purpose
fields that often fill the needs of soccer participants. There also appears to be a small
deficit related to swimming pool facilities, although this is somewhat mitigated by the existence of several miles of the Potomac River available for swimming and other
water related recreation activities. Finally, there is a large deficit in the area of
walking and jogging facilities. This is common all across the County and
development priorities should include construction of new fitness trails and walking
paths within existing parks in the western region and any new residential development. This shortfall is partially met by the nearby C & O Canal Towpath and
the Western Maryland Rail Trail. (Appendix D contains more specific
recommendations for park and recreational facilities.)
2. Central Area Plan
The central planning area is the largest and most populated of the four planning areas,
containing the City of Hagerstown, Town of Williamsport and Town of Funkstown.
It also contains the Urban Growth Area, a Comprehensive Plan designation
encompassing unincorporated areas around the three municipalities, that directs, through zoning and land use regulations, future growth into these areas where
infrastructure already exists or can be easily extended. The fourteen election districts
(Williamsport, ED #2; Leitersburg, ED #9; Funkstown, ED #10; Maugansville, ED
#13; Beaver Creek, ED #16; Chewsville, ED #18; Cedar Lawn, ED #24; Halfway,
ED #26, Fountainhead, ED #27, and Hagerstown, ED #3,17,21,22,& 25) within this planning area contain 99,174, or 68%, of the 2010 census population. It is anticipated
that this percentage will increase through the planning period of this document due to
the emphasis on directing development into the growth areas.
The approximately 1,514 of the 2,258 acres of parkland included in meeting the County acreage goal of 15ac/1,000 population translates to a ratio of 15.27 acres of
parkland per 1,000 persons in this planning area. As detailed in Appendix C, the
central region currently meets this minimum standard. However, it is evident that
additional parkland will need to be acquired to maintain the minimum standard in the
near future, and through the years covered by this plan. Additional land may be acquired through fee simple acquisition, developer dedication and donation, or
through adaptive reuse of existing County lands such as airport buffer zones or closed
landfill parcels.
3-14
The current deficits in football and soccer fields in the central planning area are
mitigated by the inclusion of multi-purpose fields that can used for a variety of field
sports. Long term deficits however, are anticipated to be filled by the future development of Kemps Mill Park in Williamsport and the addition of a North End
Park along MD 60 on land subject to long term lease from the Holcim Cement
Company property. Tennis court facilities are also showing long term deficits but,
similar to the football and soccer facilities, tennis courts are anticipated to be added as
part of the North End Park along MD 60.
Two other facilities are showing extreme deficits in supply; walking/jogging facilities
and swimming pools.
Deficits in walking/jogging facilities in county parks are common all across the County and it is accepted that development priorities should include construction of
new fitness trails and walking paths within existing parks in the central region.
Adaptive reuse of existing County and municipal properties are also being explored
for potential use such as developing the buffer land at the Hagerstown Regional
Airport with a fitness trail and/or walking loop.
The central planning area shortfall for walking trails is somewhat lessened by the
walkability factor inherent in our developed areas. Many neighborhoods have broad,
tree lined streets, and a variety of traffic calming devices which are perfect for the
recreational walker. Anecdotal evidence can be gathered by the casual observer in many growth area neighborhoods by noticing the number of individuals who are ‘just
out for a walk.’
Foul weather can deter all but the hardiest of outdoor walkers; the Washington
County area has a number of facilities which offer ‘walking clubs’ in space made available in their facilities. Chief among these is the Hagerstown Community
College ARCC which opens the indoor track at regular times for use. Other venues
include the Robinwood Medical Center, and the Valley Mall, who encourage walkers
to utilize their interior open spaces and corridors.
Swimming pool facility deficits are currently being addressed by private entities such
as homeowners associations and non-profit organizations with membership fees. The
City of Hagerstown, and the Town of Williamsport have community pools which
charge a modest fee; Washington County provides swimming opportunities at
Halfway Park, located in this planning area. It is anticipated that more swimming pool facilities will be added during the horizon period to meet the demand of County
citizens. County Park and Recreation long range plans include development of a
community recreational complex with an indoor pool.
Unprotected swimming areas along the Potomac River, and some of the larger streams continue to meet some of the water based activity needs of local residents and
visitors. While the concept of creating guarded swimming areas may be considered
by some to be worth discussing; water quality issues and annual flooding have made
3-15
this kind of development impractical. (Appendix D contains more specific
recommendations for park and recreational facilities.)
3-16
3. Eastern Area Plan
Two election districts (Smithsburg ED #7 and Ringgold ED #14) form the eastern
planning area. According to the 2010 census, the population for this area is approximately 9,095 people, which is about 6% of the total population. It is
anticipated that this percentage will remain the same through the horizon period of
this document.
This area contains approximately 125 of the 2,258 acres of parkland delineated as meeting the County goal of 15acres per 1,000 population. This translates to a ratio of
13.74 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons in this region. According to the regional
area breakdowns in Appendix C, the slight deficit of parkland in this region will be
compounded over the long term without the acquisition of new parkland.
Analysis of recreational facilities reveals a deficit in football and multi-purpose fields
in the eastern planning area in the long term. There also appears to be a small deficit
related to swimming pool facilities. This is somewhat mitigated by the existence of
two nearby State Parks (Greenbrier and Cunningham Falls) with lakes available for
swimming and other water related activities. Finally while there is a deficit in the area of walking and jogging facilities, there is the nearby Appalachian Trail, and a
large network of trails in the state and federal forest lands along South Mountain.
The shortfall in fitness trails and walking paths on county facilities in the eastern
region will eventually be cured through their construction within existing parks.
(Appendix D contains more specific recommendations for park and recreational facilities.)
4. Southern Area Plan
The southern planning area consists of the county’s seven (7) southern most election
districts; Sharpsburg (ED #1), Boonsboro (ED #6), Rohrersville (ED #8), Sandy
Hook (ED #11), Fairplay (ED #12), Keedysville (ED #19) and Downsville (ED #20).
Historically, this area of the County contained about 17% of the overall citizenry;
however it became a rapidly growing segment during the first decade of this century, due to its proximity to Frederick County and commuter rail services. It is projected to
continue a slightly higher growth rate through the horizon period of this document.
This area contains approximately 242 of the 2,258 acres of parkland needed to meet
the County acreage goal of 15ac/1,000 population. This translates to a ratio of 9.53 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons for this region, which represents a marked
shortfall from the 15 acre goal, and may be projected to fall further behind without
additional acquisition of parkland.
The analysis of recreational facilities reveals a deficit in football and soccer fields, tennis courts, walking/jogging facilities and swimming pool facilities. The deficit in
field sports is currently being offset with multi-purpose fields but future projections
predict a higher demand that will necessitate the development of more fields, with,
3-17
much of the deficit for the field sports and tennis courts will be made up with the
continued development of Shafer Memorial Park in Boonsboro. The deficit in
walking and jogging facilities is common all across the County and development
priorities should include construction of new fitness trails and walking paths within existing parks in the southern region. The Civil War rail/trail could also address this
deficit. The shortage of swimming facilities could be met by community pools
installed by the County, municipalities in the area, or possibly through a joint
agreement with non-profit organizations. (Appendix D contains more specific
recommendations for park and recreational facilities.)
RECOMENDATIONS
The following recommendations have been developed from the needs identified above to meet or exceeding the minimum standards:
1. Conduct a survey of all county residents to determine local needs for recreational
facilities; develop priorities based on those needs; incorporate specifics into the Capital
Improvement Plan.
2. Complete the evaluation of County owned properties for potential reuse for recreational purposes. For example, lands at the airport and closed landfills could provide areas for
recreational activities that would not deter from the principle purpose of the property.
3. Pursue acquisition of additional parkland for active and passive recreational activities:
a. adjacent to Clear Spring Park
b. in the Jefferson Boulevard area c. near Williamsport
d. near Ft. Ritchie and Smithsburg
4. Develop and implement strategies during the development review process to acquire
additional land and/or financial support for park acquisition and development. Strategies
could include land dedication, incentives for land donation, land swaps, and/or impact fees.
5. Create a study group to work with the Washington County Board of Education in the
review of BOE facilities with the express purpose of developing and promoting “school
parks”.
6. Develop and conduct a community wide marketing program to make the general population more aware of the recreational assets in the county, and the benefits of
adopting a more active lifestyle.
7. The Comprehensive Plan Special Programs Map should be prioritized and evaluated for
easement, connectivity, dedication, and public accessibility potential for linear parks and
greenways. 8. The county should support grass roots efforts to develop rail trails and water trails
throughout the county if the proposed activity falls within the needs list developed as a
result of the survey.
9. If survey results continue to support the need for a large scale community recreation
complex including an indoor pool then planning for its financing should begin.
3-18
Chapter 4: Agricultural Land Preservation
Section 4.1 – State and Local Goals
State Goals for Agricultural Land Preservation
o Permanently preserve agricultural land capable of supporting a reasonable diversity of agricultural production. o Protect natural, forestry, and historic resources and the rural character of the landscape
associated with Maryland’s farmland.
o To the greatest degree possible, concentrate preserved land in large, relatively contiguous
blocks to effectively support long term protection of resources and resource-based industries. o Limit the intrusion of development and its impacts on rural resources and resource based
industries.
o Preserve approximately 1,030,000 acres of productive agricultural land by 2020. o Ensure good return on investment by concentrating state agricultural land preservation funds in areas where the investment is reasonably well supported by both local investment and land use management programs.
o Work with local governments to:
Establish preservation areas, goals, and strategies through local comprehensive
planning processes that address and complement State goals;
In each area designated for preservation, develop a shared understanding of goals and the strategy to achieve them among rural landowners, the public-at-large, and
State and local government officials;
Protect the equity interests of rural landowners in preservation areas by ensuring
sufficient public commitment and investment in preservation through easement acquisition and incentive programs;
Use local land use management authority effectively to protect public investment in
preservation by managing development in rural preservation areas; and
Establish effective measures to support profitable agriculture, including assistance in
production, marketing, and the practice of stewardship, so that farming remains a desirable way of life for both the farmer and the public-at-large.
Local Goals for Agricultural Land Preservation
The agriculture industry plays a major role in the economy, sustainability, and overall character of Washington County. Recognizing this fact, the County has developed several goals
and objectives in the Comprehensive Plan to help support sustainability and growth of the
industry. Primarily, Comprehensive Plan Goal #2 states the County’s priority in supporting the
agriculture industry by “Promote[ing] a balanced and diversified economy, including agriculture.” The main agricultural objective to this end is to “Maintain at least 50,000 acres in the county in agricultural production by expanding current agricultural land preservation
4-1
initiatives with an emphasis on preserving farming as a way of life and promoting the
agricultural support industry.”
Listed below are excerpts of goals and objectives from the Plan (including a parenthetical
reference of the State vision they support) to demonstrate the County’s desire and commitment to promote the agricultural industry.
Chapter 8: Environmental Resource Management
Continue efforts to develop permanent funding sources that can sustain (an) agricultural easement and development rights acquisition program. (Visions 1,3,7)
Continue the Agricultural District Program as an interim program to support
agricultural preservation until agricultural easements can be acquired.(Visions
1,3,5,6)
Develop setbacks, screening and buffering for residential development proposed adjacent to agricultural preservation districts or easements that would require
mitigation to protect the integrity of the agricultural property and not the proposed
residential development. (Vision 3)
Work with the Washington County Soil Conservation District and the Agricultural
Extension Agency to enhance current regulatory requirements that address animal waste collection and disposal processes to insure balance with environmental
concerns. (Visions 5,6)
Section 4.2 – Implementation Programs
Land Preservation and Easement Acquisition Programs
The County participates in several agricultural easement purchase programs including the
Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Program (MALPP), Farm and Ranchland Protection
Program (FRPP), Maryland Environmental Trust (MET), Transportation Equity Act Funds (TEA), Rural Legacy, Installment Payment Purchases (IPPs) and most recently the Conservation
Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). The County has also discussed the possibility of a
Transferrable Development Right (TDR) program but has yet to adopt implementing regulations.
The majority of easement acquisitions come from the MALPP and Rural Legacy Programs. The MALPP is a joint easement program between the State and the County to protect
highly productive agricultural land by purchasing easements that extinguish development rights
on a property. The Rural Legacy Program works much the same way but this program broadens
the scope of easement purchase to environmentally sensitive properties. Other tools used by the
County to assist in the protection of farmland are preferential tax treatment for agriculturally assessed land, agricultural zoning and the Agricultural District Program.
The Agricultural District Program encourages landowners to voluntarily enter into an
Agricultural Land Preservation District in which it is agreed that the land will not be developed
for a period of at least ten years. In return for that restriction, the landowner receives protection from nuisance complaints and becomes eligible to sell a Development Rights Easement. The
4-2
owner may exercise the option of selling an easement to the Agricultural Land Preservation
Foundation provided that the offer to sell is recommended by the County's Advisory Board and
the County Commissioners. Locally, the Agricultural Advisory Board reviews and ranks
easement applications, assigning point value to items such as farm size, soil quality and development pressure. If purchased by the State, the easement will remain in effect in
perpetuity. Participation in the Agricultural Preservation District also provides property tax
credits.
Assistance Programs
In 2008 the County hired an Agricultural Marketing Specialist to assist in promoting the agricultural industry in Washington County. The Agricultural Marketing Office, an arm of the
Business Development Department, is responsible for developing, marketing, and managing
economic development strategies and implementing marketing programs to attract, retain,
preserve and grow agricultural enterprises and related industries in Washington County. Since its inception, the Agricultural Marketing Office has enhanced the visibility of the agriculture industry in the County by promoting farmers markets, ag expos, farm tours, agri-tourism events,
and educational and safety courses.
Another important project the County Commissioners have supported for several years is
the Agriculture Education Center. Owned and operated by the County, with financial assistance from the State, the Education Center holds events year round to promote and educate people
about the agricultural industry. Also included at the Center is the Rural Heritage Museum that
provides citizens a view of history about how people used the land to survive.
Finally, the County adopted a Right to Farm Ordinance in 2004 to help educate the general public about agricultural operations and the potential impacts of development. Efforts
include notification of all new property owners of the impacts of farming operations such as
odor, dust, spray, etc. via a notification, signed by the purchaser, at the time of settlement. The
Ordinance also provides a process by which to handle the occasional nuisance complaints that
can result from incompatible uses.
Land Use Management
Washington County land management tools are guided by the 2002 Comprehensive Plan,
the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, and Forest
Conservation Ordinance. In addition, State and Federal regulations driven by nutrient management goals to protect the water resources in the State have created additional open space
and impervious surface requirements relating to stormwater and wastewater management.
The most prominent tools used in the County are the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning
Ordinance. While the Comprehensive Plan assists in promoting long term planning goals for all aspects of development, the Zoning Ordinance is used to implement development regulations
that helps achieve those goals. Most recently, the County implemented recommendations from
the Comprehensive Plan to reduce density in the rural areas of the County. In 2005, the Board of
County Commissioners adopted new rural area zoning districts that reduced the amount of
4-3
potential development allowed outside of designated Growth Area boundaries. Four primary
zoning districts are now designated in the rural areas of the County:
Agriculture Rural Zoning:
The purpose of this District is to provide for continued farming activity and uses which do not require public water and sewerage facilities and are more suitably located outside of the
denser growth in and near the larger communities of the County. The Agriculture Rural zoning
district has been drawn to enclose large blocks of the best soils and topography for intensive
agricultural production. Most of the operating farms as well as the largest blocks of farmland
preserved through the Agricultural Preservation Program are located in this area. In 2005, the residential density allowances for the Agricultural Rural zoning district were reduced from one
(1) dwelling unit per acre to one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres of land owned.
Environmental Conservation Zoning:
The purpose of this District is to prescribe a zoning category for those areas where, because of natural geographic factors and existing land uses, it is considered feasible and
desirable to conserve open spaces, water supply sources, woodland areas, wildlife and other
natural resources. This District may include extensive steeply sloped areas, stream valleys, water
supply sources, and adjacent wooded areas. In 2005, the residential density allowances for the
Environmental Conservation zoning district were reduced from one (1) dwelling unit per acre (or three (3) acres in some areas) to one (1) dwelling unit per twenty (20) acres of land owned.
Preservation Zoning:
The purpose of this district is to prescribe a zoning category for those areas where,
because of natural geographic factors and existing land uses, it is considered feasible and desirable to conserve open spaces, water supply sources, woodland areas, wildlife and other
natural resources. This District includes the County’s designated Rural Legacy Area, federal
lands, state parks, state wildlife management areas, county parks, Edgemont Watershed, most of
the mountaintops, and the Potomac River. The density allowances for the Preservation zoning
district were reduced from one (1) dwelling unit per three (3) acres to one (1) dwelling unit per thirty (30) acres of land owned.
Rural Village Zoning:
The Rural Village district is provided to preserve the unique historic or rural character of
existing villages by encouraging compatible development within a defined village boundary. It also identifies clusters of existing development in the rural areas that may be candidates for
public facilities in the future. Permitted development in Rural Villages will be generally of a
similar density, scale, use and mixture as that which exists in the village. The zone is designed to
prevent large amounts or inappropriately scaled development or uses that would detract from the
existing rural or historic character of the village. It is expected that development will be residential and contain a limited amount of mixed rural services.
4-4
In addition to the density changes made in the 2005 rural area rezoning, building setback
increases were instituted on newly created residential parcels that abut existing active farms.
This action was anticipated to reduce the typical incompatibility issues between farms and
residential uses such as spray drift, dust, etc. The above referenced changes to rural zoning categories were intended and in fact do have a significant effect on the protection of agricultural
lands and encouragement of agricultural industry.
The Forest Conservation Ordinance and the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance are
also used to help manage the impact of growth in the rural areas of the County. The Forest Conservation Ordinance was adopted in response to the 1991 State Forest
Conservation Act which intended to slow the loss of forested lands across the State. As a result
of the implementation of the Forest Conservation Act, forest conservation easements have been
established throughout the County creating de facto open space areas and preserving the natural
resources of the County. In addition, developments that were unable to provide forest mitigation areas on site have contributed to the permanent preservation of several hundred acres of land
through forest conservation easements using payment-in-lieu-of-planting funds.
The Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance was originally adopted in 1990 to ensure that
the public facilities and services needed to support development are available concurrently with the impacts of the new development. These public facilities include roads, schools, water &
sewer service, and fire protection.
The APFO regulates development based on the availability of the infrastructure used by
the new development. In the rural areas, the most affected facilities are roads and schools. If new development is found to exceed the capabilities of the surrounding infrastructure, the
developer becomes responsible for the upgrade of the affected facilities. This can render a
project fiscally impractical or reduce the overall intensity of development. Alternatively, the
local legislative body can reject infrastructure expansion based on other factors such as the long
term financial impact on the public.
Another tool used by the County to reduce development pressure is the 10-year
agricultural district program. In exchange for the landowners’ agreement not to develop the
property for a period of ten years, the County provides a property tax break on the land and its
improvements. This program does not extinguish development rights but does provide an extension of time to allow for permanent preservation efforts to be put into place.
Section 4.3 – County Program Assessment
Preservation Strategy
It is the goal of Washington County to support a diversified system of agricultural operations that
includes but is not limited to dairy, livestock, crop, orchards, vineyards, and timber. As stated in
Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan, one of the goals is to, “promote a balanced and diversified
economy, including agriculture.” One of the specifics in obtaining this goal is to maintain at
least 50,000 acres of land in agricultural production. This acreage goal was developed in the early 1990s in coordination with the Agricultural Extension Office and the University of
4-5
Maryland based on an evaluation of critical land mass needed to support the agriculture industry.
Through 2010, Washington County has permanently preserved approximately 23,000 acres of
farmland and woodlands through various preservation programs. In addition, approximately
17,000 acres of land are in short-term preservation districts.
A key component in the success of an agricultural preservation program is the efficient spending
of funds to maximize the community benefit. Since the inception of agricultural preservation
programs in Washington County, a priority ranking system has been used to determine the
optimum use of preservation funds. This system was recently amended to incorporate the MALPF goals by including open space lands in the definition of “contiguous” and by increasing
the penalties for excluding lots for future development. To continue this practice, and in order to
remain consistent with State preservation goals, the County recently adopted amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan to establish Priority Preservation Areas (PPAs) in accordance with the
requirements of the Agricultural Stewardship Act of 2006.
Funding
The local revenue for land preservation comes from a variety of sources including general
revenue funds, agricultural transfer tax funds, recordation tax funds, and excise tax funds. The
combined land preservation effort in Washington County has resulted in 22,765 acres of land being preserved through perpetual land preservation easements at a total cost of $56.3 million.
The breakdown of funding shown in Table 4.1 for land preservation programs over the last five
years indicates that funding to the MALPF program has exceeded the local funding expenditures
for any of the other land preservation programs. However, the recently adopted Installment Payment Purchase program has gained significant support over the last few years and will provide an important alternative funding source for land preservation.
4-6
Program Acres Farms Amount
MALPF 705.73 4 $1,790,096
Rural Legacy 75.49 1 $286,066
MET
CREP
IPP 368.60 2 $1,324,907
Subtotal 1,149.82 7 $3,401,069
MALPF
Rural Legacy 155.52 1 $959,011
MET
CREP
IPP 475.16 4 $2,392,393
Subtotal 630.68 5 $3,351,404
MALPF 1,585.37 7 $7,245,461
Rural Legacy 408.70 2 $938,360
MET
CREP
IPP 269.22 3 $2,392,700
Subtotal 2,263.29 12 $10,576,521
MALPF 792.97 7 $5,019,499
Rural Legacy 163.12 2 $716,000
MET
CREP
IPP
Subtotal
MALPF 79.30 1 $399,047
Rural Legacy 142.70 1 $151,640
MET 28.97 4 $0
CREP 102.49 3 $335,338
IPP
Subtotal 353.46 9 $886,025
4,397.25 33 $18,215,018.9Grand Total
Table 4.1: Land Preservation Expenditures FY 2006-2010
2010
2006
2007
2008
2009
4-7
4-8
Assessment of Performance in Achieving Goals
Even though the development analysis projections show trends toward low growth potential in
the Rural Areas of the County, development pressures are still one of the largest challenges to overcome for land preservation programs. Prior to 2005, Washington County had two prevailing
zoning classifications labeled as Agriculture and Conservation outside of the growth areas for the
urban and town centers. The zoning in these two classifications allowed dwelling unit to acreage
densities of 1:1 and 1:3. This left the County susceptible to large amounts of sprawl
development and threatened the resources the community found most important. In 2005, the County, based on recommendations in the 2002 Comprehensive Plan for the County, adopted
zoning densities in the rural areas that reduced development potential from dwelling unit per
acreage ratios of 1:1 and 1:3, to ratios of 1:5, 1:20 and 1:30. These changes have significantly
reduced development potential on rural land an average of 60 to 70 percent and have
consequently reduced the number of dwelling units and their potential to create incompatible uses next to existing agricultural operations. These changes have also allowed more time for
local officials to explore and produce mechanisms for land preservation. Exemption lots were
also made available, subject to some provisions, in these areas for farmers who may wish to
provide lots to family members or need to sell lots to help finance the operation of the farm.
Challenges
Washington County and the State of Maryland have had varying degrees of success in funding
land preservation programs due to the fact that funding for land preservation is primarily derived
from property taxes and agricultural transfer taxes, and tends to follow the fluctuations in the overall economy. This has made funding a significant challenge in trying to obtain permanent
preservation easements. Regardless of these fluctuations, the amount of funding needed to meet
the goals of these land preservation programs continues to escalate and exceed the availability of
funding in County and State budgets. Alternative means of funding such as TDRs, IPPs, and
donated easements continue to be analyzed as options. However, the efficiency of these types of programs tends to be difficult to predict.
Real estate market factors have also had an influence on the interest of landowners in
participation in these programs. When the housing market is in decline, landowners are
generally more receptive to these programs to generate revenue for the farm. However, during a housing boom, the value of developable land usually exceeds the value of incentives to preserve
land. This will continue to be an issue in the land preservation program as the supply and
demand of the housing industry continues to fluctuate. Some landowners simply do not wish to
participate in these programs for a variety of reasons, but simply preserve the land based on their
own principles of land stewardship.
Opportunities
One way to overcome the challenges of land preservation is to help promote profitability in the
industry. Recently, the County hired an Agricultural Marketing Specialist to assist in promoting the agricultural industry in Washington County. This person acts as a lobbyist and liaison for the
agriculture community.
4-9
The Agriculture Education Center, owned and operated by the County, with financial assistance
from the State, holds events throughout the year to promote and educate people about the
agricultural industry. It includes a Rural Heritage Museum featuring exhibits depicting early
rural life in Washington County prior to 1940. A second museum building houses larger pieces of farm equipment and farm implements. It shows the progression from human powered and
horse drawn equipment to the motorized era.
The Rural Heritage Farmstead began in 1999 when a windmill was relocated to the upper portion
of the property. Since then, there have been many additions including two log homes, an
outdoor drying shed, a brick wood fired bread oven, and a pavilion to house a sawmill.
The gardens include a German Four-Square garden filled with heirloom plants including
vegetables, herbs, and flowers; a large garden for planting potatoes for the museum’s annual
Spud Fest, was recently expanded to include rye, wheat, and a berry patch.
Located on the lower grounds, adjacent to the museum buildings is the Rural Heritage Village
which continues to grow. Currently, there is a log church, a log home, and a Doctor’s Office. Future plans for the village include a cobbler and broom makers shop, a carpenters shop, and a
blacksmith shop. This exhibit will serve to educate the visitor about life in Washington County
in the decades surrounding the Civil War.
The County adopted a Right to Farm Ordinance in 2004 to preserve, protect, enhance and
encourage Agricultural Operations and the development and improvement of its Agricultural Land
for the production of food and other agricultural products. It recognizes that when non-agricultural land uses extend into agricultural areas, normal agricultural operations may become the subject of nuisance complaints and lawsuits, often due to the lack of information about such operations. As a
result, agricultural operators are sometimes forced to cease or curtail their operations, perhaps
discouraging others from making investments in agricultural improvements and resulting in negative
impacts on the economic viability of the County’s agricultural industry as a whole. It is the purpose of this Ordinance to reduce the loss to the County of its agricultural resources by clarifying and
limiting the circumstances under which Agricultural Operations may be deemed to constitute a
nuisance, trespass or other interference with the reasonable use and enjoyment of land.
It is in the public interest to promote a clearer understanding between Agricultural Operations and non-agricultural neighbors through a good neighbor policy of advising purchasers and users of property near agricultural operations of the inherent conditions as a result of living in rural areas. It is
intended that, through mandatory disclosures, such as the “Right to Farm Notice and Real Estate
Transfer Disclosure” purchasers and users will better understand the impact of living near
Agricultural Operations.
4-10
Chapter 5: Natural Resource Conservation
Section 5.1 – Goals for Natural Resource Conservation
State Goals for Natural Resource Conservation
Identify, protect, and restore lands and waterways in Maryland that support
important natural resources and ecological functions, through combined use of the
following techniques: o Public land acquisition and stewardship; o Preservation and stewardship on private lands through easements and
assistance; and
o Local land use management plans and procedures that conserve natural
resources and environmentally sensitive areas and minimize impacts to
resource lands when development occurs
Focus conservation and restoration activity on priority areas within the statewide
green infrastructure.
Develop a more comprehensive inventory of natural resource lands and
environmentally sensitive areas to assist the State and local implementation plans.
Accomplish this by synthesizing local inventories with DNR’s inventory of green infrastructure in each county.
Assess the combined ability of the State and local programs to:
o Expand and connect forests, farmlands, and other natural lands as a network
of contiguous green infrastructure. o Protect critical terrestrial and aquatic habitats, biological communities, and populations.
o Manage watersheds in ways that respect, conserve, and restore stream
corridors, riparian forest buffers, wetlands, floodplains, and aquifer recharge
areas and their associated hydrologic and water quality functions. o Support a productive forestland base and forest resource industry, emphasizing economic viability of privately owned forestland.
Establish measurable objectives for natural resource conservation and an
integrated State/local strategy to achieve them through State and local
implementation programs.
Preserve the cultural and economic value of natural resource lands.
Encourage private and public economics activities such as eco-tourism and
natural resource based outdoor recreation, to support long-term conservation
objectives.
5-1
County Goals for Natural Resource Conservation
The County Comprehensive Plan states a broad array of environmental and natural conservation goals throughout the document. The primary goal of the Comprehensive Plan related to resource conservation is listed as Goal #3 in Chapter 2 and reads, “Encourage the stewardship of the
environment and the County’s heritage”. Objectives supporting these goals are as follows:
Balance future growth with the need to preserve the historical, cultural and scenic beauty of the County for future generations.
Promote the compatibility of the built and natural environments by ensuring that
the scale and character of development are harmonious with existing conditions.
Target development away from lands with quality agricultural soils; thereby,
maximizing agricultural potential and limiting conflicts with existing agricultural operations.
Limit the amount of development in sensitive areas.
Safeguard the unique environmental character of designated special planning
areas.
Promote Rural Legacy initiatives in all rural areas of the County.
Maintain, and where feasible, expand forest conservation efforts.
Protect surface and ground water quality through storm water management, on lot
sewage disposal, and wellhead protection regulations.
Encourage recycling and resource conservation.
Section 5.2 – Implementation Programs
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan
As stated in other sections of this document, the County designated new rural area zoning classifications as part of the 2002 Comprehensive Plan update. These new zoning designations;
Agricultural Rural, Environmental Conservation, and Preservation were developed with the
specific intention of protecting rural lands from sprawl development. The intent of these
designations is described as follows:
Agricultural Rural – “The agricultural policy area has been purposely drawn to enclose
large blocks of the best soils for intensive agricultural production as well as gently rolling
topography for agriculture.”
Environmental Conservation – “This policy area is associated with locations in the County where environmental sensitivity issues are prominent enough to warrant constraints in
development. It includes steep slopes and forested areas on mountainsides as well as the steep
slopes, floodplains and forested areas along the Potomac River, Conococheague Creek, lower
Antietam Creek and Beaver Creek.”
5-2
Preservation – “This policy area will become the foundation upon which land
preservation efforts in the Rural Area will be anchored. It is proposed to include the County’s
designated Rural Legacy Areas, federal lands, state parks, state wildlife management areas, county parks, Edgemont Watershed and most of the mountaintops as well as the Potomac River.”
Comprehensive Plan Special Planning Areas
In addition to recommending land use controls for specific rural areas in the County, the Comprehensive Plan also designated Special Planning and Program Areas. These are applied as overlays to the land use policy areas to indicate the existence of a feature which warrants a
higher degree of review and protection. As shown on the Special Program Areas Map some of
the designated areas include; the Edgemont and Smithsburg Reservoir Watersheds, Appalachian
Trail Corridor, Upper Beaver Creek Basin and Beaver Creek Trout Hatchery, Antietam Battlefield Overlay, Civil War Heritage Areas, National Scenic Road designations, American Heritage River designations, rail trails, greenways, and blueways.
Easement Acquisition, Funding, Planning and Land Use Management Authority
Easements and fee simple purchases of natural resource land have been the main strategies of the State Green Print and State funded Rural Legacy programs. Washington County has designated
the southern area of the County around the Antietam Battlefield as a preservation zoning area,
and targeted it for Rural Legacy easement purchases.
The County Comprehensive Plan includes narrative and maps showing proposed special program areas and Environmental Conservation Policy areas. Policies and techniques for further detailed
identification, evaluation, and protection of these areas will be developed with the assistance of
consultants and/or natural resource agencies. The County requires identification of natural
resource features on Forest Stand Delineations and development plans as part of the subdivision process, and encourages private sector protection or mitigation measures. These may include buffers or setbacks, BMP’s, storm water detention or retention structures, or other appropriate
measures.
Watershed Management
The cooperative Forest Conservation Act Program managed by the Washington County Soil
Conservation District (SCD) provides stream buffering and protection by means of easement
purchase of existing forest or planting of new forest. Efforts are focused on the most sensitive
areas along streams, steep slopes, and those areas providing wildlife habitat or other
environmental benefits. The SCD locates willing landowners, then manages the various stages of forest conservation or tree planting and monitors the sites for 20 years after the establishment
of the forest conservation areas. It is funded using money placed in the Forest Conservation Fund
by developers.
5-3
The SCD has been the lead agency in the Beaver Creek-Antietam Creek targeted watershed
project. In 1992, Little Antietam Creek and Marsh Run sub-watersheds were selected to be in
this program which was expanded in 1996 to include the Beaver Creek watershed. A Soil
Conservation Planner was hired to complete a watershed assessment and to begin educational efforts in the targeted sub-watersheds. This was funded by an Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Nonpoint Source grant from Section 319 of the Clean Water Act and was obtained
through the MD Department of Agriculture. A conservation technician was hired to help install
best management practices (BMP) identified by the planner in Soil and Water Conservation
Programs. This program has continued in the Beaver Creek and Marsh Run sub-watersheds.
Other Regulatory and/or Management Programs
In addition to the policy documents discussed earlier in this section, Washington County
maintains several regulatory documents that codify the stated goals and policies. The primary regulatory documents are: the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, Floodplain
Management Ordinance, Forest Conservation Ordinance, and the Stormwater Management,
Grading Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance. These documents require a
comprehensive review of development and its impacts on local resources, and in some cases,
mechanisms to reduce negative impacts such as setbacks, easements, and tree planting.
Eco-tourism and Resource Based Recreation
The Washington Convention and Visitors Bureau provides information and brochures on the
wide variety of County, State and Federal parks and private natural resource/recreation areas in
the County. An update of the County Bicycle Tourism Map was completed in FY 2006. Bicycle tour routes guide the cyclist through areas of the County that are adjacent to or within view of
various scenic natural areas such as the Woodmont area, Blair’s Valley, and South Mountain.
Section 5.3 – Program Evaluation
Natural resource conservation efforts have primarily succeeded through the comprehensive planning process and subsequent changes in zoning/subdivision regulations. County planning
staff works to keep long range and resource planning issues in front of the various volunteer
commissions while continuing to review development and subdivision plans. A variety of public
agencies provide assistance to property owners who wish to voluntarily manage, conserve and restore natural resources on their property. At this time, State and Federal programs are the primary means of large scale natural resource protection in Washington County.
Cultural and economic values of a wide range of forest land, streams and rivers are well
preserved by the National Park Service and the Maryland Forest, Parks and Wildlife Services. As described in the Parks section of the Plan, nearly 40,000 acres of Federal and State owned park and forest land are protected in the County. In addition to the protection they have received,
these areas offer a valuable resource for outdoor recreation and nature and wildlife appreciation,
and contribute to the variety of tourism opportunities available in the County
5-4
Appendix A:
Inventory of Parkland in Washington County
PROGRAM OPEN SPACE
County and Municipal
Parkland Acquisition and Acreage 1998-2012
Planning Area Property Description Status Size Facilities / Improvements
Central French Lane Property
Donation
Undeveloped linear
county park site
37
acres
None
Southern County King Parcel Expansion of Boonsboro’s Shafer Park 40 Acres
FEDERAL AND STATE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
Planning Area(s) Name State or
Federal
Park Classification Acres Activities and Facilities
Southern Antietam Battlefield Federal Special 1,748 Visitors Center, Drive tour Hiking, Camping
Western
Central Southern
Chesapeake & Ohio
Canal
Federal Special 7,840 Pic, BR, Hik, CMP, Horseback Riding,
Cycling, Fishing, Dog Walking, History
Southern Harpers Ferry (MD
Heights)
Federal Regional 763 Hik, History
Southern Eastern Appalachian Trail Corridor Federal 702 Hik, CMP
Southern AT Corridor Parks:
Gathland, Washington Monument. S. Mountain
State Special 7950 Pic, Hik, CMP, Visitors Center
History
Central Albert Powell Hatchery State 75 Supports Regional freshwater fishing
activities
Southern Brownsville Pond State Community 4 Pic, Fishing
Western +Fort Frederick State Special 585 Pic, BR, Hik, CMP, Horseback Riding, Cycling, Fishing, Dog Walking, History
Western Fort Tonoloway State Special 26 Pic (closed)
Central Greenbrier State Park State Regional 1,251 Pic, BR, Hik, CMP, Fishing, Swimming
Western Indian Springs Wildlife
Management Area
State Regional 6,300 Pic, BR, Hik, Fishing, Hunting, Horseback
Riding
Southern Roxbury – Weverton Rail Trail State Regional 178 Landbank (currently under consideration for development)
Southern South Mountain
Recreation Area
State Regional 100 Hik, Camp
Western Sidling Hill Wildlife Management Area State Regional 3,000 Fishing, Hunting
Western +Western Maryland Rail
Trail
State Regional 250 Hik, Cycling, Roller Blade
Appendix-1
WASHINGTON COUNTY RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
Planning Area Name Park Classification Acres Activities and Facilities
Central Hagerstown Community College School 112 2 BAB, 6 TC, 1 FB, Gym, XC Trail
Central Martin Luther King
Center
Neighborhood 2 PE, BB, 1 TC, Pool
WASHINGTON COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION
Planning
Area
Name Park Classification Acres Activities and Facilities
Southern Agricultural Education Center County 54 PE, History, Pavs,
Central Black Rock golf Course Regional 301 Golf Course
Western Camp Harding Community 19 PE,SB,PIC,BR, BV, Fishing
Southern Chestnut Grove Community 16 PE, Bb, SB, Pic Pav, VB
Western Clear Spring Community 15 Pe, Bab, SB, BB, 2 TC, FB, Pic Pav, VB
Southern Devil’s Backbone County 9 PE, Pic, Hik, Fishing, Canoe/ Kayak
Central Doub’s Woods County 27 PE, Pic, Performing Arts Pav, VB
Central French Lane Property County 37 Undeveloped
Central Kemps Mill Park Neighborhood 12 3 SB
Central Marty Snook Park County 78 PE, Bab, 3 SB, BB, 2 TC, FB, 3 Pic Pav,
Pool, VB, Dog Park
Southern Mt. Briar Wetland County 30 Nature Study – Access to Proposed Rail Trail
Eastern Pen Mar Regional 47 PE, pic, 2 Pav, Multi-Purpose Pav, VB
Central Pinesburg Ballfields County/Regional 42 4SB
Central Piper Lane Neighborhood 1 PE, Pic
Western Wilson Bridge Special 1 Pic, BR, History, Fishing
Central Woodland Way Neighborhood 4 PE, SB, TC,Pic, Pav
WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION AREAS
60% OF Gross Site Acreage Planning
Area
Name Park Classification Acres Activities and Facilities
Central North High School 34 2 Bab, 1 BB, 2 FB, 8 TC, Track
Central South High School 47 Bab, 1 BB, 1 FB, 8 TC, Track
Central Williamsport High School 38 1 Bab, 2SB, 3 FB, TC, Track
Central Springfield MS School 38 1 SB, 1 FB
Central E. Russell Hicks MS School 37 4 SB, 3 FB, PMP
Central Western Heights MS School 15 1 SB, 1 FB, 2 TC, PMP
Central Northern MS School 10 1 SB, 1 FB, 1 BB, PMP
Central Bester Elementary School 7 PE, 1 BB, GFS, PMP
Central Emma K. Doub Elem School (SH) PE, 1 BB, GFS, PMP
Central Fountaindale Elem School 9 PE, 1 SB, 1 FB, 1 BB, PMP
Central Funkstown Elem School 9 PE, 1 FB, PMP
Central Greenbrier Elem School 5 PE, GFS, PMP
Central Hickory Elem School 8 PE, 1 SB, PMP
Central Lincolnshire Elem School 8 PE
Central Maugansville Elem School 5 PE
Central Old Forge Elem School 9 PE. 1 BB, 1 Bab
Central Pangborn Elem School 6 PE, 1 Bab, BB
Central Paramount Elem School 6 PE
Central Williamsport Elem School 30 PE, GFS
Central Potomac Heights Elem School 6 PE, GFS
Central Salem Avenue Elem School 8 PE, Bab, 1 BB
Southern Boonsboro Ed Complex School 59 PE, 2 Bab, 3 BB, 2 FB, 6 TC, Track
Southern Fountain Rock Elem School 1 PE, Bab, 2 BB
Appendix-2
Southern Sharpsburg Elem School 3 PE, PMP
Southern Pleasant Valley Elem School 7 PE, 2 BB, PMP
Eastern Smithsburg High/ MS School 41 1 Bab, 2 SB, 4 BB, 6 TC, 1 FB, Track
Eastern Smithsburg Elem School 8 PE, 1 SB
Eastern Cascade Elem School 5 PE, PMP
Western Clear Spring High School 111 1 Bab, 3 SB, 5 TC, 2 FB, Track
Western Hancock High, MS School 31 1 Bab, 1 BB, 1 FB, 2 TC
Western Outdoor Center Special 100 Cabins, Hik, Nature Study
Western Clear Spring Middle School 5 1 SB, 1 BB, 1 TC
Western Clear Spring Elem School 5 PE, SB, PMP
Western Conococheague Elem School 8 PE
Western Hancock Elem School 10 PE
MUNICIPAL RECREATION FACILITIES
HAGERSTOWN
Planning
Area
Name Park Classification Acres Activities and Facilities
Central City Park – Hager House Community 65 PE, 4 SB, 1 TC, Pic, Pa, Fine Arts Museum, Lake, Hager House, Steam
Engine, Walking
Central Elgin Neighborhood 3 PE, SB, BB
Central Fairgrounds Park Neighborhood/Regional 68 3 SB, FB, PE, BMX, Ice Rink, Walking GFS
Central Funkhouser Neighborhood 5 PE, SB
Central Georgia Ave Playground Neighborhood 5 PE
Central Hager Park Neighborhood 6 PE, SB, Pic, Pav
Central Hamilton Park
Playground
Neighborhood 2 PE, Pav
Central Hellane Neighborhood 17 PE, 3 Bab
Central Municipal Stadium Regional 12 Lighted, 6,000 seat baseball stadium
Central North End Mills Park Neighborhood 8 PE, Pic
Central Pangborn Park Neighborhood 7 PE, SB, 2 TC, Pond, Gardens, Bocce
Central Potterfield Pool Community 5 Olympic Size Pool
Central Reed Park Neighborhood 4 PE, SB, BB, Pav
Central Noland Drive Playground Neighborhood 3 PE
Central Rockwillow Playground Neighborhood 8 PE
Central Ridge Ave. Playground Neighborhood 2 PE
Central Staley Community 3 PE, SB, Pav
Central University Plaza Special <1 Landscaped plaza, sitting areas, pub events
Central Wheaton Neighborhood 3 PE, SB, TC, BB, Pav
Central Oswald Neighborhood 1.63 Dog Walking, sitting areas
Central Rotary Club Park Neighborhood .67 Landscaped, sitting areas
Central Bloom Park Special .235 Historic Marker
Central Hagerstown Greens Regional 53 9 Hole Golf Course, Disc Golf
Central Kiwanis Park (under Dev) Regional 7.6 Sitting areas, Kayak, Canoe launch
Boonsboro
Southern Shafer Memorial Park Community 54 PE, 1 Bab, Pic, 3 Pav, Exhibit Bldg. Community Fairs, Carnivals
Southern Kinsey Hghts Rec Area Neighborhood 3
FUNKSTOWN
Central Funkstown Community Park Community 35 PE, 1 Bab, Pic, 2 Pav
HANCOCK
Western Gerber Recreation Area Community 3 BB
Western Kirk Woods Community 150 2 SB, Pic, Pav
Western Widmyer Park Community 25 PE, BB, TC, Pic, 2 Pav, Pool
Appendix-3
KEEDYSVILLE
Southern Taylor Park Community 5 PE, BB, Pic, 2 Pav
Southern Slo-Pitch Field Community 3 SB
SHARPSBURG
Southern Community Park Community 6 1 Bab, Pic
Southern Community Pond Community 3 Pic, Fishing
SMITHSBURG
Eastern Community Park Community 14 PE, SB, BB, TC, Pic, 2 Pav
Eastern Veterans Park Community 30 PE, Pav, FB
WILLIAMSPORT
Central W. D. Bryon Park Community 23 PE 1 Bab, Pic, 2 Pav, Pool
Central Springfield Farm Special 4 Museum, Historic Barn
Central Riverbottom Park Community 27 Soccer, BR
Central Bill Daub Park Community 4pe,
Bab, 2 TC
COMMUNITY AND RURITAN PARKS
(Private ownership, not included in acreage calculations) Southern Rohrersville Community 9 PE, SB, TC, Pic, 2 Pav
Southern Antietam Dargan Community 3 SB, BB
Southern District 12 Ruritan Community 6 PE, SB, Pic, Pav
Southern Downsville Community Community 3 PE, SB, Pic, Pav
Eastern Ringgold Community Community 3 Pic, Pav, Center
Central Leitersburg Community Community 12 PE, Pic, Pav, Center
Central Chewsville Lions Park Community 7 PE, GFS, Pic, Pav, Center
Central Valley Little League Special 8.5 4 Bab
Central Maugansville Ruritan Community 10 2 BAB, Pic, Pav, 2 TC, PE
Central Maugansville Little
League
Special 2.6 BAB
Western Wilson Ruritan Community 11.12 2 Pav, GFS
Appendix-4
Appendix B:
Projected Recreational Facility Demand 2010-2030
Appendix-5
Appendix C: Appendix C - Acquisition, Development, and Rehabilitation Priorities Project Name Planning Area Description of Land Preservation and Recreation Recommendation Estimated Total Cost Current Acres Acres to be Acquired or Developed Estimated Short Range (2015) Cost Estimated Mid-Range (2020) Cost Estimated Long-Range (2025) Cost Acquisition Capital Development Rehabilitation Acquisition Capital Development Rehabilitation Acquisition Capital Development Rehabilitation Agricultural Education Center Southern
Build out the Rural Heritage Village, construct additional restrooms, install Ag themed Playground Structure
$300,000 54 $150,000 $150,000
Black Rock Golf Course Central 301
Camp Harding Western Resurface Tennis and Basketball Courts $40,000 19 ###### $20,000
Chestnut Grove Southern
Resurface Tennis Courts, Replace Playground Equipment
$90,000 16 ###### $70,000
Clear Spring Western
Acquire 30 acres additional park land, resurface basketball court, tennis courts, replace playground
equipment
$1,000,000 15 30 $350,000 ###### $280,000 $80,000 $280,000
Devil’s Backbone Southern Replace Playground Equipment $80,000 9 $80,000
Doub’s Woods Central
Develop Multi-purpose Fields, Replace Playground Equipment
$200,000 27 $150,000 $50,000
French Lane Property Central
Build Walking Trails connecting French Lane to Halfway Blvd Extended
$60,000 37 $60,000
Appendix-6
Kemps Mill
Park Central
Build Primitive Campsites, Boat Launch, Nature Center, Multi-purpose Fields, Restrooms
$750,000 12 60-70 $400,000 $400,000 Project Name Planning Area Description of Land Preservation and Recreation Recommendation Estimated Total Cost Current Acres Acres to be Acquired or Developed Estimated Short Range (2015) Cost Estimated Mid-Range (2020) Cost Estimated Long-Range (2025) Cost Acquisition Capital Development Rehabilitation Acquisition Capital Development Rehabilitation Acquisition Capital Development Rehabilitation Marty Snook Park Central
Replace Playground Equipment, Install Artificial Turf on Football Field
$1,000,000 78 $850,000 $150,000
Mt. Briar Wetland Southern Rebuild Walkway $20,000 30 $20,000
Pen Mar Eastern
Relocate Sand Volley Ball Court, Overlay Parking Area, Update Concession Stand and Museum
$150,000 47 $50,000 $100,000
Pinesburg Ballfields Central Level and Redo
Parking area $70,000 42 $70,000
Piper Lane Central Redo Parking Area, Add More Playground Equipment $70,000 1 $50,000 $20,000
Wilson Bridge Western 1
Woodland Way Central
Overlay Parking, Basketball Court, Tennis Courts, Replace Playground Equipment
$170,000 4 $100,000 $70,000
Acquisitions
Appendix-7
North County
Park Central design and build park $3,000,000 $3,000,000
State Goals 1. Make a variety of quality recreational environments and opportunities readily accessible to all its citizens, and thereby
contribute to their physical and mental well being.
2. Recognize and strategically use parks and recreation facilities as amenities to make communities, counties, and the State more desirable places to live, work, and visit. 3. Use State investment in parks, recreation, and open space to complement and mutually support the broader goals and
objectives of local comprehensive/master plans.
4. To the greatest degree feasible, ensure that recreational land and facilities for local populations are conveniently located
relative to population centers, are accessible without reliance on the automobile, and help to protect natural open spaces and resources.
5. Complement infrastructure and other public investments and priorities in existing communities and areas planned for growth
through investment in neighborhood and community parks and facilities.
6. Continue to protect recreational open space and resource lands at a rate that equals or exceeds the rate that land is developed at
a statewide level. Local Goals 7. Acquire and develop those resources most important to area residents in their search for fulfilling recreational activities; based
on an in-depth survey of Washington County Citizens.
8. Emphasize acquisition and/or development of park facilities that are well served by existing or planned infrastructure.
9. Emphasize development of facilities that connect to dense residential areas via safe walk and bikeways.
Appendix-8