Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutH_1972 Annual ReportWASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Washington County, Maryland cm WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 1972 ANNUAL REPORT Board of County Commissioners LEM E. KIRK, PRESIDENT JOHN E. EASTERDAY, VICE-PRESIDENT El HAROLD L. BOYER ROME F. SCHWAGEL CALVIN E. SHANK Washington County Planning and Zoning Commission DONALD R. FRUSH, CHAIRMAN RICHARD J. WALLA, VICE-CHAIRMAN ROME F. SCHWAGEL, EX -OFFICIO •JOHN C. HERBST RICHARD W. GROSS WILLIAM E. DORSEY H Legal Counsel County Legal Department JAMES F. STRINE ROBERT C. KUCZYNSKI Planning and Zoning Commission Staff LEROY R. BURTNER, COUNTY PLANNER BARRY A. TEACH, OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR MARION L. SNYDER, SECRETARY VERNA M. COLES, SECRETARY Published January, 1973 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION I Court House Annex U Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 1 n.n Introduction ............................................ IIRegional Location Map* .................................. Preface................................................. Goals for the County .................................... Commission Budget Review ................................ Washington County 701 Community Assistance Program ...... Overall Program Design ................................... Flood Plain Studies .................................... Flood Information - Hurricane Agnes ..................... County -Wide Planning Program ........................... Historical Inventory ....................•............... II Advisory Board .......................................... Tri-County Council for Western Maryland ................. Subdivision Regulations ................................. II1972 Approved Subdivisions. .............................. Highlights of County Development - 1972 ................. II1972. Development Map* ................................... Summary of 1972 Meetings ................................ The Outlook for 1973 .................................... * Regional Location Map and Washington County Base Map II Courtesy of the Potomac Edison Company. u J Li TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 2 3 5 7 8 10 11 12 .13 13 14 15 16 18 25 28 29 30 fl INTRODUCTION This is the 1972 Annual Report of the Washington County Planning II and Zoning Commission. It presents, for your information, the legal purpose and responsibilities of the Commission and discusses II the various forms of development and projects which involved the Commission during the year 1972. fl�i ( In the past year, and in future years, Washington County has and will experience development at a rapid rate. The Commission is IIconcerned about the proper use of our resources to protect, improve, I_I and conserve physical, social, and economic growth. (I Representing over 103,000 people, sound planning standards and u measures are promoted to insure future orderly growth in Wash- ington County. -1- HAGERSTOWN / Maryland � BALTIMORE Vlrglnio /w FREDERICKSBURG PO fOm h c0 CHARLOTTESVILLE �68� Is 11 250 95 33 V PENNSYLVANIA T` 'GTON COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION It sHP COURT HOUSE ANNEX, 24 SUMMIT AVENUE TELEPHONE u HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND 21740 IIIO ry /38 T DONALD R. FRUSH CHAIRMAN ll 'ROY R. BURTNER VIRGINIA RICHARD J. WALLA `COUNTY PLANNER VICE CHAIRMAN ROME F. SCHWAGEL EX•OFFICIO q¶II.I WILLIAM E. DORSEY RICHARD W. GROSS JOHN C.HERBST January 1973 Preface Id The citizen's role in environmental and planning decision - making can be readily seen by comparing the documents taken to the Public Hearing and the documents presented to the Legislative Body by the Planning and Zoning Commission during 1972. The Commission and staff, dedicated to providing sound IV and orderly growth, did not rely solely on the "experts" in bringing to fruition a proposed Zoning Ordinance and District Boundary Maps for Washington County. As further evidence of the thoroughness of the Commission's effort, a relatively small number of petitions for change in the zoning proposal 11 were submitted to the County Commissioners at years end. • We must, in the coming year, find a way to alter the attitude of disenchantment with growth in the proper places; growth that will meet the recommendations of the adopted plan, and growth that will not demand a greater share of our tax revenue in the form of strip, linear, haphazard development. It would appear II that people are not really opposed to growth, but are merely reacting to the conditions which have resulted in other juris- dictions from the manner in which land use is regulated, with the resultant chaos. Unless we directly encounter the need of corrective action to the problems of our waterways, highway systems, drainage, housing, environmental pollution, and the many other considerations of development, we can only expect more 11 outside control of local decision -making. And unless the County involves itself more in preventative rather than corrective action, we can also expect a greater tax burden on all our citi- zens. We hope that with the long-awaited zoning tool, that it l_I will be administered fairly to all and its integrity maintained, so as not to.result in a destroyed land use plan. -3- The Commission anticipates a heavy work load for 1973. With the imminent adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and staffing necessary to implement its provisions, we will at the same time begin the process of revising our existing Subdivision Regulations as needed. Being sensitive to the wants of the public, various elements of our 1972 Overall Program Design will also be programmed to consultants for professional study to include housing, highway interchanges, historic inventory, and County management framework. Additionally, the Commission is planning on updating and re- vising our three year old Comprehensive Development Plan, and, recognizing the complexity of alternative proposals which will serve the needs and be sensitive to the wants of the people, both economic and social, will strive to meet their objectives if the tools are provided and the citizenry will actively par- ticipate in meeting the demands of wisely using our limited natural resources. II ( The following pages will clearly demonstrate the need of II co- operation and communication at all levels of government and between all citizens of this region, to successfully realize Ii these objectives. Sincerely, O0ilQ Donald R. Frush, Chairman Washington County Planning and Zoning Commission Li LI -4- WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GOALS FOR THE COUNTY I 1. Maintain a dynamic planning program based on current data rr and trends and aimed at meeting future growth in an orderly manner, eliminating undesirable effects, and encouraging 19 desirable change. 2. Encourage a meaningful involvement of County citizens, Ii agencies and organizations in the planning and development Ip of the County. 3. Develop methods of plan implementation that protect the investments of all the people of Washington County, and { assure orderly growth, while providing for private initia- tive and imagination in developing the County. 4. Provide the basis for sound analysis of all factors affecting planning decisions, including a comparison of alternative lI proposals directed to the same objective. l!! 5. Use of modern methods and techniques in the planning program. I. 6. Consider deficiencies in housing, services, and other factors which contribute to blight upon the County's environment and it general welfare.of its citizens. U7. Encourage a well balanced development of the economy. U U ) -5- fl8. Consider planning in Washington County in terms of its relationship to the surrounding areas of which it is a part, including the Potomac Basin. j� 9. Determine the effect of proposed surrounding County and I� regional programs with regard to their economic effect on fJ Washington County. 10. Encourage cooperation and coordination between various levels of local government to assure improved environment, I! and eliminate duplication of services and facilities. 11. Define the social and economic problems to be considered Iin future County Planning programs. 12. Encourage the orderly development of the County in a man- ner that assures a balance in the availability and spacing of land for all uses. 13. Encourage good community design which promotes a healthy, safe environment in which to live and work. 14. Encourage compatability between the various uses of land within the County. 15. Encourage development densities in keeping with the capa- bilities of the land and capacities of existing and proposed l} public facilities. 16. Encourage development of areas presently experiencing growth Li and which are, or may be expected to be served by public. facilities in the near future, prior to the development of more rural areas. U -6- 17. Prepare and keep current a Capital Improvement Program. 18. Encourage the most effective use of public and private resources within the County. Commission Budget Review (By Fiscal Years) 1970 Budgeted Expended Balance Salaries & Fees 42,510 30,995 11,515 Operating Expenses 5,089 802 4,287 Capital Outlay - - - T)TAL 47.,599 31,797 15,802 1971 Salaries & Fees 23,380 20,846 2,534 Operating Expenses 4,085 3,885 200 Capital Outlay - 207 (-207) 7D TAL 27,465 24,938 2,527 1972 Salaries & Fees 71,410 37,036 24,374 3,453 Operating Expenses 6,155 2,702 305 Capital Outlay 1,500 1,195 7D TAL 79,065 40,933 38,132 -7- C WASHINGTON COUNTY 701 COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Authorized by Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1934, as amended, the Washington County 701 Community Planning Assistance Program contract involves the preparation and adoption of a Comprehensive Development Plan, and imple- mentation by the introduction and adoption of zoning, subdivision control, capital improvements programming, codes, and a continuing cooperation planning program. the Contract is divided into three phases. Phase I, Back- groung Planning, and Phase II, Plan Development, were completed during 1971 and highlighted by adoption by the County Commissioners of the Plan for the County, the Com- prehensive Development Plan and Policies on October 12, 1971. The legality of the Plan was immediately challenged, and on August 30, 1972, the Circuit Court for Washington County affirmed the legal adoption of the document. Phase III, Implementation, consisting of preparation of Zoning Ordinance and District Boundary Maps, was completed in 1972 with transmittal of the zoning proposal for consid- eration for adoption to the County Commissioners on Sep- tember 26, culminating several years of effort on the part of the Commission. Tie proposed Zoning Ordinance and District Boundary Maps were first released to the public on October 14, 1971, prior to a Public Hearing which was conducted on November 1, 1971. After the Hearing, the Commission solicited, com- ments on the proposal from the public, and conducted a total of thirteen public workshop sessions during December 1971, and January; 1972, for the purpose of allowing in- dividuals who had submitted recommendations to appear before the Commission and elaborate on their suggestions, recommendations and requests. From February through August, the Commission met in work- shop fifteen times for the purpose of further considering recommended changes in the proposal. During August, an additional four public meetings were held at which time decisions on final recommendations to the County Commis- sioners were made. The 240 persons who had submitted petitionswere officially informed of the Commissions action concurrently with the transmittal • of the document to the County Commissioners on September 26. In accordance with the provisions of State law, a public hearing conducted by the legislative body, was held on October 17. Prior to the hearing, the Commission noti- fied all County absentee landowners, numbering in excess of 2,000, that the hearing would be held, to assure that all those affected by the proposal were informed and would have an opportunity to appear if they so desired. The County Commissioners deliberated on the proposal regularly the remainder of the year, granting numerous hearings as well as conducting frequent workshop sessions. Action by the County Commissioners on the proposed Or- dinance and District Boundary Maps is expected in early 1973. 1J -9 OVERALL PROGRAM DESIGN (WORK PROGRAM) Engaged in a continuing planning process to facilitate orderly growth and development in Washington County, the Commission submitted its application for comprehensive planning assistance (701 series) to the Maryland Department of State Planning on June 20. By priority, activities delineated in the Overall Program Design included: 1. Update of Water and Waste Water Plan 1 J 2; Highway Interchange District Study 3. County Administration and Management Framework study 4. Housing Work Program 5. Development of Slope Development Regulations 6. Master Storm Drain Management Plan 7. Corridor Location Study On November 30, the Commission was notified by the Maryland Department of State Planning that $37,127 had been allocated to Washington County for these study elements, to be matched by a 25% local share. Contract awards for the various cate- gories within the Commission budget are expected in early 1973. -10- FLOOD PLAIN S 7UDIES 11 At its regular meeting on October 16, the Commission was presented with a Final Report relative to the flood situ- ation along Antietam Creek in Washington County. Prepared by the Baltimore District Army Corps of Engineers, at the re- �� quest of the Commission in cooperation with the Maryland Department of Water Resources, the Report has been distri- buted to all concerned public agencies and copies made avail- able to the general public. The Report will be utilized in (1 conjunction with development of a Master Storm Drain Plan II for Washington County, and to further aid the solution of local flood problems in conjunction with the flood plain II requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and proposed Zon- ing Ordinance. II In addition to Antietam Creek, the Corps is in the process of compiling similar information on Conococheague Creek, and has agreed to conduct separate studies on the Potomac River in the following order: iIC 1. Part I - Frederick County line upstream to tl above Sharpsburg. 2. Part II - Sharpsburg upstream to Fort Frederick I1 State Park. 3. Part III - Fort Frederick State Park upstream. It is expected that one of the portions of the Potomac River study will be undertaken next fiscal year, with the others scheduled dependent upon the availability of Federal funds. N LI FLOOD INFORMATION - HURRICANE AGNES (_f During the period June 21, to June 26, Hurricane Agnes created widespread flooding throughout Washington County, with heavy resultant damage to public and private property. IIRealizing the value of recorded high water marks to federal, state, and local agencies in the analysis of hydrologic systems, flood plain delineation, and the planning of flood Iicontrol marks, the Commission shortly after the flooding undertook a project for compilation of high water data,. in IIcooperation with the Washington County Engineering Department. The collection of over 200 high water marks, located on all the major County waterways and their tributaries wad completed in August. This information is available from the Commission or the County Engineer. In conjunction with the flood damage, and utilizing this high Hwater data, the Commission submitted an Overall Program Design for Long Range Flood Recovery to the Department of State Planning Llin October, in the hopes of acquiring funds to aid the County's effort to insure against unnecessary loss of life or property from future flooding. Li U. -12 (1, COUNTY -WIDE PLANNING PROGRAM Under State law, the legislative body of a municipal corporation may, by resolution directed to the leg- islative body of the County, indicate the intention to participate in a county -wide planning program. Resolu- 11 tions from four municipalities, Boonsboro, Hancock, Williamsport, and Funkstown, were accepted by the County 11 Commissioners during 1972, which,_ with Sharpsburg, 11 accepted in 1971, brings to five the number who are now participating in the program. The Commission actively en - !11 couraged.participation by the municipalities in the planning I program during 1972. 1 HISTORICAL INVENTORY 11 Realizing the abundance of history in Washington County, the II Commission in November initiated a project to compile an inventory of the County's historic sites and structures. I_I To be conducted in conjunction with the Maryland Historical Li Trust and the Washington County Historical Advisory Committee, II the County's historic elements will be indexed, to aid in the lJ County's effort to attract tourists and encourage preservation I1and restoration of our legancy in history. One of the County towns, Sharpsburg, has requested to be included, in conjunction with the County -wide planning program. Ili flADVISORY BOARD In its efforts to further involve the public in the planning process, the Commission on December 4, appointed an Advisory Board. Consisting of fifteen (15) members, representing the seven (7) planning sectors, youth, real estate, farming, law, conservation, less fortunate, and minorities, the Board will rp perform the following functions: IV - Discuss and make recommendations on planning goals and objectives. II - Survey social, economic, and physical conditions to include recreational facilities, parking, traffic and transportation, and relocation housing problems. - Recommend coordinated land use practices. II - Provide assistance in making planning information available to the public. !I� } - Review practices and functions involved in planning administration and make recommendations theron. 11 - Perform other duties as may be requested by the Planning and Zoning Commission from time to time. Serving independent of and in an advisory capacity to the Commission, the Board will serve to better provide that the public's desires, wants, and needs are known and can be taken into account in the planning process. Members appointed to the Advisory Board are: Mr. Austin Flock, Miss Patti Truax, Mr. William E. Wolford, Jr., Mrs. Jacqueline Van Winkle, Mrs. Margurite Snyder, Mr. Varner Paddack, Mr. Sydney Machat, Mrs. James A. Lucas, Mr. Leonard Lowry, Mrs. Christella Keyes, Mr. Vincent Groh, Mr. Jeff Downin, Mr. Richard L. Bowers, Mrs. 'Thelma V. Bell, Mr. James Reeder. I Li U -14- TRI-COUNTY COUNCIL FOR WESTERN MARYLAND A Local Development District under the Appalachian Regional [7 Commission, the Council's area includes Washington, Alle- gany, and Garrett Counties. 7 As a regional organization, the emergence of the Council has greatly enhanced the process of identifying area -wide problems, and accordingly the setting of regional goals and Il priorities for the allocation of resources. This process was strengthened by the granting of Area -Wide Planning Organ- ization (APO) status to the Council by the Department II of Housing and Urban Development in October, 1972. Some projects which the Council is currently undertaking which will prove of great benefit to. the region in gen- iieral and Washington County in particular include: I - Junked Vehicle Study III' - C&O Canal and Potomac River Recreational VVV Study I' - Other Recreational Studies - Historic Inventory II- Industrial Site Development Potential Evaluation II - Legislation pertaining to changes in the Annotated Code of Maryland, Article 66B. Washington County's representatives to the Council are I1 Lem E. Kirk, President of the Board of County Commissioners, Donald R. Frush, Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission, Lee Potterfield, Director of the Economic Development Com- mission, Harry Potts, Hagerstown City Councilman, Mayor Maurice Landers of Hancock, and J. Maury Werth, Messrs. Kirk, Frush and Potterfield also serve on the Executive Ir Board of the council. U ii LI -15- SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS 3.972 witnessed a dramatic increase in the number and type of subdivision activity in the County: Comparative figures for 1971 and 1972 are as follows: 1971 - Approved Category Number Parcels Acreage n Residential 52 224 380.8 Commercial 3 3 55.3 Industrial = - ITDTAL 55 227 436.1 Disapproved - 12 Acreage 372.1 1972 - Approved Il( Category II Number Parcels Acreage Residential 176 464 963.2 Commercial 28 28 154.2 Industrial 6 6 108.2 Other 43 45 411.2 TD I7L 253 543 1636.8 Disapproved - 37 Acreage - 582.5 l-� In addition to large increases in the absolute number of approvals for all types of development, the location of subdivisions was more widely dispersed geographically in 1972 than in 1971.. Dur- ing 1971, the bulk of subdivision activity was basically confined ILII to the Hagerstown Metropolitan Area. As indicated on the 1972 Development Map, subdivisions approval in the past year was granted in significant numbers in all areas.of the County. The number II of disapprovals also increased relative to various types of. ll development at widespread locations, based upon lack of compliance with the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and policies of II the adopted Plan for the County designed to protect the health, safety, and 'e are o the County's ditizens, 2 U -16- The "Other" category listed for 1972 reflects a simpli-..... fied platting platting procedure utilized by'the Commission, as well as community -type facilities approved, to include sites for churches, a school, a volunteer fire depart- ment, and a home for retarded children. This procedure, began in July, involves, submission of a simplified plat and expediting of plat approval where the intent of the subdivision is for a division of land exclusively for agricultural purposes and not for development, to solely enlarge property holdings to correct and re -adjust pro- perty lines, or to convey existing improvements exclus- ively for residential purposes and not for development. To better serve the public, the Commission in July also adopted a policy authorizing the Chairman or Vice -Chair- man to grant final approval to plats of one -lot single- family residential subdivisions, with no change from the preliminary submission, thus expediting'the platting.pro- cess for the subdivision applicant, reviewing agencies, and consultants. Regular meetings of reviewing agencies. Commission Staff, consultants, and applicants, which began in 1971 for the purpose of monitoring the status of sub- division plats, continued throughout 1972. With the ruling of the Circuit Court for Washington County on August 30, affirming the legal adoption of the Plan for the County, the Commission for the remainder of the year evaluated all subdivision applications for conformance with the provisions of the Plan, in accordance with appli- cable portions of the Subdivision Ordinance. 11 It is anticipated that amendments to the Subdivision Or- dinance will be proposed to the County Commissioners in � early 1973, primarily to provide for streamlining of ad= ministrative procedures, and to reflect the provisions of the zoning proposal as they relate to the requirements It of the Subdivision Ordinance. -17- 1972 APPROVED II } SUBDIVISIONS Lots Total Final Name & Section Pre. Final Acres Approval Marjorie T. Brown I I 5.7 1/03/72 1/03/72 Donald C. Muritz I I I 19.8 37.9 1/03/72 Gristmill Hill Tract 8 I 50.3 1/03/72 Gristmill Hill Tract 9 I I I 1.3 1/14/72 Sarah Goldie Wyand I I 4.1 1/14/72 HAnna D. Clark 1 I I 1.2 1/14/72 II Harry D. Hoffman 1 2.0 1/14/72 Elbert L. Moser Dr.& Mrs. Jack Beach ley I I I 4.5 2/07/72 I Garland Groh 1 1 .7 2/07/72 2/07/72 Harry Warrenfeltz I I I .7 2/07/72 Paul Shetrompf I .6 2/07/72 I.1 Talawanda Heights 2 •2 2 .6 1.4 2/07/72 Hager J. Hull 2 1 2.5 2/07/72 Har—Tru Corporation 1 II J. D. Earl Martin 3 3 6.0 2/07/72 Lots 1,2,3 I I 1.4 2/23/72 Marjorie T. Brown 1 1.0 2/23/72 U Clarence V. Witmer I 2 2 2.4 2/23/72 1 Eugene Hornbaker 2 14.3 2/23/72 Sharpe D. Karper 2 I 70.8 3/06/72 Valley Mall I 1 3/06/72 II Reginald Vickers I I .7 3/06/72 Daniel K. Seibert I .7 5.0 3/06/72 • David W. Litton Lot 10 I 1 2 1.4 3/20/72 Huffer Emmert Roy McCorwell Lots 7,8,9 2 3 3 2.1 3/20/72 _J John C. Herbst 1 1 .7 3/20/72 3.20/72 Robert Kelbaugh 1 1 5.8 1.4 3/20/72 I_I Halteman Farms 2 2 I 1.7 3/20/72 • Roy B. Goodhart I 2 2 1.6 3/20/72 Frank K. Brown 30 29 160.0 4/03/72 II Harvest Acres L1 Mr. & Mrs. J. W. 1 I 1.6 4/03/72 Harshman II Mr. & Mrs. Marvin 1 1 4/03/72 L Duncan .6 Southland Employees 4/03/72 II Trust I 7 1 7 7.3 ' 4/03/72 U Cave Hill Acres I 4/03/72 Francis A. Otzelberger I I .8 2.8 4/03/72 Mr. Aetna Church I II J. D. Earl Martin 2 4.0 4/03/72 Lots 4.5 2 ILJI LJ L. ) 2 fl1972 APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS (contt) no II Lots Total Final Name & Section Pre. Final Acres Approval Richard T. Harris Lot I I I 3.0 4/03/72 Richard G. Bloyer Lot5 I I .7 4/03/72 Charlton Acres II Section I 5 5 3.2 4/17/72 Marshall Wesley I 1 5.0 4/17/72 _ Mr. & Mrs. John Carbaughl I H .6 4/17/72 II Mrs. Florence Haney Lot I I I .5 4/17/72 Julietta A. Leroi I 1 2.6 4/17/72 II Walter M. Stuiler H I I 3.1 5/01/72 .Vic Ditto Tract I I 2.0 5/01/72 Ezra R. Baker I 1 1.3 5/01/72 II Richard G. Bloyer Lot6 I 1 .7 5/01/72 Robert W. Ziem Lot I I 1 1.0 5/01/72 Beaulah I. Martin 1 I 3.3 5/01/72 Green Hills Development Sec. B 4 4 2.8 5/01/72 Paradise Homes Sec. A 14 14 6.0 5/01/72 Londontowne Sec. D 16 16 14.2 5/01/72 Florence C. Haney,Lot2 I 1 .5 5/01/72 Leister Higgins I I .9 5/01/72 Welty J. Leatherman - Courtney II 1 f .7 5/01/72 Bonnard J. Morgan I I 8.7 5/01/72 Rexanna Lee Moser 1 I 1.5 5/01/72 George Mills to Draper I 1 .9 5/15/72 George Mill to Ingram I 1 .9 5/15/72 Sunset Acres, Sec. C 7 7 3.9 5/15/72 Sycamore Hts. Sec. D 23 23. 11.5 5/15/72 Il Richard T. Harris Lot2 1 I 3.0 6/05/72 Mrs. Catherine D. 2 2 1.8 6/05/72 Ruble Lots 1,2 6/05/72 Alvey R. Mowen Et Ux 2 2 4.2 Mr. & Mrs. Earl T. I 1 1.0. 6/05/72 Martin II Charles W. Resh Lots 1,2,4,5,6,7 6 6 2.8 6/05/72 Mt. Aetna Vol. Fire I 6/05/72 Department I .8 IJ Mr. & Mrs. Daniel Blickenstaff Lots 1,2 2 2 7.1 6/19/72 Raymond Divelbliss I I 1.0 6/19/72 Landers to Walls I I 1.4 6/19/72 Daniel K. Seibert Loti I I .8 6/19/72 ( f Donald W. Griffith I I 5.3 6/19/72 U Lester C. Jenkins I I 2.0 6/'19/72 U> - Calvin Shank I I .9 6/19/72 Itl 1972 APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS (con't) Lots Total Name & Section Pre. Final Acres Lloyd Semler r�Mr. & Mrs. J. Walter !, Harshman Lot 2-4 St. James Village Sec. C Robert Bowers Albert L. Keyser Lot 1-3 W. L. Sterling Oak Ridge Park Apts. S Final Approval 6/19/72 3 3 5.2 6/19/72 33 33 18.0 6/19/72 1 I 1.7 6/19/72 3 3 2.9 6/19/72 I' 1 1.5 6/19/72 Sec. 4 121 units Oak Ridge Towne 24 units The Martin Company I I Mr. & Mrs. A. W. MacDonald I I Rancena Heights Lots 1,2 2 2 R. C. Buffington I I Luther D. Davis I I Sunrise Acres Lot I-5 5 5 Mr. & Mrs. James McCartney I I Milton Yeager Parcel A I I Glenn Eby I I Gaylor Subdivision 2 2 James C. Houser I I Beatrice Grove I I Gladys Bowman I I John M. Kendle I I Old Orchard Shopping Centerl I Paul Kefauver I I Sharpe Karper I I Mr. & Mrs. Dale Beard I I Calvin Snyder I 1 John Chambers I I Edward Martz I I Daniel S. Secrest Sec. 3 4 4 H. Page Smith Lots 1-4 4 4. • David Hamby I I Gristmill Hill Tract 8A I I John Poffenberger I I Charles M. Strother • Lots 2,5,6,7 5 4 Edgar P. Carroll Lots 1,2 2 2 5.0 2.4 13.0 2.5 1.5 2.1 5.3 5.0 15.6 1.9 1.9 1.0 8.6 1.0 1.0 .4 1.6 4.9 1.6 2.4 I.0 I.0 4.3 2.7 1.0 10.0 5.8 3.4 2.6 7/03/72 7/03/72 7/03/72 7/03/72 7/03/72 7/03/72 7/03/72 7/03/72 7/03/72 7/17/72 7/17/72 7/17/72 7/17/72 7/17/72 7/17/72 7/17/72 7/17/72 7/26/72 7/26/72 7/31/72 7/31/72 7/31/72 7/31/72 7/31/72 7/31/72 7/31/72 7/31/72 8/07/72 8/07/72 8/07/72 —20- II (H 1972 APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS (con't) n , II Lots Total [l Name & Section Pre. Final Acres Final Approval Hamner Property I I .6 8/07/72 0EA ,tncoporated I I 75 8/07/72 Paul R. Corderman I I 1.0 8/07/72 -.� Mid —Atlantic Land Corp. I I .5 8/07/72 Martin Paint & Wallpaper I I 1.4 8/07/72 Lester Hamby to N. S. Jordan 1 I .7 8/09/72 Clarabelle Ripple I I 1.0 8/09/72 John T. Chambers I I 2.0 8/09/72 Seavolt Subdivision I- I 7.6 8/10/72 Mr. & Mrs. Albert Bussard I I 1.1 8/10/72 Grace E. Warren I I 2.3 8/11/72 Mr. & Mrs. Charles Shirk I I 1.5 8/21/72 Calvin Moser 1 I .9 8/21/72 Cecil Potter 2 2 1.4 8/21/72 • Ryder Truck- Lines 1 I 12.5 8/2.1/72 Howard Churchey I I .7 8/22/72 William Wolfe I I .2 8/22/72 Richard Werder 1 1 2.0 8/22/72 Ernest Deneen 1 1 .8 8/22/72 Paul Coleman I I .9 8/24/72 Milton Yeager Parcel A I I 23.2 8/25/72 Ralph McCauley I I 2.9 9/05/72 D. David Llewellyn I I 8.0 9/06/72 Ivan Martin 2 2 1.4 9/06/72 Valley Mall Associates I I 2.7 9/06/72 Webster, Barnhart I I 3.1 9/06/72 Wesmarco Enterprises I I .5. 9/06/72 George Stotler I I 2.7 9/06/72 J Howard P. Stickler Jr. 4 4 9.9 9/06/72 Meno & Maurice Martin I I 4.3 9/06/72 Beatrice Grove I I .8 9/07/72 Earl Faith I I 1.9 9/07/72 lI Guy Eichelberger I I .6 9/07/72 Daniel Seibert Lot 2 I I 1.0 9/07/72 Robert L. Younker I I .7 9/14/72 Price Meadows Sec. A 4 4 3.5 9/14/72 Rock n Spring I I 5.3 9/18/72 Winding Creek South 22 21 20.0 9/18/72 Paramount Feed & Supply I I .7 9/18/72 Rayloc of Genuine Parts I I 92,2 9/18/72 Kocolene Oil' Corporation I I .7 9/18/72 Joseph U I I 1.0 9/19/72 •Keefer Eustace Fitzgerald I I 1.0 9/19/72 1 i Li -21- 1 1972 APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS (con't) fl Lots Total Final Name & Section Pre. Final Acres Approval George Line I I 106.9 9/26/72 Arthur T. Litton 3 3 5.5 9/26/72 Austin H. Bikle I I 2.8 9/26/72 Ii Mr. & Mrs. Glenn Eby Parcel A 1 1 10.4 9/26/72 Clearview Sec. 2 12 12 8.1 9/26/72 Maurice Martin I I 2.3 9/26/72 Kirk Ford Sales 1 I 5.8 9/26/72 Mr. & Mrs. Clyde Gregg I I 1.1 9/27/72 Brumbaugh Residence I I 1.1 10/02/72 Il Emmett Abbott and Murray Dustin I 1 50.0 10/02/72 Montgomery Ward 1 I 12.1 10/02/72 Harpers Ferry Farms i- Sec. 1 6 6 8.7 10/02/72 Golden West Mobile Homes I 1 -2.5 10/02/72 County Commissioners I 1 12.5 10/02/72 Harpers Ferry Farms Sec. 2 22 22 83.0 10/16/72 Glenn Knable I I 3.1 10/16/72 III Bernhard Charles 1 1 .8 10/16/72 St. Matthew's Lutheran Church 1 I .8 10/16/72 Londontowne Sec. D-1 9 9 6.6 10/16/72 C. Wesley Frederick I I 1.1 10/16/72 Pierce Alexander 4 4 3.5 10/16/72 Harry Warrenfeltz I I 2.7 10/16/72 Ronald Keyton 2 2 2.0 10/16/72 Cumberland Valley Hatchery Sec. A 6 6 2.3 10/16/72 IJ Mr. & Mrs. John Horst I I 1.5 10/17/72 Mr. & Mrs. Roy Corwell I 1 1.0 10/17/72 Mr. & Mrs. David Kaetzel I I 1.0 10/17/72 [J Clifton Churchey I 1 1.6 10/17/72 Mrs. Mary L. Mason I I .6 10/17/72 Walter Ridenour I I .7 10/17/72 Walden Burtner I I .2 11/06/72 J Herbert D. Coss I I 3.7 11/06/72 Charles F. Tabler I I .6.6 11/06/72 IG Clifford 0. Bland I I 57.1 11/06/72 Li Manor Church of the Brethren - I I 4.7 11/06/72 J. Paul Smith 1 I .5 11/06/72 IJ Western Maryland Co. #1 1 I 2.4 11/06/72 Western Maryland Co.#2 I 1 2.3 11/06/72 ( ) Richard K. Hershey 5 5 11.5 11/06/72 William Gay' 3 3 3.6 11/06/72 LV Beatrice B. Grove' 4 4 4.0 11/06/72 Ll -22- 1972 APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS (con't) Name & Section Clifford 0. Bland Mr. & Mrs. D. Richard Martin Clyde Burton Tucker Mr. & Mrs. Francis Horchner Robert Shoemaker Charles Tabler, Mr. & Mrs. Ray!,Shenk Robert L. Morrison C. Edwin Kline C. Edwin Kline Wilbur Martz Richard Hull Alan Kipe Garland Groh Eastern Products Cumberland Valley Hatchery Sec. D. Lot 2 Spring Valley Sec. F Robert Cline Sunset Acres Sec. D. Lot I Florence Kaetzel Glenn Eby Lot I Mr. & Mrs. William Crum William L. Crum & Others Victor Barnhart Edgar & Dorothy Keener J. D. Earl Martin Lot A Antietam Heights Sec. 1 Tri-State Warehouses Richard Bloyer Lot 8 Mrs. Julia Lum Skipton Farms Luther Davis Lot 2 Roy White's Weller Farm Marlin & Eva Martin Arthur Lee Towson Jr. Harold Snively John Herbst Jesse Davidson & Wife Pentacostal Assembly of God Mrs. Elizabeth Werth Lots Pre. Final w Total Acres 5.0 3.0 .7 .3 1.2 .5 .5 .5 .9 .2 9.1 1.5 .5 22.9 .3 5.4 .7 7.5 1.4 2.6 .6 .6 I.0 .8 1.2 22.4 5.6 .7 1.6 4.7 1.3 29.5 ■!l 4.8 20.0 .5 9.1 Final Approval 11/08/72 11/08/72 11/08/72 11/08/72 11/13/72 11/17/72 11/20/72 11/20/72 11/20/72 11/20/72 11/20/72 11/20/72 11/20/72 11/20/72 11/20/72 11/20/72 11/20/72 11/20/72 11/20/72 11/22/72 11/22/72 11/22/72 11/22/72 11/22/72 11/22/72 11/22/72 12/04/72 12/04/72 12/04/72 12/04/72 12/04/72 12/04/72 12/04/72 12/05/72 12/05/72 12/05/72 I2/T8/72 12/18/72 12/18/72 12/18/72 -23- 1972 APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS (can't) Lots Total Final Name & Section Pre. Final Acres Approval Mrs. Bertha Heineman 1 1 26.0 12/18/72 Antietam Battlefield Limited Partnership 10 8 49.8 12/18/72 D. A. Bachtell 1 I 4.1 12/18/72 W. T. Cooper 2 2 1.2 12/18/72 Leather's Development 2 2 1.8 12/18/72 Elmer L. Perkins 2 2 4.6 12/18/72 James L. Rowland I I 2.6 12/18/72 Rock n Spring to Board of Education I I 10.2 12/18/72 Rock n Spring to Board of Education I I 2.5 12/18/72 Willie Lee Young I I 1.0 12/18/72 Raymond Divelbliss I l 1.0 12.18/72 Lerch to Ricky Holder I 1 I-:5 12/19/72 J. D.. Earl Martin Lot 6 I 1 1.7 12/19/72 Bonnard J. Morgan I I 10.4 12/19/72 Clinton Rutherford I I 29.1 12/19/72 Pauline Brook I I l.5 12/19/72 —24— HIGHLIGHTS OF COUNTZ DEVELOPMENT 1972 1." The Planning and Zoning Commission granted final approval to 253 subdivisions, totaling 1636.8 acres. Among these approvals were: ld A. Sec ion 4, Oak Ridge Park Apartments, located on Route 632, with a total of 124 units., B. Valley Mal , located on Halfway Boulevard, a new regional shopping center. C. Oak Ridge Towne, located on Larch Avenue, the County's first conventional townehouse development of 24 units. 2. Construction began and neared completion on Section 2 of Milestone Gardens, an apartment complex annexed by the Town of Williamsport. A total of 72 units in 6 apartment buildings will be provided. 3. Economic development during the year included: A. Construction of a new freight terminal in the Hagerstown Municipal Airport Industrial Park for Ryder Truck Line, Inc., providing employment for 100 persons. B. Construction of a manufacturing facility in the Hopewell Industries Industrial Park on , Route 65 for Golden West Mobile Homes,.Inc. this travel trailer operation will provide employment for 100 workers. C. Rayloc of Genuine Parts constructed a new facility for parts distribution in the Hancock Industrial Park. Employment of 25-50 persons projected. D Eastern Products, Inc. began construction of a warehouse facility on Martin Road, expected to employ 25 persons. -25- E. Expansion of the Certain -Teed Products Corpor- ation plant in the County industrial park . began, to employ 50-100 additional workers. The plant, which manufactures plastic pipe, began production during 1971. 4. Board of Education projects included: A. Start of construction on Clear Spring High School. B. Completion of Greenbrier Elementary School, located on San Mar Road near Mr. Lena. C. Completion of new Vo-Tech Center on West Oak Ridge Drive. D. Completion and occupancy of Kemp -Horn Voca- .tional Center, a facility for handicapped youth, located on Georgetown Road near Smithsburg. The development listed above is depicted on the 1972 Develop- ment Map. These developments were consistent with each other, consistent with the adopted comprehensive development plan, and consistent with adopted plans of all state and local jur- isdiction that have responsibility for financing or constructing public improvements necessary to implement the County Plan. 1. Commercial and Industrial Development New industry, designated A , was located in industrial parks which are eminently suitable for industrial use, divided into small tracts according to a comprehensive plan for occupancy by a group of industries, having necessary streets and utili- ties. Business and Commercial development, desig- nated ® , was located at the junction of residen- tial neighborhoods rather then within, in an area designed to serve a potential 8000-15,000 persons residing within approximately a 3/4 mile radius. 2. Subdivisions Designated 0 , subdivisions included a range of housing types from single-family to multi -family structures, with provisions for variations in the design. of these areas and their related facilities. -26- Varying desities were also permitted, dependent upon the type of development, location, and degree of public improvements available. 3. Transportation 'Designated zit, these road reconstruction projects are in line with the policy of the adopted Plan for the County, of increasing the capacity, efficiency, and safety of the present County Roads System by - utilizing the existing County Roadways. 4. Community Facilities Designated U , these facilities are all part of the current building program of the Board of Education, included in the Plan for the County. These new fac- ilities were located to best serve the existing and potential needs of students, irrespective of existing school district boundaries, incorporated area boundaries, or other political or district boundaries. -27- SUMMARY OF 1972 MEETINGS Classification Number Regular Planning and Zoning Commission 24 Special Planning and Zoning Commission 15 Public 47 Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop 27 TO TAL 113 As during 1971, the Commission conducted and/or participated in numerous meetings in 1972. Significant is the extent to which the public was involved in the planning program. The 47 meetings listed as public were held not only with the general public, but with occupa- tional groups, the County Commissioners, elected officals of the towns, and state, local and federal officials in- volved with the planning program. During the later part of 1971, 8 workshops were conducted for the purpose of considering individual requests for changes in the proposed Zoning Ordinance and District Boundary Maps, with persons who had requested changes per- sonally appearing before the Commission to present their comments. During January 1972, this process was completed, with 5 additional workshops conducted for this purpose. During August final recommendation to the County Commissioners on the Zoning proposal were made at 4 public workshop sessions. -29- THE OUTLOOK FOR 1973 The Commission is engaged in a continuing planning, process with on -going needs to facilitate planned and orderly growth and development in Washington County. Involved in many plan- ning projects last year, the Commission will be even more active in the implementation phrase of the adopted Plan for the County, hopefully including the proposed Zoning Ordinance, now before the County Commissioners for consideration for adoption. PLAN FOR THE COUNTY - WORK PROGRAM Nearly 40 additional planning studies are recommended in this document, several of which are included in the Commission's 1973 Overall Program Design (work program). The early undertaking and successful completion of the 1973 Work Program will greatly aid in the Commission's efforts to provide for the orderly growth of the County. 7J'NING ORDINANCE The expected adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance will be the single most important action to assure a logical pattern of land use in Washington County. Serious consideration must be given to the sucessful implementation and enforcement of the Ordinance, including a program of further public acquaintance with the proposal. COUNT? -WIDE PLANNING PROGRAM Participation in the program by three County municipalities not currently participating will promote a more comprehensive planning process in the County. TRI-COUNTY COUNCIL The continuing activities of the Council in identifying area -wide problems, providing technical assistance, and establishing regional goals and priorities for the allocation of resources will prove of increasing benefit to the County. -30- MAILING LIST Ptann.ing and Zoning Commission 1972 Annual Repoxt E. Kenneth Ramsbuhg Leonaxd Cuxt.in Mayox o4 Booneboxo Hag. Chap.tex NAACP 414 N. Ma -in S -t. Boonebon.o DanLel S. J. Rohxex, Jx. Wee.texn Md. Reg -tonal Vt. Paul V. Jot.ie.t Development 0 -tee. Heat.th Vepak.tm.ent Hagenetown, Maxytand James W. Stone Chamber. o4 Commexee Haxvey R. Kenshner. ' Mayor, o4 Funlze.town Winstead Buxdette SCS Maatce. D. Landers Mayon, o4 Hancock Howard Rocfzwett Hagen -town P E Z Ralph B. Taylor., Jx. Mayon o4 Keedyev-itle Edward 1. Heath Tx.t-County Council 4ox Edwin C. Palmer. Weetexn Md. Mayox.o4 Shan.pebung James Netson Stantey E. Hauvex St Plann.ing Dept. Mayon, o4 Sm.i.thsbuxg Cumberland Maun.ice D. Mitten. Vlad.i.m.Lx Wahbe, Sec. (3) Mayor o4 W.ilt.iamepox- St. Planning Dept. Bat.t.imohe M. Kenneth Hoover. State Highway Adm,in.ie.tn.a.t.ion Dennis Millen Potomac Edison Lewis J. (V-tntex, •D.ixec.ox, PSZ Bexkeley Spn.inge, W. Va. Lawhence Johnson, Planner Fxedex.Ecfz County P 9 Z Lawrence Netson, D.ixectox Allegany Co. P 6 Z Jack Bevacqua, D.ixee.tox Fxanlzt.Ln Co. P. 9 Z. • James B. Coul..tex, Sec. Depax-tmen-t o6 Na.tuxal Resouxees Waxxen Seymour W.itt.iamepox.t P 9 Z Dx. Bx.ish, Supt. Washington Co. Schools 1 � Febhuahy 9, 1973 David W. Sowehs I A copy oL own. 1972 yeasty hepoh.t is Lohwanded to you Lou. ybuh LnLohmatton and use. As you can head between the coven, a Lot oL subdividing oL Land is taking place in Washington County. I am pleased to inLohm you that Washington County has now adopted a Zoning Uhdinance and have Lohwanded it to the phintehs Loh 6inaL phinting. The County Commissioners have made it's eLLective date AphiL 2, 1973. Thank you Lox youh continued cooperation. Sincehely, Donald R. Fhush,. Chaihman • Washington County Planning and Zoning Commission TON COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TELEPHONE 110 !•238 EROY R. BURTNER COUNTY PLANNER VIRGINIA COURT HOUSE ANNEX, 24 SUMMIT AVENUE HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND 21740 Feb)Luany 9, 1973 Mx. Vtad.im.ik A. Wahbe See)Le.tan.y oU Sta-te Ptann.ing Manytand State Ptann.ing Depa)L.tmen-t 301 (Vest P)Lea.ton St)Lee.t Batt.imoxe, Manytand 21201 Deane Mx. Wahbe: Cop -Lea oU out 1972 yea)Lty tepo)Lt axe Uo)Lwa)Lded .to you acco)Ld.ing to the enabling Leg -.station. Aa you can )Lead between .the eoveha, a tot osubdividing oU (and to -taking ptace .in WaahLng-ton County. DONALD R. FRUSH ?, CHAIRMAN E9C RICHARD J. WALLA VICE CHAIRMAN ROME F. SCHWAGEL 555 E% -OFFICIO WILLIAM E. DORSEY RICHARD W. GROSS JOHN C.HERBST David W. Son/tai I am pteaaed to LnUo)Lm you that (Vaah.ington County has now adopted a Zoning Oxd.inanee and Uo)Lwa)Lded it to the painte)La 4ox U.inat p)L.intLng. The County Comm-.aa.ioneh.a have made it's eective date Apn.it 2, 1973. Thank you Uoh you& continued coope)La.tion. SLnee)Lety, Donatd R. F)Luah, Chainm.an (Uaah-ington County Ptann.ing and Zoning Commiaaion DRF: mta Enctoauxea 3 GTON COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION o COURT HOUSE ANNEX, 24 SUMMIT AVENUE 9¢ HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND 21740 TEI FPHONE u •i t i0 2 tin. DONALD R. FRUSH 238 p{S CHAIRMAN RICHARD J. WALLA :ROY R. BURTNER VIRGINIA VICE CHAIRMAN COUNTY PLANNER ROME F. SCHWAGEL EX -OFFICIO WILLIAM E. DORSEY RICHARD W. GROSS Febnuany 9, 1973 JOHN C.HERBST David (U. Sowen.h Mn.. Edwan.d I. Heath, Dcneeton TxL-County Counc-LL {ion (Ue-teen Man.ytand, Inc. Suite 510, Algonquin Mo.ton Inn Cumben.Land, ManyLand 21502 Dean Mn —t1 .th: A copy of out 1972 yeanLy nepon.t is 4onwan.ded .to you Lon, your. LnLon.ma.Lon and use. As you can n.ead between .the coven.-, a Lot of subdividing of Land is taking place in Washington County. I am plea-ed .to in! on.m you .tha-t Washington County has now adopted a Zoning Ondi.nanee and have Uonwanded it to .the pninten.- fors naL pn.tnt.tng. The County Comm,.-s-,onen- have made it'- effective date ApitLL 2, 1973. Thank you Lox yours continued coopenatLon. SLneen.ety, Donald R. Flush, Cha roman Washington County Ptann-.ng and Zoning Comm. --,%on DR F: As Enctosuse WJ JQ td„ Y, TELEPHONE qC Ae 7"•OIIO ;&• 238 4p :ROY R. BURTNER VIROINU COUNTY PLANNER TON COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION COURT HOUSE ANNEX, 24 SUMMIT AVENUE HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND 21740 Febxuaxy 9, 1973 Mx. James Netaon, Reg-tonat Ptannex State PtannLng Depax.ment Suite 510, Atgonqu.in Mo-ton Inn CumbentandL Maxytand 21502 Dean. Mx;v' e&on A copy oL oux 1972 yeaxty nepox-'t you box youx £nLonmat.ion and use. As you the eovexs, a Lot oL subdividing oL Land .in Washington County, to Lonwaxded .to can read between .is .taking ptace DONALD R. FRUSH CHAIRMAN RICHARD J. WALLA VICE CHAIRMAN ROME F. SCHWAGEL EX -OFFICIO WILLIAM E. DORSEY RICHARD W. GROSS JOHN C. HERBST David (V. Sower I am pteased ,to ,inLoxm you that (Vash.ing-ton County has now adopted a Zoning Ond.inanee and have Loxwaxded it to .the px-i.n.tens Lon L.inat px.%nting. The County Comm.iss.ionens have made it's eLLee-t.ive date Apn-%t 2, 1973. Than �a you Lox your continued coopeaatLon. S.ineexety, Donatd R. Fxush, Cha.ixman Washington County Ptann-ing and Zoning CommAss-ion DRF: mts Fnctosuxe if Road—Reconstruction oA WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND 1972 DEVELOPMENT MAP Legend II Residential (Subdivisions, Single and Multi -Family; Mobile Home Parks, Other) Q Industrial (New and Expanded) II Commercial Q Community Facilities Q Transportation (Road Reconstruction Projects) SCALE IN MILES Source: Maryland State Highway Administration OC 1965 SR.C.M.