HomeMy WebLinkAboutH_1973 Annual ReportWASHINGTON COUNTY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Washington County, Maryland
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
1973 ANNUAL REPORT
Board of County Commissioners
• LEM E. KIRK, PRESIDENT
JOHN E. EASTERDAY, VICE-PRESIDENT
HAROLD L. BOYER
ROME F. SCHWAGEL
CALVIN E. SHANK
Washington^County Planning and Zoning Conunzssion
DONALD :R. FRUSH, CHAIRMAN
WILLIAM E. DORSEY, VICE-CHAIRMAN
JOHN C. IIERBST
TI OMAS P. DUGAN
DAVID W. SOWERS, JR,
PAUL W. HOFFMF.N
CHARLES MORRIS ON
Legal Counsel.
RUSSEL J. ROBINSON
Published January, 1974
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Court House Annex
Hagerstown, Maryland .1740
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Regional Location Map .............................. 1
Preface ........................................... 2
Planning Organizational Chart ......................4
4
Goals For The County ...............................5
........................ 5
Budget Review.......... .. . . ..... 7
Washington County 701 Community Assistance Program. 8
Mass Transit Study................................10
Flood Plain Management .............................11
Public Information Newsletter ......................12
Historic Site Survey ..............................12
Washington. County Historic District Commission ....13
County -Wide Plannini Program..................... . . 14
Advisory Board....................................16
Tri-County Council............................ . .. . .17
Subdivision Regulations .............................8
1973 Approved Subdivisions........................ .21
Zoning Ordinance and District Boundary Maps .......26
1973 Zoning Map Amendments ........................28
Board of Zoning
1973 Highlights
1973 Dcvelopmen
Summary of 1973
The Outlook for
Appeals ............................29
of County Development .............30
tMap..............................32
Meetings ..........................33
1974 ..............................34
HARRISBURG
CAR
'(OR
Maryland
BALTIMORE
Virgi a
FREDERICKSBURG
TESVILLE
p°t "n
zr fl NN9YLVAUM
Jo
COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
)C`ION
P....
u COURT HOUSE ANNEX, 24 SUMMIT AVENUE
T "flour �
HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND 21740
110 .. :
;u
ra„
LAT' 230
j rc
ti
M1
Donn>_n R. ruusn
DARRY A.TCAC71
CHAIRMAN
VIRGINIA
ADMINISTRATOR
JACK S. IIAWIIAKER
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
WILLIA`d C. D
)(GAGA Y
ALAN R M1(USSP:L1fAN
7HI OAN 1'. I) (GAS
JOHN C. 11 1151
COUNTY PLANNER
DAVID N. SOWI IV9. JR.
PAUL W.11OPPMAN
Charles Morriss
January
1974
Preface
Citizen action to prevent the degradation of the County's
orderly growth is hardly new. For almost eight (8) years
citizens from Washington County and elsewhere, and in in-
creasing numbers, are taking their concerns to the County
government agencies, and County Commissioners. Public
demand has created the pressure for total review of public
spending and controls outside their normal first layer of
government. Precedents are being established if one would
read the total report and study it in its entirety.
In 1974 the Planning Commission and Staff will be taking
steps where necessary to restore the public's confidence
and to open wide opportunities for the public to partici-
pate in a meaningful way in the decision of our Commis-
sion which, if adopted by the County Commissioners, effects
every taxpayer in this County. The steps to be taken re-
present only minimum input for citizen activity, but they
are intended to be a first step as a basis for citizen in-
volvement at the local levels where the most important
implementation decisions are made.
Whether these steps will result in a process that is respon-
sive to the public's right to know and he involved will ulti-
mately depend on how well the citizens act: and use these
initial tools. Time has long past with the apathy of a
community no longer concerned with our mounting problems
that come with uncontrolled hap -hazard growth.
-2-
The task begun by the Commission must now be continued
and strengthened by informed citizens and timely action
by all Washington Countians. The job now rests with all
citizens to learn about our activities and the planning_
process and must not as in the past let the decision
making by government alone.
it's still up to you.
Sincerely,
a
Donald R. Frush, Chairman
Washington County Planning
and Zoning Commission
-3-
I
w
O
Co
O
Co
H
0
Al
z
2
Co
Z
01
01
41
O
0
N0
0
H
H
0)
H
•fl H
Co
U
)
c_)
> s;
F -I
N
N
N
0'
A
M
C N
HI
H
Co
O C7
q
Q
d
7
d
Co
H
01-)
0
' U
N N
H
H
U
Co
.0
Co
Co
ro
H
H
HO
7
Co
N a
N
w
fl
spy
re_'
._-
Asa>1
ea
Co
Ix
Co
Co
0
H
Co
Co
H
F
O
U
H
Co
v
UH
r
Co
C1
WP
'd rl
.d N N X a)
mUNCtn
N -rI >i N td
N ',>041 2
W lll to .C
1 U
1 rd C Co
>yr •H
.4"50>0)
N 1d N H E
HNrortO
Co N C U a
0) 05
i-12)
Co
Co
Co
H
0
U
C7
Co
H
Co
0
N
Q
Co
Al
Co
Co
C
as
C"5
0541
E U
H N
N O 4
41H 0
U C iJ C m m
rom(d•rIN
II b ,Q E N 0)
C N 4-t N ^:
s7 >I Q C) 4-1 O O
m cu w O Co to
Cr0W Co
4 HI -NC m rd�I
C4 O E .C r4 C)y 1
Q O O C H>
,CH)NNN
P: H Pt N q
H (E U
fu.4 gillS
-Co
n r
H
U 4
Co°1
MX
N
>� b
Al s
Nj
a
0
E
U
a
H
q
Co
H
H
a
U
Co
.4
U
ro
m
H
>i
N
N
N
Co
0
0
I
a
H
H
ClCo
Him
Co
U
051
Co
@0)
N
H
WI
N.C
F H
Q
q
Pi
C7 V)
0
N
HCo
Co
-o
C7
C
E
-u
FW
Co
H
H
Al
0) td
P: I'
Q
Co
a
Co
NO
CoV)
Pi P.'
C7
-1
a
Co
a
04
Co
-4-
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
GOALS FOR THE COUNTY
1. Maintain a dynamic planning program based on current data
and trends and aimed at meeting future growth in an orderly
manner, eliminating undesirable effects, and encouraging
desirable change.
2. Encourage a meaningful involvement of County citizens,
agencies and organizations in the planning and development
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
proposals directed to the same objective.
5. Use of modern methods and techniques in the planning program.
6. Consider deficiencies in housing, services, and other factors
which contribute to blight upon the County's environment and
general welfare of its citizens.
7. Encourage a well balanced development of the economy.
8. Consider planning in Washington County in terms of its
relationship to the surrounding areas of which it is a
part, including the Potomac Basin.
9. Determine the effect of proposed surrounding County and
regional programs with regard to their economic effect on
Washington county.
10. Encourage cooperation and coordination between various
levels of local government to assure improved environment,
and eliminate duplication of services and facilities.
1.1. Define the social and economic problems to be considered
in 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.
1";. 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
public facilities.
16. Encourage development of areas presently experiencing growth
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.
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 Year)
1971
Bucketed
}3apanded
Balance
Salaries & Fees
23,380
20,846
2,534
Operating Expenses
4,085
3,885
200
(--207)
Capital. Outlay
-
207
TOTAL
27,465
24,938
2(y7__
1972
Salaries & Fees
71,41.0
37,036
24,374
Operating Expenses
6,155
2,702
3,453
305
Capital Outlay
1,500
1,195
TOTAL
79,065
x,9338,132
1973
Salaries & Fees
111,955
48,814
12,545
6?,1.41
2,280
Operating Expenses
14,825
2,115
585
Capital Outlay
2,700
TOTAL
129,480
63,47-T
6b,006
WASHINGTON COUNTY 701 COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Authorized by Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954, as
amended, the Washington County 701 Community Planning
Assistance Program during 1973 concentrated on a continu-
ing planning program designed to facilitate orderly growth
and development in the County.
Utilizing funds allocated through the Maryland Department
of State Planning in the later part of 1.972, matched by
a 25% local share, the program during 1973 focused on the
first four priority items listed in, the previous year's
Overall Program Design, which included:
1. UPDATE OF WATER AND WASTE WATER PLAN (PHASE I)
In accordance with State requirements,
amendments to the Water and Waste Water
Plan were transmitted to the County Com-
missioners in October. The contract for
Phase II, which involves a detailed analysis
and revision of the Plan, was awarded in Dec-
ember, with completion anticipated by July
1974, and will be performed in cooperation
with the City of Hagerstown, and include
all other County municipalities. Funds for
the Phase II update will be provided by the
Washington County Health Department.
2. HIGHWAY INTERCHANGE DISTRICT STUDY
This study evaluates the eleven major inter—
changes along interstates 70 and 81, so as
to provide for the best use of the lands,
currently zoned "Highway Interchange", con-
sistent with the Plan For The County and
local municipal development objectives. The
study will provide recommendations for amendments
to the County Zoning Ordinance, including land
use, access, set back, lot size and other re-
quirements for the interchange area land use
concept. The Commission plans to hold public
hearing on these proposals in early 1974.
-8._
3. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK STUDY
This element will provide recommendations to
assure maximum participation, exchange of technical
data, and coordination among all the agencies
of State, County, and local government that relate
to planning in the County and will provide complete
documentation of the existing functional administra-
tive organization, an analysis of future organiza-
tional requirements, and recommended changes in
organization to meet these requirements.
4. HOUSING WORK PROGRAM
The Housing Work Program will provide evaluations
concerning housing needs in Washington County.
The program will produce a statement of policies
and a program of priorities geared toward the
satisfaction of housing needs of the present
population, as well as housing requirements gen-
erated by economic growth and in -migration. The
product of this work element will identify the
extentto which normal market mechanisms will
satisfy the need and to what extent public in-
volvement is necessary, and will also recommend
various techni'lues of financing housing in both
rural and urban areas.
The private ma-ket participants in the housing
area, to include homebuilders, banks, and savings
and loans associations, realtors, mobile home dealers,
nonprofit interest groups, will review and provide
comment to the Commission prior to acceptance of
a formal report.
-9-
MASS TRANSIT STUDY
In December, the Commission was notified that the County's
application for a technical study grant under the Maryland
Department of Transportation's Small Urban Area Transit Dev-
elopment Program had been approved, in the amount of 91 2/3%
of the project cost. The remaining cost will be shared
equally by the Commission and the City of Hagerstown.
To be prepared in cooperation with the City of Hagerstown
and the Washington County Transportation Commission, the
study will evaluate mass transportation needs in the County,
and will produce a policy toward the feasibility of mass transit
and its development throughout the County, including all mun-
icipalities.
A contract award for the study is expected early in 1974.
-7.0-
FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT
The Commission, in conjunction with the Maryland Department
of Water Resources, has for some time been actively seek-
ing flood plain studies, prepared by the Army Corps of Eng-
ineers, Baltimore District.
The report for Antietam Creek was presented to the Commis-
sion in 1972. In December, appropriate officials were
contacted relative to an updated status on the progress of
the other studies requested for the County's major waterways.
These include, in order of priority:
1. Conococheague Creek
Potomac River (three parts)
Licking Creek
As they are provided, the reports will be utilized in con-
junction with the development of a Master Storm Drain Plan,
Slope Density Regulations, and Total Development Regulations,
and to further aid in the prevention and solution of local
flood problems, as applied to the County's subdivision and
zoning regulations.
During the year, the Commission prepared and submitted an
application for flood insurance eligibility for the County
to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Flood
Insurance Administration. This eligibility was granted in
June, and assures County residents in flood areas of the
opportunity to purchase lower cost insurance protection for
their property Applications were also prepared by the Com-
mission for the Towns of Boonsboro, Funkstown, and Sharps -
burg, and presented to the governing bodies of those munici-
palities for necessary action.
-11_-
PUBLIC INFORMATION NEWSLETTER
In July, the Commission published its first newsletter.
Designed to better inform the public of planning issues
and activities through providing explanations and a cal-
endar of events, the newsletter is prepared on a monthly
basis, and is distributed to government offices and other
public buildings throughout the County.
HISTORIC SITES SURVEY
Realizing the wealth of historical structures in the County
and the. benefits of identifying and preserving same, the
Planning and Zoning Commission, in cooperation with the
Maryland Historical Trust, during 1973, retained a consul-
tant to conduct a complete survey of the County's historical
sites and structures.
The survey began in May, and is expected to take approxi-
mately two years to complete. It is estimated that there
are a minimum of 900 such sites and structures in the County,
not including the nine (9) towns, each of which will be photo-
graphed, evaluated, and researched, from which the level of
historical significance will be established. From this activity,
the sites will then be placed on one of three historical regis-
ters: the County inventory, The Maryland Register, or the
National Register.
The benefits to be derived from this survey are many. Owners
of historic properties will be encouraged to preserve their
holdings by private means, and the County will enhance its
historic attractions, natural beauty, and rural setting. If
a site or structure is deemed of high historical significance,
Historic Preservation Zoning can be applied, which will pro-
vide incentives for the owner and also protect the property
from encroachment. The sites and structures identified will
also provide valuable reference data, as information that will
be readily accessible for use by all in promoting and protect-
ing the County's historical assets.
-l2--
WASHINGTON COUNTY HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
As provided for by Article 66B, the County Commissioners
in April established the Washington County Historic District
Commission.
Working i.n cooperation with the Planning
ngtaand
Zoning
ninicCom-
mission in exercising the authority granted by
to designate areas of historic or architectural value, and
independently to regulate the alteration, reconstruction,
moving, or demolition of the exterior of any structure so
designated to possess this value, the purposes of the His-
toric District Commission's activities are as follows:
- to safeguard the heritage of Washington
County by preserving districts that reflect
elements of the County's cultural, social,
economic, political or architectural
history:
- to foster civic beauty:
- to strengthen the local economy:
- to promote the use and preservation of
historic districts for the education, wel-
fare, and pleasure of the residents of the
County.
Consisting of persons qualified by special interest,
knowledge, or trainning in such fields as history, arch-
itecture, preservation, or urban design the Commission's
membership includes: Eleanor Lakin (Chairman), Dr. Richard
Prather (Vice -Chairman), Wanda Allenback (Secretary -Trea-
surer), Douglas Bast, Edward Koogle, Samuel Pruett, and
Reuben Musey.
-13-
COUNTY - WIDE PLANNING PROGRAM
1973 saw unprecedented activity and cooperation on planning
matters between the County and its nine (9) municipalities.
In accordance with the requirements of Article 66B, the County
entered into agreement with the Towns of Hancock, Boonsboro,
Clear Spring, Funkstown, Williamsport, Smithsburg, Keedysville,
and Sharpsburg, for the preparation of comprehensive develop-
ment plans and supportive ordinances for each municipality.
The work is being performed by a consultant in cooperation
with the commission staff, and is funded by the County and the
Department of State Planning.
The process of development of the plans is as follows:
- A survey and analysis will be made of the town to
determine existing and future potential regarding
such items as regional location influences, pop-
ulation, economic and housing characteristics,
natural features of the land, transportation and
community facilities, characteristics of areas
immediately adjacent to the town and the remaining
vacant land in the towns.
- Alternative plans for land use, transportation and
community facilities will be prepared for evaluation
in light of the analysis described. above.
- Based on discussion with planning and elected officials
and citizens of the towns, the best alternative plans
will be selected, prepared in more detail for presenta-
tion and recommendations developed on how to implement
the plan.
- The final step will be preparation of a Zoning Ordinance
and Subdivision Ordinance for each community. Each will
reflect the basic differences in the Town's development
goals and policies.
Throughout the process, meetings will be held with town officials
and citizens to obtain comments and recommendations. Planning
Commissions, where and as established, will coordinate the pro-
ject for the town, with adoption, modification, etc. by the
Mayor and Council after public hearing. Implementation will
also be a matter to be handled by the local government.
-14-
During 1973, the Towns of Williamsport, Clear Spring,
Boonsboro were begun, with completion of all, anticipated
by mid- 1974.
Realizing the importance of coordination with Hagerstown,
the County's largest municipality, the two jurisdictions
in the later part of the year agreed to joint, study on two
important matters, the update of the Water and Waste Water
Plan, and the Mass Transit Study. The County and City
cooperated on development of the work programs for these
items,contracting arrangements, and required local funding
and staff services.
-15-
ADVISORY BOARD
in its efforts to further involve the public in the plan-
ning process, the Commission in December 1972, 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 performs the following functions:
- Discuss and make recommendations on planning
goals and objectives.
- Survey social, economic, and physical,conditions
to include recreational facilities, parking,
traffic and transportation, and relocation housing
problems.
-• Recommend coordinated land use practices.
- Provide assistance in making planning information
available to the public.
- Review practices and functions involved in plan-
ning administration and make reconunendations thereon.
- Perform other duties as may be requested by the
Planning and Zoning Commission from time to time.
In conjunction with these duties, the Commis>ion during
1973 requested recommendations -from the Board on such items
as subdivision amendments, zoning admendments, highway Class--
isfications, revision to the County Highway Plan, the High-
way Interchange Study and state land Use legislation.
Serving independent of and in an advisory capacity to the
Commission, the Board is designed to better provide that
the public's desires, wants, and needs are known and can
be taken into account in the planning process.
The Board's membership includes Mr. Vincent Groh (Chairman),
Mrs. Jacqueline Van Winkle (Secretary), Mr. Austin Flook,
Mr. William Wolford, Jr., Mrs. Marguerite Snyder, Mr. Varner
Paddack, Mrs. Jane A. Lucas, Mr. Leonard Lowry, Mr. Richard
Bowers, Mrs. Barbara. Whitcomb, Mr. John Newcomer, Jr.,
Mr. Dennis Miller, Miss Ruth Ann Ogle, Mr. Hugh Middlekauff,
Mrs. Libby Harp.
--16-
TRI-COUNTY COUNCIL FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY
A Local Development District under the Appalachian
Regional Program, the Council's area is Washington,
Allegany, and Garrett Cour,ties.
As a regional orginization, the Council provides the
following services to local governments in the region:
- Coordination of plans and projects with public
and private agencies concerned with the broad
range of development of the human and actural
resources of the region, and rendering appropriate
counsel and services to such agencies through
liasion with the proper governmental agencies;
- Administration of grant in -aid projects, parti-
cularly those related to the Appalachian program,
to include preparation of grant applications, and
assisting local governments in initiating, devel-
oping, coordinating, and administering economic
development program;
- Provide technical planning assistance to county
and local planning commissions;
provide technical assistance in relation to
flood problems through a flood Management
Coordinator.
Washington County's
Lem E. Kirk, Donald
Cole, Mayor Maurice
Paddack (Hagerstown
Chairman of the Cou
Cole and Paddack on
representatives to the Council are
R. Frush, J. Maurry Werth, David
Landers (Hancock), Mayor Varner
1, Mr. Frush also serves as Vice-
icil, and along with Messrs. Kirk,
the Council Executive Board.
-•17-
• SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
The rate of subdivision activity remained high during
the year. Comparative figures for 1972 and 1973 are
as follows:
1972 -
APPROVED
Category
Number
Lots
Acreage
Residential
176
464
963.2
Commerical
28
28
154.2
industrial
6
6
108.2
Simplified
43
45
411.2
TOTAL
1253
543
1636.8
DISAPPROVED
- 37
ACREAGE -
582.5
1973 - APPROVED
Categor Number Lots Acreage
Residential 169 581 1485.2
Commercial. 11 11 35.0
Industrial 8 8 37.5
Simplified 164 164 1365.3
TOTAL 350 764 2923.0
DISAPPROVED - 72 ACREAGE - 1,780•.3
As in the previous year, subdivision activity was widely
dispersed geographically during 1973, as indicated on
the 1973 Development Map on Page 32 . While the total
number of residential subdivision approvals showed a slight
decrease from 1972, the number of lots approved showed a
significant increase. Commerical approvals were off slightly,
due to the enactment of zoning regulations and elimination
of the non-residential portion of the Subdivision Ordinance,
which previously required platting of commercial development
irrespective of actual subdivision of land. Industrial
subdivisions indicated a moderate increase. Simplified plats,
which provide for expediting of plat approval where the in-
tent of the subdivision is not for development greatly increased
during the year. The increase in simplified plats, which was
formally amended into the S'izbdivision Ordinance during the
year, can be attributed to the fact that 1972 figures include
only the last half of that year, as compared to a full year's
-18-
total in 1973. The number of disapprovals show a sharp
increase, as the Commission continued to evaluate subdivi-
sion applications for compliance with the requirements of
the Subdivision Ordinance, which was extensively amended, the
policies of the Plan For The County, and the newly adopted
Zoning Ordinance.
Numerous amendments to the Ordinance were proposed by the
Commission, taken through the public hearing, process, and
adopted by the County Commissioners in October. The major
amendments included:
- Re -definition of subdivision to exempt from
subdivision requirements the sale or trans-
fer of a portion of a lot or parcel of land
to the state and/or federal government or
any agency thereof, as well as exemption of
the transfer of a portion of one's holdings
where the portion to be transferred has been
physically separated from all other portions
of the land by a public highway or other pub-
licly owned land;
Integration of the simplified platting pro-
cess, to include a detailed explanation of
the procedure and its requirements;
- Reduction of the. number of road classifica-
tions, and addition of accompanying design
and right -of --way requirements. Classifica-
tions for speci.-ic roadways will be taken
to public hearing by the Commission early
in 1974.
- Limitations on access points to certain
classes of roadways, to be applied in con-
junction with the classification system;
- Elimination of private roads to serve sub-
division lots. The only exception to this
ban will allow up to two (2) lots on a private
right-of-way which is existing and which leads
to the principal residence and buildings of
an area of land used for agricultural purposes;
A requirement for the developer to provide in
every subdi.vision,st.rom drains, culverts, or
other drainage works adequate to collect and
dispose of all water originating on or flowing
across the property without inundating or damaging
neighboring roads, lots, or other properties.
-•19-
Elimination of sections more properly covered by
the Zoning Ordinance, including new subdivision
techniques (Article V), portions of Article VI
relative to Health and other requirements, and the
requirement for platting of non-residential devel-
opment, except where an actual subdivision of land
occurs.
To better serve the public the Commission during the year
adopted a policy change designed to expedite and stream-
line the subdivision process for simplified plats, and one
and two -lot single-family residential plats, which account
for the majority of subdivision applications. With this
policy, the staff may recommend that the Chairman sign.
the
plat (in accordance with the provisions of Article 66B),
and simultaneously grant preliminary and final approval, pro-
vided that, and as soon as, all subdivision requirements
are met. The policy also applies to granting of final approval
to plats which are granted preliminary approval by the Com-
mission, irrespective of number of lots, which are prepared
in final form, which meet all subdivision requirements, and
which require no additional information. This eliminates the
practice of placing these plats on an agenda for action by
full membership of the Commission, and saves the subdivision
applicant time and cost as two separate plat submissions are
no longer needed.
Regular hi -monthly meetings of reviewing agencies, Commission
staff, and consultants, and applicants, for tine purpose of
monitoring the status of subdivision plats, continued through-
out 1973, and the preliminary consultation, tc allow review
and comment prior to formal plat submission, was utilized
more extensively than in any previous year.
•-20-
1973 APPROVED
SUBDIVISIONS
Name & Section
Lots Total Final
Pro. Final
Acres Approval
I
.5
I/O3/73
Agnita Schreiber
I
5 5
4.7
1/03/73
Sklpton Farms
20 21
20.3
1/03/73
Garden Spot - Sec. B
1/03/73
Harry L. Warrenfeltz Lot A
1 1
.7
2.5
1/03/73
Alice May Larimore
55 55
16.5
1/03/73
Woodmoor, Sec. C
1/04/73
Ralph E. Fleming, Jr.
I I
i
.7
I.O
1/04/73
Dorine I. Carty,
I
I
1.1
1/04/73
Richard K. Hershey
I
I
.7
1/04/73
Bonnie B. Eckard
I
I
10.5
1/04/73
J
Bonnard J. Morgan
5
6.0
1/15/73
Sun Rise Acres, Sec. B
6
I I
.5
1115/73
Fonzie Unger
I
.6
1/16/73
Beulah I. Everly
I
I
1.0
1/16/73
William L. Scheeley
I
1.1
1/16/73
Everett J. Norris
1 I.
I
4.3
1/16/73
Gregory L. Moser
I
I
.5
1/16/73
Emily R. Pryor
1 1
I
.6
1/29/73
Everett L. Smith •
3
g.
1/29/73
Walter Stuller, Lots 2,3,4
3
1.7
1/29/73
Charles Tabler, Lots 1,2
2 2
I
2.1
1/30173
Isaac Norris
1
I
8
2/05/73
Harry Warrenfeltz
I
I
1.0
2/06/73
Huyett Heights
1
I
0
2/19/73
Bowman Trucking
1 1 0 1 0
42.7
2/19/73
Fairview Acres, Sec. C
1 1 .7 2/19/73
Homer Smith, Lot 2
2
.5
2/19/73
Pawl Keller
2
I
.4
5
2/20/73
Ronald Martin
1
1
3.5
2/20/73
Garden Equipment
'{A
1
30B Units s
2 3
35;.0
p
36%j
Londontowne, Sec.
Norman James Frazier
1
2 0
3/06/73
William Perkins
1
1 1 5.2 3/06/73
Eugene Hornbaker
I
15.3
3/06173
Pearl Charlton & Mildred Toms
1
0 9
3/06/73
Pearl V. Hull
1
,8
3/19/73
Homer Smith, Lot 2
1
4 4
10.2
3/19.73
Ronald Keyton, Lot 3-6
2
2 1
3/19/73
Glenn Eby, Lots B,C
2
2
.8
3/19/73
Howard Hebb
2
i
1,0
3/19/73
High's Dairy Store
I
25
10.7_
3/19/73
Paradise Homes, Sec. D
25
5 25
25
85.2
3/19/73
Antietam Heights Sec. 2
•I
.2
3/19/73
Julia Garrott
-21-
1973 APPROVED
SUBDIVISIONS
Lots
Total
Final
Pro. Final
Acres
Approval
Name & Section
I I
1.0
3/19/73
Dorsey Brothers
I I
116
3/20/73
Melvin Liller
I
1.0
3/20/73
Daniel Seibert
I
I
2.0
3/20/73
H. Page Smith
I
I I
3.0
3/20/73
Madge Carter
1
3.9
3/20/73
Daniel S. Martin
I
1 I
2.4
3/20/73
John Blair
I
1.3
4/02/73
W. Paul Henry
1
I
1.9
4/07_/73
Serv-U1 Vending
1
16 15
46.5
4/02/73
Trengail Manor
1
3.0
4/02/73
J•ulietta Leroi
1
4 4
1 1.1
4/02/73
Belvin Mann
4 4
27.9
4/02/73
Gristmill Hill, Sec. B
3 3
4.7
4/02/73
Paul J. Biser, Lots 1-3
I
3.2
4/16/73
Margaret Jane Hanes
1
I 1
1.0
4/17/73
Helen Albright
I
1.0
4/17/73
Eugene Albert
I
I
3.4
4/17/73
Russel Divel
1
I
3.0
4/17/73
Donald Misal
I
I I
1.0
4/17/73
Edna Grove
I 1
1.2
4/17/73
Paul Shade
I I
.9
4/17/73
John Young
1 I
'4/17./73
Ray Weaver
I I
.3.7
1 .0
4/17/73
Charles Tabler
16 16
52.1
5/07/73
Kent Estates
.
1
2.0
5/07/73
Wayne and Gary Gruber
I
2.4
5/07/73
Mr. & Mrs. OIIen Craig
1 I
I 1
1.0
5/07/73
Harry Hoffman
I I
I.0
5/07/73
Katie Klick
1
1.5
5/07/73
Otho Horst
1
I 1
1.5
5/07/73
C. Perry Dick
I I
1.0
5/07/73
L. E. Hamby
I
4.3
5/07/73
Roy McCorwell
I
6.0
5/2/73
1
Milton Yeager, Parcel C
I I
I
6.8
5/21./73
Joseph E. Moser
I
I I
1.6
5/21/73
John R. Oliver .
I I
1.2
5/21/73
Hershel C. Dean
I
1.0
5/21/73
Robert E. Eshelman
I
2
6.0
5/21/73
Walter Stuller (replat)
2
1
2.0
5/21/73
Royal Crown Bottling
I
1 1
1 0.4
5/21/73
Macaferri Gabions
8
5.1
5/21/73
Ralph A. Weaver
8
1
4.2
5/31/73
Ernest J. Russ
I
6 6
7.7
5/31/73
0 p equon 1
Antietam Heights Resubdivision
2 2
34.1
5/31/73
6/04/73
John Shank
6 6
10 9
6.3
8.6
6/04/73
Arboranda Estates, Sec. B
1
4.4
6/04/73
Blaine Window Hardware
I
I
3.0
6/18/73
Kathleen Henretty
I
—22—
1973 APPROVED
SUBDIVISIONS
Total
Final
Lots
Final
Acres
Approval
Name & Section
Pro.
,
Milton Yeager, Parcel D
I I
I I
6.0
1.0
6/18/73
6/18/73
John Oliver
I I
1.0
6/18/73
Omar Hege
I
2.0
6/18/73
Roy McCorwell, Lot C
I
I
1.0
6/18/73
Dorine Carty Gal lion, Lot 2
I
4
12.1
6/18/73
Spring Dell Farm, Sec. I
4,
6 6
19.8
6/18/73
Spring Dell Farm, Sec. III
4 4
4.3
6/18/73
Leathers Development
I I
1.6
6/18/73
Ronald Keyton
I I
•
1.6
6/18/73
Walter Davis
2 2
2.6
6/18/73
Harry Hoffman, Lots 2,3
20.5
6/21/73
K -Mart Valley Plaza
-
I
11.8
6/21/73
Antietam Battlefield Ltd.
I
I I
3.0
7/02/7.3
Charles Metz
I
3.5
7/02/73
Virgie Eckard
I
5.1
7/02/73
Antietam Battlefield Ltd.
I I
9
107.3
7/02/73
Antietam Farmettes
9
2
II.0
7/02/73
County Meadows
2
I
1.0
7/16/73
Victor D. Barnhart
I.
1.0
7/16/73
Harry Warrenfeltz, Lot 2
� �
44.0
•7/16/73
Antietam Battlefield Ltd.
1
2 0
7/16/73
V. Lorraine Davis7/16%73
1
1
4.5
H. A. McNevin & J. W. Lane
1
I. 0
7/16/73
Fairview Acres, Lot 3, Block
B .1 j
.9
7/16/73
Dennis & Shawn Palmer
51 51
190.0
7/16/73
Cedar Hills
I
1.9
8/06/73
Charles Strother
I
I
8.1
8/06/73
Stanley Mullendore
I
I I
I.0
;8/06/73
James Sanders
I
2.0
8/06/73
Roy McCorwell, Lot D
I
5
3.1
8/06/73
June Avenue Heights
5
3
3.8
8/06/73
J. D. Earl Martin
3
1
3.8
8/06/73
Divel to Corbett
I
2
6.3
8/06/73
Roblie Acres
2
1
2..6
8/20/73
J. D. Earl Martin, Lot 7
1
1 1 7
8
8/20/73
Stottlemyer Estates
I I
8/20/73
Catherine Ruble, Lot A
I 1
I
7
I1 7
8/20/73
Lake Fairplay Estates
7
I
9.7
8/20/73
Milton Yeager, Parcel E
1I0 11
6.6
8/2/73
Forge Hill Estates
2 2
8.0
9/04/73
Breeden Estates
I I
17
9/17/73
James D. lobst
I 11
1.5
9/17/73
Mary E. Jones
I I
1.0
9/17/73
Robert K. Reed
-23-
1973 APPROVED r
SUBDIVISIONS
Lots
Total
Final
Pro. Final
Acres
Approval
Name & Section
Samuel Lane
I I
I.I
9/17/73
Richard Welty
I I
1.0
9/17/73
Spring Hill Estates
8 8
B.Y.
9/17/73
Beaver Creek Estates
22 22
57.3
10/01/73
Woburn Estates Sec. 3
9 8
26.2
10/01/73
Cumberland Valley Hatchery,
Sec.E I . I
2.2
10/01/73
Dr. Richard Brannon
I I
1.5
10/01/73
Dr. Richard Brannon
5 5.
5.5
10/01/73
Daniel Secrest, Lot 5
I I
1.2
10/01/73
Roy McCorwell, Lot E
I I
2.0
10/01/73
J. Walter Harshman, Lot 5
1 I
2.1
10/01/73
John C. Herbst
I I
8.5
10/01/73
R. Cresap Davis
I I
1.7
10/01/73
Robert Mills
I I
6.8
10/01/73
Julie Mann
I I
7.3
10/15/73
Hubert Bowman
I 1
3.1
10/15/73
David Miley
I I
.9
10/15/73
Oak Ridge Towne, Sec. 2
16 unIts
2.2
10/15/73
Montgomery Ward
I I
5.0
11/05/73
Philip D'Angeio
I 1
6.1
11/05/73
George S. Jamison
I I
5.3
11/05/73
Juldetta Lerol
I .1
3.•0
11/05/:73
Mildred Masters
I I
I..0
11/05/73
Robert Reed, Lot 2
1 I
1.0
11/05/73
Louis M. Younkins
I 11
1.1
11/05/73
Lynn Fabricators
I 1
7.7
11/05/73
Golden Fleece Estates
2 2
6.4
11/05/73
Blake Company
I I
3.0
11/05/73
Ira Eby, Lot I
I I
.2
11/05/73
J. Allen Clopper
I I
.9
11/05/73
Louise Mae Heiser Mills
I I
I I
3,0
3,0
11/05/73
11/19/73
Gussie 0. Baker
I I
17,0
11/19/73
Harry George Koontz
2.0
11/19/73
J. Walter Harshrnan - Lot 6.
I 1
I I
1.4
11/19/73
W. Preston Howard
2 2
2.4
11/19/73
Clingan Subdivision
I
3.8
11/30/73
James E. Manuel
I
I
3.0
12/03/73
Roger Hornbaker
Countryside Development Sec.
I
A 25 25
16.4
12/03/73
Luther Davis
I I
37.5
12/04/73
William Strother
I I
1.4
12/04/73
Rose M. Moats
I I
3.2
12/04/73
Richard K. Hershey Lot 3
1 I
4,1
12/17/73
Robert Hyssong
I I
1.3
12/17/73
Leroy Moats
I I
7.3.
12/2.0/73
Marvin E. Reese Lot I
I I
1.7
12/20/73
Alvey R. Mowen Lot 3
I I
1.0
12/20/73
—24—
Name & Section
1973 APPROVED
SUBDIVISIONS
Lots Total Final
Pro. Final
Acres Approval
Rhea L. Bernton I I 6.2 12/20/73
4 4 2.6 12/20/73
Emmett Abbott Blocks 2,3 29 29 63.1 12/20/73
Bluegrass Estates 15 15 15.2 12/20/73
Falrplay Farms, Sec. A
c25c
Zoning Ordinance & District Boundary Maps
On January 23, the County Commissioners enacted the
Washington County Zoning Ordinance and District Boundary
Maps, and established the effective date as April 2,
culminating several years of effort on the part of the
Commission to provide a sound, workable zoning document
for the County.
In addition to normal provisions, a series of special pro-
visions include the Highway Interchange, Airport, Planned
Residential, Planned Business, and Planned Industrial
Dist±icts. Also included are regulatory provisions for
flood plain areas, cluster development, mineral extraction,
mobile home and travel trailer parks, and townhouse and
multi -family developments.
The year was an active one for zoning matters, with permits
categorized below:
APPROVED
TYPE NUMBER
New Structures 331
Mobile Homes 212
Additions 119
Accessory Uses 205
Signs 16
Miscellaneous 43
TOTAL 926
DISAPPROVED - 5
The Commission also conducted four (4) hearings for
the purpose of making recommendations to the County
Commissioners on application for amendments to the
zoning text and maps, in accordance with the provi-
sions of Article 66B. In an effort to assure that
all rezoning applications are thoroughly evaluated,
the Commission first holds a public hearing, formulates
and presents a recommendation to the County Commissioners,
who in turn conduct a public hearing and render a de-
cision. Type of rezoning applications considered are
as follows:
-26-
PLANNING AND ZONING
COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
RECOMMENDATION
ACTION
Type
No. APR. Disapp.
Ate.
Disapp.
Text
d
13. _.12 1
12
1
Map
21 12 9
16
5
TOTAL
34 24 10
28
6
The text amendments considered and finally acted upon by the
County Commissioners during 1973 were generally designed to
clarify and eliminate certain contradictory provisions of the
ordinance. Not included are fifteen (15) amendments proposed
and heard by the Commission in November, which were trans-
mitted to the County Commissioners in December, and which were
scheduled for hearing by that body in January, 1974. Among
other things, these amendments will further clarify overlapping
of some sections, and provide flexibility in administration
of yard and sign requirements.
Map amendment applications are shown on the map
ing page. Recommendations on map amendments wer
Commission in accordance with the factors to be
required by Article 66B, and as these provisions
delineated in the zoning document.
on the fol1ow--
e made by the
considered as
are further
-27-
F
0g !2 3
I '
SCALE IN MILES
OC 1965 S.R.C.M.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
The Washington County Board of Zoning Appeals was
established by the County Commissioners in. March
in conjunction with the enactment of the County Zoning
Ordinance. The five members of the Board are Chairman
John Urner, Lester Ridenour, Nancy Stiles, Daniel Grove,
and Millard Kretzer, III.
The Board performs the following functions, as provided
for by Article 66B:
-To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged
there is an error in any order, requirement,
decision, or determination made by an adminis-
trative official in the enforcement of the
Zoning Ordinance;
-To hear and decide special exceptions to
the Zoning Ordinance upon which the Board
is required to pass;
-To authorize, upon appeal in special cases, such
variances from the terms of the Zoning Ordinance
as will not be contrary to the public interest
and where, owing to special conditions, the en-
forcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordin-
ance would result in unwarranted hardship;
-To authorize, upon appeal in special cases,
expansion of a non -conforming use.
The Board experienced a heavy caseload in the first nine
months of its existence, as indicated below'
Type of Case Grantet Denied Total Cases
Variance
39
13
52
Expansion of Non -
Conforming Use
14
5
19
Special Exception
12
4
16
Administrative Error
0
1
1
TOTAL
65
23
88
In order to best serve the public, the Board holds public
hearings the first and third Wednesday of each month.
-29-
1973 HIGHLIGHTS OF COUNTY DEVELOPMENT
1. The Planning and Zoning Commission granted final
approval to 188 subdivisions, totaling 1555.9
acres. Among these approvals were:
A. Londontowne, Section A - Located on
Landis Road, a 308 unit townhouse
development.
B. Oak Ridge Town, Section 2 -Located
on Larch Avenue, which added 16 units
to the County's first conventional
townhouse development.
C. Subdivisions in excess of 20 lots and
their general locations, included
Woodmoor Section C (Halfway),. Garden
Spot Section B (Maugansville), Anite-
tam Heights (Keedysville) , Cedar Hills
(Security), Beaver Creek Estates (Mt.
Aetna), Countryside Development(Mau-
gansville), Bluegrass Estates (Leiters -
burg).
D. K -Mart Valley Plaza - Located on Halfway
Boulevard across from the Valley Mall, a
new shopping center.
2. Economic Development during year included:
A. MacaferrL Gabions, which manufactures flood
and erosion control devices, began construc-
tion of a plant in the County Industrial Park.
Initial employment of 20 will eventually expand
to 60.
B. Montgomery -Ward, Inc. began construction of a
warehouse facility in the County Industrial
Park, with projected employment of 50 persons.
C. Horner Manufacturing expanded its plant on
Oak Ridge Drive, to provide additional employ-
ment of 120 in furniture manufacturing.
D. Gabrial Industries, a toy manufacturer, expanded
its plant on Longmeadow Road, creating 60 new
jobs.
-30-
3. Board of Education projects included:
A. Completion of the construction of the
Clear Spring High School.
B. Addition to and renovation of Winter
Street Elementary School.
The development listed above is depicted on the 1973 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 construc-
ting public improvements necessary to implement the County Plan.
1. Commercial and Industrial Development
New industry, designated Q , 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 utilities. Business and Commercial
development, designated ® , was located at the
junction of residential neighborhoods rather than
within, in an area designed to serve a potential
8000 - 15,000 persons residing within approximately
a 3/4 mile radius.
2. Subdivisions
Designated O , 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.
Varying desities were also permitted, dependent
upon the type of development, location, degree
of public improvements available, and compliance
with these factors as exhibited in the Washington
County Zoning Ordinance.
3i Community Facilities
Designated M , these facilities are all part of
the current building program of the Board of Educa-
tion, compatible with the Plan Tor The County.
These new facilities were located to best serve the
existing school district boundaries, incorporated
area boundaries, or other political or district
boundaries.
-31-
-•+tom c•'inr• ) qn-
I
w
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND
1973 DEVELOPMENT MAP
Legend
Residential (Subdivisions, Single and Multi -Family; Mobile Home Parks, Other)
Q Industrial (New and Expanded)
Commercial
0 Community Facilities
Q Transportation (Road Reconstruction Projects)
z
0 I 2 3
I —T I
SCALE IN MILES
OC 1965 S. R. C. M.
SUMMARY OF 1973 MEETINGS
Classifications
Regular Planning and
Zoning Commission
Special Planning and
Zoning Commission and
Public Hearings
Public
Number
24
20
CG]
Planning and Zoning Commission 30
Workshop
TOTAL 123
As in previous years, the Commission conducted and/or
participated in numerous meetings during 1973, with a
yearly total of 123 as compared to 113 during 1972.
In addition to the bi-monthly regular meetings, the
twenty (20) special meetings andpublichearings were held
for the purpose of discussing planning issues and activities
and for, hearing the public's opinion on such items as zoning
and subdivision amendments, revisions to the County's Water
and Waste Water Plan, and the like. The forty- nine (49)meet-
ings listed as public were held with not on:,.y the general
public, but with the County. Commissioners, Historic District
Commission, Tri-County Council, Advisory Board, State and
Federal officials involved with the planning program, and
with municipal officials relative to the county- wide planning
program. In keeping pace with the expanding scope of the
commission's planning program, thirty (30) workshops took
place during 1973.
Realizing the need to communicate with the public on plan-
ning matters, the Commission and staff will continue to
be accessible for exchange of information and seek new and
better ways to assure that the public's involvement and
awareness increases in the coming year.
-33-
1 1
THE OUTLOOK FOR 1974
The Commission looks to the coring year with great anti-
cipation
and hope for accomplishment of many activities
integral
to the County's planning program.
Items to
be given high priority during 1974, which will
improve
the planning process within the County are as
follows.
1.
The completion and implementation of
the planning studies initiated during the
past year, and expansion of this effort
during 1974 to provide the County with a
Recreational Study, to project and prepare
for recreation needs; a Market Analysis, to
determine the need for and the County's cap-
ability to support increasing commercial, indus-
trial, and multi -family development, Slope..!;_
Density Regulations, to allow for variations
and the best utilization of the County's slope
areas; Total Development Regulations, to provide
•
for more thorough evaluation of development and
its impact on the County; a Housing Code, to
provide standards for dwelling units; and update
of the Plan For the County.
2. In an effort to additionally encourage citizen
participation and better provide planning infor-
mation to the public, the Commission will imple-
ment an ambitious program of public participation
in the planning process. Included, among other
items, are establishment of a Speaker's Bureau,
expansion of the distribution of the newsletter,
appointment of Information and Education Officers
as points for public contact, regular radio pre-
sentations, open house at the Commission office,
changes in the format of Commission meetings, in-
creased involvement by the Advisory Board, and
evening hours.
3. A Capital Improvements Program, to realistically
reflect the County's need for capital facilities
and related services, will be prepared and presen-
ted to the legislative body at an early stage for
consideration. The program should be adopted and
-34-
implemented, so that the immediate and
longer range capital improvement needs of the
County may be planned and provided for in an
orderly and efficient fashion, based on evalu-
ation and establishment of priorities compatible
with the financial resources of the County.
4. The Commission must strengthen and expand its
contact and working relationships with the vari-
ous local, State,'and Federal agencies involved with
the planning program, drawing on these groups for
exchange of information and cooperation on matters
of mutual concern. A minimum of thirty-six (36)
such agencies have been identified.
5. The continuance and expansion of the cooperative
efforts established with the municipalities will
be emphasized. Of particular value to the planning
program of the entire area will be mutual efforts
between the County and City. of Hagerstown on all
planning related activities, to better provide an
efficient and coordinated approach on planning
matters.
-35-