HomeMy WebLinkAboutH_1976 Annual ReportWASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
1976 ANNUAL REPORT
Board of County Commissioners
Martin L. Snook, President
W. Keller Nigh III, Vice -President
R. Lee Downey
William J. Dwyer
Burton R. Hoffman
Washington County Planning Commission
Donald R. Frush, Chairman
William E. Dorsey, Vice -Chairman
John C. Herbst
Torrance W. Bache
W. Keller Nigh III
Sidney Salitsky
Barbara B. Whitcomb
Published, April, 1977
Washington County Planning Commission
County Office Building
Hagerstown, Maryland 21740
The preparation of this report was financed in part through a com-
prehensive planning grant from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, as administered by the Maryland Department of State
Planning.
Ii
PtNN/YLVI NI♦
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
•. o' COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
ItiEr"°NF p 33 WEST WASHINGTON STREET
y' ,i1i' HAGERSTOWN. MARYLAND 21740
Y
April 19, 1977
Board of County Commissioners for
Washington County, Maryland
Court House Annex
Hagerstown, Maryland 21740
Gentlemen:
On behalf of the Planning Commission, I am pleased to forward for your
review, the 1976 Annual Report which summarizes the accomplishments of
the Commission over the past year. The report reflects not only the
performances of the Commission and the Planning Staff, but also the de-
velopmental patterns that have occurred both in the subdivision of land
and the reclassification of properties through the rezoning process.
Of particular note is the effort that has been put forth toward the de-
velopment of a revised Comprehensive Plan for the County. Completed
background studies, extensive and detailed, will serve as the foundation
for the Plan revision that, upon completion and adoption, will be the
County's guide for continuing development and growth.
In the year 1977, the Planning Commission will be going to public hearing
with the new Comprehensive Plan, at which time additional public opinions
and criticisms will be heard. Just as important, though, is the public
input that the Commission is looking for throughout the process of designing
the Plan. Elements of this Plan are reviewed and analyzed in public session
every week in special meetings and it is in this phase of Plan development
that input from the private sector is needed and encouraged.
The end result of the Plan for the County will be its implementation in the
form of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances. These now exist, of course,
but both will undoubtedly be modified to reflect the manner and degree to
which land use controls will govern us. Hence, the continued need for pub-
lic interest and involvement throughout this entire process.
Board of County Commissioners -2-
for Washington County, Maryland
April 19, 1977
Looking back, the Planning Commission is proud of previous accomplishments
just as it looks eagerly forward to those challenges that lie ahead. These
challenges will provide an opportunity, just as they have in the past, to
address those problem areas such as schools, housing, transportation, and
commercial and residential development and, in the process, assure the public
of a continued guarantee to those services consistent with sound planning.
Sincerely,
Donald R. Frush, Chairman
DRF:mis
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Planning Organizational Chart....................I
Planning Agency Interrelationships ............... ii
Work Program - 701 Assistance....................1
A-95 Clearinghouse Review ........................ 3
Capital Improvement Program ...................... 3
Water and Sewerage Plan .......................... 4
Historic Preservation ............................ 4
Advisory Board...................................S
Recreational Facility Design.....................S
Significant Development Approvals ................ 6
Subdivision Activity ............................. 7
1976 Approved Subdivisions ....................... 10
Zoning Ordinance and District Boundary Maps...... 14
1976 Zoning Map Amendments ....................... 15
1976 Development Map ............................. 16
Zoning Appeals Board Activities .................. 17
H
O C v
COO
C O O
n H U
N
a T
C d)
O ro U)
H N G
4) 4)6)
v
o
C
ro
E
C N
N.v
—EN
C
N .0
o
HOC) u w E
1 .0 v T O
r v o k, ,440
-H
H0.C4H
E
^ >
E
N
o
- S ro
Li
0> vl
N v N• H m
bo
LL.U)OOO>,
0 u v ),
C
H 0 .. N N
O N C C H
C
rL O H,o1 N
C
k04 HJ]
U
v v 1) O11-i
w F ro
0,
N 3 m
CO
O N
O .N
x
---------
3
L --------I
C
b0
0
C
N
H O
4)0.
C
C
I-.4-,
N
N 6)
N
0.0
N
C)
m
M
N
O
V
1-
m
ro
H m
—_
K
v
U
0U)
M
0
0 N
C
K E
O
✓i
N
a
R
y
Z
w
a
2
2
2
4
EL
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING PROGRAM
701 ASSISTANCE
The assistance provided through Section 701 of the Federal
Housing Act of 1954 continued to support efforts of the
Planning Commission in amending and updating those elements
of the Contract between the Maryland Department of State
Planning and Washington County. An extension of eight months
was effected commencing October 1, 1976 for the ongoing work
that is required to produce the following major results:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION
This plan revision, to be accomplished on a Planning Sector
basis, is the outgrowth of detailed background studies com-
pleted in 1975-76, and will reflect the goals, objectives,
and policies for the overall plan, and in addition, those
elements of the plan that include public facilities and ser-
vices, land use, transportation, areas of Critical State
Concern, housing, and historic preservation. The status of
these elements is as follows:
Community Facilities and Services - This section of the
Comprehensive Plan has been completed in draft form and
approved by the Planning Commission for the public hearing
process that will be scheduled once the remaining elements
are completed. Included in Community Services are standards
and recommendations for future facility needs for education,
fire and police, libraries, health, and public buildings. The
completion of this element is the result of various contri-
butions and input from elected officials, agencies, and
departments, as well as the public sector represented by in-
terested citizens.
Land Use - Background studies on this element of the Plan
have been completed and drafts of the text are currently in
preparation. The most extensive of all the Plan elements,
Land Use will establish goals, objectives and recommendations
that will take into account such considerations as the physi-
cal, social, economic, energy, and environmental aspects of
the County; criteria, standards, and guidelines for growth
and development; and the pattern, intensity, and timing of land
use for residential, commercial, and industrial uses.
- I -
Transportation - This
fiscal year 1977, wil
tation that relate to
this part of the Plan
dations for highways,
and rail travel.
element, scheduled for completion in
1 identify those facets of transpor-
the County needs. To be included in
will be goals, policies, and recommen-
the airport, mass transit, bikeways,
Areas of Critical State Concern - During 1976, potential
Areas of Critical State Concern were inventoried and analyzed.
Sixty areas were inventoried and analyzed with regard to their
criticality and statewide concern. From staff analysis came
several nominations and a list of nine recommended areas for
consideration.
Housing - The Housing element of the Plan will be designed
to include such considerations as population, supply and
demand, housing delivery systems, goals and objectives, ob-
stacles to effective delivery, and policies and priorities.
The on -site inventory, initiated in 1976, is continuing under
the direction of the County Housing Coordinator, and the data
resulting from the inventory will be used in the preparation
of this element.
Review and Analysis of Existing Land Use Controls - A
continuing analysis has been made of the currently adopted
land use controls and these controls are being viewed in light
of the policies and recommendations that will accompany the
land use element of the Comprehensive Plan. Following adoption
of the revised plan, it is expected that amendments to both the
Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Ordinance will follow and
reflect the purpose and policies set forth in the plan.
- 2-
A-95
CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW
In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Inter-
governmental Cooperation Act of 1968, and of Federal Office
of Management and Budget Circulars A-95 and A-98, issued as
a result of that Act, each State is required to establish a
central unit to effect the coordination of direct Federal
and specified Federally assisted planning and development
activities within that State in order to assure that all
viewpoints are taken into account. The Department of State
Planning serves this function, and in turn has requested
that each County designate an agency or individual on the
local level to effect local coordination. In 1976, this
position was served by the Chairman of the Planning Commission,
Donald R. Frush.
As in the past, local agencies and local governmental bodies
review projects submitted by the State and respond through
the Clearinghouse officer for input. A total of 72 reviews
were made in 1976 as compared to 61 in 1975 and 19 in 1974.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
The Capital Improvements Program for the six -year period 1977-
1983 was presented to the County Commissioners in May, 1976
pursuant to the provision of Article 66B of the Annotated Code.
The Program, prepared to include those projects needed to
serve the County, identified Capital Expenditures such as land
acquisition, construction, reconstruction, renovation, and
major equipment needs exclusive of wheeled vehicles. In this
program, the categorical groups for capital projects are Water
and Sewerage Facilities; Storm Drainage Facilities; Transpor-
tation, including Roads, Bridges, Overlay and Stablilzation,
and the Hagerstown Municipal Airport; Office Space; Educational
Facilities; Parks and Recreational Facilities; Solid Waste
Management; Law Enforcement, Safety and Corrections; Cultural
Facilities; and Community Development.
For the first time, this program has consolidated the capital
improvement projects of both Washington County and the nine
incorporated towns within the County. Such an approach is
designed to provide for full realization of the benefits of
capital improvement programming, particularly the securing of
non -local funds. In addition, the inclusion of the municipal-
ities will provide State and Federal agencies with an overview
of the total needs of the community and will aid in establish-
ing priorities for the available funds.
- 3-
WATER AND SEWERAGE PLAN
As part of an ongoing effort pursuant to the requirements
of Article 43 of the Annotated Code of Maryland, the Plan-
ning Commission has updated the County Water and Sewer
Plan and has forwarded the plan to the County Commissioners
for approval and submittal to the State. Total effort on
the plan has been provided by staff personnel rather than
consultant services and as a result the County has benefited
through reimbursement over $5,000 from the State Department
of Health and Mental Hygiene.
Although the contract for the updating of this plan provided
only for amendments relative to the plan as adopted, the
Planning Commission has recommended to the County Commissioners
that steps be taken to assure a viable Water and Sewerage
Allocation Policy. It is only through the adoption of a
workable allocation policy that the County can be assured of
a means of putting the plan into effect. It is anticipated
that in the coming year the elected bodies of both Washington
County and the City of Hagerstown will continue through cooper-
ative efforts, to provide for services for those areas of
highest priorities.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
During 1976, the Historic Sites Survey that is being conducted
by contracted consultant services, continued on schedule. Of
the nearly 1,300 sites included in the survey, 95 percent have
been surveyed in the field with the remaining eighty sites
scheduled for completion by the end of April, 1977. Research
and data compilation remains to be completed for approximately
850 of the 1,300 sites and this phase of the effort is pro-
jected to be completed by April 1, 1978, one month ahead of
the original schedule established when the survey began in 1973.
Of particular significance, the Maryland Historical Trust has
expressed a special interest in the properties along Manor
Church Road for inclusion into the National Register. The
properties will be inspected during 1977 for consideration by
the Trust which through it's action can provide protection and
recognition for sites having historic integrity.
Two sites --the Mount Hebron Cemetery and the remains of the
Mount Hebron Church --were rezoned by the County Commissioners
in 1976. These sites, located along Mount Hebron Road in
southeastern Washington County, reflect the early history of
the country of the United Brethern in Christ Church.
-4 -
ADVISORY BOARD
The Planning Advisory Board has continued its valuable role
in 1976 of providing representations from the public -at -large
to the Commission on all matters relative to planning activ-
ities. Established in 1972, the Board is comprised of fifteen
members and serves the planning process by reviewing proposed
changes to the County Zoning Ordinance, the Subdivision Ordin-
ance, the Water and Sewerage Plan, and the Comprehensive Plan.
At present, the Board is actively involved in providing input
to the Commission for the revised Comprehensive Plan for the
County. All elements of the Plan -- Land Use, Housing, Parks
and Open Space, Community Facilities, Transportation, are
reviewed by the Board from the inceptive, unadopted outlines
and drafts and are commented on and amended as required to
reflect the public response.
At present the Board's membership includes the following
persons: Mr. William E. Wolford, Jr., Chairman, Mr. Austin
Flook, Mrs. Margurite Snyder, Mrs. Lois Lucas, Mr. Leonard
Lowry, Mr. Vincent Groh, Mr. John Newcomer, Jr., Mr. Dennis
C. Miller, Mrs. Libby Harp, Mrs. Linda Daniels, Mrs. Margaret
Woodbury, Mrs. Diane Elder, Mr. Jesse Weaver.
RECREATIONAL FACILITY DESIGN
Definitive design for Pen Mar County Park was completed in
the Spring of 1976. The planning staff made presentations
to the County Park Board and to the Board of County Com-
missioners and received approval for the Park Plan. The
staff continued to assist the Parks Department in securing
appropriate permits and coordinating the construction
phase of the park's development. The park is scheduled to
be opened on May 22, 1977.
-5 -
SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS
The Planning Commission granted final approval for the dev-
elopment of 162 lots, of which 152 were for residential
development. This increase in total lots for development
represents a 57 percent jump over those approved for 1975
and a 52 percent increase for residential lots alone. The
largest of the approved subdivisions included the following:
- 29 lots in Garden Spot, Section D
- 21 lots in Spring Valley, Section G
- 50 lots in Woodmoor, Section F
- 220 lots in Oak Ridge Park, Section 5
(a Residential, Multifamily development)
- 42 lots in Crest Valley, Sections BC
- 24 lots in Bent Willow Farms, Section CD
In addition to these residential subdivisions, two new
sites were approved for industrial development in the Inter-
state Industrial Park; a 12 acre site to Bowman Trucking and
a 15 acre site to Georgia Pacific.
- 6-
1976 SUBDIVISION ACTIVITY
Administration of the Subdivision Ordinance remained a major act-
ivity of the Commission during 1976. Comparative figures for
1974, 1975, and 1976 follow:
1974 - APPROVED
Type Number Lots
Residential 132 294
Commercial 3 3
Industrial -Institutional 7 7
Simplified 132 132
TOTAL 274 436
Disapproved - 32 Acreage - 509.0
Type
Residential
Commercial
Industrial -Institutional
Simplified
TOTAL
Disapproved - 17
1975 - APPROVED
Lots
451
1
4
117
573
Acreage - 256.3
100
1
4
117
Acreage
989.0
8.7
95.4
945.7
2038.8
Acreage
1128.6
3.1
29.5
1101.3
2262.5
1976 - APPROVED
Type
Number
Lots
Acreage
Residential
152
599
780.9
Commercial
4
4
9.5
Industrial -Institutional
6
6
36.0
Simplified
119
128
919.5
TOTAL
281
737
1745.9
Disapproved - 7
Acreage 33.9
-7-
The number of subdivision application approvals for development
increased in 1976. Both the number of applications and lots
increased whereas the total amount of subdivided acreage was less
in 1976 over the two previous years. Although lower than 1974,
the number of simplified plats were similar in 1975 and 1976.
The distribution of 1976 Subdivision Activity is listed below by
type and sector:
Table A
N of
Aonlication
61
I
52
II
8
III
12
IV
23
V
6
VI
County
162
Total
Table B
Sector
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
County
Residential
Units
- Acres Units - Acres
384
166.47 3 5.70
130
318.83 - -
33
135.95 - -
21
35.92 1 3.80
24
92.99 - -
7
30.69 - -
599 780.85 4 9.50
Industrial
Institutional
Total
Units - Acres
Units - Acres
Units -
Acres
4 29.20
1 3.80
392
205.17
- -
1 3.01
131
132.84
• - -
- -
33
135.95
_
_ _
22
39.72
_ _
_ -
24
92.99
_ _
_ -
7
30.69
4 29.20 2 6.81 609 826.36
1976 Residential Development Density
Dwelling Unit Ratio
2.3 du/a
0.41 du/a
0.24 du/a
0.58 du/a
0.24 du/a
0.23 du/a
0.77 du/a
Average Lot Size
(Acres
0.44
2.44
4.10
1.72
4.10
4.40
1.30
* This figure includes 220 units of a multi -family resi-
dential project.
A substantial portion of subdivision activity was in Plan-
ning Sector I and II. One hundred and fifteen (115) of
the one hundred sicty-two (162) total subdivision applica-
tions occurred in these two sectors as well as five hundred
twenty-six (526) of the six hundred ten (610) total number
of approved units. Interestingly the average lot sizes
(Table B) are considerably larger in Sector II when compared
with Sector I. The presence of either public water and/or
public sewerage facilities in Sector I is probably the single
most important determinant of this lot size differential.
Regular monthly meetings of the reviewing agencies, Commission
Staff, Consultants, and applicants continued throughout the
year in order to. monitor the status of active subdivision
plats. Additionally, on a request basis, preliminary consul-
tations were conducted in the first and third Tuesday of
each month. There were twenty-five (25) such consultations
held during 1976.
The Planning Commission continued the use of the Administra-
tive Policy, which permits the Chairman or the Executive
Director to approve and sign one and two lot subdivision
plats as well as simplified plats, provided the requirements
of the Subdivision Ordinance are met. This procedures elimin-
ates unnecessary delays of these subdivision applications.
Additionally the Planning Commission continued the practice
of granting both preliminary and final subdivision approval,
irrespective of the number of lots which are prepared in
proper form in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance and
met all reviewing agency requirements.
A list of all approved 1976 Subdivision arranged by Plan-
ning Sector follows:
-9-
1976 APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS
Sector I
Name
ED
Use
Lots
Ac.
App. Date
Albert Leaf
26
R
4
1.00
1/05
Nellie F. Bryan
26
R
1
.30
1/27
W. T. Cooper
9
R
2
8.00
2/03
Martin Shuck, Lot A
27
R
1
1.20
2/23
Mae E. Miller, Lot 1
9
R
1
0.90
2/27
Dorine I. Carty Gallion, Lot
5 2
R
1
0.90
2/27
Robert L. Risser
9
Office
1
1.00
3/01
Ira M. Pike, Lot A
10
R
1
0.90
3/24
Roy M. Showalter
13
R
1
0.70
4/05
Caroline Palmer
9
R
1
7.90
4/15
Skipton Farm, Lot 1, Sec. C
9
R
1
13.70
4/23
Paradise Home - Lot D-26
27
R
1
0.50
4/26
Willard Custer.
24
R
1
0.80
4/27
Charles L. Taylor
2
R
1
1.00
5/06
Chester H. Sollenberger
9
R
1
3.70
6/02
James Gochenour, Parcel A
13
R
1
0.40
6/10
Madge Carter, Lot 3
10
R
1
3.00
6/11
Lewis Schnebly, Parcel A
10
R
1
3.30
6/14
National Building Leasing
10
I
1
1.20
6/14
South End Dev. Co.
2
R
1
0.70
6/18
Fern E. Staley, Lot 1
2
R
1
1.80
6/18
Henry Montgomery
13
R
1
1.40
6/18
Murray Enterprises
13
C
1
2.70
7/07
Garden Spot, Sec. D
13
R
29
16.40
7/07
Paul Seilhamer, Jr.
13
R
1
1.40
7/09
Hartman Subdivision, Lot A
9
R
1
18.00
7/09
John R. Hyssong
9
R
2
1.90
7/22
Charles W. Resh, Parcel B
13
R
1
1.09
7/27
Garland I. Lake
18
R
1
0.60
8/02.
Charles Bowers
26
R
6
1.60
8/02
Elmer Davis, Parcel A
10
R
1
0.30
8/02
Jesse Davidson
10
R
1
0.30
8/02
Spring Valley, Sec. G
9
R
21
12.00
8/04
Church of Jesus Christ
10
Church
1
3.80
8/06
Woodmoor, Sec. F
26
R
50
12.90
8/12
Harry Rodgers, Jr.
9
R
1
0.90
8/24
Dr. F, Mrs. Beachley, P. A&B
18
R
2
2.60
8/26
Willard Custer
24
R
1
0.70
8/27
Robinwood, Sec. F
18
R
5
3.29
9/08
Oak Rdige Park, Sec. S
26
RM
220u.14.56
9/08
Sunrise Furniture Store
13
C
1
2.00
9/08
Norman S. Early, Lot 7A
10
1
1
1.00
9/08
Hartman Subdivision
18
R
1
2.00
9/17
James Kline
9
R
1
3.48
9/22
Harry and Helen Bussard
26
R
1
0.20
9/30
- 10-
1976 APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS
Sector I (con'tl
Name
:RD
Use
Lots
Ac.
App. Date
Benjamin Weller
18
R
1
1.00
10/05
David L. Palmer, Lot A
13
R
1
1.00
10/07
Elizabeth ?bung
2
R
1
5.06
10/13
Ira M. Pike, Lot B
10
R
1
0.92
10/15
Hagerstown - Washington
County to Bowman
2
I
1
12.00
10/20
Hag. -Wash. Co. Industrial
Foundation to Georgia
Pacific
2
I
1
15.00
10/20
Thomas C. Blickenstaff
2
R
1
1.00
10/29
Mr. $ Mrs. Martin S. Shuck
Lot B
27
R
1
1.50
10/22
Arboranda Estates, Lots 8f,9
13
R
2
2.00
11/01
Greenhill Development,Lot 6
10
R
1
2.02
11/01
Rock -n -Spring Corporation
26
R
1
1.86
11/03
Nevin M. Shank
18
R
1
.77
10/25
Samuel A. Crilley, Lot 1
13
R
1
1.35
12/06
Garland I. Lake
18
R
1
.60
8/02
Thomas C. Blickenstaff
2
R
1
1.01
12/20
Sector II
Cool Hollow Estates, Sec. A
16
R
6
9.50
1/05
Atherly Subdivision, Lot 3
16
R
1
1.40
1/05
Crest Valley, Sec. A
16
R
25
47.1
1/05
William E. Pennington, Lot 5
20
R
1
0.90
1/19
Phillip B. Shockey
16
R
1
0.90
2/09
Homes by Phillips, Inc. Lot 2
19
R
1
1.30
2/26
Crest Valley, Sec. B$C
16
R
42
97.50
3/15
Wm. Alvey Reid, Lot 1
6
R
1
1.70
3/24
Confederate Hills, Sec. A
1
R
12
17.90
4/05
Karin Hostmaelingen,,Lot A
16
R
1
2.00
4/27
Clifton Churchey, Lot 2
1
R
1
5.10
4/27
John C. Knepper
12
R
1
2.20
5/05
Homes by Phillips, Lot 1A
19
R
1
1.30
5/05
Karin Hostmaelingen, Lot A
16
R
1
2.00
5/24
Paul Shade, Sec. A, Lot 3
1
R
1
0.90
5/27
David Negley,,Lot 1
16
R
1
0.90
6/22
Boonsboro Ltm. Part.,P. D
6
R
1
1.50
7/09
Florence Hosfeld
20
R
1
1.30
7/20
Wm Pennington, Lot 7
20
R
1
0.90
8/18
Lester B. Fisher
19
R
1
1.30
8/18
John Flook
1
R
2
1.10
8/23
Lewis E. Jones
6
R
1
2;00
8/23
Donald Worfield
12
R
1
5.80
8/24
Robert N. Myers
20
R
1
14.10
8/24
Marguerite Gross
6
R
1
2.70
8/24
Charles A. Papa
16
R
1
2.10
8.27
1976 APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS
Sector II Ccon't)
Maine
ED
Use
Lots
Ac.
App. Date
Bryan D. McDowell
6
R
1
2.70
8/31
Paul Hancock
12
R
1
6.23
9/22
Harry L. Toms
6
R
1
1.00
10/07
Boonsboro Ltm. Part.,
Parcel E
6
R
1
33.20
10/08
Charles Stottlemyer
16
R
1
1.24
10/11
John A. Griffith, Lot 1
6
R
1
0.97
10/11
Burnside Acres, Lots 1&7
1
R
2
1008
10/15
Crest Valley, Sec. A
Lots 2,9,16,62
16
R
4
5.38
10/20
R. Earl Roulette
1
Church
1
3.01
10/20
Paul Hancock
12
R
1
6.23
10/22
Otho K. Haupt, Lot 1
16
R
1
1.00
11/01
Hubbard Acres, Sec. A
12
R
1
15.01
11/04
Boonsboro Limited Part.
Parcel D
6
R
1
1.00
11/12
Wm. Pennington, Lots 8-11
20
R
4
4.04
11/29
Roger Lee Swope, Lots 1$2
16
R
2
4.36
12/06
Clarence 0. Poffenberger
Lot 1
6
R
1
1.03
12/06
Sector III
Bent Willow Farms, Sec. C$D
8
R
24
86.50
4/05
George M. Bealer
8
R
1
3.30
5/28
Timothy Haynes
8
R
1
3.10
8/26
Harry A. Norman, Lot 1
8
R
1
3.54
11/29
Elk Ridge Estates
11
R
2
22.50
12/02
Robert E. Thompson, Parcel A
11
R
1
4.50
12/06
John Brown Farm, Lot C
11
R
1
4.21
12/08
Donald H. Johnson, Lots 1&2
11
R
2
8.30
12/28
Sector IV
Daniel Pike 7 R
1 2.10
Marlin E. Martin 7 R 1 1.20 2/02
Graham $ Jacques P. CD 14 R 3/31
2 9.50 5/03
Kenneth Hartman 7 R 1 1.00
Jane E. Buhrman,Lot 2 7 R 1 3.00 5/24
Antietam Cable T.V. 14 C 1 3.80 5/24
John A. Roberts, Jt. 14 R 6/08
Orchard Estates, Sec. A 7 R 1 1.00 7/09
Edward Cline 7 R 4 4.40 7/12
1 1.00 8/02
-12-
1976 APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS
Sector IV
con't
Name
ED
Use
Lots
Ac.
App. Date
Barnie.0.
Henderson
14
R
7
10.81
10/18
Clyde W.
Deal, Parcel B
14
R
1
0.98
10/29
Clyde W.
Deal, Parcel A
14
R
1
0.93
11/09
Cartnr V
Ernest Unger
15
R
1
17.30
1/19
Doyle Grove
23
R
1.
1.10
2/23
J. Marvin Farrow
23
R
1
2.80
3/08
Charles Rankin, Lot 1
23
R
1
10.00
3/24
Clinton Rutherford
4
R
1
2.80
4/08
Joseph Forsythe, Lot 1
15
R
1
3.90
4/2.9
Norman A. Halteman, Lots AB
23
R
2
2.40
5/03
James Rosenberry
15
R
1
3.20
5/12
Kenneth Lang
15
R
1
3.40
5/14
Charles Snyder
23
R
1
1.10
5/24
Philip S. Petry, Lot 2
23
R
1
1.30
6/03
Charles L. Hutson, Lot 2
23
R
1
1.00
6/14
Adrian Faith
4
R
1
1.00
6/16
Leon French
4
R
1
2.00
6/16
Samuel Suffecool
23
R
1
1.10
7/09
Mrs. Leon French
4
R
1
2.00
7/09
Arthur Nichols
4
R
1
5.20
7/12
Tilman Chaney
4
R
1
5.00
7/27
George S. Burtner
23
R
1
1.70
8/26
Elsie M. Reed
15
R
1
4.15
10/07
Philip s. Petry, Lot 2
23
R
1
1.00
10/18
John D. Downin, Lot -1
23
R
1
18.90
12/03
J. Preston Shupp, Lot A
4
R
1
1.64
12/16
Sector VI
Louise McCormack
5
R
1
8.90
6/15
Elmo Michael
S
R
1
2.20
8/18
Isaac W. Norris, EtUx
5
R
2
7.98
9/16
Brenda C. Shoemaker
S
R
1
3.34
9/21
Isaac W. Norris
5
R
1
4.11
10/05
Isaac W. Norris
5
R
1
4.16
12/20
-13-
ZONING ORDINANCE AND DISTRICT BOUNDARY MAPS
The Planning Commission remained active during the year in ex-
ercising its responsibility under the provisions of Article 66B
of the Annotated Code to provide recommendations to the Board
of County Commissioners in regards to proposed map and text
amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Four (4) public hearings
were conducted during 1976 for this purpose.
A summary of Zoning Ordinance Amendment activity follows:
Planning Commission
Recommendations
County Commissioners
Decisions
No. App. Disapp. App. Disapp.
Map 14 9 4 (a) 6 3 (a,b)
Text 5 4 1 3 0 (b)
TOTAL 19 13 5 9 3
(a) Two (2) Map amendment cases were withdrawn by
the applicants (RZ-136, p -152)
(b) Text amendment case R -153 and Map amendment
cases R -149-151 have not yet been taken to
public hearing by the Board of County Com-
missioners.
All of the text amendments were initiated by the Planning Commission.
The approved map amendments are geographically located on the
following page. Recommendations on those amendments were made
by the Planning Commission in accordance with the factors to be
considered in rezoning as required by Article 66B.
Administratively, the Planning Commission continued the use of the pre-
established zoning cycle. Initiated in 1975, this practice
schedules a year in advance public hearing dates as well as the
deadline dates for filing text or map amendments.
-14-
ZONING APPEALS BOARD ACTIVITIES
During 1976, the Board of Appeals heard a total of 172
cases involving petitions for relief from the requirements
of the Zoning Ordinance. Of this total, 52 requests were
for Special Exceptions, 92 were for variances, 15 were for
the expansion of a non -conforming use, 8 were for the change
of a non -conforming use, and 5 were appeals charging admin-
istrative error. The Board, in hearing and reviewing the
cases, granted approval to 78 percent of all those heard. Of
the 38 that were denied, 5 were subsequently appealed to
Circuit Court for Washington County. The following table
summarizes the categories of cases considered:
GRANTED
DENIED
WITHDRAWN
TOTAL
Variance
73
19
1
93
Special Exception
37
15
1
53
Expansion of Non-
conforming use
14
1
-
15
Change of noncon-
forming use
7
1
-
8
Administrative error
3
2
-
5
134
38
1
174
-17-