HomeMy WebLinkAboutH_1977 Annual Reporta
ANNUAL
1977
SNiNGr
�ou%�i
1I'
WASHINGTON
COUNTY
PLANNING
COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
COUNTY
MARYLAND
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
1977 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
Terrance W. Bathe, Chairman
John C. Herbst, Vice -Chairman
Linda H.. Daniels
Donald R. Frush
W. Keller Nigh, III
Sidney Salitsky
Barbara B. Whitcomb
William E. Wolford, Jr.
Fred H, Younkins
Published, March, 1978
Washington County Planning Commission
County Office Building
Hagerstown, Maryland 21740
The preparation of this report was financed in part through
a comprehensive planning grant from the Department of Housing
and Urban Development, as administered by the Maryland Depart-
ment of State Planning.
March 27, 1978
Board of County Commissioners for
Washington County
Court House Annex
Hagerstown, Maryland
Gentlemen:
On behalf of the Planning Commission, I am pleased to forward for your review
the 1977 Annual Report which summarizes the accomplishments of the Commission
over the past year. This report reflects not only the performance of the
Commission and the Planning Staff, but also the developmental patterns that
have occurred both in the subdivisions of land and the reclassification of
properties through the rezoning process.
Our major effort has been in the development of a revised Comprehensive Plan
for the County. Throughout 1977, the Planning Commission met regularly on a
weekly basis in special workshop session; with virtually little more than an
outline at the beginning of the year, the Commission, through diligent ef-
forts on the part of the Staff, completed the Plan in its initial form for
delivery to the Department of State Planning in compliance with the 701
Contract. To broaden participation and gain benefit of specialized know-
ledge, the Commission appointed several committees of citizens with various
backgrounds to work on selected items of the Plan. Their efforts have
served the County well and will be reflected in the final draft of the Plan.
The Plan is currently in the process of being edited. The long range scope,
complexity, and essential requirements of clarity make editing difficult
and time consuming, but of utmost importance. Although we have fallen behind
our original schedule, the Commission will not submit the Plan for public
hearing until it can be easily read and understood.
The year has seen substantial changeover in personnel, on both staff and
Commission. New people provide fresh insight and enthusiasm far outweighing
the difficulties of transition.
The Commission worked hard this past year to develop a Plan which addresses
our often conflicting problems of housing, economic growth, agricultural
stability, governmental cost burdens. and responsibilities, and in general
terms, the quality of life we all enjoy in Washington County. We look
eagerly to the challenges of the new year as we fine tune our past years'
efforts to produce a Plan all citizens can embrace.
SS' erely,
Terrance W. Bache, Chairman
TWB:mis
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Planning Organizational Chart
Planning Agency Interrelationships
ii
What Is Planning?
-1-
The Comprehensive Plan
-3-
Capital Improvement Program
-5-
Transportation
-7-
Water and Sewer Plan
-9-
Solid Waste Plan
-10-
Planning Advisory Board
-11-
Special Committees
'12 -
Historic Site Survey
-13-
Detention Center Task Force
-14-
Other Activities
-16-
Subdivision Activity
-17-
1977 Approved Subdivisions
-.19-
Zoning Ordinance and District Boundary Maps
-24.
1977 Zoning Map Amendments
-25,
1977 Development Map
-26,
Zoning Appeals Board Activities
�27-
w
4)
S C
T3
C O
N F
.j.
S
a
Oct
k
F F
N O
I I
(4/
U T
N
U M
T
w u
u
N d w
U N
> O U
U U
m
lu y
4
a
O
k
act
x
E F
ad)
44,4
z
0 N,
N
O
to
4.41 0.
M
C
O
.CU * F
O
F
m
tot) F N
.I
Or fr
4
C
m u T d E
h
u I+ * .O
Iv
-o
I4)>.q4
t
•U w - e
m
14
•M
0.> k 3 W
•.1
0—'.-C'- T O 4 N
Z
of
3 O 0
E
.C> U •n . u F C
•.n
4
n
^o z
e
u •.1 . N 4+ O•.I
o
o
•.0
. 4*C •
O
O! +a Nt u•.IW X
fi
O + ") •
O
m. N u. oo -. ,c - C
u
O
a U e
t0
-.C • Z IO 3 0
+*
U
U
to . -0 t0 C
C
t$4 •C N- >-
Z
C *40
..+
M m.
w
T
•h0 .+ N
G
O Sit O1 T U)
U u
Z
M
.i .M C y F
k
u Ct40Cd
w
4
O
k 3m
NU.F k U•O 0) Oq
m
r1
O
'444
6
F •.1 O 4 .O .•I
_,
0.
U
4.'0
$.a -2O N F .k+ F
#4.-I
0C
(4.-I
F O m •M
sm
a
I
I
�
I
*
-1-
It
Q Cl,Q r �o
m � Z < W tiW
O p 1¢ C ?? 00'OW FO
�
'Ybd Lb f0 �'E aOj�o�P'R
V b 'oy�?`
SSr y3°�yi mi SW; ¢ U v tiWo �' 11
i y0 / 1,ynO0y00 voE �yop \\\
NO� ??
1
I E \
N1ROA I
I
1
TOURISM 1 Is
. I
N
Cl) oAt
5_ CEpA y0\v 1p4� //
Op OD O`g 4 r myi y�'i /
Pfd O o0 e r an d 6` /
11
WHAT IS PLANNING ?
Planning is far more than designation of allowable uses of land. It is
also a guide for orderly allocation of limited resources to ensure a viable,
healthy community. There are many competing demands for our dollar resources
that are provided by the labor of the citizens. As a community develops, it
grows. As it grows, the demands become greater and orderly allocation much
more complex. Planning provides a general guide which includes concerns for
housing, jobs, public facilities, education, health, safety, transportation,
•and the economic character of a community. The guide is then used to set
priorities. Planning also provides the basis for a community to adapt to
change with the least adverse impact.
Washington County has experienced a relatively constant growth of 15% the
past two decades. Although still rural, that growth has changed the County.
The change has brought problems. There is housing without adequate sewage
disposal, some inadequate roads, inflated land and housing costs, and an
ever increasing tax burden on all of us.
Solutions to these problems cannot be bourne by government alone. Rather,
a framework for healthy growth where it can economically be supported must
be planned. Short and long range priorities for expenditures must be set
• recognizing we cannot have everything everyone would like. Additionally,
some areas must be protected as part of our heritage. We must plan our
future to ensure today's solution is not tomorrow's problem.
• 1-
Good planning requires participation of citizens of all backgrounds and ex-
periences. The process must be one of compromise to reach beyond specific
short range interests. In the end the Plan must be generally accepted by
the citizens to be followed and effective, General acceptance is one of the
major challenges of the planning process.
The adoption of the first Comprehensive Plan in 1970 for Washington County
was a major step in the acceptance of our responsibility to look to the
future. Since changes occur in any society, the Plan must be dynamic and
undergo revision. That is the task at hand.
The Planning Commission has been directed by State law to provide the County
• with a Plan that considers ". . . guiding and accomplishing the coordinated,
adjusted, and harmonious development of the jurisdiction, and its environs
which will, in accordance with present and future needs, best promote health,
safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare, as well
as efficiency and economy in the process of development; including among
other things, adequate provision for light and air, conservation of natural
• resources, the prevention of environmental pollution, the promotion of the
healthful and convenient distribution of population, the promotion of good
civic design and arrangement, wise and efficient expenditure of public funds,
and the adequate provision of public utilities and other public requirements."
The Planning Commission aggressively accepts the challenge.
-2-
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
A major part of the Planning Commissionts efforts during 1977 was directed
toward the revision of the Comprehensive Plan. Working under a contract
with the Maryland Department of State Planning, (the "701" Contract), the
Commission completed its initial draft of the Plan and on November 18 met
its contractural obligation through the delivery of the Plan to the State
Planning office. The completion of this draft and delivery resulted in a
total payment from the State to the County of $23,000 for the year 1977.
The Plan, in addressing the needs of the County, has given special attention
to those elements that must be considered for both long and short range
growth of the community. Those principal elements of concern are: Land Use;
Community Facilities; Parks and Open Space; Water and Sewer needs; Trans-
portation; Housing; Solid Waste; and Special Planning Areas. The latter are
areas that require attention because they are unusual and cannot be
addressed in other parts of the Plan. The Commission appointed a Citizens
Committee to designate specific areas and provide appropriate policies and
recommendations. To date, the Edgemont and Smithsburg Reservoir Water-
sheds; the Appalachian Trail; and the Beaver Creek Trout Hatchery and Upper
Beaver Creek have been proposed. These three areas are still being studied,
however, and as of this report publication, have not yet had the benefit of
conclusive review by the Commission.
-3-
While the requirements of the 701 Contract have been satisfied with the
delivery of the Plan to the State, work to edit the Plan continues to
ensure it is clear and easily read and understood prior to bringing it to
public hearing. It is expected that the second half of 1978 will see the
Plan in a form ready for publication and distribution to all concerned juris-
dictions, agencies, and citizens groups for review and comment prior to
presentation to the Board of County Commissioners and subsequent public
airing.
-4-
THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
On July 1, 1977, Maryland State legislation became effective which re-
quires that the County Commissioners adopt a Capital Improvements Program
(C. I. P.) and a Capital Budget, The Program, which covers the ensuing
six years, will contain as its first year the Capital Budget. This
budget, once authorized and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners,
establishes the strict fiscal guidelines for all affected agencies and
departments.
As the coordinating agency, the Planning Commission is charged with the
responsibility of working with all agencies throughout the formative per-
iod of putting together the Program. In completing this process, the
Commission staff compiles data submitted by agencies and departments for
review by the C. I. P. Committee whose responsibility it is to develop a
total Program within allocated funds and at the same time establish recom-
mended priorities for final review and approval by the Board of County
Commissioners. The C. I, P. Committee, composed of the County Adminis-
trator, the Director of Finance, the Planning Commission Chairman, and
the Executive Director of the Planning Department, serves in both a
review and advisory capacity to the Board throughout the final stages of
the process. The result of the Committee review will be a Program both
meaningful and realistic,
-S-
The C. I. P. is designed as a tool to be used in the overall planning
process. It will be closely related to the Comprehensive Plan and will
guide the establishment of funds for new capital projects in the County.
With the Plan as a guide supported by policies that will have been
adopted by the County Commissioners, the C. I, P. for each of the future
years can then be put together and implemented in a manner consistent
with the community plans for future growth. Priorities may be determined
in line with the Plan policies for transportation, public facilities, parks
and open space programs, solid waste disposal, and water and sewer facil-
ities.
-6-
TRANSPORTATION
HAGERSTOWN/WASHINGTON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Throughout the year 1977, the Hagerstown/Washington County Transportation
Study Management Team continued its study of the existing and future
transportation problems in the Hagerstown area, Consideration was given
by the team to all the possible projects in the area that could be of
benefit through either updating existing transportation corridors or
through the construction of new ones,
The Study culminated in an outline of a final report that is soon to be
published and distributed by the Department of Transportation. Those ele-
ments of this report, adopted by the Management Team in the outline, consist
of findings and recommendations for both short range and long range pro-
jects, an analysis of existing and future conditions, and an analysis and
evaluation of proposed improvements including highways both in the City
and in the County, an analysis of future proposed bikeways in the metro-
politan area, an analysis of public transportation, and the analysis and
consideration of the funding aspects of the projects.
The Planning Commission is represented on the Management Team by the staff,
assuring continuity between the Team and the Commission in the preparation
of the Comprehensive Plan. The Transportation Element of the Plan addresses
those matters of concern that are considered by the Management Team and
will recommend policies consistent with them.
-7-
The Board of County Commissioners, through the adoption of a resolution
gave recognition to the findings and recommendations of the Management
Team, Through this resolution, the Board declared its intent to util-
ize the recommended long and short range projects in developing the
County's Capital Improvement Program,
TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
The Board of County Commissioners entered into an agreement with the
Maryland Department of Transportation in October, 1977 for the under-
taking of a Public Transportation Technical Study that will be designed
to provide an analysis of both private and public transportation needs
within the County. The Study will be conducted by a consultant selected
by the County Coordinating Committee and will identify such elements of
transportation needs as the socioeconomic characteristics of the County,
an inventory of existing public transportation services, and the needs
and opportunities for improving and expanding existing transportation ser-
vices throughout the area, Of prime consideration in the Study will be
the presently unmet needs of the elderly and handicapped. The Study is
expected to be completed in August, 1978 and will result in a final report
that will encompass a recommended County Transit Development Program.
The Planning Commission has been designated as the agency to coordinate
the Study and in this capacity will serve as Project Director for the
duration of the Study.
-8-
THE WATER AND SEWER PLAN
As part of an ongoing effort in accordance with the requirements of
Article 43 of the Annotated Code of Maryland, the Planning Commission
has updated the County Water and Sewer Plan and submitted it to the
Board of County Commissioners for adoption and subsequent transmittal
to the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. The transmittal was
accomplished on April 5, 1977, The Board thereafter held public hearings
during which approvals were given for the reclassification of the following
applications; the Clear Spring Outdoor School to W-2 and S-2 on August
2, 1977; the Beaver Creek Trout Hatchery Site to S-3 on August 2; South
Mountain Inn, the installation of a sewer treatment plant; Colonial
Park East to W-3, S-3, on December 13; and Stoneleigh Estates to W-6
on December 13.
Between now and April 5,, 1978,, the Plan will be further updated to re-
flect these approved amendments plus other revisions required by the
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Preliminary information received
from the Department indicates that additional revisions will be required
after the April date and that throughout the remainder of 1978 more
extensive amendments to both the text and maps will be needed to satisfy
State guidelines,.
-9-
THE SOLID WASTE PLAN
As a result of recommendations from the planning Commission, the Board
of County Commissioners in the latter part of 1977 awarded a contract to
a private consultant for the mandated update to the Solid Waste Plan.
As with the Water and Sewer Plan, the Solid Waste Plan is required to be
amended by State law on an annual basis. The revision and update has
been completed in draft form as of the publication of this report and in
the near future will be presented to the elected officials for review
and public hearing.
Comprehensive in nature, the Solid Waste Plan considers the following
elements: 1) Current conditions of landfill operations in the County
including waste acceptance facilities, the collection of waste and the
methods employed including refuse removal, the green box system, the dis-
posal of wastes, and special wastes; 2) Current issues and evaluations
which encompass solid waste disposal, landfill acquisition, resource
recovery, source separation, and energy recovery from solid waste;
3) and lastly, recommendations for administration, public awareness
campaigns, and similar factors necessary for a comprehensive solid waste
program.
-10-
ADVISORY BOARD
The Planning Advisory Board has continued its valuable role in 1977 of
providing representations from the publicnat.,large to the Commission on
all matters relative to planning activities, Established in 1972, the
Board is comprised of nineteen members and serves the planning process
by reviewing proposed changes to the County Zoning Ordinance, the Subdi-
vision Ordinance, the Water and Sewerage Plan, and the Comprehensive Plan.
At present, the Board is actively involved in providing input to the Com-
mission 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 from the inceptive, unadopted outlines and
drafts and are commented on and amended as required to reflect the public
response.
The Board's current membership includes the following persons: 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; Mr.
Charles Morrison; Mrs. Margaret Woodbury; Mrs. Diane Elder; Ms. Judy Kline;
Mr. I. Bruce Barr; Mrs. Anita Masters; Mr. Richard A. Cushwa; Mr, Walt Bailey;
Mr. J. Randall Burns; Mr. Phillip Woodbury; and Ms. Judy Dale.
-11-
SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Throughout 1977, the Planning Commission was fortunate in obtaining
immeasurable assistance from special committees that were appointed
to study and analyze certain elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Mem-
bership was determined to provide a diversity of background. The
committees provided a valuable service to Washington County as they
developed and recommended content for the Plan.
Because of the many and varied facets of the problems surrounding them,
both the Housing Element and the Special Planning Areas Element were
primarily the work of committees. Through the input of these two groups,
the elements have received the benefit of the many different interests
within the County including the Homebuilder's Association, the League of
Women Voters, the Hagerstown Garden Club, various State and local govern-
mental agencies, and citizens -at -large,
A list of all those persons involved in this important process is included
as appendicies at the end of this report, and in recognition of the in-
valuable aid received, the Planning Commission extends its sincere thanks
and appreciation.
-12-
HISTORIC SITE SURVEY
The Historic Site Survey that was begun in 1973 is now drawing to a close.
A total of 1,300 sites was included in the survey and of that number only
S00 sites remain for compilation of data obtained through field work. The
actual on -site survey itself of the structures and places throughout the
County was completed on schedule in April of 1977. The current forecast is
for the entire survey to be done prior to the end of June, 1978 and probably
before.
The survey, conducted by Paula Stoner Dickey, is being performed through con-
tract between the Planning Commission and The Maryland Historical Trust.
Maryland itself currently has one of the most extensive site survey programs
in the United States and within the State, Washington County's survey represents
one of the most thorough and. comprehensive research efforts. -of any of the twenty-
three counties.
In 1977, there were eleven new sites nominated and approved by The Governor's
Consulting Committee and recommended for inclusion on the National Register of
Historic Places. These new nominations bring the "total for Washington County
to more than fifty for sites that have to date been designated and approved
by The Governor's Consulting Committee.
No survey work has been done in any of the towns thus far. Through agreements
with the town governments, however, efforts could be commenced, should the elected
officials choose, to pursue the survey in order to include all of those struc-
tures and places within the incorporated limits that are of not only local but
national interest and significance,
-13-
DETENTION CENTER TASK FORCE
At the end of 1976, the Board of County Commissioners established the
Washington County Detention Center Task Force for the purpose of providing
the Commissioners with a study and recommendations for a new Detention
Center, The Task Force, which was formed immediately after that, is com-
prised of representatives of the law enforcement agencies, the courts,
corrections agencies, and the Planning Commission staff, In this respect,
the Planning staff representative has been designated Chairman of the
Task Force. Such representation is characteristic of the Planning Commis-
sion role in planning for viable community projects.
Beginning with a survey of the existing facilities, the Task Force continued
its study with the cooperation of the National Clearinghouse on Criminal
Justice Planning and Architecture. The result of the initial survey con-
cluded in a report to the County Commissioners in April, 1977, and in this
report the Task Force recommended that, among other things, the present
facility was not worthy of renovation because of gross deficiencies in
plumbing, wiring, and structural integrity. While recommending that the
facility be corrected in these deficiencies immediately consistent with
applicable code requirements, the Task Force further recommended that a
search be started at once for a new site for a new facility.
With the earlier consideration for a joint facility for both Washington and
Frederick Counties having been eliminated, the study continued through the
end of 1977 with special emphasis being placed on such factors as space
-14-
OTHER ACTIVITIES
In addition to the activities presented on the previous pages of this
report; the Commission, primarily through its professional staff, was
involved in numerous other endeavors throughout 1977 that significantly
contributed to the overall planning process. Some of those other ac-
tivities were;
* Membership and participation on the Tri.County Council
for Western Maryland, Inc,
* Staff involvement and assistance in the preparation of an
application for Federal funding through the EDA for road,
water, and sewer extensions in the interstate Industrial
Park.
* Membership and continued involvement with the State Water
Resources Administration 208 Program for the study of non -
point source pollution problems,
* Participation by both the Commission and the staff in the
initial investigation of alternative sewerage disposal
systems.
* Review and analysis of 34 Zoning Site Plans for proposed
businesses and industries,
* Scheduling and conducting preliminary consultations for
proposed subdivisions of land.
* Continuous coordination with the Federal Insurance Admin-
istration on the Flood Insurance Program for Washington
County.
* Review and analysis of State Clearinghouse projects.
-16
1977 SUBDIVISION ACTIVITY
Administration of the Subdivision Ordinance remained a major activity of
the Commission during 1977, Comparative figures for 1975, 1976, and 1977
are shown below. The number of lots and total acreage for simplified plats
(those not for development) are omitted r but for estimating purposes, it
may be assumed that the totals approximate those for development plats.
1977 APPROVALS
TYPE
SUBDIVISIONS
LOTS
ACREAGE
Residential
130
310
669.08
Commercial
1
1
3
8.9
11.9
Industrial -Institutional
3
TOTAL
134
314
689.08
1976 APPROVALS
TYPE
SUBDIVISIONS
LOTS
ACREAGE
Residential
152
599
780.9
Commercial
4
4
6
9.5
36.0
Industrial -Institutional
6
TOTAL
162
609
826.4
1975 APPROVALS
TYPE
SUBDIVISIONS
LOTS
ACREAGE
Residential
100
451
1128,6
Commercial
1
1
3.1
Industrial -Institutional
4
4
29.5
TOTAL
105
456
1161.2
-17-
1977
APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS
SECTOR I
NAME
E.D.
USE
LOTS
ACRES OR
APPROVAL
SQUARE FEET
DATE
Grafton Downs, Jr.
2
R
1
1.04
1/03/77
Ernest A. Knott
23
R
1
.4
1/04/77
David W. Byron
27
R
1
1
1/27/77
Maxine K. Unger
9
R
1
9.48
1/27/77
Richard Cooper
.10
R
2
.31
2/07/77
Ernest A. Knott
13
R
1
.42
2/24/77
Howard W. Hebb, Lots 3 & 4
10
R
2
.60
3/01/77
Colonial Park, Section B
10
R
9
1.73
3/09/77
Adriel J. Keener, Parcel A
13
R
1
.35
3/08/77
Joseph B. Yingling
18
R
1
.819
3/18/77
Pearl L. Weaver
9
R
1
1.44
3/18/77
Dr. and Mrs. Jack Beachley
18
R
1
4.5
3/18/77
Ralph L. Powell
26
R
1
.26
3/24/77
Winfield Treadwell
13
R
1
1.72
3/31/77
Packaging. Services of Md.
2
I
1
3.414
4/04/77
LuRose Estates
27 .. 2
R
2
3.97
4/04/77
Daniel J. Martin
9
R
1
2.96
6/01/77
George D. Barthlow
9
R
1
4.45
6/03/77
Elizabeth H. Young
2
R
1
5.09
6/06/77
Wayne E. Webber
13
R
1
1.2
6/07/77
Joseph B. Yingling
18 -. 2
. R
1
0.8
8/11/77
Henry J. Moser
10
R
1
0.8
6/27/77
J. Marvin Farrow, Lot 2
23
R
1
1.0
7/11/77
Michael L. Fager
9
R
1
1.28
7/21/77
Robert E. Shobe
18
R
1
11.4
8/01/77
Shenandoah's Pride
10
1
1
2.67
8/01/77
Beaverbrook, Section C
9
R
74
105
8/01/77
Daniel H. Horst, Lot 1
13
R
1
1.0
8/01/77
Robinwood, Section G
18
R
44
37.8
8/01/77
W. T. Cooper, Lot C
9
R
1
6.5
8/08/77
W. Preston Howard
26
R
1
0.72
8/10/77
Maxine K. Unger, Lot C
9
R
1
9.2
8/22/77
Donald E. DeBold
23
R
1
0.9
8/30/77
Horst Heights, Lot A
27
R
1
1.83
8/30/77
Martin's Food Store
27
C
1
8.9
9/19/77
James A. Short
26
R
1
0.9
10/05/77
Oak Ridge Estates
26
R
37
13/9
12/05/77
Overnite Transportation
2
I
1
5.86
9/06/77
Carl D. Mills
9
R
1
3.0
9/06/77
Pierce L. Alexander
10 - 1
R
1
1.0
.9/13/77
C -V Development
26
R
4
2.57
9/16/77
Robert E. Shobe
18
R
1
9.9
9/21/77
Orndorff's Folly
10
R
2
2.0
9/21/77
Martin L. Snook, Lot 1
2
R
1
0.63
9/15/77
J. D. Earl Martin, Lot 8
27
R
1
1.65
10/03/77
Charles W. Uzelac
18
R
1
0.65
10/05/77
Richard E. Doub
2
R
1
0.9
10/05/77
James 0. Snurr, Lot 1
9
R
1
9.29
10/24/77
John E. Fager
9
R
1
1.19
11/02/77
Robert E. Eshleman, Lot 1
9
R
1
0.92
11/03/77
John R. Oliver
26
R
4
1.75
11/08/77
Milton Yeager, Parcel F
9
R
1
32.9
11/23/77
-19-
1977 APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS
SECTOR I
NAME
E,D,
USE
LOTS
ACRES OR
APPROVAL
SQUARE FEET
DATE
Clarence Pike, Lot B
2
R
1
1;56
12/02/77
Tarbert Subdivision
26
R
1
0,2
12/12/77
SECTOR IS
Randall E,'Sebold, Lot 1
19
R
1
10.0
1/17/77
Shuvee Estates, Lot 1
12
R
1
34,33
2/25/77
Floyd H, Myers, Lot 3
19
R
1
3.0
3/08/77
Edward C, Gonano, Lot C,1
1
R
1
1.59
3/08/77
Edward C. Gonano, Lot C-2
1
R
1
1.74
3/08/77
Edward C. Gonano, Lot B-1
2
R
1
1,19
3/09/77
Leonard J. Williams, Lot 1
6
R
1
4.00
3/23/77
Leonard J. Williams, Lot 2
6
R
1
3.00
3/23/77
Clarence 0. Poffenberger
6
R
1
1,0
3/23/77
Harry E. Gross, Lot 1
6
R
1
2.1
4/21/77
Clarence E. Kefauver
1
R
1
50.0
5/23/77
Karen Hostmaelingen, Lot C
16
R
1
2.91
5/30/77
Karen Hostmaelingen, Lot 8
16
R
1
7.26
6/03/77
Gerald M. Gift
12
R
1
1.23
6/03/77
David A. Nalley
20
R
1,,-'
3.0
6/06/77
Crow Hollow, Lot N
20
R
1
3,64
6/06/77
Walter R. Stouffer
16
R
1
3.0
7/13/77
Ralph N. Stotler
16
R
1
1.0
7/14/77
George F. Line
19
R
1
10,1
7/25/77
Elmer A. Stone
6
R
1
2.0
7/25/77
Gerald E. Miller, Lot 1
16
R
1
2,8
8/03/77
Clingan Hills, Section II
6
R
2
1,8
8/08/77
Charles A. Papa
16
R
2
1,0
8/24/77
Harry E. Gross, Lot 2
6
R
1
2.2
9/06/77
John C. Detrow, Lot 1
6
R
1
1.4
9/26/77
Beaver Creek Estates
16
R
2
4.26
10/04/77
Fountain Rock Estates, 6 8 7
20
R
2
6.0
10/21/77
Paul P. Elgin
12
R
1
4.0
11/16/77
David L. Poffenberger, Lot 1
1
R
1
0.5
12/12/77
Thomas E. McAfee
19
R
1
2.62
12/14/77
SECTOR III
Donald H. Johnson, Lot 3
2
R
1
4.07
1/26/77
Clyde Grimm, Lot 1
2
R
1
3,0
1/27/77
Joan Shriner
2
R
1
2.74
4/04/77
Samuel E. Smith, Lot 1
8
R
1
1,43
8/05/77
Frank G. Bussard
8
R
1
3.2
8/25/77
Charles Fauble
8
R
1
3.1
9/06/77
Harvey D. Kratz, Lots 2 $ 3
8
R
2
36.5
11/02/77
Joseph W. Sier
8
R
1
3.0
11/08/77
Clara Smith
8
R
1
1.0
11/21/77
Joseph Seir, Lot A
8
R
1
7.26
12/04/77
-20-
1977 APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS
SECTOR IV
NAME
E_D,
USE
LOTS
ACRES OR
APPROVAL
SQUARE FEET
DATE
Stevenson Subdivision
2
R
2
1,9
3/14/77
Joseph S. Brown
7
a
1
5,60
6/01/77
Ringgold Acres, Lot 1
14
R
1
1,2
7/14/77
Ringgold Acres, Lot 2
14
R
1
1,7
7/14/77
William L, Crum, Lot 2
7
R
1
.63
8/01/77
Earl R. Blickenstaff
14
R
1
1.42
8/01/77
Paul R. Wade, Lot 1
14
R
1
3.4
8/12/77
Joseph S. Brown
7
R
1
2.56
12/12/77
SECTOR V
Richard A. Kesselring, Lot 4
2
R
1
5,71
1/04/77
• Mauk Subdivision, Lot A
4
R
1
5.00
1/13/77
• James M. Harnish
4
R
1
1,72
1/17/77
H. Page Smith
4
R
1
0,9
1/27/77
Willard W. Higgins
4
R
1
3,80
2/25/77
Albert Stottlemyer
23
R
1
1.0
4/15/77
Cohill Estates, Lot A
4
R
1
1,0
5/02/77
Orebank Hills
4 - 15
R
6 •
18.0
5/02/77
Schetrompf Subdivision
23
R
1
1,61
5/05/77
• Donald L. Bragunier
4
R
1
• .92
5/16/77
Cohill Estates, Lot B
4 •
R
1
1,0
6/01/77
Charles F. Rankin
23
R
1
7.85
6/03/77
Daisy A. Taylor, Lot 1
15
R
1
1,0
6/03/77
Carl W. Hendershot, Lot 1
23
R
1
1.0
7/13/77
Roy Corwell, Lot F
4
R
1 '
3.1
8/01/77
Charles R. Clopper
4
R
1
1,0
8/04/77
Charles Rankin
23
R
1
10.5
8/18/77
Robert K. Reed, Lot 1
15
R
1
3.02
9/01/77
Roy Corwell
4
R
2
10.58
9/29/77
Orebank Hills, Section A
4
R
2
6.0
10/03/77
Orebank Hills, Section B
15 - 4
R
2
6.0
10/04/77
Daisy Taylor, Lot 1
i5
R
1
3.6
12/15/77
SECTOR VI
Hilda M. Hoffman
5
R
1
3,25
1/27/77
Hull Subdivision, Sec. 1, Lot 5
5
R
1
1.0
3/09/77
William H. Keefer, Sec. 1, Lot 1.
5
R
1
3.33
3/09/77
Robert J. Barnhart
5
R
1
3
7/28/77
Lester E. Keefer
S
R
1
1.0
8/01/77
Pauline E. James
5
R
1
1.56
8/03/77
-21-
1977 APPROVED SUBDIVISION TOTAL
SECTOR I
54
Subdivisions
224
Lots
325,72
Acres
1,45
Mean Lot Size (in
Acres)
6.03
Mean Subdivision
Size (in
Acres)
SECTOR
II
32
Subdivisions
34
Lots
173.02
Acres
5.1
Mean Lot Size (in
Acres)
5,4
Mean Subdivision
Size (in
Acres)
SECTOR
III
10
Subdivisions
11
Lots
65.3
Acres
5.94
Mean Lot Size (in
Acres)
6.53
Mean Subdivision
Size (in
Acres)
SECTOR
IV
8
Subdivisions
9
Lots
18.41
Acres
2.05
Mean Lot Size (in
Acres)
2.30
Mean Subdivision
Size (in
Acres)
SECTOR
V
24
Subdivisions
30
Lots
94.31
Acres
3.15
Mean Lot Size (in
Acres)
3,92
Mean Subdivision
Size (in
Acres)
SECTOR VI
6 Subdivisions
6 Lots
13,14 Acres
2,19 Mean Lot Size (in Acres)
2.19 Mean Subdivision Size (in Acres)
-22-
SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS
The Planning Commission granted final approval for the development of 314
lots in 1977 of which 310 were for residential use, one for commercial use,
and three for industrial use.. This represents a significant drop -- 48% --
from the 609 lots approved in 1976, While the total number of subdivisions
approved was only twenty less than the previous year, the quantity of lots
indicates a substantial reduction in multi -lot subdivisions with a consis-
tent continuation of the single lot subdivisions. Major subdivisions
approved in 1977 were:
74 Lots in Beaverbrook, Section C
44 Lots in Robinwood, Section G
37 Lots in Oak Ridge Estates
The approval of the Martin's Food Stores subdivision represented the single
commercial lot, and industrial approvals were granted to Packaging Services
of Maryland, Shenandoah's Pride Dairy, and Overnite Transportation.
As in previous years, a substantial percentage of the total subdivision ac-
tivity for the whole County took place in Planning Sectors I and II (see
Planning Sector Map enclosed at the end of this report). Of the total 134
subdivisions approved by the Commission in 1977, 64 percent were located in
these two Sectors, and Sector I itself encompassed 40 percent of the total
divisions of land which indicates a continuing preference for development
within the urban growth area of the County. An inspection of the average
lot size in the various Sectors also shows a variation that is consistent
with zoning controls as well as public facility availability.
-23-
ZONING ORDINANCE
AND
DISTRICT BOUNDARY MAPS
The Planning Commission remained active during the year in exercising
its responsibility under the provisions of Article 66B of the Annotated
Code to provide recommendations to the County Commissioners in regard to
proposed map and text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Four public
hearings were conducted during 1977 for this purpose.
There were a total of 18 applications for map amendments in 1977 that
resulted. in public hearing on 15 of the cases; the remaining 3 cases were
in the meantime withdrawn by the applicants, As of the end of 1977, 5 of
the 15 petitions for land reclassification had been approved by the Board
of County Commissioners and 5 were denied, with the remaining S not yet
having come to public hearing before the Commissioners. An additional 3
were approved by the County Commissioners that had been heard by the
Planning Commission in 1976. The approved map amendments are located on
the map following. Recommendations for each of these cases considered by
the County Commissioners were made by the Planning Commission prior to
which a staff report and analysis was completed by the Commission staff.
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.
ZONING APPEALS BOARD ACTIVITIES
During 1977, the Board of Appeals heard a total of 140 cases involving
petitions for relief from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Of
this total, 47 requests were for Special Exceptions, 67 were for vari-
ances, 16 were for expansion of a nonconforming use, S were for the
change of a non -conforming use, and 4 were appeals charging administra-
tive error.
The Board, in hearing and reviewing the cases, granted approval to 78
percent of all those heard. The following table summarizes the cate-
gories of cases considered:
Variance
Special Exception
Expansion of Non -Conforming Use
Change of Non -Conforming Use
Administrative Error
GRANTED DENIED WITHDRAWN TOTAL
59 8 1 68
35 12 - 47
12 4 - 16
3 2 - S
1 3 - 4
110 29 1 140
-27-
APPENDIX
SPECIAL COMMITTEES
SPECIAL PLANNING AREAS COMMITTEE
Linda H. Daniels, Chairman
Dr. and Mrs. George Comstock
Mr. and Mrs. R. D, Corderman
Mrs. Florence Graff
Donald R. Currier
William M. Breichner
Mrs. Denton Jacques
Mrs. James Snyder
Mr. Harold L, Boyer
Mrs. Park 0. Beaver
William B. Bundick
Mrs. Richard Masters
Mr. and Mrs. Philip Myerly
James B. Witherspoon,
Terrance W. Bache
Barbara B. Whitcomb
Al Allenback
Jack B. Byers
Walter F. Clark
Paul M. Eberhart
Robert S. Juravich
Russell Keener
Walt Bailey
Judy Kline
Mr.. Ronald Antill
Mr. Alan D. SheaUer
Ms. Betty Bupp
Mr. and Mrs, James Chapman
Mrs. Richard K, Hershey
Mr.. John Overington
Mr. David E, Black
Mrs. Benjamin Weller
Mr. David Woronecki
Dr, William D. Elliot
Mr. Richard Ott
Mrs, Diane Elder
Mrs, Sally Richards
HOUSING STUDY COMMITTEE
Chairman Dennis C. Miller
Ken Moten
Guy Smith
Annette van Hilst
Harry Van Mater
Doris Vogel
Pat Weber
Judy Dale
Betty Flohr
Daniel W. Fortney