HomeMy WebLinkAboutH_1978 Annual Reportrtiws1' Vi!
W' \ IS
A2j't4s
i .ice_ --� •:-
Annual
Report
1978
Washington County Planning Commission
Washington County, Maryland
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 1978 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 development patterns that have
occurred both in the subdivision of land and the reclassification of properties
through the rezoning process.
As in any year, the sustaining and ongoing review of new development proposals
commanded a large part of the Commission's time, such is the basic role and
fulfillment of the Commission's duties. In addition to this, however, a prime
element of the Commission's activities was the review and prepaxationf, the
Comprehensive Plait This important process, continuing from the time the draft
version of the Plan was delivered to the Department of State Planning in Novem-
ber, 1977, was pursued in weekly meetings where hard work, thorough analysis,
and repeated review characterized the Commission's efforts. Although the Plan
as delivered to the State in 1977 contained the basic framework for its goals,
objectives, and policies, it still needed refining. The Commission's recognition
of this led to the continued improvement of this important policy document
throughout 1978.
No other single aspect of the Commission's work program and possibly no other
one element of all County government activity will have as much impact__ on
future growth patterns as the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission, through its
awareness of this, recognized the necessity of allowing adequate time for the
continued review; the extension of the original completion schedule has been
more than offset by the improved quality of the Plan.
This Comprehensive Plan is the result of a democratic process in which many
parties have participated. Civic organizations, special interest groups,
ad hoc committees, and individuals as well have all provided valuable insight
through their continuing review and analysis of all elements of the Plan. The
importance of public input has long been recognized by the Commission asneces-
sary; sary; in order for the Plan to be truly comprehensive, it must mirror the
needs of the County's citizens.
In its 1977 Annual Report, the Commission stated that "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." This year, the Commission can proudly say
that the objective cited a year before has been met. The work has been hard,
but the results have been rewarding with the completion of a document that is
truly designed to serve the people.
Sin erely,
Terrance W. Bache, Chairman
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
1978 ANNUAL REPORT
Board of County Commissioners
Martin L. Snook, President
R. Lee Downey, Vice -President
Ronald L. Bowers
Burton R. Hoffman
Charles F. Wagaman, Jr.
William J. Dwyer 1974-1978
W. Keller Nigh, III 1974-1978
Washington County Planning Commission
Terrance W. Bache, Chairman
John C. Herbst, Vice -Chairman
Linda H. Daniels
Donald R. Frush 1967-1978
W. Keller Nigh, III 1974-1978
Thomas W. Dwyer
Charles F. Wagaman, Jr., Ex -Officio
William E. Wolford, Jr.
Fred H. Younkins
Published, March 1979
Washington County Planning Commission
County Office Building
Hagerstown, Maryland 21740
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Planning Organizational Chart . . . . . . . . .
. . . i
Agency Inter -relationships . . . . . . . . . .
. . . ii
What is Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 1
The Comprehensive Plan . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 3
The Capital Improvements Program . . . . . . .
. . . 7
Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 9
The Water and Sewer Plan . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 13
Park Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 14
Flood Insurance Program . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 16
Historic Sites Survey . . . . . . . . ... . . .
. . . 17
The Geohydrologic Study . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 18
The Solid Waste Plan . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 20
Used Oil Recovery Program . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 22
Zoning Ordinance and District Boundary Maps .
. . . . 23
Zoning Appeals Board Activities . . . . . . .
. . . . 26
1978 Subdivision Activity . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 27
Subdivision Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 34,35,36
Significant Developments . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 37
1978 Development Map . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 39
1978 Zoning Map Approvals . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 40
1972-1978 Subdivision Trend Map . . . . . . .
. . . . 41
H O
Op
to
N
N
9 E
C N
C
H
a C
00.0
o
III
y
O w
0
ti w
N U
u N
4-.
to , -
.H
N
tie
O 00
top
Co
✓
C
W
C
N
H
to
'O N
EE
S.. N
y
'HOC 0 -in
to
N
''0)
O
F
PC
V�
N
10
,00N
U N C 1j F
F+
O
O
C.
O
O 0.. N E C
N N F
.�
a
to
pN, v 3 W E
N
toN
•H
EE
O ..
u •'i T E O x
O H ; N W C
U
N
N
. K
N
A
C
to
CON
O
00
O
n H m y" 00
E
J to Ct b0.-1 O
.N
V.
C
E
o 3
u
.C
N^ Q i 3}
o
to
n.
✓«
j
O
E
.H
O
O a C
O
H
3
W
y
o
vCi C w
u0
Vi x
w yX
>
.N
o
N
v
T
qb
'-4O
N
3A N N
K
m
o
C
Y
• O H N
C
w v E to E v
7
x
O
C
yZ
a O C N O
00 O
N
0) 000004) C o O N O
U 'H .N N
U
O
U
N
U)
N
O
O
m
"' w
"
to
a
P.
o
U
•toi vxm m
•
P.
CCci
w
to
Nj U
0 U 3
N
oto
to
v
ti
W 4
d v e d• 4 JP ,�P
POJ �Q1 J b
HO
E�h`�Iy ,/yw0 v u W 4 J9 6\!4 OQtaQ'a \\
sS �'
ddsb d';' ay
OY���6
O OpbOp a'bad tk'
A, ,o b h p v @ v 1
M018g/Mp00 / a OQ6g \\
H1ROA I \
1 � N
TOURISM I s m �_
DEPARTMENT v
gpNla1* 1\ Q
® OEPp \\ 90\� QPS qa
I
0 �O JOPt X00,1,,c$;',
R%'
i0
P = d
® hvP ? qQ0 OW ti= m WW {d 70
it
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 15o 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 we 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.
Good planning requires participation of citizens of all backgrounds and
experiences. The process must be one of compromise to reach beyond specific
short range interests. In the end, the Plan, if it is to be effective,
must be generally accepted by the citizens. General public 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 that was delivered to the Department of State
Planning in November, 1977, contained all the principal elements neces-
sary for a Plan and reflected the basic strategies that the Planning
Commission intended for this important policy document. It was thorough
in its analysis of needs for various elements of the County's society such
as transportation, educational facilities, parks and recreation, public
health, housing, water and sewer, and many more. Goals, objectives, and
policies were designed to provide the framework for subsequent implemen-
tation and were all included. The fundamental groundwork had been laid
for a sound Plan, but now it was time for improvements. The Planning Com-
mission announced at that time its intention of continued review throughout
1978 so as to produce a final document worthy of public inspection. The
result of that continuing review has been the completion in draft form of
a restructured Plan that as of this writing is ready for presentation to the
public.
Article 66B of the Annotated Code requires that copies of the proposed Plan
be distributed to all adjacent planning jurisdictions and to all State and
local jurisdictions having an interest. It is the Commission's intention to
distribute the Plan to as many agencies, civic groups, and public -interest
organizations as practicable so as to provide for widespread review and
study of the Plan during the sixty-day period required by law. All individuals,
groups, agencies, and organizations reviewing the Plan will be asked to submit
-3-
comments and recommendations pertaining to the Plan and its contents.
Additional study will then be made of the public input, and further re-
view will be conducted by the Commission resulting in further changes to
the document.
Throughout this sixty-day period, presentations to the public will be made
by both the Commission members and the planning staff; a list of all the
organizations, groups, and agencies will be prepared for this series of
public information sessions. The purpose of public exposure is twofold:
1) the proposed policies that are designed to direct the planned growth
of the County over the next twenty years must be understood by a public
whose future decisions in matters of development will be guided by the Plan,
and 2) public sentiment and opinion is an all-important factor in determining
if the proposed goals and policies truly reflect the public need.
After the sixty-day period and following final revisions to the proposed
Plan, the document will then be transmitted to the County Commissioners for
their review, and then, over a period of three months, presentations will
be made to the Board by the Commission. Quite probably there will be more
presentations to public groups during this same span of time. Following
this three-month period, during which it is expected that revisions will be
made to the proposed Plan, the Planning Commission will hold public hearings
for the purpose of obtaining formal public opinion. The results of the
hearings, along with a recommendation from the Planning Commission, will be
forwarded to the County Commissioners for their consideration and subsequent
public hearings and adoption.
4
The proposed Comprehensive Plan in its design constitutes a major departure
from the present policies that control land use. Whereas the presently
adopted Plan is general in scope, the proposed Plan is intended to be more
specific and is oriented toward providing policies that will allow greater
latitude in many aspects of development while at the same time addressing
the necessity to set sensible guidelines for future growth that will not
result in burdensome costs to the public. The principal thrust of the
proposed Plan is to establish Growth Areas within the service district
limits of present urbanized sections of the County; policies designed to
permit more flexibility in development design than is now allowed are pro-
posed. Such growth policies will be consistent with present and future
planned provisions for utilities and services. On the other hand, the pol-
icies for the counterpart of the Urban Growth Area, the Rural -Agricultural
Area, are designed to discourage scattered, illy -planned development that
presently characterizes some sections of the County. Policies are set forth
in the proposed Plan clearly stating opposition to the extension of water and
sewer service to rural areas where the public costs would be impractical if
not prohibitive. The necessity for providing for the preservation of farm
land as well as recognizing the importance of open space is also addressed,
and specific policies aimed at saving our prime agricultural land for future
generations are proposed.
The adoption of the Plan will not generate the implementation of its policies.
As a policy document the Plan provides the basis for subsequent changes to
both the Subdivision Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance where implementation
-5-
takes place. Here, the specific mechanics will need to be studied for
putting the Plan policies into effect, and in this respect, additional
public hearings will be held and the proposed changes to the Ordinances
thoroughly reviewed prior to adoption.
Present requirements of the Zoning Ordinance are rigid, i.e. standardized
densities are permitted in certain areas, lot areas are set, and building
setbacks are specific. With the latitude provided for in the proposed
Plan, greater flexibility may be obtained through implementing the concept
of the Planned Unit Development wherein through the review process the
Planning Commission may allow innovative site design consistent with the
provision of available public utilities. Such provisions will provide for
a more reliable housing supply while at the same time assure that develop-
ment is directed where it is most cost effective.
-6-
THE CIP
In 1978, the County Commissioners adopted the first comprehensive and
meaningful Capital Improvements Program for the County, and since that
time the C. I. P. has demonstrated its worthiness as a tool for regulating
and guiding public expenditures of a capital nature.
Following submittal of the initial requests from the various agencies
and departments, the Planning Department conducted a review to determine
compliance with adopted and projected plans for growth throughout the
community. Following that, the requests were analyzed and reviewed by the
C.I.P. Committee to further determine the necessity of proposed projects.
Such review was conducted with respect to pre -established capital budgets
for each agency as well as in regard to relative project priority. The
Committee, in its assigned role as review and advisory body to the Board of
County Commissioners, then submitted the completed package to the Board
for its consideration. The result, following adoption of the C.I.P. by the
Board in June, 1978, was a meaningful and realistic document that not only
is an indicator of agency requirements for the next six -year period but is
also a clear declaration on the part of the Board for public expenditures
during that period, particularly within the first -year Capital Budget.
The C.I.P. is particularly adaptive to the role of an implementing document
for the Comprehensive Plan. Annual review of the requested projects in
relation to the adopted policies of the Plan will assure consistency through-
-7-
out the capital expenditure process. Priorities for capital budget re-
quests for such areas as parks, roads, public facilities, solid waste
disposal, and public transportation will be determined in relation to
adopted Plan policies.
TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
In 1977 the Board of County Commissioners entered into a contractual
agreement with the Maryland Department of Transportation to conduct a
Transit Development Program Technical Study. This study, funded through
the Urban Mass Transit Administration and administered for the State by the
Department of Transportation, was conducted throughout 1978 for the purpose
of determining the transit needs of the County, particularly as they affect
the needs of the elderly and the handicapped. Through the consultant
selection process the County selected the firm of Henningson, Durham and
Richardson of Washington, D. C., who through their study during the year
evaluated such factors as the socio-economic status of the County, transit
alternatives that may be pursued within the area of mass transit in the County,
as well as an inventory and analysis of existing public transportation fa-
cilities. The principal purpose for this study is to provide the County with
a technical foundation from which a Transit Development Program can be set
up that addresses the County's needs for future years and evaluates these
needs in terms of cost saving methods.
Henningson, Durham and Riahardson in presenting its findings in the form of a
draft report to the Planning Commission has determined that several salient
points illustrate the status of public transportation in Washington County at
present. First, substantial new investment in public transportation is not
warranted at this time. This finding is based upon the inventory conducted by
-9-
the consultant of all the public transportation facilities within the
County including the County Commuter service, the privately owned and
operated taxi service, and the services provided for transportation by
social service agencies that own and maintain 24 vehicles. Secondly, the
consultant has determined that the County's transportation resources are
not always applied to its mobility problem in the most effective or ef-
ficient manner. In this regard the consultant has proposed that an
evaluation be made of current services and routes provided by not only the
County Commuter service but by the various social services agencies as well.
in an effort to see if there can be some combination and utilization of these
existing services. The conclusion of the consultant is that Washington
County is indeed transportation rich and need not increase its public trans-
portation capabilities any further. The consultant has also suggested in
this line that more efficient use of the existing vehicles be pursued in
order that the various modes of transportation may be more efficiently
utilized.
Two further options have been suggested as a means of improving the overall
public transportation system within the County. First, it is recognized that
some of the County Commuter routes are definitely not profitable and in fact,
lead to a costly deficit in operation. The consultant has recommended that
the County consider eliminating some of these less efficient routes and
substitute for that service a subsidized taxi service which would still pro-
vide the service at a far less cost to the County government. A second option
-10-
proposed by the consultant is for a "travel agent" office to be established
in the County whereby one office will have the responsibility of coordinating
public transportation needs through all the various services that are capable
of so serving the public. Such a service would provide a more efficient use
of existing transportation in the County, particularly as it affects the
elderly and the handicapped. The travel agent would operate a telephone in-
formation service to place those who need to take a trip in touch with the
resource that could best serve that trip thereby maximizing the efficiency of
existing public service vehicles.
At the time of writing of this Annual Report the Transit Development Program
Technical Study has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and has been
forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for its review and consideration
prior to the final report being forwarded to the Department of Transportation
and the Urban Mass Transit Administration.
NEW COMMUNITY HIGHWAY PLAN
Throughout the second half of 1978 the County Planning Commission conducted
an analysis of the presently adopted County Highway Plan as it relates to the
New Community Area and the Robinwood/Hagerstown Junior College Area. It was
recognized through review of proposed subdivisions in that area that the pres-
ent proposals for future highway development were not adequate as they relate
to the layout of subdivisions in relation to the proposed highway corridors.
A special Technical Study team was formed and was comprised of representatives
-11-
from the Engineering Department, the City of Hagerstown Planning Department,
the City Engineering Department, the Maryland Department of Transportation,
and was chaired by the Senior Planner for the County Planning Commission.
Throughout its analysis, the Technical Study team determined the most prac-
tical method of designing the proposed highway system in this area consistent
with existing corridors as well as proposed corridors such as the new Eastern
Boulevard.
This proposed highway change was presented to both the Planning Commission and
the Board of County Commissioners on several occasions and after due consider-
ation and study of the matter the Board adopted in modified form the proposed
amendment to the Highway Plan on February 6, 1979.
-12-
THE WATER AND SEWER PLAN
In compliance with the requirements of Article 43, Section 387C of the
Annotated Code that addresses the annual update of the County Water and
Sewer Plan, the Planning Commission submitted its annual update to the
Board of County Commissioners who subsequently approved the revisions and
'• submitted those revisions to the State in July of 1978.
Because of the priorities established by the completion of the Comprehensive
Plan very little effort was expended on any further revisions to the Water
and Sewer Plan throughout 1978. The Planning Commission has recognized the
State's position in this matter and as such, has drafted a work program for
complete update of the Water and Sewer Plan to make it a workable document.
It is expected that the full completion of the Water and Sewer Plan to in-
corporate all the technical study, mapping amendments, and revisions to
tables will cost in the neighborhood of $33,000. At the time of this writing
the Planning Commission is in the process of determining the extent to which
• it wants to recommend effort be placed on this updating to the Board of County
Commissioners. Present Commission departmental staffing does not provide for
the update as proposed by the State, and, since present staff personnel assigned
to work on the Water and Sewer Plan also work on the Comprehensive Plan, decisions
• will need to be made as regards priority between these two all-important Plans.
-13-
In 1978 the County Planning Commission assumed the responsibilities for all
park planning activities that heretofore had been under the direction of the
Department of Parks and Recreation. In accepting these duties, the Planning
Commission has been able to integrate the park planning activities with the
other planning functions of the County that are so important in considering
any park planning functions throughout the County. By placing the park
planning activities in the Planning Department along with the other planning
activities that are pursued by that Department, the County is now able to achieve
cost savings measures through the integration of park planning with other plan-
ning functions such as Water and Sewer Studies, studies of the New Community
Area, and the analysis of the highway systems throughout the County.
Park planning functions currently entail work in three areas; the Halfway
County Park, Pen Mar County Park, and the new Ditto Farms Regional Park. Be-
cause of its location relative to a concentrated population within the County
and because of its ability to serve a great number of people, Halfway Park was
given the highest priority in 1978 with the development and completion of
Phase I. Phase I, consisting of two soft ball diamonds, a tennis court, a
football/soccer field, children's playground, park pavilion, fitness trail, and
a basketball area that is converted to an outdoor ice skating rink in winter
time, are the various facilities within Phase I that are designed to serve not
only the residents of the immediate community but those throughout the County
as well.
-14-
Both planning and design are currently taking place for Phase II of Halfway
Park as well as are planning and design activities for the dance pavilion
proposed for funding by private sources at Pen Mar Park, and initial lay -out
and site design of the Ditto Farms Regional Park.
.tt
On May 1, 1978, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the 100 Year
Flood Plain Standards established by the Federal Insurance Administration
and in so doing replaced the SO Year Flood Plain Standards used until that
time. The adoption of this 100 Year Flood Plain Standard was necessary
in order to comply with the Federal Insurance Administration's guidelines
for a Flood Insurance Program for the County. With the adoption of this
change to the County Zoning Ordinance, the formal Flood Insurance Program
came into effect for the County.
The Planning Commission, recognizing that the adoption of this 100 Year
Flood Plain Standard will remove more land from potential development,
directed the Planning Staff to study the feasibility of permitting develop-
ment within the delineated flood plain where it is now prohibited. An
analysis of this has been made and as of the writing of this report the
Planning Commission is working with the State Water Resources Administration
to investigate the feasibility of the County's Ordinance referencing the
State Water Resources Administration's regulations that were promulgated in
August of 1978. The results of this study are expected to be forthcoming at
an early date.
-16-
In mid -1978 the County completed its Historic Sites Survey that had been
conducted by the contracted consultant over the past several years. As a
result of this Survey there are now a total of 1,615 sites of potential
historic significance identified throughout the County. These sites have
been analyzed and documented in the form of reports by the consultant with
reports being on permanent file in the Planning Commission offices. In
addition, the 1,615 sites have also been identified on a series of U.S.G.S.
Quadrangle maps for the County that locate the specific structure or site
that has been studied.
The culmination of this Historic Site Survey has resulted in not only in
something of benefit to those currently having an interest in matters of
historic significance throughout the County, but also provides a framework
for future generations whereby those having an express interest will be able
to pursue this interest through the documentation that has been so carefully
prepared throughout this site survey process.
-17-
THE GEOHYDROLOGIC STUDY
Early in 1978 the Maryland State Water Resources Administration proposed to
the Planning Commission and subsequently to the Board of County Commissioners
that a study be undertaken in the County to determine in what manner the
County may best cope with the somewhat unique and problematic geohydrology of
the area. Washington County's geology is characterized by a prevalent karst
formation comprised of limestone that underlays the sub -surface of the County's
soil and which because of its formations is recognized as a problem -causing
agent for groundwater pollution.
The overall intent of this proposed Geohydrologic Study is to improve the
ability of Washington County to administer environmentally sound development
with respect to the probability of groundwater degradation that is caused by
the karst formations. One consultant, Richard Wright and Associates of Har-
risburg, Pennsylvania, has proposed a work program for conducting this study.
The Geohydrologic Study Task Force that was appointed by the County Commissioners
earlier in the year has worked with the consultant and through subsequent
activities has prepared a suggested statement of work that will be sent by the
County Coordinating Committee to a number of consultants having an interest in
this matter. To date, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
through the State Water Resources Administration has committed $48,000 for con-
ducting this study while the Board of County Commissioners has committed an
additional $36,000. It is expected that a further grant of $105,500 will be
provided by EPA in the spring of 1979 thereby supplying the County with the
estimated $184,500 that it is expected to take for the entire study as proposed.
-18-
As of this writing the Coordinating Committee is in the process of sending
statements of work to interested consultants following which pre -bid con-
ferences will be arranged for an exchange of information and data between
the Coordinating Committee and the consultant. Following that, and after
the consultants have submitted their statements of work, an evaluation will
be made by the Coordinating Committee and a recommendation forwarded to the
Board of County Commissioners for consultant selection.
While there are other geohydrologic studies presently being performed through-
out the State under the auspices of the State Water Resources Administration,
the one proposed for Washington County is expected to be a first of its kind
( insofar as it is designed to address the problems caused by the limestone
geology of the area that have resulted in contaminated wells and failing
septic systems throughout the community. It is expected that the results of
this study will indeed be beneficial to the community and will provide for
implementable tools that can be used by both the County government and by
developers alike in determining the problem areas that may be avoided in the
development process. It will also provide agencies such as the County Health
Department with additional reliable data as it relates to groundwater pollution
throughout the County.
_19-
THE SOLID WASTE PLAN
As with the Water and Sewer Plan, the requirement for annual update of the
Solid Waste Plan for the County is to be found in Article 43, Section 387C
of the Annotated Code. The revision and update of the Solid Waste Plan was
completed in 1978 by the Planning Commission and forwarded to the County
Commissioners for subsequent adoption and submittal to the State Department
of Health and Mental Hygiene.
The Solid Waste Plan is comprehensive in nature and in accordance with State
guidelines has considered such elements as 1) The current conditions of the
County Landfill operations including waste acceptance facilities, the col-
lection of waste in the methods employed including refuse removal, the
green -box system, the disposal of wastes and special wastes; 2) Current
issues in evaluations which encompass solid waste disposal, landfill acqui-
sition, resource recovery, source separation, and energy recovery from solid
waste; and 3) Recommendations for administration, public awareness campaigns,
and similar factors necessary for a comprehensive Solid Waste Program.
In a parallel effort to address the community's needs for handling solid waste
disposal, the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 has been
designed to provide for a series of long-term actions on the part of industry,
the public, as well as all levels of government to adequately provide for solid
waste management throughout the various communities. In this regard the State
Environmental Services Department is working with the Federal Environmental
-20-
Protection Agency, the State Water Resources Administration and the various
Counties throughout the State in an effort to bring into focus the Counties'
needs as it pertains to the mandate of the Federal law. The primary ob-
jectives of the Act are to provide technical and financial assistance for
the development of management plans and facilities for recovery of energy
and other materials from discarded materials, to establish State programs
for the management of hazardous wastes, to close open dumps, and to ensure
that all solid wastes are either utilized for resource recovery or other-
wise disposed of in an environmentally sound manner. At the present it is
not quite clear what the relationship will be between the RCRA Federal
mandates and the existing requirement for update of the Community Solid Waste
Plan as provided for in State law. It is expected that through continuing
working relationships between the State and Federal agencies one requirement
for community update of the Solid Waste Plan will ultimately result.
As a result of the Maryland Used Oil Recycling Act that was passed through
the Maryland legislature and signed into law in May of 1978, Washington
County has agreed with the Maryland Environmental Services to assist in
implementing this law in the County. With an effective date of January 1,
1979, the law prohibits the disposal of used oil in any of the lands or
waters of the State and provides for penalties where there are violations.
In an initial plan to get the program underway, the Maryland Environmental
Services Department has contacted a number of service stations throughout
the area as collectors for used oil in the community. Signs have been
distributed to the gas stations that are willing to participate in this
program and the public is asked to cooperate by delivering used oil
from their vehicles,etc. , to these official oil collection stations. The
County Planning Commission has been designated by the County Commissioners
as the contact body for the County for the continued cooperation and imple-
mentation of this program. Efforts are currently underway to elicit the
assistance of environmentally minded organizations and civic groups through-
out the County in order that the program may be put into effect through
additional areas of the County that have not yet been contacted by the
Environmental Services Department. It is expected throughout calendar year
1979 substantial progress will be made by the Planning Commission in generating
public interest in this regard in the furtherance of protection of our environ-
ment from improperly disposed oil.
-22-
ZOMNG
DISTRICT
In 1978 a number of applications for the rezoning of properties through-
out the County were approved by the Board of County Commissioners with the
first being:
- The lands of Harvey K. Shank, Jr., consisting of 11.21
acres that were rezoned from an Agricultural classifi-
cation to that of Industrial, General along the
Sharpsburg Pike just north of the Earley Industrial
Park.
- The application for reclassification of 11 acres filed by
Danzer Metal Works Company in the Halfway Area was also
approved by the County Commissioners and was reclassified
from the existing RU District to the requested IR District.
A mapping error discovered through routine analysis of the
Zoning Maps led to the reclassification of lands owned by
the Weverton Development Trust and the State of Maryland
with 21+ acres owned by Weverton Trust having been reclas-
sified to the correct classification of BG from Conservation
zoning and to correctly identify the land owned by the State
as Public zoned lands.
Approval was also granted for a petition filed by Tom M.
Davis for his 51.73 acres of Agriculturally zoned land to
Planned Residential located just south of the Huyett's Cross-
roads intersection on Md. Route 63.
-23
Both the location and the reclassification designations are shown on
the Zoning Amendment Map located in a later section of this Annual
Report.
-25-
ZONING APPEALS BOARD ACTIVITIES
During 1978, the Board of Appeals heard a total of 151 cases involving
petions for relief from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Of
this total, 43 requests were for Special Exceptions, 81 were for Variances,
14 were for Expansion of a Non -Conforming Use, 5 were for a Change of a
Non -Conforming Use, and 8 were appeals charging Administrative Error.
The Board, in hearing and reviewing the cases granted approval to 77
percent of all those heard. The following table summarizes the categories
of cases considered:
GRANTED DENIED WITHDRAWN TOTAL
Variance 69 10 2 81
Special Exception 26 13 4 43
Expansion of Non -
Conforming Use 13 1 -0- 14
Change of a Non -
Conforming Use S -0- -0- 5
• Administrative Error 4 4 -0- 8
117 28 6 151
-26-
Administration of the Subdivision Ordinance remained a major activity of
the Commission during 1978. Comparative figures for 1976, 1977, and 1978
are shown below, including a breakdown of those approved as Simplified
Plats:
1978 APPROVALS
# OF
TYPE
SUBDIVISIONS
LOTS
ACREAGE
Residential
122
261
1118.6
Commercial
7
11
38.11
Industrial -Institutional
4
4
14.7
Simplified
86
113
650.43
TOTAL
219
389
1821.84
1977 APPROVALS
# OF
TYPE
SUBDIVISIONS
LOTS
ACREAGE
Residential
130
310
669.08
Commercial
1
1
8.9
Industrial -Institutional
3
3
11.9
TOTAL 134 314 689.08
1976 APPROVALS
# OF
TYPE
SUBDIVISIONS
LOTS
ACREAGE
Residential
152
599
780.9
Commercial
4
4
9.5
Industrial -Institutional
6
6
36.0
TOTAL
162
609
826.4
-27-
Regular monthly meetings of the reviewing agencies, Commission staff, con-
sultants, and applicants continued throughout the year in order to monitor
the status of active subdivision plats. Additionally, on a request basis,
preliminary consultations were conducted on the first and third Thursday of
each month. There were 15 such consultations held during 1978.
The Planning Commission continued the use of the Administrative Policy, which
permits the Chairman or the Executive Director to approve one and two lot sub-
division plats as well as simplified plats, provided the requirements of the
Subdivision Ordinance are met. This procedure eliminates unnecessary delays
of these subdivision applications.
A list of all approved 1978 subdivisions for development by Planning Sector is
provided on the following pages with a summary of the statistical distribution
shown below:
DEVELOPMENT PLATS
PLANNING
NUMBER
ACREAGE
AVERAGE
NUMBER OF
AVERAGE SIZE
SECTOR
OF LOTS
LOT SIZE
SUBDIVISIONS
OF SUBDIVISION
SECTOR I
119
223.08
1.87
41
5.44
SECTOR II
44
115.64
3.54
35
3.3
SECTOR III
10
96.82
9.68
9
10.76
SECTOR IV
9
24.4
2.71
8
3.05
SECTOR V
46
498.33
10.83
21
23.73
SECTOR VI
48
173.14
3.6
19
9.11
TOTALS
276
1131.4
4.1
133
8.5
-28-
1978 APPROVED SUBDIVISI
vwhc•E.D.
USE
LOTS
ACRES OR
APPROVAL
SQUARE FEET
DATE
Hilda Golden Cameron
13
R
1
.75
1/05/78
U -Haul
13
C
1
8.03
1/09/78
Horst Heights, Lot.A
27
R
1
1.83
1/13/78
Donald Grove ;"
13
R
1
3.69
2/23/78
Stanley M. Morley
18 - 1
R
2
59.30
2/28/78
Samuels, Yassky,_L Prayer
26
C
1
10.24
3/08/78
Kenneth F. Butler
2
R
2
.69
4/13/78
Woodmoor, Section G
26
R
39
10.7
5/02/78
Doris E. Beard
27
R
1
11.77
5/02/78
McMullan-Graves,Fjrm
23
R
10
11.1
5/02/78
Thurman B. Thurston
9
R
1
1.0
5/05/78
Michael A. Massi.h
2
R
2
2.40
5/25/78
Hag./Wash.Co. Ind. Found.
(Canteen Services)
2
I
1
3.26
6/05/78
Ollen 0. Craig
13
R
1
1.0
6/16/78
Kenneth R. Hammond, Parcels MB
9
R
2
3.0
6/28/78
Office Supply Store
27
C
1
1.51
7/29/78
Raymond H. Martin
13
R
1
1.2
8/10/78
Evelyn L. Martin
27
R
2
3.0
8/17/78
Edgar H. Burkholder
24
R
1
.92
8/22/78
Paul U. Shilling
18 - 1
R
1
1.72
8/29/78
Brightwood Acres, Inc.
10 - 1
I
1
5.19
8/29/78
Donald W. Burger
13
R
1
.25
9/06/78
Andrew T. Luther
18
R
1
.92
9/18/78
Everett J. Norris, Lot 2
2
R
1
4.24
9/18/78
Joseph H. Forsyth, Jr.
26
R
1
.77
9/26/78
Fountainhead Plaza
27 - 1
C
5
10.75
10/02/78
Garden Spot, Section E
13
R
12
6.6
10/02/78
C$P Telemphone Co. Bldg.
26 - 1
C
1
3.0
10/02/78
Harrell $ Randall Office Bldg.
27
C
1
.58
10/02/78
Howard W. Hebb, Parcels MB
10
R
2
.98
10/18/78
John J. Hull
13
R
1
2.21
10/19/78
Wayne E. Weber
13
R
1
.92
10/25/78
Mrs. Cora P. Shindle
13
R
2
1.57
11/01/78
Youngstoun, Phase I
18 - 1
R
1
5.5
11/06/78
McDade Farms, Section 1
13 $ 24
R
10
12.7
12/04/78
Carl D. Mills, Lots 2$3
9
R
2
6.08
12/07/78
Floyd T. Palmer •10
- 2
R
1
1.5
12/07/78
Keener/Michael
9
R
1
1.0
12/07/78
D. Richard Martin
13
R
1
.95
12/19/78
Carl E. Spicher
13
R
1
2.96
12/22/78
Carl L. & Darlene E. Diller
9
R
1
15.8
12/28/78
SECTOR II
E.D.
USE
LOTS
ACRES OR
APPROVAL
NAME
SQUARE FEET
DATE
Bryan D. McDowell
6
R
1
2.55
3/02/78
Robert N. Myers •
20
R
1
15.0
5/05/78
-29-
1978
APPROVED
SUBDIVISIONS
SECTOR II
NAME
E.D.
USE
LOTS
ACRES OR
APPROVAL
SQUARE FEET
DATE
Ronnie Hott
20
R
1
3.28
5/05/78
Karin Hostmaelinger, Lot D
16
R
1
2.13
5/15/78
Kefauver/Blumenauer
1
R
1
26.3
5/19/78
Paul E. Williams
19
R
1
1.03
5/23/78
Wind Song Hills
12
R
1
11.51
5/29/78
Ellsworth D. Reeder
6
R
2
3.2
6/02/78
Edwin R. Burtner
19
R
1
1.42
6/08/78
Winfield M. Schamel
20
R
1
1.07
6/13/78
Hazel f, Kenneth L. Brown
19
R
2
1.96
6/15/78
Jerry L. & Ronnie L. Crampton
1
R
1
7.27
6/21/78
Paul Jenkins
12
R
1
1.0
6/28/78
Aldo S. Torboli
6
R
2
4.0
7/12/78
John W. Rowland
20
R
1
2.75
7/14/78
Helen J. Miller
6
C
1
4.0
7/26/78
Robert J. Easterday, Parcels MB
6
R
2
4.15
8/07/78
Opequon Farms, Lot B-2
20
R
1
5.47
8/24/78
Richard L. Bowers, Lots 6$7
6
R
2
4.1
8/29/78
Clingan Hills, Section III
6
R
2
2.44
8/29/78
Homer E. Rowland
12
R
1
2.17
9/15/78
Beatrice B. Grove
6
R
2
6.99
9/15/78
William F. White, III
1
R
1
3.41
9/27/78
Braeburn West
16
R
1
1.65
9/29/78
F. Palmer/D. Baker, Parcel A
12
INS
1
2.0
10/02/78
Thrift Loan Corp., Parcel D
6
R
1
6.31
10/02/78
Lawrence B. Izer
20
R
3
3.75
10/02/78
Roger L. Bowman
6
R
1
.92
10/17/78
Charles Ruch
12
R
1
11.01
10/25/78
Elbert L. Moser
6
R
1
2.97
11/02/78
Edna B. Cave
12
R
1
.98
11/06/78
Hazel $ Kenneth Brown
19
R
1
3.0
11/09/78
H. Lee Roy Ruth
16
R
1
1.44
12/07/78
Wesley R. Patterson, Parcel 25
6
R
1
1.41
12/22/78
Riley W. Hott
20
R
1
3.0
12/22/78
SECTOR III
NAME
E.D.
USE
LOTS
ACRES OR
APPROVAL
SQUARE FEET
DATE
Donald E. Pearson
8
R
1
5.0
2/15/78
Pleasant Valley Site
8
I
1
4.25
4/20/78
Carroll T. Mullendore
8
R
1
3.14
6/26/78
Ernest M. Dodson 11
- 2
R
1
15.9
6/28/78
Herman E. Jones
8
R
2
57.61
9/14/78
Mrs. John T. Himes, Parcel A
11
R
1
1.92
9/25/78
Katherine K. Caffrey
11
R
1
3.0
11/01/78
Joseph E. Hannah
8
R
1
3.0
11/13/78
Howard C. Marker
8
R
1
3.0
12/26/78
-30-
1978 APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS
SECTOR IV
ACRES OR
APPROVAL
NAME
E.D.
USE
LOTS
SQUARE FEET
DATE
Jack M. Cline, Lots 1$2
7
R
2
4.32
1/25/78
Clyde R. Kendall, Lot 1
7
R
1
.93
2/03/78
Austin H. Bikle
7
R
1
1.63
2/03/78
Calvin G. Pryor
14
R
1
3.26
6/12/78
Robert S. Ross
7
R
1
.64
6/15/78
Maxine K. Unger, Parcel D
7
R
1
6.1
7/21/78
Charles D. Miles, Jr.
14
R
1
1.91
10/16/78
Maxine K. Unger, Parcel G
7
R
1
5.61
12/14/78
SECTOR V
NAME
E.D.
USE
LOTS
ACRES OR
APPROVAL
SQUARE FEET
DATE
Fort Frederick Mountain
View Estates
15
R
24
267.0
1/09/78
Forge, Ltd.
23
R
2
106.3
4/10/78
Ronald E. Keyton, Parcel A
23
R
1
38.8
6/05/78
Rodney G. Saloom, Parcel A
4
R
1
2.24
6/12/78
James S. Johnson
23
R
1
2.15
6/28/78
Helen L. Albright
4
R
1
2.44
7/06/78
Robert S. Orndoff
23
R
1
2.12
7/14/78
Ronald E. Bricker
23
R
1
1.0
8/01/78
Cottingham/Burger, Lot 1
4
R
1
1.44
8/15/78
Tilman H. Chaney
4
R
1
3.38
8/30/78
Ray C. Mills
23
R
1
20.0
9/07/78
Ralph N. Gehr, Lot 1
15
R
1
3.0
9/18/78
Marshall C. Kretzer
23
R
1
3.29
9/19/78
Mrs. Leon French
4
I2
1
8.96
10/02/78
Susan's Orchard
4
R
1
1.37
10/10/78
Edmund V. Niklewski
23
R
1
5.0
11/02/78
Mrs. Goldie Bowman, Lot 2
15
R
1
3.0
11/09/78
Ronald E. Bricker
23
R
1
6.88
11/20/78
Tilman Chaney, Lot 2
4
R
1
3.91
12/07/78
Edith Flora
23
R
2
6.6
12/18/78
Roy Mc. Corwell
4
R
1
9.5
12/28/78
SECTOR VI
NAME
E.D.
USE
LOTS
ACRES OR
APPROVAL
SQUARE FEET
DATE
James W. True
5
R
1
.92
3/07/78
Isaac W. Norris
5
R
1
5.5
3/09/78
Marvania Heights, II
5
R
7
24.0
4/10/78
Marvania Heights, I
5
R
20
77.0
4/10/78
Timber Ridge Heights "East"
5
R
2
8.41
5/11/78
Timber Ridge Heights "East"
S
R
3
12.02
5/16/78
-31-
1978
SECTOR DEVELOPMENT BY TYPE
SECTOR/TYPE
NO. OF
TOTAL
AVG. SIZE
NO. OF SUBDI-
AVG. SIZE OF
LOTS
ACREAGE
OF LOT
VISION PLATS
SUBDIVISION
SECTOR I
A] Residential
107
180.52
1.69
33
5.47
B] Commercial
10
34.11
3.41
6
5.69
C] Industrial
2
8.45
4.23
2
4.23
D] Institutional
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
SECTOR II
A] Residential
42
149.64
3.56
33
4.53
B] Commercial
1
4.0
4.0
1
4.0
C] Industrial
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
D] Institutional
1
2.0
2.0
1
2.0
SECTOR III
A] Residential
9
92.57
10.29
8
11.57
B] Commercial
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
C] Industrial
1
4.25
4.25
1
4.25
D] Institutional
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
SECTOR IV
A] Residential
9
24.4
2.71
8
3.05
B] Commercial
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
C] Industrial
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
D] Institutional
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
SECTOR V
A] Residential
46
498.33
10.83
21
23.73
B] Commercial
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
C] Industrial
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
D] Institutional
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
SECTOR VI
A] Residential
48
173.14
3.6
19
9.11
B] Commercial
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
C] Industrial
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
D] Institutional
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-33-
cc
w
>
0
W
m
cc
~
OD
Z
z20
O
O
1
U)
CV
_>
00
m
J
-
l-
.I
I/
Sj
10
/
H
1:
_/2/
S.
IE
'• U
u
UU
I• E
C
I.
:
in
1
I°
U
-
IS
I
____
____
____4
S
a
1
r
C_
el
/
el
°1
`
a
:
hr
S.
'S`
rn
.
N O lb f_ 0 N 0 ti '0 It)
0
N N
( S LV1d 43AOdddV d0 0N)
C
U
U)
>-
0
HZ
m
m
o
z
n
I
J
O
D
_
m
U)
Q
a
Z u
W LL
J G
Q C:
L
o
L
I.'
:r
ti
I
is
I;
..
N
�
I
IE
I,
IS
..
I-
on
I.
I
I
'l-
\
L
19
I
IE
�n
1111)
E
.I:
-
I:
II.
&.
gy
Q
�
91
•'
ti
I
ti
rn
UI
w
v v v v v �v1 v v v v 1 v v
cep in 1 V * N M in
N - O u7
( SiO-1 O3AOaddb dO 0N )
/
co
I m
5
/
Q U
FW
r
C
C" ! :
00 Q
I.
-
--
--
--
Z
Q
:LL
----
t
W
1
Z k
p J
•
a
d
Q Wr
'
N
F-
i
jl
O
•
K)
ti
'l
N
0)
w v v vv v v 08 p0 0 p 0 O O O
M N 0 pO 0 0 Or t0 O 0 M O 0
(030IAI08ns S383V 30 '0N)
SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS
In 1978 the Planning Commission approved a total of 276 new lots for de-
velopment purposes in the County and an additional 113 lots were approved
under the simplified plat process bringing the total approvals to 389 new
lots. As in past years the majority of the 276 development plats were
approved for Planning Sector I which represents the Urban Growth Area
around metropolitan Hagerstown. The total acreage approved, however, was
characterized by the development in Planning Sector V wherein the average
lot size exceeded that for Planning Sector I by a factor of over 5. The
significance in these statistics lies in the Zoning District designated for
these respective areas and for the provision for lot sizes in Planning
Sector I to be smaller based upon the availability of public water and
sewerage facilities. Major subdivisions approved in 1978 were: U -Haul
Company located on Martin Road off of Maugans Avenue for 8.03 acres; the
new Massey -Ford site in the Valley Plaza area comprising 0.24 acres; Wood -
moor, Section G for 10..7 acres; the McMullan -Graves Farm residential
subdivision located west of Hagerstown in the Rockdale Road area for 11
acres; Canteen Services located in the Hagerstown/Washington County Indus-
trial Park comprising 3.26 acres; Office Supply Store located on Crestwood
Avenue west of Pennsylvania Avenue for 1.5 acres; Brightwood Acres, Inc.,
an industrial development in the Oak Ridge Industrial Park for 5.19 acres;
Fountainhead Plaza located on the west side of Pennsylvania Avenue at Club
Road for 10.75 acres; Garden Spot, Section E for 6.6 acres; the C $ P Tele-
-37
phone Company Building located in the Valley Plaza area for 3 acres;
Harrell and Randall Office Building located adjacent to the Office Sup-
ply store on Crestwood for .6 acres; Youngstoun, Phase I located in the
New Community Area, 5.5 acres; McDade Farms, Section 1, located west of
town on McDade Road with 10 lots for 6 acres; Ft. Frederick Mountain View
Estates a residential subdivision with 24 lots and comprising 267 acres
located in the Ft. Frederick Area; Marvania Heights, Section 1 with 20
lots on 77 acres and Marvania Heights, Section 2, 7 lots on 24 acres lo-
cated on Md. Route 615 in the Hancock area.
.
♦ mro x JJffl
fli �,. w�E' r , � _ r
77i4( (s j"A ,( / f
ag
� � xL y .on
5 c
pl - .roxx"F •
1 S+' `\ �i CLEAP i ^e. ^aAE
i's' SPPING L m xip uE B
/,/ a> xoE LEANt
\ AE — •"• M StAN e c_—
uF / •\ "°e• i f NAGFTOWN
'oa 5; I /: \ \`aP „"A.`p° ` ^ s.,f ..�^o , • eR f "` d # ^i SN AS- tyro LOCKS \ i»'tititi.---_
on x^ • I \ lja -0. WI LIAMSPGP
WASHINGTON COUNTY
iRY
MARYLAND ``yP,..al
0WS..LEE * a s nN
1978 SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT MAP I,
y i E8
LEGEND _'-\ ._a" : 4�LE
,s,x
RESIDENTIAL `"•�
\ SNPPPSBIIPG
INDUSTRIAL
• COMMERCIAL
Ji xr
III,
0
r/
ej
SCALE
Feet O0
Miles I- <� Eoa 15II ' r—
_ - �N^H�x7 � � dE • r wF `�a .xxe r . € ea' M � � # �I� �� sa � x:x � n'�m
' � � vry"e:o a e^. +.e. - o•xexs a � ran '+� e�� L_
I , r'e
'/ t°
�'\ ' i �e • \ . � f sr cnr[n � ww • tips ` ca a \,
1 // � xow r 0 a xr ^ SMITH9B11P6
c&n
^ p i
/' s•� Ees s .F HA6 1�TOWN s �y % r
$ s r
/l nnss I.co_ LL
Jfl3 jr ,'�it 'BG\ a ^eg 'r ��G °, xan KB"""v [ fl
,r
."�. / \ _� rum rvxsTrn ''=XeeMBR
G
't WILL PMSP0H
i tl °°, 6 x 0
5300x j
WASHINGTON COUNTY - MARYLAND NJ "`ii
1978 ZONING MAP APPROVALS Iii t
_yanM
II i- " .:,t , "°^�• ^° .,,,.
CASE NO. CHANGE ACRES CONFORMS TO PLAN
-_ e . renoxx
RZ-168 A to IG 11.21 NO n
3 ceev� o.
RZ —169 RU to IR 11.03 NO , _ EL0 "
e«
^�.�.
RZ-172 C to BG 340 YES
Hex. SCALE
.,' `ro fit £ind
RZ-173 A to PR 51.73 YES i" v Feel "O' "" „Box 170 ,e4x
- a .: Milese I : ' TBE RZ —180 IG to RS 1.19 YES t
3
RZ-I81 A to BL 1.2 YES
RZ - 182 IC to BC 0.30 YES Ba
RZ -183 A to BL 1.19 YES "
OAR 70*
en
RZ - 184 A to BL 2.47 YES .: .
/ - %
/ Ji