HomeMy WebLinkAboutH_1979 Annual ReportBoard of County Commissioners
for Washington County
Court House Annex
Hagerstown, Maryland
Gentlemen:
The past year has been one of both accomplishment and enlightenment for the
Planning Commission. Normal activities --subdivision review and approval, site
plan review, Water and Sewer Plan update, park planning, and similar activities --
have proceeded in an orderly manner as the enclosed report details.
Additionally, the Commission and staff spent over six months presenting the
draft version of the revised Comprehensive Plan to local civic, social and ser-
vice groups and in public meetings. The presentation format incorporated
extensive discussion periods that gave Washington County citizens an opportunity
to tell us where they felt we needed to change or modify our proposals., Everyone
involved benefited from this effort and the result will be a Plan responsible to
the concerns of our citizens. That Plan will be presented to the County Commis-
sioners in 1980.
The enclosed report which summarizes our efforts for 1979 is respectfully sub-
mitted. All Commission members share my feelings that it has been an honor to
again serve Washington County in this most important endeavor.
Sincerely,
2` ue
Terrance W. Bache
Chairman
TWB;mis
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
1979 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.
Washington County Planning Commission
Terrance W. Bache, Chairman
John C. Herbst, Vice -Chairman
Linda H. Daniels
Thomas W. Dwyer
Charles F. Wagaman, Jr., Ex -Officio
William E. Wolford, Jr.
Fred H. Younkins
Published, March 1980
Washington County Planning Commission
County Office Building
Hagerstown, Maryland 21740
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Planning Organizational Chart . . . . . . . . .
. . i
Agency Inter -Relationship . . . . . . . . . . .
. . ii
What is Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 1
The Comprehensive Plan . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 3
The Capital Improvements Program . . . . . . . .
. 6
Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 8
The Water and Sewer Plan . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 10
Park Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 12
The Geohydrologic Study . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 15
The Solid Waste Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 17
Used Oil Recovery Program . . . . . . . . . . .
. 18
Agricultural Land Preservation . . . . . . . . .
. 20
Zoning Ordinance and District Boundary Maps . .
. 22
Zoning Appeals Board Activities . . . . . . . .
. 23
1979 Subdivision Activity . . . . . . . . . . .
. 24
Subdivision Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 32,33,34
Significant Developments .
35
1979 Development Map
36
1979 Zoning Map Approvals
37
1972-1979 Subdivision Trend Map •, . . , .
38
U)
On
Y Y f
O
i yW'
by p d V 4 J 0
S 416` ap , foi 4rea o"'� tQ'P�`O?
p`O4'��OT�`?erg OE r?
d
1N'PIY ,/ywo r u. W r Q 09 l��OOOP���1 \\
CON/phn�d * O�ss p69 u :gO { �4Jpr�9
•� 14'7 0
oo
N
F
Z; TOURISM I z w a -
OEPARTMERT I z V
I A\ J O
gANItAaH ,\
11 Ic. /
5` O#B 4P 1 /
®O'pO t\ 6 O\g O+N AI6ro oyb��yrb` / 11
OyF•t1 oW O, t°j�o =z oYu1 yd /
�.. CAP'
�°j' OF o
'\P' 0 O NO/S yOJ
a u /
'�vZy?ro p�yo /b1a�y�°o
o /
Z 'P{eWp oW=m WW ;b b'o
ZFQ 4 r f= N W N 6 0 1u
Qf O m 0 0 0 N O 6
a-
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 borne 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.
-I-
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
Comprehensive Plan efforts continued to be a major element of the Planning
Commission work program throughout 1979. The Plan itself was completed in
draft form in the spring of 1979 with the first of 44 presentations being
made in May. From May through December, 36 presentations were given to
private groups and organizations throughout the County, and, beginning in
October and running through December, an additional eight public meetings
were held in all of the planning sectors of the County for the public at
large. These presentations were the outgrowth of the Planning Commission's
intention to far exceed the minimum legal requirements of making the Plan
available for public review 60 days prior to a public hearing. As it was,
the review period extended greater than eight months during which public
opinion and recommendations were sought.
Following the last of the public presentations, a public hearing was held on
November 29, 1979 in order to obtain for the record criticisms and opinions
from the citizens of the County. After this public hearing, the Planning Com-
mission began a series of workshop meetings for evaluating public and private
concerns and recommendations for the Plan. It is expected that this period of
evaluation and further revision to the draft version will extend into the first
quarter of 1980 after which final public hearing will be held on the revised
draft.
A series of presentations will also be made to the Board of County Commissioners
during this quarter once the final draft is completed; once this is accomplished
and the last revisions made to the Plan, it will then be forwarded to the Board
with a recommendation for adoption.
SZ
PRESENTATION SCHEDULE
ORGANIZATION
DATE OF PRESENTATION
League of Women Voters
4/18/79
League of Women Voters
4/26/79
Board of Realtors
5/04/79
Chamber of Commerce
5/07/79
Planning Advisory Board
5/10/79
Sharpsburg Mayor and Council and
Planning Commission
5/14/79
Funkstown Mayor and Council
5/14/79
Longmeadow Rotary Club
5/21/79
Antietam Exchange Club
5/22/79
Washington Co. Homebuilder's Assoc.
5/24/79
Hagerstown Kiwanis Club
5/24/79
Boonsboro Mayor and Council
5/24/79
Board of County Commissioners
5/29/79
Funkstown Mayor and Council and
Planning Commission
6/05/79
Planning Advisory Board
6/06/79
Hagerstown Planning Commission
6/12/79
Smithsburg Mayor and Council and
Planning Commission
6/14/79
Hagerstovm Mayor and Council
6/18/79
Pleasant Valley Ruritan Club
6/18/79
Chewsville Lions Club
6/19/79
Wacohu Grange
6/26/79
Washington County Economic Development
Commission
6/27/79
WJEJ Radio
6/27/79
Williamsport Mayor and Council
7/09/79
Williamsport Planning Commission
7/16/79
Hancock Mayor and Council and
Planning Commission
7/18/79
Washington County Board of Appeals
7/25/79
Keedysville Mayor and Council and
Planning Commission
8/01/79
Washington County Farm Bureau
8/15/79
Hagerstown Lions Club
9/11/79
Maugansville Ruritan Club
9/13/79
Md. Assoc. of Professional Engineers
10/11/79
Soil Conservation District
11/08/79
Farm Bureau-Boonsboro Area Planning Group
11/19/79
Kiwanis Club
11/27/79
Hagerstown Jaycee's
12/10/79
B'Nai Abraham
12/16/79
-4-
PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS
AREA
Hagerstown Junior College Auditorium
Keedysville Elementary School
Auditorium
Pleasant Valley Elementary School
Auditorium
North Hagerstown High School
Auditorium
Smithsburg High School Auditorium
Clear Spring High School Auditorium
Hancock High School Auditorium
Lincolnshire Elementary School
Auditorium
DATE OF PRESENTATION
9/05/79
9/11/79
9/19/79
9/26/79
10/03/79
10/09/79
10/16/79
10/24/79
-5-
THE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM
In 1978, the County Commissioners adopted the first comprehensive and mean-
ingful 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 conducts a review to determine compliance
with adopted and projected plans for growth throughout the community. Fol-
lowing that, the requests are analyzed and reviewed by the C.I.P. Committee to
further determine the necessity of proposed projects. The Committee, in its
assigned role as review and advisory body to the Board of County Commissioners,
then submits the completed package to the Board for its consideration. The
result is 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, particu-
larly 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 throughout the capital
expenditure process. Priorities for capital budget requests for such areas as
parks, roads, public facilities, solid waste disposal, and public transportation
will be determined in relation to adopted Plan policies.
-6-
The Capital Improvements Program adopted by the Board of County Commissioners
for fiscal year 1980 through 1985 totaled more than $25 million with over $16
million representing the local cost for all projects. The Capital Budget,
the first year of the Program, amounted to $5.5 million of which $4.4 million
was the local share.
-7-
TRANSPORTATION
TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
In a continuation of the Transit Development Technical Study begun in 1977,
the Planning Commission completed the final report of this comprehensive
analysis of the County's transportation resources and needs. The study it-
self, conducted by the consulting firm of Henningson, Durham and Richardson,
concluded that Washington County, relative to many communities, is transpor-
tation rich and has at its disposal ample transportation modes. The study
further concluded that efforts could be made on the County's part to better
allocate those resources and thereby effect a more economical and efficient
transportation system throughout the County. This final published report
with its recommendations was presented to the Board of County Commissioners
on Nobember 27, 1979.
EASTERN BOULEVARD
Eastern Boulevard, also known as Maryland Route 60 Relocated, was first con-
ceived as one of the elements of the Hagerstown/Washington County Transportation
Study conducted in 1976-77. This project is now in the Project Planning Phase
with the State Department of Transportation with one public meeting already
having been held on October 30, 1979 for the purpose of presenting the plans to
the general public.
The highway itself is planned as a controlled access highway beginning at Route
40 (Dual Highway) and extending northward approximately 3,8 miles across Jef-
ferson Boulevard, Old Forge Road, and Longmeadow Road to the general vicinity
of Longmeadow/Showalter Roads. The next public meeting is scheduled by the
State for the Spring of 1980 and the Project Planning Phase is expected to
be completed in approximately 30 months. Funding for the entire project is
not available at this time and future funding, beyond the Project Planning
Phase, will be a function of legislative appropriations. Assuming, however,
that the project will continue to completion, final construction is projected
for the late 1980's.
NEW COMMUNITY HIGHWAY PLAN
The New Community Highway Plan begun in 1978 continued throughout 1979 with
the general road configuration having been adopted by the Board of County Com-
missioners on February 6, 1979 in the form of an amendment to the adopted
Highway Plan. This Plan, as it relates to the Robinwood/Hagerstown Junior
College area, is being developed in light of the need for an adequate, effec-
tive, and economical system of roads in the eastern part of the metropolitan
area that is programmed for future, long-term growth.
Photogrammetry has been completed by the County Engineering Department and it
is expected that alternative alignments will be presented to the Board of
County Commissioners sometime during 1980. At present, both the Engineering
Department and the Planning Department are working on possible methods of
financing highway construction with advice from the Planning Advisory Board.
-9-
THE
WATER and SEWERAGE
PLAN.
State law requires that Washington County prepare and maintain a Comprehen-
sive Water and Sewerage Plan and update the Plan every two years. The
Planning staff has been working on the current update to be completed by
June 1980.
Work which has been completed during 1979 includes the mapping of existing
water and sewer systems for all municipalities in the County and the mapping
of existing and proposed service areas for the Towns of Hancock, Clear Spring,
Williamsport, and Funkstown. Preliminary discussions have been held with all
municipalities to determine generally their intentions and plans for the ex-
tension of water and sewer services. In addition, informational presentations
were made to the Board of County Commissioners, the Planning Commission and
the City of Hagerstown Planning Commission in order to familiarize these bodies
with the purpose, format, and content of the current Plan.
It is anticipated that the 1980 update will improve the Water and Sewer Plan
in several respects. Plan maps will be clearer, simpler, and will present
additional information such as zoning districts. The number of service priority
designations will be reduced from five to three which should result in the
simplification of mapping and of the Plan as a whole.
Finally, population and flow data will be presented in such a way as to more
readily relate growth management and land use decisions to sewer and water
system capacities. It is hoped that these improvements will make the Water
and Sewer Plan a more usable and informative document for decision -makers and
for the general public.
WATER and SEWERAGE PLAN
SCHEDULE
PHASE PARTICIPANTS
Update existing systems Planning Staff, Public Agen-
maps, tables and text cies, Consultants
Rewrite text Planning Staff
Review proposed service areas Planning Staff, Public Agencies,
and classifications Consultants, Municipal Planning
Commissions
Prepare Draft Document Planning Staff
Review Draft Document (State and Local) Public Agencies,
Consultants, Municipal Planning
Commissions, Governing Bodies
Present Document to the Planning Staff, Planning Commission
Planning Commission
Review Draft Document State Health, State Planning and
Water Resources Administration
Public Hearing - Adoption Board of County Commissioners
-11-
PARK PLANNING
Park Planning continued to be an important element of the comprehensive plan-
ning process for the County during 1979. In addition to the park design and
development planning as they relate to internal park layout, continuing
effort has also been made to assure integration and continuity between parks
and adjacent residential or business development.
DITTO FARMS REGIONAL PARK - In coordination with a citizen's task force to
study community needs, a comprehensive development design concept was com-
pleted for the 311 acre park site located on the Mt. Aetna Road east of
Hagerstown. The development plan includes areas for implementation of recre-
ational, cultural, and agricultural facilities such as a swimming pool, golf
course, ice rink, playing fields, picnic areas, agricultural farm museum,
agricultural show and exhibit areas, cultural activities center, and various
types of foot and bridle trails. A major concern of the plan addresses
development of the necessary utility and road systems in conjunction with
adjacent development to economically implement a phased development approach
of the park facilities. Final reports and recommendations were presented in
June and remain under consideration by the County Commissioners.
PEN MAR PARK - Site planning and architectural design concepts were developed
for a large multipurpose pavilion to be built in Pen Mar County Park on the
site of the old dance pavilion. The open pavilion will provide an elevated
stage with dressing rooms, 4,100 square feet of concrete floor area under
-12-
roof, 1,000 square feet of outside patio area, and approximately 750 square
feet of underground storage area. The contract drawings are being developed
and construction is scheduled for completion by June 1980.
HALFWAY PARK - Final planning, funding, and architectural and engineering
design were completed on Phase Two of Halfway County Park. Construction got
underway in July and due to excessive rain will be completed in the Spring
of 1980. Phase Two will complement Phase One with a third softball field
and what will be, upon total completion of the park, the main pavilion,
including restrooms, storage room, telephone, fountain, interior cooking
grills and service sink. Also included is parking to serve these facilities,
extension of the existing park roadway to connect this second tract of land
with the first thirty acre tract, and extensive earthwork in preparation for
the Third Phase of development now in planning. Additional landscaping for
Phase One was included in a planting operation in December. Upon completion
of Phase Two this Spring, approximately 45 of the available 75 acres will be
developed and open for public recreation.
DOUB'S WOODS PARK - In November, a proposed plan was presented and accepted
by the Park Board and the County Commissioners to provide a new access road
into Doub's Woods County Park in order to abandon the present southern access
from the Sharpsburg Pike, Also included in the plan were several property
negotiations to provide for future developments such as the new roadway, im-
proved parking provisions, sewer upgrading, a third picnic pavilion and a
nursery area. Implementation of preliminary framework should begin within
this next year.
-13-
SOUTHERN COUNTY PARK FACILITIES , Preliminary investigations and communi-
cations with citizen's groups have begun to develop comprehensive needs and
determine facilities for residents of the extreme southern portions of Wash-
ington County. Several potential site locations have emerged., however, no
decisions have been made pending additional comprehensive analysis of needs
and economics.
VALLEY MALL PROMOTIONAL DISPLAY - For the second year, we were invited to
participate in a promotional show at the Valley Mall Shopping Center, the
theme being "Nature's Wonderlands". The week long display received great
response from the public, providing many with enlightening information
about our County parks system,and also received warm appreciation from the
Valley Mall Merchant's Association Management.
-14-
THE GEOHYDROLOGIC STUDY
The Geohydrologic Study that was begun in 1978 on a proposal from the
State Water Resources Administration proceeded as planned throughout
1979 with the contract being awarded for the study to Richard E. Wright
and Associates of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The total value of this
contract, funded jointly between the Environmental Protection Agency and
the Board of County Commissioners is $169,600, of which $33,093 will be
allocated from County funding and the remainder authorized by EPA. The
study initially is divided into two phases with Phase I having been com-
pleted in 1979 and Phase II, the remainder of the study, being completed
by the end of 1980.
Recognizing that the peculiar geology of Washington County has contributed
to groundwater contamination and associated problems resulting in well
contamination, the Geohydrologic Study has been designed to produce improved
methods and standards for on -site sewage disposal systems and wells relative
to the geology. Phase I of the Study consists of the selection of three
prototype areas in the County that have been deemed characteristic of geo-
logic formations. The second portion of Phase I consists of the use of
various geophysical sensing devices for determining sub -surface characteris-
tics. Following interpretation of the data produced by these sensing
methods, field verification will be conducted by means of backhoe excavations
in order to correlate the various testing methods.
-15-
The County Coordinating Committee was appointed by the County Commis-
sioners as the project management body for this Study. Periodic status
meetings are held between the Coordinating Committee, the Consultant, and
the Resource Group which is comprised of representatives of the public
sector who have contributed their time and energies to assist the local
government in an advisory capacity.
16-
THE
SOLID WASTE
PLA N
As with the Water and Sewer Plan, the requirement for update of the
Solid Waste Plan for the County is contained in Article 43, Section
387C of the Annotated Code. The 1979 review and update of the Solid
Waste Plan was completed by the Planning Commission and forwarded to
the Board of County Commissioners where it was adopted and subsequently
forwarded to the State Department of Health and Mental Hygiene on October
11, 1979. Pursuant to a revision in State legislation, future updates
of this Plan will be accomplished biannually.
Those elements of concern to both the County government and to the State
relating to the collection and disposition of solid waste and that are
addressed in the 1979 Plan are; solid waste generation projections through
the year 2000; future use for closed landfill sites; shredding of solid
waste; the results of the Municipal Light Plant Study; sludge management;
litter and roadside dumps; the use of marginal lands adjacent to the present
landfill site; and private industrial wastes versus public solid waste.
The matter of shredding is expected to receive special attention by the
Planning Commission during the coming year in order that the relative cost
effectiveness of this method of waste reduction may be determined in re-
spect to other methods of waste reduction. The Capital Improvements Program
currently has scheduled the purchase of a shredder for use in the landfill
for fiscal year 1982. Prior to the commitment of the purchase of that or
alternate equipment, a thorough analysis should be conducted so as to justify
the decisions made by the elected officials.
-17-
THE
USED OIL RECOVERY
PROGRAM
The Maryland Used Oil Recovery Program has had a successful year in Wash-
ington County, In cooperation with the Maryland Environmental Service, the
Planning Commission has continued the effort begun in 1978 to bring to the
public's attention the problem confronting improper disposition of used oil
in our environment.
In 1976, more than 26 million gallons of automotive oil was sold in the State
but only 7 million gallons were recovered by licensed oil haulers. It has
been estimated by the State that nearly 2 million gallons of used oil disposed
of by individual car owners was disposed of improperly in such a way that it
entered streams, sewers, or the ground.
In addition to news media releases and the distribution of public information
bulletins, the Planning Commission through its staff has contacted 147
service stations and service garages that have agreed to participate in the
used oil recycling program by displaying a metal sign at the establishment
announcing that station or garage as an oil collection facility. This effort
is expected to result in the collection of thousands of gallons of oil that
otherwise would be improperly poured into our environment, In addition to the
service stations, all retail stores selling motor oil have been given display
placards that inform buyers of the State law and of the penalties that may be
imposed for the improper disposition of used oil, These placards and the place-
ment of them through the retail stores is mandatory and is prescribed by State
-18-
legislation. It is not expected that further effort on the part of the
Planning Commission will be required; regulation of the State law will
be accomplished by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Water
L"° Resources Administration.
THE
• AGRICULTURAL LAND
PRESERVATION PROGRAM
Washington County's effort to save productive farmland via the Maryland
Agricultural Land Preservation Program began in April of 1978 when a
five -member Advisory Board was appointed by the Board of County Commis-
sioners. The program is provided for by Agricultural Article, Section
2-501 through 2-515 of the Annotated Code of Maryland and is administered
by the Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Board, the County Commis-
sioners, and the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation of the
Maryland Department of Agriculture.
The program provides for the preservation of agricultural land by encour-
aging landowners to enter into an Agricultural Land Preservation District
in which it is agreed that the land will not be developed for a period of
at least five years. The Agricultural Preservation Advisory Board and the
Planning Commission will be making recommendations to the County Commissioners
on the suitability of a landowner's parcel upon receipt of an application
filed by the landowner. Suitability will be decided by applying criteria
established by the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation. Once
established in a district, a landowner may exercise the option of selling
his development rights to the Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation for
a period of not less than twenty-five years provided that his offer to sell
is recommended by the Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Board and the
County Commissioners and is accepted by the Maryland Agricultural Land
Preservation Foundation.
-20-
Much groundwork has been done in 1979 between the Planning Staff and the
Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Board in order to enable the pro-
gram to become operational in 1980.
A public hearing was held on January 29? 1980 for the Agricultural Land
Preservation Ordinance with the Ordinance being adopted on
With the Ordinance now adopted, applications may be filed by landowners
for the formation of a Preservation District. Applications will be pro-
cessed by the Planning Department with that department maintaining all
official maps and files for the applications.
-21-
ZONING ORDINANCE
AND
REZONING
In 1979, the County Commissioners acted on ten rezoning cases of which
four were for Zoning Ordinance text amendments and six were for the re-
classification of land. Each of these cases was previously heard by
the Planning Commission and forwarded to the Board with recommendations.
Those cases heard and disposed of by the Board were as follows;
CASE
APPLICANT
Carmen McCleaf
Paul Crampton
Brightwood Acres
Planning Commssion
Planning Commission
Diversified
Properties, Inc,
Fraternal Order
of Eagles #694
Planning Commission
Planning Commission
Harry Keller
PLANNING
TYPE OF
AREA
REQUEST
COMMISSION
AMENDMENT
RECOMMENDATION
DISPOSITION
Map
1.02
RU to RN
Deny
Denied
Map
22.66
A to RN
Approve
Approved
Map
1.03
RS to BL
Deny
Denied
Text
N/A
N/A
Approve
Approved
Text
N/A
N/A
Approve
Approved
Map
15
C to A
Deny
Denied
Map
3.15
A to BL
Deny
Denied
Text
N/A
N/A
Approve
Approved
Text
N/A
N/A
Approve
Approved
Map
9.98
P to C
Approve
Approved
-22-
ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS
ACTIVITIES
During 1979, the Board of Appeals considered a total of 182 cases involving
petitions for relief from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Of
this total, SO requests were for Special Exceptions, 105 were for Variances,
11 were for Expansion of a Non -Conforming Use, 6 were for a Change of a
Non -Conforming Use, and 4 were appeals charging Administrative Error.
The Board, in hearing and reviewing the cases granted approval to 70 percent
of all those heard. The following table summarizes the categories of cases
considered:
GRANTED DENIED WITHDRAWN TOTAL
Variance 82 23 3 108
Special Exception 29 21 3 53
Expansion of a Non -
Conforming Use 7 4 -0- 11
Change of a Non -
Conforming Use 4 2 -0- 6
Administrative Error -0- 4 -0- 4
122 54 6 182
1979
SUBDIVISION ACTIVITY
Administration of the Subdivision Ordinance remained a major activity of
the Commission during 1979. Comparative figures for 1977, 1978, and 1979
are shown below, including a breakdown of those approved as Simplified
Plats:
1979 APPROVALS
# OF
TYPE
SUBDIVISIONS
LOTS
ACREAGE
Residential
177
404
1035.45
Commercial
2
2
5.75
Industrial -Institutional
7
8
68.91
Simplified
70
83
503.28
TOTAL
226
497
1613.39
1978 APPROVALS
it 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
it 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
-24-
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 14 such consultations held during 1979,
The Planning Commission continued the use of the Administrative Policy, which
permits the Chairman or the Executive Director to approve one and two lot
subdivision plats as well as simplified plats, provided the requirements of
the Subdivision Ordinance are met! This procedure eliminates unnecessary de..
lays of these subdivision applications,
A list of all approved 1979 subdivisions for development by Planning Sector
is provided on the following pages with a summary of the statistical distri-
bution shown below:
DEVELOPMENT PLATS
PLANNING
NUMBER
ACREAGE
AVERAGE
NUMBER OF
AVERAGE SIZE
SECTOR
OF LOTS
LOT SIZE
SUBDIVISIONS
OF SUBDIVISION
SECTOR I
185 11`f
292,09
1,58
63
4.64
SECTOR II
134
449,65
3,35
47
9,57
SECTOR III
13
53,02
4.08
12
4.42
SECTOR IV
25
48,75
1,95
13
3,75
SECTOR V
45
197,82
4.40
41
4,82
SECTOR VI
12
68.78
5,73
10
6,88
TOTALS
414
(1110.11
" 2,68
186
5.97
-2S-
1979 APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS
ACRES OR
APPROVAL
oECTOR I
E.D.
USE
LOTS
SQUARE FEET
DATE
NAME
Tom Davis
24
R
1
10,00
1/04/79
P. Harold Hege
13
R
1
1.00
1/08/79
Robert C. Hoffman
9
R
3
8.88
1/09/79
Stoneleigh Estates, Sec. A, Bk.B
9
R
5
6,83
1/09/79
George L. Harsh, Lot 1
2
R
1
2.97
1/09/79
Brightwood Acres East, Sec. A
18
R
54
27,80
1/09/79
Katie Klick
18-2
R
1
.69
1/09/79
Amos Hostetter, Parcel B
9
R
1
1.40
1/09/79
Amos Hostetter, Parcel A
9
R
1
1.40
1/09/79
Leonard C. Lowry
13
R
1
4,04
1/12/79
Ralph C. Nowell
18
R
1
1.00
1/16/79
LuRose Estates, Sec. C
27-2
R
6
7.90
2/07/79
John S. Shank
10
R
1
1.07
2/07/79
Hag. -Wash. Co. Indust. Found.
2
I
1
8.44
2/07/79
Richard K. Keeley
9
R
1
1.32
2/07/79
Jacobs, Tract # 1
13
R
1
9.40
2/21/79
Oak Ridge Estates, Sections A&B
26
R
49
17.50
3/07/79
J. Brosius (Wash.. Co. San. Dist.)
27
Inst.
1
.10
3/20/79
Wmspt. Town Park Authority
2-23
Inst.
1
41.77
3/27/79
Robert C. Hoffman, Lot H-7
9
C
1
4.21
4/12/79
Winton I. Burger
13
R
2
2.38
4/24/79
a M. Hostetter
9
R
1
.98
4/26/79
Ralph W. Shank
10
R
1
1.02
5/04/79
Robert J. Seek
13
R
1
1.56
5/04/79
Paramount Baptist Church, Inc.
27
Inst.
2
10.38
5/08/79
Raleigh E. Hoch
10
R
1
,68
5/10/79
Christopher Johns
26
R
1
.21
5/15/79
Hartman, Lot C
18
R
1
3.01
5/17/79
Mt. Tammany, Inc.
26
Inst.
1
.23
5/21/79
Harry Y. Shantz
13
R
1
1,61
5/22/79
Robin G. Folmer
18
R
1
1,17
5/24/79
Hurd Farmette
18
R
1
5,00
5/29/79
John D. Howell
9
R
1
1,57
6/07/79
Leona H. Barnes
9
R
1
1.00
6/07/79
Winnie P. Gelvin
10
R
1
1.24
6/26/79
Geraldine V. Rogers
9
R
1
6.75
7/02/79
James T. Murphy
13
R
1
1.04
7/10/79
Alexis M. Gagarine
10
R
1
35.63
7/11/79
Charles L. Taylor
2
R
1
.92
7/18/79
Robert D. Horn
13
R
1
1.13
7/20/79
Herbert D. Coss
9
R
1
.95
7/23/79
Nora B. Bowman
18
R
1
.53
8/03/79
Mrs. John R. Horst, Lot 2
13
R
1
1.00
8/27/79
Oliver I. Britner, Lot 2
2
R
1
1.00
9/06/79
Vincent C. llawbecker
13
R
1
1.41
9/10/79
J. Allen Clopper, Parcel A
27
Inst.
1
1.50
9/14/79
1• y J. Jones, Lot 1
10
R
1
1.34
9/24/79
keeigh E. Hoch, Lot 44
10
R
1
1.44
9/24/79
-26-
1979
APPROVED
SUBDIVISIONS
SECTOR I
ACRES OR
APPROVAL
NAME
E.D.
USE
LOTS
SQUARE FEET
DATE
Jeffery Pearlman
18
R
1
1.44
10/22/79
Huyette B. Oswald
18
R
1
2.31
10/22/79
Jack H. Beachley
18
R
1
3.85
10/23/79
Charles F. Wagaman, Jr.
18
R
1
7.97
10/25/79
Luther A. Daley
13
R
1
1.00
11/05/79
Spring Valley, Sec. H
9
R
7
3.60
11/05/79
Nathaniel Webb
13
R
1
5.28
11/06/79
James A. Short
26
R
1
1.06
11/14/79
Charlton Acres, Sec. 2, Lot 7
26
R
1
1.12
11/21/79
Ira M. Pike
10
R
1
.97
12/04/79
Irma B. Shiflett
2
R
1
1.00
12/04/79
Richard K. Keeley, Lot 3
9
R
1
3.50
12/04/79
Louis Fahnestock, III
27
R
2
1.04
12/13/79
Robert C. Snavely
18
I
1
6.49
12/14/79
Coss Corporation, Lots 1 $ 2
27
R
2
2,95
12/21/79
SECTOR II
ACRES OR
APPROVAL
NAME
E.D.
USE
LOTS
SQUARE FEET
DATE
Arthur J. Campbell
6
R
1
6.53
1/08/79
Laurie A. Needham
1
R
1
3.27
1/22/79
Lewis Leizear
6
R
1
1.03
2/05/79
James Pasike
1
R
2
5,10
2/07/79
Jane D. Myers
12
R
1
1.09
2/07/79
Philip R. Shockey
16
C
1
1.54
2/13/79
Genevieve G. Clever
16
R
2
23.58
2/21/79
J. Bishop Alexander
12
R
1
6.00
2/27/79
Confederate Hills, Sec. B
1
R
19
18.75
3/07/79
Donald J. Hammersla
1
R
1
3,00
3/07/79
Mrs. George E. Weaver
12
R
1
.98
4/04/79
Lou Perini
20
R
1
11.07
4/05/79
Halit Corp.,Parcel A
19
R
1
2.24
4/12/79
Richard F. Weddle
16
R
1
1.00
4/16/79
James E. Hildenbrand
20
R
1
7.04
5/02/79
Charles T. Shifler
6
R
1
5.15
5/29/79
Lana Moore
12
R
1
1,00
6/04/79
Richard Stottlemeyer
12
R
1
1.03
6/06/79
Lester L. Mason
1
R
1
1.10
6/11/79
Myron L. Bloom
20
R
1
1.07
6/26/79
Draper and Mills
1
R
1
5.14
6/28/79
Kenilworth Estates
20
R
15
114.50
7/02/79
Richard J. Norkunas
6
R
1
1.15
7/06/79
Ralph M. Delauder
12
R
1
3,42
7/13/79
Donald L. Blickenstaff
6
R
1
3.50
7/13/79
Mary H. Ford
6
R
1
.92
7/20/79
,Harry E. Martz, et ux
16
R
1
1.30
7/23/79
-27-
1979 APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS
SECTOR IV
ACRES OR
APPROVAL
NAME
E,D.
USE
LOTS
SQUARE FEET
DATE
Bachtell Subdivision
7
R
2
2.20
8/23/79
Berlene P. Toms
14
R
1
.98
9/06/79
'.; George F. Carl
7
R
1
2.45
9/19/79
Ivan M. Williams
7
R
1
.56
9/20/79
Margaret Jacques
14
R
1
1.11
10/23/79
Donald Misal
7
R
1
7,28
11/07/79
Harry S. Keller
7
R
2
2,68
11/14/79
SECTOR V
ACRES OR
APPROVAL
NAME
E.D.
USE
LOTS
SQUARE FEET
DATE
Charles E. Shirk
4
R
1
1.16
1/11/79
Gary E. Gruber
4
R
1
1.90
1/19/79
J. Clinton Miller
23
R
1
,92
2/07/79
Robert E. Carr
23
R
1
1.20
2/15/79
Gregory Everitts
15
R
1
4.05
2/21/79
John K. Carbaugh
23
R
1
1,04
2/21/79
Jay M. Shirk
15
R
1
3.00
3/01/79
William E. Kriner
23
R
1
1.73
3/07/79
Randy's Orchard
4
R
2
3.32
3/22/79
Kent's Orchard
4
R
2
1,80
3/22/79
Leroy R. Myers, Jr. Lot 1
23
R
1
3.32
4/04/79
Henry W. McMullan
23
R
1
38.21
4/09/79
Arthur W. Hicks
23
R
1
5.09
5/02/79
Robert Eugene Eaton
15
R
1
3.00
5/15/79
Adrian Faith
4
R
1
,93
5/24/79
Dale Rowland
4
R
1
4.25
6/04/79
Roy Mc. Corwell
4
R
1
2.97
6/06/79
Robert Craig Reichard
4
R
1
17,45
6/26/79
Larry Lee
4
R
1
1.08
6/29/79
Theodore P. Rosenberry
15
R
1
3,14
7/03/79
Sarah Iselin, et al
15
R
2
9.00
7/18/79
Gary Augustine
4
R
1
1.22
7/18/79
George Burtner
23
R
1
6.43
8/01/79
Florence Benfield
15
R
1
3.54
8/02/79
James W. Wilson
23
R
1
6.87
8/02/79
Ray C. Mills
23
R
1
11.62
8/16/79
Hager J. Hull
15
R
1
3.90
8/23/79
Theodore Henson
15
R
1
4.71
8/30/79
Phillip L. Burgan
23
R
1
1,76
9/10/79
Bobby D. Cutler, Lot 1
23
R
1
1.43
9/17/79
John R. Oliver, Lot 1
23
R
1
1._10
9/25/79
Norman A. Halteman
23
R
1
13,72
10/09/79
McMullan -Graves, Section 3
23
R
2
2.90
10/08/79
Marshall Kretzer
23
R
1
2.10
10/08/79
Robert K. Reed
15
R
1
3,70
10/16/79
-29-
1979 APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS
SECTOR V
ACRES OR
APPROVAL
NAME
E.D.
USE
LOTS
SQUARE FEET
DATE
Stanley E. Smith
23
R
1
3,00
11/05/79
Bobby D. Cutler
23
R
1
3,52
11/05/79
Taylor's Orchard,
Sec, A
4
R
1
,93
11/06/79
Bobby D. Cutler
23
R
1
3.42
11/14/79
Susie C. Siebert
4
R
1
1.64
11/26/79
John P. Mangini
23
R
1
1.75
12/20/79
SECTOR VI
ACRES OR
APPROVAL
NAME
E.D.
USE
LOTS
SQUARE FEET
DATE
Marvania Heights,
Lot 28
S
R
1
1.00
1/12/79
Marvania Heights,
Lot 29
5
R
1
.94
1/25/79
Junior Snyder, Lot
1
5
R
1
3.00
2/21/79
Marvania Heights,
Lot 30
5
R
1
3,49
4/09/79
Chester Younkers
S
R
1
3,81
4/25/79
Joseph T. Wolford
S
R
1
12.38
7/26/79
Wilbert Kerns
5
R
2
4,86
8/21/79
Vesta L. Faith
S
R
1
1.11
8/24/79
Timber Ridge Hgts.
Lots 31'432
S
R
2
27.19
11/19/79
Clarence Pryor, Jr.
5
R
1
1.00
11/16/79
-30-
1979
SECTOR DEVELOPMENT BY TYPE
SECTOR/TYPE
NO, OF
LOTS
TOTAL
ACREAGE
AVERAGE SIZE
OF LOT
NO, OF SUBDI-
VISION PLATS
AVERAGE SIZE
OF SUBDIVISION
SECTOR I
A] Residential
B] Commercial
C] Industrial
D] Institutional
SECTOR II
A] Residential
B] Commercial
C] Industrial
D] Institutional
SECTOR III
A] Residential
B] Commercial
C] Industrial
D] Institutional
SECTOR IV
A] Residential
B] Commercial
C] Industrial
D] Institutional
SECTOR V
A] Residential
B] Commercial
C] Industrial
D] Institutional
SECTOR VI
A] Residential
B] Commercial
C] Industrial
D] Institutional
176
218.97
1.24
55
3.98
1
4.21
4.21
1
4.21
2
14.93
7.47
2
7.47
6
53,98
9.00
5
10.80
133
448.11
3.37
46
9.74
1
1.54
1,54
1
1.54
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0,
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
13
53,02
4.08
12
4.42
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
,0-
-0-
25
48.75
1.95
13
3.75
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0- I
45
197.82
4,40
41
4,82
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-.
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
12
68,73
5.73
10
6.88
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0,
-.0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-31-
J
ij
z
O
I -
z
z
t
J
Co
J
a
W
}
cn
z
m
(()
Z
W
I
'
'C
mo..
CD
'Q
01:
2C
HLJo
th
po
J
Ga
z
u.
Q
a
J
(b
�y
Q
I—
F -
E
s
•
II
I
II
I. i
/
U
/
.
'
I
a
o
.l
ti
.
a�
O O O O O O O O O O O O
O OO
O O O O O O O O O O O O
to V' M N - O tT W I- t0 to V' M N —
F)
F)
0
F)
0
n
t
( OaolAloenS s3a3V JO 0N)
a
w
0
w/
0
m
Li
1—
a)
Cl)
O
J
Cl)
>
P-
O
23
0)
N
J
Q
,,
1—
O
1-
J
C
z
0
I-
0
I -
U)
z
i J
J C
C U
1- w
0
0
O
? U
•
J
5o
F w
z
0-i
U a
w 2
1r
N
F.
i
C
N
t
____
________
7'.
I.
C
/
4
E
E
r
00
/
Mr4
y
N'
i;
I. a
:
I.
1;I•
I: u
•: r
I. a
r
'
I::
.
IC
is
ftp
.1
:I
C
• I
'
p
O1
-
i
It) 0 1n o 1O o I o It) o
N N0 1- U) N O P- W) N
( Sld'ld C3AO8ddV dO 0N
-54-
I
yI
SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS
In 1978, the Planning Commission approved 276 new lots for development
purposes. In 1979, there were 414 new lots approved, an increase of
50 percent for the one year period, with over 97 percent of the lots
being for residential purposes. The total acreage, however, changed
little, dropping from 1131 to 1110 acres between 1978 and 1979. This
in turn resulted in smaller lot sizes; the average lot size in 1978 was
4.1 acres and in 1979 2.7 acres, Of particular significance was the
decrease in lot size throughout all of the planning sectors, particularl
in Sectors III and V where the average size dropped from over 10 acres i
1978 to slightly over 4 acres for 1979,
Major residential subdivisions of land in 1979 were characterized by the
following developments:
Brightwood Acres East, Section A . . . . . . 54 Lots
Oak Ridge Estates, Sections A $ B . . . . . . 49 Lots
LuRose Estates, Section C . . . . . . . . . . 6 Lots
Spring Valley, Section H . . . . . . . . . . 7 Lots
Confederate Hills, Section B . . . . . . . . 19 Lots
Kenilworth Estates . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Lots
Antietam Manor, Sections 1 & 2 .
Holiday Farms . . . . . . .
-35-
. . . . . 46 Lots
. . . 10 Lots
y
n
Pp i 1 :.. / '�_� i �., s � .�,,. x`: � e+6 .� x.� 6x•8% s
y e d
, e .. fx `\ � ' sl —t-'V
x6mwl M1 "a r!'` _ )` \_onws _
lrR p SPRING\_.4_....44 ILKAD
`\ �i' /fix \ e ; j ss`.[n OKOCOCxl uf tl tRe SLON (I
/ ._
/, ,`\ �^x.� rvu6 ,o v,•, t HFGFR&WN
�.mowh i ,\ x ° ' 8 xa�rxfise .n xa' if ac
I ¼\ ' & ° I� Rxu • una xfx z M1 Px r FOCALOCKS` WILLIRMSP0R x 41 ii
.nrt Mi'•x
WASHINGTON COUNTY
MARYLAND
1979 SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT MAP
LEGEND
• RESIDENTIAL
AINDUSTRIAL
aCOMMERCIAL
INSTITUTIONAL
r--'7
•
02
x,I.
/
•.,,.. TILO$MaxT00
..
'v
$5RPfi11RG /x
f,
+.
(1ACAN
-i--
SCALE
Feet x 4r0 00(00 11000 CCCL) 10000
Miles o
J
E
\IY
"ro
x
e " rj
� d , spy
i
�
s
� �.� .�. i
to"
�
s i
s c u
EST
�' ,,
+° ,.
.y .•o°.
eewe
e W°* � t. �ta.:.J
t
kJ.
[e t
I
/
Z
_
_
°°.x
a
on�
ux
��
�
4, 7
V
u[[ L[
.c`xs E
x
\
p
�s
na
on
}5 Q
ro`.�
I
eo.e
/
P°°.
S
0
4
M'
11
w�
R
F
°
A
0. a'6
__
M�
\ ^�
€
/ ePP N4
ss cn.["cxE
[u[ Y r
xu nsa S' awx
roirvac tee.
}u
�. 4
WASHINGTON COUNTY
MARYLAND
1979 ZONING MAP APPROVALS
CASE NO.
CHANGE
ACRES
CONFORMS TO PLAN
RZ-191
A to RM
22.66
YES
RZ-2O5
P to C
9.98
YES
�
S•
P�
%
HAGEF��TOWN
rv°
` '
WILLIAMSP4Px•e
Q
•
/n.
1
a�. 4
./
s,o
a;
E. Fi
___
F exsO�
°xo°a
I:
SCALE
Feet o .000 no.o w "00W °
Miles o I i s