HomeMy WebLinkAboutH_1980 Annual ReportMarch 17, 1981
Board of County Commissioners
for Washington County
Court House Annex
Hagerstown, Maryland
Gentlemen:
The Planning Commission is pleased to forward for your use the 1980 Annual
Report. This report, submitted pursuant to the provisions of Article 66B of
the Annotated Code, summarizes all the activities in which the Commission was
involved throughout calendar year 1980.
1980 was an important year for both the Planning Commission and the County
as a whole because of the completion of the Comprehensive Plan through the
• public hearing process, and the recent action by -the Board through the adoption
of the Plan was an additional milestone. This adoption represents the work of
not only the Commission and its staff but of the many interested individuals
and groups in the private sector who have devoted their time toward the comple-
tion of this important document.
While the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan reflects the end of a major
task, the implementation of the Plan policies poses a real challenge for the
Commission in the future. In addition to the many other tasks to be carried
out by the Commission, it is expected that this implementation effort will
command a significant segment of the Commission's duties.
The Annual Report has been designed not only as a narrative documentation
of the Commission's efforts, but it is also intended to provide important
statistical data through the compilation of information relating to subdivisions
and other land use controls. It is the expectation of the Commission that this
information will prove to be of value not only to local government agencies but
to the general public as well.
Sincerely,
Villiam E. Wolfer , J
Chairman
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
1980 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
William E. Wolford, Jr. Chairman
John C. Herbst, Vice Chairman
Terrance W. Bache
Linda H. Daniels
Thomas W. Dwyer
Charles F. Wagaman, Jr.
Fred H. Younkins
Published, March 1981
Washington County Planning Commission
County Office Building
Hagerstown, Maryland 21740
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Planning Organizational Chart . . .
Agency Inter -Relationship . . . . .
The Comprehensive Plan . . . . . . .
The Capital Improvements Program . .
Eastern Boulevard . . . . . . . . .
The Water and Sewerage Plan . . . .
Park Planning . . . . . . . . . . .
The Geohydrologic Study . . . . . .
The Solid Waste Plan . . . . . . . .
The 1980 Census . . . . . . . . . .
The Subdivision Ordinance . . . . .
The Agricultural Land Preservation
Program . . . . . . . . . .
Data Retrieval . . . . . . . . . . .
Zoning Board of Appeals Activity
Zoning Ordinance and Rezoning . . .
1980 Subdivision Activity . . . . .
Significant Developments . . . . . .
Subdivision Trends . . . . . . . . .
1980 Development Map . . . . . . .
1980 Zoning Map Approvals . . . . .
1972-1979 Subdivision Trend Map
1980 Agricultural Preservation Districts
PAGE
i
ii
1
2
3
S
6
8
10
12
13
14
17
18
19
20
26
27,28,29
30
31 -
32
33
C
Y
d
N
--
C
1.20 ro E
Z
00 H
O n
0. N $4 4 NN
O U
4 U
•Ji N N N .C o N O
H
O
N
N O
0 N g 0 U N C •O C :�
=
C 04.4 $d 0 0 0 0 0 N.4 U
Y C
0
-)
o0.03
W + U 4 T E 0 X 0
Cl C
H
0 0 0 10 =^ '_ C ro w C F
.0
0
c0
p
..+ m �, rL E 5 D 0 ..C
3
.0
C
.1 0
O E
O U
.=
.y
W
C0 N 0
H
U "
C T •
N H
C
ti
✓
m
pF
w
0 0O
EO 0
y
ZZ
6 J
0
NUSFN4
0.
G
.40 Cl 0. ti
Cl
N j NC 3
0.0
N0
7
0
C
u
I
00
0.
Y
N
CC
0
6
U
i.
Cl
U
0 d W F m N q 4> W
Y Y6� Wo di b o 4 �vOJ�� e 9 �➢4 Y�4b `j �o � �'r be t)r
d b` p ¢p Oa bSpr
'► y m w� o ? W \
hoT� dd 9 ¢v �J J 9 1
Bl OAOJ f \\
ff � y
m A'
ZDEPARTMENT j s O
7 C
I a v =
V♦ 1 v/
BPR1T�aY T 1
jI1 atMEN 1 � /
�M OE \ 90� PVPt�1 /
y,4 %
o W
9Ofr
tube m m b�7 ob
0 �
Z pp; ~aW OW = WW {O0
a pp rb p y V f r
m � m
11
it
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan for the County in 1980
continued to demand the major portion of Planning Com-
mission activities following the public hearing on the
Plan in 1979. Beginning in 1980, the Planning Commission
began a series of workshops to address the many concerns
and questions raised by the public at the public hearing.
Following these workshop sessions the Plan was revised
and subsequently forwarded to the Board of County Commis-
sioners on May 6, 1980.
A series of presentations was then made to the Board
of County Commissioners over a period of several months
during which the details of the Comprehensive Plan were
presented by the staff and Commission members to the County
Commissioners. The County Commissioners then held their
own public hearing on the Plan on November 18, 1980,and
following that the Commissioners have addressed the vari-
ous concerns expressed at the public hearing. As of this
writing the Commissioners are taking the Plan under final
consideration and it is expected that the.Plan will be
adopted in the near future.
-1-
THE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM
Following the first adoption of the Capital Im-
provements Program by the County Commissioners in 1978
the Commissioners adopted in June of 1980 the Fiscal
Year 1981 to 1986 Capital Improvements Program and Cap-
ital Budget for Washington County. The Capital Budget
for fiscal year 1981 is now 7.5 million dollars with 3.7
million coming from local funds and the remainder being
provided through state and federal aid for the various
projects being undertaken by the County.
The Capital Improvements Program has proven to be an
invaluable fiscal tool in the allocation and administration
of County funds for the many projects and agencies for
which the Board of County Commissioners is responsible.
Those important projects that are presently included in
the Capital Improvements Program are roads, bridges, and
drainage projects; parks and recreation facilities; housing
projects; transportation, which includes the purchase of
thirteen new buses for the County Commuter System; Fire and
Rescue Communications equipment; Civil Defense; Hagerstown
Junior College; the Board of Education; and the County Land-
fill activities.
-2-
EASTERN BOULEVARD
A public meeting was held on October 30, 1979 by the
State Highway Administration for the purpose of presenting
the proposed alignment for Eastern Boulevard, which is al-
so known as. Maryland Route 60 Relocated. A number of
objections were expressed by citizens from the Long Meadow -
Paramount area at that public hearing because of the pro-
posed alignment, and following the public meeting the State
Highway Administration then developed alternate alignments
which were again presented in public meeting on November
6, 1980. During the interim between the two public meet-
ings, the State Highway Administration worked closely with
both the County Planning Department and the County Engineering
Department as well as comparable agencies from the City of
Hagerstown in order to establish the most optimum alternative
alignments.
Although a number of the citizens attending the public
meeting on November 6, 1980 were of the opinion that East-
ern Boulevard as a project should not be continued at all,
the Planning• Commission subsequently formally requested
that the Board of County Commissioners ask the State High-
way Administration to keep this project viable at least
through the Project Planning Phase. At the annual presen-
tation in January, 1981 by the Secretary of the Department
-3-
of Transportation, the local elected officials, including
the Board of County Commissioners, members of the local
delegation, and Hagerstown City officials expressed their
desire to keep the project alive through the Project Plan-
ning Phase. At present the State Highway Administration
has this request under advisement and is expected to ren-
der a decision in the near future.
-4-
THE
WATER and SEWERAGE
PLAN
Throughout calendar year 1980, the Planning staff
continued its update of the Water and Sewerage Plan,
and in addition to completing the preparation of the
document itself in a new format, the staff made a
series of presentations to both the Planning Commis-
sion and the Board of County Commissioners prior to
the adoption of the Plan by the Board of County Commis-
sioners on November 10, 1980. Following adoption of
the Water and,Sewerage Plan,the document was then for-
warded to the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
for review as required under State law. It is expected
that approval from the State will be issued in the near
future and copies of the Plan will then be made available
to the various agencies and departments and to the public
as well.
-5-
PARK PLANNING
Park Planning continued as an important element in
the Planning Commission activities in 1980.
The large multi -purpose pavilion designed for Pen
Mar Park was completed in the spring of 1980 and con-
struction began and was completed in time for the grand
opening that was held in August of 1980. The pavilion
itself that was funded in part through interested citi-
zen's groups contains 4100 square feet of floor area and
a 1000 square feet of outside patio area. Since its
completion the pavilion has served as a popular site
for many of the dance activities that have been held here
in the County.
SOUTH COUNTY PARK FACILITIES - Following the initial
request by several citizen's groups in the south part of
Washington County, th.e Planning staff after receiving
authorization from the Board of County Commissioners began
a detailed study of park needs in that part of the County.
A total of 5,27 questionnaires were mailed out to property
owners in southern Washington County. With an excellent
return of approximately 20%, an analysis of those question-
naires has been made along with the various other data
that determines the practicality of park sites. This infor-
-6-
mation has been presented to both the Parks Board and
the Planning Commission. A joint meeting was held on
January 26, between the Parks Board and the Planning
Commission in order to formulate a recommendation to the
Board of County Commissioners for park facilities in that
section of the County.
PHASE III, HALFWAY PARK - The design of Phase III of
Halfway Park, the final phase of that park, was a major
part of Planning staff activities for the year 1980. It
is anticipated that the design for this phase of the park
will be completed early in 1981 with construction begin-
ning and completing in the latter part of 1981. Ample
time will be provided for the growth of the ground cover
necessary in this park so that the surfaces to be used
will be fully stabilized and ready for sports activities
by the spring of 1982. Included in the facilities for
this phase of Halfway Park are 1600 feet of roadway, 3
parking lots to provide 124 spaces, 3 little league ball -
fields, 2 restrooms, 600 linear feet of water and sewerage
facilities, as well as the necessary pole lighting, walk-
ways and fencing.
-7-
THE GEOHYDROLOGIC STUDY
The Geohydrologic Study for the County continued
through 1980 by the consultant to the County, Richard E.
Wright and Associates of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. This
169,600 project, part of which is being funded by the
Environmental Protection Agency and partly by the County,
is at present approximately half completed. Delays
were encountered in 1980 through the water sampling seg-
ment of this project with a certain percentage of those
water samples having to be retaken by the consultant.
The final analysis of the water sampling is currently
being performed by the Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene in Baltimore, and it is anticipated that this
phase of the study that encompasses water sampling from
three prototype areas in the County will be completed by
the end of February, 1981. The County Coordinating Com-
mittee, which is the responsible body appointed by the
Board of County Commissioners for managing this project,
currently anticipates that the entire program will be
completed by, late summer or early fall of 1981. A number
of valuable data are expected to result from this study,
including a model ordinance to be used by local agencies
in the administration of geohydrologic requirements through-
out the County. The implementation of such standards will
ultimately be of benefit not only to the local and state
government agencies but to developers as well.
-9-
THE SOLID WASTE PLAN
The subject of shredding was a major element of
Solid Waste Management for the Planning Commission during
1980 with a study of the present and future landfill
techniques having been undertaken early in the year. In
conjunction with Maryland Environmental Services, the
Planning Department has been working for a number of
months on the solid waste management program for the
County in order to determine the most practical method
of solid waste disposal. Some of the elements of this
Solid Waste Study include energy market analysis, material
market analysis, an analysis of source separation tech-
niques, and an analysis of the practicality of using
shredders.
A number of weighing programs are necessary for pro-
viding the data needed to make final determination as to
the most practical method of solid waste disposal. It is
anticipated that three weighing programs will have been
completed by the spring of 1981 with one weighing program
already having been completed in the month of December,
1980. Results of that first phase of the weighing program
indicate that solid waste disposal at the present land-
fill amounts to approximately three hundred tons per day
for Washington County. The present landfill site, located on
-10-
Resh Road, is expected to be filled to capacity by ap-
proximately February or early March of 1981 at which
time the new landfill site about one mile north of the
present site will be activated. It is anticipated that
the total analysis for this Solid Waste Management Pro-
gram will be completed in time for the County Commissioners
to determine what method of solid waste disposal is the
most practical for the County so that monies may be
included in the fiscal year 1982 Capital Improvements Pro-
gram for purchase of all the necessary equipment.
-11-
THE 1980 CENSUS
Preliminary figures for the 1980 Census were received
toward the end of 1980 that gave population and housing
unit counts for the County as a whole, as well as those
for the various election districts and towns throughout
the County. The latest figures show that Washington Coun-
ty has a population of 112,000 plus as opposed to
approximately 104,000 in 1970 with a net increase of 8900
or 8.6% over the 1970 figure. Housing units for the
County increased from 34,500 to over 42,000 during the ten
year period for a net increase of 22%. The majority of the
towns and unincorporated areas showed a net increase --some
of them showed a net decrease, however, and these included
Clear Spring, the Fort Ritchie Area, Fountainhead, the City
of Hagerstown, which decreased 5%, Sharpsburg, and the
Town of Williamsport that showed a net decrease of 411 or
18%. Because of the total County population being in ex-
cess of 100,000 and the metropolitan, area for the City of
Hagerstown being in excess of 50,000, it is expected that
Washington County will now be considered by the Census
Bureau to fall within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan
Statistical Area which will put the County in a special
status insofar as being considered for future federal
fundings.
-12-
THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
Throughout 1980 the Planning Commi.ssion continued
its review of the proposed revisions to the County Subdi-
vision Ordinance that began in 1979. A public hearing
was held on the revised Ordinance by the Planning Commis-
sion on September 15, 1980 and subsequently by the Board
of County Commissioners on November 18, 1980. The County
Commissioners adopted the Subdivision Ordinance on Janu-
ary 13, 1981 with an effective date of the Ordinance to be
March 1, 1981
-13-
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 Commissioners. The program is provided for by
Agricultural Article, Section 2-501 through 2-515 of the Annotated
Code of Maryland and is administred by the Agricultural Land Preser-
vation Advisory Board, the County Commissioners, and the Maryland
Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation of the Maryland Depart-
ment of Agriculture.
The program provides for the preservation of agricultural land
by encouraging landowners to enter into an Agricultural Land Preser-
vation 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 estab-
lished 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 Preserva-
tion 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.
-14-
During 1980, seven landowners made application and received
approval to become established in districts. As a result, these
landowners may exercise an option to sell their development rights.
These seven districts comprise 1778.49 acres of productive agri-
cultural land.
A list of all districts approved at the state and local level
is provided below:
1980 Approved Agricultural Districts
E.D.
Name
Acreage Farm Type
Approval Date
6
AD -80-1
Lloyd Brenton Ford, et al
178.59
Dairy
& Crop
7/41/80*
23
AD -80-2
Robert E.
Carr
245.64
Dairy
Fr Crop
7/14/80*
7
AD -80-3
William M. Allenberg
129.52
Orchard
2-10-12
AD -80-4
St. James
School, Inc.
278.75
Dairy
& Crop
11/25/80**
11
AD -30-5
Roger C.
Wolf
148.30
Vitaculture,
Sheep,
Christmas
Trees
20
AD -30-6
Downey C.
Harshman
232.44
Dairy
v Beef
11/25/80**
4
AD -80-7
Oscar C.
Lohman, Sr.
565.25
Crop,
Beef,
11/25/80**
Sheep,
Hog
* Date of recordation on the landowner's deed.
** Date of Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation approval;
have not been recorded on the landowner's deed to date.
-15-
AGRICULTURALLY SIGNIFICANT LAND CONVERTED
TO DEVELOPMENT IN 1980
PLANNING
E.D.
ACRES
NO. OF
NEW
PLANNING
E.D.
ACRES
NO. F
NEW
SECTOR
LOTS
USE
SECTOR
LOTS
USEI
I
2
3.00
1
R
IV
-
-0-
-0-
-
I
9
2.60
2
R
I
9
.95
1
R
Total
-
-0-
-0-
-
I
9
22.78
1
R
I
9
3.02
1
R
I
10
.92
1
R
V
4
1.69
1
R
I
13
1.00
1
R
V
4
.98
1
R
I
13
3.58
1
R
V
4
3.05
1
R
I
13
3.61
1
R
V
4
.96
1
R
I
13
6.2
1
INS
V
4
.95
1
INS.
V
4
1.01
1
R
Total
47.66
11
V
4
1.50
1
R
ti
V
4
1.38
1
R
__
V
15
3.00
1
R
II
6
43.41
5
R
V
15
8.21
2
I R
II
6
1.00
1
R
V
15
129.30
2
R
II
12
5.00
1
R
V
15
3.18
1
R
II
12
1.84
1 2
R
V
15
3.39
1
R
II
16
j 9.95
j 4
R
V
23
23.66
2
R
II
16
74.66
36
R
V
23
5.03
2
R
II
i9
46.95
7
R
V
j 23
7.73
1
R
II
20
1.00
1
R
V
23
1.20
1
R
V
23
1.51
1
R
Total
183.81
57
Total
198.43
22
III
8
56.38
4
R
VI
5
1.03
1
R
Total
j 56.88
4
Total
1.03
1
TOTALS
ACRES
LOTS
Sector I
47.66
11
Sector 1I
183.81
57
Sector III
56.83
4
Sector IV
-0-
-0-
Sector V
198.43
22
Sector VI
1.03
1
Total Acreage Converted
487.81
95
Total acreage of land subdivided for development = 1359.67
Percentage of total developmemt removed from Agricultural use = 36%
-16-
DATA RETRIEVAL
The Planning Department, in cooperation with the Data Proces-
sing Department, is developing a planning data and retrieval system
which will be of benefit to numerous public agencies, public
utilities, and the general public. The system will collect and
store on computer tapes much of the information which is now rou-
tinely collected by hand each time a subdivision application is
approved or a building permit is issued. Such information includes
the type of development proposed, number of dwelling units, type of
water and sewage system, and the location of the development within
a geographic grid system.
The advantage of this system is that it will allow for the rapid
retrieval of information on a cumulative basis by one or more of the
input parameters for each subdivision or building permit. For ex-
ample, it will be relatively easy to determine the number of housing
units by type within the service area of a given fire company or
within a given school district. This information will be useful for
planning purposes to the various fire companies and to the Board of
Education. The same kinds of information will be useful to public
water and sewer agencies and to public utilities.
As far as the Planning Department is concerned, the system will
make our job easier at the end of each calendar year when data must
be collected for the Annual Report. It will also be an important aid
in estimating population and housing during years which fall between
Census counts.
-17-
ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS
ACTIVITIES
During 1980, the Board of Appeals considered a total
of 163 cases involving petitions for relief from the require-
ments of the Zoning Ordinance. Of this total, 47 requests
were for Special Exceptions, 87 were for Variances, 10 were
for Expansion of a Non -Conforming Use, 9 were for a change of
a Non -Conforming Use, and 10 were appeals charging Adminis-
trative Error.
The Board, in hearing and reviewing the cases granted
approval to 65 percent of all those heard. The following
table summarizes the categories of cases considered:
GRANTED
DENIED
WITHDRAWN
TOTAL
VARIANCE
63
23
1
87
SPECIAL EXCEPTION
23
23
1
47
EXPANSION OF NON-
CONFORMING USE
8
2
10
CHANGE OF NON-
CONFORMING USE
6
2
1
9
ADMINISTRATIVE
ERROR
4
6
10
104
56
3
163
-].8-
ZONING ORDINANCE
AND
REZONING
In 1980, the
County Commissioners
acted on
nine rezoning
cases
of which four were Zoning
Ordinance
text
amendments and
five
if
were for the
reclassification
of
land. Each
of these cases
were
previously heard by the
Planning
Commission
and forwarded
to
the Board with
recommendations.
Those
cases
heard and dis-
posed
of by the Board were as
follows:
CASE
APPLICANT
TYPE OF
AREA
REQUEST
PLANNING
DISPOSITION
AMENDMENT
COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
RZ-207
Economic De-
Text
N/A
N/A
Approve
Approved
velopment Com.
-208
Planning Com.
Text
N/A
N/A
Approve
Approved
RZ-209
Bd. of County
Text
N/A
N/A
Approve
Approve
Commissioners
RZ-210
Leslie E. Earley
Map
70.86
RU to IG
Deny
Denied
RZ-212
Planning Com.
Map
15.81
P to C
Approve
Approved
RZ-213
Charles T. Shifler
Map
.7
IM to A
Approve
Approved
RZ-214
Robert M. Bushey
Map
2.54
IG to RR
Approve
Approved
RZ-215
Planning Com.
Map
37.76
P to C
Approve
Approved
RZ-216
Planning Com.
•Text
N/A
N/A
Approve
Approved
RZ-219
Leigh R. Sprowls
Text
N/A
N/A
Approve
Decision
Pending
RZ-220
Darrell Martin
Map
4.4
RS to A
Deny
Decision
Pending
RZ-221
Silver Executive
Map
4.45
RU to PB
Approve
Decision
Centers, Inc.
Pending
RZ-222
Keller Nigh
Text
N/A
N/A
Deny
Decision
Pending
-19-
1980
SUBDIVISION ACTIVITY
Administration of the Subdivision Ordinance remained a major
activity of the Commission during 1980. Comparative figures for
1978, 1979, and 1980 are shown below, including a breakdown of
those approved as simplified plats:
1980 APROVALS
TYPE SUBDIVISIONS NO. OF LOTS ACREAGE
Residential 109 355 1276.28
Commercial 2 2 15.39
Industrial/Institutional 8 8 67.30
Simplified 90 122 532.71
TOTAL 209 487 1892.38
S
1979 APPROVALS
TYPE SUBDIVISIONS NO. OF 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
rYPE SUBDIVISIONS NO. OF LOTS ACREAGE
Residential
122
261
1118.6
Commercial
7
it
_ 38.41
Industrial/Institutional
4
4
14.7
Simplified
86
113
650.43
TOTAL
219
389
1821.84
-20-
Regular monthly meetings of the reviewing agencies, Commission
staff, consultants, and applicants continued throughout the year in
order to monitor the status of active subdivision plats. Addition-
ally, on a request basis, preliminary consultations were conducted
on the first and third Thursday of each month. There were 14 such
consultations held during 1980.
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 delays of these subdi-
vision applications.
A list of all approved 1980 subdivisions for development by
Planning Sector is provided on the following pages with a summary
ry of the statistical distribution shown below:
DEVELOPMENT PLATS
PLANNING
NUMBER
ACREAGE
AVERAGE
NUMBER
AVERAGE SIZE
SECTOR
OF LOTS
LOT SIZE
SUBDIVISIONS
OF SUBDIVISION
SECTOR I
116
308.33
2.66
37
8.33
SECTOR II
183
607.08
3.32
35
17.35
SECTOR III
13
103.13
7.93
6
17.19
SECTOR IV
7
23.42
3.35
6
3.90
SECTOR V
34
246.39
7.25
30
8.21
SECTOR VI
12
71.32
5.94
5
14.26
TOTALS
365
1359.67
3.73
119
11.43
-21-
1980 APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS
SECTOR I
ACRES OR
APPROVAL
NAME
E.D.
USE
LOTS
SQUARE FEET
DATE
James L. Abbott
9
R
2
2.60
1/08/80
St. James Village, Sec. D
10
R
43
32.60
2/04/80
Ruhl Loudin
13
R
1
1.55
2/04/80
Hag. -Wash. Co. Ind. Found. Inc.
(Atlantic Cabinet Corp.)
2
I
1
14.44
2/04/80
James Cochrane
(Ryder Truck)
2
1
1
4.41
2/14/80
Hag. -Wash. Co. Ind. Found. Inc.
2
INS
1
.50
2/22/80
Ira M. Pike, Lot C
10
R
1
.92
3/11/80
Sun Chemical Corp.
2
I
1
30.0
4/07/80
William C. Hetzer, Inc. Parcel A
2
R
1
47.37
4/10/80
Leon M. Grimm, Lot 1
13
R
1
1.00
4/16/80
Robert C. Deavers, Parcel A
26
R
1
.35
4/22/80
Clarence Pike, Lots C D
2
R
2
4.14
4/22/80
Antietam Paper Co.
10
C
1
5.60
5/05/80
Robinwood, Section H
18
R
32
36.82
5/05/80
Rachael M. Daley
10
R
2
.46
5/15/80
Gloria L. Wolford
13
R
1
1.03
5/28/80
MacDraw, Inc.
2
I
1
8.30
6/02/80
Fred Drury, Lot 1
13
E
1
3.611
6/13/80
Frank D. Barlup
9
R
2
2.84
6/16/80
Horst Heights, Lot B
27
R
1
1.78
6/17/80
Albert G. Stottlemyer
13
R
1
3.58
6/17/80
Antietam Associates
10&18
R
1
12.02
6/30/80
James L. Abbott, Parcel C
9
R
1
.95
7/11/80
Hugh E. Middlekauff
9
R
1
22.78
7/24/80
Youngstoun, Section I, Phase II
18
R
120 units
9.00
8/04/80
G. M. W. Associates
9
R
1
5.09
8/06/80
Londontowne, Sec. D., Lot 156
10
R
1
1.57
8/14/80
Robert M. Line
18
R
1
1.08
8/27/80
South End Development Co. of
Wmspt., Inc.
2
R
1
3.71
8/28/80
Kathryn L. Kershner, Lot 1
2
R
1
3.00
9/25/80
Bruce W. Nichels,.Lots 1 $ 2
10
R
2
3.47
9/29/80
Kenneth -E. Hartman
9
R
1
3.02
10/07/80
Martin Company
13
INS
1
6.2
10/15/80
Russell W. Priest
27
R
2
11.67
11/03/80
Small Business Administration
9
C
1
9.99
11/12/80
Stonecroft Apartments
,/
(Sec. IV of Youngstoun)
18
R
108 units
8.69
12/01/80
W. Riley Daniels
26
R
1
2.19
12/02/80
-22-
1980 APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS
SECTOR II
ACRES OR
APPROVAL
NAME
E.D.
USE
LOTS
SQUARE FEET
DATE
Mountain View Estates, Sec. 2
6
R
5
43.41
1/08/80
Clarence B. Crane, Lot 1
12
R
1
5.00
1/17/80
John R. Marsh
12
R
1
7.13
2/11/80
Ralph 0. Kifer, Lot 1
16
R
1
1.00
4/01/80
James E. Artz
12
R
2
1.84
4/29/80
Earl E. Roulette
1
R
3
30.70
5/05/80
Confederate Hills, Sec. F $ G
1
R
27
29.545
5/05/80
Sharpsburg Bible Church
1
INS
1
3.00
5/06/80
James A. & Lloyd B. Ford
6
R
1
1.00
5/09/80
Vincent La Bella
19
R
1
23.00
6/10/80
Richard V. Bennett
12
R
1
1.62
6/11/80
Glen F. Sowers
16
R
1
3.00
6/12/80
Joseph K. Scott
20
R
1
1.00
6/17/80
Johnny Lee Roy Keesecker
19
R
1
4.27
6/17/80
Curtis W. Ausherman
20
R
1
107.09
6/19/80
Ralph E. Hurley
16
R
2
9.61
7/08/80
Clyde B. Tucker
6
R
1
1.11
7/15/80
Schipper Farmettes, Lots 1 $ 2
16
R
1
47.09
7/21/80
Keedysville Knolls
19
E
7
46.95
8/04/80
Longview Estates (Pre.)
16
R
36
74.66
8/20/80
Carroll A. Holmes
6
R
1
.93
8/27/80
I!,?toney Dell Farm, Lots 5,6,7$8
16
R
4
9.95
9/04/80
Confederate Hills, Sections
C, D. & E
1
R
71
76.25
9/05/80
Harry W. Chaney
20$21
R
2
3.74
9/11/80
Paul B. Shade
1
R
1
1.16
10/08/80
Robert C. Lundsford
6
R
1
3.00
10/20/80
Robert G. Marcum
1
R
1
1.04
10/29/80
J. Maury Werth
20
R
1
33.10
11/13/80
Coffman Farmette
20
R
1
25.00
12/04/80
Lottie P. Beard
12
R
1
2.12
12/04/80
Michael J. Evans, Lot 2A
1
R
1
3.69
12/04/80
Galen A. Finfrock, Lot 1
9
R
1
.92
12/11/80
William -D. Driscoll
6
R
1
3.09
12/15/80
Paul B. Shade
1
R
1
1.06
12/24/80
SF.CTnR ITT
Mt. Briar Estates
8
R
3
27.64
1/07/80
Richard L. Stephens
8
R
4
56.88
1/08/80
Bonnard J. Morgan
11
R
3
10.79
2/05/80
Richard L. Smallwood
11
R
1
1.52
7/17/80
James W. Haga
11
R
1
1.30
10/31/80
Robert J. Hogan
8
R
1
5.00
11/06/80
-23-
SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS
Name of Subdivision
Number
of Lots
St. James Village, Section D
43
Lots
Robinwood, Section H
32
Lots
Youngstoun, Section I, Phase II
120
Units
Stonecroft Apartments, Section IV of
Youngstoun
108
Units
Confederate Hills, Sections C, D $ E
71
Lots
Confederate Hills, Sections F & G
27
Lots
Longview Estates
36
Lots
Keedysville Knolls
7
Lots
Cohill Estates, Section A
7
Lots
J
4
z
O
I-
I-
N
z
J
ra► 4c
a
" y
O
=
::H.
LLJH
uot
I
• ao w
�)�
U I
O
1 J
(Z a w
rl a
zu
2 a.
0 i
J xy
Q
I -
o i
i
1
I
1
t'
i
I
I
I
I'
/
I
SI
•.
,
a
a
3
•
N
IS
I. I
a.
ii•
•
r
I.
—
)5
---
a
J
I
•
0
1
1•
'
rn
It
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
'n a a O m CO r• (0 in v M N —
( 430IALaens S3a3v d0 'ON)
O
C,
N
a,
D
fl
D
n
J
Q
z
0
I-
I-
I —
U)
z
r
J
J
Q
Q
U
F
W
O
U
2
Q
LU
U)
>.;
w
t
O
e
H
aD
W
>
9�
O
W
W
J
Q
W
a
y
0
V O
a
J
7 Cf
rn
Li
a•
.______
i9y
m
i
/
/
33
__
ti
a1%
d:
P:
N
/
____
__
__
O
�7
ro
6
a
rn
2
1
O O 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0
O 1O O u7 O 1O 0 to 0 to O a7
(0 iq t ? 7 ro M N N — —
( S101 03AOLIddV JO ON )
1
"
O
-J
N
�
a
J
a
~
Ii
V
_
�
M
Q
�
�
e!3
>H
s
ii
I
F—
I.
4
Z
ii
Z
E
2
•.
p
G1
(nNJ
-J
150
cD
V=
z
4
I;
Cl)
I
•
J
0
Q-'
ii
I
97
I:
ai
I
J
•,
0fI4
,
..
O
1
IQ 0 it) 0 IC) 0
1L) O
( SlYld 03AOMddV dO ON
b
',
M so'
.�•
Vi r`
.IyP �f A .. _e'i PRIXO wrov m.
WASHINGTON COUNTY
MARYLAND
1980 SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT MAP
LEGEND
RESIDENTIAL
AINDUSTRIAL
❑■ COMMERCIAL
aINSTITUTIONAL
L.
o/
awN.o..
.NO
UM... A
SCALE
Feet = 400= rasa oo 24000
Miles
r=T22 4�roo ia
�• 1
a� I
� ♦ 'u
"�" �i£
N 3�g 8
�"'^p� Y _
moux„rvrvE ^pl
xa
v
rev..
N',
Q`"4,
x
n,i '�'✓
M
r u cc*.xsv
r;
Y
r
,`
♦ d
e
u•
_
.ui
as
iY.
/
` ` Lamx[ s
u
6
9;
i.e Y _
n. rox
5-A
urv'�•
Y Slxr
^(V •
A, \
/
[`/,\
___ �A
,x� �gy..
rox
`
+ 8 a
f 6 Y
y.
`A*•
w
R
a
Y
urnowr
+
r
r •
iI
x
6P
nov[
o
y
i'x
SPfl HG
xaA uc
x
WASHINGTON COUNTY
MARYLAND
1980 ZONING MAP APPROVALS
CASE NO.
CHANGE
ACRES
CONFORMS TO PLAN
RZ-212
P
to C
15.81
YES
RZ- 213
IM
to A
0.70
YES
RZ— 214
IG
to RR
2.54
YES
RZ-215
P
to C
37.76
YES
l;C
L
92
0!
zIt ra.o,x
SCALE
Feet mow 04000
Miles o
wxrT5
II.
'a
WASHINGTON COUNTY
MARYLAND
xx n
f
ca�R
eon
xc
t
8'
�
_
a.
2
Ya
F
ds
[
d _
CLEAR
'NONE
SPRING
M j
i2
O
za
�
1980 AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICTS
DISTRICT NO.
NAME
ACRES
AD -80- I
FORD
178.59
AD -80-2
CARR
245.64
AD -80-3
ALLENBERG
129.52
AD -80-4
ST JAMES SCHOOL, INC.
278.75
AD -80-5
WOLF
148.30
AD -80-6
HARSHMAN
232.44
AD -80-7
LOHMAN
565.25
TOTAL ACRES
1778.49
nEIMY 010100
..•"
NOLU MONO
00900
L^.
ti.
SCALE
Feet 0 4000 00,00 10000 1.000 00000 Joo
f I
Miles ,0