Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutH_2000 Annual ReportWASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT FY 2000 PREPARED BY THE WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS c1: Planning Organizational Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Comprehensive Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Planning Commission Work Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Agricultural Land Preservation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Metropolitan Planning Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Forest Conservation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Water and Sewerage Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Park Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Historic District Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Community Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - Housing Repair Loan Programs - Elderly Rental Housing Development - Community Development Block Grant Program - Technical Assistance Development Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Rezoning Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Board of Zoning Appeals Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Agriculturally Significant Land Converted to Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Agricultural Preservation Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Activities Processed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 FY 2000 Subdivision Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 FY 2000 Subdivision Detail . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Subdivision Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Planning Sector Map......................................Appendix FY 2000 Development Map ................................. Appendix FY 2000 Rezoning Map .................................... Appendix Agricultural Preservation New District Map ...................... Appendix Agricultural Preservation Cumulative Map ...................... Appendix Washington County Planning Commission 2000 Annual Report Board of County Commissioners Gregory I. Snook, President Paul L. Swartz, Vice President Bertrand L. Iseminger John L. Schnebly William J. Wivell Planning Commission Paula Lampton, Chairperson Robert E. Ernst, II, Vice -Chairman Bertrand L. Iseminger, Ex -Officio R. Ben Clopper Don Ardinger Timothy Henry George Anikis Published April 17, 2002 Washington County Planning Commission 100 West Washington Street Hagerstown, MD 21740 w 0 Cl, O / 0 0 iy \) Go j} w z0 }j} Kos E§/ 0 < N < z ee§ }§( m 0 O ( §\—}. _ 0 ® °j \ 2\ \0 UJZW I !\)\ § j)§ \ ? z CU - I _ § ! ;;§//q � �j\\\ � � ®:,_ §! / )\ ) )} CO S )( 0 § /0 k - )ui S �E\ \ CO z } Z )[[) COO HO -CC- - ! THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Implementation of policies associated with the Comprehensive Plan continued through FY 2000. Items, which are outlined in greater detail in other sections of this report, are directly related or reflect some aspect of the implementation of the policy and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. During FY 2000 the Planning Commission worked to implement the policies of the Comprehensive Plan through adoption of amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and other regulations. Work also continued on the updating of the Comprehensive Plan in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act of 1992 as well as the Smart Growth Act. Meetings between the Planning staff and Planning Commission produced a set of recommended goals and objectives to provide guidance for the Staff in developing the "Draft Revised Comprehensive Plan". Work was completed on 7 chapters during this time period. A number of maps were completed in support of this work. Work on the Comprehensive Plan update was anticipated to continue throughout the next fiscal year. Since the Comprehensive Plan adoption in 1981, the Planning Commission and the Planning Staff have worked continuously to implement its strategies for growth management in Washington County. The attached work program for FY 2001 is designed to continue that effort. CN D O a 0 § w a. k \ } \ k 3 \ j ) g Lu IL / C § / z z j LU \ j � ■� ! m ] § p 2■ )22 §§ Lu _© ■ CLz® w ( §§o\/§ §k2 <4 02 ( oo�«2e Own z2u k2 $I2i«wymom \ k§W0WM<z2j/2 /§§ ■ a.Wa.-1uza.ezww� &L§5522)§(k4 zz o < 4tOW_°oa-n§a §S2 WU)2 a. 2(Q.WMZoK)))E■§/ o z zS#ew:oaoo « «=un nNe«aa&u�k oo« z ..,, p u 2 AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION PROGRAM Washington County's efforts to preserve valuable farmland via the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Program (MALPP) began in April 1978 and has continued to date. The Program was established and is regulated by Agricultural Article, Sections 2-501 through 2-515 of the Annotated Code of Maryland. It is administered through a Planning Commission staff member, by the Washington County Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Board, the County Commissioners, and the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation (MALPF) of the Maryland Department of Agriculture. The program encourages landowners to voluntarily 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 (to receive County tax credits, the landowner is required to commit his property to agricultural use only, for a period of ten years). In return for the restriction, the landowner receives protection from nuisance complaints and becomes eligible to sell a Development Rights Easement. A landowner may exercise the option of selling a Development Rights Easement to the Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation provided that his offer to sell is recommended by the County's Advisory Board and the County Commissioners. At the local level, the Agricultural Advisory Board reviews and ranks easement applications, assigning point value to such items as farm size, soil quality and development pressure indicators on its easement checklist. If purchased by the State of Maryland, the easement will remain effective in perpetuity. During FY 2000, total acreage in the program increased to 27,142 acres with a total of 200 agricultural districts. Under the MALPP easement purchase program, contracts were issued during FY 2000 for seven (7) additional farms, bringing total easement properties in the program to 41 equaling 7,530 acres. In addition, ongoing Federal, State and private conservation easements around Antietam Battlefield effectively preserve an additional 7,860 acres of agricultural land in perpetuity. The Battlefield figure includes properties from the newly funded Rural Legacy Program (RLP). In FY 2000 option contracts were written under RLP for nearly 2000 acres. Total permanently preserved acreage in the County stands at 15,390 acres. 3 AGRICULTURAL SIGNIFICANT LAND CONVERTED TO DEVELOPMENT 1980 TO JUNE 30, 2000 Total Developed Total Converted ACREAGE LOTS ACREAGE LOTS %CONVERTED 1980 1,359.6 365 487.8 95 36.0 1981 1,137.1 332 251.3 59 22.0 1982 964.9 150 194.4 33 20.1 1983 895.3 220 305.6 127 34.1 1984 1,092.3 235 409.6 68 37.5 1985 1,144.6 231 439.8 65 38.4 1986 946.9 250 138.8 60 14.6 1987* 2,254.6 995 363.1 94 16.1 1989 1,714.8 770 301.3 86 17.5 1990 1,769.1 820 318.6 102 18.0 1991 1,115.4 339 321.6 104 28.8 1992 1,246.9 565 203.5 46 16.3 1993 793.5 1,005 156.8 45 19.8 F' 1994 833.2 312 121.0 42 14.5 1995 598.6 342 208.6 76 34.8 1996 995.9 506 191.8 37 19.3 1997 760.8 224 174.0 39 22.9 1998 754.8 395 151.0 40 20.0 1999 793.9 242 33.1 12 4.2 2000 711.8 398 57.9 18 8.1 TOTAL 21,884 8,696 4,829.6 1,248 22.1 22.1% of the land developed between 1980 and June 30, 2000 has been converted from agriculturally significant land. * Reporting period of 18 months was used to change the Planning Commission's Annual Report from a calendar year to a fiscal year. bl METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION During FY 2000, the Hagerstown/Eastern Panhandle Metropolitan Planning continued to move forward. The organization is composed of representatives from Washington County, Maryland; Berkeley County, West Virginia; Jefferson County, West Virginia; and Franklin County, Pennsylvania. The organization's home base is in the Washington County Planning Department. Revisions to the adopted Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for the years 2000 — 2002 were approved along with a new UPWP work program that focused on the need to begin the updating the Long Range Transportation Plan. Work on developing RFPs for the following special studies projects: realignment of Rench Road with MD 65 and Battlecreek Blvd. intersection; alignment for Eastern Blvd. extension to March Pike; alignment of a potential bicycle pedestrian trail between Hagerstown and • Williamsport, and an alignment for a bypass south and east of Funkstown from Alternate 40 to Hebb Road continued during this time period. • The MPO's presence as a transportation planning agency continued to evolve with letters of support requested from various local communities applying for Federal • Transportation Enhancement Funds. These included downtown pedestrian facility rehabilitation projects in Hagerstown, MD and Charles Town, West Virginia. R FOREST CONSERVATION PROGRAM Washington County continues to implement the local version of Maryland's Forest Conservation law. Through the inventory of existing forest on development sites and the calculation of minimum forest cover, based on existing forest and proposed development, the law is designed to slow the loss of valuable forest land in the State of Maryland. Several options for meeting obligations under the Ordinance are available. The first preferences are to prevent the disturbance of existing forest or to plant new forest on the development site. Planting new forest and placing easements on existing forest are also available. Payment of a fee in lieu of planting or retention is also allowable. In the past fiscal year the Washington County Planning Department processed 244 subdivision and site plan applications covering 3,378.08 acres of land. 183 or 75% of those applications were exempt from the requirements of the Forest Conservation Ordinance (FCO), approximately equal to the previous year's exemptions. The chart below indicates the number and type of exemptions granted in the past fiscal year. A. < 40,000 SQUARE FOOT PARCEL 8 B. SIMPLIFIED PLAT 39 C. APPLICATION BEFORE EFFECTIVE DATE 3 D. OWNER/IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER DWELLING 38 E. EXISTING LOT OF RECORD 20 F. PUD BEFORE EFFECTIVE DATE 10 G. AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY 0 H. REAL ESTATE TRANSFER 18 I. REPLATS 47 3. MINING 0 TOTAL SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW EXEMPTIONS: 183 63 plans remain that must comply with the Ordinance in some other manner. 6 Payment of the fee in lieu of planting is chosen most often. Of the 62 plans that were not exempt, 21 used the fee in lieu of planting choice, the same number as in the previous fiscal year. The approved payments will generate $67,125.87 for the Forest Conservation Fund and are equivalent to 15.41 acres of required reforestation. $199,287.10 in actual payments were collected during the fiscal year. The collected fees are equivalent to 45.75 acres of forest that were not required to be planted on development sites. Instead, these funds are used in a program developed and administered cooperatively with the Soil Conservation District to expend fee in lieu of funds to create new forest or permanently protect existing forest on private properties. Use of the fund is restricted by Maryland law to these efforts. This year's activities saw an additional 62 acres of new forest planted and 51 acres of forested stream buffer permanently protected by easements at a total cost of $233,475.49. The amount of new forest or permanently protected existing forest has risen to 297.60 acres. Expenditures from the Forest Conservation Fund now total $627,644.05. Since adoption of the Forest Conservation Ordinance in February 1993, the fee in lieu of option has generated over $ 715,000.00 for the Forest Conservation Fund. A portion of the Forest Conservation Fund is earmarked for reforestation of the West Woods at Antietam National Battlefield, an arrangement that was approved by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners in November 1994. There were no disbursements for planting at the Battlefield in this fiscal year. 25 plans required no fees or planting because there was sufficient forest on the development site or another one under developer control to allow some clearing with no mitigation or no clearing was proposed or necessary. An additional 8 plans met forest conservation obligations in a previous phase of the development or plan review. New planting, a final method of compliance was used seven times in the past fiscal year and produced 16.8 acres of new forest planted in environmentally sensitive or priority areas. All methods of compliance generate a plan review fee. There is no fee when a plan is exempt. The Planning Department collected $ 4,352.50 in Forest Conservation Plan review fees during the past fiscal year. An additional 16 exemptions from the Forest Conservation Ordinance were granted for timber harvest activities which are not considered development activities. 3 WATER AND SEWERAGE PLAN The Planning Department reviewed four applications to amend the Water and Sewerage Plan during FY 2000. WS -99-01 was submitted by the Washington County Planning Commission. The application was to amend the text and maps of the Plan associated with the Washington County Water and Sewer Department's Nicodemus Waste Water Treatment Plat to reflect the elimination of this plant from the system and to transfer flow from the service area previously associated with this plant to the Conococheague Waste Water Treatment Plant. The amendment also provided for the construction of approximately three thousand linear feet of new force main to facilitate the transfer of flow. These changes were proposed to reflect efforts by the Washington County Water and Sewer Department to meet State mandated Biological Nutrient Removal requirements. A public hearing was held on August 24, 1999. The application was found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the County and was approved and adopted by the County Commissioners on September 21, 1999. WS -99-02 was submitted by the Washington County Planning Commission. The application was to amend the text and maps of the Plan associated with the existing Sharpsburg Pike Sewer Service Area to reflect a change to the treatment plant receiving flow from this service area from the Hagerstown waste water treatment plant to the Conococheague Waste Water Treatment Plant. The amendment also included changes to the maps and text to provide for construction of a combination force/gravity sewer line to facilitate the transfer of flow to the Conococheague plant. A public hearing was held on August 24, 1999. This amendment reflected efforts by Washington County and the City of Hagerstown to satisfy the Maryland Department of the Environment's desire to see further cooperation between the City and County in waste water utility matters. The application was found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and was approved and adopted by the County Commissioners on September 21, 1999. 9 WS -00-01 was submitted by Homer L. Bivens, a landowner and developer. The map amendment application was to expand the Martins Crossroads Restricted Use water service area with a priority designation of W-5, Planned Service. The purpose of the amendment was to allow for the provision of public water service to approximately 55 acres of property owned by the applicant and proposed for future residential development. The property is located along the west side of Maryland Route 63 north of Cearfoss. A public hearing was held on June 12, 2000. Action on this amendment by the County Commissioners was pending as of the end of FY 2000. WS -00-02 was submitted by Ron and Viki Vitkun, owners of Yogi Bear's Jellystone Park Campground. The purpose of the map amendment was to establish a new Restricted Use Sewer Service Area with a priority designation of S-5 in order to provide public sewer service for the existing campground and proposed expansion. The property consists of approximately 90 acres and is located south of Maryland Route 68, west of Maryland Route 632. The amendment to the plan would facilitate the construction of a new sewer line from the campground to an existing force main in the vicinity of the Redman's Club. Sewage from the line would be treated at the Conococheague Waste Water Treatment Plant. A public hearing was held on June 12, 2000. Action on this amendment by the County Commissioners was pending as of the end of FY 2000. Work on the State mandated update of the Water and Sewerage Plan, which began in FY 1997 and suspended in FY 1998, remained suspended during FY 2000 pending the completion of a new Comprehensive Plan for Washington County. 10 PARK AND ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING Park and environmental planning during FY 2000 included a variety of projects and activities. A forest planting plan was prepared for a one acre forest buffer area in Marty Snook park to aid in screening football field activities from neighborhood homes. A planting inspection of the trees was carried out later in the spring. A forest stand delineation was also completed for the forest area south of the golf course at the Washington County Regional Park. Two different training opportunities were utilized in October. A Bike — Pedestrian conference in WV with a nationally known expert provided an interesting overview of vital planning and design issues to consider to make urban and rural roadways more bicycle and pedestrian friendly. A Coverts training conference provided by the MD Cooperative Extension Service offered an in-depth look at methods for forest and habitat management to benefit a variety of wildlife species. Later in the spring, a series of contacts and inspection/status visits to five forest planting sites were completed. These owner contacts and site visits provided final inspections to either extend or return the required maintenance sureties. Several forest Stand Delineations and a development plat was reviewed, with comments provided as necessary. Finally, simplified forest stand delineation reports for two significant forest easement purchases were begun. One easement provides a protected forest buffer along Licking Creek, while the other provides a mile long buffer along Antietam Creek. For the first time, graphics preparation for each FSD report used the desktop capabilities of ArcView GIS, which should help streamline preparation of future reports. Revision and updating of sections for the new County Comprehensive Plan was continued. Chapters discussing Environmental Resource Management and Community Park Facilities were revised and edited. 11 HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION The Washington County Historic District Commission continues to pursue its responsibilities and concerns regarding historic preservation through a variety of permits, applications and assignments from individuals and agencies. The Commission and the County can influence and encourage preservation through several different levels of review, incentives and education. Property tax credits are available for restoration, preservation or improvements to structures located in the County's Historic Preservation or Antietam Overlay zoning designations. Proposals must be designed according to adopted standards and approved by the Commission. Three new tax credit applications were submitted and approved during the fiscal year resulting in over $10,000 worth of property tax credits for the property owners. Following a policy adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in 1989, the Historic District Commission reviewed four proposed demolition applications this year, a 60% reduction in the number from the previous year. One of the structures had been severely damaged by fire and was beyond the owner's means to repair or salvage. The demolition of an agricultural building that was part of a National Register site on an adjacent parcel was averted when the owners began negotiations for a transfer. The HOC recommended a delay of the demolition of a farmhouse on industrial zoned land until additional reuse possibilities could be studied. The final application involved the County's demolition of a road maintenance facility located in a former school building. The Commission was not in favor of the demolition but understood the need for a modern maintenance facility and the limited rehabilitation possibilities. The Commission completed three design review applications, all for sites located in the Antietam Overlay zone. One was a sign application, another a pole barn on a residential parcel and the third, a site plan for a church. All were approved as submitted because they were determined to be consistent with design guidelines. 12 Among the many responsibilities accompanying the Commission's Certified Local Government (CLG) status is participation in the National Register of Historic Places nomination process. Two additional applications were evaluated and recommended for listing. The Funkstown Historic District covered over 200 sites within the town's boundaries. Woburn, an early 19th century federal style dwelling, was conceived, constructed and the long time home of prominent Washington County Circuit Court Judge Thomas Buchanan. The Board of County Commissioners concurred with the HDC in recommending both for listing in the National Register. Although the Commission submitted an application for a CLG funded project with committed matching funds from the County, there were insufficient funds from the State of Maryland for approval. The Commission's participation in the development review process remained level over this past fiscal year. It reviewed Preliminary Consultations, subdivisions and site plans and occasionally made recommendations to protect existing structures listed in the Historic Sites Survey. 13 DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY During the fiscal year, the Planning Commission reviewed development plans in both concept and final form. The Commission reviewed and approved 107 residential, commercial, industrial or institutional subdivision plats involving 398 lots representing 387 dwelling units on 711.8 acres. In addition, the Planning Commission approved 56 site plans and held 13 preliminary consultations. Some of the conceptual forms have not resulted in a firm design while others have proceeded through final approval. There were several subdivision or development plats of significance (final approval of twenty or more lots or dwelling units) approved during FY 2000. They include: Colonial Park East Section E, Fountainview PUD Phases I and II, Van Lear Section, and Silverman Companies LLC. Site plans representing significant private investment within the County were approved for: South Pointe Commercial Area, Penske Truck, Tiger Development, Slepp Inn, Ryder Truck, Silverman Companies Senior Living Facility, LTD Office Warehouse, Capitol Core Industrial Development, Halfway Plaza Shopping Center, Phoenix Color, TDR Enterprises, Holiday Inn Express, Hagerstown Honda, Fazoli's Restaurant, Pavestone Company, YMCA of Hagerstown, Lenox Inc., The Bowman Group, AC& T Inc., and Grace Academy, Site Plans reflecting significant public investment were approved for the Washington County Water and Sewer Department at the Conococheague Treatment Plant and the County's new Forty West Landfill. it REZONING CASES AND ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Between July 1, 1999 and June 30, 2000, the Planning Commission acted on applications. Joint hearings with the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners were held regularly on a quarterly cycle or special hearings were held as necessary to provide for efficiency in the hearing process. The Commission rendered recommendations on map amendments and text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and one map and text amendment to the Water and Sewer Plan. A listing of the Planning Commission's recommendations and the Board's actions for the cases heard in FY 2000 are as follows: CASE APPLICANT TYPE OF ACREAGE REQUEST COMMISSION BOARD AMENDMENT ACTION ACTION RZ-99-01 County Text Sections App'd App'd Commissioners Cellular Towers Zoning Ordinance RZ-99-02 County Text Section App'd App'd Commissioners Art. 22, Div IX RZ-99-03 County Text Section App'd App'd Commissioners Sec 5.1a, 5.3b, 6.3g, 7.1a, 7.3f, 13.1b, 15.1a, 4.13 RZ-99-04 Planning Text Section App'd App'd Commission 4.11 P2-99-05 Halfway Text Section Denied Denied Fire Department 22.21 RZ-99-06 Maurice Map 5.0 BL & RU App'd App'd Johnston to BC RZ-99-07 Larry Map 2.92 C to HP App'd App'd Younker Overlay 17 N N Ha N r-i N H H (N O O <r H H O i r-1 IN (N E a H U) N O O O 0 O O OI N lD �zG fsi M (N O O O O O O 0110 N H E O O S O N • H a O rn 3 a P'I N O O O r-i `-I O O ON H H a z w CI) N H l0 O OH H O O O N 01 H 2 ri H W Q I A NI d1 D) N H O D1 r -I N OI V H d d' N ri H C7 z O H H N H H a 0 Z H 0 z C0 04 O o N aN NH O HH a C7 Z H CD H H Ha H a O rra, H aa CO H V O H Z O X H U Q Cu U Cl) w z OO Cs.'O a a O a p rn u a Oz m wz ww w n Cr, H Hz zo (DO ZH .CZ H N N0) a zo dO Q w wm w a CO NZ Oz FC 10a a 20 WASHINGTON COUNTY MD AGRICULTURALLY SIGNIFICANT LAND CONVERTED TO DEVELOPMENT FOR PERIOD 07/01/99 THRU 06/30/00 PLANNING ELECTION AGRICULTURAL NEW USE SECTOR DISTRICT ACREAGE LOST LOTS (TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT) 2 6 8.5 3 SF 16 7.8 3 SF 19 3.3 1 SF 20 10.7 1 LL TOTAL 30.2 8 3 SF SF 8 6.2 1 11 3.2 1 TOTAL 9.4 2 5 4 6.4 4 SF 23 11.9 4 SF TOTAL 18.3 8 GRAND TOTAL 57.9 18 21 WASHINGTON COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICTS DISTRICT NO DISTRICT NAME FARM TYPE ACRES RECORDED TYPE EASEMENT DATE AD -80-001 FORD CROP 178.59 07/11/80 10 02/24/83 AD -80-002 CARR DAIRY 245.64 07/11/80 10 12/21/82 AD -80-004 ST JAMES SCHOOL INC CROP 279.14 04/21/80 5 AD -80-006 HARSHMAN CROP 232.44 08/07/80 10 04/16/96 AD -80-007 LOHMAN CROP 146.00 08/15/80 10 06/01/00 AD -81-002 MARTIN CROP 140.00 08/28/81 10 05/15/84 AD -82-003 ANKENEY CROP 460.00 05/11/83 10 02/18/86 AD -83-002 WEISENBAUGH BEEF 314.00 06/28/83 10 12/19/86 AD -83-003 HAYES BEEF 200.55 03/19/84 10 09/06/85 AD -84-002 ROBBINS BEEF 448.00 05/14/85 10 12/31/86 AD -85-001 WOLFINGER BEEF 149.63 04/07/86 10 AD -86-001 ROSENBERRY CROP 127.51 08/12/86 10 AD -88-001 MAIN CROP 142.26 06/16/88 10 06/30/89 AD -88-003 CORCORAN CROP 158.42 03/22/89 10 05/01/97 AD -88-004 RITCHIE DAIRY 237.99 04/12/89 10 09/24/90 AD -89-001 GOLDEN ORCHARD 457,67 06/20/89 5 AD -89-002 STRITE DAIRY 192.43 03/18/91 10 AD -89-003 BYERS DAIRY 164.61 09/13/89 10 02/15/91 AD -89-005 HERBST DAIRY 183.99 04/16/91 10 04/01/00 AD -89-005A HERBST DAIRY 172.12 04/16/91 10 07/26/95 AD -90-001 KRAMER CROP 100.00 09/20/90 10 05/01/97 AD -90-002 CORCORAN CROP 150.14 09/20/90 10 08/30/93 AD -90-005 SCHOOLEY FOREST 101.05 03/20/91 10 AD -90-006 HARP CROP 124.70 09/20/90 10 06/29/92 AD -90-007 HARP CROP 150.51 09/20/90 10 06/30/92 AD -90-008 WILES CROP 190.88 03/20/91 10 AD -90-009 SCHOOLEY FOREST 21.60 03/20/91 10 AD -90-010 ENGSTROM CROP 38.59 04/16/91 10 AD -90-011 BURTNER DAIRY 108.81 04/16/91 10 AD -90-012 DURBIN CROP 100.38 03/20/91 10 01/13/95 AD -90-013 WEAVER DAIRY 174.05 08/05/91 10 AD -90-014 WEAVER BEEF 82.34 11/20/90 10 AD -90-015 CLINE CROP 145.25 08/05/91 10 01/01/00 AD -90-017 PRICE CROP 149.64 11/20/90 10 AD -90-018 LONG DAIRY 163.88 04/16/91 10 AD -90-019 STRITE DAIRY 140.04 11/20/90 5 AD -90-020 TRUMPOWER DAIRY 125.00 11/20/90 10 08/16/94 AD -90-021 SHIFLER CROP 157.00 05/29/91 10 04/30/98 AD -90-022 HEIMER CROP 67.00 08/05/91 10 AD -90-023 LITTON DAIRY 145.00 03/20/91 10 AD -90-024 HOWELL FOREST 146.81 03/20/91 10 AD -90-025 CHURCHEY CROP 186.32 05/29/91 10 05/01/96 AD -90-026 HAMILTON CROP 104.80 03/20/91 10 AD -90-027 NIEMYER CROP 44.38 03/20/91 10 AD -90-027A BARR CROP 30.00 03/20/91 10 01/01/01 AD -90-028 BAKER BEEF 17.06 03/20/91 10 AD -90-031 BARR ORCHARD 70.72 05/29/91 10 01/01/01 AD -90-032 BARR ORCHARD 115.62 05/29/91 10 AD -90-033 STONE DAIRY 165.00 05/29/91 10 AD -90-034 SECREST CROP 117.42 05/29/91 10 AD -90-036 HENDERSHOT CROP 168.83 05/29/91 10 AD -90-037 HENDERSHOT CROP 116.00 08/02/91 10 AD -90-038 ROTH DAIRY 124.27 05/29/91 10 AD -90-039 STOCKSLAGER CROP 144.33 03/20/91 10 AD -90-041 MARTIN DAIRY 120.00 03/20/94 10 AD -90-042 FAITH FOREST 132.63 03/20/91 10 04/30/98 AD -90-043 FAITH BEEF 129.62 03/20/91 10 /** AD -90-044 FAITH FOREST 17.00 03/20/91 10 AD -90-045 MANUEL CROP 63.63 03/20/91 10 AD -90-046 MANUEL CROP 41.20 03/20/91 10 AD -90-050 RITONDO FOREST 135.00 05/29/91 10 AD -90-051 STONE CROP 109.50 05/29/91 10 AD -90-052 STONE DAIRY 99.50 05/29/91 10 AD -90-053 STONE DAIRY 104.78 05/29/91 10 AD -90-054 STONE CROP 93.15 05/29/91 10 AD -90-055 STONE CROP 129.13 05/29/91 10 DISTRICT NO DISTRICT NAME FARM TYPE ACRES RECORDED TYPE EASEMENT DATE AD -90-056 HULL FOREST 107.21 05/29/91 10 AD -90-057 AD -90-062 HOSE LOUDENSLAGER CROP CROP 26.00 145.04 07/02/91 05/29/91 10 10 10/01/99 AD -90-063 MARTIN DAIRY 100.61 05/29/91 10 AD -90-064 BOWERS CROP 118,90 08/05/91 10 AD -90-065 BOWERS DAIRY 141.31 08/05/91 10 AD -90-066 OSWALD DAIRY 75.75 08/05/91 AD -90-067 GROSS DAIRY 53.44 09/16/91 10 AD -90-069 GROVE CROP 185.00 10/11/91 10 AD -90-070 STIVERS BEEF BEEF 135.00 189.55 08/05/91 08/05/91 10 10 06/01/00 AD -90.073 AD -90-074 SCHULTZ OSWALD DAIRY 58.90 08/05/91 10 AD -90-075 OSWALD DAIRY 34.65 08/05/91 10 AD -90-077 SNYDER DAIRY 100.00 08/05/91 10 AD -90-078 KRETZER DAIRY 171.65 08/05/91 10 AD -90-079 WINDERS BEEF 225.00 08/05/91 10 AD -90-084 BURGER CROP 301.00 08/05/91 10 AD -90.086 BURGER FOREST 182.42 08/05/91 10 AD -90-087 BURGER BEEF 119.00 08/05/91 10 AD -91-001 PRICE CROP 274.00 09/16/91 10 AD -91-004 SHOCKEY CROP 72.21 08/05/91 10 AD -91-005 BRITNER CROP 193.20 09/16/91 10 AD -91-006 PRYOR DAIRY 108.51 09/16/91 10 AD -91-007 MARTIN DAIRY 156.84 09/16/91 10 AD -91-008 DEBAUGH DAIRY 122.22 09/16/91 10 AD -91-009 DEBAUGH DAIRY AD-91-010 OATES CROP 62.98 09/16/91 10 AD -91-011 BUHRMAN HOG 180.46 05/05/92 10 AD -91-012 MCALLISTER BEEF 83.43 03/26/92 10 AD -91-013 WORTHINGTON DAIRY 108.92 09/16/91 10 AD -91-014 NEWCOMER DAIRY 113.28 AD-91-015 NEWCOMER CROP 21.94 10/11/91 10 AD -91-016 NEWCOMER CROP 72.22 10/11/91 10 AD -91-016A NEWCOMER CROP 25.76 10/11/91 10 AD -91-017 NEWCOMER DAIRY 55.50 10/11/91 10 AD -91-019 POFFENBERGER CROP 78.00 10/11/91 10 AD -91-020 BELZ DAIRY 247.63 10/11/91 10 AD -91-021 COHILL CROP 78.68 10/11/91 10 AD -91-022 CUSHWA CROP 138.90 12/03/91 10 AD -91-023 TRITAPOE CROP 73.86 12/03/91 10 AD -91-024 TRITAPOE CROP 81.00 12/03/91 10 AD -91-026 CLINE BEEF CROP 65.00 145.00 12/03/91 12/03/91 10 10 11/14/01 AD -91-027 AD -91-028 DOWNS DOWNS CROP 130.00 12/03/91 10 AD -91-029 DOWNS CROP 118.00 12/03/91 10 AD -91-030 FLOOK DAIRY 280.76 12/03/91 10 AD -91-031 FLOOK DAIRY 126.25 12/03/91 10 AD -91-032 WARNER CROP HOG 79.30 143.68 12/16/91 12/03/91 10 10 10/30/01 AD -91-033 AD -91-034 ERNST HALLER CROP 23.00 01/08/92 10 AD -91-035 CONOCOCHEAGUE SPORTSMENS OEST5 02/03/92 10 AD -91-036 MORGANCROP 134.17 12/16/91 10 AD -91-037 MORGAN FOREST 0.00 12/16/91 10 AD -91-038 MORGAN CROP 152.66 12/16/91 10 AD -91-039 SCOTT DAIRY 227.27 12/03/91 10 AD -91-040 MATHESON BEEF CROP 161.95 135.15 01/08/92 01/08/92 10 10 04/30/98 AD -91-042 AD -91-044 BELZ BOWMAN DAIRY 175.25 02/28/92 10 AD -91-047 MURPHY DAIRY 309.50 02/12/92 10 AD -91-048 GREEN CROP 145.10 07/07/92 10 AD -91-048A GREEN CROP 49.73 07/07/92 10 AD -91-048B GREEN CROP 10.45 07/07/92 10 AD -91-049 CHARLES CROP 59.93 03/26/92 10 AD -91-050 WOLFORD DAIRY 119.59 04/06/92 10 AD -91-052 BARNHART CROP 166.77 02/21/92 10 AD -91-053 KEFAUVER DAIRY 167.52 03/26/92 10 AD -91-054 KEFAUVER CROP 114.00 03/26/92 10 AD -91-055 CAVANAUGH DAIRY 237.76 07/03/92 10 AD -91-056 HALL FOREST 30.29 11/16/92 10 23 SUBDIVISIONS BY PLANNING SECTOR FOR PERIOD 07/01/99 THRU 06/30/00 DEVELOPMENT PLATS SECTOR/ PLATS LOTS ACREAGE AVERAGE LOT SIZE URBAN RURAL 0.71 9.60 0.43 8.21 13.51 0.48 2.45 0.21 12.86 4.88 2.69 15.78 4.39 21.79 0.98 2.30 7.18 2.37 0.46 3.68 TYPE SECTOR 1 AP CM DX IN LL SF TH SECTOR 2 LL SF SECTOR 3 LL SF SECTOR 4 LL SF SECTOR 5 IN SF SECTOR 6 IL SF TOTAL URBAN RURAL 1 1 0 5 5 0 4 4 0 4 4 0 3 0 3 19 10 9 2 2 0 3 0 3 20 1 19 1 0 1 9 0 9 3 0 3 6 1 5 2 2 0 21 0 21 1 1 0 3 0 3 TOTAL URBAN RURAL 1 1 0 5 5 0 78 78 0 6 6 0 3 0 3 124 98 26 83 83 0 3 0 3 40 1 39 2 0 2 10 0 10 4 0 4 9 2 7 2 2 0 24 0 24 1 1 0 3 0 3 TOTAL URBAN RURAL 0.7 0.7 0.0 48.0 48.0 0.0 33.9 33.9 0.0 49.2 49.2 0.0 40.5 0.0 40.5 110.7 46.9 63.8 17.1 17.1 0.0 38.6 0.0 38.6 109.8 4.9 104,9 31.6 0.0 31.6 43.9 0.0 43.9 87.2 0.0 87.2 18.1 2.0 16.1 14.4 14.4 0.0 56.9 0.0 56.9 0.5 0.5 0.0 11.0 0.0 11.0 TOTALS 107 31 76 398 277 121 711.8 217.5 494.4 TYPE BREAKDOWN AP 1 1 0 1 1 0 0.7 0.7 0.0 CM 5 5 0 5 5 0 48.0 48.0 0.0 DX 4 4 0 78 78 0 33.9 33.9 0.0 IL 1 1 0 1 1 0 0.5 0.5 0.0 IN 6 6 0 8 8 0 63.6 63.6 0.0 LL 10 0 10 12 0 12 197.8 0.0 197.8 SF 78 12 66 210 101 109 350.3 53.7 296.6 TH 2 2 0 83 83 0 171 171 fin TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT PLATS AP APARTMENT CM COMMERCIAL DX DUPLEX IL INSTITUTIONAL IN INDUSTRIAL LL LARGE LOT SF SINGLE FAMILY TH TOWNHOUSE 26 0.79 4.09 0.71 9.60 0.43 0.46 7.95 16.49 0.53 2.72 0.21 SUBDIVISION FILE BY PLANNING SECTOR FOR PERIOD 07/01/99 THRU 06/30/00 ELEC ZONE TYPE OF URBAN/ DWELL GROSS APPROVAL SUBDIVISION NAME DIST DIST DEVELOP RURAL LOTS UNITS ACRES DATE PLANNING SECTOR 1 632 JOINT VENTURE LOT 1 10 HI -1 CM UG 1 0 1.2 06/05/00 BURGESSER LOTS 5-18 REPLAT LT 4 13 A SF RA 14 14 40.8 07/12/99 COLONIAL PARK EAST SECTION E 10 RS SF UG 38 38 12.8 11/01/99 CROSSROADS BUSINESS PARK LOT 1 24 IG CM UG 1 0 21,5 04/03/00 CROWN AM ACQU ASSOC MAY CO LOT 26 PB CM UG 1 0 9.6 04/10/00 DICK JAMES & MARY 9 A LL RA 1 1 18.0 01/04/00 DOT FOODS PAR A 70/81 IND PK 2 IG IN UG 1 0 4.3 11/01/99 FORTNEY HOMES LOTS A & B 27 A SF UG 2 2 1.1 03/14/00 FOUNTAINVIEW PHASE II 27 A PD DX UG 46 45 19.0 12/06/99 FOUNTAINVIEW PUD PHASE 1 27 A PD TH UG 71 70 15.2 12/06/99 GHATTAS ENTERPRISES LOT 3 13 HI CM UG 1 0 6.0 08/02/99 GOSSARD GEORGE R LOT 1 2 A SF UG 1 1 1.4 07/26/99 - - GREENFIELD COMMUNITY LLC 1,2 & 3 13 RR DX UG 3 3 1.5 06/06/00 GREENFIELD COMMUNITY LLC LOT 1 13 AP UG 1 4 0.7 12/15/99 HARRELL CHARLES LOT 1 10 A SF UG 1 1 0.9 10/04/99 HARSHMAN CRAIG LOT 1 18 A SF RA 1 1 1.1 02/09/00 HEDRICK JEFF LOT 1 9 A LL RA 1 1 12.3 09/21/99 HOCKMAN MICHAEL LOTS 2 & 3 10 A SF RA 2 2 8.2 01/13/00 HUYETT BUSINESS PARK LOT 11 2 HI IN UG 1 0 3.0 07/20/99 MARTIN R RICHARD LOT 2 13 A SF RA 1 1 1.6 01/06/00 MILLS MARY E. LOT 4 2 A SF RA 1 1 1.6 12/15/99 - - MYERS LTD PARTNERSHIP LOTS 1-3 2 PI IN UG 3 0 14.0 04/03/00 NEHEMIAS PAULETTE LOT 2 9 A SF RA 1 1 1.4 03/16/00 NIELD LAIF AND CANDY LOT 2 13 A SF RA 1 1 3.3 11/19/99 PINE GLEN INC LOTS 4- 6 9 A SF RA 3 3 4.0 09/22/99 • ROSEWOOD DR 10912 & 10914 26 RU DX UG 2 2 0.4 09/16/99 SHANK FARMS, INC. LOT 1 9 A SF UG 1 1 2.0 07/09/99 SILVERMAN COMPANIES LLC 18 RS DX UG 27 27 13.0 10/04/99 SOUTH POINTE PUD PH 3-A 10 RS -P SF UG 16 16 6.3 02/23/00 SOUTH POINTE PUD PH II BL C2 10 RS -P TH UG 12 12 1.9 02/02/00 SOUTH POINTE PUD PHASE II BLK C3 10 RS -P SF UG 10 10 1.2 03/08/00 SPICKLER MICHAEL L 2 RR SF UG 1 1 6.8 01/28/00 STRICKLAND RICHARD G JR LOT 2 27 A SF UG 1 1 0.7 05/18/00 TIGER II LP LOT 1 2 HI -1 CM UG 1 0 9.7 07/12/99 VAN LEAR SECT 16 LOTS 536-562 26 SF UG 27 27 13.7 05/01/00 WINTERMOYER JULIA LOTS 1 & 2 13 A SF RA 2 2 2.0 10/04/99 YMCA OF HAGERSTOWN 18 PB IN UG 1 0 28.0 05/01/00 YOST TARA LOT 3 13 A LL RA 1 1 10.2 07/16/99 38 TOTAL FOR PLANNING SECTOR 1 300 290 300.2 PLANNING SECTOR 2 BIRNBAUM A & CARPENTER M LOT 1 19 C SF RA 1 1 6.4 12/09/99 BROWN'S FARM LOT 2 19 A LL RA 1 1 11.7 06/16/00 CAPONE MIKE & KIM 1 A SF RA 4 4 22.9 02/07/00 ELLIOT CAROL ANN LOT 2 16 A SF RA 1 1 1.9 10/01/99 HARSH NELSON A JR LOT 1 20 A LL RA 1 1 10.7 06/01/00 HOESTMALINGEN HANS LOT 1 16 A SF UG 1 1 4.9 12/14/99 KEADLE LARRY W & DAVID R LOT 1 19 A SF RA 1 1 3.3 05/11/00 KENDLE LYNN & PAULA LOTS 3 & 4 16 A SF RA 2 2 1.9 07/14/99 KIFER DAVID ET AL LOT 3 19 C SF RA 1 1 4.3 09/22/99 .-. LAFFERTY DENNIS LOT 2 12 A SF RA 1 1 6.0 09/01/99 LAPPANS ESTATES LOTS 11-19 12 A SF RA 9 9 18.5 08/03/99 MARTIN HAROLD LOT 6 16 A SF RA 1 1 1.0 10/14/99 PAPA CHRISTOPHER LOT 1 16 A SF RA 1 1 1.0 10/01/99 PRICE FARMS, INC LOT 1 12 A 02 SF RA 1 1 4.8 11/24/99 PRICE LEON LOTS 2 & 3 1 P/O SF RA 2 2 2,7 11/15/99 REED ANNA LOTS 1,2&3 16 A SF RA 3 3 5.0 10/08/99 ROBINSON BRIAN D ET UX LOT 3 12 A SF RA 1 1 1.6 12/17/99 RUDDLE DONALD & NANCY LOT 3 20 A SF RA 1 1 2.9 04/10/00 SPONG ROBERT & HELEN LTS 1 -3&P -A 19 A SF RA 3 3 3.6 06/22/00 STONELEIGH ESTATES LOT 8A 12 A SF RA 1 1 1.5 09/24/99 • STOTLER GEORGE & BARBARA LTS 1&2 12 A SF RA 2 2 7.0 06/22/00 • SUZY RUN ESTATES LOT 6 16 A LL RA 1 1 16.2 03/09/00 27 ELEC ZONE TYPE OF URBAN/ DWELL GROSS APPROVAL SUBDIVISION NAME DIST DIST DEVELOP RURAL LOTS UNITS ACRES DATE THOMAS TRACY & BRENDA LTS 8,9,10 6 A SF RA 3 3 8.5 02/07/00 23 TOTAL FOR PLANNING SECTOR 2 43 43 148.3 PLANNING SECTOR 3 ABBOTT LIONEL & HELEN LOT 1 8 C SF RA 1 1 3.4 12/13/99 BRIGHOFF MARY LOT 3 11 C SF RA 1 1 3.5 01/26/00 KELLY DENISE & ALICE LOT 1 11 C SF RA 1 1 3.2 04/05/00 KIDWELL CARL & JENIFER 11 C SF RA 1 1 6.5 03/10/00 MILLARD ROBERT L LT 25 REPLT 16 8 C SF RA 1 1 3.1 03/28/00 MORGAN BONNARD & PEGGY LOTS 2&3 8 C SF RA 2 2 6.4 11/15/99 MORGAN BONNARD J LOT 3 8 A LL RA 2 2 31.6 04/18/00 PENNA RICHARD P LOT 1 11 C SF RA 1 1 6.6 07/02/99 PERKINS RUSSELL ET AL 8 A SF RA 1 1 6,2 04/07/00 THOMPSON JAMES & SHIRLEY 8 C SF RA 1 1 5.2 08/31/99 10 TOTAL FOR PLANNING SECTOR 3 12 12 75.4 PLANNING SECTOR 4 ALLENBERG HENRY & FRED LT.2 P.A 7 A LL RA 2 1 48.7 04/13/00 BACHTELL GLENN LOT 2 14 A LL RA 1 1 20.6 07/23/99 LITTLEFIELD JUDITH LOT 1 14 RR SF RA 1 3 0.8 05/16/00 MARTIN CHRISTIAN & EDNA LOTS 2&3 14 A SF RA 2 2 2.3 07/26/99 MOUNTAIN PROSPECT LOT 1 7 C LL RA 1 1 17.9 10/06/99 OSWALD LESTER D SR LOTS 1 &2 7 RR SF UG 2 2 2.0 05/11/00 RINEHART ORCHARDS, INC LOT 1&2 14 A SF RA 2 2 10.8 03/28/00 SANDERS HARVEY & EMMA J CARBAUGH 14 A SF RA 1 1 1.1 04/05/00 SANDERS HARVEY & JANE CARBAUGH 14 A SF RA 1 1 1.2 05/23/00 9 TOTAL FOR PLANNING SECTOR 4 13 14 105.2 PLANNING SECTOR 5 BARNHART SAME LOT 1 & PARCEL A 4 C SF RA 1 1 4.8 01/07/00 BRAGUNIER CURTIS LOT 1 4 A SF RA 1 1 3.0 09/30/99 BRAGUNIER DONALD LEE LOT 2 4 A SF RA 1 1 1.1 07/13/99 CHEWNING CARL R & JUNE M LOT 1 23 C SF RA 1 1 1.9 03/14/00 CRESWELL THOMAS LOT 1 15 C SF RA 1 1 0.0 02/09/00 EBY CARL LOT 1 23 A SF RA 1 1 7.2 10/05/99 HOCKENBERRY ROLAND & JUDITH 15 C SF RA 1 1 3.9 03/10/00 HULL CARL LOT 1 15 A SF RA 1 1 3.0 10/20/99 HUYETT BUSINESS PARK LOT 12 23 RR IN UG 1 0 5.6 07/28/99 HUYETTS BUSINESS PARK LOT 13 23 HI -1 IN UG 1 0 8.8 04/26/00 JOY JAMES LOTS 2&3 PAR B 15 A SF RA 2 2 2.5 01/18/00 KELLEY RICHARD LOT 2 15 C SF RA 1 1 4.0 02/11/00 LONG ALLEN & NANCY LOT 1 23 A SF RA 1 1 3.8 10/14/99 MANUEL THOMAS COHILL&JAMES LOT 3 4 A SF RA 1 1 1.0 05/04/00 MCKEE AUSTIN LOT 2 15 A SF RA 1 1 1.4 08/20/99 MORNINGSTAR ANITA LOT 1 23 A SF RA 1 1 4.3 02/04/00 POTOMAC HALL FARMS, INC LTS &FSD 4 A SF RA 1 1 1.0 04/05/00 RIDENOUR LESTER AND MARINA 4 A SF RA 1 2 1.4 02/28/00 ROSENBERRY JAMES LOT 1 15 C SF RA 1 1 1.7 04/17/00 SHANK BRIAN & LISA LOT 1 15 C SF RA 1 1 3.1 04/26/00 ST PAUL ESTATES LOT 1 SEC A 4 A SF RA 1 1 1.0 03/10/00 WILDFLOWER MEADOWS LOTS 14-16 23 A SF RA 3 3 4.7 07/12/99 WOLTERS RICHARD 23 A SF RA 1 1 2.1 07/07/99 23 TOTAL FOR PLANNING SECTOR 5 26 25 71.2 PLANNING SECTOR 6 DUGAN WILLIAM E LOT 1 5 A IL HK 1 0 0.5 04/11/00 HALL MARGIE E LOT 1 5 C SF RA 1 1 3.1 01/18/00 MASON ALLEN E SR LOT 1 5 C SF RA 1 1 3.2 12/10/99 SWAIN LULA A LOT 2 5 C SF RA 1 1 4.7 08/18/99 4 TOTAL FOR PLANNING SECTOR 6 4 3 11.5 107 GRAND TOTAL 398 387 711.8 . .............. N .................... ...................... fn o . .................. E >0 1 � p N M O� CL E a -r ....................... O O W 8 dam' N s;eld 29 L) ,Is WIl t s MNnOO ANtl03TV N ID z 6 i v� l O" 1i SY 1< U 0aH Q O w � W U v -�a o d U Noia3o3ad H U F- H U) w z —+_) N Co C N aO o 2 Z '� W w y 3 C O O zw oo ( \f(7 J ®1 E\ 01 ` n ss4s<C C 4 f, 44 J, 4s s4A C °@sts44sss Ci 4A q