HomeMy WebLinkAboutH_2023_Annual ReportAnnual Report Worksheet
Reporting (Calendar) Year 2023
For counties or municipalities issuing 50 or more residential permits
1
Revised 2/22/2024
INSTRUCTIONS
Each Planning Commission/Board must approve an Annual Report for the reporting calendar
year 2023 (January 1, 2023 ‐ December 31, 2023), as required under §1‐207(b) of the Land Use
Article. In addition, the Annual Report shall be filed with the local legislative body and the
Maryland Department of Planning (MDP), via email to david.dahlstrom@maryland.gov and cc:
to mdp.planreview@maryland.gov.
A jurisdiction may use the attached template form, or any of the previous Annual Report forms.
The Land Use Article requirements have not changed for calendar year 2023, however, the
templates have been slightly modified to better describe the requested information that will
help MDP form a complete summary of all local government annual reports. An optional survey
is included in Section VII. We encourage all jurisdictions to respond.
Section I‐ New Residential Permits, and Section II‐ Amendments and Growth‐Related
Changes, are required by all local jurisdictions.
Section III‐ Development Capacity Analysis, is required every three years.
Section IV‐ Locally Funded Agriculture Preservation, is required for counties only.
Section V – Measures and Indicators, is required for jurisdictions reporting more than 50 new
residential permits in Section I. If new permit data is not available, MDP will accept new
occupancy data, provided the jurisdiction describes this deviation in its submission.
Section VI‐ Adequate Public Facility Ordinances, is required every two years for jurisdictions
with adopted Adequate Public Facility Ordinances (APFOs). Jurisdictions may delete this Section
from their report if they have not adopted an APFO.
Section VII – Planning Survey Questions is optional.
Annual Report Worksheet
Reporting (Calendar) Year 2023
For counties or municipalities issuing 50 or more residential permits
2
Revised 2/22/2024
Section I: New Residential Permits Issued (Inside and Outside the PFA)
(§1‐208(c)(1)(i) and (c)(3)(ii))
(A) In Table 1, New Residential Permits Issued (Inside and Outside the PFA) below, enter the number
of new residential building permits issued in calendar year (2023). Enter 0 if no new residential
building permits were issued in 2023.
Table 1: New Residential Permits Issued
Inside and Outside the Priority Funding Area (PFA)
Residential – Calendar Year 2023 PFA Non ‐ PFA Total
New Residential Permits Issued 135 62 198
Note: If new residential permit data is not available or tracked, jurisdictions are encouraged to begin a process to track the number of new
residential permits approved. MDP will accept new residential occupancy permits as a substitute for new residential permits, provided that
the jurisdiction represents the data as new occupancy permits, rather than new residential permits, in this template or other reporting
form submitted to MDP. Similarly, if permitting data that specifies within and without of the PFA is not available, and the jurisdiction
submits data related to a locally defined growth area, instead of PFAs, then the jurisdiction should consider a future process to track
permits within the PFA. MDP will accept permit or occupancy data specific to a locally defined growth area, provided that the jurisdiction
represents the data as such in this template or other reporting form submitted to MDP, rather than as PFA.
Section II: Amendments and Growth Related Changes In Development Patterns
(§1‐207(c)(1) through (c)(4))
Note: Growth related changes in development patterns are changes in land use, zoning, transportation capacity
improvements, new subdivisions, new schools or school additions, or changes to water and sewer service areas.
(A) Were any new comprehensive plan or plan elements adopted? If yes, briefly summarize what
was adopted. Y N
No new comprehensive plan or plan elements were formally adopted during 2023. A draft of the
2040 Washington County Comprehensive Plan was released for public comment in July 2023. A
ninety (90) day comment period was given to review and comment on the plan. Staff is currently
working with the Washington County Planning Commission to revise the Plan before releasing a
second draft, which is expected in July 2024. The public will be given a second comment period
prior to Planning Commission approval and presentation of the Plan to the Board of County
Commissioners for adoption.
(B) Were there any amendments to zoning regulations or zoning map? If yes, briefly summarize
each amendment, include an updated zoning map, and/or GIS shapefile, if available.
Y N
Annual Report Worksheet
Reporting (Calendar) Year 2023
For counties or municipalities issuing 50 or more residential permits
3
Revised 2/22/2024
Case
Number Name LocaƟon Total
Acres
From
Zone To Zone
Decision
Date
RZ‐23‐004 Troy & Elisabeth Jernigan (Map) 23226 Fruit Tree Drive 22.4 RT A(R) 11/28/2023
RZ‐23‐005 MarƟn & Colleen Katz (Map) 8524 Fahrney Church Road 9.39 RB (AR) A(R) 08/22/2023
RZ‐23‐004
• Piecemeal application – Zoning Ordinance map amendment to rezone one parcel located
on the east side of Jefferson Pike, west of Fruit Tree Drive from Rural Transition to
Agriculture Rural. The property, located at 23226 Fruit Tree Drive, is 22.4 acres in size and
will continue to be used for agricultural purposes.
RZ‐23‐005
• Piecemeal application – Zoning Ordinance map amendment for the removal of a Rural
Business floating zone over 9.39 acres, located at 8524 Fahrney Church Road. The
underlying zoning of Agricultural Rural will be re‐activated on the property. The previous
property owner subdivided Lot 3 off from the parent parcel and conveyed it to the current
property owners without having the RB designation removed. The current property owners
are interested in residential activities on the site.
(C) Were there growth‐related changes, including land use, annexations, zoning ordinance changes,
new schools, changes in water or sewer service areas, municipal annexations that changed
municipal or unincorporated area boundaries? If yes, describe or attach a map of the changes
and/or GIS shapefile, and describe how they are consistent with internal, state, or adjoining
jurisdiction plans.
Y N
CP‐23‐001
• Piecemeal application – Comprehensive Plan map amendment for the removal of one
parcel from the edge of the Smithsburg Town Growth Area and re‐designating it to the
Agricultural Rural land use area of the County. The property, located on the east side of
Jefferson Pike, west of Fruit Tree Drive, previously had a Low‐Density Residential land use
classification. The property, located at 23226 Fruit Tree Drive, is 22.4 acres in size and will
continue to be used for agricultural purposes.
Hagerstown Annexation: A‐2002‐002
• The ‘2 Western Maryland’ annexation is located along the east side of Western Maryland
Parkway, north of West Washington Street, consists of 21.44 acres, and was effective on
7/1/2023. County Zoning was Highway Interchange; proposed City Zoning is Industrial –
Mixed Use.
Annual Report Worksheet
Reporting (Calendar) Year 2023
For counties or municipalities issuing 50 or more residential permits
4
Revised 2/22/2024
Hagerstown Annexation: A‐2003‐001
• The ‘Bostetter’ annexation is located along the east side of McDade Road, south of
Broadfording Road, consists of 81.55 acres, and was effective on 8/4/2023. County Zoning
was Residential Transition, proposed City Zoning is Residential, Moderate Density.
Hagerstown Annexation: A‐2003‐003
• The ‘Parkway Neurosciences’ annexation is located along the west side of Western
Maryland Parkway, north of West Washington Street, consists of 10.59 acres, and was
effective on 12/8/2023. County Zoning was Highway Interchange, proposed City Zoning is
Industrial – Mixed Use.
Smithsburg Annexation: RS‐2022‐01
• The ‘Clovery Hill LLC P.350’ Annexation is located along the east side of Jefferson Pike,
north of Foxville Road, consists of 7.31 acres, and was effective on 6/26/2022. County Zoning
was Residential Transition, proposed Town Zoning is Town Residential.
(D) If yes to municipal annexations, have copies of each adopted resolution been submitted to:
Georgeanne Carter, Legislative Counsel Municipal Resolution Reposition Department of
Legislative Services, 90 State Circle, Annapolis MD, 21401‐1991? Y N
(E) Did your jurisdiction identify and/or implement recommendations, related to the following
general planning topics, to improve the local planning and/or development process? Please
select all that apply.
Y N
Green Infrastructure
Zoning Reform
Climate Change
Affordable/Workforce Housing
Equity
Resilience
Water/Air Quality
Water/Sewer Capacity
Brownfield Remediation
Revitalization and Infill
Bike/Ped Planning
Commercial Redevelopment
Sustainable Growth
Placemaking
Aging Population
Sensitive Area Preservation
Expedited Review for
Preferred Projects
Please describe any other planning improvements identified or implemented in 2023. n/a
(F) Have all Planning (Commission/Board) and Board of Appeals members completed the Maryland
Planning Commissioners Association (MPCA) training course?
Y N
Annual Report Worksheet
Reporting (Calendar) Year 2023
For counties or municipalities issuing 50 or more residential permits
5
Revised 2/22/2024
Section III: Development Capacity Analysis (DCA)(§1‐208(c)(1)(iii))
Note: MDP provides technical assistance to local governments in completing development capacity analyses.
Please contact your MDP regional planner for more information.
(A) Has an updated DCA been submitted with your annual report or to MDP within
the last three years? Y N
1. If no, explain why not, such as, no substantial growth changes.
An updated development capacity analysis was included as part of the draft of Washington
County’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan which was released for public review and comment in
July 2023. The draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan is currently going through a revision process
and a revised development capacity analysis is expected in July 2024.
2. If yes, when was the last DCA submitted? Identify month and year:
Note: A DCA is not due if a comprehensive plan was updated in the past three
years (2020‐2023). MDP recommends that jurisdictions share DCAs with local
school boards.
Was the DCA shared with the local school board facilities planner? Y N
(B) Using the most current DCA available, provide the following data on capacity inside and outside
the PFA in Table 2, Residential Development Capacity (Inside and Outside the PFA):
Table 2: Residential Development Capacity (Inside and Outside the PFA)
Parcels & Lots w/ Residential Capacity PFA Non – PFA Total
Residentially Zoned Acres w/ Capacity
Residential Parcel & Lots w/Capacity
Residential Capacity (Units)
Annual Report Worksheet
Reporting (Calendar) Year 2023
For counties or municipalities issuing 50 or more residential permits
6
Revised 2/22/2024
Section IV: (Locally) Funded Agricultural Land Preservation & Local Land Use
Goal (Counties Only) (§1‐208(C)(1)(iv and v)
(A) How many acres were preserved using local agricultural land preservation funding? Enter 0 if
no land was preserved using local funds. Enter the value of local program funds, if available.
Table 3: Locally Funded Agricultural Land Preservation*
Local Preservation Program Type Acres Value ($)
CREP Easements (2) 28.50 $100,416.60
MALPF Easements (3) 595.83 $2,398,749.75
Rural Legacy Easements (4) 309.62 $1,052,128.80
SHAF Easement (1) 0.92 $113,476.00
Total 934.87 $3,664,771.15
*State funded agricultural land preservation acres and values are not required to be reported as state funding is documented.
(B) What is the county’s established local land use percentage goal? This percentage should include
land uses within PFAs, not including PFA comment areas %
Washington County does not have a percentage goal for land preservation efforts. We have
had a long‐established acreage goal of 50,000 acres.
(C) What is the timeframe for achieving the local land use percentage goal? 20‐30 Years.
(D) Has there been any progress in achieving the local land use percentage goal?
Yes, more than 39,000 acres of land has been permanently preserved across all programs since
the start of the County’s participation in agricultural land preservation 41 years ago.
(E) What are the resources necessary (e.g. legislative actions (programs incentives), functional
planning, and capital funding) for infrastructure inside the PFAs?
Additional funding and streamlining regulations that have similar goals but require dedicated
infrastructure to accomplish required mandates (i.e., programs that address water quality).
(F) What are the resources necessary (e.g. legislative actions (program incentives and zoning
changes), preservation planning, and easement funding) for land preservation outside the PFAs?
a. Promote the Agricultural Preservation program(s) as a method to incentivize farmers to
preserve their land until funds become available for permanent easements.
b. Seek out permanent funding sources that can sustain agricultural easements and
development rights acquisition.
Annual Report Worksheet
Reporting (Calendar) Year 2023
For counties or municipalities issuing 50 or more residential permits
7
Revised 2/22/2024
c. Place an emphasis on preserving large contiguous blocks of permanent farmland in
excess of 1,000 acres by factoring this variable more heavily in the priority ranking
system.
d. Implement strategies that deter land uses that would remove large blocks of prime
agricultural land from active farm production.
e. Promote start up assistance and provide educational awareness to inspire a new
generation of young farmers.
f. Provide and highlight additional agritourism opportunities for farmers to expand
operations with value added products and agricultural industry type uses.
Annual Report Worksheet
Reporting (Calendar) Year 2023
For counties or municipalities issuing 50 or more residential permits
8
Revised 2/22/2024
Section V: Measures and Indicators (§1‐208(c)(1))
Note: Measures and Indicators, Section VII, is only required for jurisdictions issuing more than 50 new residential
building permits in the reporting year, as reported in Table 1.
Table 4A: Amount of Residential Growth (Inside and Outside the PFA)
Residential – Calendar Year 2023 PFA Non ‐ PFA Total
Total Minor Subdivisions Approved 14 25 39
Total Minor Subdivision Lots Approved 20 31 51
Total Residential Units Approved in Minor
Subdivisions*
20 31 51
Gross Acres of All Approved Minor Subdivisions 73.37 619.35 692.72
Net Lot Area** in Acres of All Approved Minor
Subdivisions
57.50 172.44 229.94
Total Major Subdivisions Approved 0 0 0
Total Major Subdivision Lots Approved 0 0 0
Total Residential Units Approved in Major Subdivisions 0 0 0
Gross Acres of All Approved Major Subdivisions 0 0 0
Net Lot Area** in Acres of All Approved Major
Subdivisions
0 0 0
Total Residential Units Constructed 120 61 181
Total Residential Units Demolished*** 7 8 15
Total Residential Units Reconstructed/Replaced*** 3 2 5
* Residential units may be greater than lots if they include duplexes, triplexes. or multifamily
**Net lot area is the sum of all developed lots, minus open spaces and right‐of‐way, other publicly dedicated land.
***Not required.
Table 4B: Net Density of Residential Growth (Inside and Outside PFAs)
Residential – Calendar Year 2023 PFA Non – PFA Total
Total Residential Units Approved (Major + Minor
Subdivisions)
20 31 51
Total Approved Net Lot Area*
(Major + Minor Subdivisions)
57.50 172.44 229.94
*Net lot area is the sum of all developed lots, minus open spaces and right‐of‐way, other publicly dedicated land.
Annual Report Worksheet
Reporting (Calendar) Year 2023
For counties or municipalities issuing 50 or more residential permits
9
Revised 2/22/2024
Table 4C: Share of Residential Growth (Inside and Outside the PFA)
Residential – Calendar Year 2023 PFA Non – PFA Total
Total Units Approved (Major + Minor Subdivisions) 20 31 51
% of Total Units
(Approved Residential Units)
39.2 % 60.8 % 100%
Table 4D: Amount of Commercial Growth (Inside and Outside the PFA)
Commercial – Calendar Year 2023 PFA Non ‐ PFA Total
Site Plans
Total # of Commercial Site Plans Approved 21 7 28
Gross Acres of All Approved Commercial Site Plans 1093.65 308.61 1402.26
Gross Building Area Approved in Square Feet for
Commercial Site Plans
4,876,616 90,250 4,966,866
Building Permits
Total Commercial Building Permits Issued 25 7 32
Gross Building Area Constructed in Square Feet for
issued Building Permits
1,210,704 22,151 1,232,855
Annual Report Worksheet
Reporting (Calendar) Year 2023
For counties or municipalities issuing 50 or more residential permits
10
Revised 2/22/2024
Section VI: Adequate Public Facility Ordinance (APFO) Restrictions (§7‐104)
(Section VI is only required by jurisdictions with adopted APFOs)
Note: Jurisdictions with adopted APFOs must submit a biennial APFO report. The APFO report is due by July 1 of
each even year and covers the reporting period for the previous two calendar years. APFO reports for 2022 and
2023 are due July 1, 2024. However, jurisdictions are encouraged to submit an APFO report on an annual basis.
*The Washington County APFO has not restricted development during the 2023
reporting period. Therefore, no biennial APFO report is required.
(A) What type of infrastructure is monitored and may trigger development approval restrictions or
require a developer to address deficiencies? (List each for schools, roads, water, sewer,
stormwater, health care, fire, police or solid waste.)
The Washington County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance applies to infrastructure including:
Roads, Schools, Sewage Disposal Systems, Water Supply and Distribution Systems and Fire
Protection.
(B) Has APFO impacted development approvals within the PFA? Y/N
No, not during the 2023 reporting period.
(C) If APFO has delayed, limited, or denied development, defined here as a “restriction”:
a. Are there infrastructure or service facility deficiencies that have triggered denials of
development requests, or held up development approvals? Y/N n/a
Note: This does not include APFO required developer‐funded projects, or phased
development approvals due to APFO limitations, or APFO required study areas for
approval.
b. Can the impact area of facility deficiencies/ development restrictions, which temporarily
delay development approvals, be mapped? Y/N n/a
(D) If yes for (C)(b), where is each restriction located? (Identify on a map, including PFA boundary.)
n/a
(E) Describe what is causing each restriction. The following restrictions, due to the County’s APFO
could be identified in the future.
• Schools: Many of the County’s school districts are over the designated school capacity due
to population growth and there are limited funds for new school construction.
• Roads: Many restrictions are in the rural areas where some roads are not
considered adequate by today’s standards.
• Sewer: Collection systems are aging and need upgrades. Availability of treatment capacity
is limited by water quality regulations.
• Water: Distribution systems are aging and need upgrades. Availability of water is limited by
permitting and water quality regulations.
• Fire: There are no restrictions currently.
Annual Report Worksheet
Reporting (Calendar) Year 2023
For counties or municipalities issuing 50 or more residential permits
11
Revised 2/22/2024
(F) If applicable, what is the proposed resolution of each restriction? The following are proposed
resolutions to future restrictions:
• Schools: The County has adopted an Alternative Mitigation Contribution option for
developers who will voluntarily pay a fee to help mitigate the impact of new development on
school districts. Funds collected go towards expanding capacity in the educational system.
• Roads: Restrictions are mitigated on a case‐by‐case basis.
• Sewer: Developers are required to install and/or upgrade infrastructure to service their
development. There is no local control that can resolve the issue of diminishing availability due
to State and Federal water quality regulations.
• Water: Same as Sewer
• Fire: No restrictions currently.
(G) If applicable, what is the estimated date to resolve each restriction?
All categories are mitigated on a case‐by‐case basis and have no established timeline for
resolution.
(H) If a development restriction has been addressed, what was the resolution that lifted each
restriction? n/a
(I) If a development restriction has been addressed, when was each restriction lifted? n/a
Annual Report Worksheet
Reporting (Calendar) Year 2023
For counties or municipalities issuing 50 or more residential permits
12
Revised 2/22/2024
Section VII: Planning Survey Questions (Optional)
This information can help MDP and MDOT staff to identify potential pedestrian/bicycle projects
and their funding.
(A) Does your jurisdiction have a bicycle and pedestrian plan? Y N
1. Plan name
2. Date Completed (MM/DD/YR)
3. Has the plan been adopted? Y N
4. Is the plan available online? Y N
5. How often do you intend to update it? (Every ____ years)
6. Are existing and planned bicycle and pedestrian facilities mapped? Y N
(B) Does your jurisdiction have a transportation functional plan in addition to a
comprehensive plan? Y N
1. Plan name
2. Date completed (MM/DD/YY)
3. Has the plan been adopted? Y N
4. Is the plan available online? Y N
5. How often do you intend to update it? (Every ____ years)
(C) Has your jurisdiction completed and submitted a five‐year mid‐cycle comprehensive plan
implementation review report this year?
Y N
Note: To find out if your jurisdiction is scheduled to submit this report,
consult the Transition Schedule (Counties/Municipalities) section located
at: https://planning.maryland.gov/pages/OurWork/compPlans/ten‐
year.aspx
If yes, please include the 5‐Year Report as an attachment.
END
Annual Report Worksheet
Reporting (Calendar) Year 2023
For counties or municipalities issuing 50 or more residential permits
13
Revised 2/22/2024
Submitting Annual Reports and Technical Assistance
(Please do not return this form)
(A) Please sign, scan, and email a copy of the Annual Report to david.dahlstrom@maryland.gov and cc: to
mdp.planreview@planning.gov
Alternatively, if emailing is not possible, one copy may be mailed to:
Office of the Secretary
Maryland Department of Planning
301 W. Preston Street, Suite 1101
Baltimore, Maryland 21201‐2305
Attn: David Dahlstrom, AICP
(B) Annual reports should include a cover letter indicating that the planning commission has approved the
annual report and acknowledges that a copy has been filed with the local legislative body. The cover letter
should indicate a point of contact(s) if there are questions about the report. Before emailing the annual
report:
1. Was the annual report approved by the planning commission/board? Y N
2. Was the annual report filed with the local legislative body? Y N
3. Does the cover letter:
a. Acknowledge that the planning commission/board has
approved the annual report? Y N
b. Acknowledge that the annual report has been filed
with the local legislative body? Y N
c. Answer whether all members of the planning commission/board and board of
appeals have completed a training course ? Y N
(See https://planning.maryland.gov/Pages/YourPart/MPCA/pcbzacompleteded.aspx
for a list of those who have completed the course. See
https://planning.maryland.gov/Pages/YourPart/EducationWelcome.aspx for the online
training modules
d. Indicate a point of contact(s)? Y N
(C) If you desire, you may also send an additional copy of your annual report directly to your Maryland
Department of Planning Regional Office via email or hardcopy.
(D) If you need assistance to prepare or submit reports, MDP regional planners are available to assist.
Contact information is found at: Planning.Maryland.gov/OurWork/local‐planning‐staff.shtml
(E) You may wish to send additional copies directly to your MDP regional planner or school board
facilities planner.
(F) Copies of this annual report worksheet, and links to legislation about annual report
requirements can be found on the Maryland Department of Planning website:
Annual Report Worksheet
Reporting (Calendar) Year 2023
For counties or municipalities issuing 50 or more residential permits
14
Revised 2/22/2024
Planning.Maryland.gov/YourPart/SGGAnnualReport.shtml
(G) If you have any suggestions to improve this worksheet or any of the annual report materials,
please list or contact David Dahlstrom at david.dahlstrom@maryland.gov.
U S -340
MD-67
M D -34 MD-
67MD-65
MD-68
MD
-
6
3
MD-632
U
S
A
L
T
-
4
0
US-
4
0
I
-
7
0
MD
-66
I -70
I-70
I-81
U S -1 1
MD-66
M
D-77
M D-491
M
D
-6
4
MD - 64
M D -6 0
M D -4 1 8
I-81 US
-
11
I-81
M
D
-
5
8
I-70
MD-68
US-40
MD-63
MD-494
MD-
57
MD-56
I-70 US -40
I -68
MD-144 I-70I-68
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
HancockHancock
Clear SpringClear Spring
WilliamsportWilliamsport
HagerstownHagerstown
FunkstownFunkstown
SmithsburgSmithsburg
BoonsboroBoonsboro
KeedysvilleKeedysville
SharpsburgSharpsburg
1, 3
2
456
7
012345678910
Miles
¹
LegendLegend
!(Rezonings
Roads
Priority Funding Areas
Municipal Boundaries
Growth Areas
County Boundary
Document Path: U:\Views\MRH\Annual Reports\2023\Rezoning2023.mxd
Created by the
Washington County
Planning Department
GIS
April 2024
Pennsylvania
Al
l
e
g
a
n
y
Co
u
n
t
y
,
MD
Frederick County, MD
W
est Virginia
W
est
Virginia
Virginia
Washington CountyWashington County
MarylandMaryland
20232023
Ordinance Map ChangesOrdinance Map Changes
Map Key Case Change Acres
1RZ‐23‐004 Troy & Elisabeth Jernigan 22.40
2RZ‐23‐005 Martin & Colleen Katz 9.39
3CP‐23‐001 Troy & Elisabeth Jernigan 22.40
4A‐2022‐002 2 Western Maryland 21.44
5A‐2023‐001 Bostetter 81.55
6A‐2023‐003 Parkway Neurosciences 10.59
7RS‐2022‐01 Clovery Hill LLC P.350 7.31