HomeMy WebLinkAbout230912aJohn F. Barr, President
Jeffrey A. Cline, Vice President
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
September 12, 2023
OPEN SESSION AGENDA
7:00 AM WASHINGTON COUNTY EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS BREAKFAST
Washington County Agricultural Education Center, 7313 Sharpsburg Pike,
Boonsboro, Maryland 21713
10:00 AM INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CALL TO ORDER, President John F. Barr
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 22, 2023
August 29, 2023
10:05 AM COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS AND COMMENTS
10:15 AM STAFF COMMENTS
10:20 AM CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
10:30 AM PUBLIC HEARING: APPLICATION FOR ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT RZ-23-
004; AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CP-23-001
Jill Baker, Director, Planning and Zoning
10:50 AM FY24 HEALTHY FAMILIES HOME VISITING CONTINUATION GRANT-
APPROVAL TO ACCEPT AWARDED FUNDING
Nicole Phillips, Grant Manager, Grant Management
11:00 AM FY24 SENIOR CITIZEN ACTIVITIES CENTER OPERATING FUND GRANT –
APPROVAL TO ACCEPT AWARDED FUNDING
Nicole Phillips, Grant Manager, Grant Management; Amy Olack, CEO, Washington
County Commission on Aging
11:05 AM TERMINATION OF COVID POLICY
Michelle Gordon, County Administrator
11:10 AM CLOSED SESSION - To discuss the appointment, employment, assignment,
promotion, discipline, demotion, compensation, removal, resignation, or performance evaluation of
appointees, employees, or officials over whom this public body has jurisdiction; or any other
personnel matter that affects one or more specific individuals; To consider the acquisition of real
property for a public purpose and matters directly related thereto; To consult with staff, consultants,
or other individuals about pending or potential litigation; and To consult with counsel to obtain legal
advice on a legal matter.
Derek Harvey
Wayne K. Keefer
Randall E. Wagner
Page 2 of 2
OPEN Session Agenda
September 12, 2023
Individuals requiring special accommodations are requested to contact the Office of the County Commissioners, 240.313.2200
Voice/TDD, to make arrangements no later than ten (10) working days prior to the meeting.
12:45 PM RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION
12:45 PM SECOND STAFF COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Application for Zoning Text Amendment RZ-23-004; and
Comprehensive Plan Amendment CP-23-001
PRESENTATION DATE: September 12, 2023
PRESENTATION BY: Jill Baker, AICP, Director, Department of Planning and Zoning
RECOMMENDED MOTION: The purpose of this public hearing is to take public comment on the
rezoning and comprehensive Plan amendment applications. The Commissioners may take action to
approve or deny the requests or wait until a later date to deliberate.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: A rezoning case has been applied for by Troy and Elisabeth Jernigan to amend
the current zoning of property located at 23226 Fruit Tree Drive, Smithsburg, MD from Residential,
Transition (RT) to Agriculture, Rural (AR). The application states that there was a mistake made in
the zoning of the property as part of the 2013 Town Growth Area rezoning. This request includes an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the County to remove said parcel from the delineated
Smithsburg Town Growth Area.
DISCUSSION: The applicant of this case has indicated in their justification statement that they
believe that there was a mistake made by the governing body in the last comprehensive rezoning of the
properties in 2016 (RZ-13-003). There can be many reasons provided by an applicant to prove that the
governing body erred in its application of zoning. However, previous MD case law has consistently
found that in order for an applicant to prove that the governing body erred in its application of zoning
on a property, evidence must be provided that clearly shows that the body failed to consider certain
facts and conditions existing at the time of the rezoning.
The applicant contends that as part of the Comprehensive Rezoning of the Town Growth Area
adopted in 2016 the local legislative body did not sufficiently take into account certain factors existing
at the time that should have had a greater impact on the zoning of the subject properties. These factors
include:
• The property is not within a State approved Priority Funding Area (PFA).
• The designated land use policy area in the County Comprehensive Plan is not consistent
with the designated policy area in the Smithsburg Comprehensive Plan.
• The property has a priority service area designation of W-7/S-7, no planned service.
• The property contains environmentally sensitive areas that limit development; and
• There are access limitations along MD 64 due to MD State Highway Administration
control.
All of the statements made by the applicant are factually true. When considered as a whole
each of the points made by the applicant build upon one another to suggest that there may have been a
mistake made in the zoning of the subject parcel in 2016.
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
This amendment was reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public information meeting held on
July 10, 2023. At that the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of this
text amendment.
FISCAL IMPACT: n/a
CONCURRENCES: Planning Commission
ALTERNATIVES: n/a
ATTACHMENTS: Proposed text amendments, staff reports, and application
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: none
Washington County FOR PLANNING COMMISSION USE ONLY
Rezoning No. -60
Date Filed: -
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
ZONING ORDINANCE MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION
Troy A &Elisabeth Jernigan AProperty Owner ❑Contract Purchaser
Applicant oAttorney ❑Consultant
❑Other:
22725 Stevenson Road,
Address
Troy Jernigan
Primary Contact
Same as above
Address
240-446-4353
Phone Number
troyjernigan@me.com
E-mail Address
Property Location:23226 Fruit Tree Drive, Smithsburg, MD 21783
Tax Map: 40 Grid: 8 Parcel No.: 225 Acreage: 22.4
Current Zoning: RT Requested Zoning: A(R)
Reason for the Request: ❑ Change in the character of the neighborhood
III Mistake in original zoning
PLEASE NOTE: A Justification Statement is required for either reason.
before me this / / day
res on `I l S "-I C
( FOR PLANNING COMMISSION USE ONLY
e Application Form
4 Fee Worksheet
A Application Fee
A Ownership Verification
e Boundary Plat (Including Metes
& Bounds)
20 A 3
A Names and Addresses of all Adjoining
& Confronting Property Owners
I Vicinity Map
d Justification Statement
d 30 copies of complete Application
Package
Washington County
D
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
PLANNING & ZONING FEE WORKSHEET
FOR PLANNING COMMISSION USE ONLY
Rezoning No.
Date Filed:
PLEASE COMPLETE ONLY THE
SECTION THAT APPLIES.
Applicant'sName:-rqDate: Zoz3
Zoning Ordinance Map Amendment ................................$ 2,000.00
Number of Acres* x $20.00 [1 acre minimum]
per acre ...........................................$ 448.00
Engineering Review Fee .................................... $ 150.00
Technology Fee ........................................... 15.00
TOTAL FEES DUE — MAP AMENDMENT ..... $ 2613.0o
*Minimum charge of $20.00 [if less than one acre]
Text Amendment ................................................ $ 2,000.00
Choose One: ❑ Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
❑ Forest Conservation Ordinance
❑ Solid Waste Plan
❑ Subdivision Ordinance
❑ Zoning Ordinance
❑ Other:
Technology Fee ........................................... 15.00
TOTAL FEES DUE — TEXT AMENDMENT ..... $ 2,015.00
Water and Sewer Plan Amendment ................................ $ 2,000.00
Technology Fee ................................................. 15.00
TOTAL FEES DUE — WATER AND SEWER PLAN AMENDMENT .... $ 2,015.00
Forest Conservation Exemption ....................................$ 25.00
Technology Fee ................................................. 15.00
TOTAL FEES DUE — FOREST EXEMPTION.... $ 40.00
Please make checks payable to "Washington County Treasurer".
Washington County
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
ZONING ORDINANCE MAP AMENDMENT
REQUIRED APPLICATION MATERIALS CHECKLIST
All materials must be clearly labeled
(Original plus 30 copies of all materials are required)
X, 1. Application Form: A completed and signed application form.
X,— 2. Fee Worksheet and Application Fee: A completed Fee Worksheet and the
Application Fee must be submitted at the time application is made. Checks must be
made payable to the "Washington County Treasurer".
X 3.Ownershin Verification: Proof of ownership interest in the subject property,
including a copy of the current deed to the property; OR, if the application is made
by a contract purchaser, a copy of the fully-executed,Contract of Sale. 1-4
X 4. Boundary Plat: A boundary description, including metes and bounds, prepared
X and sealed by a land surveyor registered in the State of Maryland. iwc E.r **&—
5. List of the Names and Addresses for all Adjoining and Confronting Property
Owners: A list of the names and addresses, obtained from the latest property tax
assessment record, of owners of adjoining or confronting properties, improved or
unimproved, including properties separated by streets, railroads, or other rights -of -
ways. (Must have house numbers or P.O. box numbers.)
X 6. Vicini Man: An 8 Y2" x 11" page size map showing the zoning of all property
within 1,000 feet of the site. �; - E.t,s�:ziT S
X 7. Justification a m nt: A written explanation of the reasons why the map
amendment is being sought, setting forth in sufficient detail to properly advise
County officials as to the justifications for the rezoning change. Applications for
floating zones shall include such information as required by the respective Articles
of the Ordinance. Other applications must address the following information:
a. A statement as to whether or not there is evidence of mistake in the
current zoning, and, if so, the nature of the mistake and the facts to
support the allegation.
b. A statement as to whether or not there is evidence of a substantial change
to the character of the neighborhood subsequent to the most recent
comprehensive rezoning including the nature of the change, all facts to
support the allegations, and a description of the neighborhood.
OTHER REQUIRED APPLICATION MATERIALS
A written analysis considering each of the factors set forth in Section 27.3.
1. The report and recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
X 2. Population change of the area of the proposed change.
X 3. Availability of public facilities.
X 4. Present and future transportation patterns in the area.
X 5. Compatibility with existing and proposed development of the area including
indication of neighboring sites identified by the Washington County Historic Sites
Survey and subsequent revisions or updates.
X 6. The relationship of the proposed change to the Adopted Plan for the County.
development analysis Plan Map and Policies.
X 7. Whether there was a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood
where the property is located.
X 8. Whether there was a mistake in the existing zoning classification.
X 9. Whether there has been a convincing demonstration that the proposed rezoning
would be appropriate and logical for the subject property
X 10. Any other material facts that support the amendment.
FSP�O
FREDERICK, S ERT a ASSOCIATES, iRc. CIVIL ENGINEERING (SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
Justification statement
Requested Zoning: Agricultural Rural - A(R)
Description of The Property: See exhibits 1,2, 3 & 4.
Hereinafter, "the property"
Description of any Improvements on the property: The property is 22.4 acre abandoned farming
complex with several buildings (house, barn, equipment sheds) that are in disrepair.
Zoning:
Current zoning: Rural Transitional (RT). See exhibit 5.
The property's current RT Zoning was granted during the 2013 Comprehensive Rezoning (hereinafter
the "2013 rezoning")
Mistakes in the 2013 Rezoning
Applicant contends that the RT zoning assigned to the property as result of the 2013 Rezoning
constituted a good -faith mistake. The applicant has submitted a Zoning Ordinance map amendment
application respectfully requesting that the property be rezoned (i.e. down -zoned from RT to A(r).
As per Maryland case law, to sufficiently demonstrate "mistake" the petitioning party must show that
existing facts, or reasonable future projects or trends were not taken into consideration at the time of
the zoning. See generally Boyce v. Smebly 334 A.2d 137,142-143 (Md. App. 1975): and White v.
Spring, 109 Md. App. 692, 675 A.2d 1023 (1996). Moreover, regarding the question of original mistake,
..when the assumption upon which a particular use is predicated proves, with the passage of time, to be
erroneous, this is sufficient to authorize a rezoning. "Mayor and Council of Rockville v. Stone, 271 Md.
655, 662 (Md. 1974).
In this case, at the time of the 2013 Rezoning, the County did not take into account that,
1. The property has not been designated as a State Priority Funding Area, which is necessary to
obtaining public facilities to be developed under RT standards. See exhibit 6.
2. The amended Smithsburg growth area boundary established by the 2013 Comprehensive Plan
amendment CP-13-001 is not consistent with the Growth Area land use designation for the property
in the Town of Smithburg 2012 Comprehensive Plan. See exhibits 7, 8, & 9.
3. The property is designated as W-7, S-7, (No Planned Service) by the Adopted Water & Sewerage
Plan for the County and service is not generally available to the property. See exhibits 10 &11.
4. The property is bisected by a steam with associated sensitive areas which severely limits it
practicality to be developed as envisioned by its current RT zoning.
5. The access limitations due to SHA access controls along MD 64 and Fruit Tree Lane, a County
designated "local road".
fsa-inc.com HAGERSTOWN, MD GREENCASTLE, PA
128 S. Potomac Street 20 W. Baltimore Street
Hagerstown, MD 21740 Greencastle, PA 17225
301.791.3650 717.597.1007
CARLISLE, PA
505 S. Hanover Street
Carlisle, Pe 17013
717.701.8111
NEW BLOOMFIELD, PA
15 E. Mein Street
New Bloomfield, Pe 17068
717.275.7531
Comprehensive Plan
2002 Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property - Agricultural/Rural Area
2013 Comprehensive Plan Town Growth area amendment land use designation- Low Density
Residential/Town Growth Area. See exhibit 7.
2012 Town of Smithsburg Comprehensive Plan land use designation - Commercial/growth area. See
exhibit 8.
Development Assumption Proved Erroneous with the passage of time
The use of the property for agricultural purposes has not changed since the 2013 rezoning. The original
2001 Comprehensive Plan land use classification of agricultural has proven to be correct; the
subsequent 2013 County Comprehensive Plan reclassification to include it in the Growth area with a
low density residential designation and rezoning to RT was a mistake.
Developing the property as called for by RT zoning would require annexation into the Town of
Smithsburg. The Smithburg Comprehensive Plan designated the property as Commercial, this
inconsistency with the County designation and Zoning would be problematic when pursuing annexation.
Applicant has no interest in developing the property residentially nor pursuing annexation in order to
obtain public facilities.
Availability of sufficient water capacity to serve all of the designated Smithburg Town Growth Area,
including the subject property is questionable.
Proposed A(R) zoning to be logical and appropriate
General description of RT zoning:
ARTICLE 7A "RT RESIDENTIAL, TRANSITION DISTRICT75 Section 7A.0 Purpose
The purpose of the Residential, Transition District is to provide appropriate locations for single-family
and two-family residential development in Urban and Town Growth Areas. The Residential, Transition
District is usually located on the outer fringes of the Growth Areas, rather than the inner core, and is
intended to be the least dense residential district in the Growth Areas at a density of between 2 and 4
dwelling units per acres.
All new development in the Residential, Transition District, should be served by public water and sewer
facilities approved by the Washington County Health Department.
General description of A(R) zoning:
ARTICLE 5A — "A(R)" AGRICULTURAL (RURAL) DISTRICT51
Section 5A.0 Purpose
The purpose of this district is to provide for continued farming activity and the many uses that do not
require public water and sewerage facilities and which may be more suitably located outside of the
urban -type growth of the larger communities of the County. The Agricultural zoning district has been
purposely drawn to enclose large blocks of the best soils for intensive agricultural production as well as
gently rolling topography for farming. Most of the operating farms as well as the largest block of
farmland preserved through the Agricultural Preservation Program is located in this area.
List of Exhibits:
1. Aerial Photograph.
2. SDAT-Real Property Data.
3. Recorded Deed L. 6945 F.21.
4. Property outline plan with metes & bounds.
5. Zoning map, Washington County.
6. Priority Funding Areas Map.
7. County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, CP-13-001.
8. Town of Smithsburg Comprehensive Plan Map, Future Land Use.
9. Town of Smithsburg Comprehensive Plan Map, Zoning
10. County Water Service Map.
11. County Sewer Service Map.
^v/
W
U
O
a
06
W
vJ
Y
U
L
70
Q)
L
N
N
4
(6
(6
0
►E
i
w
w
x
8
$
$
3
12323,1:38 PM SDAT. Real Property Data Search �x / �� D/T /
Real Property Data Search ()
Search Result for WASHINGTON COUNTY
View Map Mew GrounclRent Redemption
View Ground Rent Registration
Special Tax Recapture: None
Account Identifier:
District - 07 Account Number - 016166
Owner Information
Owner Name:
JERNIGANTROYA Use: RESIDENTIAL
JERNIGAN ELISABETH Principal Residence: NO
Mailing Address:
22725 STEVENSON ROAD Deed Reference: /06945/00021
SMITHSBURG MD 21783-
Location & Structure Information
Premises Address: 23226 FRUIT TREE DR Legal Description: 22.4ACRES
SMITHSBURG 21783-0000 23226 FRUITTREE DRIVE
Map: Grid: Parcel: Neighborhood: Subdivision: Section: Block: Lot: Assessment Year: Plat No:
0040 0008 0225 7010120.22_ 0000 _ _ _ 2022 Plat Ref:
Town: None
Primary Structure BuiltAbove Grade Living Area Finished Basement Area Property Land Area County Use
1800 3.087 SF 22.4000 AC
StoriesBasementType ExteriorQualityFull/Half BathGaragel-ast Notice of Major Improvements
2 YES STANDARD UNITBRICK/ 3 3 full
Base Value
Land: 262,000
Improvements 28,900
Total: 290,900
Preferential Land: 0
Value Information
Value
As of
01/01/2022
262,000
42,300
304,300
Transfer Information
Phase -in Assessments
As of As of
07/01/2022 07/01/2023
295,367 299,633
Seller: LEACH STEVEN R
Date: 03/04/2022
Price: $270,000
Type: NON -ARMS LENGTH OTHER
Deedl: /06945/ 00021
Deed2:
Seller: UPTON EVERETT H
Date: 08/11/2004
Price: $249,000
Type:ARMS LENGTHIMPROVED
Deedl:/02407/00409
Deed2:
Seller:
Date:
Price:
Type:
Deedl:
Deed2:
Exemption Information
Partial Exempt Assessments: Class
07/01/2.022
07/01/2023
County: 000
0.00
State: 000
0.00
Municipal: 000
0.0010.00
0.0010.00
Special Tax Recapture: None
Homestead Application Information
Homestead Application Status: No
Homeowners' Tax Credit Application Information
Homeowners' Tax Credit Application Status: No Application Date:
Mlps9/stlal.Jal.maMand.govMeelPmpenylPageMiewdelalls.aspVCounlp2$SeamhType=ACCT&Dls1dcl=07McwunlNumbem016166 ili
orAw/siT ...
BOOK: 6945 PAGE: 21
Taxes Paid $0.00
Todd L. Hershey, Treasurer
TY 03-04-2022
Prepared by
Lincoln Title & Settlement Services
Washington Cty Cir Crt
19638 Leitersburg Pike, Suite 202
IMP FD SURE
$40.00
Hagerstown, MD 21742
9
RECORDING FEE $20.00
TR TAX STATE $1,350.001
j
File No.: LT22-1713-MD
CTy TR TAX
$1,100.00
U
CTy REC TAX
$2,052.00
Tax ID No.: 07-016166
KRTAE KB
,62.00
$03549
pm
Title Insurer: Security Title Guarantee Corporation of Baltimore Mar 04, 2022
This Deed, made this 4th day of March, 2022 by and between Steven R. Leach and Dawn D. Leach,
husband and wife, party of the first part, Grantor; and Troy A. Jernigan and Elisabeth R. Jernigan,
husband and wife, party of the second part, Grantee.
- Witnesseth -
That for and in consideration of the sum of TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY THOUSAND AND NO/100
DOLLARS ($270,000.00), the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, and other good and valuable
consideration, the said Grantor does grant and convey to the said party of the second part, as tenants by
the entirety, in fee simple, all that lot of ground situate in the County of Washington, State of Maryland
and described as follows, that is to say:
All that lot or parcel of land, together with the improvements thereon, if any, and all rights, ways,
alleys, privileges and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining, situate, lying
and being along the Northwest side of the Smithsburg-Camp Ritchie Highway, and along the East
side of the Smithsburg Bypass on State Route #64, in Election District #7, Washington County,
Maryland and being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a post in the Northwest margin of the said Smithsburg-Camp Ritchie Road, said post
being at the beginning of the deed from Robert E. Longnecker and wife to Howard L. Oyler and
Dale E. Martin, Partners t/a Oyler and Martin, dated November 6, 1962 and recorded in Liber #386,
folio 755, one of the Land Records of Washington County, Maryland, said post having been
erroneously described as being in the Northeast margin of said Highway in said deed, and running
thence with a portion of the first line of said deed, South 700 31' East 20.18 feet into the center of
said Highway, thence along or near the center thereof South 27008' West 532.04 feet, thence by a
curve to the right having a radius of 1000.0 feet for a distance of 522.14 feet, the chord being South
42' 05'30" West 516.23 feet, thence South 57' 03' West 376.31 feet to intersect the 9th line of the
aforementioned deed, thence with the remainder of said line North 32' 57'27" West 49.53 feet to
the end thereof, thence continuing with the lines of said Deed South 57' 02'33" West 79.71 feet,
thence North400 25'59" West47.24 feet to the East margin of the right of way of the Smithsburg
Bypass opposite base line station 29+0, thence binding on said right of way by a curve to the left
having a radius of 2350.83 feet for a distance of 1270.99 feet, the chord being North 70 30'41" West
1255.56 feet, thence continuing along said right of way North 230 00' West 306.04 feet, thence
leaving said right of way and running along an existing fence line South 880 53' East276.58 feet to
intersect the 19`h line of the aforementioned deed, thence with the remainder of said line South 22'
18' East 159.78 feet to a post at the end thereof, thence with the closing line of said deed South 700
31' East 1014.0 feet to the place of beginning, containing 22.4 acres of land, more or less.
BEING the same property conveyed unto Steven R. Leach and Dawn D. Leach, husband and wife,
by Deed from Everett H. Upton, by David Upton Guardian of the person and property of Everett H.
Upton by virtue of that Decree of Guardianship dated April 29, 2004 as entered by the Circuit Court
for Washington County, Maryland in Civil Case No. 21-C-04-18424 GS, dated August 10, 2004 and
recorded among the land records of Washington County, Maryland in Liber 2407, folio 409
Which has an address of 23226 Fruit Tree Drive, Smithsburg, MD 21783
BOOK: 6945 PAGE: 22
Together with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, made or being; and all and every, the
rights, alleys, ways, waters, privileges, appurtenances and advantages thereto belonging, or in anywise
appertaining.
Subject to all of the conditions, restrictions, streets, reservations, easements, covenants and rights -of -
way of record, including conditions and restrictions as set forth in the Land Records of Washington
County, Maryland.
To Have and To Hold the said tract of ground and premises above described and mentioned, and
hereby intended to be conveyed, together with the rights, privileges, appurtenances and advantages
thereto belonging or appertaining unto and to the proper use and benefit of the said Troy A. Jernigan and
Elisabeth R. Jernigan, husband and wife, party of the second part, in fee simple.
And the said parties of the first part hereby covenant that they have not done or suffered to be done any
act, matter or thing whatsoever, to encumber the property hereby conveyed; that they will warrant
specially the property hereby granted; and that they will execute such further assurances of the same as
may be requisite.
As Witness the hand and seal of said Grantor, the day and year first above written.
WITNESS;
Steven R. Leach
Pia I W 40. YZyvi c(i
Dawn D.Leach
Q
n STATE OF MARYLAND
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
I, Elizabeth F.Z. Bryan, a Notary Public for the County of Washington and State of Maryland, do hereby
certify that Steven R. Leach and Dawn D. Leach, husband and wife personally appeared before me this
day and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing instrument, and in my presence signed and
sealed the same, giving oath under penalties of perjury that the consideration recited herein is correct.
Witness my hand and official seal, this the 4th of March, 2022.
Notary Pub Ic
My Commission Expires: February 16, 2026
(SEAL)
ELIZABETH F.Z. BRYAN
Notary Public - State of Maryland
Washington County
IMy Commission Expires Feb 16, 2026
BOOK: 6945 PAGE: 23
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the within Deed was prepared by a party to the instrument or by a person
authorized to sign on behalf of such party.
N
N Kent N. Oliver, Esquire
AFTER RECORDING, RETURN TO:
Troy and Elisabeth Jernigan
a 22725 Stevenson Road
Smithsburg, MD 21783
ZO
0000
00
m
Ono
N
coM
0^0
0^0
V�1
.n-I-I
N
N
L!1
n
O
E
O
N
O
n
N
M
N
N
N
N
Op
00
00
Q
p
L
V)
_p
m
iM
iM
�
m
J
VEI
V1
CZ'6
m
a
.0
K
O
cc
E
U
O
O
0
c
E
m
+-�
N
N
>'
E
c
'o
w
W
v
00
w
vi
v
v
>
f�0
00
N
K
-p
w
cn-I
N
d
N
N
N
N
"O
w
Y
V)
N
ON
O
x
m
x
m
.�
m
M
0
N
N
n
rn
o
d
d
N
N
b`A
cm -I
em-I
bA
J
O
-cc
t
Y
E
q
O!
w
-O
cu
j
U)
Ol
`
v
Z
Z-a
v
(Vv
F
o
CC
4
=
H
H
'o
O
Y
Y
v
d
N-C
Y
i
aj
U
0A
C
m
GI
lL
W
W
CO
{A
lY
lY
yN>
>
0
en
^
M
em
00
en
N
6
li
N
K
N
1%
N
•-I
�-V
N
N
C
C
Y
C
bA
C
p
E
0
V
U
E
U
w
J
L
p
h
01
>
0)
>
a
E
Ep
U
-p
yi
a
01
>
L
01
O
C
E
0
y'C,i
y'
C
v
o
U'
v
E
CL
p
O
d
a
O
N
N
O
w
t
Y
w
m
p
C
�O
C
K
06
oa
E°'
p
c
p
c
v
c
w
-0
c
3
w
cc
e
>
m
o
m
>
m
c
v
p,
>
>
c00
p
Z
w
Q
z
x
(
H
H
Ln
n
0
0)
N
0
0)
d'
tD
O
V1
O
N
e-1
m
n
lD
O
N
lD
N
00
N
N
00
00
00
I�
00
0p
w
00
m
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
d
<t
V
U
C
11�
�o
w
V
U tJ
l0
m o
c
O
� 3
N
I �
o
Z
E
g co
V
CD
0
¢ 0
o a
E
0 t
m ri
c
Cc
C7 F
OD
X
N a
i0
N
c.
N
OD
V
Q
W
r
N
N
Q
C
E
E
LL
o
d
U
c
c
a
a
n
0
n
n
w
r�
U
Ni
O
U
_
C
Q
�
Washington Countysv. Maryland
CP-13-001 Compre0ensise Plan land Use - 8
Legend
Mlles
Roads
Commercial
Urban Open Space '&Y Preservation
qN
V Proposed Growth Area Boundary
Low density Residenlia
Municipalities Environmental
Conservation
Industrial/Flex
40 Community Facilities
40 Rural Village Agriculture
Document Path: U:\Views\M0.R\Main\Pmleets\Town Growth Areas\tnMUse and
Dale Mnled: WedocWay, ornate, 5, 2016
Geared by: WasMngmn County oepadmem of Planning and ZoologGIS
N
III
'wo)
JIIlI
N tN,
I
0%
IN
/ 1 \\ \` \\ a �\ \\ \ \
I \ /
r. `—^\ l 1 �C' \\ � \\\\\ J~./\ o ��.�l.i� D /-/J \ �� fJ 1 1 L /�—�� r•j J l 1 � ( ( 1
—_=--_—\ \ 111 tcb \\ `�1 \.� _l'�.�`._��.-. t ✓�'—'\n`. i���i/ ��'o. I // )L
276.58• \ r- / r / `' i ..-• / / f \ \ 1 ( I r'(J 1\ . 1 1 — .- -- / / / r
\ \
_7 X. V
•� \\— ,li 1 I o� n� 710/
/ \ \
\ � \ \ r � 1 0 1 1 \ \ \ �` f`tl � �'•� 1 � ) 1 1 � 1 ) ` \ � \ ( r }l �� /J 1 / 1 / �
C.
J 0 11 \"e`
r
_\ `\
61—
o --1 \ \ 1 l\J t °r r 10�14 o,
A_
CL
c>
\
—\ r' / (A� V 1 n �aC✓ r�
�ru J—
\�\\ A,
J 0
1 °1w�1 1\1
✓ ' �� }? I 11 C rJ J)J �`�% (! 'S /� r / t \ I r // /
>J ) ) /
r c ( }/ r
r
�e / r J /i 1 J J I I / { \ r ✓ df ItiA 1 11I-7
I(I 1 r , J , �zJ� r i \,j I 1 Jn \\\ i s SUBJECT SITE 1 el / f ( {S �i C J J/ /�J 1 1/ l ! 1! 1 1 r( l I I r
% I \ / o �t. 1 co 1 r �\ �� TV40-e-225 ( ) J 1 J ( // / 1 / 1 r f 1 / !
(�I Account No. 07-016166
Troy Jernigan and Elisabeth Jernigan 1 t 1
/S�II J \\\\_I\\v✓} ^v�r ��,/ -�/ I t. •cT`,i I •� Zj`i `�• \� d:Liber 6945,fo1io 21 �J / J 1 i ) \ .1 / / J JJ /f 1e�6
( I( > \ \ a n w 1 22.4Ae.per Deed r ✓ /' i / / / / 1 / / / l } / //1 //1
.� �J �tccl S� � � i 1 r I l 1 l 1 � , 1 { � � i (/ � / f' / ,- ~ L,. / / 1 1 / / / 1
-� '• .r ... -k r r 1 c h y(� / / / / / 1 ! / / J III I 1
/ ; ':� - f I/ l�1 } \t .>' ) 1 ",,, // / / / � / /fir' / r/�',/� / / 1 I r I
1 / J1�ll�N�J
J ! \ r 1 ✓J \ 1- / )) / I //� / / ( / / 11 //1 1r/rlil % /
_,,/Ilpl�l/ \.t \ \\\\�� .,/✓ \1, � > J.,LL�� III � /I tt11 11) ��y / % C1r•-r f r l\\ } t l r r , / / �C � 1 1 r r f / % JJ
1 \�/ I \� r >,} I Is \ t �/ t— r w (,�, �\, \ r I \ r r , /J p / 1 / r / JJ ,4`r // 1lrrli r
�r1 �/ r ht/I�
y,
��� i 1 \ ��•�> i II( t1 r~—^ / \ l /w �Ja
O /�/
\r�a J )III �\ 1 /�
° �• I i � -� I / ) ////� f /' �
Existing Structures in Dilapidated Condition
�
Jlll �1\ c— _J-R
r�
\��-J
r J l / ' I 11 ti C�1. S , /I
�JIII ✓ / ` \l_�
r 11\ f / 1 III ,
,,^\ J/� /-•�1 y /_,.�- ter. \ \ I l /1 ///�// /�/
l/ \\ \ �`ls r ✓\mac / II/� rlll 1 /r 11 , •� `y / �. \ , _/ //,j /
r.>-
EAGLE NEST /l/ •>�1 / I \�� I - / / /r i // i / lrl % /'
ROADS
NP
n
lr 1 J
/ t
fr 1!! I f J �t%/ /' r ,
'\ ) Jl t \ \ \ � � \\ ` J ^ r � r✓ �ll! 1 ill/ '' /// / .��/— � � / / / / J/
\� \\ � 11 1\ �� `���\\ \ f I I \ (�l.lf„ (`- j \ !l/ll/J � I I1 j // ti /�/•\ } ./' '� �L � l f // / l / / // // ��J / // � / /
1�\/ /—\ r ' V��
\ � \\\\ \ \\�\\ ) t 1 \ I r� rClfr41'�✓ �/ � /j//// / � \\\—� �/ sr ,;----,^/�� // �1/ � (// /7/
r
1 / / / /,'/ / ,J/ 1 IJ j / It (1/rl/,%�f ��rl•"/ � 1//T
J JJ J p � / / J/ / // , / l /rJJ ,/ram /�/�• �/ /�
»�1Jlr%%' %r'/'/���'/7
IJ� i L /�%/ ii
It, 4Q
;tip{y/1T( / r
If /067
1Q-�o°i/J///
�,/,10
01
////0//�/,� fl 11/r11I1J11�1 II/1!1/l
/AjIllrlf
IZJ, , (11�1��1\I1�1 (IJlJrrr 1J
Jr/Z
J/1J/ii1;
l I iilI I /IIr/
11
GENERALNOTES
1. The bearings antl distances shown hereon are as recorded in Libor 6945, f°Ip 21.
2. The subject parcel is the lands conveyed by Steven R. Leach and Dawn D. Leach, to Troy A.
Jernigan and Elisabeth R. Jernigan, by dead doled March 4, 2022, recorded among the Lard
Records of Washington County, Maryland! in Libor 6945, folio 21
CURVE
RADIUS
ARC LENGTH
CHORD BEARING
CHORD LENGTH
ICI
11000-0'
522.14'
15 42°05'30" W
1516.23'
C2
2350.83'
1270.99'
IN 07°30'41" W
1265.56'
LINE
IBEARING
DISTANCE
L7
S 70°2°531' E
20.18'
0N
37'271 W
49.53'
1-3
IS 57°02'33" W
179.71'
14
IN 40°25'59" W
147.24'
W tz
�z a_
�z m�\
to
J —§
th t6
ER_
m� o22ar
U
Z N
z
(n
LLJ
U m
(n y W
QM�
HEE N
Lu
m,)
to
L, W N
W g
Y z o
� o
9 FScc
z
W W
0-1 o�
cc
LL (J
O
a
U
W
0
g
i
p
H
2
Q
�
�
W
z
o
a
o
N O
U
Z Ca
L. Z
L`
O
IV CIO
z_
W M
Q
O
PROJECT NO.
5488
OWN BY
DATE
LEJ
4.21.2023
PROJECT MANAGER:
EJS
EMAIL: ESchreiber@fsa-inc.com
PROPERTYINFORMATION
40-B-225
SCALE
1°=100'
SHEET TITLE
REZONING
EXHIBIT
SHEET 01
OF 01
FOR PLANNING COMMISSION USE ONLY
Rezoning No.
Date Filed:
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
ZONING ORDINANCE MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION
Department of Planning and Zoning
❑PropertyOwner ❑Contract Purchaser
Applicant
❑Attorney ❑Consultant
747 Northern Avenue, Hagerstown, MD 21742
60ther:
Address
Jill Baker
240-313-2430
Primary Contact
Phone Number
same
jbaker@washco-md.net
Address
E-mail Address
23226 Fruit Tree Drive,
Smithsburg, MD 21783
Property Location:
40 8
225 22.4
Tax Map: Grid:
Parcel No.: Acreage:
Policy Area: Low Density
Policy Area: Agricultural Rural
Current Zoning: Residential
Requested Zoning:
Reason for the Request: ❑ Change in the character of the neighborhood
❑ Mistake in original zoning
PLEASE NOTE: A Justification Statemenf is required for either reason:',
Applicant's Signature
Subscribed and sworn before me this day of 20
My commission expires
Notary Public
FOR PLANNING COMMISSION USE ONLY
❑ Application Form
❑ Fee Worksheet
❑ Application Fee
❑ Ownership Verification
❑ Boundary Plat (Including Metes
& Bounds)
❑ Names and Addresses of all Adjoining
& Confronting Property Owners
❑ Vicinity Map
❑ Justification Statement
❑ 30 copies of complete Application
"Washington County -
■ Y„>'
Applicant
-Troy and Elisabeth Jernigan
Location
• 23226 Fruit Tree Drive
Present Zoning
- RT - Residential, Transition District
Proposed Zoning
- A(R) Agricultural (Rural) District
Acreage
-22.4 acres
Map/Parcel
• Map 40, Parcel 225
Ir
A
Washington County
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
PLANNING I ZONING I LAND PRESERVATION I FOREST CONSERVATION I GIS
CP-23-001 June 20, 2023
APPLICATION FOR TEXT AMENDMENT
WASHINGTON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
STAFF REPORT AND ANALYSIS
Land Use Plan Map
The Washington County Planning Department proposes to coordinate an amendment to
the land use plan map of the Comprehensive Plan to be consistent with the proposed rezoning
request for Troy and Elisabeth Jernigan, Case No. RZ-23-004.
Background:
A rezoning case has been applied for by Troy and Elisabeth Jernigan to amend the
current zoning of property located at 23226 Fruit Tree Drive, Smithsburg, MD from Residential,
Transition (RT) to Agriculture, Rural (AR). The application states that there was a mistake made
in the zoning of the property as part of the 2013 Town Growth Area rezoning.
The property is located at the edge of the delineated Town Growth Area (TGA) for the
Town of Smithsburg. The growth area boundary establishes the demarcation between urban and
rural zoning districts for the purpose of growth management in the County. The land use policy
area assigned to this particular property in the Comprehensive Plan is Low Density Residential.
This property is also under the influence of the Town of Smithsburg Comprehensive
Plan. The property is also included within the Town delineated growth area and has two policy
areas assigned to it. The majority of the parcel is assigned a commercial policy area while a thin
strip of land that bisects the property is assigned an open space policy area. The open space area
was assigned to associate itself with the existing stream that exists on the property.
Analysis:
The location and environmental features of this property contribute to a complicated
evaluation of what type of growth could possibly occur on this site. That can be readily
seen in the diverging opinions of the County comprehensive plan versus that of the Town.
The County designates a policy are of low density residential, while the Town Plan
designates a policy area of commercial.
The fact that two independent planning documents delineate this parcel as being
included with a growth area lends some weight to the determination that the parcel is
appropriately designated. The parcel has access to a good transportation network, is
747 Northern Avenue I Hagerstown, MD 21742 1 P: 240.313.2430 1 17: 240.313.24311 TDD: 7-1-1
1���.� ■ MCI V
relatively flat and is close proximity to an existing population center. Conversely, the
property also contains environmentally sensitive areas, is heavily wooded, and does not
have access to water and sewer utilities. Based upon these conditions, it appears that this
parcel is currently more suited for limited growth than would be expected for a parcel
located within a growth area. This does not preclude the opportunity that this parcel may
become more suitable for urbanized development once appropriate infrastructure can be
extended.
Recommendation:
While it does seem plausible that this parcel could eventually see a more urbanized
land use, its current lack of utilities coupled with existing sensitive areas seem to make it
more suitable for less intensive development activity. In order to be consistent with long
term land use policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, this amendment should be
directly linked to the decision of the corresponding rezoning case. Should the Planning
Commission recommend changing the zoning of the property to a rural designation, this
amendment should also be approved to remove the parcel from the Smithsburg growth area.
Conversely, if the rezoning would be denied, this amendment should also be denied in order
to keep consistency between zoning and the Comprehensive Plan.
Respectfully Submitted,
'�X
j,
Ji11'Baker, AICP
Director
Washington County
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING I LAND PRESERVATION I FOREST CONSERVATION I GIS
July 14, 2023 RZ-23-004 and CP-23-001
APPLICATION FOR MAP AMENDMENT
AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Property Owner(s)
Troy and Elisabeth Jernigan
Applicant(s)
Same
Location
23226 Fruit Tree Drive, Smithsburg
Election District
#7 — Smithsburg
Comprehensive Plan
Designation
Low Density Residential
Zoning Map
40
Parcel(s)
225
Acreage
22.4 acres
Existing Zoning
RT — Residential Transition
Requested Zoning
A(R) —Agricultural Rural
Date of Meeting
July 10, 2023
RECOMMENDATION
The Washington County Planning Commission took action at its regular meeting held on Monday, July
10, 2023 to recommend approval of proposed Map Amendment RZ-23-004 and Comprehensive Plan
Amendment CP-23-001 to the Board of County Commissioners. The Commission considered the
applicant's application and supporting documents as well as the Staff Report and Analysis.
Copies of the application packet and Staff Report and Analysis are attached.
Respectfully submitted,
d &,—
Jill L. Baker, AICP
Director, Washington County
Department of Planning & Zoning
J LB/dse
Attachments
cc: Kirk Downey
747 Northern Avenue I Hagerstown, MD 21740 1 r': 240.313.2430 1 F: 240.313,2431 1 TDD: 7-1-1
1�i�1�i�1�i�A�i►/a�.y[KIIu11�►1D11�
Washington
r ��.
M A R Y L A N D
76
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING &ZONING
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING I LAND PRESERVATION j FOREST CONSERVATION I GIS
June 2023
Application for Map Amendment
Staff Report and Analysis
Case #: RZ-23-004
Property Owner(s)
Troy and Elizabeth Jernigan
Applicant(s)
Same as property owner
Location
23226 Fruit Tree Drive, Smithsburg
Election District
#7 - Smithsburg
Comprehensive Plan
Designation
Low Density Residential
Zoning Map
40
Parcel(s)
P. 225
Acreage
22.4 acres
Existing Zoning
Residential Transition (RT)
Requested Zoning:
Agricultural Rural (AR)
Date of Meeting
July 10, 2023
Background and Findings Analysis:
Location and Description of Subject Property
The subject parcel is located in between Smithsburg Pike (MD 64) and Fruit Tree Drive. The total
acreage of the parcel is 22.4 acres and is currently improved with an historic single family dwelling
unit and several outbuildings. The parcel has a triangular shape that generally slopes upward from
the southeast to the northwest. The property consists partly of forested lands and partly of actively
farmed lands. The property is located within a designated growth area that surrounds the Town of
Smithsburg. The parcel also includes a stream that runs east to west and bisects the property near
its midpoint. The property also contains high power overhead electrical transmission lines that
follow the same path as the stream bed.
Population Analysis
To evaluate the change in population, information was compiled from the US Census Bureau over
a thirty-year time frame. A thirty-year horizon was picked to show long term population trends
both in the election district of the proposed rezoning, as well as the overall trends of the County.
The subject property is in the Smithsburg Election District, # 7. As shown in Table 1 below, this
district has shown large increases in population between 1990 and 2010 before showing a slight
100 West Washington Street, Suite 2600 1 Hagerstown, MD 21740 1 P: 240.313.24301 F: 240.313.24311 TDD: 7-1-1
"TWW,WASHCO-MD.NET
RZ-23-004 —Troy & Elisabeth Jernigan
Page 2 of 7
June 2023
decrease over the last 10-year period. Between 1990 and 2020 the 30-year average change in
population shows that this election district has outpaced the average growth rate of the County as
a whole. This district has increased approximately 45.8% (1.5% per year) while the County has
increased in population by 27.4% (0.91 % per year) during the same period.
Table 1: Population Trends 1980 - 2010
Year
Area
Population
o change from
previous
decade
1990
District
4297
County
121393
2000
District
5370
25.0%
County
131932
8.7%
2010
District
6343
18.1 %
County
147430
11.7%
2020
District
6267
-1.2%
County 1
154705
4.9%
Source: US Census Bureau
Availability of Public Facilities
Water and Sewe�ae
The adopted Water and Sewerage Plan for the County establishes the policies and
recommendations for public water and sewer infrastructure to help guide development in a manner
that helps promote healthy and adequate service to citizens. By its own decree, the purpose of the
Washington County Water and Sewerage Plan is "...to provide for the continued health and well-
being of Washington Countians and our downstream neighbors..."' This is achieved through
implementing recommendations within the County Comprehensive Plan and the Water and
Sewerage Plan to provide for services in a timely and efficient manner and by establishing an
inventory of existing and programmed services.
The subject parcel is located within the County designated Town Growth Area that surrounds the
Town of Smithsburg. The property is currently improved and contains a private well and private
on -site sewerage disposal system. Even though the property is located within a growth area, it is
delineated in the Water and Sewerage Plan as having a priority service area of W-7/S-7. This
designation means that there is no planned public water or sewerage service to the property.
This is an atypical priority service area designation for a property located within a growth area.
Growth areas are meant to include parcels that have existing public water and/or sewer services or
are planned/programmed for service within a 10-year planning period. The reason for the current
configuration is because the 2009 Water and Sewerage Plan has not been updated to include
amendments made as part of the Comprehensive Town Growth Area rezonings that occurred in
2013. It should be noted that there are currently no plans to extend public water or sewer services
to this property in the County Capital Improvement Program.
'Washington County, Maryland Water and Sewerage Plan 2009 Update, Page I-2
RZ-23-004 — Troy & Elisabeth Jernigan
Page 3 of 7
June 2023
Emergency Services
The subject parcel is located within the service area of the Smithsburg Volunteer Fire
Company and Smithsburg Emergency Medical Services. The property is approximately 1
mile away from each service.
,1'rhnnly
The subject site is within the districts of Smithsburg Elementary, Middle and High schools. The
zoning of the property is RT and has a residential density of approximately 4.02 dwelling units per
acre. The requested change for the subject properties to be rezoned to AR would also have
opportunities for residential development. However, the AR zoning district has a residential
density of one dwelling unit per five acres thus making the impact from residential development
much lower. Therefore, the impact on the local school district would be minimal and less impactful
than the current zoning of the property.
Present and Future Transportation Patterns
Highways
The subject parcel has existing road frontage along Maryland Route 64 (Smithsburg Pike) and
Fruit Tree Drive. There is currently an approved entrance Fruit Tree Drive that accommodates the
existing residential use. There does not appear to be an existing access point onto Smithsburg Pike
other than for potential farm use.
In addition to evaluating public access of a parcel for rezoning purposes, it is also important to
evaluate traffic generation and existing traffic volumes. This is commonly accomplished through
analysis of historic and existing traffic counts as well as any existing traffic impact studies. Due
to the subject properties location along a State owned and maintained route, traffic volume data
was retrieved from MD SHA. Given the property's proximity to several intersections of State
routes, traffic volume data 3 major intersections along MD 64 have been included in the chart
below. The data shown in the chart is expressed in annual average daily traffic volumes.
Table 2: Traffic Volumes 1990-2020
Year
MD 64 g MD
491
MD 64 g MD
77/Main St.
MD 64 g MD
66
2020
6094
4272
n/a
2015
6665
4314
11822
2010
6650
4552
11380
2005
6750
4675
10750
2000
6200
3500
14200
1995
4850
3050
10950
1990
5425
2500
9275
Source: Maryland State Highway Administration
RZ-23-004 —Troy & Elisabeth Jernigan
Page 4 of 7
June 2023
As shown in Table 2, traffic volumes have been steadily increasing over the last three decades.
Because the figures are expressed in annual average daily traffic there are some inconsistencies in
year-to-year data but there is an obvious increase in traffic at all three intersections. The traffic
count spot closest to the subject parcel (MD 64 @ MD 491) has shown some overall growth but
compared to the other two intersections, the growth appears fairly moderate.
A copy of this rezoning application was sent to SHA for comment, however, there has been no
comment received in response to this request.
Public Transportation
There is a service route provided by Washington County Transit that provides bus service
to the Smithsburg area. The route extends out Jefferson Blvd. to Main St. in Smithsburg where
the services loops in the Town and returns to the transfer station. The service route does not reach
the subject parcel.
Compatibility with Existing and Proposed Development in the Area:
The subject parcel is bounded on the north, east and south by properties zoned Agricultural Rural
(AR). A small portion of the northern boundary of the subject parcel is adjacent to land zoned
Business General. Across MD 64 on the west side of the property is land that is zoned Residential
Transition.
All of the properties surround the subject parcel are currently open space or very low density with
large lot residential uses. There is a more densely developed area near the point of the property
where Fruit Tree Drive and Smithsburg Pike intersect. On the west side of Smithsburg Pike there
is asingle-family development and a town house development that are located within the
incorporated boundaries of the Town of Smithsburg.
Another important component of compatibility is the location of historic structures on and around
the parcels being proposed for rezoning. The following historic sites listed on the Washington
County Historic Sites Survey are located within a 0.5-mile radius of the proposed rezoning areas.
WA-IV-03 3 — Mountain Hall, mid- 19th Century brick house and outbuildings, located on subject
property.
WA-IV-275 — Small structure over Little Grove Creek, reinforced concrete slab structure
constructed in 1931, located approximately 650 ft southwest of the subject property.
WA-IV-034 — Mid 19th century brick farmhouse and bank barn, located approximately 1200 ft.
northeast of the subject property.
WA-IV-023 — Gardenour Fruit Farm site, Mid-19th century brick farmhouse and bank barn,
demolished.
Relationship of the Proposed Change to the Adopted Plan for the County:
RZ-23-004 —Troy & Elisabeth Jernigan
Page 5 of 7
June 2023
The purpose of a Comprehensive Plan is to evaluate the needs of the community and balance the
different types of growth to create a harmony between different land uses. In general, this is
accomplished through evaluation of existing conditions, projections of future conditions, and
creation of a generalized land use plan that promotes compatibility while maintaining the health,
safety, and welfare of the general public.
The subject parcel is located within the Low -Density Residential policy area. The Comprehensive
Plan offers the following recommendations for this policy area:
Industrial Flex Policv Area recommendations:
"This policy area designation would be primarily associated with single-family
and to a lesser degree, two-family or duplex development. It is the largest policy
area proposed for the Urban Growth Area and becomes the main transitional
classification from the urban to aural areas. 1)2
Change in the Character of the Neighborhood or Mistake in Original ZoningRule
When rezonings are not part of a comprehensive rezoning by the governing body,
individual map amendments (also known as piecemeal rezonings) are under an obligation to meet
the test of the change or mistake rule. As part of the evaluation to determine whether the applicant
has proven whether there has been either a change or mistake in the zoning of a parcel, the
Maryland Annotated Code Land Use Article and the Washington County Zoning Ordinance state
that the local legislative body is required to make findings of fact on at least six different criteria
in order to ensure that a consistent evaluation of each case is provided. Those criteria include: 1)
population change; 2) the availability of public facilities; 3) present and future transportation
patterns; 4) compatibility with existing and proposed development for the area; 5) the
recommendation of the planning commission; and 6) the relationship of the proposed amendment
to the local jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan.
Even when change or mistake has been sufficiently sustained, it merely allows the local
governing body the Authority to change the zoning; it does not require the change. When
conditions are right for a change the new zone must be shown to be appropriate and logical for the
location and consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Analysis:
The analysis of a rezoning request begins with a strong presumption that the current zoning
is correct. It is assumed that the governing body performed sufficient analysis, exercised care, and
gave adequate consideration to all known concerns when zoning was applied to a parcel of land.
However, there are instances by which a case can be established to show that the governing body
either erred in establishment of the proper zoning of a property or that enough change has occurred
within the neighborhood surrounding the property since the governing body's last assessment to
require a new evaluation of the established zoning designation.
2 2002 Washington County, Maryland Comprehensive Plan, Pages 245 and 246
RZ-23-004 — Troy & Elisabeth Jernigan
Page 6 of 7
June 2023
The applicant of this case has indicated in their justification statement that they believe that
there was a mistake made by the governing body in the last comprehensive rezoning of the
properties in 2016 (R-Z-13-003). There can be many reasons provided by an applicant to prove
that the governing body erred in its application of zoning. However, previous MD case law has
consistently found that in order for an applicant to prove that the governing body erred in its
application of zoning on a property, evidence must be provided that clearly shows that the body
failed to consider certain facts and conditions existing at the time of the rezoning.
The applicant contends that as part of the Comprehensive Rezoning of the Town Growth
Area adopted in 2016 the local legislative body did not sufficiently take into account certain factors
existing at the time that should have had a greater impact on the zoning of the subject properties.
These factors include:
• The properly is not within a State approved Priority Funding Area (PFA).
• The designated land use policy area in the County Comprehensive Plan is not
consistent with the designated policy area in the Smithsburg Comprehensive Plan.
• The property has a priority service area designation of W-7/S-7, no planned service.
• The property contains environmentally sensitive areas that limit development; and
• There are access limitations along MD 64 due to MD State Highway
Administration control.
All of the statements made by the applicant are factually true. When considered as a whole
each of the points made by the applicant build upon one another to suggest that there may have
been a mistake made in the zoning of the subject parcel in 2016.
The first point made by the applicant is that the County failed to consider that the properly
was not located within a State approved PFA at the time of the rezoning. PFA's were enacted in
Maryland in 1997 and are defined as existing communities and places designated by local
governments indicating where they want state investment to support future growth. According to
State law, the standard requirements for an area to be designated as a PFA are as follows:
• Zoning: If residentially zoned, the area must at least have a density of 3.5 dwelling
units per acre. The zoning also qualifies if the area is zoned for employment uses,
such as commercial, industrial, or institutional.
• Water and Sewer Plan: The area must be planned for sewer service in the 10-year
water and sewer plan.
• Growth Areas: The area must be within a locally designated growth area.
While this property is zoned for a residential density of greater than the 3.5 dwelling units
per acre and is located within a growth area, there are no sewer facilities within several hundred
feet of the property available for extension. The added fact that the property is not included within
a planned sewer service area adds credibility to the applicants point.
The applicant also points out in their justification statement that the land use designation
assigned by the County Comprehensive Plan (Low Density Residential) is not consistent with the
land use designation assigned by the Town of Smithsburg Comprehensive Plan (Commercial/Open
RZ-23-004 — Troy & Elisabeth Jernigan
Page 7 of 7
June 2023
Space). While there is a difference between the two plans, they both agree that the property should
be located within the Town Growth Area. But the difference in analyses also points out the
flexibility of the property in how it may develop.
Finally, the applicant points out that there may be limitations to how the property may
develop based upon access to the transportation network and environmental issues. As noted
previously, the property has frontage onto two road networks, Smithsburg Pike and Fruit Tree
Drive. Smithsburg Pike is maintained by MD SHA and according to the applicant, has control
over access in the area. There are some topographic issues that may preclude access in some areas
along the frontage of the parcel. Fruit Tree Drive is a County maintained facility that
accommodates mostly local traffic. Development that could occur based on the current RT zoning
district would likely require substantial upgrades to both road networks to accommodate the level
of development permitted.
The property also contains Grove Creek, a stream that bisects the property as it runs in an
east -west corridor. There is no floodplain associated with the stream but in accordance with
County sensitive area regulations there would be an associated stream buffer that is variable upon
slopes adjacent to the stream bed. The property also contains potential wetland habitats associated
with a small pond on the property. These features lend credibility to the applicants request to
downzone the property to a less intensive zoning district.
Recommendation:
Based on the information provided by the applicant in the initial application and analysis
by Staff, we believe that most of the evidence that has been provided shows a case that would
support the request to amend the zoning map from RT to AR.
Respectfully submitted,
JirIBaker, AICP
Director
R. Matthew Harsh
13220 Edgemont Rd
Smitshburg, MD 21783
Sept i z, zc.)e3
Ms. Jill Baker
Washington County Depart of Planning & Zoning
County Administrative Annex
80 West Washington St.
Hagerstown, MD 21740
TUR-0-11!i-.1?i l
It has recently come to my attention the county plans to make significant revisions
to the town growth area (TGA) boundaries for multiple municipalities in
Washington County. In fact I attended and spoke at the public information meeting
that you conducted on these proposed changes at the Smithsburg Town Hall on
August 29, 2013. At that meeting you invited the attendees to submit written
comments to your department on the proposed changes; the following are my
comments and opinions.
1. Planning for an additional 50,000 residents in Washington Countv is not
necessary. It has been stated that Washington County has grown by over
40,000 residents since 1970 and that an additional 50,000 residents should
be expected over the next 30-40 years. I personally do not agree with this
projection. While a growth rate of 40,000 residents in 40 years is significant,
I think you may be better served to analyze the data from the previous 5
years. How many of those 40,000 residents moved here during that time
period? In general, the trend of living in rural areas and commuting to city
centers for work appears to be one of the past. I believe that future
generations of Americans are not as interested or likely to chose this path. A
reversal of decades of migration out of the cities is changing in many parts of
our country with younger Americans choosing to live and work in urban
settings. Many studies and articles have documented the decline in driving
amongst younger Americans. My own personal experience as a vendor at
farmers' markets in the Washington D.C./Northern Virginia area indicates
that this change is real and not just statistical. My customers in Washington
DC are young, educated, professional, and not interested in living anywhere
beyond the beltway now or in the foreseeable future. While I am not a
planner and I am certainly not trying to argue that our county will not see
growth, I do not believe we will see the magnitude of growth in the future
that we have seen in the past. Simply put, from my point of view, making
long-term land use decisions based on declining trends is foolish.
2. Expansion of the TGA boundary of Smithsburg to the North/East of MD-64 is
not appropriate. The area to the north/east of Smithsburg along South
Mountain is mainly rural farm/orchard land and large lot subdivisions. This
area is not suited in my opinion for large-scale urban type development for
several reasons. Public water and sewer are not readily available in this area.
The topography is generally not conducive to development and is much
better suited to agriculture - particularly perennial specialty cropping
systems. Smithsburg has traditionally been known as a fruit -farming town.
Although the fruit industry currently plays a much smaller role in town
matters than in the past, this heritage and industry contribute significantly to
the uniqueness of Smithsburg. Expansion of the TGA boundary north of MD-
64 would potentially bring large-scale development right into the heart of
Smithsburg's remaining orchard country. Not only would this create many
possibilities for homeowner/orchard conflicts, it would, more significantly,
"use up" some of Washington County's most unique agricultural lands and
scenery.
3. mansion of the TGA boundary of Smithsburg to the North/East of MD-64 is
not necessary. According to the Washington County Planning Department,
Smithsburg currently has 125 buildable, approved lots, "in the pipeline,"
within the current urban growth area. This is a significant number of unused
lots for a town the size of Smithsburg. Surely, it is prudent and responsible to
build on the currently approved lots first before further expanding the TGA.
Additionally, the current TGA already contains some significant tracts of un-
subdivided land. Several of these tracts have been for sale within recent
memory, and I'm sure that more would be available should the real estate
market improve.
4. Large-scale subdivisions to the northeast of MD-64 will alter future
development patterns significantly by making public water and sewer readily
available. The Washington County Planning Department has stated that any
new development within the proposed expanded TGA will be required to
hook onto public water and sewer. Thus, if the TGA expands to the
north/east of MD-64, and a development is approved in this area, public
water and sewer will need to be run beyond MD-64 for the first time in a
significant way. Crossing MD-64 with water and sewer is a potential game
changer in my opinion, MD-64 forms a natural boundary to the town of
Smithsburg, both physically and psychologically. Should water and sewer
become readily available on the other side of MD-64 it would potentially
open up a large area of untouched rural land to development. True, most of
this land would be outside of the TGA; but the property on the border would
become only one step away from being included in the TGA. The current TGA
boundary to the north/east of Smithsburg essentially follows MD-64. This
state road forms a natural boundary to town that is appropriate and finite; it
seems unnecessary and unwise to change this boundary.
5. The proposed TGA boundary does not match that of the current County
Comprehensive Plan. One of the reasons stated for changing the TGA around
Smithsburg is to fully implement the current County Comprehensive Plan
and match the county's comprehensive plan with the town of Smithsburg's
comprehensive plan. The current TGA, as defined in County Comprehensive
Plan, does not include significant areas that are being proposed for inclusion
- presumably at the behest of the town or other interested parties. These
changes have been characterized as minor, insignificant, and in cases merely
clerical in nature. I would submit that in fact this is not the case, and upon
closer examination many discrepancies and irregularities exist between the
county's published 2012 TGA map of Smithsburg and the proposed 2013
map. For example, at the corner of MD-64 and MD-77 the 2012 TGA map
shows the boundary line taking in all of the intersection, cutting through
parcel 29, and going between parcel 350 and 262. The 2013 proposed TGA
map takes in all of parcel 29 (presumably to correct having two zoning
classifications on the same parcel of land) but also parcels 262 and part of
195. These inclusions are hardly insignificant or clerical in nature. By my
rough calculation, this adds approximately another 70 acres to the TGA in
this one area alone, where previously perhaps 12-15 acres was within the
TGA. Additionally, this new boundary bisects parcel 195. Obviously this
parcel is subject to a natural subdivision in the form of MD-491, but by
bisecting 195, the planning department is creating another property where
multiple zoning classifications exist within the same parcel. A situation that
is contrary to their own stated motives. In my opinion such inconsistencies
show the flaws of expanding the TGA simply to match a planning document
drawn up by another municipality. Surely the County Comprehensive Plan,
which has been fully developed and vetted through open public procedures
with input from the public at large, should take precedence over proposals
from interested parties and lesser municipal entities.
6. Rezoning at MD-64/Fruit Tree Drive/East Water Street intersection is not
appropriate. The intersection of MD-64 and Fruit Tree Drive/East Water
Street is essentially a rural intersection with no commercial development.
No services, traffic control devices, or utilities exist at this intersection. In
fact, the current TGA does not include this intersection within the growth
area of Smithsburg. However the proposed TGA expansion would see half of
this intersection rezoned to residential transition (RT) while the other half
would remain agriculture (A) zone. Not only is expansion of the TGA to the
north of MD-64 not a good idea in my opinion, it seems inappropriate to
create this sort of inconsistency within zoning classifications. In my opinion
this area is best left rural, undeveloped, and totally within the domain of the
county.
Certainly I realize that change will come to Washington County and Smithsburg. As
a life long resident of the Smithsburg area and a farm owner/operator I am deeply
invested in this community. I am not opposed to growth and development, but I am
opposed to the unwise use of resources and the alteration of the character of
Washington County, a place where my family has lived for six generations and
where I have chosen to raise my own family.
Thanks you for your time and attention to this matter,
R. Matthew Harsh
R. Matthew & Mary C, W. Harsh
78 Acres; LLC1Raven Rock investments, LLC
23340`Fruit Tree Drive
Smithsburg; MD 21783
May28, 2616
Jill Baker
Chief Planner
Washington County Department of Planning &Zoning
County' Administrative Annex
120 West Washington Street.
Hagerstown; MD 21740
.Dear: Ms. 'Baker:.
We are the owners of two properties north/east of Smithsburg in the vicinity of MD - 491, MD;-
64, and Fruit Tree Drive (map 0040, parcels 0260, 0095). We are concerned about the
proposed expansion, and subsequentrezoning, of the Smithsburg town growth area (TGA).
We are apprehensive about the potential for any non•agricuiture related development in this
area. Northleast of Smithsburg offers some of the best fwlt.and vineyard sites anywhere in the
County. The type of agriculture that thrives here is successful in large part due to the unique
combination of topography, soil, and elevation that is found in this particular location. This
area also provides a backdrop and view shed for the town of Smithsburg that.1s key to its'
identity. Development on the north/eastside of MD-64 has the potential to change the character
of the 5mithsburg area in a significant way and needs to be carefully considered. Allowed land
uses in this area should be low intensity in nature, and compatible with existing :arms and
residences.
At the public hearing held on May 24, 2016 by the County Commissioners to take public input
on the proposed TGA rezoning, a representative for CloveriyHill, LLC asked for a change in
zoning for a portion of their property located along the east side of MD-64 between MD-77'and
MD-419 (map 0040, parcel 0262). The request was for 42 acres of the aforementioned property
(at the intersection of MD491 and MD-64) to be given commercial zoning (BL) rather than the
proposed'; residential zoning,(RT). We do not feel that this zoning designation (BL) is
appropriate. In addition to not preserving the rural character, of the area, it would, potentially
allow commercial, activity at the uncontrolled intersection of two major state roads, The types of
businesses that would be attracted to this sort or parcel are; unlikely to be compatible with the
existing land uses in the area.
Furthermore, the proposed zoning of this parcel:as shared with the public to this point has been
RT. This'fs a much less intensive (residential) usage than what would be allowed under BL
(commercial). Cloverly Hill, LLC requested 12 acres of their property be given BL zoning. The
parcel In question, 0262 is only 47.63'acres. Granting Bl zoning as, requested would mean
25% of this parcel would be available for; commercial development. Even if all the parcel's
Cloverly Hill, LLC owns in this vicinity are considered (0120, .57 acres and 0029, 14 acres) this
request would still; mean 19% of Cloveriy's property in this area would be zoned commercially.
We feel a change of this magnitude is inappropriate. Such a proposal' should be subject to
further scrutiny by the public at the very least, as it was not part of the original proposed maps.
This is not case of a property owner asking to be excluded from the TGA or a small fix to a
glitch in the zoning maps. Allowing 12 acres of BL zoning at the corner of MD-64 and MD-491 is
a material change that would have a significant impact on this area,
Sincerely,
R. Matthew Warsh a G. Marsh
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: FY24 Healthy Families Home Visiting Continuation Grant – Approval to Accept
Awarded Funding
PRESENTATION DATE: September 12, 2023
PRESENTATION BY: Nicole Phillips, Grant Manager, Office of Grant Management
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the acceptance of funding awarded under the
FY24 Healthy Families Home Visiting Continuation Grant Program from the Maryland State
Department of Education in the amount of $138,996.50.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The Washington County Office of Grant Management on behalf of the
Local Management Board is seeking approval to accept awarded funding from the Maryland
State Department of Education for the Fiscal Year 2024 Healthy Families Home Visiting
Continuation Grant Program.
DISCUSSION: The Healthy Families Home Visiting Program is a comprehensive program
modeled after a nationally renowned initiative Healthy Families America. The goals of the
program are to prevent child maltreatment through early intervention, promote healthy growth,
development, and strengthening of the parent-child relationship. This funding is valid from July
1, 2023 until December 31, 2023. Funding in the amount of $3,302 is included in the award for
County administrative support. No County funds are involved in this award.
FISCAL IMPACT: Provides $3,302 for County administrative expenses.
CONCURRENCES: Rachel Souders, Interim Director, Office of Grant Management
ALTERNATIVES: Deny acceptance of awarded funds
ATTACHMENTS: N/A
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: FY24 Senior Citizen Activities Center Operating Fund Grant– Approval Accept
Awarded Funding
PRESENTATION DATE: September 12, 2023
PRESENTATION BY: Nicole Phillips, Grant Manager, Office of Grant Management and Amy
Olack, CEO, Washington County Commission on Aging
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the acceptance of funding awarded under the
Senior Citizens Activities Center Operating Fund Grant program from the Maryland Department
of Aging in the amount of $36,426.00.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The Washington County Office of Grant Management is seeking
approval on behalf of the Washington County Commission on Aging to accept funding in the
amount of $10,963.00 which will be utilized to offset the cost of salaries for the Senior Center
staff.
In addition, the Washington County Commission on Aging was awarded $17,364.00 of
competitive funding and an additional $8,099 in FY23 rollover funds to support the “Stepping
Into Wellness Expansion” program. This program will provide participants with the necessary
tools to meet their individual needs through nutrition, self-care, and community -based service
and program navigation.
DISCUSSION: The Maryland Department of Aging requires applications to only be submitted
by local governments; therefore, the County is the grant applicant and will enter into a sub-
recipient agreement with the Washington County Commission on Aging to implement the grant
funded projects. The awarded funds will be received and disbursed through the County’s Budget
and Finance office and the Office of Grant Management will ensure all required fiscal and
programmatic reports are submitted in an accurate and timely manner. The grant performance
period is from July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2024 and matching funds are not required.
FISCAL IMPACT: Recurring expenses will be the sole responsibility of the Washington
County Commission on Aging.
CONCURRENCES: Rachel Souders, Interim Director, Office of Grant Management
ALTERNATIVES: Deny acceptance of awarded funds
ATTACHMENTS: N/A
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Termination of the COVID Policy
PRESENTATION DATE: September 12, 2023
PRESENTATION BY: Michelle Gordon, County Administrator
RECOMMENDATION: Move to approve the termination of the COVID Policy as of ___________.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: Establish a termination date for the County COVID Policy.
DISCUSSION: The attached County COVID Policy was last updated on 11/11/2022. Frederick County,
Maryland terminated its COVID Policy effective 10/07/2022. Staff would like to establish a termination
date for the County’s COVID Policy and recommend that it be terminated. In the event of employee illness,
the affected employee would need to follow County sick leave policy and procedures. This means that the
affected employee would need to follow the instruction and recommendations of their primary care
physician with regard to:
Potential absence from work;
Potential return to work date; and,
Potential / required quarantine, mask or care instructions.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
CONCURRENCES: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: None
ATTACHMENTS: COVID Employe Policy as of 11-11-2022
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: None
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
Updated November 11, 2022
Washington County Employee COVID Procedures
THIS POLICY EXPIRES EFFECTIVE _________________
Forward
As a result of the emergence of the COVID-19 virus, employers have found it necessary to enact
procedures to isolate employees who have been identified as primary and secondary exposures
and to address those employees who have tested positive for the virus in order to protect the
workforce and the services the employer provides to the public. The following procedures apply
to all Washington County employees and will be followed for all reported employee exposures
or reports of positive test results related to COVID-19.
Employee Tests Positive
1) Employee is removed from the workplace.
2) Employee must quarantine for a minimum of 5 days (total quarantine period usually does
not exceed 10 days). If after the 5th day symptoms have improved and the employee has
been fever free for 24hrs without the use of fever reducing medications, the employee
may return to work but must wear a mask at all times while at work for another 5 days.
3) The Director or their designee must determine if first report of injury and/or exposure
forms are required to be completed.
4) The Director or their designee must determine which co-workers, if any, have been
exposed.
5) Contact with the Emergency Manager can be made by the Director or their designee
regarding any questions or specific cases. Attempts to protect employee health privacy
will be made.
6) The Director or their designee should make a request to janitorial staff to sanitize the
employee’s work area.
7) The positive employee will be required to utilize banked leave time while they are in
quarantine. Time utilized will be sick leave. If an employee exhausts all sick leave and
still requires time off the following time should be utilized in the order provided:
Personal Leave
Charity Leave
Vacation Leave
Leave Without Pay (requires County Administrator approval after 40hrs)
The employee is not permitted to telework during their time off unless
approved by the County Administrator.
Updated November 11, 2022
Employee Reports COVID Related Symptoms
1) Employee is removed from the workplace with a COVID test recommended. Since the
employee is symptomatic, a COVID test can be performed immediately. Employee must
utilize banked leave time in the following order:
Sick leave
Personal Leave
Charity Leave
Vacation Leave
Leave Without Pay (requires County Administrator approval after 40hrs)
The employee is not permitted to telework during their time off unless approved
by the County Administrator.
2) If an employee refuses to get tested, the employee must remain removed from the
workplace for 5 days unless a return-to-work note from their doctor is provided to their
immediate supervisor. Employee must utilize banked leave time in the following order:
Sick Leave
Personal Leave
Charity Leave
Vacation Leave
Leave Without Pay (requires County Administrator approval after 40hrs)
The employee is not permitted to telework during their time off unless approved
by the County Administrator.
3) If employee receives a negative test result, the employee may return to work when able to
do so providing that a return-to-work note is presented if they have been absent for 3 or
more days.
4) If employee receives a positive test result, they should notify their direct supervisor
immediately who will follow the “Employee Tests Positive” section of these procedures.
5) Contact with the Emergency Manager can be made by the Director or their designee
regarding any questions or specific cases. Attempts to protect employee health privacy
will be made.
6) The Director or their designee should make a request to janitorial staff to sanitize the
employee’s work area.
Updated November 11, 2022
Employee is Identified as a Contact
Contacts are defined as anyone who was less than 6 feet from the positive employee for a total of
15 minutes or more over a 24-hour time period regardless of the use of PPE, vaccination status,
or previous infection.
1) A recommendation should be made to the employee to get a COVID-19 test after 5 days
from the date of exposure.
2) If the employee is not experiencing symptoms, they may continue to work however they
must wear a mask at all times while working and self-monitor for 10 days from the date
of the exposure. If the employee refuses to wear a mask at all times while working, the
employee should be removed from the workplace for the remainder of the masking and
self-monitoring period utilizing banked leave time in the following order:
Personal Leave
Charity Leave
Vacation Leave
Employee is not permitted to telework during their time off unless approved by the
County Administrator.
Sick time is not permitted since the employee is not sick but is choosing not to
comply with the policy.
Directors will report all instances of employees who refuse to wear a mask after an
exposure and who have been sent home for 10 days to the Emergency Manager.
3) If symptoms develop, the employee should immediately notify their direct supervisor
who will follow the procedures “Employee Reports COVID Related Symptoms” within this
policy. Symptoms include fever of 100.4 or greater, cough, and shortness of breath.
4) All vaccinated and unvaccinated employees who receive a positive test result are required
to immediately notify their direct supervisor who will follow the “Employee Tests
Positive” section within these procedures.
5) Contact with the Emergency Manager can be made by the Director or their designee
regarding any questions or specific cases.
6) The Director or their designee should make a request to janitorial staff to sanitize the
employee’s work area.
Updated November 11, 2022
Employee Exposure Reduction Efforts
1) It is strongly recommended that a facemask be worn anytime employees cannot socially
distance or are around known individuals who may get very sick from COVID-19.
2) It is strongly recommended that social distancing of 6 feet or more be observed where
practicable.
Employee Expectations
1) Employees will report all potential exposures to their direct supervisor, including but not
limited to, co-workers, family, friends, or any other persons they have had contact with
that the employee believes to be either experiencing symptoms or has tested positive.
2) Employees will follow CDC recommendations while on their personal time in an effort to
ensure that the COVID virus is not brought to the workplace.
3) Employees will notify their direct supervisor of all COVID-19 tests performed and the
results of those tests in a timely manner.
4) Employees who are unsure if they should report to work due to a potential COVID
related issue will contact their direct supervisor prior to reporting to work, explain the
situation, and wait for the direct supervisor to provide direction as to whether the
employee may report to work that day.
5) While in the workplace, employees will make every effort to ensure the COVID-19 virus
is not spread throughout their department or other County departments or jurisdictions.
Director/Direct Supervisor Expectations
1) Employees are provided the information contained within this policy and ensure their
understanding.
2) This policy will be enforced and followed to ensure that all steps are taken within each
category.
3) Questions or concerns will be discussed with the Emergency Manager in a timely and
efficient manner to ensure a quick response to employee needs and safety of their
respective department.
4) Immediately provide to the Emergency Manager any employee issues as they relate to
adhering to this policy.
Updated November 11, 2022
5) Immediately provide to the Emergency Manager any operational issues that may arise, as
policy requirements are met, which may directly impact the services provided to the
citizens of Washington County.
6) Employee health privacy is a top priority.
County Administration Expectations
1) Conduct a continual review of this policy in an effort to keep it in line with CDC and
Local Health Department recommendations.
2) Maintain communication with the Local Health Department in an effort to ensure, to the
extent possible, employee safety and to make changes to County operating policies as
required.
3) Provide information and instructions to Directors/Direct Supervisors in a timely and
efficient manner as required.
4) Ensure the Emergency Manager or his designee is available to provide timely information
as required.
5) Ensure employee health privacy is a top priority.
Due to the very nature of providing EMS and Fire service to the citizens of Washington County,
EMS and Fire providers will have contact with individuals who may be COVID positive on a
consistent basis. All front-facing DES, EMS, and Fire providers should follow previously
established procedures by the Medical Director and the Assistant Director of Operations for DES
as it relates to exposures. All non-front-facing DES, EMS, Fire, personnel should follow the
procedures outlined within this policy.
This policy was created utilizing the most current CDC and Local Health Department
recommendations available at the time. The Local Health Department is ultimately responsible
for the local response and recovery efforts to the COVID-19 public health emergency. Any
deviations from CDC recommendations within this policy were made in an effort to respond to
specific local issues caused by the COVID-19 virus and to ensure, to the extent possible, a safe
working environment for County employees and continuation of public services.