HomeMy WebLinkAbout220628aJeffrey A. Cline, President
Terry L. Baker, Vice President
Krista L. Hart, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
June 28, 2022
OPEN SESSION AGENDA
10:00 AM MOMENT OF SILENCE AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CALL TO ORDER, President Jeffrey A. Cline
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 14, 2022
10:05 AM COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS AND COMMENTS
10:15 AM STAFF COMMENTS
10:20 AM CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
10:25 AM FY22 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS TO THE WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION’S GENERAL FUND BUDGET
Jeffrey Proulx, Chief Operating Officer, WCPS; David Brandenburg, Executive
Director of Finance, WCPS
10:30 AM PUBLIC HEARING – APPLICATION FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
(RZ-21-005)
Travis Allen, Comprehensive Planner, Planning and Zoning
11:15 AM PUBLIC HEARING – TEXT AMENDMENT TO BUILDING EXCISE TAX
ORDINANCE
Rich Eichelberger, Director, Permits and Inspections; Kirk C. Downey, County
Attorney
11:30 AM APPLICATION FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT RZ-22-002
Travis Allen, Comprehensive Planner, Planning and Zoning
11:45 AM FORT RITCHIE GRAVITY LINES AND MANHOLE REPLACEMENT
Mark Bradshaw, Director, Environmental Management
11:50 AM CONTRACT AWARD (PUR-1553) – ENGINEERING SERVICES
REQUIREMENTS CONTRACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF SOLID WASTE
Brandi Naugle, Buyer, Purchasing; David Mason, Deputy Director, Solid Waste
Randall E. Wagner
Charles A. Burkett
Page 2 of 3
OPEN Session Agenda
June 28, 2022
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.
11:55 PM
12:00 PM
12:05 PM
12:10 PM
12:15 PM
12:20 PM
12:25 PM
12:30 PM
12:35 PM
CONTRACT AWARD (PUR-1554) – LANDFILL MONITORING SERVICES –
REQUIREMENTS CONTRACT
Rick Curry, Director, Purchasing; David Mason, Deputy Director, Solid Waste
CONTRACT AWARD (PUR-1547) – DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT- ENGINEERING SERVICES REQUIREMENTS CONTRACT
Rick Curry, Director, Purchasing; Mark Bradshaw, Division Director, Environmental
Management
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE PURCHASE (INTG-22-0089) – TWO
(2) NEW 2023 COMPACT VEHICLES
Rick Curry, Director, Purchasing; Mark Bradshaw, Division Director, Environmental
Management
SOLE SOURCE PROCUREMENT AWARD (PUR-1561) – FAMILY CENTERED
SUPPORT SERVICES IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, MD
Rick Curry, Director, Purchasing; Rachel Souders, Senior Grant Manager, Grant
Management
SOLE SOURCE CONTRACT AWARD (PUR-1562) – PROVISION OF HEALTHY
FAMILIES HOME VISITING SERVICES IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, MD
Rick Curry, Director, Purchasing; Rachel Souders, Senior Grant Manager, Grant
Management
EMERGENCY RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (ERAP) ADDITIONAL
FUNDING
Rachel Souders, Senior Grant Manager, Grant Management; George Newman, III,
President/CEO, Washington County Community Action Council
POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY, COMMUNITY, AND TRANSPARENCY GRANT
PROGRAM – APPROVAL TO SUBMIT APPLICATION AND ACCEPT
AWARDED FUNDING
Cody Miller, Quartermaster/Grants Managers, Washington County Sheriff’s Office;
Rachel Souders, Senior Grant Manager, Grant Management
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, MD – COOPERATION
AGREEMENT - DISSOLUTION
Kirk C. Downey, County Attorney
AGRICULTURE – FACES OF FARMING PRESENTATION
Susan Grimes, Director, Business Development
Page 3 of 3
OPEN Session Agenda
June 28, 2022
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.
12:40 PM 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)
1:05 PM RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION
1:05 PM STAFF COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: FY22 Budget Adjustments to the Washington County Board of Education’s
General Fund Budget
PRESENTATION DATE: June 28, 2022
PRESENTATION BY: Mr. Jeffrey Proulx, Chief Operating Officer, WCPS
Mr. David Brandenburg, Executive Director of Finance, WCPS
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the requested adjustments to
the Board of Education’s FY2022 General Fund Budget.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The Annotated Code of Maryland requires local school systems to
periodically re-forecast their financial needs and make necessary changes to their budgets. To that
end, the Washington County Board of Education approved the attached list of changes to its
FY2022 General Fund Budget at its June 14, 2022, meeting.
DISCUSSION: The changes that the Board of Education approved on June 14, 2022, cross major
categories. Therefore, these requested adjustments must also be approved by the Board of County
Commissioners. The Board of Education has asked its Finance staff to review the requested budget
changes with the Commissioners and answer any questions that they may have.
FISCAL IMPACT: None. These proposed modifications merely adjust various categories of the
budget to reflect updated information on revenue and spending trends.
CONCURRENCES: The Board of Education’s Finance Committee reviewed the proposed
adjustments at their meeting on May 26, 2022, and recommended them for approval by the full
Board. The Board of Education approved these changes at their June 14, 2022, meeting.
ALTERNATIVES: None
ATTACHMENTS:
• FY2022 general fund budget adjustments
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: None
Category Value The primary reason for variance is:
Administration $331,840 Higher indirect cost recovery from federal grants
Instructional Salaries 994,220 Savings from vacancies and instructional substitutes
Student Health Services 236,565 Vacancies and some nursing services charged to federal and state grants
Student Transportation 96,456 Vacancies of drivers and assistants
Operation of Plant 357,951 Savings from vacancies as well as redeployment of technology expenditures
Fixed Charges 113,995 Savings in health insurance and other fringe benefits due to vacancies
Total Expense
Reductions/Additional Revenue $2,131,027
Revenue $30,000 Reduced nonpublic revenue
Mid-Level Administration $201,845 Higher internet communications costs
Instructional Textbooks and
Supplies 28,858 Additional student technology devices
Special Education 552,240
$2,131,027
6/15/2022 Q3 FY22 Category Transfers - Revised
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING - Application for Zoning Map Amendment RZ-21-005
PRESENTATION DATE: June 28, 2022
PRESENTATION BY: Travis Allen, Comprehensive Planner, Department of Planning and Zoning
RECOMMENDED MOTION: The purpose of this public hearing is to take public comment on the
rezoning application. The Commissioners have the option to reach a consensus to either approve or
deny the request after the public hearing closes or deliberate on the issue at a later date.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: Application is being made to establish a new Mixed Use Commercial (MXC)
floating zone over top of the existing Highway Interchange (HI) base zoning through a rezoning map
amendment.
DISCUSSION: The applicant Sharpsburg Pike Holdings, LLC seeks a map amendment to establish a
new Mixed Use zoning district at 10319 Sharpsburg Pike, in between Col. Henry K. Douglas Drive
and Poffenberger Road, approximately 1/3 mile south of the Interstate 70 interchange. Mixed Use
districts permit more flexibility in site design than is possible under conventional zoning.
Article 16.1 of the Washington County Zoning Ordinance specifies the factors which must be met to
establish a new MXC Zoning District. Criteria include permitted uses and densities, adequate public
facilities requirements and site design considerations, among other items. The purpose of the MXC
Zoning District sought is to permit a mixture of residential uses and limited commercial development
to provide goods and services necessary to the neighborhood, in addition to open space, all according
to a preapproved master plan.
On November 30, 2021, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing for the proposed
map amendment. At that time, the applicant submitted additional information concerning their plans to
address school capacity by proposing age-restricted residential units. Because this information was not
available to the Planning Commission at its original August 30th public information meeting, the Board
remanded this application back to the Planning Commission for additional review and comment.
The Planning Commission held a second public information meeting on February 7, 2022 for the
purpose of reviewing the applicant’s additional information and taking public comment. The Planning
Commission again voted unanimously to recommend denial
All written and oral public comments received prior to or during the public information meetings have
thus far been in opposition to the proposed map amendment.
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
CONCURRENCES: Washington County Planning Commission
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
ATTACHMENTS: Application, staff report, Planning Commission recommendation, approved
Planning Commission minutes and written public comments
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: none
FOR PLANNING COMMISSION USE ONLY
Rezoning No, R-oZj-t
Date Filed:
WASHINGTON COUNTY PI,ANNING COMMISSION
ZONING ORDINANCE MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION
Sharpsburg Pike Holdings, LLC
Applicant
1741 Dual Hwy, Hagerstown, MD
Address
Zachary J. Kieffer, Esq.
Primary Contact
19405 Emerald Sq, St 2100 Ofc 202
Address
SPropertyOwner ❑Contract Purchaser
oAttorney ❑Consultant
❑Other:
240-513-4332
Phone Number
zach@zkiefferlaw.com
E-mail Address
10319 Sharpsburg Pike, Hagerstown, 21740
Property Location: _
0057 0010 0160 9.92 ac
Tax Map: Grid: Parcel No.: Acreage:
HI -Highway Interchange MXC Overlay
Current Zoning:, Requested Zoning:
Reason for the Request: ❑ Change in the character of the neighborhood
o Mistake in original zoning
NOTARY PUBLIC
Washington County
MARYLAND
MY COMMISSION E.XPIRFS AUG. 01, 2023
licant's Signature
Subscribed and sworn before me this -A day of_j_LI= f � . , 20
My cornmission expires on 4,
j 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
r_i 30 copies of complete Application
Package
4436 0127
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
WASHINGTON COUNTY
PREPARED 11 DEED IN CONTRIBUTION
WITHOUT
TITLE
THIS DEED, Made this J3_ day of December, 2012, by Mansoor Emral Shaool and
io EXAMINATION
Janet Emral Shaool, (hereinafter collectively, the "Grantors") and Sharpsburg Pike Holding,
N
LLC, a Maryland limited liability company (hereinafter "Grantee").
v
0
,
WHEREAS, Grantors presently are owners as tenants by the entireties of the property
hereinafter described (the "Property"), said Property having been acquired by that deed
CL
hereinafter noted; and
0
N
WHEREAS, Grantors are engaged in a real estate enterprise, as that term is defined in
�r
Section 12-108(bb)(1) of the Tax -Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, with respect to
O
o�
the Property; and
'ro
WHEREAS, (1) the within transfer is for no consideration other than the issuance of
membership interests in Grantee; (2) Grantors are the only members of Grantee; (3) each
aGrantor's
allocation of profits and losses of the Grantee is identical to the profits and losses of
the conveying real estate enterprise; and (4) the within transfer constitutes a discontinuation of
co
the real estate enterprise with respect to the Property; and (5) all real property owned by Grantors
�i
in the conveying real estate enterprise is being conveyed to a single limited liability company;
Uj
and
i
WHEREAS, the within transfer is exempt from recordation tax pursuant to Section
12-108(bb), Tax -Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, exempt from state transfer
cr`v
tax pursuant to Section 13-207(a)(18) Tax -Property Article, Annotated Code of Maryland,
0
and exempt from county transfer tax pursuant to Section 2-702(e)(1)(i) Code of the Public
Local Laws of Washington County, Maryland.
NOW THEREFORE WITNESSETH: That in consideration of the foregoing recitals, but
for no monetary consideration, the said MANSOOR EMRAL SHAOOL and JANET EMRAL
SHAOOL hereby grant and convey unto SHARPSBURG PIKE HOLDING, LLC, a Maryland
o
limited liability company, in fee simple, all the following described real estate, together with the
all
improvements, if any, easements, rights of way, benefits and appurtenances, thereunto belonging
or appertaining, situate, lying and being in Washington County, Maryland, and being more
particularly described as follows:
r
All that tract or parcel of land, situate, lying and being in Election District No. 10,
o Washington County, Maryland comprising 16.66 acres, more or less, as more particularly
r described in a metes and bounds description dated March 28, 2008 and prepared by Frederick,
D Seibert & Associates, Inc., attached hereto and incorporated herein as "Exhibit A", and as
depicted on a survey entitled "Property Line Survey for Lands of Mansoor and Janet Emral
Shaool" bearing Job Number 5563 and prepared by Frederick, Seibert & Associates, Inc.,
z RR VRABAf50 A E attached hereto and incorporated herein as "Exhibit B".
OATTORVEY AT I.AW
U AW.FRANEUNSTREET The above -described Property being the same property which was conveyed unto
z Sa1TE.N2
Q IIAOERST—J MD21740 Mansoor Emral Shaool and Janet Emral Shaool, husband and wife, by that deed dated April 15,
1301) 0
z
S*achels Documents\RealEstate\DeedsVShami.sharpsburg Pike Holding.doe Page 1 of 5
•d
'S
4436 0128
PREPARED
WITHOUT
TITLE
o EXAMINATION
N
N
�r
0
d
0
N
0
0
co
LU
a
2
KUR M&ASSOCIATES
ATTORNEY AT LAW
31 W.F NKLIN STREET
SUITE202
HAGERSTOWN, RID 31140
(301)711A389
CLERK Of THE CIRCUIT COURT
WASHINGTON COUNTY
2008, and recorded in Liber 3484, folio 505 among the Land Records of Washington County,
Maryland.
The Property is conveyed together with and subject to all applicable covenants,
conditions, restrictions, limitations, rights -of -way, streets, alleys, reservations and easements of
record.
And the said Grantors do hereby covenant that they will warrant specially the Property
hereby conveyed, except as to the aforesaid covenants, conditions, restrictions, limitations,
rights -of -way, streets, alleys, reservations and easements of record, and do hereby further
covenant that they will execute such other and further assurances of the land as may be requisite.
WITNESS the hands and seals of the Grantors herein the day and year first above written.
Witness 1AVA F3 �-
(SEAL)
Witness Janet Emral Shaool
STATE OF AaahzJ, COUNTY OF VQSk 4A hn to -wit:
I HEREBY CERTIFY, That on this day of I�OCG/ ribG✓
20lot, before me, the undersigned officer, personally appeared Mansoor Emral Shaool, known
to me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the person whose name is subscribed to with the
instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the foregoing deed for the purposes therein
contained, and that the consideration recited therein is true and correct.
i,:c• i WJTNESS my hand and official Notarial Seal.
KIEU i LE
VlY_CON4MISSIONEXPIRES: Notaryv gtonMaryland
v"Yi '.A COUnrV
MV Commission Expires
``��l `•�o ..
rrI111
SARachels Documents\RealEstale\DccdslShaool.Sharpsburg Pike Holding.doe
Page 2 of 5
4436 0129
PREPARED
WITHOUT
TITLE
o EXAMINATION
a
C0
0
e3
cu
n
c
m
0
c�
1-
0
KUNTYNANAssoaATEs
ATTORNEY AT LAW
U 33 NY. FRANNLIN STREET
S111TE 202
0 IIAOERSTOWN. A2 U 21740
(30117I4"0889
z
s
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
,,/I WASHINGTON COUNTY
STATE OF /t�l Svc 4,04 COUNTY OF I�Q�i1 �� ✓1 to -wit:
I HEREBY CERTIFY, That on this 19 day of 11 al ILi 10-
20_, before me, the undersigned officer, personally appeared Janet Emral Sha6ol, known to
me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the person whose name is subscribed to'w dh #1e instrument,
and acknowledged that she executed the foregoing deed for the purposes theretn,,'corniairfed, and
V V.
that the consideration recited therein is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official Notarial Seal. -
r'-�
MY COM SSICIM PY
KIEU I LE
Notary Public -Maryland
Washington County N Le
My Commission Expires
July 24. 2016
I hereby certify that the within instrument was prepared by or under the supervision of
the undersigned, an attorney duly admitted to practice bgfoy the Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Brian . Kurtyka
After recording, mail to:
Kurtyka & Associates, LLC
33 W. Franklin Street, Suite 202
Hagerstown, MD 21740
IWF FD WRE 4
RECORDING FEE
TOTAL
Re# WAK Rept
ILIIW MAW BIk
DPC 28: 202
TODU L TREASURER
TAXES PAID Q6 Q
SARachels Documents\RealEstate\Deeds\Shaool.Sharpsburg Pike Holding.doc
Page 3 of 5
Q
4436 0130
PREPARED
WITHOUT
TITLE
o EXAMINATION
co
�r
ua�
v
cn
0
I
�r
N
0
�s
r
O
0
:.
Z
KUKIYNAa AS50CLA1 �••
Z
ATTOFNHV AT G•N /j
O
i.>
33 W.FMNKLIN STF¢¢T,
Z
SUIT¢202 %
O
RAGEMTOMMD21240
(301)71F0¢59
O
S
U5
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
WASHINGTON COUNTY
AFFIDAVIT AS TO TOTAL PAYMENT
INCLUDING ALLOCATION FOR COLLECTION AS TO NON-RESIDENT(S)
The undersigned hereby certifies under the penalties of perjury, that the following is true to the
best of my/our knowledge, information and belief, in accordance with Section 10-912(b)(2) of
the Tax -General Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland, (the "Withholding Law"):
That we are the transferors of that real property described in the accompanying deed.
2. The amount of total payment for the purpose of the Withholding Law is $0.00.
3. The transferors are not residents of Maryland and are subject to collection of
withholding on such transferors' allocated shares of the total payment.
4. There are two (2) transferors, and the total payment divided by two (2) is $0.00
allocated for each transferor.
The portion of the total payment subject to collection is two (2) times $0.00,
which equals $0.00, as the amount of total payment to which collection of
withholding applies.
DATED this 17 day of December, ME
WITNESS:
STATE OF A1,110 144 COUNTY OF _Kluh; to -wit:
I HEREBY CERTIFY, That on this 12 day of CP, ns h✓ 20 /-2-
before me, the subscriber, personally appeared Mansoor Emral Shaool, known to me (or
''spii$factorily,'proven) to be the person whose name is subscribed to within the instrument, and
a,jknoWledged that he executed the foregoing affidavit for the purposes therein contained.
to .
\= .I,,MSS my hand and Official Notarial Seal.
My Comp 's
KitT LE -
Notary Public -Maryland
r3.? Washington County
1 1 1 ' ` My Commission Expires No y u I1C
Jul 24. 2016
S:\Racheis Documents\Real Estate\Deeds\Shaool.Sharpsburg Pike Holding.doe
Page 4 of 5
a
4436 0131
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
IVIASHINGTON COUNTY � p
PREPARED STATE OF �BMd1 , COUNTY OF W to -wit:
WITHOUT
TITLE
v
I HEREBY CERTIFY, That on this day of �% l A/r" 20
NEXAMINAT]ON
_ , ,
before me, the subscriber, personally appeared Janet Emral Shaool, known to (or
N
;me
satisfactorily proven) to be the person whose name is subscribed to with in?the'itlstvgment, and
o
ct•I... , ;..
acknowledged that she executed the foregoing affidavit for the purposes-thereip.cotltatned. '
... _,
WITNESS my hand and Official Notarial Seal.
"
My Commission Expires:CIA
't
NotaryP
KIEU 1 LE-
blic Notary Public -Maryland
1tirS+s
C,
Washington County
My Commission Expires
g
July 24, 2016
ra
a>
i5
co
It
co
Lll
U
d
NX
N
W
co
I
<rt
'S
W
'2
`a
G
N
Ci
C
t�
J
0
0
:i
U
}
x 0 A TTT ORNFW LAWAT TS
----- AT LAW
0 .D W. FNANNIAN STREET
z SUITE 202
O IIAGEasrowN, MD 2I740
p01)014.0889
0
Z
S S:\Rachels Documents\RealEstate\Deeds\Shaool.Sharpsburg Pike Holding.doc Page 5 of 5
rn
F REDERICK 4436 01 3 2
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
S EIBERT & e,,,,a WASHINGTON COUNTY
ASSOCIATES, INC. EXHIBIT A
CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • LAND PLANNERS
0
(J
N
March 28, 2008
a
c
a_ Description of lands being conveyed by Mansoor Emral Shaool and Janet Emral
C6 Shaool to Mansoor Emral Shaool and Janet Emral Shaool
Situate along the east side of the Sharpsburg Pike (also known as Maryland
Route 65) and lying approximately 0.5 miles southward from its intersection with
Interstate 70 in Election District No. 10, Washington County, Maryland and being
more particularly described in accordance with a survey dated February 2008 by
Frederick, Seibert and Associates, Inc. as follows:
o Beginning at an iron pin and cap found at the most southwestern corner of the
herein described property, said iron pin and cap also being along the eastern
r
right-of-way line of Maryland Route 65 and also being located, N 77039'24" W
c
266.65 feet from the end of the eighth (or N 8005' E 72.0 feet) line of the lands
0
conveyed by SPM Associates and Amnuy Srirungrojana et. al., to Mansoor Emral
Shaool and Janet Emral Shaool, his wife by deed dated July 29, 1998 and
recorded at Liber 1429, folio 332 among the Land Records of Washington
N
County, Maryland, thence running in a clockwise direction and along the eastern
right-of-way line of Maryland Route 65, N 8040'35" E 329.10 feet to an iron pin
and cap found, thence leaving said right-of-way and running along the southern
M
boundary of lands now or formerly of Donna Bage (Liber 966, folio 1022)
S 81°31'59" E 221.40 feet to an iron pipe, thence along the same and also along
the lands of others N 16031'38" E 320.16 feet to a recovered iron pin, thence
'a
running along the lands now or formerly of Troy Cunningham (Liber 1011,
folio 975), N 81031'59" W 265.94 feet to a recovered iron pin and cap along the
eastern right-of-way line of Maryland Route 65, thence continuing with said
eastern right-of-way line of Maryland Route 65, N 7040'35" E 476.03 feet to an
b iron pin, thence leaving the eastern right-of-way line of Maryland Route 65 and
runninq along the lands now or formerly of Bowman 2000 LLC (Liber 1799.
folio 739 and Liber 1771, folio 30), S 83030'45" E 427.26 feet to an iron pin,
thence along the lands now or formerly of Bowman 2000 LLC (Liber 1799,
o folio 734 and Liber 1620, folio 280), S 15°20'07" W 63.58 feet to an iron pin,
thence continuing along the same S 72'18'31" E 357.85 feet to an iron pin found,
thence running along a portion of the western boundary of the Cross Creek
0 Subdivision, S 16*28'13" W 1140.55 feet to a corner fence post, thence along the
northern boundary of lands now or formerly of Interstate 70 Partners LLC
'z (Liber 2089, folio 642), N 77039'24" W 343.82 feet to an iron pin and cap found,
a thence along lands now or formerly of the Hoffman Family Homestead LLC
128 SOUTH POTOMAC STREET, HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND 21740
20 WEST BALTIMORE STREET, GREENCASTLE. PENNSYLVANIA 17225
(301) 791.3650 FREDERICK (301) 416.7478 PENNSYLVANIA (717) 597-1007 FAX (301) 739-4956
4436 0133
CLERK OF
(Liber 3276, folio 544, N 8°40'35' E 71.82 feet to a point, thence continuing along
lands of same N 77039'24' W 266.65 feet to the place of beginning;
Containing 16.66 acres of land more or less;
Said lands being conveyed subject to and together with any and all conditions,
restrictions, easements or rights -of -way of record and applicable thereto.
Said lands being all the lands combined for the purposes of creating one new
individual tax parcel and being those lands conveyed to Mansoor Emral Shaool
and Janet Emral Shaool by nine different parcels namely being from Amnuey
Srirungrojana, at. al. and SPM Associates by deed dated July 29, 1998 and
recorded in Liber 1429, folio 332; and from Bessie M. Burns by deed dated
July 14, 1998 and recorded in Liber 1425, folio 853; and from Leonard D.
Emmert and Gracia R. Emmert by deed dated November 2, 1999 and recorded
in Liber 1535, folio 289; and from Bruce M. Cubbage by deed dated
June 29, 2000 and recorded in Liber 1583, folio 399; and from Carroll E. Brackett
and Naomi R. Brackett by deed dated June 29, 2000 and recorded in Liber 1583,
folio 396; and from Thomas R. Schleigh and Vicki Lee Schleigh by deed dated
December 3, 2003 and recorded in Liber 2204, folio 202; and from Marjorie M.
Seiler by deed dated March 25, 2004 and recorded in Liber 2290, folio 537; and
from Michael R. Weller by deed dated April 23, 2004 and recorded in Liber 2312,
folio 159; and from Edward P. Hultsch and Susan M. Hultsch by deed dated
November 13, 2003 and recorded in Liber 2187, folio 71 all among the Land
Records of Washington County, Maryland.
FMF/vab.shaool desc
■IZ
i
4436 0134
Property Line Survey CLERKOF
CIRCUIT TYURT
EXHIBIT B for
Lands of Mansoor and
Janet Emral Shaool
Situate along the East side of
Shorpsburg Pike
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND
80' R/W per
N/F Bowman
Bowman 2000, LLC Liber 1771
' 1 r /Liber 1799 Folio 739
• u/P 223es S83'30'45-E
(( ( w/3J 427.2g �..
((( 2z3e7 — PARCEL 744
w/1r —
PARCEL 143
,pr�ry•y((
�TU/P 2239e_
IIwPARCEL 742
I PARCEL Iq0
I—� f3AR6EL iJ9
J/P 22W6
mJ PARCEL 1.1s /
U/P 22370
I �wM
LINE
I BEARING
DISTANCE
Ll _I
N0B'40 3355E
71,82
L2
I 315-20 07
63.58
D, LLC
010 30
N/F
Bowman 2000, LLC
'P' Liber 1799 Folio 734 '
r /
\S7';76`f e �
�V
PARCEL 160
/ A
F
((46�", N/F } 7 —Troy 011 Folio 9
Liber 1011 Folio 975
N/F
Donna Bage
Liber 966 Folio 1022
'"NCEL 129 Combined
Area
' I' PARCEL 128 Parcel16.66 Ac.
( . U/P 103
r J•
3r
�/ a
2%j4) ;
0
/
r
Ir 8 Hoffman FamllyHomestead, LLC l}J
( u P 8433 Liber 3276 Folio 544
J�24`W
( ( w/M 266.65,
( ( (Ind N77=g24•W
�w/M 343.82•
N/F
i (IUR 22375 interstate 70 Partners, LI
i N/F Liber 2089 Folio 642
( ('General Teamsters &r
Allied Workers /
Liber 1064 Folio 1
1
67 DlsrRlcr f0
I DRAWING NUMBER I OF f I
DWN 4-2-08
RdCRSD BY, DArS
sc�tc
t��
r
r
NOTES:
1. The purpose of this survey Is to
col
combine several parcels Into one new
J
single parcel and Individual tax lot.
GRAPHIC SCALE
20D o 100 200 440
I inch 200 ft.
FREDERICK C)
S EIBERT & 14
ASSOCIATES, INC. 02008
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS LAND PLANNERS
128 SOUTH POTOMAC STREET, HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND 21740
10 WEST BALTIMORE STREET, GREENCASTLE. PENNSYLVANIA 17225
("1) 701-3430 (301) 416-747e (717) ee7-1007 W (301) 730-USO
4436 0135
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
State of Maryland Land Instrpgli9 SfYLFT
❑ Baltimore City ACounty: u n
Information provided is for the use of the Clerk's Office, State ep rrtmem of
Assessments and Taxation, and County Finance Office Only.)
(Type or Print in Black Ink Only —All Copies Must Be Legible)
of Instruments
U Tax Exemptions
(if Applicable)
Cile or Explain Authority,
4
Consideration
and Tax
Calculations
O
N Fees
d
N
G
c
a
a
<r)
N
ED-
Description of
`? Property
o SDAT requires
submission of all
applicable Information.
m A maximum of 40
m characters will be
indexed in accordance
c1 with the priorily cited in
r Real Property Article
c1Da. Section 3.104(g)(3)(1).
m
U Transferred
From
BB Tren
c To
ri
10
B Other Names
p to Be Indexed
0 10 Contact/Mail
c Information
5
a
_J
E—
C
U
h
� `o
U u
U
Y c
Z V
0 3
G
U �
O
z_ 8
O
Q
Deed or Trust
Improved Sall
Canny Transfer
an Arms-
Consideration Amount
Finance Office Use Only
Transfer and Recordation Tax Consideration
Purchase PricelConsideration
$
Any New Mortgage
$
Transfer Tax Consideration
s
Balance of Existing Mortgage
$
X ( ) % —
$
Other.
$
Less Exemption Amount
$
Total Transfer Tax —
$
Other.
S
Recordation Tax Consideration
$
X ( ) per $500 =
$
Full Cush Value:
$
TOTAL DUE
$
Amount of Fees
Doc. I
Doe. 2
Agent:
Recording Charge
$
$
Surcharge
S
$
Tax Bill:
State Recordation Tax
$
$
State Transfer Tax
$
$
C.B. Credit:
County Transfer Tax
$
S
Other
$
$
All. Tax/Other:
Other
$
$
DBlricl
Property Tax 1 No. (1)
Cren(or 1.11sr/Folio
Map
Parcel No.
Vas. LOG
D5
. .5 .
14.0
❑ (5)
Subdivision Name
Lot (3e)
Block Wb)
ecUAR (Jc)
Plat Ref.
SgFBAcrea a (4)
LocatiudAddress of Property Being Conveyed (2)
Other Properly Idithuners (if pplicabl Water Meter Account No.
Residential or Non-ResldedB Fee Simple or Ground Rent ❑ Amount:
Partial Convey air;i Yes No Descri lion/Amt. of SgF(JAcreu a Transferred: '
If Partial Conveyance, List Improvements Conveyed;
Doc. i - Grantors) Nationals)
Doc. 2 - Grantor(s) Names)
eylifi-rs-sooc- m(-0— D
mr0. S 0
Doe. I - Owneno of Record, If Different from Grantors)
Doc. 2 - Owners) of Record, if Different from Grantor(s)
Doe. 1 - Grantees) Names)
Doc, 2 - Gram"(s) Namels)
i
C
New Owner's (Grantee) MnBing Address
Dec. i - Additional Names to be Indexed (Option ) Doe 2 - Additional Names to be Indexed (Optional)
Instrument Submitted By or Contact Person
❑ Return ro Contact person
❑ Hold for Pickup
R9 Return Address Provided
Names
Firm SS DC! t,.C.Ci
Address
&-.— LO 0DaIWO Phone: (O ) %1- 9
11 IMPORTAN
: BOTH THE ORIGINAL DEED AND A PHOTOCOPY MUST ACCOMPANY EACH TRANSFER
Assessment
informetlon
Yes
Yes
No Will the property being conveyed be the grantee's principal residence?
No Dces transfer include personal property? If yes, identify:
Yes nNo Was ro ertcurve ed? If yes, anach copy of surve (if recorded, no copy required).
Assessment Use Only - Do Not Write Below This Line
To.friul Vedticagon I I Agnes Vedlkelion Whola Pen Tree. Process Vedficatlon
Translar Wants, Dean Raeaived: used Reference: Ann nad Fronow No.:
Vea,
20
20
i
1 Goo. I man
190 Block
lend
I zoning Gdtl
I ran lot
But ldings
Use Parcel
Section Oa. Cd.
Total
I
I Town GO. I Ex. St.
REMARKS:
DIVelbution: Mite -Clerk9011ice
cv., -WAr
Pink - cave of nnanre
GaaxN .Paola,
AO C-M f6195)
BOOK: 5607 PAGE:90
0
Olde Towne Title, Inc.
File No. OT-f 2788CO
Tax ID N 10-009707
TbiO 3Beeb, made this 5th day of October, 2017, by and between Hoffman Family
Homestead, LLC, GRANTOR, and Sharpsburg Pike Holding, LLC, GRANTEE.
Vitneoeto —
Iffbat in c01110iberati0tt of the sum of One Hundred Thousand and 00/100 Dollars
($100,000.00), which includes the amount of any outstanding Mortgage or Deed of Trust, if any, the
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the said Grantor does hereby grant and convey to the said
Grantee, 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 of ground situate in the County of Washington, State of Maryland, and described as
follows, that is to say:
All the following lots or parcels of ground being more particularly described as follows:
PARCEL NO. I:
All the following described lot or parcel of ground, situate on the East side of the Hagerstown-
Sharpsburg Road about one and one-half (1 ''/2) miles South of Hagerstown, in Funkstown
Election District No. 10, in Washington County, and more particularly described as follows:
Fronting 72 feet on the East side of said Hagerstown-Sharpsburg Road and extending back
therefrom and along the North boundary of the property of Herbert W. McElwee and Kitty I.
McElwee, his wife, in an Easterly direction with that uniform width a distance of 250 feet, said
lot lying in the Southwest corner of and being a part of the same real property which was
conveyed unto Robert R. Baumgardner and M. Elizabeth Baumgardner, his wife, by R. Leon
Palmer and wife, by Deed dated February 4, 1933 and of record at Liber 192, Folio 634 among
the Washington County Land Records, to which aforementioned Deed reference is hereby made
and made a part hereof.
PARCEL NO.2:
All that portion of a lot of land, being just East of the Sharpsburg Pike near Hagerstown,
Washington County, Maryland, and more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point, being the Southeast corner of the lot of land owned by Merle Calvert
Hoffman and Dorothy Mae Hoffman, his wife, said point being two hundred fifty (250) feet East
of the Sharpsburg Pike and extending North seventy two (72) feet along the East boundary of the
lot of land owned by Merle Calvert Hoffman and Dorothy Mae Hoffman, his wife; thence East
sixty six (66) feet; thence South seventy two (72) feel; thence West sixty six (66) feet to the place
of beginning; the said lot of land being bounded on the South by the property of Herbert W.
McElwee, on the West by the property of Merle Calvert Hoffman and Dorothy Mae Hoffman, his
wife, and on the North and East by the property of Robert R. Baumgardner and wife.
The improvements thereon being known as 10315 Sharpsburg Pike, Hagerstown, Maryland,
21740.
File NOT-12788
Tax ID N10-009707
356119 the same property described in Liber 3276 at Folio 544.
Z0Q;dbCr btitb 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.
329
BOOK: 5607 PAGE: 91
To babe attb 'Go JL9otb 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
Sharpsburg Pike Holding, LLC, in fee simple.
bubject to aub togetDer Wito all restrictions, covenants, conditions, easements and rights
of way of record.
Z111b the Grantor hereby covenants that it has not done or suffered to be done any act, matter or thing
whatsoever, to encumber the property hereby conveyed; that it will warrant Specially the property hereby
granted; and that it will execute such further assurances of the same as may be requisite.
The UnberOigneb certify that it is resident(s) of the State of Maryland, or that this was their
primary residence, and therefore is exempt from the tax withholding requirements of Section 10-912 of
the Tax General Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland.
In 'V itnezg Vbereot, Grantor has caused this Deed to be properly executed and sealed the day
and year first above written.
HOFFMAN FAMILY HOMESTEAD, LLC
By; t (SEAL)
Ju ith Ho n Bolton
(Corporate Seal]
STATE OF MARYLAND 1 as
COUNTY OFWASHINGTON J
I hereby certify that on this 5th day of October, 2017 before me, the subscriber, a Notary Public
of the State and County aforesaid, personally appeared Judith Hoffman Bolton, and that as such officer,
being authorized to do so, executed the aforegoing Deed for the purposes therein contained, by signing
the name of the limited liability company, by himself/herself as such officer and further, did certify that
this conveyance is not part of a transaction in which there is a sale, lease, exchange or other transfer of all,
or substantially all, of the property and assets of the limited liability company, giving oath under penalties
of perjury that the consideration recited herein is correct.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal.
R.I. WIiIHAU$
Q�WITINApf
Notary PAR. State Of Maryland
uornar
Pueuc
�o
�fRICN�'
county of Frederick
My CasaM1S$aEGp1as0ea21,2019
AFTER RECORDING, PLEASE RETURN TO:
Sharpsburg Pike Holding, LLC
72 West Washington Street
Ragerstoum, MD 21740
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
TODD L. HERSHEY, TREASURER
TAXES PAID& �'�
9
tg
y
BOOK: 5607 PAGE: 92
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the within Deed was prepared by, or under the supervision of the undersigned,
an Attorney duly admitted to practice before the Court of Appeals of Maryland.
o
cv
Allison Fortmann, Attorney
0
0
z�
m
c
EL
O
W—
BOOK: 5607 PAGE: 93
This page not to be counted in calculating Recording Fee
Clerk of Circuit Court
Washington County, Maryland
Dennis 1, Weaver, Clerk
24 Summit Avenue
Hagerstown, MD 21740
301-790-7991.
For Clerks Use Only
Improvement Fee 40.00
Recording Fee 20.00
County Transfer Tax .25C).
Recordation Tax q & h , 00
State Transfer Tax
Non -Resident Tax
TOTAL 15,17b. CO
LR - Deed (w Taxes)
Recordino Fee - ALL
20.00
Name: Sharpsburo Pike
Holdino
Ref:
LR - County Transfer
Tax. - linked 250.00
LR - Surcharge -
linked 40.00
LR, - Recordation Tax -
linked 760.00
LR - State Transfer
Tax - linked 500.00
LR - NR Tax - lkd 0.00
SubTotal 1,570.00
Total: 1,570.00
10/06/2017 02:40
CC21-MAW
#9196463 CC0403 -
Washinoton
County/CC04.03.01 -
P,eoister 01
I-
State of Maryland nvva.: Dora
0 Baltimore City ®-County: Washington ....._.,..
D Jornradon provided b fpr Ike "a ofthe Clerk's Office, Side Deparlmelif of
Assessments and Tmca6an, aodCounly Finance Office Only.
(Type or Print in Black Ink Only —All Copies Must Be Legible)
0
{
8
o
a
1 Type(s)
of Instruments
(❑Check Rox ifml ndumbsteko Fonnis AtiWaid)
%
peed
DeedefTrunt
Modgege
;u.
Other __
Other
2 Conveyance Type
Check Box
x
Improved U.
Amss-Length[11
Unimproved Snle
Anse-Lengl1i(2)
Muidplo Accounts
P Aran-Len0,(1)
Not an Anne -
F Lwgus Sole 191
3 Tax Exemptions
(if applicable)
Cite or Explain Authority
Recotd000n
Wore Transfer
County Transfer
4
Consldomilon Anumal
Flnonce Or. Use Only
Transfer and Retardation Tax Coodderatlan
Purchase Price/Comideratum
$ 100,000.00
Any Nmv Modgrge
S
Tmsfer Tax Comidemlian S
Consideration
Balance of Existing Mortgage
S
X( )A S
and Tax
Calculations
Other
$
Use Exemption Amount - S
Totalmamfer Tax S
Other:
S
Recordation Tax Consideration S
e
X er5300 S
Full Cash Veto.:
S
TOTALDUE S
6
Amount of Fees
Da, I
Doc 2 Agent:
Retarding Charge
S 20.00
S
Said ... ge
S 40.00
S Tax Bill:
State Recordation Tax
S 760.00
S
Fees
State Transfer Tax
S 500.00
S C.B. Credit:
Caunly Transfer Tax
S 250.00
S
Other
S
$ A, T.,dMhee
Omer
$
S
B
DIsIHct
Property Tax lD No. (1)
Gronlor Llber/Foka
Map
Parcel N.
Ver. LOG
Description of
10-009707
3276/544
t
❑ s)
Property
SubdIA,Ion Nome
Let(3n)
Black(3b)
Seet/AR(3c)
Plat Ref.
SgFUAcrmge(4)
SDAT requires
3276/594
submission of all
Location/Address of Property Being Conveyed (2)
applicable information.
10315 Sharpsburg Pike, Hagerstown, MD 21740
A maximum of 40
Other Property Identinen (if applicnble)
NMer Meter Account N.
characters will be
Indexed in accordance
the in
Rendentlai®or Non-Realdentlal❑ Fec Slmple❑X or Groand Rent❑ Amount: N/A
with priority cited
Real Property Article
Pnrtinl ConreynnceT ❑Yes ❑XNo DncdptioNAsnt. of SgFUAcreagc Trens(erted: NIA
Section 3-104(g)(3)(1).
If Pediol Conveyoncq Liri Improvements Conveyed: N/A
7
Doe. I-Cmntor(.) Nnme(s)
Doc.2-Ornaments) hornets)
Hoffman Family Homestead, LLC
Transferred
From
Dec. 1-Otrnero) of Reins, If Different from Grontiann
Dec 2-Otvner(a) or Record, if Different from Grommets)
ej
Doc. l-Gronlee(s) Name(.)
Doc.2-Grnntee(s) Names)
Sharpslyung Pike Holding, LLC
Transferred
To
Niue Corner's (Grantee) Melling Address
10315 Sharpsburg Pike Ha eralown MD 21740
9 1
Daci- Additional Plaines to be Indexed (Optional)
Doe 2- Additional Names to be lndexed(Opllon.1)
Other Names
to Be Indexed
10 ContacVMall
Information
Instrument Submitted By or Contact Peraon
® ReWnsta Coated Penon
❑ Holdfor Pickup
❑ Retain Addran Provided
Name: Staff
Firm Olds Towne Title, Inc.
Address: 1025 Mt. Aetna Road
Hagerstown, MD 21740 Phe..:(301) 739-1222
11 IMPORTANT:
Assessment
Information
BOTH THE ORIGINAL DEEDAND A PHOTCOPY MUST ACCOMPANY EACH TRANSFER
Yu X No Will the property being crosveyed he he grenteaY principal residence?
Yes X No Does trmnfer include peomsalpmperty? Ifyegidentify:
X Yes nNo Was propany e... yed?If yea, enach ropy ofsurvey (if ..,did, no copy required).
Assessment Use Only - 00 Not write Below This Line
Terminal Vedfiwllon Agricultural Verification Whole 7 Pad Tram. Process Vedficetion
g
Transfer Number Dale Received: Deed Reference: Assigned Property No.:
Year
20
20
Gao. Mao
Sub Bbck
Lantl
Zonin Grid
Plat Lot
'o
Buildin s
Use Parcel
Sedlon Occ. Cd.
Total
Town C 1. Ex. St.
Ex. Co.
REMARKS:
2
a'
rc
m
wambmaa: 0caW, ar ❑Soar Aocccswfvawn
ocrr ap.. 0a .� OT-12788CO
�I1q
l F q 3
Agg'fiocs_ 9nSPi]]]•R l
H5 li$ 3'£f
N-
3 I ' C➢ $ a$# 'qE�
eF b r�gg.
P h
I j
1 , I /
1
J' lItI" C
e o
I �
a �a
Jill/l
_ € V
oj
THE SHOPSAT SHARPSBUROK PIKE
IHI
Gnn!L
SHOPS AT SHARPSBURG PIKE
SHARPSBURG PACE HOLDING, LLC
LIST OF ADJOINING AND CONFRONTING PROPERTY OWNERS
1. Bowman 2000, LLC
a.
Premises Address: 0 Sharpsburg Pike, Hagerstown, MD 21740
b.
Tax Account:10-002842
c.
Tax Map/Parcel: 0057/0152
d.
Mailing Address: 10228 Governor Lane Blvd., Suite 3002, Williamsport, MD
21795
2. Bowman 2000, LLC
a.
Premises Address: 0 Sharpsburg Pike
b.
Tax Account: 10-0012627
c.
Tax Map/Parcel: 0057/0149
d.
Mailing Address: 10228 Governor Lane Blvd., Suite 3002, Williamsport, MD
21795
3. Sharpsburg
Pike Holding, LLC (Applicant)
a.
Premises Address: 10319 Sharpsburg Pike
b.
Tax Account:10-020174
c.
Tax Map/Parcel: 0057/0160
d.
Mailing Address: 1741 Dual Highway, Suite B, Hagerstown, MD 21740
4. Troy L.
Cunningham
a.
Premises Address: 10409 Sharpsburg Pike
b.
Tax Account:10-019311
c.
Tax Map/Parcel: 0057/0133
d.
Mailing Address: 17317 Branden Terrace, Hagerstown, MD 21740
5. Sharpsburg
Pike Real Estate, LLC
a.
Premises Address: 10405 Sharpsburg Pike
b.
Tax Account: 10-02063 8
c.
Tax Map/Parcel: 0057/0132
d.
Mailing Address: 117 W. Patrick Street, Suite 200, Frederick, MD 21701
6. Sharpsburg
Pike Real Estate, LLC
a.
Premises Address: 10401 Sharpsburg Pike
b.
Tax Account: 10-019591
c.
Tax Map/Parcel: 0057/0131
d.
Mailing Address: 117 W. Patrick Street, Suite 200, Frederick, MD 21701
7. Sharpsburg
Pike Real Estate, LLC
a.
Premises Address: 10326 Sharpsburg Pike
b.
Tax Account:10-004829
c.
Tax Map/Parcel: 0057/0271
d.
Mailing Address: 117 W. Patrick Street, Suite 200, Frederick, MD 21701
8. Sharpsburg
Pike Real Estate, LLC
a.
Premises Address: 10322 Sharpsburg Pike
b.
Tax Account:10-015685
c.
Tax Map/Parcel: 0057/0043
d.
Mailing Address: 117 W. Patrick Street, Suite 200, Frederick, MD 21701
9.
Sharpsburg Pike Real Estate, LLC
a.
Premises Address: 10320 Sharpsburg Pike
b.
Tax Account:10-017726
c.
Tax Map/Parcel: 0057/0117
d.
Mailing Address: 117 W. Patrick Street, Suite 200, Frederick, MD 21701
10.
Walmart Real Estate Business Trust
a.
Premises Address: 10420 Walmart Drive
b.
Tax Account:10-065523
c.
Tax Map/Parcel: 0057/0638
d.
Mailing Address: Attn: Property Tax Dept. PO Box 8050, Bentonville, AR 72712
11.
Washco Arnett Farm, LLC
a.
Premises Address: 10306 Sharpsburg Pike
b.
Tax Account:10-010969
c.
Tax Map/Parcel: 0057/0118
d.
Mailing Address: 1741 Dual Highway, Suite B, Hagerstown, MD 21740
12.
General Teamsters & Allied Workers Local Union No 992
a.
Premises Address: 10312 Remington Drive
b.
Tax Account: 10-040248
c.
Tax Map/Parcel: 0057/0578
d.
Mailing Address: 10312 Remington Drive, Hagerstown, MD 21740
13.
Cross
Creek Builders, LLC
a.
Premises Address: 10303 Remington Drive, Hagerstown, MD 21740
b.
Tax Account:10-065727
c.
Tax Map/Parcel: 0057/0639
d.
Mailing Address: c/o Hilton C. Smith, Jr., 10306 Remington Drive, Hagerstown,
MD 21740
14.
Cross
Creek Homeowners Association, Inc.
a.
Premises Address: 0 Bear Creek Drive
b.
Tax Account:10-037964
c.
Tax Map/Parcel: 0057/0577
d.
Mailing Address: c/o Hilton C. Smith, Jr., 10306 Remington Drive, Hagerstown,
MD 21740
15.
Interstate 70 Partners, LLC
a.
Premises Address: 0 Poffenberger Road
b.
Tax Account: 10-033349
c.
Tax Map/Parcel: 0057/0161
d.
Mailing Address: 10306 Remington Drive, Hagerstown, MD 21740
O
X
N
O
CD
O
7
O
a
m
ch
m
c
T
m
N
?f.
0 0
0 0
0 0
N
0
0
N �
0
3
0
N
Oo
VJ
0
1.1I
�F
cr
C
�T
V
77
CD
N
co
0
0
m0
\V
r"
THE LAW OFFICE OP
ZACHARY J. KIEFFER LLC
April 29, 2021
Re: Justification Statement: 10319 Sharpshurg Pike, Hagerstown, MD 21740 (the
"Property'); Appeal for Map Amendment
REQUEST
Appeal is made by Sharpsburg Pike Holding, LLC (the "Applicant") for a Map
Amendment to the current Washington County Zoning Map, amending that certain portion of the
Property with the MXC District Overlay, containing +/- 9.92 acres and more particularly
identified as "Lot 7" on the Rezoning Concept Plan for The Shops at Sharpsburg Pike prepared
by Frederick Seibert & Associates, Inc., and attached hereto and incorporated herein as "Exhibit
A".
BACKGROUND
The Property is located at 10319 Sharpsburg Pike. The Property's zoning designation is
HI (Highway Interchange). The Applicant is the Owner of the Property by virtue of a Deed from
Mansoor Emral Shaool and Janet Emral Shaool dated December 13, 2012 and recorded among
the Land Records of Washington County at Liber 4436, folio 0127 as well as a Deed from
Hoffman Family Homestead, LLC, dated October 5, 2017 and recorded among the Land Records
of Washington County, Maryland at Liber 5607, folio 90.
Exhibit A contemplates the subdivision of the Property to create, among other lots, Lot 7.
Lot 7, with the MXC District Overlay (the "MXC"), will contain a mix of residential and
commercial uses, as permitted by Article 16 of the Washington County Zoning Ordinance (the
"Ordinance").
As shown on Exhibit A, the Applicant intends to construct two (2) buildings of Multi -
Family Apartments. The first building ("Building I") contemplates 50 units, along with +/-1,500
sf of retail space and +/- 4,500 sf designated for a restaurant. The second building ("Building 2")
shows 55 multi -family apartment units. Also included will be six (6) townhouses (the
"Townhouses").
General Requirements.
19405 Emerald Square, Suite 2100 Office 202, Hagerstown, MD 21742
Office: 240-513-4332
Email: zac1i dzkicfferlaw.coni
www.zkiefferlaw.com
Section 16.4 of the Zoning Ordinance sets forth the general requirements of the MXC
District:
(a) Ownership: This application is for the placement of the MXC over a portion of one
(1) lot of record owned by the Applicant. The Applicant has duly signed this
application as the owner of the parcel.
(b) Location: The Property is located within Growth Area for the City of Hagerstown.
The Zoning Ordinance permits the location of the MXC District in the Highway
Interchange (HI) District. The Property is zoned HI and located adjacent to
Sharpsburg Pike/MD Route 65 ("Sharpsburg Pike"). The Townhouses, Building I
and Building 2 will use Colonel Henry K. Douglas Drive as the means for access,
ingress and egress to the signalized intersection with Sharpsburg Pike. Moreover, the
Applicant has completed or contemplates the construction of the following road
improvements in connection to the development of the Property:
i. Road widening and re -striping on Sharpsburg Pike for the addition of a two-
way left turn lane on Sharpsburg Pike at the Rench Road intersection;
ii. Mitigation or improvements per State Highway Administration guidelines on
Sharpsburg Pike;
iii. Fifty -foot ROW dedication from centerline of Sharpsburg Pike.
(c) Utilities: The Property is served by public water and sewer facilities which will be
connected to serve Building 1, Building 2 and the Townhouses.
(d) The development of Lot 7 will comply with the requirements of the Washington
County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (the "APFO").
i. As referenced above, the Applicant contemplates certain improvements to
Sharpsburg Pike. If, during the final site plan approval process additional
improvements are required to Sharpsburg Pike or other public roads serving
Lot 7, said improvements will be made to ensure adequacy of Sharpsburg Pike
and compliance with the APFO.
ii. School -aged children residing within the development on Lot 7 will attend
Rockland Woods Elementary, E. Russell Hicks Middle School and South
Hagerstown High School. In the course of the Concept Plan Review, County
staff has indicated that the three schools are inadequate as determined by the
APFO. Staff calculates that Rockland Woods Elementary, E. Russell Hicks
Middle and South Hagerstown High enrollment, as a percentage of State
Rated Capacity would be at 113.8%, 114.7% and 120.0%, respectively. The
APFO provides options for mitigation, including the Alternate Mitigation
Contribution ("AMC'). Section 5.8(a) allows for a developer may to make the
AMC when any school affected by the new development exceeds adequate
capacity, but does not exceed 120% of its State Rated Capacity (emphasis
added). Given the Stated Rated Capacities of the three affected schools does
not exceed 120% of their respective State Rated Capacity, the Applicant
intends to pay the AMC as part of the final site plan review process. Should
these calculations change during the course of this zoning appeal, Applicant
will work with County Staff and the Board of County Commissioners to
obtain final site plan approval while meeting all relevant conditions and
obligations as required by the APFO.
Principal Permitted Uses
Section 16. l(b) of the Zoning Ordinance sets forth the Principal Permitted Uses in the
MXC. All principally permitted uses in the RT, RS, RU, RM and BL Districts are permitted in
the MXC District. The uses on Lot 7 contemplated by the Applicant, and more particularly
shown on Exhibit A, include 1,500 sf of retail space, a+/-4,500 sf of restaurant space and +/-
13,263 sf of residential area in Building 1, creating 50 units. Building 2 shows +/- 19,283 sf of
residential area, creating 55 units. Townhouse and Apartment dwellings are permitted in the
"RM" Residential, Multi -Family District. Similarly, restaurants and local retail goods and service
shops are permitted in the `BL" Business, Local District. Thus, all proposed uses are permitted
in the MXC.
Density Limitations.
The development of Lot 7 is also governed by minimum or maximum limitations for
permitted uses and densities set forth in Section 16.l(d) of the Zoning Ordinance. Section
16.1(d) requires a minimum of 2 types of residential uses. Lot 7 will include multi -family
apartments and town houses. Commercial uses are capped at a maximum of 70% when applied
to the HI District. Commercial uses on Lot 7 are significantly less than the 70% cap. Finally, the
residential component of Lot 7 does not exceed 12 dwelling units/acre as set forth on the table in
Section 16.1(d).
Historic Resources. No less than 10 sites in the relative vicinity of the Property are
identified on the Historic Resources Map, maintained by the County Geographic Information
Systems office, and inventoried by the Maryland Historic Trust ("MHT"). A review of these
nearby sites shows that the sites nearest the Property were deemed to be minimally significant,
according to the MHT Matrix, due to their recent construction. Notably, some of these
properties have been redeveloped to accommodate commercial uses.
The Property satisfies the prerequisites for approval of the MXC. The zoning of the
Property (HI) is one of the permissible underling zoning districts for MXC. Lot 7 is of sufficient
area to comply with all setbacks, density requirements, and minimum parking prescriptions that
no variance from said requirements is contemplated. Placing the MXC on the Property would
serve the purpose of the MXC district, as stated in the Zoning Ordinance. Namely, permitting a
greater degree of flexibility and creativity in the development of mixed -use area. The area
surrounding the Property has undergone significant development in the recent years, and the
concept plan for the MXC creates a compatible and complementary mixture of uses. The
residential component consisting of multi -family dwellings and town houses places these
residences within walking distance of a grocery store, food service establishments, and retail
establishments. The concept also provides housing choices different from the single-family
homes located near the Property. The retail commercial space will provide additional on -site
services to the residents. Convenient access to Interstate 70 is but another feature that will attract
individuals to the Property seeking desirable living accommodations with proximity to a major
transportation network. The concept for the MXC provides a harmonious variety of housing
choices, a varied level of community services and amenities and promotes adequate open space
and scenic attractiveness with a design that is compatible and complementary to both the various
uses on the Property, as well as the commercial and residential uses in the vicinity of the
Property.
Very Truly Yours,
Zachary J. Kieffer'✓
Attorney at Law
m p
m (D
a
0
u
o
3 .Z1
k.
X
7
G
3 CL
m 7
O
CD
N
'^
C
N
c
n
�1
a
0
�
0
6'
N
N
T
g
O
3
3
o
O
P
�
u
x
m
# J
COn
N
z n
A 9N
m
= o
m W
O
�
x
a y
o
— N
#
O
N
co
l•A
0
YSI
W
cr
Le
x
CD
N
0
n
0
0
m
.0
rf
THE I.AW OFFICE: OI'
ZACHARY J. KIEFFER EEC
April 29, 2021
Re: Justification Statement: 10319 Sharpsburg Pike, Hagerstown, MD 21740 (the
"Property'); Appeal for Map Amendment
REQUEST
Appeal is made by Sharpsburg Pike Holding, LLC (the "Applicant") for a Map
Amendment to the current Washington County Zoning Map, amending that certain portion of the
Property with the MXC District Overlay, containing +/- 9.92 acres and more particularly
identified as "Lot 7" on the Rezoning Concept Plan for The Shops at Sharpsburg Pike prepared
by Frederick Seibert & Associates, Inc., and attached hereto and incorporated herein as "Exhibit
A".
BACKGROUND
The Property is located at 10319 Sharpsburg Pike, The Property's zoning designation is
HI (Highway Interchange). The Applicant is the Owner of the Property by virtue of a Deed from
Mansoor Emral Shaool and Janet Emral Shaool dated December 13, 2012 and recorded among
the Land Records of Washington County at Liber 4436, folio 0127 as well as a Deed from
Hoffman Family Homestead, LLC, dated October 5, 2017 and recorded among the Land Records
of Washington County, Maryland at Liber 5607, folio 90.
Exhibit A contemplates the subdivision of the Property to create, among other lots, Lot 7.
Lot 7, with the MXC District Overlay (the "MXC"), will contain a mix of residential and
commercial uses, as permitted by Article 16 of the Washington County Zoning Ordinance (the
"Ordinance").
As shown on Exhibit A, the Applicant intends to construct two (2) buildings of Multi -
Family Apartments. The first building ("Building 1") contemplates 50 units, along with +/-1,500
sf of retail space and +/- 4,500 sf designated for a restaurant. The second building (`Building 2")
shows 55 multi -family apartment units. Also included will be six (6) townhouses (the
"Townhouses").
General Requirements,
19405 Emerald Square, Suite 2100 Office 202, Hagerstown, MD 21742
Office: 240-513-4332
Email: zachnzkiefferiaw.com
www.zkiefferlaw.com
Section 16.4 of the Zoning Ordinance sets forth the general requirements of the MXC
District:
(a) Ownership: This application is for the placement of the MXC over a portion of one
(1) lot of record owned by the Applicant. The Applicant has duly signed this
application as the owner of the parcel.
(b) Location: The Property is located within Growth Area for the City of Hagerstown.
The Zoning Ordinance permits the location of the MXC District in the Highway
Interchange (HI) District. The Property is zoned HI and located adjacent to
Sharpsburg Pike/MD Route 65 ("Sharpsburg Pike"). The Townhouses, Building 1
and Building 2 will use Colonel Henry K. Douglas Drive as the means for access,
ingress and egress to the signalized intersection with Sharpsburg Pike. Moreover, the
Applicant has completed or contemplates the construction of the following road
improvements in connection to the development of the Property:
i. Road widening and re -striping on Sharpsburg Pike for the addition of a two-
way left turn lane on Sharpsburg Pike at the Rench Road intersection;
ii. Mitigation or improvements per State Highway Administration guidelines on
Sharpsburg Pike;
iii. Fifty -foot ROW dedication from centerline of Sharpsburg Pike.
(c) Utilities: The Property is served by public water and sewer facilities which will be
connected to serve Building 1, Building 2 and the Townhouses.
(d) The development of Lot 7 will comply with the requirements of the Washington
County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (the "APFO").
i. As referenced above, the Applicant contemplates certain improvements to
Sharpsburg Pike. If, during the final site plan approval process additional
improvements are required to Sharpsburg Pike or other public roads serving
Lot 7, said improvements will be made to ensure adequacy of Sharpsburg Pike
and compliance with the APFO.
School -aged children residing within the development on Lot 7 will attend
Rockland Woods Elementary, E. Russell Hicks Middle School and South
Hagerstown High School. In the course of the Concept Plan Review, County
staff has indicated that the three schools are inadequate as determined by the
APFO. Staff calculates that Rockland Woods Elementary, E. Russell Hicks
Middle and South Hagerstown High enrollment, as a percentage of State
Rated Capacity would be at 113.8%, 114.7% and 120.0%, respectively. The
APFO provides options for mitigation, including the Alternate Mitigation
Contribution ("AMC"). Section 5.8(a) allows for a developer may to make the
AMC when any school affected by the new development exceeds adequate
capacity, but does not exceed 120% of its State Rated Capacity (emphasis
added). Given the Stated Rated Capacities of the three affected schools does
not exceed 120% of their respective State Rated Capacity, the Applicant
intends to pay the AMC as part of the final site plan review process. Should
these calculations change during the course of this zoning appeal, Applicant
will work with County Staff and the Board of County Commissioners to
obtain final site plan approval while meeting all relevant conditions and
obligations as required by the APFO.
Principal Permitted Uses
Section 16.1(b) of the Zoning Ordinance sets forth the Principal Permitted Uses in the
MXC. All principally permitted uses in the RT, RS, RU, RM and BL Districts are permitted in
the MXC District. The uses on Lot 7 contemplated by the Applicant, and more particularly
shown on Exhibit A, include 1,500 sf of retail space, a +/-4,500 sf of restaurant space and +/-
13,263 sf of residential area in Building 1, creating 50 units. Building 2 shows +/- 19,283 sf of
residential area, creating 55 units. Townhouse and Apartment dwellings are permitted in the
"RM" Residential, Multi -Family District. Similarly, restaurants and local retail goods and service
shops are permitted in the `BL" Business, Local District. Thus, all proposed uses are permitted
in the MXC.
Density Limitations.
The development of Lot 7 is also governed by minimum or maximum limitations for
permitted uses and densities set forth in Section 16.1(d) of the Zoning Ordinance. Section
16.1(d) requires a minimum of 2 types of residential uses. Lot 7 will include multi -family
apartments and town houses. Commercial uses are capped at a maximum of 70% when applied
to the HI District. Commercial uses on Lot 7 are significantly less than the 70% cap. Finally, the
residential component of Lot 7 does not exceed 12 dwelling units/acre as set forth on the table in
Section 16.1(d).
Historic Resources. No less than 10 sites in the relative vicinity of the Property are
identified on the Historic Resources Map, maintained by the County Geographic Information
Systems office, and inventoried by the Maryland Historic Trust ("MHT"). A review of these
nearby sites shows that the sites nearest the Property were deemed to be minimally significant,
according to the MHT Matrix, due to their recent construction. Notably, some of these
properties have been redeveloped to accommodate commercial uses.
The Property satisfies the prerequisites for approval of the MXC. The zoning of the
Property (HI) is one of the permissible underling zoning districts for MXC. Lot 7 is of sufficient
area to comply with all setbacks, density requirements, and minimum parking prescriptions that
no variance from said requirements is contemplated. Placing the MXC on the Property would
serve the purpose of the MXC district, as stated in the Zoning Ordinance. Namely, permitting a
greater degree of flexibility and creativity in the development of mixed -use area. The area
surrounding the Property has undergone significant development in the recent years, and the
concept plan for the MXC creates a compatible and complementary mixture of uses. The
residential component consisting of multi -family dwellings and town houses places these
residences within walking distance of a grocery store, food service establishments, and retail
establishments. The concept also provides housing choices different from the single-family
homes located near the Property. The retail commercial space will provide additional on -site
services to the residents. Convenient access to Interstate 70 is but another feature that will attract
individuals to the Property seeking desirable living accommodations with proximity to a major
transportation network. The concept for the MXC provides a harmonious variety of housing
choices, a varied level of community services and amenities and promotes adequate open space
and scenic attractiveness with a design that is compatible and complementary to both the various
uses on the Property, as well as the commercial and residential uses in the vicinity of the
Property.
Very Truly Yours,
Zachary I Kieffer
Attorney at Law
4
MAIM.9
[
C
1 l /
THE SHOPS AT SHARPS13URGK PIKE
B t 8 $ \VASMIlOTp1WWl1Y.AUPVlN1D
i
'
FXHIRIT A
August, 2021 Case #: RZ-21-005
Application for Map Amendment
Staff Report and Analysis
Property Owner(s)
Sharpsburg Pike Holdings, LLC
Applicant(s)
Sharpsburg Pike Holdings, LLC
Location
Sharpsburg Pike, 1/3 mile south I-70 interchange
Election District
#10 — Funkstown
Comprehensive Plan
Designation
High Density Residential
Zoning Map
57
Parcel(s)
P. 160
Acreage
9.92 acres (Lot 7)
Existing Zoning
HI — Highway Interchange
Requested Zoning
MXC — Mixed Use Residential & Commercial
Date of Meeting
August 30, 2021
I. Background Information:
A. Site and Vicinity Description
The site is located at
10319 Sharpsburg Pike,
in between Col. Henry
K. Douglas Drive and
Poffenberger Road,
approximately 1/3 mile
south of the Interstate
70 interchange. The
total acreage subject to
this rezoning case is
9.92 acres. The concept
plan included with this
application refers to this
area as Lot 7. Parcel
160 is presently 12.67 in
total. Therefore, the
1
Staff Report and Analysis
RZ-21-005 - Sharpsburg Pike Holdings LLC
Page 2
2.75 acres that have road frontage on Sharpsburg Pike (Lots 4-6 on the concept plan) are
not part of this rezoning. All properties are located within the Urban Growth Area (UGA)
that surrounds the City of Hagerstown and the Towns of Williamsport and Funkstown.
The parcel itself is currently undeveloped. Significant development has occurred in the
immediate vicinity of this property along Sharpsburg Pike in recent years. Primarily this
development has been commercial in nature. The new Walmart is directly west of the
subject properly, on the other side of Sharpsburg Pike. The new Aldi, Dunkin Donuts and
other commercial land uses making up The Shops at Sharpsburg Pike development sits at
the corner of MD-65 and Col. Henry K. Douglas Drive immediately adjacent to this site.
In addition to the existing residential development that remains along this portion of
MD-65, there has been some new residential development in the immediate vicinity as
well. The Villas at Gateway is a semi-detached, 24-lot residential development
immediately southwest of the subject property. Notable amounts of detached single family
housing exist currently or are in the process of being developed along Poffenberger Road
less than 1 mile southeast of the site.
There are no sensitive environmental resources found within the proposed rezoning
site, as demonstrated by a forest stand delineation approved for the site in 2016.
B. Mixed Use District Purpose and Criteria
The applicant is requesting to augment the property's existing Highway Interchange
(HI) zoning classification to establish a new Mixed Use zoning district over top of the HI
base zoning. The Mixed Use zoning classification replaced the previous Planned Unit
Development (PUD) at the time of the Comprehensive Rezoning of the Urban Growth Area
in 2012. The PUD zoning classification remains for all PUDs approved prior to July 1,
2012.
As noted in the Zoning Ordinance, Mixed Use Districts allow for greater flexibility in
the design of residential, commercial and employment -focused developments than is
possible under conventional zoning standards. Their purpose is:
".. to provide a compatible and complementary mixture of uses that will create a
desirable living and working environment, promote an efficient use of the land,
provide for a harmonious variety of housing choices, a more varied level of
2
Staff Report and Analysis
RZ-21-005 - Sharpsburg Pike Holdings LLC
Page 3
community services and amenities, and the promotion of adequate open space and
attractiveness."t
Three types of Mixed Use Districts comprise the range of choices available under this
zoning classification. They include the Mixed Use Residential District (MXR), Mixed Use
Commercial and Residential District (MXC), and Mixed Use Residential, Commercial, and
Employment District (MXE). As is evident from the name of each District, the mixture of
land uses allowed differs slightly in each one.
In this case, the applicant is pursuing the establishment of a new MXC District. The
Zoning Ordinance states that:
"The MXC or Mixed Use Commercial District is designed to permit a mixture of
residential uses and limited commercial development to provide goods and services
necessary to the neighborhood, all according to a preapproved master plan."
1. General Requirements
Mixed Use Districts are established as "floating zones." A floating zone is a zoning
district that delineates conditions which must be met before that zoning district can be
approved for an existing piece of land. Those conditions are primarily outlined in Section
16.4 of the Zoning Ordinance and include the following general requirements:
•A Ownership: The tract of land to be approved for development with the Mixed -Use
District must be in single ownership with proof of that ownership submitted to the
Planning Commission prior to approval of the Final Development Plan.
❖ Location: All Mixed -Use Districts shall be located within the Urban Growth Area
or the Town Growth Areas. All three Mixed Use Districts are permitted to be
located in the RT, RS, RU, and RM Districts. The MXC and MXE Districts may
also be located in the HI, IR, PI, and ORT Districts. The specific site shall be located
adjacent to adequate roadway facilities capable of serving existing traffic and the
future traffic generated by the uses in the Mixed -Use District or are able to be
improved by the applicant to adequately serve the existing and proposed traffic.
❖ Utilities: All Mixed -Use Districts shall be served with public water and public
sewer facilities approved by the Washington County Health Department.
Washington County Zoning Ordinance, Article 16 "Mixed Use District," p.115
3
Staff Report and Analysis
RZ-21-005 - Sharpsburg Pike Holdings LLC
Page 4
•S APFO: All development in Mixed Use Districts shall comply with the requirements
of the Washington County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance before the site plan
or final subdivision approval.
2. Permitted Uses and Densities
Permitted uses and densities for the MXC District are spelled out in Article 16.1 and
shown in the table below:
Table 1: MXC Permitted Uses and Densities
District
Minimum
Area
Residential
Uses
Commercial
Uses
Employment
Uses
Open Space
Max
DU/A
MXC
None
Minimum 2
Maximum
Not
Minimum
12 DU/A
types of
10% or
Permitted
5% not
(24
residential
maximum
including
DU/A
units. 15%,
70% when
forest
permitted
or 25 DU
applied to HI
conservation
in high
must be
District
area
rise
MF,
building
whichever
more
is less
than 6
floors)
3. Concept Plan and Zoning Approval Requirements
As noted in Article 16.5, review and approval for a Mixed Use District is a multi -step
process. These steps include Concept Plan Review, Zoning Approval, Preliminary
Development Plan Review and Approval, and Final Development Plan Review and
Approval. During the rezoning process, the Concept Plan Review and Zoning Approval
steps come into play.
The required content of the Concept Plan is described in Article 16.6 and summarized
below:
Vicinity Map
Approved Forest Stand Delineation and preliminary Forest Conservation Plan
Boundary, acreage and current zoning of the tract
Minimum topographic information sufficient to determine surface drainage
patterns
Adjacent land uses, zoning and location of adjacent dwellings within 100 feet
of the common property line
4
Staff Report and Analysis
RZ-21-005 - Sharpsburg Pike Holdings LLC
Page 5
•3 Buffer yards required by Section 16.7 and the location of fencing or screen
planting
Location of various permitted uses; tabulation of the number and density of
residential dwelling units; square footage of the area devoted to commercial and
employment uses
•3 Roads — their alignment within the development including major access points;
their relationship to existing adjacent land uses and to planned improvements
identified in the Washington County Highway Plan; estimated traffic volumes
and circulations patterns from the development onto existing and proposed
roads (within a 1 mile radius of the site), and a preliminary proposal for road
improvements to mitigate for expected negative effects
Estimated average daily water consumption and sewage flow
❖ Location of historic resources identified in the Washington County or Maryland
Historic Sites Inventory
•3 Pre-existing easements or rights -of -way of any kind
Method proposed to insure maintenance of common areas (i.e.- HOA)
School dedication site (only for developments with 500+ DUs)
Zoning Approval for the application is to be based upon the following
considerations:
❖ Revisions to the Concept Plan that occurred in the wake of agency comments
submitted during the Preliminary Consultation phase of development review
Clear indication of the residential density requested
Any needed modifications to the lot area, setbacks, or buffers
Zoning approval constitutes tentative approval of density and design features shown on the
Concept Plan.
4. Design Standards
Section 16.7 describes Design Standards for Mixed Use Districts, most of which
simply provide greater detail on the elements enumerated above that make up the Concept
Plan. Section 16.7c however, provides detail on the criteria that should be considered by
the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners to determine the
appropriate mix of uses for new Mixed Use Districts. The considerations include:
B• Relationship of site to goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and Land
Use Plan Map
4• Area of land under consideration
5
Staff Report and Analysis
RZ-21-005 - Sharpsburg Pike Holdings LLC
Page 6
4• Availability and capacities of existing and planned utilities
Transportation system - proximity to, current condition, planned improvements and
access proposals
Site characteristics — physical and environmental constraints
Open space — both currently available and proposed within the development and on
adjacent lands
•3 Compatibility with surrounding land uses
Unique needs of the development for public facilities or services
Other Design Standards of note include:
❖ Walkways — the mixed use development shall contain a comprehensive and
cohesive pathway system for pedestrians and other non -motorized forms of
transportation providing access to all areas of the development and off -site
community facilities (transit, adjacent businesses, schools, etc.) to reduce vehicle
dependency
❖ Non -Residential Development — commercial uses proposed should be primarily
(but not exclusively) designed to serve the residents of the development
o Mixed Use Buildings and Shared Space
Encourages shared space within buildings to accommodate mixed
uses and with adjacent properties to meet parking requirements,
among other considerations
II. Staff Analysis
The preceding section described background information which must be satisfied
to adequately address the requirements for the establishment of a new Mixed Use District
within the scope of the intended development that has been proposed under this application.
The analysis that follows does not attempt to exhaustively analyze all of these required
elements, but merely to point out notable points of concern that have come up during
review of the application, by both the Planner and reviewing agencies, during both the
Preliminary Consultation and Rezoning stages of the development review process.
Primary concerns of note for the proposed application include the mixture of uses shown
on the Concept Plan and the adequacy of various public facilities serving the site (schools,
water and sewerage, etc.). Additional points of lesser concern are also described which
may warrant further inquiry by the Planning Commission and Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC). Further analysis of how this application intends to address other
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for Mixed Use Districts can be found in the
applicant's Justification Statement.
6
Staff Report and Analysis
RZ-21-005 - Sharpsburg Pike Holdings LLC
Page 7
A. Mix of Uses
The MXC District, as previously described, is intended to combine a minimum of
two residential use types with open space and limited commercial development which
primarily serves the development's residents and/or the immediate neighborhood. The
Concept Plan provided by the applicant satisfies these requirements to a minimal degree
but does not meet the true intent of the of the MXC District.
This assertion can be understood by comparing the percentage of the total land area
set aside for commercial or open space uses versus that which is devoted to residential
development. The number of each type of residential use provides further evidence of a
Concept Plan which focuses heavily on a single housing subtype.
First, regarding the minimum of two types of residential units, the Concept Plan
overwhelmingly favors the provision of apartment units in its design. Of the 111 dwelling
units proposed as part of the Concept Plan, 105 (95% of the total), are intended to be
apartment units. Only 6 townhouse units are proposed as part of the design. Therefore,
the variety of housing choices provided within the development would be very limited.
Secondly, the amount of space reserved for commercial and open space uses is also
very limited in the proposed concept. A total of 6,000 square feet (sf) is shown on the
Concept Plan, all of which is found within Building 1. The MXC District permits up to
70% of the district's acreage to be devoted to commercial uses when applied to a property
that has an underlying HI zoning classification as this site does. The 6,000 sq ft proposed
for the site, therefore, devotes only 1.4% of the area under review to commercial uses.
It should also be pointed out that the commercial uses depicted on Lots 4-6 are not
part of the area subject to the proposed Mixed Use District. Only the 9.92 acres that make
up Lot 7 are a part of the proposed map amendment. Based upon the visual depiction of
the Concept Plan, it is easy to assume that the commercial development displayed on Lots
4-6 is part of the proposed District's design. The development of Lots 4-6 is, however, not
part of this application and should not be considered as contributing to the footprint of
commercial portion of the applicant's design and petition to rezone the property.
Finally, the amount of open space provided appears to be very minimal as well.
MXC Districts require a minimum of 5% devoted to open space. The exact area devoted
to open space is not clearly labeled or quantified in the application or on the Concept Plan
as is required by the Ordinance. Assuming that the open space is represented by the area
shown as including a gazebo and play area south of the 55-unit apartment building, plus
7
Staff Report and Analysis
RZ-21-005 - Sharpsburg Pike Holdings LLC
Page 8
the outdoor patio space surrounding the 50 unit mixed use building, it appears that the open
space would not significantly exceed the minimum 5% required by the Ordinance.
The MXC District also requires that the Concept Plan indicate the method proposed
to insure maintenance of common areas (such as through the creation of an HOA). That
information was not provided in the application materials submitted for review.
In sum, the design which has been proposed by the applicant depicts a Mixed Use
District that would be overwhelmingly composed of residential multi -family housing uses.
The other essential elements that make up an MXC District, including commercial and
open space uses, are provided only to the minimum degree required by the Ordinance.
Therefore, the overall purpose and intent of a true Mixed Use District, as defined in the
Zoning Ordinance, has not been met by the proposed design.
B. Adequacy of Public Facilities
Another point of concern with the establishment of a new Mixed Use District in
this location is the adequacy of various public facilities that are regulated by the County's
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO). The purpose of the APFO is to ensure "that
public facilities and services needed to support new development shall be available
concurrently with the impacts of such new developments." Public facilities regulated
under the Ordinance include roads, sewerage disposal systems, schools, water supply and
distribution systems, and interim fire protection systems.
The adequacy of schools and the availability of public water constitute the primary
public facilities which raise concerns as to whether impacts of the proposed new Mixed
Use District could be mitigated concurrently with the development of the parcel.
1. Public Schools
Under the APFO, a public school is deemed inadequate if:
It exceeds 90% of the State Rated Capacity at the elementary school level
o The above standard is known as the Local Rated Capacity (LRC)
It exceeds 100% of the State Rated Capacity at the middle or high school levels
School adequacy is measured based upon quarterly enrollment reports pertaining
to all Washington County Public Schools issued by the Board of Education (BOE). Both
pupils generated by the proposed development and pupils generated from other previously
Washington County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, P.1
8
Staff Report and Analysis
RZ-21-005 - Sharpsburg Pike Holdings LLC
Page 9
approved developments which have not yet been fully built out (including developments
within municipalities) are accounted for in the determination of existing school capacity
and adequacy.
The proposed development falls within the following school districts: Rockland
Woods (Elementary), E. Russell Hicks (Middle) and South Hagerstown (High). The most
recent enrollment report available presently is from March 2021. Based upon that
enrollment report, the following table shows the current status of the three schools
impacted by the proposed development:
Table 2: Current Enrollment Snapshot (March 2021)
School Name
Current Capacity (% of SRC)
Rockland Woods Elementary
97.3%
E. Russell Hicks Middle
114.7%
South Hagerstown High
120.9%
The snapshot provided above demonstrates that all three schools affected by the
proposed development currently exceed the SRC and/or the LRC. The capacity shown
above does not account for the students that would be generated by the proposed
development, which would likely push the schools even further beyond the SRC than they
are presently. Additionally, enrollment figures that dropped during the COVID-19
pandemic may also return to, or exceed, pre -Pandemic levels in the coming school year
and beyond, putting further strain on existing educational facilities.
Under APFO regulations, new development that occurs with school districts that
are inadequate (under the capacity standards described previously) may make an Alternate
Mitigation Contribution (AMC) if the proposed development does not cause the school to
exceed 120% of the SRC. When current capacity exceeds 120% of SRC, the project is
not eligible to use the AMC to mitigate for school capacity impacts.
Mitigation for projects that cause the affected school district to exceed 120% of the
SRC must be worked out directly with the Board of County Commissioners in consultation
with the Board of Education. Various remedies are possible to address capacity issues in
school districts that are inadequate including redistricting, school site dedication, developer
funding to construct an addition to an existing school or developer funding for new school
construction.
The BOCC does also have the authority to limit the number of building permits in
any school district. Their decision is to be based on a recommendation from the Planning
9
Staff Report and Analysis
RZ-21-005 - Sharpsburg Pike Holdings LLC
Page 10
Commission and should consider the adequacy of the affected school district as well as the
capacity in immediately adjacent schools.3
At present, according to the 2021 Washington County Public Schools Educational
Facilities Master Plan, South Hagerstown High School "is projected to remain over
capacity for the foreseeable future." The plan also explicitly states that "WCPS does not
currently anticipate the ability to add a comprehensive hi, -It school in the next ten
years "a
The document does go on to state that "plans are in process to add additional seat
capacity through alternative methods." Precisely what methods will be used and how soon
a plan to create additional seat capacity could be implemented is presently unknown. It
also cannot be determined whether this potential relief would specifically address capacity
issues in the school districts affected by the proposed Mixed Use District. Therefore, it
can only be assumed that school capacity will continue to exceed the LRC and SRC
in the school districts affected by the proposed development for the foreseeable future.
The applicant's Justification Statement simply states that in the event of a school
exceeding 120% of SRC, it will "work with County staff and the Board of County
Commissioners to obtain final site plan approval while meeting all relevant conditions and
obligations as required by the APFO." No more is presently known about how the
applicant would seek to address school capacity issues if this Mixed Use District were to
be approved beyond this statement.
2. Access to Public Water
Access to an adequate supply of public water to serve the proposed Mixed Use
District is another point of concern. At first glance, this would not appear to be an issue
for this property as it is already connected to the City of Hagerstown's water system,
according to comments made during the Preliminary Consultation phase of this
development's review by the City of Hagerstown's Department of Utilities.
The site also meets other County and City requirements for access to public water
systems. It was given a W-1 Existing Set -vice designation in the County's 2009 Water and
Sewerage Plan, which mandates that the property connect to the public water supply
distribution within one year or less if a connection is not already available at the time of
the property's development.
s Washington County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. PP.16-17
2021 Washington County Schools Educational Facilities Master Plan. PA
10
Staff Report and Analysis
RZ-21-005 - Sharpsburg Pike Holdings LLC
Page 11
The area subject to this rezoning also falls within the City of Hagerstown's Medium
Range Growth Area (MRGA). The MRGA defines, among other things, the limits of new
City water service for a twenty year planning period. Properties that fall outside of the
MRGA, therefore, are not allowed to connect to existing water service lines under most
circumstances. The property also has already signed a pre -annexation agreement with the
City, according to the City of Hagerstown's Department of Utilities, which is another
prerequisite for city water service.
The issue with water access therefore lies purely with the increased demand that
would result from the rezoning of this property from the current, commercial and light
industrial HI zoning classification to a high -density residential and limited commercial
MXC district. The ability of the City of Hagerstown to provide water service to this
property (as well as all others in the MRGA) is based upon growth assumptions that utilize
existing zoning classifications. The rezoning of this property to allow for a more intensive
land use in terms of water usage is a variable that was not accounted for when the City
developed the growth model that informed the creation of the Water Resources Element in
its adopted Comprehensive Plan. Thus, an increased demand for water at this location
would likely necessitate changes to the MRGA boundary elsewhere.
3. Present and Future Transportation Patterns
a. Roads and Intersections
The impact of a proposed development on traffic and circulation patterns in the area
is another required element of this rezoning application, and, is frequently a source of
concern of neighboring residents and businesses. Road improvements are another type of
public infrastructure governed by the County's APFO. Traffic impacts from the proposed
development were analyzed by various entities, at multiple points in time, both
immediately before and as part of this rezoning application.
In April 2020, a traffic impact study (TIS) was approved which accounted for this
site as a part of a larger investigation of the potential impacts pipeline development
occurring in the Sharpsburg Pike Corridor, primarily in the immediate area south of the I-
70 interchange. This study recommended the following road improvements in the
immediate vicinity of the proposed rezoning:
➢ "Access to the project includes a frill movement access onto Colonel HK Douglas
Drive, a right -in only on MD 65, and a nen, signalized fidl movement access on MD
65. "
11
Staff Report and Analysis
RZ-21-005 - Sharpsburg Pike Holdings LLC
Page 12
➢ "Road widening and re -striping on MD 65 for the addition of a Two -Way Left Turn
Lane on MD 65 at the Rench Road intersection. The design shall be approved by
SHA and Washington County."
➢ "Mitigation/road improvements per SHA requirements including a raised median
on MD 65, and a proposed signal and associated turn lanes on MD 65 at the second
site access point. It should be noted that construction of a traffic signal at the
second access point is not a County requirement for approval of the Traffic Study,
rather it is at the preference of the Developer."
➢ "An internal access connection to Remington Drive is recommended and shall be
required if the signalized full movement second access (per item b above) is not
constructed. "
➢ "A minimum ROW dedication of'50' from centerline of MD 65 will be required for
Site Plan approval per the County's requirements for a Minor Arterial roadway.
SHA may have additional requirements. "
The applicant's decision to seek the establishment of a new Mixed Use District in
the subject location was then undertaken after approval of the original TIS. Accordingly,
the proposed change in land use, both at this site and at other lots in The Shops at
Sharpsburg Pike development, necessitated re-evaluating traffic impacts stemming from
the new proposal. This follow up TIS was completed in April 2021. The study concluded
that trip generation from the new mix of proposed land uses was less than that found in the
previous TIS during each of the three time periods surveyed (Weekday AM Peak, Weekday
PM Peak, Saturday Midday Peak). The developer is still required to comply with the
conditions outlined above in the previous traffic study, but no additional improvements
were required with the change in land use.
No additional road improvements are identified in the County's current Capital
hnprovement Plan (2022-2031) in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
The Maryland State Highway Administration's portion of the state's Consolidated
Transportation Plan does include two major projects of note in the area of the rezoning:
replacement of the I-70 bridge over MD-65, as well as improvements at the associated
interchange. The Plan summary for the bridge project captures both improvements: "This
project will replace the decks on all four bridges and the superstructure of the tivo bridges
12
Staff Report and Analysis
RZ-21-005 - Sharpsburg Pike Holdings LLC
Page 13
on I-70 over MD 65, one ofwhich (eastbound) is rated in poor condition. The project will
accommodate a planned fittuu•e interchange reconstruction at MD 65."5
b. Pedestrian Circulation and Connectivity to Neighboring Properties
Consideration for non -motorized modes of transportation is also an integral part of
the design of a mixed use development. The Concept Plan does provide for these needs to
some extent, as sidewalks are depicted connecting the two apartment buildings as well as
the six townhouses within the proposed Mixed Use District. Though not a part of the area
covered by the rezoning application, the design also depicts some sidewalk connections
between the subject site and immediately adjacent properties, particularly along Col. Henry
K. Douglas Drive.
Beyond sidewalks, inter -parcel connectivity is another important consideration in
planning a Mixed Use District that serves the needs of its residents and those utilizing
services in the immediate vicinity. Creating connections between parcels, for both
motorized and non -motorized users, enables patrons to utilize internal circulation routes to
carry out a variety of tasks without adding unnecessary traffic flow onto adjacent collector
and arterial transportation routes. Therefore, it is important that a detailed plan for
circulation and connectivity which is inclusive of multiple travel modes be submitted in
support of the establishment of a new MXC District, perhaps exceeding what is required
for a typical site plan.
The Department of Plan Review and Permitting made comments on the proposed
application to this effect, when routed a copy for review, which are copied below:
➢ "Given the significant traffic generation and mix of land uses proposed in this
development, it is recommended thatpedestrian safety be carefully considered, and
that a pedestrian circulation plan be included in the Development Plan/Site Plan."
➢ "The application states, `The area surrounding the Property has undergone
significant development in the recent years, and the concept plan for the MXC
creates a compatible and complementary mixture of uses. ' This compatible and
complementary use should include joint access with neighboring properties and
alignment with other accesses. These elements should be considered in the
Development Plan/Site Plan."
Maryland Department of Transportation. FY21-26 Consolidated Transportation Plan. P. SHA-W-2.
13
Staff Report and Analysis
RZ-21-005 - Sharpsburg Pike Holdings LLC
Page 14
III. Additional Considerations
A. Compatibility with Existing and Proposed Development in the Area:
The compatibility of the proposed development with the surrounding
neighborhood, in terms of zoning, land use, and historic sites is another important
consideration in determining the appropriate mix of uses within the MXC District being
sought. The character of the "neighborhood" in the present and immediate future is
profiled below through these lenses.
1. Surrounding Zoning
Map 1, below, shows the existing zoning in the area surrounding the proposed
rezoning site at 10319 Sharpsburg Pike.
RT
PUD
Classifications
The corridor from the I-70 interchange south to Poffenberger Road is all currently
zoned HI on both sides of MD-65. As one gets further away from this arterial roadway,
the zoning transitions to residential classifications at various densities. Much of it is
Residential Urban (RU), which allows single family, semi-detached and two-family
dwelling units on roughly 1/2 acre lots, along with limited community service type uses.
Claggetts Mill is an example of an actively building subdivision within this zoning class
14
Staff Report and Analysis
RZ-21-005 - Sharpsburg Pike Holdings LLC
Page 15
located less than 1 mile to the southeast. There is also Residential Transition (RT), which
is the least dense residential district in the Urban Growth Area, at 2-4 dwelling units per
acre. Most of the RT is presently in an agricultural land use.
There is also high -density residential zoning in the immediate vicinity. Two
Residential Multi -family (RM) districts are found within 1/3 mile from the subject site,
including the Carriage Hills development. Perhaps most relevant is another mixed use
district, in this case a PUD whose zoning was approved in 1992, St. James Village North.
In sum, while the commercially focused HI zoning dominates the Sharpsburg Pike
corridor, there is a variety of residential zoning classes within a 1 mile radius of the site.
2. Land Use
Commercial land uses predominate the immediate area around the rezoning site.
The most notable is the new Walmart directly across MD-65 to the west. Fast food
restaurants, retail shops and gas stations occupy most of the other lots already developed
north and south of the subject property. Premium Outlets is just past the I-70 interchange
to the north. The MVA is just north of the Walmart. As noted previously, an ALDI grocery
store anchors the portion of The Shops at Sharpsburg Pike that has been developed so far.
It is complemented by other fast food and retail establishments.
In addition to the residential developments of various densities noted in the
previous section, others in the immediate vicinity include Cross Creek and the Villas at
Gateway (detached single family homes). Somerford, a senior living community, is 1/3
mile southwest on MD-65.
While much of the historic land uses which occupied this part of the Sharpsburg
Pike corridor are transitioning to commercial, there are still a fair number of single-family
homes along MD-65, and active farms within a 1 mile radius of the rezoning site.
Overall, this transitioning "neighborhood" around the proposed MXC District
should be viewed, at this point, as consisting of two major parts — a heavy commercial
focus among lots with road frontage along MD-65, and mostly suburban -style, single-
family housing developments built or coming online in the immediate vicinity.
3. Historic Sites
Another important component of compatibility is the location of historic structures
on and around the parcels being proposed for rezoning. According to the Maryland
Historic Trust Inventory, there are 2 existing historic sites located within an approximately
15
Staff Report and Analysis
RZ-21-005 - Sharpsburg Pike Holdings LLC
Page 16
Yz mile radius of the proposed rezoning areas. Below is a listing of existing historic
resources within a'h mile radius of the subject parcels.
• WA-I-448: "Brick Farmhouse," late-19"' century, 2-story brick farmhouse. Altered
early 20"' century.
• WA-I-503: "Frame Bungalow," early-20"', century, 1% story bungalow style home.
B. Relationship of the Proposed Change to the Adopted Plan for the County:
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 9.92 acres subject to this requested zoning map amendment was given the High
Density Residential sub -policy area designation in the County's 2002 Comprehensive Plan.
Therefore, the applicant's proposal for this parcel does not deviate significantly from what
was anticipated in the 2002 Plan, as they are proposing roughly 11 dwelling units per acre.
The Comprehensive Plan offers the following definition for this policy area:
"The High Density Residential policy area is primarily associated multi-
, family type residential development Principal zoning districts related to the
policy area include the Residential - Multi -Family, Highway Interchange
Two, and Residential Urban districts. The majority of the types of housing
either existing or anticipated to be proposed for the policy areas are
apartments, townhouses, and group homes, as well as duplexes and single-
family homes on small lots. Typical housing developments would have
densities in excess of 8 units per acre for multi family developments and 6
units per acre for single-family developments.
Existing or proposed development associated with this classification is
primarily located around the I-70 & MD 65Interchange, Robinwood Drive
area, Londontowne area, the I-81 & US 11 Interchange, Oak Ridge Drive,
and the I-81 & Nlaugan's Avenue Interchange. " �
s 2002 Washington County, Maryland Comprehensive Plan, Page 245
16
Staff Report and Analysis
RZ-21-005 - Sharpsburg Pike Holdings LLC
Page 17
IV. Recommendation
The applicant is requesting to rezone the property from its existing HI zoning
designation, to apply an MXC floating zone atop this base zoning. The MXC Zoning
District permits the applicant to pursue what is intended to be a complementary, efficient
and attractive mixture of residential, commercial and open spaces uses.
Through their Justification Statement and Concept Plan, the applicant has met the
majority of the conditions (as outlined in the report's introduction) required to be met in
order to establish a new MXC District. These pre -requisites include primary considerations
such as a specified residential density, the inclusion of multiple housing types, the ability
to connect to public water and sewer service, cooperation in making necessary road
improvements in the vicinity and more.
Speaking generally, a mixed use development makes a great deal of sense for the
immediate neighborhood around this property, as it is presently constituted. The
Sharpsburg Pike corridor below I-70 is transitioning from historic patterns of agricultural
use and single-family homes along the roadway itself, to a higher intensity mix of
commercial and more dense housing of various subtypes. Thus, what the applicant is
proposing could work well at this location at some point in time in the future.
At present, however, it is difficult to recommend the establishment of the MXC
floating zone on this property. Primarily this is because of the APFO concerns that were
outlined in detail in this report. The most significant concern is with school capacity in the
South Hagerstown High School District. That school already exceeds 120% of State Rated
Capacity, which eliminates the ability of the applicant to utilize the Alternate Mitigation
Contribution to satisfy their requirement to address this inadequacy. There are also no
immediate plans to build a new high school in this district in the next 10 years, according
to Washington County Public Schools 2021 Educational Facilities Master Plan. Other
potential remedies, such as redistricting, are unknown at present and could not be counted
on to address the issue in the near future. Enrollment figures that dropped during the
COVID-19 pandemic may also return to, or exceed, pre -Pandemic levels in the coming
school year and beyond, putting further strain on existing educational facilities.
Also highlighted in this report, as a major point of concern, is the availability of
public water and sewer for a more intensive use than is permitted under the property's
existing HI zoning. The City of Hagerstown, the water provider for this property, has
established the boundaries of its Medium Range Growth Area based upon the existing
zoning throughout the City and County. Therefore, upzoning this property to a more
intensive use has the potential to necessitate the retraction of the MRGA by the City
17
Staff Report and Analysis
RZ,-21-005 - Sharpsburg Pike Holdings LLC
Page 18
elsewhere within the County's designated Urban Growth Area. The feasibility of
accomplishing this modification in a manner that would satisfy all parties is difficult, at
best, to predict.
Finally, the staff report has offered evidence that the current design of this MXC
District, as shown on the Concept Plan, could be improved to more closely fit the purpose
of this zoning classification, as it is defined in the Zoning Ordinance. At present, it focuses
heavily on the provision of apartment units, above all other elements required by the
Ordinance.
Therefore, it is staff's opinion that a new mixed use district at this location could be more
sustainably pursued in the future when the issues outlined above have been fully resolved.
Respectfully Submitted,
Travis Allen
Comprehensive Planner
18
County
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
PLANNING I ZONING I LAND PRESERVATION I FOREST CONSERVATION I GIS
April 4, 2022 RZ-21-005
APPLICATION FOR MAP AMENDMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Applicant(s) Sharpsburg Pike Holdings, LLC
Location 10319 Sharpsburg Pike
Tax Map/Grid/Parcel 57/10/160
RECOMMENDATION
A map amendment application for property at 10319 Sharpsburg Pike was first considered by the
Washington County Planning Commission on August 30, 2021 in a rezoning public information meeting.
The applicant is requesting the establishment of a new MXC (Mixed Use Residential and Commercial)
floating zone atop the existing HI (Highway Interchange) base zoning. Following the public information
meeting, The Washington County Planning Commission recommended [to the Board of County
Commissioners] the denial of this request for the following reason:
1) The schools serving this proposed development would not have adequate capacity to serve
the projected pupil yield of the new units; and, the applicant did not present information that
would indicate the impacts of this development on the school system are highly solvable.
On November 30, 2021, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing for the proposed map
amendment. At that time, the applicant submitted additional information concerning their plans to address
school capacity by proposing age -restricted residential units. Because this information was not available
to the Planning Commission at its August 30th meeting, the County Commissioners remanded this
application back to the Planning Commission for additional review and comment.
The Planning Commission held a second public information meeting on February 7, 2022 for the purpose
of reviewing the applicant's additional information and taking public comment. At its regular meeting on
March 7, 2022 the Planning Commission again considered the application and supporting documents,
oral and written testimony, and the Staff Report as well as the additional information provided to address
school capacity issues. The Planning Commission again voted unanimously to recommend denial [to the
Board of County Commissioners] of the rezoning application based on the following:
1) The lack of adequate public facilities and infrastructure to serve the development.
2) No way to enforce the age -restriction requirement.
Copies of the unapproved minutes of the Planning Commission's March 7, 2022 meeting are attached.
JLB/TMA/dse
Attachment
R/ector
cifu11 submitted,
JillBaker, AICP
Di
100 West Washington Street, Suite 2600 1 Hagerstown, MD 21740 ( P: 240.313.2430 1 F: 240,313.24311 TDD: 7-1-1
WWW.WASHCO-ME) NET
From:DEBRA EBERSOLE
To:Planning Email
Subject:Re: RZ 21-005
Date:Sunday, November 28, 2021 10:01:22 PM
WARNING!! This message originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
I received a notice of a meeting regarding the same rezoning request meeting I emailed my opposition to back in
August. Since I’m not sure if this requires a new email to be part of the record I’m going to state my opposition
again.
I am the homeowner and resident of 10527 Bushwillow way.
I received notice of the meeting to discuss, among other things, adding over 100 apartments office Sharpening Pike
between our development and the Aldi and Dublin Donuts that have been added within the last few years.
I am 100% opposed to this!
There has already been so much added to this area within the last 5 years, not even including the Walmart that was
added. Traffic is horrible already in this area of the Sharpsburg Pike. The Aldi and Sheetz stores have already
increased traffic tremendously. It has become very dangerous to travel this area, and there are already additional
homes being constructed off of Poffenberger Road, along with the villas by Walmart. The proposal of adding 105
apartments would add possibly an additional 200+ cars traveling daily in an already over-congested area.
I have watched my nice area turn into a mess over the years. These builders are trying to use every square foot of
property to make as much money as possible, without any concern for the area, or the citizens who live there.
Debbie Ebersole
> On Aug 30, 2021, at 11:50 AM, Planning Email <askplanning@washco-md.net> wrote:
> Your comments have been received and will be made part of the official record. Thank you.
>
>
>
> Debra S. Eckard
> Administrative Assistant
> Washington County Dept. of Planning & Zoning
> 100 W. Washington Street, Suite 2600
> Hagerstown, MD 21740
> 240-313-2430
>
> **In accordance with direction provided by the Governor’s Office related to current COVID-19 events, I am
working remotely indefinitely. Email correspondence is encouraged as phone messages may not be returned until
our offices are reopened. I apologize for any inconvenience and assure you our Department is working diligently to
continue the highest level of service possible during this pandemic event. Thank you**
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DEBRA EBERSOLE <djwinst23@aol.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 8:32 AM
> To: Planning Email <askplanning@washco-md.net>
> Subject: RZ 21-005
>
> WARNING!! This message originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
> Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
>
> I am the homeowner and resident of 10527 Bushwillow way.
> I received notice of the meeting to discuss, among other things, adding over 100 apartments office Sharpening
Pike between our development and the Aldi and Dublin Donuts that have been added within the last few years.
> I am 100% opposed to this !!!
> There has already been so much added to this area within the last 5 years, not even including the Walmart that was
added. Traffic is horrible already in this area of the Sharpsburg Pike. The Aldi and now new Sheetz that just opened
has already increased traffic tremendously. It has become very dangerous to travel this area, and there are already
additional homes being constructed off of Poffenberger Road, along with the villas by Walmart. The proposal of
adding 105 apartments would add possibly an additional 200+ cars traveling daily in an already over-congested area.
> I have watched my nice area turn into a mess over the years. These builders are trying to use every square foot of
property to make as much money as possible, without any concern for the area. You should spend some time
observing the traffic in the area, and coming off of interstate 70, and then imagine adding 105 more apartments and
their residents and cars to it.
>
> How many of these apartments proposed will end up being subsidized housing? Do we need more apartments for
the families of the prison inmates to move here? The area growing and adding apartments isn’t attracting good
families from other areas. People are living here that came from the larger cities. You see it in the newspaper articles
about crimes in our area all the time And our County just seems to be proving more and more places for those
people to live.
>
> Debbie Ebersole
From:Hart, Krista
To:Gary Hawbaker
Cc:Planning Email; &County Commissioners
Subject:Re: RZ-21-005 Sharpsburg Pike
Date:Friday, January 7, 2022 12:20:39 PM
Mr Hawbaker,
This email will serve to confirm receipt of your communication.
Thank you,
Krista Hart
County Clerk
On Jan 7, 2022, at 12:07 PM, Gary Hawbaker <g.hawbaker@myactv.net> wrote:
WARNING!! This message originated from an External Source. Please use
proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or
responding to this email.
Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
Planning Commission and Commissioners,
This is to voice my opposition to the request to change10319 Sharpsburg Pike from HI to MXC.
It was my understanding that one of the goals inzoning is to be consistent so that we don’t get areasthat have a wide use of different type’s properties in ashort distance. With that said it appeared that theCounty intended for Sharpsburg Pike between I-70and Poffenberger Road is to be developed with non-residential properties.
I would urge all members of the Commission to drivefrom I-70 to Poffenberger Road and look whatproperties are there. Fast food, gas stations, grocerystore, restaurants and of course the whole Walmartcomplex.
The county even extended Henry K. Douglas Drive sothose type of properties could be developed. Thisroad did open up our quiet Cross Creek Development
although my understanding is once the railroadapproves crossing their tracks the county will extendthe road so more residential properties can be built.Cross Creek is a single home development and hasbeen there for over 25 years with low crime and verylittle intrusion from non-residents. To change theintent of HI to MXC which would add apartments andtownhomes doesn’t seem logical. This wouldpotentially have a negative effect on Cross Creekresidents.
I’m also aware the schools that this complex wouldsend children to are overcrowded and that is provenby looking at the buses that travel past my houseevery day that are completely full.
Once again I would ask you to take that small drive onSharpsburg Pike and tell me that a housing complex inthe middle of all the other non-residential housingmakes sense. Thank You.
Gary Hawbaker10531 Bushwillow DriveHagerstown, MD 21740
From:DEBRA EBERSOLE
To:Planning Email
Subject:RZ 21-005
Date:Monday, February 7, 2022 3:19:47 PM
WARNING!! This message originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
I received a notice of a meeting regarding the same rezoning request meeting I emailed my opposition to back in
August. Since I’m not sure if this requires a new email to be part of the record I’m going to state my opposition
again.
>
> I am the homeowner and resident of 10527 Bushwillow way.
> I received notice of another meeting to discuss adding the apartments Sharpening Pike between our development
and the Aldi and Dunkin Donuts that have been added within the last few years.
> There has already been so much added to this area within the last 5 years, not even including the Walmart that was
added. Traffic is horrible already in this area of the Sharpsburg Pike. The Aldi and Sheetz stores have already
increased traffic tremendously. It has become very dangerous to travel this area, and there are already additional
homes being constructed off of Poffenberger Road, along with the villas by Walmart. The proposal of adding these
apartments would add possibly an additional 200+ cars traveling daily in an already over-congested area.
> I have watched my nice area turn into a mess over the years. This time my understanding is that the developer is
trying to get around the school overcrowding issue by stating the apartments are adult only, with no way to verify
that. Their solution is nothing more than empty words meant to get their desired result. Please deny this request!
>
> Debbie Ebersole
>
>
>> On Aug 30, 2021, at 11:50 AM, Planning Email <askplanning@washco-md.net> wrote:
>> Your comments have been received and will be made part of the official record. Thank you.
>>
>>
>>
>> Debra S. Eckard
>> Administrative Assistant
>> Washington County Dept. of Planning & Zoning
>> 100 W. Washington Street, Suite 2600
>> Hagerstown, MD 21740
>> 240-313-2430
>>
>> **In accordance with direction provided by the Governor’s Office related to current COVID-19 events, I am
working remotely indefinitely. Email correspondence is encouraged as phone messages may not be returned until
our offices are reopened. I apologize for any inconvenience and assure you our Department is working diligently to
continue the highest level of service possible during this pandemic event. Thank you**
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: DEBRA EBERSOLE <djwinst23@aol.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 8:32 AM
>> To: Planning Email <askplanning@washco-md.net>
>> Subject: RZ 21-005
>>
>> WARNING!! This message originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
>> Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
>>
>> I am the homeowner and resident of 10527 Bushwillow way.
>> I received notice of the meeting to discuss, among other things, adding over 100 apartments office Sharpening
Pike between our development and the Aldi and Dublin Donuts that have been added within the last few years.
>> I am 100% opposed to this !!!
>> There has already been so much added to this area within the last 5 years, not even including the Walmart that
was added. Traffic is horrible already in this area of the Sharpsburg Pike. The Aldi and now new Sheetz that just
opened has already increased traffic tremendously. It has become very dangerous to travel this area, and there are
already additional homes being constructed off of Poffenberger Road, along with the villas by Walmart. The
proposal of adding 105 apartments would add possibly an additional 200+ cars traveling daily in an already over-
congested area.
>> I have watched my nice area turn into a mess over the years. These builders are trying to use every square foot of
property to make as much money as possible, without any concern for the area. You should spend some time
observing the traffic in the area, and coming off of interstate 70, and then imagine adding 105 more apartments and
their residents and cars to it.
>>
>> How many of these apartments proposed will end up being subsidized housing? Do we need more apartments for
the families of the prison inmates to move here? The area growing and adding apartments isn’t attracting good
families from other areas. People are living here that came from the larger cities. You see it in the newspaper articles
about crimes in our area all the time And our County just seems to be proving more and more places for those
people to live.
>>
>> Debbie Ebersole
>
From:Dennis Weaver
To:Planning Email
Cc:&County Commissioners
Subject:RZ-21-005 - Rezoning of 9+ acres off Sharpsburg Pike
Date:Tuesday, January 4, 2022 11:07:31 AM
WARNING!! This message originated from an External Source. Please use proper
judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this
email.
Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
Planning Commission:
I am writing to oppose rezoning request RZ-21-005, regarding property between the existing
Cross Creek development and the Sharpsburg Pike.
I own and reside at 18404 Bull Run Drive, where my back yard abuts the property proposed
for rezoning from HI to MXC, with a proposal for 105 apartments and a few townhomes. Even
before the recent commercial development along Sharpsburg Pike (Walmart, Sheetz, Aldi)
traffic in the area was horrendous. The addition of the traffic lights at Poffenberger Road and
Col Douglas Drive have helped but the close proximity to the I-70 interchange exacerbates the
problem. Additionally, the proposal calls for commercial development on the first floor of one
of the two apartment buildings, adding that commercial traffic to the residential
traffic increase.
The recent redesign of the I-70/Sharpsburg Pike interchange was poorly planned. One often
sits through three traffic-light sequences when coming off I-70 East onto Sharpsburg Pike
South. And it is extremely difficult to make a left-hand turn from Rench Road onto
Sharpsburg Pike, particularly around the beginning and end of the work-day. Sharpsburg Pike
is a main thoroughfare for workers from south county and from West Virginia headed to and
from the Hagerstown area and the I-70 corridor. Adding this proposed dense residential
development, bringing more than 200 additional resident vehicles to this section of the
Sharpsburg Pike should not occur. Commercial development would bring more traffic as well,
but it would presumably be spread over the course of the day rather than concentrated
In addition, as others have pointed out, schools serving this area are over capacity now, and
the proposed development will make that problem worse. In addition to overcrowding in these
schools, traffic into and out of South Hagerstown High, E. Russell Hicks and Emma K. Doub
in the morning and afternoon is abysmal, with an extra lane needed in each direction on
Sharpsburg Pike along that entire stretch. This proposed development would add to that
problem as well.
I much prefer commercial development on the tract proposed for rezoning as would be
allowed under the HI zoning. Give us office buildings, retail, etc, rather than multi-family
residential that will definitely reduce our quality of life and our property values - particularly
those of us whose properties border this tract.
I suspect that the developer is requesting this change because they are disappointed with the
speed at which commercial development has occured on their property after Walmart was
built, but their desire to speed profits should not cost their neighbors.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. I respectfully request that you
find the developer's request ill-advised and deny it. At the very least, the remainder of this
property should be limited to residential only or commercial only, not a combination that
doubles the impact.
Respectfully,
Dennis Weaver
18404 Bull Run Drive
Hagerstown, MD 21740
From:Shayla Jackson
To:Planning Email
Subject:RZ-21-005
Date:Tuesday, January 4, 2022 7:15:50 PM
WARNING!! This message originated from an External Source. Please use proper
judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this
email.
Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
I am writing to express my strong opposition to RZ-21-005, the proposed
rezoning for Sharpsburg Pike Holdings, LLC. As a resident of the Cross Creek
neighborhood, I am completely opposed to the addition of multi-family
housing that will cause traffic and safety problems, create even more problems
with schools that are already over-capacity, destroy local wildlife habitat, and
potentially lower the property values of the existing community.
Traffic and safety of pedestrians are major areas of concern. Traffic jams in
this area already span the distance of Sharpsburg Pike and the Sharpsburg
Pike/Col Henry K Douglas Drive intersection during rush hour.
Schools in the area are already reported at capacity, and the council should not
approve multi-family dwellings that creates or exacerbates a situation that will
cause school concurrency to fail for this proposal and/or other approved plans.
Wildlife has been observed in the area, and any development will destroy their
habitat.
Any planned development of the property should consider the continuing
impact to local wildlife habitat.
Property values are likely to go down in the area if multi-family apartments or
condominiums are built. Multi family dwellings are inconsistent with the
neighborhoods developed in the area.
I urge you to disapprove the proposed rezoning, and from recent meetings and
discussions with my neighbors, I know my opinions are shared by many who
have not managed to attend meeting or write letters and emails.
Best regards,
Shayla Jackson
Cross Creek Resident
From:John Musselman
To:Planning Email
Subject:RZ-21-005
Date:Friday, February 4, 2022 9:26:17 AM
WARNING!! This message originated from an External Source. Please use proper
judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this
email.
Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
To whom it may concern,
Yet another hearing for this zoning change. I understand what the developer is trying to do and that is
make money. I seem to remember reading that there was a law on the books . concerning student
capacities at high schools. South High is way over crowded as it is. ANYBODY that has a student in that
school in the last ten years knows this. There is already a development that is building like crazy and all
those kids are going to be attending South. What will another 400- 600 kids do to South High?
Next Issue, small children. Where will they play? will they end up venturing out onto Sharpsburg Pike??
Will they reduce the speed limit on the Pike? If that is the answer what happens at the I 70 interchange? It
is already backed up at prime times of the day.
I live in the cross creek development. I do not want this zoning changed. The kids in the Middle and high
school system are going to be the ones that pay the price, If not a small child that wonders out onto the
Pike at the wrong time.
Sincerely,
John Musselman
From:ANNAMARIE WISE
To:Planning Email
Subject:RZ-21-005
Date:Tuesday, November 30, 2021 10:29:54 AM
WARNING!! This message originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
As residents of the Cross Creek community, we wish to express our objections to the refining plan before the board
today. This proposed development will be detrimental to our quality of life, bringing more traffic, noise/light/air
pollution, overload our already maxed-out schools. Please vote “NO” and advise the developer to go elsewhere!
Thank you!!
Annamarie Wise
Kevin Wines
Sent from my iPhone
County
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING I LAND PRESERVATION ( FOREST CONSERVATION I GIS
TO: Planning Commission members
FROM: Debra Eckard, Administrative Assistant
DATE: September 21, 2021
RE: RZ-21-005 — Sharpsburg Pike Holdings LLC
Attached are copies of public comments that we have received since the public information
meeting that was held on August 30, 2021 for the map amendment for Sharpsburg Pike
Holdings, LLC. All written comments have been made part of the official record, RZ-21-005.
100 West Washington Street, Suite 2600 1 Hagerstown, MD 21740 I P: 240.313.2430 IF: 240.313.2431 TDD: 7-1-1
WWW.WASHCO-MD.NET
From:
John Musselman
To:
Plannine Email
Subject:
RE: RZ-21-005
Date:
Monday, August 30, 20216:14:28 PM
This in reference to RE:RZ-21-005
I live on Bushwillow Way. My kids are older now but went to a high school ( South High ) that was
extremely crowded. The Middle school was as well. I am Going off of memory of what was sent
out a few months ago but I thing there was something like 400 units planned as well as 7
townhouses. It appears that the goal of the developer is to make as high a profit as possible with
apartments. The town houses (1 block ) looks as though it was thrown in to say there would be
single family houses. The concerns I have are mainly for the family's that might end up there. see
below
1. Education for kids, the local schools are already beyond overcrowded. Is the county just going
to bring in more trailers for the schools ?
2. Safety, potential for a lot of kids to end up out on sharpsburg Pike. The road is already over
crowded.
3. Property values, Will there be a negative affect on the people already living here.
4. 1 cant stress enough about the overcrowding of our schools.
Sincerely,
John Musselman
From: Stan and Sherry Michaleski
To: Planning Email
Subject: RZ-21-005
Date: Wednesday, August 25, 20218:32:57 PM
WARNING!! This message originated from an External Source. Please use proper
judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this
email.
Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
I am asking that the proposed development off of Sharpsburg Pike be denied. The schools
and traffic issues are already out of hand and this development will only exacerbate this;
and furthermore it affect property values of Cross Creek.
From: DEBRA EBERSOLE
To: Planning Email
Subject: RZ 21-005
Date: Thursday, August 26, 2021 8:32:37 AM
WARNING!! This message originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
I am the homeowner and resident of 10527 Bushwillow way.
I received notice of the meeting to discuss, among other things, adding over 100 apartments office Sharpening Pike
between our development and the Aldi and Dublin Donuts that have been added within the last few years.
I am 100%opposed to this !!!
There has already been so much added to this area within the last 5 years, not even including the Walmart that was
added. Traffic is horrible already in this area of the Sharpsburg Pike. The Aldi and now new Sheetz that just opened
has already increased traffic tremendously. It has become very dangerous to travel this area, and there are already
additional homes being constructed off of Poffenberger Road, along with the villas by Walmart. The proposal of
adding 105 apartments would add possibly an additional 200+ cars traveling daily in an already over -congested area
I have watched my nice area turn into a mess over the years. These builders are trying to use every square foot of
property to make as much money as possible, without any concern for the area. You should spend some time
observing the traffic in the area, and coming off of interstate 70, and then imagine adding 105 more apartments and
their residents and cars to it.
How many of these apartments proposed will end up being subsidized housing? Do we need more apartments for the
families of the prison inmates to move here? The area growing and adding apartments isn't attracting good families
from other areas. People are living here that came from the larger cities. You see it in the newspaper articles about
crimes in our area all the time And our County just seems to be proving more and more places for those people to
live.
Debbie Ebersole
From: Ron Lutz
To: Planning Email
Subject: apartments behind Aldi"s
Date: Thursday, August 26, 2021 12:10:23 PM
x
WARNING! I This message originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and;
caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
Planning Commission,
We are seventeen year residents in Cross Creek the development behind Aldi's . We are adamantly
opposed to the two apartment buildings being considered behind Aldi's. I can only imagine what our
neighborhood will be like with the addition of 3-400 new people. People rent apartments when they
can't afford houses. Please vote no on this proposal.
Sincerely,
Ron & Mary Lutz
Sent from Mail for Windows
From: RICKELLE ABBOTt
To: Planninc Email
Subject: RZ-21-005
Date: Monday, August 30, 2021 10:31:44 AM
WARNING!! This message originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
In regards to the proposed mixed used residential and commercial planning at 10319 Sharpsburg Pike. Please take
into consideration that the blasting from the construction sites have compromised the foundation and structures of
residents near by. For example but not limited to, cracks in home ceilings, nails popping out of walls and concrete
cracks. Us as home owners are responsible for these repairs. This type of property damage has happened with the
past construction that was done at the near by location on Sharpsburg pike and will most likely happen again.
Thank you,
Rickelle Abbott
10216 Bear Creek Dr.
Hagerstown, MD 21740
Sent from my iPhone
From: Shayla Jackson
To: Planning Email
Subject: RZ-21-005
Date: Thursday, August 19, 20218:47:58 PM
i am writing to express my strong opposition to RZ-21-005, the proposed rezoning for
Sharpsburg Pike Holdings, LLC. As a resident of the Cross Creek neighborhood, I am
completely opposed to the addition of multi -family housing that will cause traffic and safety
problems, create even more problems with schools that are already over -capacity, destroy
local wildlife habitat, and potentially lower the property values of the existing community.
Traffic and safety of pedestrians are major areas of concern. Traffic jams in this area already
span the distance of Sharpsburg Pike and the Sharpsburg Pike/Col Henry K Douglas Drive
intersection during rush hour.
Schools in the area are already reported at capacity, and the council should not approve multi-
family dwellings that creates or exacerbates a situation that will cause school concurrency to
fail for this proposal and/or other approved plans.
Wildlife has been observed in the area, and any development will destroy their habitat.
Any planned development of the property should consider the continuing impact to local
wildlife habitat.
Property values are likely to go down in the area if multi -family apartments or condominiums
are built. Multi family dwellings are inconsistent with the neighborhoods developed in the
area.
I urge you to disapprove the proposed rezoning, and from recent meetings and discussions
with my neighbors, I know my opinions are shared by many who have not managed to attend
meeting or write letters and emails.
Best regards,
Shayla Jackson
Cross Creek Resident
From: Pat Kay
To: Plannina Email
Subject: Proposed Zoning-MXC-Mixed Use Residential and Commercial Sharpsburg Pike
Date: Monday, August 23, 20218:14:59 PM
10408 Bear Creek Drive
Hagerstown, MD 21740
8/19/2021
Washington County Planning Commission
100 West Washington Street Suite 2600
Hagerstown, MD 21740
Dear Sir/Maam:
I write this letter to express my opposition to a proposed amendment to change the present
zoning of 10319 Sharpsburg Pike from HI to MXC.
I have several concerns about this proposal. _My first concern is with the traffic. Traffic has
increased significantly with the addition of the Walmart, Sheetz and Dunkin Donut. When
the Walmart was built, for example, the residents were assured that traffic flow from Rench
road would be redirected to a new road that would connect to Poffenberger Road. That has
not happened and the traffic problems that occur at 4pm every workday at the intersection
of Rench and Sharpsburg Pike make it almost impossible to make a left-hand turn from
Rench Road onto Sharpsburg Pike. Sharpsburg Pike has not been modified to handle an
increase in traffic. Even if the builder modifies the pike to add a turn lane, that does
nothing to improve the traffic flow further south. The Southern part of the county is
experiencing rapid residential growth. The infrastructure, however, needs to be in place
before the growth arrives, before more people get here.
Secondly, I am concerned about the capacity limits of the schools that would be serving
these residents. Currently, Emma K. Doub Elementary, E. Russell Hicks Middle and South
Hagerstown High are all over capacity. The county has been forced to resort to the use of
Portables for classrooms. If the property were to be rezoned for residential, and
Sharpsburg Pike Holdings, LLC would be permitted to build the 2 apartment buildings with a
total of 105 apartments and 6 townhomes, the increase in families using the schools could
potentially add 250-300 students to an already overburdened system. It would not be in
the best interest of the students or the teachers to make the learning environment even
more stressful by adding more students to overcrowded schools.
Thirdly, as a resident of the Cross Creek neighborhood, I am concerned about the proximity
of any new housing to our neighborhood property line. The developers of our neighborhood
designed walking paths that border the neighborhood rather than sidewalks that would have
been with in the neighborhood. The proposed apartment buildings would be feet away from
the walking paths and near our homes. I have concerns about increases in foot traffic into
our neighborhood, which could invite mischievousness and crime. We have seen increases
in destruction of personal property and other attempted break-ins since the addition of the
new Walmart. I predict that the addition of 2 multifamily structures in such proximity to
our neighborhood would decrease both the quality of life and the real estate value of our
homes.
I am thankful for the opportunity to express my opposition to this re -zoning petition. I
respectfully ask that you strongly consider denying this petition until adequate support for
the infrastructure can be attained and security concerns of the existing residents can be
addressed.
Sincerely,
Patricia Kay
Washington County Resident
County
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING I LAND PRESERVATION ( FOREST CONSERVATION I GIS
TO: Planning Commission members
FROM: Debra Eckard, Administrative Assistant
DATE: September 21, 2021
RE: RZ-21-005 — Sharpsburg Pike Holdings LLC
Attached are copies of public comments that we have received since the public information
meeting that was held on August 30, 2021 for the map amendment for Sharpsburg Pike
Holdings, LLC. All written comments have been made part of the official record, RZ-21-005.
100 West Washington Street, Suite 2600 1 Hagerstown, MD 21740 I P: 240.313.2430 IF: 240.313.2431 TDD: 7-1-1
WWW.WASHCO-MD.NET
From:
John Musselman
To:
Plannine Email
Subject:
RE: RZ-21-005
Date:
Monday, August 30, 20216:14:28 PM
This in reference to RE:RZ-21-005
I live on Bushwillow Way. My kids are older now but went to a high school ( South High ) that was
extremely crowded. The Middle school was as well. I am Going off of memory of what was sent
out a few months ago but I thing there was something like 400 units planned as well as 7
townhouses. It appears that the goal of the developer is to make as high a profit as possible with
apartments. The town houses (1 block ) looks as though it was thrown in to say there would be
single family houses. The concerns I have are mainly for the family's that might end up there. see
below
1. Education for kids, the local schools are already beyond overcrowded. Is the county just going
to bring in more trailers for the schools ?
2. Safety, potential for a lot of kids to end up out on sharpsburg Pike. The road is already over
crowded.
3. Property values, Will there be a negative affect on the people already living here.
4. 1 cant stress enough about the overcrowding of our schools.
Sincerely,
John Musselman
From: Stan and Sherry Michaleski
To: Planning Email
Subject: RZ-21-005
Date: Wednesday, August 25, 20218:32:57 PM
WARNING!! This message originated from an External Source. Please use proper
judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this
email.
Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
I am asking that the proposed development off of Sharpsburg Pike be denied. The schools
and traffic issues are already out of hand and this development will only exacerbate this;
and furthermore it affect property values of Cross Creek.
From: DEBRA EBERSOLE
To: Planning Email
Subject: RZ 21-005
Date: Thursday, August 26, 2021 8:32:37 AM
WARNING!! This message originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
I am the homeowner and resident of 10527 Bushwillow way.
I received notice of the meeting to discuss, among other things, adding over 100 apartments office Sharpening Pike
between our development and the Aldi and Dublin Donuts that have been added within the last few years.
I am 100%opposed to this !!!
There has already been so much added to this area within the last 5 years, not even including the Walmart that was
added. Traffic is horrible already in this area of the Sharpsburg Pike. The Aldi and now new Sheetz that just opened
has already increased traffic tremendously. It has become very dangerous to travel this area, and there are already
additional homes being constructed off of Poffenberger Road, along with the villas by Walmart. The proposal of
adding 105 apartments would add possibly an additional 200+ cars traveling daily in an already over -congested area
I have watched my nice area turn into a mess over the years. These builders are trying to use every square foot of
property to make as much money as possible, without any concern for the area. You should spend some time
observing the traffic in the area, and coming off of interstate 70, and then imagine adding 105 more apartments and
their residents and cars to it.
How many of these apartments proposed will end up being subsidized housing? Do we need more apartments for the
families of the prison inmates to move here? The area growing and adding apartments isn't attracting good families
from other areas. People are living here that came from the larger cities. You see it in the newspaper articles about
crimes in our area all the time And our County just seems to be proving more and more places for those people to
live.
Debbie Ebersole
From: Ron Lutz
To: Planning Email
Subject: apartments behind Aldi"s
Date: Thursday, August 26, 2021 12:10:23 PM
x
WARNING! I This message originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and;
caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
Planning Commission,
We are seventeen year residents in Cross Creek the development behind Aldi's . We are adamantly
opposed to the two apartment buildings being considered behind Aldi's. I can only imagine what our
neighborhood will be like with the addition of 3-400 new people. People rent apartments when they
can't afford houses. Please vote no on this proposal.
Sincerely,
Ron & Mary Lutz
Sent from Mail for Windows
From: RICKELLE ABBOTt
To: Planninc Email
Subject: RZ-21-005
Date: Monday, August 30, 2021 10:31:44 AM
WARNING!! This message originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
In regards to the proposed mixed used residential and commercial planning at 10319 Sharpsburg Pike. Please take
into consideration that the blasting from the construction sites have compromised the foundation and structures of
residents near by. For example but not limited to, cracks in home ceilings, nails popping out of walls and concrete
cracks. Us as home owners are responsible for these repairs. This type of property damage has happened with the
past construction that was done at the near by location on Sharpsburg pike and will most likely happen again.
Thank you,
Rickelle Abbott
10216 Bear Creek Dr.
Hagerstown, MD 21740
Sent from my iPhone
From: Shayla Jackson
To: Planning Email
Subject: RZ-21-005
Date: Thursday, August 19, 20218:47:58 PM
i am writing to express my strong opposition to RZ-21-005, the proposed rezoning for
Sharpsburg Pike Holdings, LLC. As a resident of the Cross Creek neighborhood, I am
completely opposed to the addition of multi -family housing that will cause traffic and safety
problems, create even more problems with schools that are already over -capacity, destroy
local wildlife habitat, and potentially lower the property values of the existing community.
Traffic and safety of pedestrians are major areas of concern. Traffic jams in this area already
span the distance of Sharpsburg Pike and the Sharpsburg Pike/Col Henry K Douglas Drive
intersection during rush hour.
Schools in the area are already reported at capacity, and the council should not approve multi-
family dwellings that creates or exacerbates a situation that will cause school concurrency to
fail for this proposal and/or other approved plans.
Wildlife has been observed in the area, and any development will destroy their habitat.
Any planned development of the property should consider the continuing impact to local
wildlife habitat.
Property values are likely to go down in the area if multi -family apartments or condominiums
are built. Multi family dwellings are inconsistent with the neighborhoods developed in the
area.
I urge you to disapprove the proposed rezoning, and from recent meetings and discussions
with my neighbors, I know my opinions are shared by many who have not managed to attend
meeting or write letters and emails.
Best regards,
Shayla Jackson
Cross Creek Resident
From: Pat Kay
To: Plannina Email
Subject: Proposed Zoning-MXC-Mixed Use Residential and Commercial Sharpsburg Pike
Date: Monday, August 23, 20218:14:59 PM
10408 Bear Creek Drive
Hagerstown, MD 21740
8/19/2021
Washington County Planning Commission
100 West Washington Street Suite 2600
Hagerstown, MD 21740
Dear Sir/Maam:
I write this letter to express my opposition to a proposed amendment to change the present
zoning of 10319 Sharpsburg Pike from HI to MXC.
I have several concerns about this proposal. _My first concern is with the traffic. Traffic has
increased significantly with the addition of the Walmart, Sheetz and Dunkin Donut. When
the Walmart was built, for example, the residents were assured that traffic flow from Rench
road would be redirected to a new road that would connect to Poffenberger Road. That has
not happened and the traffic problems that occur at 4pm every workday at the intersection
of Rench and Sharpsburg Pike make it almost impossible to make a left-hand turn from
Rench Road onto Sharpsburg Pike. Sharpsburg Pike has not been modified to handle an
increase in traffic. Even if the builder modifies the pike to add a turn lane, that does
nothing to improve the traffic flow further south. The Southern part of the county is
experiencing rapid residential growth. The infrastructure, however, needs to be in place
before the growth arrives, before more people get here.
Secondly, I am concerned about the capacity limits of the schools that would be serving
these residents. Currently, Emma K. Doub Elementary, E. Russell Hicks Middle and South
Hagerstown High are all over capacity. The county has been forced to resort to the use of
Portables for classrooms. If the property were to be rezoned for residential, and
Sharpsburg Pike Holdings, LLC would be permitted to build the 2 apartment buildings with a
total of 105 apartments and 6 townhomes, the increase in families using the schools could
potentially add 250-300 students to an already overburdened system. It would not be in
the best interest of the students or the teachers to make the learning environment even
more stressful by adding more students to overcrowded schools.
Thirdly, as a resident of the Cross Creek neighborhood, I am concerned about the proximity
of any new housing to our neighborhood property line. The developers of our neighborhood
designed walking paths that border the neighborhood rather than sidewalks that would have
been with in the neighborhood. The proposed apartment buildings would be feet away from
the walking paths and near our homes. I have concerns about increases in foot traffic into
our neighborhood, which could invite mischievousness and crime. We have seen increases
in destruction of personal property and other attempted break-ins since the addition of the
new Walmart. I predict that the addition of 2 multifamily structures in such proximity to
our neighborhood would decrease both the quality of life and the real estate value of our
homes.
I am thankful for the opportunity to express my opposition to this re -zoning petition. I
respectfully ask that you strongly consider denying this petition until adequate support for
the infrastructure can be attained and security concerns of the existing residents can be
addressed.
Sincerely,
Patricia Kay
Washington County Resident
From:DEBRA EBERSOLE
To:Planning Email
Subject:Re: RZ 21-005
Date:Sunday, November 28, 2021 10:01:22 PM
WARNING!! This message originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
I received a notice of a meeting regarding the same rezoning request meeting I emailed my opposition to back in
August. Since I’m not sure if this requires a new email to be part of the record I’m going to state my opposition
again.
I am the homeowner and resident of 10527 Bushwillow way.
I received notice of the meeting to discuss, among other things, adding over 100 apartments office Sharpening Pike
between our development and the Aldi and Dublin Donuts that have been added within the last few years.
I am 100% opposed to this!
There has already been so much added to this area within the last 5 years, not even including the Walmart that was
added. Traffic is horrible already in this area of the Sharpsburg Pike. The Aldi and Sheetz stores have already
increased traffic tremendously. It has become very dangerous to travel this area, and there are already additional
homes being constructed off of Poffenberger Road, along with the villas by Walmart. The proposal of adding 105
apartments would add possibly an additional 200+ cars traveling daily in an already over-congested area.
I have watched my nice area turn into a mess over the years. These builders are trying to use every square foot of
property to make as much money as possible, without any concern for the area, or the citizens who live there.
Debbie Ebersole
> On Aug 30, 2021, at 11:50 AM, Planning Email <askplanning@washco-md.net> wrote:
> Your comments have been received and will be made part of the official record. Thank you.
>
>
>
> Debra S. Eckard
> Administrative Assistant
> Washington County Dept. of Planning & Zoning
> 100 W. Washington Street, Suite 2600
> Hagerstown, MD 21740
> 240-313-2430
>
> **In accordance with direction provided by the Governor’s Office related to current COVID-19 events, I am
working remotely indefinitely. Email correspondence is encouraged as phone messages may not be returned until
our offices are reopened. I apologize for any inconvenience and assure you our Department is working diligently to
continue the highest level of service possible during this pandemic event. Thank you**
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DEBRA EBERSOLE <djwinst23@aol.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 8:32 AM
> To: Planning Email <askplanning@washco-md.net>
> Subject: RZ 21-005
>
> WARNING!! This message originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
> Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
>
> I am the homeowner and resident of 10527 Bushwillow way.
> I received notice of the meeting to discuss, among other things, adding over 100 apartments office Sharpening
Pike between our development and the Aldi and Dublin Donuts that have been added within the last few years.
> I am 100% opposed to this !!!
> There has already been so much added to this area within the last 5 years, not even including the Walmart that was
added. Traffic is horrible already in this area of the Sharpsburg Pike. The Aldi and now new Sheetz that just opened
has already increased traffic tremendously. It has become very dangerous to travel this area, and there are already
additional homes being constructed off of Poffenberger Road, along with the villas by Walmart. The proposal of
adding 105 apartments would add possibly an additional 200+ cars traveling daily in an already over-congested area.
> I have watched my nice area turn into a mess over the years. These builders are trying to use every square foot of
property to make as much money as possible, without any concern for the area. You should spend some time
observing the traffic in the area, and coming off of interstate 70, and then imagine adding 105 more apartments and
their residents and cars to it.
>
> How many of these apartments proposed will end up being subsidized housing? Do we need more apartments for
the families of the prison inmates to move here? The area growing and adding apartments isn’t attracting good
families from other areas. People are living here that came from the larger cities. You see it in the newspaper articles
about crimes in our area all the time And our County just seems to be proving more and more places for those
people to live.
>
> Debbie Ebersole
From:Hart, Krista
To:Gary Hawbaker
Cc:Planning Email; &County Commissioners
Subject:Re: RZ-21-005 Sharpsburg Pike
Date:Friday, January 7, 2022 12:20:39 PM
Mr Hawbaker,
This email will serve to confirm receipt of your communication.
Thank you,
Krista Hart
County Clerk
On Jan 7, 2022, at 12:07 PM, Gary Hawbaker <g.hawbaker@myactv.net> wrote:
WARNING!! This message originated from an External Source. Please use
proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or
responding to this email.
Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
Planning Commission and Commissioners,
This is to voice my opposition to the request to change10319 Sharpsburg Pike from HI to MXC.
It was my understanding that one of the goals inzoning is to be consistent so that we don’t get areasthat have a wide use of different type’s properties in ashort distance. With that said it appeared that theCounty intended for Sharpsburg Pike between I-70and Poffenberger Road is to be developed with non-residential properties.
I would urge all members of the Commission to drivefrom I-70 to Poffenberger Road and look whatproperties are there. Fast food, gas stations, grocerystore, restaurants and of course the whole Walmartcomplex.
The county even extended Henry K. Douglas Drive sothose type of properties could be developed. Thisroad did open up our quiet Cross Creek Development
although my understanding is once the railroadapproves crossing their tracks the county will extendthe road so more residential properties can be built.Cross Creek is a single home development and hasbeen there for over 25 years with low crime and verylittle intrusion from non-residents. To change theintent of HI to MXC which would add apartments andtownhomes doesn’t seem logical. This wouldpotentially have a negative effect on Cross Creekresidents.
I’m also aware the schools that this complex wouldsend children to are overcrowded and that is provenby looking at the buses that travel past my houseevery day that are completely full.
Once again I would ask you to take that small drive onSharpsburg Pike and tell me that a housing complex inthe middle of all the other non-residential housingmakes sense. Thank You.
Gary Hawbaker10531 Bushwillow DriveHagerstown, MD 21740
From:DEBRA EBERSOLE
To:Planning Email
Subject:RZ 21-005
Date:Monday, February 7, 2022 3:19:47 PM
WARNING!! This message originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
I received a notice of a meeting regarding the same rezoning request meeting I emailed my opposition to back in
August. Since I’m not sure if this requires a new email to be part of the record I’m going to state my opposition
again.
>
> I am the homeowner and resident of 10527 Bushwillow way.
> I received notice of another meeting to discuss adding the apartments Sharpening Pike between our development
and the Aldi and Dunkin Donuts that have been added within the last few years.
> There has already been so much added to this area within the last 5 years, not even including the Walmart that was
added. Traffic is horrible already in this area of the Sharpsburg Pike. The Aldi and Sheetz stores have already
increased traffic tremendously. It has become very dangerous to travel this area, and there are already additional
homes being constructed off of Poffenberger Road, along with the villas by Walmart. The proposal of adding these
apartments would add possibly an additional 200+ cars traveling daily in an already over-congested area.
> I have watched my nice area turn into a mess over the years. This time my understanding is that the developer is
trying to get around the school overcrowding issue by stating the apartments are adult only, with no way to verify
that. Their solution is nothing more than empty words meant to get their desired result. Please deny this request!
>
> Debbie Ebersole
>
>
>> On Aug 30, 2021, at 11:50 AM, Planning Email <askplanning@washco-md.net> wrote:
>> Your comments have been received and will be made part of the official record. Thank you.
>>
>>
>>
>> Debra S. Eckard
>> Administrative Assistant
>> Washington County Dept. of Planning & Zoning
>> 100 W. Washington Street, Suite 2600
>> Hagerstown, MD 21740
>> 240-313-2430
>>
>> **In accordance with direction provided by the Governor’s Office related to current COVID-19 events, I am
working remotely indefinitely. Email correspondence is encouraged as phone messages may not be returned until
our offices are reopened. I apologize for any inconvenience and assure you our Department is working diligently to
continue the highest level of service possible during this pandemic event. Thank you**
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: DEBRA EBERSOLE <djwinst23@aol.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 8:32 AM
>> To: Planning Email <askplanning@washco-md.net>
>> Subject: RZ 21-005
>>
>> WARNING!! This message originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
>> Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
>>
>> I am the homeowner and resident of 10527 Bushwillow way.
>> I received notice of the meeting to discuss, among other things, adding over 100 apartments office Sharpening
Pike between our development and the Aldi and Dublin Donuts that have been added within the last few years.
>> I am 100% opposed to this !!!
>> There has already been so much added to this area within the last 5 years, not even including the Walmart that
was added. Traffic is horrible already in this area of the Sharpsburg Pike. The Aldi and now new Sheetz that just
opened has already increased traffic tremendously. It has become very dangerous to travel this area, and there are
already additional homes being constructed off of Poffenberger Road, along with the villas by Walmart. The
proposal of adding 105 apartments would add possibly an additional 200+ cars traveling daily in an already over-
congested area.
>> I have watched my nice area turn into a mess over the years. These builders are trying to use every square foot of
property to make as much money as possible, without any concern for the area. You should spend some time
observing the traffic in the area, and coming off of interstate 70, and then imagine adding 105 more apartments and
their residents and cars to it.
>>
>> How many of these apartments proposed will end up being subsidized housing? Do we need more apartments for
the families of the prison inmates to move here? The area growing and adding apartments isn’t attracting good
families from other areas. People are living here that came from the larger cities. You see it in the newspaper articles
about crimes in our area all the time And our County just seems to be proving more and more places for those
people to live.
>>
>> Debbie Ebersole
>
From:Dennis Weaver
To:Planning Email
Cc:&County Commissioners
Subject:RZ-21-005 - Rezoning of 9+ acres off Sharpsburg Pike
Date:Tuesday, January 4, 2022 11:07:31 AM
WARNING!! This message originated from an External Source. Please use proper
judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this
email.
Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
Planning Commission:
I am writing to oppose rezoning request RZ-21-005, regarding property between the existing
Cross Creek development and the Sharpsburg Pike.
I own and reside at 18404 Bull Run Drive, where my back yard abuts the property proposed
for rezoning from HI to MXC, with a proposal for 105 apartments and a few townhomes. Even
before the recent commercial development along Sharpsburg Pike (Walmart, Sheetz, Aldi)
traffic in the area was horrendous. The addition of the traffic lights at Poffenberger Road and
Col Douglas Drive have helped but the close proximity to the I-70 interchange exacerbates the
problem. Additionally, the proposal calls for commercial development on the first floor of one
of the two apartment buildings, adding that commercial traffic to the residential
traffic increase.
The recent redesign of the I-70/Sharpsburg Pike interchange was poorly planned. One often
sits through three traffic-light sequences when coming off I-70 East onto Sharpsburg Pike
South. And it is extremely difficult to make a left-hand turn from Rench Road onto
Sharpsburg Pike, particularly around the beginning and end of the work-day. Sharpsburg Pike
is a main thoroughfare for workers from south county and from West Virginia headed to and
from the Hagerstown area and the I-70 corridor. Adding this proposed dense residential
development, bringing more than 200 additional resident vehicles to this section of the
Sharpsburg Pike should not occur. Commercial development would bring more traffic as well,
but it would presumably be spread over the course of the day rather than concentrated
In addition, as others have pointed out, schools serving this area are over capacity now, and
the proposed development will make that problem worse. In addition to overcrowding in these
schools, traffic into and out of South Hagerstown High, E. Russell Hicks and Emma K. Doub
in the morning and afternoon is abysmal, with an extra lane needed in each direction on
Sharpsburg Pike along that entire stretch. This proposed development would add to that
problem as well.
I much prefer commercial development on the tract proposed for rezoning as would be
allowed under the HI zoning. Give us office buildings, retail, etc, rather than multi-family
residential that will definitely reduce our quality of life and our property values - particularly
those of us whose properties border this tract.
I suspect that the developer is requesting this change because they are disappointed with the
speed at which commercial development has occured on their property after Walmart was
built, but their desire to speed profits should not cost their neighbors.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. I respectfully request that you
find the developer's request ill-advised and deny it. At the very least, the remainder of this
property should be limited to residential only or commercial only, not a combination that
doubles the impact.
Respectfully,
Dennis Weaver
18404 Bull Run Drive
Hagerstown, MD 21740
From:Shayla Jackson
To:Planning Email
Subject:RZ-21-005
Date:Tuesday, January 4, 2022 7:15:50 PM
WARNING!! This message originated from an External Source. Please use proper
judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this
email.
Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
I am writing to express my strong opposition to RZ-21-005, the proposed
rezoning for Sharpsburg Pike Holdings, LLC. As a resident of the Cross Creek
neighborhood, I am completely opposed to the addition of multi-family
housing that will cause traffic and safety problems, create even more problems
with schools that are already over-capacity, destroy local wildlife habitat, and
potentially lower the property values of the existing community.
Traffic and safety of pedestrians are major areas of concern. Traffic jams in
this area already span the distance of Sharpsburg Pike and the Sharpsburg
Pike/Col Henry K Douglas Drive intersection during rush hour.
Schools in the area are already reported at capacity, and the council should not
approve multi-family dwellings that creates or exacerbates a situation that will
cause school concurrency to fail for this proposal and/or other approved plans.
Wildlife has been observed in the area, and any development will destroy their
habitat.
Any planned development of the property should consider the continuing
impact to local wildlife habitat.
Property values are likely to go down in the area if multi-family apartments or
condominiums are built. Multi family dwellings are inconsistent with the
neighborhoods developed in the area.
I urge you to disapprove the proposed rezoning, and from recent meetings and
discussions with my neighbors, I know my opinions are shared by many who
have not managed to attend meeting or write letters and emails.
Best regards,
Shayla Jackson
Cross Creek Resident
From:John Musselman
To:Planning Email
Subject:RZ-21-005
Date:Friday, February 4, 2022 9:26:17 AM
WARNING!! This message originated from an External Source. Please use proper
judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this
email.
Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
To whom it may concern,
Yet another hearing for this zoning change. I understand what the developer is trying to do and that is
make money. I seem to remember reading that there was a law on the books . concerning student
capacities at high schools. South High is way over crowded as it is. ANYBODY that has a student in that
school in the last ten years knows this. There is already a development that is building like crazy and all
those kids are going to be attending South. What will another 400- 600 kids do to South High?
Next Issue, small children. Where will they play? will they end up venturing out onto Sharpsburg Pike??
Will they reduce the speed limit on the Pike? If that is the answer what happens at the I 70 interchange? It
is already backed up at prime times of the day.
I live in the cross creek development. I do not want this zoning changed. The kids in the Middle and high
school system are going to be the ones that pay the price, If not a small child that wonders out onto the
Pike at the wrong time.
Sincerely,
John Musselman
From:ANNAMARIE WISE
To:Planning Email
Subject:RZ-21-005
Date:Tuesday, November 30, 2021 10:29:54 AM
WARNING!! This message originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
As residents of the Cross Creek community, we wish to express our objections to the refining plan before the board
today. This proposed development will be detrimental to our quality of life, bringing more traffic, noise/light/air
pollution, overload our already maxed-out schools. Please vote “NO” and advise the developer to go elsewhere!
Thank you!!
Annamarie Wise
Kevin Wines
Sent from my iPhone
From:Hart, Krista
To:Gary Hawbaker
Subject:RE: New Housing Sharpsburg Pike
Date:Monday, November 29, 2021 8:27:11 AM
Mr. Hawbaker,
Thank you for contacting the Washington County Board of County Commissioners Office.
This response will serve to confirm that your communication has been received and recorded
regarding the upcoming public hearing for RZ-21-005.
Thank you,
Krista l. Hart
County Clerk
From: Gary Hawbaker <g.hawbaker@myactv.net>
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2021 9:57 PM
To: &County Commissioners <contactcommissioners@washco-md.net>
Subject: Fwd: New Housing Sharpsburg Pike
WARNING!! This message originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and
caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
I don't know all the zoning numbers but my family is deeply opposed to the
residential development on the east side of Sharpsburg Pike before
Poffenberger Road. I live in the Cross Creek Development and for the last few
years you have overwhelmed our area with retail development. Although it has
caused many problems it's nothing like what a housing development would
cause for our area.
I ask you to look at the area it is planned for and tell me where you see housing
in that area off Sharpsburg Pike. You have truely made this a retail and
commercial area and although I don't like it, it is better than putting what will
end up being low income housing in that space. Our development has recently
been subject to break-ins and this would only make it worse. Make it a fast
food place but not housing. Thank youl
Gary Hawbaker
10531 Bushwillow Way
Hagerstown, MD
From:DEBRA EBERSOLE
To:Planning Email
Subject:Re: RZ 21-005
Date:Sunday, November 28, 2021 10:01:22 PM
WARNING!! This message originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
I received a notice of a meeting regarding the same rezoning request meeting I emailed my opposition to back in
August. Since I’m not sure if this requires a new email to be part of the record I’m going to state my opposition
again.
I am the homeowner and resident of 10527 Bushwillow way.
I received notice of the meeting to discuss, among other things, adding over 100 apartments office Sharpening Pike
between our development and the Aldi and Dublin Donuts that have been added within the last few years.
I am 100% opposed to this!
There has already been so much added to this area within the last 5 years, not even including the Walmart that was
added. Traffic is horrible already in this area of the Sharpsburg Pike. The Aldi and Sheetz stores have already
increased traffic tremendously. It has become very dangerous to travel this area, and there are already additional
homes being constructed off of Poffenberger Road, along with the villas by Walmart. The proposal of adding 105
apartments would add possibly an additional 200+ cars traveling daily in an already over-congested area.
I have watched my nice area turn into a mess over the years. These builders are trying to use every square foot of
property to make as much money as possible, without any concern for the area, or the citizens who live there.
Debbie Ebersole
> On Aug 30, 2021, at 11:50 AM, Planning Email <askplanning@washco-md.net> wrote:
> Your comments have been received and will be made part of the official record. Thank you.
>
>
>
> Debra S. Eckard
> Administrative Assistant
> Washington County Dept. of Planning & Zoning
> 100 W. Washington Street, Suite 2600
> Hagerstown, MD 21740
> 240-313-2430
>
> **In accordance with direction provided by the Governor’s Office related to current COVID-19 events, I am
working remotely indefinitely. Email correspondence is encouraged as phone messages may not be returned until
our offices are reopened. I apologize for any inconvenience and assure you our Department is working diligently to
continue the highest level of service possible during this pandemic event. Thank you**
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DEBRA EBERSOLE <djwinst23@aol.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 8:32 AM
> To: Planning Email <askplanning@washco-md.net>
> Subject: RZ 21-005
>
> WARNING!! This message originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
> Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
>
> I am the homeowner and resident of 10527 Bushwillow way.
> I received notice of the meeting to discuss, among other things, adding over 100 apartments office Sharpening
Pike between our development and the Aldi and Dublin Donuts that have been added within the last few years.
> I am 100% opposed to this !!!
> There has already been so much added to this area within the last 5 years, not even including the Walmart that was
added. Traffic is horrible already in this area of the Sharpsburg Pike. The Aldi and now new Sheetz that just opened
has already increased traffic tremendously. It has become very dangerous to travel this area, and there are already
additional homes being constructed off of Poffenberger Road, along with the villas by Walmart. The proposal of
adding 105 apartments would add possibly an additional 200+ cars traveling daily in an already over-congested area.
> I have watched my nice area turn into a mess over the years. These builders are trying to use every square foot of
property to make as much money as possible, without any concern for the area. You should spend some time
observing the traffic in the area, and coming off of interstate 70, and then imagine adding 105 more apartments and
their residents and cars to it.
>
> How many of these apartments proposed will end up being subsidized housing? Do we need more apartments for
the families of the prison inmates to move here? The area growing and adding apartments isn’t attracting good
families from other areas. People are living here that came from the larger cities. You see it in the newspaper articles
about crimes in our area all the time And our County just seems to be proving more and more places for those
people to live.
>
> Debbie Ebersole
From:Shayla Jackson
To:Planning Email
Subject:RZ-21-005
Date:Sunday, November 28, 2021 3:25:00 PM
WARNING!! This message originated from an External Source. Please use proper
judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this
email.
Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
I am writing to express my strong opposition to RZ-21-005, the proposed
rezoning for Sharpsburg Pike Holdings, LLC. As a resident of the Cross Creek
neighborhood, I am completely opposed to the addition of multi-family
housing that will cause traffic and safety problems, create even more problems
with schools that are already over-capacity, destroy local wildlife habitat, and
potentially lower the property values of the existing community.
Traffic and safety of pedestrians are major areas of concern. Traffic jams in
this area already span the distance of Sharpsburg Pike and the Sharpsburg
Pike/Col Henry K Douglas Drive intersection during rush hour.
Schools in the area are already reported at capacity, and the council should not
approve multi-family dwellings that creates or exacerbates a situation that will
cause school concurrency to fail for this proposal and/or other approved plans.
Wildlife has been observed in the area, and any development will destroy their
habitat.
Any planned development of the property should consider the continuing
impact to local wildlife habitat.
Property values are likely to go down in the area if multi-family apartments or
condominiums are built. Multi family dwellings are inconsistent with the
neighborhoods developed in the area.
I urge you to disapprove the proposed rezoning, and from recent meetings and
discussions with my neighbors, I know my opinions are shared by many who
have not managed to attend meeting or write letters and emails.
Best regards,
Shayla Jackson
Cross Creek Resident
From:ANNAMARIE WISE
To:Planning Email
Subject:RZ-21-005
Date:Tuesday, November 30, 2021 10:29:54 AM
WARNING!! This message originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
As residents of the Cross Creek community, we wish to express our objections to the refining plan before the board
today. This proposed development will be detrimental to our quality of life, bringing more traffic, noise/light/air
pollution, overload our already maxed-out schools. Please vote “NO” and advise the developer to go elsewhere!
Thank you!!
Annamarie Wise
Kevin Wines
Sent from my iPhone
From: Public Relations
To: Eckard, Debra S.
Subject: New Entry: Contact Us Form - Planning & Zoning
Date: Monday, June 20, 2022 8:41:38 AM
Name
Ashley Rowe
Address
18517 Bull Run Dr
Hagerstown, MD
21740
us
Phone
+12405666281
Email
ar_o_we1.6.1.6gmail.com
Please select the department you'd like to receive your
comment or question
Planning & Zoning
Comment or Message
Hello,
My name is Ashley and I live in the Cross Creek development. I
am unable to attend the rezoning meeting on 6/28, but would like
to respectfully oppose the plan to build apartments behind our
neighborhood. We feel there is more harm than good for the
neighborhood in building these, and feel they will cause negative
impact to the neighborhood.
Thank you for your time,
Ashley
Would you like to subscribe to the county news email list?
No
:lent from Iincdon (;rnii) v
From:
Eckard Debra S. on behalf of Planning Email
To:
Hart, Krista
Cc:
Priebe, Michelle L.
Subject:
FW: Sharpsburg project
Date:
Thursday, June 23, 2022 1:16:18 PM
Attachments:
image001 ona
Public comment for RZ-21-005.
P" DEPAmMGNr.O/1lANMING AND ZONING
ryiii
Debra S. Eckard
Administrative Assistant
Washington County Dept. of Planning & Zoning
747 Northern Avenue
Hagerstown, MD 21742
240-313-2430
From: Stan and Sherry Michaleski <smichals@myactv.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 12:14 PM
To: Planning Email <askplanning@washco-md.net>
Subject: Sharpsburg project
WARNING!! This message originated from an External Source. Please use'properjudgment and t
caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
[ am asking that the proposed appeal of the development off of Sharpsburg Pike be denied.
The schools and traffic issues are already out of hand and this development will only
exacerbate this; and furthermore it will affect the property values of Cross Creek and
surrounding area.
Priebe, Michelle L.
From: Eckard, Debra S. on behalf of Planning Email
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2022 10:22 AM
To: Hart, Krista
Cc: Priebe, Michelle L.
Subject: FW: Sharpsburg Pike Holdings LLC Rezoning (RZ-21-005)
A' ishington County
0
Debra S. Eckard
Administrative Assistant
Washington County Dept. of Planning & Zoning
747 Northern Avenue
Hagerstown, MD 21742
240-313-2430
From: Jennifer Dane <jenniferldane@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2022 9:51 AM
To: Allen, Travis M. <tallen@washco-md.net>; Planning Email <askplanning@washco-md.net>; Baker, Jill
<1Baker@washco-md.net>
Subject: Sharpsburg Pike Holdings LLC Rezoning (RZ-21-005)
WARNINGII This message originated from an External Source. Please use properjudgment and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
Dear Washington County Planning Commission,
My name is Jennifer Dane and I live at 18137 Alloway Ct Hagerstown, MD 21740. 1 am opposed to the
upcoming Sharpsburg Pike Holdings LLC Rezoning (RZ-21-005).
Although adjustments have been made to the proposal for age -restricted housing that would not affect the
schools that are currently beyond capacity, I believe that housing, even the current estimated housing
projections would negatively impact the traffic patterns, pollution, and environmental impacts of the area.
Traffic is a consistent issue that remains to be addressed on Sharpsburg Pike. As the Westfields area
continues to develop and finish its planned community, we are seeing more and more traffic already and it has
not been completed.
There is currently business space that is available to be developed without rezoning this land for mixed -use.
I do believe that subsidized housing is incredibly important, especially in Washington County; however,
revitalization and renovation of current properties within Washington County must be the focus instead of
creating new properties.
Thank you for your consideration,
Jennifer Dane
18137 Alloway Ct
Hagerstown, MD 21740
Priebe, Michelle L.
From: Eckard, Debra S. on behalf of Planning Email
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2022 10:22 AM
To: Hart, Krista
Cc: Priebe, Michelle L.
Subject: FW: Rezoning Land Along Sharpsburg Pike
G Wishington County
Debra S. Eckard
Administrative Assistant
Washington County Dept. of Planning & Zoning
747 Northern Avenue
Hagerstown, MD 21742
240-313-2430
From: Brian <bangely@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2022 9:24 AM
To: Planning Email <askplanning@washco-md.net>
Subject: Rezoning Land Along Sharpsburg Pike
WARNING!! This message originated from an External Source. Please use properjudgment and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
Hello,
I'm a homeowner in the Cross Creek neighborhood off of Sharpsburg Pike and I understand a developer is once again
trying to get approval to build multi -unit homes along Sharpsburg Pike in front of our neighborhood.
I'd like to submit this email as my opposition to giving this individual (or anyone else) approval to do this.
I'm out of town and cannot make it to the meeting to oppose in person so please accept my email as record.
Thank you,
Brian Angely
18632 Wilderness Way, Hagerstown, MD 21740
757-343-8816
Priebe, Michelle L.
From: Eckard, Debra S.
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2022 9:04 AM
To: Hart, Krista
Cc: Priebe, Michelle L.
Subject: FW: SUBJECT: Sharpsburg Pike Holdings LLC Rezoning (RZ-21-005)
ll
Washington Comity }
a
Debra S. Eckard
Administrative Assistant
Washington County Dept. of Planning & Zoning
747 Northern Avenue
Hagerstown, MD 21742
240-313-2430
From: Eckard, Debra S. On Behalf Of Planning Email
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2022 9:02 AM
To: erik shy <erik.shy@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: SUBJECT: Sharpsburg Pike Holdings LLC Rezoning (RZ-21-005)
This e-mail will acknowledge receipt of your comments which will be made part of the public hearing and have been
forwarded to the County Commissioners for their consideration.
•'`
G UhYANTNGNi0Y 1'IANNINCANDMING
Debra S. Eckard
Administrative Assistant
Washington County Dept. of Planning & Zoning
747 Northern Avenue
Hagerstown, MD 21742
240-313-2430
From: erik shy <erik.shv@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2022 12:45 PM
To: Allen, Travis M. <taIlen@washco-md.net>; Planning Email <askplanning@washco-md.net>; Baker, Jill
<JBaker@washco-md.net>
Subject: SUBJECT: Sharpsburg Pike Holdings LLC Rezoning (RZ-21-005)
WARNING I This message originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
near Washington County Planning Commission,
My name is Erik Shy and I live at 18430 Wissett Way, Hagerstown, MD 21740. 1 am opposed to the upcoming
Sharpsburg Pike Holdings LLC Rezoning (RZ-21-005) effort.
I have children at two of the three impacted schools (RWE, ERH) and those schools are already at capacity. In
addition as a homeowner I am worried about home value and the current infrastructure capability of our road
and utilities to absorb an additional community development without having a negative impact.
Your time and consideration is greatly appreciated.
Thank you,
Erik Shy
18430 Wissett Way
Hagerstown, MD 21740
443-852-1865
Priebe, Michelle L.
From:
Eckard, Debra S.
Sent:
Monday, June 27, 2022 9:04 AM
To:
Hart, Krista
Cc:
Priebe, Michelle L.
Subject:
FW: Public Hearing for RZ-21-005
F Washington County
Debra S. Eckard
Administrative Assistant
Washington County Dept. of Planning & Zoning
747 Northern Avenue
Hagerstown, MD 21742
240-313-2430
From: Eckard, Debra S. On Behalf Of Planning Email
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2022 9:02 AM
To: Susan L S Smith <susanlss1956@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Public Hearing for RZ-21-005
This e-mail will acknowledge receipt of your comments which will be made part of the public hearing and have been
forwarded to the County Commissioners for their consideration.
F Washhigtozi County
Debra S. Eckard
Administrative Assistant
Washington County Dept. of Planning & Zoning
747 Northern Avenue
Hagerstown, MD 21742
240-313-2430
From: Susan L S Smith <susanlss1956@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2022 5:18 PM
To: Planning Email <askolanninR@washco-md.net>
Subject: Public Hearing for RZ-21-005
WARNINGI I This message originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
To the planning Committee
I oppose the approval of this development (apartments) due to many factors. Even though it will not affect our schools,
being an age restricted development, it will affect our roads, and property values. Sharpsburg Pike and surrounding
roads are not adequate to carry the traffic we now have, plus there are already approved developments in the area that
have not been completed.
This is not a good fit for this area and will only bring problems. Please listen to the people who live in the area and do
not approve this rezoning application.
Thank you,
Susan L S Smith
18222 Thornhill Dr
Hagerstown, MD 21740
Priebe, Michelle L.
From:
Eckard, Debra S.
Sent:
Monday, June 27, 2022 9:05 AM
To:
Hart, Krista
Cc:
Priebe, Michelle L.
Subject:
FW: Sharpsburg Pike Holdings LLC Rezoning (RZ-21-005)
�l•
DEPANTMF.NTDr PMNMNG AND20NING
Debra
Administrative Assistant
Washington County Dept. of Planning & Zoning
747 Northern Avenue
Hagerstown, MD 21742
240-313-2430
From: Eckard, Debra S. On Behalf Of Planning Email
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2022 9:02 AM
To: Crystal Nasvaderani <cnasvaderani@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Sharpsburg Pike Holdings LLC Rezoning (RZ-21-005)
This e-mail will acknowledge receipt of your comments which will be made part of the public hearing and have been
forwarded to the County Commissioners for their consideration.
Washitagrtol Cou1iry�
Debra S. Eckard
Administrative Assistant
Washington County Dept. of Planning & Zoning
747 Northern Avenue
Hagerstown, MD 21742
240-313-2430
From: Crystal Nasvaderani <cnasvaderani@vahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2022 10:26 PM
To: Allen, Travis M. <tallen@washco-md.net>; Baker, Jill <1Baker@washco-md.net>; Planning Email
<askplanning@washco-md.net>
Subject: Sharpsburg Pike Holdings LLC Rezoning (RZ-21-005)
WARNING!! This message originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
Dear Washington County Planning Commission,
My name is Crystal Nasvaderani and I and my family currently live at 9362 Drumman Drive Hagerstown Md
21740 and are having a larger home be built in Westfields, I am STRONGLY opposed of the upcoming
Sharpsburg Pike Holdings LLC Rezoning (RZ-21-005)
If this were to take place this will very much so negatively affect every single person living here. We currently
have overflowing traffic volume that would only be much much worse not to mention the overcrowding of
schools that is already a big issue, this would also have a negative impact with higher crime rate which is
proven facts when you bring low income housing in, which is one of the reasons we moved here (voted
number one planned community in Hagerstown) this will not be the case if this is passed and put in place. I
understand people need places to live but there are so many other areas in Hagerstown that this can be done
without the negative impacts this would have on our community. This would also very much so have a negative
effect on our property values that we worked very hard for our home and to live here and don't want to see
destroyed all because someone seeing dollar signs and making a profit at our expense not thinking of the
people who live here and will be forced to have to deal with the outcome if this were to get passed
Thank you,
Crystal Nasvaderani
9362 Drumman Drive Hagerstown Md 21740
2404407155
Priebe, Michelle L.
From:
Eckard, Debra S.
Sent:
Monday, June 27, 2022 9:05 AM
To:
Hart, Krista
Cc:
Priebe, Michelle L.
Subject:
FW: Sharpsburg Pike Holdings LLC Rezoning (RZ-21-005)
—1
Washin toil. County
Debra S. Eckard
Administrative Assistant
Washington County Dept. of Planning & Zoning
747 Northern Avenue
Hagerstown, MD 21742
240-313-2430
From: Eckard, Debra S. On Behalf Of Planning Email
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2022 9:02 AM
To: Brie Brown <mzbrown06@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Sharpsburg Pike Holdings LLC Rezoning (RZ-21-005)
This e-mail will acknowledge receipt of your comments which will be made part of the public hearing and have been
forwarded to the County Commissioners for their consideration.
_
4 a Washington County
I
Debra S. Eckard
Administrative Assistant
Washington County Dept. of Planning & Zoning
747 Northern Avenue
Hagerstown, MD 21742
240-313-2430
From: Brie Brown <mzbrown060Dgmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2022 11:12 PM
To: Planning Email <askylannina@washco-md.net>; Baker, Jill <1Baker@washco-md.net>; Allen, Travis M.
<ta Ilen @washco-md. net>
Subject: Sharpsburg Pike Holdings LLC Rezoning(RZ-21-005)
WARNING!! This message originated from an External Source. Please use properjudgment and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
)ear Washington County Planninq Comm
My name is Brie Brown and I live at 18407 Roslin Place. I am opposed of the upcoming Sharpsburg Pike
Holdings LLC Rezoning (RZ-21-005).
I travel Sharpsburg Pike every day for work, dropping my daughter off at school (EKD) and for most of our
errands. Traffic can already be pretty bad and I feel that apartments will only make it worse. Another reason is
that we want the area to be kept up so everyone's property values will be ok. From what I've heard, the man
requesting to build these apartments/townhouses is not the best property manager and allows properties to
become rundown.
Thank you,
Brie Brown
301-514-9255
18407 Roslin Place
Hagerstown, MD 21740
Priebe, Michelle L.
From:
Eckard, Debra S.
Sent:
Monday, June 27, 2022 9:05 AM
To:
Hart, Krista
Cc:
Priebe, Michelle L.
Subject:
FW: Opposed rezoning
�^
Washington County
Debra S.
Eckard
Administrative Assistant
Washington County Dept. of Planning & Zoning
747 Northern Avenue
Hagerstown, MD 21742
240-313-2430
From: Eckard, Debra S. On Behalf Of Planning Email
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2022 9:01 AM
To: Whitney M <whitney.morinl8@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Opposed rezoning
This e-mail will acknowledge receipt of your comments which will be made part of the public hearing and have been
forwarded to the County Commissioners for their consideration.
OEPARMLNi Or FUNNING AND ZONING
Debra S. Eckard
Administrative Assistant
Washington County Dept. of Planning & Zoning
747 Northern Avenue
Hagerstown, MD 21742
240-313-2430
From: Whitney M <whitnev.morin18@email.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2022 7:58 AM
To: Planning Email <askplannins@washco-md.net>
Subject: Opposed rezoning
WARNING!! This message originated from an External Source. Please use properjudgment and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
Dear Washington County Planning Commission,
My name is Whitney Morin and I live at 18316 Petworth Circle. I am opposed of the upcoming Sharpsburg Pike
Holdings LLC Rezoning (RZ-21-005). I am concerned of the school capacity that is already over populated
within the area. Thank you.
Thank you,
Whitney
Priebe, Michelle L.
From: Eckard, Debra S.
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2022 9:05 AM
To: Hart, Krista
Cc: Priebe, Michelle L.
Subject: FW: Stop the development
. tea: s •
DEPARTMENT DT Y/ANNING AND 2UNING
Debra S. Eckard
Administrative Assistant
Washington County Dept. of Planning & Zoning
747 Northern Avenue
Hagerstown, MD 21742
240-313-2430
From: Eckard, Debra S. On Behalf Of Planning Email
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2022 9:01 AM
To: Kasey DeGrange <kaseydegrange@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Stop the development
This e-mail will acknowledge receipt of your comments which will be made part of the public hearing and have been
forwarded to the County Commissioners for their consideration.
Washillytoi
DFPARTMENTOi'I'IANNINQ AND7ANING
f
Debra S. Eckard
Administrative Assistant
Washington County Dept. of Planning & Zoning
747 Northern Avenue
Hagerstown, MD 21742
240-313-2430
From: Kasey DeGrange <kasevdegrange@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2022 5:09 PM
To: Planning Email <askplanning@washco-md.net>
Subject: Stop the development
WARNING!1 This message originated from an External Source. Please use properjudgment and caution when
opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded.
fo whom it may concern,
I am writing to share my concerns with you about developing along sharpsburg pipe. It should not be approved,
especially with the over crowded schools and busy roadways. The owner should be help responsible for fixing the
houses up and bringing them to code. It's so sad to see the house left to rott. If a resident doesn't cut thier grass before
it's to long they get a notice. This should go for shoal as well! 1 Stop the development and start remodeling those houses
that were once a loving homel
Thanks
Kasey
134
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
October 4, 2021
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular monthly meeting on Monday, October 4,
2021 at 7:00 p.m. in the Washington County Administrative Complex, 100 W. Washington Street, Room
2000, Hagerstown, MD.
Planning Commission members present were: Clint Wiley, Denny Reeder, Jeff Semler, David Kline and Ex-
officio County Commissioner Randall Wagner. Staff members present were: Washington County
Department of Planning & Zoning: Jill Baker, Director; Jennifer Kinzer, Deputy Director; Travis Allen,
Comprehensive Planner; Wyatt Stitley, Comprehensive Planner; Lisa Kelly, Senior Planner; Scott
Stotelmyer, Planner; and Debra Eckard, Administrative Assistant; and Washington County Division of
Engineering: Rebecca Calimer, Chief of Plan Review.
CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES
Motion and Vote: Mr. Reeder made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 16, 2021 Planning
Commission workshop meeting as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kline and unanimously
approved.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Kline made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 30, 2021 Planning
Commission regular meeting as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Semler and unanimously
approved.
OLD BUSINESS
Sharpsbura Pike Holdings, LLC [RZ-21-005]
Mr. Allen reminded members that a public rezoning information meeting was held on August 30, 2021 for
a map amendment request for 9.92 acres of property located at 10319 Sharpsburg Pike. The applicant is
requestingto establish a new MXC (Mixed Use Residential and Commercial) floating zone atop the existing
HI (Highway Interchange) base zoning. Areas of concern cited during the public rezoning meeting were
the potential for future availability of public water related to the City of Hagerstown's Medium Growth
Range Area and capacity in the South Hagerstown High School district. Public comments during the
meeting focused on traffic impacts and circulation patterns. All verbal and written comments submitted
to date have been opposed to the rezoning request.
During the public meeting, the matter of adequate public facilities concerns were discussed and the
question was raised when these concerns should be addressed —during the rezoning phase or during the
site plan phase. The applicant's attorney cited case law (James Cremins, et. al. v. County Commissioners
of Washington County, Maryland et al.) from the Maryland Court of Special Appeals that says that
adequate public facilities issues do not need to be addressed at the rezoning stage unless the issues are
"highly unsolvable". Members asked staff to contact the County Attorney's office for their input on this
matter. A copy of the written opinion was provided to the members prior to the meeting. Ms. Baker
clarified that the APFO requirements are dealt with during the development phase of a project. However,
when reviewing a rezoning application, County staff are required to look at the infrastructure and whether
the current infrastructure can handle the development in accordance with the plans submitted with the
rezoning application. This review includes a determination of whether the impacts of the development
on existing infrastructure are "highly solvable" through potential improvements. In this particular case,
the submitted plans showed a significant impact to public school capacity, however, the applicant did not
include information that would lead Staff to believe that the impacts were highly solvable. Ms. Baker
noted that the applicant did suggest, during the public meeting, that the residential units could be age -
restricted; however, this was not part of the original application.
In conclusion, the written opinion of the County Attorney's office states, "If the infrastructure is clearly
and wholly insufficient, and is not likely to be able to be improved to a point of adequacy, that is, if the
infrastructure issues are 'highly unsolvable', then the Planning Commission should recognize the
circumstance and take it into consideration when it renders its recommendation on the rezoning."
Ms. Baker then spoke to the issue of the availability of public water for the development. She stated that
while public water is currently in the vicinity of the property and is currently available (according to the
City of Hagerstown) that the City has also asked the County to evaluate the long-term impacts of new
135
development requests on the overall public water capacity. She noted that this particular property is
located within the Urban Growth Area and the City designated Medium Range Growth Area making it a
candidate for public water. However, in the City's long term growth analysis, this property is modeled for
a smaller number of equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) under the current zoning than would be permitted
under the proposed zoning. This creates an imbalance in the model that the City has asked the County to
be cognizant of for long term planning purposes. Including this information in the Staff report was
intended to notify members of the potential impacts of increasing density on this property.
Discussion and Comments: Mr. Kline expressed his opinion that this area should be expected to be busy
because it is at an intersection along a busy interstate. He believes there are traffic issues that could be
resolved now. As for the availability of water, Mr. Kline stated that is an issue for the City of Hagerstown.
He does not believe the developer can solve this problem on his own. Of utmost concern is the school
capacity issues, which affect not only this developer but any developer that wants to build in this school
district. Mr. Kline believes this issue is highly unsolvable and he could not support the rezoning request
because the infrastructure cannot support the development. Mr. Kline is not opposed to the concept and
believes that the proposed apartments are needed due to the number of warehouses coming to the
County and the number of jobs they will create.
Commissioner Wagner asked staff to elaborate on the water issue. Ms. Baker stated there is water
available and there is currently enough capacity. However, there is a limited water supply and any
changes that are made to the County's zoning or growth areas will impact the long-term water ability of
the City. The City has asked the County to acknowledge the issue and work with them on a Medium Range
Growth Area plan. A plan has been developed where the City and County have agreed on areas in which
to prioritize water service. This specific property is in a prioritized area, but not at the density the
developer is requesting. If the property is rezoned, the additional water above and beyond what is
available for the current zoning, the prioritized areas will need to be shifted in order to accommodate this
request.
Mr. Reeder concurred with Mr. Kline's comments.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Kline made a motion to recommend denial of the rezoning request based on the
inadequacy of school facilities in this area. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reeder and unanimously
approved with Commissioner Wagner abstaining from the vote.
NEW BUSINESS
SITE PLANS
McKee Solar Energy Generating System [SP-21-012]
Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for the McKee Solar Energy Generating System
located north of Hollow Road and south of Weller Road near Hancock. The property is currently zoned EC
(Environmental Conservation). The developer is proposing a two megawatt Solar Energy Generating
System on a 10-acre leased parcel that will be surrounded by an 8 foot security fence and utilize a lockable
gate for access. Access will be via a 40 foot ingress easement connected to Hollow Road. The developer
has a lease agreement with the owner for 20 years with two 10 year extensions for a possible total of 40
years. The site is designed so that everything can be removed upon lease termination. A PV switchboard
and transformer pad will also be on -site. The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a special exception for the
establishment of a solar field on December 30, 2020. Forest Conservation requirements will be met by
retaining 1.75 acres of existing forest on -site. All agency approvals have been received.
Ms. Baker added that the developer does not need approval from the Public Service Commission because
the proposed SEGS is only two megawatts. Therefore, a certificate of public necessity is not required. She
clarified that the zoning and public comments were handled during the Board of Zoning Appeals process;
no public comments were received.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Reeder made a motion to approve the site plan as presented. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Semler and unanimously approved with Mr. Kline abstaining from the vote.
Gateway Business Park [SP-21-010]
Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for Gateway Business Park located at the
northwest corner of Arnett Drive and Supercenter Drive west of the Sharpsburg Pike. The property is
currently zoned HI (Highway Interchange). The developer is proposing to construct two warehouses with
offices totaling 80,000 square feet, commercial retail space totaling 9,800 square feet, and a fast food
restaurant totaling 2,550 square feet. There will be multiple access points from Arnett Drive and
136
Supercenter and Bentonville Drives. Public water and public sewer will serve the site. Hours of operation
will be 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. The proposed commercial space will be open 8 am to 9 pm,
Sunday thru Saturday. The restaurant will be open 7 days per week, 24 hours per day. Total employees
for all buildings will be 68. Deliveries will be daily to several times per week. All buildings will have
mounted lights and pole lights in the parking area. Parking spaces required is 142 spaces; 323 spaces will
be provided. All buildings will have mounted signs with one 25 foot by 6 foot pylon sign. Landscaping will
be located throughout the parking lot and along Arnett Drive. Forest conservation requirements were
partially met with the development of adjacent businesses. A remaining payment -in -lieu in the amount of
$5,619.24 will be required. All agency approvals have been received.
Motion and Vote: Commissioner Wagner made a motion to approve the site plan as presented. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Kline and unanimously approved.
Fix'N Go Truck Repair —Nursery Road [SP-21-008]
Mr. Stotelmyer presented for review and approval a site plan for Fix'N Go Truck Repair located at 16925
Bentwood Drive. The property is currently zoned HI (Highway Interchange). The developer is proposing to
construct a 21,500 square foot facility for tractor trailer repairs. There will be one access point to the site
from Bentwood Drive. Required parking is 25 spaces; 25 spaces will be provided. On -site well and private
septic will serve the site. Hours of operation will be Monday thru Friday, 9 am to 5 pm. Lighting will be
building mounted, full shielded. There will be no signage. Forest Conservation requirements will be met
by retaining 2.73 acres of on -site forest, including an existing area that screens the neighboring residential
properties. All agency approvals have been received.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Reeder made a motion to approve the site plan as presented. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Semler and unanimously approved.
Walxreens [SP-21-016]
Mr. Stotelmyer presented for review and approval a site plan for Walgreens located at 13415 Pennsylvania
Avenue. The property is currently zoned BG (Business General). The developer is proposing a new 2,558
square foot building for a pharmacy, replacing the existing structure. There will be one access from
Pennsylvania Avenue. Required parking is 13 spaces; 24 spaces will be provided. Hours of operation will
be 7 days per week, 9 am to 10 pm. Lighting will be pole and building mounted. Signage will be building
mounted and pole mounted. The pole mounted sign is existing and will be refaced. All agency approvals
have been received.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Semler made a motion to approve the site plan as presented. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Kline and unanimously approved.
FOREST CONSERVATION
Fix N' Go Truck Repair — Lappans [SP-21-003]
Mr. Allen presented for review and approval a request to remove one (1) specimen tree from property
located at 16001 Lappans Road. Specimen trees are prioritized for retention under Section 8 of the Forest
Conservation Ordinance (FCO) ; therefore, a variance for removal is required under Article 15 of the FCO.
The applicant must demonstrate the conditions of hardship that exist to warrant removal of the specimen
trees and show that their removal would not adversely affect water quality. According to the applicant's
justification letter, the specimen tree cannot remain because access to the site cannot be adjusted due to
constraints of stormwater management and the septic area.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Kline made a motion to approve the request as presented. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Semler and unanimously approved.
Trammell Crow—Downsville Pike [GP-21-016]
Mr. Allen presented for review and approval a request to remove five (5) specimen trees from property
located along the north side of Sterling Road, south of the 1-70 interchange. Nearly all of the site will be
developed and the site design cannot be adjusted to accommodate retention of these trees. The
developer is proposing on -site planting along the eastern portion of the site to mitigate a portion of the
forest being removed and off -site retention of a 78 acre easement at the Potomac Fish and Game Club to
meet Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Kline made a motion to approve the request as presented. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Semler and unanimously approved.
137
OTHER BUSINESS
Update of Staff Approvals
Ms. Calimer explained that the written report sent to members has been revised per discussions during
last month's meeting. The report will now reflect the previous month's activities. A written report was
sent to the Commission members in the agenda packet.
Announcement
Ms. Baker announced that the Board of County Commissioners have made some organizational changes
involving four departments. The Division of Plan Review & Permitting is being eliminated and the
employees within that Division are being moved into other departments: the Department of Planning &
Zoning (will receive 5 staff members); the Division of Engineering (will receive 3 staff members); and the
Division of Permitting and Inspections (will receive the remaining staff members). This change became
effective today.
Comprehensive Plan Update
Ms. Baker began a review and discussion of Chapter 10 (Community Facilities).
Discussion: There was a brief discussion regarding school capacity issues. Ms. Baker stated that school
capacity is currently being evaluated at all schools —elementary thru high schools. Staff is developing fact
sheets for each school which will include projected enrollment growth. Currently, South Hagerstown High
School is at 120% state -rated capacity, North Hagerstown High School at 100%, Williamsport High School
at 85 to 87%, Clear Spring High School at 70%, Smithsburg and Boonsboro High Schools at 80%. When
these evaluations are completed, staff is planning to meet with the Board of Education to discuss possible
solutions and/or redistricting plans.
Mr. Wiley suggested changes in the Community Communication Facilities section as follows: under
Services Offered (end paragraph) remove the reference to DSL connections; add "fixed" to wireless; add a
reference to cable/co-axil services; (last paragraph) either mention there is more than one gigabit provider
in the county or eliminate the reference altogether. Under Other Museums and Cultural Facilities section:
add the number of museums in Washington County.
Ms. Baker then discussed Chapter 11 (Historic Resources). As part of our input meetings at the beginning
of the Comp Plan process, many comments were received regarding historic resources. There was a brief
discussion regarding Demolition by Neglect. Ms. Baker stated that the Implementation Plan will address
some of these issues. Commissioner Wagner stated that a Workshop is proposed with the Historic District
Commission, Historic Advisory Committee and the Board of County Commissioners.
The next chapters we will review and discuss the Agriculture and Forestry Resources (Chapter 12),
Sensitive Areas (Chapter 13), and Mineral Resources (Chapter 14). These chapters were sent to the
members in the agenda packets.
UPCOMING MEETINGS
1. Monday, November 1, 2021, 7:00 p.m. — Washington County Planning Commission regular
meeting
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Kline made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Wagner and so ordered by the Chairman.
Respectfully submitted,
I^ J
Clint Wiley, Chairman
130
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
August 30, 2021
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular monthly meeting on Monday, August 30,
2021 at 7:00 p.m. in the Washington County Administrative Complex, 100 W. Washington Street, Room
2000, Hagerstown, MD.
Planning Commission members present were: Clint Wiley, Robert Goetz, Denny Reeder, Jeff Semler,
Jeremiah Weddle and David Kline. Staff members present were: Washington County Department of
Planning & Zoning: Jill Baker, Director; Travis Allen, Comprehensive Planner; and Debra Eckard,
Administrative Assistant; Washington County Department of Plan Review & Permitting: Rebecca Calimer,
Chief of Plan Review; Lisa Kelly, Senior Planner; and Scott Stotlemyer, Planner.
CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PUBLIC REZONING INFORMATION MEETING
Staff Presentation
Mr. Allen presented a map amendment application submitted by Sharpsburg Pike Holdings LLC for 9.92
acres of property located at 10319 Sharpsburg Pike, between Col. Henry K. Douglas Drive and
Poffenberger Road, approximately 1/3 mile south of the 1-70 interchange. The applicant is requesting to
apply the Mixed Use Commercial (MXC) floating zone over the current Highway Interchange (HI) zoning
district. Mr. Allen briefly reviewed the purpose and criteria of the MXC district as described in Article 16
of the Washington County Zoning Ordinance. He noted that specific conditions must be met before a
floating zone can be approved for an existing piece of land, such as: location, utilities and compliance
with the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO).
Mr. Allen reviewed the permitted uses and densities allowed in the MXC zoning district. It was noted that
two types of multi -family residential units (25 dwelling units or 15% of the entire development) are
required. Up to 70% of the development may be commercial uses in an HI district and a minimum of 5%
open space is required, not including the forest conservation area. Twelve dwelling units per acre are
permitted in the proposed mixed use zoning district. Mr. Allen stated that the mixed use development
should contain a comprehensive and cohesive pathway system for pedestrians and non -motorized forms
of transportation and all commercial uses should be primarily, but not exclusively, designed to serve the
residents of the development.
Mr. Allen stated that the design of the concept plan meets the minimum requirements of the proposed
district. It was noted that of the 111 dwelling units proposed, 105 (or 95%) are intended to be apartment
units, with only 6 townhouse units proposed. Therefore, the variety of housing choices would be very
limited. Mr. Allen also noted that only 6,000 sq. ft. (or 1.4%) of commercial space is proposed. Open space
appears to be very minimal and does not exceed the 5% minimum that is required. Staff believes that
changes could be made to the plan to meet the true intent of the MXC district.
Also of concern is the adequacy of public facilities. Schools serving this development would be Rockland
Woods Elementary, E. Russell Hicks Middle and South Hagerstown High schools. Each of these schools
already exceed the State Rated Capacity (SRC). When current capacity exceeds 120% of the SRC (which is
the case with South Hagerstown High), the project is not eligible to use the Alternate Mitigation
Contribution (AMC) to mitigate for school capacity impacts. Projects that cause the affected school district
to exceed 120% of the SRC must be negotiated with the Board of County Commissioners in consultation
with the Board of Education. According to the Washington County Public Schools Educational Facilities
Master Plan, released in June 2021, South Hagerstown High School "is projected to remain over capacity
for the foreseeable future" and explicitly states that "WCPS does not currently anticipate the ability to
add a comprehensive high school in the next ten years". There are no known remedies at this time.
Another concern includes the availability of public water for the site. This site is already connected to the
City of Hagerstown's water system, falls within the City of Hagerstown's Medium Range Growth Area
(MRGA), and has a pre -annexation agreement with the City. However, the ability of the City to provide
water service to this site is based upon growth assumptions that utilize existing zoning classifications. The
rezoning of this property for a more intensive land use is a variable that was not accounted for when the
City developed its growth model.
131
Staff believes that at some point in the future, a mixed use development would be appropriate at this
location. However, the timing of this project is a concern due to inadequate public facilities to serve the
proposed development. Written comments from neighboring property owners have been received by
staff citing concerns regarding traffic, school capacity and water and sewer services.
Discussion and Comments: Mr. Kline asked if there were other developments in the area that are
anticipating additional growth that would affect school capacity. Ms. Baker stated there are several
residential developments, including Westfields and Claggett's Mill as well as Hager's Crossing in the City
of Hagerstown, being developed; however, these developments are already included in the estimates for
school capacity.
Applicant's Presentation
Mr. Zachary Kieffer, 19405 Emerald Square, Suite 2100, Office 202, Hagerstown, legal counsel for the
applicant and Mr. Trevor Frederick of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, 128 South Potomac Street,
Hagerstown, engineer for the applicant, were present to represent the applicant at the meeting.
Mr. Kieffer stated that the concept plan meets all of the minimum requirements of the MXC zoning district
by including two different types of multi -family dwelling units and a mixture of commercial/retail space.
He addressed concerns that staff discussed in the Staff Report and Analysis. It was noted that a Traffic
Impact Study (TIS) was approved in April 2020, which contemplated a hotel use which is a principally
permitted use in the current HI zoning district. According to the TIS, changing the use from a proposed
hotel to a mixed residential/commercial use decreases the number of trips generated. Ingress and egress
would be from Col. Henry K. Douglas Drive via a private drive that connects buildings 1 and 2 and provides
another means of access to the property. There will be a full motion, signaled intersection which will be
paid for by the developer. Other road improvements that were recommended in the 2020 TIS, including
road widening, an accel/decel lane, and a median on Sharpsburg Pike are also proposed.
Mr. Kieffer stated that the developer has signed a pre -annexation agreement with the City of Hagerstown
for water service to this site and sewer allocation has already been purchased. The developer realizes that
services cannot be guaranteed until final plat approval; however, the City has raised no objections to the
concept plan thus far. Addressing the APFO school capacity issue, Mr. Kieffer cited case law from the
Maryland Court of Special Appeals that says that adequate public facilities for school capacity shall be
addressed during the final site plan approval process, not during the zoning approval process. He noted
that the developer is willing to address this issue and has suggested that the apartments could be age -
restricted. Mr. Kieffer discussed the open space area, which the engineers believe will exceed the
minimum 5% requirement.
In conclusion, Mr. Kieffer briefly reviewed some of the permitted uses allowed underthe current HI zoning
district, such as hotels, retail, biological hospitals, laboratories, etc. He believes that these uses would
have a greater impact on traffic and water and sewer facilities than the applicant's proposed mixed uses.
Discussion and Comments: Mr. Kline asked, if the rezoning is approved, when a site plan would be
submitted. Mr. Frederick stated that it would take approximately 9 to 12 months to submit a site plan for
approval because a State Highway Administration permit would need to be obtained for road improve-
ments first.
Mr. Kline stated he is not opposed to the mixed use and believes that the apartments would provide a
less expensive housing option for people who can't afford to own a house. He expressed his opinion that
any developerwithin the South Hagerstown High School district would face the problem of school capacity
issues. However, he questioned if school capacity issues could be solved within a year.
Public Comment
• Mary Shipway, 18519 Nathan Court, Hagerstown — Ms. Shipway expressed concern regarding
traffic issues on Sharpsburg Pike and Poffenberger Road. She believes there are other places
around the County that have been abandoned that could be rehabilitated and used for this type
of development.
• Kurt Shipway, 18519 Nathan Court, Hagerstown— Mr. Shipway believes a new traffic study should
be completed because there have been numerous changes and additional development in the
area since the last traffic study. He noted that results may have also been affected by the
pandemic and changes in people working from home instead of commuting every day. Mr.
Shipway expressed concern regarding school capacity issues.
132
• Annemarie Wise, 10304 Cold Harbor Drive, Hagerstown — Ms. Wise expressed her opinion that
the area has been developed commercially and should remain in HI zoning. She noted there is no
buffer between the commercial development and the Cross Creek subdivision. Ms. Wise
expressed concern regarding traffic issues and school capacity.
• Kevin Wines, 10304 Cold Harbor Drive, Hagerstown — Mr. Wines stated that traffic speeding on
Col. Henry K. Douglas Drive to reach Poffenberger Road through the existing neighborhood is a
safety concern. He is also concerned about the abandoned houses along Sharpsburg Pike which
are not being maintained and are being occupied by the homeless.
• Jeff Bowers, 10401 Bear Creek Drive, Hagerstown — Mr. Bowers expressed his concern that the
proposed apartments will be Section 8 housing. He believes that most of the people that live in
this County are commuting to other areas for work, but live here because it is cheaper.
• Chris Omps, 18326 Rench Road, Hagerstown — Mr. Omps is very concerned about school capacity
issues and also expressed concern regarding traffic issues. Mr. Omps expressed his opinion that
we need to be proactive instead of reactive.
• Pat Kay, 10408 Bear Creek Drive, Hagerstown - Ms. Kay expressed her concern regarding traffic
issues, buffering from the proposed development, and school capacity issues.
Applicant's Rebuttal
Mr. Frederick stated that the Traffic Impact Study was approved in April 2020 and is valid for a period of
three (3) years. He noted that the Study includes a distribution analysis detailing where the traffic is
coming from and where it is going. Regarding the 50 foot buffer, Mr. Frederick stated there is a 30 foot
wide sanitary sewer easement that runs along the eastern and southern boundary lines, which is owned
and maintained by Washington County for an 8" force main line. Therefore, no vegetation or structures
are permitted within that easement. The additional 20-foot buffer prohibits any structures within it;
therefore, all buildings are at least 50 feet from the property line as required. Most of the road
improvements are developer driven and are paid for by the developers.
Discussion and Comments: Mr. Semler asked when the Traffic Impact Study counts were taken. Mr.
Frederick stated that the counts were taken on May 29, 2019, prior to the pandemic. Ms. Calimer noted
that the TIS accounted for background growth and a build -out date. Mr. Goetz expressed his opinion that
traffic from a commercial use might go in a different direction than traffic from a residential use which
would not compound traffic -related issues on Poffenberger Road.
Mr. Weddle expressed his opinion that a rezoning change should be a benefit to the community, not for
the developer and asked how this would benefit the community. Mr. Kieffer stated it would increase the
tax base for the County. People may work in other areas but they would be spending their money here
where they live.
Mr. Kline expressed his concern with regard to the limited amount of open space area. Mr. Kieffer noted
this would be addressed at the site plan stage.
The public rezoning meeting ended at 8:30 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
Motion and Vote: Mr. Semler made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 2, 2021 Planning
Commission regular meeting as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reeder and unanimously
approved.
NEW BUSINESS
SITE PLANS
Royal Farms Store #387 [SP-20-019]
Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for Royal Farms Store #387 on 3 acres of property
located at 11532 French Lane. The property is currently zoned HI (Highway Interchange). The developer
is proposing to construct a convenience store approximately 4500 square feet in size with an outside
eating area and 6 gas pumps. There will be two access points into the site from French Lane. Required
parking is 54 spaces; 61 spaces will be provided. Public water and sewer will serve the site. Hours of
operation will be 7 days per week, 24 hours per day. Six employees are projected. Freight and delivery
will be on an as needed basis. Lighting will be building and pole mounted and there will be lighting on the
133
gas canopy. One pylon sign will be located along the front of the property and building mounted signs will
be used. Landscaping will be in the bio-retention ponds adjacent to the building and along the southern
property line. Forest conservation requirements will be met by a payment -in -lieu in the amount of
$9,408.96.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Kline made a motion to grant staff the authority to approve the site plan pending
receipt of all agency approvals. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weddle and unanimously approved.
FOREST CONSERVATION
Royal Farms Store #387[SP-20-019]
Mr. Allen presented for review and approval a request to remove two (2) specimen trees from property
located at 11532 French Lane. According to the applicant's justification statement, these trees (Norway
Maples) are an invasive species and due to their shallow root system there is potential for run-off from
the site. Removal of these trees would not adversely affect water quality.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Semler made a motion to approve the request as presented. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Goetz and unanimously approved.
Big Spring Solar LLC [SP-21-021]
Mr. Allen presented for review and approval a request for off -site forest mitigation for Big Spring Solar
located at 11505 Ashton Road. This site plan is a modification to a previously approved site plan for a 2
megawatt solar project which was approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals in 2015. The applicant is
requesting to use off -site retention to satisfy the 3.63 acre planting requirement. Mr. Allen noted there is
no existing qualified forest on the site and the proposed easement is within three (3) miles of the
development site.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Kline made a motion to approve the off -site forest mitigation as presented. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Goetz and unanimously approved.
OTHER BUSINESS
Update of Staff Approvals
Ms. Calimer stated that a written report was sent to members, via e-mail, prior to the meeting. The report
provided the following information for the month of August for Plan Review — Land Use: 3 stormwater
concept plans, 1 forest stand delineation, 3 site plans, 1 simplified plat, 2 replats, 6 inspection and
maintenance agreements, 3 standard grading plans, 2 site specific grading plans, and 4 traffic impact
studies.
Comprehensive Plan Update
Ms. Baker reported that the Community Facilities (Chapter 10) and Historic (Chapter 11) elements were
distributed to members this evening.
UPCOMING MEETINGS
1. Monday, October 4, 2021, 7:00 p.m. —Washington County Planning Commission public rezoning
information and regular meeting
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Kline made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weddle
and so ordered by the Chairman.
152
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
March 7, 2022
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular monthly meeting on Monday, March 7,
2022 at 7:00 p.m. at the Washington County Administrative Complex, 100 W. Washington Street, Room
2000, Hagerstown, MD.
Planning Commission members present were: Clint Wiley, Chairman, David Kline, Teresa Shank, Robert
Goetz, Jr., Jeff Semler, and Ex-officio County Commissioner Randall Wagner. Staff members present were:
Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning: Jennifer Kinzer, Deputy Director; Lisa Kelly, Senior
Planner; and Debra Eckard, Administrative Assistant.
CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES
Motion and Vote: Mr. Kline made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 7, 2022 Planning
Commission public rezoning information meeting and regular meeting as presented. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Semler and unanimously approved with Ms. Shank abstaining from the vote.
OLD BUSINESS
RZ-21-005 — Sharpsburg Pike Holdings LLC Recommendation
Ms. Kinzer reminded members that a second public information meeting was held on February 7, 2022
for the proposed rezoning of 9.92 acres of property located at 10319 Sharpsburg Pike. The applicant is
requesting the establishment of a Mixed -Use Commercial (MXC) floating zone atop the current HI
(Highway Interchange) zoning district. The second meeting was held to consider additional information
provided by the applicant concerning a plan to make this development age restricted. This information
was not presented to the Planning Commission during the first public information meeting; therefore, the
Board of County Commissioners remanded the application back to the Planning Commission for further
review and public input. All other elements of the application remain the same. Outside agencies did not
review or comment on the new information.
Discussion and Comment: Mr. Kline expressed his opinion that the HI zoning is the appropriate zoning
for this property. He is hesitant to change the zoning based on the lack of adequate public facilities and
infrastructure in this area. Mr. Kline expressed concern regarding the enforcement of the age restricted
units and how the County could enforce the restriction. He does not believe the applicant has proven
there was a change in the neighborhood or a mistake was made in the original zoning of the property. Mr.
Kline voiced his concerns that the developer will change his mind at a later date or will not follow through
with the restrictions that are placed on the property once the Planning Commission approves the final
plat. He noted that this has happened several times in the past.
Commissioner Wagner believes that the age restriction is usually recorded in the deeds and the HOA or
management company would monitor the age restriction requirement. He stated he would be hesitant
to approve the proposed change without more information on the types of units to be built and how the
restrictions would be enforced and by whom.
Mr. Zachary Kieffer, legal counsel for the applicant, clarified that there would be commercial uses on the
first floor and multi -family dwellings on the top two floors. There will also be a few townhomes to meet
the requirement of two types of residential dwellings in the mixed -use development. He stated that the
County would have legal repercussions against the developer if the age restriction requirement is not
adhered to. Mr. Kieffer stated this application is for an overlay zone; and therefore, does not need to
prove a change in the neighborhood or mistake in the zoning.
Mr. Goetz expressed his opinion that if the units above the commercial uses are apartments, there will
not be an HOA to monitor the age restriction or deeds for the rental units. He noted that another concern
with this development is increased traffic cutting through Cross Creek and onto Poffenberger Road. He
expressed his opinion that if a commercial use, such as a hotel, were to be placed on the property, most
of the traffic would flow back onto Sharpsburg Pike for easy access to the interstate. Mr. Goetz believes
the HI zoning is the most appropriate for this property.
153
Mr. Wiley expressed his concern that demographics in the area could change and we would have more
age restricted units than are needed. Therefore, the developer would come back to ask that the
requirement be lifted which would affect schools serving the area.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Kline made a motion to recommend denial [to the Board of County Commissioners]
of the rezoning application as presented based on the lack of adequate public facilities and infrastructure.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Goetz and unanimously approved with Ms. Shank and Commissioner
Wagner abstaining from the vote.
RZ-21-007 —19817 Beaver Creek LLC Recommendation
Ms. Kinzer reminded members that a public information meeting was held on February 7, 2022 for the
rezoning of two parcels of land consisting of 131.28 acres of property located at 19817 Beaver Creek Road
and along the west side of Dual Highway. The applicant is requesting a change in zoning from RM
(Residential, Multi -family) to HI (Highway Interchange) and contends that a mistake was made during the
Comprehensive rezoning of the Urban Growth Area in 2012.
During the public information meeting, development constraints were discussed with regard to the
inability of these properties to connect to public water and sewer. This site will not have access to public
water and/or public sewer any time in the near future.
Discussion and Comments: Mr. Goetz asked how the property could be zoned HI without public water
and sewer services. Ms. Kinzer stated that the Planning Commission could waive that requirement if the
Health Department approves the site for well and septic.
Mr. Semler expressed his concern regarding the need for a well and septic on this site and how it could
affect groundwater in the area. He believes a smaller, less intensive use, such as a garage or auto
dealership, would be a good fit for the site.
Mr. Kline expressed his opinion that HI zoning would be appropriate for the site. He noted that any type
of residential use on the site would affect schools in the South Hagerstown High School district, which is
already over capacity.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Goetz made a motion to recommend approval [to the Board of County
Commissioners] of the proposed rezoning as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kline and
unanimously approved with Ms. Shank and Commissioner Wagner abstaining from the vote.
NEW BUSINESS
ORDINANCE MODIFICATIONS
Sharpsburg Pike Holdings LLC [OM-22-002]
Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval a modification request from Section 405.11B of the
Subdivision Ordinance. The applicant is proposing the creation of 4 commercial lots on a preliminary
plat/site plan for property located along the east side of Sharpsburg Pike, south of HK Douglas Drive. The
property is currently zoned HI (Highway Interchange). The proposed access which will serve the 4 lots is
owned and maintained by the developer. There will be no direct access from Lots 4 and 5 onto Sharpsburg
Pike. The interior access layout is preferable to eliminate additional access points onto Sharpsburg Pike,
which is not favored by the State Highway Administration, and could not meet the 500' access spacing
requirement.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Kline made a motion to approve the modification request as presented. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Semler and unanimously approved.
Cascade Towne Center Development LLC [OM-22-003]
Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval a modification request from Section 405.11B of the
Subdivision Ordinance. The applicant is proposing the creation of two lots (Lots 1 and 2) which contain
existing semi-detached and multi -family dwelling units. The subject site is located on Hart Avenue and
Boyd Street in the former Ft. Ritchie military base. The property is currently zoned SED (Special Economic
Development). Lot 1 has 8 existing buildings that will contain a total of 27 dwelling units on 6.8 acres of
land. Lot 2 will have 11 buildings that will contain a total of 22 dwelling units on 2.7 acres of land. Both
lots will have frontage on existing private roads.
154
Motion and Vote: Mr. Goetz made a motion to approve the modification request as presented. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Semler and unanimously approved.
SITE PLANS
Emerald Pointe, Phase 4, Sections 2-6 [PSP-21-001]
Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for property located along Marsh Pike and
Longmeadow Road. The property is currently zoned RT(PUD) (Residential Transition with a Planned Unit
Development overlay). The developer is proposing a total of 86 semi-detached units on 18.49 acres; open
space will contain 1.21 acres. All lots will be served by public water and sewer. There will be 172 parking
spaces provided, not including the garage on each unit. Streetlights and sidewalks will be provided. There
will be .42 acres of forest planted behind Lots 102 and 104 to complete the overall Emerald Pointe
development requirements. All agency approvals have been received.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Kline made a motion to approve the site plan as presented. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Semler and unanimously approved with Mr. Goetz abstaining from the vote.
JT Repairs [SP-21-029]
Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for property located along the east side of Oak
Ridge Place, south of Oak Ridge Drive. The property is currently zoned IR (Industrial Restricted). The
developer is proposing a 15,000 square foot truck terminal on 4.7 acres of land. The building will have
office space, storage and garage space. There will be two access points off Oak Ridge Place. The site will
be served by private well and septic, which was approved by the Planning Commission on August 2, 2021.
Hours of operation will be 7am to 5 pm, Monday through Saturday. There will be 6 employees. Lights and
signage will be building mounted. Sixteen parking spaces are required; 16 spaces will be provided. There
will be 5 large openings along the side of the building for trucks to pull into and drive thru to the other
side. Forest conservation requirements were met in 2010 under a previous site plan for this site via a
forest retention area and a payment -in -lieu of planting fee. All agency approvals have been received.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Kline made a motion to approve the site plan as presented. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Semler and unanimously approved.
Update of Staff Approvals
Ms. Kinzer stated that a written report of development activity for the month of February 2022 was sent
to members in the agenda packet.
UPCOMING MEETINGS
1. Monday, March 21, 2022, 6:30 p.m. —Washington County Planning Commission Rezoning Public
Information Meeting, Washington County Circuit Court House, 24 Summit Avenue
2. Monday, March 28, 2022, 6:30 p.m. — Washington County Planning Commission workshop
meeting
3. Monday, April 4, 2022, 7:00 p.m. — Washington County Planning Commission regular meeting
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Kline made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 p.m. The motion was seconded by Ms. Shank and
so ordered by the Chairman.
Respec ully s 6x�
itt
Clin ey, ChairmanV
144
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
February 7, 2022
Due to in -person meeting restrictions related to the COVID pandemic, the Washington County Planning
Commission held its regular monthly meeting on Monday, February 7, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. virtually using
Zoom software. No physical meeting took place.
Planning Commission members present were: Clint Wiley, Chairman, David Kline, Denny Reeder,
Jeremiah Weddle, Robert Goetz, Jeff Semler, and Ex-officio County Commissioner Randall Wagner. Staff
members present were: Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning: Jill Baker,
Director; Jennifer Kinzer, Deputy Director; Travis Allen, Comprehensive Planner; Lisa Kelly, Senior Planner;
Scott Stotelmyer, Planner; Meghan Jenkins, GIS Coordinator; and Debra Eckard, Administrative Assistant.
Also present at the meeting were: Adam Hager, David Trostle, Ed Schreiber, and Trevor Frederick of
Frederick, Seibert & Associates; Gordon Poffenberger, Fox & Associates; William Wantz, Justin Goodman,
Mike Nalepa, Meir Neuberger, Rubin Moshe, Thomas Palumbo, and Joshua Sewald [RZ-21-007]; Zachary
Kieffer [RZ-21-005]; Jimmy Rowland [SP-21-036]; Bob Franks [SP-21-031]; Matthew Powell, William
Erskine and Todd Heck [Black Rock PUD].
CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
REZONING PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING
RZ-21-005 — Sharpsburg Pike Holdings LLC
Staff Presentation
Mr. Allen reminded members that the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing in November
for the rezoning of 9.92 acres of property located at 10319 Sharpsburg Pike. The applicant is requesting a
change in zoning from HI (Highway Interchange) to MXC (Mixed Use Residential and Commercial). During
the public hearing, the applicant presented a new plan to address school capacity issues that was not
available during the Planning Commission's public rezoning information meeting. Therefore, the County
Commissioners remanded the application back to the Planning Commission for additional review and
public comment. All other aspects of the application remain the same.
Applicant's Presentation
Mr. Zachary Kieffer, legal counsel for the applicant, reminded members that following the Planning
Commission's public information meeting, they recommended denial of the rezoning based on school
inadequacy and the lack of a plan for mitigation. if the schools remain inadequate at the site plan/final
plat stage, the developer is proposing an age -restricted community. Age restricted development would
not require mitigation for school adequacy issues.
Public Comment
Annamarie Wise — Ms. Wise expressed her opinion that the proposed development would be
surrounded by commercial development and there is not enough space for recreational activities
for residents living in the proposed residential units.
Discussion and Comment from Members
Mr. Kline stated that he would like to meet with the County Attorney to discuss enforcement issues of the
age restricted units. He would like to know who would be responsible for enforcement and what would
the County's role be in enforcement.
Consensus: The Planning Commission will defer action on this application until a later time.
RZ-21-007 —19817 Beaver Creek LLC
Staff Presentation
Mr. Allen presented for review a rezoning application for 131.28 acres of property located at 19817 Beaver
Creek Road and along the west side of Dual Highway. The applicant is requesting a change in zoning from
145
RM (Residential, multi -family) to HI (Highway Interchange). The rezoning application consists of two
parcels of land: the smaller parcel is improved with a residential structure and the larger parcel is used for
agricultural purposes. Mr. Allen presented the following criteria for the Planning Commission's
consideration in evaluating this application.
• Availability of public water and sewer services — This site is designated as S-5 and W-5 (long-term
planned services) in the County's Water & Sewerage Plan. This means that no public water or
sewer service is currently available. If services become available in the future, the site would be
served by water from the City of Hagerstown and sewer from the County. It was noted that the
site is currently located outside of the City's Medium Range Growth Area (MRGA). Presently, the
site would rely on individual well and septic.
• Compatibility with existing/proposed development — Mr. Allen noted the uses of several areas
surrounding 1-70 as follows: north of 1-70 is a mixture of residential zoning classifications with
varying densities, some areas zoned HI and land that falls within the Town of Funkstown and the
City of Hagerstown; south of 1-70 there are large parcels being used for agricultural purposes;
numerous properties around the interchanges are zoned HI; and to the west of the interstate is
property zoned Residential Urban.
• Land Use - Historically, the area along Beaver Creek Road has been farmland, woodland, and
single-family residential uses. Recently, there have been a few commercial businesses that have
opened in this area (such as Vinny's Towing and US Lawns). Mr. Allen noted there are several car
dealerships in the area and low intensity commercial uses along US Route 40. The applicant is
proposing the HI zoning designation which is intended to provide suitable locations for
commercial activities or light industrial uses for highway travelers, provide goods or services to
the local population or provide for uses that have a need to be located near the interstate highway
system.
• Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan —The County's 2002 adopted Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Plan designates this area as low -density residential. This policy area is the main transitional
classification from the urban to the rural area and is primarily associated with single-family
development.
Mr. Allen stated that in a piecemeal rezoning such as this one, the applicant must provide sufficient
evidence that a change in the character of the neighborhood has occurred or there was a mistake in the
zoning of this property in 2012 during the Urban Growth Area comprehensive rezoning. In this case, the
applicant is claiming a mistake was made in 2012 in the zoning of this property and cites the following
reasons:
1) The site is not served by public water and public sewer and therefore, the requirements of the
RM zoning district cannot be met — Staff confirms that public water and sewer services are
not available to this site; however, public water and sewer services were identical for both
the RM and the HI zoning classifications in 2012 when the property was rezoned. It was noted
that this requirement could potentially be waived by the Planning Commission with input
from the Health Department. Prior to 2012, this property was zoned HI-2 which was intended
to be a transitional zone between the HI-1 zoned areas and residential uses. The HI-2 zone
allowed low intensity industrial uses, commercial uses, and a range of residential uses with
varying densities. The HI-2 district did not require connection to public water and sewer but
did allow for higher density development if public water and sewer was available at the time
of development. The RM zoning classification was recommended by the UGA Advisory
Committee, which was appointed by the Board of County Commissioners, The Advisory
Committee believed this area could be used to facilitate multi -family residential development
in the county. At that time, staff recommended the RT (Residential, Transition) zoning
designation which was a low -density residential zoning classification and would have been
more compatible with the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Plan. The RT zoning classification
also requires connection to public water and sewer facilities.
2) Similarly situated properties in the vicinity that are within the UGA but outside of the City's
MRGA were zoned HI in 2012 - Staff confirms that other similar properties in the area were
zoned to HI during the 2012 rezoning.
In conclusion, Mr. Allen noted that infrastructure requirements such as road improvements and school
adequacy would be difficult to achieve for the RM zoning district as well as for some of the more intensive
uses permitted in the HI zoning district; some less intensive permitted uses in the HI zoning district might
be feasible. He also noted that neither the RM northe HI zoning districts are compatible with the County's
adopted Comprehensive Plan and no public water or sewer services are available in the foreseeable
future. Mr. Allen stated that four letters in opposition of the proposed rezoning were received prior to
the public information meeting; there were no letters supporting the request.
146
Applicant's Presentation
Mr. William C. Wantz, 123 W. Washington Street, Hagerstown, legal counsel for the applicant, was present
at the meeting. Also present and representing the applicant were Mr. Mike Nalepa and Mr. Joshua Sewald.
Mr. Wantz gave a brief summary of the applicant's interest in the property noting that the original intent
was to develop a multi -family residential use on the property. However, after discussions with the City of
Hagerstown's Water Department, the applicant was told that there would be no extension of services in
the foreseeable future to support a multi -family residential development. The applicant then began
exploring other development options for the site that would not require a large number of EDUs, such as
uses that are permitted in the HI zoning district.
The applicant contends that the property is better suited for the HI zoning classification and gave the
following reasons to support this position:
• There are too many limitations for planning, building and funding a multi -family residential
development using individual wells and septic.
• Scattered low density housing creates sprawl development which is not consistent with State
guidelines.
• There are two cloverleaf interchanges in the County: one at Dual Highway and one at Halfway
Boulevard. No new interchanges are proposed so we should use the interchanges we have to the
greatest extent possible.
• It must be presumed that when the RM zoning was applied in 2012, the local legislative body must
have been optimistic that the City would be able to provide water and sewer services to the site.
• Adjacent property uses should be considered when reviewing this application. Across the road is
a billboard site, there are 4 single-family residential homes which were built between 1946 and
1953 which pre -date the 1-70 highway system, and there are new commercial uses that have been
established since 2020. The large acreage of the Agrimar tract, the subject property, offers the
availability of ample land and wide buffers with vegetative screening on all sides for any use
permitted under the HI zoning district.
Mr. Joshua Sewald of Dynamic Engineering stated that the HI zone provides a great flexibility of uses such
as low intensity retail services, warehouses, self -storage units, etc., that do not demand high levels of
water usage. He noted that the adequate size of the property and frontage would allow for improvements
such as widening the roadway, the possible installation of a traffic signal on Route 40 at the intersection
with Beaver Creek Road, and the permitted uses could be supported on individual wells and septic
systems. It is his professional opinion that based on the size of the property, the limited environmental
features in the middle of the site and the usable land, this property was designed to provide uses that
would better serve the area as well as Route 40 and Interstate 70.
Mr. Mike Nalepa of Street Traffic Studies stated that a scoping request has been submitted to Washington
County for the traffic study that will be required if this rezoning request is approved. He believes that the
developer will be able to adequately address any traffic issues that might arise as a result of this rezoning
approval.
Discussion and Comments
Mr. Goetz asked if there are any road improvements proposed on Beaver Creek Road due to the
development of Gaver Meadows. Mr. David Trostle of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, stated there
are no improvements proposed for Beaver Creek Road, only Emmert Road.
Mr. Weddle noted that the subject property is currently proposed to be removed from the Urban
Growth Area. Ms. Baker stated that the applicant is aware of that proposal but has decided to move
forward.
Public Comment
• Bette 10 Shifler, 20017 Beaver Creek Road — Ms. Shifler stated that Vinny's Towing and US
Lawns are both businesses that operate during daylight hours and produce very little traffic.
She stated that when there are accidents on 1-70, traffic can be backed up for at least a mile
in the area. She noted that the SHA has told her that the 1-70 cloverleaf is very outdated and
there are currently no plans for improvements. She does not believe there will be adequate
fire protection for any businesses because there is no public water. Ms. Shifler noted there is
a warehouse proposed on Howell Road, which she has been told generates 2,000+trucks per
day and she believes that roads in the area cannot accommodate that amount of traffic. She
147
made an inquiry as to the location of the access on Route 40 and if a traffic study has been
done on Dual Highway.
• Mike Siecker, 10223 Summers Lane — Mr. Siecker expressed his concern regarding traffic
issues, access to the site, and light pollution.
Applicant's Rebuttal
Mr. Wantz addressed the Planning Commission and citizen's concerns as follows:
• Road improvements to the site could be easily accomplished. The applicant is willing to make any
traffic pattern and road improvements required by the SHA.
• Screening and buffering of the site would be determined by the Planning Commission during the
site plan stage.
• A traffic study has been completed that includes the Dual Highway (Route 40)
• The developer would work with the responding fire company to address the need for fire
protection which will be dependent on the type of use on the site.
• Lighting issues will be addressed during the site plan stage and subject to review by the Planning
Commission.
The rezoning public information meeting concluded at 8:10 p.m.
MINUTES
Motion and Vote: Mr. Kline made a motion to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission regular
meeting as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Semler and unanimously approved.
NEW BUSINESS
SITE PLANS
Rowland on Holdings LLC [SP-21-036]
Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for a proposed tractor trailer gravel storage lot on
5.60 acres located at the south end of French Lane, east of Greencastle Pike and north of 1-70. The
property is currently zoned HI (Highway Interchange). There will be one access point from French Lane.
The site will be used seven days per week, 24 hours per day. There will be no employees, lighting, signage,
public water or public sewer for this site. Bio retention ponds will be constructed to handle storm water.
Forestation requirements were previously met with forest retention easement plats that were approved
in 2000 under the name of Hunter's Green. All agency approvals have been received.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Kline made a motion to approve the site plan as presented. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Reeder and unanimously approved.
Sheetz Store #145 [SP-21-031]
Mr. Stotelmyer presented for review and approval a site plan for the replacement of Sheetz Store #145
located at the corner of Longmeadow Road and Pennsylvania Avenue. The proposed store will be 6,077
square feet and will replace the existing store. All fuel dispensers and islands will be removed and replaced
as well. The site will continue to be accessible from Pennsylvania Avenue as well as Longmeadow Road.
Although the Sheetz store will be closed during the construction of the new store, the access lane to
Martin's will remain open. The current site has 40 parking spaces; the new site will have 43 parking spaces.
The site is served by public water from the City of Hagerstown and public sewer from Washington County.
The hours of operation will be seven days per week, 24 hours per day. Lighting will be pole and building
mounted. Signage will be building mounted; the existing pole mounted sign will be upgraded. The existing
car wash will remain and will receive an updated facade. All agency approvals have been received.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Kline made a motion to approve the site plan as presented. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Reeder and unanimously approved.
148
FOREST CONSERVATION
Western Maryland Parkway Warehouse [GP-21-024]
Mr. Allen presented for review and approval two requests to meet Forest Conservation requirements for
a proposed warehouse and office space on property located along the northwest side of Western
Maryland Parkway. The first request is to utilize the payment -in -lieu of planting to satisfy 5.92 acres of
planting requirement; the second request is to remove 3 specimen trees from the site. The property is
currently zoned HI (Highway Interchange). The unusual shape of the parcel, the size and dimensions of
the proposed building, and the required parking associated with the development make retention of
forest and the specimen trees unfeasible. Forest situated along the east side of the parcel will be retained;
however, there is no additional space for planting.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Kline made a motion to approve both requests as presented. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Goetz and unanimously approved.
[Mr. Weddle left the meeting at 8:20 p.m.]
Chris and Dusky Rankin, Bivens Estates, Lot 21 [S-21-054]
Mr. Allen presented for review and approval a request to vacate .25 acres of an existing forest easement,
leaving .86 acres in the easement on -site, for the relocation of a septic system on property located at
17000 Bivens Lane. He explained that there are 3 overlapping land use considerations that are part of this
septic relocation request: 1) the integrity of the forest easement on the site; 2) the potential existence of
an intermittent stream buffer; and 3) the specific location of the septic area that is required by stream
buffer regulations, flood plain regulations and the conservation of wet or hydric soils. Mr. Allen stated
that the Forest Conservation Ordinance prioritizes the retention of existing forest within intermittent
stream buffers; the Subdivision Ordinance requires buffers to be provided for perennial/intermittent
streams; and septic systems are generally prohibited in intermittent/perennial stream buffers and are not
located in hydric soils. Following a detailed review of the property and changes that have occurred up
stream, the Soil Conservation District determined that the intermittent stream does not flow to the extent
that it previously did so the buffer is no longer required for this parcel. It was also determined that the
flood plain is now located off -site. The Health Department has determined that this location is the best
area for the septic system.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Reeder made a motion to approve the request as presented. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Kline and unanimously approved.
OTHER BUSINESS
Black Rock PUD
Ms. Baker reminded members that the applicant submitted an application several months ago for a major
change to the approved Black Rock PUD development plan. The proposed change was to increase the
density from 595 dwelling units to 1,148 dwelling units. On February 1, 2022, the Board of County
Commissioners denied the request. In response to this denial, the applicant is now proposing to go back
to the original density and number of residential units shown on the approved development plan but
clustering the units on a smaller portion of the property. A portion of the larger parcel to the left, would
be retained for open space. Following a review of the regulations depicted in the Zoning Ordinance, staff
does not believe the proposed changes warrant a major change for the following reasons: there is no
change in the total number of residential units or density being proposed and the types of residential
houses and amenities are comparable.
Discussion and Comments: Mr. Semler expressed his concern that the developer would come back at a
later time and want to develop the open space area. Ms. Baker explained that this would be a designated
open space area used to meet the current requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Any proposed change
to develop that area would be required to go through the public hearing process again. Mr. Semler asked
if the original plan was denied by the Planning Commission but approved by the County Commissioners.
Ms. Baker stated that the original plan was recommended for denial by the Planning Commission but
ultimately approved by the County Commissioners. Mr. Semler asked if traffic and water issues would still
be a concern if the original plan is followed. Ms. Baker stated that the developer would have to go through
the site plan process and would still have to address water issues, traffic issues and any other approving
agency comments and concerns.
Mr. Goetz asked for clarification of the density and number of residential units in both the original plan
and the proposed plan. Ms. Baker reiterated that there is no change in the number of residential units or
149
the density from the original plan; however, the developer wants to use a clustering plan to increase the
open space area and reduce lot sizes.
Mr. Kline expressed his opinion that the proposed change is a major change and needs go through the
public hearing process. Mr. Reeder concurred.
Commissioner Wagner stated that he would be abstaining from any action taken this evening. However,
he expressed his concern that if the proposed plan is approved, the developer could come back at a later
date with a new plan to develop the remaining lands, which would have the potential to be approved by
a new Board of County Commissioners.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Kline made a motion that the Planning Commission consider this a major change
which will need to go to public hearing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Goetz and unanimously
approved with Commissioner Wagner abstaining from the vote.
Update of Staff Approvals
Ms. Kinzer stated that a written report of development activity for the month of January 2022 was sent
to members in the agenda packet.
Comprehensive Plan Update
Ms. Baker believes that the Planning Commission should schedule workshop meetings to focus only on
items related to the Comp Plan. We will present information on population projections, land use densities,
MRGA limitations, etc. Staff will be sending the Commission members dates for workshop meetings.
UPCOMING MEETINGS
1. Monday, March 7, 2022, 7:00 p.m. —Washington County Planning Commission regular meeting
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Semler made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weddle
and so ordered by the Chairman.
Clint Wiley, Chairman
Open Session Item
PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: Text Amendments to Building Excise Tax Ordinance
PRESENTATION DATE: June 28, 2022
PRESENTATION BY: Rich Eichelberger, Director of Permits and Inspections
Kirk C. Downey, County Attorney
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the text amendments to the Building Excise
Tax Ordinance
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: This is a public hearing to hear testimony concerning proposed text
amendments to the Building Excise Tax Ordinance. Text amendments to Section 7 of the
Ordinance are proposed.
DISCUSSION: The Building Excise Tax Ordinance provides for the imposition of
the excise tax on certain construction. The proposed amendments remove conversion
construction from (1) nonresidential nonretail to nonresidential retail and (2) from nonresidential
retail to nonresidential nonretail from the tax. Those conversion scenarios were subject to a
sunset clause that exempted them from the excise tax; the proposed amendments make the
conversion construction in those scenarios no longer subject to the excise tax.
FISCAL IMPACT: n/a
CONCURRENCES: n/a
ALTERNATIVES: n/a
ATTACHMENTS: Adopting Ordinance
Building Excise Tax Ordinance showing proposed amendments
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
Page 1 of 2
ORDINANCE NO. ORD-2022-
AN ORDINANCE TO RESTATE AND REPUBLISH, WITH AMENDMENTS,
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "BUILDING EXCISE TAX ORDINANCE FOR
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND"
RECITALS
Washington County, Maryland (the “County”), has the authority to adopt
a building excise tax ordinance that provides for the imposition and collection of
such a tax in Washington County and its municipalities, pursuant to Section
2-701 of the Code of the Public Local Laws for Washington County, Maryland
(CPLL).
The existing county Building Excise Tax Ordinance (BETO) was adopted
and effective on August 4, 2015.
Certain amendments have been proposed to the Ordinance. The proposed
amendments remove from the tax conversion construction from (1)
nonresidential nonretail to nonresidential retail uses and (2) from nonresidential
retail to nonresidential nonretail uses.
A public hearing was held on June 28, 2022, following due notice and
advertisement of the text of the BETO.
Public comment was received, reviewed, and considered concerning the
aforesaid BETO.
The Board believes it to be in the best interests of the citizens of the
County for the Board to adopt the attached revised and amended BETO.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland, that the Building Excise Tax
Ordinance of Washington County, Maryland, is restated and republished, with
amendments incorporated therein, as set forth in the attached ordinance entitled
“Building Excise Tax Ordinance for Washington County, Maryland,” being
Revision 13 of the Ordinance.
Page 2 of 2
Adopted this ____ day of June, 2022.
Effective this ____ day of _________________, 2022.
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND
____________________________ BY: ____________________________________
Krista L. Hart, Clerk Jeffrey A. Cline, President
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
____________________________
Kirk C. Downey
County Attorney
Mail to:
County Attorney’s Office
100 W. Washington Street, Suite 1101
Hagerstown, MD 21740-4735
BUILDING EXCISE TAX ORDINANCE
FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND
Adopted June 17, 2003
Effective July 1, 2003
Revision 1 (Amended) - Adopted June 22, 2004
Effective as of July 1, 2004.
Revision 2 - Adopted and effective October 12, 2004
Revision 3 - adopted July 12, 2005
Effective as of July 12, 2005.
Revision 4 – adopted May 2, 2006.
Effective as of May 2, 2006, except as otherwise provided herein.
Revision 5 - Repealed and reenacted, with amendments, on June 17, 2008
Effective July 1, 2008
Revision 6 - Repealed and reenacted, with amendments, on June 23, 2009
Effective June 26, 2009
Revision 7 (Amended) - Adopted March 1, 2011
Effective March 1, 2011
Revision 8 (Amended) - Adopted September 13, 2011
Effective September 13, 2011
Revision 9 (Amended) - Adopted August 28, 2012
Effective August 28, 2012
Revision 10 (Amended) - Adopted March 26, 2013
Effective March 26, 2013
Revision 11 (Amended) - Adopted August 4, 2015
Effective August 4, 2015
BUILDING XCISE AX RDINANCE FOR ASHINGTON OUNTY ARYLAND
Revision 12 (Amended) - Adopted September 10, 2019
Effective September 10, 2019
Revision 13 (Amended) – Adopted __________
Effective __________
BUILDING XCISE AX RDINANCE FOR ASHINGTON OUNTY ARYLAND
Table of Contents
1. Establishment of tax ........................................................................................................................................ 1
2. Definitions ........................................................................................................................................................ 1
3. Residential Construction ................................................................................................................................ 3
4. Nonresidential Construction ......................................................................................................................... 3
5. Payment of tax .................................................................................................................................................. 4
6. Exemptions ........................................................................................................................................................ 4
7. Change in use ................................................................................................................................................... 6
8. Special excise tax fund .................................................................................................................................... 7
9. Municipalities................................................................................................................................................... 8
10. Appeals ............................................................................................................................................................ 11
11. Enforcement. ................................................................................................................................................... 12
12. Annual reports................................................................................................................................................ 12
13. Agricultural land preservation .................................................................................................................... 14
BUILDING XCISE AX RDINANCE FOR ASHINGTON OUNTY ARYLAND
1
1. Establishment of tax.
1.01 In accordance with Section 2-701 of the Code of the Public Local Laws of
Washington County, as amended from time to time, there is a building excise tax on all
building construction in Washington County.
2. Definitions.
2.01 The words and phrases used in this Ordinance shall have their usual
meaning, unless otherwise defined in this section.
2.02 Addition construction means construction that requires a building permit
and that increases the gross square footage of an existing nonresidential nonretail
structure or nonresidential retail structure, or the habitable gross square footage of an
existing residential structure.
2.03 Applicant means the individual, partnership, corporation, limited liability
company, or other legal entity whose signature or name appears on the building permit
application.
2.04 Basement means that portion of a building that is partly or completely below
grade and has a ceiling height of at least seven feet.
2.05 Board or Board of County Commissioners or County Commissioners means the
Board of County Commissioners for Washington County, Maryland.
2.06 Building means any permanent structure used or intended for supporting
or sheltering any use or occupancy. Building does not include an accessory structure or a
temporary structure, as defined in the Washington County building code.
2.07 Common area means the interior or exterior circulation paths, rooms, spaces
or elements that are not for public use and are made available for the shared use of two
or more people in a multifamily residential structure, including lobbies and laundry
facilities.
2.08 Construction means construction or alteration of a building or part of a
building that requires a building permit.
2.09 Director of Finance means the Director of Budget and Finance for
Washington County or the Director’s designee.
BUILDING XCISE AX RDINANCE FOR ASHINGTON OUNTY ARYLAND
2
2.10 Director of Plan Review and Permitting means the Director of the Division of
Plan Review and Permitting for Washington County or the Director’s designee.
2.11 Farm construction means construction intended to be actively used for farm
use, but does not include residential construction thereon.
2.12 Farm or agricultural use means the raising of farm products for use or sale,
including animal of poultry husbandry, animal husbandry facilities, aquaculture, and the
growing of crops such as grain, vegetables, fruit, grass for pasture or sod, trees, shrubs,
flowers, and similar products of the soil.
2.13 Gross square footage means the entire interior area of a structure, finished or
unfinished.
2.14 Habitable gross square footage means the entire interior area of living space in
a residential structure, finished or unfinished, including but not limited to bathrooms,
toilet rooms, closets, halls, basements, and storage or utility spaces, but not including
porches, garages, unfinished attics, and crawl spaces. Habitable gross square footage
does not include the common areas of multifamily residential structures having three or
more dwelling units.
2.15 Mixed-use structure means a structure or part of a structure, but not a
separated occupancy, having any combination of residential use, nonresidential nonretail
use, or nonresidential retail use.
2.16 Nonresidential means the use of a structure for purposes other than living or
permanent habitation.
2.17 Nonresidential nonretail means the use of a structure for assembly, business,
factory, storage, utility, education, institutional, transient accommodations or habitation,
or hazardous uses.
2.18 Nonresidential retail means the use of a structure open to the public for the
display and sale of merchandise, and involves stocks of goods, wares, or merchandise
incidental to such purposes, including but not limited to restaurants, stores, members-
only discount stores, and other commercial sales enterprises not solely engaged in the
wholesale distribution of merchandise.
2.19 Principal use means the foremost purpose for the use, its raison d’être. A
principal use may be accompanied by one or more accessory uses that are incidental to or
supportive of the principal use. The ratio of the gross square footage of the structure
BUILDING XCISE AX RDINANCE FOR ASHINGTON OUNTY ARYLAND
3
devoted to any principal and accessory uses is not a factor in determining the principal
use of the structure.
2.20 Redevelopment area means the “Hagerstown Redevelopment Area,”
consisting of all that land zoned Downtown Mixed-Use District or within a Hagerstown
Conversion District overlay zone as set forth in the Hagerstown Zoning Ordinance as of
June 26, 2009, and those areas in other municipal corporations as may be designated by
the Board of County Commissioners by resolution upon request.
2.21 Residential means the use of a structure for living or permanent habitation,
or a structure having one (1) or more dwelling units, including but not limited to boarding
houses, but not including institutional uses or transient accommodations such as hotels,
country inns, bed and breakfast inns, and the like, which shall be considered
nonresidential nonretail uses.
2.22 Separated occupancy means a discrete part of a structure having a principal
use that is distinct from other uses in the same structure, including but not limited to a
store in a mall or an office in a multi-unit office building.
2.23 Structure means a building or part of a building.
3. Residential Construction.
3.01 Base building excise tax. The base amount of the building excise tax for
residential construction is $1 per square foot of habitable gross square footage.
3.02 Addition construction. The amount of the building excise tax for residential
addition construction is one-half of the amount per square foot set forth in §3.01.
3.03 Calculation of amount. The amount of building excise tax to be paid by an
applicant shall be determined by the Director of Plan Review and Permitting.
4. Nonresidential Construction
4.01 Nonresidential nonretail construction. The building excise tax for
nonresidential nonretail construction is $1 per square foot of the gross square footage.
4.02 Nonresidential retail construction. The building excise tax for nonresidential
retail construction is $1 per square foot of the first 15,000 square feet of gross square
footage and $3 per square foot of any gross square footage over 15,000 square feet.
BUILDING XCISE AX RDINANCE FOR ASHINGTON OUNTY ARYLAND
4
4.03 Addition construction. The amount of the tax due under this section shall be
determined according to the increase in the gross square footage of the structure at the
same rate per square foot set forth in §§ 4.01 and 4.02, as the circumstance may require.
4.04 Mixed-use structures. The building excise tax for mixed-use construction is
the tax imposed under this Ordinance for the principal use of the structure as determined
by the Director of Plan Review and Permitting.
4.05 Separated occupancies. The building excise tax for separated occupancy
construction is the tax imposed under this Ordinance for the principal use of the
separated occupancy.
5. Payment of tax.
5.01 Building excise tax paid before issuance of building permit. An applicant for a
building permit shall pay the building excise tax before the building permit for the
respective structure is issued.
5.02 Refunds. The Director of Finance shall refund to the applicant the building
excise tax paid if the building permit is cancelled or expires so long as work has not
commenced. If, upon appeal by an applicant pursuant to § 10.03 who has paid the
building excise tax, the County Administrator determines that the Director of Plan
Review and Permitting has erred in calculating the building excise tax, the Director of
Finance shall refund to the applicant the difference between the amount of building excise
tax paid by the applicant and the correct amount as determined by the County
Administrator.
6. Exemptions.
6.01 Farm construction. Farm construction is not subject to the building excise tax
so long as the construction continues to be actively used for farm use. Should the
construction be used for some purpose other than active farm use, then the building
excise tax shall be remitted to the Director of Finance at the then existing amount of the
building excise tax.
6.02 Government construction. No building excise tax shall be imposed on
construction by the Board of County Commissioners, any municipality, the Washington
County Board of Education, Hagerstown Community College, the State of Maryland, or
the federal government.
BUILDING XCISE AX RDINANCE FOR ASHINGTON OUNTY ARYLAND
5
6.03 Replacement construction.* No building excise tax shall be imposed on
construction that replaces an existing structure as long as there is no:
(a) Increase in the habitable gross square footage of a residential structure;
(b) Change in the use of a structure from a nonresidential nonretail use to a
nonresidential retail use; or
(c) Increase in the gross square footage of a nonresidential structure.
6.04 Residential accessory structures. No building excise tax shall be imposed on
residential accessory structures that are not habitable.
6.05 Schools. No building excise tax shall be imposed on construction of public
or private elementary or secondary schools or higher education institutions issued a
certificate of approval by the Maryland Higher Education Commission pursuant to Md.
Code Ann., Educ. § 11-202.
6.06 Redevelopment area. No building excise tax shall be imposed on construction
in a redevelopment area as defined in § 2.20 of this Ordinance.
6.07 Enterprise zones. No building excise tax shall be imposed upon
nonresidential construction within enterprise zones in the County.
6.08 Religious corporations. No building excise tax shall be imposed upon
structures:
(a) Owned by corporations organized and operated exclusively for
religious purposes within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. 501, and
(b) Used primarily for religious purposes.
6.09 Fire, Rescue, or Ambulance Companies. No building excise tax shall be
imposed upon structures:
(a) Owned by corporations authorized to provide fire protection or fire
fighting service, rescue, or ambulance service as described in Section 10-
401 of the Code of Public Local Laws for Washington County, Maryland;
and
* The building excise tax on any increase in habitable gross square footage or gross square footage
created by the construction shall be computed in accordance with §§ 3, 4, and 7 of this Ordinance.
BUILDING XCISE AX RDINANCE FOR ASHINGTON OUNTY ARYLAND
6
(b) Used primarily for the delivery of fire, rescue, or ambulance service.
7. Change in use.
7.01 General. Upon receipt of a building permit application for a change in use
that requires a zoning certification, the building excise tax shall be imposed based on the
use applied for in the building permit application, subject to any credit allowed by § 7.07.
7.02 Conversion from nonresidential to residential. When an existing structure is
subject to construction pursuant to a building permit that converts its use from a
nonresidential use to residential use, the building excise tax is 70% of the amount set forth
in § 3.01 on all existing gross square footage. Any addition construction will be taxed at
the amount set forth in § 3.02. Conversion construction under this § 7.02 is not entitled to
the credit set forth in § 7.05.
7.03 Conversion from nonresidential nonretail to nonresidential retail.† When an
existing structure is subject to construction pursuant to a building permit that converts
its use from nonresidential nonretail use to nonresidential retail use, the building excise
tax is as set forth in § 4.02 on all existing gross square footage. Any addition construction
will be taxed at the amount set forth in § 4.03.
7.04 Conversion from nonresidential retail to nonresidential nonretail.† When an
existing structure is subject to construction pursuant to a building permit that converts
its use from nonresidential retail use to nonresidential nonretail use, the building excise
tax is as set forth in § 4.01 on all existing gross square footage. Any addition construction
will be taxed at the amount set forth in § 4.03.
7.03 Conversion from residential to nonresidential nonretail. When an existing
structure is subject to construction pursuant to a building permit that converts its use from
residential use to nonresidential nonretail use, the building excise tax is as set forth in § 4.01 on
all existing habitable gross square footage. Any addition construction will be taxed at the
amount set forth in § 4.03.
7.04 Conversion from residential to nonresidential retail. When an existing structure
is subject to construction pursuant to a building permit that converts its use from residential
use to nonresidential retail use, the building excise tax is as set forth in § 4.02 on all existing
gross square footage. Any addition construction will be taxed at the amount set forth in § 4.03.
† See § 7.08.
BUILDING XCISE AX RDINANCE FOR ASHINGTON OUNTY ARYLAND
7
7.05 Credit. A credit shall be granted for any building excise tax due under
this § 7 for any excise tax previously paid upon prior construction of the structure since July 12,
2005. No refund shall be granted if the credit for any building excise tax previously paid exceeds
the building excise tax imposed under this § 7.
7.05 Special provisions; sunset. Until July 1, 2022, and retroactively to July 1, 2019,
the provisions of §§ 7.03 and 7.04 shall not be given effect. Until that date, when an
existing nonresidential structure is subject to construction pursuant to a building permit
that converts its use, the building excise tax is $0 on all existing gross square footage. Any
addition construction will be taxed at the amount of $0 per square foot. This § 7.08 shall
be abrogated and of no further force or effect on July 1, 2022.
8. Special excise tax fund.
8.01 Establishment of fund. The Director of Finance shall establish a special
nonlapsing fund to be known as the special excise tax fund. All revenues from the
building excise tax shall be deposited in the special excise tax fund. Interest earned by
money in the special excise tax fund shall accrue to the special excise tax fund.
8.02 Use of special excise tax fund – nonresidential construction. Revenues deposited
in the special fund that are generated by the building excise tax imposed on
nonresidential construction may only be used for:
(a) Primary, secondary, or higher education capital expenditures;
(b) Public safety capital expenditures;
(c) Public infrastructure projects; and
(d) Debt reduction related to capital improvements expenditures.
8.03 Use of special excise tax fund - residential construction. The revenues from the
building excise tax imposed on residential construction may only be used as follows:
(a) 70% for schools;
(b) 23% for roads;
(c) 2% for public libraries; and
(d) 5% for parks and recreational facilities, public safety, water and sewer
infrastructure, and agricultural land preservation.
BUILDING XCISE AX RDINANCE FOR ASHINGTON OUNTY ARYLAND
8
8.04 The revenues from the building excise tax imposed on residential
construction used for public libraries, water and sewer infrastructure, and parks and
recreation may only be used for the capital costs of public works, improvements, and
facilities.
8.05 The revenues from the building excise tax imposed on residential
construction used for schools may only be used for the capital costs required to
accommodate new construction or development in the County.
8.06 At the end of a fiscal year, any unspent or unencumbered balance in the
special fund shall remain in the fund, available for use in future fiscal years for purposes
specified in this subsection, and does not revert to the general fund of Washington
County.
8.07 Capital costs include the costs of land acquisition for public works,
improvements, facilities, and schools.
9. Municipalities.
9.01 Building excise tax applicable. This building excise tax shall apply to all
construction in Washington County, including construction within the boundaries of a
municipal corporation.
9.02 Collection of tax by a municipal corporation without an adequate public facilities
ordinance. This § 9.02 applies to a municipal corporation within Washington County that
has not adopted an adequate public facilities ordinance with school adequacy tests
substantially similar to or more stringent than the adequate public facilities ordinance
adopted by the County Commissioners.
(a) A municipal corporation described in § 9.02 of this paragraph shall assist
the County Commissioners in the collection of the building excise tax within the
municipal corporation by:
(i) Collecting the tax prior to the issuance of a building permit
and remitting the tax monthly to the Director of Finance, but
in no case more than 30 days after the end of the month during
which it was collected, and shall deliver therewith a full and
BUILDING XCISE AX RDINANCE FOR ASHINGTON OUNTY ARYLAND
9
accurate accounting of the collections in a format specified by
the County; or
(ii) Requiring the tax to be paid to the Director of Finance prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
(b) The failure of a municipality to comply with the requirements of
§ 9.02(a)(i) shall disqualify that municipality from retaining any funds for
administrative costs provided for in § 9.04 of this Ordinance for the period of non-
compliance.
9.03 Collection of tax by a municipal corporation with an adequate public facilities
ordinance. This § 9.03 applies to a municipal corporation within Washington County that
has adopted an adequate public facilities ordinance with school adequacy tests
substantially similar to or more stringent than the adequate public facilities ordinance
adopted by the County Commissioners.
(a) For residential construction, the municipal corporation:
(i) Shall assist the County Commissioners in the collection of that
portion of the building excise tax that is dedicated to schools
and public libraries as provided under § 8.03 of this
Ordinance, by collecting and remitting that amount of the tax
to the County Director of Finance; and
(ii) May retain the remaining portion of the building excise tax.
(b) For nonresidential construction, the municipal corporation:
(i) Shall assist the County Commissioners in the collection of
72% of the building excise tax on nonresidential construction
by collecting and remitting that amount of the tax to the
County Director of Finance; and
(ii) May retain the remaining portion of the building excise tax.
(c) The municipal corporation is not required to retain any portion of the
building excise tax as provided under § 9.03.
(d) Any portion of the building excise tax not retained by a municipal
corporation under §§ 9.03(a)(ii) or 9.03(b)(ii) shall be remitted to the County
Director of Finance monthly, but in no case more than 30 days after the end of the
BUILDING XCISE AX RDINANCE FOR ASHINGTON OUNTY ARYLAND
10
month during which it was collected, and shall deliver therewith a full and
accurate accounting of the collections in a format specified by the County. The
failure of a municipality to comply with the requirements of § 9.03(d) shall
disqualify that municipality from retaining any funds for administrative costs
provided for in § 9.04 of this Ordinance for the period of non-compliance.
(e) The director of finance of a municipal corporation retaining any revenue
from the building excise tax under §§ 9.03(a)(ii) or 9.03(b)(ii) shall deposit the
revenues into a nonlapsing special fund.
(f) The revenues from the municipal corporation’s special fund indicated
in § 9.03(e) may only be used for the capital costs of public works, improvements,
and facilities required to accommodate new construction for development of:
(i) Roads;
(ii) New construction or development of parks and recreational
facilities;
(iii) New construction or development of water and sewer
infrastructure; and
(iv) New construction or development of public safety facilities.
(g) At the end of a fiscal year, any unspent or unencumbered balance in the
municipal corporation’s special fund shall remain in the fund, available for use in
future fiscal years for purposes specified in § 9.03(f) of this section, and does not
revert to the general fund of the municipal corporation.
9.04 Administrative fees for collection.
(a) A municipal corporation that collects and remits the excise tax to the
County Commissioners may deduct from the revenues collected a fee of two
percent (2%) of the revenues remitted to the County Commissioners under this
section, not including any portion retained pursuant to § 9.03, for administrative
costs.
(b) If the municipal corporation can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Board of County Commissioners that the direct administrative costs of collecting
the building excise tax exceed the two percent (2%) rate authorized in the § 9.04(a),
the Board, in its sole discretion, after receiving the recommendation of the Director
of Finance, may authorize the municipal corporation to withhold all or any portion
BUILDING XCISE AX RDINANCE FOR ASHINGTON OUNTY ARYLAND
11
of the direct administrative costs claimed for collecting the building excise tax
remitted to the County Commissioners or may direct that the municipal
corporation be reimbursed with the costs.
10. Appeals
10.01 Administrative appeals. An applicant aggrieved by a decision regarding the
calculation of the amount of building excise tax, the granting or denial of an exemption,
or otherwise interpreting or applying this building excise tax, may appeal the decision to
the County Administrator within 30 days of the date of the written decision of the
Director of Plan Review and Permitting, provided that either:
(a) Processing of the building permit is delayed pending the decision of the
County Administrator; or
(b) The applicant pays the building excise tax prior to filing the appeal.
10.02 Burden of proof. The burden of proof shall be on the appellant to demonstrate
that the decision of the Director of Plan Review and Permitting is erroneous.
10.03 Procedures. Appeals must be filed in writing with the County
Administrator, with a copy of the appeal to the Office of the County Attorney, stating the
grounds of the appeal. Appeals from any decision of the Director of Plan Review and
Permitting under this Ordinance shall be de novo. The County Administrator shall hold
such hearings as are necessary and may request additional information from the
Appellant. The decision of the County Administrator shall be in writing and shall be
rendered within a reasonable time.
10.04 Judicial review.
(a) Any party aggrieved by a decision of the County Administrator may file
for judicial review of the decision in accordance with Maryland Rules 7-201, et seq.,
provided that such appeal is filed within thirty (30) days of the date of the written
decision of the County Administrator. This and all subsequent appeals shall be on
the record of the decision of the County Administrator and may not be heard de
novo.
(b) The decision of the Circuit Court may be appealed to the Court of
Special Appeals or, upon certiorari, to the Court of Appeals in accordance with the
Maryland Rules.
BUILDING XCISE AX RDINANCE FOR ASHINGTON OUNTY ARYLAND
12
(c) The County Commissioners may file a responsive pleading and be a
party to or file for judicial review in the Circuit Court, or take an appeal to the
Court of Special Appeals or, upon certiorari, to the Court of Appeals, of any
decision made under this Ordinance.
10.05 Reports to the Board of County Commissioners. The County Administrator shall
immediately report to the Board of County Commissioners on appeals from decisions of
the Director of Plan Review and Permitting including the issues raised, the decision, the
decision on any further appeal, and any changes made to County policies and procedures
as a result of the appeal.
11. Enforcement.
11.01 Misdemeanor. It is unlawful for any person or entity to enlarge, alter or
change any use of property or to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve,
make, put together, or convert any building in the County, or attempt to do so, or cause
the same to be done, without first paying any building excise tax imposed by this
Ordinance. Any person or entity who shall so violate this Ordinance shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined up to five hundred dollars
($500.00) or imprisoned for up to thirty (30) days, or be both fined and imprisoned. Each
day that the violation continues shall be deemed a separate offense.
11.02 Action to enforce. In the event the building excise tax is not paid as required,
the Office of the County Attorney or its designee may institute an action to recover the
building excise tax and enjoin the use of the property until the building excise tax is paid.
The person who fails so to pay shall be responsible for the costs of such suit, including
reasonable attorney’s fees.
11.03 Lien and enforcement same as County real property taxes. If not paid as required
by this Ordinance, the building excise tax shall automatically constitute a lien against the
property being developed and shall be levied, collected, and enforced in the same manner
as are County real property taxes, and shall have the same priority and bear the same
interest and penalties as County real property taxes for lien purposes.
12. Annual reports.
12.01 Reports by the municipal corporations.
(a) On or before September 30 of each year, each municipal corporation that
retains revenues under § 9.03 of this Ordinance shall report annually to the Board
of County Commissioners:
BUILDING XCISE AX RDINANCE FOR ASHINGTON OUNTY ARYLAND
13
(i) The amount of revenues the municipal corporation received
and the number of single-family and multifamily residential
units that generated these revenues;
(ii) The amount of revenues remitted to the Board of County
Commissioners and the amount retained by the municipal
corporation; and
(iii) A detailed accounting of how the revenues that were retained
by the municipal corporation were distributed among the
acceptable uses specified in § 9.03(f) of this Ordinance and the
specific projects for which the revenues were used.
(b) The report prepared by each municipal corporation shall be based on
the fiscal year ending on June 30 of the year the report is submitted.
12.02 Reports by the Director of Finance. The Director of Finance shall prepare and
submit an annual report on or before November 30 of each year to the Board of County
Commissioners that shall include the following information for the prior fiscal year:
(a) The total amount of building excise taxes collected;
(b) The amount of funds appropriated from the special excise tax fund;
(c) The amount of funds expended from the special excise tax fund;
(d) The amount of funds from County sources appropriated for each of the
categories set forth in § 8 of this Ordinance; and
(e) The funds remaining in the special excise tax fund.
12.03 Reports by the Board of County Commissioners. On or before December 31 of
each year, the Board of County Commissioners shall:
(a) Report to the members of the Washington County legislative delegation:
(i) The amount of revenues by school district that the Board of
County Commissioners received from nonresidential
building types, residential units, and the number and types of
units that generated these revenues; and
BUILDING XCISE AX RDINANCE FOR ASHINGTON OUNTY ARYLAND
14
(ii) The manner in which the revenues were distributed among
the acceptable uses specified in § 8 of this Ordinance and the
specific projects for which the revenues were used.
(b) Submit to members of the Washington County legislative delegation the
report prepared by each municipal corporation under § 12.01 of this Ordinance.
(c) The reports prepared by the Board of County Commissioners shall be
based on the fiscal year ending on June 30 of the year the reports are submitted.
13. Agricultural land preservation
13.01 Each fiscal year, the Board of County Commissioners shall encumber at
least $1,000,000 of local funds for agricultural land preservation.
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Application for Zoning Map Amendment RZ-22-002
PRESENTATION DATE: June 28, 2022
PRESENTATION BY: Travis Allen, Comprehensive Planner, Department of Planning and Zoning
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Approval of the partial termination of the Rural Business Zoning
District (RB) at the subject property.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: Application is being made to partially terminate an existing Rural Business
floating zone through a rezoning map amendment.
DISCUSSION: The applicant JTA Investments, LLC seeks a map amendment for a property located
at 21036 National Pike. An existing RB floating zone was established over the parcel in 2014, which
formerly operated as the Family Recreation Park. The current proposal seeks to remove 5.64 acres of
the RB floating zone to enable the applicant to pursue a residential use on this portion of the property.
Most residential uses are not permitted within an RB Zoning District.
The factors to be considered in a request to partially terminate an existing RB zoning district are
specified in Section 5E.8 of the Washington County Zoning Ordinance. The applicant must provide a
written request as well as a detailed drawing showing surveyed metes and bounds of the requested
change so as to determine the remaining limits of the RB floating zone district. The Board of County
Commissioners may approve or deny the request without holding a public hearing.
This item was presented to the Washington County Planning Commission at their regular meeting on
June 6, 2022. The members unanimously recommended approval of the proposed map amendment.
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
CONCURRENCES: Washington County Planning Commission
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: Staff report, Zoning Exhibit, Request Letter, and Planning
Commission recommendation,
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: none
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
1
June, 2022 Case #: RZ-22-002
Application for Map Amendment
Staff Report and Analysis
Property Owner(s) : JTA Investments, LLC
Applicant(s) : JTA Investments, LLC
Location : 21036 National Pike, Hagerstown
Election District : #16 – Beaver Creek
Comprehensive Plan
Designation : Agriculture
Zoning Map : 64
Parcel(s) : P. 32
Acreage : 19.27 acres (Lot 1 5.64 acres)
Existing Zoning : RB – Rural Business
Requested Zoning : A(R) – Agricultural, Rural
Date of Meeting : June 6, 2022
I. Background Information
a. Location and Description of Subject Properties
The proposed rezoning site is located
at 21036 National Pike where the highway
intersects with Stottlemeyer Road. The total
acreage of the current parcel is 19.27 acres,
but only 5.64 acres are subject to this
rezoning request.
The property is currently a composite
of past and current land uses. Most of the
infrastructure and amenities (mini golf
course, go kart track, etc.) remain from the
former Family Recreation Park that occupied
the property for many years. The applicant
has now, however, converted a portion of the parcel to Adkins Automotive auto repair
shop.
Staff Report and Analysis
RZ-22-002 JTA Investments
Page 2
2
Lot 1, proposed to be subdivided off the main parcel, is currently an undeveloped
area in the rear of the site that was used a driving range previously.
a. Rural Business Floating Zone Removal Criteria
The applicant is requesting a partial termination of the Rural Business (RB) floating
zone previously applied to the property in 2015 (RZ-14-002). Section 5E.8 of the Zoning
Ordinance describes the criteria for the partial removal of the floating zone:
b) Partial Termination
An individual property owner may submit a written request to the Planning Commission to
remove a portion of the RB floating zone district from their property at any time. The
written request must be accompanied by a detailed drawing showing surveyed metes and
bounds of the requested change so as to determine the limits of the RB floating zone
district. The Planning Commission shall review such a request at one of their regular
meetings and make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board
of County Commissioners may then approve or deny the request without a public hearing.
Should the Board of County Commissioners approve the property owner’s request to
remove the RB floating district, the land will be restored to its underlying zoning district.
II. Staff Analysis and Conclusion:
The applicant has met the criteria described above for the partial termination of the
existing RB through the submission of a Zoning Exhibit prepared by Frederick, Seibert and
Associates and an accompanying letter, dated May 17, 2022, describing their request. The
Exhibit shows the metes and bounds of proposed 5.64 acre Lot 1. The accompanying letter
then details the applicant’s intentions to formally subdivide Lot 1 for the purposes of
constructing a personal residence on the property.
Most residential uses are not permitted by the current RB Zoning applied to the
property, including the construction of a single family home. The partial termination of
the existing RB district would therefore enable the intended residential use to occur. The
applicant would merely need to meet the requirements of the underlying Agricultural Rural
A(R) zoning already affixed to the property in developing a residential use at this location.
The requested change would therefore constitute a voluntary downzoning to a less
intensive land use on roughly 1/3 of the total existing parcel. Accordingly, this intended
switch to a less intensive use would be unlikely to negatively impact neighborhood
character or public infrastructure in the area.
Staff Report and Analysis
RZ-22-002 JTA Investments
Page 3
3
Respectfully Submitted,
Travis Allen
Comprehensive Planner
Ra
D27
VICINITY MAP
SCALE 1"=2000'
/ sao
N! \
Christopher
D. Diehl /Q,
Liber 715, folio 821 -
J ,
N!F
Todd Mike Investments, LLC
\ Liber 4610, folio 204
\ Proposed Lot 1
\ . Acres 0\
- .0808 Acres Ded. RlVV � \
5.56 Acres Net
/
N It
go _ °J
ti
Remaining Lands of JTA \Jl 7y Ex. Guy Wire (Typ.) /
Investments,
Li6456, folio 311 Ex. Pole
ff 19.727 Acres± per Tax Records (Typ.)
- 5.64 Acres
s Lot 1
Q 14.087 Acrest Net Elec. H%andhole 1 /
1
y Parcel is currently zoned AIR) -Agricultural
s (Rural) with RB - Rural Business overlay
GRAPHIC SCALE
400
�r1A
.ryf /
j o
C
O
N
LN
J
J
Cn
C
N
It
O E
N
C
PROJECTNO.
8196.1
DWN BY DATE
LEJ 4.4.2022
PROJECTMANAGER EMAIL
EJS EScW1er@ka4nc.com
PROPERTYWFORMATION
64-7-32
SCALE
1'=100'
SHEET Rii r
ZONING
EXHIBIT
-on
nvestments, LLC
Crystal Falls Drive
rstown MD 21740
(INFM)
1 inch = 100 M
SHEET 01 OF 01
Tanya Phillips & Jason Adkins
9920 Crystal Falls Drive
Hagerstown, MD 21740
(240)367-7307
May 17, 2022
Attn: Jill Baker
JBaker(awashco-md.net
Dear Ms. Baker,
Attached is the zoning exhibit that we're requesting the Rural Business (RB) overlay removed
from the land shown as proposed lot 1.
Jason Adkins and 1, Tanya Phillips, formed a Limited Liability Corporation under JTA
Investments LLC and both of us personally will be the owners of the proposed lot 1. While
proposed lot 1 is vacant of any improvements, we intend to go through the subdivision process
and build a home as our personal residence. We understand that single family detached homes
are not permitted in the RB district which therefore creates the need for this request. After the
subdivision is approved we would convey to the lot from the LLC to Jason and I personally.
Respectfully,
d`
Tanya Phillips
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING | LAND PRESERVATION | FOREST CONSERVATION | GIS
WWW.WASHCO-MD.NET
747 Northern Avenue | Hagerstown, MD 21740 | P: 240.313.2430 | F: 240.313.2431 | TDD: 7-1-1
June 8, 2022 RZ-22-002
APPLICATION FOR MAP AMENDMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Property Owner(s) : JTA Investments, LLC
Applicant(s) : Same
Location : 21036 National Pike
Election District : #16 – Beaver Creek
Comprehensive Plan
Designation : Agriculture
Zoning Map : 64
Parcel(s) : 32
Acreage : 19.27 acres (Lot 1 – 5.64 acres)
Existing Zoning : A(R) – Agricultural Rural with Rural Business (RB) floating
zone
Requested Zoning : A(R) – Agricultural Rural
Date of Meeting : June 6, 2022
RECOMMENDATION
The Washington County Planning Commission took action at its regular meeting held on Monday, June 6,
2022 to recommend approval of Map Amendment RZ-22-002 to the Board of County Commissioners.
The Commission considered the applicant’s request to terminate the Rural Business floating zone on 5.64
acres of the 19.27-acre parcel in order to build a home next to their business. The Commission
considered the applicant’s supporting documentation and the Staff Report and Analysis.
Copies of the application packet, justification letter, and Staff Report and Analysis are attached.
Respectfully submitted,
Jill L. Baker, AICP
Director, Washington County
Department of Planning & Zoning
JLB/TAL/dse
Attachments
cc: Kirk Downey
JTA Investments, LLC
WashingtonCounty
I
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Fort Ritchie Gravity Lines & Marihole Replacement
PRESENTATION DATE: June 28, 2022
PRESENTATION BY: Mark D Bradshaw, PE, DEM Director
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve Change Order #4 for C. William Hetzer in the
amount of $51,929.00.
REPORT -IN -BRIEF: Adjust bid quantities to match field quantities.
DISCUSSION: To adjust the bid quantities to reflect actual field quantities. Please refer to attached
change order for detail of individual bid adjustments.
FISCAL IMPACT: There are adequate funds in LIN046 to cover this change order.
CONCURRENCES: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: Change Order #4 with attachment
AUDIOVISUAL NEEDS: N/A
TO:
Consultant:
Contractor:
Vendor:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
WASHINGTON COUNTY MARYLAND
100 WEST WASHINGTON STREET, HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND 21740-4735
CHANGE ORDER
C. William Hetzer
9401 Sharpsburg Pike
PO Box 506
Hagerstown, MD 21740-0506
Change Order No. 4 (Final) Purchase Order No. RQ 20132
Contract No. PUR-1513 Oracle Account No. 515000-32-4201-LIN046-CNST00000
Project Title: Fort Ritchie Gravity Lines & Manhole Replacement I Date: Jun 8, 2022
The contract time will: ()increase ()decrease ()remain the same by: ()calendar days reworking days
al
bid quantities to match field quantities.
iWason 101'
adjust the bid quantities to reflect Actual Field quantities. Please refer to attached spreadsheet for detail individual bid adjustments.
rease contract amount by $51,929.00
The completion date, incorporating the changes included in this change order, is:
Sep 10, 2022
The original contract sum was:
$359,455.00
Net changes by previous change orders:
$13,425.00
Contract son prior to this change order:
$372,880.00
By this Change Order, the contract sum will be changed by:
$51,929.00
The new contract sum including this change order will be:
$424,809.00
The Consultant/Co1h'actorNendm' shall not commence with the work described hereon until this form is executed by all agents.
Consultand
,Digil,ll,'eiQnN b}'TunyLXenu
Contractol'Nendor; ITony Z. K01'115 D,�,: nolzos o� n osss Boa
Finance:
Purchasing: 7771
UiBiUll,'si�N 1-17D
Approving Agency: Mark D Bradshaw��e:)���,fa,.os-0, County Administrator:
Outside County Entities: Please email the signed form to ClrangeOrdei'@wasllco-md,net,
Fort Ritchie Gravity Sewer Lines & manhole Replacement
Final Quantities
ITEM ff
ITEM
UNIT
PRICE
ITEM #
ESTIMATEC
QUANTITY
ESTIMATED
PAYMENT
ACTUAL FIELD
QUANTITY
ACTUAL PAYMENT
FOR QUANTITIES
INSTALLED
1
Mobilization & Demomobilization
$ 17,500.00
1
$ 17,600.00
1
$17,500.00
2
Replacement of Manholes
$ 3,400.00
17
$ 57,800.00
17
$57,800.00
3
Replacement of 8" SDR-26 Gravity Sewer
$ 56.00
1280
$ 71,680.00
1270
$71,120.00
4
Replacement of 10" SDR-26 Gravity Sewer
$ 64.00
1423
$ 91,072.00
1409
$90,176.00
5
Non -Paved Area Restoration
$ 34.00
390
$ 13,260.00
2,300
$78,200.00
6
Paved -Area Restoration
$ 62.00
1134
$ 70,308.00
1,424
$88,288.00
7
Curb Replacement
$ 27.00
560
$ 15,120.00
40
$1,080.00
8
Inlet Replacement
$ 3,860.00
3
$ 11,680.00
0
$0.00
9
Rehab Lining of Manhole
$ 2,660.00
2
$ 5,320.00
2
$5,320.00
10
Filler Log
$ 5.00
191
$ 955.00
96
$480.00
11
Existing Laterals
$ 320.00
3
$ 960.00
5
$1,600.00
$ 365,665.00 $411,564.00
Select
for
80.00
C-2 I Contingent suiitable lMaterailkExcavalion ( $ 30.00I 50 I $ 1,500.00) 10 I $4$0.00
$ 3,900.00 480.00
CO #1 Remove Concrete Duclbank $ 20.00 150 $ 3,000.00 150 $3,000.00
CO #-2 Concrete Encase Waterlines $ 440.00 20 $ 8,800.00 19 $8,140.00
CO #3 Remove & Reinstall Starmdrain $ 1,625.00 1 $ 1,625.00 1 $1,625.00
$ 13,425.00 12,765.00
$ 372,880.00 $ 424,809,00
Increase in Contract Amount $ 61,929.00
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Contract Award (PUR-1553) – Engineering Services Requirements Contract for the
Department Solid Waste
PRESENTATION DATE: June 28, 2022
PRESENTATION BY: Brandi Naugle, CPPB, Buyer and David Mason, P.E., Deputy Director,
Department of Solid Waste
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to award a primary requirements contract for the
Engineering Services for Department Solid Waste to the responsive, responsible proposal with the
lowest price proposal amount at the specified unit costs and estimated hours (no minimum or
maximum guaranteed); and, as permitted in the Request for Proposals, a “stand-by list” of
consultants.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The services under this contract consist of providing engineering support
by qualified engineering consultant firms to perform engineering services for Solid Wastes
projects in the six-year Washington County Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and general operating
budget and unanticipated emergencies. The duration of the contract shall be for a period of two
(2) years, with an option by the County to renew for up to three (3) additional one (1) year periods.
Under the terms of the contract, other political jurisdictions within the County may utilize the
services provided as a result of this contract. This is a requirements contract; therefore, services
will be utilized on an as-needed basis at the respective hourly unit prices for each discipline with
no guarantee of a maximum or minimum number of hours.
Project assignments will be issued in two (2) distinct manners through this contract. Assignments
with a fee of $50,000 or less will be given to the designated responsive-responsible Consultant
with the lowest price proposal. Assignments with fees anticipated to exceed $50,000 will have a
defined scope of work specified and distributed to those firms deemed most qualified following in
sequence of the lowest overall price proposal and offered on a stand-by list. The County intends
to limit the stand-by list to a maximum of five (5) firms, one of which will be the designated
responsive-responsible Consultant with the lowest overall price proposal. Assignment value will
be determined when the Consultant applies the necessary man-hours and his standard rates to the
individual assignment.
In order to determine which proposal offered the overall lowest cost to the County for this
recommended contract award; each proposer submitted hourly rates for various employee
classifications or positions. The lowest cost proposal was determined by applying the quoted rates
to a position matrix that identified an approximate number of hours by position.
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
Public Packet
Notice of the Request for Proposal (RFP) was advertised (1) on the County’s web site with access
to downloading the RFP, (2) on the State’s “eMaryland Marketplace” web site, and (3) in the local
newspaper. There were thirty-nine (39) downloads of the RFP document from the County’s
website and six (6) firms were represented at the pre-proposal conference/teleconference. Three
(3) firms responded with proposals. After evaluation of Qualifications & Experience submittals,
three (3) firms were considered responsive, and their Price Proposals were opened and evaluated
(see attached Price Proposal Matrix).
The Coordinating Committee was comprised of the following members: Director of Division of
Environmental Management (Committee Chairman Designee), Director of Engineering Services,
Deputy Director of Solid Waste, Deputy Director of Engineering, and the Buyer in the Purchasing
Department.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are budgeted in various Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and General
Operating Budget project accounts for these services.
CONCURRENCES: Coordinating Committee
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: N/A
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A
1
Open Session Item
PUBLIC PACKET - NO ATTACHMENT
SUBJECT: Contract Award (PUR-1554) - Landfill Monitoring Services - Requirements Contract
PRESENTATION DATE: June 28, 2022
PRESENTATION BY: Rick Curry, CPPO – Director of Purchasing and David A. Mason, P.E., Deputy
Director of Environmental Management – Department of Solid Waste
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Motion to award the contract to the responsive, responsible, proposer
with the lowest total (annual) proposal amount for providing Landfill Monitoring Services.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The services under this contract consist of providing gas and water
monitoring services at the five (5) landfill locations for the Department of Solid Waste. It is a
requirements contract, utilized on an as-needed basis with no guarantee of minimum or maximum
number units of services. The duration of the contract is for a period of two (2) years for these services
with an option by the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland (the
“County”) to renew for up to three (3) additional, consecutive one (1) year periods. Extensions are
subject to written approval by the County at least sixty (60) calendar days prior to the contract expiration
date.
The Request for Proposal (RFP) was advertised in the local newspaper, on the State of Maryland’s web
site, “eMaryland Marketplace”, and on the County’s web site. Thirty-seven (37) firms/persons accessed
the RFP document from the County’s web site, and eight (8) firms were represented at the pre-proposal
conference/teleconference. Three (3) proposals were received; three (3) proposals were deemed
responsive, and their Price Proposals were opened as shown on the attached Price Proposal Matrix.
The Coordinating Committee was comprised of the following members: County Director of
Environmental Management (Chairman Designee), County Director of Purchasing, County
Deputy Director of Environmental Management - Solid Waste, Superintendent of Landfill
Operations and Recycling Coordinator/Operations Supervisor.
DISCUSSION: N/A
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are budgeted in the department’s operating budget for these services.
CONCURRENCES: Coordinating Committee
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: N/A
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
Open Session Item
PUBLIC PACKET - NO ATTACHMENT
SUBJECT: Contract Award (PUR-1547) – Division of Environmental Management -
Engineering Services Requirements Contract
PRESENTATION DATE: June 28, 2022
PRESENTATION BY: Rick Curry, CPPO, Director of Purchasing and Mark Bradshaw, P.E.,
Division Director, Environmental Management
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to award a primary requirements contract for the Division
of Environmental Management - Engineering Services for the responsive, responsible
proposal with the lowest price proposal amount at the specified unit costs and estimated hours (no
minimum or maximum guaranteed); and, as permitted in the Request for Proposals, a “stand-
by list” of consultants.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The services under this contract consist of providing engineering
support by qualified engineering consultant firms to perform engineering services for DEM
projects in the six-year Washington County Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and general
operating budget and unanticipated emergencies. The duration of the contract shall be for a
period of two (2) years, with an option by the County to renew for up to three (3) additional one
(1) year periods. Under the terms of the contract, other political jurisdictions within the
County may utilize the services provided as a result of this contract. This is a requirements
contract; therefore, services will be utilized on an as-needed basis at the respective hourly
unit prices for each discipline with no guarantee of a maximum or minimum number of hours.
Project assignments will be issued in two (2) distinct manners through this contract.
Assignments with a fee of $50,000 or less will be given to the designated responsive-
responsible Consultant with the lowest price proposal. Assignments with fees anticipated to
exceed $50,000 will have a defined scope of work specified and distributed to those firms
deemed most qualified following in sequence of the lowest overall price proposal and offered on
a stand-by list. The County intends to limit the stand-by list to a maximum of five (5) firms,
one of which will be the designated responsive-responsible Consultant with the lowest overall
price proposal. Assignment value will be determined when the Consultant applies the necessary
man-hours and his standard rates to the individual assignment.
In order to determine which proposal offered the overall lowest cost to the County for
this recommended contract award; each proposer submitted hourly rates for various
employee classifications or positions. The lowest cost proposal was determined by applying the
quoted rates to a position matrix that identified an approximate number of hours by position.
Notice of the RFP was advertised (1) on the County’s web site with access to downloading the
RFP, (2) on the State’s “eMaryland Marketplace” web site, and (3) in the local newspaper.
There
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
were one hundred fifty (150) downloads of the RFP document from the County’s website and
eighteen (18) firms were represented at the pre-proposal conference/teleconference. Six (6) firms
responded with proposals. After evaluation of Qualifications & Experience submittals, Six (6)
firms were considered responsive, and their Price Proposals were opened and evaluated (see
attached Price Proposal Matrix).
The Coordinating Committee was comprised of the following members: Director of Division of
Environmental Management (Committee Chairman Designee), Director of Engineering Services,
Deputy Director of Solid Waste, Deputy Director of Engineering, and the Director of Purchasing.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are budgeted in various Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and General
Operating Budget project accounts for these services.
CONCURRENCES: Coordinating Committee
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: N/A
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchase (INTG-22-0089) - Two (2) New 2023 Compact
Vehicles
PRESENTATION DATE: June 28, 2022
PRESENTATION BY: Rick F. Curry, Director of Purchasing and Mark Bradshaw, P.E., Division
Director, Environmental Management (DEM)
RECOMMENDATION: To authorize the purchase by Resolution, for the Division of Environmental
Management to purchase two (2) new 2022 Chevrolet Colorado pickups in the amount of $26,423 each,
total cost of $52,846 from Sport Chevrolet Co., Inc., of Silver Spring, MD and to utilizing another
jurisdiction’s contract that was awarded by the State of Maryland (Contract #001B600427).
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: DEM is requesting to purchase two (2) compact vehicles to replace two (2)
vehicles that exceed the County’s Vehicle and Equipment Types and Usage Guidelines. The County
initiated the Vehicle and Equipment Types and Usage Guidelines in 2001. The County’s replacement
guidelines for vehicles less than 19,500 lbs. GVWR is recommended at a ten (10) year economic life
cycle. The replaced trucks were sold on GovDeals.com.
The Code of Public Laws of Washington County, Maryland (the Public Local Laws) 1-106.3 provides
that the Board of County Commissioners may procure goods and services through a contract entered
into by another governmental entity, in accordance with the terms of the contract, regardless of whether
the County was a part to the original contract. If the Board of County Commissioners determines that
participation by Washington County would result in cost benefits or administrative efficiencies, it could
approve the procurement of the equipment in accordance with the Public Local Laws referenced above
that participation would result in cost benefits or in administrative efficiencies.
The County will benefit with the direct cost savings in the purchase of this equipment because of
economies of scale this contract has leveraged. Additionally, the County will realize savings through
administrative efficiencies as a result of not preparing, soliciting and evaluating a bid. Acquisition of
these vehicles by utilizing the State of Maryland contract and eliminating our county’s bid process
would result in an administrative and cost savings for the Division of Emergency Services and
Purchasing Department in preparing specifications
DISCUSSION: N/A
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are budgeted in the Department of Water Quality’s Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP) account 37-40010-VEH.
CONCURRENCES: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: Sport Chevrolet Co., Inc. quote dated June 6, 2022
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
Tony Rhodes
Sport Chevrolet Co Inc
3101 Automobile Blvd
Silver Spring, MD 20904
240-560-5375
301-674-8206 Cell
John Swauger 06/07/2022
Washington County
State of Maryland BPO 001B1600427
Type 5-1 Compact Pickup Truck 4WD
Base: $25488.00
Convenience Group: $530.00
Includes: Cruise Control, Remote Keyless
Entry, Theft Deterrent System, Locking
Tailgate and EZ Lift Tailgate
2 Extra Keys: $165.00
Rear Seat: $240.00
Total: $26423.00
Tony Rhodes
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Sole Source Procurement Award (PUR-1561) - Family Centered Support Services in
Washington County, Maryland
PRESENTATION DATE: June 28, 2022
PRESENTATION BY: Rick F. Curry, CPPO, Director of Purchasing and Rachael Souders,
Senior Grant Manager, Office of Grant Management
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to award a Sole Source procurement to the Washington
County Department of Social Services in the amount of $88,800 for Operating expenses of the
Family Center operated by the Washington County Department of Social Services (WCDSS)
contingent upon contract approval and the subsequent funding award from the Maryland
Governor’s Office of Crime Prevention, Youth, and Victim Services and was approved by the
Washington County Local Management Board at its meeting on March 18, 2022.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The purpose of the service to be provided is to fulfill the requirements
contained in a Community Partnership Agreement to be entered into and dated on or about July 1,
2022, by and between the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland and
the State of Maryland acting through the Sub-Cabinet for Children, Youth and Families which, in
turn, is acting through the Washington County Office of Grant Management (OGM). The contract
is for a one-year period commencing July 1, 2022 and ending June 30, 2023. It is the intent of the
Local Management Board supported by the contract with the Governor’s Office of Crime
Prevention, Youth, and Victim Services to support the operations of the Family Center to provide
Family Centered Support Services which is operated by the Washington County Department of
Social Services.
DISCUSSION: The OGM wishes to apply Section 1-106.2(a)(1) of the Code of Local Public
Laws of Washington County, Maryland, to the procurement requested. This section states that
sole source procurements are authorized and permissible when: (1) Only one source exists that
meets the County’s requirements.
This request requires the approval of four (4) of the five (5) Commissioners in order to proceed
with a sole source procurement. If approved, the following remaining steps of the process will
occur as outlined by the law: 1) Not more than ten (10) days after the execution and approval of
a contract under this section, the procurement agency shall publish notice of the award in a
newspaper of general circulation in the County, and 2) An appropriate record of the sole source
procurement shall be maintained as required.
FISCAL IMPACT: The total funding allocated is $88,800. No county funds are being requested.
CONCURRENCES: The Local Management Board recommends this award.
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: ”Scope of Work” excerpt from the Request for Proposal
AUDIO/VISUAL TO BE USED: N/A
Family Centered Support Services
Washington County Family Center / Washington County Department of Social Services
Scope of Work for services provided July 1, 2022 thru June 30, 2023
The purpose of this contract is to support additional personnel at the Washington County
Family Center (“WCFC”) in order to provide all the services of the WCFC to
additional at-risk parents and their children. The WCFC in collaboration with the
Washington County Board of Education and Hagerstown Community College
provides on-site childcare for young children (generally up to age 4) of parents
who are enrolled in classes at the WCFC to complete their high school diploma,
General Equivalency Diploma, or Maryland External Diploma. Programs at the
WCFC include education on parenting and life skills provided through the
National Nurturing Program curriculum, home visiting services, transportation,
and case management services. The WCFC offers childcare within its facility while
parents attend classes. Childcare is a critical service component of the WCFC and
its availability often determines how many program participants can be enrolled
in educational classes and other services.
The WCFC childcare staff who are supported by funds under this Contract shall receive
training as required by the WCFC and the State of Maryland childcare regulations.
Childcare staff shall also implement the Ages and Stages Questionnaire
assessment tool at the required intervals with the parents of each child served.
Children with suspected developmental delays shall be referred for early
intervention services as appropriate.
The target population for this program is parents of young children who do not have a
high school diploma and pregnant or parenting teens at risk for dropping out of
high school. In addition, newborns to four-year-old children shall receive
developmentally appropriate childcare and developmental screenings.
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Sole Source Contract Award (PUR-1562) – Provision of Healthy Families Home
Visiting Services in Washington County, Maryland
PRESENTATION DATE: June 28, 2022
PRESENTATION BY: Rick F. Curry, CPPO, Director of Purchasing and Rachael Souders,
Senior Grant Manager for the Office of Grant Management (OGM)
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to award a Sole Source contract to the Washington County
Health Department in the amount of $271,386 for Operating expenses of the Healthy Families
Home Visiting Program operated by the Washington County Health Department (WCHD);
contingent upon contract approval and the subsequent funding award from the Maryland State
Department of Education (MSDE) and was approved by the Washington County Local
Management Board at its meeting on May 20, 2022.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The Healthy Families Home Visiting Program is a comprehensive
program modeled after a nationally renowned initiative. The goals of the program are to prevent
child maltreatment through early intervention, promote healthy growth, development and
strengthening the parent-child relationship. It is the intent of the Local Management Board
supported by the contract with the Maryland State Dept of Education to support the operations of
the Program to provide Home Visiting Services which is operated by the Washington County
Health Department.
The contract is for a one (1) year period tentatively commencing July 1, 2022 and ending June 30,
2023. It is the intent of the Local Management Board supported by the contract with the Governor’s
Office of Crime Prevention, Youth, and Victim Services to support the operations of the Family
Center to provide Family Centered Support Services which is operated by the Washington County
Health Department.
DISCUSSION: The OGM wishes to apply Section 1-106.2(a)(1) of the Code of Local Public
Laws of Washington County, Maryland, to the procurement requested. This section states that
sole source procurements are authorized and permissible when: (1) Only one source exists that
meets the County’s requirements.
This request requires the approval of four (4) of the five (5) Commissioners in order to proceed
with a sole source procurement. If approved, the following remaining steps of the process will
occur as outlined by the law: 1) Not more than ten (10) days after the execution and approval of
a contract under this section, the procurement agency shall publish notice of the award in a
newspaper of general circulation in the County, and 2) An appropriate record of the sole source
procurement shall be maintained as required.
FISCAL IMPACT: The Washington County Office of Grant Management, on behalf of the Local
Management Board, is receiving $271,386.00 in funding from the Maryland State Department of
Education, Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services in fiscal year 2023 for the
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
provision of Home Visiting/Healthy Families Services. No county funds are associated with this
award.
CONCURRENCES: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: “Scope of Work” excerpt from the Request for Proposal
AUDIO/VISUAL TO BE USED: N/A
SCOPE OF WORK
A. Overview of the Healthy Families Home Visiting Model Program
1. Healthy Families (HF) is a national model program designed to help
expectant and new parents get their children off to a healthy start. HF
programs offer voluntary and free home visiting services to parents facing
multiple challenges (e.g. elements that would add stressors to any home:
single parent status, low income, substance abuse problems, victim of abuse
or domestic violence, teen parenting, etc.) so that they have the support they
need to better care for their children.
2. The goals of the program are:
• To promote positive parenting
• To enhance child health and development
• To prevent child abuse and neglect
3. Healthy Families is built on a set of 12 research-based Critical Elements
that provide a benchmark in which quality is measured. For additional
information on the HFA Critical Elements, see
www.healthyfamiliesamerica.org.
4. Staffing is a critical component of all HF programs, which places a high
priority on recruiting highly qualified staff who not only have direct service
experience, but who also have strong interpersonal and communication
skills and a willingness to work with families from culturally diverse
backgrounds. Historically, HF staff often possess college degrees or have
attended some college courses.
5. The HF program model has a strong emphasis on training in order to ensure
delivery of quality services. HF program staff must complete the required
trainings of the program model including:
Primary Training – establishes a framework for understanding the program and
instructs staff in their specific roles as Family Assessment Workers
(FAWs), Family Support Workers (FSWs), Supervisors and Program
Managers.
Wraparound Training - complements primary training and covers the details of
parent education and information on topics relevant to the needs of families
in a specific community. HF program sites typically reach out to members
of their own communities to fulfill these training needs.
Prenatal Training - gives service providers strategies for supporting families
during the prenatal period. Based upon best practice standards, with a
special focus on the psycho-social issues facing expectant parents, home
visitors will learn how to help parents enhance prenatal bonding, stimulate
brain development and reduce stress, thereby increasing healthy mother and
baby birth outcomes.
6. Some of the core HF services provided include:
a. Ensuring families have a medical provider
b. Sharing information on children’s developmental processes
c. Assisting families in identifying their baby’s needs and obtaining
certain resources
d. Supporting families in the home while they respond to their child’s
and their own needs
e. Sharing ideas on caring for babies, toddlers, and young children
f. Linking families with other resources in the community for
assistance with job placement, identification of day care providers,
etc.
g. Assisting families in following up with recommended immunization
schedules and other medical concerns
h. Helping families feel more empowered and in turn more likely to
take action when needed
7. Healthy Families programs have an assessment process where all families
within the target population are systematically assessed by a trained staff
member, either prenatally or within two weeks of the birth of a child.
Programs typically work with hospitals, clinics, and other community
agencies that serve pregnant women and/or new parents to provide
assessment services. Assessments enable staff to identify family needs and
refer them to supportive services.
8. The Healthy Families program in Washington County must obtain or
maintain their Credentialed Status from Prevent Child Abuse America.
9. The Healthy Families’ contractor must maintain program process and
outcomes data in the most recent PIMS software available from Prevent
Child Abuse America/Healthy Families America. The following outcome
data measures are the minimum targets expected of the selected Contractor.
a. 90% of families who enroll during 1st or 2nd trimester will have a
child weighing 2500 grams or greater at birth
b. 90% of all target children will be current with immunizations
through age 2 as recommended by AAP
c. 100% of target children will be screened for developmental delays
at a minimum of semi-annually through age 2 and annually
thereafter
d. 90% of children will be developing on target
e. 100% of children with suspected developmental delay will be
referred to MITP or Child Find
f. 95% of families will access information and activities designed to
promote positive parent-child interaction and child development
skills
g. 95% of families will access information and activities designed to
promote positive health and safety practices
These measures may be revised at the discretion of the OGM and the
MSDE.
B. Parameters of the Award of Funds
1. The award of funds for Healthy Families Home Visiting Services will begin
on July 1, 2022 and end June 30, 2023 with an option by the OGM to renew
the awarded Contractor for up to two (2) consecutive one-year periods
through fiscal year 2016.
2. Renewal of this contract is at the discretion of the OGM and LMB acting
on behalf of the BCC and is contingent upon the following: 1) the continual
award of funds from MSDE, 2) the performance of the contractor and 3) the
goals/outcomes desired from MSDE.
III. POPULATION SERVED
HF programs offer home visiting services to parents facing multiple stressors including
single parenting, low-income families, families with substance abuse problems, victims of
abuse or domestic violence, etc. Due to funding limitations, programs should narrow their
target population to a particular geographic region, or a specific group based upon
economic or other relevant risk factors.
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) Additional Funding
PRESENTATION DATE: June 28, 2022
PRESENTATION BY: Rachel Souders, Senior Grant Manager, Office of Grant Management;
and George Newman III, President and CEO, Washington County Community Action Council
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve acceptance of additional ERAP Funding
from the Department of Housing & Community Development.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: Since May 2021, Washington County has been awarded $17,238,588
from the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) under the Emergency
Rental Assistance Program (ERAP). Due to additional Program funds becoming available for
allocation and demonstrated need in our county, the DHCD plans to award Washington County
an additional $4 million. This is expected to be the final distribution of ERAP funding, and
brings our County total to $21,238,588.
DISCUSSION: The DHCD grants ERAP funding to Washington County in order to ensure
housing stability for families and individuals at risk of and currently experiencing homelessness
due to the Covid-19 pandemic. This additional funding will allow our subrecipient, the
Washington County Community Action Council (WCCAC), to continue aiding members in our
community who are still suffering from the effects of the pandemic. As this is the final allocation
of ERAP funding, the WCCAC is guiding residents towards self-sufficient housing stability.
If accepted, our existing grant agreement will be amended, so a subsequent grant application will
not be required. In addition, the Subrecipient agreement with WCCAC would be amended to
reflect the increased funding.
FISCAL IMPACT: Will provide $4,000,000 in additional funding for the WCCAC to
distribute to Washington County residents in need of assistance to pay their rent and/or utilities
as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic.
CONCURRENCES: Susan Buchanan, Director, Office of Grant Management
ALTERNATIVES: Deny request to accept funding.
ATTACHMENTS: N/A
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Police Accountability, Community, and Transparency Grant Program – Approval to
Submit Application and Accept Awarded Funding
PRESENTATION DATE: June 28, 2022
PRESENTATION BY: Cody Miller, Quartermaster/Grants Manager, Washington County
Sheriff’s Office and Rachel Souders, Sr. Grant Manager, Office of Grant Management
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the submission of the grant application for the
FY23 Police Accountability, Community, and Transparency Grant Program to the Governor’s
Office of Crime Prevention, Youth, and Victim Services in the amount of $67,500 and accept
funding as awarded.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The Washington County Sheriff's Office FY 2023 Police Accountability,
Community, and Transparency grant program provides virtual reality simulators for law
enforcement training; which prepares law enforcement officers for real-life incidents so they, and
the communities they serve, remain safe. The Sheriff's Office is requesting $67,500 in funding to
provide law enforcement within Washington County with training solutions that are capable of
replicating the conditions necessary for officers to master the extremely specific psycho-
physiological response needed for effective policing.
DISCUSSION: The Office of Grant Management has reviewed the grant funding guidelines.
Matching funds or in-kind support is not required for this program.
FISCAL IMPACT: If awarded, the Sheriff’s Office will be able to purchase training equipment
that may not have fit into the department’s budget.
CONCURRENCES: Susan Buchanan, Director, Office of Grant Management
ALTERNATIVES: Deny approval for submission of this request
ATTACHMENTS: N/A
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Housing Authority of Washington County, MD – Cooperation Agreement
PRESENTATION DATE: June 28, 2022
PRESENTATION BY: Kirk C. Downey, County Attorney
RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to dissolve the Cooperation Agreement dated March
17, 1981, between the Housing Authority of Washington County, Maryland and Board of County
Commissioners of Washington County.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The Housing Authority has requested dissolution of the
Cooperation Agreement.
DISCUSSION: In 1981, the Housing Authority and the Board of County
Commissioners entered into a Cooperation Agreement which, among other things, provides for
payments in lieu of taxes for certain real and personal property that is subject to the agreement.
Since 1981, many circumstances have changed which obviate the need for the Cooperation
Agreement. The most-important change is that the Housing Authority’s properties that are
subject to the Agreement have been classified as exempt by the State Department of Assessments
and Taxation. Therefore, the Housing Authority has requested dissolution of the Cooperation
Agreement and discontinuance of the payment in lieu of taxes.
FISCAL IMPACT: Loss of PILOT payments
CONCURRENCES: Treasurer
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: Correspondence; Cooperation Agreement; proposed Dissolution
Agreement
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
•
Housing Authority of Washington County, MD
319 East Antietam Street, 2nd Floor Hagerstown, MD 21740
P 301.791.3168 F 301.791.2755 www.hawcmd.org
June 17, 2022
Washington County Maryland Board of County Commissioners
c/o Mr. Kirk C. Downey, County Attorney
100 West Washington Street, Suite 1101
Hagerstown, MD 21740
RE: HAWC PILOT
Dear Mr. Downey and Commissioners:
The Housing Authority of Washington County, MD (HAWC) respectfully requests the dissolving of the
Cooperation Agreement between the Washington County Board of County Commissioners and HAWC.
Since the execution of the Agreement in 1981, the status of the properties now owned by HAWC is tax
exempt eliminating the need for payment in lieu of taxes.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Keith McMunn, Finance Manager
cc: Corinne Guglielmini, Executive Director
HAWC Board of Commissioners
EOUX HOUSING
OPPORTUNITY
Page 1 11
Cooperation Agreement
This Agreement entered into this 17th day of March, 1981, by and
between the Housing Authority of Washington County, Maryland, (herein
called the "Local Authority") and the Board of County Commissioners of
Washington County therein called the "County"), witnesseth:
In consideration of the mutural covenants hereinafter set forth,
the parties hereto do agree as follows:
1. Whenever used in this Agreement:
(a) The term "Project" shall mean any low -rent housing hereafter
developed or acquired by the Local Authority with financial
assistance of the United States of -America acting through the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (herein called the
"Government") ; excluding,,. however, any low -rent housing project
covered by any contract for loans and annual contributions
entered into between the Local Authority and the Government, or
its predecessor agencies, prior to the date ' of this Agreement.
(b) The term "Taxing Body" shall mean the State or any political
subdivision or taxing unit thereof * i n which a Project is situated
and which would have authority to assess or levy real or
personal property taxes or to certify such taxes to a taxing
body or public officer to be levied for its use and benefit with
respect to a Project if it were not exempt from taxation.
(c) The term "Shelter Rent" shall mean the total of Ol charges
to all tenants of a Project for dwelling rents and nondweiling
rents (excluding all other income of such Project), less the -cost
to the Local Authority of all dwelling and nondwel l ing- utilities.
(d) The term "Slum" shall mean any area where dwellings prey
dominate which, by reason of dilapidation, overcrowding, faulty
arrangement or design, lack of ventilation, light or sanitation
facilities, or any combination of these factors, are detrimental
to safety, health , or morals'.
2. The Local Authority. shall endeaver (a.) to secure a contract or
contracts with the Government for loans and annual contributions
covering one or more Projects as identified in Washington County' s
Housing Assistance Plan which acknowledges the assisted housing
needs and goals of the community and which is approved by the County.
Tables 3 and 5 of the Housing Assistance Plan in effect for Washington
County as of the date of this Agreement are attached as Appendix A of
this Agreement and may be revised through approval or amendment of the
Housing Assistance Plan as necessary by the County, however, prior to
submittal of any project to the Government, the local Authority shall
seek approval of the project by the County, and such approval shall be
recorded by a motion of the Board of County Commissioners of Washington
County in their official minutes. Such approval of a project shall be
as shown in an official exerpt from the minutes, to be attached as
Appendix B of this Agreement and may be added to from time to time
without amendment to this Agreement, and (b) to develop or acquire and
administer such Project or Projects, each of which shall be located
Within the corporate limits of the County. The obl itgati ons of the
parties hereto shall apply to each such Project.
3. fa) Under the constitution and statutes of the State of Maryland,
all Projects are exempt from al 1 real and personal property taxes
(and special assessments) levied or imposed by any Taxing Body.
With respect to any Project; so long- as either ('i ) such project is
owned by a public body. or overnmental agency and is used -for 1 ow -
rent housing pur..poses , or i i) any contract between the Local Authority
Y
and the Government for. loans or annual' contributions,, or both, in
connection with such Project remains in' force and -effect, or (i i i) any
bonds issued in connection with such Project or any moni es * due to the
Government in connection with such Project remain unpaid, whichever
_2_
period is the longest, the County agrees that it will not levy or
im pose any real or personal property taxes (or special assessments)
upon such Project or upon the Local Authority with respect thereto.
During such period, the Local Authority shall make annual payments
(herein called "Payments in Lieu of Taxes") in lieu of such taxes
(and. special assessments) and in payment for the public services and
face i i ties furnished from time to time without other cost or charge
for or with respect to such Project.
(b) Each annual Payment in Lieu of Taxes shall be made after the
end of the fiscal year established for such Project, and shall be
in an amount equal to either (i) ten percent (lo%) of the Shelter Rent
charged by the Local Authority in respect to such Project during such
fiscal year or (ii) the amount permitted to be paid by applicable
State law in effect on the date such payment is made, whichever amount
is the lower.
(c) The County shall distribute, the Payments in Lieu of Taxes among
the Taxing Bodies in the proportion which the real property taxes
which would have been paid to each Taxing Body for such year if the
Project were not exempt from taxation bears to the total real property
taxes which would have been paid to all of the Taxing Bodies for such
year if the Project were not exempt from taxation; Provided, however,
that no payment for any year shall be made to any Taxing Body in
excess of the amount of the real property taxes which would have been
paid to such Taxing Body for such year if the Project were not exempt
from taxation.
(d) Upon failure of the -Local Authority t6 make any Payment in Lieu
of Taxes, no lien against any Project or assets of the Local Authority
shall attach, nor shall any interest or penalties accrue or attach on
account thereof.
4. During the period commencing with the date' of the acquisition of any
part of the site or sites of any Project and continuing so long as
either (i) such Project is owned by a public body or governmental agency
and is used for low -rent housing purposes, or (ii) any contract between
the Local Authority and the Government for loans or annual contributions,
or both, in connection with such Project remains. in force and effect, or
(iii) any bonds issued in connection with such Project or any monies due
to the Government in connection with such Project remain unpaid, which-
ever period is the longest, the County without cost or charge to the
Local Authority or the tenants of such Project (other than the Payments
in Lieu of Taxes) shall:
(a) Furnish or cause to be furnished to the Local Authority and
the tenants of such Project public services and facilities of the
same character and to the same extent as are furnished from time
to time without cost or charge to other dwellings and inhabitants
in the County;
(b) In so far as the County may lawfully do so, vacate such streets
roads, and alleys within the area of such Project as may be necessary
in the development thereof, and convey without charge to the -Local
Authority such interest as the County may have in such vacated areas;
and, in so far as it is lawfully able to do so without cost or expense
to the Local. Authority or the County, cause to be removed from such
vacated areas, in so far as it may be necessary, all public or private
utility lines and equipment;
(c) In so far as the county may lawfully do so, (1) grant delijdtit7115
from the -building code of the County as are reasonable and necessary
to promote economy and efficiency in the development and administration
of such Project, and at the same time safeguard health and safety, and
(ii) make changes in any zoning of the site and surrounding territory
of such Project as are reasonable and necessary for the development
and protection of such Project and the surrounding territory;
(d) Accept grants of easements necessary for the development of such
Project; and
-- 3 -
(e) Cooperate with the Local Authority by such other lawful action or
ways as the County and the Local Authority may find necessary in
connection with the development and administration of such Project.
5. In respect to any Project the County further agrees that within
reasonable time after receipt of a written request therefor from the
Local Authori ty:
(a) It will accept the dedication of all interior streets, roads,
alleys, and adjacent sidewalks within the area of such Project,
together with all storm and sanitary sewer mains in such dedicated
areas, after the Local Authority, at its own expense, has completed
the grading, improvement, paving, and installation thereof in
accordance with specifications acceptable to the County;
W It will accept necessary dedications of land for, and wi l l
grade improve, pave, and provide sidewalks for, all streets bounding
such Project or necessary to provide adequate access thereto (in
consideration whereof the Local Authority shall pay to the County
such amount as would be assessed against the Project site for such
work if such site were privately owned); and
(c) It will provide, or cause to be provided, water mains, and storm
and sanitary sewer mains, leading to such Project and serving the
bounding streets thereof (in consideration whereof the Local Authority
shall pay to the County such amount as would be assessed against the
Project site for such work if such site were privately owned).
6. If by reason of the County's failure or refusal to furnish or cause to
be furnished any public services or facilities which it has agreed here-
under to furnish or cause to be furnished to the Local Authority or to
the tenants of any Project, the Local Authority incurs any expense to
obtain such services of facilities then the Local Authority may deduct
the amount of such expense from any Payments to Lieu of Taxes due or to
become due to the County in respect to any Project or any other low -rent
housing projects owned or operated by the Local Authority.
7. No Cooperation Agreement heretofore entered into between the County
and the Local Authority shall be construed to apply to any Project covered
by this Agreement.
8, No member of the governing body of the County or any. other public
official of the County who exercises any responsibilities or functions with
respect.to any Project during his tenure or for one year thereafter shall
have any interest, direct or indirect, in any Project or any property
included or planned to be included in any project, or any contracts in.
connection with such Projects or property. If any such governing body
member or such other public official of the County involuntarily acquires
or had acquired prior to the beginning of his tenure any interests he
shall immediately disclose such interest to the Local Authority.
g. So long as any contract between the Local Authorityand. the Government
for loans ( i ncl u�i ng preliminary loans) or annual contributions or both,
in connection with any Project remains in force and effect, or so long
as any bonds issued in connection with any Project or any monies due to
the Government in connection with any Project remain unpaid, thisAgree-
ment shall not be- abrogated, changed, or modified wilt the cons
ent
of the Government. The privileges and obligations of the County here-
under shall remain in full force and effect with respect to each Project
so long as the beneficial title to such Project is held by the, Local
Authority or by any u ther public body or governmental agency, including
the Government, authorized by law to engage in the development or
administration or possession of, any Project is held by such other public
body or governmental agency, including the Government, the provisions
hereof shall inure to the benefit of and may be enforced by, such other
public body or governmental agency, including the Government.
- 4 -
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the County and the Local Authority have respectively
signed this Agreement and caused their' seals to be affixed and attested as
of
the day and year first above written.
(SEAL)
Attest:
louUnTty Cl e
(SEAL)
Attest:
7+%%o.
%)%ft.1
ecretaryeasure
Board of Count Comissioners of Washin ton
County
B•
M*r Sndo-k, President
APPROVED A5 TO FORM
COMMISSIONno, FOR
14-ASMINGTON COUNTY, MD,
_Housing Authority of Washington Count,
:�2
BY: C 266ts&
Pau 1 M. Horst. Jr. , Ch an
DISSOLUTION AGREEMENT
THIS DISSOLUTION AGREEMENT (Agreement), made this day of
2022, by and between THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MD, 319 East Antietam Street, 2nd Floor, Hagerstown, Maryland
21740 (Housing Authority), and the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND, 100 West Washington Street, Ste. 1101,
Hagerstown, Maryland 21740, a body corporate and politic and a political subdivision of the
State of Maryland (County).
"T'!"7T9r A T C
A. The Housing Authority and the County entered into a Cooperation Agreement
dated March 17, 1981.
B. The parties wish to dissolve the Cooperation Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, conditions, and agreements
hereinafter expressed, the parties agree as follows:
effect.
1. The Cooperation Agreement is hereby dissolved and is of no further force or
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, ,the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and
year first above written.
Page 1 of 2
ATTEST:
ATTEST:
Krista L. Hart, Clerk
Approved as to form and legal sufficiency
for execution by the County:
Kirk C. Downey
County Attorney
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MD
(SEAL)
Corrine Guglielmini, Executive
Director
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND
Page 2 of 2
Jeffrey A. Cline, President
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Agriculture – Faces of Farming Presentation
PRESENTATION DATE: Tuesday, June 28, 2022
PRESENTATION BY: Susan Grimes, Director, Department of Business Development
RECOMMENDED MOTION: N/A
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: “Faces of Farming” is an agricultural-focused video marketing campaign that
will showcase two local Washington County farms every month, for one year. The “Faces of Farming”
marketing videos will be showcased on the County’s website, as well as Facebook and other social
media platforms, and will target a new industry and highlight a local farmer from that specific
agricultural industry.
DISCUSSION: Washington County’s agricultural business represents the backbone of the County’s
landscape. With over 900 operating family farms and $153,725,000 in market value of products sold,
agriculture is the largest economic driver in Washington County. The “Faces of Farming” marketing
campaign will aim to educate residents in Washington County, along with the surrounding States and
Counties, about the economic impact of the Ag industry. Additionally, these videos will be used for
agricultural education to numerous streams around Washington County, such as, 4-H and FFA (Future
Farmers of America) meetings, Ag Expo and Fair, and they will be available on the Washington County
Ag App and website.
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
CONCURRENCES: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: N/A
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: Yes - Faces of Farming Videos: Shenandoah Jerseys of Boonsboro.
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form