Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout211102aJeffrey A. Cline, President Terry L. Baker, Vice President Krista L. Hart, Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS November 2, 2021 OPEN SESSION AGENDA 2:30 PM MOMENT OF SILENCE AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CALL TO ORDER, President Jeffrey A. Cline APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 19, 2021, and October 26, 2021 2:35 PM COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS AND COMMENTS 2:40 PM STAFF COMMENTS 2:45 PM CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 2:50 PM AGRICULTURE - FACES OF FARMING PRESENTATION Leslie Hart, Agricultural Business Development Specialist; Susan Grimes, Director, Department of Business Development 2:55 PM PROPOSED PILOT AGREEMENT FOR SGC POWER, LLC Zachary J. Kieffer, Esq. 3:05 PM UPDATE ON PREMIUM PAY Sara Greaves, Chief Financial Officer; R. David Hays, Director of Emergency Services; John Martirano, County Administrator 3:10 PM PROPOSED SALARY SCALES FOR THE SHERIFF’S OFFICE Sheriff Doug Mullendore 3:25 PM QUIRAUK RADIO TOWER SHELTER - APPROVAL OF TRANSFER OF INSURANCE REIMBURSEMENT FUNDS TO THE ORIGINAL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS ACCOUNT Thomas Weber, Deputy Director, Wireless Communications 3:30 PM OFFER OF DONATION Todd Moser, Real Property Administrator, Division of Engineering; Andrew Eshleman, Director, Division of Public Works 3:35 PM CONTRACT FOR BIKES FOR THE WORLD David Mason, Deputy Director, Department of Solid Waste 100 West Washington Street, Suite 1101 | Hagerstown, MD 21740-4735 | P: 240.313.2200 | F: 240.313.2201 WWW.WASHCO-MD.NET Wayne K. Keefer Randall E. Wagner Charles A. Burkett Page 2 of 2 OPEN Session Agenda November 2, 2021 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. 3:40 PM BID REJECTION (PUR-1485) - OAKRIDGE PUMP STATION UPGRADE Brandi Naugle, Buyer, Purchasing Department; Mark Bradshaw, Division Director, Environmental Management 3:45 PM BID AWARD (PUR-1485) - OAKRIDGE PUMP STATION UPGRADE Brandi Naugle, Buyer, Purchasing Department; Mark Bradshaw, Division Director, Environmental Management 3:50 PM POTENTIAL LEGISLATIVE ITEMS Kirk C. Downey, County Attorney 3:55 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.) 4:25 PM RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION 4:30 PM RECESS 6:00 PM PUBLIC HEARING: APPLICATION FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT RZ-21-003 BLACK ROCK PUD - MAJOR REVISION TO APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN Jill Baker, Director, Depart ment of Planning and Zoning Location: Kepler Theatre, 11400 Robinwood Drive, Hagerstown 7:30 PM ADJOURNMENT Open Session Item SUBJECT: Agriculture – Faces of Farming Presentation PRESENTATION DATE: Tuesday, November 2, 2021 PRESENTATION BY: Leslie Hart, Agricultural Business Development Specialist and 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. Light refreshments have been provided to the County Commissioners during the presentation showcasing apples grown in Washington County, Maryland. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A CONCURRENCES: N/A ALTERNATIVES: N/A ATTACHMENTS:N/A AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: Yes - Faces of Farming Videos: Lewis Orchards and Farm Market and Litton’s Produce and Berries. Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form Open Session Item SUBJECT:Proposed PILOT Agreement for SGC Power, LLC PRESENTATION DATE:1RYHPEHU, 2021 PRESENTATION BY: Zachary J. Kieffer, Esq. RECOMMENDED MOTION:Move to accept the proposal for PILOT Agreement with SGC Power, LLC REPORT-IN-BRIEF:On December 2, 2020, the Board of Zoning Appeals approved a two (2) megawatt SEGS on +/- 10 acres of land located at 14455 Weller Road, Hancock (the “Property”). Due to the intensity of the start-up capital costs of a Solar Energy Generating System (“SEGS” or “Facility”), the Legislature enacted Md. Code, Tax-Property § 7-514(a)(1-2) which allows the County to “enter into an agreement with the owner of a facility for the generation of electricity that is located or locates in the county for a negotiated payment by the owner in lieu of taxes on the facility.” SGC Power, LLC (the “Company”) requests a payment in lieu of taxes as permitted by the Maryland Code. DISCUSSION: The Maryland Renewable Portfolio Standard Law (“RPS Law”) mandates that Fifty Percent (50%) of Maryland’s electricity is to be generated from renewable sources by 2030 (up from 25%), with at least Fourteen and One-Half Percent (14.5%) of the electricity coming from solar power (up from 2.5%). The mandated proportions are increases from the previous iteration of the RPS Law. The Property is a 202-acre farm owned by Austin McKee and located at. The Facility will be centrally located on the Property with ample forest and tree lines providing a natural buffer. Nearest residential dwellings are over 1000 feet away. The Property is currently zoned Environmental Conservation EC. A layout of the proposed Facility, is attached hereto and incorporated herein. The initial capital investment for the SEGS is considerable. The Company expects an initial outlay of $2,305,800.00 for the equipment and solar modules. As a result of the start-up costs, the business personal property taxes are comparatively more significant for a SEGS project than other businesses for which only a portion of the start-up costs are taxable as business personal property. In order to soften the immediate financial impact to the Company and to meet the RPS Law requirements, the County may and the Company respectfully requests approval to enter into an agreement for a negotiated payment by the Company in lieu of taxes on the Facility. The County has previously entered into the following PILOT agreements: Pinesburg Solar: $6,000.00/MW for 40 years Rockdale Solar: $6,500.00/MW for 25 years Hostetter Solar: $6,500.00/MW for 30 years Pittman Solar One: $6,500.00/MW for 30 years FISCAL IMPACT:Real Property taxes on the Property amount to $1,888.50 per year according to County Records, setting the tax rate at approximately $9.34/acre. Under the contemplated PILOT agreement, The Company would pay $13,000.00 per year, totaling $260,000.00 over the 20-year term of the lease for the real property between SGC Power, LLC and the landowner. In the event the lease were to be renewed, the Company’s payments to the County would equal $390,000.00 over 30 years and $520,000.00 the full 40- year term of the lease. ATTACHMENTS:PILOT request letter, Excel Spreadsheet, Draft site plan Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form 'ttf t AW GFVICI of ZACHARY 1. KIEFFERtr� July 2. 2021 Sara L Greaves ChidFinancial Officer 100 W, Washington Street, Suite 3100 141�p.0-An, ♦tuyland 21740 Re: Requewi far Payment in Lieu of Taves (PILOn jor.tiular Energy Generating �mtenr /uc i/it} (".1E(AS" or the "Focilily ") kr be sitwrde4l on }/ 1 # nerve et IIISS Weller R•wd. UnncrKk (tit "/'naP" -) Dew tiara On behalf of my client, %GC Power. LLC (the -Company" X 1 respectfully submit this request for a acoated payment by the Company in lieu of taxes on the Facility (the **PILO I' Agroetnenl") between the Company and the Rlvard of County Commissioners "The M ryland Renewable Portfolio Standard Laws ("RPS Law") mandates that Fifty Percent (.Ws) a( Marylard s electricity is to be ghicraled from renewable wurces by 2030 (up from 25%). with tit least I'mirte+en and One -Half Percent (14 5'e) of the cle tricity coming from solar power (up from 2.3°.-ir) The mandated proportions are incroases from the previous iteration of the RPS Law In light of the changes to the RPS Law and generally, the high initial capital co%u involved in the construction of a solar farm, the Legislature enacted Md Coale, Tax-Pmperty Q 7- 5 Wak 1-2) which allows the County to "enter into an agreement with the owner of a facility for the generation oaf cdecuicity that is located or locates to the ommty fcr a negotiated paYmcnt by the owner in lieu of taxes on the facility - On Deccmbcr 2, 2020, the Hoard of Zoning Appeals approved a two (2) megawatt SEGS on -1- 10 acres of land located on the Pruperry The PnTettr is a 202-sue faun awned h� Austin McKee and Ickated at 14153 Weller Road, Hancock The Facility will be centrally located on the Property with arnplc forest and trcc lino% providing a natural buffer Nearest residential dwellings are Over 100) feet away The Property is currently zoned Environmental Conservation FC A Immit of the proposed Facility, as presented to the Washington County Board of Zacsrng Appeals 15 atlnched herelo and mcorpxmued herein 194031Jucrald Square, Sun a 2100 0MCe 202. Hagerstown. MU 21742 Office 240-5t 3-t332 Email s",m ww%%% ,rkwf vrlaa com The Facility will consist of 6,240 440-watt solar modules, ground mounted and not to exceed a height of 9 feet. Sixteen 125-kilowatt inverters will convert the panels' direct current power to alternating current. The SEGS will be enclosed with a 9-foot agricultural fence with access via a 16-foot wide gate with emergency/utility access. The Company leased the portion of the Property for the Facility from Mr. McKee for a twenty-year term with two ten-year renewal options. The Property (Tax ID: 15-003871; Tax Map: 0005, Parcel 0014) has a total assed value of $172,500.00 ($98,900.00 attributed to the land with improvements valued at $73,600.00). The initial capital investment for the SEGS is considerable. The Company expects an initial outlay of $2,305,800.00 for the equipment and solar modules. As a result of the start-up costs, the business personal property taxes are comparatively more significant for a SEGS project than other businesses for which only a portion of the start-up costs are taxable as business personal property_ In order to soften the immediate financial impact to the Company and to meet the RPS Law requirements, the County may and the Company respectfully requests approval to enter into an agreement for a negotiated payment by the Company in lieu of taxes on the Facility. The Company requests the approval to enter a PILOT Agreement as permitted by the Maryland Code, setting up an annual payment of Six Thousand Five Hundred and 00/100 Dollars ($6,500.00) per MW of installed capacity for 20 years. Real Property taxes on the Property amount to $1,888.50 per year according to County Records, setting the tax rate at approximately $9.34/acre. Under the contemplated PILOT agreement, The Company would pay $13,000.00 per year, totaling $260,000.00 over the 20-year term of the lease. In the event the lease with Mr. McKee were to be renewed, the Company's payments to the County would equal $390,000.00 over 30 years and $520,000.00 the full 40-year term of the lease. A spreadsheet showing the Company's calculations of the payments and a comparison to the personal property tax rate for Washington County, is attached hereto and incorporated herein. It is important to note that it may appear that the County is giving up revenue, the actual cost benefit analysis should compare the net gain generated by the PILOT compared to Zero Dollars the County would receive from the Company if the Facility was not constructed at all. Thereafter the County would be left to collect only the Real Property Tax levied on the Property. The Company believes the nature and details of the project address concerns with the loss of productive farmland in the County. The SEGS is not a fixture of the Property and is thus removeable and indeed shall be removed from the Property upon the termination of the lease agreement with Mr. McKee. A plan for the decommissioning of the SEGS is attached hereto and incorporated herein. The Company will also obtain a decommissioning bond to guarantee the proper removal of the Facility in the future. It is important to note, also that the Facility is contemplated to take up only +/- 10 acres of the Property, leaving approximately, 192 acres of wooded areas and fields still under cultivation. Moreover, the Company is paying Mr. McKee an annual rental for the use of his ground, allowing Mr. McKee to diversify his income streams and provide some insulation from the volatility and unpredictability of crop prices. Construction of the Facility will also provide work and jobs for local firms. The Company has a list of local companies that will be sent a request for quote. The Facility will need to contract for excavation, electrical system installation, fencing and landscaping, to name a few. The Company is anticipating construction to commence on or about January 2022 with the anticipated commercial operation date set for mid -August 2022, providing work for local businesses in the near term as the County continues its post-Covid recovery and growth. The County has previously entered into the following PILOT agreements: Pinesburg Solar: $6,000.00/MW for 40 years Rockdale Solar: $6,500.00/MW for 25 years Hostetter Solar: $6,500.00/MW for 30 years Pittman Solar One: $6,500.00/MW for 30 years The Company is confident that this requested PILOT will be a net benefit to the landowner, community members, Washington County and the State of Maryland. Attachments are provided, I and the Company are available to address any questions or concerns from County staff. Very Truly Yours, 1<7 Zachary J. Kieffer Attorney at Law FACILITY LAYOUT it • A A .\ °.•f 4. � ��r3g rS A agrt€ r R x � ..,dye € g tRRx'+,�Fa Frt:,k> JL, �R Hk " nab 49R, ee E'3V 4 biaszI r� all Lamm% Li ii D 2 q^ C C) 0 0 r- cm- m O n � 0 Z=mq m M, o D O ���rz �*D 0 r D � 0 Z v D v � z M I �Rt vaa °.���€•���.. R g$ 1.4 d. kiljr 11 4 pgg _ a ag s - 2 m3 �g3 3pg !3 R4 r3i 9 1=I "� 4s IV ! PHI I EMSTINC CONDITIONS PLAN a i 4 j FOX & ASSOCIATES. INC. PROPOSED SOLAR FARM f o in a ENGINEERS -SURVEYORS • PLANNERS McKEE PROPERTY uatobt 1 it )M S�LRF+m� +4 te1 lRxr e > MTOAFE AI,ONO TAW NORTH mar OP NOVA/ ROADAZECnw a wtAv era x[ e*n. w ztm, S ' N O V .tl� VG7V ON ONTY, Af 15 LR rue (nt7/a-i6t ru: fxi)au-eore n ►AstNfvcTON QOUNTY, yARYL1ND T its / MCI r airyrgrc /n°,,,r/,oi og1jbiri °1ri//iq,iigr+iq, °j+ir Iiiiiigair,rr11r°o°se °jqpi /phrrrrrri r�� Iq„� ����°b1y,,r � U Ivi II+� ri ei Ii ® // � y„rr qp rib, aara gips, rr+Jli r+qq� °j11jigq rar1j+rr+iia,Nj1ri,,ii °iioarri, rI°°,,,/H, r° e ::,p°,1IIIII+ip�'fvIlvlli/ °r1O/irri °1 °11aiipr°1i�i,aiq,� Ilir II/i rp r+rii +ir/ Ni aiq,Ill„+ii /1jvlly, °iiiii ,�� ur+rrur�� oirl„uriiiirv°°r vvI/iq, °j'+iv/,r°jv°iris/ q°°,ac° , gpiiiga bvaiirir, °°ire,°r/ii Iaiar,° ,i viialail I/+iiiivii rr°varr+i, /iv,Ir+,I-r•,i°v1jl°�rviri r, vigavrrrivr,ar ,rirq,,,a /iial,,ala °„q,a/rr ririvvii vpiarv�i r a,1vlvrll+i�+et 0/ijagr/►/ij/,r,I°j/QU!/,r1°1jQ/rlj,°/rI°r/rrl�I///jrlrjl r°/lrry/I/°1j'°///qqI �� r+qrl 4jva/iio ,ivur rr giiv„iirill1j1j+iiip/i°r/iiig / p1urq,°°� vvuv/I/ I� °vuvivLi/rigi�irgiivq I ICWAWNT CONTBOL PROPOSED SOLAR "` '�McAEE/ • 49 ;�ygyay a� �a 3tl eta �atggqgggag Ra a 44 44 F 44 `t I g g q g a ggg g p gggg5g ¢@3g ®� I 10, 1 g A € $ RR' �g�q gppgg R I U R a§ 11 g 1 �E t�I3 obaag3R i RGjpi Ii a 1, 4gq gg�y I AAB gg I9 AA h � R pp gg i9c et3� jk ! �� 14E�pla sill Jill I ,p611i �;It k� � �vl° i�ii • 1 - till° � !4 D tlt1s iki it a� t a:liJ lal k 1111111 G WWI. A oi9 a il �gd � $� 11111 1114 llpiy Jill ka g R� lit IRIRA A� S — .: es� a II o `� a Q � •a � � � 11 i I I I i , i� I co � F9t�t1 J5 1 4x I `s = $ S 9 SMIMT CONTROL & MT NOTES AND D3TAlLS �„ r � FOX Ac ASSOCIA TES,INC. M ggE a� �%PROPOSED SOLAR FARM ENGINEERS SURVEYORS• PLANNERSMcKEE PROPERTY r1(-�Mn RO R mwe ttn•u-asm v,arc,oc� un nm, _ e A+ SlTUA7E ALONG Tdd OF HOLLOW ROAD AMMON BI M rya�l:�y_y�p yl gym MA9IDV0Y0N L'OUX9'l: I!Al117.1A'D M Zr-- i'(i� 33;99 $R z11 89� '3 i ij s a g2� I" 7gEi ..Ea 47pG$ R�3�+d� HRZE 1d Pit 14 ey �� � �mfi Ix' $ i E U 1, 1 EGE� n VIA R aI q r gRE n d S yz 4 kd I I Righ A CBE`° I a Sias R > c —>- pNji R'a $l 5 a PRE/WYART FMAL FOREST CONSERV427ONPUN FOX & ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSED SOLAR FARM ENGINEERS • SURVEYORSPLANNERS a McKE'E PROPERTY �.I K. .tea �a 'O~ln znw ssrt'C(loon Lrl SFI •ATE ALONG THE NORTH SIDE Of HOLLOW ROAD 2> (wlYle-reo moors ( Nr.-amo _ � El6L770N DI57RLCT 15 � R+)>v-\n� rm (n+usa-cm =� j F WASIDiMMN COUNTY, YARYLWD PROPERTY TAX RATE COMPARISON m �j tll ' C n too 0) 0) N C p 00 m a -I m rN LO Ln Ln 0 D m M- o O p 00 1--1 m Ln r- Ln o 00 n O 0 O .Z Lrl ON 0) V LD 00 r-I em-I LSO 0000 Ot LnO r, I m m S O 06 LO 00 n 00 N em-1 0 o m 00 00 C O mi V fV 00 0) c-1 N Ln 00 V r,O Ln (Y)m 00 0) rn C O N IDN C' m e-1 aM-I Lip n V V 0 � to m � Op O 066 N 0) O) Ot O) em-I O '.4 Ln p emy pOj V n LLn C O ^ M O C N 1m-4 N 14 m N I Ln p p N Lfl Ln m Ln rlLn O N -4 N �^-i Om 00 LO m O Ln .a-i V O N.m1 N -4 N c-1 7 X7 0 > 'n V m N x o m > v a_ m m O Ln L A D 0 o tp tn LnO a @J v o 3 m =O o > v U tv m v u 0 o O 0 u 3 0) x y0 i m FT � 5 Ln m cn LD O n N .� S O O Lr m ni r-, 00 rn m .--i m a M 0) a 0 0 O O4 V N 00 V .--1 p MLOO cc N OV O W 00)) O O N D Q1 Ct cmi 00' n m tD O N 't 00 V N Ln 00 C 090 O e-i eM-1 C Ln 4 CN o 0 LO N ^ m �} N LD ID n C O r- M O Ln -i .ryi .m-a 00 0 tn N Ln N f, O O n LO 0 O Ln r^ Ln c-1 .-ma -1 � LO 00 M Ln O N Lit 00 v LLn° C) O OM L�-i N LO ri •�-I cm-1 0) O c Ln O m N °Loco a o `7 O In m to e-1 e�-1 1m-4 gj fV ri Ln 0 N N 2 R pN T C 7 00 0) m m e-i n Ln m Ln O CN N n 0014 p Lin M 0 r; Lri LO m v r, rl Iq 11 x m v } 0 cr v a o_ v °' o Y m (0 N O V N C O � LD 01 to p Ln a @� 3 0 > 0J Uo N N (U m N m > 0 t JO w aj H u0i 00 O Ln 14 0 N C N 00 0 O LO 00 t0 m r- 00 Ln N ti 0 O V N 00 O 06 O O ^ a0 Ln N .m 0 Od' N 00 O 0 � tO w06 Ln N .mi Od' N 00 C O ID w lD m n 00 Lf) N Op O Ln Ln N ti O Ln ry -�r N rn 00 0 O O n 00 Lf) N -4 S O Ln Lf) N O Ln N V N m 00 O O 0 N 0 � Ln N SO Ln ti 0 N V N 00 O O p r\ 00 Ln N .m-1 00 O Ln Ln -4 p Ln N ry V N m 00 p O D LO 00 LO 'Y r` 00 Ln N 14 Ln �p n 00 O C) Ln N Ln o ko 06 ry rl O LO m n m LO N o j m' LO ce rri w rrnn `" a 1 m m m �u 01 01 7 `L v >Ln C) �-r O n 0 O m v o Ln o 00 0 o y ri o N Ln o NV rri o Ln N `O rn m C Ln 3 _o 'u v v v v v .y .CU b 'a) u a+ y 0 y 0 y 0 0 0 m J � J m J c m a m a m a y v v °0 v 75 v v v m V y� yNL y� N d w N a)a) d j o� v no > c v v t 0 CD O O C a } 70 0l a c c (U v C 7 E Eo Eo° �a uj N 7 f N 7 ■ DECOMMISSIONING PLAN Element Method PV Modules Hand Removal. Modules placed face down on pallets, tape wire ends, tie down and transport to staging location. Inverters Disassemble and remove by hand. Transformers No disassembly. Oil removal at scrap facility. Racking Frames Machine stabilize. Cut lets and lower. Cut cross beams and transport via dum truck. Racking Posts Remove with post -puller and transport by dump truck. Racking Wiring Disconnect PV connectors, cut cable ties and remove wires from cable tray. Transport via dump truck. Underground Cables Excavate to cable depth at one end of trench. Use backhoe and tractor to remove all cables in common trench. Transport via dump truck. Fence Roll fencing material. Remove post with post -puller and transport via dump truck. Concrete Remove with excavator and jack hammer. Transport vid dump truck. Offsite disposal Gravel Remove with skid steer sweeper. Transport via dump truck. Offsite dis osal. Re -Seeding Re -seed with native grasses. 981 Mt Aetna fed Hagerstown, MCA 21740 Phone: 301-733-8503 Fax: 301-733-1853 August 20, 2021 Lisa A. Kelly, Senior Planner Washington County Plan Review and Permitting $0 West Baltimore Street Hagerstown, MD 21740 RE: McKee Solar Decommissioning Plan, Wash. Co. File # SP-21-012 Lisa, This opinion of probable costs is based on the engineer's experience in the design and construction of energy facilities and is subject to final engineering. Costs Have been split between plant disassembly, site restoration, and salvage which reflect the overall decommissioning process. This opinion assumes a third - party contractor, experienced in the construction and decommissioning of PV facilities will lead the effort. The reported costs include labor, materials, taxes, insurance, transport costs, equipment rental, contractor's overhead, and contractor's profit. Labor costs have been estimated using regional labor rates and labor efficiencies from the Bureau of Labor Statistics along with previous decommission plan estimates completed for other similar projects. The PV plant will first be disassembled, with all above and below grade components removed. This includes all buried cables. Concrete can be removed by machine to increase efficiency. It is expected that the entire site will be re -seeded with native grasses and vegetation. Planting trees, shrubs, and other woody vegetation (re -forestation) or other beautification is not included in the costs. Salvage values have been estimated using publicly available data from https://rockawayrecycling.coin/, http://www.scrapmonster.com as well as industry provided actual salvage values and previous experience with similar solar projects. Inflation is included in this estimate. A 2.5% annual increase in labor costs and a 1% annual increase in salvage value were assumed Item Removal Method PV Modules Hand Removal. Place modules face down on pallets, tape wire ends, tied down and transport via skid -steer to staging location. Inverters Inverters weigh approximately 176lbs and will be disassembled and removed by hand. Assumed salvage value. Transformers Assume no disassembly. Oil removal performed by scrap facility. Assumed salvage value. Racking Stabilize with machine. Cut legs and lower to ground level. Cut cross beams to Frames appropriate size and transport via dump truck to staging location. Assumed salvage value. Racking Posts Remove via post -puller and transport by dump truck to staging area. Assumed salvage value. Racking Wiring Disconnect PV connectors, cut cable ties and remove wires from cable tray. Transport via dump truck to staging area. Assume salvage value. Underground Excavate to cable depth at one end of trench. Use tractor or backhoe to remove all cables Cables in common trench. Transport via dump truck to staging area. Assumed salvage value. Machine roll fence fabric. Remove post via post -puller and transport via dump truck to Fence staging location. Assumed salvage value. Remove with excavator and jack hammer. Transport via dump truck to staging area. Concrete Assumed offsite disposal. Gravel Remove with slid steer with sweeper. Transport via dump truck to staging area. Assumed offsite disposal. Re -Seeding Re -seed using an ATV -pulled drill seeder or hydroseeding, with native grasses. FOX & ASSOCIATES, INC. aPoffenberger, P.E. Director of Engineering C: Steve Nelson, SGC Power file N O u z z O 0 u Lu m m �- U U O f O / > > oif ro N N EIV R > T> > > \ u u O u °m mT T, o o .LLi 0 o W J 3 3 r o N V Y V W H H M to > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 > 0 > E E c d w d m m d w m d Q ¢. c u C m C m C m C m C m C m C m C m C m T> m m m a 3 V U U U V U U U V\'c � a U U U U V U t) U U ryj M Q >a E E E E E E E E E It 11 "c° ¢ tw a¢aa¢a¢aa as m\ T T >. T >- > T �- E E M W `O a E � a N N N N N N N N N __ II d .--I'c-1 O O 6 U II II II II II II II II II tYJ V m � r t0 — 3 u w 0 u u u u u u m m E m X 1II E rrF-rrrrl-r E E E E E E E E .^..ti LQ - m m -0-0-0-0-0rorova a H Eon a .O.Qs�aa.0.aa a a a a a Q Q t 3 O� ai y cro m m m a � � O 4.L LL LL LL LL LL i lY IL 3 ro ¢ V E vi Ln In N to to N to 4A N C Nm t0/•} •� O L. H H vi H a U `a L o a a` ° in 0 v m p m c 3 E E E 2 E E E E>> w 0 Q m u t= x a r to N N. N r Ln N r lA N r In N r Ln N r In N r 4n N t In N H H = m .0 C FL- H 01 t1 m a s_ vi iri vi ✓i in 2 vi in d `1 C r a a a a a a a a i 0 0 m �' = 10 j p 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 .O O m E C c J J J J J J J J J J a N Oy m �v a a In In In to to In In to Ln M M "aiii H ° > N ¢ Q ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ m m V -O In aa+ .a+ ry W 3 a 3 a 3 3 3 m 3 3 3 3 3 3 m 0 a L o m a +a+ T m c �, ro E u 2-", v d v d' d u v u v v E u u Y c a m° 3 E 0 E 3 0 E m 3 ro a vai vai ai uai pail vai a s 'u Q) m E o 7 " m m Y m Y a u a 7 7 0 0 0 O 7 O O O N U In O U V O u o y 11 dt 1F * . aF * iF is . 1F # W % ¢ 4' N lA lr K J !! fF * to H H Q1 H M Ln 00 In O H O1 � H Io N 0) H H t I� CD H H ID H N H N t In In H to O in00 d' In to m M W F d In n d; O1 IN H Il M M N (i * i t0 N to h I, to O H 0) 0) In 00 a, 0 0) m m O H N V 00 M to M tT V V m O M In co n 00 N O m 00 O n O ID O to h In O N V IO O N a aa 0 N W O N to t0 H O to Ot Ol M to N 01 I� ID In M N W In 00 (� In W N a M N Q U} Vf O1' m 00 N tD' If1 c-I N N N V tT N O t>0 d' t0 Vf In a--1 m Op N n'1 H L<1 r, a --I' Ln lT Ln of W N N M N y N H a a V !r O O O O O O O O H m W o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 00 to O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C, 0 Ol In to In N N N 01 In N Q7 IO Of N H 01 O U N N lC 0� t0 O V 00 O W t0 O V' -ItV d' N to n QI N tD O D O1 01 O O m H O1 H '7 N to 0 O 00 -ITN . M 00 00 m O m I, O N 00 - Q N m O m N to 00 m H d' M to M m V W O M 7 tC O to N H ti N 411 O O t0 H m am C N rl V Vl Fn H Ci enH N N N tD H O t0 N m O In V N N H 1� tD tG CA le N m m N N VF V! V> Vl V} V} V} VT N V? Vl• VF V} VT V} V} Vi V} VT Vf V? VT VY 4/} V? VF Vf VF H 0 0 0 0 00 CO V In 0 0 0 M O OJ c, 0V 01 N O 0 0 O 0 U a O N 0 0 0 Q' ^ OD O O G I+5 tH0 O CD O N O O u W U M O m N 0 3 V j 7 Z u ci G N VI N N to O_ W Z_ O F Z J Q O VF V? V) V? Vl [!? VT V7• Vl V} !!1• V1 VT V} V} O > � U W la) m m m m m O J J J J O N V T d' DO lD H H N M V h to H N I� H C t0 V r N N 00 H H a, N N N to H O O O O 7 H C lD H d' 00 00 W to 00 n m m 01 O to In 00 00 m F L m I.f) Ir m N H V N Ln m N Z � J N p N N a a Y 0 = J H a m O c H d m W a LLm Y o 00 c E Q E a c O ro E a oo c a y¢ > LL a o N U VI G a C: U U 3 LL ac _ V a p> LL o0 ¢ C 0 u L l7 E a K y = d lY a cc _> o_ r m a m>> K J m ¢ 'O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ci N M '7 In tD I` 00 m O H H H ti H H sN-I H N N Open Session Item SUBJECT: Update on Premium Pay PRESENTATION DATE:November 2, 2021 PRESENTATION BY:John Martirano, County Administrator Sara Greaves, Chief Financial Officer R. David Hays, Director of Emergency Services RECOMMENDED MOTION:TBD REPORT-IN-BRIEF:The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) have asked that county staff provide an update on the process for distributing premium pay to DES and volunteer corporation employees. DISCUSSION:On August 31, 2021, the BOCC directed County Staff to provide premium pay to the fire and EMS employees of the County volunteer fire and EMS corporations in Washington County. First responders (volunteer and career) in Washington County were at the front of the COVID19 pandemic providing emergency medical care/transport, rescue and fire suppression services to all residents throughout the County. The August 31st presentation recommended that the “maximum” COVID premium payment (any combination of corporation and/or County payments) to any one individual would be $5,500.00 for full-time, or $4,125.00 for part-time employee’s; regardless of any multiple role employments. The cost to implement the plan as previously presented is approximately $593,541.53. County staff have drafted an initial plan to distribute this funding based on these parameters. County staff have also drafted a plan that could consider (if directed) premium pay that would not take consideration of any prior premium payments regardless of where or who the employer was. The cost to implement the premium pay to the affected employees under this scenario is approximately $644,998.42, or an increase of $51,456.89. Under this payment formula, there are a number of staff who would receive in excess of $10,000.00 of total premium pay for services Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form provided to the citizens of Washington County. The mean premium pay distribution in Washington County across the entire distribution group (217 employees) would be $4,503.45. FISCAL IMPACT: TBD CONCURRENCES: N/A ALTERNATIVES: N/A ATTACHMENTS: None AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A Open Session Item SUBJECT: Proposed Salary Scales for the Sheriff’s Office PRESENTATION DATE: November 2, 2021 PRESENTATION BY: Sheriff Doug Mullendore RECOMMENDED MOTION: Approve the Salary Scales and reclassifications as Presented REPORT-IN-BRIEF: While presenting actions to the County Commissioners to hire and retain staff on August 31, 2021 the County Commissioners asked to have the Sheriff review all Sheriff’s Office deputy salaries and come back within 60 days to present the results. DISCUSSION: After a careful review of the existing salary structure, it has been determined the Washington County Sheriff’s Office salaries are not competitive which has hindered the ability to hire new deputies and to retain existing deputies. We are now at approximately 15% vacancies in Sworn and Corrections Deputy positions which has severely hampered operations. The proposed salary scales would bring the Washington County Sheriff’s Office salaries to a competitive range to include the upper ranks. In addition, we reviewed disparities in current individual salaries and made adjustments accordingly. This means that some employees steps or grades may have changed. We are requesting County Commissioners approval of the proposed salary scales to take affect no later than four weeks from the date of this agenda item. FISCAL IMPACT: The new salary scales and disparity pay issues have an estimated total cost of $1.9 million. This includes the future expected costs of approximately $500K to implement the Master Deputy testing previously approved by the County Commissioners on August 31, 2021. These amounts include wages and benefits. CONCURRENCES: N/A ALTERNATIVES: Do nothing an continue with the salary scales that are currently in place. ATTACHMENTS: FY22 Salary Scale, Proposed Salary Scale, Adjustments, 8/31/2021 ARF6DODU\3URSRVDO*XLGHOLQHV AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS:None Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form 6/ 3 / 2 0 2 1 Wa s h i n g t o n C o u n t y G o v e r n m e n t GR A D E P O S I T I O N C O D E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 Ba s e + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % 11 C O L O N E L 00 1 3 1 0 6 , 4 9 6 1 0 9 , 1 5 8 1 1 1 , 8 8 3 1 1 4 , 6 7 0 1 1 7 , 5 4 1 1 2 0 , 4 7 4 1 2 3 , 4 9 0 1 2 6 , 5 6 8 1 2 9 , 7 3 0 1 3 2 , 9 7 4 1 3 6 , 3 0 2 1 3 9 , 7 1 4 1 4 3 , 2 0 8 1 4 6 , 7 8 6 1 5 0 , 4 4 6 1 5 4 , 2 1 1 1 5 8 , 0 5 9 1 6 2 , 0 1 1 1 6 6 , 0 6 7 1 7 0 , 2 2 7 1 7 4 , 4 9 1 51 . 2 0 5 2 . 4 8 5 3 . 7 9 5 5 . 1 3 5 6 . 5 1 5 7 . 9 2 5 9 . 3 7 6 0 . 8 5 6 2 . 3 7 6 3 . 9 3 6 5 . 5 3 6 7 . 1 7 6 8 . 8 5 7 0 . 5 7 7 2 . 3 3 7 4 . 1 4 7 5 . 9 9 7 7 . 8 9 7 9 . 8 4 8 1 . 8 4 8 3 . 8 9 10 M A J O R 03 2 1 9 6 , 0 7 5 9 8 , 4 6 7 1 0 0 , 9 2 2 1 0 3 , 4 3 8 1 0 6 , 0 1 8 1 0 8 , 6 5 9 1 1 1 , 3 8 4 1 1 4 , 1 7 1 1 1 7 , 0 2 1 1 1 9 , 9 5 4 1 2 2 , 9 4 9 1 2 6 , 0 2 7 1 2 9 , 1 6 8 1 3 2 , 3 9 2 1 3 5 , 6 9 9 1 3 9 , 0 9 0 1 4 2 , 5 6 3 1 4 6 , 1 2 0 1 4 9 , 7 8 1 1 5 3 , 5 2 5 1 5 7 , 3 7 3 46 . 1 9 4 7 . 3 4 4 8 . 5 2 4 9 . 7 3 5 0 . 9 7 5 2 . 2 4 5 3 . 5 5 5 4 . 8 9 5 6 . 2 6 5 7 . 6 7 5 9 . 1 1 6 0 . 5 9 6 2 . 1 0 6 3 . 6 5 6 5 . 2 4 6 6 . 8 7 6 8 . 5 4 7 0 . 2 5 7 2 . 0 1 7 3 . 8 1 7 5 . 6 6 9 C A P T A I N 03 2 2 8 6 , 6 3 2 8 8 , 7 9 5 9 1 , 0 2 1 9 3 , 2 8 8 9 5 , 6 1 8 9 8 , 0 1 0 1 0 0 , 4 6 4 1 0 2 , 9 8 1 1 0 5 , 5 6 0 1 0 8 , 2 0 2 1 1 0 , 9 0 6 1 1 3 , 6 7 2 1 1 6 , 5 2 2 1 1 9 , 4 3 4 1 2 2 , 4 2 9 1 2 5 , 4 8 6 1 2 8 , 6 2 7 1 3 1, 8 5 1 1 3 5 , 1 3 8 1 3 8 , 5 0 7 1 4 1 , 9 6 0 41 . 6 5 4 2 . 6 9 4 3 . 7 6 4 4 . 8 5 4 5 . 9 7 4 7 . 1 2 4 8 . 3 0 4 9 . 5 1 5 0 . 7 5 5 2 . 0 2 5 3 . 3 2 5 4 . 6 5 5 6 . 0 2 5 7 . 4 2 5 8 . 8 6 6 0 . 3 3 6 1 . 8 4 6 3 . 3 9 6 4 . 9 7 6 6 . 5 9 6 8 . 2 5 8 L I E U T E N A N T 0 3 2 3 7 8 , 1 4 6 8 0 , 1 0 1 8 2 , 0 9 8 8 4 , 1 5 7 8 6 , 2 5 8 8 8 , 4 2 1 9 0 , 6 2 6 9 2 , 8 9 3 9 5 , 2 2 2 9 7 , 5 9 4 1 0 0 , 0 2 7 1 0 2 , 5 2 3 1 0 5 , 0 8 2 1 0 7 , 7 0 2 1 1 0 , 3 8 6 1 1 3 , 1 5 2 1 1 5 , 9 8 1 1 1 8 , 8 7 2 1 2 1 , 8 4 6 1 2 4 , 8 8 3 1 2 8 , 0 0 3 37 . 5 7 3 8 . 5 1 3 9 . 4 7 4 0 . 4 6 4 1 . 4 7 4 2 . 5 1 4 3 . 5 7 4 4 . 6 6 4 5 . 7 8 4 6 . 9 2 4 8 . 0 9 4 9 . 2 9 5 0 . 5 2 5 1 . 7 8 5 3 . 0 7 5 4 . 4 0 5 5 . 7 6 5 7 . 1 5 5 8 . 5 8 6 0 . 0 4 6 1 . 5 4 7 S E R G E A N T 03 2 4 7 0 , 4 9 1 7 2 , 2 5 9 7 4 , 0 6 9 7 5 , 9 2 0 7 7 , 8 1 3 7 9 , 7 6 8 8 1 , 7 6 5 8 3 , 8 0 3 8 5 , 9 0 4 8 8 , 0 4 6 9 0 , 2 5 1 9 2 , 4 9 8 9 4 , 8 0 6 9 7 , 1 7 8 9 9 , 6 1 1 1 0 2 , 1 0 7 1 0 4 , 6 6 6 1 0 7 , 2 8 6 1 0 9 , 9 7 0 1 1 2 , 7 1 5 1 1 5 , 5 2 3 33 . 8 9 3 4 . 7 4 3 5 . 6 1 3 6 . 5 0 3 7 . 4 1 3 8 . 3 5 3 9 . 3 1 4 0 . 2 9 4 1 . 3 0 4 2 . 3 3 4 3 . 3 9 4 4 . 4 7 4 5 . 5 8 4 6 . 7 2 4 7 . 8 9 4 9 . 0 9 5 0 . 3 2 5 1 . 5 8 5 2 . 8 7 5 4 . 1 9 5 5 . 5 4 6 S G T . / T R A I N I N G 0 0 8 7 7 0 , 4 9 1 7 2 , 2 5 9 7 4 , 0 6 9 7 5 , 9 2 0 7 7 , 8 1 3 7 9 , 7 6 8 8 1 , 7 6 5 8 3 , 8 0 3 8 5 , 9 0 4 8 8 , 0 4 6 9 0 , 2 5 1 9 2 , 4 9 8 9 4 , 8 0 6 9 7 , 1 7 8 9 9 , 6 1 1 1 0 2 , 1 0 7 1 0 4 , 6 6 6 1 0 7 , 2 8 6 1 0 9 , 9 7 0 1 1 2 , 7 1 5 1 1 5 , 5 2 3 33 . 8 9 3 4 . 7 4 3 5 . 6 1 3 6 . 5 0 3 7 . 4 1 3 8 . 3 5 3 9 . 3 1 4 0 . 2 9 4 1 . 3 0 4 2 . 3 3 4 3 . 3 9 4 4 . 4 7 4 5 . 5 8 4 6 . 7 2 4 7 . 8 9 4 9 . 0 9 5 0 . 3 2 5 1 . 5 8 5 2 . 8 7 5 4 . 1 9 5 5 . 5 4 5 C O R P O R A L 03 9 6 6 3 , 5 6 5 6 5 , 1 4 6 6 6 , 7 6 8 6 8 , 4 3 2 7 0 , 1 3 8 7 1 , 8 8 5 7 3 , 6 7 4 7 5 , 5 2 5 7 7 , 4 1 8 7 9 , 3 5 2 8 1 , 3 2 8 8 3 , 3 6 6 8 5 , 4 4 6 8 7 , 5 8 9 8 9 , 7 7 3 9 2 , 0 1 9 9 4 , 3 2 8 9 6 , 6 7 8 9 9 , 0 9 1 1 0 1 , 5 6 6 1 0 4 , 1 0 4 30 . 5 6 3 1 . 3 2 3 2 . 1 0 3 2 . 9 0 3 3 . 7 2 3 4 . 5 6 3 5 . 4 2 3 6 . 3 1 3 7 . 2 2 3 8 . 1 5 3 9 . 1 0 4 0 . 0 8 4 1 . 0 8 4 2 . 1 1 4 3 . 1 6 4 4 . 2 4 4 5 . 3 5 4 6 . 4 8 4 7 . 6 4 4 8 . 8 3 5 0 . 0 5 4 D E P U T Y 1 S T C L . 0 3 2 5 5 3 , 4 9 8 5 4 , 8 2 9 5 6 , 2 0 2 5 7 , 6 1 6 5 9 , 0 5 1 6 0 , 5 2 8 6 2 , 0 4 6 6 3 , 6 0 6 6 5 , 1 8 7 6 6 , 8 1 0 6 8 , 4 7 4 7 0 , 1 7 9 7 1 , 9 2 6 7 3 , 7 1 5 7 5 , 5 6 6 7 7 , 4 5 9 7 9 , 3 9 4 8 1 , 3 7 0 83 , 4 0 8 8 5 , 4 8 8 8 7 , 6 3 0 25 . 7 2 2 6 . 3 6 2 7 . 0 2 2 7 . 7 0 2 8 . 3 9 2 9 . 1 0 2 9 . 8 3 3 0 . 5 8 3 1 . 3 4 3 2 . 1 2 3 2 . 9 2 3 3 . 7 4 3 4 . 5 8 3 5 . 4 4 3 6 . 3 3 3 7 . 2 4 3 8 . 1 7 3 9 . 1 2 4 0 . 1 0 4 1 . 1 0 4 2 . 1 3 3 D E P U T Y * 03 2 6 4 5 , 0 5 3 4 6 , 1 7 6 4 7 , 3 4 1 4 8 , 5 2 6 4 9 , 7 3 3 5 0 , 9 8 1 5 2 , 2 5 0 21 . 6 6 2 2 . 2 0 2 2 . 7 6 2 3 . 3 3 2 3 . 9 1 2 4 . 5 1 2 5 . 1 2 2 D F C ( S E C U R I T Y ) 0 4 0 3 4 6 , 7 1 7 4 7 , 8 8 2 4 9 , 0 8 8 5 0 , 3 1 5 5 1 , 5 6 3 5 2 , 8 5 3 5 4 , 1 8 4 5 5 , 5 3 6 5 6 , 9 3 0 5 8 , 3 4 4 5 9 , 8 0 0 6 1 , 2 9 8 6 2 , 8 3 7 6 4 , 4 1 8 6 6 , 0 1 9 6 7 , 6 6 2 6 9 , 3 4 7 7 1 , 0 7 4 7 2 , 8 4 2 7 4 , 6 7 2 7 6 , 5 4 4 22 . 4 6 2 3 . 0 2 2 3 . 6 0 2 4 . 1 9 2 4 . 7 9 2 5 . 4 1 2 6 . 0 5 2 6 . 7 0 2 7 . 3 7 2 8 . 0 5 2 8 . 7 5 2 9 . 4 7 3 0 . 2 1 3 0 . 9 7 3 1 . 7 4 3 2 . 5 3 3 3 . 3 4 3 4 . 1 7 3 5 . 0 2 3 5 . 9 0 3 6 . 8 0 1 D E P U T Y ( S E C U R I T Y ) 0 3 8 5 3 9 , 3 3 3 4 0 , 3 1 0 4 1 , 3 0 9 4 2 , 3 4 9 4 3 , 4 1 0 4 4 , 4 9 1 4 5 , 5 9 4 4 6 , 7 3 8 4 7 , 9 0 2 4 9 , 1 0 9 5 0 , 3 3 6 5 1 , 6 0 5 5 2 , 8 9 4 5 4 , 2 2 6 5 5 , 5 7 8 5 6 , 9 7 1 5 8 , 3 8 6 5 9 , 8 4 2 6 1 , 3 3 9 6 2 , 8 7 8 6 4 , 4 5 9 18 . 9 1 1 9 . 3 8 1 9 . 8 6 2 0 . 3 6 2 0 . 8 7 2 1 . 3 9 2 1 . 9 2 2 2 . 4 7 2 3 . 0 3 2 3 . 6 1 2 4 . 2 0 2 4 . 8 1 2 5 . 4 3 2 6 . 0 7 2 6 . 7 2 2 7 . 3 9 2 8 . 0 7 2 8 . 7 7 2 9 . 4 9 3 0 . 2 3 3 0 . 9 9 48 , 5 2 6 FY 2 2 S h e r i f f P a t r o l / J u d i c i a r y S a l a r y S c a l e 7/ 1 / 2 0 2 1 ST E P 1 o f 2 6/ 3 / 2 0 2 1 Wa s h i n g t o n C o u n t y G o v e r n m e n t GR A D E P O S I T I O N C O D E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 Ba s e + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % 7 M A J O R 00 3 5 8 3 , 8 2 4 8 5 , 9 2 5 8 8 , 0 6 7 9 0 , 2 7 2 9 2 , 5 3 9 9 4 , 8 4 8 9 7 , 2 1 9 9 9 , 6 5 3 1 0 2 , 1 4 9 1 0 4 , 7 0 7 1 0 7 , 3 2 8 1 1 0 , 0 1 1 1 1 2 , 7 5 7 1 1 5 , 5 8 6 1 1 8 , 4 7 7 1 2 1 , 4 3 0 1 2 4 , 4 6 7 1 2 7 , 5 8 7 1 3 0 , 7 7 0 1 3 4 , 0 3 5 40 . 3 0 4 1 . 3 1 4 2 . 3 4 4 3 . 4 0 4 4 . 4 9 4 5 . 6 0 4 6 . 7 4 4 7 . 9 1 4 9 . 1 1 5 0 . 3 4 5 1 . 6 0 5 2 . 8 9 5 4 . 2 1 5 5 . 5 7 5 6 . 9 6 5 8 . 3 8 5 9 . 8 4 6 1 . 3 4 6 2 . 8 7 6 4 . 4 4 6 C A P T A I N 00 4 6 7 5 , 6 0 8 7 7 , 5 0 1 7 9 , 4 3 5 8 1 , 4 1 1 8 3 , 4 5 0 8 5 , 5 3 0 8 7 , 6 7 2 8 9 , 8 5 6 9 2 , 1 0 2 9 4 , 4 1 1 9 6 , 7 6 2 9 9 , 1 7 4 1 0 1 , 6 5 0 1 0 4 , 1 8 7 1 0 6 , 7 8 7 1 0 9 , 4 5 0 1 1 2 , 1 9 5 1 1 5 , 0 0 3 1 1 7 , 8 7 4 1 2 0 , 8 2 7 36 . 3 5 3 7 . 2 6 3 8 . 1 9 3 9 . 1 4 4 0 . 1 2 4 1 . 1 2 4 2 . 1 5 4 3 . 2 0 4 4 . 2 8 4 5 . 3 9 4 6 . 5 2 4 7 . 6 8 4 8 . 8 7 5 0 . 0 9 5 1 . 3 4 5 2 . 6 2 5 3 . 9 4 5 5 . 2 9 5 6 . 6 7 5 8 . 0 9 5 L I E U T E N A N T 0 0 7 5 6 8 , 1 6 2 6 9 , 8 6 7 7 1 , 6 1 4 7 3 , 4 0 3 7 5 , 2 3 4 7 7 , 1 0 6 7 9 , 0 4 0 8 1 , 0 1 6 8 3 , 0 3 4 8 5 , 1 1 4 8 7 , 2 3 5 8 9 , 4 1 9 9 1 , 6 4 5 9 3 , 9 3 3 9 6 , 2 8 3 9 8 , 6 9 6 1 0 1 , 1 7 1 1 0 3 , 7 0 9 1 0 6 , 3 0 9 1 0 8 , 9 7 1 32 . 7 7 3 3 . 5 9 3 4 . 4 3 3 5 . 2 9 3 6 . 1 7 3 7 . 0 7 3 8 . 0 0 3 8 . 9 5 3 9 . 9 2 4 0 . 9 2 4 1 . 9 4 4 2 . 9 9 4 4 . 0 6 4 5 . 1 6 4 6 . 2 9 4 7 . 4 5 4 8 . 6 4 4 9 . 8 6 5 1 . 1 1 5 2 . 3 9 4 S E R G E A N T 0 0 8 6 6 1 , 5 0 6 6 3 , 0 4 5 6 4 , 6 2 6 6 6 , 2 4 8 6 7 , 9 1 2 6 9 , 6 1 8 7 1 , 3 6 5 7 3 , 1 5 4 7 4 , 9 8 4 7 6 , 8 5 6 7 8 , 7 7 0 8 0 , 7 4 6 8 2 , 7 6 3 8 4 , 8 2 2 8 6 , 9 4 4 8 9 , 1 2 8 9 1 , 3 5 4 9 3 , 6 4 2 9 5 , 9 9 2 9 8 , 3 8 4 29 . 5 7 3 0 . 3 1 3 1 . 0 7 3 1 . 8 5 3 2 . 6 5 3 3 . 4 7 3 4 . 3 1 3 5 . 1 7 3 6 . 0 5 3 6 . 9 5 3 7 . 8 7 3 8 . 8 2 3 9 . 7 9 4 0 . 7 8 4 1 . 8 0 4 2 . 8 5 4 3 . 9 2 4 5 . 0 2 4 6 . 1 5 4 7 . 3 0 3 C O R P O R A L 0 3 9 7 5 5 , 4 5 3 5 6 , 8 4 6 5 8 , 2 6 1 5 9 , 7 1 7 6 1 , 2 1 4 6 2 , 7 5 4 6 4 , 3 1 4 6 5 , 9 1 5 6 7 , 5 5 8 6 9 , 2 4 3 7 0 , 9 7 0 7 2 , 7 3 8 7 4 , 5 4 7 7 6 , 4 1 9 7 8 , 3 3 3 8 0 , 2 8 8 8 2 , 3 0 6 8 4 , 3 6 5 8 6 , 4 6 6 8 8 , 6 2 9 26 . 6 6 2 7 . 3 3 2 8 . 0 1 2 8 . 7 1 2 9 . 4 3 3 0 . 1 7 3 0 . 9 2 3 1 . 6 9 3 2 . 4 8 3 3 . 2 9 3 4 . 1 2 3 4 . 9 7 3 5 . 8 4 3 6 . 7 4 3 7 . 6 6 3 8 . 6 0 3 9 . 5 7 4 0 . 5 6 4 1 . 5 7 4 2 . 6 1 2 D E P U T Y 1 S T C L . 0 1 3 8 4 6 , 7 1 7 4 7 , 8 8 2 4 9 , 0 8 8 5 0 , 3 1 5 5 1 , 5 6 3 5 2 , 8 5 3 5 4 , 1 8 4 5 5 , 5 3 6 5 6 , 9 3 0 5 8 , 3 4 4 5 9 , 8 0 0 6 1 , 2 9 8 6 2 , 8 3 7 6 4 , 4 1 8 6 6 , 0 1 9 6 7 , 6 6 2 6 9 , 3 4 7 7 1 , 0 7 4 72 , 8 4 2 7 4 , 6 7 2 22 . 4 6 2 3 . 0 2 2 3 . 6 0 2 4 . 1 9 2 4 . 7 9 2 5 . 4 1 2 6 . 0 5 2 6 . 7 0 2 7 . 3 7 2 8 . 0 5 2 8 . 7 5 2 9 . 4 7 3 0 . 2 1 3 0 . 9 7 3 1 . 7 4 3 2 . 5 3 3 3 . 3 4 3 4 . 1 7 3 5 . 0 2 3 5 . 9 0 1 D E P U T Y * 01 6 4 3 9 , 3 3 3 4 0 , 3 1 0 4 1 , 3 0 9 4 2 , 3 4 9 4 3 , 4 1 0 4 4 , 4 9 1 4 5 , 5 9 4 18 . 9 1 1 9 . 3 8 1 9 . 8 6 2 0 . 3 6 2 0 . 8 7 2 1 . 3 9 2 1 . 9 2 $4 2 , 3 4 9 FY 2 2 S h e r i f f D e t e n t i o n S a l a r y S c a l e 7/ 1 / 2 0 2 1 ST E P 1 o f 2 10 / 5 / 2 0 2 1 Wa s h i n g t o n C o u n t y G o v e r n m e n t GR A D E P O S I T I O N C O D E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 Ba s e + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % 11 C O L O N E L 00 1 3 1 1 1 , 1 3 4 1 1 3 , 9 2 2 1 1 6 , 7 7 1 1 1 9 , 6 8 3 1 2 2 , 6 7 8 1 2 5 , 7 3 6 1 2 8 , 8 7 7 1 3 2 , 1 0 1 1 3 5 , 4 0 8 1 3 8 , 7 9 8 1 4 2 , 2 7 2 1 4 5 , 8 2 9 1 4 9 , 4 6 9 1 5 3 , 2 1 3 1 5 7 , 0 4 0 1 6 0 , 9 7 1 1 6 4 , 9 8 6 1 6 9 , 1 0 4 1 7 3 , 3 2 6 1 7 7 , 6 5 3 53 . 4 3 5 4 . 7 7 5 6 . 1 4 5 7 . 5 4 5 8 . 9 8 6 0 . 4 5 6 1 . 9 6 6 3 . 5 1 6 5 . 1 0 6 6 . 7 3 6 8 . 4 0 7 0 . 1 1 7 1 . 8 6 7 3 . 6 6 7 5 . 5 0 7 7 . 3 9 7 9 . 3 2 8 1 . 3 0 8 3 . 3 3 8 5 . 4 1 10 M A J O R 03 2 1 1 0 3 , 1 8 9 1 0 5 , 7 6 8 1 0 8 , 4 1 0 1 1 1 , 1 1 4 1 1 3 , 9 0 1 1 1 6 , 7 5 0 1 1 9 , 6 6 2 1 2 2 , 6 5 8 1 2 5 , 7 1 5 1 2 8 , 8 5 6 1 3 2 , 0 8 0 1 3 5 , 3 8 7 1 3 8 , 7 7 8 1 4 2 , 2 5 1 1 4 5 , 8 0 8 1 4 9 , 4 4 8 1 5 3 , 1 9 2 1 5 7 , 0 1 9 1 6 0 , 9 5 0 1 6 4 , 9 6 5 49 . 6 1 5 0 . 8 5 5 2 . 1 2 5 3 . 4 2 5 4 . 7 6 5 6 . 1 3 5 7 . 5 3 5 8 . 9 7 6 0 . 4 4 6 1 . 9 5 6 3 . 5 0 6 5 . 0 9 6 6 . 7 2 6 8 . 3 9 7 0 . 1 0 7 1 . 8 5 7 3 . 6 5 7 5 . 4 9 7 7 . 3 8 7 9 . 3 1 9 C A P T A I N 03 2 2 9 3 , 6 6 2 9 6 , 0 1 3 9 8 , 4 0 5 1 0 0 , 8 5 9 1 0 3 , 3 7 6 1 0 5 , 9 5 5 1 0 8 , 5 9 7 1 1 1 , 3 2 2 1 1 4 , 1 0 9 1 1 6 , 9 5 8 1 1 9 , 8 9 1 1 2 2 , 8 8 6 1 2 5 , 9 6 5 1 2 9 , 1 0 6 1 3 2 , 3 3 0 1 3 5 , 6 3 7 1 3 9 , 0 2 7 1 4 2 , 5 0 1 1 4 6 , 0 5 8 1 4 9 , 7 1 8 45 . 0 3 4 6 . 1 6 4 7 . 3 1 4 8 . 4 9 4 9 . 7 0 5 0 . 9 4 5 2 . 2 1 5 3 . 5 2 5 4 . 8 6 5 6 . 2 3 5 7 . 6 4 5 9 . 0 8 6 0 . 5 6 6 2 . 0 7 6 3 . 6 2 6 5 . 2 1 6 6 . 8 4 6 8 . 5 1 7 0 . 2 2 7 1 . 9 8 8 L I E U T E N A N T 0 3 2 3 8 4 , 9 8 9 8 7 , 1 1 0 8 9 , 2 9 4 9 1 , 5 2 0 9 3 , 8 0 8 9 6 , 1 5 8 9 8 , 5 7 1 1 0 1 , 0 2 6 1 0 3 , 5 4 2 1 0 6 , 1 2 2 1 0 8 , 7 8 4 1 1 1 , 5 0 9 1 1 4 , 2 9 6 1 1 7 , 1 4 6 1 2 0 , 0 7 8 1 2 3 , 0 7 4 1 2 6 , 1 5 2 12 9 , 3 1 4 1 3 2 , 5 3 8 1 3 5 , 8 4 5 40 . 8 6 4 1 . 8 8 4 2 . 9 3 4 4 . 0 0 4 5 . 1 0 4 6 . 2 3 4 7 . 3 9 4 8 . 5 7 4 9 . 7 8 5 1 . 0 2 5 2 . 3 0 5 3 . 6 1 5 4 . 9 5 5 6 . 3 2 5 7 . 7 3 5 9 . 1 7 6 0 . 6 5 6 2 . 1 7 6 3 . 7 2 6 5 . 3 1 7 S E R G E A N T 03 2 4 7 7 , 1 2 6 7 9 , 0 6 1 8 1 , 0 3 7 8 3 , 0 5 4 8 5 , 1 3 4 8 7 , 2 5 6 8 9 , 4 4 0 9 1 , 6 8 6 9 3 , 9 7 4 9 6 , 3 2 5 9 8 , 7 3 8 1 0 1 , 2 1 3 1 0 3 , 7 5 0 1 0 6 , 3 5 0 1 0 9 , 0 1 3 1 1 1 , 7 3 8 1 1 4 , 5 2 5 1 1 7 , 3 9 5 1 2 0 , 3 2 8 1 2 3 , 3 4 4 37 . 0 8 3 8 . 0 1 3 8 . 9 6 3 9 . 9 3 4 0 . 9 3 4 1 . 9 5 4 3 . 0 0 4 4 . 0 8 4 5 . 1 8 4 6 . 3 1 4 7 . 4 7 4 8 . 6 6 4 9 . 8 8 5 1 . 1 3 5 2 . 4 1 5 3 . 7 2 5 5 . 0 6 5 6 . 4 4 5 7 . 8 5 5 9 . 3 0 6 C O R P O R A L 03 9 6 7 0 , 0 1 3 7 1 , 7 6 0 7 3 , 5 4 9 7 5 , 3 7 9 7 7 , 2 7 2 7 9 , 2 0 6 8 1 , 1 8 2 8 3 , 2 2 1 8 5 , 3 0 1 8 7 , 4 4 3 8 9 , 6 2 7 9 1 , 8 7 4 9 4 , 1 6 2 9 6 , 5 1 2 9 8 , 9 2 5 1 0 1 , 4 0 0 1 0 3 , 9 3 8 1 0 6 , 5 3 8 1 0 9 , 2 0 0 1 1 1 , 9 2 5 33 . 6 6 3 4 . 5 0 3 5 . 3 6 3 6 . 2 4 3 7 . 1 5 3 8 . 0 8 3 9 . 0 3 4 0 . 0 1 4 1 . 0 1 4 2 . 0 4 4 3 . 0 9 4 4 . 1 7 4 5 . 2 7 4 6 . 4 0 4 7 . 5 6 4 8 . 7 5 4 9 . 9 7 5 1 . 2 2 5 2 . 5 0 5 3 . 8 1 5 M A S T E R D E P U T Y 61 , 9 8 4 6 3 , 5 4 4 6 5 , 1 2 5 6 6 , 7 4 7 6 8 , 4 1 1 7 0 , 1 1 7 7 1 , 8 6 4 7 3 , 6 5 3 7 5 , 5 0 4 7 7 , 3 9 7 7 9 , 3 3 1 8 1 , 3 0 7 8 3 , 3 4 6 8 5 , 4 2 6 8 7 , 5 6 8 8 9 , 7 5 2 9 1 , 9 9 8 9 4 , 3 0 7 9 6 , 6 5 8 9 9 , 0 7 0 29 . 8 0 3 0 . 5 5 3 1 . 3 1 3 2 . 0 9 3 2 . 8 9 3 3 . 7 1 3 4 . 5 5 3 5 . 4 1 3 6 . 3 0 3 7 . 2 1 3 8 . 1 4 3 9 . 0 9 4 0 . 0 7 4 1 . 0 7 4 2 . 1 0 4 3 . 1 5 4 4 . 2 3 4 5 . 3 4 4 6 . 4 7 4 7 . 6 3 4 D E P U T Y 1 S T C L . 0 3 2 5 5 4 , 8 7 0 5 6 , 2 4 3 5 7 , 6 5 8 5 9 , 0 9 3 6 0 , 5 7 0 6 2 , 0 8 8 6 3 , 6 4 8 6 5 , 2 5 0 6 6 , 8 7 2 6 8 , 5 3 6 7 0 , 2 4 2 7 1 , 9 8 9 7 3 , 7 9 8 7 5 , 6 5 0 7 7 , 5 4 2 7 9 , 4 7 7 8 1 , 4 7 4 8 3 , 5 1 2 85 , 5 9 2 8 7 , 7 3 4 26 . 3 8 2 7 . 0 4 2 7 . 7 2 2 8 . 4 1 2 9 . 1 2 2 9 . 8 5 3 0 . 6 0 3 1 . 3 7 3 2 . 1 5 3 2 . 9 5 3 3 . 7 7 3 4 . 6 1 3 5 . 4 8 3 6 . 3 7 3 7 . 2 8 3 8 . 2 1 3 9 . 1 7 4 0 . 1 5 4 1 . 1 5 4 2 . 1 8 3 D E P U T Y * 03 2 6 4 8 , 5 8 9 4 9 , 7 9 5 5 1 , 0 4 3 5 2 , 3 1 2 5 3 , 6 2 2 5 4 , 9 5 4 5 6 , 3 2 6 23 . 3 6 2 3 . 9 4 2 4 . 5 4 2 5 . 1 5 2 5 . 7 8 2 6 . 4 2 2 7 . 0 8 2 D F C ( S E C U R I T Y ) 0 4 0 3 4 8 , 5 4 7 4 9 , 7 5 4 5 1 , 0 0 2 5 2 , 2 7 0 5 3 , 5 8 1 5 4 , 9 1 2 5 6 , 2 8 5 5 7 , 6 9 9 5 9 , 1 3 4 6 0 , 6 1 1 6 2 , 1 3 0 6 3 , 6 9 0 6 5 , 2 9 1 6 6 , 9 1 4 6 8 , 5 7 8 7 0 , 2 8 3 7 2 , 0 3 0 7 3 , 8 4 0 7 5 , 6 9 1 7 7 , 5 8 4 23 . 3 4 2 3 . 9 2 2 4 . 5 2 2 5 . 1 3 2 5 . 7 6 2 6 . 4 0 2 7 . 0 6 2 7 . 7 4 2 8 . 4 3 2 9 . 1 4 2 9 . 8 7 3 0 . 6 2 3 1 . 3 9 3 2 . 1 7 3 2 . 9 7 3 3 . 7 9 3 4 . 6 3 3 5 . 5 0 3 6 . 3 9 3 7 . 3 0 1 D E P U T Y ( S E C U R I T Y ) 0 3 8 5 4 1 , 6 2 1 4 2 , 6 6 1 4 3 , 7 2 2 4 4 , 8 2 4 4 5 , 9 4 7 4 7 , 0 9 1 4 8 , 2 7 7 4 9 , 4 8 3 5 0 , 7 1 0 5 1 , 9 7 9 5 3 , 2 6 9 5 4 , 6 0 0 5 5 , 9 7 3 5 7 , 3 6 6 5 8 , 8 0 2 6 0 , 2 7 8 6 1 , 7 7 6 6 3 , 3 1 5 6 4 , 8 9 6 6 6 , 5 1 8 20 . 0 1 2 0 . 5 1 2 1 . 0 2 2 1 . 5 5 2 2 . 0 9 2 2 . 6 4 2 3 . 2 1 2 3 . 7 9 2 4 . 3 8 2 4 . 9 9 2 5 . 6 1 2 6 . 2 5 2 6 . 9 1 2 7 . 5 8 2 8 . 2 7 2 8 . 9 8 2 9 . 7 0 3 0 . 4 4 3 1 . 2 0 3 1 . 9 8 51 , 0 4 3 11 / 1 3 / 2 0 2 1 ST E P 1 o f 1 10 / 5 / 2 0 2 1 Wa s h i n g t o n C o u n t y G o v e r n m e n t FY 2 2 S h e r i f f D e t e n t i o n U P D A T E D S a l a r y S c a l e GR A D E P O S I T I O N C O D E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 Ba s e + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % + 2 . 5 % 8 M A J O R 00 3 5 9 1 , 2 9 1 9 3 , 5 7 9 9 5 , 9 0 9 9 8 , 3 0 1 1 0 0 , 7 5 5 1 0 3 , 2 7 2 1 0 5 , 8 5 1 1 0 8 , 4 9 3 1 1 1 , 1 9 7 1 1 3 , 9 8 4 1 1 6 , 8 3 4 1 1 9 , 7 4 6 1 2 2 , 7 4 1 1 2 5 , 8 1 9 1 2 8 , 9 6 0 1 3 2 , 1 8 4 1 3 5 , 4 9 1 1 3 8 , 8 8 2 1 4 2 , 3 5 5 1 4 5 , 9 1 2 43 . 8 9 4 4 . 9 9 4 6 . 1 1 4 7 . 2 6 4 8 . 4 4 4 9 . 6 5 5 0 . 8 9 5 2 . 1 6 5 3 . 4 6 5 4 . 8 0 5 6 . 1 7 5 7 . 5 7 5 9 . 0 1 6 0 . 4 9 6 2 . 0 0 6 3 . 5 5 6 5 . 1 4 6 6 . 7 7 6 8 . 4 4 7 0 . 1 5 7 C A P T A I N 00 4 6 8 2 , 8 4 6 8 4 , 9 2 6 8 7 , 0 4 8 8 9 , 2 3 2 9 1 , 4 5 8 9 3 , 7 4 6 9 6 , 0 9 6 9 8 , 5 0 9 1 0 0 , 9 6 3 1 0 3 , 4 8 0 1 0 6 , 0 5 9 1 0 8 , 7 0 1 1 1 1 , 4 2 6 1 1 4 , 2 1 3 1 1 7 , 0 6 2 1 1 9 , 9 9 5 1 2 2 , 9 9 0 1 2 6 , 0 6 9 1 2 9 , 2 3 0 1 3 2 , 4 5 4 39 . 8 3 4 0 . 8 3 4 1 . 8 5 4 2 . 9 0 4 3 . 9 7 4 5 . 0 7 4 6 . 2 0 4 7 . 3 6 4 8 . 5 4 4 9 . 7 5 5 0 . 9 9 5 2 . 2 6 5 3 . 5 7 5 4 . 9 1 5 6 . 2 8 5 7 . 6 9 5 9 . 1 3 6 0 . 6 1 6 2 . 1 3 6 3 . 6 8 6 L I E U T E N A N T 0 0 7 5 7 5 , 1 9 2 7 7 , 0 6 4 7 8 , 9 9 8 8 0 , 9 7 4 8 2 , 9 9 2 8 5 , 0 7 2 8 7 , 1 9 4 8 9 , 3 7 8 9 1 , 6 0 3 9 3 , 8 9 1 9 6 , 2 4 2 9 8 , 6 5 4 1 0 1 , 1 3 0 1 0 3 , 6 6 7 1 0 6 , 2 6 7 1 0 8 , 9 3 0 1 1 1 , 6 5 4 1 1 4 , 4 4 2 1 1 7 , 3 1 2 1 2 0 , 2 4 5 36 . 1 5 3 7 . 0 5 3 7 . 9 8 3 8 . 9 3 3 9 . 9 0 4 0 . 9 0 4 1 . 9 2 4 2 . 9 7 4 4 . 0 4 4 5 . 1 4 4 6 . 2 7 4 7 . 4 3 4 8 . 6 2 4 9 . 8 4 5 1 . 0 9 5 2 . 3 7 5 3 . 6 8 5 5 . 0 2 5 6 . 4 0 5 7 . 8 1 5 S E R G E A N T 0 0 8 6 6 8 , 2 4 5 6 9 , 9 5 0 7 1 , 6 9 8 7 3 , 4 8 6 7 5 , 3 1 7 7 7 , 2 1 0 7 9 , 1 4 4 8 1 , 1 2 0 8 3 , 1 5 8 8 5 , 2 3 8 8 7 , 3 6 0 8 9 , 5 4 4 9 1 , 7 9 0 9 4 , 0 7 8 9 6 , 4 2 9 9 8 , 8 4 2 1 0 1 , 3 1 7 1 0 3 , 8 5 4 1 0 6 , 4 5 4 1 0 9 , 1 1 7 32 . 8 1 3 3 . 6 3 3 4 . 4 7 3 5 . 3 3 3 6 . 2 1 3 7 . 1 2 3 8 . 0 5 3 9 . 0 0 3 9 . 9 8 4 0 . 9 8 4 2 . 0 0 4 3 . 0 5 4 4 . 1 3 4 5 . 2 3 4 6 . 3 6 4 7 . 5 2 4 8 . 7 1 4 9 . 9 3 5 1 . 1 8 5 2 . 4 6 4 C O R P O R A L 0 3 9 7 6 1 , 9 2 2 6 3 , 4 6 1 6 5 , 0 4 2 6 6 , 6 6 4 6 8 , 3 2 8 7 0 , 0 3 4 7 1 , 7 8 1 7 3 , 5 7 0 7 5 , 4 0 0 7 7 , 2 9 3 7 9 , 2 2 7 8 1 , 2 0 3 8 3 , 2 4 2 8 5 , 3 2 2 8 7 , 4 6 4 8 9 , 6 4 8 9 1 , 8 9 4 9 4 , 1 8 2 9 6 , 5 3 3 9 8 , 9 4 6 29 . 7 7 3 0 . 5 1 3 1 . 2 7 3 2 . 0 5 3 2 . 8 5 3 3 . 6 7 3 4 . 5 1 3 5 . 3 7 3 6 . 2 5 3 7 . 1 6 3 8 . 0 9 3 9 . 0 4 4 0 . 0 2 4 1 . 0 2 4 2 . 0 5 4 3 . 1 0 4 4 . 1 8 4 5 . 2 8 4 6 . 4 1 4 7 . 5 7 3 M A S T E R D E P U T Y 0 3 9 7 5 4 , 8 2 9 5 6 , 2 0 2 5 7 , 6 1 6 5 9 , 0 5 1 6 0 , 5 2 8 6 2 , 0 4 6 6 3 , 6 0 6 6 5 , 1 8 7 6 6 , 8 1 0 6 8 , 4 7 4 7 0 , 1 7 9 7 1 , 9 2 6 7 3 , 7 1 5 7 5 , 5 6 6 7 7 , 4 5 9 7 9 , 3 9 4 8 1 , 3 7 0 8 3 , 4 0 8 8 5 , 4 8 8 8 7 , 6 3 0 26 . 3 6 2 7 . 0 2 2 7 . 7 0 2 8 . 3 9 2 9 . 1 0 2 9 . 8 3 3 0 . 5 8 3 1 . 3 4 3 2 . 1 2 3 2 . 9 2 3 3 . 7 4 3 4 . 5 8 3 5 . 4 4 3 6 . 3 3 3 7 . 2 4 3 8 . 1 7 3 9 . 1 2 4 0 . 1 0 4 1 . 1 0 4 2 . 1 3 2 D E P U T Y 1 S T C L . 0 1 3 8 4 8 , 5 4 7 4 9 , 7 5 4 5 1 , 0 0 2 5 2 , 2 7 0 5 3 , 5 8 1 5 4 , 9 1 2 5 6 , 2 8 5 5 7 , 6 9 9 5 9 , 1 3 4 6 0 , 6 1 1 6 2 , 1 3 0 6 3 , 6 9 0 6 5 , 2 9 1 6 6 , 9 1 4 6 8 , 5 7 8 7 0 , 2 8 3 7 2 , 0 3 0 7 3 , 8 4 0 75 , 6 9 1 7 7 , 5 8 4 23 . 3 4 2 3 . 9 2 2 4 . 5 2 2 5 . 1 3 2 5 . 7 6 2 6 . 4 0 2 7 . 0 6 2 7 . 7 4 2 8 . 4 3 2 9 . 1 4 2 9 . 8 7 3 0 . 6 2 3 1 . 3 9 3 2 . 1 7 3 2 . 9 7 3 3 . 7 9 3 4 . 6 3 3 5 . 5 0 3 6 . 3 9 3 7 . 3 0 1 D E P U T Y * 01 6 4 4 1 , 6 2 1 4 2 , 6 6 1 4 3 , 7 2 2 4 4 , 8 2 4 4 5 , 9 4 7 4 7 , 0 9 1 4 8 , 2 7 7 20 . 0 1 2 0 . 5 1 2 1 . 0 2 2 1 . 5 5 2 2 . 0 9 2 2 . 6 4 2 3 . 2 1 $4 3 , 7 2 2 11 / 1 3 / 2 0 2 1 ST E P 1 o f 1 Washington County Sheriff's Office Patrol Division Previous Previous ID Number Grade Step Current Salary Proposed Salary Increase Grade Step 8294 4 2 54,829$ 56,252$ 1,423$ 7601 7 3 74,069$ 81,041$ 6,972$ 8112 4 3 56,202$ 57,658$ 1,456$ 6933 4 9 65,187$ 66,866$ 1,679$ 6177 4 11 68,474$ 70,251$ 1,777$ 8293 4 2 54,829$ 56,252$ 1,423$ 8003 4 4 57,616$ 59,100$ 1,484$ 9751 3 3 47,341$ 51,051$ 3,710$ 9206 4 2 54,829$ 56,252$ 1,423$ 7220 3 4 48,526$ 54,880$ 6,354$ 7175 4 4 57,616$ 59,100$ 1,484$ 8084 4 3 56,202$ 57,658$ 1,456$ 10231 4 2 50,981$ 56,282$ 5,301$ 3 6 6317 8 6 88,421$ 96,163$ 7,742$ 5314 7 6 79,768$ 87,272$ 7,504$ 10016 3 3 47,341$ 51,051$ 3,710$ 10020 3 3 47,341$ 51,051$ 3,710$ 6516 7 4 74,069$ 83,067$ 8,998$ 7 3 4559 8 12 100,027$ 111,519$ 11,492$ 8 11 8080 4 3 56,202$ 57,658$ 1,456$ 7116 8 4 84,157$ 91,529$ 7,372$ 4560 8 11 102,523$ 108,800$ 6,277$ 8 12 6871 7 4 75,920$ 83,067$ 7,147$ 6298 7 4 75,920$ 83,067$ 7,147$ 6482 7 4 75,920$ 83,067$ 7,147$ 4562 9 10 108,202$ 116,960$ 8,758$ 7900 4 4 56,202$ 59,100$ 2,898$ 4 4 7096 4 5 57,616$ 60,577$ 2,961$ 4 4 3875 9 14 119,434$ 129,102$ 9,668$ 9119 4 3 56,202$ 57,658$ 1,456$ 9752 4 2 54,829$ 56,252$ 1,423$ 9066 4 3 56,202$ 57,658$ 1,456$ 4391 10 11 122,949$ 132,097$ 9,148$ 6934 4 9 65,187$ 66,866$ 1,679$ 6297 4 9 65,187$ 66,866$ 1,679$ 7018 4 8 62,046$ 65,235$ 3,189$ 4 7 7286 4 4 57,616$ 59,100$ 1,484$ 4564 7 13 94,806$ 103,739$ 8,933$ 9143 3 3 48,526$ 51,051$ 2,525$ 3 4 6404 7 4 75,920$ 83,067$ 7,147$ 7326 3 7 52,250$ 53,635$ 1,385$ 6406 4 9 65,187$ 66,866$ 1,679$ 6489 8 4 84,157$ 91,529$ 7,372$ 10024 3 3 47,341$ 51,051$ 3,710$ 10029 4 2 50,981$ 56,252$ 5,271$ 3 6 5748 4 13 71,926$ 73,807$ 1,881$ 5000 4 13 71,926$ 73,807$ 1,881$ 7767 7 3 74,069$ 81,041$ 6,972$ 9679 3 3 48,526$ 51,051$ 2,525$ 3 4 9754 3 3 47,341$ 51,051$ 3,710$ 7851 4 4 57,161$ 59,100$ 1,939$ 4251 4 19 83,408$ 85,594$ 2,186$ 5211 8 7 90,626$ 98,567$ 7,941$ 10585 4 1 48,526$ 54,282$ 5,756$ 3 4 6930 4 9 65,187$ 66,866$ 1,679$ 10392 4 1 49,733$ 54,282$ 4,549$ 3 5 9145 3 4 48,526$ 54,880$ 6,354$ 6931 7 4 75,920$ 83,067$ 7,147$ 9612 3 3 47,341$ 51,051$ 3,710$ 9753 3 3 47,341$ 51,051$ 3,710$ 5290 4 13 71,926$ 73,807$ 1,881$ 7729 4 4 57,616$ 59,100$ 1,484$ 6248 7 6 79,768$ 87,272$ 7,504$ 8497 3 4 48,527$ 54,880$ 6,353$ 8041 4 4 57,616$ 59,100$ 1,484$ 6820 4 9 65,187$ 66,866$ 1,679$ 7848 7 3 74,069$ 81,041$ 6,972$ 6972 4 9 65,187$ 66,866$ 1,679$ 6938 5 3 70,138$ 73,548$ 3,410$ 5 5 8005 4 2 48,526$ 56,252$ 7,726$ 3 4 8285 4 4 56,202$ 59,100$ 2,898$ 4 3 7281 7 4 75,920$ 83,067$ 7,147$ 8081 4 3 56,202$ 57,658$ 1,456$ 4481 7 14 90,251$ 106,333$ 16,082$ 7 11 7852 4 4 57,616$ 59,100$ 1,484$ 7708 4 4 57,616$ 59,100$ 1,484$ 4567 7 14 94,806$ 106,333$ 11,527$ 7 13 3284 11 13 143,208$ 149,453$ 6,245$ 6465 7 4 79,768$ 83,067$ 3,299$ 7 6 5,332,853$ 5,686,055$ 353,202$ * Proposed salary shown may not match proposed scale (by a few dollars) due to scale rounding. Proposed scale supersedes these amounts. Washington County Sheriff's Office Detention Division Previous Previous ID Number Grade Step Current Salary Proposed Salary Increase Grade Step 5836 2 13 62,837$ 65,293$ 2,456$ 10541 1 1 39,333$ 41,630$ 2,297$ 5747 2 13 62,837$ 65,293$ 2,456$ 7318 2 6 52,853$ 54,929$ 2,076$ 6180 2 13 59,800$ 65,293$ 5,493$ 2 11 8383 1 4 42,349$ 48,549$ 6,200$ 7505 2 4 50,315$ 52,282$ 1,967$ 9426 1 4 42,349$ 48,549$ 6,200$ 7098 2 7 54,184$ 56,302$ 2,118$ 4574 2 18 71,074$ 73,873$ 2,799$ 4088 2 21 76,544$ 79,553$ 3,009$ 6016 2 13 62,837$ 65,293$ 2,456$ 5046 2 14 64,418$ 66,925$ 2,507$ 90317 1 3 41,309$ 43,738$ 2,429$ 4833 2 17 69,347$ 72,071$ 2,724$ 9953 1 3 41,309$ 43,738$ 2,429$ 8355 1 4 42,349$ 48,549$ 6,200$ 7880 2 3 49,088$ 51,007$ 1,919$ 10022 1 2 40,310$ 42,671$ 2,361$ 6979 4 6 69,618$ 77,204$ 7,586$ 5300 2 14 64,418$ 66,925$ 2,507$ 9932 1 3 41,309$ 43,738$ 2,429$ 6237 2 11 59,800$ 62,147$ 2,347$ 8079 2 3 49,088$ 51,007$ 1,919$ 6818 2 9 56,930$ 59,152$ 2,222$ 9952 1 6 44,491$ 49,763$ 5,272$ 5941 2 13 62,837$ 65,293$ 2,456$ 6978 5 5 75,234$ 82,995$ 7,761$ 9256 1 4 42,349$ 48,549$ 6,200$ 6653 2 9 56,930$ 59,152$ 2,222$ 9298 2 3 49,088$ 51,007$ 1,919$ 9485 1 4 42,348$ 48,549$ 6,201$ 6490 2 10 58,344$ 60,631$ 2,287$ 7384 2 5 50,315$ 53,589$ 3,274$ 2 4 4849 5 13 91,645$ 101,121$ 9,476$ 10426 1 1 39,333$ 41,630$ 2,297$ 6130 4 7 71,365$ 79,134$ 7,769$ 7482 2 4 50,315$ 52,282$ 1,967$ 9427 1 4 42,349$ 48,549$ 6,200$ 9911 1 3 41,309$ 43,738$ 2,429$ 5147 5 9 83,034$ 91,610$ 8,576$ 6774 2 9 56,930$ 59,152$ 2,222$ 3410 6 19 117,874$ 129,216$ 11,342$ 7327 2 6 52,853$ 54,929$ 2,076$ 5146 2 14 64,418$ 66,925$ 2,507$ 6780 2 9 56,930$ 59,152$ 2,222$ 6239 2 11 59,800$ 62,147$ 2,347$ 10425 1 1 39,333$ 41,620$ 2,287$ 7180 4 4 66,248$ 73,484$ 7,236$ 8342 1 4 42,349$ 48,549$ 6,200$ 6307 2 11 59,800$ 62,147$ 2,347$ 4913 4 10 76,856$ 85,219$ 8,363$ 3685 6 18 115,003$ 126,065$ 11,062$ 7214 1 4 42,349$ 48,549$ 6,200$ 9990 1 3 41,309$ 43,738$ 2,429$ 10082 1 3 41,309$ 43,738$ 2,429$ 7198 2 7 54,184$ 56,302$ 2,118$ 4028 4 18 93,642$ 103,831$ 10,189$ 6086 2 13 62,837$ 65,293$ 2,456$ 7222 4 2 63,045$ 69,943$ 6,898$ 6651 2 9 56,930$ 59,152$ 2,222$ 4181 4 16 89,128$ 98,828$ 9,700$ 4573 5 14 91,645$ 103,649$ 12,004$ 5 13 6191 2 11 59,800$ 62,147$ 2,347$ 6299 2 11 59,800$ 62,147$ 2,347$ 7881 2 4 50,315$ 52,282$ 1,967$ 7360 4 4 66,248$ 73,484$ 7,236$ 10591 1 1 39,333$ 41,630$ 2,297$ 7176 2 7 54,184$ 56,302$ 2,118$ 4811 7 10 104,070$ 114,007$ 9,937$ 10417 1 1 39,333$ 41,630$ 2,297$ 4025 4 17 91,354$ 101,298$ 9,944$ 6238 5 7 79,040$ 87,196$ 8,156$ 7821 2 4 50,315$ 52,282$ 1,967$ 9974 1 3 41,309$ 43,738$ 2,429$ 7239 2 7 54,184$ 56,302$ 2,118$ 5304 2 14 64,418$ 66,925$ 2,507$ 7391 2 5 50,315$ 53,589$ 3,274$ 2 4 7810 2 4 50,315$ 52,282$ 1,967$ 7026 2 7 54,184$ 56,302$ 2,118$ 4179 4 16 89,128$ 98,828$ 9,700$ 7949 2 4 50,315$ 52,282$ 1,967$ 7951 2 3 49,088$ 51,007$ 1,919$ 8191 2 2 47,882$ 49,763$ 1,881$ 5948 4 7 71,365$ 79,134$ 7,769$ 6663 2 9 56,930$ 59,152$ 2,222$ 8403 1 4 42,349$ 48,549$ 6,200$ 7199 2 7 54,184$ 56,302$ 2,118$ 7588 4 3 64,626$ 71,691$ 7,065$ 4757 2 16 67,662$ 70,313$ 2,651$ 92415 1 3 41,309$ 43,738$ 2,429$ 6488 2 10 58,344$ 60,631$ 2,287$ 7453 2 4 50,315$ 52,282$ 1,967$ 6957 4 4 66,248$ 73,484$ 7,236$ 5,530,914$ 5,969,368$ 394,716$ * Proposed salary shown may not match proposed scale (by a few dollars) due to scale rounding. Proposed scale supercedes these amounts. Washington County Sheriff's Office Judicial Division Previous Previous ID Number Grade Step Current Salary Proposed Salary Increase Grade Step 5343 4 9 65,187$ 66,866$ 1,679$ 5773 4 12 68,473$ 72,007$ 3,534$ 4 11 4827 8 6 88,421$ 96,163$ 7,742$ 3977 8 11 100,027$ 108,800$ 8,773$ 5058 7 7 81,765$ 89,454$ 7,689$ 6613 2 10 58,344$ 60,631$ 2,287$ 4558 4 16 77,459$ 79,483$ 2,024$ 4563 4 14 73,715$ 75,653$ 1,938$ 9949 4 2 50,981$ 56,252$ 5,271$ 3 6 6178 4 11 68,474$ 70,251$ 1,777$ 6652 2 11 59,800$ 62,147$ 2,347$ 7104 4 7 62,046$ 63,644$ 1,598$ 5048 4 13 71,926$ 73,807$ 1,881$ 9449 4 2 54,829$ 56,252$ 1,423$ 6432 2 10 58,344$ 60,631$ 2,287$ 4912 9 6 98,010$ 105,960$ 7,950$ 5599 4 11 68,474$ 70,251$ 1,777$ 10030 4 2 50,981$ 56,252$ 5,271$ 3 6 7888 2 4 50,315$ 52,282$ 1,967$ 1,307,570$ 1,376,786$ 69,216$ * Proposed salary shown may not match proposed scale (by a few dollars) due to scale rounding. Proposed scale supersedes these amounts. 10/27/2021 Washington County Sheriff's Office Central Booking Division Previous Previous ID Number Grade Step Current Salary Proposed Salary Increase Grade Step 34,961$ 10/27/2021 Washington County Sheriff's Office DRC Booking Division Previous Previous ID Number Grade Step Current Salary Proposed Salary Increase Grade Step 9749 3 5 50,981$ 56,252$ 5,271$ 3 6 50,981$ 56,252$ 5,271$ NOTE: Reclassifying Step. Open Session Item SUBJECT: Establishing a Master Deputy Rank for the Sheriff’s Office; increase the starting deputy salary; enhance promotion opportunity PRESENTATION DATE: August 3, 2021 PRESENTATION BY:Sheriff Doug Mullendore RECOMMENDED MOTION: Motion to Approve 0DVWHU'HSXW\5DQNDQG&KDQJH2UGHU REPORT-IN-BRIEF: Creation of a Master Deputy rank will allow us to slightly increase our starting pay and retain deputies. Implementation of the $5,000 recruitment incentive for corrections. DISCUSSION: The Washington County Sheriff’s Office has been losing both sworn and correctional deputies for some time. It has been very difficult to attract new applicants as other Counties to our east are paying much higher pay rates. The situation has become critical in the Detention Center and is becoming a significant problem for Patrol and Judicial. Creating the Master Deputy rank will provide an opportunity to those deputies who qualify through testing to increase their salary by effectively two steps. Master Deputies would then be eligible to test and be promoted to Corporal in the future. This will raise our starting salary (approximately 5%) for corrections and sworn deputies and hopefully attract new applicants as well as retaining the deputies we have spent so much time and money to train. It takes about 12 months to train a patrol deputy before they can serve the County. This is a significant investment on behalf of the County. We believe the creation of the Master Deputy rank will provide an opportunity for deputies to be promoted earlier in their career which will help to retain the trained staff we currently have. It will also raise the starting salary slightly, about 5%, helping to attract new recruits. The other agencies are also using recruitment bonuses to attract new applicants. Therefore, I would like to implement the $5,000 recruitment incentive for Corrections as well. We did this about a year ago for Sworn Deputies. FISCAL IMPACT: The immediate impact would be $100,000 raising three-year deputies to Deputy First Class. After testing and the promotional process, the impact would grow up to an additional $350,000 depending on how many Deputy First Class pass the testing and promotional process to Master Deputy. Total of $450,000. CONCURRENCES: John Martirano, County Administrator; Sara Greaves, Chief Financial Officer; Larry Etchison, Human Resource Director; Doug Mullendore, Sheriff ALTERNATIVES: Stay the status quo and accept responsibility for lack of hiring and the safety issues as a result. ATTACHMENTS: Current salary scales for Sworn and Correctional Deputies, Proposed Salary Scale for Sworn and Correctional Deputies&KDQJH2UGHU Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form Washington County Sheriff’s Office Salary Proposal The promotion from Deputy to DFC and from DFC to Master Deputy will move to the appropriate Grade and back two Steps. All other promotions will move to the appropriate Grade and back one Step. A Deputy, who is not a lateral, will automatically be promoted to DFC after three years of employment. A Deputy, who is hired as a lateral, will automatically be promoted to DFC after one year of employment. A Deputy First Class must be in that rank for 18 months before being eligible to test for Master Deputy. A Master Deputy must be in that rank for 18 months to be eligible to test for Corporal. Master Deputy testing will occur twice a year; July 15th and January 15th. A Corporal must be in that rank for 18 months before automatically being promoted to Sergeant. It is understood that the Sheriff may promote Master Deputies to Corporal under different guidelines for the first 18 months after the first test because there will not be a pool of Master Deputies eligible to test. Open Session Item SUBJECT: Quirauk radio tower shelter. Approval of transfer of insurance reimbursement funds to original Wireless Communications account. PRESENTATION DATE: November 2, 2021 PRESENTATION BY: Thomas Weber, Deputy Director of Wireless Communications RECOMMENDATION: Approve transfer of insurance reimbursement funds to Wireless Communications account that emergency repairs for Quirauk radio tower site were funded from. REPORT-IN-BRIEF: Request approval to transfer $48,081.98 in funds paid to the County by our insurance carrier (LGIT) to Wireless Communications account that funded emergency repairs due to a power surge at Quirauk Communications Tower shelter on May 25, 2021. Kube Electric invoiced the county $49,081.98 for a new Eaton UPS unit, labor, and misc. installation material, which was paid on August 27, 2021. After $1,000 deductible, LGIT Insurance sent the county a reimbursement check in the amount of $48,081.98. This check will replenish funds used from Wireless Communications maintenance service contracts account. DISCUSSION: None FISCAL IMPACT: None CONCURRENCES: Sara Greaves, Chief Financial Officer, Laurence Etchison, SPHR, Director, Human Resources, Joshua O’Neal, Division Director of Information Systems ALTERNATIVES: ATTACHMENTS: Budget adjustment Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form De p a r t m e n t H e a d A u t h o r i z a t i o n Bu d g e t & F i n a n c e D i r e c t o r A p p r o v a l Co u n t y A d m i n i s t r a t o r A p p r o v a l Re q u i r e d > $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 w i t h d a t e W a s h i n g t o n C o u n t y , M a r y l a n d B u d g e t A d j u s t m e n t F o r m Ex p l a i n Bu d g e t A d j u s t m e n t Bu d g e t T r a n s f e r - M o v e s r e v e n u e s o r e x p e n d i t u r e s f r o m o n e a c c o u n t t o a n o t h e r o r b e t w e e n b u d g e t s o r f u n d s . Bu d g e t A m e n d m e n t - I n c r e a s e s o r d e c r e a s e t h e t o t a l s p e n d i n g a u t h o r i t y o f a n a c c o u n t i n g f u n d o r d e p a r t m e n t Co u n t y C o m m i s s i o n e r s A p p r o v a l Tr a n s a c t i o n / P o s t - F i n a n c e De p u t y D i r e c t o r - F i n a n c e Pr e p a r e r , i f a p p l i c a b l e Ex p e n d i t u r e / Ac c o u n t N u m b e r Fu n d Nu m b e r De p a r t m e n t Nu m b e r Pr o j e c t N u m b e r Gr a n t N u m b e r Ac t i v i t y C o d e De p a r t m e n t a n d A c c o u n t D e s c r i p t i o n In c r e a s e ( D e c r e a s e ) + / - Re q u i r e d a p p r o v a l w i t h d a t e Re q u i r e d a p p r o v a l w i t h d a t e If a p p l i c a b l e w i t h d a t e Re q u i r e d a p p r o v a l w i t h d a t e Di v i s i o n D i r e c t o r / E l e c t e d O f f i c i a l A u t h o r i z a t i o n Re q u i r e d A c t i o n b y Co u n t y C o m m i s s i o n e r s N o A p p r o v a l R e q u i r e d A p p r o v a l R e q u i r e d Ap p r o v a l D a t e i f Kn o w n Pr i n t F o r m La u r e n c e E t c h i s o n Di g i t a l l y s i g n e d b y L a u r e n c e E t c h i s o n Da t e : 2 0 2 1 . 1 0 . 1 1 1 3 : 1 4 : 3 4 - 0 4 ' 0 0 ' In s u r a n c e p a y m e n t f o r c l a i m 0 0 4 9 2 4 7 ra c y M c C a m m o n Di g i t a l l y s i g n e d b y T r a c y Mc C a m m o n Da t e : 2 0 2 1 . 0 9 . 2 4 1 0 : 5 3 : 0 7 - 0 4 ' 0 0 ' 51 5 2 7 0 1 0 1 1 5 4 0 Wi r e l e s s C o m m u n i c a t i o n s - M t n c e C o n t r a c t S e r v i c e s 4 8 , 0 8 0 49 0 0 0 5 1 0 1 1 5 4 0 Wi r e l e s s C o m m u n i c a t i o n s - I n s u r a n c e R e c o v e r y 4 8 , 0 8 0 Jo s h u a O N e a l Di g i t a l l y s i g n e d b y J o s h u a O N e a l Da t e : 2 0 2 1 . 1 0 . 1 1 1 3 : 4 1 : 0 8 - 0 4 ' 0 0 ' Open Session Item SUBJECT: Offer of Donation PRESENTATION DATE: November 2, 2021 PRESENTATION BY: Todd Moser, Real Property Administrator, Division of Engineering, Andrew Eshleman, Director, Division of Public Works RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the donation of property located at 24701 Oak Avenue in Cascade and approve an ordinance approving said donation and to authorize the execution of the necessary documentation to finalize the acquisition. REPORT-IN-BRIEF: Ms. Keenan has offered to donate a vacant parcel consisting of 0.255 acres that adjoins Pen Mar Park to be used as park land. DISCUSSION: The property and Pen Mar Park were very important to Ms. Keenan’s late husband James Keenan, Jr. Mr. Keenan spent his childhood happily exploring the mountain side in the 1930’s and 1940’s. Mr. Keenan’s first job was walking horses for the children’s pony rides in the park, and for many years he helped organize the annual reunion of the Pen Mar Park workers. FISCAL IMPACT: Title fees CONCURRENCES: County Attorney’s Office (ordinance) ALTERNATIVES: Decline the offer ATTACHMENTS: Aerial Map, Ordinance AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: Aerial Map Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form Ja m e s & C a t h e r i n e K e e n a n 2 4 7 0 1 O a k A v e n u e 2 2 1 4 0 0 0 1 9 4 . 2 5 A c r e s 0 7 5 1 5 0 2 2 5 3 0 0 Fe e t $ - P a r c e l B o u n d a r i e s - 2 4 7 0 1 O a k A v e n u e Le g e n d MarylandAvenue OakAvenue ChestnutAvenue RooseveltAvenue MapleAvenue PenMarHighRockRoad PenMarHighRockRoad Pe n M a r P a r k ORDINANCE NO. ORD-2021-___ AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE THE DONATION OF REAL PROPERTY (24701 Oak Avenue) RECITALS 1. The Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland (the “County”), believes that it is in the best interest of the citizens of Washington County to accept the donation of certain real property identified on the attached Schedule A (the “Property”) to be used for public purposes. 2. The County approved the donation of the Property on November 2, 2021. 3. A public hearing was not required by Section 1-301, Code of the Public Local Laws of Washington County, Maryland, as no County funds will be utilized to acquire the Property. 4. The Property adjoins Pen Mar Park and will be used as parkland. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland, that the donation of the Property be and is hereby approved and that the President of the Board and the County Clerk be and are hereby authorized and directed to execute and attest, respectively, all such documents for and on behalf of the County relating to the donation of the Property. ADOPTED this ____ day of ______________, 2021. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND __________________________ BY: Krista L. Hart, Clerk Jeffrey A. Cline, President Approved as to legal sufficiency: Mail to: __________________________ Office of the County Attorney Kirk C. Downey 100 W. Washington Street, Suite 1101 County Attorney Hagerstown, MD 21740 SCHEDULE A--DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY All those lots of ground known and designated as Lots 1 and 2 on the Plat of Lots known as “Rockey Grove” and laid out for C.H. Rockey by survey of D.C. Weller and of record in Record Books of Washington County, Maryland, in Plat Record 1, folio 16, together with all rights, ways, privileges, waters, and alleys pertaining thereto and being more particularly described as: BEGINNING at a stone or point at the southwest corner of Oak Street and the lands of the Western Maryland Railway Company; and running thence along the lines of said Oak Street South 57 Degrees 30 Minutes East 76 ½ feet to a stone or a point at the corner of the lot of William H. Brown and Malinda C. Brown; thence along the line of the lot of the said Browns South 57 Degrees 30 Minutes West 152 ½ feet to a stone or point at Pine Street or its lands of Lewis Kohler; thence along the line of the Kohler lands North 42 Degrees West 81 ½ feet to a stone or corner at the Kohler lands and the lands of the Western Maryland Railway Company; thence along the lands of the Western Maryland Railway Company North 32 Degrees 30 Minutes East 129 feet to a stone or corner and place of beginning. SAVING AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM, all of that parcel of land which is more particularly described in a deed from Charles A. Rockey and wife to William H. Brown, et al, said deed dated February 7, 1903, and recorded in Liber 121, folio 421, of the aforesaid Land Records. Being the same property conveyed to James I. Keenan, Jr., and Catherine M. Keenan, his wife, by deed dated September 21, 1983, and recorded in Liber 751, folio 653, among said Land Records of Washington County, Maryland. SUBJECT to all easements, rights-of-way, covenants, conditions, and restrictions of record applicable thereto. Open Session Item SUBJECT: Contract for Bikes for the World PRESENTATION DATE: November 2, 2021 PRESENTATION BY: David A. Mason, P. E., Deputy Director – Department of Solid Waste RECOMMENDED MOTION: Motion to approve the Contract with Bikes for the World REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The Department of Solid Waste is proposing to enter into an agreement with the MS Johnston, the local representative for Bikes for the World, to provide discarded bikes from the Landfill. DISCUSSION: The 40 West Landfill receives 100 or more bicycles on the scrap metal pile each year. Most of the bicycles received are generally in good condition but in need of some repairs. Bikes for the world will take the bicycles make all necessary repairs and ship them to nations in need. This program will be at no cost to the County, all expenses will be paid by the Bikes for the World Program. FISCAL IMPACT: Minimal loss of profit from the sale of scrap metal. CONCURRENCES: N/A 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 SUBJECT: Bid Rejection (PUR-1485) – Oakridge Pump Station Upgrade PRESENTATION DATE: November 2, 2021 PRESENTATION BY: Brandi Naugle, CPPB, Buyer, Purchasing Department and Mark Bradshaw, P.E., Division Director, Environmental Management RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to reject the bid received from Johnston Construction Company of Dover, PA without prejudices for the Oakridge Pump Station Upgrade due to a misinterpretation when submitting the bid. REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The project includes but is not limit to: clearing, grubbing, excavation, backfill, surface restoration, electrical work, install of submersible pumps, install generator with concrete slab, install temporary wet well and install aeration diffusers, comminutor manhole with frame & cover, bypass connection and pumping system, structural modification, select demolition of existing pump station, seeding disturbed areas, and placing salvages topsoil and fence as shown and described in the contract documents. The project is to be substantially completed within one hundred eighty (180) consecutive calendar days of the Notice to Proceed. The County can assess liquidated damages in the sum of Five Hundred dollars ($500) dollars for each consecutive day that the project is not completed. On August 18, 2021 the County issued an Invitation to Bid (ITB) for the Oakridge Pump Station Upgrade. The Invitation to Bid was published in the local newspaper, on the County web site, and on the State of Maryland’s eMMA “eMaryland Marketplace Advantage”web site. Forty-Six (46) persons/companies registered/downloaded the bid document on-line. On September 29, 2021 a total of seven (7) bids were received. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A CONCURRENCES: N/A ALTERNATIVES: N/A ATTACHMENTS: The complete Bid Tabulation may be viewed on-line at:https://www.washco- md.net/wp-content/uploads/purch-pur-1485-bidtab.pdf AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS:None Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form Open Session Item SUBJECT: Bid Award (PUR-1485) – Oakridge Pump Station Upgrade PRESENTATION DATE: November 2, 2021 PRESENTATION BY: Brandi Naugle, CPPB, Buyer, Purchasing Department and Mark Bradshaw, P.E., Division Director, Environmental Management RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to award the contract for the Oakridge Pump Station Upgrade to the responsible, responsive bidder, PSI Pumping Solutions, Inc. of York Springs, PA who submitted the total lump sum bid of $1,782,950 (For Items No. 1, Plus Contingent Items C-1 though C-4) and to approve a Budget Transfer Request of $200,000 from 515000 32-42010- LIN040 to account 515000-32-42010-LIN034. REPORT-IN-BRIEF:The project includes but is not limit to: clearing, grubbing, excavation, backfill, surface restoration, electrical work, install of submersible pumps, install generator with concrete slab, install temporary wet well and install aeration diffusers, comminutor manhole with frame & cover, bypass connection and pumping system, structural modification, select demolition of existing pump station, seeding disturbed areas, and placing salvages topsoil and fence as shown and described in the contract documents. The project is to be substantially completed within one hundred eighty (180) consecutive calendar days of the Notice to Proceed. The County can assess liquidated damages in the sum of Five Hundred dollars ($500) dollars for each consecutive day that the project is not completed. On August 18, 2021 the County issued an Invitation to Bid (ITB) for the Oakridge Pump Station Upgrade. The Invitation to Bid was published in the local newspaper, on the County web site, and on the State of Maryland’s eMMA “eMaryland Marketplace Advantage”web site. Forty-Six (46) persons/companies registered/downloaded the bid document on-line. On September 29, 2021 a total of seven (7) bids were received, one of which was rejected due to a misinterpretation when the bid was submitted. DISCUSSION: N/A FISCAL IMPACT:Funding is available in the department’s CIP budget account 515000-32- 42010-LIN034. CONCURRENCES: N/A ALTERNATIVES: N/A ATTACHMENTS: The complete Bid Tabulation may be viewed on-line at: https://www.washco-md.net/wp-content/uploads/purch-pur-1485-bidtab.pdf Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form Open Session Item SUBJECT:Potential Legislative Items PRESENTATION DATE:November 2, 2021 PRESENTATION BY:Kirk C. Downey, County Attorney RECOMMENDED MOTION:N/A. Discussion only. REPORT-IN-BRIEF:This is a preliminary discussion about potential issues the County may like to see addressed during the next session of the General Assembly. DISCUSSION:The following have been identified from as being items of potential interest: 1. Removal of statutory language requiring mobile homes to be assessed as real property; 2. Requirement for a zoning certification prior to issuance of a business license; and 3. Request for funding for burn buildings: City of Hagerstown and Washington County Public Safety Training Center; FISCAL IMPACT:N/A CONCURRENCES:N/A 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 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Application for Zoning Map Amendment RZ-21-003 Black Rock PUD – Major Revision to approved Development Plan PRESENTATION DATE:1RYHPEHU, 2021 PRESENTATION BY: Jill Baker, Director, 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 take action to reach a consensus on the request after the public hearing closes or deliberate on the issue at a later date. No formal motion is recommended. REPORT-IN-BRIEF:Application has been made by Morris & Ritchey Associates to revise the approved development plan for Black Rock PUD from 595 residential dwelling units to 1,148 units thereby increasing the approved residential density from 2.7 dwelling units per acre to 5.2 dwelling units per acre. The two subject parcels of this rezoning request are located approximately 1.5 miles east of the intersection of Robinwood Drive and Edgewood Drive and contains approximately 220.11 acres. DISCUSSION:In this particular case, the property has already been assigned a PUD floating zone and approved for a total of 595 units (or 2.7 units per acre density). The applicant is requesting a major change in the approved number of units and must therefore comply to the standards of Section 16A.5 of the zoning ordinance. When evaluating the request for a major change from a previously approved PUD development plan, both the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners are required to consider the following criteria: 1. The purpose of the PUD District; 2. The applicable policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan; 3. The compatibility of the proposed changes of the PUD with neighboring properties; 4. The effect of the proposed changes to the PUD on community infrastructure; 5. Consistency with the intent and purpose for the establishment of the PUD. This application was presented to the Washington County Planning Commission at a Public Information Meeting held on June 14, 2021. Numerous written and verbal comments were received as part of this meeting. The issue was then deliberated by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on July 19, 2021 where the members unanimously recommended denial of the proposed map amendment. FISCAL IMPACT:n/a CONCURRENCES:Washington County Planning Commission ALTERNATIVES:n/a ATTACHMENTS: Rezoning application, Staff report, Planning Commission minutes, Planning Commission recommendation, Applicant’s Memorandum in Support of Major Amendment, Public written comments Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form Washin ton Count FOR PLANNING COMMISSION USE ONLY g Y • Rezoning No. t -J Date Filed: WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 19611 ZONING ORDINANCE MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION m®mmmmmwnmi�mmaa wm nmoirm®sm®n®m® Morris & Ritchie Assoc. ❑property Owner ❑co Applicant ❑Attorney IS, , ng 1 n g 1414 Key Highway ❑Other: Address Baltimore, MD 21230 410-935-5050 Primary Contact Phone Number Sean Davis, RLA sdavis@mragta.com Address E-mail Address Property Location: Tax Map: 50 Current Zoning: East side of Hagerstown Growth Area Boundary PU D Grid:0017/0023 ... __ Parcel NO.: 309/321 Acreage: 22Q.1 1 Requested Zoning: PUD Reason for the Request: ❑ Change in the character of the neighborhood ❑ Mistake in original zoning Subscribed and sworn before me this 16 My commission expires on-1 " >'- 2_-6 February `�•��011( GO, day of 2021 NOTARY PUBLIC It V-,t a�A (, N p m. Ex. a Public _ Jut31.2023 ^,N s�q�, Bal6mae ���pr��: FOR PLANNING COMMISSION USE ONLY .1 16,21%o.% dApplication Form d Fee Worksheet dApplication Fee ❑ Ownership Verification ❑ Boundary Plat (Including Metes & Bounds) dNames and Addresses of all Adjoining & Confronting Property Owners cVicinity Map Oustification Statement ❑ 30 copies of complete Application Package WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ZONING ORDINANCE MAP AMENDMENT REQUIRED APPLICATION MATERIALS CHECKLIST All materials must be clearly labeled (Original plus 30 copies of all materials are required) X 1. Application Form: A completed and signed application form. X 2. Fee Worksheet and Application Fee: A completed Fee Worksheet and the Application Fee must be submitted at the time application is made. Checks must be X made payable to the "Washington County Treasurer". 3.Ownership Verification: Proof of ownership interest in the subject property, including a copy of the current deed to the property; OR, if the application is made X by a contract purchaser, a copy of the fully -executed Contract of Sale. 4. Boundary Plat: A boundary description, including metes and bounds, prepared X and sealed by a land surveyor registered in the State of Maryland. 5. List of the Names and Addresses for all Adjoining and Confronting Property Owners: A list of the names and addresses, obtained from the latest property tax assessment record, of owners of adjoining or confronting properties, improved or unimproved, including properties separated by streets, railroads, or other rights-of- X ways. (Must have house numbers or P.O. box numbers.) 6. Vicinity Mau: An 8 viz" x 11" page size map showing the zoning of all property X within 1,000 feet of the site. 7. justification Statement: A written explanation of the reasons why the map amendment is being sought, setting forth in sufficient detail to properly advise County officials as to the justifications for the rezoning change. Applications for floating zones shall include such information as required by the respective Articles of the Ordinance. Other applications must address the following information: a. A statement as to whether or not there is evidence of mistake in the current zoning, and, if so, the nature of the mistake and the facts to support the allegation. b. A statement as to whether or not there is evidence of a substantial change to the character of the neighborhood subsequent to the most recent comprehensive rezoning including the nature of the change, all facts to support the allegations, and a description of the neighborhood. 2 M l v/ i ®J • M MORRIS & RITCHIE ASSOCIATES, INC. q p T Architects I Planners I Urban Designers I Landscape Architects I Engineers I Surveyors February 16, 2021 Ms. Jilf Baker M99MR Director, Planning & Zoning Department Washington County, Maryland FEB 1 7 Z021 100 West Washington Street Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 Washington County Dept. of Planning & ZoningRE: Black Rock Planned Unit Development — Major Change Request Dear Ms. Baker: Thank you for all of your assistance in helping our team prepare this request for a Major Change to the current Black Rock Planned Unit Development. Attached please find our completed Application form, list of adjacent property owners (I will also email the Excel file to you for easier use), and 33 copies of the PUD plan set (a total of four pages each). Outlined below is our Justification Statement, as requested in the application requirements. We hope this completes our submission and that we will be placed on the agenda for the May 3, 2021 Planning Commission meeting. Please let us know so we can plan accordingly. There are several important reasons for this Major Change request, These include: 1. Market demand. The previous PUD had home types that were not indicative of current market demands. The revised PUD provides a variety of homes types for new buyers. 2. Regulatory Compliance. The previous PUD did not take into account certain regulatory requirements that pertain today, mainly stormwater management. The new PUD does. 3. Community Design. We believe the new PUD creates a much stronger overall community design by having a major spine road that services each individual neighborhood. 4. Increased density. The current plan increases the overall density based on the preferred home types and site plan. This increased density is necessary to offset increased costs for regulatory compliance and anticipated amenities. We look forward to expanding on these justifications during our presentation/discussion with the Commission. If there is anything else you need during your review of our application please call on meat 410-935-5050. Thank you! Respectfully Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc. 4"* Sean D. Davis Principal Attachments Cc: The Black Rock Development Team 1414 Key Highway, Suite M301, Baltimore, MD 21230 (443) 490-7201 www.mragta.com Abingdon, MD I Baltimore, MD I Laurel, MD I Towson, MD I Georgetown, DE I New Castle, DE I Leesburg, VA I Raleigh, NC Adjacent Parcels Table Tax Map Parcel Owner Name Owner Address 1 Owner Address 2 50 1690 ARNOLD JODIE C & VICKI L 20525 MOUNT AETNA RD 50 3 HARVEY CHARLES W & RYAN JANICE IRENE 10941 SASHA BLVD s0 1343 AKMAL MOHAMMAD 10947 SASHA BLVD SO 307 TOOTHMAN RONALD G & TOOTHMAN COLLEEN M PO BOX 185 50 1343 KENNEDY MICHAEL D & KENNEDY SHERYL K 20513 MT AETNA RD 50 1 1727 ITARIO, MOHAMMAD 11003 SASHA BLVD 50 1659 PRYOR JONATHAN W 20617 MOUNT AETNA RD 50 1577 POTOMAC EDISON CO TAX DEPT 800 CABIN HILL DR 50 1636 VALLEY VIEW LMTD PARTNERSHIP C/O DANIEL M SHEEDY P 0 BOX 68 50 1727 AKMALALI M & RAZI AKMAL RABAIL R 20510 TEHRANI LA 50 1686 HARR ANN M & HARR TINA L 11403 SUNNY HILL CT SO 1648 EL MOHANDES ALI EL MOHANDES LAURA 11248 EASTWOOD DR 50 1731 ATCHLEY BETHANY 11113 SHALOM LN 50 1727 KURAPATY SAMUEL M & MERCY S 10907 SASSAN LN 50 1709 GARNER JAMES GREGORY 20541 MT AETNA RD 50 1727 STIANSEN STEVEN C STIANSEN JENNIFER S 10904 SASSAN LANE 50 319 LIAO WEIDONG & CHEN MEI 11121 SHALOM LN SD 1648 MCCLAIN JOSHUA TRAVIS MCCLAIN KEELY 6702 92ND ST CT NW SO 1731 CRIST CANDACE R & CRIST BRAD W 11133 SHALOM LANE 50 1686 SHAOOL WOODBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT LLC 1730 EDGEWOOD HILL CIRCLE #101 50 1686 ISHAOOL WOODBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT LLC 1730 EDGEWOOD HILL CIRCLE 0101 50 1727 1BOYER JONATHAN L BOYER KASI 8 10900 SASSAN LN 50 1731 STEED LINCOLN E & STEED ROSA DELIA 20415 CHUCK LN 50 2 STRYKER WILLIAM L STRYKER LISA M 20533 MT AETNA RD 50 1686 FRANK ROBERT & KATIE 11302 DAY BREAK CT 50 1674 PRYOR DAVID P & DARLENE F TRUSTEES 20615 MOUNT AETNA RD SQ 1688 SHAOOL BEN & SHAOOL KATHY 1201 DUAL H WY STE 203 50 1686 STAGG MARYANNE 11405 SUNNY HILL CT 50 1686 ISOLIMANI IRAJ 7145 BROOKS RD 50 1686 ISHAOOL WOODBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT LLC 1730 EDGEWOOD HILL CIRCLE #101 50 319 1 MASOOD SACLIB 11211 SHALOM LN 50 1648 PARKS STEVEN M PARKS BECKY A 11306 EASTWOOD OR s0 1727 BONATTI HUGO & BONATTI JANANI KARUNARATNE 20509 SHAHEEN LN SO 1727 DURELLI ANDREW B & DURELLI MARIA P 20514 TEHRANI LN 50 319 MARTIN DAVID R & BAILEY JENNIFER G 11125 SHALOM LN 50 1727 HULL STEVEN G & HULL ARLENE B 20506 SHAHEEN LN 50 1 PRYOR DAVID ET AL PRYOR KENNETH 2O615 MT AETNA RD 50 1648 IREGINATO ANDREW REGINATO FLOYCE 11314 EASTWOOD DR 50 1686 REED NICOLE WINTER 11303 DAY BREAK CT 50 1701 SAGBA YAO A 20537 MT AETNA RD 50 699 STONECROFT ASSOCIATES LP C/O INTERSTATE REALTY MGMT 3 E STOW ROAD STE 100 50 1648 MIRDAMADI REZA MIRDAMADI DEBORAH 11300 EASTWOOD DR 50 1727 SPESSARO LORETTA IRENE & SPESSARD NED L 664 TRAFALGAR DR 50 1731 JOHNSON THEODORE E & JOHNSON SANDRA M 11117 SHALOM LN s0 1652 1EAGLES NEST C/O VALENTINE ELECTRIC CO 110 WESTERN MARYLAND PKWY 50 322 MILLER JAMES H & MILLER ELAINE K 12290 SCOTT RD 50 1751 EMRALSHAOOLMANSOOR 72 W WASH INGTONST s0 1675 PRYOR STEVEN 20605 MOUNT AETNA RD 50 1686 LEITER CHRISTOPHER A & LEITER NICOLE 11304 DAY BREAK CT 50 1686 WASH CO COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF 100 W WASHINGTON ST 50 1648 BRODYJOHN WILLIAM BRODY KATHLEENA 11252 EASTWOOD DR 50 1727 IAKHMEDOV IZMIR & FEYZULOVA SABINA 10977 SASSAN LANE 50 1218 1 MEADOW VIEW ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 1 WATERFORD PROFESSIONAL CTR 50 1727 UDDIN ZIA & ABID FARAH 10973 SASSAN LN s0 1688 SHAOOL BEN & SHAOOL KATHY 1201 DUAL HWY STE 203 50 1727 PETERSON ERIC JONATHAN & PETERSON SHANNON CHRISTINE MARSHAL 20510 SHAHEEN LN 50 1727 HUNGRIA CARLOS R & HUNGRIA ANA ROSA V CO TRUSTEES 10969 SASSAN LN 50 1667 KINGS CREST C/O VALENTINE ELECTRIC CO 110 WESTERN MARYLAND PKWY 50 308 HESSONG EDWARD L 13082 WILLIAMSPORT PIKE 50 1727 ITARIQMOHAMMAD 11003 SASHA BLVD 50 1751 EMRALSHAOOL MANSOOR 72 W WASHINGTON ST SO 1751 JEMRALSHAOOLMANSOOR 72 W WASHINGTON ST S0 1751 JEMRALSHAOOLMANSCOR 72 W WASHINGTON ST 50 1751 JEMRALSHAOOLMANSOOR 72 W WASHINGTON ST Page 1 of 1 a* la 6 y ♦♦ ��r ,door' ,© 41,. l 3 ;' r elk i 'r x +;' r H O W ❑NVIANVW ',11NnOO NOlONIHSVM'NMOlSN3OVH 1 z Y s .F y< �s�NQ I^�NVId 1d3ONOI^O�O�Mfl/d p ' N llama �\ $< �e �� MJOH MJY18 u d �| OX 86 »� animc� ___' o e_ .t �|�! �,�»«_ | | : )m _. "\¢( MOOH ���� r■ ► • � 7 ` � ° } ■% � /\ \ }52.�� ! 2»;!e■! , � i § ■2k:§■! � — ! S§k' w |§5%§■= � . \ / � | e f =1 \ > } , ! •| ;-! � ) -� . - - ! | 3( | : | �■ � . � | § [ \ ) ----- ' b 2§\{i)| ■ � | � - 7 §2�,-,• r , _ - -! �- > ; ! / 2 { . — \ �-- n ■ `� ` § ( ( § \ ) |§� A22 k _ !!�,!& §k(®§)§ / &k2HM � | m ,>l2;�&2� n !§!_;`,■� B § ) k § :@■mM R § @!■!■/f§■ 1H ■»!§*�2!!-§!!!2!! ONbIANVW'AlNnOONOI0NIHSVM'NMOISa30VH C z Ell NVId1d30N00andIL g 7 a ��F L oe 3 DOB movie b air ► � a -�sa �F n � �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m LemV@m$G?\]_VjSmjLOOmVSOlmX\ViL>m S?jmV\m?kY4S8?8mj4_?\m4S8mj4]_?j4_?\m]?\iL7?m Vga^L>mV@m%?\]_VjSm@L 7V\XV\4_?m6VgS84\L?]m_VmX\VX?\_L?]m_K4_m 4SS?kmLS_Vm_K?m LemV\m _K4_m?S_?\mLS_VmX\?4SS?k4_LVSm4I\??Q?Sb^mjL_Km_K?mLem m m 5L!''1A1:5LA0)L L!2?:L ?A"B)?L L L_K?mLemjLOOmSV_m ?k_?S8mj4_?\mV\mj4]_?j4_?\m]?\iL7?]m6?lVS8m_K?m$H?\]_VjSm &?9MgQ+4SG?m!\Vj_Km\?4]m4]m:?BS?8mLSm_K?mLf]mSS?k4_LVSm*VOL7lm m m 01?L!;;21&!A1:5LE!?L?)5ALA:LA0)L1AHL:*L!/)=?A:E6L !A)=L);!=A3)5AL.=L=)D1)EL !5'L&:33)5A L0)L.22:E15/L&:34)5A?L0!D)L%))5L:,)=)'L -?mF_g\?mj4_?\mg]4G?mjL_KLSm_KL]m*/m jLOOm6?m 5\VkLQ4_?Olmm G4OOVS]m mgSLa^mkmmGX;gSLc m -L]m*/mL]mOV74_?8m jL_KLSm_K?mLemV@m#4G?\]_VjSm@L 04_?\m,l]_?Rm2VS?m m 1_?\m3S?mmK4]mOLQL_4_LVS]mLSm8L]`\L6g_LVSm]l]_?QmX\?]]g\?m 4S8mC\?mDVjm46LOLem?i?SmjL_KVg_m`K?m4=L_LVSmV@m_KL]m *. m-?]?mOLQL_4_LVS]m4\?m >_4LO?8mLSm_K?m#4G?\]_VjSm L\?m?X4\_Q?S_m7VQR?S_]m_Vm_KL]m*. m-?m?kL]_LSGm 4i?\4G?mj4_?\m8?Q4S8mjL_KLSm2WS?mmX?\m`K?mm LemV@m$G?\]_VjSm 04_?\m ,l]_?Qm&4]_?\m*O4Smj4]m m'" m -?mm(]_?\m*O4SmLS7V\XV\4_?8m4m@g_g\?m XO4SSLSGml?4\mV@mm4S8m4Sm4i?\4G?mj4_?\mg]4G?mV@m mm'"m -L]m*.mjLOOm LS7\?4]?m_K?m 4i?\4G?m j4_?\m>Q4S8mjL_KLSm_KL]m3S?m_Vm 4m\4_?m_K4_m?k7??8]m_K?m XO4SS?8mF_g\?m4i?\4G?mj4_?\mg]4G? m *?\m_K?m )]_?\m*P4SmgXG\48?]m_Vm _K?m j4_?\m LTE4]_\g7_g\?m 4\?m \?[gL\?8m jK?Sm `KL]m @g_g\?mDVjm L]m 5\V47K?<m -?m \?[gL\?8m hJ48?]m4\?m>_4LO?8mLSm_K?mm(]_?\m*O4Sm6g_m G?S?\4OOlm_K?mgXG\4>]mLS7Og8?m LQX\Vi?Q?Sa^m_Vm_K?mj4_?\mXgQXm]_4_LVSmm`K?m4=L_LVSmVAm4mj4_?\m]_V\4G?m_4SNm jL_KLSm2VS?mm 4S8m j4_?\m8L]_\L6g_LVSm]l]_?Qm LQX\Vi?Q?S_]m -?m Lem4S8m_K?L\m VS]gO_4S_mSGLS??\mjLOOmjV\NmjL_Km_K?m?i?OVZ?\m4S8m`K?L\mSGLS??\mVSm`K?mCS4Om 8?]LGSm V@m _K?]?m S?7?]]4\lm hJ48?]m 4S8m 488L_LVS]m _Vm _K?m j4_?\m ]l]_?Qm LU4]dg7_g\? mm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‚Rs‚^z[A9‚Le3ySs‚h@z@eh‚6@pz@@[‚mORh‚$*‚3[9‚/3hm@z3m@e‚$vY`‚&m3mR^[‚‚ 3``@3e‚m^‚O3y@‚hvE7R@[m‚O}?3vWR7‚7537Rs‚O^z@y@e‚mO@‚Rt‚e@h@ey@h‚mO@‚fRMOm‚m^‚ e@dvRe@‚h@z@e‚7_XW@7mR^[‚h}hn@Y‚w`Le39@h‚>@[9S[L‚^[‚mO@‚F[3W‚hAz@e‚7^WW@7mR^[‚ lhmAY‚W^vm‚zSmOR[‚mO@‚$+ ‚ Rs‚1hm@{3m@e‚$vY`‚&m3mR^[‚‚Rh‚W^73m@:‚3W^[L‚ %^6R[{^^9‚eSy@‚R[‚I^[m‚^B‚3L@ehm^z[‚^ZYv[Rs‚^WW@L@ ‚‚ 7=*J 8978"9>-";J 9"J @99"4=1GJ 17 ="!J C-=*J =*"J -=GJ !";-)4?"!J "!-@2J 6)"J 97C=*J 9"J J7@4!9GJ *"GJ1;7J*A"J4J"F" @="!J89"44"F=-74J)9#"2"4=J C-=+J=*"J -=GJ *-1"J =*-;J ;=="2"4=J11@!";J=7J=*"JA-1-1-=GJ7$JC;="C="9J9"<7@9 #;J @9:"4=1GJ-=J-;J47=JJ)@94=""J7$J117 =-74J 117 =-74J-;J9" "-B"!J74JJ&9;=J 73"&9;=J ;"9B"!J;-;J@4=-1J 8 -=GJ-;J"F*@;="!J Y@eN@[7~‚&@eyR7@h‚ -9" J @." =J9 "1JJ -;J17 ="!JC-=*-4J =*"J ;"9A- "J9"J7$J=*"J 2-=*;@9)J71@4=""9J -9#J7284HJ7284GJJ4!J-;J8897F-2="1GJ J2-1";JCGJ(72J=*"J &9"J<==-74J @/" =J 9 "1J  J -;J 17 ="!J C-=*-4J =*"J ;"9A- "J 9"J 7$J=*"J @40;=7C4J -9"J 7285GJ 7285GJJ4!J-;J17 ="!J8897F-2"1GJ J 2-1";JCGJ(72J=*"J&9"J;==-74J J 78GJ 7$J=*-;J 881- =-74J C;J ;"5=J =7J " *J A71@4=""9J &9"J 7284GJ 4!J 1;7J '9D9!"!J=7J=*"J-=GJ7$J)"9;=7E4J-9"J"89>2"4=J'9J9"B-"CJ4!J 722"4=J *#9"JC;J 47J:";874;"J9" "-A"!J (72J =*"J7@4=IJA71@4=""9J 7284-";J*7C"B"9J=*"J-=IJ-9#J*-"$J ,!J=*"J'117C-4)J 722"5=;J=7J7%"9 J 'O@‚‚O3h‚O39‚nO@‚^``^emv\Rs‚m^‚e@yR@z‚mO@‚e@yRh@9‚$,‚B^e‚mO@‚W37T‚%^7T‚ 9@y@W^aY@[m‚^C‚^B‚#m‚@m[3‚%;‚3[9‚^D@e‚nO@‚B^WW^zR[L‚7^YY@[r‚v[Rdv@‚m^‚Fe@‚ `e^m@7mR^[‚R[‚mO3m‚3e@3‚^B‚03hOR\Lm^[‚^v[s ‚@‚39yRh@9‚mO3m‚@y@[‚mO^wLP‚‚ v[Rpk‚ubR73WW}‚3e@‚R[7Wv=:‚^[‚e@h`^[h@h‚R[‚mORh‚3e@3‚Rm‚Rh‚mO@‚Fehn‚9v@‚3e@4‚^B‚mO@‚ v\Vm^z[‚ -^Wv[m@@e‚Re@‚^Y`3[}‚m^‚`e^yR9@‚7^YY@[mh‚B^e‚mORh‚`^emS^[‚^B‚mO@‚ 7^v[s ‚"‚}^v‚O3y@‚[^m‚3We@39}‚9^[@‚h^ ‚ ‚e@7^YY@[9‚mO3m‚}^v‚eA37O‚^vm‚m^‚mO@Y‚ He‚mO@Re‚R]vm‚3[9‚MvR93[7@ ‚ ‚7^YZ@[r‚3[9‚7^[7@e[h‚  (Rh‚9AyAW^aZ@[m‚Rh‚W^73m@9‚zRmOR[‚3L@ehm^z[‚1m@e‚2^[@‚‚zOR7O‚PRhm^eR73WW} O3h‚hmevLLW@9‚m^‚Y@@m‚6_mO‚9^Y@hmR8‚3[9‚Fe@‚`e^m@7mR^[‚z3m@e‚G^zh‚zRmOR[‚mO@ @[mRe@‚^[@ ‚ (@i@‚hmevLLW@h‚3e@‚U^z[‚Rhiv@h‚3[9‚z@WW‚9^7vY@[o@9‚^y@e‚mRY@ ‚)Rh Rh‚ @|3h`@e3m@9‚ 6}‚ mO@‚ L@^Le3`Q‚ RLO‚ @W@y3mR^[‚ W47T‚^B‚ 3‚ hm_e3L@‚m3[T‚ ^e hm3\9`R`@‚ 3[9‚v[;@ehR@9‚z3m@e‚me3[hYRihR^[‚!‚9RhqR6vmR^[‚WR[@h‚hxW}R[M‚^[@  ‚ J@e‚h@y@e3W‚W3eL@‚Fe@h‚R[‚mO3m‚3e@3‚^B‚mOA‚7^v[s‚R[‚e@7@[m‚}@3eh‚R[7Wv9R[L ^@}‚^vh@ ‚ /^^96eS9M@‚e ‚3[9‚^mO@eh‚{OAe@‚Fe@‚`e^m@7mR^[‚z3mAe‚Rh‚WRYRm@9 m^‚ hv87@hjKWX}‚ ;@`W^‚W3eL@‚ 83XR6@e‚ hmg@3Yh‚mO@‚v[Vm^z[‚ .‚ O3h‚ 3<9 YvWmR`W@‚m3[T@eh‚z3m@e‚^[‚zO@@Wh‚m^‚mO@‚3hhRL[Y@[pk‚m^‚`3emS3WW€‚7^Yc@[h3m@‚He mO@‚X37T‚^B‚[A@9@9‚Fe@‚G^z‚  &4d+BWdA(PdN4+4GSE_d(,,4,d(Gd(YSIF(SB+dP\BG>d+A4+Dd[(E[4dBGdSA4d[B+BGBWdI5dSA4 EDPd +EY*d IGd #I*BG\II,d N d SId JNI[B,4d PIF4d BGS4NBFd N4EB45d *_d BG+N4(PBG>d SA4 ([(BE(*E4d\(S4Nd:IFdSA4dF(BGdcIG4dd\A4Gd,4F(G,d4]+442dPZE_ d &BPdAI\4[4N BPdEBFBS4/  &4d JNIJIP4,d ,4[4EIKF4GSd (G,d 4]BPSBG>d +IGPSNY+SBIGd BGd cIG4d BPd JNBF(NBE_ +IFJNBP4,d I5d [4N_d E(N>4d PBG>E4 (FBE_d AIF4Pd SI\GAIF4Pd (G,d PIF4d 4]S4G,4, N4PB,4G+4d*YBE,BG@dSA(Sd(N4dI5d %_J4dEB>AS\4B>ASd \II- (F4d+IGPSNY+SBIGdSA(S (N4d(d+A(EE4G>4d5INddPd4[4Nb\A4N4 d %A4dG44,d5INd(,,BSBIG(Ed BG>d\(S4NdPSN4(FP BPd4PP4GSB(EdSIdPSIJJBG>d\4EEd(,[(G+4,d8N4PdBGdSA4P4d*YBE,BG>P  %Id(+AB4[4d464+SB[4ddPSN4(FPdSA4d+INN4+Sd+IF*BG(SBIGdI5dJN4PPYN4d(G,d[IEYF4 BPdG44,4,dSId(,4MY(S4E_dJNIS4+SdPSNY+SYN4PdEBD4dSAIP4dJNIJIP4/d d\BEEd,454NdSIdSA4 S4+AGB+(Ed 4^4NSBP4d I5d SA4d '(S4Nd 4J(NSF4GSd SId N4+IFF4G,d (d J4NF(G4GS PIEYSBIG  !dTA4dBGS4NBFd(G,d\BSAIYSd(Gd(,4MY(S4dPBc4dPSIN(>4dS(GDd5INd8N4dJNIS4+SBIGd\(S4N EI+(S4,d\BSABGdcIG4d SA4ddPSNIG>E_d N4+IFF4G2d SA(Sd=NSA4Nd,4[4EIKF4GS ,I4PdGISdI++YNd(PdJNIJIP4/d %A4N4d PBFJE_dBPdBG(0MY(S4d\(S4NdG4+4PP(N_dSId9I\ S\IdINd FIN4d E(N>4d+(EB*4NdPSN4(FPdG4+4PP(N_dSIdPSIJd8N4PdBGd\4EEd BG[IE[4,d(SSB+ PJ(+4PdI5dSA4dXL4d(G,dPBc4dI5d*YBE,BG@dJNIJIP4/ _dIYNd YG,4NPS(G,BG?d SA4dN4[BP4,dJNIJIP(Ed G4(NE_d,IY*E4PdSA4dGYF*4NdI5dYGBUQd BGBSB(EE_d N4[B4\4,d BGd  d $J4+C+(EE`d SA4d E(N>4d GYF*4Nd I5d )(NSF4GVd (G,d SI\GAIF4Pd +EYPS4N4,d SI>4SA4Nd JN4P4GSd (d N4(Ed +A(EE4G>4d 5INd (Hd  d &BPd BPd J(NSB+YE(NE_dUOY4dBGdSA4dYGRNBGDE4N4,d(SSB+dR(+4PdI5dSA4P4d*YBE,BG@d\BSAdJ4(D4,d NII; d BG(EEad (G,d*_d SA4d+IJ_dI5dSA4d1(<d1(\BG@d\4dN4[B4\4.d SA4N4d(JJ4(NPdSId*4d(d PBG>E4d 4GSN(G+4d IGE_d I7dI5d "S d 4SG(d #/d SId SA4d ,4[4EIKF4GS d &BPd P44FPd JNI*E4F(SB+d 5INd PY+Ad (d E(N>4d GYF*4Nd I5d 34EEBG>d YGBSPd d d \BSAIYSd PIF4d N4,YG,(G+_d(G,d(++4PPd:IFd(GISA4NdJIBGS dd  +4 %##$,+40(4 (0)4 ,%4 , 4 &"!$,4 0 %4 ('.+,4 4 +.+'.$-4 #,!$40!, 4,4,%4!+.++4, +4%$*+4 (4+%#4!+.++!%$4, 4&"!$,4"!/+4 , 4, 240!""44"4,%4#!,!-4, +4%$*+4!, (4, (%. 4 0,(4"!$4 !#&(%/#$,+4 !4"%%&!$4%4"!$+4 ,%4(,4!,!%$"4&(++.(4%(4/!44 0,(4,%0(4%(4 %, (4!"!,24  4 !++.4 %4++4 (.$$24 0!""4 4 (++4 24 , 4 &&"!$,4 +4 &-4 %4, !(4 &(+$,,!%$4,4, 4!$&.,4#,!$4 #($34 +. 4 #($24 +.4 +(/!+4 )4 &(%/!4 24 %##.$!,24 +.4 (/!4  %#&$244  4&(%&(-!+44&&(%1!#,"244#!"+4024%#4, 4+,,!%$4 4%&24 J4aV>?Ua%LLC?,%V?JGa[%UaU2GVaVJa2%,>aJ4aV>2aZJCYGV22Oa,JEL%G?2Ua%Ua[2CCa%UaVJaV>2a$%U>?G=VJGa JXGV^a?Z?U?JGaJ4aE2O=2G,^a 2OZ?,2Ua Ja,JEE2GVUa>%Z2a*22GaO2,2?Z2.a  !>2aW[JaLOJL2OV?2UaV>%Va,JELO?U2aV>?UaLOJLJU2.a.2Z2CJLE2GVa,YOO2GVC^a%,VUa%UaV>2a.?Z?.?G=a LJ?GVa*2V[32GaV[Ja .?72O2GVaU,>JJCa.?UVO?,Va62.2OaU^UV2EUa Y*A2,VaL%O,2Ca aa a?Ua?GaV>2a LOJL2OV^a?UaCJ,%V2.a[?V>?GaYV>aGGaJHOJ2 %UV2SaC2F2GV%O^ E?V>U*XO=a?..C2 E?V>U*YO=a ?=>a .?UVO@,VUa Y*A2,Va L%O,2Ca  a a a ?Ua ?Ga V>2a O22G*O?2Oa C2E2GV%O_ JJGU*JOJa ?..C2 JKGU*JOJa?=>aU,>JJCa.?UVO?,VUa ">2aO2NX2UV3.a?G,O2%U2aJ4a.[2CC?G=aXG?VUa[JYC.a ?EL%,Va *JV>aU,>JJDa.?UVO?,VUa !Ja3Z%CY%V2aV>2a?EL%,VUaJ4a.2Z2CJLE2GVaJGaLX*C?,aU,>JJCaU^UV2EaO2UJYO,2Ua[2a8OUVaCJJBa%Va 2]?UV?G=a ,JG.?V?JGUa Ga %,,JO.%G,2a [?V>a V>2a %.JLV2.a .2NY%W2a X*C?,a %,?C?V?2Ua O.?G%G,2a a %/2NY%,^a?Ua.2V2OE?G2.a*%U2.aXLJGa V>3a V%V2a %W2.a%L%,?V_a  aJ4a 2%,>a U,>JJCa .?UVO?,Va !>2aV>O2U>JC.a:Oa%.2NY%,^aUV%V2.a%UaV>2aJ,%Ca%V2.a%L%,?V^a%VaV>2a2C2E2GV%O^aU,>JJCa C2Z2Ca?Ua aJ4aV>2a a ?..C2a%G.a>?=>aU,>JJCaV>O2U>JC.Ua%P2a aJ4aV>2a a !>2a V%*C2Ua *2CJ[a U>J\aV>2a2]?UV?G=a,%L%,?V_a(G.a 2GOJCCE2GVa8=YO2Ua:Oa2%,>a U,>JJCa.?UVO?,Va%72,V2.a*^aV>?Ua LOJLJU2.aO3`JG?G=a VaU>JXC.a*2a GJV2.aV>%Va 2GOJCCE2GVa8=XO2Ua%P2a U?=G?8,%GVC^a CJ[2Oa?Ga V>2a 2C2E2GV%O^a U,>JJCaC2Z2CUaV>%Ga?GaLO2Z?JYUa^2%OUa.X2aVJa ?EL%,VUa<JEa V>2a # a L%G.2E?,a ">2U2aGYE+2OUa%O2a2]L2,V2.aVJaO?U2a%=%?Ga%UaU,>JJCUaO2VYTaVJaGJOE%Ca?GaL2OUJGaJL2O'V?JGUa ++.'$.,))&+. +.+.&)'$$%&+. "''$.(#+-.(#+-... ,+".&&.'&)' *+ )&.$%. . .. %#+"*,)!.#$. . . . %#+"*,)!.#!".  .  .  . ++.'$.,))&+. +.+ .&)'$$%&+. "''$.(#+-.(#+-... )&)#).$% &+)-. . ''&*')'.#$. . ''&*')'.#!". Ga &0.?V?JGa VJa ,YOO2GVa2IJCCE2GVa8=XO2Ua V>2a a JYVC?G2Ua %a UL2,?8,a :OEXC%a V>%Va %,,JYGVUa;OaU2Z2O%CaZ%P?%*C2UaV>)a ,%Ga?G9X2G,2a,>%G=2Ua?GaU,>JJCa2GOJCCE2GVa !>2U2a 5,VJOUa ?G,CY.2a L?M2C?G2a %G.a *%,B=OJYG.a 2HOJCCE2GWa ?L2C?G2a .2Z2CJLE2GVa 2NX%V2Ua VJa %LLOJZ3.a UY*.?Z?U?JGaCJVUaV>%Va>%Z2aGJVa^2Va*22Ga*X?CVaYLJGa[>?C2a*%,B=OJYG.a2HQJCCE2GVa?Ua%Ga%Z2O%=2aJ4a 2HOJCCE2GVa->%G=2Ua[?V>?Ga%a =?Z2Ga .?UVO?,VaJZ2Oa %a ^2%OaL2O?J.a !>2a V%*C2a *2CJ[aU>J[Ua V>2a %1XUV2.a2GRJCCE2GVa:OaV>2aU,>JJCa.?UVO?,VUaV>)aU2OZ3aV>2aUX*A2,VaLOJL2OV^a 733'05: 031../'05:+2'.+0':#%-)3170&:&,745'&: %*11.:'%: :031../'05:031../'05:031../'05: 75*:00:1031'#45'30:.'/: : : : : /+5*4$73):+&&.':: :: : /+5*4$73):+)*: : :  : 733'05: 031../'05:+2'.+0':#%-)3170&:&,745'&: %*11.:'%: :031../'05:031../'05:031../'05: 3''0$3+'3:.'/'05#39: :  : :  : 1104$131:+&&.': :  :  :: 1104$131: +)*: :  ::  : )8-+#!&8- 8!#*-,8)8- 8,*!82")*#&-8- 8 )+8)8 1!)&8 ,8*+)2!8 - 8 )1&/583!- 8*1*!"8&+.!)&8+-,8+8 8"2"8)88, ))"8!,-+!-8  ,8&+.!)&8+.,8 +81,8-)8"1"-8- 8 *)-'-!"8&1#+8)8,-1&-,8- -8$588*+)1858- 82")*#'-8 &+.!)&8+.,8 +8,8)&8- 8"2"8)8- 8, ))"8(8- 8-5*8)8 )1,!&8 1&!-8- -8 #688 *+)18  8-"8")38, )3,81++&-8*1*!"8&+.!)&,8+-,8 72+.:'0'3#5+10:#5'4: 92':.'/:+&:+)*: +0).':#/+.9:  :  :  : 180*174':  :  :  : 7.5+#/+.9:  :  :  : ,!&8- 8&1#+8)8*+)*),81&!-,8#1"-!*"!858- 8*1*!"8&+-!)&8+.8- 8,-!#-8 &1#+8)8,-1&-,8- 8#588&+.8)#8- !,82")*#'-8!,8,1##+!78!'8- 8-"8")38  8 1+,8 +8 ,-!#8 ,8 1*)&8 - 8 2")*#&-8 *"'8 ,1#!08 !&8 +1+58  8 %)""#'-,8&8&84!""82+58*&!&81*)&8- 8&"8"5)1-8)8- 82")*#&-8 7$,'%5:#3%'.: : : 75*:00:1031'#45'30/+5*4$73)/+5*4$73): 72+.:'0:#5'4:72+.4:'0'3#5'&: "0+5: 92':7/$'3:1(:.154:.'/:+&:+)*:.'/:+)*:!16#.: +0).':#/+.9:  :  :  :  : :  :  :  : 180*174': :  :  :  :  :  : :  : 7.5+(#/+.9: :  :  :  :  :  :  :  : 15#.4: :  :  :   :  : @&0)'>E$;')1E E E;))4&;/);E664=&6;6664=&6;6E @9/1E)4E$>)=E @9/1=E)4)<$>)(E #4/>E!C9*E @2&);E6+E16>=E 1)2E /,-E 1)2E /,-E !6>$1E /4,1)E$2/1CE  E  E  E  E  E  E  E  E !6A4.6@=)E E  E  E  E  E E  E  E @1>/+$2/1CE E  E  E  E E E E E !6>$1=E E   E  E  E   E 5KKA9)A+=KA+KE==5AK/E?AK291135AK5K 6HK:E:.1?K)5=BK (93KB+K :=9:9?KG19:35AK?+9H?K5K.5<EJKAK A+K135B=JK?+991K 1G1K.5K9A+KA+K=.G.5)K .?A=.A?K .1K A+KI5K.5KA+K EA+K76K929 ?A4K.?A=.BK.?KH.A+.5KK3.A.)A1K =5)KA,KI5K.5KA+K =5=.=K.?A=.AK"=KI?KAJ:.1K3.A.)B.95K3A+9?KH.A+.5KA+K 9E5AJK ,=K=KE==5A1JK59K=.?A=.A.5)K:15?K .B1K:=90A?K9=K9A+=K=?951K3.A.)B.95K $9=B?K:=9:9?K'=KA+.?K.?A=.AKA+AK9E1K9%?AKA+K3)5.AEK9!KA+KI8K G.H.5)KB+K3.1K5K+.)+K?+991K:.A.?K.AK::=?KA+AKA+KG19:35AK9E==.5)K H.A+.5K A,K 3.A+?E=)K #=K ?J?A3?K H.11K K :E?+K ?1.)+B1JK 9G=K 91K 5K ABK AK :.A.?KEAKH11KH.A+.5KK3.A.)A1K=5)K G19:35AKH.A+.5KA+K995?9=9K#=K?J?A3?K :?KA9K-GK59K5)B.GK.3:AK95K?+991K:.AJK E?KA+KAH9K.?A=.A?KEBK95K59A+=K BK B+.?K 19B.95K .BK 3JK K .6K A+K ?AK .5B=?AK 9!K11K :=B.?K A9K .5G?A.)AK A+K :9??..1.AJK 9!K =.?A=.A.5*K3.1K K+.)+K?+991K?AE5A?K (93K 3.A+?E=)K A9K 995?9=9KA9K+1:K15K ?AE5AK291135AK.6K+K#=K?J?A3K       (0@=>)(E *BE@9/1=E "6>$1E 6'$1E$>*(E '-661E 4;6112)4>E )4);%>*(E 3:$'?E $9$'/>CE E6+EE @>.E44E64;6)$=>);4E1)2E E  E   E E E 2/>.=&@;,E/((1)E E E   E  E  E 2/>-=&@;,E/,-E   E E   E E  E       (0@=>)(E )AE@9/1=E "6>$1E 6'$1E$>)(E '-661E 4;6112)5>E *4);$>*(E 3:$'>E $9$'/>DE E6+EE ;))4&;/);E1)2)4>$;CE  E  E  E E   E 664=&6;7E/((1)E  E  E  E E  E 864=&6;7E/,-E   E E   E E   E  .?1.3=K +991K 291135AK1E1A.95?K =K?A.3AK?KK ?5:?+9AK9!KI.?A.5) 95.B.96?K +?K&)E=?K5K5KH.11K+5)K9G=KA.3K8K=K 951JK.51EK?K.11E?A=B.95?K9!K :9A5A.1K9FC93?K?K95K.5'=3B.95KG.11KAKB+KA.3K9!KH=.A.5)KA+.?K9E35AK =@ 6BK5K EAE=K=5?;9=AB.95KD>?K  68:+SDJ(+)ESA B)+:SS8DSE+)7<8) ::PS: <*S:@)9+*S <*S &D+<FS*8B+)ES ))+DDSE@S SAJ':8)SB@ *S E5+S $A:8)%8@<S 8DS &+8<4S L8+M+*S DS S M5@:+S D@S E5%S &@E5S A B)+:DS M8::S )@<DEBJ)ES <+MS B@ *S 8<3 DEBJ)EJB+SE5 FSM8::SJD+SES+E< S@ *S DSE5+S*+L+:@A;+<EDS ))+DDSA@8<ES <S **8E8@<SE@S+L :J E8<4SAJ&:8)S ))+DDS@,S SA"B)+:S1BSB+R@<8<4SAJBA@D+DS8ES8DS :D@S8;A@BI <ES E@S +L :J E+S EB -0)S 4+<+B F8@<S >*S +O8DE8<4S EB -0)S L@:J;+DS 58DS 8DS )@;;@<:PS ))@;A:8D5+*S E7B@J45S < :PD8DS@,S58DE@B8)S <*S+O8DE8<4SEB -0)S)@J<EDS DSM+::S DS <PS+O8DE8<4SEB -0)S8;A )ESDEJ*8+DS ES+E< S@ *S8DS S@J<EPS@M<+*S <*S; 8<E 8<+*S5845M PSD+4;+<ES 5+B+S8DS:8EE:+S* F S L 8: &:+S B+: H+*SE@S @J=EPSEB -0)S )@J<FDS *J+SE@S :8;8F+*SB+D@JB)+DS 5+S;@DESB+)+<ESEB -0)S)@J<ES*% S )@::+)E+*S8<SE58DS B+ SM DS8<S S <*S8DSD5@N<S8<SE5+S)5"BFS&+:@MS 5+S* E SD5@N<S8<SE5+S)5 BIS 8DS+OAB+DD+*S8<S#J :S L+B 4+S* 8:PSEB -0)SL@:J;+DS         ES+E< S*S *4+M@@*SBS S           SEB -0)S8;A )ES < :PD8DSM DS)@;A:+E+*S&PSE5+SAB@A+CIPS@N?+BS8<SSE@S+L :J E+SE5+S 8;A )EDS@,S$A:P8<4S S: ?<+*S<8ES +L+:@A;+<ES@L+B: PS@<S F5+SAB@A+BIPSM8E5S S*+<D8EPS@,S  S J<8EDSS SJ<8EDSA+BS )B+S FSM DS+DE8; F+*SE5 ESE5+S4B@DDS<J;&+BS@,SL+58):+SEB8ADS A+BS*M@J:*S  SEB8ADS @<):JD8@<DS@,SE5+S < :PD8DS 8<*8) E+*SE5 ES E5+S **8E8@< :SEB /)S4+<+B G+*S3@;SE5+S *+L+:@A;+<ES M@J:*S 8<)B+ D+S *+:!PDS E@S E5+S D84< :8R+*S 8<E+BD+)E8@<DS :@<4S S @JF+S S <*S @&8<M@@*SB8L+S JBE5+B;@B+SE5+S*+L+:@A;+<ESM@J:*S **S8<)B+ D+SEB -0)SL@:J;+DS :@<4S68E+S  ::S@ *SE7B@J45SE@S8EDS8<E+BD+)E8@<SM8E5SS S ESM DS<@E+*S 8<SE5+SDEJ*PSE5%SD+L+B :SB@ *S 8;AB@L+;+<EDSM@J:*S<++*SE@S&+S)@;A:+E+*SE@S@.D+ESE5+SEB /)S4+<+B!F8@<S@,SE5+S*+L+:@A;+<ES <SJA* F+*SEB /)S8;A )ESDEJ*PS5 DS<@ES&++<S)@;A:+E+*S&JES8DSB+)@;;+<*+*S DSA BFS@,SE5+S *+L+:@A;+<ESA: <SA5 D+SD5@J:*SE5+S B+R@<8<4S&+S AAB@L+*S 8:+S S )@;A:+E+SDEK*PS5 DS<@ES&++<S )@<*K)E+*SE5+S*+L+:@A+BS8DS+DE8; E8<4SE5 ESE5+S4B@DDS<J;&+BS@,SL+58):+SEB8ADSA+BS* PS4+<+B G+*S'PS E5+SAB@A@D+*S8<)B+ D+S8<S*+<D8EQSM@J:*S&+S$AB@O8; E+:PSSEB8ADS S)@APS@,SE58DS AA:8) E8@<SM DSD+<ESE@SE5+S8L8D8@<S@,S: <S+L8+MS <*S+B;8EE8<4S <*SE5+8BS )@;;+<EDS B+S DS2::@MDS  +%:%F+B%F %%4F <,)4-!4>F!+4)%<F >6F>+%F :6"F 4%>D6:0<F,4F>+%F6 ,4C66"F !6::,"6: <,4!%F>+%F,4,>,1F>:(!F<>A"EF&6:F1!0F6!0FFC<F7:%7:%#F 7">%"F42E<,<FC,11F % 4%!%<=;F>F>+%F%B%1683%4>F14F<>)%F>6F%B1A>%F5F76<<, 1%F ,37!>F>+%F,4!:%<%" "%4<,@FC6A1"F+B%F64F>+%F"%9A!EF6&F>+%F:6$F<%:B,4)F>+%F"%B%1683%4>  F<%!64"F!644%!>,64F>6F46>+%:F36:F:6"CF<+6A1"F %F7:6B,"%#  ,B%4F?+%F%4>:4!%F"%<,)4F4"F>+%F>:.F)%4%:>,64F FF>+%F:6"F4%:F>+%F%4?:4!% C,11F :%<%3 1%F F /6:F 611%!>6:F C+,!+F C6A1"F !::EF F '66>F !!%<=F <%7:>,64 :%9A,:%3%4>F A4"%:F >+%F +,)+CF 714F 6C%B%:F >+%F !64!%7>F ,4!1A"%<F <,4)1%F &3,1E"C%11,4*FC,>+F",:%!>F!!%<<F>+:6A)+F>+,<F<%!>,64F64<,"%:>,64F<+6A1"F %F),B%4F>6F1,3,>,4) $;;E /31)E<+$E0-1E =,93?), 9$E1 39E 593A-$E=9E/0-1)E=3E-19$;$E;%$>E&39E A$,-/$;E1E5$$;=9-1;E  $E5943;$E$;;E=3E3?1=E$=1E3E+;E$$1E31;3/-"=$E(30E=+$E59$A-3?; $A$/360$1=E 5/1 E ,$E$;-)1E3%E=+-;E311$=-31EB-//E1$$E=3E$E $A/?=$E;+3@/E=+$ 593.$=E593$$E=3E31'90E#8?=$E-1=$9;$=-31E;-),=E-;=1$E ;EB$//E;E=,$E1$$E%39E1C $;;3:E/1$;  $A$9/E93;E -1E=,$E31$5=?/E#A$/360$1=E$9E =3E13=E0$$=E ;,-1)=31E3?1> *$30$=9-E9-=$9-E39-D31=/E?9A$E9--E=33E;0//E?/$;E31')?9=-31;E+$E$;-)1 9-=$9-EB-//E1$$E=3E$E$031;=9=$E-1E;?;$8?$1=E9$A-$BE5+;$;E;,3?/ E=+$E593.$=E03A$ %39B9! ?/-E2;739==-31E (BDWgWM85D=5g MQLM8T[dg DWg ILXg 5]QQ8JXGdg W8Q_86g 3dg M]3GD5g XQ+IWMLTY+XDLI g !L`8_8Qg XB8g *+WBDI@XLIgL]JXdg(Q+IWDXg8M+SYH8IYg6L8WgB+_8g+g=c86gQL]X8gDIgXB8g&L3DI`LL6g-Q8+gXB+XgM+WW8Wg `DXBDIg gHDG8WgL9gXB8gWDX8 g LHN+XD3DGD\g`DXBgcDWXDIAg+I6g%QLOLW86g8_8GLOH8IXgDIgXC8gQ8+g (B8g+Q8+gW]QQL]I6DI@gXB8gW]485XgM.Q58GWg5LJX+DIg+gHDcX]Q8gL9gQ8WD68IXD+Gg+K6g:1HG+I6g]W8W g 8_8GLMH8JXg 3LQ68QDI@gXB8g`8WXgL9g XB8g MQLM8QYdgDWg5LHMQDW86gL9gHL68Q-Z8gXLgBD@BgQ8WD68IXD+Gg 68IWDXdg]W8WgDI5G]6DI@g+gHDcX]Q8gL9gWDI@G8g:+HDGdgXLbBL]W8Wg+I6g0+QXH8IXg]IDXW g LQ68QDI@gXB8g MQLM8Q[dgXLg XB8gWL]XBgDWg+Ig8cDWXDI@gWDI@G8<HDGdgW]36D_DWDLIgFILaIg+WgG+5Fg&L5FgWX+Y8W g (B8g ILTYB8Ug+I7g8+WX8Ug3L]I6+QD8WgL9gXB8gMQLM8QYdg+3]XgG+Q@8g+Q8+Wg L9g+5XD_8g+@QD5]GX]Q8g+J6g>QHWg XB8g`8WX8VLWXg3L]I6+SdgL9gXB8g)Q3+Jg QL`XBgQ8+ g ILYC8QgDHMLQY+IXg5LHMLI8IXgL9g5LHM+XD3DGDXdgDWgXB8gGL5+XDLIgL9gBDWXLQD5gWXQ]5X]Q8WgLIg+K6g +QL]I6g XB8g M+Q58GWg 38DI@g MQLMLW86g >Qg Q8fLIDI@ g (B8g >GGL`DI@g BDWYLQD5g WDY8Wg GDWX86g LIg XB8g *+WBDI@XLIgL]IXdg!DWXLQD5g 'DX8Wg']Q_8dg+Q8g GL5+X86g `DXBDIg+g gHDG8gQ+6D]WgL9gXB8g MQLMLW86g Q8fLR^I@g+Q8+W g *" g'J+_8Gdg*+Q_8Gg.QHg8+QGdg8IY]QdgWXLI8gBL]W8gGL5+Y86gLIgW]3E85XgM+Q58Ggg WXQ]5X]Q8gB,Wg388Ig68HLGDWB86 g * g'J+_8Gdg+QHg#D5B+8Gg!+HDGXLIg+QHgG+Y8g58IX]QegGL@gg3QD5FgBL]W8gGL5286g LIgW]3E85XgP/Q58GgggWXQ]5X]Q8gB+Wg388Ig68HLGDWB86 g * g #8GQLW8g #+ILQg '+H]8Gg #5+]G8dg +QHg 5LIWXQ]5X86g DIg  g GL5286g +MMQLcDH+X8Gdg$ gggHDG8Wg`8WXgL9gW]3E85XgM+Q58Ggg+GLI@g#X g8XI+g&6 g *g"g #8GQLW8g #+JLQg W85LI6+Qdg 6`8GGDI@g +QGdg  58IX]Qeg 3QD5Fg BL]W8g GL5+X86g +MMQLcDH+X8Gdg g?LHgXB8gW]3E85XgMQLM8QYdgWXQ]5X]Q8gB+Wg388Ig68HLGDWB86 g *""g %QD58g+QHg+QGdg 58IX]Qdg`LL6g?+H8gg WXLI8gBL]W8g GL5+X86g+MMQLcDH+Y8Gdg  g`8WXgL;gW]3E85XgM+Q58Gg g *"g 58IX]QegWXLI8gBL]W8gGL5+X86g+MMQLcDH+X8Gdg g?LHgXB8gW]3E85XgM+Q58Gg g " e $UeM1e$UUXe^0Xbe^0Ube"=>Y0e$BBe&UBbe .0IY^UbeXYMI0e=M^X0e.M_0U0/e>Ie XY^..MeBM.$Y0/e$OOUMa>C$Y0Bbe  e9MCeX^-?0.YeO$U.0Be e 0B$Y>MIX=>PeM1eY=0eVMQMX0/e=$I;0eYMeY=0e/MQY0/eB$Ie8UeY=0eM^I\e =0eO^UOMX0eM1e$e MCOV0=0IX>_0e B$Je>XeYMe0_$B^$Y0e Y=0eI00/XeM1eY=0e.MH^I>Ybe$L/e -$B$L.0eY=0e/>40U0JYeYbO0XeM1e<UM`[=eYMe.V0$Y0e$e=$UCMIbe-0Y`00Ie/>50V0IYeB$I/e^X0Xe Ie<0I0U$Be Y=>Xe>Xe$..MCOB>X=0/eY=UM^<=e0_$B^$Y>MIeM1e0a>XY>I<e.MI/>Y>MIXeOUM@0.Y>MIXeM1e:Y^U0e.MI/>Y>MIXe $I/e.V0,>MIeM1e$e<0I0V$B>c0/eB)/e ^X0eRB%LeY=,eOUNDMY0Xe.MCO$Y>->B>Ybe`=>B0eC$>IY$>I>I<eY=0e =0$BY=eX$3Ybe$J/e`0B2+0eM1eY=0e<0I0V$BeO^-B>.e MY=e OUMO0VY>0Xe $U0e BM.$Y0/e >Ie Y=0e X^-OMB>.be $U0$e M`e 0IX>Ybe 0X>/0IY>$Be =0e MCOU0=0IX>_0eB$IeM40VXeY=0e8BBM`>I<eOMB>.beXY$Y0C0IYXe8UeY=>XeOMB>.be$U0$e M`e0IX>]e0X>/0IY>$Be  #0/0 ! 0# $0,)0 0! "/0 ## $0,$0# /0 0$0 0##!00&, /0!0*.0+ $00  / 0#$#0 0$0/0 ! 0! 0!0$-0$0)!0)'0!0 !0)##0 $0!!(0#0 !+0!0 0 0!#$ 0!0.)#0+%0 0 $0!!(0#0 !+0!00#(0+ $0$0 .)0#(0#)0 00)'0!0 !0 =$I;0eYMeY=0e$SPUM_$BeM1e&Ie0a>XY>I;eB$LI0/e!I>Ye0_0BMPC0IYe OOB>.,>MIeM1e7M$Y>I<ecMI0XeX^.=e $Xe$eB$JI0/e !K>Ye0_0BMOC0JYe !e/Me IMYe8BBM`e Y=0eX$C0eB0<$BeXY'Y^0XeM1eU0_>0`e$I/e&I$BbX>Xe$XeY=MX0e^X0/e>Ie$eO>0.0C0$BeU0cMI>I<eM1e$e^.B>/>&Je />XYU>.Ye IXY0$/eM1eC00Y>J<eY=0eB0<$BeXY$I/$U/eM1eY=0e.=$J<0eMUeC>XY$A0eU^B0e 7M$Y>I<ecMI0Xe $W0e &I$Bbc0/e^X>K<e.U>Y0V>$eXO0.>60/e`>Y=eY=0ecMI>I<eMU/>I$L.0eU03UU>I<eYMeY=0eU0T^0XY0/e7M$Y>K<ecMI0e IeY=>Xe O$VY>.^B$Ue.$X0eY=0eOUMO0VYbe=$Xe$BU0$/be-00Ie$XX><I0/e$e!e7M$Y>I<ecMI0e$I/e *OUM_0/e8UeZMY$BeM1ee^I>YXeMUe e^I>YXeO0Ue$.V0e/0IX>Ybe =0e$OOB>.$JYe>XeU0T^0XY>I<e$eC(MUe .=$J<0e>IeY=0e$OOVM_0/eI^C-0UeM1e^I>YXe$I/eC^XYeY=0U08U0e.MCOBbeYMeY=0eXY$I/$U/XeM1e0.Y>MIe eM1eY=0edMI>I<eMV/>I$I.0e "=0Ie 0_$B^$Y>I<e Y=0e V0T^0XYe 8Ue $e C$?MUe .=$J<0e 9MCe $e OU0_>M^XBbe $OOVM_0/e !e /0_0BMOC0JYe OB$Ie -MY=e Y=0e B$II>I<e MFG>XX>MIe &I/e M$U/e M1eM^IYbe MEC>XX>MI0UXe $U0e U0T^>U0/eYMe.MIX>/0UeY=0e8BBM`>I<e.V>Y0V>$e  =0eO^UOMX0eM1eY=0e!e>XYU>.Y#e  =0e$OOB>.$-B0eOMB>.>0XeM1eY=0e$/MOY0/e MCOU0=0IX>_0eB$I  =0e.MCO$Y>->B>YbeM1eY=0eOUMOMX0/e.=&I<0XeM1eY=0e!e`>Y=eI0><=-MV>I<eOVMO0VY>0X  =0e050.YeM1eY=0eOVMOMX0/e.=$J<0XeYMeY=0e!eMIe.MCC^I>Ybe>I9$XYU^.Y^V0 MIX>XY0I.be`>Y=eY=0e>IY0JYe$J/eO^UOMX0e8UeY=0e0XY$-B>X=C0IYeM1eY=0e!            !  ! \o\]']41oHOo]E4oWZ4eHV`\o\40]HVOo^E4Z4o'Z4oo\]']42o0ZH]4ZH'oHOo]E4onVOHOCoVZ2HO'O04o]E']o'Z4o ]Vo/4o4e'L`']41o'\oW'Z]oV5o]E4o240H\HVOM'KHOCoWZV04\\o?Zo)XWLmHOCo'o!o >V'^HOConVO4 o E4\4o 0ZH]4ZH'oE'e4o/44Oo'O'Lmn41o/mo]':o/4LVg o  !!!! ! 00VZ1HOCo]Vo]E4onVOHOCoVZ1HO'O04o^E4oHO]4O]oV5o^E4o!oZ]H0L4oH\o]VoM'O'C4o]E4 HMWL4M4O]'^HVOo V5o Z4C`L']HVO\o ?Zo 4lH\]HOCo 'WWZVe41o !o 4e4LVWM4O]\o gH]FHOo ]E4o @'M4gVZKoV5o]E4o!Z/'OoZVg_EoZ4'o4nVOHOCoV5o o \oW(Z]oV5o]E4o o"o Z4nVPHOCo]E4o#o 2H\]ZH0]og'\o 4;40]He4LmoZ4WL'041o/mo 'oO4go1H\]ZH0]oKOVjo'\o]E4oHl42o "\4o%o2H\]ZH0] o E4Z4?Z4o 'OmoZ4Y`4\]\o]VoHMWL4M4O]o'oO4goMHl42`\4o24e4LVWM4O]o M`\]o?LLVgo]E4o C`H1'O04o 'O1oZ4C`L+]HVOoV5o ]G4o%o2H\]ZH0] o lH\]HOCo"\o g4Z4o OV^o Z4nVO42oVZo0VOe4Z]41o]Vo]E4oO4go&o1H\]ZH0]o]E4Z4?Z4o40]HVOo og'\oL4AoHOo]E4oVZ2HO'O04o ]VoZ4CaL']4o]EV\4o4lH\]HOCo`\4\ o E4o'WWLH0'T]oE'\o\`/MH^]42o]EH\oZ4Y`4\^oHOo'00VZ2'O04ogH^Eo Z]H0L4o  o  !  !!!! !!   F4Z4o'[4oO`M4ZV`\oWVLH0H4\ogH]EHOo^E4o'1VW]42oVMWZ4E4O\He4oL'Oo]E']o0'Oo'WWLmo]V 'OmoDHe4Oo'WWLH0']HVOoHOoe4Zmo\W40H<0og'm\ o Vg4e4Zo^':o/4LH4e4\o]E']o]E4oHO]4O]oV5o^EH\o Z4YaHZ4M4O]oH\o^Vo4e'L`']4o,WLH0'^HVO\oHOo'o/ZV'24Zo\4O\4oV5oV`O]mgH24oL'O1oa\4oWVLH0H4\ o F4oWZHM'ZmoCV'LoV5o^E4oVMWZ4E4O\He4oL'OoH\o]VoM'O'C4oCZVg]EoHOo'og'mo]E.oH\o\'8o Z4'\VO'/L4o 'O1o 46=0H4O]o ?Zo VcZo 0VMM`OH]m o Vo ^E+]o 4O2o ^E4o V`S^mo WZVMV^4\o 'Oo Ve4Z*Z0EHOCoL'O2o`\4oWVLH0mo]E']o2HZ40]\oO4go24e4LVWM4O^o^VoV00`ZoHOo'Z4'\ogE4Z4o 4lH\]HOCo Z4\VdZ04\o'O2oHO@'\]Z`0^`Z4o'Z4o'f'HL'/L4 o E4\4o-4'\o'Z4o24LHO4.42oHOo]E4oL'Oo'\oCZVkEo (Z4'\ o ZVg]Eo'Z4'\o0VO]'HOo]E4o4lH\]HOCoHO7Z'\]Z`0]`Z4o`]HLH]H4\o'O2o\4ZeH04\oO44242o?Zo V`Zo0H^Hn4O\ o EH\oWZVW4Z]m\o LV0']HVOogH^EHOo]E4o 24<O42o!Z/'Oo ZVg]EoZ4'oM44]\o]EH\o Ve4Z*[0EHOCoWVLH0m o VoBZ]E4ZoZ4<O4o]E4oWVLH0moV5o1HZ40]HOCoCZVh]EoHO^Vo^E4\4o(Z4'\o]E4o VMWZ4E4O\He4o L'Uo24<O4\o \`/WVLH0mo 'Z4'\o ]E'^o 24LHO4']4o C4O4Z'LHn42o L'O1o `\4o 0']4CVZH4\o /'\42o VOo 4lH\]IQCo'O2oWZVJ40]41oL'O1o`\4\ o E4oW`ZWV\4oV5o^E4\4o\`/WVLH0mo'Z4'\oH\o]Vo24<O4o/ZV'1o L'O2o`\4o0+]4CVZH4\o\`0Eo'\oZ4\H24O]H'Lo 0VMM4Z0H'Lo HO1`\]ZH'LoHO\]H]a]HVO'Lo4]0o]E']oC`H24o B]bZ4o CZVi]Eo 'O1o 24e4LVWM4O]o 240H\HVO\o \`0Eo '\o Z4nVOHOC\o 'T2o BO0^HVO'Lo WL'Oo 'M4R2M4O]\ o \oOV]41oHOo'oWZ4eHV`\o\40]HVOo]E4\4oWZVW4Z]H4\o'Z4oLV0']41ogH]EHOo]E4oVg4O\H^mo 4\H34O]H'LoVLH0mo'Z4' o $EHL4o]EH\oWVLH0mo'Z4'oH\o`\`'LLmo'\\V0H.42ogH^Eo'oLVg4Zo24O\H]mo V5o o`OH^\oW4Zo'0Z4o]E4Z4oH\o\W40H<0oZ49Z4O04o^VoHO0Z4'\42o14O\H]mo /4HOCo'LLVg'/L4ogH]Eo ]E4o'WWLH0']HVOoV5o'o"o>V']HOConVO4 o E4oZ4Y`4\]42o0E'OC4oH\o ]VoHO0Z4'\4o]E4o24O\H^mo gH]FIOo ]E4o 4lH\]HOCo "o H]o H\o \^HLLo HOo '00VZ1(O04o gH]Eo WVLH0H4\o V`]LHO42o HOo ^E4o VNWZ4E4O\He4oL'OoH\o]E4Z4?Z4o0VMW+]H/L4ogH]Eo]E4oL'T o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une 14, 2021 Due to current social meeting restrictions put in place by the Governor of Maryland because of the COVID- 19 pandemic, the Washington County Planning Commission held a public information meeting on Monday, June 14, 2021 at 6:30 p.m. virtually using Zoom software. No physical meeting took place. Planning Commission members present were: Clint Wiley, Robert Goetz, Denny Reeder, Jeff Semler, David Kline, Jeremiah Weddle and Ex-officio County Commissioner Randall Wagner. Staff members present were: Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning: Jill Baker, Director; Jennifer Kinzer, Deputy Director; Meghan Jenkins, GIS Coordinator; Wyatt 5titely, Comprehensive Planner; and Debra Eckard, Administrative Assistant; Washington County Department of Plan Review & Permitting: Ashley Holloway, Director; Rebecca Calimer, Chief of Plan Review; and Scott Stotelmyer, Planner. Also present were: Sean Davis, Brittany Sink, Mickey Cornelieus and John Erickson, Morris & Ritchie Associates, the applicant; Matthew Powell, DRB Group; William Erskine, Offit Kurman, legal counsel for the applicant; and Sassan and Adam Shaool of Washco Development. CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the public information meeting to order at 6:45 p.m PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING RZ-21-003 — Morris & Ritchie Associates Staff Presentation Ms. Baker presented a major change request to the Black Rock PUD located on the north side of Mt. Aetna Road. The requested amendment to the existing development plan is to increase the overall number of residential units from 595 dwelling units to 1,148 units, thereby increasing residential density from 2.7 dwelling units per acre to 5.2 units per acre. The property is made up of two parcels, one is 160 acres in size and the second parcel is 60 acres in size. Both parcels are located in the Growth Area that surrounds the City of Hagerstown and the Towns of Williamsport and Funkstown and form the easternmost boundary of the Urban Growth Area. Ms. Baker addressed the following findings as analyzed by staff and reported in the Staff Report and Analysis prepared for this case: • Population: Population over the last 30 years has increased significantly in this area, more than in the County. • Public Water: Comments were received from the City of Hagerstown regarding water capacity issues forthe property. While there is currently capacity available, it is on a first -come, first -serve basis; therefore, allocation is not guaranteed. The property is located within the Medium Range Growth Area (MRGA) boundary. However, in growth models that the City maintains far allocation, this development is only approved for 595 units. Increasing the number of units to 1,148 would require the County to retract the MRGA boundary in another area to serve this development in the long-term. Also of concern in this area is fire suppression and water pressure issues. • Wastewater: The City of Hagerstown would provide public sewer services to this area. Upgrades would be required to the wastewater collection system infrastructure if this major change in development is approved. • Emergency Services. These parcels are served by the Smithsburg and Funkstown Volunteer Fire companies; however, the City of Hagerstown may be called as well. The fire companies made comments regarding the lack of water pressure and fire suppression efforts in the area. Also of concern is the proposal for only one access point off Mt. Aetna Road without access from another point. • Schools: Projections from the estimated capacity that this change in the development would create would greatly affect both elementary schools (Ruth Ann Monroe Elementary and Greenbriar Elementary). The middle and high schools (Smithsburg Middle and High and Boonsboro Middle and High schools) would also be affected; however, this would be a more manageable situation. No mitigation efforts have been discussed by the developer or capital improvements proposed by local government. • Highways: One parcel is technically landlocked; however, staff is reviewing this property as a whole. Two access points are proposed from Mt. Aetna Road. A traffic study was completed in 117 2002 when the PUD overlay was first initiated based on 595 units which would produce about 4600 trips per day. Conclusions of that study indicated that additional traffic generated from the development would increase delays to signalized intersections along US Route 40 and Robinwood Drive. The development would also increase traffic along White Hall Road through its intersections to Maryland Route 66. Due to development along the Robinwood corridor since the study was completed, many road improvements have been completed. However, a new traffic analysis would be necessary to evaluate the impact the increased density would have on the adequacy of roads. Relationship to the adopted Comprehensive Plan: The property is located in the Low Density Residential area, which allows planned unit developments. Change to the approval of an existing Planned Unit Development: There are five criteria that must be considered when evaluating a request for a major change from a previously approved PUD development plan. These are: 1) the purpose of the PUD district; 2) the applicable policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan; 3) the compatibility of the proposed changes of the PUD with neighboring properties; 4) the effect of the proposed changes to the PUD on community infra -structure; and 5) consistency with the intent and purpose for the establishment of the PUD. Each of these criteria were evaluated in the Staff Report and Analysis. Applicant's Presentation Mr. Matt Powell began the applicant's presentation with a brief history and introduction of DRB Group. He noted that market demands and home buyers' needs have changed since the original approval of the PUD. He expressed his opinion that people want smaller lots with less yard to maintain, more community amenities, more product type and price points that attract buyers of all ages, and more walkable communities with gathering places for social interaction and a sense of community. The existing approved PUD does not provide what today's market or buyers want or desire; the design is antiquated and outdated. Mr. Powell believes that although the proposed change contains more density, the plan gives more consideration to existing topography, adjoining uses, market demands, and buyer's lifestyles. He noted that the higher density being requested would afford the developer the ability to contribute to the cost of pre-existing and created infrastructure obstacles and mitigation efforts. He believes that a development of this type is essential to attract new employers and their employees to the County. Mr. Sean Davis began his presentation by noting that this is the first step in the approval process which will take at least two years to complete. Total build out of the proposed development will take 10 to 15 years. He gave a description of the topography and layout of the property. He noted that a majority of the property is currently farm crop land with a significant forest stand in the southwest corner. There are no perennial streams, wetlands, floodplains or rare or endangered species on the property. Mr. Davis stated that the major access for this development will be off Mt. Aetna Road with a secondary access off Sasha Boulevard. Mr. Davis believes that the proposed development meets the recommendations of the County's 2002 adopted Comprehensive Plan. First, the property is within the County's growth area as well as the City of Hagerstown's Medium Range Growth Area boundary which is a sub -policy area for low density residential development which allows 2 to 4 dwelling units per acre unless it is a PUD. The PUD allows for a density of 12 dwellings units per acre which, in this case, would total 2,640 dwelling units as permitted by the current zoning. The developer is proposing a total of 1,148 dwelling units. Secondly, the Comprehensive Plan directs new development in areas where existing residential infrastructure exists. Mr. Davis provided examples of the product types that would be available in the proposed development. He noted there will be open space areas throughout the development totaling 55 acres, a community clubhouse that will have a fitness center and pool, tot lots and pocket parks scattered throughout the various neighborhoods, walking and hiking trails, dog parks, and community gardens to promote social interaction. He discussed the overarching goals of this development: to maximize the preservation of existing forest; to respect and buffer the neighbors to the south; to provide a strong community presence and identity off Mt. Aetna Road; to provide interconnected neighborhoods with a strong amenity program; to provide diversity of product throughout the community; to minimize traffic on Sasha Boulevard; and, to provide future road connections for neighbors to the north and east. Mr. Davis provided a timeline for each phase of construction and a breakdown of product types to be constructed in each phase. 118 • Phase 1— construction begins in 2023 — includes age targeted duplexes in neighborhood A, single- family homes in neighborhoods B and O, and townhomes in neighborhood C • Phase 2 —construction begins in 2025 or 2026— includes single-family homes in neighborhood N and townhomes in neighborhoods D and M • Phase 3 — construction begins in 2028 or 2029 — includes single-family homes in neighborhoods E,Fand K • Phase 4 — construction begins in 2031 or 2031— includes single-family homes in neighborhoods G and I and townhomes in neighborhoods J and H • Phase 5—construction begins in 2033 or 2034 — multi -family units in neighborhood Lwill be inside the proposed development and will not be visible from neighboring communities • The community center will be constructed when permits for 50% of the dwelling units have been issued. Mr. William Erskine discussed the five criteria needed to make a major change to an existing PUD as follows: 1) Consider the purpose of a PUD: The purpose of a PUD is to manage the implementation of the existing PUD needed for the flexibility to respond to changing conditions and markets. 2) Applicable policies of the adopted General Plan (Land Use Plan): The purpose of the General Plan is to manage growth in areas of the county where there is existing infrastructure. This property is located in the County's Urban Growth Area and City's Medium Range Growth Area. it is designated by the Comp Plan as a Low -Density Residential sub -policy area with a PUD overlay. The proposed development at 5.2 dwelling units per acre is well within the guidelines of the Low -Density Residential rate for a PUD. 3) Compatibility of proposed changes with neighboring properties: Great thought and consideration was placed in arranging the residential products taking advantage of topography so they are all well buffered from neighboring properties and uses. This has resulted in a well -integrated community with a wide variety of product types and price points. 4) Effect of the proposed changes on community infrastructure: Consideration needs to be given to determine if any of the infrastructure elements are highly unsolvable. The Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) would address these issues which the developer would need to satisfy at each step in the process. It is not whether the current infrastructure can handle the proposed development, but can improvements be made to adequately address the needs. 5) Consistency with the intent and purpose of a PUD: This is to have the flexibility and creativity in the design of residential areas to promote economical and efficient use of the land. Public Comment • Black Rock Estates HOA (represented by Andrew Hoffman), 20341 Ayoub Lane— Residents of Black Rock Estates have several concerns as follows: o Lack of water and volume of water pressure (residents are concerned that their homes are not adequately protected in case of fire —several instances were cited where homes or businesses were lost due to lack of water and water pressure in the area) o traffic volume and road improvements (road improvements should include accel/decel lanes, improved intersections, sidewalks, street lighting, etc.) o buffering between existing homes and the proposed new development is not adequately addressed on the current plans o school capacity is inadequate to serve the additional homes o additional access to the development (there should be an outlet onto Robinwood Drive going through King's Crest or Woodbridge development) o decrease in existing home values. Mr. Hoffman expressed his opinion that these issues need to be addressed now instead of waiting until the development starts. David Kirkman, 13010 5ani Lane — Mr. Kirkman expressed his concern regarding the increase in the volume of traffic in areas where there are no sidewalks or streetlights. He believes a road should be constructed to connect traffic to Robinwood Drive. He cited the low water volume and water pressure as a danger to property and people's lives. Mr. Kirkman questioned if the PUD is still valid. His research indicates that the Zoning Ordinance required a timeline of progress for plans, approvals and construction to begin on PUDs. He stated that the Ordinance required an extension to be submitted and voted on by the Planning Commission if a PUD is to remain active and valid. Mr. Kirkman cannot find any evidence that an extension has been filed or voted on by 119 the Commission since this development was originally approved in 2004. He asked that someone check on this requirement. • Erin Walsh -Kirkman, 11010 Sani Lane — Ms. Kirkman expressed her opinion that noise and the increase in population and traffic will have a negative impact on the character of the area. She believes the roads are not adequate to handle the increased volume of traffic and poses a safety concern. She also believes this development would reduce property values in the area. • Tricia Churchey, 659 Tudor Drive — Ms. Churchey is one of the developers of Greenwich Park, which was originally proposed as a PUD. She noted that during the public meeting process for the proposed PUD, Mr. Manny Shaool was opposed to the PUD concept because it would negatively impact Black Rock Estates. The developers of Greenwich Park were told by the local governing body that a PUD was not acceptable for this corridor and were asked to revise their plans. Ms. Churchey also expressed concerns for traffic issues in the area. She is opposed to the proposed PUD because it will adversely affect Greenwich Park and the value of homes in the area. • Kenneth Archer, 20502 Tehrani Lane — Mr. Archer expressed his concerns regarding traffic and the proposal of the developer to route traffic through the residential areas of Black Rock Estates onto Sasha Boulevard or on a spine road through the PUD and then to Mt. Aetna Road. He is also concerned about traffic trying to access 1-70 using Mt. Aetna and White Hall Roads, which are two-lane, narrow, winding roads. Mr. Archer noted that Sasha Boulevard and Mt. Aetna Road have no sidewalks or lights and are used by joggers, walkers, and bicyclists. He believes this proposal will adversely impact the quality of life, safety and environment of the area. • Anita Thomas, 20310 Ayoub Lane — Ms. Thomas expressed concerns for traffic issues in the area and the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. She believes that a gate should be placed at the end of Sasha Boulevard to keep vehicular traffic from the PUD out of Black Rock Estates. • Joe Coleman, 467 Thames Street — Mr. Coleman is opposed to the proposed change due to incompatibility with the neighborhood, the impacts on existing infrastructure, and the adverse effects on the quality of life in the area. He stated that Fair Meadows Boulevard is being used as a shortcut from Mt. Aetna Road to Dual Highway and he believes this would only get worse if the change is approved. He cited speeding and safety concerns and the lack of speed enforcement on this roadway. • Hugo Bonatti, 20509 Shaheen Lane — Mr. Bonatti stated that there are beautiful homes in this area with large yards which provide an excellent quality of life. He believes the developer is just trying to maximize his profits by increasing the number of homes in the PUD. He cited concerns regarding traffic and its effects on the neighborhood. • Martha Sullivan, 10902 Sasha Boulevard — Ms. Sullivan expressed her concerns regarding traffic issues on Sasha Boulevard and Mt. Aetna Road, inadequate buffering between the two developments, an increase in crime, and the lack of water pressure in the area. She is opposed to the major change request and believes that the density of the original proposal should also be re- evaluated. • Mark Jameson, 1800 Londontowne Circle — Mr. Jameson is opposed to the major change request. He believes the proposed development is not compatible with other developments in the area due to the density proposed. He expressed his concern regarding the inadequacy of existing infrastructure for roads, water, wastewater and schools. Mr. Jameson believes that changing the PUD after its original approval negates the purpose of the PUD. • Kandace Carpenter, 11042 Sani Lane — Ms. Carpenter stated that the original PUD was approved in 2004. According to the Zoning Ordinance, PUDs are required to submit and meet specific timelines; and if not met, extensions are to be requested. Her research indicates that no extensions have been received from the Planning Commission for this PUD. There was a minor change approved in March of 2020; however, from a legal standpoint, she believes that this PUD is invalid. Ms. Carpenter noted that Section 16.a.4.j of the Zoning Ordinance requires that each phase of a PUD must comply with density standards; however, the developer's Phase 5 proposal for the apartment complex would not meet that regulation. Ms. Carpenter expressed her opinion that the eastern bounds of the major change for this PUD would be at the end of the Urban Growth Area and would not be compatible with the neighboring property. She also noted that the developer has cited profitability as its justification for this major change and in accordance with court decisions in the State of Maryland, change cannot be based on profitability. John Hoover, 1733 Meridian Drive — Mr. Hoover explained that he is currently a resident of Greenwich Park, was previously a resident of Black Rock Estates, and still owns a building lot there which abuts the proposed development. He is opposed to the proposal and believes consideration should be given to those residents who have lived in the area for 30+ years and contribute to the County's tax base. Mr. Hoover expressed his opinion that the influx of more than 1,000 homes will overburden the schools, decrease the value of homes, and contribute to traffic issues making the roadways dangerous. He believes that there will need to be additional traffic signals installed along Mt. Aetna Road intersections. Mr. Hoover is also concerned about the water pressure and fire suppression in the area. He noted that an eco-system pond is located on Shaheen Lane which 120 is frequented by herons, redtail hawks and bald eagles. The proposed development would impact the habitat of these birds. • William Stryker, 20533 Mt. Aetna Road — Mr. Stryker believes the proposed 1,100 homes would total more than all of the developments combined along Mt. Aetna Road. He noted that Mt. Aetna Road is a winding, narrow, two-lane road with no room for widening. He stated that he has limited sight distance from his driveway and by adding the additional traffic (estimated 8,000+ trips per day) will exacerbate an already dangerous situation. • Dan Grove, 20502 Shaheen Lane — Mr. Grove expressed his opinion that traffic has already increased significantly in the area due to the numerous developments like Black Rock Estates, the Hamptons, Brightwood Acres East, etc. that have occurred over time. The roads in this area cannot handle the additional 8,000+ trips per day that would be generated by this proposed change. He expressed concern regarding the impact to schools, the decrease in the value of existing homes, and the lack of water pressure in the area. Mr. Grove stated that although the developer says they will contribute to the cost of infrastructure upgrades, he believes the taxpayers will be paying for the improvements by an increase in property taxes. • Edward Strawther, 10912 Sassan Lane — Mr. Strawther expressed his concern about water pressure for both domestic and fire suppression uses. He believes these issues are exacerbated by geography, lack of a storage tank, and undersized water transmission lines. He noted that in response to staff comments, the applicant has eluded to "potential consideration" of comments but has not established a plan to ensure public safety or to mitigate for infrastructure improvements. Mr. Strawther expressed his opinion that recommendations should not be deferred for "potential' consideration. He believes the PUD should not be allowed to move forward prior to implementation of the recommendations for improvements. • Patrice Wallace, 10933 Sasha Boulevard — Ms. Wallace expressed her concerns regarding water pressure, traffic -related issues, and the safety of the children in the neighborhood. • Susan Wood, 454 Fair Meadows Boulevard — Ms. Wood shared her concerns for lack of water pressure and fire suppression, limited access for fire equipment into the neighborhood, overcrowding of schools, lower property values, an increase in taxes, additional traffic and the potential for dangerous situations. • Shannon Peterson, 20510 Shaheen Lane — Ms. Peterson expressed her opinion that this area is not ready for an additional 1,100 homes. She cited poor water pressure, increased school capacities which would lower the standards of education, and safety concerns for her children and pets that additional traffic would bring to the area. • Jeff Snowden, 11507 Rambling Pines Place — Mr. Snowden discussed the water pressure issue by citing the fire at the Woodbridge Apartments several years. He believes the PUD has expired and should not be considered. He expressed his opinion that people want larger homes on larger lots, unlike what the developer is proposing. Other concerns he addressed were: wildlife in the area, increased traffic, and the decrease in property values which will also decrease revenue from property taxes. • Martin Brubaker, 10725 Hartle Drive — Mr. Brubaker expressed his opinion that this is not an appropriate location for increased density because the supporting external road network is very inadequate. Mt. Aetna Road and White Hall Road are both narrow roads with no berms and many driveways. He believes that local government expenditures to support housing development usually exceeds the total revenues generated, thus creating a negative budget impact. Mr. Brubaker expressed his opinion that this is not a well -planned development or an appropriate location. • Matthew Stupp, 11013 Shalom Lane — Mr. Stupp is opposed to the proposed change and agreed with all the comments and concerns raised by other speakers this evening. He expressed his concern regarding the water pressure issues and the need for a resolution to this problem before any further construction begins in this area. • Robert Carpenter, 11042 Sani Lane — Mr. Carpenter is opposed to the proposed change and believes this proposal is not compatible with the existing neighborhood. He noted that the developer is planning to buffer the apartment complex from Black Rock Estates using high density housing; but there are no buffers for the residents of Black Rock Estates from the high density housing being proposed. • Christine Ohi-Gigliotti, 11041 Sani Lane— Ms. Ohi-Gigliotti is opposed to the proposed request for additional density. She expressed her opinion that the area has not been subject to congested urban sprawl and has a strong sense of community. She is concerned about increased traffic in the area and the increased demand on infrastructure. Ms. Ohi-Gigliotti believes that Sasha Boulevard should be used only for emergency services and not as a minor access road for the PUD. • Brian Stolarz, 11006 Shalom Lane — Mr. Stolarz expressed his concern regarding the volume of water and water pressure in the area. He concurs with comments about traffic, schools, etc. previously made. 121 • Kristy Pottol, 20310 Ayoub Lane — Ms. Pottol is opposed to the proposed change and she echos the comments of the other speakers. • Carlo Cutler, 10909 Sasha Boulevard — Mr. Cutler expressed his concerns regarding safety of the children who walk and bike in the area. He is also concerned about the water pressure and believes this needs to be addressed immediately. • Thomas Henderson, 11020 Sani Lane — Mr. Henderson stated he is opposed to the proposed development for all the reasons previously stated. He also questioned the validity of the PUD. • Dan Scally, 11003 Palmwood Circle — Mr. Scally stated he is not opposed to well -planned development; however, he is opposed to the proposal to increase the density in the PUD. He believes the high density would have a negative impact on property values and the quality of life in this area. He cited overall safety concerns related to traffic issues including speeding on Mt. Aetna Road and residents who do not stop at intersections. • Eric Peterson, 20510 Shaheen Lane— Mr. Peterson is opposed to the proposed PUD. He does not agree with the developer's point of view that people do not want large yards to maintain; he does not believe that is true. He stated that his concerns have been addressed by others who spoke previously. • Mary Camposano, 20509 Tehrani Lane — Ms. Camposano is opposed to the proposed development and agrees with the concerns and comments previously stated. She believes that while a problem may be solvable, it does not translate to the problem actually and adequately being resolved. • Shyam Mysore, 20327 Ayoub Lane— Mr. Mysore is opposed to the current PUD and the proposed change. • Christina Martinkosky, 20206 Mahogany Circle — Ms. Martinkosky stated that the Staff Report provides a wide variety of concerns from both the County and City staff. She has heard and agrees with the previous comments made regarding water, traffic, access, schools, etc. Ms. Martinkosky is very concerned aboutthe negative impacton schools in the area and the lack of plans to address the student population generated by this proposal. She noted there are no redistricting plans, no capital projects or other mitigation efforts to offset this burden. • George Butler, 11105 Shalom Lane — Mr. Butler expressed his concern with regard to safety, security and traffic and he agrees with the concerns and comments previously stated. Applicant's Rebuttal Mr. Erskine first addressed concerns that the PUD is no longer active. He noted that the deadlines are tracked from the date of any approved changes to the concept plan. He stated that the developer has never received notice from the County that they are out of conformance with any regulations. Secondly, Mr. Erskine addressed traffic concerns that were mentioned. He stated that Sasha Boulevard has an 80-foot wide right-of-way that would allow for improvements. He believes this issue is highly solvable and reiterated that APFO requirements would be addressed at the appropriate time throughout the process. Mr. Erskine expressed his opinion that the water pressure issue would be resolved by the approval of this change because there could be a water tower (as proposed) on site and the opportunity for the developer to contribute to a portion of upgrades to the water system. Mr. Erskine noted that 100 homes and a community center have already been approved in the PUD and the final plat is ready for recordation. These homes would directly access Sasha Boulevard and would not require any improvements to help with the water pressure issue. He believes the fastest way to remedy any safety concerns would be to facilitate the development of this property. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Reeder made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weddle and so ordered by the Chairman. Respectfully submit d, Clint Wiley, Chairman WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC REZONING INFORMATION MEETING AND REGULAR MEETING July 19, 2021 Due to current social meeting restrictions put in place by the Governor of Maryland because of the COVID- 19 pandemic, the Washington County Planning Commission held its public rezoning information meeting and regular monthly meeting on Monday, July 19, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. virtually using Zoom software. No physical meeting took place. Planning Commission members present were: Clint Wiley, Robert Goetz, 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; Meghan Jenkins, GIS Coordinator, and Debra Eckard, Administrative Assistant; Washington County Department of Plan Review & Permitting: Ashley Holloway, Director; Rebecca Calimer, Chief of Plan Review; Lisa Kelly, Senior Planner; and Scott Stoteimyer, Planner. Also present were: William Erskine, Offit Kurman, legal counsel; Sean Davis, Brittany Sink, Mickey Cornelieus, Todd Heck, and Jon Erickson with Morris & Ritchie Associates; and Adam Shaool of Washco Development [RZ-21-003]; Trevor Frederick of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, consultant; David Salinas, Dan Dababneh and Kareema Keshta of Northpoint Dickinson; Jonathan Horowitz, Washington County Department of Business Development [PC-21-001]; and Gordon Poffenberger of Fox & Associates, Inc. [PP-20-001]. CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the public information meeting to order at 7:00 p.m PUBLIC REZONING INFORMATION MEETING Town of Hancock [WS-21-001) Ms. Baker presented a text amendment application submitted by the Town of Hancock. The proposed amendment to the County's Water & Sewerage Plan would support the proposed upgrade and expansion of the Town's wastewater treatment plant. The Town is in the process of applying for grants and loans to upgrade its treatment facility. Currently, the Town has a lagoon system which does not meet water quality standards set forth by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) for effluent specifically related to nitrogen and ammonium. The Town is proposing to upgrade the system to an enhanced nutrient removal standard. In addition, there have been numerous discussions with property owners on the north end of Warfordsburg Road including the Lanco cheese facility. Recently, land north of the Town was annexed; the Town is also proposing to annex the area of the cheese facility. The proposed wastewater treatment facility expansion would be able to accommodate the effluent from the cheese factory as well as future development for the next 20 years. Ms. Baker noted that the current Water & Sewerage Plan recognizes the need for the upgrade of the treatment facility; however, the expansion is not included in the current Plan. This amendment proposes language to acknowledge the upgrade to current standards as well as the expansion of service from 380,000 gallons per day to 530,000 gallons per day. The application was sent to MDE; their comments were received and have been addressed. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed amendment. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Reeder asked if Washington County helps to fund any of these proposed changes. Ms. Baker explained that Washington County does not help fund these projects; this is a Town utility and therefore the Town's responsibility. The Town is currently seeking grants through the US Department of Agriculture and MDE. Mr. Semler asked if there is Appalachian Regional Commission money available for this project. Ms. Baker stated she does not believe there would be at this time. She explained it is easier to find grant money for upgrades than for expansions because the State and Federal government do not want to fund growth. Public Comment There were no public comments received prior to the meeting and nobody was present to speak during the meeting. The public meeting ended at 7:13 p.m. REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Motion and Vote: Mr. Goetz made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 7, 2021 and June 14, 2021 Planning Commission meetings as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Semler and unanimously approved. OLD BUSINESS RZ-21-004 —Washington County Planning Commission — Recommendation Ms. Baker reminded Commission members that a public information meeting was held on June 7, 2021 to consider a proposed text amendment to Section 4.26 of the Washington County Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendment is to deter the placement of solar arrays on productive agricultural land in rural areas. The proposed amendment is being supported by the Washington County Farm Bureau; no other public comments have been received. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Semler asked if this amendment includes language proposed by Calvert Energy LLC, the applicant for another solar energy text amendment. Ms. Baker clarified it does not include that language. Motion and Vote: Mr. Semler made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment, as presented, to the Board of County Commissioners. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kline and unanimously approved with Commissioner Wagner abstaining from the vote. RZ-21-003 — Morris & Ritchie Associates — Recommendation Ms. Baker noted that a public information meeting was held on June 14, 2021 for a major change request to the Black Rock PUD located on the north side of Mt. Aetna Road. The requested amendment to the existing development plan is to increase the overall number of residential units from 595 dwelling units to 1,148 dwelling units, thereby increasing the residential density from 2.7 dwelling units per acre to 5.2 dwelling units per acre. A petition in opposition of the proposed change was recently received by the Department of Planning & Zoning and was forwarded to the Planning Commission members. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Kline stated that he is adamantly opposed to the proposed change. He agrees with the issues, concerns, and comments made by area residents during the public information meeting. His biggest concern is traffic -related issues on Mt. Aetna Road (a winding, hilly, narrow road) between White Hall Road and MD Route 66, Mr. Kline noted that the developer, during his presentation, stated that all these problems (including water issues, traffic issues, etc.) could be fixed; however, there were no solutions offered or anyone willing to take responsibility and pay for fixing these problems. He expressed his opinion that the developer would leave these problems for the County and City to fix at the expense of the taxpayer. Mr. Kline expressed his opinion that this is the wrong area to consider adding an additional 1,200 homes; he also does not support the 595 units that were previously approved by the Board of County Commissioners in 2005. He expressed his opinion that too much growth has already taken place in this area. Mr. Reeder, Mr. Goetz and Mr. Semler are also opposed to this request and agreed with Mr. Kline's comments, especially those related to traffic issues and problems. Mr. Semler expressed his concern regarding the water problems in the area. He believes the water tower should be the first structure to be built to help alleviate some of the water issues. Mr. Kline raised his concern regarding the validity of the PUD, which was a question raised several times during the public information meeting. Mr. Goetz expressed his opinion that the validity of the PUD is not being put before the Planning Commission. He believes that is an issue that needs to be decided by the courts. Motion and Vote: Mr. Kline made a motion to recommend denial of the request [to change the plan from 595 dwelling units to 1,148 dwelling units) to the Board of County Commissioners. The motion was seconded by Mr. Semler. Members voted as follows: Mr. Kline —aye, Mr. Reeder —aye, Mr. Goetz —aye, Mr. Semler— aye, and Commissioner Wagner abstained from the vote. NEW BUSINESS PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS PC-21-001— Northooint Dickinson Mr. Holloway presented a preliminary consultation for the proposed construction of two warehouse/ office buildings to be located at 16910 National Pike. The property is currently zoned PI (Planned Industrial). Building 1 will be 652,080 square feet in size and Building 2 will be 1 million square feet in size; both buildings will be 50' high. The site will be served by public water from the City of Hagerstown and public sewer will be provided by Washington County. Mr. Holloway stated that if this plan moves forward, the developer will be seeking a variance from parking requirements. Parking spaces required will be 1,102 spaces and parking spaces provided will be 1,002 spaces. Mr. David Salinas of North Point Development, the developer, gave a brief presentation beginning with a history of the company and an overview of the developer's current project on Wesel Boulevard. He noted that the project on Wesel Boulevard is currently ahead of schedule and showed examples of the buildings being constructed. Mr. Salinas stated there is a potential tenant for one of the buildings on National Pike. This project would be an investment of over $109 million dollars and the businesses would employ more than 920 full-time employees. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Reeder asked if the developer has considered installing solar panels on the roofs of the buildings. Mr. Salinas stated that North Point has shifted to a sustainable approach both on new buildings as well as existing buildings. He noted that each tenant is unique and may have specific requirements for rooftop units or ventilation requirements. These requirements would be considered before placement of the solar panels. , PRELIMINARY PLATS Elmwood Farms, Sections 4 and 5 Ms. Kelly presented a preliminary plat for Elmwood Farms, Sections 4 and 5, Lots43-55, 124 and 134-189. The developer is proposing a 70 single-family residential lot addition to an existing subdivision located at 16301 Kendle Road. The property is currently zoned RS (Residential Suburban). A preliminary platforthese two sections was previously approved in 2004. The new plat is showing a redesign of the road layout, storm water management areas and forest conservation easement locations as well as fewer lots than originally approved. The total acreage for these two sections is 55.90 acres with lot sizes ranging from .29 acres to .54 acres. All lots will be served by public water and public sewer and will have access to newly constructed public streets. Forest conservation requirements will be met by planting 25.41 acres of forest on -site. A final easement plat for these areas has been submitted for approval. All agency approvals have been received. Motion and Vote: Mr. Kline made a motion to approve the preliminary plat as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Semler and unanimously approved. FOREST CONSERVATION GP-21-007 — 55 West Oak Ridge Drive Distribution Center Mr. Allen presented a variance request for the removal of three specimen trees on property located at 55 West Oak Ridge Drive. The developer is requesting the removal of a Silver Maple tree approximately 38" in diameter at breast height (DBH) in good condition, a Red Oak approximately 30" DBH in good condition, and a split trunk White Ash (exceeding 40" at the base in poor condition. This is a two phase commercial/industrial development exceeding 1.8 million square feet leaving a very small area which will not be disturbed on the site. Justification for the removal of these trees was provided by a licensed professional, Mr. Clint Rock from Fox & Associates, Inc. He believes that due to the topography of the site, the most suitable entrance is the driveway to the existing house and barn. There is an active demolition permit for these structures to be removed. Mr. Rock stated that the location of the Red Oak is within a major internal intersection. The relocation of this intersection would require the removal of required parking spaces and landscaping. Any relocation of the parking would lead to more disturbance of on -site forest easements. There is currently no stormwater management on the site; however, the removal of these trees would provide for the development of stormwater management facilities. Motion and Vote: Mr. Semler made a motion to approve the request as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kline and unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS Update of Staff Approvals Mr. Holloway presented the following information for the month of June for Plan Review — Land Use: 6 site plans, 4 site -specific grading plans, and 4 standard grading plans; Permitting: 10 entrance permits and 13 grading permits. 2022-2031 Solid Waste Management & Recvcling Plan Ms. Baker reminded members that the Planning Commission previously reviewed the Solid Waste Management & Recycling Plan, which was subsequently submitted to MDE for review. The Plan was reviewed by MDE; comments were received and have been addressed by staff. If the Planning Commission finds the Plan consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the next step is to take it to public hearing with the Board of County Commissioners. Motion and Vote: Mr. Reeder made a motion that the 2022-2031 Solid Waste Management & Recycling Plan is consistent with the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kline and unanimously approved with Commissioner Wagner abstaining from the vote. Comprehensive Plan Update Ms. Baker presented the draft of Chapters 1 thru 4 for review and comment. These chapters include the goals and objectives of the Plan, accomplishments since the last update, background data, statistics and demographics. Final comments for these chapters will be taken on or before the August 2M meeting. Land Preservation, Parks & Recreation Plan Update Ms. Baker explained that the Land Preservation, Parks & Recreation Plan update is due to be completed in FY 2022. Mr. Allen will be spearheading this project; he is the staff liaison to the Parks Advisory Board. There is currently a parks survey on-line for the public to complete. The information gathered from this survey will assist in developing and updating the Plan. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1. Monday, August 2, 2021, 7:00 p.m. —Washington County Planning Commission regular meeting [This meeting will be held in person at the Washington County Administrative Complex, 100 W. Washington Street, Room 2000.1 ADJOURNMENT Mr. Kline made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mr. Semler and so ordered by the Chairman. Respectfully submitted, v Clint Wiley, Chairman �. $Was ington County DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING I LAND PRESERVATION I FOREST CONSERVATION I GIS July 23, 2021 RZ-21-003 APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION The Washington County Planning Commission held a public information meeting on June 14, 2021 for the purpose of taking public comment on an application for a major change to the existing development plan for the Black Rock PUD. The proposed amendment would increase the overall number of residential units from 595 dwelling units to 1,148 units, thereby increasing the residential density from 2.7 dwelling units per acre to 5.2 dwelling units per acre. The Planning Commission considered the applicant's application and supporting documents, oral testimony from more than 30 residents of the area, written comments including a petition signed by nearly 400 residents of the area, and the Staff Report and Analysis. At their regular meeting on July 19, 2021, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to deny the requested major change for the following reasons: 1. The transportation network serving the area (specifically Mt. Aetna Road between White Hall Road and MD 66) is not adequate to handle the additional traffic from additional units. 2. The water system does not appear to be adequate to properly serve the additional units as it relates to water pressure and availability of sufficient capacity for public fire suppression efforts. 3. The school system would not have adequate capacity to serve the new pupil yield of the proposed new units. Copies of the application packet and supporting documents, Staff Report and Analysis, written comments, petition, and minutes of the June 14, 2021 public information meeting and July 19, 2021 regular meeting are attached. Respectfully submitted, c� J' l Baker, A I C P Director, Washington County Dept. of Planning & Zoning JLB/dse Attachments cc: Kirk Downey Morris & Ritchie Associates 100 West Washington Street, Suite 2600 1 Hagerstown, MD 21740 I P: 240.313.2430 1 F: 240.313.2431 I TDD: 7-1-1 IN THE MATTER OF * BEFORE THE WASHINGTON COUNTY MORRIS & RITCHIE * BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ASSOCIATES, INC. * Applicant * * Case No. RZ-21-003 * * * * * * * * * * * * APPLICANT’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MAJOR CHANGE TO APPROVED BLACK ROCK PUD Introduction The Applicant offers the following memorandum in support of its proposed major change to the approved Black Rock PUD. The purpose of this memorandum is to assist the Board of County Commissioners (“BOCC”) with its evaluation of the zoning application in accordance with the statutorily prescribed criteria set forth in Article 16A of the Washington County Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the Applicant wishes to advise the BOCC that it will require no less than 1 hour to present its zoning application. Recent experience before the Washington County Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) has demonstrated that procedural due process will not be afforded to the Applicant if an unreasonable time constraint is imposed upon the Applicant’s presentation by the BOCC. When this zoning application was presented to the Planning Commission, the Applicant was afforded only 30 minutes to present its application. This time constraint proved to be inadequate and did not afford the Applicant a reasonable opportunity to present testimony from its traffic consultant or civil engineer. The Applicant is requesting that the BOCC afford the Applicant due process by allowing the Applicant a minimum of 1 hour to present its zoning application. Preliminary Matter – Validity of the Black Rock PUD At the Planning Commission meeting to consider this zoning application several protestants suggested that the Black Rock PUD was no longer a valid PUD. Therefore, as a preliminary matter the Applicant would like to affirmatively address this issue by introducing into the record a copy of the approved Revised Final Development Plan for the Black Rock PUD (attached as Exhibit A). It should be noted that the Revised Final Development Plan was approved by the Planning Commission on March 2, 2020 as evidenced by the signature of its Executive Director dated on May 29, 2020. The accompanying letter from the Planning Commission (also dated May 29,2020) clearly states, “The development plan approval is effective for a period of two (2) years.” Accordingly, the current Black Rock PUD will remain valid until at least March 2, 2022. Proposed Major Amendment to the Approved Black Rock PUD On November 19, 2002, this Board approved a zoning map amendment (RZ-02-006) for the subject property, thereby assigning a PUD floating zone to the site. The approved map amendment tentatively approved up to 595 units residential dwelling units (or 2.7 units per acre). The Applicant is requesting a major change in the approved number of units. The Applicant now seeks tentative approval for up to 1,148 residential dwelling units (5.2 units per acre) and therefore must comply with the provisions of Section 16A.5 of the zoning ordinance. When evaluating a request for a major change to a previously approved PUD development plan, this Board is required to consider the following criteria: 1. The purpose of the PUD District; 2. The applicable policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan; 3. The compatibility of the proposed changes of the PUD with neighboring properties; 4. The effect of the proposed changes to the PUD on community infrastructure; 5. Consistency with the intent and purpose for the establishment of the PUD. For the reasons set forth below, the Applicant’s requested major change to the approved Black Rock PUD fully satisfies all of the criteria under Article 16A.5. Evaluation of Criteria Under Article 16A.5(a)3. 1. The purpose of the PUD District. The purpose of the PUD District is set forth in Section 16A.0 of the zoning ordinance which provides: The intent of this Article is to manage the implementation of regulations for existing approved PUD Developments within the framework of the Urban Growth Area Rezoning of 2012. All PUD Floating Zones approved by the Board of County Commissioners prior to July 1, 2012 shall maintain their validity in accordance with this Article. This Zoning District is not available for new application on any property within the jurisdiction of Washington County. The Applicant’s major change to the approved Black Rock PUD clearly satisfies this criterion because the Black Rock PUD is an existing approved PUD approved by the BOCC prior to July 1, 2012 and this major change request has been submitted by the Applicant in accordance with the provisions of Article 16A. 2. The applicable policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Chapter 12 of the adopted Comprehensive Plan sets for the county’s Land Use Plan. The subject property is located in an area of the county designated as the Urban Growth Area. It is further located within a sub-policy area designated as Low Density Residential. Chapter 12 of the Comprehensive Plan describes the purpose of establishing Urban Growth Areas and Boundaries. Chapter 12, Section C.1 provides: The purpose for establishing growth areas is to identify areas within the County where development is to be encouraged. These areas surround urban locations where the required infrastructure to support intensive development is in existence or planned. They contain the centers of gravity for human activity with future investments in public utilities, facilities and transportation linkages being the most cost effective in these areas. Chapter 12 of the Comprehensive Plan also describes eight (8) sub policy areas within the Urban Growth Area. Chapter 12, Section C.2(f) describes the Low Density Residential sub- policy area. This policy area designation would be primarily associated with single-family and to a lesser degree two-family or duplex development. It is the largest policy area proposed for the Urban Growth Area and becomes the main transitional classification from the urban to rural areas. Major existing residential development in Fountainhead, Halfway, St. James, Van Lear/ Tammany, Maugansville, and along Mt. Aetna Road would be included in the Low Density policy area. The two zoning classifications most associated with this policy area are Rural Residential and Residential Suburban. A considerable amount of land in this policy area is also currently zoned Agricultural. Typical densities in this policy area range from two to four units per acre unless the property is approved for a planned residential or mixed use development. If the property is approved for a high density development the maximum density should be 12 units per acre. The Applicant’s proposed major change to the approved PUD satisfies the above criterion for approval because the requested increase in density to 5.2 dwelling units is well within the density parameters recommended in Chapter 12 of the Comprehensive Plan. At 5.2 units per acre, the proposed increase in approved density would only amount to approximately one (1) dwelling unit per acre more than what is typical for a non-PUD or Mixed-Use development within the Low Density Residential sub-policy area. More importantly, the requested density is nearly seven (7) units per acre less than the density limits recommended for the Low Density Residential sub-policy area when higher density developments are approved under a PUD or Mixed-Use zone. The Applicant’s requested density of 5.2 units per acre is barely 43% of the Comprehensive Plan’s recommended density limit for PUD development in the Low Density Residential sub-policy area. In comparison with other PUD zoned properties in the vicinity, the residential density proposed under this application is 35% less dense than the residential density approved for the Rosewood PUD, the later having an approved residential density of 8.2 units per acres. In addition, 29.3% (22.8 acres) of the Rosewood PUD site has been zoned for commercial development. 3. The compatibility of the proposed changes of the PUD with neighboring properties. The southern and western boundaries of the Black Rock PUD are surrounded by existing residential development. The northern and eastern boundaries of the site adjoin agricultural land. The revised Black Rock PUD is designed to locate a mixture of residential dwelling types throughout the community. The multi-family component of the revised Black Rock PUD is centrally located within the interior of the site and is therefore well-buffered from off-site adjacent properties. A mixture of residential dwelling types are proposed to be located along the perimeter boundaries of the site. These dwelling units are located to take advantage of the existing site characteristics and topography to ensure compatibility with neighboring properties. Accordingly, single-family detached dwellings are proposed to be located along the southern perimeter of the site. These units will serve as an appropriate buffer to the neighboring Black Rock Estates subdivision. Similarly, single-family detached dwellings are proposed to be located along the northern site boundary and will provide an appropriate buffer to the adjacent rural land uses. Townhouses are proposed to be located along the western boundary of the site and are compatible with the neighboring townhouse and multifamily neighborhoods. Several sections of townhouses are proposed along the eastern boundary of the site. To ensure compatibility with the adjacent farmland uses the rear yards of these units will be located below the eastern ridge line thereby using topography to ensure appropriate buffering from adjacent off-site uses. In addition, 55+ age-targeted duplex dwelling units are also proposed along a portion of the eastern perimeter of the site. These dwelling units will be buffered from adjacent off-site uses by enhanced landscaping and berms. The proposed distribution of the residential dwelling products throughout the community will create a well-integrated multi-generational neighborhood. As a result of this careful design and layout of the community, the proposed changes to the Black Rock PUD will remain fully compatible with neighboring properties. 4. The effect of the proposed changes to the PUD on community infrastructure. Proper evaluation of the above criterion is of course forward looking to a time when the proposed changes to the PUD are approved for development, as opposed to this early stage in the process when they are tentatively approved for zoning purposes. With all due respect, the Planning Commission did not understand how to properly evaluate this criterion. In its one page recommendation dated July 23, 2021, the Planning Commission recommended denial of this proposed major change to the Black Rock PUD. (See, Planning Commission Recommendation attached as Exhibit B). In doing so, the Planning Commission misapplied the legal standard for evaluating the above criterion by failing to properly apply the regulatory scheme created by the interrelationship between the Zoning Ordinance and the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO). This regulatory scheme is discussed in detail by the Maryland Court of Appeals in Cremins v. County Commissioners of Washington County, 164 Md.App 426 (2005). Attached as Exhibit C. This regulatory scheme is also described in detail in the Brief of Appellee County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland as filed in Cremins. Attached as Exhibit D. The Applicant hereby adopts as its own the legal analysis set forth in the Cremins decision and the brief filed by the County Commissioners of Washington County in that case. The Cremins decision and the County’s legal brief filed in that action correctly describe the legal standard that the Planning Commission should have, but failed, to apply when evaluating the above community infrastructure criterion. As has been previously stated, the revised Black Rock PUD is not anticipated to be completed for 10 to 15 years. The pace of development is anticipated to be approximately 70 to 100 dwelling units per year on average. It is legal error to evaluate the above criterion by comparing the proposed future demand for community infrastructure against the presently available infrastructure capacity without regard for the APFO. A proper evaluation of this criterion must recognize the purpose and role of the APFO vis-à-vis ensuring the concurrency of adequate community infrastructure and New Development. In its legal brief, the County Commissioners described this as the “concurrency principal.” Brief at p. 15. This Board properly applied this analysis on November 19, 2002 when it first considered and subsequently approved the creation of the original Black Rock PUD (RZ-02-006). In its decision, this Board correctly evaluated the effect of the PUD on community infrastructure and stated: The Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) has taken on a supportive role that was previously the sole responsibility of this item in the Zoning Ordinance during the rezoning stage when considering the deliberation of PUD cases. Due to this change, it would appear that now the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners would only have to access infrastructure issues at the zoning stage that would appear to be highly unsolvable. The applicant has indicated that he is fully aware of the APFO implications and is willing to assume the burden placed upon him. The Chief Engineer did not take exception to the rezoning and responded to the application by stating that road adequacy and stormwater management requirement "can be adequately addressed through our normal site plan and subdivision processes." See, Board of County Commissioner’ minutes from November 19, 2002 attached as Exhibit E. With respect to the impact on community infrastructure, the analysis to be undertaken by the Board as it considers the currently proposed changes to the Black Rock PUD is identical to the analysis it undertook when it reviewed and approved the original PUD request. Accordingly, this Board must once again recognize the role that APFO continues to play in controlling the pace of development while ensuring that adequate infrastructure is in place concurrently with New Development. Considering the evidence before this Board and applying the proper legal analysis, this Board must find the above criterion to have been satisfied. While this Board cannot help but to acknowledge the fact that several elements of community infrastructure (traffic, schools, water pressure) are currently inadequate, there is no credible evidence that these existing infrastructure inadequacies are “highly unsolvable” and cannot be rectified. Rather, the evidence is that all of the existing infrastructure inadequacies are capable of being solved. For example, excessive traffic congestion in the area of the Black Rock PUD can be mitigated in a number of ways. This can include, for example, the widening of local roadways, the addition of new road access points into the community; the addition of new lanes on local roads, the use of roundabouts, the synchronization of traffic signals, and the improvement and expansion of transit services. Inadequate water pressure is readily solved by upgrading existing water pump stations and the addition of new water towers and larger diameter pipes in the segments of the system where water pressure is constrained. Similarly, inadequate school capacity can be readily solved by the modification of school attendance areas; the construction of new schools; or expansions of existing schools. Based upon the Applicant’s community outreach and the public testimony before the Planning Commissions, it is evident that members of the community are concerned with the potential for the revised PUD to increase traffic on Mt. Aetna Road. The Applicant is confident that this potential traffic congestion can be appropriately mitigated using the techniques described above. Regardless, were the Board to approve this request for a major change to the approved Black Rock PUD, it does have the authority to impose as a condition of approval that additional road access be afforded to the northern portion of the site in order to further reduce traffic demand on Mt. Aetna Road. With the addition of an access point along the northern boundary of the site, the Black Rock PUD would be exceedingly well served with a total of three (3) points of ingress/egress. The Applicant recognizes the existing infrastructure inadequacies and the challenges they create. The Applicant also recognizes and understands that all infrastructure inadequacies must be rectified in accordance with APFO concurrently with the construction of each phase of the proposed Black Rock PUD. The Applicant understands and agrees that the infrastructure must be provided concurrently with New Development. As explained in Cremins, it is not however a requirement that all community infrastructure be adequate and in place at this early zoning stage of the approval process. 5. Consistency with the intent and purpose for the establishment of the PUD which is to permit flexibility and creativity in the design of residential areas, promote economical and efficient use of the land, provide for a harmonious variety of housing choices, a varied level of community amenities and the promotion of adequate recreation, open space and scenic attractiveness. The proposed major changes to the Black Rock PUD are consistent with the intent and purpose for the establishment of the PUD. By employing the flexibility provided by the PUD zoning district, the revised Black Rock PUD provides an integrated, multi-generational residential community. The modest increase in residential density from 2.7 units per acres to 5.2 units per acre promotes the economical and efficient use of the land because the substantial cost of providing public infrastructure is able to be divided over a greater number of dwelling units. The net result is that public infrastructure can be provided at a lower cost when viewed on a per unit basis. A lower per unit infrastructure cost translates into a lower housing cost to the ultimate homeowner. In addition, the revised Black Rock PUD provides a variety of housing choices including single family detached; single family semi-detached; and multi-family apartments with a variety of community amenities and recreational opportunities. The revised Black Rock PUD preserves an abundance of open space which contributes to its ability to maintain its scenic attractiveness. Conclusion The evidence before the Board clearly demonstrates that the Applicant has satisfied the criteria for approval of its request for a major change to the approved Black Rock PUD. The Applicant respectfully requests approval of this application subject to any reasonable conditions imposed by the Board. Respectfully submitted, William E. Erskine, Esq. Offit urman, P.A. 8850 Stanford Boulevard, Suite 2900 Columbia, Maryland 21043 (301) 575-0363 werskine offitkurman.com Counsel for Petitioner Respec sub EXHIBIT A WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Ir 100 West Washington Street, Suite 2600 Hagerstown, MD 21740-4710 ; I240.313.243011 240.313.2431 i Hearing Irnpaired: 7-1-1 EMRALSHAOOL MANSOOR 72 W WASHINGTON ST HAGERSTOWN, MD 21740 DEVELOPMENT PLAN NAME ENGINEER APPLICATION NUMBER LOCATION Dear Owner: Date: 05-29-2020 Black Rock PUD FOX & ASSOCIATES INC DP-20-001 109S4 SASHA BLVD HAGERSTOWN, MD 21742 This is to inform you that the Development Plan referenced above was acted on by the Washington County Planning Commission on March 02, 2020 and was approved with the conditions stated at the bottom of this letter. The Development Plan approval is effective for a period of two (2) years. Sincerely, (For) Clint Wiley Washington County Planning Commission CC: FOX & ASSOCIATES INC LAI(/MSG CONDITIONS: Not Applicable EXHIBIT B �. $Was ington County DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING I LAND PRESERVATION I FOREST CONSERVATION I GIS July 23, 2021 RZ-21-003 APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION The Washington County Planning Commission held a public information meeting on June 14, 2021 for the purpose of taking public comment on an application for a major change to the existing development plan for the Black Rock PUD. The proposed amendment would increase the overall number of residential units from 595 dwelling units to 1,148 units, thereby increasing the residential density from 2.7 dwelling units per acre to 5.2 dwelling units per acre. The Planning Commission considered the applicant's application and supporting documents, oral testimony from more than 30 residents of the area, written comments including a petition signed by nearly 400 residents of the area, and the Staff Report and Analysis. At their regular meeting on July 19, 2021, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to deny the requested major change for the following reasons: 1. The transportation network serving the area (specifically Mt. Aetna Road between White Hall Road and MD 66) is not adequate to handle the additional traffic from additional units. 2. The water system does not appear to be adequate to properly serve the additional units as it relates to water pressure and availability of sufficient capacity for public fire suppression efforts. 3. The school system would not have adequate capacity to serve the new pupil yield of the proposed new units. Copies of the application packet and supporting documents, Staff Report and Analysis, written comments, petition, and minutes of the June 14, 2021 public information meeting and July 19, 2021 regular meeting are attached. Respectfully submitted, c� J' l Baker, A I C P Director, Washington County Dept. of Planning & Zoning JLB/dse Attachments cc: Kirk Downey Morris & Ritchie Associates 100 West Washington Street, Suite 2600 1 Hagerstown, MD 21740 I P: 240.313.2430 1 F: 240.313.2431 I TDD: 7-1-1 EXHIBIT C            ! ""#$       !"#$%&        !"# $ %&"'(%!!%" %) * +!",'%"%&"'(# # "  --#  '# --. /    0# --1                                                      !"# $  $ %&   $ % '   ( $" & % )))% *"%  "       "   # $ +  %,- %*"%   . /01 -               2 /31     4               4          2  /51       4                  "  "    6  " &  7   08!      !" #  9        -  &   $ +              %              " $     !" #  &% %                -            " % &    :   %     % %4    &    - % $  %   -   &         ,  &    +-       ;      %    %        % -  -         %       %-   -    %  -         < " ' &    +-       #    -                       -             2  -               " =$         (     !" #  $    %     %        #                         4                                    " 3$                    ! ""#$       !"#$%& )     !" #      ,  9       !" #  $                              -    %                   " *     !" #    <          !" #  9                 !" #  $ % <   %  (         !" #  $ % <   %  (     )        %                                 -     -   %   <          -   " 0$         + &        -  -                          -   -                   -                              %       -                   " 0$         ,     !" # )  2>     (  (                %         % -                      %           -            " 5$         -     !" #  &   )                        -                                 -     "      !" #       )                  <-             -              " $ &        9     &       %      $                      !     - -    %      -                 %                 %    %       %       %            %            " % &    7        $                                     ! ""#$       !"#$%&           %                -      -         -    <   2          -  -          " 0$         ' &    ?   -%          %   - -                 -                -   " 0$         ( &      -                #                                         " 0$         ) &        9     $                      !     4        %-               %           4     -  <         2   %                            4                 %           " * &        9     9                                !     <-             - --        -                              %  %             4                                 %             -  - %        %      %    %   -                 4      -       "   " #.  //,)+&$"& 7   %  " &*"$ %*"9 ( %?"@ A B( " #   - !%7   %  " *B?+9"?C:?9% @)D+%,9,?9%**" 0   ,9,?9%*" /'$, )  &    $ %                     E        %F  E %F           "&   $ ;  6  G0H"I"0 # /'%-        %E;    "F    %   (            -            $  $   &    $  E$ $ F!%   -   -    &    $     $  E   $ F!   $ $ " //,),   % *  $  %  3      '< B %    -                 -    " #           $   $   &    $ %           $  $     D" $  % *"    % E  F!" #       $ $                      "            ! ""#$       !"#$%&'      4     %      . )")         %     -       -                       --    J ))")         - -     4          - J )))" )  &    $ %              -   -    -          -                            4 % 4 -    -      J )K") &   $ %    - --      4           -            -  J '      % " /'%.1234"56"701554836 6 D - 8%3LL3%B"$    E6         F E       F!      $ "B"$         M8"38         E     F!    EF               EF           E F! "5 #    %     E?   %F-       -B(       -               "#     :  9          -  B 9 HL"    $  9           %  G 0H"I!0!%             -                $           "D      -                      "=#   $        -                    " 6 * 05%3LL5%  -           -      $    $  //,*-$ "G0H"I!3!"         %         %  -      $     E+ 9     F    E9  F!                   "# 9           -         %       /'%$ B  +   7     EB+7F!   4             -   B( "        9     E   $    F E   $    F!%    -     $ " #  $         B" $         %     -     &    $  ?         E?      F!     &    $       %   %     %           B ( " #  $         ?          B" $     &   $         E  -     /1      F              B( "# ?            E# )  + F  -   " #   $   -            B" $             -         NM         <  % NN      % M3     %         %    % M%LLL4         "#   -       ?       B+7 4           " B"$          "7                    %          5I =L  -            %          ( 0L 0I     "     '<O             "7                   E+  # A F            "7             E     <    -    -      (                   -                  ! ""#$       !"#$%&(             /'%%      "F I # ?        B+7            %              B ( %      B (    E  F             B( "#    (     ?       B+7                 "#           E     / - 1 "F B    3I  -     - %         % (            "#            <   -                  <             %       -   -     %             B( " //,* #           $        E F        0L          -  -     $  $ -                 " 6 B 5%3LL5%    $             $ $         " )           %    $     $ $       "#   $      E-       F     -     * 35%3LL5  %  E                    /   1                   "F #     $        E                      /   1  / "1F /'%'6 B 05%3LL5%  $ $                   " # $ $      E              $    "F H # $ $                      "     %  $ $         .      #                %      %    "#           -  <       K+      4 - '    6   -               - A  "#  %  %  - <  "# -               ?  %D   B %  D 7   7+ " PPP               #  -     """   <  5%LNL        B ( " #  &    $  7      B(  B$ %  4    5LL  -       =L         "#               """"#    < 0%LN3     :  -( % )    """"6     :  -( ?  -   %   %   /B+71   4                -   B( " /'%(# """?         /B+71            -                """" PPP #     $                             -      -      -  - /B" $  1      //,*$                  -                       " '                  %/  $ $ 1    /1      " PPP                       ! ""#$       !"#$%&      !!" # $ % $ &     & '() )() )% )  *+  + ) %  % ),'' -,& ,''  .%  &$     () )% ) &   $      -          -                              (       " #  B A %$ ?  %$ ?      %    (  <                     -   %E           4    -  4            "F6          <   #  )  /'%) +     -             " #  %   / 1 ?                    """"                           -                   - D   B % D  7    7  %     %  ?  """" /                     "1 """"                  %     -  3H8    -   '6            " #  4   I=    0LN               "+      -    %   -      I=          "&  -     N0  %                             4           """" #                    '6"&      <       """%                0H"L 0H"8!!"D            -       -  4       -   " 7  %        -   -                          "# '6%      %  /$ $ 1     $   (     4           """" """"             %/B" $  1  -           4                      4  -     "# //,*%   $        4    ' /'%*         "        / 1    0H"H!3%        -  -   $                 /1-        '      "#             -    4            " )              -   4 %          (  %           -   " )           < %              -            - (   %       " ?  "!            $  $   %   $  $ &   $ "             "   %              $  $   "8         "&     -        " 234740.75985: $&              %             ", ,''    /  $  0)'& ,&  ) 1 0INB" "NN%MI%NI="33N53LL=!"&   -         "/ &     % E/1      %             -    <           %            ! ""#$       !"#$%&)      "F1%'2$ 0  003B" "HM=% HMM%HNH"3H=50MMH!%  5==B"IHN%HNN "3==H0MM8!" 3$ ) 0LMB" "HM3% HMM%H8I"30L35%  5=5B"HNL%HN="3=II 0MMH!" /'%+%&    %     %        %         EQ   %/1-                        -  -          - - "R F0)'& ,& $  2 ,  $  ,( 4  4 8LB" "58=%5N0%I30"388L0MN8!4   5', $ 2)4 $ %385B" M5% 0L0% 538 "3 88= 0M8=!!"   & $ 6 583B"083%0N3%N03"35033LL3!"E# -      - -          %    %         % -  -        %       %-    -    %  -         < "F3 0LMB" " HMM%H8I"30L35" ' #    -                    E         -    /  1            /"1F  & 583B" 0N3SN5%N03"3503"? E-  FE   Q     E    "FRF2,  $  8LB" " 5N3%I30 "388L     !" 7 $  4 ,  1 ',& 0=8B" "3LM%33I%NL8 "3008H3LL3!" ( ) * #                       //,*'  4         EQ                         "R F 0& $' $ 5  5NHB"IIH%I85S 8= "5%N85"300=I3LLI!     !") (      %       EQ             -   %RF          EQ         /"1RF/      "!)   %E             /  1        F     -     -   % EQ   <           -   "RF/      "! /'%, 481;803          &  (           $  $          ;   6   &    $      '6" &  -          $ $                %                  " #        $  $                &    $       B  $  0MI8% 3LL5 9 "K"!%     HH, E   HH,F!"1 ,&,''4 3 ) ,& $  8  0& 8 (  /  HL B" " 055% 05I " 0%=N0"3I050MN=!        HH,   &    $       ,  ;         %      E/1         / 1 -      ,$ $ %          F!"     HH,% G 0L"L0!        $ $ E   /1          4 %F           " +  38"0                 $  $           "#                &   $             0H      "+  0H"L%   E  %F  . #                    <-                                -           "#                                %                %          4              " #              -   -                 +   0H"=" #   /''- (           % -       $      ,            ! ""#$       !"#$%& $ $ %    -        %  -        %  %           %    -      $       $ %     -         -     %                     " +   0H"I     E  F                 "+-  !      %      . //,*(       +   .)      6           -        "# $  - -                   -              -    "?                        ")      -   %          %   - 6  %                      " )     -                        -                                 %      - -            $ "+                                                        " 0" $    9  . #        $  9       <      -            $ " #             /  1 $              %   %      ( "# /  1/'' $ %   %                 " 3";   .'   $  9  %    -         ,  $  $      $ -    " &   03L      -    %  ,$ $ %            $ %                  " ;                                   $   " B             - 4  -   -    $       -   " '   "! #                 4      $ "G0H"I!5" I" #               " +   0H"=-!%              (        %    %   4  % E-   """   4      -    <               -          "F +  0H"8!%   E# $    ( %F  . 0"?<        -            <            " 3"#      <         -     -  /  1$         "             -   <        -   " ) 0MML%&   $    '6         -   HH,%G0L"L0"'6    T))"+  0"3  '6  . /''$)        /$  $ 1   -                       -  -   //,*)            ")       % -      - -        -                     %            %      -                      -                    -        %   -            ! ""#$       !"#$%&              "     HH,% G ="L=-!0!           $ $        E  -      0L      -        %                     -  "F +  38"3       4 %     $ $ E     -   F -   (   E    "F '    -   %  $ $  E(            F              "G38"5"+  38"5 4    $ $ (      %   E    F. ! #               /   $ 1" -!                  "  !-  -        " !                  "  !$  -   <                        -      -  &   $ 7  + +   - 4     " !#                   '  $ %      B     " PPP /''% ! &       -                         -        -    " !" #$% &                        $ $        -     -  %     *  05% 3LL5  -   %  E   F                E  "F )  %     %               -     E   -     F           $ $     - -  %    "           -     (         -   2    %    "        %          %     4      %  $ $ %    E   F  -   (        -     " +         %   (        -          (    %  -             "   %  %     -    0LS     E F     $ $      " //,**,E  (  (               %          % -                     %F           -            ",  $  +  & 9$% 1    2)4 ,& 3NNB"3I=%3H0SH3%=0N"33LI0MNL!"    3H3SH5%=0N"33LI            -    -     -  /'''9  ,    ,        4  -      %                                    -       !2, ,'' 0INB" " 0L3%NI="3 3N5   -                        -    $ %         %    %      %    !21(% #$ 0& 8' /'$' ,''4  00= B" " H0I% HM0 "3 HMM    %                   %                 -      -         !%  5=HB"35N%HMI"303380MM8!2 ' $ ,&, 2)4 ,& 30B" "H5H%H=I%530"388N0M8=!   % -               4    -       <    $ %  4   E    -    $ F!2    ,&            ! ""#$       !"#$%& $ 5 0H5B" "I0I%I5IS5H%NN0"300H03LLI!%               -     E <   -  F     -         !" &        4                - %-       <        "$ , # 03=B" "3NN%833"3850MMN!")     %                                    %                 "/  503S05%833"3 85"& %         . #   /     1    /     -  1"+    "#   -      "#   /     1     (      "/#    1            < B"A " 9 3SI08        . /''( -         -                  -  -    " 6   %  -   "  : B :    <  ( 0&  :$ +  HL5"0 3H0MN8!  . E6-                         -             -       %                      -              "F &       " /  505%833"385" - &                          "#      -        -              //,*+        "N $?            %   %   -    -    $  $  (          - - ")  %                      $  $   ( /'')-               E/1                  -    -    /$ $ 1        /$  $ 1   "F&  " #  $  $   -         " )             B" $       2            $              $                2                 2   2       2  9      $  2       2                ?      %7     %B+7%   &   $ & O+     " %  (                -         $  $          "                    B" $  %      $ %     %   $ $    4         <   -  -      "                 -   -    $ $  -          <   %  %    %    -     -  " ' &   " E    -%               %      -  -                -                -   "F2$  & =5B" "33M%35H%=L5"3 NIN%   ' :) $  & 3NHB"8=8 0M8M!" :($ 2)4 ,& 53 B" " 3IH% 3H3% 5HL "3 H 0M8H!      E   - /1   - -     F!"#      -     -  $ $ "            ! ""#$       !"#$%& /''*&                (  - -                   ")   %  $  $   %  //,*,          %  --    " ,        -             $ $   %                      " !'$!   (")*         G 0H"=-!  4    $  $  (                    E  -    <             -         "F                          $  $             4 "             -         $ $              %       -                     "          G 0H"=-!    -       "#                        G 0H"I%       $  $       G0H"=-!-                     '6" &     $  $                  4     ", ,''  0IN B" "   MH% NI= "3 3N5       E Q/1                %   %     R F!       !" 6 (%    %       $ $  E Q E                          /"1FRF7 $  4 ,   1 ',& 0=8B" "3LM%33I%NL8"3008H 3LL3! 4  :  /''+ $  ,  $ 0&;,&, 1 ' 03NB" "=M=%I0=% 85M"3NI=0MMM!%  5INB"0H5%8=8"3 H==3LLL!!"&      (   -      -    E                             /"1F5  5NHB" I83%N85"300=I" (&                  % E                              "F4, $ 1 ',& 5N3B"0L3%005%NI="300M03LL=!" EQ#                             "RF0<  ' $ 6 5NLB"0H=%08I%N=="35NN3LL=! 4  8 #$  5H=B"5I=%5H=%883"3 03=L3LL0!!"&      %  %   %            "4, 5N3B" 005%NI="300M0"&            E      -%   4   /"1F, $ 0)'&,&+4 8 ;8'$ 5N0B"0NN%3LM%N=M"3=H 3LL=!4   (      !"6      - (-                   "6 5NLB"  08H%N=="35NN" B  %     E   / 1            -  %           Q  / 1"RF+4  &; , $ $ 1 0=3B" "3N5%5L3%8ML"3I8%   5HMB"0NL%8MN"3II33LL3!     !" &  E    U   %        U    //,+-     - %         "F/ ) +   0H"=-!  %       . E#      /    1  -         4      -    <                -          "F   /'',                    %   $ $            %           %      -                 E  -    <             -      "F&  " +   0H"=-!            $  $            %    %-             4        -   " $     %          %            ! ""#$       !"#$%&    %    $ $      %        %         -              -      "      EQ        RF   -     2  %      -                                    :   "0&;, 9#$  $  9& &  :  /  583 B" I0=% II0% N0= "3 =HM 3LL3!       !"  0 # $  1     5INB"5M5%=L5%8=M"388=3LLL!             E       /1             -  < -(                                  F!" +-  -!G0H"=%      <       %   $ $         -  " +   0H"=    % EA  9 4  %F      . ! 6  . #        -                 -                  -        $ -          '      "     -     -   -   -            " /'(- -! :   .    -         - A    # A     % 99%9+%9%9B 7)S3   "#     -      4      -    <              -       "  !   . -     -     -   " ! $         -      $                  9       6    -            -      -        - 4   " -      4       -         $   2       -     -    $ "&     4   -           -      %    $ (       "     +  0H"I!5%= I " '   !" D   G0H"=         $  $  //,+(            4                           " +-    !%  <  %          -   - -    -      "$            %   4     -    <   4      -   - -            E  4  "F &   < G0H"8%   %E  +  "F #           E                -    -      """  4         "F+-  !       %E# $    ( %F   %      %  E/ 1<             /'( -              <          % &$  F?  !"+  0H"8%        G 0H"=-!%     $  $                4       %        %        -   -  <                " #       G 0H"=-!  (        G0"3  '6"+  0"3  '6                E   -                 - -  &%           "F?  !"M )      E   %F   -    %   %   - - $E           "F # $ $              -                   "# $ $    %  %        -   -   -    $               "'6G5"=  .            ! ""#$       !"#$%& D              4     4  -            6      -     -      $                  ,$ $             4  -    /"1  %'6G="=  %      . ?<           6  %    <        -      $   -    4            /'($-            -    <     %          -   " #            $                      <     -    4           -      %                 $ $       4      "      %    0#   77,$ # 5HMB"HNM%NL3"30L3M3LL3!%E  - ( //,+$ 4 /1     %   -  4 %      -   <         "F'     %     %   % 4     -           %      " ) #   $                  $  $  E$$F!%                          '6      "# $$      E Q        -    <    -       """          """        <          "RF5HMB" HM5%NL3"30L3M"   B(  %::$EBF!%      %          $                       " /  HM8%NL3"30L3M"     7   6           "/    HMN% NL3 "3 0L3M" B                      $  ,    E,   F!"/ # ,        %    %     -       4          -           "/  HMM%NL3"30L3M"&            %   ,       E          / 1     /'(%      - --   "F/  8LL%NL3"30L3M" D -            $   $        $ " #           ,   "6                E      Q    (  /  1            4  -     Q  <         "R F/    8L0S8L3% NL3 "3 0L3M" B                $ " &  %        %  %   EQ  ,/ 1  % %                 4    4    - E  <        %RF    / 1          "F/  8L3%NL3"30L3M" #  $      " #  $      $$% "5%G3S0LI!5!%  8LI%NL3"30L3M%                 E        %F  8LM%NL3"30L3M"  ,    E          4   %F  $      ,       2,  $                          - --        -   "/  808%NL3"30L3M"# $       ,       E  Q             /1-  4         -   / 1   %R F            ! ""#$       !"#$%&' -    ,    %  4 -  $$%E   4  """      <        "F/  80N%NL3"30L3M"# $    %E/-1  %"""G3S0LI!5! <               -                    Q  - --   R V             -  -    -     "F/ /'('#       %          $$  //,+%   #        G0H"=-!"#   - $      #         $ ,            E      <          %F         E  - --          -   F       " +  0H"=-!       %              %   $  $            - E      <        "F &          '6%    %    4     $ $  %-            %       4    -  <        " )  %                      $    4                %          " !*$+  &    ,  & & &      & -           $  $    -      E 4                               / 1 -  <      - --           -    "F 9              %       $ $      E    - --        -    F  %     % ) 0)'& ,& $  2 ,  $  ,( 4  4  8L B" " 58=%I30"388L0MN8!%-              4           "0L /'((                      G 0H"I E                    Q  - --          -   R  %F   %   %        '6 (         " 2 ,  $              "&             " ) 2,  $          $  $   B   $ %         $  E   $ F!%             "8L B" "   58H% 5NLSN0% I30 "3 88L" 6                                           -       "/    588% I30 "388L"   <                          E           4 F          -    %     E       - --          -   /"1F /  58M%I30"388L" # $        <         "/  5NL%I30"388L"#           $   "//,+'/  5NL%I30 "388L"&           "/  5M0%I30 "388L" #         $          E - - "F/  5N=%I30 "388L"&               -E           -           - --        -   "F/  5N=%I30"388L" &            B  $ "#     4      -          -"#    -%  /'() < %   $    4        " # %    %               -%  -   %      "/  5NHSN8%I30"388L"            ! ""#$       !"#$%&( &     E/ 1  Q  - --           -    R              (          %   -%  "F/  5N8%I30"388L"#   %    %E        --      4  -       %  % "F / &     2,  $            % (    E  -  --           -    F  %  E                "F/    5NM% I30 "3 88L" &  (         4            E                              %F             -        E          4         "F/ )  %         2 ,  $ E  <- %         Q  - --     R  "F/  #   % E/1            <           4       % - -       -    (         4     -  %                          "F/   %E         %        - --         -   -    -     "F/ * &               &   $      %  -        '6%(   B  $    %  <- %      %    E  - --         -   F  " )     -             &   $ %    4  - E$  F /'(*   $  $         $ "G0H"I!"#      E            -                 -     "F/  )           -                                  %                            "/        %    $        <          %               "G0H"I!0"     %    $     %  E(        %  %                      %  -  -    %                 - //,+( %       -  %       %   -   4    "FG0H"8!" D < %    -        -     $  $      $ "#    $  -    $ $                     " )  $ $          %   E/1                            $  "F G0H"I!3" ?          -  %         4   -   E        F     $   <       %   <          -    $ "    %    $                 "G0H"I!5" )      $              %        - E'      F ")    $     '      % G0H"I!="%  /'(+      E- +  """             /  1 $    """"F G 0H"I!I" #     $         +  "/ 00 ?         4       $   (                  '6" '6G5"0  %   %    '6E -    -    $ F!"# '6        $                    4    '6%E                /$ $ 1          4  -    /"1FG5"=" +  0"3  '6   E  %F      '6                 ! ""#$       !"#$%&   -                       -  -                " )        % -         -   -           -                    %           %      -                      -                    -        %   -              " #          '6%      %  4               %             -    $ "#      '6        -         -  4  -    %                " /'(, &                    &    $ % (             2 ,  $       <-              - --        -     " )  % &   $ %     %    %  -     //,+)   $        4      -      "&    %  2 ,  $                     % E         - --        -   -    -     "F  A          %   $  $                    E           F                           %          E  -  - "F #  $  $                           '6      $ $  (      4  -             %-        $                    4       %            '6"03 /')-<;46=532..87=54> 10220 584 ?5""32> 1    0H=B" "=3H%NN5"3MHH Footnotes 1 Hereinafter, unless otherwise indicated, all citations are to the Washington County Zoning Ordinance. 2 The other appellants include: Karen Cremins, Michael G. Marschner, Angela K. Marschner, Joseph W. Kinter, Patricia A. Kinter, Merih O'Donoghue, Renee L. Scott, Joseph M. Sebrosky, Kathleen A. Sebrosky, Catherine Skaggs, and Kelly Bennet–Unger. 3 The land is owned by Rokane, LLC. Rokane authorized Mr. Crampton to file the rezoning application. 4 For example, the Washington County Engineering Department had no objections to the application and noted that any of its concerns could “be adequately addressed through [the remaining steps of] the site plan approval process.” The Washington County Health Department stated that its approval would be “contingent on the availability of public water and sewer” services for the property. The Washington County Water & Sewer Department determined that the property is “eligible for public [sewer] service.” 5 The traffic study was submitted to the County Commissioners and Planning Commission, but was not made part of the record before the circuit court and is not before us.            ! ""#$       !"#$%&) 6 The report of the County Attorney was not made part of the record that was transmitted to us. We granted a motion by the County Commissioners to supplement the record with the County Attorney's report. 7 Because we ordinarily do not review the circuit court's decision, see Days Cove Reclamation Co. v. Queen Anne's County, 146 Md.App. 469, 484, 807 A.2d 156,cert. denied,372 Md. 431, 813 A.2d 258 (2002), we do not summarize it here. 8 In Heard v. Foxshire Assocs., 145 Md.App. 695, 806 A.2d 348 (2002), we discussed, in dicta, the general nature of proceedings before administrative agencies. We said that, because judicial review of the decision of an administrative agency at both the circuit court and appellate levels is based on the record made before the agency, it is essential that the record of the administrative proceedings be orderly and accurate. Id. at 710, 806 A.2d 348. Therefore, “it is important that the presiding officer [of the administrative agency proceedings] be certain that witnesses are properly sworn and identified and that the record does not contain unsworn comments by unidentified persons.” Id. at 709–10, 806 A.2d 348. In addition, “[i]t is equally important that [all] documents and other exhibits be carefully identified and cataloged in the record.” Id. at 710, 806 A.2d 348. Although appellants have waived their right to complain that the witnesses at the joint public hearing were not placed under oath, we reaffirm the importance of having witnesses sworn at such proceedings. 9 A “new development” under the APFO “consists of new subdivisions and site plans for new construction received for approval by the [Planning Commission] after [December 1, 1990]....” § 2.3.13. Appellants present no argument that Mr. Crampton's development plans would not constitute a “new development.” 10 Appellants also assert, without citation to authority and without developing the argument, that the County Commissioners “impermissibly delegated an essential zoning function to” the Planning Commission when they left to the Planning Commission the determination of the PUD's “compatibility” with the surrounding neighborhood. We shall not make the argument for them, and decline to address the issue. See Honeycutt v. Honeycutt, 150 Md.App. 604, 618, 822 A.2d 551,cert. denied,376 Md. 544, 831 A.2d 4 (2003). 11 We note that § 25.4 provides that “[a]n appeal to the [Washington County] Board [of Appeals] may be taken by any person aggrieved ... by any decision of the [Planning Commission.]” 12 In a footnote, appellants bring to our attention the County Commissioners' findings concerning adequacy of public school facilities to handle any increased enrollment brought about by the uses in the PUD. At the time the County Commissioners made their decision, the APFO provided that student enrollment at public schools not exceed 105% of the state-rated student enrollment capacity of the school. Also at that time, the County Commissioners used data from a June, 2002 enrollment report concerning the number of students enrolled at the public schools that would be effected by development of the PUD. Since that time, the APFO has been amended. It now provides, with regard to public elementary schools in Washington County, that enrollment may not exceed 85% of the state-rated student enrollment capacity. See APFO § 5.4.1(a). Relying on the proposition that we apply the law in effect at the time we make our decision, appellants ask us to hold that the increased number of students that is projected to be caused by development of the PUD would violate the 85% provision of APFO § 5.4.1(a). This we cannot do. The effect of the change in capacity contemplated by the APFO is a matter for the administrative agency to decide in the first instance. The Planning Commission, therefore, should consider the revised APFO when it considers whether to approve subsequent plans during the PUD plan and approval process. End of Document © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. EXHIBIT D James CREMINS, et al., Appellants, v. COUNTY..., 2004 WL 1958852... © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.1 2004 WL 1958852 (Md.App.) (Appellate Brief) Maryland Court of Special Appeals. James CREMINS, et al., Appellants, v. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, Maryland Appellees. No. 2200. September Term, 2003. August 2, 2004. On Appeal from the Circuit Court for Washington County, Maryland, (Hon. Frederick C. Wright, III). Brief of Appellee County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Richard W. Douglas, County Attorney for Washington, County, Maryland, 100 W. Washington Street, Suite 202, Hagerstown, MD 21740, (240) 313-2232, Co-Counsel for Appellee County, Commissioners of Washington County William J. Chen, Jr., 200A Monroe Street, Suite 300, Rockville, MD 20850, (301) 279-9500, Co-Counsel for Appellee County, Commissioners of Washington County, of Counsel: Chen, Walsh, Tecler & McCabe, L.L.P., 200A Monroe Street, Suite 300, Rockville Maryland 20850, (301) 279-9500 TABLE OF CONTENTS James CREMINS, et al., Appellants, v. COUNTY..., 2004 WL 1958852... © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2 a. State Law...........................................................................................................................................................................11 b. Zoning Ordinance...........................................................................................................................................................13 c. Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance......................................................................................................................17 Response to Appellants’ Arguments.............................................................................................................................22 a. Unsworn Testimony.......................................................................................................................................................22 b. Adjacent Roadway Adequacy ....................................................................................................................................25 *ii c. “Reasonably Probable of Fruition in the Foreseeable Future” Test........................................................29 d. Remand..............................................................................................................................................................................34 CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................................................................34 STATEMENT AS TO FONTS USED ........................................................................................................................35 *iii TABLE OF CITATIONS Cases: Annapolis Market v. Parker, 369 Md. 689 (2002) .................. Board of Physician v. Banks, 354 Md. 59 (1999)................... Bernstein v. Bd. of Education, 245 Md. 464 (1967)........................... Bigenho v. Montgomery County, 248 Md. 386 (1968)...................... Blitz v. Beth Isaac, 352 Md. 31 (1998) ....................................... Board of County Comm’rs v. Gaster, 285 Md. 233 (1979) . Brzowski v. Md. Home Improvement, 114 Md. App. 614 (1997), reconsid, denied, cert. denied,346 Md. 238 (1997) ..................... B&S v. Consumer Protection, 153 Md.App. 130 (2003),cert. denied 380 Md. 231 (2004) ................................................................... Bulluck v. Pelham Wood Apts., 283 Md. 505 (1978) ............. Cadem v. Nanna, 243 Md. 536 (1966).................................................... Cicala v. Disability Review Bd., 288 Md. 254 (1980) ........... Citizens for Rewastico v. Comm’rs of Hebron, 67 Md. App. 466 (1986),cert. denied 307 Md. 260 (1986) ......................................... Co. Council v. Carl M. Freeman Assoc., 281 Md. 70 (1977)......... James CREMINS, et al., Appellants, v. COUNTY..., 2004 WL 1958852... © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3 Colao v. Prince George’s County, 109 Md.App. 431 (1996) Comptroller v. Fairland, 136 Md.App. 452 (2001)........................... Cromwell v. Ward, 102 Md.App. 691 (1995) ........................... Dal Maso v. Bd. of Co. Comm’rs, 264 Md. 691 (1972) ........ *iv Department of Economics v. Lilley, 106 Md.App. 744 (1995) ........................................................................................................... Dept. of Public Safety v. PHP, 151 Md.App. 182 (2003),cert. denied 376 Md. 545 (2003) ................................................................... Eastern Outdoor v. Baltimore, 146 Md.App. 283 (2002) .... Eger v. Stone, 253 Md. 533 (1969).......................................................... F&B Dev. Corp. v. County Council, 22 Md.App. 488 (1974)........ Floyd v. County Council of P.G. Co., 55 Md.App. 246 (1983)...... Giant v. Dept. of Labor, 356 Md. 180 (1999)....................................... Gigeous v. ECI, 363 Md. 481 (2001)....................................................... Heard v. Foxshire, 145 Md.App. 695 (2002)....................................... Hourie v. State, 53 Md.App. 62 (1982).................................................. Insurance Commissioner v. Equitable, 339 Md. 596 (1995) Kram v. Maryland Military, 374 Md. 651 (2003)............................... Marsheck v. Board of Trustees, 358 Md. 393 (2000) ............ Meadows v. Foxleigh, 133 Md.App. 510 (2000) ..................... Montgomery v. Bd. of Co. Comm’rs, 263 Md. 1 (1971)................... Montgomery Co. v. Gr. Colesville Ass’n, 70 Md.App. 374 (1987) ........................................................................................................... *v Montgomery County v. Shiental, 249 Md. 194 (1968) ... Mortimer v. Howard Research, 83 Md.App. 432 (1990)................. Moseman v. County Council, 99 Md.App. 258 (1994) ......... Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Gaddy 335 Md. 342 (1994)....................... James CREMINS, et al., Appellants, v. COUNTY..., 2004 WL 1958852... © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.4 MVA v. McDorman, 364 Md. 253 (2001)..............................................24 MVA v. Karwacki, 340 Md. 271 (1995) ..................................... North v. St. Mary’s County, 99 Md.App. 502 (1994) ............ Powell v. Calvert County, 368 Md. 400 (2002)....................... Red Roof Inns v. People’s Counsel, 96 Md.App. 219 (1993)......... Rockville v. Woodmont C. C., 348 Md. 572 (1998)............................ Richmarr v. American PCS, 117 Md.App. 607 (1997) ......... Rogers v. Radio Shack, 271 Md. 126 (1974)................................ Rouse-Fairwood v. Supervisor, 138 Md.App. 589 (2001),cert. denied 365 Md. 475 (2001) ................................................................... Shapiro v. Montgomery Co. Council, 269 Md. 380 (1973)............. Smack v. Dept. of Health, 134 Md.App. 412 (2000),aff’d 378 Md. 298 (2003) .......................................................................................... Steel v. Cape Corp., 111 Md.App. 1 (1996).......................................... Total AV v. Dept. of Labor, 360 Md. 387 (2000)................................ *vi Travers v. Baltimore Police Dept., 115 Md.App. 395 (1997) ........................................................................................................................... Trustees v. Baltimore County, 221 Md. 550 (1960) ............... United Parcel v. People’s Counsel, 336 Md. 569 (1994) .... Watkins v. Dept. of Safety, 377 Md. 34 (2003) ........................ Widomski v. Chief of Police, 41 Md.App. 361 (1979)....................... Yewell v. Board of Co. Comm’rs, 260 Md. 42 (1970)....................... Yorkdale v. Powell, 237 Md. 121 (1964)................................... *vii STATUTES, ORDINANCES AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS Section 4.01(c), Article 66B, Annotated Code of Maryland as amended (1957, 2003 Repl. Vol)..................................................... Section 10.01(a), Article 66B, Annotated Code of Maryland, James CREMINS, et al., Appellants, v. COUNTY..., 2004 WL 1958852... © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.5 as amended (1957, 2003 Repl. Vol)........................................................... Chapter 406, Laws of Maryland, 2004 Regular Session (Section 14.08, Article 66B) ........................................................... James CREMINS, et al., Appellants, v. COUNTY..., 2004 WL 1958852... © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.6 Section 59-C-7.122..........................................................................................26 Section 59-D-3.4(a).........................................................................................32 *viii COURT RULES Maryland Rules: Maryland Rule 8-414 ....................................................................................6 Maryland Rule 8-502 ....................................................................................1 Maryland Rule 8-504 (a)(2)........................................................................1 TREATISES 13 Halsbury’s Laws of England (2d ed. 1934) § 797 ..........................25 6 Wigmore, Evidence in Trials at Common Law (Chadbourn, ed., 1976) § 1816........................................................................................ Rev. 1994)..................................................................................................... *ix APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 4.01, Article 66B, Annotated Code of Maryland, as amended (1957, 2003 Repl. Vol).................................................................................................................................................... Section 10.01 (a), Article 66B, Annotated Code of Maryland as amended (1957, 2003 Repl. Vol)......................................................................................................................................... County, Maryland..................................................................................................................................... County, Maryland..................................................................................................................................... from Terrence P. McGee, P.E., Chief Engineer to Lisa Kelly Pietro, Senior Planner, Washington County Planning & Community Development ..................................................... Edward A. Fogtman, Registered Sanitarian, to Lisa Kelly Pietro, Senior Planner, Washington County Planning & Community Development ................................................... James CREMINS, et al., Appellants, v. COUNTY..., 2004 WL 1958852... © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.7 Washington County Planning Commission........................................................................................... Maryland State Highway Administration email dated December 9, 2002, from John Wolford to Lisa Pietro................................................................................................................................ Maryland ..................................................................................................................................................... Chapter 406, Laws of Maryland, 2004 Regular Session (Section 14.08, Article 66B, Annotated Code of Maryland, as amended).................................................................................... General Assembly, 2004, Session....................................................................................................... *1 The Appellee, County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland (hereafter “County Commissioners”), by their attorneys, Richard W. Douglas and William J. Chen, Jr., hereby files its Appellee’s Brief pursuant to Maryland Rule 8-502 and the stipulation of counsel. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to Maryland Rule 8-504(a)(2), the County Commissioners of Washington County accept the “Statement of the Case” contained in the Brief of Appellants. QUESTION PRESENTED I. IS THE DECISION OF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF RECORD WHICH IS FAIRLY DEBATABLE AND PREMISED UPON A CORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW? The County.Commissioners submit that the question should be answered in the affirmative. STATUTES, ORDINANCES, AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS Included in the Appendix to this Brief: Section 4.0 l(c), Article 66B, Annotated Code of Maryland, as amended (1957, 2003 Repl. Vol.). (Apx. 1) Section 10.01 (a), Article 66B, Annotated Code of Maryland, as amended (1957, 2003 Repl. Vol.). (Apx. 1) Chapter 406, Laws of Maryland, 2004 Regular Session (Section 14.08, Article 66B).(Apx. 38 - Apx. 39) Article 16, entitled “‘PUD’ Planned Unit Development,” Zoning Ordinance of Washington County, Maryland. (Apx. 2 - Apx. 9) Article 27, entitled “Amendments”, Section 27.4, entitled “Additional *2 Conditions,” Zoning Ordinance of Washington County, Maryland. (Apx. 10) Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance of Washington County, Maryland (Revision 6, May 25, 2004). (Apx. 11 - Apx. 30) James CREMINS, et al., Appellants, v. COUNTY..., 2004 WL 1958852... © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.8 STATEMENT OF FACTS On November 7, 2002, Paul M. Crampton, Jr. (hereinafter “Applicant”), filed an application with the Washington County Planning Commission to rezone an area of land consisting of 97.27 acres from the “A” Agricultural Zone to the “PUD” Planned Unit Development Zone.1 (E.10-E.12) The real property in question was owned by Rokane, LLC, and the Applicant was authorized to file the application. (E.12) The application was designated as Case No. RZ-02-008. The real property is located on the east side of Marsh Pike, the north side of Maryland Route 60, and on the south side of Long Meadow Road in Washington County, Maryland. (E.10). The proposed PUD is known as “Emerald Pointe.” (E.70) Upon completion, the PUD would have 88 single-family detached dwellings, 92 townhouses, 87 semi-detached or duplexes, and a retirement center with approximately 126 units. (E.33, E.91) The retirement center will be two and a half to three stories in height, and the units would be one and two bedroom apartments. (E.44) An historic farmhouse on the property will be adapted to retain the structure for office use. (E.50) *3 There also will be a community center that will contain small businesses to serve the PUD community such as a coffee shop, a tailor. (E.42) The businesses also could be a deli, dry cleaner or accountant. (E.42, E.55) The community center would also house a gym, a workout facility, and a computer lab in its main building. Id. Various comments about the application were submitted to the County’s Planning Department from mandatory referral agencies. The City of Hagerstown Water Pollution Control reported that as to sanitary sewer service it had no objection to the proposed development although there was limited capacity that was allocated on a “first come, first serve” basis. (E.14) The Washington County Engineering Department reported “We have completed our review of the subject request and take no exception to it. All issues under our jurisdiction associated with this can be adequately addressed through the site plan approval process.” (Apx. 31) The Washington County Health Department reported “Approval will be contingent on the availability of public water and sewer.” (Apx. 32) The Washington County Water & Sewer Department reported “The Department has completed its review of the reference rezoning request and has determined that the subject property is within an existing County Sewer Service area (SD-150 as amended) and is, therefore, eligible for public service. Allocation is available in accordance with the County’s rules, policies and regulations, subject to approval by the City of Hagerstown.” (Apx. 33) Additionally, the Washington County Planning Commission’s staff issued a report on the application dated December 17, 2002 (E.16-E.21) The State Highway Administration reported: “We have reviewed the re-zoning case for Rokane, LLC (formerly Emerald Point) and have no objection to approval with the stipulation that access be denied to MD 60. Access can be gained via Marsh Pike.” (Apx. 34) On January 13, 2003, the application was presented before a joint public hearing *4 of the County Commissioners and the Planning Commission.2 At the public hearing, testimony and information in support of the rezoning application was given by the Applicant (E.41), his attorney, Kenneth Grove (E.40), and his engineer, Russ Townsley of Fox & Associates. (E.50-E.60) In particular as to the affected road system, Mr. Townsley testified: On the traffic study, Street Traffic Group has prepared a traffic study. They prepared one on the original concept plan that had the commercial in there. When we did a new lay-out, that study was revised, new counts were taken. The County Engineer and State Highway both had quite a few comments that had to be addressed. Those comments were addressed. There are some improvements that are going to be made such as widening of Marsh Pike. There’s some improvements up at the Longmeadow Road/Marsh Pike intersection that Mr. Crampton will have to do as part of his work that has to be done. The study states that the existing system could be supported by the surrounding area network and the critical intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service with the full development of the PUD provided that some improvements are made. Mr. Grove has the study. It has been submitted to the County Engineer and State Highway. They have done an initial review of it. I don’t know if they’ve gotten back to the Traffic Engineer for the formal comments yet, but the County is reviewing it. (E.52)3 Additionally, at the hearing (E.40) the Applicant’s attorney submitted a report, with attachments, for consideration by the County Commissioners and the Planning Commission. (E.67-E.89) The report addressed zoning requirements and as to the James CREMINS, et al., Appellants, v. COUNTY..., 2004 WL 1958852... © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.9 affected road system it stated: d. Emerald Pointe will have no adverse impact on public roadways. Street Traffic Studies, Ltd., a highly-respected firm that studies the impact of development on public highways throughout Maryland, has *5 concluded that the approval of Emerald Pointe would not adversely affect traffic on the Marsh Pike. (See the “Traffic Impact Analysis Emerald Pointe PUD” revised December 13, 2002, the “Study”) previously provided to the Commission. Note that the Study states that the existing system”...could be supported by the surrounding area road network” and that the “critical intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service with the full development of the PUD provided some improvements are made.” Since PUDs are constructed over a number of years, the County has the right to require the Applicant to conduct additional traffic studies to determine to what extent, if at all, the development and changes in traffic flows either are or will adversely affect the public roadways that serve this area. This requirement insures that the impact of the development on public roadways is monitored on a periodic basis and protects the public interest. (E.75)4 Several individuals testified at the hearing in opposition to the requested rezoning. After the public hearing the technical staff of the Washington County Planning Department issued its post-hearing report and analysis. (E.90-E.96) As to traffic, the report, in part, states as follow: The adoption of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) in 1990 has taken on a supportive role that was previously the sole responsibility of the Zoning Ordinance during the rezoning stage when considering the deliberation of PUD cases. Due to this change, it would appear that the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners would only have to address infrastructure issues at the zoning stage that would appear to be highly unsolvable. Terrence McGee, Chief Engineer, County Engineering Department, did not take exception to the rezoning and responded to this application by stating “all issues under our jurisdiction associated with this request can be adequately addressed through the site plan approval process.”(Emphasis added) (E.95) Subsequently, by a split decision, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the rezoning application be denied. That recommendation was transmitted to the Commissioners by letter dated March 4, 2003. (E.99) Thereafter, on March 13, 2003, at a regular meeting the County Commissioners *6 considered the application, and voted to approve it. (E.103-E.105) The official decision of the County Commissioners consists of the section of their minutes of March 13, 2003, when it considered and voted on the application (E.103-E.105) and their adopted Findings of Fact. (E.103)5 Pertinent to the issues raised in this appeal, the County Commissioners addressed the adequacy of public facilities and as to traffic they found: The adoption of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) in 1990 has taken on a supportive role that was previously the sole responsibility of this item in the Zoning Ordinance during the rezoning stage when considering the deliberation of PUD cases. Due to this change, it would appear that now the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners would only have to address infrastructure issues at the zoning stage that would appear to be highly unsolvable. Increased traffic was a major concern of neighborhood residents who testified at the public hearing. Terrence McGee, Chief Engineer, did not take exception to the rezoning. He responded “all issues can be adequately addressed through the site plan approval process,”The existing Traffic Impact Study will need to be revised to reflect the new plan. The Engineering Department has no final comments on the updated traffic study. State Highway Administration has no objection to approval stipulation that access be denied to Leitersburg Pike. A revised traffic study would be required. (Emphasis added) (E.104-E.105) Further, the County Commissioners’ decision expressly requires that the Applicant enter into development agreements as required by Section 16.6(d)2.ii. (Apx.7) of the Zoning Ordinance. (E.105)6 *7 Appellants James Cremins, et al., noted an appeal to the Circuit Court for Washington County, Maryland, After oral argument held on November 7, 2003, the lower court issued an opinion and order dated November 21, 2003, which affirmed the decision of the County Commissioners. (E.106-E.118) This appeal followed. James CREMINS, et al., Appellants, v. COUNTY..., 2004 WL 1958852... © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.10 ARGUMENT I. THE DECISION OF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF RECORD WHICH IS FAIRLY DEBATABLE AND PREMISED UPON A CORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW. Standard of Review This appeal involves the decision of a local legislative body that granted an application to rezone7 real property to a “floating zone.” In this situation, this Court reviews the decision of the local legislative body, and not the decision of the circuit court. Cf. Watkins v. Dept. of Safety, 377 Md. 34, 45-46 (2003);Kram v. Maryland Military, 374 Md. 651, 656 (2003);B&S v. Consumer Protection, 153 Md.App. 130, 150-51 (2003),cert. denied 380 Md. 231, 844 A.2d 427 (2004);Dept. of Public Safety v. PHP, 151 Md.App. 182, 194 (2003),cert. denied 376 Md. 545 (2003).8 The following propositions of law apply to this Court’s review of the decision of the County Commissioners. Judicial review of a rezoning decision is limited. Total AVv. Dept. of Labor, 360 Md. 387, 394 (2000);Meadows v. Foxleigh, 133 Md.App. 510, 514 (2000). The *8 decision is considered prima facie correct, and an appellate court must review the decision in the light most favorable to the zoning authority. Cf., Giant v. Dept. of Labor, 356 Md. 180, 185 (1999). Such deference is afforded to the decisions of zoning authorities because courts recognize and defer to expertise, and the decisions “therefore [carry] a presumption of correctness.” Citizens for Rewatico v. Comm’s of Hebron, 67 Md.App. 466, 470,cert. denied 306 Md. 260 (1968). The zoning authority’s factual findings are binding upon a reviewing court so long as they are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Cf., United Parcel v. People’s Counsel, 336 Md. 569, 576-77 (1994). “Substantial evidence” has been defined as: ”...such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” It means “more than a ‘scintilla of evidence,’ such that a reasonable person could come to more than one conclusion.” In other words, the reviewing court must ask whether “reasoning minds could reach the same conclusion from the facts relied upon by the [agency].” Eastern Outdoor v. Baltimore, 146 Md.App. 283, 301 (2002)(citations omitted). The court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the zoning authority. Moseman v. County Council, 99 Md.App. 258 (1994);Eger v. Stone, 253 Md. 533 (1969). The decision of a zoning authority must be affirmed by the reviewing court if the findings are “fairly debatable” in light of the evidence adduced. Cromwell v Ward, 102 Md.App. 691 (1995);Red Roof Inns v. People’s Counsel, 96 Md.App. 219 (1993). A decision by a zoning authority is fairly debatable if it is based upon substantial evidence, even if substantial evidence to the contrary exists. North v. St. Mary’s County, 99 Md.App. 502, 509(1994). Moreover, the duty of drawing inferences from the evidence and resolving conflicts in the evidence is exclusively within the province of the fact-finding role of the zoning authority. Eastern Outdoor, 146 Md.App. at 301;see MVA v. Kanvacki, 340 Md. 271, 283 (1995). And, “where inconsistent inferences from the same evidence can be *9 drawn, it is for the [zoning authority] to draw the inferences.” Department of Economics v. Lilley, 106 Md.App. 744, 754-55 (1995);quoting, Bulluckv. Pelham Wood Apts., 283 Md. 505,513(1978). A court will “refrain from making [its] own independent findings of fact or substituting [its] judgment for that of the agency when the record contains substantial evidence supporting the agency’s determination.” Marsheck, 358 Md. at 402. Although it is said that courts do not normally defer to an agency’s legal conclusions, the court in Gigeous v. ECI, 363 Md. 481, 496 (2001), held “[e]ven with regard to some legal issues, a degree of deference should often be accorded the position of James CREMINS, et al., Appellants, v. COUNTY..., 2004 WL 1958852... © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.11 the administrative agency.” Board of Physician v. Banks, 354 Md. 59, 69 (1999). In particular, “an administrative agency’s interpretation and application of the statute which the agency administers should ordinarily be given considerable weight by reviewing courts.” Id. More recently, the Court of Appeals has stated: “We must respect the expertise of the agency and accord deference to its interpretation of a statute that it administers.” Watkins v. Dept. of Safety, 377 Md. 34, 46 (2003). As noted, this appeal involves the decision of a local legislative body and the County ordinances which were applied and interpreted in making the rezoning decision were enacted by the local legislative body. In other words, in making the decision which is the subject of this appeal, the decision-maker was applying and interpreting laws which it, itself, had enacted. Consequently, this situation is significantly different than that which occurs when a different governmental entity, i.e., a zoning board of appeals, renders a zoning decision implementing and interpreting an ordinance which has been enacted by the local legislative body. When the decision-maker is also the legislative body which enacted the local laws being administered, the role of the court is to defer to the interpretation of the legislative body unless its action is violative of constitutional rights. Cf. Watkins Dept. of Safety, supra, 377 Md. at 46 (“Moreover, in cases that involve determining whether a constitutional right has been infringed, we make an *10 independent constitutional appraisal.”). With specific regard to floating zones, in Richmarr v. American PCS, 117 Md.App. 607 (1997), this Court explained: .....In reviewing floating zones, the courts have specifically applied the fairly debatable standard to actions taken by the legislative body. Reviewing courts must not substitute their judgment for that of the zoning agency and must affirm any decision which is supported by substantial evidence and therefore fairly debatable. In Prince George’s County v. Meinenger [Meininger], 264 Md. 148, 152, 285 A.2d 649, 651 (1972), it was explained that “substantial evidence” means a little more than a “scintilla of evidence,” and in Eger v. Stone, 253 Md. 533, 542, 253 A.2d 372, 377 (1969), the “fairly debatable” standard was defined as follows: We have made it quite clear that if the issue before the administrative body is “fairly debatable,” that is, that its determination involved testimony from which a reasonable man could come to different conclusions, the courts will not substitute their judgment for that of the administrative body.... Courts in Maryland tend to defer to zoning agencies because of their presumed “expertise,” and because it is thought best to allow the agency, rather than the reviewing court, to exercise the “discretion” to grant or deny an application. This floating zone case is to be judged by the same “substantial evidence” and “fairly debatable” standards as apply in zoning cases generally. 117 Md.App. at 639-40. The ultimate rule is that “[ajppellate courts, therefore, defer to zoning agencies because of their presumed expertise, and because zoning agencies - and not the courts -are better situated to exercise the discretion to grant or deny rezoning applications.” Colao v. Prince George’s County, 109 Md.App. 431, 458 (1996),citingFloyd v. County Council of P.G. Co., 55 Md.App. 246, 258 (1983). In this case, the decision of the County Commissioners is supported by substantial *11 evidence of record which is fairly debatable and premised upon a correct application of law. The Washington County Ordinance Scheme a. State Law The instant appeal involves the interrelationship between a floating zone, a planned unit development, and an adequate public James CREMINS, et al., Appellants, v. COUNTY..., 2004 WL 1958852... © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12 facilities ordinance duly enacted by a local government. That local government is the County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland, and its authority to enact legislation for floating zones, including a planned unit development, and an adequate public facilities ordinance is expressly provided in Section 10.01(a)(1),(6), and (8), Article 66B, Annotated Code of Maryland, as amended (1957, 2003 Repl. Vol.). (Apx. 1) The state statute, in pertinent part, states “[t]o encourage the preservation of natural resources or the provision of affordable housing and to facilitate orderly development and growth, a local jurisdiction that exercises authority granted by this article may enact, and is encouraged to enact, ordinances or laws providing for or requiring...(1) The planning, staging, or provision of adequate public facilities and affordable housing...(6) Planned unit developments... (8) Floating zones...” Id.(Id.) In enacting Section 10.01 the General Assembly explicitly recognized that local governments regulated under Article 66B could utilize an adequate public facilities ordinance, planned unit developments, and floating zones among their regulatory tools “[t]o encourage the preservation of natural resources...and to facilitate orderly development and growth.” Section 10.01 (a), Article 66B, Annotated Code of Maryland, as amended (1957, 2003 Repl. Vol.). (Apx. 1) Indeed, the General Assembly legislated that local governments were “encouraged to enact, ordinances or laws providing for” *12 adequate public facilities ordinances, planned unit developments, and floating zones. Id.9 Additionally, Section 4.01(c)(1), Article 66B, Annotated Code of Maryland, as amended (1957, 2003 Repl. Vol.), states as follow: (c)Construction of powers. - (1) On the zoning or rezoning of any land under this article, a local legislative body may impose any additional restrictions, conditions, or limitations that the local legislative body considers appropriate to preserve, improve, or protect the general character and design of: (i) The lands and improvements being zoned or rezoned; or (ii) The surrounding or adjacent lands and improvements. Section 4.01(c)(1), Article 66B (Emphasis added). (Apx. 1) In accordance with the State law, the County Commissioners of Washington County amended its Zoning Ordinance (hereafter “ZO”) to provide for the floating zone involved in this appeal, a Planned Unit Development Zone (hereinafter “PUD”), enacted an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (hereinafter “APFO”), and provided for the imposition of restrictions, conditions, or limitations at the time of zoning or rezoning. *13 b. Zoning Ordinance The ordinance regulatory scheme by which Washington County has chosen to provide the type of floating zone involved in this case, the PUD Zone, is found in Article 16 of the Washington County Zoning Ordinance.(Apx.2 -Apx. 9) Article 16 is entitled “‘PUD’ Planned Unit Development,” and Section 16.0, entitled “Purpose,” of Article 16, ZO, states as follow: The intent of these PUD regulations is to permit a greater degree of flexibility and more creativity in the design and development of residential areas than is possible under conventional zoning standards. The purpose is also to promote a more economical and efficient use of the land while providing for a harmonious variety of housing choices, a more varied level of community amenities, and the promotion of adequate open space and scenic attractiveness. The PUD is a floating zone that may be established in any of the Districts specified in Section 16.4. The change or mistake rule does not apply to the PUD process, but the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners, in the deliberation of a PUD application, shall establish findings of fact that consider, at a minimum, the purpose of the PUD District, the applicable policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan for the County, the compatibility of the proposed PUD with neighboring properties, and the effect of the PUD on community infrastructure. (Apx.2) James CREMINS, et al., Appellants, v. COUNTY..., 2004 WL 1958852... © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.13 Article 16 contains a detailed process for the review and approval of applications to rezone real property to the PUD Zone and to permit its development under development requirements set forth in that Article. That process is set forth in Section 16.5, entitled “Review and Approval Process.” The two introductory paragraphs to Section 16.5, ZO, state: Flexibility and site design is inherent in the PUD process. The Planning Commission may modify specific requirements and may establish other requirements deemed necessary to satisfy the purpose of this Article. The review and approval of PUDs is a multi-step process. Those *14 steps are: Concept Plan Review, Zoning Approval, Preliminary Development Plan Review and Approval, and Final Development Plan Review and Approval.Following zoning approval, the review and approval of the development plans may be combined when appropriate for smaller developments. (Emphasis added) (Apx.3) After the introductory paragraphs of Section 16.5, the Zoning Ordinance contains a subsection (a), entitled “Design and Development Schedule,” which states: It is the intent of this Ordinance that the PUD not be a speculative device. The Concept Plan as submitted by the applicant shall reflect the actual development to be designed and constructed within a reasonable time frame. Each phase of the design and development review process must occur within specified periods. If the applicant fails to submit his plans, or if construction does not commence, as specified by this Ordinance, the zoning of the site shall automatically revert to its previous classification. If the applicant abandons the plans for the PUD at any time prior to the start of construction before the automatic reversion date and desires to proceed with development permitted under the previous zoning, he may do so by submitting notification to the Planning Commission. Such notification shall constitute official withdrawal of the applicant’s plans for the PUD and shall permit reversion of the previous zoning classification without the necessity of the rezoning process. (Emphasis added) (Apx. 3 -Apx.4) The “multi-step process” is then laid out in five subsections in the “Design and Development Schedule” which itemize five successive different required approvals; four of which are plan approvals. The multi-step review and approval process begins with a “Concept Plan Review,” Section 16.5(a) l., ZO10 (Apx. 4), followed by “Zoning Approval,” which “constitutes tentative approval of density and design features as shown on the Concept Plan,” Section 16.5(a) 2., ZO (emphasis added). (Id.)Subsequently, within six months of the Zoning Approval, the “applicant” must submit a *15 “Preliminary Development Plan” which is subject to approval or disapproval by the Planning Commission within sixty days although the Commission may grant an extension of time “for good cause.” Section 16.5(a) 3., ZO. (Id.) Thereafter, within six months of approval of the Preliminary Development Plan the “applicant” must submit for approval or disapproval by the Planning Commission a “Final Development Plan.” Section 16.5(a) 4, ZO. (Id.) The Planning Commission may grant an extension of time to file the Final Development Plan “for good cause.” Id.Finally, within six months of approval of the Final Development Plan the “applicant” must file a “Site Plan” for the entire PUD, or any phase, for Planning Commission review. Section 16.5(a) 5, ZO. (Id.) The Planning Commission has authority to grant an extension of time to file the Site Plan. Id.The Zoning Ordinance states: “Each phase of the design and development review process must occur within specified periods. If the applicant fails to submit his plans, or if construction does not commence, as specified by this Ordinance, the zoning of the site shall automatically revert to its previous classification.” Section 16.5(a), ZO. (Apx. 4) Under the PUD Zone “[z]oning approval constitutes tentative approval of density and design features as shown on the Concept Plan.” Section 16.5(a) 2, ZO. (Apx.4) The “Final Development Plan” serves “as the master plan for all subsequent site plans and subdivision plats and is the official record of agreement between the developer, and Planning Commission for development of the tract.” Section 16.6(d), ZO. (Apx. 6 Apx.7) Subsection 16.6(d)2. requires that the Final Development Plan include, inter alia, “[s]pecific terms and conditions agreed to by the developer” which may include “[a]greements for responsibilities between County and developer for providing on-site and off-site improvements.”11 (Apx.7) As noted, within six months of approval of the *16 Final Development Plan the applicant must submit a Site Plan for the entire PUD, or a phase, and construction must begin within one year of Site Plan approval. Section 16.5(a) 5, ZO. (Apx. 4 - Apx. 5) In other words, development of the PUD cannot commence unless, and until, a Site Plan for the PUD, or a phase of it, has been approved by the Planning Commission. James CREMINS, et al., Appellants, v. COUNTY..., 2004 WL 1958852... © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.14 Further, as explained infra, the express language of the County’s APFO dovetails into the PUD Zone’s multi-step plan review and approval process. The APFO ties into the PUD’s Site Plan in that the requirements of the APFO for adequate public facilities must be met at the time the PUD Site Plan is approved. See Section 3.3, APFO. (Apx. 18) The provisions of Article 16 of the Zoning Ordinance are specific to the PUD Zone. The County’s Zoning Ordinance, however, has certain general provisions in Article 27, entitled “Amendments,” which apply to all rezoning applications. In particular, Section 27.4, entitled “Additional Conditions,” states as follow: The Board of County Commissioners upon the zoning or rezoning of any land or lands pursuant to the provisions of this Article, may impose such additional restrictions, conditions, or limitations as may be deemed appropriate to preserve, improve, or protect the general character and design of the lands and improvements being zoned and rezoned, or of the surrounding or adjacent lands and improvements, and may, upon the zoning or rezoning of any land or lands, retain or reserve the power and authority to approve or disapprove the design of buildings, construction, landscaping, or other improvements, alterations, and changes made or to be made on the subject land or lands to assure conformity with the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall be responsible for administering and enforcing any such conditions imposed by the Board of County Commissioners. Any violation of conditions imposed by the Board of County Commissioners shall be deemed a violation of this Ordinance. (Emphasis added) (Apx. 10) The provision in Section 27.4, ZO, to impose restrictions, conditions, or *17 limitations on the grant of a requested rezoning is very significant. This authority has been conferred on the County Commissioners by Section 4.01(c)(1), Article 66B, Annotated Code of Maryland, as amended (1957, 2003 Repl. Vol.). (Apx. 1) The power of the County Commissioners to impose restrictions, conditions, or limitations upon rezoning is part of the County’s land use regulatory process and double bolts the ability of the local government to tie-in the requirements of the APFO. Aside from the clear relationship between the PUD Zone and the APFO, the power to impose restrictions, conditions, or limitations upon rezoning is a component of the regulatory process of the local government’s authority and ability to coordinate development with the adequacy of public facilities. And, it is recalled that Zoning Approval in the PUD Zone “constitutes tentative approval of density and design features [for the PUD] as shown on the Concept Plan.” Section 16.5(a) 2., ZO. (Apx. 4) c. Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance In accordance with the General Assembly’s proviso in Section 10.01 of Article 66B to “encourage the preservation of natural resources...and to facilitate orderly development and growth” the County Commissioners of Washington County first enacted the Washington County APFO in 1990. It has amended that law on several occasions12 A fair reading of the APFO makes clear that it is intended to be read with, *18 and administered in conjunction with, the Zoning Ordinance. Section 1.2, entitled “Purpose,” of the APFO states: It is the purpose of the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County that public facilities and services needed to support new development shall be available concurrently with the impacts of such new developments.In meeting this purpose, public facility and service availability shall be deemed sufficient if the public facilities and services for new development are phased, or the new development is phased, so that the public facilities and those related services which are deemed necessary by the local government to operate the facilities necessitated by that new development, are available concurrently with the impacts of the new development.(Emphasis added). (Apx. 14) The “Purpose” section of the APFO is explicit in legislating a land use regulatory process by which public facilities and services must be “available concurrently”with the impact of “new development.” Section 1.2, APFO. (Apx.14) James CREMINS, et al., Appellants, v. COUNTY..., 2004 WL 1958852... © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.15 Undeniably, when the County Commissioners enacted the APFO the concurrency principle was a fundamental component of the land use regulatory process. The term “new development”as used in the APFO is important. It is a technical term with a defined meaning. Section 2.3.13 of the APFO defines “New Development” as follow: New development consists of new subdivisions and site plans for *19 new construction received for approval by the Washington County Planning Commission after the effective date of this Ordinance as set forth in Article XII. New development also consists of construction activity requiring a building and/or zoning permit but does not consist of construction activity for agricultural purposes provided that, after said development, the parcel does not lose the “Agricultural Use Assessment” classification as determined by the Department of Assessments and Taxation. (Emphasis added) (Apx. 16) The term “siteplan”is another important technical term with a defined meaning. Section 2.3.21 of the APFO defines a “Site Plan” as follow: A drawing which shows all of the existing conditions of a specified area (the site) and all of the improvements and changes proposed to be made on the site. A site plan is the drawing required by the Zoning Ordinance for all new development and certain additions and must contain all applicable information as specified in the Zoning Ordinance.(Emphasis added) (Apx.17) The references to “zoning permit” in Section 2.3.13 and “Zoning Ordinance” in Section 2.3.21 of the APFO undeniably establish the interrelationship between the APFO and the Zoning Ordinance. When the APFO defines “new development” by reference to “new...site plans” and “construction activity requiring a...zoning permit,” Section 2.3.13, and when it defines a “site plan” as the “site plan... required by the Zoning Ordinance for all new development,” Section 2.3.21, the APFO ties itself to the multi-step process in the Zoning Ordinance. The fact that the Zoning Ordinance may have been enacted first is of no legal consequence. As noted, a site plan is the final plan in the “multi-step process” in the PUD Zone. Section 16.5(a) 5. of Article 16 of the Zoning Ordinance provides: “Site Plan Review and Approval: Following approval of the Final Development Plan, the applicant shall submit a Site Plan within 6 months for the entire PUD or for any phase for Commission review and construction shall begin within 1 year of Site Plan Approval.” (Apx.4 - Apx.5) Article III of the APFO is entitled “Administration,” and Section 3.3, entitled “New *20 Development,” of that article states: This Ordinance applies to all new subdivisions and site plans for new construction received for preliminary approval, not to include preliminary consultations under the Subdivision Ordinance or Zoning Ordinance, by the Planning Commission after the effective date of this Ordinance, as set forth in Article XII. Except as provided in this Section or Section 3.513 of this Ordinance, all new development shall meet the requirements set forth in this Ordinance prior to final approval.Nothing in this Ordinance shall prevent the Planning Commission from approving portions of subdivisions or site plans of new development if the portions of the subdivision or site plan comply with the provisions of this Ordinance. If the Planning Director of the Washington County Planning Department determines that a site plan contains minor additions to existing development, the site plan is not subject to the requirements of this Ordinance. (Emphasis added) (Apx. 18) Section 3.3 of the APFO deals with the application of the APFO to “New Development.” As seen, the definition of “New Development” includes “site plans,” Section 2.3.13, which are defined in the APFO to be the “site plan... required by the Zoning Ordinance.” Section 2.3.21., APFO Administration of the APFO “applies to all new...site plans” and “all new development shall meet the requirements set forth in this Ordinance prior to final approval.” Section 3.3, APFO. Accordingly, the express language of the APFO plugs the adequacy of public facilities into the “multi-step process” of the PUD Zone. Pursuant to Section 3.3, APFO, at the time of the PUD Zone Site Plan approval the new development must comply with the requirements of the APFO. In other words, the Washington County ordinance scheme requires concurrent availability of adequate public facilities. See Section 1.2, APFO. (Apx. 14) James CREMINS, et al., Appellants, v. COUNTY..., 2004 WL 1958852... © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.16 The multi-step regulatory process created by the PUD Zone and the APFO dovetail and are intricately intertwined. This is a legally permissible relationship. Annapolis Market v. Parker, 369 Md. 689 (2002);*21 Steel v. Cape Corp., 111 Md.App. 1, 31-32 (1996). Given the County’s ordinance scheme, at the time of Zoning Approval for the PUD the County Commissioners knew that adequate public facilities had to be available at the time of Site Plan approval for the PUD, and it could take that knowledge into consideration when it approved the application for the PUD Zone. Indeed, the County Commissioners was not merely the body that granted the controverted zoning application, it was also the legislative body that enacted the ordinance scheme by which the PUD Zone and APFO regulate the land use process. As noted, the County Commissioners were fully authorized to enact both of those ordinances pursuant to express State law. Section 10.01(a)(1), (6), and (8), Article 66B, Annotated Code of Maryland, as amended (1957, 2003 Repl. Vol.). (Apx. 1) The two ordinances must be read together. Marsheck v. Board of Trustees, supra, 358 Md. at 403 (”...we bear in mind that our interpretation of the statute and the legislature’s intent must be examined by looking to the statutory scheme in its entirety rather than segmenting the statute and analyzing only its individual parties.”); Blitz v. Beth Isaac, 352 Md. 31, 40 (1998) (“Moreover, neither the words in the statute nor any portion of the statutory scheme should be read ‘so as to render the other, or any portion of it, meaningless, surplusage, superfluous, or nugatory.”’); Motor Vehicle Admin, v. Gaddy, 335 Md. 342, 346 (1994) (”...when a particular statute is part of a statutory scheme, the legislative intent must be discerned from the entire statute, and not from a single part in isolation.”); Comptroller v. Fairland, 136 Md.App. 452, 456 (2001)(Statutory “language must be read in congruence with the statutory scheme so that no part of the statute is rendered ‘meaningless, surplusage, superfluous, or nugatory.”’); Smack v. Dept. of Health, 134 Md.App. 412, 421(2000), aff’d 378 Md. 298 (2003) (“an appellate court attempts to divine legislative intent from the entire statutory scheme, as opposed to scrutinizing parts of the statute in isolation.”). The language used in the ordinance scheme is logical, and creates a multi-step process to regulate land use development. Quite simply, at the time of Zoning Approval *22 the County Commissioners could take into consideration the fact that under the County’s concurrent regulatory process, adequate public facilities for the PUD would be available. Response to Appellants’ Arguments The Appellants have raised four issues on appeal which are: (a) unsworn testimony was impermissibly received by the County Commissioners at its hearing, (b) the PUD rezoning should not have been approved because it was at a location which was adjacent to a roadway which was not adequate to support the proposed development, (c) the County Commissioners erred in failing to apply the “reasonably probable of fruition in the foreseeable future” test for considering public facilities, and (d) a remand of the rezoning application to the County Commissioners is not appropriate in the absence of substantial evidence of the adequacy of the adjacent roadway and compatibility.14 None of these arguments has any merit. Each of the foregoing issues are addressed as follow. a. Unsworn Testimony The first argument raised by the Appellants is that testimony presented by witnesses at the hearing conducted by the County Commissioners and Planning Commission should have been under oath. Brief of Appellants, pp. 4-9. They state that “[t]his appeal raises the question of whether witnesses should be sworn in piecemeal rezoning proceedings.” Id., p.4. In support of this argument the Appellants present certain propositions of law which have application to certain types of quasi-judicial proceedings and cite court decisions in support of those propositions. Id., pp.4-9. However, they have not cited a single case for the proposition that the legislative body with express zoning authority must hear only testimony under oath. The County Commissioners submit that the Appellants’ contention is not the law. *23 Significantly, in their brief the Appellants do not refer the Court to any part of the record in which the Appellants, or anyone else, objected at the hearing that unsworn testimony was being received.15 There is no such reference because no objection to the receipt of unsworn testimony or other evidence was raised by the Appellants, or anyone else, at the hearing. In this situation, the Appellants cannot be heard to complain about the proceeding. A party who knows, or should have known, that an administrative agency has committed error, and who, despite an opportunity to do so, fails to object in any James CREMINS, et al., Appellants, v. COUNTY..., 2004 WL 1958852... © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.17 way, or at any time, during the course of the administrative proceeding, may not raise an objection for the first time upon judicial review. Cicala v. Disability Review Bd., 288 Md. 254, 261-62 (1980). Indeed, if no objection has been raised in the proceeding before the agency, such will not be considered by the court upon judicial review. Brzowski v. Md. Home Improvement, 114 Md. App. 614, 637 (1997), reconsideration denied, cert, denied,346 Md. 238 (1997). The law of Maryland establishes that upon judicial review of an administrative decision, the issues that may be raised are limited to those that were raised before the agency. Rockville v. Woodmont C.C., 348 Md. 572, 582 n.3 (1998),citing, Insurance Commissioner v. Equitable, 339 Md. 596, 634 (1995). Because no objection was raised before the County Commissioners to the receipt of unsworn testimony, the Appellants are barred from raising that issue on appeal. Beyond the foregoing, the law of Maryland has long held that the touchstone of a government hearing is that the hearing be fair with notice and an opportunity to be heard. E.g., Bernstein v. Bd. of Education., 245 Md. 464, 473 (1967). Such hearings are “not bound by common law rules of evidence.” g. Rogers v. Radio Shack, 271 Md. 126, 129 (1974). Hearsay evidence is admissible, even in a contested case, and hearsay, if credible *24 and sufficiently probative, maybe the basis for the agency decision. MVA v. McDorman, 364 Md. 253, 262 (2001);Trovers v. Baltimore Police Dept., 115 Md.App. 395, 412 (1997). In Travers this Court stated that “administrative agencies are not constrained by technical rules of evidence,” 115 Md.App. at 411,and “the Court countenances the relaxation of evidentiary rules so long as they are not applied in an arbitrary or oppressive manner that deprives a party of his or her right to a fair hearing.” Id., at 412. In Widomski v. Chief of Police, 41 Md.App. 361, 378-79 (1979), this Court observed: “Yet, it is just as clearly established in Maryland that administrative bodies are not ordinarily bound by the strict rules of evidence of a law court.......Procedural due process in administrative law is recognized to be a matter of greater flexibility than that of strictly judicial proceedings, (citation) The concept of due process requires that we examine ‘the totality of the procedures afforded rather than the absence or presence of particularized factors.”’ In light of the foregoing, the County Commissioners asserts that there was no legal requirement that testimony, or any other evidence, be presented under oath at its hearing. The Appellants rely upon this Court’s recent decision in Heard v. Foxshire, 145 Md.App. 695 (2002), in which it is stated: “It is imperative that evidence given before an adjudicator/ body be under oath, whether from an attorney or lay person, a lay witness or an expert witness.” Id., at 707. First, the aforesaid statement from Heard has no application to the County Commissioners who are the legislative body empowered by the General Assembly to grant rezonings. Second, Heard does not correctly state the law of Maryland. The requirement for an oath appears to be a common law requirement applicable solely to judicial proceedings. See, 6 Wigmore, Evidence in Trials at Common Law (Chadbourn, ed., 1976) § 1816 (“The theory of the oath, in modern common law, may be termed a subjective one, in contrast to the earlier one, which may be termed *25 objective.”); 13 Halsbury’s Laws of England (2d ed., 1934) § 797, footnote (b) (“At common law there were various classes of persons who were incompetent as witnesses, e.g., parties to an action or their husbands and wives, persons interested in an action, infamous persons, and persons who had no religious belief...or had conscientious objectives to taking an oath.”). See also, Hourie v. State, 53 Md.App. 62, 64 (1982) (“Common law perjury was and is the giving of a false oath in a judicial proceeding in regard to a material matter.”). The hearing of the County Commissioners, however, was “not bound by common law rules of evidence,” Rogers v. Radio Shack, supra, 271 Md. at 129,and testimony, as well as all evidence, was not required to be under oath. b. Adjacent Roadway Adequacy The second argument raised by the Appellants is that Section 16.4(b) of the PUD Zone creates a “threshold consideration”, Brief of Appellants, p.9, which requires that a PUD’s adjacent roadway facilities be capable of serving the traffic to be generated by the PUD development at the time ofrezoning. The Appellants also assert that the Applicant’s case presentation did not address the requirement of Section 16.4(b). Id., p.10. James CREMINS, et al., Appellants, v. COUNTY..., 2004 WL 1958852... © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.18 The evidence of record clearly demonstrates that consideration of the adequacy of adjacent roadway facilities as contemplated by Section 16.4(b).02., ZO, was addressed by both County staff and the Applicant. Those facilities are the two public roads which border the PUD site, Maryland Route 60 (Leitersburg Pike) and Marsh Pike. The comments of the State Highway Administration were: “We have reviewed the re-zoning case for Rokane, LLC (formerly Emerald Point) and have no objection to approval with the stipulation that access be denied to MD 60. Access can be gained via Marsh Pike.” (Apx. 34) The restriction on access to Maryland Route 60 was acceptable for the PUD, and, as the State Highway Administration noted, access could be provided via Marsh Pike. Contrary to the Appellants’ assertion, the Applicant’s evidence addressed Section *26 16.4(b) of the PUD Zone and made this issue a fairly debatable one. Among other points, the Applicant’s engineer, Russ Townsley, explained that a traffic study that had been submitted to both the “County Engineer and State Highway” in support of the rezoning application. (E.52) Mr. Townley reported: “The study states that the existing system could be supported by the surrounding area network and the critical intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service with the full development of the PUD provided that some improvements are made.” (Id.) Additionally, the report submitted at the public hearing by the Applicant also demonstrated that there would be no adverse impact on the public road system. (E.75) The Court of Appeals has repeatedly held that reports of technical staff in connection with rezonings can be sufficient to make the facts of record “fairly debatable.” Montgomery v. Ed, of Co. Comm’rs, 263 Md. 1, 8 (1971);Yewell v. Board of Co. Comm’rs, 260 Md. 42, 49 (1970);Montgomery County v. Shiental, 249 Md. 194,199 (1968). The factual evidence before the County Commissioners as to the adequacy of the adjacent roadway facilities and the PUD was fairly debatable, and this Court should not substitute its judgment on that debatable issue. The Appellants argue that Section 16.4(b) is a locational requirement that at the time of rezoning requires that the affected real property must be “located adjacent to adequate roadway facilities capable of serving existing traffic and the future traffic generated by the uses in the PUD.” Section 16.4(b), ZO. (Apx 3) The argument is erroneous. A zoning ordinance could require that at the time of applying for rezoning or at the time of rezoning the affected real property had to meet a locational requirement.16 *27 Such a requirement, however, is not contained in the Washington County Zoning Ordinance. On this point, it must be remembered that the PUD Zone uses a multi-step plan approval process, and Section 16.4(b), ZO, cannot be read in isolation. The language of Section I6.4(b) contemplates the development of the PUD in the future. It expressly refers to “the future traffic.” (Apx. 3) Indeed, at the time the rezoning application is decided the ultimate development has not been determined and will not be determined until after the development plan approval process. This aspect of the multi-step process in the PUD Zone is readily apparent when its Section 16.7(i), titled “Traffic Circulation and Parking,” is taken into account. That section states: 1. Existing and planned streets and highways shall be of sufficient capacity to serve existing traffic and all new traffic when fully developed. 2. The capacity of existing streets and highways serving a PUD shall be considered by the Commission in determining density. Density resulting in traffic capacity being exceeded on streets and highways shall not be permitted. Section 16.7(i), ZO. (Apx. 9) Section 16.7(i) makes clear that “existing and planned streets and highways” and “existing streets and highways serving a PUD” must be considered in determining the PUD density. Section 16.4(b), ZO, cannot be read in isolation, and must be read in conjunction with Section 16.7(i), ZO. Marsheck v. Board of Trustee, supra; Blitz v. Beth Isaac, supra; Motor Vehicle Admin, v. Gaddy, supra; Comptroller v. Fairland, supra; Smack v. Dept. of Health, supra. When read in context, Section 16.4(b) does not require a demonstration that at the time of rezoning the adjacent roadway facilities must be *28 capable of serving “the future traffic generated by the uses in the PUD.”17 Appellants’ myopic construction of Section 16.4(b) ignores the ordinance scheme. Their position is contorted and strained in a fashion not supported by a reading of the Zoning Ordinance as a whole. It also fails to read the APFO in a consistent manner with the PUD Zone.18 In actuality, the process used in the Washington County PUD Zone is similar to that which this Court upheld in James CREMINS, et al., Appellants, v. COUNTY..., 2004 WL 1958852... © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.19 Montgomery Co. v. Gr. Colesville Ass’n, 70 Md.App. 374 (1987). In Gr. Colesville Ass ‘n the County Council for Montgomery County, sitting as a District Council, approved a rezoning to the P-D (“Planned development”) Zone. The critical issue involved needed improvements to the off-site intersection of two major roads. 70 Md.App. at 378. The Montgomery County P-D Zone utilized a development plan process and the applicant amended its development plan to provide for making the intersection improvements which the applicant, apparently, would fund through the *29 County’s CIP. Id., pp. 378-79. On this issue, this Court described the recommendation of the County’s hearing examiner thusly: The hearing examiner extensively reviewed the history of the application and found the project to be compatible with the PD zone. He, therefore, recommended its approval of the rezoning. Concerning capacity of the critical intersection to accommodate the traffic to be generated by the project, the hearing examiner concluded that the proposed improvements, when completed would render the intersection adequate. He further found that the improvements were reasonably probable of accomplishment within the foreseeable future.... Id., at 379 (Emphasis added). After the foregoing statement this Court quoted from the hearing examiner’s report and recommendation which, in pertinent part, stated: “Moreover, before any development can take place under an approved P-D Zone,the Planning Board must approve a site plan and will review extensively the impact of the proposed development on the community.” Id. (Emphasis added). See also Rouse-Fainvood v. Supervisor, supra, 138 Md. App. at 625-27 (Prince George’s County M-X-C (“Mixed Use Community”) Zone, multistep plan review process, actual development could not begin until planning commission approved post-rezoning final development plan). The Montgomery County P-D Zone process and the Prince George’s County M-X-C Zone process are very similar to the multi-step process used in Washington County. All require approval of a site plan or final development plan before any actual development. The Appellants’ argument on this point misses the mark. c. “Reasonably Probable of Fruition in the Foreseeable Future” Test Appellants’ third argument is that the County Commissioners erred in failing to require that the infrastructure necessary to support the PUD be existing or reasonably probable of fruition in the foreseeable future. See Brief of Appellants, p. 18. Relying on Montgomery Co. v. Gr. Colesville Ass ‘n, supra, the Appellants argue that the Commissioners were required to apply the “reasonably probable of fruition in the *30 foreseeable future” test to evaluate the availability of adequate public facilities and compatibility for the requested PUD. Id., pp. 19-21. The Appellants criticize the Commissioners, asserting that by “leaving the determination of compatibility for subsequent evaluation by the Planning Commission under the provisions of an adequate public facilities ordinance, the County Commissioners impermissibly delegated an essential rezoning function to an administrative body.” Id., p. 19. They also argue that the County Commissioners “does not have discretion to permit even the most willing developer to construct school facilities” and “[i]t is beyond the power of the Appellee to cause the necessary schools to be planned, funded, sequenced or constructed.” Id., p.20. The error in the Appellants’ argument is that the ordinance scheme in Washington County contains a multi-step process in the PUD Zone which involves progressive review and approval of development plans. Indeed, given the time deadlines by which a Preliminary Development Plan, Final Development Plan, and Site Plan must be filed, see, Section 16.5(a) 3., 4., and 5.,(Apx. 4), the Washington County process is much more time sensitive and definite than the “reasonably probable of fruition in the foreseeable future” test.19 Under the Washington County ordinance scheme the applicant, the public, and local authorities know when development plans must be filed for review and approval. In the absence of a comprehensive ordinance scheme such as that employed in Washington County the “reasonably probable of fruition in the foreseeable future” test *31 might be applicable.20 However, where the local legislative body has created an ordinance scheme by which a different test is utilized, the legislated test is applicable and controlling. Accordingly, the “reasonably probable of fruition in the foreseeable future” test does not apply to an application to rezone property to the Washington County PUD Zone. In effect, the Appellants seek to impose their own view of how PUDs are to be approved and developed. In fact and law, the James CREMINS, et al., Appellants, v. COUNTY..., 2004 WL 1958852... © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.20 County Commissioners have adopted a development process in Article 16 that does not mandate the scheme argued by the Appellants. The argument that the County Commissioners have “impermissibly delegated an essential rezoning function to an administrative body,” Brief of Appellants, p. 19, is not meritorious. This argument refers to the role of the Planning Commission in approving development plans under the Zoning Ordinance and, presumably, the tie-in of the APFO at the time of Site Plan review and approval. That ordinance scheme has been lawfully enacted by the local legislative body. Annapolis Market v. Parker, supra; Steel v. Cape Corp., supra. Further, with floating zones the Court of Appeals has long held that a zoning ordinance that provided for site plan approval by an administrative agency at which compatibility factors could be considered and decided was permissible. Bigenho v. Montgomery Comity, 248 Md. 386, 396 (1968)(At site plan approval a “building that would be detrimental to the surrounding area” - a compatibility factor - could be denied). The “site plan approval” considered in Bigenho was a planning board approval, not the zoning authority. In Bigenho the Court of Appeals expressly recognized that “special precautions” to ensure compatibility included the “requirement that a site plan be approved, and a provision for revocation of the classification if the specified restrictions are not complied with.” 248 Md. at 391. In *32 Mortimer v. Howard Research, 83 Md.App. 432, 436 (1990), this Court noted that under the Howard County New Town Zone no land could be developed unless a “Final Development Plan” “for the specific area is approved by the Planning Board.” Additionally, this Court’s review and analysis of the development plan approval process for the Montgomery County P-D Zone in Gr. Colesville Ass ‘n should lay to rest any question about plan approvals, particularly site plans, by a planning board/commission. The Montgomery County zoning ordinance provides that “[t]he Planning Board must approve, approve subject to modifications, or disapprove” site plans. Section 59-D-3.4(a), Chapter 59, Montgomery County Code 1994, as amended. There are three integral parts of adequate land planning which are: the master plan, zoning, and subdivision regulation. Board of County Comm’rs v. Caster, 285 Md. 233, 246 (1979);Richmarr v. American PCS, supra, 117 Md.App. at 645. Further, “the terms planning and zoning...are not synonymous. Zoning is concerned with the use of property but planning is broader in its concept.” Caster, id. The review and approval of development plans is part of the zoning process, and review and approval of such plans by an administrative agency, such as a planning board or commission, after rezoning approval is lawful. In the instant case, the multi-step process for plan approvals in the PUD Zone is proper and lawful. The Appellants’ argument that the County Commissioners did “not have discretion to permit even the most willing developer to construct school facilities” and that it was “beyond the power of the Appellee to cause the necessary schools to be planned, funded, sequenced or constructed”, Brief of Appellants, p.20, is without merit. A zoning authority such as the County Commissioners may consider the impact on public schools when considering an application to rezone property. E.g., Shapiro v. Montgomery Co. Council, 269 Md. 380, 387-88 (1973). Further, as previously noted, consideration of the adequacy of public facilities, through an adequate public facilities ordinance, at the time of rezoning is legally permissible. Annapolis Market v. Parker,*33 supra; Steel v. Cape Corp., supra. At footnote 7 on page 20 of their brief the Appellants state that the APFO has been amended since the decision of the lower court and that the amendment changes the APFO provision for analyzing the adequacy of school facilities. Brief of Appellants, p.20. It then is asserted that “[t]he applicant’s development proposal did not comply with the previous standard, and fails to meet the more rigorous standard recently enacted.” Id. Citing Co. Council v. Carl M. Freeman Assoc., 281 Md. 70 (1977);DalMaso v. Bd. of Co. Comm’rs, 264 Md. 691 (1972);Yorkdale v. Powell, 237 Md. 121 (1964); and F&B Dev. Corp. v. County Council, 22 Md.App. 488 (1974), the Appellants state “[t]he law in effect at the time of judicial review governs the outcome of this appeal.” Id. See, (1 Powell v. Calvert County, 368 Md. 400 (2002). The APFO was amended after the lower court’s decision to, inter alia, change the analysis by which a PUD’s projected pupil enrollment and school capacity is measured. As explained in Footnote 12, ante, after the lower court’s decision the Washington County APFO was amended twice with Revision 6, effective May 25, 2004, being the current version of that ordinance. As noted, on March 30, 2004, the County Commissioners adopted a Resolution which establishes a Transition Policy for the amendments to its APFO. (Apx. 36 - Apx. 37) The Resolution provides that amendments to the APFO do not apply to preliminary plats formally approved prior to July 1, 2003, and final plats formally approved prior to January 1, 2004, and that the Resolution applies retroactively to new development or proposed development on or after December 1, 1990. (Apx. 36). The amendments do, therefore, apply to all other new development. As to school facilities under the current APFO, there is a “preliminary consultation”, then “a preliminary plat review”, and, James CREMINS, et al., Appellants, v. COUNTY..., 2004 WL 1958852... © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.21 ultimately, it is formally applied at the time of “final plat approval.” Section 5.3.1, APFO. (Apx. 23) The consultations and application of the pupil enrollment and school capacity measurement occur after rezoning. Accordingly, the issue raised by the Appellants in their footnote is premature and not germane to this appeal. *34 d. Remand Finally, the Appellants argue that “[a] review of the record establishes that the applicant failed to adduce testimony and evidence, whether or not under oath, meeting the requirements for establishment of a floating zone. For that reason, remand is inappropriate.” Brief of Appellants, p.22. The Appellants further assert “[bjecause the applicant failed to meet its burdens of production and persuasion, the decision of the Board [sic]of [sic]County Commissioners should be reversed without remand.”Id. Their contention is not an argument that addresses the legality of the County Commissioners’ rezoning action. Rather, it is a contention addressed to a remedy should this Court invalidate the rezoning decision under review. That contention is meritless. For the reasons previously stated, the decision of the County Commissioners is supported by substantial evidence of record which is fairly debatable and premised upon a correct application of law. Accordingly, the Commissioners’ decision should be affirmed. In this situation remand is not a relevant consideration. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, the arguments presented by the Appellants are not meritorious in any respect. The decision of the County Commissioners to approve rezoning application Case No. RZ-02-008 is supported by substantial evidence of record which is fairly debatable and premised upon a correct application of law. Accordingly, the rezoning decision of the County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland, should be affirmed. *35 STATEMENT AS TO FONTS USED Pursuant to Rule 8-504(a)(8), this is to certify that we have used Times New Roman and CG Times fonts in this brief in various font sizes, and are 13 point or greater. Footnotes Zoning and Planning (4th Ed.Rev. 1994), as follow: “Modern zoning ordinances...strive to meet society’s curr development needs by providing greater flexibility in zoning patterns....A PUD is a particular type of zoni echnique used to obtain the level of flexibility needed to meet changing community needs.... In contrast to Euclide zoning, which divides a community into districts, and explicitly mandates certain uses...the PUD is an instrument and use control which... permits a mixture of land uses on the same tract.... Generally, it is a zoning technique t encompasses a variety of residential uses, and ancillary commercial, and...industrial uses.” Rouse-Fainvood Supervisor, 138 Md.App. 589, 623 (2001)(internal quotes and citations omitted), cert denied 365 Md. 475 (2001). (E.29-E.66) the record transmitted to the lower court. James CREMINS, et al., Appellants, v. COUNTY..., 2004 WL 1958852... © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.22 5 The adopted Findings of Fact were inadvertently not included in the Record, and are the subject of a motion to supplement the record which has been filed with this Court pursuant to Maryland Rule 8-414. pprove the requested rezoning. However, because the Findings of Fact are not reproduced in the Record Extract n is a copy in the Record, this brief does not quote from the Findings of Fact. See footnote 5. change in the existing zoning law itself, so far as the subject property is concerned.” Cadem v. Nanna, 243 Md. 536, 543 (1966). (Emphasis n added) put forward by the Appellants, affirmed the rezoning action. (E.106-E.118) The lower court’s decision is corre deserves serious consideration by this Court, and should be affirmed. (Apx. 38 - Apx. 39), effective July 1, 2004. This legislation enacted a Section 14.08 to Article 66B of the Annotated Code of Maryland which clarif the authority conferred by Section 10.01 of Article 66B on local legislatures to enact adequate public facilit laws. The new Section 14.08(D)(7) and (8)authorize the County Commissioners to determine the adequacy ublic facilities in areas affected by new development in the development plan review process and to enter in greements with developers for the payment of monetary compensation to address inadequacies in public facilities part of the development plan process. (Id.) This legislation merely clarifies the authority conferred by Secti 10.01, particularly as to the role of the adequate public facilities law in a local government’s development plan revi process. (Apx. 40 - Apx.41) subject of this appeal. (E.17) (E.105) t that time the operative version of the APFO was Revision 4, effective November 26, 2002. The lower cour hearing occurred on November 7, 2003, and its opinion and order was rendered on November 21, 2003. (E. 118) hat time the operative version of the APFO still was Revision 4. Subsequently, the APFO was amended tw pursuant to Revision 5, effective January 1, 2004, and Revision 6, effective May 25, 2004. The current version of APFO, Revision 6, is applicable to this appeal, Powell v. Calvert County, 368 Md. 400 (2002),Co. Council Carl M. Freeman Assoc., 281 Md. 70 (1977);Dal Maso v. Bd. of Co. Comm’rs, 264 Md. 691 (1972);Yorkd v. Powell, 237 Md. 121 (1964);F&B Dev. Corp. v. County Council, 22 Md.App. 488 (1974), and it is reproduced the Appendix to this Brief. (Apx. 11 - Apx. 30).On March 30, 2004, the County Commissioners adopted Resolution (Apx. 36 - Apx.37) which establishes a Transition Policy for amendments to its APFO because “cert procedural issues have arisen concerning its enactment and implementation”.(Apx. 36) The Resolution states t amendments to the APFO do not apply to a preliminary plat which was formally approved prior to July 1, 2003 a inal plats formally approved prior to July 1, 2004, and that it applies retroactively to new development or propos development commencing on or after December 1, 1990. (Apx. 36 - Apx. 37) County Commissioners. Rather, it contends that remand is not a proper disposition of this case, and that this co should reverse the rezoning approval. As explained infra., the Appellants’ contention is erroneous. James CREMINS, et al., Appellants, v. COUNTY..., 2004 WL 1958852... © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.23 Commissioners and Planning Commission stating “...many of you know in my profession as an attorney, I work with the Zoning Ordinance all the time. I have since 1973.” (Apx. 35) See, Section 59-C-7.12, Chapter 59, Montgomery County Code 1994, as amended. Subsection 59-C-7.121 is a mas plan requirement that states that “[n]o land can be classified in the planned development zone unless such land is....” and subsection 59-C-7.122 contains a minimum area requirement which states “[n]o land can be classified in lanned development zone unless the district council finds that the proposed development meets at least one of following criteria....” urther, the regulatory control exercised by the County Commissioners includes the ability to condition its rezoni approvals. See,Section 4.01(c)(1), Article 66B, Annotated Code of Maryland, as amended (1957, 2003 Re ol.) and Section 27.4, Washington County Zoning Ordinance. The Commissioners have exercised their authority condition rezoning in this case in that its decision requires that: “As specified under Zoning Ordinance secti 16.6(d)(2)ii, agreements for responsibility between County and developer for providing on-site and off-s improvements shall be developed as part of the Final Development Plan.” (E.105) See, Floyd v. County Coun ofP.G. Co., 55 Md.App. at 260 (“Where...the district council’s [rezoning] approval was granted subject to conditions, which addressed every substantial concern revealed in the record, this Court cannot hold that the counci approval of...rezoning was arbitrary or unlawful.”). Annapolis Market v. Parker, supra. That reliance is misplaced. The Annapolis Market case was decided upon the specific language contained in the Anne Arun ounty code pertaining to rezonings and the adequcy of public facilities. Washington County has a differ ordinance scheme, and, therefore, the court’s analysis of the Anne Arundel County code in Annapolis Market is n instructive in this case. Gr. Colesville Ass ‘n this Court quoted from the county’s hearing examiner who stated: “the present Development Plan [is] a much more stringent control over premature development than any test that attempts to measure wheth the improvements are ‘reasonably probable of fruition in the foreseeable future.’ The plan makes the improveme definite, explicit, and an essential prerequisite to development. Under the ‘reasonably probable’ test, a bad gu about future events could still lead to premature development. However, this situation cannot occur under the curr Development Plan because any uncertainty has been eliminated.” 70 Md.App. at 380. Trustees v. Baltimore County, 221 Md. 550, 570-71 (1960), may be an early explication of the test to use tho words. End of Document EXHIBIT E .....� .. GT 0 �. 00 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND Gregory I. Snook, President & Washington County Administration Building Paul L. Swartz, Vice -President 100 West Washington Street, Room 226 Bertrand L. Iseminger Hagerstown, Maryland 21740-4727 John L. Schnebly A Telephone: 240-313-2200 FAX: 240-313-2201 William J. Wivell �r 9 Deaf and Hard of Hearing call 7-1-1 for Maryland Relay YNYLAt� Mr. Mansoor Shaool 72 West Washington Street Hagerstown, MD 21742 Dear Mr. Shaool: November 26, 2002 RE: Rezoning Cases RZ-02-006 At the regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County on November 19, 2002, the referenced rezoning map amendment, RZ-02-006, was approved. A copy of the County Commissioners' minutes for that meeting are attached for your information. Sincerely, Joni L. Bittner, County Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND -jb cc:', obert Arch, Director, Planning & Community Development Timothy O'Rourke, Supervisor of Assessments Fox & Associates, Inc. attachment �XHIYIT �. RECYCLEDPAPER www.washco-md.net ņŇŲıńģIJ8ˎ ďě—ˎ mĊċmˎ ŋ/ĵijˎ ŝĻųˎ £ ˎ ȡˎ R"ˎ   ‰u *ˎļ ƾ(!ßˎ :ˎ "ˎŞƮ¸ƂǺ7àˎ ˎ ˎ %Xˎ Bȫˎ ŸˎTz0:ƫˎ\ 2Ž¹ˎ ƯŹwˎ+$ˎ   ˎɔˇ¯(ˎ)Œˎ /* O[WÂˎ Õ/Ùˎ ˎ 8 0 ,°ˎ 8ʡ2±ˎÖŚ8Úˎ . ʢǻIˎpˎ ɕɖ #ˎȬ ˎ 1SǼˎ D -ˎ$ˎvWǴƆˎE7ˎ R#ɷˎ ˎɽˎ 3D)ˎ Nɗ=ˎ#ˎ > u 'ˎ Uˎyˎo<ź eˎ`‡ƿ ǀ¿]áˎ=Kˎ?>ˎ ɾY=ˎ ǁ=ˎZ ˎ \ ɿˎ { ˎ HCˎ h1&+ˎ  ˎ ˍʯ²'&]ʀˎ=ɘ ˎ$=ˎY6ˎ >§5əˎ ˎ3JƖˎ ɚâˎ ƒCˎ Żz,LR;ǽc7ˎ Dˎi9ˎ ˎ {-ˎ w ˎ bˎ ãˎƒˎ )>ʁˎŽʂˎ %!ˎ !ˎ’DDCˎ Z' ˎ h# t9Btˎ Ơ^ˎ ^9 ˎ G@Ğˎ,ˎʃYˎ ɛƗ!7ˎ Ǿdˎ ”ʄưˎ ­CˎũɜRMˎ Ķibˎ /Â,ˎpʣ_"øˎŪ],ȭǂA LQˎ2hIùˎ ¤H Ȯˎ &,Cˎ Rˀˎ Ĥ ‡‰ ǃCˎ Ľ DŽɝ—ˎ T   ˎ RQˎ Y["äˎ  ˎ ʤˎ =ˎ h ʥˎ  ¾@ˎ)Eˎ !ˈ (ˎ ˎ8ŴklžklČĘˎ+bˎ Ʊˎ^' ˎ • Džˎ )µˎ/( 51xPˎ ×ğÛˎ Hˎ 8dž#Lˎ 8ʦ-<ˎ –88Üˎ LJɸˎ (ŒŽ åˎ º ȢɅʧ@ǿ7ˎ 6 úˎ            8>- ˎ ~A1˜ˎ nO"Ŷ/ 2|æˎ ɞ6Zʷˎ ˎ ‡ȯ&ˎśŵklēkžlĔçˎ Au + ˎBQˎ Ĵʻˎ Óˎ / Ɇ:Ljʅvèˎ ľȰTûˎ ˎ ƲȀUˎ )ˎ ¤X‹ ˁˎ $ ȁˎ xˎFˉˎ 3ˎ ʨǵCˎ !ɋ*=˂ˎ¬^ė&ˎ/>È<ʆ‘ɟˎ–/Ýˎ ˎ /!>5³45ɠ±ĈŌȂ ˎ ūˎ ¡6ȃ&Çˎ Ø/ĉōň~Þéˎ Ņ*üˎ ħʩ(<, ˎ fʇʈIˎ =Yʉˎ %ˎ o…lje(ˎ `ȩ ˎ$ ˎ Ƈ ˆµ»Iˎ żˎ Hˎ •eNJŷˎ Bˎ ŠNj šˎ £ˎX ˎ 7ˎ n &ˆ G 2ˎ Ŀȣnjȱ2êˎ I ˎ ƃ"ˎ ʸ-+ˊëˎ  ˎ # 3ˎ 3ˎ )ǍȲ;ȳ( ˎ )ˎ )ˎˎ?*+Jˎ ǎMˎˎ  *4ˎ Uˎ ˎ `ʪ "ˎ Ġ4ʊÀɡȴ7™ˎ ˎ:"ˎ «ˎ .Ƴ :Kˎ Gˎ J ˎ 'ˎ +ˎ&OʋC ýˎ Ŭ ʫ ²Qˎ Ãz }ˎ ŎP_Ɍ ˎ )ˎŏ¡ˎ ĨǏ +ɢǐq3ˎ şJˎ AF' ˎ )ˎ$ˎ ¥ʼn~ˎ 0NˎÍ ˎ4ˎ ɍFˎ ˎ(N4Äˎ 2ˎ Dˎ )LʼB1ʌ"ˎˎˎ>*,ʍǑʰǒw˃ˎ ȵˎ %ˎfa‹ˎ]ˎ©hȄ& 3ˎ Uˎ * IŽtˎ ɣ ˎ %õ gˎɹ@ǓƄȅƘˎ 5Fˎ6=žȆˎˋ Maˎ +ȶɤGˎ›ć›ˎÎˎ Šƴˎ ȇǔq Ô ˎ Ȉſˎ ÃɇʱǕþ  ˎ ˆ ˎơUǖSǗ ˎ O ˎ Dˎ ˎ1 ˎ  ˎ .<1ˎ ˎ $ˎ ɥɈʲ; ǘŠˎ ?ˎˎ ìˎ   ɦ;9ȷˎ rq;ȉ;ʎ íˎ # ˎ A 0<ˎ #&0ÆǙˎ ’:ˎ  ˎ ˎ ʹǚuǛˎ  Ȋ˜ˎ ,ˎ >ȧȨ5;=7ˎPǜȋ Š(îˎ(¾Ȍrˎ 2:ǝƈˎ #-™ˎ#ˎ ʏ¼¸ǞvˎƉ’ ˎ  ˎ  !ggˎ%ˎWE ˎ rˎ%ˎ¥Ŋĩÿˎ /Ɏȍ;Ɗ,Ȏˎ ɏ ȏ §ˎ 'Ƣˎ w$ˎ nȤɐɧƵȸɺǟʳˎ ŐȐXˎD!ˎ 4%ƙˎ ĥ“º˄ˎ €bˎő…ˎ:ON ˎF.ʐˎ ʑˎ ¨¨‘Fˎ Ìxb ˎ 4$ˎ ŭ*ȹˎķʺʒƶˎ ġɨˎj2ˎ Iɓʬˎ5ȑǠƋˎ)TȒ ˎ ʽd@ˎ ɩˎ ,ɪƚˎȓ½M ïˎ  ˎ ʴL'&ˎj[´ˎ ?ƣ*ˎ #ˎ . ˎ z 7ˎ Uˎ %ʭ ;Ⱥaˎ ʓ7@ˎ9 ˎ  4GĀˎ šKˎAGˎ ')ˎ ŒŮĪˎ • ǡ aˎ Ǣ½ˎ ­ˎ9ˎ ǣ ˎ  ]Åˎ ic$ˎˎ 3Ʒˎ ĐĜĚđˎ  ˎ ŸčĎmˎ `&Ee „6ˎ œt œˎŢƸ ˎ @ˎ [Ȕ“GÅɫ#4 ˎ B|ˎ $ˎ?ƌˎʔVˎKˎ ȕ#-(ˎ :]M-9H0' ˎ «ˎŔȖ#ˎ ¦+ˎ īË1ˎ Ǥ\ˎ%ˎ  A"ˎ#Nˎ ³+ˎ2ˎ 3$ˎ @ÉBǶˎ ɬ¿-7āˎ €%ˎ Ȼ{ˎ nȥV 06ˎ ŕȗƀȼˎ  #L  ˎ ÏŖ†¯>"ˎ Ģ*@Ðˎ ǥˎ.K S%ˎ + ˎ PGˎ Ƚˎ ˌM(ˎ  ( ˎ #_ƛˎ :Ȫ}ˎţYˎ AǷˎ ÄÀɭ=7ˎ Z ˎ <ɉS ˎ {ʕˎ ƒˎ ů!¹ˎ ĸ!j%ˎ /*ˎ ö ł.ˎ Ĭɻ4"ˎ 8 ǦI1ˎ 1 T"ˎ ɮˎ ŀ ˎ  2 (ˎ 6Ș&Ⱦˎ ”c+$ˎˎŃ .ˎ ¢ Æ"ˎ 8 H 9<ˎșǧ‚|ˎ X-ðˎ$ˎo†Xˎ  ñˎ Ñʖ"Ǩ´ˎ  ǩ3; ˎ0ˎ % ˎ Ț0ƍQˎ ,F9ˎ E aˎ r!'&ˎ iˎ  ˎ?5-ˎ WM0 ˎ-ˎ ,Ǝ_ˎ Pț ˎƜˎ-"ˎ cˎ ɯ'6ˎƤ'ˎ ˎ<ˎ * 0 ʗd†ˎ !ˎ Ȧʾƒˎ A ˎ 6ȜĂˎ Ł)ˎE!ʘ7ˎ „ ˎ^ʵˎ s2ˎ ˎ V$ˎ ʙ|ˎ Ɠʶȝ»ʚòˎ 3%ˎ ʿ;&O&ˎ ǪÇ"ˎ KO1 ˎăˎ ĒŸˎ‘  ˎ2ˎƏ_ĄÒˎ Ťˎ Qˎ sˎ Vˎ Eˎ ŗŰĭˎ 0ɼˎ mšęˎ ©i[Ȟ (ˎ É\ǫ ˎ ˎ}ˎ ťJˎ  ɑ ;<Ǭ4˅ˎ 'Dˎ +ƹˎ ؁¢ˎ.ˎ  Ƭ$B_ ƭˎ Á^ÁFZƝ ˎ Ŧˎ Ŝƅǭȿ.ˎ Į!Ëˎ S!ɰ0 ˎ ɀ#Eˎ ĺ9- .ˎ ` ·¶O ʛ"ˎ Ħ ȟLƞ(ˎV9gˎ 61C ˎ Ì%ˎ eH óˎ  j$'5  ôˎ# ˎ ɱˎ s N‰ ˎ ?ˎ %V-ˎ ˆˎ J5 „ˎ ʜˎ .ɊWȠˎ pˎ : ˎ .ʝƺˎ ¶ˎ Uˎ ˎ°  ˎ ƥˎ$ˎ ɲ 'vˎ oűįąˎ€%ˎ 6Ǯ ˎ SMTɒxˎ<ˎ Ʀ Fˎ4ˎ N Ɣˎ ĕĝĖ÷Êdˎ ř¦İˎ >[5  ˎ'ˎ& ¬ǯƐ+ǰ  ˎ BQˎ!È:Zˎ ƻˎ ʮƟɳˎ Ƨˎ . $'Afˎ5 @ˎ ªˎ ‚qɁɴ9yˎ$&ˎ dˎ ®ˎ  5ʞ%Gˎ T*‹*ˎ ƨˎ ˎ!+"œˎŧˎ 6 ªˎ 1¼ˎƁ… ˎ DZƑNgˎ %ˎ pP??ɵˎ ʟˎ Ʃcƪy"ˎ)ˎ Rʠ”ˎ 3Vˎ HjɂƼWfˎ W fˎ Ƀƕˎ 4ƽˎ Ǹ,‚\ˎ sŒL,ˎŨJˎ ·PHˎ ?ˎ ®J*ˎ  0Qˎ “ DzɄ(ˎ ǹ\ˎ y ˎ ˎ Ĺ!.Kˎ /ɶˎ P"ˎ  ˎ ˎ !ÊS ˎ?E'&ˎ3Kˎ 2dz#<ˎ !  1Ćˎ       . ........... . NOVEMBER 19, 2002 PAGE SEVEN The effect of the PUD on community infrastructure.' The Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) has taken on a supportive role that was previously the sole responsibility of this item in the Zoning Ordinance during the rezoning stage when considering the deliberation of PUD cases. Due to this change, it would appear that now the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners would only have to access infrastructure issues at the zoning stage that would appear to be highly unsolvable. The applicant has indicated.that he is fully aware of the APFO implications and is willing to assume the burden placed upon him. The Chief Engineer did not take exception'to the rezoning and responded to the application by stating that road adequacy and stormwater management requirement "can be adequately addressed through our normal site plan and subdivision processes.' Motion made by Commissioner Iseminger, seconded by Swartz, that there has been a convincing demonstration that the proposed rezoning from Agriculture (A) to Agricultural/Planned Unit Development (A/PUD) would be appropriate and logical for the subject property based on the uses that have been provided, the measures that have been taken to provide buffers between this property, adjacent single-family uses'; and adjacent agricultural uses, and the fact that the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance will play a role in infrastructure needs at final development plat approval. Motion carried with Commissioners Iseminger, Schnebly, and Swartz voting "AYE" and Commissioners Wivell and Snook voting "NO." Motion made by Commissioner Iseminger, seconded by Swartz, based upon the previous motions for rezoning case RZ-02-006 that the proposed rezoning from Agriculture (A) to Agricultural/Planned Unit Development (A/PUD) is granted, contingent upon all buffers being in•place and at the revised densities. Motion carried with Commissioners Iseminger, Swartz, and Schnebly voting "AYE" and Commissioners Wivell and Snook voting "NO." YOUTH OF THE MONTH AWARDS - OCTOBER 2002 Commissioner Iseminger presented a Certificate of Merit to Scott Stevens in recognition of his selection as the October 2062 Youth of the Month by the Washington County Community Partnership for Children & Families (WCCP). The Commissioners commended Scott for his leadership, academic and extra -curricular activities. Commissioner Iseminger stated that Scott would also receive a $50 savings bond from the WCCP. PROCLAMATION - NAPA RAYLOC DIVISION OF GENUINE PARTS COMPANY Commissioner Schnebly presented a proclamation to Dave Waters, General Manager, and Wayne Younkers, HR Director, at NAPA Rayloc Division of Genuine Parts Company in recognition of their contribution and dedication to the Hancock Volunteer Fire Company, the Hancock Volunteer Rescue Squad, and the citizens of Hancock and their fine, example of caring and community involvement. Jason Baer, President of the WCVFRA, stated that.he was impressed with NAPA Rayloc Division of Genuine Parts Company and its commitment to the Hancock community by allowing their employees to respond to fire and rescue calls during daytime employment. Mr. Baer presented a plaque to Mr. Waters and Mr. Younker from the WCVFRA. Members of the Hancock Volunteer Fire Company and Hancock Emergency Services were also present to support the recognition. Mr. Baer thanked the Board of County Commissioners for their work with the Association over the past four years. EMPLOY ECONONIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Motion made by Commissioner Schnebly, seconded by.•Iseminger, to employ Timothy Troxell as Director of the Economic Development Director (Grade IT) at the salary -of $68,500 to fill an existing vacancy. Unanimously approved. ADJOURNMENT Motion made by Commissioner Schnebly, seconded by Iseminger, to adjourn at 3:06 p.m. Unanimously approved. April 22, 2021 APR 2 6 i 2021 William and Joyce Allen Washington 11019 Shalom Lane Dept of Planning & County Hagerstown, MD 21742 Washington County Planning Commission 100 West Washington Street Hagerstown, MD 21740 Re: Proposed PUD Development Plan Adjacent to Black Rock Estates Ladies and Gentlemen of the Commission; As original residents of Black Rock Estates, we want to register our complaint concerning the revised PUD proposed by WashCo Development and Dan Ryan Builders. When we purchased our property and built our home in 1998-1999, we were given a number of assurances by Mansour Shaool/WashCo Homes, the developer. Those included the original preliminary PUD that was ultimately approved in 2004. We understood the nature of the plan and had no objections at that time. The original concept of Black Rock Estates was to be an upscale residential development, with all -brick homes of over 2500 sq. ft. The original PUD allowed for additional designs of approximately 550 single family homes and condos. We knew that from the start and never complained. This new PUD calls for almost double the number of residential units that include much smaller and cheaper design that would drastically overpopulate the area. We strenuously object to the expansion of the PUD to more than 1100 new units, as this will create a high -density housing development that directly contradicts the original development plan. This will result in an enormous increase in traffic and congestion, and will drastically impact the valuation of the existing development. It is obvious that the new plan includes many small condos, apartments and homes, in direct conflict with the original home design concepts of Black Rock. We also object to the change in the location of the community area behind Shalom Lane in the original PUD. The original plan would have provided a green buffer zone between the original housing and the new development. That was one of the assurances we were given when we purchased our property. The revised plan removes that buffer and places the new, lower value homes directly adjacent to the original homes. There has been a long-standing issue with the water supply to Black Rock, resulting in low pressure and reduced flow. Any new development must ensure that this condition is corrected. We object to any new development by Marsh Reaity/Shaool until the original Black Rock roads are completed. The roads in the original phase have never been completed with a finish laver of asphalt. Mansour Shaool personally assured us when we purchased our lot in 1998 that the roads would be finished after the first phase was complete. That was never done. Those roads are now severely deteriorated and getting worse. (See attached photo.) No new development should be allowed until the original commitment for existing roads is fulfilled. The new PUD will have a major impact on mature trees in several areas. Shaools have placed signs in the green area behind Shalom Lane warning against any disturbance to trees in the area. (See attached photo.) This restriction should be applied to any new development in the property. The proposed street behind Shalom will require removal of dozens of mature trees, causing drastic harm to the ecology of the area. All mature trees should be protected and preserved for the sake of the environment. Please consider our complaint along with that of our homeowner's association. The drastic expansion of the residential plan will severely impact the lives and property of all Black Rock Estates residents. As long-standing residents and taxpayers, we respectfully request that the new PUD be rejected and the original one left intact. Respectfully, / William Allen C�����.��. zz-� Joyce Allen Att 1: Photo of Exis ing Road Surface Att 2: Photo of Reforestation Project . . . .. . ...... 3i. UA \ �-jig M -F:. 42 -LJ ;Iahff -%; Eli- 4 EL -LA M 2M .!4- U. L Ike -in p ma, Kenneth and Angelita. Archer 20502 Tehrani Lane Hagerstown, MD. 21742 Washington County Planning Commission 100 W. Washington St., Suite 2600 Hagerstown, MD 21740 RE: Black Rock Planned Unit Development —Rezoning No. RZ-21-003 Dear Sirs: I wish to object to the proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) Rezoning No. RZ-21-003. I have many objections, including traffic issues, water supply issues, quality of life issues, and others. However, I would like to focus on traffic. When residents leave the proposed PUD each day, I believe that the destination for the majority of the residents of the PUD will be in the direction of Hagerstown, which would be west of the PUD. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, thus the shortest trip toward their destination would be west straight to the major roadway of Robinwood Drive. However, the developer states in its proposal that there is no way to route traffic out of the PUD west to Robinwood Drive because of private property in the path. The developer's solution is to instead route the traffic east through the PUD itself to either (1) Sasha Blvd., through the Black Rock Estates residential neighborhood, and onto Mt Aetna Rd.; or (2) east through the PUD itself using a yet to be developed internal "spine" road to the eastern -most end of the PUD and onto Mt. Aetna Rd. Thus, instead of traffic from the PUD flowing west out of the PUD, traffic will flow in the opposite direction east and then double back west. Is this good urban planning? I say no!!! This solution is not acceptable for quality -of -life reasons and for environmental reasons. Routing traffic through the existing neighborhood of Black Rock Estates using Sasha Blvd. will disrupt the lives of the residents and lower their property values. Additional traffic on Mt. Aetna Rd. will disrupt the lives and lower the property values for the people who live along it and the communities of Brightwood, Hampton, Greenwich, and others. Mt. Aetna. Rd. is a two lane, 35 mph road, used by bicyclists, joggers, walkers. There are bound to be fatalities. This development is not eco-friendly. The amount of additional carbon generated from the additional miles traveled by vehicles each day east through the PUD and then straight back west to their destinations in Hagerstown will be enormous. The developer estimates 8,000 vehicle trips per day. Let's say 6,000 of those are making the trip east then back west toward Hagerstown. That is an average distance of maybe 4 miles. Then, the vehicles must make the reverse trip home. So, 4 miles per trip x 6,000 trips x 2 trips per day = 48,000 miles per day. If each vehicle averages 20 miles per gallon that would be 2,400 gallons per day, or 876,000 gallons of gasoline per year. That equates to a tremendous volume of carbon dioxide released into our atmosphere. This doesn't even include the carbon released from all the service vehicles that will have to drive additional miles to get in and out of the PUD. In conclusion, I maintain that an efficient and eco-friendly traffic management solution must be found or the PUD should not go forward. The developer's solution to have vehicles driving in circles is not acceptable. I say the PUD proposal is not smart urban or environmental planning. The development should not be built. 9 Kenneth and Angelita Archer Date: 4/23/2021 RE: Rezoning Request RZ-21-003 From: Richard & Caren Babst 1886 Meridian Dr Hagerstown, MD 21742 240-818-1100 r.babst@myactv.net We oppose the proposed rezoning proposal RZ-21-003. First, such multi-family units and high density is out of character with the surrounding area along Mt Aetna Road. The existing surrounding area consists of single and semi-detached family units, a golf course, community park and farmland. We believe the quiet and peaceful atmosphere of this area would be degraded if multi-family and high-density residential buildings were allowed in this area. Second, we believe the 2-lane Mt Aetna road is not capable of adequately supporting the vehicle volume that the proposed number of units would create. According to the application for rezoning, Mt Aetna Road would be the main access to/from this development. On the 2.1 mile portion of Mt Aetna Road between Edgewood/Robinwood Dr and Whitehall Road, there are 11 residential neighborhood entrances/exits, the golf course, Elks club, community park, and about 35 driveways to individual houses. The intersection at Fair Meadows Blvd is located on a curve near the top of a hill with limited visibility. None of the current residential neighborhoods have controlled intersections with Mt Aetna road, and there are too many of these entrances/exits to make controlled intersections practical. If the number of units allowed by the proposed rezoning request were built, egress in and out of the existing residential neighborhoods, golf course, Elks club, community park, and many of the 35 individual driveways into the resulting heavy traffic would become extremely difficult and dangerous, especially crossing traffic to make left turns. On occasions especially during rush hour, it is already somewhat difficult to make a left turn onto Mt Aetna road from our neighborhood. We have frequently observed pedestrians crossing Mt Aetna Road at several locations. Additional vehicle traffic would add to the danger for these pedestrians. Further, many of the people that would reside in the new community would likely use Mt Aetna Road eastbound to get to (and from) I-70 east, Rt 40 east, Smithsburg and Boonsboro via Rt 66. It is the most direct route east, but east of Whitehall Road it is very narrow and curvy and hilly with many individual driveways and two small community entrances/exits and stretches with limited visibility at or near driveways. It is not designed for heavy traffic. While planners may designate alternative routes as their preferred routes for eastbound vehicles from the proposed new community, many people in the new neighborhood will likely opt for the most direct route. Any new residential units in the new community would likely add to the traffic on Mt Aetna Rd eastbound. Doubling the number of units as proposed would likely double that additional traffic on Mt Aetna Rd eastbound. From:r.babst@myactv.net To:Planning Email Subject:Comments to Rezoning Request RZ-21-003 Date:Friday, April 23, 2021 1:15:51 PM Attachments:Ltr to WCPC re New Development.docx 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. Comments are in the attachment Richard & Caren Babst 1886 Meridian Dr Hagerstown, MD 21742 240-818-1100 r.babst@myactv.net From:Linda To:Planning Email Subject:Development Black Rock Date:Tuesday, May 4, 2021 11:57:56 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. Good morning, I would like to express concern for the potential new development at Black Rock area. I am a home owner off of Mount Aetna Rd and enjoy the quiet and solace outside the city. This development will make home values sink for those of us who have lived here a while and will cause a traffic nightmare in addition to taking away space for walking and biking. Please reconsider and reject this plan. Rene and Linda Coto 11034 Parkwood Dr, Hagerstown, MD 21742 From:Bake , ill To:geo ge 6 gmail com c:Ecka d, De a Subject:RE: 114 unit development Date:Tuesday, May 11, 2021 : 1:14 AM Thank you for your comments. They will be included in the official record of the case and forwarded to the Planning Commission for their review and deliberation. -----Original Message----- From: fjgeorge96 gmail.com fjgeorge96 gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 4:17 AM To: Baker, Jill JBaker washco-md.net Subject: 1148 unit development 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. Good Morning Mr Baker, I am a concerned resident of the Hamptons on Mt Aetna Road. An addition of units of that magnitude will increase the volume of traffic and traffic accidents. Please bear in mind that Mt Aetna rad does not have the infrastructure to handle such traffic. My Aetna is a Country two-lane road which will be tremendously impacted by such an increase of approximately 8000 cars. The residents of the Hamptons will have difficulty leaving the Community to get on Mt Aetna especially with no traffic lights amid the increase. Please reconsider the size of such a development. The initially proposed 570 units would be the best option though it might increase traffic. Thanks for considering my input. Sent from my iPhone From:Bake , ill To:o n day c:Ecka d, De a Subject:RE: e Development on Mt Aetna Rd Date:Monday, May 10, 2021 :55:15 AM Thank you for your comments. They will be entered into the official record of the case and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for their review and deliberation. -----Original Message----- From: john day john.f.dayiii gmail.com Sent: Saturday, May 8, 2021 3:05 PM To: Baker, Jill JBaker washco-md.net Subject: New Development on Mt Aetna Rd 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, I am adamantly opposed to the rezoning of these properties. The impact on the rural nature of this side of Washington County will be devastating. Our local schools in these districts are already full during normal years and cannot handle the additional load. Our county is a rural county and we should protect our green spaces as much as possible. Increasing the housing in this area will lead to far more traffic congestion than this area can handle to include especially the intersection of Dual Highway and Robinwood Drive. Instead of developing these green spaces, maybe the county should look at refurbishing or replacing the already vacant structures that are in the county. Like The old Sears building that has been vacant for more than 30 years. Sincerely, John F Day III Beaver Creek, MD Sent from my iPhone From:Bake , ill To:te y cantne c:Ecka d, De a Subject:RE: Rock Planned nit Development Re oning o R 21 00 Date:Monday, May 10, 2021 :54:27 AM Thank you for your comments. They will be entered into the official records and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for their review and deliberation. From: terry.cantner <terry.cantner@myactv.net> Sent: Saturday, May 8, 2021 6:14 PM To: Baker, Jill <JBaker@washco-md.net> Subject: Rock Planned Unit Development -Rezoning No. RZ-21-003. 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. My name is Terry Cantner, I live on Parkwood Dr Off Mt Aetna road. I am writing in opposition to the above identified development zoning change. Adding that amount of traffic(8,000 vehicles daily) to Mt Aetna Rd is a terrible idea. Access to the county park on the opposite side of the road would become almost impossible from our development. Many residents walk their dogs in the park & children cross to use ball field. Additionally water pressure has declined since I moved here, I can't imagine the effect that many people would have. Our property values for these neighborhoods would certainly drop with the rental units. The intersection at Mt Aetna & Robinwood is not adequate for the traffic & access to i-70 in the opposite direction involves an unimproved stretch of Mt Aetna to the traffic roundabout of Md-66, hardly acceptable. I haven't even mentioned schools, emergency services, open space, etc. Please deny this rezoning request. Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device From:oe coleman To:Planning Email Subject:Re e ence t e inc ease esidential density in t e Black Rock P D Date:Tuesday, May 25, 2021 4:41: 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. Good Afternoon I am opposed to the rezoning of Black Rock Residential Planned Unit Development. I am a 20 year resident of Washington County, I am a home owner and I vote. The rezoning is not compatible with the existing neighborhood and will greatly impact the existing infrastructure. Many drivers use a short cut from Mt Aetna to Dual highway by using Fair Meadows Rd. It has become a speed way and would be even worse with this proposed rezoning. The posted limits of 25 MPH are not enforced with traffic zipping by at well over 35 MPH and young children playing in the front yards. Mt Aetna is not much better with posted limits of 35 MPH and cars and trucks going over 50. Enforcement is lax and with this proposed huge increase of traffic, I cannot see any better outcome. As far as the intersection between Mt Aetna road and White Hall road, only one of the four branches can handle any kind of traffic. That part of the county is a wonderful rural setting with either large farms or houses which are on multi acre plots of land. Packing hundreds and hundreds of homes suggested by the rezoning will totally change the character of that part of the county and I am opposed to it. Thanks for your time and consideration of my comments. Joe Coleman 467 Thames St Hagerstown MD 21740 From:a y Batey To:Planning Email Subject:Re oning ase o R 21 00 Date:Monday, Ap il 26, 2021 12: 7:2 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. We strongl o ect to the ro ose Re oning ase No. R 21 003. The current oning limit o 2.7 units er acre is alrea too ense. To increase this ensit oul have an a verse im act on neigh oring ro ert o ners . Thank ou Gar ate 20809 t. etna R agersto n 21742 From:a ol und at To:Planning Email Subject:Black Rock Date:ednesday, Ap il 21, 2021 12:05: 2 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. Hello. I am currently a resident of BAE next to black rock. We are totally opposed to the new rezoning request for the huge area by us. Mount Aetna simply cannot handle the traffic, which is already hellacious most days, and such a danger as people fly up and down the road. Emergency vehicles would be even longer to respond in that area, especially in our already taxed emergency response system. The water company cannot provide access to enough water to fight fires already in this area and the hydrants are mostly useless. Imagine a huge fire that isn’t controlled, could easily take out a large area of homes. The hospital itself is already pushed to the limits most days without another 40k residents. The local school system would have trouble. The residents that currently live here would likely face rezoning and be forced to either pay for private or homeschool our children, as we moved here to avoid south and north. We all know the sewage in this area is broken, as evidenced by the large amount of crews out weekly for the sewer pumps. Can they really handle even more volume of waste water? Please say NO Carol Kundrat Sent from my iPhone From:Mi damadi, De o a Ann To:Planning Email Subject:Dan Ryan Re oning nea Black Rock R 21 00 Date:ednesday, Ap il 21, 2021 1: 7:40 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. Dear Planning and Zoning Commission, I would also like to add to the concerns of the Black Rock Community since this will impact all of us off of Mount Aetna Road East, Edgewood and Robinwood Drives. It has always been my opinion that developers should pay for the additional toll on infrastructure and such that will be used. For years, Frederick County imposed an impact fee on every new home built that of course the builder passed onto the buyer. This was recommended to Washington County 20 years ago. In anticipation of any developments off of Mount Aetna Road East, Mount Aetna Road and the section of Edgewood Drive between Mt Aetna and Rt 40 should be upgraded to accommodate the extra traffic BEFORE there are twice as many cars using it to be blocked off to single lane while fixing it. This not only affects those already living in neighborhoods off Mount Aetna Road, those that will be moving in, access to Regional Park, access to Black Rock Golf, but also will delay traffic to Meritus, Urgent care and HCC. Utilities need to be extended and upgraded to handle the extra load IN anticipation of the need not after the fact. (Currently we cannot even get decent Internet out here due to Antietam’s monopoly and we are not in city limits.) The impact fee would also go towards schools and other services in preparation. After living here for 30 years, could we finally plan ahead for smooth transitions? Sincerely concerned, Deborah Mirdamadi 11300 Eastwood Drive Hagerstown, MD 21742 240-313-0880 Get Outlook for iOS From:Bake , ill To:Ecka d, De a Subject:: R 21 00 Black Rock P D Map omments Date:Monday, May , 2021 :17:25 AM Please add these to the existing comments for Black Rock. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Hart, Krista khart washco-md.net Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 8:07 AM To: Michelle Lane mleggieri.lane gmail.com Subject: RE: RZ-21-003 Black Rock PUD Map Comments Thank you for contacting the Board of County Commissioners; this response will serve as confirmation that your message has been received. Thank You, Krista l. Hart County Clerk 100 West Washington Street Suite 1101 Hagerstown, MD 21740 240.313.2204 www.washco-md.net -----Original Message----- From: Michelle Lane mleggieri.lane gmail.com Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 6:43 PM To: &County Commissioners contactcommissioners washco-md.net Subject: RZ-21-003 Black Rock PUD Map Comments 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. Good evening, My husband and I are writing with vehement opposition to the proposed change in zoning for the two parcels off of Mt. Aetna near Black Rock. There are numerous red flags that clearly indicate that this significant increase in proposed density and unit type is unacceptable for this area. The analysis of the school capacity, which is already very concerning, doesn’t take into account the planned development that is already occurring in Smithsburg (i.e., Cloverly and Mountain Shadows). We moved from the town of Smithsburg to the Mt. Aetna area last year because we were unhappy with the growth in the town of Smithsburg, but we wanted to remain in the school district. Adding 1150 units will surely result in redistricting that will negatively impact the existing communities. The roads in this area are absolutely not intended to support such high volume. Mt. Aetna from Whitehall to Rt. 66 is a narrow, winding farm road that already sees a lot of traffic and speeding vehicles that cut through from 70 to Robinwood. The active farm at the corner of Mt. Aetna and Whitehall Rd. routinely herds their cattle across Mt. Aetna. Townhouses and apartments are not the least bit in line with existing communities in this area. Comparing these parcels to the communities further down Robinwood that are surrounded by commercial properties is an apples to oranges comparison. The homes in this area are almost entirely single family homes and are on decent to fairly large sized lots. Building high density, cheap housing will significantly decrease the property values of the surrounding area and will do nothing to improve the Hagerstown area, which already struggles with poverty and drugs. We moved to Washington County from Frederick County eight years ago because the rural area appealed to us. Yet, Washington County seems to have an interest in developing every square inch of land available to the maximum extent possible. If this continues, there will be no reason to choose Washington County over Frederick County. As officials elected to represent for our best interests, we implore you and the planning/zoning commission to seriously consider the negative impact that this dramatic change in zoning would have on our schools, roads, utilities, emergency services, environment, and quality of life. Denying this unreasonable request is a no-brainer. Sincerely, Michelle and Adam Lane Hartle Dr. Hagerstown, MD 20341 Ayoub Lane Hagerstown, MD 21742 Washington County Department of Planning & Community Developmenr 100 West Washington Street Hagerstown, MD 21740 April 25, 2021 RE: PUD revision for Shaool Property on Mt. Aetna Road Dear Sirs: As a resident of Black Rock Estates who could be adversely impacted by the doubling of the number of housing units proposed for the PUD on the Shaool property adjacent to Black Rock Estates, I offer the following concerns and observations. The underlying zoning for this property is Residential Transition and described in the Zoning Ordinance as providing a "less dense" residential zone between urban and rural zoning designations. A PUD overlay for this property was approved in 2002. The zoning ordinance states that among other things a PUD should provide "open space and scenic attractiveness" and have "substantial amenities such as a swimming pool, community building, golf practice range, tennis courts". To comply with the intent of the underlying and overlay zoning shouldn't this proposal have? a. Buffering between the PUD and the abutting agriculture zoned farm land and the low density Black Rock Estates ? Note the 23 lots proposed where the Planning Department spot approved 7 pipe stem lots in Feb. of 2019 which in -turn replaced the "Active Recreation Area (Community Center, pool, tennis courts)" in the 2002 concept plan. This action removed the buffer afforded by the "Active Recreation Area" and removed the sole substantial amenity offered by the 2002 PUD. h. Amenities ? As noted above an "Active Recreation Area" is not in the submitted plan and the 4 "Tot Lots" in the 2002 PUD have also been deleted. It appears that this PUD will offer no amenities other than a field that is % the size of the original "Active Recreation Area" (with twice to population to be served). c. Scenic Attractiveness? All of the housing in this plan is continuous with few open areas between units or housing types. The design is linear and wooded area is concentrated with minimal impact on the layout of the housing units. To me there is no effort at scenic attractiveness and the layout looks like the definition of urban sprawl. It is my understanding that good planning will provide multiple access options to support emergency services to the residences. The 2002 PUD approval noted that there would be no access to Robinwood Drive via a by-pass of the Robinwood neighborhood as that road had been dropped from consideration by the County. It appears that past piece -meal development approvals have cut this property off from any access to Robinwood through the neighboring developments to the east. It also appears that the Bovey Lane access to Kiefer Funk Road in the 2002 PUD has been eliminated as there is no access point in the submitted design. It is also noted that there are 4 single access points (choke points — one street with no alternatives) in the submitted design resulting in 536 residential units with one choke point, 3S0 units with 2 choke points, 332 units with 3 choke points and 249 units with 4 choke points. I note that the proposal defines Sasha Blvd as a minor connector not adding both it and the other proposed access street connect to Mt. Aetna Road also a minor connector. I would point out that Sasha Blvd. as it exists in Black Rock Estates has no sidewalks and the storm water feature on the east side of the roadway is not protected by a guard rail. Further, the intersection with Mt. Aetna has no deceleration or bypass lanes to support traffic turning off of Mt. Aetna Road. It is concerning to read the 2002 file and the current submittals and see the references to solving adequacy concerns at some future date after substantial development has occurred (2002 PUD envisioned 3 phases with evaluations of adequacy prior to the start of the second and third phases). The piece meal approach to development in the past has diminished the developmental potential of this property limiting access points and not resolving issues with the regional water system (like looping the Robinwood line with the lines supporting the hospital). There is no reason that the conditions for developing the entire property can not be better defined prior to any development being authorized. The approval of the 7 lots in 2019 (with no public input) seems to be a prime example of the piece meal approach to development. It is my admittedly biased opinion that this plan does not meet the spirit of the zoning ordinances and that property will not support the proposed density of development due to road access and the inability of traffic to be funneled onto a major connector. Sincerely Andrew Hoffman Clint Wiley Chairman Washington County Planning Commission 100 West Washington St. Hagerstown, MD 21740 RE: RZ-21-003 Black Rock PUD Dear Chairman Wiley, April 30, 2021 1800 Londontowne Circle Hagerstown, MD 21740 Best wishes to you and your colleagues on the Washington County Planning Commission. i am writing to oppose the major change to the PUD for two reasons. First, the proposed change is NOT compatible with the existing neighborhood, much of which is farm land and single family residential neighborhoods. Second, the proposed change would adversely impact community infrastructure by: a) Overcrowding schools b) Exceeding current road capacities c) Constraining capacity of the current public water supply and pressure Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Mark Jameson Copies to: Jill Baker, Robert Goetz, David Kline, Dennis Reeder, Jeff Semler, Jeremiah Weddle From:Bake , ill To:illiam Mc ove n c:Ecka d, De a Subject:RE: Mount Aetna Rd Development Date:Monday, May 10, 2021 :5 :26 AM Thank you for your comments. They will be included in the official record of the case and forwarded to the Planning Commission for their review and deliberation. -----Original Message----- From: William McGovern bgmcgovern icloud.com Sent: Sunday, May 9, 2021 1:34 PM To: Baker, Jill JBaker washco-md.net Subject: Mount Aetna Rd Development 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 stand strongly in opposition to the proposed PUD off Mount Aetna Rd. The proposal doubles the density of the original approval. The roads, water and sewer infrastructure, and schools are not capable of handling this additional load. We already have water pressure problems in the area and this PUD, if approved, will only make it much worse I support the original proposal of 595 units. William L McGovern 20001 Boxwood Cir (Brightwood Acres East) Hagerstown, MD 21742 A Coronavirus-free message sent from my iPhone From:Mi damadi, De o a Ann To:Planning Email Subject:R 21 00 Black Rock P D Date:ednesday, Ap il 2 , 2021 2:5 :46 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. Dear Planning Commission, I would like to put in formal request that the developer must upgrade all infrastructure and such prior to building new homes in the undeveloped land of Black Rock and nearby off of Mount Aetna Road East. Few years back a home caught fire in Black Rock community and when the fire company went to use the hydrant there was not water to use properly. As result the home completely burned. Fortunately all the residents escaped safely. But this could have been much worse. If utilities, road widening and rebuilding ( to handle construction equipment in only one lane), access that does not go thru Sasha Lane, fund to help with load on schools and other services are required for developer to help with the burden, it will be smoother transition for everyone ( including mew residents of PUD) and less expense to you all. Impact fees in place like in Frederick would help with these such issues for future. Sincerely, Deborah Mirdamadi 11300 Eastwood Drive Hagerstown MD 21742 240-313-0880 Get Outlook for iOS From:is Leite To:Planning Email Subject:R 21 00 Date:Tuesday, Ap il 20, 2021 5:2 : 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. My home is a border property - 11304 Day Break Court - with this planned development. They are looking to place multiple tenant dwellings - townhomes specifically - directly behind my home. This development is going to drastically lower our water pressure and availability in the Robinwood / Mt Aetna area. It will increase traffic DRASTICALLY (this is about akin to adding 1 of the entire county population in a very small space, accessible only by two small roads, onto Mt. Aetna road? And I am incredibly concerned that this will lower the resale value of my home as an immediate result of the development being approved. The developers have been processing the property already as if they’ve already been approved. There are heavy machines, tractors and trucks behind my home daily for 12 hours straight. They were illegally burning (I called emergency services to ask if they’d notified of a burn multiple times), and they are more than doubling the initially expected units with this request. I’m not alone in my concerns. And approving this development is a bad idea for our community. Chris Leiter From:Pat ice allace To:Planning Email c:Dave i kman Subject:Black Rock Estates P D Divide lp Date:Tuesday, Ap il 27, 2021 10:50: 1 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. Good day, Attached please find where a Hagerstown emergency access through street was blocked off to separate the individual homes from the private development. This street is Altantic Drive in Hagerstown, MD, evidence that this problem is not unique. Thanks. Patrice Wallace BRE Homeowner From:p yo ot e s To:Planning Email Subject:Black Rock P D R 21 00 Date:T u sday, Ap il 2 , 2021 : 1:54 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 a farmer at 20653 Mt. Aetna Road. We have a pasture on the other side of the road. Everyday we have our cattle cross over the road to this pasture. With this many people living next door to us, we would never be able to have this pasture in use. I would like to see more single family homes built next to us not condominiums as planned. I attended the other meeting about this years ago, when condominiums were planned. I opposed it then and I oppose it now. Condominiums do not go with the landscape. Up and down Mt. Aetna Road are only single family homes. YOU need to keep it that way. From:Bake , ill To:Ecka d, De a Subject:: Re oning o Mt Aetna Re e ence R 21 00 Date:Monday, May , 2021 1: :12 PM Another Black Rock comment. Thanks. From: Laura Elmohandes <eastbvgirl@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 10:34 AM To: Baker, Jill <JBaker@washco-md.net> Subject: Fwd: Rezoning off Mt Aetna Reference RZ-21-003 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. May 2, 2021 To: Planning and Zoning Department of Washington County Dear Ms Baker et al; We are writing concerning the Dan Ryan development currently zoned for 595 units. They are vying to increase the approved amount of units to nearly double that. As a neighbor to that development we would like to present why it is ill-advised. We live in the back of Brightwood Acres East, a long-established neighborhood with a green-space behind. Not only is it currently undeveloped but it is the home to deer, wild turkeys, rabbits, and many birds. The underbrush & many trees there are a safe haven for these creatures that frequently amble into our yard. The birds, whose population has already decreased to a 1/3 of what it was in our country due to development just like this— they have no habitat in which to flourish. Furthermore, while we have had 20 years of sitting on our deck to enjoy the flora & fauna, the construction & then occupation of such a huge development will forever alter our peace & privacy. There will be noise of many occupants and light pollution from the many lights in their parking areas. While we understand the need for growth and development, we plead with you to keep the zoning as is to protect the natural state of our county to a degree. Even larger cities allow for natural spaces. Having this “wild area” behind us is one reason we settled in this house & this city. Please consider our plea & tell Dan Ryan they need to preserve the land so the natural denizens can also have their space. Thank you for your time. We write this in good faith in your judgement. Sincerely; Ali & Laura El-Mohandes https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6461/120 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nature-up-close-the-massive-decline-of-bird-populations/ From:Reede 61 To:Planning Email Subject:P oposed Development o Mt Aetna Date:ednesday, Ap il 2 , 2021 :24:00 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. This email is to notify you of our concerns AGAINST the proposed development off Mt Aetna Rd beyond Black Rock Estates. This proposed development of 1,148 units would greatly impact the amount of traffic by nearly 8,000 additional cars. The intersection at Mt Aetna and Robinwood can be atrocious in the morning with the current amount of housing units we already have off this road. Traffic backs up from the light at Robinwood medical center for the people going to work and the people attending Hagerstown community college. Many many accidents happen daily because of the congestion at that intersection. Another major factor is that this stretch of road consists of hills and blind spots for someone to pull in or out of the proposed development onto Mt Aetna. Many people in surrounding areas of this proposed development already have very low water pressure issues. One family living In Black Rock Estates has already had to purchased a tank for in the basement to help with the low water pressure issues. All of the Legitimate concerns listed above should be enough for the zoning board to say “NO” to the proposed development of 1,148 units. Sandy and Ted Reeder 502 Fair Meadows Blvd Hag Md 21740 From:cott lson To:Ecka d, De a Subject:Re: Black Rock Estates P D Date:Tuesday, Ap il 27, 2021 10:16:01 AM ttac me t :image001 png 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. Once other build is that most likely the addition of the proposed homes would necessitate redistricting as Greenbrier Elementary and Boonsboro MS/HS could not handle the additional students. The families living in Brightwood Acres may be forced to switch schools which would not be desirable. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Tuesday, April 27, 2021, 10:11 AM, Scott Olson sltkolson yahoo.com wrote: Thank you Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone n Tues a ril 27 2021 10 08 ckar e ra S. eckar ashco m .net rote Thank ou or our rom t res onse. ill make sure that our comments are ma e art o the recor . e ra S. ckar ministrative ssistant Washington ount e t. o lanning oning 100 W. Washington Street Suite 2600 agersto n 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** From: Scott lson sltkolson ahoo.com Sent: Tues a ril 27 2021 10 05 To: ckar e ra S. eckar ashco m .net Subject: Re lack Rock states U W RN NG This message originate rom an External Source. lease use ro er u gment an caution hen o ening attachments clicking links or res on ing to this email. n claims o eing a ount o icial or em lo ee shoul e isregar e . o not ish to s eak. as ust stating that as against the lack Rock states ra i e ansion. The increase tra ic on t. etna an Ro in oo oul e horri ic as Ro in oo is alrea e tremel us es eciall uring rush hours. With the recent hos ital e ansion our area cannot han le the a itional eman s that a communit o the ro ose si e coul han le. m sure the a itional ater an ire services nee e oul e ta e the a itional eman . est Regar s Scott lson 11203 ark oo r Sent rom ahoo ail or i hone n Tues a ril 27 2021 9 57 ckar e ra S. eckar ashco m .net rote We have receive our re uest to artici ate in the re oning u lic in ormation meeting or lack Rock states U on on a a 3 2021. We ill e sen ing ou oom meeting etails the a ternoon o ri a ril 30th . To clari the meeting artici ation orm ou ille out is our re uest to s eak uring the u lic meeting. ou o not ish to s eak uring the u lic meeting PLEASE let us kno 9 00 a.m. on ri a ril 30th. This meeting ill e streame on the ount ommissioner s ouTu e channel htt s . outu e.com channel U T 850W vge 6 n g an a link ill e oste rior to the start o the meeting on the ommissioner s ace ook as ell htt s . ace ook.com Washington ount . Social me ia comments are not monitore uring the meeting nor are the ormal recor comments. The recor ill remain o en a ter the meeting i ou ish to make ormal comments via mail or email. ue to the num er o eo le that have signe u to artici ate s eak uring the meeting e are asking that each erson PLEASE limit our comments to no more than 3 minutes. n revious ritten comments sent letter or email are rovi e to lanning ommission mem ers rior to the meeting are alrea inclu e in the recor or this re oning. The recor ill remain o en an ritten comments ill continue to e acce te via mail to Washington ount e t. o lanning oning 100 W. Washington Street Suite 2600 agersto n 21740 or via e mail to ask lanning ashco m .net ollo ing the u lic meeting. e ra S. ckar ministrative ssistant Washington ount e t. o lanning oning 100 W. Washington Street Suite 2600 agersto n 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** From:illiam t yke To:Planning Email Subject:Re oning ase o R 21 00 Date:iday, Ap il 2 , 2021 4:01:14 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. Mrs. Baker, I writing in regards to the case above, as a resident living directly across from this proposed development. I am sure you will have dozens of neighbors complaining that their property values will significantly drop with a development this large going in nearby, so I won’t even both you with that comment. My 3 main concerns over this development are as follows: 1. Safety/Traffic - 1148 units is more than the entire number of homes on or off of Mount Aetna Road. That is more homes that the developments of Black Rock, Brightwood East, Greenwich Park, and The Hamptons COMBINED. With the average home having 2 cars, that will mean close to 2500 ADDITIONAL cars on Mount Aetna Road every day. When you consider most of these residents will likely be working east of Hagerstown, in Baltimore, Washington or Frederick, that means half of that traffic will be going east on Mount Aetna Road towards Rt. 66 to catch Interstate 70 east. The section of Mount Aetna Road between Whitehall Road and Rt. 66 is very narrow, has no shoulder and contains one “S” turn and two blind hills. Is the county ready for the lawsuits that will follow due to that road not being widened? 2. Over a decade ago, a large development was proposed on this parcel and it was determined that the water pressure was already too low in Black Rock Estates to provide fire fighters to ability to safely address fires in that area. No upgrades to the water lines have been done, so there is still not adequate pressure to handle another 1148 units. 3. At my home at 20533 Mount Aetna Road, we have a blind hill just west of our driveway. At least once a week, we have a close call with a car speeding over that hill. If 2500 additional cars are added to that road per day, it’s only a matter of time before we are hit pulling out of the driveway. If the county is not prepared to cut the road down, to eliminate this blind hill, they would be liable if an accident occurs. Thank you for your time. Bill Stryker ultrastryk yahoo.com 11009 ark oo rive agersto n 21742 a 11 2021 s. ill aker irector Washington ount lanning ommission 100 W Washington Street Suite 2600 agersto n 21740 Re erencing R 21 003 ear s. aker Thank ou or the o ortunit or agersto n home o ners to s eak out against an R an Grou s RG re uest to ou le the ensit o their lanne Unit evelo ment U rom 505 resi ences to 1 148. Those o us ho care a out ho Washington ount han les its gro th are counting on ou an the lanning commission to make ecisions ase on hat is est or current and future resi ents. x The most visuall o vious concern is that t etna Roa Sasha lv an even Ro in oo rive are not a le to accommo ate the tremen ous increase in tra ic that ill take lace ith this evelo ment. x U ith the volume an t e o housing RG is lanning ill un ou ta l increase local crime rate in a count that alrea struggles ith rug use an crime. x The alrea stretche count school s stem ill e challenge in a manner that ill urther ecrease the cali er o e ucation stu ents receive making Washington ount a less esira le lace or amilies to resi e. x The ater an ire services hich are currentl over ta e the gro th that has ha ene in this area ill not e a le to kee u ith the a itional eman 1 000 ro erties. an R an sa s the are tr ing to make housing a or a le. The o this uil ing as man homes that the can s uee e in a given area that are i icult an e ensive or the home o ners to maintain. t oul e irres onsi le or the Washington ount lanning ommission an the ount ommissioners to allo RG to move or ar ith this e an e evelo ment. Gro th is inevita le ut ho it is manage nee s to e thought out ith care an eli eration thinking o the uture or eo le ho call Washington ount their home. Sincerel laine S ies From: Baker. ]ill To: Scott Powell Cc: Eckard, Debra S. Subject: RE: Dan Ryan building by Black Rock and Brightwood Date: Thursday, June 10, 20219:36:01 AM Attachments: inime001.onu irnaae003.1)no Thank you for your comments. They will be included in the official record of the case and forwarded to the Planning commission for their review and deliberation. From: Scott Powell <Scott.powell.vablyu@statefarm.com> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2021 8:56 AM To: Baker, Jill <JBaker@washco-md.net> Subject: Dan Ryan building by Black Rock and Brightwood II WARNINGI I 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. Good morning I would like to express my concern of the proposed development by Dan Ryan as I am a resident of Black Rock Estates and will unfortunately be out of town during the hearing. The current area will have a an extreme issue with over population and traffic, our roads can't handle it and it is hard enough to travel dual highway, Robinwood, etc. We currently have utility issues with water pressure, it would drastically get worse with the proposed development. I do not have children but many people move to these neighborhoods because they are Boonsboro school district and makes our neighborhoods that much more desirable. Having an influx of children based on the proposed plans would create a definite redistricting and could potentially remove us from those school districts thus lowering the desirability of our homes. Lastly, many people move to the area on Mt. Aetna in a neighborhood like Black Rock and Brightwood because we do not want to be in an area with apartments and townhouses, we move to that area for the peace and quiet of a smaller less traveled and dense population. Many of the current residence whom are quite happy with where they live currently will move if this expansion happens I feel, I am probably one of them and I have only been a resident of Black Rock for 2 years. Thank you for the consideration Para su conveniencia, ofrecemos los servicios de una traductora de espan"of, pero con una cita, tipicamente despues de las 4 de la tarde. Did / meet your expectations? Please leave us a review on goo(j(e Scott Powell Agent Bus: 240-420-2886 816 Virginia Avenue Hagerstown, MD 21740-6256 Get a ote Ls-UgQmLs—PacLe, My Ampun Maps & Directions The greatest compliment you can give is a referral. from: Baker. 'f To: Randy Rachor Cc: Rachel Stoops; Eckard, Debra S. Subject: RE: Proposed housing Date: Thursday, June 3, 2021 1:06:40 PM Thank you for your comments. They will be added to the official record of the case and forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and deliberation. From: Randy Rachor <rrachor@albrightcpa.com> Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 12:55 PM To: Baker, Jill <JBaker@washco-md.net> Cc: Rachel Stoops <r.stoops@oe-md.com> Subject: FW: Proposed housing 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. Having recently purchased a home at 11116 Parkwood Drive, I concur with Rachel and strongly urge Washington County consider the effects of this very large development, especially with the apartments and townhouses. Many adverse effects include increased traffic, congestion, school requirements, sewer infrastructure, anci the potential increase in crime as a result of rental units and the impact that will have on our police force (unfortunately this is a reality). As you proceed with Washington County's planned growth, please consider these results, and the consequence if many homeowners decide to move outside of Washington County to avoid such congestion and issues. I personally would much rather see single family homes than apartments and townhouses. Black Rock and Brightwood has always been a wonderful area all([ it will be a shame to see it change for the worst. Respectfully, Randy A. Rachor, CPA, CFP © . Partner .O&VFit Cni7t6ac,&r�4�(oula2'Iteg L-rC 1110 Professional Court, Suite 300 Hagerstown, Md 21740 301.739.5300 x1122 301.739.5332 office fax 240-500-3863 Randy's fax rrachor@albrigh-t-cpa.com From: Rachel Stoops <r.stao.oc-md.com> Date: June 3, 2021 at 11:35:58 AM EDT To: jbaker(c)iwashco-md net Subject: Proposed housing Good morning, I live at 20315 Park -wood Court in Hagerstown. I am extremely concerned and would like to protest the proposal for the Dan Ryan community that would be located behind Black Rock. There are multiple reasons why this community is not happy about that proposal; our grinder pumps have been systematically damaged already just fiom the current neighborhood and have been steadily replaced just this year. The best thing about this community is the peacefulness and that proposed community would unfortunately obliterate that. The added traffic alone especially with one of the main roads through Black Rock would add an extreme amount of congestion. In addition, the type of proposal with much less single-family homes and more apartments and townhouses is just not some thing that anyone is looking to have in their backyard when they have been used to farmland. Two houses were immediately listed for sale in Black Rock and I am concerned that it will severely diminish the value of our homes. Thank. you for your time and consideration, Rachel Stoops Rachel Stoops Managing Partner Office Environments P. 240.520.6101 0. 240.520.9030 F. 301.797.1877 From: Christol2her loyal To; Upker, J 11; F&kard. Debra S. Subject: RZ-21-003 Dan Ryan Group Date; Thursday, June 3, 2021 11:40:34 AM Ms. Baker, I am concerned with the level of rapid development in rural areas of Washington County, specifically the current project to add a number of high -end homes to Black Rock estates. The approval for 595 residences is concerning enough - the addition of another —450 homes will add too many residences and too much traffic to what amounts to two-lane cow paths. Mt. Aetna Road and White Hall Road will bear the brunt of this traffic, and those roads are largely narrow, two-lane roads with no shoulders. I wish the county would take the approach it has with other rural areas - limiting lot sizes to a few acres for high end homes - and focusing on entry level housing. With the types of jobs coming to the area - largely warehouse and logistics management - there is a supply shortage of affordable, reasonable, entry level homes. As boomers retire and move away, the current McMansions will end up unoccupied. As their value falls, so too will entry level housing, undercutting the largest investment an already challenged Millenial and GenX population will make. This is a "go for the quick bucks" move, and it's short-sighted. Large houses should be on large tracts, and more affordable rentals and initial purchases should be available for those first buyers. The county should shore up Hagerstown's downtown area or risk it becoming yet another bedroom community outside of Washington. When Frederick undertook its downtown rejuvenation, the surrounding area benefited immensely. It put the downtown first. Failing to bring quality of life to the county ahead of houses will only ensure that it is outcompeted. I bring to this the experience of someone who bought high in 2008. I moved into my renovated home just as Lehman Brothers crashed. My single family home was worth $205K, and the Black Rock homes were in the $400K range. The house I bought should have been there. Instead, I ended up underneath my mortgage in my new home with my old home's value gutted to $140K. We just sold it for less than the peak and paid an enormous amount of property tax, barely breaking even on renting it for 10+ years. This county needs to learn from the last real estate. bubble and crash. It needs to build responsibly and smartly. It needs to build infrastructure and businesses up before it brings in more people. And it needs to require larger parcels per home to keep population density in check. When it approves -new tracts like this, it undercuts the long-term efforts to put housing in Hagerstown. For this reason, this rural resident is urging you to hold off on Phase H of the effort to expand Black Rock estates, Sincerely, Christopher Joyal 22201 Pondsville Road Smithsburg, MD "You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today," Abraham Lincoln From: Dean -Pam Scott To: Baker. ill Cc: Eckard. Debra S.; ddDscott1972(u)aol.com Subject: RZ-21-003 Re: Dan Ryan Group's plan to construct 1148 residences behind Black Rock Estates. Date: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 8:35:56 PM Re: Dan Ryan Group's plan to construct 1148 residences behind Black Rock Estates. Dear Ms. Baker I want to express my concerns about the Dan Ryan Group's (DRG) proposal to nearly double the amount of residences from their earlier plans. I am retired and have lived in Brightwood Acres East for nearly four years. l previously lived through a multi -year drought before moving to Maryland. Adequate water and sewer supply and their infrastructures are paramount in consideration. Do not approve building over 500 more housing units than were planned for on the hope of no dry years or that promised infrastructure will be realized. Water pressure was inadequate when fighting an apartment fire in Robinwood. The BRP will be marketed as being close to 1-70 for commuters. Mt. Aetna Road between Black Rock Estates and the traffic circle on SR-66 is narrow and has many curves. There is no room for pedestrians or safe bicycle travel now and Mt. Aetna should be widened for safety. A third point of concern is the traffic flow and egress out of the proposed development. How wide are the roads in the development? (I almost bought a home in a new development in Boonsboro, until we drove through the neighborhood: the road was tight when cars parked on the street. See E Wing Way.) If I lived on Sasha Blvd I would feel that the county lowered the value of my property by the amount of traffic. I would like to see access to an additional road besides Mt. Aetna Road. I could not tell from the plan, but I did not see any or many residences that have accessible first floor master bedrooms and baths. Walking and biking trails would make this a more livable, likable space. Water availability should not be compromised. Thanks for your time. Sincerely, Pamela Scott 11110 Mahogany Drive Hagerstown, MD 21742 240-818-4155 10912 Sassan Lane Hagerstown, MD 21742 June 3, 2021 Jill Baker, Director Washington County Department of Planning & Community Development 100 West Washington Street Hagerstown, MD 21740 RE: Proposed PUD Revision Adjacent to Black Rock Estates Dear Ms. Baker: The density increase in the current PUD Concept Plan proposal is expected to generate an additional 8,109 vehicle trips per day. The current PUD Concept Plan proposal shows the only entrance and egress from the proposed PUD site as Mt. Aetna directly or via Sasha Boulevard connecting to Mt. Aetna. The entrance directly off of Mt. Aetna is located on the far east end of the proposed PUD site. The majority of the units in the current PUD Concept Plan are on the western side of the property, significantly closer to Sasha Boulevard. It is anticipated that Sasha Boulevard will be used as the main thoroughfare. Doubling the vehicle trips and placing the load on Sasha Boulevard through Black Rock Estates is unacceptable. Sasha Boulevard is a narrow two-lane road with heavy pedestrian traffic, has no sidewalks and the storm water feature on the east side of the roadway is not protected by a guard rail, suggesting that it was never intended for heavy vehicle traffic. An additional connection to another major roadway needs to be provided. Documented review of the PUD Revision by the Department of Planning on traffic Engineering: A second connection to another major roadway should be provided. Response from Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc: Anticipating this concern, the submitted Revised Master Plan does include two (2) Black Rock PUD April 16, 2021 Page 2 of 5 distinct points of access; 1) existing Mt. Aetna Rd, and 2) existing Sasha Boulevard. The proposed primary entrance is proposed to be a direct connection to Mt. Aetna Road and is designed to carry the bulk the community traffic via the spine road running throughout the property and a proposed boulevard -style section and round-abouts to maintain consistent traffic flows. The second access will be via the extension of existing Sasha Boulevard, Although Sasha Blvd has an existing 60' right-of-way and is designed to handle a more significant volume of traffic than it currently does, we have presently designed this as a secondary -type access with an indirect connection into the PUD to minimize impacts to existing Black Rock Estates community. Finally, various access points for potential future development to the undeveloped properties north and east of the site will be provided during the Preliminary engineering process for future connections. Engineering: Given the entrance design and the trip generation (8109 ADT) the road near the entrance will resemble a "Major Collector" which would carry a 300-foot access separation requirement under the highway plan. However, the concept includes single family dwellings with direct access through this section. Consideration should be given to limiting access along the main throughfare andfor provide traffic calmina to increase safety for vehicles and pedestrians. Response from Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc: The boulevard entrance off Mt. Aetna Road will have no homes fronting directly onto it. The main community spine rood will include traffic calmina such as mini-round-abouts and stop signs to slow traffic down as it travels from the western portion of the PUD to the main access. Finally, we believe that having direct driveway access onto the spine road, which is strictly internal to the community, will also help slow traffic down and make It comfortable for all modes of traffic. We will provide road sections during our Planning Commission presentation to Illustrate the nature of these roads. It Is clear from the responses by Morris & Ritchie that there is no regard for the impact to Sasha Boulevard, nor any thought given to creating an access off of Robinwood Drive, which is closer to the portion of the proposed PUD that will have the most units. They go at length to explain how the intricate network of round-abouts and stop signs will be calming and slow traffic down. Homes will not be facing the boulevard entrance, lessening the visual impact. Without conscious, Sasha Boulevard will be left to bear the brunt continuous traffic, noise and safety concerns. Clearly, the Proposed PUD Revision is a non -starter and should be sent back to the drawing board. Si cer IV,YU T Edward Strawther P.O. Box 672 Funkstown, MD 21734 M Jill Baker, Director ERy"��I Washington County Department of Planning & Community Development 100 West Washington Street JUN 0 8 2021 Hagerstown, MD 21740 Washington County June 4, 2021 Dept. of Planning & Zoning RE: PUD Revision for Shaool Property on Mt. Aetna Road Dear Ms. Baker: I would like to offer the following observations concerning the proposed increase in the number of units permitted to the Black Rock PUD. These are in support of a request that all issues now identified concerning the adequacy of facilities be addressed at this time and not at a later date. There is a record of the ball being dropped in enforcing County requirements with the following examples: The previous 2004 approval of the PUD specified a Community Center and a maximum of 595 residential units. The approval of the 7 lots in 2019 eliminated the community center shown in the original plan and effectively added seven residential units to the 595 approved by the County Commissioners in 2003. This was comp0leted as a"minor" change in the PUD without public input or informing the neighbors affected (within 1000' feet). Given there was not a replacement of the Community Center or a 7 unit reduction elsewhere in the PUD identified in that same action, it appears that the County changed the conditions of the PUD beyond its own authorizations and put the PUD in violation of the statute. 2. The original approval of the Black Rock Estates subdivision sections A & B required that a stormwater pond be constructed to County specifications and deeded to the County. As early as Feb. 7, 1995, County Engineer Terry McGee documented deficiencies in the stormwater pond and directed the developer to make corrections. Following this there are a string of annual letters from the County (Mark Stransky and others) requesting that deficiencies in the pond be corrected (repair sink holes, remove trees growing in the embankments, remove the dewatering devise). In'2004 the developer conveyed title to the pond to the HOA which, at that time was under his sole control. Following the conveyance, control of the HOA was passed from the developer to an elected Board of homeowners, but there was no mention of the pond's deficiencies in that transaction. It appears that in 2005 the County was advised that the developer no longer owned the pond and at the same time the HOA learned that it was now responsible for the corrections needed to make the pond acceptable to the County. Over the next 3 years the HOA corrected the deficiencies (removed 300 trees, excavated the sink holes, removed the dewatering device and had the work certified by engineers) with the expense born by the homeowners. The homeowners in Black Rock Estates don't want another situation created where development is allowed to proceed — as it was in this case — without the County forcing the developer to correct the issues at hand. The County has control of these issues and it is inappropriate for the expense and effort to fall to residents of a development because the requirements were not properly enforced. We see several references in the application that things "will be addressed as needed" but these issues need to be identified before development begins and requirements put in place as conditions of the development proceeding to avoid the effort and cost falling to parties other than the developer. There should be appropriate performance bonds posted at the outset of development to ensure compliance. 3. The original approval of the Black Rock Estates subdivision section C required that a public walkway and screening be constructed along Mt. Aetna Road. The walkway would be documented by an easement to be conveyed to the HOA. That easement was never conveyed to the HOA and instead was mistakenly deeded to the individual lot owners whose properties were crossed by the walkway. While the walkway is still physically present, the easement has effectively been nullified by being titled to the owners on the individual properties. The County did nothing to preserve the amenity that it had mandated. Given the HOA's experiences with the developer and the County, we would ask that County's requirements for the PUD be documented and enforced prior to development being allowed to proceed. Sincerely Black Rock Estates Homeowners Association Andrew Hoffman Secretary From: Kim To: Baker, it Cc: fckard.Debra S. Subject: Re: Dan Ryan project Date: Saturday, June 12, 2021 10:51:48 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. Please confirm receipt of my letter of concern. Thanks!l Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 8, 2021, at 10:18 AM, Kim <kim.reecher@gmail.com> wrote: >> Good mo►ming. I am writing to state my feelings about the 1,100 plus residential homes being proposed off Mt Aetna road. >> I have lived in BAE for over 25 years. I love it here. The volume of traffic that will increase is very upsetting not to mention all the other "issues" that are even more upsetting. We have sewer pumps due to sewer issues, we have okay water pressure (not the best). We have relatively low crime in our neighborhood/area for now but I am sure that will change if this many homes/apartments are approved. Please go back to the original approved proposal in the early 2000's with less than half households now being proposed. What about our schools? How are they going to be impacted???? >> Please, please don't approve this expansion. >> Kim Cushwa » Sent from my iPhone From: dlscally@)aol.com To: Planning Email Subject: Comments Against RZ-21-003 Date: Friday, June 11, 20219:18:29 PM Esteemed Planning Commission, While growth in Washington County is both desirable and beneficial, I believe the request by the Dan Ryan Group to increase its proposed development of the land adjacent to Brightwood Acres East and Black Rock a disaster waiting to happen. My home's back yard is less than one -hundred feet from Mount Aetna Road. On any given day, but especially weekends, cars and motorcycles race past our house on Mt. Aetna Road. I know what 35 MPH sounds like; there are plenty of law-abiding drivers. But, these "speeders" fly past at speeds of 50 to 60 MPH. The Washington County Sherriffs department occasionally posts a patrol vehicle near the entrance to Black Rock Golf course. And, I'm sure those deputies do their best to uphold the traffic laws. But, let's be realistic building 1,148 new residences is going to increase the number of "speeder" exponentially. Additionally, Sasha Boulevard is a straight 1/4 mile drive from Mt. Aetna Road to the proposed entrance to the DRG planned development. Sasha Boulevard is a residential road with a 25 MPH posted speed limit. Can you imagine what over 1,000 cars traveling on that road will be like? Really, we're talking about quality of life. How will this planned development impact the lives of the families that live near and/or along Sasha Boulevard and Mt. Aetna Road? Regards, Dan Scally From: Baker, Jill To: loan Bowers Cc Eckard, Debra S. Subject: RE: Dan Ryan development Date: Thursday, June 10, 2021 8:43:31 AM Thank you for your comments. They Nvill be included in the official record of the case and forwarded to the Planning Commission for their review and deliberation. -----Original Message ----- From: Joan Bowers <jfb1132 a aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 9, 20214:09 PM To: Baker, Jill <JBaker©,washco-md,net> Subject: Dan Ryan development 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. Jill, Please be advised that I am totally against the Dan Ryan development proposed off of My Aetna road, The development would impact our water pressure, school systems, traffic, electrical grids, I would like to request a copy of the study that proves to all residents that what is in place can support the new homes to be built. I am sure this should not be a problem to provide. Best Regards, Joan F Bowers Sent from my iPhone From: COLLEEN TOOTHMAN To: Plannina Emall Subject: Rezoning Case No RZ-21-003 Date: Thursday, June 10, 2021 3:22:46 PM Dear Members of the Washington Co. Planning Commission, My name is Colleen Toothman. My husband Ron and I have lived on Kieffer Funk Rd in Chewsville for almost 33 years, Kieffer Funk Rd parallels Mt Aetna Rd 1 mile to the north and is perpendicular to Whitehall Rd. These roads of which I just named were designed many years ago for rural farmland traffic. They are narrow, at some places too narrow for two cars to pass comfortably. They have sharp curves and hills where often you can't see oncoming traffic. And they are not well maintained. The design could be compared to a rollercoaster. During the time we've lived here we've seen an increased use of these roads of people using them as shortcuts from Jefferson( RT. 64), from RT 40 and also from RT 70. This week I approached the intersection of Whitehall and Mt Aetna and counted 11 cars at the 4 way stop. What this PUD is proposing is 1100 units, with a potential of a minimum of 2 vehicles per unit. That would potentially add 2200 vehicles to a road system that is barely adequate to handle the existing needs. Can you in good conscience even begin to think this proposed PUD is a viable option considering just the topic of traffic? It would be beyond dangerous and unconscionable. I am aware of the water pressure issue in the Black Rock development. Ron and I were told by Manny and Sasoon Shaool at least 20 years ago that their plan was to add a water tower at the crest of the hill in the development to help with the water problem. I have not seen that included in the proposed plan but I am sure that would be their solution. I know the current residents have many more concerns that are of great importance to them and I agree with them on every issue. Please take these concerns to heart when you make your decision concerning this project. Sincerely, Colleen Toothman From: Emeka Obidi To: Baker, Jill Cc: Eckard, Debra S. Subject: Protesting the plan to approve Dan Ryan to build 1,100 units behind Black Rock, Date: Monday, June 14, 2021 8:15:31 AM Dear Jill Baker, I am a resident of the Brightwood Acres East development and I am sending this email to protest the approval of Dan Ryan's request to build 1,100 units behind the Black Rock development. Approving this request will only serve to overburden our school system, increase traffic greatly to the area and potentially increase crime as well. Mr. Ryan's request to build 1,100 units of housing in our neighborhood should be denied. Sincerely, Chukwuemeka Obidi 11001 Palmwood Cir, Hagerstown, MD 21742 =================CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and any accompanying documents or attachments may contain confidential information and is intended only for the individual or entity to which they are addressed. IF you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from reading, disseminating, distributing or copying this communication. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy the original transmission. From: Maria Durelli To; Planning Email Subject: Planning Commission Public Information Meeting - June 14, 2021 Description RZ-21-003 - Morris & Ritchey Associates - Black Rock PUD Major Change Request Date: Wednesday, June 9, 20219:00:28 AM would appreciate just a moment of your time to express my extreme concern about the proposed inflated development of under PUD RZ-21-003 in the Black Rock Mount Aetna Area. Years ago, when most residents purchased in Black Rock Estates, they were led to believe by WashCo Development that the future development of this area would be made up of approximately 500 homes including community centers and other community amenities. It was our understanding that it would be an extension of Black Rock Estates constructed in the same fashion as the current Community With housing belly comparable to the current homes. Now, the plan has been inflated to almost 4 times that number. This not only Impacts utilities in the Black Rock Estates area (water is already a serious problem) but it will impact noise pollution, air pollution. emergency services, traffic congestion on Mt. Aetna and within Black Tock Estates, and the direct over population of our school districts. Not to mention the fact that the Black Rock area will be directly impacted by the types of homes that are planned for this development which are no longer intended to be similar to the current Black Rock homes -this has the potential of reducing property values in the area by connecting- the proposed development directly to Black Rock Estates. To think that the Commission can even go ahead with this is unconscionable! Respectfully, Maria and Andrew Durelli 20514 Tehrani L.n., Hagerstown, 'MD Sent from my Wad From; Kim To; Baker. Jill Cc: Eckard, Debra S. Subject: Dan Ryan project Date: Tuesday, June 8, 2021 10:18:44 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. > Good morning. I am writing to state my feelings about the 1,100 plus residential homes being proposed off Mt Aetna road. > I have lived in BAE for over 25 years. I love it here. The volume of traffic that will increase is very upsetting not to mention all the other "issues" that are even more upsetting. We have sewer pumps due to sewer issues, we have okay water pressure (not the best). We have relatively low crime in our neighborhood/area for now but I am sure that will change if this many homes/apartments are approved. Please go back to the original approved proposal in the early 2000's with less than half households now being proposed. What about our schools? How arc they going to be impacted???? > Please, please don't approve this expansion. > Kim Cushwa > Sent from my iPhone Washington County Planning Commission MNMD 100 West Washington Street Hagerstown, MD 21740 JUN 0 u mi June 3, 2021 Washington County Dept. of Planning & Zoning Re: Proposed PUD Development Adjacent to Black Rock Estates Ladies & Gentlemen: I am a resident of Black Rock Estates and am firmly opposed to the proposed PUD Development adjacent to Black Rock Estates. In addition to the concerns expressed in the March 15, 2021 letter to you of the Black Rock Homeowners Association, I submit the following; 1. The proposed PUD would completely overwhelm the sewage treatment facilities in the area. i believe the sewage lift facility located near my property is already near capacity. I do not know how many additional facilities would be required to handle the magnitude of the proposed PUD, or how they would be constructed, or if they would require a complete overhaul of the existing system, but in any event it would be extremely expensive and could impact the whole Mt. Aetna area. 2. Black Rock Estates already has a water supply and water pressure problem. I believe the magnitude of the proposed PUD would cause significant additional supply and pressure problems that would require significant additional facilities. 3. Mt. Aetna road is the only road into and out of the area. To handle the increased traffic from the proposed PUD would require up grades to Mt. Aetna road and the intersection with Robinwood Drive, or perhaps even an additional new road. 4. 1 believe the magnitude of the proposed PUD would significantly stress the fire, ambulance and police services, for the entire area, and might even require new additional facilities. This would also be impacted by the increased traffic on Mt. Aetna road. 5. The proposed PUD would be completely out of character with all the single family residential developments along Mt. Aetna road and would detract from all the single family home communities along Mt. Aetna road. Sincerely, Thomas K. Henderson 11020 Sani Lane From: Liz Duran To; Baker, ]III Eckard. Debra S. Subject: RZ-31-003 Date: Tuesday, June 8, 20216:59:15 AM WARNINGII 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 beg you to not to allow Dan Ryan homes to build near the Black Rock corrununity. This is a recipe for disaster with regard to our already congested commute as well as property values. We need well -planned, quality homes NOT more cheaply built junk like Dan Ryan builds. They build eye sores and this is the first step in creating ghettos. Our community deserves better! Please do not approve mass building. Our roads cannot handle itl Sincerely Elizabeth Duran Sent from my iPhone ROBERT and CAROLE STEPHENS 22203 Troy Lane Hagerstown, MD 21742 June 4,2021 Jill Baker Director Washington County Planning Commission 100 West Washington Street Suite 2600 Hagerstown, MD 21740 RE: RZ-21-003 Ms. Baker: Please accept this as a letter of opposition to the proposed expansion of the number of approved homes requested int he referenced application. Even with the current approval, we believe you will find unacceptable problems arising from the new homes. Among them will be those stated in the staff report. If the expanded number of homes proposed is approved the problems will expand exponentially. Among them will be the need to expand the water supply, sewage disposal systems, and education and other public facilities necessary to serve the large influx of new residents. Although many of these potential problems are mentioned in the staff report there are some that are not. Among them are increased congestion on Mt. Aetna Road moving from the proposed new development to the East on Mt. Aetna. This section of the road is a winding, narrow, country road with poor visibility in many places. Little space is readily available for any expansion of this road in the most dangerous parts. It would be unrealistic to expect that all the new traffic would head to Edgewood Lane and ultimately Dual Highway to leave the new community. Those headed toward 170 will soon decide to skip the congestion inevitable in using the Edgewood Road/Dual Highway access to 170. Rather, they will opt for Mt Aetna which will then lead to either a significant increase in traffic accidents or a need to widen the road to prevent said accidents. Another, less obvious problem will be the complaints the new neighbors will file after the wind shifts on a day when the adjacent farmers have applied liquid or solid manure to fertilize the fields. Although the state of Maryland may protect the farmers need to dispose of the waste and fertilize the land the new neighbors will likely disagree vehemently. We do understand the Dan Ryan company wants to provide new homes at a reasonable price but ultimately they are in business to make a profit. One need only look to the problems associated with uncontrolled growth in neighboring counties to see what will result if this revision to the proposed development is approved. With Concern, /fie S&A" Robert L. Stephens cc: Debra Eckard From; Sue Hull To; Pinning Email Subject: Amendment to sections 4.26 (Solar Energy Generating Systems ) oif the Washington county zoning ordinance Date: Friday, June 4, 2021 12:46:25 PM WARNINGH 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 concerned citizens and lifelong residents of this county we ask that you please adopt this amendment to the zoning ordinance because solar farms should not be built on prime agricultural land in rural areas. The proposed solar farm in the Cearfoss area should not happen as this area contains Prime Class 2 land. We should not be giving up any farm land to solar generating systems. There are other areas in our county better suited to their placement. Suzanne and Harry Hull From: cbric er To: Baker, Jill Cc: Eckard, Debra S.; ROBERT BRICKER; kristal brickee Subject: RZ-21-003 Date: Friday, June 4, 2021 11:53:09 AM 5 C4 I am not in favor of the requested PUD density increase by the Dan Ryan Group. A few of my concerns are traffic issues,school system overcrowding, increased crime, and the strain on public utilities. This type of urban sprawl is not needed. Respectfully, Chris Bricker 10613 White Hall Road Hagerstown, Md 21740 June 4, 2021 Planning Commission 100 West Washington Street, Suite 2600 Hagerstown, MD 21740 RE: RZ-21-003 - Morris & Ritchey Associates - Black Rock PUD Map Amendment Dear Planning Commissioners: First, thank you for considering public input on the proposed PUD Map Amendment for approximately 220 acres of land located off of Mt. Aetna Road. Based on the staff report and backup I would like to submit the following comments for review: Site Access: The Staff report correctly identifies access to the site to be a significant concern. Although the revised Master Plan provides a secondary access point via Sasha Boulevard, the surrounding community will undoubtedly feel the negative impacts of the proposed design with the level of density being requested. And although the proposed primary entry will be deigned to carry the bulk of the community traffic, the Commission is being asked to approve a major -revision without a full understanding on the impacts to Sasha Boulevard or the people who live in that neighborhood. Sasha Boulevard will lead to the core of the new development and this long and strait stretch of roadway will serve as fast shortcut to the community. Road design: The Engineering Comments addressing the geometric criteria for roadways and cul-de- sac configurations are a significant concern that may impact if the viability of the plan at the proposed density. When these roadways are expanded to meet Washington County standards, it is unclear what the impact will be to the overall design and if the level of density is appropriate. Further, the increased traffic on Mount Aetna Road is a real concern that cannot be fully understood at this time. Fire Protection: The applicant has not proved that potential water improvements will meet the APFO standards and allowing significant increase in density seems to be unwise. The Hagerstown Fire Department strongly recommends that further development does not occur as proposed. There is simply inadequate water necessary and existing neighborhoods are concerned about potential implications. Impact to Schools. This issue, by far, is the most important area of concern to the parents in existing neighborhoods, as it should be for the parents who may invest in the proposed community. The significant burden of this development of the school system and consequently on our children is untenable. Staff correctly held back on recommending approval of the proposed density increase largely because of the "heavy impact to school capacities in an area that doesn't seam to have a definitive solution either from a developer perspective or from a governmental capital perspective." This is particularly true for the elementary school -aged children. Placing a heavy, unnecessary burden on WCPS staff, students, and parents must be avoided. The impact on children from extended school closures over the past year have already hit our community hard. Overextending our education resources at this time when there is no feasible solution is irresponsible. With these concerns in mind, I respectfully request that the Commission deny the proposed PUD Map Amendment. Best regards, Christina & Alexander Martinkosky 20206 Mahogany Circle Hagerstown, MD 21742 From: John Bariga To: Baker, Jill; Pkinning Email Cc: gal1barTetk n myactv.neC Subject: BLACK ROCK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT -REZONING NO, RZ-21-003 Date: Sunday, May 30, 2021 11:50:46 AM 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. Dear Sir: My wife and I are writing today to voice our strenuous objections to the proposed rezoning, REZONING NO. RZ-21-003, The expected increase of traffic on Mount Aetna Road, Edgewood Drive, and Robinwood Drive will render everyday activities (shopping, commuting to work, & recreation) nearly impossible without prolonged delays. Additionally, the proposed changes will cause delays in the life saving efforts at Meritus Hospital. We already see the adverse effects of Meritus emergency and routine traffic on those three streets. The proposed changes will further slow routine and emergency traffic. Additionally, many residents in this area use the Washington County Regional Park. Theyjog and walk across Mount Aetna Road to exercise, play, walk dogs, etc. There is no crosswalk, nor do current vehicles obey the speed limits. The proposed PUD change request will negatively affect safety in the area and quality of life. We strongly urge you to deny this rezoning request, Respectfully, John & Gail Barrett 20308 Parkwood CT Hagerstown, MD 21742 301-991-5558 From: William McGovern To: Planning Email Subject: Mount Aetna Development Date: Friday, May 28, 2021 1:58:48 PM WARNING! 1 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 reiterate my strong opposition to the scope of this revised PUD. The infrastructure and schools cannot handle the number of units proposed. I support the original proposal for between 500-600 units. William L McGovern 20001 Boxwood Cir Hagerstown, MD 21742 Brightwood Acres Bast A Coronavirus-free message sent from my iPhone Reference the increase residential density in the Black Rock PUD. 25 May 2021 Planning and Zoning Director Jill Baker, Washington County Planning Commission Ma'am I am a 20 year resident of Washington County, I am a home owner and I vote. I am opposed to the rezoning of Black Rock Residential Planned Unit Development. The rezoning is not compatible with the existing neighborhood and will greatly impact the existing infrastructure. Many drivers use a short cut from Mt Aetna to Dual highway by using Fair Meadows Rd. It has become a speed way and would be even worse with this proposed rezoning. The posted limits of 25 MPH are not enforced with traffic zipping by at well over 35 MPH and young children playing in the front yards. Mt Aetna is not much better with posted limits of 35 MPH and cars and trucks going over 50. Enforcement is lax and with this proposed huge increase of traffic, I cannot see any better outcome. As far as the intersection between Mt Aetna road and White Hall road, only one of the four branches can handle any kind of traffic. That part of the county is a wonderful rural setting with either large farms or houses which are on multi acre plots of land. Packing hundreds and hundreds of homes suggested by the rezoning will totally change the character of that part of the county and I am opposed to it. Thanks for your time and consideration of my comments. 01-ca.— (— 'L Joe Coleman 467 Thames St Hagerstown MD 21740 Joe Coleman CRC Yahoo.corn MD MAY 2'17 Ml WVashinc;ton C"ounty Dept. of PWrining & Zoning From: Jim Herd To: Baker. Al Cc: Eckard, Debra S, Subject: Reference RZ-21-003 DRG 1148 residences off Mt Aetna Rd Date: Friday, May 28, 2021 11:09:07 AM Dear Ms. Baker I am a 28 year resident of Brightwood East off Mt Aetna Rd. and I wanted to share my concerns over this proposal to expand the DRG development (reference RZ-21-003 DRG 1148). The original approval of 595 residences will probably put 1200 additional cars onto Mt Aetna Rd. An increase of residences to 1148 will move that up to 2300 cars daily on that road. That's a lot. The section of Mt Aetna from Whitehall Rd east to Rt 66 is not a road adequate for more traffic. It is hilly windy and narrow. The section from Whitehall east to Robinwood Dr has been nicely upgraded sometime ago. If the traffic heads East to Robinwood that becomes the only way to access Rt 40 to travel to Rt 70. That intersection is already very busy and the additional strain will matte it a much more problematic intersection. Robinwood is the only access to Rt 40 that permits a left hand turn toward Rt 70 for miles in this area. The other routes of Mt Aetna and Day Rd. to Rt 40 force all traffic to go right and make a u turn to double back toward Rt 70. That has caused people to cheat and cut through the hotel parking lot to more easily execute a left at Day Rd. The car dealership using the hotel lot has blocked that activity but the demand to make that left turn has been demonstrated in the past and never addressed. So unless there is a plan to relieve the strain on the Robinwood Rd intersection by upgrading and changing the Day Rd and/or Mt Aetna intersections onto Rt 40 I would like to offer a strong objection to this expansion. Additionally all of these new cars traveling the easterly path to Rt 66 to then access Rt.70 will be impractical and I would predict will result in accidents. That road would be very hard to fix. Thanks for Your consideration I will try to make the meeting on the 7th. Blessings and Best Regards Jim Herd 20302 Parkwood Ct. Hagerstown, MD 21742 410 303 7866 From: Baker, if To; Richard Pulieri Cc; Eckard, Debra 5, Subject; RE: Black Rock PUD Date; Wednesday, June 2, 2021 10:11:55 AM Thank you for your comments. They will be added to the official record of the case and forwarded to the Planning Commission for their review and deliberation. Jill Baker From: Richard Pulieri <urstars@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 20219:56 AM To: Baker, Jill <lBaker@washco-md.net> Subject: Black Rock PUD 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. Jill Baker. Director We need to take a stand against this high density housing project. There are many reasons for this. First of all there is not enough water pressure to sustain this addition. During the big apartment fire a few years ago we lost all water pressure for the entire evening, nothing came out of the spigot. This happened again this year. I am not sure what caused it this last time, I assume another fire that pulled water away from our community. Secondly there are no sidewalks along Mt Aetna road. We already have had numerous pedestrians hit by motorists on Dual highway, without sidewalks this trend will extend to Mt Aetna road, especially if there are apartment buildings which would bring in people without transportation. Another issue is that there are no shoulders on Mt Aetna from White hall road to the circle at Route 66. A very dangerous situation with blind spots, hills, and increased traffic and possible pedestrians heading to the park + ride next to 1-70. Fourth is the increase in traffic, will we need stoplights to safely leave our neighborhoods and aid children crossing the road to the County park? The 5th reason is concern of overcrowding in our local schools, will they be able to provide a quality education. There is also the concern that if there are any low income housing units it will bring crime to an area that has very little. I know there is a push by the nation to mix low and high income neighbor hoods, but it only serves to drive down housing prices as residents flee. Low income housing should always be close to town where they can walk or take the bus. This mixing of low income has always failed and instead dragged everyone down. A perfect example is Pangborn park that everyone is afraid to go to now with all the crime right next to it. This is the land of opportunity and anyone in low income areas have the chance to better themselves and move away from these areas. Please help us stop this. Richard Pulled From: Jake Marquis To: Baker, Jill Cc: Ekprd. Debra S. Subject: Reference RZ-21-003 Date: Thursday, June 3, 2021 10:25:10 AM To Whom It May Concern, We are writing to express our concerns and opposition to the proposed building of 1,148 residences next to Black Rock Estates and Brightwood Acres East. If such a neighborhood of that size were to be constructed, it would cause a great impact to traffic, water, public safety, and schools. Local authorities are already short staffed and worn thin. Adding not only single family homes, but townhouses and apartments would greatly increase the number of people in a small condensed area. This would put even more stress on our local public safety personnel, not to mention the traffic on Mt. Aetna road would be horrific. There is a greater risk of traffic accidents, both with vehicles and pedestrians, domestics, thefts, etc... Also, it would change the demographics of our area and hurt our home values. Apartments built in Washington County are notorious for turning into Section 8 housing. This is not a slam to individuals who live in apartments or utilize Section 8. There are places and needs in different regions for them. However, Washington County tends to have many affordable options for living, that when apartments are constructed they turn into more government funded housing. Our family moved to BAE from the North End after Courtland Manor, supposedly a luxury neighborhood, turned into a predominantly Section 8 area. This caused higher crime by drugs, thefts, and break- ins to take place. It also caused a lot of people who loitered through the neighborhoods and on the street throughout the day and night, making it less safe for kids to play and ride their bikes. If Dan Ryan is granted permission to build, they should be solely required to fully fund and financially support the hiring of more public safety personnel. Currently our neighborhood is in the Boonsboro School District, and we believe our neighborhood should stay that way. Adding additional housing is going to add to a significant increase in Boonsboro and Smithsburg School numbers. This, when the teachers already struggle to maintain their current class size, is not a wise move for the public education system. If Dan Ryan has such a desire to build a neighborhood of this magnitude, they should build a local elementary, middle, and high school. Also, they should aid in the recruiting and salaries of the necessary staff to run these facilities. The schools should be built first, before the development gets underway. Another option, is they could provide vouchers to current Boonsboro and Smithsburg families living in that school district and impacted by their development. These vouchers would give fully funded tuition to the private school of the families choice. There are many other concerns we have, but understand others will be expressing them. Please know we are very much opposed to this development, and would be more than happy to speak at a public hearing on the matter. Sincerely, Jacob and Sarah Marquis From: rhhensuri To: Eckard, Deb - Subject: Fwd: RE: Black Rock New Housing Development Date: Thursday, June 3, 2021 12:21:28 PM RE: RZ-21-003 Forwarded message From: rhhenson <rhhenson@myactv.net> To: "JBaker" <3Baker@washco-md.net> Cc: "deckard"<deckard@washco-md.net> Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2021 12:17:02 -0400 Subject: RE: Black Rock New Housing Development _____------= Forwarded message To Whom It May Concern: We have been residents of the Brightwood Acres East development for 30 years. The reason we chose this area for our home was its proximity to town in a beautiful rural setting. If Dan Ryan's plan to add 1,148 more residences off Mt. Aetna Road goes through, this will cause a negative impact on this area. Local school systems won't be able to absorb the additional students. The roads will be more congested - the intersection at Dual Highway and Edgewood is already overcapacity at times during the day due to the nearby Meritus Medical Center/Robinwood Professional Center. Additional traffic will force more cars to travel the unsafe narrow back roads to get to Interstate 70 via Route 66. The public water system will require a major upgrade due to water pressure problems in this area. By almost doubling the number of proposed units, it seems like Dan Ryan has no regard for the tranquility of the area and only wishes to add more money to its coffers. Please give this project careful consideration and help us to preserve our peaceful country atmosphere. Richard and Gwen Henson 11320 Eastwood Drive Hagerstown, MD 21742 June 3, 2021 Ms. Jill Baker, Director Washington County Planning Commission 100 W. Washington Street, Suite 2600 Hagerstown, MD 21740 Re: Proposed additional construction Black Rock Estates Hello Ms. Baker: As a resident of the Brightwood Acres East subdivision, I was surprised to discover that there is an addendum being proposed of 553 additional residences (which includes townhouses and apartments) to the already existing approved 595 units behind the Black Rock Estates/ Brightwood Acres East and the residences off of Robinwood Drive. Having witnessed firsthand areas where Dan Ryan properties had been developed In excessive and poor planned communities, it created after a few short years; additional crime, drug use and lower property value for the surrounding areas. As a mother with 4 girls at home, we had moved specifically to this area for its low crime, school systems and well - planned traffic and neighborhoods. Bringing in these additional units, will literally disrupt the existing housing and area, (we have an access road from the Potomac Edison relay station behind our home, that occasionally strangers will use to walk through our backyard and down our driveway to access our subdivision), it would increase trespassing & crime 10- fold coming from these additional units, Also, it will bloat the community services (rescue, police, utility, etc.) since apartments in an already congested area usually brings in transitional tenants (having managed apartment buildings in the past) and the issues that it brings with It. My family who work in the medical and paramedic fields, have attested to Increased drug overdoses/injuries & death from the apartments already existing on Robinwood. Additionally, the strain on the public water will create utility interruptions, and our water pressure is already compromised from time to time. As the director for the planning commission of Washington County, I am sure you recognize the severity of allowing these additional units to be approved. The initial 595 units in themselves will be a burden to our roads, etc; considering that a minimum of 2 occupants per unit (1,190 residents) to that small area will off -balance Mt. Aetna Road and you will have many professional and contributing citizens moving out, leaving a vacuum in their services affecting the entire community that you had accepted and are paid to protect. Also, having an access road to this subdivision by way of Sasha Blvd is both ill-conceived and dangerous to the pre-existing residents and their families. Ms. Baker, I truly hope as a concerned citizen of Maryland that you will take these obvious issues seriously and recognize the dire situation that it will create for our community. I am looking forward to the meeting on June 71h along with many others In our area. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, w---. A'e Nceginato -- Brigh wood Acres East Resident From: Baker. J111 To: Rachel Stoops Cc: Eckard, Debra S. Subject: RE: Proposed housing Date: Thursday, June 3, 2021 1:15:54 PM Thank you for your comments. They will be included as part of the official record for the case file and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for their review and deliberation. -----Original Message ----- From: Rachel Stoops <r.stoops@oe-md.com> Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 11:36 AM To: Baker, Jill <JBaker@washco-md.net> Subject: Proposed housing 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. Good morning, I live at 20315 Parkwood Court in Hagerstown. I am extremely concerned and would like to protest the proposal for the Dan Ryan community that would be located behind Black Rock. There are multiple reasons why this community is not happy about that proposal; our grinder pumps have been systematically damaged already just from the current neighborhood and have been steadily replaced just this year. The best thing about this community is the peacefulness and that proposed community would unfortunately obliterate that. The added traffic alone especially with one of the main roads through Black Rock would add an extreme amount of congestion. In addition, the type of proposal with much less single-family homes and more apartments and townhouses is just not some thing that anyone is looking to have in their backyard when they have been used to farmland. Two houses were immediately listed for sale in Black Rock and I am concerned that it will severely diminish the value of our homes. Thank you for your time and consideration, Rachel Stoops Rachel Stoops Managing Partner Office Environments P. 240.520.6101 0.240.520.9030 F. 301.797.1877 Blacl<Rocl(TestimonyBrubaker. docx/wd TESTIMONY Martin E. Brubaker 10925 Hartle Drive Hagerstown MD 21742 June 14, 2021 Washington County Planning Commission, RZ-21-0043, Black Rock PUD INTRODUCTION As some of you know, I have been involved in local government planning, budget, and finance for over 50 years; as a professional staffer and subsequently in appointed and elected positions; in local governments ranging from the very largest and most complex to what I prefer to call the more right -sized jurisdictions to be found here in Washington County. I have resided on the next ridge to the east of this proposed development, about one mile away as the crow flies, for over four years and thus have much day-to-day experience with local conditions. I am testifying as a private resident and not representing any particular interest. SUMMARY The above application to almost double the density of the existing Black Rock PUD for its remaining northern tract from 595 dwelling units (d.u.'s) to 1,148 should be denied for the reasons summarized below: 1. Inappropriate location for increasing density. 2. Supporting external road network is very inadequate for the numbers and direction of trips to be generated. 3. Local government public service expenditures to support housing development usually exceed total revenues generated. Reasons for these conclusions are contained in the narrative beginning on the following page. -2- 1. Inappropriate location for increasing densitv. The tract of land in question is located to the north behind and, to the east, just beyond existing Black Rock single family homes, developed over many years under terms of the original Black Rock PUD, resulting in one of the more desirable housing developments in the County. The last tract, now being proposed for major changes, is literally on the eastern edge of the County's urban corridor, overlooking productive farms along Whitehall Road. This proposal would add 552 d.u.'s to the 595 allowed under the original PUD, many in the form of multi- family units of various types. I am not an opponent of well -planned mixed -use density in appropriate locations within the County urban corridor or within/adjacent to our municipalities, indeed have taken flak for my stance at times. I supported a mixture of housing types in Hagerstown/Washington County when I served on the County Housing Task Force in the early 2000's, the County Water and Sewer Infrastructure Commission in 2005-06, and various Comprehensive Plans and individual Map Amendments that I have worked and voted on. But "well -planned" and "appropriate location" do not apply to this application. A rationale seems to be offered that the higher density, multifamily sections proposed merely continue similar tracts along the mixed -use Robinwood corridor, served by a modern 4-lane highway with center turning lanes. In truth there is no road connection at all to the Robinwood corridor. To reach those adjacent units requires a journey of over 5 miles and 10-15 minutes via, to the west, turning on Robinwood at the Elks or, to the east, taking Whitehall/Jefferson/Robinwood. So, no functional linkage exists and apparently cannot be developed. Indeed, all the traffic from the contiguous proposed multi -family area must flow past existing and proposed single family homes in Black Rock to reach their only outlet — Mt. Aetna Road. The time for making these types of revisions to the Black Rock PUD has long since passed. Years ago it might have been possible to create an alternate linkage to the Robinwood Corridor and spread some multi -family housing within other earlier stages of the overall Black Rock development. But that ship has sailed and now is not the time to pile on cargo. Indeed, the next section will further emphasize why no increase in density should be granted beyond the original PUD. 2. Supporting external road network is very inadequate for the numbers and direction of trips to be generated. It is likely that a high percentage of road trips generated in the proposed development will be oriented towards the metropolitan area to the east. If you are shopping for a new home in in the metro area and cannot qualify for the high prices, it is common to refer people and their qualifiers to the relatively low-cost developments in Wahington County, the WV panhandle, etc. especially when they can be marketed as just a "few minutes" from a major highway, in this case 1-70. Thus, of the 8.109 new trips estimated to be generated, it is likely that 50- 75%, or 4,000 to 6,000 will be oriented to the east. The modern 2-lane section of Mt. Aetna Rd ends at Whitehall Road a few tenths of a mile to the east of the proposed development. Beyond that point, the Mt Aetna access to Mapleville Road and then 1-70 beyond becomes a 1.4-mile route with narrower lanes, zero berm, and abrupt horizontal and vertical elevations often known as a roller -coaster, compounded with many private driveways. Whitehall Road, with north -south access to other parallel connector routes, is a narrower version of the same. The dollar cost and land disturbance of providing remedies and compensating adjacent property owners for all these County routes would be immense. -3- Drive that section of Mt Aetna and imagine many thousands more vehicles on a daily basis, then apply common sense. Doing a serious traffic study only after project approval is backwards but the facts are self-evident anyhow. The preliminary County transportation review mentioned a number of issues with the proposed site plan. I would like to emphasize the sight distance issue to the west at the proposed new entrance road to Mt Aetna. From an aerial viewpoint it is hard to see the sight distance issue that requires coping with traffic that is often already exceeding 50 mph as it crests a hill out of sight just a few feet from the majority of traffic wanting to pull out going in the same direction. To take for granted that physical calming measures will suffice is putting lives on the line unless a highly -warned, expensive signaled traffic intersection is constructed where heretofore none have been necessary along Mt Aetna for the entire distance beyond Robinwood Drive. It will be a strain to accommodate just the additional traffic from the original planned density, any more thrust onto the rural network to the east will create an intolerable situation. 3. Local government public service expenditures to support housing development usually exceed total revenues generated. Tax base is not technically a charge of the Planning Commission, but I know it is a consideration for many Commissioners and especially elected officials inmost jurisdictions. Housing is an essential element of any community and must be provided for, albeit in a rational manner. However, all but the very most expensive housing usually costs more in public service expenditures than is received via all attributable tax revenues including income, not just property, tax. Industrial. office, and commercial development usually pay the freight for local budgets. Thus, to proceed on a financial rationale despite all the planning issues would be inaccurate and most likely cost the County on an ongoing annual basis, not just through potential infrastructure requirements. The developer cannot be held to exemplary displays of housing types and typical household profiles. Even if realized they would most likely not prove cost beneficial. CONCLUSION The Washington County Water and Sewer Infrastructure Commission study showed ample room for a multiplicity of housing types within the urban corridor based on existing plans. The County has enjoyed only modest growth since then. Higher density should be located where transportation and other public services are more readily available, not where it creates serious problems. Any rationale of providing housing for new warehouse workers across town would seem to imply moderate income housing at this site, a contradiction, and where better sited alternative locations are available. Besides the substantial road network issues, public officials owe existing residents a commitment. It is obvious via the existing stub road that future development was contemplated at Black Rock. However, everyone had a right to assume it would resemble the current area built up over 20 years and projected in the approved PUD. Do not break this covenant, especially with the many legitimate issues raised, plus repercussions well beyond the immediate Black Rock area. From: I_eesa Arnold To: Planning Email Cc: David Arnold Subject: Mt. Aetna PUD Date: Friday, June 11, 2021 1:54:24 PM Good Afternoon My name is Leesa Arnold. I am a resident of Black Rock Estates and I am writing in concerns for the proposed PUD. My husband and I are in complete opposition of this project for the following reasons. I. Our house backs to Mt. Aetna road, the traffic speed and noise is AWFUL at best. Police presence is minimal and I have called numerous times to complain about how fast people travel on the road. 9k cars a day would not be feasible, as what goes on now is not either. The road will not be able to support an additional 9k plus cats a day. 2. Continuation of the above but with concern for trespassing onto the properties located along Mt. Aetna. We are in the section that has the pedestrian path and I have had to call the police several times to trespass people who will not leave my property. This path is a nussiance and we want it removed. Our privacy is constantly invaded by walkers, runners and cars. This had been a bigger problem since we installed a pool. We are putting up a privacy fence but that will not stop people fi•om using the pathway (we own to the road) . The entire path is not maintained and is breaking apart, please consider removing the entire row of it or asking the developer to. 3. The PUD will derail our home vales in Black Rock Estates. The homes will not be the same like and kind and will draw in all income levels. 4. Continuation of above..... different income levels will lead to more crime. 5. We do not have the water pressure to support the PUD. All of us homeowners currently suck water off the street by booster pumps and our pressure is mediocre at best. When we had a fire in the neighborhood approx 10 yrs ago,the community was without water for approximately 24 hrs 6. The schools are not prepared nor have capacity to support this. Many chose this location due to school district. There has been zero discussion on what would be done regarding the schools. Redistricting would not be ideal as many moved into the Mt. Aetna area for the Boonsboro Schools. Thank you for taking the time to read this. This project will not be beneficial at all to the surrounding area and will lead to more problems. We sincerely hope the county will take into the consideration how disruptive the PUD will be. Kind Regards, Leesa and David Arnold. 6�-,,-)1-603 From: David Seiler 70: Baker, 3111 Cc: Eckard, Debra S.; Kathy Subject: Dan Ryan proposal for RZ-21-003 Date; Monday, June 14, 20213:57:39 PM Hello - I am David Seiler and I have lived in Brightwood Acres East for the last 25 years. I am writing to voice my concern and disapproval of the DRG expanded housing plan for the land east of BlackRock Estates subdivision on Mt Aetna Dr east of Robinwood Drive. I sincerely hope the Washington County Planning Board turns down the expanded DRG development proposal My concerns are threefold: 1. Increased traffic on Mt Aetna Drive. Mt Aetna Dive is a two-lane drive that at times strains under current population. It certainly cannot possibly handle the proposed increase in traffic that will be caused by the DRG plan. There is only one main direction that traffic will flow on Mt Aetna Drive - to the West - and the existing road will not be able to handle the increase. Follow that along Mt Aetna west to Dual Hwy or along Edgewood Dr to Dual Hwy and you will create gridlock. 2. Impact on schools. The increase in the number of additional students will overflow the current capability of the existing Elementary, Middle, and Senior High schools. 3. Impact on water and sewer. The current water and sewer system is already stretched to its limits. The number of proposed structures in the DRG development will "flood" the existing infrastructure. I realize that growth is inevitable for our County, but it needs to be done in such a way that the County and existing subdivisions will not be overwhelmed by it. Manny Shaool has proven in the past to be concerned only with his own gain. It is up to the County to look after its residents. Please do not approve the expanded DRG development proposal. Best regards David & Kathy Seiler 11009 Plumwood Circle Hagerstown, MD. August 9, 2021 Jeff Cline c/o Board of County Commissioners 100 West Washington Street Room 1101 Hagerstown, MD 21740 REF: Black Rock Estates PUD AUU 1 `3 2021 Washington County Dept. of Planning & Zoning Good day. On July 5, 2010,1 awakened at 3 am to a glare through my bedroom window. Before I could finish my sentence to my husband that the house diagonal from us was on fire, the roof caved in. I watched in disbelief as our heroic fire fighters from local and surrounding counties attempted to extinguish the flames with no water. They resorted to pumping pool water from a neighbor's pool on Sasha Blvd through the engines to spray the flames from the backyard of the adjacent house. This could have been very traumatic and costly for the entire area. It was later learned that the fire hydrants had no water. Since that time, young families with young children, retirees, runners, walkers, cyclists, and dog walkers have called the development of Black Rock Estates home. We even have residents of neighboring developments frequent our area. The houses of BRE have become not just an investment but a way of life for those residing here. For that cause, I do not support the BRE PUD which would 1) convert Sasha Boulevard into a throughway; 2) add to the demand for water and further impact the lack of water pressure; 3) lower property values due to the multi -use plan being in very close proximity to BRE; and 4) increase traffic substantially on the roads in and around the development. I submitted a photo of the end of Atlantic Drive in Hagerstown as a possible solution. There is a brick privacy wall and iron fencing for emergency access that divides the two communities, and both are aesthetically pleasing. It separates a private development from individual homes. I believe that no one is completely against progress and development in Hagerstown. What we, the residents of BRE, are against is the impact of such development without consideration of the residents who are taxpayers and contributors to the very area to be developed. This is not a transient community but one with stable homeowners. It is my hope that the Washington County Commissioners and the City of Hagerstown would be mindful that we are part of the reason why the area is desirable. Let's grow together to the well-being of all concerned. Sincere Patrice a �ac��'� 10933 Sasha Boulevard Hagerstown; IVID 21742 cc: Jill Baker, Director of Planning and Zoning Department 6�-,,-)1-603 From: David Seiler 70: Baker, 3111 Cc: Eckard, Debra S.; Kathy Subject: Dan Ryan proposal for RZ-21-003 Date; Monday, June 14, 20213:57:39 PM Hello - I am David Seiler and I have lived in Brightwood Acres East for the last 25 years. I am writing to voice my concern and disapproval of the DRG expanded housing plan for the land east of BlackRock Estates subdivision on Mt Aetna Dr east of Robinwood Drive. I sincerely hope the Washington County Planning Board turns down the expanded DRG development proposal My concerns are threefold: 1. Increased traffic on Mt Aetna Drive. Mt Aetna Dive is a two-lane drive that at times strains under current population. It certainly cannot possibly handle the proposed increase in traffic that will be caused by the DRG plan. There is only one main direction that traffic will flow on Mt Aetna Drive - to the West - and the existing road will not be able to handle the increase. Follow that along Mt Aetna west to Dual Hwy or along Edgewood Dr to Dual Hwy and you will create gridlock. 2. Impact on schools. The increase in the number of additional students will overflow the current capability of the existing Elementary, Middle, and Senior High schools. 3. Impact on water and sewer. The current water and sewer system is already stretched to its limits. The number of proposed structures in the DRG development will "flood" the existing infrastructure. I realize that growth is inevitable for our County, but it needs to be done in such a way that the County and existing subdivisions will not be overwhelmed by it. Manny Shaool has proven in the past to be concerned only with his own gain. It is up to the County to look after its residents. Please do not approve the expanded DRG development proposal. Best regards David & Kathy Seiler 11009 Plumwood Circle Hagerstown, MD. August 9, 2021 Jeff Cline c/o Board of County Commissioners 100 West Washington Street Room 1101 Hagerstown, MD 21740 REF: Black Rock Estates PUD AUU 1 `3 2021 Washington County Dept. of Planning & Zoning Good day. On July 5, 2010,1 awakened at 3 am to a glare through my bedroom window. Before I could finish my sentence to my husband that the house diagonal from us was on fire, the roof caved in. I watched in disbelief as our heroic fire fighters from local and surrounding counties attempted to extinguish the flames with no water. They resorted to pumping pool water from a neighbor's pool on Sasha Blvd through the engines to spray the flames from the backyard of the adjacent house. This could have been very traumatic and costly for the entire area. It was later learned that the fire hydrants had no water. Since that time, young families with young children, retirees, runners, walkers, cyclists, and dog walkers have called the development of Black Rock Estates home. We even have residents of neighboring developments frequent our area. The houses of BRE have become not just an investment but a way of life for those residing here. For that cause, I do not support the BRE PUD which would 1) convert Sasha Boulevard into a throughway; 2) add to the demand for water and further impact the lack of water pressure; 3) lower property values due to the multi -use plan being in very close proximity to BRE; and 4) increase traffic substantially on the roads in and around the development. I submitted a photo of the end of Atlantic Drive in Hagerstown as a possible solution. There is a brick privacy wall and iron fencing for emergency access that divides the two communities, and both are aesthetically pleasing. It separates a private development from individual homes. I believe that no one is completely against progress and development in Hagerstown. What we, the residents of BRE, are against is the impact of such development without consideration of the residents who are taxpayers and contributors to the very area to be developed. This is not a transient community but one with stable homeowners. It is my hope that the Washington County Commissioners and the City of Hagerstown would be mindful that we are part of the reason why the area is desirable. Let's grow together to the well-being of all concerned. Sincere Patrice a �ac��'� 10933 Sasha Boulevard Hagerstown; IVID 21742 cc: Jill Baker, Director of Planning and Zoning Department From:illiam t yke To:Planning Email Subject:Black Rock P D Development Date:Tuesday, eptem e 14, 2021 :17:14 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. Jill, I am writing in opposition to this proposed change to 1,148 units. I live at 20533 Mount Aetna Road, and will be almost directly across from the entrance of this development. In addition to the obvious issues with water pressure and school overcrowding, my biggest concern is the additional traffic on Mount Aetna Road. In addition to the backup this will create at Robinwood Drive, the narrow section of Mt. Aetna Road from White Hall Road down to the circle on Rt. 66 really needs to be looked at. I would guess that 50 of the residents of this development will be working in Washington, Baltimore or Frederick, and will be traveling this stretch of road every morning and evening. This stretch of Mount Aetna Road has 2 sharp curves, 3 blind hills, and has NO SHOULDER. I am not sure how this stretch of road could even be widened because many of the homes already have very shallow front yards. Obviously, we are also concerned about the huge drop in value that our home will take with a small city being built over the next 15 years right across the street. That’s 15 years of construction that will kill our homes values. If approved, we would expect a significant drop in our property taxes. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. Bill Stryker ultrastryk yahoo.com Mr. Mrs. Danny and risty Grove 20502 Shaheen Ln. Hagerstown, MD 21742 September 5, 2021 Board of Washington County Commissioners 100 W. Washington Street Room 1101 Hagerstown, MD. 21740 Attn: rista Hart Re: Planned Unit Development RZ-21-003 Dear County Board of Commissioners, Today,We are writing you to voice our adamant opposition to Rezoning Proposal RZ-21-003. We live in As residents of Black Rock Estates and our property is located in an area that directly impacted by the proposed buildingPlanned Unit Development. The field directly behind our home property line is set to be lined with new homes, townhomes, and apartment buildings all within our line of view. First, it is clear that Mount Aetna Road, Sasha Boulevard, Whitehall Road, and other surrounding roads are not designed to support the additional traffic volumes with an estimated rate of 8,000 additional vehicle trips daily, as stated by Dan Ryan Builders. Many local residents including children walk, jog, and bike along these roads that are already dangerous for pedestrians due to the increased traffic from the Hamptons, Greenwich Park, and other surrounding communities. A development of this sheer magnitude will absolutely further impact the safety of not only pedestrian traffic, but also motorists who are attempting to enter and exit the current communities. A tremendous amount of work would need to be done to expand the roadway infrastructure to safely and efficiently support the increased traffic volumes that would result from any new community. Is the county financially prepared to pick up the “tab” for such a roadwork project, including the stretch of hilly road between the Whitehall Road and the roundabout at Route 66 We assure you that the builder does not plan to resolve these issues regardless of the negative impacts to safety, quality of life, and efficiency of daily commuting. As you are probably already aware, water pressure is quite a problem where we live. A house in the development (on Shalom Lane) burned down about 10 years ago because firefighters could not get enough water to the home. Additionally, the fire in an apartment building in Woodbridge Apartment, where a building burned to the ground due to inadequate water pressure, directly impacted our homes here in Black Rock a few years ago. We literally had no water in the Black Rock Estates community during the evening the fire was being fought because all the water was going to fighting the fire a few miles away. This poses a significant safety hazard and highlights the inadequate water supply to an already taxed infrastructure. On a daily basis, water from our faucets within Black Rock Estates has an inadequate amount of pressure to sustain activities such as showering, washing dishes, and other daily necessities. The problem has not been rectified in the 11 years we have resided in this community. Even adding 595 units (the original PUD proposal) would have a significant and detrimental impact on Black Rock Estates and the surrounding neighborhoods that cannot be ignored nor easily remedied. Another unanswered question that has been brushed aside by the developer is the impact any future development, if approved, will have on our local public schools. Greenbrier Elementary and Ruth Ann Monroe Primary cannot lawfully accommodate more students. Since the Washington County Board of Education approved a budget in 2020 that states no new schools will be built for at least ten years, it does not seem remotely feasible to add even 595 dwellings to the immediate area, let alone 1,140 Black Rock Estates is a highly desirable neighborhood in the county. The homes here are unique and they are constructed with at least 90% brick or other premium materials (stucco or stone) on all sides. If this PUD is approved, property values in our neighborhood will plummet due to incomparable dwelling types being build right up against our homes. This detracts from the overall desirability of the neighborhood. Finally, the fields behind the entirety of the Black Rock Estates community and surrounding neighborhoods are home to a variety of wildlife, ranging from deer, black bears and coyotes to rare ones, like red-tailed hawks and bald eagles. Our son was able to capture one of the eagles in flight above our backyard, as well as red-tailed hawks. Developing this land is going to destroy the natural habitat for hundreds of animals who call these fields their homes. We plan to reach out to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (or other conservation authorities) to report this situation to ensure wildlife is protected and not destroyed. Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. We urge you to vote in opposition to Planned Unit Development RZ-21-003. Not only that, we urge you to reconsider the originally approved 595 units, approved 17 years ago, as we do not believe any further development of the area behind and adjacent to Black Rock is wise for the county. Sincerely, Danny and risty Grove From:Anita T omas To:Planning Email Subject:RE: Planned nit Development R 21 00 Date:ednesday, eptem e 15, 2021 : 4:12 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. Re: Planned Unit Development RZ-21-003 To Whom It May Concern, I’m writing this letter to express my strong opposition to the Planned Unit Development RZ- 21-003. There are multiple reasons as to why this a terrible plan for our area of Hagerstown. I shall attempt to outline some of them here. Firstly, I want to mention the amount of traffic this PUD would generate along Mt Aetna Road and the subsequent roads that intersect with it. It was estimated by the developer using old data they collected in 2002 that traffic trips along Mt Aetna road would increase to from 4,592 trips per day to 8,109 trips per day as a result of the increase from 595 (2002) dwellings to 1,148 dwellings. I suspect this is quite an underestimation as the PUD has almost doubled and we are 20 years later with many more cars per homes. These local roads will not be able to handle this kind of traffic increase. There is virtually no way to widen the roads and add traffic lanes beyond the short stretch of Mt Aetna Road between Robinwood Drive and White Hall Road. This brings me to the point of how dangerous it already is on the stretch of Mt Aetna Road between White Hall Road and Route 66. There have been many occasions that I have almost been wiped out by a large vehicle or truck flying around the blind curves and straddling the lanes. This is a regular occurrence on this part of the road. It is currently unsafe and there is no way to widen this portion of Mt Aetna Road. I have blown out 2 tires as a result of vehicles cresting the hills on White Hall Road and them being almost in the center of the road. On both occasions I was run off the road and into a ditch. I also want to mention the terrible plan of where the proposed new exit road from this PUD will intersect with Mt Aetna Road. It is planned just below the crest of a hill. People driving in the morning over this hill struggle seeing as the sun is often in their eyes. I know this because I run in the shoulder of this road and have had a few near misses because drivers are blinded by the sun and can’t see. If this proposed road is built with the exit at this point there will be some terrible accidents. Drivers never adhere to the 35 m/p/h speed limit and the police do very little to enforce it. Cars regularly drive much faster. As you are probably aware another issue that has never been resolved is the problem of water pressure. One of our Black Rock Estates neighbors lost their house due to fire. When the fire truck arrived they did not have enough water pressure to combat the fire and the house burned down. This is a tragedy that should have been addressed years ago. How can this area deal with another 1,148 homes and all their water needs? I have lived in Black Rock Estates off Mt Aetna Road for around 12 years now. We have no sidewalks but for the most part we feel safe taking walks on the road because we know most of our neighbors. Children ride bikes and people are out walking dogs. There are only 2 entrances into the neighborhood and they are both off Mt Aetna Road. There is no through traffic. It gives us a sense of safety because for the most part the only people who drive around here, live around here. If this PUD is allowed we will see a major amount of traffic in our neighborhood. The residents of the new PUD will use Sasha Boulevard and any of the connecting roads in our neighborhood to get in and out of their neighborhood. Black Rock Estates will no longer have a calm sense of tranquility as it does now and walkers, runners, children riding bikes will be at greater risk of being injured by a car. We have a beautiful neighborhood with stately brick homes, well kept sprawling lawns and established trees. Our neighborhood flows seamlessly into the farmland to the east of us and the golf course to the south of us. It would seem that years ago the county plan was to have density decrease towards the farmlands. This PUD will do the exact opposite and in my opinion will be an eyesore to this currently beautiful part of Washington County. The closeness of the structures proposed and the materials to be used will be in stark contrast to any of the homes along Mt Aetna Road. I believe they will lower the value of all other homes in this area. If you were to approve this PUD you would be doing a great disservice to the tax paying residents all along Mt Aetna Road and beyond. It makes no sense to develop the land in such a way and would create infrastructure stress that cannot be resolved. Please consider my concerns and the concerns of my neighbors. I don’t personally know everyone along Mt Aetna Road but I have discussed this PUD with many people in the area and I have not yet found one person in favor of it. In fact, all those I’ve spoken to are vehemently opposed to it. Sincerely, Anita Thomas, Resident 20310 Ayoub Lane Hagerstown MD 21742 21 RML-imB sEr 2 0 2021 Washington County Dept. of Planning & zoning 22-02—1 Owe, Oeue d 4,evdof rerm 1. r1anv*4 Un�� r t 1 Ue, la GL S�P-n i o r COO fYlc,{.Yl cmjbivj, of tima, + ddyyL- �d , cs b�c�1r LT � rn.oST � N�4 . Our roachS \kAr ' k a►O veers cox r�o �a► f� ,lC U� G111 U� e j b /In \e, 4 R ctSsaw do °-( , s , yeii � i r'Vl � YI � S I/l `�/!;✓ �(,t.L�,.�t� f atr,rA mLr- bb Y16+ a o u1 'Its Dear Jill Baker, I am writing in reference to the proposed Dan Ryan development near Black Rock Estates along Mt. Aetna Road. I live in Greenwich Bark so this development would directly affect me. The infrastructure including but not limited to water, electric and sewage systems would not be able to accommodate the huge increase in population. The roads and communication networks would also need a significant expensive upgrade. This development would have a huge negative impact on this area. I urge the Manning and Zoning Commission to continue to vote against this development and to urge the County Commissioners to also vote against this development. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Ll SEE 2 Q 2021 Washington County � Dept of Planning oi , '�� ' M D 7. R " (.JR��CJ bcr 2. 0 2421 Washington GountY Dept. I Planning & Zoning Dear Jill Baker, As a resident of Greenwich Dark, I am writing to urge you to vote no to the large proposed Dan Ryan development on Mt. Aetna Road. There would be heavy traffic congestion on Mt. Aetna as well as other connecting roads. Residents would have difficulty getting on the roads from private homes and developments, especially during rush hours. The roads were not built for the significant increase in traffic this development would create. Water pressure, sewage management and overloaded electric systems are all concerns when a huge development is proposed. Communication systems would also be adversely affected. I urge the Planning and Zoning Commission and the County (commissioners to vote against building this huge development. Judicial Mr. Thomas Miguel Watch 643 Trafalgar Dr. u°^ ° Hagerstown, MD 21742-1231 From: William Stryker To: Plannina Email Subject: Black Rock PUD Development Date: Tuesday, September 14, 20218:17:14 PM 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. Jill, I am writing in opposition to this proposed change to 1,148 units. I live at 20533 Mount Aetna Road, and will be almost directly across from the entrance of this development. In addition to the obvious issues with water pressure and school overcrowding, my biggest concern is the additional traffic on Mount Aetna Road. In addition to the backup this will create at Robinwood Drive, the narrow section of Mt. Aetna Road from White Hall Road down to the circle on Rt. 66 really needs to be looked at. I would guess that 50% of the residents of this development will be working in Washington, Baltimore or Frederick, and will be traveling this stretch of road every morning and evening. This stretch of Mount Aetna Road has 2 sharp curves, 3 blind hills, and has NO SHOULDER. I am not sure how this stretch of road could even be widened because many of the homes already have very shallow fiont yards. Obviously, we are also concerned about the huge drop in value that our home will take with a small city being built over the next 15 years right across the street. That's 15 years of construction that will kill our homes values. If approved, we would expect a significant drop in our property taxes. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. Bill Stryker ultrastryk@yahoo.com yahoo.com From: Anita Thomas To: Planninn Email Subject: RE: Planned Unit Development RZ-21-003 Date: Wednesday, September 15, 20219:34:12 AM Re: Planned Unit Development RZ-21-003 To Whom It May Concern, I'm writing this letter to express my strong opposition to the Planned Unit Development RZ- 21-003. There are multiple reasons as to why this a terrible plan for our area of Hagerstown. I shall attempt to outline some of them here. Firstly, I want to mention the amount of traffic this PUD would generate along Mt Aetna Road and the subsequent roads that intersect with it. It was estimated by the developer using old data they collected in 2002 that traffic trips along Mt Aetna road would increase to from 4,592 trips per day to 8,109 trips per day as a result of the increase from 595 (2002) dwellings to 1,148 dwellings. I suspect this is quite an underestimation as the PUD has almost doubled and we are 20 years later with many more cars per homes. These local roads will not be able to handle this kind of traffic increase. There is virtually no way to widen the roads and add traffic lanes beyond the short stretch of Mt Aetna Road between Robinwood Drive and White Hall Road. This brings me to the point of how dangerous it already is on the stretch of Mt Aetna Road between White Hall Road and Route 66. There have been many occasions that I have almost been wiped out by a large vehicle or truck flying around the blind curves and straddling the lanes. This is a regular occurrence on this part of the road. It is currently unsafe and there is no way to widen this portion of Mt Aetna Road. I have blown out 2 tires as a result of vehicles cresting the hills on White Hall Road and them being almost in the center of the road. On both occasions I was run off the road and into a ditch. I also want to mention the terrible plan of where the proposed new exit road from this PUD will intersect with Mt Aetna Road. It is planned just below the crest of a hill. People driving in the morning over this hill struggle seeing as the sun is often in their eyes. I know this because I run in the shoulder of this road and have had a few near misses because drivers are blinded by the sun and can't see. If this proposed road is built with the exit at this point there will be some terrible accidents. Drivers never adhere to the 35 m/p/h speed limit and the police do very little to enforce it. Cars regularly drive much faster. As you are probably aware another issue that has never been resolved is the problem of water pressure. One of our Black Rock Estates neighbors lost their house due to fire. When the fire truck arrived they did not have enough water pressure to combat the fire and the house burned down. This is a tragedy that should have been addressed years ago. How can this area deal with another 1,I48 homes and all their water needs? I have lived in Black Rock Estates off Mt Aetna Road for around 12 years now. We have no sidewalks but for the most part we feet safe taking walks on the road because we know most of our neighbors. Children ride bikes and people are out walking dogs. There are only 2 entrances into the neighborhood and they are both off Mt Aetna Road. There is no through traffic. It gives us a sense of safety because for the most part the only people who drive around here, live around here. If this PUD is allowed we will see a major amount of traffic in our neighborhood. The residents of the new PUD will use Sasha Boulevard and any of the connecting roads in our neighborhood to get in and out of their neighborhood. Black Rock Estates will no longer have a calm sense of tranquility as it does now and walkers, runners, children riding bikes will be at greater risk of being injured by a car. We have a beautiful neighborhood with stately brick homes, well kept sprawling lawns and established trees. Our neighborhood flows seamlessly into the farmland to the east of us and the golf course to the south of us. It would seem that years ago the county plan was to have density decrease towards the farmlands. This PUD will do the exact opposite and in my opinion will be an eyesore to this currently beautiful part of Washington County. The closeness of the structures proposed and the materials to be used will be in stark contrast to any of the homes along Mt Aetna Road. I believe they will lower the value of all other homes in this area. If you were to approve this PUD you would be doing a great disservice to the tax paying residents all along Mt Aetna Road and beyond. It makes no sense to develop the land in such a way and would create infrastructure stress that cannot be resolved. Please consider my concerns and the concerns of my neighbors. I don't personally know everyone along Mt Aetna Road but I have discussed this PUD with many people in the area and I have not yet found one person in favor of it. In fact, all those I've spoken to are vehemently opposed to it, Sincerely, Anita Thomas, Resident 20310 Ayoub Lane Hagerstown MD 21742 September 15, 2021 Jill Baker: gar' 2 3 Ml Washington County Dept. of Planning & Zoning We have been residents of Greenwich Park for 10 years. We have concerns regarding the implementation of a new and expanded development near Black Rock Estates. The trepidations include but are not limited to the following: 1. Traffic volume 2. Infra -structure 3. Cell tower availability 4. Subsidized housing 5. Water pressure In a document dated 4/21/21, case number RZ-21-003, it was stated that an upgrade to water infra -structure would be done when future required flow is approached. We are in Zone 5 which already has limitations and distribution system pressure and fire flow ability even without the addition of PUD. A water distribution plan needs to be addressed and implemented at the outset of the development rather than during the build. Respectfully, Glenn and Cathy Baker September 22, 2021 Jill Baker Director c/o Planning and Zoning Department 100 West Street Hagerstown, MD 21740 Dear Ms. Baker: 17. M19MRN@ SEP 2 0 1011 Washington County �?ePf. of Planning & Zoning i am a resident of Greenwich Park in Hagerstown And wish to express my opposition to the request from Ryan Builders for a PUD near Black Rock Estates. I have seen the results of high -density developments on communities in Montgomery County, especially in Rockville and Gaithersburg. Also the same thing is happening in some areas of Frederick County. This request from Ryan Builders Is another step in the same direction. I am requesting that this zoning request from Ryan Builders be denied. Sincerely, Mrs. Jacqueline Wilson 1858 Meridian Drive Hagerstown, MD, 21742 r Daniel Vilnit 616 Observatory Dr.� p i Greenwich Park Hagerstown, MD 21742 Jill Baker, Director Washington County c/o Planning and Zoning Dept. Dept. of Planning & Zoning 100 West Washington St. Hagerstown, MD 21740 Asa resident of Greenwich Park off Mt. Aetna Rd., i am writing this letter in opposition to the request by Dan Ryan Builders to build a new subdivision off Mt. Aetna Rd. near Black Rock Estates. The most concerning problem is the lack of water pressure in the area. Residents in our community are already facing problems with lack of water pressure to the point of not being able to shower while our dishwashers are running. That is not nearly as concerning as the lack of pressure needed by the fire department to put out a fire in case of an emergency. There has already been a case in Black Rock Estates where a house was lost due to lack of water pressure. Also, without adding to the fire department, there will be too many homes to cover without expansion of the fire and ambulance crews. Another concern is traffic. At peak traffic, it is difficult if not impossible to exit Greenwich Park onto Mt. Aetna Rd. safely. Many drivers are going at a high rate of speed nearing our community and the limited sight lines as they proceed from the direction of proposed community, make it very difficult to proceed from our community safely. Many of the residents of Greenwich Park are seniors that may not have the quickness needed to exit onto Mt. Aetna Rd. without causing an accident. With only one entrance to Greenwich Park this does present a major challenge for our residents. Mt. Aetna Rd, heading east becomes very winding and narrow with blind hills making that direction more difficult to use for commuting making it easier for that traffic to head west causing more traffic. past Greenwich Park and traveling towards the light at Robinwood Dr. which already backs up during rush hour. With the number of proposed homes being townhomes and apartments, the proposed community will likely draw younger families with children further burdening our already crowded schools. I hope that these issues are considered while discussing the plans for the new community and the appropriate decision would be to NOT approve such subdivision. Si rely, Daniel Vilnit Z 7 �lr 4 nzd'i- /hoc - �2oa�l /70-14— � Z-f- iv Gt%a�e2 f Sul 17Z. From; Hart, Krista To: Eckard. Debra S ; Baker. Jill Subject: FW: Planned Unit Development RZ-21-003 Date: Thursday, September 30, 20218:56:37 AM Thank you, Krista 1, Hail County Clerk From: sneha patel <snehar_patel@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 12:17 PM To: &County Commissioners <contactcommissioners@washco-md.net> Subject: Planned Unit Development RZ-21-003 v WARNING !13his 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. We would like to go on record in opposition to Rezoning Proposal RZ-21-003 for the following reasons: • Mt. Aetna Road, Sasha Blvd., Whitehall Road, and other surrounding streets are totally inadequate to support additional traffic, especially the 8K plus additional vehicle trips per day estimated by the Developer of this project. • Water pressure is already a problem where we live and additional demand on the system will only make the problems worse. • Additional students will put added pressure on already overcrowded Greenbriar Elementary and other area schools. • Quality of life for the residents of Black Rock Estates and other area neighborhoods will be negatively impacted by this project. Please vote to oppose RZ-21-003! 11 Yours truly, sneha Patel September 15, 2021 Jill Baker: The residents of Greenwich Park have concerns regarding the implementation of a new and expanded development near Black Rock Estates. The trepidations include but are not limited to the following: 1. Traffic volume 2. Infra -structure 3. Cell tower availability 4. Subsidized housing 5. School capacity 6. Water pressure In a document dated 4/21/21, case number RZ-21-003, it was stated that an upgrade to water infra -structure would be done when future required flow is approached. We are in Zone 5 which already has limitations with distribution system pressure and fire flow ability even without the addition of PUD. Before there is further discussion of any development, a water distribution plan must be formulated. Should the development be approved, the implementation or the water plan must be instituted prior to the build -not during or after the build. Respectfully, Residents of Greenwich Park t IT12 ,%�C ✓ u y ') Q'i" t Z ° l -7 �66cvt -� r �� September 20, 2021 To whom it may concern: SEP 2 3 2021 ? Washington The enclosed document contains signatures that represent voices of residents who live in Greenwich Park, a development that frontages Mt. Aetna Road approximately 2 miles west of the proposed Dan Ryan development. Respectfully, Residents of Greenwich Park September 3S, 2021 Jill Baker: The residents of Greenwich Park have concerns regarding the implementation of a new and expanded development near Black Rock Estates. The trepidations include but are not limited to the following: 1. Traffic volume 2. infra -structure 3. Cell tower availability 4. Subsidized housing S. School capacity 6. Water pressure In a document dated 4/2J-/2�� case number RZ-21-003, it was stated � flow upgrade to water infrastructure would be done when future regal is approached. We are in Zone 5 which already has limitations w� addition distribution system pressure and fire flow ability even without th of PUD. Before there is further discussion of any development, a water distribution plan must be formulated. Should the development be approved, the to the build -not implementation of the water plan must be instituted prior during or after the build. Respectfully, Residents of Greenwich Park September 15, 2021 Jill Baker: The residents of Greenwich Park have concerns regarding the implementation of a new and expanded development near Black Rock Estates. The trepidations include but are not limited to the following: 1. Traffic volume 2. Infra -structure 3. Cell tower availability 4. Subsidized housing 5. School capacity 6. Water pressure In a document dated 4/21/21, case number RZ-21-003, it was stated that an upgrade to water infra -structure would be done when future required flow is approached. We are in Zone 5 which already has limitations with distribution system pressure and fire flow ability even without the addition of PUD. Before there is further discussion of any development, a water distribution plan must be formulated. Should the development be approved, the implementation of the water plan must be instituted prior to the build -not during or after the build. Respectfully, Residents of Greenwich Park Ats ery S1��rdn �✓ii»j'Y) September 15, 2021 Jill Baker: The residents of Greenwich Park have concerns regarding the implementation of a new and expanded development near Black Rock Estates. The trepidations include but are not limited to the following: 1, Traffic volume 2. Infra -structure 3, Cell tower availability 4. Subsidized housing S. School capacity 6. Water pressure in a document dated 4/21/21, case number RZ.-21--003, it was stated that an upgrade to water infra -structure would be done when future required flow is approached. We are in Zone S which already has limitations with distribution system pressure and fire flow ability even without the addition of PUD. Before there is further discussion of any development, a water distribution plan must be formulated. Should the development be approved, the implementation of the water plan must be instituted prior to the build -not during or after the build. Respectfully, Residents of Greenwich Park i. � lv� t ,l a. September 15, 2021 Jill Balser: The residents of Greenwich Park have concerns regarding the implementation of a new and expanded development near Black Rock Estates. The trepidations include but are not limited to the following: 1. Traffic volume 2. Infra -structure 3. Cell tower availability 4. Subsidized housing 5. School capacity 6. Water pressure in a document dated 4/21/21, case number RZ-21-003, it was stated that an upgrade to water infra -structure would be done when future required flow is approached. We are in Zone 5 which already has limitations with distribution system pressure and fire flow ability even without the addition of PUD. Before there is further discussion of any development, a water distribution plan must be formulated. Should the development be approved, the implementation of the water plan must be instituted prior to the build -not during or after the build. Respectfully, f R sid s of Greenwich Park ZD 15-�ty /t`��r�Gl�c.n Ua 6Nb T�FlFAL_ftu�kLq 1�1_ GNR OkxuE 7 1851U `(YaA u,cc�,�.� September 15, 2021 Jill Baker: The residents of Greenwich Park have concerns regarding the implementation of a new and expanded development near Black Rock Estates. The trepidations include but are not limited to the following: 1. Traffic volume 2. Infra -structure 3. Cell tower availability 4. Subsidized housing 5. School capacity 6. Water pressure In a document dated 4/21/21, case number RZ-21-003, it was stated that an upgrade to water infra -structure would be done when future required flow is approached. We are in Zone 5 which already has limitations with distribution system pressure and fire flow ability even without the addition of PUD. Before there is further discussion of any development, a water distribution plan must be formulated. Should the development be approved, the implementation of the water plan must be instituted prior to the build -not during or after the build. Respectfully, Residents of Greenwich Park wra4t.� 6 H3 Tra-(;_l_Owr ' t iP .r 11r t t1� GIN! 'T�-a!'ul�nr 1?r�vc �aw�Ukaser��-�vey give 1 C/ cam- i A,r?GC__A- September 15, 2021 Jill Baker: The residents of Greenwich Park have concerns regarding the implementation of a new and expanded development near Black Rock Estates. The trepidations include but are not limited to the following: 1. Traffic volume 2. Infra -structure 3. Ceti tower availability 4. Subsidized housing 5. School capacity b. Water pressure In a document dated 4/21/21, case number RZ-21-003, it was stated that an upgrade to water infra -structure would be done when future required flow is approached. We are in Zone 5 which already has limitations with distribution system pressure and fire flow ability even without the addition of PUD. Before there is further discussion of any development, a water distribution plan must be formulated. Should the development be approved, the implementation of the water plan must be instituted prior to the build -not during or after the build. Respectfully, Residents of Greenwich Park V/.: 4a-a.�, 6 0 3 a 13 s c TR v 'r 't� Lpf� o '� �4�Z4 � - Eck *�4 � V3 03 c September 15, 2021 .fill Baker: The residents of Greenwich Park have concerns regarding the implementation of a new and expanded development near Black Rock Estates. The trepidations include but are not limited to the following: 1. Traffic volume 2. Infra -structure 3. Cell tower availability 4. Subsidized housing 5. School capacity 6. Water pressure In a document dated 4/21/21, case number RZ-21-003, it was stated that an upgrade to water 'infra -structure would be done when future required flow is approached. We are in Zone 5 which already has limitations with distribution system pressure and fire flow ability even without the addition of PUD. Before there is further discussion of any development, a water distribution plan must be formulated. Should the development be approved, the implementation of the water plan must be instituted prior to the build -not during or after the build. Respectfully, Residents of Greenwich Park to4? C� 0Y 6b52___ September 15, 2021 .lill Baker; o� The residents of Greenwich Park have concerns regarding the implementation a new and expanded development near Black Rock Estates. The trepidations include but are not limited to the following: 1. Traffic volume 2. Infra -structure D. Cell tower availability 4. Subsidized housing 5. School capacity 6. Water pressure number RZ-21-003, it was state that In a document dated 4/21/21, caSe upgrade to water infra --structure would be done when future required is approached. We are in Zone 5 which already has limitations with a distribution system pressure and fire flow ability even w►thouttheddition of F U D. f any development, a water distribution Before there is further discussion o roved, the plan i-nust be formulated. Should the development �epriorapproved, the build -not implementation of the water plan must be institute during or after the build. Respectfully, Residents of Greenwich Park Z.m a'---t� XP a, 7 q--9- Cl September 15, 2021 Jill Baker: The residents of Greenwich Park have concerns regarding the implementation of a new and expanded development near Black Rock Estates. The trepidations include but are not limited to the following: 1. Traffic volume 2. Infra -structure 3. Cell tower availability 4. Subsidized housing 5. School capacity 6. Water pressure in a document dated 4/21/21, case number RZ-21-003, it was stated that an upgrade to water infra -structure would be done when future required flow is approached. We are in Zone 5 which already has limitations with distribution system pressure and fire flow ability even without the addition of PUD. Before there is further discussion of any development, a water distribution plan must be formulated. Should the development be approved, the implementation of the water plan must be instituted prior to the build -not during or after the build. Respectfully, Residents of Greenwich Park rtQ er'I:>{OVVf( 2 PIP September 15, 2021 Jill Baker: The residents of Greenwich Park have concerns regarding the implementation of a new and expanded development near Black Rock Estates. The trepidations include but are not limited to -the following: 1. Traffic volume 2. Infra -structure 3. Cell tower availability 4. Subsidized housing 5. School capacity 6. Water pressure In a document dated 4/21/21, case number RZ-21-003, it was stated that an upgrade to water infra -,structure would be done when future required flow is approached. We are in Zone 5 which already has limitations with distribution system pressure and fire flow ability even without the addition of PUD. Before there is further discussion of any development, a water distribution plan must be formulated. Should the development be approved, the implementation of the water plan must be instituted prior to the build -not during or after the build. Respectfully, Residents of Greenwich Park September 15, 2021 Jill Baker: The residents of Greenwich Park have concerns regarding the implementation of a new and expanded development near Black Rock Estates. The trepidations include but are not limited to the following: 1. Traffic volume 2. Infra -structure 3. Cell tower availability 4. Subsidized housing 5. School capacity 6. Water pressure In a document dated 4/21/21, case number RZ-21-003, it was stated that an upgrade to water infra -structure would be done when future required flow is approached. We are in Zone 5 which already has limitations with distribution system pressure and fire flow ability even without the addition of PUD. Before there is further discussion of any development, a water distribution plan must be formulated. Should the development be approved, the implementation of the water plan must be instituted prior to the build -not during or after the build. Respectfully, Residents of Greenwich Park ,Ic r� From: Hart. Krista To: eshalaby(@gmail,Fom Subject: RE: PUD rezoning application ( black Rock) Date: Thursday, September 30, 20218:52:01 AM Good Morning Dr. Shalaby: Thanl< you for contacting the Washington County Board of County Commissionerso ce. This response will serve to confirm that your communication has been received. Your comment regarding the Black Rock PUD Rezoning has been shared with the appropriate members of our team. Thank you, Krista I. Hart County Clerk - From: Ehab Shalaby <eshalaby@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 20213:10 PM To: &County Commissioners<contactcommission ers@washco-md.net> Subject: Fwd: PUD rezoning application ( black Rock) WARNINGI I This message originated from an External Source, Please use proper judgment'and a ` caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email: Any claims of being a County official or employee should be disregarded. Forwarded message From: Ehab Shalaby <eshalaby(@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 3:07 PM Subject: PUD rezoning application ( black Rock) To:<contactcommissionaerrsC@washco-med. net >, <iclinePwashco-md.net> Dear Commissioners I want to express my deep concern regarding the application to increase the PUD behind black rock estate from S95 units to 1147 units. As you know, the Black Rock estate is one of the places in Hagerstown with high home prices and larger size. It is the crown jewel for Hagerstown, Many doctors and professionals live in this community. We pay high property taxes. By increasing the number of houses close to this neighborhood, will significantly decrease the prices of properties in this community and will become less attractive for professionals to work in the city. This may affect the quality of professionals moving to Hagerstown. also, increasing traffic at Sasha blvd ( where I live) and Mt. Aetna Rd is worrisome. The water pressure in our community is poor and this will escalate further by this high number of houses. Therefore, I appeal to you not to increase the PUD for not more than 595 units. Thank you for listening to our concerns. Dr. Ehab Shalaby 10925 Sasha Blvd, Hagerstown, MD 21742 From: dart, Krista To: Bater. 3111; EFkard, Rebra S, Subject: FW: Traffic issues Date: Thursday, September 30, 20218:S4:43 AM Good Moming — Fin not sure if Vve shared this comment with you.... Thank you, Krista 1. Hart Cotntty Clerk From: mhleatherman <mhleatherman@myactv.net> Sent: Monday, September 27, 2021 12:18 PM To: &County Commissioners<contactcommissioners@washco-md,net> Subject: Traffic issues 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, I am writing to with concerns for 2 items. The first one being the development refereed to as Black Rock PUD, the other is all the proposed warehouses going into the Washington County area, but especially the one proposed near Funkstown and Dual Highway. I don't know if you travel in the Funkstown, 40 and towards the Boonsboro area much but I have lived in this area for over 30 years. I travel for my children's activities, work and errands like many do around me. Are you aware of the traffic issues that happen when there is a accident on I70 between exits 32 and South Mountain and the impacts it has on this small area? Traffic jumps off of 170 east or west depending on the accident side and jumps onto 40 or Rt 66 and gets hit with the light at Sheetz. They may be trying to make a turn or continue on through down 40 but it will back up traffic for miles. To try and get around that slow drag, traffic then jump onto Beaver Creek Rd, where a one line bridge towards Boonsboro is located or goes into little Funkstown and those small roads and lights. You have cars, tractor trailers, delivery vehicles, etc traveling down a 2 lane back road with no shoulder and in a hurry. We have walkers, kids, development entrances, driveways and a 1 lane bridge where traffic should be traveling at 35mph. Instead you have cars going 60mph trying to speed around stopped traffic. This is every time an accident happens on I70 or rt40. What is it going to look like daily if you add another development to Black Rock area with more cars and/or warehouses to Funkstown. I also know that traffic getting up the dual highway is terrible when this happens, my other concern is how will emergency vehicles get through to the hospital with deadlock traffic daily. You need to think of the safety of those in the community not the money you think that it will bring into Wash Co. It will bring more headaches to those that are affected daily by the changes that you want to make to this area. People live outside the city limits because they didn't want to have the headache of the traffic issues that you now know will drag to the area. This issue was evident last Thursday (Sept 24th) when traffic was detoured or delayed because of an accident on 170 near South mountain for the whole day. At one point traffic was backed up from the Sheetz light in Boonsboro down past the Potomac Valley business on rt40. Traffic at 4:45pm was backed up on Beaver Creek Rd to Beaver Creek Church Rd from the Stop sign at rt66. I have seen traffic backed up when I70 is completely shut down backed up on Beaver Creek Rd headed towards 66 past the cross road White Hall Rd. I would say that's about a 2mile back up on a back road and I know that is what will be seen regularly if you move forward with the two proposed items in this area. People are not familiar with the area and just follow the GPS onto these little roads. I have attached some pictures so you can see for yourself. I would love to hear back from you! Hannah Leatherman :i� vrw : ^ ».. L ....: ............. _. r Y :o '::«""...^...?tic«'^t:?::. .. - - .:: .:•, L: 6. IT . :«na:a::::.:a•.r.: _............... •: • .: . ........... .: • .... �t..:nnn. -.. _. ..._ __. _,.._«»«. n'H:.:.rs.••a..:«. ....'«. - ...nr:...; '.. ..het ..A... . .:..:.:.......«......««. . ?r .. .. ...............«....3i..» nit:un?q::.::n:a:a�nr.•.^• :.•::? "'i'••'i'•Ya.'t"aii:«:::t??? '1C i .- ..........»..::::i.i:ii.'ina't.:iF?ILS?L :n :..:'::'::::.».ram"YC.... ......... .. .:. ...... ........«._. ............:..,:M_f CiraY'r�:r ..c::.: ......._. .•' -:: ..:....^......._.............................:........3.L•.Y:Cr .."""....•::».. »......«. ..«3...«� ...:•.9 T:... «.. « -............»............»......«....�.:.:«"..C.^.3I:Y.n:«nr. ^:::::r»i}"ir »':n'.'.3:.: _�..Ai.i..a.:'«...:•n..i.'::3::.::^:::::::::.::.::- ' .............................T:Y.:i^ ..... t I?"f:.«Y?.«'..'.'.«i • i.�R'• 'iii.: 3.1 :",3 S1SIi ai• +Y .. ...........................»«^^ti2.«.�i?.1i:��'i't•....'�«'.A:i:i..in. IC..�i`J'.S�tCf:'«....CC:::..........':::::-. ' .:r Y"....Y:•••••Y."'....-....... .»:......i....i.^.:nCCniisn:.':C:::n::::::::::::::�:'.... .' ....................... fwi....... ."�.' L «i„� YC n........::............. .. y :n.i?:t :L... ..::nn».in...........:':' .:......:� Ca. _ ....»...... ............ ....!«^r,.,,.C3"'ii ...» ..... . t•::........ r`: •::......... .�.L........................t....[.........,^i:�............ .:.:...�.:^ T 3."wi:.'? ''::.t'.?.:.i ......''::??:::::?.?:..... :: C •' S'aT_�•«L .....«....... i"n.« .... «.«i3 r-. i _ _................: z• nc:n..Yt•...3 ...:.... .. _.......................^n2..LrE.....e::rr.::::�ic:::�ia::E::pE.F_iiE is"_"r':-::r •" ..:e:' -..:. ........Y.n s::.• mxi:a::.a...i..� ...........^_......... 3......................_.........._ ........_..........»:...:..._..^;.s:...............::..:..........3�. a ..........._.... :' - :::n::::.n:LY::n::::'c?i•. �:L...a:m:.::L_..:n::nn:...L....- . - ?cz a?eF?tt'.t°?iCi?ii?a?c Y. .............................r:r.r....................................., __.... «................... ... _ . _....... _......... , ram. _............................................................................................................. ... C ___......_..................................._......_.............................................. ... ......... ..Y�pa.::pa........a:c:a:.. :..:......................................................................._.................R3�:.::::. ... _ _ _ s.�r.............. ..:. - .. _ r i............:.. _ r.. 0.To sy.. .... . - as _3 _..... ....._...._......._............... .:.IM- r: :.............. ....................... ' .. .. L"litii?3M�13Si�S'• .. ..� .:t: - _ ' :T.�!'?«.d::S'��S�S.�� ...:........t:...: �• .. ::...::.r ...:5....5.............. ........�5.3. ............«...?i,?.::...::.Ln:n..L::n: ::::::::::3..-:A�3Y................ ....�.....�... ......... ..�... .. ....:..: L'�j?'. ..... ...... .�..:......«.........................mot ...«.�..-.-...�.«.. ...::. .....� .ram........«.........«a _ •W:::. �•' C: Y�..�' .......... ...Gift A A A''