Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout190212aIndividuals 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. , BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS February 12, 2019 OPEN SESSION AGENDA 08:00 A.M. MOMENT OF SILENCE AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CALL TO ORDER, President Jeffrey A. Cline APPROVAL OF MINUTES – February 5, 2019 08:05 A.M. CLOSED SESSION (To discuss the appointment, employment, assignment, promotion, discipline, demotion, compensation, removal, resignation, or performance evaluation of appointees, employees, or officials over whom this public body has jurisdiction; or any other personnel matter that affects one or more specific individuals; to consult with counsel to obtain legal advice on a legal matter; to consider a matter that concerns the proposal for a business or industrial organization to locate, expand, or remain in the State; to conduct or discuss an investigative proceeding on actual or possible criminal conduct.) 10:00 A.M. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION 10:05 A.M. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS AND COMMENTS 10:10 A.M. REPORTS FROM COUNTY STAFF 10:15 A.M. CITIZENS PARTICIPATION 10:20 A.M. EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION – Deb Peyton, Director, Division of Health & Human Services 10:30 A.M. RECORDS RETENTION CONTRACT – BUDGET TRANSFER – Krista Hart, County Clerk 10:35 A.M. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE PURCHASE (INGT-19-014) – ONE (1) EXTENDED CAB ¾ TON PICKUP TRUCK WITH SNOW PLOW, AND ONE (1) EXTENDED CAB ¾ TON PICKUP TRUCK FOR DEPARTMENT OF WATER QUALITY – Dan Divito, Director, Division of Environmental Management, and Mark D. Bradshaw, P.E., Deputy Director, Engineering Services, Division of Environmental Management 10:40 A.M. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE PURCHASE (INGT-19-0013) OF BUSES FOR THE COUNTY TRANSIT DEPARTMENT / COUNTY COMMUTER - Rick Curry, CPPO, Director, Purchasing Department, and Kevin Cerrone, Director, Transit / County Commuter 10:45 A.M. FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF MARYLAND – HAGERSTOWN’S (USM-H) CONTRIBUTION TO THE URBAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT – Mark Halsey, Executive Director, USM-H, Howard “Blackie” Bowen, USM-H Board of Advisors, and James Holzapfel, USM-H Board of Advisors Jeffrey A. Cline, Terry L. Baker, Vice President Krista L. Hart, Clerk Cort F. Meinelschmidt Randall E. Wagner Individuals requiring special accommodations are requested to contact the Office of the County Commissioners, 240.313.2200 Voice/TDD, to make arrangements no later than ten (10) working days prior to the meeting. 11:00 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING – APPLICATION FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT RZ-18-003, P OVERLOOK LLP – Jill Baker, Deputy Director, Department of Planning and Zoning 11:30 A.M. SENATOR AMOSS FUNDING ALLOCATION – R. David Hays, Director, Division of Emergency Services 11:35 A.M. PRESENTATION OF THE 2020-2029 CAPITAL BUDGET – DRAFT ONE (1) – Sara Greaves, Chief Financial Officer 11:55 A.M. HAGERSTOWN ANNEXATION – A-2018-01 – FOGGY BOTTOM FARM AND OTHER LANDS, AND A-2018-02 – ANTIETAM CREEK - CREEK BED – Stephen T. Goodrich, Director, Department of Planning and Zoning 12:05 P.M. INCREASE FEE PAID TO SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT FOR ADMINISTRATION OF FOREST CONSERVATION FUND PROGRAM – Stephen T. Goodrich, Director, Department of Planning and Zoning 12:10 P.M. FT. RITCHIE / CASCADE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES DESIGNATION RENEWAL – Stephen T. Goodrich, Director, Department of Planning and Zoning 12:20 P.M. REQUEST TO FUND FORT RITCHIE COMMUNITY CENTER – Susan Small, Director, Department of Business Development 12:25 P.M. RECESS Board of County Commissioners have been invited to meet with Comptroller Peter Franchot Location: Washington County Chamber of Commerce 1 South Potomac Street, Hagerstown, MD EVENING MEETING AT THE TOWN OF WILLIAMSPORT Location: Williamsport Community Center @ Byron Memorial Park 06:30 P.M. MOMENT OF SLIENCE AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CALL TO ORDER, President Jeffrey A. Cline 06:35 P.M. TOWN OF WILLIAMSPORT LEADERS’ REPORTS AND COMMENTS 06:40 P.M. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS AND COMMENTS 06:45 P.M. REPORTS FROM COUNTY STAFF 06:50 P.M. CITIZENS PARTICIPATION 07:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT Board of County Commissioners have been invited to attend the C&O Canal Headquarters Public Information meeting sponsored by the National Park Service Location: Williamsport Community Center @ Byron Memorial Park Open Session Item SUBJECT: Employee Recognition PRESENTATION DATE: February 12, 2019 PRESENTATION BY: Deb Peyton, Director, Division of Health & Human Services RECOMMENDED MOTION: Informational Purpose Only REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The Health & Human Services Department would like to recognize employees when they have accomplished an academic achievement. DISCUSSION: The Health & Human Services Department would like to recognize employees during Staff Comments for their academic accomplishments. The Human Resources Department, in conjunction with the Director of the department, or their designee, will give a brief overview of the accomplishment. FISCAL IMPACT: None CONCURRENCES: N/A ALTERNATIVES: N/A ATTACHMENTS: None AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: None Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form Open Session Item SUBJECT: Records Retention Contract – Budget Transfer PRESENTATION DATE: February 12, 2019 PRESENTATION BY: Krista Hart, County Clerk RECOMMENDED MOTION: Approval of Budget Transfer REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The County Clerk’s office requests approval to transfer funds from the General Fund Contingency Funding (505150 10 11200) to the Clerk Departmental Fund for Consulting Services (515130 10 10110), in the amount of $26,000.00. DISCUSSION: To comply with Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR), Washington County is required to review and update the existing Records Retention and Disposal Schedule at least once every two (2) years; the last period for this process was adopted by the County in 2009. The Clerk’s office and the Purchasing office developed a Request for Quotes to have all schedules in the County reviewed and developed as required by COMAR .04 Agency Responsibilities. The cost for this completion is per the contracted amount of $26,000. This amount previously was included in the Clerks Operating Budget but at some point, had been removed. FISCAL IMPACT: $26,000 from Contingency General Operations Fund. CONCURRENCES: Clerk; Rick Curry, Director, Purchasing Department ALTERNATIVES: Deny the request ATTACHMENTS: Request for Quotes; Bid Tab; COMAR requirements; sample Schedule page Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form Budget Amendment - Increases or decrease the total spending authority of an accounting fund or department Budget Transfer - Moves revenues or expenditures from one account to another or between budgets or funds. Transaction/Post -Finance Deputy Director - Finance Preparer, if applicable Digitally signed by Krista L. Hart, Clerk Date: 2019.02.04 08:28:33 -05'00' Washington County, Maryland Budget Adjustment Form Department Head Authorization Required approval with date Division Director / Elected Official Authorization If applicable with date Budget & Finance Director Approval Required approval with date County Administrator Approval Required approval with date County Commissioners Approval Required > $ 25,000 with date Expenditure / Account Number Fund Number Department Number Project Number Grant Number Activity Code Department and Account Description Increase (Decrease) + / - 515130 10 10110 Clerk - Consulting Services 26,000 505150 10 11200 Contingency - General Operations Fund -26,000 Explain There was no amount budgeted for the Records Retention project for Washington County. To comply with COMAR Regulations, the County is required to Budget Adjustment review/update the existing Records Retention and Disposal Schedules "at least every two (2) years". The last period for this process was adopted by the County in 2009. Required Action by County Commissioners No Approval Required Approval Required Approval Date if Known 5 REQUEST FOR QUOTATION PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING CONTACT INFORMATION: NOTES: Company Name: _______________________________________ Address: ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ Contact Name: _________________________________________ Contact Title: Phone Number: ________________________________________ E-mail: _______________________________________________ 1. Quoted prices are to be net thirty (30) calendar days: all discounts are to be deducted and reflected in net prices. 2. The County reserves the right to reject any and/or all quotes, to waive any technicalities in the quote, and to take whatever action is in the best interest of Washington County. 3. The County is exempt from State of Maryland Sales Tax. The County's Maryland Sales Tax Exemption Number is 3000129 2. RETURN QUOTATIONS TO: WASHINGTON COUNTY PURCHASING DEPARTMENT Washington County Administration Complex 100 West Washington Street, Third Floor, Room 3200 Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 Attention: Brandi Naugle, CPPB, Buyer Telephone Number: 240-313-2330 REQUEST FOR QUOTATION THIS IS NOT AN ORDER DATE ISSUED 12/21/2018 DELIVERY WANTED See Attachment DESCRIPTION Unit Price RECORDS RETENTION AND DISPOSAL SCHEDULE FOR THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND Q-18-667 (See Attached Instructions & Specifications) QUOTATION DUE: Wednesday, January 23, 2018, no later than 3:00 P.M. (EST) and must be time-stamped in the Purchasing Department. Opening of quotations will follow. Interested parties are invited to attend. QUOTATIONS TO BE ADDRESSED TO: Washington County Purchasing Department, Attn: Brandi Naugle, CPPB, Buyer Administration Complex, 100 W. Washington Street, Third Floor, Room 3200, Hagerstown, Maryland, 21740 and enclosed in a sealed opaque envelope marked "QUOTATION – (Q-18-667) RECORDS RETENTION AND DISPOSAL SCHEDULE" and bearing the vendor's name. Having received clarification on all items of conflict or upon which any doubt arose, the undersigned proposed to furnish all labor, materials and equipment called for by said specifications and instructions for the TOTAL SUM OF: Cost for Color Proof of Front Cover (if requested): $_______________ TOTAL $__________ We quote you as above - F.O.B. _____________________ Official Signature ________________________________ Name Printed ____________________________________ Telephone Number ________________________________ Acknowledge Addenda #________ Date ___________ #_____ Date ________, #________ Date___________ Delivery/Service can be performed no later than _________ calendar days from receipt of order. Date ________________________________________ Instructions Records Retention and Disposal Schedule Q-18-667 Page 2 Q-18-667 RECORDS RETENTION AND DISPOSAL SCHEDULE FOR THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND INSTRUCTIONS 1. QUOTATION SUBMISSION: Quotations are to be enclosed in a sealed opaque envelope bearing the name of the Quoter and marked “QUOTATION – (Q-18-667) RECORDS RETENTION AND DISPOSAL SCHEDULE”. Quotations are to be addressed to Brandi Naugle, CPPB, Buyer, Washington County Purchasing Department, Washington County Administration Complex, 100 West Washington Street, Third Floor, Room 3200, Hagerstown, MD 21740. Please direct all inquiries to Brandi Naugle, CPPB, Buyer at 240-313-2330, fax 240-313-2331. NOTE: All Proposers must enter the Washington County Administration Complex through either the front door at the 100 West Washington Street entrance or through the rear entrance (w/blue canopy roof) which is handicap accessible and must use the elevator to access the Purchasing Department to submit their quotation and/or to attend the Pre- Quotation Conference. Alternate routes are controlled by a door access system. Washington County Government has announced new security protocols being implemented at the Washington County Administration Complex at 100 West Washington Street, Hagerstown. The new measures took effect Tuesday, February 14, 2017. The general public will be subject to wand search and will be required to remove any unauthorized items from the building prior to entry. Prohibited items include but are not limited to: Weapons of any type; Firearms, ammunition and explosive devices; Cutting instruments of any type- including knives, scissors, box cutters, work tools, knitting needles, or anything with a cutting edge, etc.; Pepper spray, mace or any other chemical defense sprays; and Illegal substances. 2. QUOTATION OPENING: Quotations must be received and time-stamped in the Purchasing Department no later than 3:00 P.M., Wednesday, January 23, 2018, local time (EST). Quotations will be opened at that time in the Washington County Administration Complex, Third Floor Conference Room 3000, 100 West Washington Street, Hagerstown, Maryland. All interested parties are invited to attend. Please direct all inquiries to the above Buyer at 240-313- 2330. 3. PRE-QUOTATION CONFERENCE: A Pre-Quotation Conference is scheduled at the Washington County Administration Complex, Third Floor Conference Room 3000, 100 West Washington Street, Hagerstown, Maryland on Thursday, January 3, 2018 at 11:00 A.M. (EST) at which time County personnel will be present to answer any questions. 4. AWARD OF CONTRACT: Washington County shall award the contract to the responsible, responsive low Quoter based on the total sum for the product. When an error is made in extending total price, the unit quotation price will govern. Carelessness in quoting prices, or in preparation of quotation otherwise, will not relieve the Quoter. Erasures or changes in quotations must be initialed. Upon approval of the cost proposal, it is the County’s intent to issue a Notice to Proceed (purchase order) within ten (10) days. Instructions Records Retention and Disposal Schedule Q-18-667 Page 3 5. DISCOUNTS: Quoted prices are to be net thirty (30) days; all discounts are to be deducted and reflected in net prices. 6. INSURANCE: Prior to issuance of a Purchase Order/Notice to Proceed and no later than twenty- four (24) hours after the deadline for receipt of quotations, the successful Quoter must show evidence of insurance as outlined in the copy of Washington County’s – Insurance Requirements for Independent Contractors Policy included herein. 7. DISPUTES: In cases of disputes as to whether or not an item or service quoted or delivered meets specifications, the decision of the County Commissioners or authorized representative shall be final and binding on both parties. 8. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY: The Board of County Commissioners of Washington County does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age and disability in employment or the provision of services. Individuals requiring special accommodations are requested to contact the Purchasing Department at 240-313-2330 Voice, TDD Dial 711 to make arrangements no later than three (3) calendar days prior to the Quotation Opening. 9. EXCEPTION: The submission of a quote shall be considered an agreement to all items, conditions, and specifications provided herein and in the various quotation documents unless specifically noted otherwise in the proposal. 8. INTERPRETATION, DISCREPANCIES, OMISSIONS: Should any Bidder find discrepancies in, or omissions from the documents, or be in doubt of their meaning, or feel that the specifications are discriminatory, he/she should at once request in writing, an interpretation from Brandi Naugle, CPPB, Buyer, Washington County Purchasing Department, Washington County Administration Complex, 100 West Washington Street, Third Floor, Room 3200, Hagerstown, MD 21740, Fax: 240-313-2331. All necessary interpretations will be issued to all Quoters by the Washington County Purchasing Director in the form of addenda to the specifications, and such addenda shall become part of the Contract Documents. Exceptions as taken in no way obligates the County to change the specifications. Failure of any Quoter to receive any such addendum or interpretation shall not relieve such Quoter from any obligation under his/her bid as submitted. The County will assume no responsibility for oral instructions or suggestions. ORAL ANSWERS WILL NOT BE BINDING ON THE COUNTY. Requests received after 4:00 P.M. (EST), Friday, January 11, 2018 may not be considered. All correspondence in regard to this quotation shall be directed to and issued by the Washington County Purchasing Department. Direct all inquiries to the County’s Buyer, Brandi Naugle, CPPB. 9. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES: Liquidated damages shall be applied at the rate of One hundred fifty ($150.00) dollars per day for each day that the successful contractor fails to complete the work as specified herein. 10. PAYMENT: The Consultant shall be compensated for his/her services as follows: Washington County will pay Fifty (50) percent following the presentation of amended schedules to the County for final review and the remaining Fifty (50) percent following the final presentation and signature from the Maryland State Archives. Instructions Records Retention and Disposal Schedule Q-18-667 Page 4 11. PAYMENT OF COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL TAXES: Effective October 1, 1993, in compliance with Section 1-106(b)(3) of the Code of the Public Local Laws of Washington County, Maryland, "If a bidder has not paid all taxes owed to the County or a municipal corporation in the County, the County Commissioners may reject the bidder's bid." 12. POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION DISCLOSURE: In accordance with Maryland Code, State Finance and Procurement Article, §17-402, the Bidder shall comply with Maryland Code, Election Law Article, Title 14, which requires that every person that enters into contracts, leases, or other agreements with the State, a county, or any incorporated municipality, or their agencies during a calendar year in which the person receives in the aggregate $100,000.00 or more, shall file with the State Administrative Board of Election Laws a statement disclosing contributions in excess of $500.00 made during the reporting period to a candidate for elective office in any primary or general election. The statement shall be filed with the State Administrative Board of Election Laws: (1) before a purchase or execution of a lease or contract by the State, a county, an incorporated municipality or their agencies, and shall cover the preceding two (2) calendar years; and (2) if the contribution is made after the execution of a lease or contract, then twice a year, throughout the contract term, on: (a) February 5, to cover the 6-month period ending January 31; and (b) August 5, to cover the 6-month period ending July 31. 13. QUALIFICATION: The Owner may make such investigations as he deems necessary to determine the ability of the bidder to perform the work, and the bidders shall furnish to the Owner all such information and data for this purpose as the Owner may request. The Owner reserves the right to reject any quote if the evidence submitted by or investigation of, such bidder fails to satisfy the Owner that such bidder is properly qualified to carry out the obligation of the Contract and to complete the work contemplated therein. Conditional quotations will not be accepted. 14. RESERVATIONS: The County reserves the right to reject any and/or all quotes, to waive any technicalities in the quote, and to take whatever action is in the best interest of Washington County. 15. RESPONSIBILITY OF CONSULTANT: Each Consultant submitting a quotation for these services shall first examine the site and thoroughly satisfy himself/herself to the conditions under which he/she will operate or that will in any manner affect any service under this contract. The Consultant shall accept the site as he/she finds it. All proposals shall take into consideration all conditions that may affect the service. No allowance shall be made to any Contractor for negligence in this respect. The County's Records Management Policy (GA-1) and the County’s Organizational Chart (Attachment No. 1). 16. SUBSTITUTIONS: All Consultant services are to be supplied in exact accordance with these specifications. Any bidder who contemplates offering a service that differs from that specified must submit to the Purchasing Department, in writing, a request for substitutions no later than 4:00 P.M., (EST), Friday, January 11, 2018 to obtain the Owner's written approval. Approval/ disapproval of substitution requests shall be forwarded by addendum to all potential bidders. All such decisions will be considered final and not subject to further recourse. 17. TIME OF COMPLETION: By submission of his/her proposal, the Bidder agrees to commence work under this Contract, a purchase order shall serve as the Notice to Proceed, design, prosecute the work diligently, and substantially complete for its intended use not later than Sixty (60) Instructions Records Retention and Disposal Schedule Q-18-667 Page 5 calendar days after Notice to Proceed. The time stated for completion shall include amendments, presentations, reviews, and signature from Maryland State Archives. 18. SALES TAX: Washington County Government is exempt from State of Maryland Sales Tax. The County’s Maryland Sales Tax Exemption Number is 3000129 2. The County will provide a sales tax exemption certificate for the items provided under this contract. Scope of Work Records Retention and Disposal Schedule Q-18-667 Page 6 Q-18-667 RECORDS RETENTION AND DISPOSAL SCHEDULE FOR THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND SCOPE OF WORK 1. General Description: Review Washington County’s existing Records Retention and Disposal Schedules as adopted in 1999, pursuant to COMAR Regulations 14.18.02.03 which state that “At least every Five (5) years an agency or office shall review its retention schedule or schedules to determine if they encompass all current record series. Based upon the review, an agency or office may be required to amend or revise its schedules by following the steps outlined in Regulation 02A-Dcu “There are Twenty- seven (27) current schedules for review. The Consultant shall submit the amendments to the County no later than Sixty (60) calendar days after receiving the Notice to Proceed. 2. The Consultant shall: a. Schedule time with each County department to review their current schedule and to make any necessary or requested revisions. b. Include any necessary amendments to address electronics mail/records and current technology in the address. c. Review changes with department heads for final approval. d. Present amended schedules to Maryland Archives for approval and signature. Insurance Requirements Records Retention and Disposal Schedule Q-18-667 Page 7 POLICY TITLE: Insurance Requirements for Independent Contractors ADOPTION DATE: August 29, 1989 EFFECTIVE DATE: September 1, 1989 FILING INSTRUCTIONS: ______________________________________________________ I. PURPOSE To protect Washington County against liability, loss or expense due to damaged property, injury to or death of any person or persons and for care and loss of services arising in any way, out of, or in connection with or resulting from the work or service performed on behalf of Washington County. II. ACTION The following should be inserted in all Independent Contractor Contracts: "The Contractor shall procure and maintain at his sole expense and until final acceptance of the work by the County, insurance as hereinafter enumerated in policies written by insurance companies admitted in the State of Maryland, have A.M. Best rating of A- or better or its equivalent, and acceptable to the County." 1. Workers Compensation: The Contractor agrees to comply with Workers Compensation laws of the State of Maryland and to maintain a Workers Compensation and Employers Liability Policy. Minimum Limits Required: Workers Compensation - Statutory Employers’ Liability - $100,000 (Each Accident) $500,000 (Disease - Policy Limit) $100,000 (Disease - Each Employee) 2. Comprehensive General Liability Insurance: The Contractor shall provide Comprehen- sive General Liability including Products and Completed Operations. Minimum Limits Required: $1,000,000 combined single limit for Bodily Injury and Property Damage. Such insurance shall protect the County, its agents, elected and appointed officials, commission members and employees, and name Washington County on the policy as additional insured against liability, loss or expense due to damaged property (including loss of use), injury to or death of any person or persons and for care and loss of services arising in any way, out of, or in connection with or resulting from the work of service performed on behalf of Washington County. Insurance Requirements Records Retention and Disposal Schedule Q-18-667 Page 8 2. Comprehensive General Liability Insurance (continued) The Contractor is ultimately responsible that Subcontractors, if subcontracting is authorized, procure and maintain at their sole expense and until final acceptance of the work by the County, insurance as hereinafter enumerated in policies written by insurance companies admitted in the State of Maryland, have A.M. Best rating of A- or better or its equivalent, and acceptable to the County. 3. Business Automobile Liability: The Contractor shall provide Business Auto Liability including coverage for all leased, owned, non-owned and hired vehicles. Minimum Limits Required: $1,000,000 combined single limit for Bodily Injury or Property Damage. Certificate(s) of Insurance: The Contractor shall provide certificates of insurance requiring a 30- day notice of cancellation to the Insurance Department, Board of County Commissioners of Washington County prior to the start of the applicable project. Approval of the insurance by the County shall not in any way relieve or decrease the liability of the Contractor. It is expressly understood that the County does not in any way represent that the specified limits of liability or coverage or policy forms are sufficient or adequate to protect the interest or liabilities of the Contractor. All responsibility for payment of any sums resulting from any deductible provisions, corridor, or self-insured retention conditions of the policy or policies shall remain with the Contractor. General Indemnity: The Contractor shall indemnify, defend and save harmless the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, its appointed or elected officials, commission members, employees and agents for any and all suits, legal actions, administrative proceedings, claims, demands, damages, liabilities, interest, attorney’s fees, costs and expenses of whatsoever kind of nature, whether arising before or after final acceptance and in any manner directly or indirectly caused, occasioned or contributed to in whole or in part by reason of any act, error or omission, fault or negligence whether active or passive by the Contractor, or any one acting under its direction, control or on its behalf in connection with or incident to its performance of the Contract. Revision Date: August 27, 1991 Effective Date: August 27, 1991 Revision Date: March 4, 1997 Effective Date: March 4, 1997 Records Management Policy Records Retention and Disposal Schedule Q-18-667 Page 9 POLICY TITLE: Records Management POLICY NUMBER: GA-1 ADOPTION DATE: November 17, 1998 EFFECTIVE DATE: November 17, 1998 I. PURPOSE To establish the policy and procedures for the identification and systematic retirement and/or disposal of obsolete, inactive, semi-active and archival records. II. GENERAL POLICY The policy of Washington County is to provide for efficient and effective controls over creation, distribution, organization, maintenance, use, and disposition of all County records. III. OBJECTIVES The objectives of the Washington County Records Management Programs are: A. To provide for the systematic control of paperwork: records creation, maintenance, usage and disposition of records in accordance with Records Retention and Disposition Schedules approved by the State of Maryland and Washington County. B. To provide adequate controls over the creation of file materials and prevent accumulation of unnecessary files. C. To reduce the quantity of duplicate records through the identification of the official copy of a given record. D. To increase uniformity and simplicity in maintaining and using records. E. To facilitate the classification, filing, retrieval, charging out and refiling of records. F. To satisfy departmental administrative needs, legal mandates, and ensure the proper identification of legal, financial, administrative and historical records. Records Management Policy Records Retention and Disposal Schedule Q-18-667 Page 10 IV. DEFINITIONS The following terms, as used herein, unless a different meaning is clearly implied by the context, shall have the following meaning: A. Public Records - Those records that can be defined to include any paper, correspondence, form, book, photograph, film, sound recording, map, drawing, or other document, regardless of physical form or characteristics, and including all copies thereof, that have been made by any of the departments or received by any department in connection with the transaction of public business. B. Records Management - That function of administrative management concerned with the creation, processing, maintenance, protection, retrieval, retention, preservation, and disposition of records, and recorded information, regardless of media, required for the operation and continuance of government operations. C. Records Disposition Management - The systematic, timely and effective disposal or removal of obsolete or inactive records from office space, and the effective and economical preservation of records of permanent value. V. RESPONSIBILITIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION A. County Clerk/Records Management Officer - The County Clerk shall be responsible for the development, administration and coordination procedures of the Washington County Records Management Program. The County Clerk is also responsible for maintaining all official records of the County, including the following functions: 1. Provide assistance and guidelines to all departments in the preparation of their Records Retention and Disposition Schedules. 2. Provide direct technical assistance and guidance to all departments that will aid in resolving specific files and related records problems. B. Department Heads - Department heads are responsible for ensuring that Records Retention and Disposition Schedules are prepared for their departments, as well as any revisions, as needed. Department heads are also responsible for ensuring that Records Retention and Disposition Schedules are properly applied against records of their department, cooperating with the County Clerk/Records Management Officer to ensure proper administration and implementation of the Washington County Records Management Program, and appointing a member(s) to the Records Management Committee. Records Management Policy Records Retention and Disposal Schedule Q-18-667 Page 11 V. RESPONSIBILITIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION (cont.) C. Records Management Committee - Members of this Committee shall serve as liaisons between the County Clerk/Records Management Officer and the department. They shall also assist in the implementation of the Washington County Records Management Program. D. Legal and Historical Guidelines - The County Attorney shall provide legal guidelines, and the County Clerk shall provide historical guidelines for the Records Management Program, prior to submission to the State Archivist for final approval and authorization to implement. VI. LEGAL AUTHORITY A. ANNOTATED CODE OF MARYLAND, State Government Article, Section 10- 632. B. CODE OF MARYLAND REGULATIONS (COMAR) Title 14.18.02.01-04. Organizational Chart Records Retention and Disposal Schedule Q-18-667 Page 12 a REQUEST FOR QUOTATION PLEASECowui E nw,FOLwwmCONrACrkimizm.AnoN: Company Name: Address: % 1,r Contact Name: Contact Title:-- G 3. Phone Number: ,7fi E-mail: NOTES: Quoted prices are to be net thirty (30) calendar days: all discounts are to be deducted and reflected in net prices. The County reserves the right to reject any and/or all quotes, to waive any technicalities in the quote, and to take whatever action is in the best interest of Washington County. The County is exempt from State of Maryland Sales Tax. The County's Maryland Sales Tax Exemption Number is 3000129 2. RETURN QUOTATI NS TO: REQUEST FOR QUOTATION WASHINGTON COUNTY PURCHASING DEPARTMENT THIS IS NOT Washington County Administration Complex AN ORDER 100 West Washington Street, Third Floor, Room 3200 Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 DATE ISSUED DELIVERY Attention: Brandi Naugle, CPPB, Buyer WANTED 12/21/2018 See Attachment Telephone Number: 240-313-2330 DESCRIPTION Unit Price Total Net Price RECORDS RETENTION AND DISPOSAL SCHEDULE FOR THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND Q-18-667 (See Attached Instructions & Specifications) QUOTATION DUE: Wednesday, January 23, 2018, no later than 3:00 P.M. (EST) and must be time -stamped in the Purchasing Department. Opening of quotations will follow. Interested parties are invited to attend. QUOTATIONS TO BE ADDRESSED TO: Washington County Purchasing TOTAL Department, Attn: Brandi Naugle, CPPB, Buyer, Washington County Administration Complex, 100 W. Washington Street, Third Floor, Room 3200, Hagerstown, Maryland, 21740 and enclosed in a sealed opaque envelope marked] "QUOTATION — (Q-18-667) RECORDS RETENTION AND DISPOSAL SCHEDULE" and bearing the vendor's name. Having received clarification on all items of conflict or upon which any doubt arose, the undersigned proposed to furnish all labor, materials and equipment called for by said specifications and instructions for the,-'O2'AL-I Cost for Color Proof of Front Cover (if requested): $ We quote you as above - F.O.B. Acknowledge Addenda # Date J Z�/C' Official Signature #` Date # Date cr' Name Printed Delivery/Service can be performed no later than endar days from receipt of order. Telephone Number. Z k '�_ `7 Ct -.s' jc ' .� ( Date DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES Schedule No. C1049 RECORDS MANAGEMENT DIVISION RECORDS RETENTION AND DISPOSAL SCHEDULE Supersedes Schedule C863 Page 1 of 1 Agency Division/Unit Washington County County Commissioners Item No Description Retention 1 General file Screen annually. Destroy -consists not limited to: correspondence; permits; budget information; material having no further oath of office; resolutions; transcripts; impact fees studies; inventory list; administrative, fiscal, legal or training material; purchase orders operation value. Retain permanently any material that serves to document the origin, development and accomplishments of the department. Transfer periodically to the Maryland State Archives. 2 Rezoning hearing (originals) —correspondence, graphs, blasting programs, Permanent. Transfer resumes, case files, application for map amendments, zoning maps, periodically to the Maryland handwritten notes, cassette tapes, CDs, application for amendment, site State Archives. drawings, photos 3 Correspondence reading file: correspondence sent and received by the Retain for three (3) years, County commissioners then destroy. 4 Meeting minutes- CDs Retain for one (1) year, then destroy. 5 Closed session minutes of Commissioners meetings Permanent. Transfer periodically to the MD State Archives. 6 Board of County Commissioners minutes of meetings; resolutions; Permanent. Transfer ordinance periodically to the MD State Archives. Approved by Department, Agency or Division Representative Schedule Authorized by State Archivist Date November 17, 2008 Date Signature ��j�1_YT Signature Type Name Joni L. Bittrier Title County Clerk Open Session Item SUBJECT: Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchase (INGT-19-014) – One (1) Extended Cab ¾ Ton Pickup Truck with Snow Plow and One (1) Extended Cab ¾ Ton Pickup Truck for Department of Water Quality PRESENTATION DATE: February 12, 2019 PRESENTATION BY: Dan DiVito, Director, Division of Environmental Management and Mark D Bradshaw, PE, Deputy Director, Division of Environmental Management, Engineering Services RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to authorize by Resolution, Department of Water Quality to purchase one (1) 4x4 extended cab ¾ ton pickup truck with snow plow and one (1) 4x4 extended cab ¾ ton pickup from Hertich Fleet Service, Inc. of Milford, DE. The cost of the pickup truck with plow is $35,272.00 and the cost of the pickup without the plow is 30,489.00. To utilize another jurisdiction’s contract BPO# 001B9400177 that was awarded by the State of Maryland Department of General Services Office of Procurement and Logistics statewide contract for various pickup trucks. REPORT-IN-BRIEF: Department of Water Quality is requesting to purchase one (1) extended cab ¾ ton pickup truck with snow plow and one (1) extended cab ¾ ton pickup truck to replace vehicles that are older than twenty (20) years and exceed the County’s Vehicle and Equipment Types and Usage Guidelines. The County initiated the Vehicle and Equipment Types and Usage Guidelines in 2001. The County’s replacement guidelines for vehicles less than 19,500 lbs. GVWR is recommended at a ten (10) year economic life cycle. The replaced vehicles will be advertised on GovDeals.com for auctioning. The Code of Public Laws of Washington County, Maryland (the Public Local Laws) §1-106.3 provides that the Board of County Commissioners may procure goods and services through a contract entered into by another governmental entity, in accordance with the terms of the contract, regardless of whether the County was a party to the original contract. The State of Maryland Department of General Services Office of Procurement and Logistics took the lead in soliciting the resulting agreement. If the Board of County Commissioners determines that participation by Washington County would result in cost benefits or administrative efficiencies, it could approve the purchase of this service in accordance with the Public Local Laws referenced above by resolving that participation would result in cost benefits or in administrative efficiencies. The County will benefit with direct cost savings in the purchase of this service because of the economies of scale this buying group leveraged. I am confident that any bid received as a result of an independent County solicitation would exceed the spend savings that the State of Maryland’s Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form bid provides through this agreement. Additionally, the County will realize savings through administrative efficiencies as a result of not preparing, soliciting and evaluating a bid. This savings/cost avoidance would, I believe, be significant. DISCUSSION: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are budgeted in the Department of Water Qualities’ Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) account (VEH007) in the amount of $65,761.00. CONCURRENCES: Dan DiVito, Director, Division of Environmental Management, and Rick Curry, Director, Purchasing Department ALTERNATIVES: Process a formal bid and the County could possibly incur a higher cost for the purchase, or Do not award the purchase for the pickup trucks. ATTACHMENTS: Hertrich Fleet Services, Inc quotes. AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A HeRTRICH FLEET SERVICES, INC 1427 Bay Road Milord, DE 19963 Ford - Chevrolet Dodge -jeep it eao Lincoln - I-Innda - Buick - GMC -'Toyota - Nissan / a (800) 698-9825 (302) 422-3300 Fax: (302) 839-0555 MARYLAND STATEWIDE CONTRACT 2019 LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS - BPO# 00189400177 TYPE 7: % TON PICKUP 2019 FORD F250 2WD, W/ 6.21L V8 GAS ENGINE, 6 SPD AUTO TRANS, VINYL SEAT & FLOOR, A/C, AM/FM RADIO, TRAILER TOW PI(G, BLUETOOTH, E-LOCKING AXLE, POWER WINDOWS, LOCI(S & MIRRORS, DRIVER CONFIGURABLE DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS, PRIVACY GLASS, REAR DEFROSTER Code Description Amount F2A _ 2019 F250 - REGULAR CAB 2WD 8' BED $22,230 X2A 2019 F250 - EXTENDED CAB 2WD 6,75' BED _ $24,312 W2A 2019 F250 - CREW CAB (4 Doors) 2WD 6.75' BED $25,568 8' BED ** Add 8' BED ** N/C 99T 6.7L Power Stroke Diesel Engine $7,684 _ 4WD 4 Wheel Drive $4,997 18B Running Boards $495 18C 6" Angular Chrome Step Bars (req. 17S --STX Appearance Package) $695 2KEY 2 Extra Keys (without FOBS) $90 2FOB 2 Extra Keys (with FOBS) $390 TBM LT245/7SRX17E BSW ALL TERRAIN Tires (4) $165 TCD LT_265/70RX17E OWL ALL TERRAIN Tires (4) $455 TDX _ LT275/75RX18E BSW ALL TERRAIN Tires (4) (req. STX Appearance Package) $265 1S Medium Earth Gray Cloth 40/20/40 Front Seat $315 45 Medium Earth Grey Cloth 40/Minl-Console/40 Front Seat $615 17F XL DECOR PACKAGE: • Bright chrome hub covers and center ornaments • Chrome front and rear step bumper $220 175 STX PACKAGE APPEARANCE PACKAGE: • Bright Chrome Grille • Bright Hub Covers • 18" Sparkle Silver Painted Cast Aluminum Wheels • Chrome Front and Rear Step Bumpers • SYNC • Cruise Control $1620 96V XL VALUE PACKAGE: • 4.2" Center -stack screen • AM/FM Stereo Single-CD/MP3 • Bright chrome hub covers and center ornaments • Chrome front Wear step bumper • Cruise Control $1,020 "A Member of the HeRTRICH Family of Automobile Dealerships" HeRTRICH FLEET SERVICES, INC 1427 Bay Road Milford, DL 19963 Ford - Chevrolet - Dodge -,jeep Lincoln - Honda - Buick - GMC - Toyota - Nissan HeRTRICH FLEET SERVICES, INC 1427 Bay Road Milford, DE 19963 Ford - Chevrolet - Dodge -.Jeep Uncola - Honda - Buick - G MC - Toyota - Nissan i HeRTRICH FLEET SERVICES, INC 1427 Bay Road Milford, DE 19963 Ford - Chevrolet - Dodge - Jeep Lincohi - Honda - Buick - GMC-'Foyom - Nissan (800) 698-9825 (302) 422.330C Fax: e),3 57, MARYLAND STATEWIDE CONTRACT 2019 LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS — BPO# 0016940017� TYPE 7: 3/ TON PICKUP 2019 FORD F250 2WD, W/ 6.21- V8 GAS ENGINE, 6 SPD AUTO TRANS, VINYL SEAT & FLOOR, A/C, AM/FM RADIO, TRAILER TOW PKG, BLUETOOTH, E-LOCKING AXLE, POWER WINDOWS, LOCKS & MIRRORS, DRIVER CONFIGURABLE DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS, PRIVACY GLASS, REAR DEFROSTER 0/ Code Description Amount F2A 2019 F250 - REGULAR CAB 2WD 8' BED $22,230 X2A 2019 F250 - EXTENDED CAB 2WD 6.75' BED $24,312:;1 W2A 2019 F250 - CREW CAB (4 Doors) 2WD 6.75' BED $25,568 8' BED ** Add 8' BED ** N/C 99T 6.71- Power Stroke Diesel Engine $7,684 4WD 4 Wheel Drive $4,997 18B Running Boards $495 18C 6" Angular Chrome Step Bars (req. 17S—STX Appearance Package) $695 2KEY 2 Extra Keys (without FOBS) $90 2FOB 2 Extra Keys (with FOBS) $390 TBM LT245/75RX17E BSW ALL TERRAIN Tires (4) $165 TCD LT265/70RX17E OWL ALL TERRAIN Tires (4) $455 TDX LT275/75RX18E BSW ALL TERRAIN Tires (4) (req. STX Appearance Package) $265 15 Medium Earth Gray Cloth 40/20/40 Front Seat $315 4S Medium Earth Grey Cloth 40/Mini-Console/40 Front Seat $615 17F XL DECOR PACKAGE: • Bright chrome hub covers and center ornaments • Chrome front and rear step bumper $220 17S STX PACKAGE APPEARANCE PACKAGE: • Bright Chrome Grille • Bright Hub Covers • 18" Sparkle Silver Painted Cast Aluminum Wheels • Chrome Front and Rear Step Bumpers • SYNC • Cruise Control $1620 96V XL VALUE PACKAGE: _ • 4.2" Center -stack screen • AM/FM Stereo Single-CD/MP3 • Bright chrome hub covers and center ornaments • Chrome front &rear step bumper • Cruise Control $1020 "A Member of the HORTRICH Family of Automobile Dealerships" HeRTR.ICH FLEET SERVICES, INC 1427 Bay Road Milford, DE 19963 Ford - Chevrolet - Dodge -jeep Lincoln - Honda - Buick - GMC - Toyota - Nissan HeRTRICH FLEET SERVICES, INC 1427 Bay Road Milford, DE 19963 Ford - Chevrolet. - Dodge -jeep Lincoln -Honda - Buick - GMC - Toyota - Nissan Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form Open Session Item SUBJECT: Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchase (INGT-19-0013) of Buses for the County Transit Department / County Commuter PRESENTATION DATE: February 12, 2019 PRESENTATION BY: Rick Curry, CPPO, Director, Purchasing Department and Kevin Cerrone, Director, Transit / County Commuter RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to authorize by Resolution, the County Transit / County Commuter Department to purchase six (6) Medium-Duty buses from American Truck & Bus Inc. of Annapolis, MD; the cost of each bus being $279,429.00 for a total amount of $1,676,574.00 and to utilize another jurisdiction’s contract (RFP #18-12) that was awarded by Cecil County, Maryland, approved by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA). REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The County Transit / County Commuter Department is requesting to purchase six (6) Medium-Duty Buses for twenty-three (23) passengers with two (2) wheelchair positions to replace six (6) buses that are twelve (12) years old with over 300,000 miles each, which exceeds the Maryland Transit Administration’s (MTA) standard useful life criteria. The Code of the Public Laws of Washington County, Maryland (the Code) §1-106.3 provides that the Board of County Commissioners may procure goods and services through a contract entered into by another governmental entity, in accordance with the terms of the contract, regardless of whether the County was a party to the original contract. Cecil County Purchasing Office took the lead in soliciting the resulting bid. If the Board of County Commissioners determines that participation by Washington County would result in cost benefits or administrative efficiencies, it could approve the purchase of these vehicles in accordance with the Code referenced above by resolving that participation would result in cost benefits or in administrative efficiencies. The County will benefit with direct cost savings in the purchase of these vehicle because of the economies of scale this contract has leveraged. Additionally, the County will realize savings through administrative efficiencies, which I believe would be significant as a result of not preparing, soliciting and evaluating a bid. Acquisition of these vehicles by utilizing the Cecil County, MD contract and eliminating our County’s bid process would result in administrative efficiencies and cost savings for the County Transit / County Commuter and Purchasing Department. I am confident that any bid received as a result of an independent County solicitation would exceed the spend savings that Cecil County’s contract provides through this agreement. DISCUSSION: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are budgeted in the Transit Department’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) account (VEH003). Funding breakdown, (Federal 80%, State 10%, and Local 10%). CONCURRENCES: Andrew Eshleman, Director, Public Works ALTERNATIVES: Process a formal bid and the County could possibly incur a higher cost for the purchase, or Do not award the purchase of the buses. ATTACHMENTS: American Truck & Bus Inc. quote, dated January 3, 2019. AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A 1 195 Defense Highway Annapolis, Maryland 21401 www.American-Bus.com (410) 224-8224 Fax (410) 266-9668 “The Bus Professionals” January 3, 2019 Mr. Kevin Cerrone Director of Transportation 1000 West Hagerstown Street Hagerstown, MD 21740 Bus Purchase for Washington County Transit 2019 - 30’ Low Floor ENC Passport Model Transit Bus base price per Cecil County RFP 18-12 …… $262,538.00 Published Options per Cecil County RFP 18-12: Extended warranty for Engine/Drive Train per unit …… $ 11,341.00 - Engine 5 yr/300,000 miles - Transmission 5 yr/unlimited miles - Chassis 5 yr/100,000 miles Exterior Graphics for Washington County …… $ 1,650.00 Two Day Training Class …… $ 3,900.00 Total Purchase price for Washington County Transit …… $ 279,429.00 Open Session Item SUBJECT: Financial Support for University System of Maryland-Hagerstown’s (USMH) contribution to the Urban Improvement Project PRESENTATION DATE: February 12, 2019 PRESENTATION BY: Mark Halsey, Executive Director, USMH, Howard “Blackie” Bowen, USMH Board of Advisors, and James Holzapfel, USMH Board of Advisors RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the request for funding from the USMH in the amount of $__________, for expenses associated with the Urban Improvement Project. REPORT-IN-BRIEF: USMH is requesting a financial contribution of $250,000, spread over up to five years, to assist the organization's Urban Improvement Project initiatives. DISCUSSION: The University System of Maryland (USMH) is the third component of the Urban Improvement Project, complementing renovations to the Maryland Theatre and construction of the Washington County Public School urban educational campus. USMH’s portion of the project includes the development of a new Hospitality and Tourism Management program, dependent upon a dedicated Hospitality Center; and the new Health Sciences Center, which will house the new graduate Physician Assistant program in 2019, with plans for an additional health program in the future. The Hospitality Center will be located adjacent to the planned urban plaza behind the Maryland Theatre and will be the Plaza’s western anchor. The Hospitality Center will provide space with the capacity to seat and feed up to 200 people. When this space is combined with the Maryland Theatre’s new space, Hagerstown will have an important new conference center, which will be marketable to groups which previously could not be accommodated downtown. The synergy of these new programs, along with the UIP’s other components, will address local workforce development needs, impact the shortage of physician assistants, educate managers in Hospitality and Tourism, many whom will travel here from outside the area, and revitalize downtown Hagerstown. The economic impact of the project includes millions of dollars spent on construction and its impact on contractors and employees, over $600,000 of added payroll related to the new programs, new consumer spending by students, faculty and staff; added rental housing for students, and possible home sales for new faculty and staff. USMH has been able to raise significant funds for the project thanks to the generosity of residents, foundations, and organizations, but a funding gap of $400,000 remains for the combined projects, and an additional $450,000 in support of related programs to benefit Hagerstown and Washington County. USMH requests that the Board of County Commissioners consider a contribution of Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form $250,000 which can be structured in installments payable over five years, to assist with narrowing this funding gap. FISCAL IMPACT: $__________ payable in five annual installments of $___________ as determined by the Board of County Commissioners. Reports on expenditures will be submitted annually to the Office of Grant Management. CONCURRENCES: N/A ALTERNATIVES: Deny the request for funding. ATTACHMENTS: None AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: None Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form Open Session Item SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Application for Zoning Map Amendment RZ-18-003, P Overlook LLLP PRESENTATION DATE: February 12, 2019 PRESENTATION BY: Jill Baker, Deputy Director, Department of Planning and Zoning RECOMMENDED MOTION: No motion is needed at this time. The purpose of this public hearing is to take public comment on the rezoning application. REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The applicant requests the rezoning of a property located at the southeast corner of US 340 and Keep Tryst Road. The request is to rezone the property from Rural Village with a nine (9) lot residential density restriction to Rural Village without a residential density restriction. DISCUSSION: In this case the applicant is claiming that the county erred in the rezoning of this property first in 2003 and again in 2005. Piecemeal rezoning applications are under an obligation to meet the test of the “change or mistake rule”. As part of the evaluation to determine if the applicant has shown that there has been a change in the character of the neighborhood or there was a mistake in the most recent zoning of the parcel, the Maryland Annotated Code Land Use Article and the Washington County Zoning Ordinance state that the local legislative body is required to make findings of fact on at least six different criteria in order to ensure that a consistent evaluation of each case is provided. Those criteria include: 1) population change; 2) the availability of public facilities; 3) present and future transportation patterns; 4) compatibility with existing and proposed development for the area; 5) the recommendation of the planning commission; and 6) the relationship of the proposed amendment to the local jurisdiction’s Comprehensive Plan. Staff contends that this is not a case of change or mistake but rather a reconsideration of a previous zoning decision. There are currently no rules, policies, regulations or statues in Washington County ordinances that allow for the reconsideration of a zoning case. According to previous Maryland case law, if there is no clear process for an applicant to request a reconsideration of previous decisions, common law rule is applied. Under common law rule any petition requesting reconsideration must prove that the prior decision resulted from “fraud, mistake, surprise, or inadvertence”. The application and the Staff Report and Analysis address these items. The Washington County Planning Commission held a public rezoning input meeting on September 10, 2018 and made a recommendation to deny the application on October 1, 2018. As stated in the attached recommendation letter, the Planning Commission is recommending denial of this application based on the opinion that the Board of County Commissioners was within its legislative authority to place residential density restrictions on this property based on an analysis of compatibility with surrounding land uses. Furthermore, the Planning Commission referenced public comment taken at the public input meeting noting that numerous judicial proceedings, in varying levels of the Maryland judicial system, have not negated the Board of County Commissioners decision to apply the density restriction. The Planning Commission believes the restriction is valid and should remain. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A CONCURRENCES: Washington County Planning Commission ALTERNATIVES: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Rezoning Application Staff Report and Analysis dated August, 2018 Timeline of Events related to subject parcel Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission Minutes Public Comments Received to date AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A FOR PLANNING COMMISSION USE ONLY Rezoning No. ki 1- ~' Date Filed: WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ZONING ORDINANCE MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION P Overlook LLLP Applicant 1,45 5 Ca rrc I I S+ Sle 150, Frederie1e, Mb Zi70I Address Jason M. Divelbiss Primary Contact NProperty Owner ❑Contract Purchaser ❑Attorney ❑Consultant ❑Other: 717-593-7200 / 301-791-9222 Phone Number jdivelbiss@divelbisslaw.com I I I Z5 &rm5eje Y4*- RCa, (Veen ask- PA 172 2_5 _ Address E-mail Address Property Location: 2q •32 AtrrS i beakol neDlY 4x okrseC-hon of MarL.1laod & ,546 Gi. d 0087 0018 0010 24.32 Kee p Tr �lS t t�d . Tax Map: Grid: Parcel No.: Acreage: RV Rural Village) RV (Rural Village) Current Zoning: w I Ai nl,,,e(,)) fatlat�� Requested Zoning: w,'i`1,o n'ne(�� 1. t cCvr,y Reason for the Request: t Change in the character of the neighborhood >(Mistake in original zoning PLEASE NOTE: A Justification Statement is required for either reasons Subscribed and sworn before me this My commission expires on .r —, ) ---- Applicant's Signature day of 20 Notary Public FOR PLANNING COMMISSION USE ONLY ❑ Application Form ❑ Fee Worksheet ❑ Application Fee ❑ Ownership Verification ❑ Boundary Plat (Including Metes & Bounds) ❑ Names and Addresses of all Adjoining & Confronting Property Owners ❑ Vicinity Map ❑ Justification Statement ❑ 30 copies of complete Application Package EXHIBIT f4 GOON d`�a cOG Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning 1'9RyLRNO Owner's Representative Affidavit This is to certify that P Overlook LLLP ("Overlook") is the owner of that certain +/- 24.32 acre parcel of real property located near the intersection of Maryland Rte. 340 and Keep Tryst Road (the "Property"), and that Jason M. Divelbiss, its Attorney representative, is hereby authorized to make application for the piecemeal rezoning of the Property from its current zoning classification of RV (Rural Village) with Nine (9) lot density restriction to RV (Rural Village) without Nine (9) lot density restriction. P Overlook By: Buckeye nt LLC, General Partner By: Name: Edward G. Smariga Title: Managing Member 125 South Carroll Street, Ste. 150 Frederick, MD 21701 EXHIBIT J_ ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS NAME PREMISES ADDRESS LIBER/FOLIO MAILING ADDRESS TAX MAP/PARCEL Church United Methodist of Sand 19018 Sandyhook Rd. 19018 Sandyhook Rd. 1 HK Knoxville, MD 21758 1549/533 Knoxville, MD 21758 0087/0039 19028 Sandyhood Rd. 19028 Sandyhood Rd. 2 Cristy F. Elkins & Gene E. Hannold Knoxville, MD 21758 4064/376 Knoxville, MD 21758 0087/0079 19032 Sandyhook Rd. 7113 Poplar Ave 3 Cynthia J. Hallberlin & Joel S. Kante Knoxville, MD 21758 3847/237 ITakoma Park, MD 20912 0087/0078 19038 Sandyhook Rd. 7113 Poplar Ave 4 Cynthia J. Hallberlin & Joel S. Kante Knoxville, MD 21758 3847/237 ITakoma Park, MD 20912 0087/0077 19040 Sandyhook Rd. 19040 Sandyhook Rd. 5 Jerry L. Poston Knoxville, MD 21758 1376/1019 1 Knoxville, MD 21758 0087/0048 19104 Sandyhook Rd. 19104 Sandyhook Rd. 6 Mervin F. Nuice Knoxville, MD 21758 4147/279 Knoxville, MD 21758 0087/0025 19108 Sandyhook Rd. 19108 Sandyhook Rd. 7 Edward R. Kornacki, et al Knoxville, MD 21758 2997/54 Knoxville, MD 21758 0087/0075 19112 Sandyhook Rd. 7005 Gilardi Rd. 8 Sandy Hook, LLC Knoxville, MD 21758 5498/250 Boonsboro, MD 21713 0087/0074 Sandyhood Rd. 7005 Gilardi Rd. 9 Michael Vernon Brown Knoxville, MD 21758 5299/0047 Boonsboro, MD 21713 0087/224 19126 Sandyhook Rd. 19126 Sandyhook Rd. 10 Jennifer Hymiller & Curtis Wolfe Knoxville, MD 21758 4058/393 Knoxville, MD 21758 0087/149 19200 Sandyhook Rd. 19200 Sandyhook Rd. 11 Daniel L. Patterson Knoxville, MD 21758 5264/282 Knoxville, MD 21758 0087/222 19204 Sandy Hook Rd. 19204 Sandy Hook Rd. 12 Marlene L Hackley L/E Knoxville, MD 21758 5561/481 Knoxville, MD 21758 0087/0073 C/O Wash Co Water & 19223 Keep Tryst Rd. Sewer 16232 Elliott Pkwy 13 Wash Co Sanitary Knoxville, MD 21758 1002/102 Williamsport, MD 21795 0088/0119 19311 Keep Tryst Rd. 716 S. Philadelphia Blvd. 14 Donley Holdings, LLC Knoxville, MD 21758 4213/0070 Aberdeen, MD 21001 0088/0039 19105 Keep Tryst Rd. 8005 Pulaski Hwy. 15 Narayan Swarupdas Corp Knoxville, MD 21758 2213/0677 Baltimore, MD 21237 0087/0023 19119 Keep Tryst Rd. 6 Wagon Shed Lane 16 June Z. Gilbert Trustee Knoxville, MD 21758 3796/503 Middletown, MD 21769 0087/0027 19128 Keep Tryst Rd. 19128 Keep Tryst Rd. 17 Robert & Wendy Rensburg Knoxville, MD 21758 5379/210 Knoxville, MD 21758 0087/158 504 Prospect Hill Rd. 504 Prospect Hill Rd. 18 Ilani A & Gerald Briand Donley Knoxville, MD 21758 44446/115 Knoxville, MD 21758 0088/0105 E IBIT � � } £ \ m � ± � + k k 2 , � � ■ � f | j } ) )) 2 } } } I a 2 ! to � \ � f } § - \ f f � � q a r k � � a ■ . 2 $ $ � � a i � R ■ a ) a - " - ■ ■ � ; � ! � � 2 ■ § a 2 |� f 0 0 0 a ¢ a k$} 2 J z 2 �� � > June 14, 2018 Department of Planning & Zoning Attn: Stephen Goodrich, Director Washington County Admin. Complex 100 W. Washington Street, Suite 2600 Hagerstown, MD 21740 Re: Piecemeal Rezoning of +/ 24.32 Acres of Real Property Located near the intersection of Maryland Rte. 340 and Keep Tryst Road, Knoxville, MD 21758 Dear Mr. Goodrich: P Overlook LLLP ("Overlook" or "Applicant") is the owner of that certain parcel of real property located near the intersection of Maryland Rte. 340 and Keep Tryst Road in Knoxville, MD 21758 (Map 87, Parcel 10; Tax Acct. No. 11-007872) containing +/- 24.32 acres which is shown and depicted on the Zoning, Tax Parcel Map attached hereto as Exhibit #1. (the "Property"). Overlook hereby requests a change in the zoning classification for the Property from RV (Rural Village) with Nine (9) lot density restriction to RV (Rural Village) without Nine (9) lot density restriction. Current Zoning In October 2003, the Property was rezoned by the Board of County Commissioners from Business General (BG) to Rural Village (RV) (Piecemeal Rezoning Case RZ-03-001) (the "2003 Piecemeal Rezoning"). The Property had been zoned BG since 1983 and is the location of the former Hillside Motel. The Commissioners' "Findings of Fact and Articulation of Reasons for Decision" in the 2003 Piecemeal Rezoning case reached the following conclusion: "[T[he Board finds that the Rural Village zoning is appropriate and logical for the subject property and the same is hereby granted, with the condition that no more than nine (9) lots may be developed on the subject property." (the "9-Lot Density Restriction") EXHIBIT k # r- 11125 Bemisderfer Road I Greencastle, PA 17225 1301.791.9222 1 jdivelbiss@divelbisslaw.com In July 2005, as part of the County's Comprehensive Rural Area Rezoning (the "2005 Comprehensive Rezoning'), the Property's RV zoning classification was confirmed with no specific reference to the 9-Lot Density Restriction or any other special conditions or restrictions. By letter dated September 13, 2006 (the "2006 Thompson Letter"), Planning Director Mike Thompson, took the position that "the density limit still applies to the Property" notwithstanding the 2005 Comprehensive Rezoning. This remains the position of the County. Rezoning Request Applicant contends that in this case a 'mistake' was made in the original zoning of the Property. The 2006 Thompson Letter referenced above was appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals by Overlook, who purchased the Property from William and Sylvia Martin in February 2004. That Appeal was denied by the Board of Zoning Appeals, affirmed by the Circuit Court, and culminated in a reported opinion by the Court of Special Appeals which found the following: The 2006 Thompson Letter was simply reporting and confirming past events and thus did not constitute an appealable order, requirement, decision or determination of the County. All of the Property Owner's substantive legal challenges to the 9-Lot Density Restriction could have been and, if objectionable, should have been pursued in an action for judicial review of the 2003 Piecemeal Rezoning. Even if the 2006 Thompson Letter were appealable, the Board of Zoning Appeals was correct in finding that the Property Owner should be equitably estopped from challenging the 9-Lot Density Restriction. The Property Owner was aware of and actively participated in both the 2003 Piecemeal Rezoning and 2005 Comprehensive Rezoning processes and thus should not be allowed to collaterally attack those actions. Thus, the substance of Applicant's arguments that (i) the 9-lot Density Restriction imposed as part of the 2003 Piecemeal Rezoning was impermissible; and (ii) even if the 9-lot Density Restriction was permissible, the legal effect of the 2005 Comprehensive Rezoning was to replace and supplant the 2003 Piecemeal Rezoning and assign an unaltered "RV" zoning classification to the Property. MD Code, Land Use, § 4-103 permits a legislative body to impose conditions or limitations that they consider "appropriate to improve or protect the general character and design" of the land being zoned or the surrounding area. However, when a local government enters into an agreement whereby the government exacts a performance or promise in exchange for its agreement to rezoning property, the government has engaged in illegal contract zoning. See, e.g., Brandywine Enterprises, Inc. v. Prince George's County,117 Md. App. 525, 700 A.2d 1216 (1997); Baltimore County v. Beachwood I Ltd Partnership, 107 Md. App. 627, 670 A.2d 484 (1995); and Baylis v. City of Baltimore, 219 Md. 164,148 A.2d 429 (1959). Based upon the record in this case, including a statement in the minutes from the 2003 Piecemeal Rezoning that the County and rezoning applicant were "bartering" over the level of permissible development on the Property, it is clear that the 9-Lot Density Restriction was illegal contract zoning and violative of the requirement of uniformity within zoning districts (see MD Code, Land Use, § 4-201). See also the 2006 Thompson Letter which states: "[w]ithout [the 9-lot density] condition, the Board would not have supported the revised request." In further support of the Applicant's argument that a 'mistake' was made, when the Property was comprehensively rezoned in 2005 to RV without any reference to the 9- Lot Density Restriction there was no legal basis for concluding that the Restriction, or any other component of the 2003 Piecemeal Rezoning survived. It is simply inconceivable and contrary to fundamental principles of zoning law that the 2005 Comprehensive Rezoning did not consume and replace the 2003 Piecemeal Rezoning in its entirety. Again, the minutes from the 2003 Piecemeal Rezoning are instructive when they note the County Attorney's belief that the Commissioners' action on the applicant's rezoning request "would otherwise be consumed by the comprehensive rezoning, absent the execution of a development rights easement." Applicant requests that the County take legislative action to acknowledge and correct the errors made in 2003 and 2005 by "rezoning" the Property from RV with a 9-Lot Density Restriction to RV without a 9-Lot Density restriction. Very truly yours, ivelbiss &Wilkinson Jas M. Divelbiss At o ey at Law Em ' : idivelbiss@di7►elbissla7n.corn August, 2018 Case #: RZ-18-003 Application for Map Amendment Staff Report and Analysis Property Owner(s) : P Overlook LLLP Applicant(s) : P Overlook LLLP Location : SE Quadrant of US 340 and Keep Tryst Road Election District : #11 – Sandy Hook Comprehensive Plan Designation : Environmental Conservation Zoning Map : 87 Parcel(s) : P. 10 Acreage : 24.32 acres Existing Zoning : Rural Village (9-lot restriction) Requested Zoning: Rural Village (no restriction) Date of Public Input Meeting : September 10, 2018 Background and Findings Analysis: Location and Description of Subject Property The subject parcel is bounded on three (3) sides by State and County roads. The northern boundary of the property is Keep Tryst Road. To the west of the property is US 340 and the eastern boundary is Sandy Hook Road. On the southern boundary of the subject parcel there are twelve (12) residential parcels along Sandy Hook Road. The parcel contains 24.32 acres of land that is mostly wooded and is currently vacant. The parcels topography forms two peaks or high points, one in the center and one near the Keep Tryst Road/Sandy Hook Road intersection. The ground surface slopes down and away in all directions from those high points. There is an un- named stream along the western edge of the parcel that flows south out letting to the Potomac River. Figure 1: View of subject property from the corner of Sandy Hook Road and Keep Tryst Road. Staff Report and Analysis RZ-18-003 – P Overlook LLLP Page 2 Population Analysis To evaluate the change in population, information was compiled from the US Census Bureau over a thirty-year time frame. A thirty-year horizon was picked to show long term population trends both in the election district of the proposed rezoning, as well as the overall trends of the County. The subject parcel is located in the Sandy Hook Election District, #11. The Sandy Hook Election District is about 16.2 square miles (10,350 acres) in size and has a population of approximately 1,865 people according to the 2010 Decennial Census. This averages to a population density of 115.1 persons per square mile. In comparison, the County has an average population density of 315 persons per square mile. Figure 2 – Election District #11 As shown in the table below, this district has slowly grown in population by about 20.3% (or about 0.67% per year) over the thirty-year period. During the same 30-year span, population in the County as a whole has increased by 30.37% (or 1.01% per year). It is evident from these figures that this election district has grown more slowly than the County as a whole and is one of the more sparsely populated areas. KEEP TRYST RD BROWN RD BOTELER RD HAR P ER S FE R R Y RD DARGAN RD HOFFMA STER RD MCCOY RD ARTHUR LN GARRETTSMILL RD KAETZEL RD DOCS LN CHESTNUT GROVE RD SILVER RUN PL BACK RD MOUNT LOCKHILL RD TREE TOP DR SANDYHOOK RD MOUNT LOCK CANAL RD DAR GAN RD VICTOR LN YARR O WSBURG RD ASPEN DR ROCKY RD US HWY 340 PLEASANTVILLE RD HARRISHOLLOW LN NORSTAR LN FROG EYE RD LIMEKILN RD PROSPECT HILL RD WILLIAM WAY GRISTMILL LN YOURTEE RD RIVERGATE RD DEER PATH REED RD BASSWOOD LN CLOVER HILL LN TAULTON LNOUTPOST RD HAWKS HIL L LN GINSENG LN BOBCAT RIDGE LN WEVERTON CLIFFS RD ROH RERSVILLE RD HAWKSHILL LN MORGAN PINE RD MILLERAVE MAZE LN SOLOMONSGAP LN SEVENDAYS LN US HWY340 Staff Report and Analysis RZ-18-003 – P Overlook LLLP Page 3 Year Area Population % change from previous decade District 1550 County 113086 District 1663 7.3% County 121393 7.3% District 1811 8.9% County 131932 8.7% District 1865 3.0% County 147430 11.7%2010 Population Trends 1980 - 2010 1980 1990 2000 Source: US Census Bureau Availability of Public Facilities Water and Sewerage The adopted Water and Sewerage Plan for the County establishes the policies and recommendations for public water and sewer infrastructure to help guide development in a manner that helps promote healthy and adequate service to citizens. By its own decree, the purpose of the Washington County Water and Sewerage Plan is “…to provide for the continued health and well-being of Washington Countians and our downstream neighbors…”1 This is achieved through implementing recommendations within the County Comprehensive Plan and the Water and Sewerage Plan to provide for services in a timely and efficient manner and by establishing an inventory of existing and programmed services. Water: The subject property is located within a W-3 (Programmed Service) service area as delineated in the 2009 Water and Sewerage Plan. There is no public water service currently on the site; therefore, any new development would require an extension of services. Public water service in this area is provided by the Washington County Division of Environmental Management. It is a Rural Village System that has a permitted capacity of 15,000 gallons per day (GPD). Wastewater: The subject property is located within an S-3 (Programmed Service) service area as delineated in the 2009 Water and Sewerage Plan. There is no public sewerage service currently on the site; therefore, any new development would require an extension of services. 1 Washington County, Maryland Water and Sewerage Plan 2009 Update, Page I-2 Staff Report and Analysis RZ-18-003 – P Overlook LLLP Page 4 Public sewer service in this area is provided by the Washington County Division of Environmental Management. It is an extended aeration facility with nutrient removal capabilities. The permitted capacity of the Sandy Hook Wastewater Treatment Facility is 30,000 GPD. A copy of this application was sent to the Division of Environmental Management for review and comment. Mark Bradshaw, Deputy Director of the Department of Water Quality stated that the Department has no objection to the rezoning. Emergency Services Fire: The subject parcel is located within the service area of the Potomac Valley Volunteer Fire Company (Company #11). The property is approximately 6.7 miles away from the fire station located in Dargan. Emergency Rescue: Emergency Rescue services are provided by Boonsboro Rescue (Company #69). The property is located approximately 2.8 miles from the rescue station located on MD Route 67. A copy of this application was sent to each of the volunteer companies as well as to the Washington County Division of Emergency Services. No comments have been received regarding this application. Schools The property is located within the school districts of Pleasant Valley Elementary, Boonsboro Middle, and Boonsboro High schools. The subject property is currently zoned Rural Village which does allow for new residential development. Minimum lot sizes for new residential development in the Rural Village District are as follows: Minimum 40,000 square feet where public water and sewer are NOT available Minimum 30,000 square feet where public water OR sewer is available Minimum 20,000 square feet where public water AND sewer is available. As stated previously, public water and sewer facilities are in near proximity to the subject parcel; therefore, with approvals of the service providers and developer funded extensions of service lines, the developer could use the 20,000 square foot minimum lot size. Raw data calculations show that for the 24.32-acre subject parcel, the maximum number of lots that could be created would be 52, however, when factoring in the basic infrastructure needs of a development of this size this is an unrealistic figure. Typically, when estimating development potential, the County assumes that about 25% of an original parcel will be used for infrastructure needs (i.e. stormwater management, road networks, public water and sewer easements, etc.) for development. That would reduce the potential number of new lots to approximately 39. Staff Report and Analysis RZ-18-003 – P Overlook LLLP Page 5 This specific parcel also has additional limitations in development potential related to sensitive areas such as floodplain and steep slopes. In at least one of the several past development proposals for this site the applicant designed a 34-lot single family subdivision. It is assumed that the developer based this design on the RV zoning without having a density restriction. The plan was not approved. While these calculations represent potential development based upon the current Rural Village zoning district, this specific parcel had restrictions placed upon the maximum number of lots permitted as part of a rezoning application in 2006. In rezoning case RZ- 03-001 the Board of County Commissioners approved the Rural Village zoning district for this property with a condition that development be limited to a maximum of 9 lots. To evaluate the impacts of development on public school system resources we first look at existing conditions. In accordance with the adopted Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO), adequacy is determined based upon the State Rated Capacity (SRC) of each school district. The threshold for adequacy (stated as the Local Rated Capacity) at the elementary school level is 90% of the SRC. Middle and high school thresholds are 100% of the SRC. The table below shows the existing capacity and enrollment figures for each school district affected by this proposed rezoning. It should be noted that enrollment currently exceeds the Local Rated Capacity at the elementary school level. School State  Rated  Capacity Local  Rated  Capacity Current  Enrollment  (March 2018) Pleasant Valley Elementary 229 206 220 Boonsboro Middle 872 872 763 Boonsboro High 1030 1030 907 In addition to current enrollment figures, the APFO outlines a specific formula that accounts for several variables that can influence changes in school enrollment. These factors include pipeline and background enrollment. Pipeline development equates to approved subdivision lots that have not yet been built upon while background enrollment is an average of enrollment changes within a given district over a 3-year period. The table below shows the adjusted enrollment for the school districts that serve the subject property. School Current  Enrollment  (March 2018) Pipeline  Enrollment Background  Enrollment Adjusted  Enrollment Pleasant Valley Elementary 220 41.28 ‐4.1 257.18 Boonsboro Middle 763 49.5 2.8 815.3 Boonsboro High 907 57.75 14.7 979.45 To determine the impacts of the specific development, the Board of Education has provided the County with pupil generation rates for each level of a school district. These generation rates are used to calculate the potential number of students that may be produced Staff Report and Analysis RZ-18-003 – P Overlook LLLP Page 6 by the development. Generation rates are based on the level of the school and the type of housing unit that may be produced. The table below shows current pupil generations rates. Type Elem Mid High Single Family 0.43 0.18 0.21 Townhouse 0.33 0.1 0.11 Multi‐Family 0.33 0.13 0.14 Pupil Generation Rates Using the number of proposed units multiplied by the pupil generation rate, the estimated number of students that may be generated from this development is summarized in the table below. Two scenarios were evaluated. The first evaluates the potential student generation based on the current 9 lot restriction placed on this property. The second is the 34-lot proposal presented by the developer. Elem Mid High Elem Mid High Total 9 0.43 0.18 0.21 3.87 1.62 1.89 7.38 34 0.43 0.18 0.21 14.62 6.12 7.14 27.88 Pupil Gen Rates Pupils Generated Number of lots When added together, the current adjusted enrollment and new pupils generated from the proposed development show an inadequacy at the elementary school level in both the 9 lot and 34 lot scenarios. As shown previously in this section, enrollment already exceeds capacity at the elementary school level. As shown in the table below, additional development in general on this property will exacerbate the existing inadequacy. Furthermore, the Alternate Mitigation Contribution (AMC) would allow payment of a fee to mitigate exceeding capacity limits when the excess is less than 120% of the capacity. In both scenarios the 120% limit is exceeded, and the use of the AMC would not be permitted. School Adjusted  Enrollment New Pupils  Generated Total  Impact Local Rated  Capacity % of LRC Pleasant Valley Elementary 257.18 3.87 261.05 206 126.7% Boonsboro Middle 815.3 1.62 816.92 872 93.7% Boonsboro High 979.45 1.89 981.34 1030 95.3% School Adjusted  Enrollment New Pupils  Generated Total  Impact Local Rated  Capacity % of LRC Pleasant Valley Elementary 257.18 14.62 271.8 206 131.9% Boonsboro Middle 815.3 6.12 821.42 872 94.2% Boonsboro High 979.45 7.14 986.59 1030 95.8% Assuming 9‐lot Subdivision Assuming 34‐lot Subdivision Present and Future Transportation Patterns Staff Report and Analysis RZ-18-003 – P Overlook LLLP Page 7 Highways Maintaining the integrity of the County Highway system is an important subject to consider as part of any zoning application. There are two primary considerations when evaluating the functionality of the road network; mobility and access. Higher order roadways such as Interstates and Arterials typically have high traffic volumes and are designed to provide more mobility vs. access. Lower order roads such as local roads are designed to provide more access than mobility. Collector roads are designed to bridge the gap between higher order and lower order road systems by providing both mobility and access. In this specific case, the subject parcel is surrounded by State and County public road facilities. As shown in Figure 3 the western boundary of the property is demarcated by US 340 and the “off ramp” for Keep Tryst Road. The northern boundary of the property consists of Keep Tryst Road. The eastern side of the property is bounded by Sandy Hook Road. There is no access or road frontage on the southern side of the parcel. US 340 is a State owned and maintained facility that is classified as an “Other Principle Arterial Highway” according to the Functional Highway Classification Map found in the 2002 Comprehensive Plan. In a rural settting, Other Principle Arterial Highways can expect traffic in excess of 5,000 Average Daily Traffic (ADT). It is assumed that the portion of US 340 and the “off ramp” for Keep Tryst Road are denied access. The portion of Sandy Hook Road and Keep Tryst Road that surround this property are classified as Major Collectors and, in a rural setting, can expect traffic between 1,000 and 3,000 ADT. Staff has analyzed historic and existing traffic counts as well as any existing traffic impact studies that have occurred in the vicinity to help understand traffic patterns in the area surrounding the subject property. As shown in the table below, there are three areas near the subject parcel that have had sustained traffic counts. KEEP TRYST RD PROSPECT HILL RD SANDYHOOK RD US HWY 340 US HWY 340 Figure 3: Road network surrounding the subject rezoning parcel Staff Report and Analysis RZ-18-003 – P Overlook LLLP Page 8 Year US 340 @ WV State Line Sandy Hook Road MD 67 @ Weverton Cliffs Roa 2015 23,431 1,286 (2016) 4,882 2010 24,227 1,328 (2008) 4,850 2005 21,775 n 5,550 2000 19,299 n 4,725 1995 15,874 n 3,475 1990 13,222 2,600 (SHA) 3,700 1985 9,897 1,400 (SHA) 2,650 Source: Maryland State Highway Administration; Washington County Division of Engineering and Construction The first location is on US 340 near the border between Maryland and West Virginia. Due to the vital connection US 340 makes between the fast growing eastern panhandle of West Virginia and job centers in and around Washington DC, a permenant traffic counter has been established here by the SHA. As shown in the table above, traffic along US 340 has nearly tripled over the last 30 years. The second location with traffic count data is along Keep Tryst Road. As shown on the table above, SHA data shows traffic counts in this area in 1985 and 1990. While this data is available the validity is questionable. Keep Tryst Road is a County owned and maintained facility; therefore, SHA perfoming traffic counts on this road seems unlikely. More accurate data has been compiled by the County through their pavement maintance program. Starting in 2008 the County began to collect traffic counts on their road facilities to prioritize pavement maintence efforts across the County. Counts were completed again in 2016. As shown in the table above, it appears that traffic in this vicinity has remained fairly stagnant over the last decade. The final location evaluated in this report is on Maryland 67 near its intersection with Weaverton Cliffs Road. Maryland 67 acts as a major collector road in the southern portion of Washington County. It acts as the primary corridor for residents along Sandy Hook Road and Keep Tryst Road to access the rest of Washington County. As shown in the table above, ADT has moderately increased over the last 30 years while maintaining a steady average of about 4800 ADT at this site for the last 15 years. This application was sent to the Maryland State Highway Administration for review and comment. No comments have been received from the agency. Public Transportation This area is not directly served by public transportation; however, the site is approximately 5 miles away from the Harpers Ferry Station of the Maryland Area Regional Commuter (MARC) train system. The Brunswick line of the MARC train starts in Martinsburg, WV and ends in Union Station, Washington DC with several stops including one in Harpers Ferry. Staff Report and Analysis RZ-18-003 – P Overlook LLLP Page 9 Compatibility with Existing and Proposed Development in the Area: The subject parcel is currently zoned Rural Village with a condition that new development be limited to a maximum of 9 single family lots. The applicant is seeking to have the density restriction removed in order to allow the Rural Village zoning to prevail as currently adopted which could allow one-half acre lot subdivisions. The purpose of the Rural Village district is “… preserve the unique historic or rural character of existing villages by encouraging compatible development within a defined village boundary.”. The purpose statement of the district goes on to say that “The zone intends for permitted development to be generally of a similar density, scale and use type and mixtures as that which exists in the village.”. The property is located within 1,000 feet of the C&O Canal towpath and the Appalachian Trail. It is surrounded by primarily residential and agricultural uses, and open space. There is also some limited commercial along the northern boundary of the subject parcel that consists of a restaurant and hotel. Another important component of compatibility is the location of historic structures on and around the parcels being proposed for rezoning. According to the Washington County Historic Sites Survey there are no listed historic sites on the subject property; however, there are numerous existing historical resources located within a 0.5-mile radius of the proposed rezoning areas. Most of these sites are associated with the historic Rural Village of Sandy Hook (See Figure 4). In 2001 a detailed inventory and evaluation of historic resources was performed by Taylor & Taylor and Associates in the Sandy Hook area. It was determined SANDYHOOK RD CLARK RD US HWY 340 US HWY 340 Figure 4: Hatched area shows the limits of the Historic Rural Village Survey completed by Taylor & Taylor and Associates (2001) Staff Report and Analysis RZ-18-003 – P Overlook LLLP Page 10 by the analysis that there are over 30 contributing resources that still exist in the area today that provide a context for early railroad and canal towns. The area was also heavily influenced by the abolishtionist movement that evolved just prior to the American Civil War. From John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry to the confederate occupation of Sandy Hook just prior to the Battle at Antietam, this area has experienced some of the most historic events of the 1800s. According to the historic report, “The majority of architecture of the village is vernacular in character. A number of properties are built of native stone, along with residences of wood and a smaller number of brick. The Methodist Church is of brick. Traditional house types characterize Sandy Hook, including central-passage and side- passage single-pile homes. Fenestration throughout Sandy Hook is primarily flat-topped, without notable ornament. Some homes retain multi-light historic sash with exterior operable louvered shutters. Most residential properties have open front porches and laterally-oriented gable roofs of varying materials including asphalt shingles and standing seam metal.” The sites associated with the historic rural village within one-half mile of the rezoning site, by inventory reference number, include WA-III-074 – 81; WA-III-083 – 91; and WA-III-114 – 115. Also located within a one-half mile of the subject site, but not specifically associated with the historic rural village are: WA-III-033 – Late 19th century farmhouse; Two story, five bay L-shaped stucco building. Cemetery located behind the house. WA-III-035 – 1800s One and one-half story 2 bay log cabin; site is in ruins with mostly foundation stones remaining WA-III-043 – Mid to Late 19th Century; Two story, four bay brick house with smooth coat of stucco. Unusual building materials for the area. WA-III-044 – Mid-19th Century brick house; Two story, four bay brick house. WA-III-056 – 1800s 2 log cabin dwellings; both are one and one-half stories with one having 2 bays while the other has 3 bays. WA-III-116 – Late 19th century frame house with field stone foundation; Two story, three bay structure with a one-story, two bay addition. Relationship of the Proposed Change to the Adopted Plan for the County: The purpose of a Comprehensive Plan is to evaluate the needs of the community and balance the different types of growth to create a harmony between different land uses. In general, this is accomplished through evaluation of existing conditions, projections of future conditions, and creation of a generalized land use plan that promotes compatibility while maintaining the health, safety, and welfare of the general public. Staff Report and Analysis RZ-18-003 – P Overlook LLLP Page 11 The subject parcel is located in the sub-policy area of the Rural Area known as Environmental Conservation as well as in the Appalachian Trail Special Planning Area. The Appalachian Trail follows the C&O Canal towpath from the eastern end of Keep Tryst Road to the pedestrian bridge of the Potomac River to Harper’s Ferry, WV. The Comprehensive Plan offers the following recommendations for these policy areas: Environmental Conservation Policy Area recommendations: “This policy area is associated with locations in the County where environmental sensitivity issues are prominent enough to warrant constraints on development. It includes steep slopes and forested areas on mountainsides as well as the steep slopes, flood plains, and forested areas along the Potomac River, Conococheague Creek, lower Antietam Creek, and Beaver Creek.”2 “Because of environmental sensitivity these areas warrant special consideration regarding development and construction. Lack of coordination can easily cause environmental degradation to occur.”3 Appalachian Trail Special Planning Area “The importance of the Trail requires special attention to be given to preserving and protecting the scenic, environmental, recreation, and historic character of the Appalachian Trial and its immediate environs, through the minimizing of potential future incompatible land use activities in the vicinity of the Trail.” Change in the Character of the Neighborhood or Mistake in Original Zoning Rule When a rezoning is not part of a comprehensive rezoning by the governing body, individual map amendments (also known as piecemeal rezoning) are under an obligation to meet the test of the change or mistake rule. In this specific case, the change or mistake rule does not seem to apply. The applicant is not seeking a change in the zoning 2 2002 Washington County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 12 Land Use Plan, p. 249. 3 Ibid. KEEP TRYST RD PROSPECT HILL RD US HWY 340 SANDYHOOK RD US HWY 340 Figure 5: Land Use per the Comprehensive Plan. Hatched area shows the extent of the 1000’ buffer related to the Appalachian Trail Special Planning Area Staff Report and Analysis RZ-18-003 – P Overlook LLLP Page 12 classification of the property. Rather, they are seeking to remove conditions placed upon the property as part of the previously approved rezoning request. So rather than requesting a zoning change the applicant is asking for a reconsideration of a previous zoning decision. Reconsideration of a Zoning Decision According to past Maryland case law, “Maryland, along with the federal courts and the majority of state courts that have addressed the issue, recognizes the inherent authority of agencies to reconsider their own quasi-judicial decisions.”.4 In Washington County, there are no rules, policies, regulations or statutes that allow for the reconsideration of zoning decisions. The method of appeal is generally through the Board of Zoning Appeals or through the Circuit Court depending upon the body making the decision. Without having a statute by which a zoning decision can be reconsidered there is consequently no standard of evaluation by which the County has established to evaluate the veracity of a claim to reverse or modify a previous decision. In cases where no statute exists for the reconsideration of a quasi-judicial decision such as that of a zoning request, common law rule is applicable. Under common law rule (also known as the McKinney test), any petition requesting rehearing or reconsideration must prove that the prior decision resulted from “fraud, mistake, surprise, or inadvertence”.5 Staff Analysis: The applicant in this case is contending that the County made a mistake in the zoning of the property in 2003 and again in 2005. The applicant justifies this statement by referring first to the piecemeal rezoning case decided in 2003, and second to a subsequent rezoning of the rural area approved in 2005. In the justification statement, the applicant states that “… (i) the 9-lot density restriction imposed as part of the 2003 piecemeal rezoning was impermissible; and (ii) even if the 9-lot density restriction was permissible, the legal effect of the 2005 Comprehensive Rezoning was to replace and supplant the 2003 piecemeal rezoning and assign an unaltered “RV” zoning classification to the property”. The applicant’s first statement that the 9-lot density restriction imposed as part of the 2003 piecemeal rezoning was impermissible is evidentiarily irrelevant. Whether or not the restriction is legal is no longer subject to contention. As part of the decision rendered by the Board of County Commissioners in case RZ-03-001 the applicants were explicitly provided a period of five (5) days to withdraw the application if they did not agree with the applied conditions. Otherwise, according to the Findings of Fact and Articulation of the reasons for Decision, “…they will be deemed to have consented to the change…”. The application was not withdrawn. In addition to the opportunity provided by the Board of County Commissioners to withdraw the application if the owners did not agree to the density restriction, the applicant 4 Cinque v. Montgomery County Planning Bd., 173 Md. App. 349, 918 A.2d 1254 (2007) 5 Board of Zoning Appeals v. McKinney, 174 Md. 551, 564-66, 199 A/ 540, 546-547 (1938) Staff Report and Analysis RZ-18-003 – P Overlook LLLP Page 13 is also afforded the opportunity for judicial review of the Commissioners’ decision under Maryland law. In accordance with the Maryland Annotated Code, Land Use Article, Title 4, Subtitle 4 – Judicial Review, a person aggrieved by the action or decision of a legislative body may appeal said decision to the Circuit Court of the county within 30 days of the written decision. The applicant did not appeal the decision within the window of opportunity. This point has been supported in the judicial system. The property owners on three different occasions have attempted to convince multiple levels of the judicial system that the County illegally placed the restriction on the property, and each time have been refuted. Judicial review began in 2006 when the property owner, P Overlook LLLP, filed an application with the Washington County Board of Zoning Appeals that charged administrative error from the Zoning Administrator’s determination that the 9-lot density restriction applied to the subject property. The same arguments being made in this application were used to defend that appeal; (1) that the zoning was illegally applied initially and, (2) that the 2005 Comprehensive Plan rezoning supplanted the piecemeal rezoning. The Board of Zoning Appeals denied the applicant’s request noting that under the rules of equitable estoppel the property owners were seeking to change the rules of the zoning after being complicit in the initial application of the zoning and density restriction. This decision was upheld by both the Circuit Court for Washington County, Maryland as well as the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. In the written opinion of the Court of Special Appeals the judge stated: “The map amendment decision, approving the rezoning of the Property to the RV district with a nine-lot density restriction, was to Overlook’s (and therefore the Martin’s) advantage. It would allow residential development at a density above what the land would be rezoned in the ordinary course of events but below what Overlook desired. It was relied upon by the Commissioners, who, had there not been a density restriction, would have declined any rezoning to the RV district and would have maintained their original plan to comprehensively rezone the Property to the EC district. Overlook purchased the property with full knowledge of the density restriction”.6 The applicant’s second argument, that the Comprehensive rezoning of the rural area in 2005 supplanted and should therefore overrule the 9-lot density restriction, has also been vetted and refuted through both administrative and judicial review. The applicant has repeatedly claimed that when the County adopted the Rural Area Rezoning in 2005 that no specific mention was made to this property having a 9-lot density restriction. In fact, this property was specifically mentioned during the development and public hearing process of the Rural Area Rezoning. Included within the case file of the Rural Area rezoning is a chart explicitly detailing 37 properties that requested different zoning classifications than was proposed as part of the first round of public hearings. William Wantz, attorney for William and Sylvia Martin (then owners of the subject property), 6 The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, P Overlook LLLP v. Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland et. Al. 183 Md. App. 233 (2008) Staff Report and Analysis RZ-18-003 – P Overlook LLLP Page 14 submitted a request for the subject parcel to be rezoned from BG to RV. As detailed on the chart (See exhibit 1), Staff recommended to deny the request but made a specific note on the property as follows, “A rezoning request from BG to RR was pending on the Martin property (RZ-03-001). On 10/28/03 the BOCC reviewed & App’d Request for RV with a 9- lot density”. By adding this information to the chart, Staff also noted that no additional action needed to be taken by the Planning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners because the request had already been dealt with as part of the piecemeal rezoning case RZ-03-001. It also indicates the intent of the Board to maintain the 9-lot density restriction on the property. This position was also supported by the Court of Special Appeal of Maryland as the judge opined that: “Overlook’s later position, that the comprehensive rezoning of the property resulted in its being placed the RV district with no density restriction, was an obvious attempt to benefit from the rezoning to the RV district, which only was allowed with the density restriction condition and would not have happened without it, while at the same time attacking the density condition that enabled them to obtain the zoning in the first place.” “The Commissioners made their map amendment decision conditional, as a compromise that was to Overlook’s benefit. The Board did not err in ruling that Overlook cannot now be heard to challenge the part of the compromise that was to the Commissioners’ benefit while accepting the part of the compromise that was to its own benefit.” 7 Recommendation: Based on the information provided and the analysis to date there does not appear to be sufficient evidence of fraud, mistake, surprise or inadvertence to grant the request to remove the 9-lot density restriction and thereby overturn previous legislative and judicial decisions. Respectfully submitted, Jill Baker Deputy Director 7 Ibid. Staff Exhibit 3 P Overlook Timeline September 2018 (RZ-18-003) 1 Timeline of events related to parcel owned by P Overlook LLLP April 2002 Rezoning case filed by William and Sylvia Martin (RZ-02-003), represented by attorney William Wantz, to rezone property from BG to RS. June 2002 Joint public hearing was held with the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners (BoCC). At some point prior to the hearing P Overlook became the contract purchaser. August 2, 2002 Planning Commission recommended denial of application. August 27, 2002 Comprehensive Plan adopted. November 2002 RZ-02-003 was withdrawn by applicant. January 2003 Rezoning case filed by William and Sylvia Martin and Potomac Overlook (RZ-03-001), represented by attorney William Wantz, to rezone property from BG to RR. March 10, 2003 Joint public hearing was held with the Planning Commission and BoCC. As part of the applicant’s presentation it was revealed that they wanted to pursue a 34-lot subdivision on the property. April 2003 Planning Commission issued its recommendation as follows: “The Planning Commission opined that the applicant did not present any more convincing information than was presented during the last rezoning case for the subject property. They indicated that the proposed Rural Residential designation for this property was not appropriate for the area and that the commercial designation could provide opportunities for retail services for the citizens in the area. If it were to be rezoned for residential development, then they would recommend a classification that would limit the amount of future development.” August 2003 Board of County Commissioners reviewed the application and referred the case back to the Planning Commission “for consideration of the appropriate density of single-family residential development, which may be established by the attachment of a condition to rezoning”. Staff Exhibit 3 P Overlook Timeline September 2018 (RZ-18-003) 2 September 8, 2003 Planning Commission members were presented with the Commissioners request to review the application again and make recommendations on the number of lots that the new development could be restricted to in order to be compatible with the existing area. Planning Commission members declined to make a formal recommendation to the BoCC because it was their previous recommendation to deny the application. September 2003 The Planning Commission released a draft of the “Comprehensive Rezoning of the Rural Area of Washington County”. The subject property was proposed to receive an “Environmental Conservation” zoning designation. October 8, 2003 Public hearing on the Rural Area Rezoning. October 20, 2003 Applicants amended their rezoning application to request the proposed Rural Village zoning designation (as presented as part of the Rural Area Rezoning) instead of RR. October 28, 2003 BoCC voted in favor of rezoning the property to RV “with the condition of a nine-lot maximum density”. As part of their finding of fact the Commissioners noted that “the density of the proposed 34 lot single family development of the Property would not be compatible with the scale of the adjacent Sandy Hood Rural Village.” The applicant was given 5 working days to withdraw their rezoning application if they did not agree to this condition, otherwise it would be deemed to be consented upon. The applicant neither withdrew the application nor sought judicial review of the decision. February 2004 Potomac Overlook purchased the property from the Martins. September 2004 BoCC held a public hearing on 37 individual property owner requests to amend the proposed zoning on their land. The subject property was on this list and the 9-lot restriction was also noted. July 2005 Rural Area Rezoning was adopted. July 2006 Scott Miller, attorney representing the property owner, wrote a letter to the County Zoning Administrator seeking confirmation that the property was currently zoned RV without restriction. The attorney’s letter stated that it was their contention that because the County approved the RV on the subject property prior to the zoning district being formally adopted that the BoCC action was ineffective. When the Staff Exhibit 3 P Overlook Timeline September 2018 (RZ-18-003) 3 Commissioners approved the Rural Area Rezoning they formally rezoned the property RV but made no specific motion as part of the overall Rural Area Rezoning adoption putting a condition on the property. The Zoning Administrator responded that the nine-lot restriction was in fact in place. October 2006 The property owners appealed the Zoning Administrator’s decision to the Circuit Court of Washington County. The County countered the appeal by noting that the property owners (present and past) were fully aware of the condition and agreed to said conditions through their failure to withdraw the case or file for judicial review and should therefore be barred from appealing the decision by equitable estoppel principles. June 2007 The Circuit Court of Washington County upheld the Board of Zoning Appeals opinion. September 2007 The circuit court decision was appealed to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals. December 2008 The Maryland Court of Special Appeals upheld the Circuit Court decision. April 2017 Jason Divelbiss, attorney representing P Overlook LLLP, contacted the County requesting guidance on how to proceed with removing the 9-lot restriction from the subject property. November 2017 Mr. Divelbiss was notified that the County believes that the courts have validated the current zoning classification and density restriction and that it has no interest in further reviewing the issue administratively. Mr. Divelbiss was further notified that any further review of this issue would need to be done through a rezoning application. June 2018 Application filed to remove 9 lot restriction from the property (RZ-18-003). DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING I LAND PRESERVATION I FOREST CONSERVATION I GIS October 15, 2018 Property Owner(s): Applicant(s): Location: Election District: Comprehensive Plan Designation: Tax Map: Parcel(s): Acreage: Existing Zoning: Requested Zoning: Date of Public Meeting: RECOMMENDATION APPLICATION FOR MAP AMENDMENT PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION P Overlook LLLP P Overlook LLLP SE Quadrant of US 340 and Keep Tryst Road #11 — Sandy Hook Environmental Conservation 87 10 24.32 acres RV - Rural Village (9-lot density restriction) RV - Rural Village (no density restriction) September 10, 2018 RZ-18-003 The Washington County Planning Commission took action at its regular meeting held on Monday, October 1, 2018 to recommend denial of Map Amendment RZ-18-003 to the Board of County Commissioners. The Commission considered the application, the supporting documentation submitted with the application, the applicant's presentation and the public comment during the public rezoning meeting and the Staff Report and Analysis. The Planning Commissions' opinion is that the Board of County Commissioners was within its legislative authority to place residential density restrictions on this property based on an analysis of compatibility with surrounding land uses. Furthermore, the Planning Commission referenced public comment noting that numerous judicial proceedings, in varying levels of the Maryland judicial system, have not negated the Board of County Commissioners decision to apply the density restriction. The Planning Commission believes the restriction is valid and should remain. Copies of the application packet, Staff Report and Analysis, approved minutes of the September 10, 2018 public rezoning meeting and the approved minutes of the October 1, 2018 regular meeting are attached. Respectf liy ub I to Stephen T. Goodrich, Director Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning STG/J LB/dse Attachments cc: Kirk Downey Jason Divelbiss 100 West Washington Street, Suite 2600 1 Hagerstown, MD 21740 I P: 240.313.2430 I F: 240.313.2431 1 'rDD: 7-1-1 WWW.WASHCO-MDAET 216 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING October 1, 2018 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular monthly meeting on Monday, October 1, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. at the Washington County Administration Building, 100 W. Washington Street, Room 2000, Hagerstown, MD. Commission members present at the meeting were: Clint Wiley, Andrew Bowen, Jeremiah Weddle, Denny Reeder, David Kline and Robert Goetz, Jr. Staff members present were: Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning: Stephen Goodrich, Director; Jill Baker, Deputy Director; Travis Allen, Comprehensive Planner; and Debra Eckard, Administrative Assistant; Washington County Department of Plan Review & Permitting: Tim Lung, Director; and Lisa Kelly, Senior Planner. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. -OLD BUSINESS RZ-18-003 — P Overlook LLLP Presented for discussion and recommendation was a map amendment application for P Overlook LLLP. The property, which is currently zoned RV (Rural Village) is located at the intersection of MD Route 340 and Keep Tryst Road and is 24.32 acres in size. The applicant is requesting that a condition (9 lot density restriction) placed on the property by the Board of County Commissioners as part of a previous rezoning application (2003) be lifted. This request was heard at a public information meeting on September 10, 2018 by the Planning Commission at which time public comment was taken. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Kline stated that he is opposed to lifting the 9 lot density restriction and explained his reasons for the objection. During the public information meeting, one citizen reminded Commission members that the 9 lot density restriction has been the subject of multiple appeals and has had several reviews by a number of legal entities including the Planning Commission, the Board of County Commissioners, and the courts. The original restriction was upheld by both the Circuit Court for Washington County and the Maryland Court of Special Appeals. Mr. Kline believes the developer knowingly made the agreement with the County in order to get the zoning that he wanted for the property in 2003. He expressed his opinion that the applicant has not made any compelling argument that would warrant a change. Mr. Reeder and Mr. Weddle both concurred with Mr. Kline's comments. Motion and Vote: Mr. Kline made a motion to recommend denial of the request to remove the 9 lot density restriction to the Board of County Commissioners because there has been no convincing evidence that it should be removed and the multiple evaluations of the case have never indicated that the restriction is improper. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weddle and unanimously approved. -NEW BUSINESS MINUTES Motion and Vote: Mr. Reeder made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 10, 2018 meeting as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kline and unanimously approved with Mr. Goetz abstaining from the vote. SUBDIVISIONS Hunter's Green Business Park, Lots 11 thru 13 [S-18-031] Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval a preliminary/final plat for Hunter's Green Business Park, Lots 11 thru 13. The site is located east of Williamsport Pike, north of 1-70 and adjacent to French Lane. The property is currently zoned HI (Highway Interchange). The developer is proposing to subdivide 3 lots for commercial purposes. Service Truck and Tire currently exists on Lot 11. Lot 12 contains .804 acres of land and Lot 13 contains 2.9 acres of land, both of which are currently undeveloped. Public water and public sewer service all three lots. Any development on Lots 12 and 13 would require a site plan. Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements were address previously during the development of Hunter's 217 Green Business Park. All agency approvals have been received with the exception of the City of Hagerstown Water Department and the Health Department. Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to grant staff the authority to approve the preliminary/final plat upon receipt of all pending approvals. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weddle and unanimously approved. SITE PLANS Sharpsburg Elementary School [SP-18-031] Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for the proposed Sharpsburg Elementary School located on the south side of Shepherdstown Pike (Route 34). The existing school will remain open and in service until the new school is constructed. The old school will be demolished once the new school opens in 2020. The site is 11.54 acres in size and is currently zoned Preservation with Antietam Overlay 2. The proposed school will be one story at the front and two stories will be exposed at the rear elevation due to the sloping site. The building will be approximately 502,776 square feet in size. There will be a center courtyard and several play areas. The existing access from Shepherdstown Pike will remain in service and will be extended and redesigned to provide individual staff/visitor parking and bus parking/ student pickup. Ten bus parking spaces will be provided and 100 staff/visitor parking spaces will be provided (99 spaces are required). Public water and public sewer will be provided by the County systems that serve the Town of Sharpsburg. The existing sign at the entrance will remain. Lighting will be building mounted and pole lighting will be provided throughout the parking lot. Dumpsters will provide solid waste disposal. Sidewalks will be installed around the school and a new sidewalk will connect with an existing one along Shepherdstown Pike. The Board of Appeals granted a variance in November 2017 from the minimum 100 foot left side yard setback to 89 feet and from the 50 foot rear yard setback to 42 feet. Landscaping will include many species of trees, shrubs, grasses and perennials. Forestation requirements will be met by retaining existing forest off -site at the Fairview Outdoor School. An easement plat is currently being reviewed. A conditional approval has been received from the Soil Conservation District. The Washington County Department of Water Quality is currently reviewing revisions. Forest Conservation review is on -going. All other agency approvals have been received. A Forest Stand Delineation has been prepared for the site. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Reeder asked if there would be any changes to the entrance on Shepherdstown Pike. Mr. Robert Rollins with the Board of Education stated there are no plans for a traffic signal; however, the entrance will be widened to allow for two lanes exiting the site and one lane coming into the site. Mr. Bowen asked how many students will be attending the new school when it opens. Mr. Brad Otto with the Board of Education stated that the maximum capacity at the school will be 471 students; however, upon opening there will be approximately 420 students. There was a brief discussion regarding the stacking of vehicles when parents are dropping off or picking up students. Mr. Goodrich gave a brief presentation regarding the Forest Conservation Plan that has been submitted. He noted that three specimen trees have been identified on the site: a 32" Oak tree, a 34" Locust tree, and a 40" Mulberry tree. The site plan indicates that most of the site will be affected by grading; therefore, the specimen trees will need to be removed. The State Forest Conservation Act and the County's Forest Conservation Ordinance require that specimen trees of 30" or greater must be kept on the site unless the Planning Commission grants a variance to allow their removal. Mr. Goodrich stated that the applicant provided justification for why the trees need to be removed. The applicant's consultant that prepared the Forest Stand Delineation noted that the Locust and Mulberry trees were nearing the end of their expected lifespan and in a state of decline. Protective measures would be expensive and would not guarantee survival. The Oak tree would be negatively impacted by the required ADA accessible sidewalk and protective measures may or may not insure survival. The justification also noted that these trees were not present during the Civil War. Mr. Goodrich stated that the landscaping plan for this project shows 77 new trees to be planted on the site, which will be 8 to 10 feet tall upon installation. Motion and Vote: Mr. Reeder made a motion to grant staff the authority to approve the site plan upon receipt of all agency approvals. The motion was seconded by Mr. Goetz and unanimously approved. Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to approve a variance from the Forest Conservation Ordinance to allow removal of the specimen trees. The motion was seconded by Mr. Weddle and unanimously approved. 218 Motion and Vote: Mr. Weddle made a motion to approve the Forest Conservation Plan. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kline and unanimously approved. -OTHER BUSINESS Update of Staff Approvals Mr. Lung reported the following for the month of September: Land Development/Permit reviews: 5 entrance permits; 12 grading permits; 1 non-residential construction permit; 1 non-residential agricultural certificate and 2 utility permits. New submittals for Subdivision/Land Development: 1 storm water concept plan; 1 standard grading plan; 3 Forest Stand Delineations; 1 subdivision replat; 3 Preliminary/Final subdivision plats; 1 Simplified plat; 1 redline revision for Fahrney-Keedy Bowman Addition; and 1 site plan for the former Sears re -use. Approvals for Land Development: 2 Ordinance modifications (both reviewed by the Planning Commission); 1 simplified plat; 1 Preliminary/Final plat for Emerald Pointe, Phase 3, Section 2; 1 Preliminary/Final plat for a single lot residential subdivision; 1 minor site plan for Potomac Playmakers; 1 site plan for Long Delite Farm; and 1 red line revision. Mr. Lung explained that the site plan for the reuse of the Sears building meets the criteria for a staff approved site plan. The former Sears anchor store had a footprint of 124,000 square foot. The developer is proposing a 25,521 square foot expansion on the west side of the existing building that will house four separate retail spaces consisting of one 59,992 square foot space, one 45,100 square foot space, one 29,763 square foot space and one 6,101 square foot space. The entire Valley Mall is under a cross parking easement agreement established when the Mall was first developed. Parking spaces provided is 5,027 spaces including 119 handicap spaces; 5,006 parking spaces are required per the County's Zoning Ordinance. No additional water or sewer allocation will be needed for this development. As part of the plan, are improvements to the existing parking islands. -ADJOURNMENT Mr. Goetz made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:40 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowen and so ordered by the Chairman. -UPCOMING MEETINGS 1. Monday, November 5, 2018, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Planning Commission regular meeting, Washington County Administration Building, 100 W. Washington Street, Room 2000, Hagerstown, MD 21740 Joel Kanter and Cynthia Hallberlin 19032 Sandy Hook Road Knoxville, MD 21758 August 30, 2018 Washington County Planning Commission Washington County Department of Planning and Zoning 100 West Washington Street, Suite 2600 Hagerstown, MD 21740 Re: Proposed Rezoning Case: RZ-18-003 — P Overlook Dear Commission Members: RECEIVED HP 0 5 2018 W,6,SHINGTON 000r..,J-T-' As property owners adjacent to the 24 acre parcel in question in Knoxville, Maryland, we wish to offer our strong objections to the proposed rezoning. We bought our property at 19032 Sandy Hook in 2006 (and the adjacent property at 19038 Sandy Hook in 2016) aware that it had the Rural Village designation and that the adjacent parcel was limited to nine dwellings. Since our initial purchase, the owners of the parcel have attempted once before to rezone the property to enable them to build many more dwellings and now it is not even clear what their final intent is. But one can assume that they intend to plan many more than nine dwellings on the property. Besides this development project changing the nature of our rural community, we have an immediate concern about the drainage from a project that would involve paving many roads and home sites as we are down a steep hillside from this parcel. Obviously, this partnership has been willing to invest in repeated legal battles to pursue their interests and, if their intended development ended up damaging our property, we would not have the resources to take them to court. Unfortunately, we will not be able to attend the hearing on September 10, but we strongly encourage the Planning Commission to retain the current zoning with the objective supporting the property rights of adjacent landowners as well as the character of the local community. We thank you for your help in this matter. Sincerely yours, Joel Kanter Cindy Hallberlin Cc: Stephen Goodrich, Director, Washington County Department of Planning and Zoning Eckard, Debra S. From: Baker, Jill Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2018 8:40 AM To: Eckard, Debra S. Subject: FW: Nine lot restriction on 24 acres near Sandy Hook, MD Can you make copies for the PC please? From: Mike Ferguson <michael.ferguson@iesco.us> Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2018 8:38 AM To: Baker, Jill <JBaker@washco-md.net> Subject: Nine lot restriction on 24 acres near Sandy Hook, MD Good morning, my name is Mike Ferguson. I reside on Hemlock Ln in Sharpsburg MD. The property that is being considered for lifting the 9 home restriction is very near my residence. I strongly oppose lifting the restriction that exists currently. The west intersection at Keep Tryst and 340 cannot possibly handle any more traffic especially at peak times. This intersection is already EXTREMELY dangerous when turning west bound towards Harpers Ferry. People going east on Keep Tryst to enter 340 at the other end are met with 65 mph traffic coming downhill and there is a very very short merge area. The safety concerns alone should be enough to limit any further development in the area. Additionally the property in question is very close to the C&O Canal as well as the Appalachian Trail. A large development in this area of nature and beauty would not be a good fit! Lastly there are grave concerns on fire and EMT's ability to handle many more people in the area. All responding departments are already at maximum capacity and are struggling as it is to keep up with existing calls. Thank you for reading this and please pass along to anyone that may benefit. Thank you Michael Ferguson Territory Manager JESCO, Inc. 8411 Pulaski Highway Baltimore, MD 21237 michael.ferRuson(@iesco.us Office (410) 687-1700 Cell (410) 218-6516 x Yt 91 mis+ WWW.JESCO.US WWW.JESCODITCHWITCH.US This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com Eckard, Debra S. From: Patricia Schooley <paschooley1006@gmail.com> RECEIVED Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 4:10 PM To: Eckard, Debra S. Subject: Potomac Overlook 2080824 hearing Selpt 10 SEP 0 4 2018 WASHINGTON COUNTY To the review committee: PLANNING DEPARTMENT I cannot attend the hearing on the issue of overbuilding overlooking the Potomac in South County.. The Rural Village Ordinance was written to preserve the character of our rural villages. Please uphold this regulation and maintain the nine lot limit. Our historic density defines our county and is drawing tourists and their tax dollars. We do not need to become a bedroom community. This kind of development does not pay sufficient taxes to support the services they require. Thank you, Patricia Schooley 20702 Old Forge Road Hagerstown, MD 21742 Eckard, Debra S. MENMEN From: mrmddl@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 2:09 PM To: Eckard, Debra S. Subject: Case No. RZ-18-003 Debra, thank you for taking the time to follow up on my phone call regarding the Rezoning Case at the intersection of MD Rt. 340 and Keep Tryst Road. I've read the case and the reason for the filing is due to a 'mistake in the original zoning` ... maybe, but my wife and 1 have lived just across the street from that property since 1990 and we've seen the growth of the southern county ... without infrastructure to support all the growth! I can't imagine the traffic nightmare for all of the residence if the 9 lot residential density restrictions are lifted! It's already a traffic mess trying to get home off Rt 340 (tuning left on Keep Tryst Rd) starting from 4:30-6:00p every weekday night! During the weekends, it's typical to have 2-3 mile backups from traffic trying to get across the 340 bridge into Harpers Ferry, making 'turning left at Keep Tryst Rd' impossible! Accidents occur at the intersection of MD Rt. 340 & Keep Tryst Rd and all of us are just waiting for the BIG accident and unfortunate deaths before the County takes action regarding that dangerous intersection! And Sandy Hook Rd ... (the eastern side of the lot), already has all the traffic it can handle! We want to go on record; for KEEPING the present zoning laws! Thank you, Mike DiLeo & Carrie Smith 532 Prospect Hill Rd., Knoxville, MD 21758 301-834-6810 Eckard, Debra S. From: Baker, Jill Sent: Friday, September 07, 2018 1:14 PM To: Eckard, Debra S. Subject: FW: 24 Acres in SandyHook Rd area (Rezoning case No. RZ-18-003) More comments for the rezoning. From: Jennifer Hymiller <hvmilleri@vahoo.com> Sent: Friday, September 7, 2018 12:33 PM To: Baker, Jill <JBal<er@washco-md.net> Subject: 24 Acres in SandyHook Rd area (Rezoning case No. RZ-18-003) Good afternoon. Unfortunately I will be unable to attend Monday's hearing, my husband will be there representing our household, but since we have a 4 year old, I thought it not appropriate to bring her. We live at 19126 Sandyhook Rd and have lived hear since 3/2011. We are one lot over from the proposed rezoning acreage. When I first saw the notice my first question was how many lots do they want, since clearly they would like more than 9. Then after reading the article in the Herald Mail and seeing that the last proposal was for 34 lots, we are greatly opposed to the proposed rezoning. Keep Tryst road is a very small, secluded road. On most evenings, 340 West gets very backed up due to bridge traffic, and the only when to get to our home is either turning onto Keep Tryst at the flashing light (which is usually backed up in the evenings), or having to hop off on 67, hop on 340 East and slow down very fast and get on Keep Tryst at that end. The road is narrow with drop offs on either side and a bit curvy. If more than 9 lots is approved for this location, our road will not be able to handle the traffic, it will also greatly add to the traffic on 340 West. In addition, any elementary age children will attend Pleasant Valley Elementary, which as you know is very small. A new neighborhood with more than 9 lots will contribute to overcrowding. I am originally from Frederick County, MD, which has great schools. When my husband and I were looking to purchase our first home in 2011, 1 really wanted to stay in Frederick County because of the schools and opportunities. Once we realized that we could get more house and land for our money in Washington County, we chose this location. Now, 7.5 years later and with a 4 year old daughter, I am so happy we chose Washington County because Frederick County is now becoming the new Montgomery County; overcrowded, homes everywhere and on top of each other, schools very overcrowded and constantly dealing with bullying and other adolescent issues. Frederick County no longer puts quality of life first, and they certainly have no regard for quality of education. I am begging you, please do not let Washington County become this. People are drawn to at least this part of Washington County because of the slower pace. You can think and breath, my daughter can go outside on our deck and in our yard by herself and I never have to wonder if she is safe. We all know each other and watch out for each other. Putting in 34 new homes, possibly more, into a very small area would ruin all of this. Please help us keep our little piece of Washington County safe, uncrowded, and happy. Signed a Concerned Citizen- Jennifer Wolfe Eckard, Debra S. From: Baker, Jill Sent: Friday, September 07, 2018 7:50 AM To: Eckard, Debra S. Subject: FW: Rezoning request Another letter of opposition that needs to go to the Planning Commission. Thanks. From: Randy Changuris <randVchanguris@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2018 5:20 PM To: Baker, Jill <JBaker@washco-md.net> Subject: Rezoning request I am in opposition to the rezoning request to lift the nine -lot restriction on 24 acres in the Sandy hook area. First of all it is my understanding that the nine -lot restriction is already a compromise of an earlier request. Nothing has changed but the pressure from a developer who wishes to make a larger profit. None of the original arguments against this request have changed..Let me remind you that the beauty of the Pleasant Valley area needs to be preserved. Just last month we were the site of a world class bicycle championship. A venue that was chosen over more exotic places San Diego & Las Vegas. Let us retain the charm that exists here in Southern Washington County and not get greedy for additional tax revenue. Randy & Holly Changuris 2815 Rohrersville RD Roherrsville, MD 21779 September 10, 2018 Dear Members of the Washington County Planning Commission, I am writing to comment on P Overlook LLLC request to change the zoning classification for Zoning Map 10, Parcel 87 in case RZ-18-003. The area proposed for rezoning is located within the Heart of the Civil War Heritage Area (HCWHA), one of thirteen heritage areas certified through the Maryland Heritage Areas Authority. Further, the site is very near to three national park units: Harpers Ferry National Historical Park, Appalachian National Scenic Trail, and C&O Canal National Historical Park. It is also in close proximity to South Mountain State Battlefield. These resources, and all of southern Washington County, are within the certified boundaries of the Heart of the Civil War Heritage Area. The Management Plan for the Heart of the Civil War Heritage Area emphasizes the importance of scenic resources, their preservation and stewardship. The plan also notes that unspoiled historic and scenic resources give the Heart of the Civil War Heritage Area a competitive advantage; where authenticity of setting is not preserved, the impact of heritage tourism weakens. Washington County’s Comprehensive Plan includes the Heart of the Civil War Heritage Area Management Plan by reference (this step was required before the heritage area was certified by the State in 2006). The plan is downloadable from http://www.heartofthecivilwar.org/stakeholders/management-plan. The location in question is just east of Maryland Heights, in full view of Maryland Heights, Loudoun Heights and Weverton Cliffs of the Appalachian Trail. It also is visible from areas on the C&O Canal. This area was heavily encamped by US forces at various times during the Civil War, especially at the outset (June-October, 1861), and immediately after Antietam (September-November, 1862). To take any action that would compromise the views and landscapes involved would be contrary to the priorities described in the Heart of the Civil War Heritage Area Management Plan, a document incorporated as part of the Washington County Comprehensive Plan. The P Overlook LLLC zoning change request is not consistent with the Heart of the Civil War Heritage Area Management Plan. Continued commitment to the protection of Civil War resources and their viewsheds would be consistent with Washington County’s long record of recognizing and preserving the scenic and historic significance of southern Washington County. In the 1960s, the County advocated for Maryland Heights resources and their inclusion in Harpers Ferry National Historic Park. In 2006 Washington County chose to be a part of the certified Heart of the Civil War Heritage Area (and requested and expansion in 2017). I urge you to honor your past record and the HCWHA Management Plan as you consider the P Overlook LLLC zoning change request. Sincerely, Elizabeth Scott Shatto Executive Director Word, Debra S. From: Dennis Frye <txaggie@myactv.net> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 9:48 AM To: Eckard, Debra S. Subject: Dennis Frye's objection to RZ-18-003, Zoning Map 10, Parcel 87 To the members of the Washington County Planning Commission: Please record my strong objection to P Overlook LLLC (hereafter "Overlook," as the applicant) to change the zoning classification for Zoning Map 10, Parcel 87 in case RZ-18-003. As a lifelong resident of Washington County - and specifically a lifelong resident of South County, growing up in Pleasant Valley - I do not support any changes or variances to existing zoning classifications in Pleasant Valley. My desire - and the County's, through its Comprehensive Plan - is to preserve the rural and historic character of this neighborhood. Overlook desires to change the zoning classification for the property from Rural Village with a Not density to Rural Village without a density restriction. The Planning Department's recommendation is denial. Please concur with this determination. As stated by Jill Baker in the August, 2018 "Staff Report and Analysis:" "There does not appear to be sufficient evidence of fraud, mistake, surprise or inadvertence to grant the request to remove the 9-lot density restriction and thereby overturn previous legislative and judicial decisions." In the Planning Department's thorough analysis, it specifically cited that enrollment at Pleasant Valley Elementary "already exceeds capacity," and that "additional development in general will exacerbate the existing inadequacy." Additionally, the Planning Department's analysis explains that "Overlook" has "on three different occasions attempted to convince multiple layers of the judicial system that the county illegally placed the restriction on the property, and each time have been refuted." Thank you for adopting the denial recommendation of the Planning Department and abiding by past judicial decisions. Dennis E. Frye Edcard, Debra S. From: Baker, Jill Sent: Friday, September 07, 2018 3:13 PM To: Eckard, Debra S. Subject: FW: Sandy Hook Property Development by P Overlook LLLP From: DeYoung, Jeri <ieri deyoung@nps.gov> Sent: Friday, September 7, 2018 2:58 PM To: Baker, Jill <JBaker!a washco-md,net> Subject: Sandy Hook Property Development by P Overlook LLLP Dear Deputy Planning and Zoning Director, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed re -zoning of the 24 acre parcel by P Overlook LLLP. Our interest in the project is primarily two -fold: (1) proposed erosion and drainage control measures required for the development, and (2) the potential change to the viewshed from the park. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. Jeri Jeri L. DeYoung Chief of Resources Management Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park 1850 Dual Highway, Suite 100 Hagerstown, MD 21740 phone 301-714-2210 mobile 240-291-0562 Open Session Item SUBJECT: Senator Amoss Funding Allocation PRESENTATION DATE: February 12, 2019 PRESENTATION BY: R. David Hays, Director, Division of Emergency Services RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to accept the recommendations of the Director of Emergency Services, authorizing the Division of Emergency Services to make notification of the grant award from the FY 2019 Senator William H. Amoss Fire, Rescue, and Ambulance Fund subsidy as outlined in the attached document. The total fiscal year 2019 funding received by the County is $337,711.00 REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The State of Maryland distributes an annual payment to each County for support of local fire and rescue operations. The County in turn makes notification of the funding to the eligible vol. fire and rescue corporations. Financial accountability and reporting are handled within the Division of Emergency Services and the Division of Budget and Finance, with the County filing a financial report with the State on an annual basis. DISCUSSION: The Senator William H. Amoss Fire, Rescue and Ambulance Fund is authorized within the Public Safety Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland. The Maryland Emergency Management Agency is responsible for the program. FISCAL IMPACT: Loss of funding would result in the reduction of capital equipment funding and expenditures that are available to the independent fire and EMS companies. CONCURRENCES: R. David Hays, Director, Division of Emergency Services, and Kim Edlund, Director, Budget and Finance ALTERNATIVES: None ATTACHMENTS: Fiscal Year 2019 Distribution Matrix AUDIO/VISUAL TO BE USED: None Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form Washington County, Maryland Allocation of 508 State Grant Funds Fiscal Year 2019 Fire Total Distributions Amount Hagerstown Fire Department 1468 6 77,933.30 First Hose Company of Boonsboro 920 1 12,988.88 Clear Spring Volunteer Fire Company 396 1 12,988.88 Williamsport Volunteer Fire and EMS 2651 1 12,988.88 Community Volunteer Fire Company 699 1 12,988.88 Funkstown Volunteer Fire Company 1377 1 12,988.88 Volunteer Fire Company of Halfway 1498 1 12,988.88 Leitersburg Volunteer Fire Company 1688 1 12,988.88 Maugansville Goodwill Volunteer Fire Company 1813 1 12,988.88 Smithsburg Community Volunteer Fire Company 2310 1 12,988.88 Sharpsburg Volunteer Fire Company 2224 1 12,988.88 Potomac Valley Volunteer Fire Company 2068 1 12,988.88 Hancock Volunteer Fire Company 1510 1 12,988.88 Longmeadow Volunteer Fire Company 1698 1 12,988.88 Mt. Aetna Volunteer Fire Company 1908 1 12,988.88 Total Distribution - Fire 20 259,777.68 EMS Sharpsburg Area Emergency Medical Service 6013 1 12,988.88 Hancock Rescue Squad 1502 1 12,988.88 Boonsboro Area Emergency Medical Service 281 1 12,988.88 Clear Spring Volunteer Ambulance Club 393 1 12,988.88 Smithsburg Area Emergency Medical Service 2309 1 12,988.88 Community Rescue Service, Inc.1035 1 12,988.88 Total Distribution - EMS 6 77,933.30 Grand Total 26 337,710.98 LAWRENCE J. HOGAN, JR. GOVERNOR COMMANDERA N-CHIEF Ms Sara L. Greaves Washington County Department of Finance 100 West Washington St., Hagerstown, MD 21740 STATE OF MARYLAND MILITARY DEPARTMENT F[FTH RF.GIML•'NT ARMORY BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201-2288 Re: FY 2019 Senator William H. Amoss Award Dear Ms. Greaves, LINDA L. SINGH MAJOR GENERAL THE ADJUTANT GENERAI. Your jurisdiction has been approved as a recipient of the above award for State Fiscal Year 2019. The annual distribution will be made on or about mid -November. Your FY 2019 allocation is itemized as follows: Washington Municipal Share $1,587 County Share $336,124 Total $337,711 Minimum FY19 Distribution to VFRACS $336,124 All reports and attestation forms should be mailed to the following address on or before December 31, 2018: Maryland Military Department, Office of State Finance & Administration, Room B-9 Fifth Regiment Armory, 29th Division Street Baltimore, Maryland 21201-2288 Attention: E. Scott Gordon, Fiscal Services Chief Should you have any questions, please contact me by telephone or email. My e-mail address is scott..gordon(cD.maryland.aov. My telephone number is 410-234-3829. Sincerely, 0 � /ate=�--� E. Scott Gordon, Fiscal Services Chief Open Session Item SUBJECT: Presentation of the 2020-2029 Capital Budget – Draft 1 PRESENTATION DATE: February 12, 2019 PRESENTATION BY: Sara Greaves, Chief Financial Officer RECOMMENDED MOTION: For informational purposes REPORT-IN-BRIEF: Discussion of Draft 1 of the FY2020-2029 Capital Budget. DISCUSSION: A Ten-Year Capital Improvement Plan is developed each fiscal year and includes scheduling and financing of future community facilities such as public buildings, roads, bridges, parks, water and sewer projects, and educational facilities. The plan is flexible and covers ten years with the first year being the Capital Improvement Budget. Funds for each project are allocated from Federal, State, and local sources. A primary purpose of the Capital Improvement Program is to provide a means for coordinating and consolidating all departmental and agency project requests into one document. Capital budget requests were submitted on December 28, 2018. Project costs that were submitted exceeded available funding sources by approximately $85 million dollars. It is the CIP Committee’s responsibility to review all requests that County departments and agencies submit. All projects are ranked based on established criteria for priority ranking. Considering current and future needs, as developed in the ten-year plan, available funding sources, and the results of the priority ranking process, the CIP Committee determines which capital projects best meet established criteria for the current fiscal year Capital Improvement Budget and the nine-year forecast. Not all projects can be funded due to limited resources. Topics of discussion will include: - Draft 1 of Capital budget including project changes from what was originally submitted - Debt affordability analysis - Funding assumptions FISCAL IMPACT: FY2020 Capital budget of $60,908,000 CONCURRENCES: N/A ALTERNATIVES: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Handout AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: None Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form 2 - 1 Total Prior Appr.2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Airport Airport 36,461,279 7,182,279 8,647,000 2,415,000 1,328,000 1,763,000 3,029,000 1,608,000 1,860,000 3,471,000 1,380,000 3,778,000 Bridges Bridges Total 19,743,761 2,905,761 2,153,000 1,371,000 2,470,000 3,133,000 960,000 905,000 1,157,000 1,832,000 1,752,000 1,105,000 Draft 1 Washington County, Maryland Capital Improvement 10yr Detail Fiscal Year 2020 - 2029 2 - 2 Total Prior Appr.2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Draft 1 Washington County, Maryland Capital Improvement 10yr Detail Fiscal Year 2020 - 2029 Drainage Drainage Total 16,825,265 3,595,265 1,128,000 1,471,000 1,385,000 1,223,000 1,418,000 1,313,000 1,321,000 1,493,000 1,403,000 1,075,000 Education Board of Education Board of Education 140,931,882 25,359,882 18,153,000 10,219,000 5,065,000 10,530,000 14,071,000 13,681,000 5,065,000 10,242,000 14,041,000 14,505,000 Hagerstown Community College Hagerstown Community College 25,116,000 483,000 7,894,000 2,558,000 1,097,000 2,077,000 501,000 684,000 2,422,000 878,000 4,522,000 2,000,000 Public Libraries Public Libraries 2,967,492 163,492 20,000 88,000 2,626,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Education Total 169,015,374 26,006,374 26,067,000 12,865,000 8,788,000 12,617,000 14,582,000 14,375,000 7,497,000 11,130,000 18,573,000 16,515,000 General Government General Government Total 20,472,825 2,321,825 1,341,000 1,874,000 2,225,000 4,086,000 3,239,000 1,055,000 1,180,000 1,058,000 1,057,000 1,036,000 Parks and Recreation 2 - 3 Total Prior Appr.2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Draft 1 Washington County, Maryland Capital Improvement 10yr Detail Fiscal Year 2020 - 2029 Parks and Recreation 6,452,990 468,990 498,000 450,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 346,000 337,000 290,000 1,011,000 2,152,000 Public Safety Public Safety 35,927,805 8,786,805 3,617,000 3,598,000 3,430,000 3,322,000 2,038,000 2,126,000 2,246,000 2,130,000 2,377,000 2,257,000 Railroad Railroad 2,044,837 669,837 0 0 295,000 0 0 348,000 0 360,000 0 372,000 Road Improvement Road Improvement 98,144,144 17,006,144 7,994,000 9,036,000 7,183,000 6,484,000 7,516,000 9,142,000 9,247,000 8,311,000 7,902,000 8,323,000 Highways Highways 12,471,095 1,560,095 1,443,000 1,168,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,100,000 Solid Waste Solid Waste 7,546,668 115,668 527,000 183,000 128,000 2,050,000 499,000 3,536,000 236,000 90,000 90,000 92,000 2 - 4 Total Prior Appr.2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Draft 1 Washington County, Maryland Capital Improvement 10yr Detail Fiscal Year 2020 - 2029 Transit Transit 12,215,251 3,451,251 1,353,000 450,000 1,027,000 450,000 450,000 375,000 450,000 375,000 3,384,000 450,000 Water Quality Utility Administration Utility Administration 2,667,187 637,187 96,000 97,000 102,000 102,000 473,000 702,000 109,000 114,000 115,000 120,000 Sewer Sewer Fund 25,062,852 5,473,852 5,779,000 4,809,000 1,034,000 577,000 365,000 1,285,000 1,260,000 1,025,000 2,575,000 880,000 Water Water Fund 4,863,937 500,937 265,000 265,000 265,000 1,672,000 115,000 741,000 605,000 305,000 115,000 15,000 Water Quality 32,593,976 6,611,976 6,140,000 5,171,000 1,401,000 2,351,000 953,000 2,728,000 1,974,000 1,444,000 2,805,000 1,015,000 TOTAL 469,915,270 80,682,270 60,908,000 40,052,000 30,960,000 38,779,000 35,984,000 38,857,000 28,505,000 33,084,000 42,834,000 39,270,000 Open Session Item SUBJECT: Hagerstown Annexation - A-2018-01 Foggy Bottom Farm and other lands and A-2018-02 Antietam Creek creek bed PRESENTATION DATE: February 12, 2019 PRESENTATION BY: Stephen T. Goodrich, Director, Department of Planning and Zoning RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to grant/not grant express approval to the City of Hagerstown to allow development on the annexed land of A- 2018-01 Foggy Bottom Farm and other lands in conformance with the Hagerstown zoning district I-MU (Industrial-Mixed Use) as described in the annexation Resolution and Annexation Plan, which may be substantially different than the uses that would be allowed under the current County zoning districts of Office Research and Industry (ORI). REPORT-IN-BRIEF: Staff presented this matter initially on January 15, 2019 and Commissioners deferred action until the required public hearing with the Hagerstown Mayor and Council was held. The hearing occurred on January 29, 2019. In addition to the City staff presentation on the annexation, three individuals spoke to the matter. Andrew Eshelman, Director of Public Work for Washington County, reiterated the County’s concerns regarding Professional Boulevard, the Antietam Creek bridge and the County’s storm water management structure, that were stated in a letter to the Mayor and Council from the County Commissioners. Jason Divelbiss, an attorney representing Meritus Medical Center, submitted a letter in opposition to the proposed annexation. (letter attached) A private citizen stated his objection to the annexation and stated the opinion that the City should focus on lands already within the municipal boundary. At the conclusion of the hearing, Mayor Bruchey stated that the record would be held open until February 15, 2019 to allow for submission of comments from the County Commissioners resulting from consideration during the February 12 meeting. The information from the ARF introducing the subject during the January 15, 2019 meeting is restated here. The City of Hagerstown proposes to annex approximately 101 acres of land adjacent to its eastern border between Antietam Creek and Yale Drive in the Robinwood area (A-2018-01). The land is owned by the City of Hagerstown (parcel 1587, 11.9 acres, 11850 Indian Lane, aka Foggy Bottom farm), Meritus Medical Center (parcel 1718, 78 acres) and Washington County (parcel 1755, 10.8 acres, regional storm water management structure). The Hagerstown Mayor and Council's Resolution states that the City will assign the AT-Agricultural Transition zone to the 11.9 acre parcel it owns at 11850 Indian Lane. This parcel is zoned RT-Residential Transition by the County. The City will assign the I-MU, Industrial-Mixed Use zone to the Meritus Medical Center and County owned parcels (total approximately 89 acres). These two Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form parcels are currently zoned Office Research and Industry-ORI in the County. The permitted uses in Hagerstown’s AT district are generally the same as the County's Residential Transition district (continuing agricultural use and single-family dwellings. There are several uses permitted in the Hagerstown I-MU district that would not be permitted by the County ORI district which prompts a discussion on the need for express approval of the I-MU zoning proposed by Hagerstown. A-2018-02 involves 1.47 acres of land that lies within the banks of the Antietam Creek, most of it under water. The ownership is undetermined. Hagerstown plans to zone the land AT-Agricultural Transition. The current County zoning is RT-Residential Transition. Maryland's Annotated Code, Local Government Article, §4-416 restricts substantially different development on the annexed property for 5 years unless the County grants its express approval to allow it. DISCUSSION: The basis for seeking Washington County Commissioners express approval of the annexation comes from the Local Government Article of Maryland's Annotated Code, §4-416(b) which says: "Without the express approval of the county commissioners or county council of the county in which the municipality is located, for 5 years after an annexation by a municipality, the municipality may not allow development of the annexed land for land uses substantially different than the authorized use, or at a substantially higher density, not exceeding 50%, than could be granted for the proposed development, in accordance with the zoning classification of the county applicable at the time of the annexation. " The area to be annexed under case #A-2018-01 surrounds but does not include the right of way or soon to be constructed by Washington County extension of Professional Boulevard. FISCAL IMPACT: No cost to Washington County CONCURRENCES: N/A ALTERNATIVES: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Hagerstown Annexation Resolutions and Plans for A-2018-01 and A-2018-02, comparison charts of City and County zoning, and Meritus letter of opposition AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A CITY OF HAGERSTOWN, 1VIARYLAND Planning and Code Administration Department MEMORANDUM RECEIVED TO: Stephen Goodrich, Director DEC 2 1 2018 Washington County Department of Planning and Zoning FROM: Stephen R. Bockmiller, AICP WASHINGTON COUNTY Development Review Planner/Zoning Administrator PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: December 21, 2018 SUBJECT: Annexation Plan — A-2018-01 — Foggy Bottom Farm and Other Lands Pursuant to Division II (Municipalities) Section 4-406( c ) of the Local Government Article, Code of Maryland, please find attached for your review a copy of the Annexation Plan and location map of the annexation referenced above, totaling 101.03 acres of land, more or less. The Annexation Plan for this proposal was adopted by the Mayor and City Council on November 27, 2018. A Public Hearing for the annexation has been scheduled for January 29, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Second Floor of City Hall at the address on this letterhead. The area to be annexed is currently located in the RT (Residential Transition) Zoning District and the ORI (Office, Research and Industry) Zoning District. The City intends to assign the property currently zoned RT to the AT (Agricultural Transitional) Zoning District. Since the house on the property is listed on the County's historic properties survey, it would be annexed with a "potential landmark" designation. It is our understanding that these are the nearest compatible districts between our two Ordinances and, as such, AT zoning is not subject to expressed approval by the Board of County Commissioners. City's Assessment of AT Zoning Compatibility: The AT District is a `placeholder" classification that allows uses on recently annexed property, especially agricultural activity, to continue "as is" until there is a proposal for development. At that time a rezoning would be initiated to assign the appropriate classification — consistent with the City's Comprehensive plan -for lire proposed development. There are no plans for the development of Foggy Bottom Farm at this time. The Future Land Use Map of the Plan designates this area for "medium density residential" development. See page 2-1 7for a description of this designation. Our understanding of the existing RT District applicable to this property would allow the continued use of the property for agriculture and one single-family detached dwelling, and generally, continuation of the existing use would be more restrictive than the County's RT classification. It is unlikely that a use would be proposed on this property in the next five years that is inconsistent with the uses permitted by right or special exception in the RT District. As such, we do not believe expressed approval front the Board of County Commissioners is necessary. Should development be proposed in the next five years, the property would be reclassified to a district that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. If development is proposed, given its designation on the Future Land Use Map, this would likely be assigned RMOD (Residential Moderate Density) zoning, which appears very consistent with the County's RT District. Less likely would be assignment of RMED (Residential Moderate Density) zoning, which does have some differences with the RT district. Should reassignment occur within the next five years, the City would have to consult you and your elected body for zoning consistency and expressed approval if necessary. One East Franklin Street I Room 300 I Hagerstown, Maryland 21740-4987 301.739.8577, Ext. 138 or 103 codecompliance@hagerstownmd.org I planning@hagerstownmd.org Stephen Goodrich -2- December 21, 2018 The City intends to assign the properties currently zoned ORI to the I -MU (Industrial — Mixed Use) Zoning District. City Is Assessment of I -MU Zoning Compatibility. Around 2014, knowing that the Mt: AetnrwMeritus area east ofAntietam Creek would be ripe for annexation at some point in the foreseeable future, City staff met with Mr. Snook regarding ways that the City's I -MU District can be made more compatible with lite County's ORI District. The City antended its zoning ordinance in 2015 implementing these changes In the City's zoning ordinance, the stated purpose of the I -MU district is "to provide locations for light industrial parks, office parks, research and development facilities, high-tech communications and technology facilities, trucking and distribution facilities, and minor commercial uses that support job centers': The I MUDistrict does include some uses intended mostly as conveniences for those who work within the area not having to leave the industrial or business park to obtain basic services. The purpose of tlhe County's OKI District is "... support the County's economic development effort by providing additional locations for employment and will allow the variety of uses which may benefit from locations in proximity to each other. Limited commercial activities are also permitted to serve the needs of employees in the District." The Future Land Use Map of the VisionRagerstown 2035 designates this area as "Business — Employment". It is our assessment that their missions are the same, and the list of uses are generally consistent as the result of amendments made by the City in 2015 to make the two more consistent (although a few uses may vary). As such, expressed approval is not necessary. The Hagerstown Planning Commission will be reviewing this proposal and making a recommendation to the Mayor and City Council on the proposed zoning at its meeting on January 9. It would be most efficient if the County could respond as soon as possible prior to that meeting. Otherwise, the Mayor and City Council public hearing is scheduled for 7 pan., on Tuesday, January 29, 2019 in the City Council Chambers in City Hall. Please note that the City desires to move forward with alacrity on this matter. In assessing the situation, the City's position is that we have little concern over the specific zoning districts assigned (on the understanding that they are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan), nor is the City concerned whether the lands are annexed with or without expressed consent and does or does not become subject to a five year moratoriuni requirement. However, City staff will gladly meet with County staff and the Board of County Commissioners, as necessary to shepherd this process in an effective manner. If the Board of County Commissioners determines that expressed consent is necessary, it would be more to the benefit of the current land owner and future developers to have this issue resolved now, during the annexation process. The alternative would be to wait for developers to express interest in these lands for certain uses and then find it necessary to approach the County regarding zoning during their study periods. But the annexation process will not be delayed. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions, please let me know. Attachments -- Annexation Plan, Vicinity Map and Proposed Plat of Annexation Copy; Valerie Means, City Administrator Jennifer Keefer, Esq., City Attorney Mayor and City Council Donna Spickler, City Clerk Robert Slocum, County Administrator Hagerstown Planning Commission Members Megan Flick, Planner Jason Divelbiss, Esq. -- Rep. of Meritus 0 0 N 00 4 b y y to .y .� N a N o •� U U- w ti 0- m o o v u 3 0g1 C J9. . N f3 0 rn C GU w oNgar� OpT �U$ f.'P4� m o •.. o •.. 0 2 C. rj. O O U U 0 �i aNi C -2 c '^ u' U N° IN,ti o v0�/,. t l6 " 4 m U u N °3 td'g'a F..4 p Ea14144 �� 9b.r% 0 o..QA:M U and Uv cui o.� aEp v UO ���xd NQae U � �' 10 plow F ..y 7 j� .... U •m 4 a to U° i Cb av Q v .q u o R3 y o� 0 3 "'' o e o W . y+p� ° w w es a Pt Q 0 o p o a o a`J Y°R C a o EqO 4 o y p q U Y+1 m A4 '� •.' W A [b m U� m ^� � El v a p• C.•I�. � e o 05 y o � [ F .ENO a � � u 4p •p N �! Ob �C0 V � V .G �O Q �� MO.N y [•, pSNph F-� N o "' aicdao YO N 4 c t N 7 wm4•, o._.�l d 0 Y� 00x �m v d Y m CL a 4e .N c > o Sg •� ar Lei QW w Y A Z +° A t>a tbn w U i o- �o otda) -r: (D°> a30 `m_ r oU m 3 oUN2ao?�:3 U Q 2 Z o ° N i morn . d2U}i�v�c 0 E`a°c o c "tco oO O 1V11 i OOo� 000 Q)v- CaEi0) Oi¢ CNwcr c0>W h � ) '0 N m 0a)� ��� q��a VV UUr°nCCC�Y o O� aa) a � � ¢moo- i a�� j +� g' ui�ui���Ew��r ¢ �L> m ocm A° d a� °� d d Cn v ffJ V vo�v �LomcCv a xf I-f -C p c n in .m LLi c 0� a) c d � o� a�i t"od t`o `o ani o L nE N V ALL Q✓2 N v � � � � �o � oU) WCn Qr22Uf�(n�f!3 �Z n3� m� s EQ3 C�Et a�M��y °°�c�-°y'°�Y.rO o�^�LO E 0) -C.- U c0 N +•' O N 2 0) C Z y O C N O i0 l4 U `U'3�o 3UE U�� �� o Wdg No�0 ma)v>(MZ5 goy£ o aim E c b 0S9 o y¢Uzo o0 20 Ul oa'iroz a mac ° i 3 0 ro to •ION o-L- ID N "c '4 NQC'=�N y �0� W �� (Np0 N(] O = UL� -. TOa C LOj tT L. NU O N-0 C C Z W O C O W '� T 7 N al i6 ° 3 C O»- O +�•• N C U O 8 -j cp)E Oid�L� a)�O>W w d6t U3 U)- tr0NO LC6)� COQ'OU mOa)� �Nc4 o n too rr1¢ N �t1p Z 4th a E o ate: 3 to c Ea•, L 0+L-•w Qi n` o N ° -.i CD GHQ cd Q®��oZ �~ c N O.3 `a °� a) t>a� m o v d- ,a n LL O (n a� �, E L rn Q5 a m �.- a) nn ) 0 22 P'®��0 m®� c m n� Lao d L o+ L� a c oM� o��ca'ai�o�¢ o �W��Y�Iw�p���ino���3ocT�° ca-6 15 . Lp)°N EL 'O'E..YO..O C O'® J W7 N E C +-'CN'�LaL-+ O NNal al 7.,N a) Ems- 0.R c � ACCH �mQ ooc aka) cc c U tba m-0 td �ccmtn a) 0i �:p ¢W¢ NeoF:pcOJ pOtNLOC L a _o� 00¢oa =°orwa N �� �?w�Wz��U3�'onuawoaca¢�$aioC�¢ 1� a> o ri a Z5 g� Eta rW OfJ! .00 a)NmQ 0Oy, .-O U to N b m¢ L c w O p 0 U N W C W rA ®®� hi >m O O UNOWE `yLro*�' ' GLO O>Of; ®� �" W f. 8 N N `_ ' "' c m c 0 '�O` ° o C N° N. 66 MM fn 2 g® � � c0 O c C w O C � (U U C N > U� &OO Q�a`®�Z (iy�c'"`a�E o oc E > ���' cd.GOO��LD �c w�PJ Lfa ® > E-t c a) m ° 3 L �F n L O: ��2 ®�° ��Fp4�'rn��u3oat"�ovL°cT�o`� �a�a� ooYa: Ids! O O- O L O O f!1 N cn LLl Z a� Y- O c4 T i W W m 'O a) U C� M N� .L-� N C N i O N a) N m CL -0: f3� ¢��g�, °toY `� c 0 a) c`o aL rnL TN c z �zffl o�m 3 ao 3Nti w o oam<t Q moCc�v¢ m au�i REQUIRED MOTION MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND Date: Noveinber 27, 2018 TOPIC: Introduction of Annexation Resolution Foggy Bottom Farm and other Lands Case No. A-2018-01 Charter Amendment Code Amendment Ordinance Resolution X_ Other MOTION: I hereby move that the Mayor and City Council Introduce an Annexation Resolution for an annexation known as the "Foggy Bottom Farm and Other Lands", for three properties located between Antietam Creek and Yale Drive. The portion of property to be annexed is approximately 101.03 acres in size and is intended to be added to and made part of the adjacent municipal lands. DATE OF INTRODUCTION: 11/27/18 HEARING DATE: 01/29/19 DATE OF PASSAGE: 02/26/19 EFFECTIVE DATE: 04/12/19 RESOLUTION NO. .RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HAGERSTOWN TO ENLARGE THE CORPORATE BOUNDARIES AND THEREBY AMEND THE CORPORATE BOUNDARIES AS CONTAINED IN SECTION 104 OF THE ARTICLE 1 OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND AND AT THE, SAME TIME ESTABLISH THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE AREA TO BE ANNEXED. WHEREAS the City of Hagerstown, pursuant to its rights and authority under the Local Government Article, §4403 of the Annotated Code of Maryland may annex into the City additional lands in accordance with the requirements set forth therein; WHEREAS, pursuant to the Maryland Annotated Code, Local Government Article, §4- 401 et seq., the City desires to enlarge the corporate boundaries of the City of Hagerstown, Maryland by adding or annexing thereto the within described areas which are immediately adjacent to and adjoining the present corporate boundaries thereof, and to be popularly known as the "Foggy Bottom Farm and Other Lands Annexation, Case No. A-2018-01 " for identification; and identification of the same is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth into and made a part hereof. See Exhibit A — Annexation Plat (3 pages); WHEREAS, pursuant to the Maryland Annotated Code, Local Government Article §4- 403(b)(1), the City may annex land with the consent of at least twenty-five (25) percent of the registered voters residing within the area to be annexed, and the City of Hagerstown, as the sole owner of "Foggy Bottom Farm", leases this property to Jar7ris and Jocelyn Crooks, being registered voters who are residents of "Foggy Bottom Farm", which is the only residentially occupied property of the three included in this petition, and they have agreed and consented to the annexation as set forth in the attached Consent and there are no registered voters residing on the remaining two properties to provide or withhold consent, See Exhibit B -- Consent of Resident Registered Voters; WHEREAS, pursuant to the Maryland Annotated Code, Local Government Article, §4- 403(b)(2), the City may annex lands with the consent of the owners of twenty-five (25) percent of the assessed value of lands to be annexed, and the City of Hagerstown, which has provided consent for this annexation is the owner of ninety-three and seventeen one -hundredths (93.17) percent of the assessed value of the lands subject to this resolution, See Exhibit C -- Consent of Property Owners; WHEREAS, this Resolution for Annexation meets all the requirements of the law, and, pursuant to the Maryland Annotated Code, Local Government Article, §4-406( c ), the Annexation was referred to the appropriate State, Regional , and County Planning authorities, WHEREAS, in accordance with historic City practice in processing annexations, the issue of the proposed zoning of the area to be annexed to the corporate limits was referred to the Planning Commission for the City of Hagerstown, Maryland which said Commission for the City of Hagerstown has studied the proposed zoning of the tracts described herein in relation to the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and all other applicable ordinances, the needs of the City and County, and the needs of the particular neighborhood and vicinities of the areas, and have approved the same and that the rezoning for the said tract of land is proper and desirable under all of the circumstances and should be accomplished at this time. Section 1. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Hagerstown, Maryland that the boundaries of the City, pursuant to the Local Government Article, Subtitle 4-401 et seq., be and are hereby amended so as to annex and include land within said City all that certain area of land together with the persons residing therein and the properties therein, contiguous to the corporate limits of the City and being more particularly described by metes and bounds in Exhibit A -- Annexation Plat (3 pages) attached hereto and made a part thereof; Section 2. And be it further resolved by the Mayor and City Council, that the subject properties to be annexed shall have zoning classifications as follows upon annexation: Meritus Medical Center Lands I -MU (Industrial -- Mixed Use) Washington County Commissioners I -MU (Industrial — Mixed Use) Foggy Bottom Farm (11850 Indian Lane) AT (Agricultural Transition), and with a designation as a "potential landmark" Section 3. And be it further resolved that the annexation of the said area be made subject to the terms and conditions as set forth in the Annexation Plan attached hereto as Exhibit D and made part hereof upon final agreement and passage; See Exhibit D -- Annexation Plan;. Section 4. And be it further resolved that the conditions and circumstances applicable to the change in said corporate boundaries and to the residents and property within the area so annexed shall be subject to the provisions of the Charter of the City of Hagerstown, the Code of the City of Hagerstown, and all acts, ordinances, resolutions and policies. Section 5. And be it further resolved by the Mayor and Council, that this resolution shall take effect upon the expiration of forty-five (45) days following its final passage, subject however, to the right of referendum as contained in the Local Government Article of the Maryland Code, as amended. WITNESS AND ATTEST AS TO CORPORATE SEAL Donna K. Spickler City Clerk Date Introduced: 11/27/18 Hearing Date: 01/29/19 Final Enactment 02/26/19 Effective Date: 04/12/19 BY ORDER OF THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND By: Robert E. Bruchey, II Mayor Y c fpg G LNv+ m sirJ sj�jnj�1�1511js 0. U in U a m c m a .E c � O Zaa m m COoV�•9� �@ xd9i)yNaZWy n �i R !��ill C« m C Cq 1¢7111L1ysYz_� C`^�«6T S�KS 9g aL Q��c� k as �3fi z h u \ \ S w N LL r- 'oe � .m f f I I - � b � an *+ N OLL- J- 4/ I I =. l� n. !4 Iai9 Iw•1 N Q Vbl < V 1.1 N � 10 19 fq o �m i�i 0 aQayy � Gt 1�0 i71 W � N N R N H y m N ui N N Fyy tD lV V ry o Ua / �iS�0. / 6ap'.ta.vns umim:cw�nucl uciqupsfiR.{nweW9ue uo vaµiss:o:d pgbti!lGtlOitlsfk,FlOwllwpl"w Quiia�u!Gu3 ur.•.o�s+aceH !K�I�.L ZtAJC'L!3 A §{ �)){ |2 ■| o ƒ }/ , po.\b�.l� / k!k\%§/ )/ aK § o§E ® r° mug.- e 7/§ A ■■■k# . m2. > 2md:J ©' 9 .. . .. §d: 2 2m . ». m :w«z . j cm .. w m«« v --- -- -- \ \. \\ . \ \\ a G& y; \§»? <mdw sy : aw «z «aw av mz ,4 Z � | !`[ 2 ||EE)a!!9 #!}!!!� ! \k EXHIBIT B CONSENT OF RESIDENT REGISTERED VOTER(S) Pursuant to the Local Government Article, Subtitle 4-400 (Annexation) of the Annotated Code of Maryland, I (we) the undersigned, being resident occupant(s) of the property owned by the City of Hagerstown, known as 11850 Indian Lane (also known as "Foggy Bottom Farm"), having reviewed the proposed annexation plat with Metes and Bounds Description, do hereby consent to the Annexation of the lands as described in Foggy Bottom Farm and Other Lands - Annexation A-2018-01. Witness: U Witness: gnature Date JA12i2-1S Cfl-C:1it's Print Name &dill, al//n I 0 /.2.3 i $ Signs re 0 Date -J o w (in ('roo K/ S Print Name EXHIBIT C CONSENT OF PROPERTY OWNER(S) Pursuant to the Local Government Article, §4401 et seq. (Annexation) of the Annotated Code of Maryland, the City of Hagerstown, being the sole owner of the "Foggy Bottom Farm" tract, being 11.934 acres of land, and consisting of 93.17 percent of the assessed value of lands within the area subject to this resolution for annexation (exceeding the minimum requirement of 25% of the owners of the assessed value of lands), having read the Metes and Bounds Description does hereby consent to the Annexation of its property as described in Foggy Bottom Farm and Other Lands Annexation A-2018-01, subject to all of the terms and conditions set forth in the Resolution and other documents set forth above. The City of Hagerstown further agrees and consents to execute such documents and to perform such acts as may be required to complete the Annexation of the property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The City of Hagerstown has caused its corporation name to be here unto subscribed by Donna K. Spickler, City Cleric, and its corporate seal to be affixed hereto and duly attested by its City Cleric. ATTEST AS TO CORPORATE SEAL - - it J? — Donna K. Spickler City Cleric THE CITY OF HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND BY: Robert E. Bruchey, ayor ASSESSMENT OF LANDS TO BE ANNEXED (IN U.S. DOLLARS) Property Land Improvements Total City of Hagerstown Property (Foggy Bottom Farm) 219,600 140,800 360,400 Washington County Govt. (Stormwater Management Facility) 0 0 0 Meritus Medical Center, Inc. 26,400 0 26,400 TOTAL 246,000 140,800 386,800 Assessed Value of Foggy Bottom Farm: 360,400= Total Assessed Value of Three Properties to be Annexed: 386,800 Percentage of Assessed Value of Lands to be Annexed Owned by the City: 93.17% Source: Maryland Department of Assessment and Taxation database records for each of the three properties provided by D. Pitsnogle, MD DAT staff, Hagerstown office, on October 31, 2018, copies of which are included with Annexation File A-2018-01. REQUIRED MOTION MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND Date: November 27, 2018 TOPIC: Adoption of an Annexation Plan Foggy Bottom Farm and other Lands Case No. A-2018-01 Charter Amendment Code Amendment Ordinance Resolution Other X MOTION: I hereby move that the Mayor and City Council Adopt an Annexation Plan for the "Foggy Bottom Farm and Other Lands" Annexation (A-2018-01). DATE OF ADOPTION: 11/27/18 EFFECTIVE DATE: 11/27/18 City of Hagerstown, Maryland EXHIBIT D ANNEXATION PLAN Annexation Case No. A-20.18-01 Property Owner/Applicant: City of Hagerstown -- By Resolution Location of Properties: Owners: 11850 Indian Lane (Map 0050, Parcel 1587) City of Hagerstown Lands west of Yale Drive (Map 0050, Parcel 1718) Meritus Medical Center Stormwater Facility (Map 0050, Parcel 1755) Board of County Commissioners Annexation Plan Pursuant to §4415 of the Local Government Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland, herewith is a proposed outline for extension of services and public facilities into the areas proposed to be annexed. It is also noted that any future amendments to the Annexation Plan may not be construed in any way as an amendment to the resolution, nor may they serve in any manner to cause a re - initiation of the annexation procedure then in process. I. Land Use Patterns of Areas Proposed to be Annexed - A. The area of annexation is +1- 101.03 acres. B. The proposed zoning is AT (Agricultural Transition) for Parcel 1587, with designation as a "Potential Landmark". The purpose of the AT zoning district is as follows: The purpose of the AT District is to enable agricultural uses to continue on newly annexed land if desired by the property owner, as a temporary use until such time that the land is re -zoned for development. All lands within this district proposed far development shall be rezoned to another district to accommodate that development, in accordance with the policies and procedures set forth in this Article. The Planning Commission and the Mayor and City Council shall consider the policies and recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan when re -assigning zoning classification for AT land for development. When the property is to be given another classification, whether there was a mistake in assigning the AT classification and/or whether changes in the character of the neighborhood have occurred may be taken into consideration. However, a finding of mistake or change in character of the neighborhood shall not be required The AT zoning classification is generally consistent with the County's current zoning of RT; thus, no "express approval" of a zoning change by the County is needed. The Zoning Ordinance (Article 4, Land Management Code, Section 140 of the City Code), Section A.13.b states: When County -designated historic districts and County inventory properties are annexed into the City, they will be annexed with a landmark overlay or be considered City Potential Landmarks. If demolition is proposed for any such Potential Landmarks, the review process in Subsection T.G must be followed. Landmarks are subject to Section T of this Article. Foggy Bottom Farm appears on the County's historic property inventory map, and is included in the Maryland Historical Trust inventory of historic properties as site WA-I-066. Therefore, the properly will be annexed with a "Potential Landmark" designation. The proposed zoning for Parcels 1718 and 1755 is I -MU (Industrial— Mixed Use). The purpose of the I -MU zoning district is as follows: To provide locations for light industrial parks, office parks, research and development facilities, high-tech communications and technology facilities, trucking and distribution facilities, and minor commercial uses that support job centers. The I -MU zoning classification is generally consistent with the County's current zoning of ORI (Office — Research — Industrial); thus, no "express approval" of a zoning change by the County is needed. C. These properties are within the City's Medium Range Growth Area, an area intended for new or expanded water and wastewater service, as defined in the 2018 Comprehensive Plan. D. These properties are within the County's Urban Growth Boundary (UGA) and the State's designated Priority Funding Area (PFA). II. Availability of Land Needed for Public Facilities - A. The area of annexation contains, in part, one existing dwelling unit on an 11.934 acre residentially zoned parcel. However, the fixture use of this property has not been determined by the City. The property is owned by the City and is adjacent to a City -owned public park and the Antietam Creek. There is no foreseeable impact annexing this parcel will have on Washington County Board of Education Facilities. The remaining two parcels proposed in this annexation are non-residential in nature and will have no additional impact on Washington County Board of Education facilities with respect to school capacity. B. The area of annexation contains one existing dwelling. However, the future proposed use of most of the lands of this annexation are non-residential in nature will have no additional impact to the Washington County Free Library as a result of the annexation. III. Schedule and Method of Financing the Extension of Each Municipal Service Currently Performed Within the City of Hagerstown into the Area Proposed to be Annexed - A. The area of annexation current has no City Wastewater Service. If requested for existing development or redevelopment, the property will be served by City Wastewater. Sufficient capacity exists to serve the property. B. The area of annexation current has no City Water Service. If requested for existing development or redevelopment, the property will be served by City Wastewater. Sufficient capacity exists to serve the property. C. The Electric Distribution System is external to the Hagerstown Light Division operating territory. Electrical service is currently provided by Potomac Edison. For the provision of street lighting, The City of Hagerstown Light Department (HLD) supplies street light services to public streets and supplies the manpower and equipment to serve a new area once the developer designs, purchases, and installs the infrastructure to HLD specifications. The HLD assumes ownership of the street light system twelve (12) months after the City of Hagerstown assumes ownership of the street(s). Until such time, the developer is the owner of the system and is responsible for its operation and maintenance. Being this location is not part of the City of Hagerstown until the effective date of annexation, electrical usage of the system will be the responsibility of the owner until such time the City of Hagerstown assumes ownership of street(s). When the City of Hagerstown assumes ownership of street(s), the City of Hagerstown will be responsible for the electrical usage of the lights and at such time as mentioned above, the HLD will take over ownership and responsibility for operation and maintenance. Washington County is completing the design for Professional Boulevard, which will bisect the annexed area. Proposed street lighting has been designed in consultation with the Hagerstown Light Department, The City does not intend to accept Professional Boulevard for dedication to the City within the area of annexation (See Section H on the next page). The City will not assume responsibility for any existing street lighting, or future street lighting to be installed that has not been approved by the Hagerstown Light Department, or on streets of which the City will not assume ownership. Street lights for any future connecting streets designed after annexation will be required to be designed to City specifications and standards and ownership and maintenance of those street lights would be assumed by the City per standing policy should the City accept ownership of those streets. The HLD will have the resources to maintain and operate the streetlight system constructed to its standards only, and on streets accepted for ownership by the City. D. No significant impact on emergency service delivery is expected. E. The properties proposed for annexation fiont on or are accessed via Indian Lane and Yale Drive, both of which are County -maintained roads. The County is currently planning for , construction of an extension of Professional Court which will connect to Yale Drive through the area subject to this annexation resolution (Professional Bouelvard). Washington County will be permitted to continue the planning and construction of this road under its own authority and design standards, and the City will not require its own permitting or inspection of this construction. Platting of street rights of way and/or lots that occur after the effective date of the annexation shall be in accordance with the Hagerstown Land Management Code and shall be approved through the City's subdivision process. Any proposed construction of buildings and/or site improvements (including but not limited to motor vehicle parking, landscaping, paving, storm water management and other improvements) that occurs after the effective date of annexation shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Hagerstown in accordance with the Hagerstown Land Management Code. F. Parks and recreation facility expansion are not proposed for this annexation. However, in the future, all or parts of Foggy Bottom Farm (City of Hagerstown property) may be reserved for parkland, given its location adjacent to Antietam Creek and existing K iwanis Park. Nothing in this agreement shall be interpreted or construed to commit the City to reserve this parcel for park use or development at this time or in the future. G. Police protection will be provided by the Hagerstown Police Department. Fire protection will be provided by the Hagerstown Fire Department. H. Any streets designed, constructed and offered for public acceptance by the City of Hagerstown as a public street shall be constructed to City Standards and Specifications. The City Council shall formally accept the streets after which the City will maintain the accepted streets. Professional Boulevard, which is to be constructed by the County, shall remain a right of way of the County and shall be maintained by the County. I. All future persons within the area proposed to be annexed shall obtain or be entitled to existing benefits of the City of Hagerstown. They shall also be required to pay for all applicable utility services, charges, assessments, taxes, and other costs and expenses which are required of the residents of the City of Hagerstown, unless alternative arrangements are provided for in the Annexation Resolution. IV. Annexation Agreements - No Annexation Agreement with property owners or developers with interest in property subject to this annexation is included with this resolution. Should the City decide to enter into such an agreement with property owners or developers at a later date, such agreement shall be adopted by Resolution as required by §4-405(b)(2) of the Local Government Article, Annotated Code of Maryland. Projection: NAD83 State Plan Maryland FIPS (feet) V of Hagerstown, 2016; State of MD Imagery, 2014 islOgton County, 2016 Ina •I '. y 1 �a� Annexation of Foggy Bottom Farm I • Other �i �.� � 4lrr` �� �:r2��1+�. A.•:.�fJ�. �� f ),;t7,plu t �,i_ z _ .-.�— � JLands ���'-'11 -�� 1 - t' 1� h I S>f�� �+ wig ��r•e!r■ i.`.',/,a, County Road County Tax Parcel Corporate Boundary is AT (Agricultural Transitional) RMOD (Residential - Moderate Density) RMED (Residential - Medium Density) CG (Commercial General) POM (Professional Office Mixed) A Map Pro)ectlon: NAD83 State Plan Maryland FIPS(feet) j� DaU Sources: _ City of Hagerstown, 2016; Stale of MD Imagery, 2014 Washington County, 2016, 1,000 2,000 Prepared By: 1PPAA FeetHagerstown Planning 5 Code Admin Dept, 08/29/18 CITY OF HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND lanning and Code Administration Department MEMORANDUM RECEIVED TO: Stephen Goodrich, Director DEC 212018 Washington County Department of Planning and Zoning WASHINGTON COUNTY FROM: Stephen R. Bockmiller, AICP PLANNING DEPARTMENT Development Review Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE: December 21, 2018 SUBJECT: Annexation Plan — A-2018-02 — Antietam Creek Creek Bed Located in the bed and on the banks of Antietam Creek, east of Kiwanis Park Pursuant to Division I1(Municipalities) Section 4-406( c ) of the Local Government Article, Code of Maryland, please find attached for your review a copy of the Annexation Plan and location map of the annexation referenced above, totaling 1.47 acres of land, more or less. The Annexation Plan for this proposal was adopted by the Mayor and City Council on November 27, 2018. A Public Hearing for the annexation has been scheduled for January 29, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Second Floor of City Hall at the address on this letterhead. The area to be annexed is currently located in the RT (Residential Transition) Zoning District. The City intends to assign this property to the AT (Agricultural Transitional) Zoning District. It is our understanding that these are the nearest compatible districts between our two Ordinances and, as such, is not subject to expressed approval by the Board of County Commissioners. City's Assessment of AT Zoning Compatibility: The AT District is a "placeholder" classification that allows uses on recently annexed property, especially agricultural activity, to continue "as is" until there is a proposal for development. At that tinte a rezoning would be initiated to assign the appropriate classification — consistent with the City's Comprehensive plats -for the proposed development. The lands subject to this annexation are mostly under Antietamn Creek or within the floodway, and are undevelopable. This area is only being annexed due to llte pending annexation of an adjacent property which would otherwise leave this land as a narrow sliver of County jurisdiction between two areas within the City. This anne-ration would create a regular municipal boundary in this area. The adjacent property to the north (Cruntrine) is located in an AT zone, and the City's proposed zoning for the property to the south ("Foggy Bottom Farnh') is likewise AT. Assigning AT zoning to this annexation would be consistent with both adjacent properties that have the vast majority of contnton property line with (and nearly surround) this area to be annexed It is extremely unlikely that development would be proposed for the area within this annexation. Should development be proposed on one of the two adjacent AT zoned properties, it would be reclassified to a district that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. When (and j) that occurs, the City would likely also assign that designation to this annexed area as well. This is so that the area subject to this annexation will not sit permanently in what is generally intended to be a placeholder district pending future development. One East Franklin Street I Room 300 I Hagerstown, Maryland 21740-4987 301.739.8577, Ext. 138 or 103 codecompliance@hagerstownmd.org I planning@hagerstownmd.org Stephen Goodrich -2- December 21, 2018 Both the Crumriue and Foggy Bottom Farm properties are designated "medium density residential' on the Future Land Use Map found in the CioJ� s Comprehensive Plan. If development is proposed ou one or both, given its designation on the Future Land Use Map, that property would likely be assigned RMOD (Residential Moderate Density) zoning, which appears very consistent with the County's RT District. Less likely ►vould be assignment of RMED (Residential Moderate Density) zoning, which does have some differences with lire RT district. Unless the Board of County Commissioners determine that expressed approval is not required for this annexation, should reassignment occur within the next five years, the City ►vould consult you and your elected body far zoning consistency and expressed approval if necessaey. Ultimately, however, assigning and considering zoning of the area of this annexation could best be described as "housekeeping" as this area is likely never to be developed, given its physical circumstances and conditions. The Hagerstown Planning Commission will be reviewing this proposal and making a recommendation to the Mayor and City Council on the proposed zoning at its meeting on January 9. It would be most efficient if we could have your response to the above questions as soon as possible prior to that meeting. Otherwise, the Mayor and City Council will conduct its public hearing on this matter at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, January 29, 2019 in the City Council Chambers, on the second floor of City Hall. Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, please contact me at your convenience. Attachments — Annexation Plan Vicinity Map Proposed Plat of Annexation Copy: Valerie Means, City Administrator Jennifer Keefer, Esq., City Attorney Mayor and City Council Donna Spickler, City Clerk Robert Slocum, County Administrator Hagerstown Planning Comm. Members Megan Flick, Planner co a N N E tom.? 0 00 Y N w � '� •p u a t�a a gip^ 0 3 y ° pp GGG a ti [-� � � > o .-• `off ° ,�'-, .N, p le N ° + 9 U a, ° C 0 0 K u r; EI y � N V •� 01 3 N R .., R q F A'd C G •i7 'CO 60 u N Ra� � C 'd 0.00 C a, A a 0 t o w e e e H P arA Gb °U ° 41 ' 6a Q+ ea W ab`i G R < .5 OC C Da 00 j� O 42 A.a V. .0.•�7 aYq�v ,G R W .O N _ - d C O ` v rl iy�Y°a i�a o3 pp V C CL O dam-^ y N '"�' n x.N, Ow, "� o b.11 �� c 61x U ? of S lxzw° a vtjia°1U &oN o ¢ o c0=0 0 E�o?�oo ao)aa)o� °>°C U. SEA °' > �j c � ��� croi� O O o o m x� °-0 'a) � � c ��z W YUc Nw cda N m+ Cry m �)S rnE�Z d dY LLB a) a°i ro ci p�Opci - > T >ro rn �+ ,w « a� c_ o a� ..LCL _L ai W W 9)Q h .0 ° C .L,,, SR > N j. a) N O~ .L.+ 0 0 Q •? a) a) O O ro 0 E a) C a) N WPICF- r 7 Q N yam' ° LN ca caarC7 c 21a N a �E 0 ®W aU rnO� pmi� cc a—,ni �a)�noQ��a��i �ULZ > NN P�L �a O? V!�>c°i �m 2) W01 co, oEo����m d='2 0.m"� v�, vrn° cromcnd{ �O�W as��, �GEoS�NW �d�o<o�� o �2 ,na3u oar a) 0Lc� .3 Oc>—Y Wa cn �am3�a°i�ccam°�`-°°YnooE°��� c°`nwEQ�`arori�i°�v`-O Eai°o3j �aGW W��roJ���.Wjujdm�a) n: o o a). mo cY�x_� 01L°3�oaa�: pu,O� Uo -0 may Ear oNo. •- �ro vdp. cF nL Open C6. E c co cca O � �v o� ro ab� c � u, � � o�� Y ° E m c `� O of �o ro, -y4Q E a) Z c o. c ° m �- ��d v rnro ° Ow0 ONL N GS.� L OL a) caLr`-r-. a) �. c0� CA a) a) O a)^...... Z.No>oCNUmSQ>3�F-v)[L3��•Qvo�pUQro�'S1-onC�~OJ=v�(DEmo; a)c w a)o cd-m a� roN-os ooL-001 W¢ mE n��co a)2 L-o �E�Go'to:— —0 c'Q)i: ® � N t0 N N >O G O •U N p O aC) b ro t 0 O O O -O O N E -r--. N z0or HM 00))(A 2LZ U*L'L N'+>'_ CvN OHO OU ..• Q0� N "w fa O C'O N CG 0) Op W Fa W a C leC CA -�-' C ro +' O r C a) O O) O'- a)'o .c a) => Q 0. a W CO = ` 0 N O)N ;v O •_ CO C O C°) C O) a) a) U c N �c) N O a) ro O'0 .r-. ca Z F- m C a1 a) O Ir Y a) CV •r U) ++ U) IL Z N cA °) m o� 3: 3 w c E a r E c a�- Q O? �``-c:o � cc m ca a) m > >+ a�� cn m � � c d o °' N ('rn o t 0)i >Li �00co Cc: U) �'�L�a>i��o L-'.cl= 0)'D0 • «N�ca�iF, om� ! 0LUZE @ 0� : �oo�c°o*=o`°off �,a�a)�ooa`�i a�'o�a°ir� Ea�$1 F a� L3c> cno:E �n o oom ma �a W0 Z� �O�W�ni yZaa'3m �a'yro °ro rro 3°moE° a)oo�'N0 �F -ww t! a�U cv r - c �i � a) o ro ay G 0;._- n 0,X ro amp 3 °, F- N Q U c E O� t O L c ° E a) L ro ti- vJ C N N a) ro C UJ L O~ ro iU O� Qfw-�d ipO)b c Ntc-- -OO.. �ip')=T"c0�czp.LO'� a) �Ero CL z O Z (n .0 O = ,I ,- <a o ..- ca r; 7 '� 4) a) � - O •. t O) M C 0) 2 9) - •- C O r L ,� O a) ° O �--W 1/SWZ W �-� Q02rU- -•� O QroQ.-. O.cnSNQ cc1 n.U) O 3 O._�--.- w�O•..•v) O+- 6 N C 1 �t a Y�?U) �`9�Ccaa4N -0 co 0P 'r.L -0N O 30 roU Z) A?m�E °OLct1-cU)O QU N N c� A�' •otlr • '��CA U C� U NCO O� 0 11. N CU m o - N N a) Ca O C d' ,fj _2 +.. O U) M LO N°Qne3 0_ LEvoi W m ° L'$roo� o 0cam y m �' o O `NN N.0 E EDOOt to i ro ._ rm ) aci er'U, `cu 3 c69 h5L(U ° c 2 u; C0@) c?> E yQ � R�Q �U N �-� -moo Z'cU `o E om °'�6 E a3iy9 m a°ioN o00) rom dN ,,v �v o d� o c 0 0 ps nco � r C\j �a.c 3 Trn r o rn�o E. �y�o Yo 8 C Opp 6O vl a)N �� O (90 C7 Cc: �N A O 0 .T 0 a v' 0 I N ca x r0i' 0 7 •"-' 'S CO t C4 r :�. L N t ,- ,.;r, % �1 b Date: TOPIC: REQUIRED MOTION MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND November 27, 2018 Introduction of Annexation Resolution Lands of Undetermined Ownership Within the Bed and Adjacent Floodplain of Antietam Creek for the Purpose of Creating a Regular and Logical Municipal Boundary Resulting from Annexation of Adjacent Lands, to be known as "Antietam Creek Creek Bed Annexation" Case No. A-2018-02 Charter Amendment Code Amendment Ordinance Resolution X Other MOTION: 1 hereby move that the Mayor and City Council Introduce an Annexation Resolution known as the Antietam Creek Creek Bed Annexation. The portion of property to be annexed is approximately 1.47 acres in size and is intended to be added to and made part of the adjacent municipal lands for the purpose of creating logical and regular municipal boundaries in conjunction with the annexation of adjacent lands incorporated into the City through Case No. A-2018-01. DATE OF INTRODUCTION: 11/27/18 HEARING DATE: 01/29/19 DATE OF PASSAGE: 02/26/19 EFFECTIVE DATE: 04/12/19 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HAGERSTOWN TO ENLARGE THE CORPORATE BOUNDARIES AND THEREBY AMEND THE CORPORATE BOUNDARIES AS CONTAINED IN SECTION 104 OF THE ARTICLE 1 OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND AND AT THE SAME TIME ESTABLISH THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE AREA TO BE ANNEXED. WHEREAS the City of Hagerstown, pursuant to its rights and authority under the Local Government Article, §4-403 of the Annotated Code of Maryland may annex into the City additional lands in accordance with the requirements set forth therein; WHEREAS, pursuant to the Maryland Annotated Code, Local Government Article, §4- 401 et seq., the City desires to enlarge the corporate boundaries of the City of Hagerstown, Maryland by adding or annexing thereto the within described area which is immediately adjacent to and adjoining the present corporate boundaries thereof, and to be popularly known as the "Antietam Creek Creek Bed Annexation, Case No. _A-2018-02" for identification; and the same is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth into and made a part hereof. See Exhibit A — Annexation Plat; WHEREAS, these lands are immediately adjacent to the lands being annexed via "Fom Bottom Farm and other Lands Annexation, Case No. A-2018-01 "; WHEREAS, the land included in this Resolution consist of lands totaling 1.47 acres, more or less, that has historically escaped accurate survey due to its presence in and along Antietam Creek, is almost entirely within the bed of Antietam Creek and/or the associated and adjacent 100 year floodplain, in an area of steep banks, is un-assessed, un-taxed, undeveloped, unoccupied and the best research of the land records by a Maryland Licensed Land Surveyor determines is apparently an unowned gap area between lands described in deeds of adjacent parcels. WHEREAS, the Resolution for Annexation meets all the requirements of the law, and pursuant to the Local Government Article, §4-406(c) , the Annexation was refeiied to the appropriate State, Regional and County planning authorities, and the adoption of logical and regular municipal boundaries in in the interest of the City, the County and the community at large. WHEREAS, the proposed zoning of the area to be annexed to the corporate limits, was refened to the Planning Commission for the City of Hagerstown, Maryland which said Commission for the City of Hagerstown has studied the proposed zoning of the tracts described herein in relation to the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and all other applicable ordinances, the needs of the City and County, and the needs of the particular neighborhood and vicinities of the areas, and have approved the same and that the rezoning for the said tract of land is proper and desirable under all of the circumstances and should be accomplished at this time. Section 1. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Hagerstown, Maryland that the boundaries of the City, pursuant to the Local Government Article, §4-401, et seq. be and are hereby amended so as to annex and include land within said City all that certain area of land described by metes and bounds in Exhibit A - Plat attached hereto and made a part thereof; Section 2. And be it further resolved by the Mayor and City Council, that the subject area shall be assigned the City Zoning classification of AT (Agricultural Transition), Section 3. And be it further resolved that the annexation of the said area be made subject to the terms and conditions as set forth in the Annexation Plan attached hereto as Exhibit D and made part hereof upon final agreement and passage; See Exhibit B — Annexation Plan;. Section 4. And be it further resolved that the conditions and circumstances applicable to the change in said corporate boundaries and to the property within the area so annexed shall be subject to the provisions of the Charter of the City of Hagerstown, the Code of Hagerstown, and all acts, ordinances, resolutions and policies. Section 5. And be it further resolved by the Mayor and Council, that this resolution shall take effect upon the expiration of forty-five (45) days following its final passage, subject however, to the right of referendum as contained in the Local Government Article of the Maryland Code, as amended. WITNESS AND ATTEST AS TO CORPORATE SEAL Donna K. Spickler City Clerk Date Introduced: 11/27/18 Hearing Date: 01/29/19 Final Enactment 02/26/19 Effective Date: 04/12/19 BY ORDER' OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND IN Robert E. Bruchey, II Mayor 9 �f l is ul ullplo l€ y�i�lfit!ili'Lli��il� ®mum ®mum ®©®0®1®081®® Y;:;:• \ z g� Z� 0. � N n� G @ E IL � QWQ z ► 'z �a \ RJ soy O Sag �ZZAe� tu— d�Z`ikzu Wm V L Q � d� N 2LU�� LL = C ~ � Q N W N ip' E�ryLL ', 1. N Ifl a a iY l v Wo i 00 a � � `4 2K 8 mV � W � ° g� a?3Z•W � gVU�g�S5� gHOU °FN Q�V c Uam. 4ad 5 1 9 r PIZ " U. y € n m AUOU § �a cs ff a B�Are± b�8=� ag-ae 8 I* A ZO d a m a c c e U �Emaq o a wh�3r'n U 1A �a�° ga ot�8 W O0a tt02•�Sovg G��n ev `a•5'E dS va a :31ljt,E at€R N_a3 E 2E a3..OW &et:•,fanrt�sua4�>'et:ua auef usnwitss°tnv:�yaM1ue uo sa4�eda:d 64iS11t)OR59`d+Vt�aY�'P\:�° 8W�P9U�u3 tlA'.Ot91i6Pt{ Vfd {S't ZtO�JCZ?! REQUIRED MOTION MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL HAGERSTOWN, MARYLAND Date: November 27, 2018 TOPIC: Adoption of an Annexation Plan Antietam Creek Creek Bed Annexation Case No. A-2018-02 Charter Amendment Code Amendment Ordinance Resolution Other X MOTION: I hereby move that the Mayor and City Council Adopt an Annexation Plan for the "Antietam Creek Creek Bed" Annexation (A-2018-02). DATE OF ADOPTION: 11/27/18 EFFECTIVE DATE: 11/27/18 City of Hagerstown, Maryland EXHIBIT B ANNEXATION PLAN Annexation Case No. A-2018-02 Property Owner/Applicant: City of Hagerstown -- By Resolution Location of Properties: 1.47 acres of area located mostly within the banks of the Antietam Creep, located between the Gilbert Crumrine Property to the north and the City -owned "Foggy Bottom Farm" property to the south. Owners: Lands appear to be without ownership due to it being an area that is a gap between the deeds describing adjacent lands to the north and to the south. Annexation Plan Pursuant to §4-415 of the Local Government Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland, herewith is a proposed outline for extension of services and public facilities into the areas proposed to be annexed. It is also noted that any future amendments to the Annexation Plan may not be construed in any way as an amendment to the resolution, nor may they serve in any manner to cause a re -initiation of the annexation procedure then in process. 11. Land Use Patterns of Areas Proposed to be Annexed - A. The area of annexation is +/- 1.47 acres. B. The proposed zoning is AT (Agricultural Transition). The purpose of the AT zoning district is as follows: The purpose of the AT District is to enable agricultural uses to continue on newly annexed land, if desired by the property owner, as a temporary use until such time that the land is re -zoned for development. All lands within this district proposed for development shall be rezoned to another district to accommodate that development, in accordance with the policies and procedures set forth in this Article. The Planning Commission and the Mayor and City Council shall consider the policies and recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan when re -assigning zoning classification for AT land for development. When the property is to be given another classification, whether there was a mistake in assigning the AT classification and/or whether changes in the character of the neighborhood have occurred may be taken into consideration. However, a finding of mistake or change in character of the neighborhood shall not be required. The AT zoning classification is generally consistent with the County's current zoning of RT; thus, no "express approval" of a zoning change by the County is needed. C. This area is within the City's Medium Range Growth Area, an area intended for new or expanded water and wastewater service, as defined in the 2017 Comprehensive Plan. D. This area is within the County's Urban Growth Boundary (UGA) and the State's designated Priority Funding Area (PFA). H. Availability of Land Needed for Public Facilities - A. The lands involved in this petition are mostly within the banks of the Antietam Creels and entirely within the adjacent floodplain. Residential development of this area is unlikely in the extreme due to regulatory and topographic constraints in addition to the unknown ownership status of the area. There is no foreseeable impact annexing this parcel will have on Washington County Board of Education Facilities. B. For the same reasons as stated in II.A, above, this annexation will have no additional impact to the Washington County Free Library. IH. Schedule and Method of Financing the Extension of Each Municipal Service Currently Performed Within the City of Hagerstown into the Area Proposed to be Annexed. A. The area of annexation current has no City Wastewater Service. If requested for existing development or redevelopment, the property will be served by City Wastewater. Sufficient capacity exists to serve the property. B. The area of annexation current has no City Water Service. If requested for existing development or redevelopment, the property will be served by City Wastewater. Sufficient capacity exists to serve the property. C. The Electric Distribution System is external to the Hagerstown Light Division operating territory. Electrical service is currently provided by Potomac Edison. D. No significant impact on emergency service delivery is expected. E. Due to topographic and regulatory constraints, no construction of public roads within the area to be annexed would seem possible. F. Parks and recreation facility expansion are not proposed for this annexation or the adjacent "Foggy Bottom Farm and Other Lands" annexation. However, in the future, all or parts of the adjacent Foggy Bottom Farm (City of Hagerstown property) may be reserved for parkland, given its location adjacent to Antietam Creels and Kiwanis Park. Nothing in this agreement shall be interpreted or construed to commit the City to reserve this area or the adjacent parcel for park use or development at this time or in the future. G. Police protection will be provided by the Hagerstown Police Department. Fire protection will be provided by the Hagerstown Fire Department. H. All future persons within the area proposed to be annexed shall obtain or be entitled to existing benefits of the City of Hagerstown. They shall also be required to pay for all applicable utility services, charges, assessments, taxes, and other costs and expenses which are required of the residents of the City of Hagerstown, unless alternative arrangements are provided for in the Annexation Resolution. However, given the unique conditions of the property, it is unlikely this area would ever be developed for residential use. Annexation Antietam . • IT J r ♦ { y. 'i n \� oar � � t'� � h ; r I � • � •••+'� � • '�i� _ a,.. �^- 1 '�� 1.. J � i �. �� � 7f � ���^ •r��Kyyyy9fff��� .�i+y �,I .fib, ':� \. .:� � , � _ 't. '•� �1�,MF�y `�.' �, f i • aYlr f•'" . . t J • i.� .: r 9— 7COunty Road County Tax Parcel 0 Corporate 250 500 OF Annexation of Antietam Creek Creekbed County Road County Tax Parcel Corporate Boundary AT (Agricultural Transitional) POM (Professional Office Mi 330 E R e Area of Proposed Annexation y.y .7'• Map Projection: NA003 State Plan Maryland FIPS (feet) Data Sources: City of Hagerstown, 2016; State of MD Imagery, 2014 I+\\ERF Washington County, 2016 660 Prepared By: =i Feetl. Hagerstown Planning & Code Admin Dept, 08/29/18 ZONING USE COMPARISONS USE RESIDENTIAL USES WU (HAG) ORI (CO) Artist Live -Work Space in large former commercial, industrial or institutional buildings. PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL USES n P 21131a12 Ambulance services (621910), fire protection (922160) and police protection (922120). P Adult day-care services (624120). P 211131a13 Child day-care services (624410). P 21B1a13 Fitness and recreational sports centers. P se Primary and secondary schools, public and private, provided all setback, parking and other regu- lations are met without variance P 21131a1 Primary and secondary schools, public and private, for which setback, parking or other regu-lations cannot be met without variance. P 21131a1 Public administration (92), except correctional institutions publicly - managed (922140) and privately - managed (561210). P 21131a8 Public parks P 21B1a12 Social assistance — services for the elderly and persons with disabilities (624120) n P OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL USES Administrative support services (561). Ambulatory health care services, with exception of outpatient substance abuse centers (621420). P 21B1a6 n. P Banks, savings institutions & credit unions (521-522), except pawn shops (522298). Colleges, universities, trade and commercial schools, except primary and secondary schools (611). P 21B1a17 P 21B1a1 Finance and insurance (52), monetary authorities —central bank, credit intermediation and related activities (521-522), except pawn shops (522298). P 21B1a6 Hospitals, including psychiatric, substance abuse and specialty hospitals (622). Nursing homes and residential care facilities for the elderly. Offices, business and professional (55 and 56), except waste Management and remediation services (562). Offices for bonding, probation and parole of defendants in the criminal justice system, not within 500 feet of Public Square or within 250 feet of another such use. P 21B1a3 n P P 21B1a6 P 21B1a6 Outdoor Automated Teller Machines (ATM), not accessory to a banking institution. Professional, scientific & technical services (54), except veterinary services. P 21131a17 P 21131a6 P n Veterinary services (54194), completely enclosed. ENTERTAINMENT AND HOSPITALITY USES Hotels and motels (72111). P 21131a16 Restaurants (7221 and 7222), no limit on size. P 21B1b1 no drivethru BROADCAST AND PRODUCTION Broadcasting (515). P 21B1a9 Motion picture and sound recording industries (512). P ? Telecommunications (517). P 21131a14 SERVICE AND SALES INDUSTRIES n n Dry cleaning and laundry services (8123). Hair, nail and skin care stores, ear piercing services, hair replacement services, permanent makeup salons (81211) and dog grooming establishments. P P Kennels, day boarding and over- night boarding, subject to conditions in I -MU enumerated in Subsection H.2.b (812910). Internet publishing and broadcasting (516). P n 21131a2 P Internet service providers. web search portals and data processing services (518). P 2161a2 Newspaper publishers (511110). P 21131a6 M2 Outdoor vending machines entirely on private property in active use and not in a public street right-of-way, provided that the vending machines(s)comply with building setbacks unless abutting a building. Personal and household goods repair and maintenance (8114). Photo finishing (81292). P N/A n P P 2161b2 Produce stands (812910). P 21131a18 n n Retail and wholesale trade excluding motor vehicle dealers (unless all vehicles stored indoors) and adult business, up to 15,OOOsf P Tanning and depilatory salons (812199). AUTOMOBILE AND TRANSPORTATION RELATED USES P Automotive Repair and Maintenance (8111) in buildings constructed prior to 2010 with outdoor storage and service areas screened with opaque fencing and landscaping in accordance with Article 5. INDUSTRIAL, MANUFACTURING AND HEAVY LAND USES P n n n Butchering. Carpet and upholstery cleaning services (56174). Indoor plant cultivation and processing facilities, when interior space is 25,000 square feet or less in gross floor area. Indoor plant cultivation and processing facilities, when interior space is over 25,000 square feet in gross floor area. Manufacturing, Light, when interior space is 25,000 square feet or less in gross floor area. Manufacturing, Light, when interior space is over 25,000 square feet gross floor area. Research and development facilities. P P P 21131a18 or 2161b3 SE 21131a18 or 21B1b3 21B1b3 P 2161b3 2161a4 or 21B1b3 n SE P Specialty Trade Contractors (238). Vocational Rehabilitation Services (624310). P P 21131a1 n Warehousing & Storage (493). IP Warehouse/Flex space, provided such space does not exceed more than 50% of the total gross floor area of the building. P n n P Wholesale and retail sales of products manufactured or stored on the premises in conjunction with any other principal permitted use. TEMPORARY USES n Temporary Contractor Staging Facility, subject to provisions in Subsection K.13. P Temporary Uses, subject to provisions in Section R. P ZONING USE COMPARISONS RT (CO) USE AT (HAG) RESIDENTIAL USES P 7a.1C One single family dwelling per unit of land existing as ofjanuary 1, 2012 PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL USES Country Clubs, golf courses and summer camps N P OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL USES P N Residential facilities with in house professional care for up to three residents with mental and/or physical disabilities -one per lot ENTERTAINMENT AND HOSPITALITY USES N Agri -tourism P SERVICE AND SALES INDUSTRIES 7a1A N N Vineyards as agriculture Farms in existence on the date of adoption of this ordinance or annexation into the City P P Kennels P Nurseries and greenhouses - the raising of plants for sale with attached commercial outlet Wineries and vineyards P N Blacksmithing and farriers P TEMPORARY USES N N Temporary contractor staging facility P Temporary uses P 11125 Bemisderfer Road | Greencastle, PA 17225 | 301.791.9222 | jdivelbiss@divelbisslaw.com 11125 Bemisderfer Road | Greencastle, PA 17225 | 301.791.9222 | jdivelbiss@divelbisslaw.com January 29, 2019 Mayor & City Council City of Hagerstown, Maryland One East Franklin Street Hagerstown, MD 21740 Re: Annexation Resolution A-2018-01 – “Foggy Bottom and other Lands” Dear Mayor & Council Members: I represent Meritus Medical Center, Inc. (“Meritus”) owner of the +/- 75.71 ac. property located on the west side of Yale Drive (TM 50, Parcel 1718) (the “Meritus Property”) which is included within the +/- 101.03 ac. annexation area proposed to be annexed into the City of Hagerstown pursuant to the above referenced Annexation Resolution. Despite being the owner of 75% of the geographic area to be annexed, consent to the Annexation Resolution was not requested from Meritus. For that reason, as well as the additional reasons discussed herein, Meritus is opposed to the proposed annexation of the Meritus Property as part of Annexation Resolution A-2018-01 – “Foggy Bottom and other Lands”. In July 2016, following discussions with City staff, a detailed proposal to annex +/- 115 ac. of undeveloped land owned by Meritus including the subject +/- 75.71 ac. property, was outlined by Meritus and presented to the City. That proposal was never followed up on by the City. Meritus remains open and amenable to a comprehensive plan for the annexation of Meritus owned properties in the Robinwood area and believes that such a plan would be more mutually beneficial to the City and Meritus than the current Annexation Resolution A-2018-01. Additional Reasons Meritus Opposes Annexation Resolution A-2018-01: Zoning The Annexation Resolution recommends I-MU (Industrial, Mixed-use) zoning for the Meritus Property. As has been communicated to City staff, there are certain health care related uses which could foreseeably be part of future development plans for the Meritus property which are not permitted. For example, “Outpatient Substance Abuse Centers” and “Medical and diagnostic laboratories” are not permitted uses in the I-MU district. In addition, uses such as “Child day-care services” and retail pharmacies are only permitted as part of a mixed- use building and are limited to 25% of the gross floor area of that building. Although not exhaustive, this list is representative of the concerns Meritus has with the recommended I-MU zoning classification and thus with the subject Annexation Resolution. Lack of “Express Approval” from Wash. Co. As per MD Code, Local Government, §4-416: “Without the express approval of the county commissioners…for 5 years after an annexation by a municipality, the municipality may not allow development of the annexed land for land uses substantially different than the authorized use…in accordance with the zoning classification of the county applicable at the time of the annexation.” At its meeting on January 15, 2019, the Board of County Commissioners for Washington County (the “BOCC”) failed to take a position as to (i) whether “express approval” from the BOCC is required; or (ii) if required, whether the BOCC will grant said “express approval”. Therefore, at this time, it is unknown whether the Meritus Property will be subject to a five (5) year restriction prohibiting its use for any use not permitted by the current County zoning of ORI (Office, Research, and Industry). This uncertainty is also a basis for Meritus’ opposition to the subject Annexation Resolution. City Owned Property Not Eligible to be Included in Consent MD Code, Local Gov’t., §4-403 provides that an Annexation Resolution may be introduced in the Legislative Body with the consent of (i) at least 25% of the registered voters within the area to be annexed; and (ii) the owners of at least 25% of the assessed valuation of real property within the area to be annexed. In the case of City of Salisbury v. Banker’s Life Co., 21 Md.App. 396 (1974), the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, in upholding the Wicomico County Circuit Ct.’s decision to invalidate a City of Salisbury annexation resolution, found that “only those who were to bear the financial burdens of a city government by the payment of real property taxes were to be allowed a voice in the annexation of real property to the municipal corporation.” The City of Hagerstown clearly does not fit into the category of a party who “bears the financial burdens of a city government by the payment of real property taxes”. Therefore, the City was not eligible to count its property or its consent in order to meet the minimum threshold of 25% of the assessed valuation of real property within the area to be annexed and the Annexation Resolution does not meet the MD Code, Local Gov’t., §4-403 requirements. In sum, as stated above, Meritus Medical Center, Inc. is opposed to the annexation of its +/- 75.71 ac. property into the City of Hagerstown pursuant to the terms and conditions of Annexation Resolution A-2018-01 – “Foggy Bottom and other Lands”. Very truly yours, JD LAW COMPANY, INC. Jason M. Divelbiss Attorney at Law Email: jdivelbiss@divelbisslaw.com Open Session Item SUBJECT: Increase fee paid to Soil Conservation District for administration of Forest Conservation Fund program PRESENTATION DATE: February 12, 2019 PRESENTATION BY: Stephen T. Goodrich, Director, Department of Planning and Zoning RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve amendment of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Soil Conservation District Board of Supervisors to increase the reimbursement for SCD services from $700 to $900 per acre and to add language to the explanatory statement that further describes eligible costs. REPORT-IN-BRIEF: Washington County and the Soil Conservation District signed an MOU in 2003 that specified a $700 per acre fee to be paid to the SCD for administration of a program that utilizes “Fee in lieu of forestation” payments from developers to plant new forest or protect existing forest. SCD costs to administer the program have increased over the 15 years that the agreement has been in place, but the payment has not. An increase is warranted. The program has created and protected more than 800 acres of forest and used more than $1.5 million of “Fee in lieu of forestation” payments from developers. DISCUSSION: Washington County has had an adopted Forest Conservation Ordinance since 1993. It is required by State law. The County ordinance is implemented through the new development review process. New development must analyze its effect on forest cover on the development site and, in certain cases, mitigate the loss of forest cover or establish new forest cover. When this is not feasible on the development site, payment of a “fee in lieu of forestation” is an option. The County is required by law to use these fees to protect existing forest or plant new forest elsewhere in the County. The Soil Conservation District administers the program for the County by using its existing contacts with landowner to identify potential sites and manage all steps necessary to get new forest planted or easements on existing forest. The SCD also takes on a maintenance and inspection responsibility. The payment to SCD is intended to compensate for these activities. FISCAL IMPACT: No cost to Washington County’s general fund CONCURRENCES: Soil Conservation District, County Attorney ALTERNATIVES: Decline to raise the payment ATTACHMENTS: None AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form Open Session Item SUBJECT: Ft. Ritchie/Cascade Sustainable Communities Designation Renewal PRESENTATION DATE: February 12, 2019 PRESENTATION BY: Stephen T. Goodrich, Director, Department of Planning and Zoning RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to direct staff to submit/not submit the application to renew the Sustainable Communities designation for Fort Ritchie/Cascade. REPORT-IN-BRIEF: A Sustainable Communities designation was approved for the Ft. Ritchie/Cascade area in February 2014. The designation expires 5 years after approval and the Department of Housing and Community Development has inquired if the County intends to renew the designation. The designation provides access to a toolbox of revitalization financing programs and tax credit incentives for the designated area. The incentives are available to local governments, community development organizations, non-profits and some small businesses. DISCUSSION: The initial designation was initiated by a member of the Board of Trustees of the former Pen Mar Development Corporation, a previous owner of the former Ft Ritchie property. The adjacent Cascade community was included and approved in the original designation of 1210 acres in order to extend the benefits of the assistance and incentive programs to the community which experienced losses when the former army base was closed. FISCAL IMPACT: No cost to Washington County, however the County must act as a conduit or applicant for many of the programs. CONCURRENCES: Susan Buchanan, Director, Office of Grant Management ALTERNATIVES: Allow the designation to expire ATTACHMENTS: Map of Ft. Ritchie/Cascade Sustainable Community boundary and List of Sustainable Communities Programs AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland Agenda Report Form Ft. Ritchie/Cascade Sustainable Community 4121 n„ Ridu 'Rol °1 ! R� S till)1) w f V28Or �.� 1�`),t, tell{ l>t•tl Zv"ill �f( Zyt�� I 0 fi �y; Cascade M' Sabil 40010 IV a� R ltc Cf Lakeshs Cotpi,ryte Q~ �1.- t'enlet � w ti l UJ r ' South �'a �q✓ Ivlouhtalh laQ' 1 State Palk l N � Washing3w rn February 1, 2019 County Boundary Sustainable Communities (DHCD) Municipal Boundaries 1:27,820 0 0.23 0.45 0.9 mi 0 0.38 0.75 1.5 km MD NAP, MDP, SDAT, MD NAP, DoIT, MDP, MOOT, MOOT SHA, Sources: Esn, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NIL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, © OpenSlreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Maryland Department of Housing &amp; Community Development MD DHCD GIS �r Sustainable Communities DHCD Partnering to Revitalize Maryland Communities a ' J cvem�iniiv nncl� wm.my x q•m,m The Sustainable Communities program is designed to encourage interagency and cross -governmental collaboration by providing designated Sustainable Communities with the opportunity to access an Interagency revitalization toolbox of financing programs and tax credit incentives. The Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development and its partners support the development and prosperity of Sustainable Communities by providing the following benefits for Sustainable Communities: Financing Programs (Dept. of Housing and Community Development) Community Legacy Program: Provides local governments and community development organizations in Sustainable Communities with funding for essentlaI projects aimed at strengthening communities through activities such as business retention and attraction, encouraging homeownership, and commercial revitaliza- tion. Some examples of eligible projects include m€xed•use development consisting of residential, commercial and/or open space; streetscape improvements; and fagade Improvement programs. Strategic Demoi flon Fund. Provides grants and loans to local governments and community development organizations In Sustainable Communities for predevelopment activities including demolition and land assem- bly for housing and revitalization projects. The Fund catalyzes public and private Investment in the reuse of vacant and underutilized sites. Awards will focus on those smart growth projects that will have a high eco- nomic and revitalization impact in their existing communities. NelghborhoodBuslnessWOrks Program. Loan program providing gap financing, i.e. subordinate financing, to new or expanding small businesses and nonprofit organizations located in Priority Funding Areas. Projects must include first floor business or retail space that generates street -level activity in mixed use projects and improve either a vacant or u nder-utilized building or site. Maryland Mortgagee Program - You've Earned Itl Initiative: For a limited time, the Maryland Mortgage Program is offering a 0.25%discounton the standard Maryland Mortgage Program mortgage rate and $5,000 in Down Payment Assistance to qualified home buyers that have at least $25,000 of stu- dent debt, and who are purchasing a home in one of Maryland's Sustainable Communities OperatingAssistenceGrants. Provides funding for Main Street Improvement Program, Non profit Assis- tarice Fund and Technical Assistance Grants to support costs such as, but not limited to, staff and a portion of general operating expenses; consulting expertise/technical assistance or training; and consultants or services directly associated with community development projects in Sustainable Communities. Financing Programs (Dept. ofTransportation) Maryland Bikeways Program: Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) program supporting projects that maximize bicycle access and fill missing links In the State's bike system. Additional points awarded to projects located in or connecting to a Sustainable Community. Sustainable Communities also are considered a "priority investment area" under the Bikeways Program and projects may be eligible for reduced matching requirements. 1 hie C recnbek 1 heater CommungySafety and Enhancement Program: A State Highway Administration program that provides funding for transportation improvements along State highways that support planned or on -going revitaliza- tion efforts. Improvements typically Include pedestrian and vehicular safety, intersection capacity/ operations, sidewalks, roadway reconstruction or resurfacing, drainage repair/upgrade and landscaping. Projects must be in a Priority Funding Area and projects in Sustainable Community areas are given prefer- ence Sidewalk Retrofit Program: This program helps finance the construction and replacement of sidewalks along State highways by covering 50 percent of the cost for approved projects. The program covers 100 per - Financing Programs (Dept. of Environment) Water Quality RevolvingLoan Fund: Administered by the Maryland Department of the Environment Water Quality Financing Administration, the fund provides below -market interest rate loans and additional subsi- dies —such as loan forgiveness and grants —to finance: construction of publicly -owned wastewater treatment works, implementation of non -point source/estuary capital improvements, and/or Implementation of U.S. EPA defined "green" projects. Projects are ranked and can receive up to 100 points. Seven points are awarded to projects in Sustainable Communities. Tax Credit Programs and Incentives Low Income Housing Tax Credit: Administered by the Dept. of Housing and Comm unity Development and supports the development of mind -family affordable housing. Eight points are awarded to applica- tions with projects located Ina state -designated Transit Oriented Development area. For areas that are not state -designated Transit Oriented Development areas, but are Sustainable Communities, applications will be awarded four additional points. Maryland Economic Development Corporatlon/Dept of Planning- Enhanced Local Tax Increment Rnaneing Authority: Enables designated Sustainable Communities to issue bonds to finance public im- provements, and expands the permitted use of tax Increment financing beyond traditional public Infrastruc- ture. The set of eligible uses of tax Increment financing is broadened in Sustainable Communities to include historic preservation or rehabilitation; environmental remedlation; demolition and site preparation; parking lots, facilities or structures of any type, public or private; highways; schools; and affordable or mixed -income housing. Local governments with Sustainable Communities may also pledge alternative local tax revenues Hilt Nr,town Bicycle generated within or attributed to the tax increment financing district to its associated special fund. Parking Job Creation Tax Credit: Administered by the Department of Commerce. Employers are eligible for en- hanced incentives for new jobs created in Sustainable Communities. The maximum tax credit rises from $1,000 to $1,500 per employee. The threshold to qualify drops from 60 to 25 jobs created. Other Incentives Sustainable Maryland Cen fled: A program administered by the University of Maryland Environmental Fi- nance Center that supports sustainability efforts in Maryland municipalities. With the Sustainable Community designation, a municipality can receive 20 points towards the 150 points needed for certification. Open Session Item SUBJECT: Request to fund Fort Ritchie Community Center PRESENTATION DATE: February 12, 2019 PRESENTATION BY: Susan Small, Director, Department of Business Development RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve an allocation of $150,000 in FY2020 for the Fort Ritchie Community Center. REPORT-IN-BRIEF: Fort Ritchie Community Center (FRCC) has requested financial support in the amount of $150,000 for FY2020 from the Cascade Town Centre Fund. DISCUSSION: FRCC is requesting consensus form the Board of County Commissioners to fund $150,000 towards the center, which is less than in previous years. FISCAL IMPACT: $150,000 in FY2020 from Cascade Town Centre Fund 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