HomeMy WebLinkAbout171024a
Individuals requiring special accommodations are requested to contact the Office of the County Commissioners, 240.313.2200 Voice/TDD, to make
arrangements.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
October 24, 2017
Agenda
09:30 A.M. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CALL TO ORDER, President Terry L. Baker
APPROVAL OF MINUTES – October 17, 2017
09:35 A.M. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS AND COMMENTS
09:40 A.M. REPORTS FROM COUNTY STAFF
09:45 A.M. CITIZENS PARTICIPATION
09:50 A.M. FOURTH QUARTER (FINAL) ADJUSTMENTS TO WASHINGTON COUNTY
BOARD OF EDUCATION’S FY2017 GENERAL FUND BUDGET – Jeffrey Proulx,
Chief Operating Officer and David Brandenburg, Executive Director of Finance,
Washington County Public Schools
10:15 A.M. CONTRACT AWARD (PUR-1363): BOND COUNSEL SERVICES – Rick Curry,
CPPO, Purchasing Director and Sara Greaves, Deputy Director – Division of Budget
and Finance
10:20 A.M. POTENTIAL LEGISLATIVE ITEMS – Kirk Downey, Deputy County Attorney
10:25 A.M. CITIZEN COMMENT REVIEW AND EXPRESS APPROVAL – SMITHSBURG
ANNEXATION OF CLOVERLY HILL LLC – Stephen Goodrich, Director, Department
of Planning and Zoning
10:30 A.M. VACANCIES AND ORGANIZATION – Rob Slocum, County Administrator and
Stephanie Stone, Director, Health and Human Resources
10:40 A.M. PARKS AND FACILITIES DIRECTOR – Robert Slocum, County Administrator and
Stephanie Stone, Director, Health and Human Resources
10:50 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; and to consult with counsel to obtain legal advice on a legal
matter.)
President
Jeffrey A. Cline, Vice
President
John F. Barr
Wayne K. Keefer
LeRoy E. Myers, Jr.
WWW.WASHCO-MD.NET
Individuals requiring special accommodations are requested to contact the Office of the County Commissioners, 240.313.2200 Voice/TDD, to make
arrangements.
EVENING MEETING AT THE MAUGANSVILLE RURITAN
Location: 18007 Maugans Avenue, Hagerstown, MD
07:00 P.M. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CALL TO ORDER, President Terry L. Baker
07:05 P.M. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS AND COMMENTS
07:10 P.M. TOWN OF MAUGANSVILLE LEADERS’ REPORTS AND COMMENTS
07:20 P.M. REPORTS FROM COUNTY STAFF
07:25 P.M. CITIZENS PARTICIPATION
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Fourth Quarter (Final) Adjustments to Washington County Board of Education’s FY2017
General Fund Budget
PRESENTATION DATE: October 24, 2017
PRESENTATION BY: Jeffrey Proulx, Chief Operating Officer, Washington County Public Schools
David Brandenburg, Executive Director of Finance, Washington County Public
Schools
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the requested fourth quarter adjustments to the Board
of Education’s FY2017 General Fund Budget.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: The Annotated Code of Maryland requires local school systems to periodically re-
forecast their financial needs and make necessary changes to their budget. At year-end, this process serves
to align the budget with actual performance, as the Maryland State Department of Education regulations
require that no category may be overspent or under-spent after final adjustments.
DISCUSSION: The requested budget adjustments for the fourth quarter of FY2017 are attached. The
major requests for adjustments relate to social security and pension savings from vacancies and health
insurance tax savings (Fixed Charges), reduced spending in technology, utilities, and custodial overtime
(Operation of Plant), and a variety of Special Education costs that came in lower than the previously
increased budgets.
As several of the requested adjustments cross major categories, the County Commissioners must approve
these adjustments. The proposed changes are necessary to properly categorize the Board’s FY2017 budget
and finalize the closeout of FY2017. These requested changes yield an increase to the fund balance of
$1,849,975 in the fourth quarter, and $2.303M for the full-year.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is a full-year change of $2,303,155, (approximately 0.88%) with a
corresponding increase in the Board of Education’s general fund balance as a result of FY2017 operations.
CONCURRENCES: The Board of Education’s Finance Committee reviewed these adjustments at their
meeting on September 26, 2017 and recommended them for approval by the full Board. The Board of
Education approved these changes at their October 3, 2017 meeting.
ALTERNATIVES: None
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed fourth quarter budget adjustments for the Washington County Board of Education’s
FY2017 General Fund Operating Budget, and
2. A quarter-by-quarter schedule of FY2017 adjustments by category.
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: None
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
Note: An increase in the revenue budget has the same effect as a decrease in the expense budget. (They are both positive.) Therefore, when
adding the column, one must reverse the sign on the requested change in revenue.
Washington County Public Schools
Requested Fourth Quarter FY2017 Budget Adjustments
Line Category
Increase/
(Decrease) The primary reason for the requested change is:
1 Revenue $149,739 Nonpublic reimbursements from State, grants for quality teachers from State
and risk management from MABE
2 Administration (72,835) Savings in contracted services and supplies
3 Mid-Level Administration (70,500) School communications and technology services lower than expected
4 Instructional Salaries (15,711) Substitutes lower
5 Instructional Textbooks & Supplies 118,918 Replacement iPads purchased for outdated ones
6 Other Instructional Costs 38,304 Staff development increased, partially offset by contracted services adjustment
7 Special Education (351,377) Savings in travel, materials, substitutes and salaries
8 Student Personnel Services 15,200 Social workers salaries higher
9 Student Health Services (87,483) Adjustment of prior year service contracts
10 Student Transportation Services (274,806) Field trip reimbursements higher, fuel tax refunds due to law change, vacancies
due to bus driver shortage
11 Operation of Plant (463,294) Savings in technology, utilities lower due to mild weather, lower overtime
12 Maintenance of Plant 475,721 Additional maintenance projects, including Boonsboro ES HVAC
13 Capital Outlay (1,245) Savings in travel, dues, and wages
14 Food Service (7,636) Outdoor school meals less than estimated
15 Fixed Charges (1,003,492) Social security and pension savings from vacancies and health insurance tax
savings.
16 Net Change in Fund Balance $1,849,975
Category Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 Full Year
Revenue ($389,617)$0 $48,000 $149,739 ($191,878)
Administration 137,530 0 (482,732)(72,835)($418,037)
Mid-Level Administration 0 (553,390)0 (70,500)($623,890)
Instructional Salaries 24,180 (298,470)(994,074)(15,711)($1,284,075)
Instructional Textbooks and Supplies 86,850 0 (347,365)118,918 ($141,597)
Other Instructional Costs (20,000)200,000 342,851 38,304 $561,155
Special Education 0 250,000 400,000 (351,377)$298,623
Student Personnel Services 0 0 (18,295)15,200 ($3,095)
Student Health Services 0 (109,390)(64,120)(87,483)($260,993)
Student Transportation Services (82,552)(200,000)(150,642)(274,806)($708,000)
Operation of Plant 0 (480,870)(190,000)(463,294)($1,134,164)
Maintenance of Plant 62,000 695,575 1,802,837 475,721 $3,036,133
Capital Outlay (597,625)(5,285)25,040 (1,245)($579,115)
Food Service 0 0 0 (7,636)($7,636)
Fixed Charges 0 501,830 (728,680)(1,003,492)(1,230,342)
Undesignated Fund Balance Change $0 $0 $453,180 $1,849,975 $2,303,155
Note: An increase in the revenue budget has the same effect as a decrease in the expense budget. They are both positive.
Therefore, when adding the column, one must reverse the sign on the requested change in revenue.
Washington County Public Schools
Summary of FY2017 Budget Adjustments by Quarter
Increase/(Decrease)
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Contract Award (PUR-1363) - Bond Counsel Services
PRESENTATION DATE: October 24, 2017
PRESENTATION BY: Rick Curry, CPPO – Purchasing Director and Sara Greaves
– Deputy Director of Budget and Finance
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to award the contract for Bond Counsel Services as
related to bond issues and for all other work.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: Attached is an excerpt from the Request for Proposal (RFP)
document of the “Scope of Services” to be rendered under this contract. The RFP was advertised
locally in the newspaper and on the County’s web site, as well as on the State’s “eMaryland
Marketplace” web site. Fifteen (15) persons/companies registered/downloaded the bid document
on-line. The following persons served as members on the Coordinating Committee: County
Administrator (Chairperson), Deputy Director of Budget & Finance, Senior Accountant, County
Attorney, and Director of Purchasing.
Four (4) firms were represented at the pre-proposal conference. Three (3) proposals were received
for the subject services. The Qualifications & Experience/Technical Proposals of the three (3)
firms were considered to be responsive by the Committee and their Price Proposal was opened for
evaluation as shown on the attached Fee Schedule.
The initial term of this contract is anticipated to be for a one (1) year period tentatively
commencing November 1, 2017 and ending October 31, 2018, with an option by the County to
renew for up to four (4) consecutive one (1) year periods thereafter, based on the annual lump sum
fees proposed by the successful firm. For your easy reference, the pricing under the present
contract with Funk & Bolton, P.A. is shown on the attached Fee Schedule.
DISCUSSION: N/A
FISCAL IMPACT: Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) – Bond Issuance Cost, Account
No. 30-10500-ADM001 and other operating accounts will be utilized to cover costs if needed.
CONCURRENCES: As recommended by the Coordinating Committee that included the
County Administrator
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: (1) Fee Schedule and (2) Scope of Services from the RFP document.
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A
PUR-1363 BOND COUNSEL
II. SCOPE OF SERVICES:
All firms responding to this proposal shall demonstrate the capabilities and experience to
conduct the following scope of services if requested:
A. Assist in the planning of the financing and structuring of the debt issue.
B. Review the transcripts of proceedings taken to date to authorize the debt and
determine whether there is legal authority to issue debt.
C. Assist with the bond sale proceedings, including preparation of documents
necessary or appropriate for the authorization, issuance, sale, and delivery of the
bonds or other debt.
D. Prepare the appropriate resolutions authorizing the issuance of the debt and
determine if the debt was legally sold or placed.
E. Assist in various aspects of preparing the official statements or other disclosure
documents to be disseminated in connection with the issuance of debt.
F. Obtain from governmental authorities such approvals, rulings, permissions, and
exemptions as bond counsel determines are necessary or appropriate with respect
to the issue.
G. Render legal opinions approving the validity of the debt. In this capacity, bond
counsel shall inform the County through the approving opinion of the nature of the
security for the debt; the legality, validity and tax-exempt status of the securities;
and the legality and validity of the requisite documentation and procedures.
H. Render legal opinions on such related matters as:
1. the applicability of particular provisions of federal and state securities
laws;
2. the applicability of tax law provisions governing estate and gift taxation;
3. the eligibility of the debt for investment by various fiduciaries and other
regulated investors;
4. the status of the debt and related obligations under laws relating to creditors’
rights; and
5. the validity and enforceability of security agreements, indentures, and other
documents related to the debt and its security.
I. Assist in preparing information for submission to rating agencies and bond insurers.
J. Assist in other specified activities related to debt such as special taxing districts and
tax increment financing.
K. Advise the County on legal considerations relating to financing alternatives within
the context of statutory and constitutional constraints.
L. Answer questions about the debt by prospective purchaser in the secondary market
or by public officials.
M. Answer questions about the application of “arbitrage” and other federal tax
regulations, the County’s obligations contained in covenants securing outstanding
debt, the investment and expenditure of proceeds, and the collection, investment
and application of funds used to pay debt.
N. Attend various conferences and meetings, including public hearings and meetings
of the Board of County Commissioners for the reception of bids and adoption of
awarding resolutions.
O. Perform all other requested legal services necessary and appropriate to the
completion of County transactions concerning debt and reviewing related
responsibilities.
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Potential Legislative Items
PRESENTATION DATE: October 24, 2017
PRESENTATION BY: Kirk C. Downey, Deputy County Attorney
RECOMMENDED MOTION: N/A. Discussion only.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: This is a preliminary discussion about potential issues the County
may like to see addressed during the next session of the General Assembly.
DISCUSSION: The following have been identified from county staff as being
items of potential interest:
1. Bond borrowing authorization; and
2. Disabled Veterans Tax Credit.
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A.
CONCURRENCES: N/A.
ALTERNATIVES: N/A.
ATTACHMENTS: N/A.
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A.
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Citizen Comment review and Express Approval – Smithsburg Annexation of
Cloverly Hill LLC
PRESENTATION DATE: October 24, 2017
PRESENTATION BY: Stephen T. Goodrich, Director Department of Planning and Zoning
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Following review, questions and answers, Move to
grant/not grant express approval to the Town of Smithsburg to allow development on the
annexed Cloverly Hill LLC property in conformance with the Town Residential and General
Commercial zoning district in the acreage amounts and densities proposed which may be
substantially different than the uses and densities that would be allowed under the current County
zoning districts of Residential Transition and Business Local.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: On September 26, 2017 Commissioners heard a presentation about a
proposal by Cloverly Hill LLC for annexation into the Town of Smithsburg. In the annexation
process County government is afforded the opportunity to grant express approval to the
Municipal government to apply zoning which can result in substantially different land uses on
the annexed land than uses that would be permitted under County zoning. The County
Commissioners delayed action on the proposal until it could receive and evaluate additional
information and citizen feedback. The Mayor and Council of Smithsburg were also interested in
conferring on the annexation application. A portion of the County Commissioners October 10,
2017 meeting was conducted in the evening in the Town of Smithsburg. With the Mayor and
Council present, Commissioners included a Citizen Participation session during that meeting.
Citizen comment received that evening was exclusively directed to the Cloverly Hill annexation.
Following the meeting, Planning and Zoning staff prepared and includes herein a summary of
citizen questions and concerns accompanied by information to address them. The opportunity
for discussion and action on express approval remains. The information provided may help to
clarify a position on the annexation and lead to action.
DISCUSSION: As a refresher and for consistency, all of the information provided for the initial
annexation discussion from the September 26, 2017 meeting is enclosed.
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
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.”
FISCAL IMPACT: No cost to Washington County
CONCURRENCES: N/A
ALTERNATIVES:
ATTACHMENTS: Questions and Concerns Raised During Citizen Participation
Agenda Report Form and attachments from September 26, 2017
meeting
AUDIO/VISUAL NEEDS: N/A
QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS RAISED DURING CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING
SMITHSBURG, MD
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2017
QUESTIONS AS THEY WERE PRESENTED DURING CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Where is all the money coming from? - Property owner/developer Cloverly Hill LLC will pay for
all activities necessary to construct the development as well as any additional costs to upgrade public
infrastructure if improvements are determined necessary through analysis in the development review
process. In addition, many fees will be paid to government agencies that review and approve plans to
offset the cost of the agency’s review before the development will start construction.
Will the taxpayers get stuck? - Hard to know what the questioner means by “stuck”. Developers
typically do extensive research to determine if their product is needed at the chosen location.
Developers don’t normally proceed with projects without knowing that they have the financial resources
to insure the development plan will come to fruition and be profitable and therefore continue it through
to the end. The development review, approval and construction permitting process has many
protections in the form of legal agreements and sureties (bonds, letters of credit, etc) to insure that if
the developer does not follow through there will be financial resources to finish or correct the situation.
On rare occasions developers do abandon unfinished projects. They are usually purchased by a new
developer and finished. Projects abandoned in mid-construction will have sureties in place that can be
claimed and used to resolve immediate concerns. I know of no development project in Washington
County that required County funds to complete because the developer didn’t complete it.
What’s it going to cost the people in Smithsburg? - In terms of actual dollars from current Smithsburg
residents there should be no cost, the developer will pay all costs to construct the development.
How will it benefit Smithsburg? - Whether it’s annexed into the Town or not, residents of the
development will likely patronize businesses in the community for food, gas, residential services and
support community organizations. If it is annexed the property owners will pay property taxes and
various utility charges that will increase the revenue to the Town and service providers. These revenues
support the continued operation and maintenance of the service and may provide additional revenue
for enhanced amenities in the community such as parks.
How to make it work (make it happen without the negative aspects)? - Civil participation in an open
process is the key to making citizen concerns known and development of solutions for those issues.
Participation often reveals unknown concerns that developers are often willing to address on their own.
There are multiple reviews that have a public meeting requirement attached to them such as the
annexation hearing(s), the County open meeting where express approval is discussed and Planning
Commission multiple plan reviews and approvals.
Will I have to hook up to sewer? (The developer will make a profit but it costs me) - Multiple factors
contribute to answering this question and various combinations can lead to a yes, no or maybe. The
factors include the service provider (Washington County owns and operates the treatment plant and
Smithsburg owns the collection system), the location and capacity of the new sewer lines, the distance
to the unserved property, the condition of the existing septic system, the service provider’s adopted
regulations and policies and others. By State law on-site septic systems are considered temporary and
all new lots created since at least 1980 have been approved with the condition for connection to a
public sewer system if it becomes “available”. The County code and Sewer Service policy do require
connections under certain conditions and the policy specifies a distance of 350 feet as the threshold
when connection is required. The type of line that becomes available has a bearing on required
connection. For example, if it is a “force main” that is constructed, service laterals cannot be connected.
How many people will it take to sign a petition to stop this? - There is no known or predetermined
number of signatures on an opposition petition that would be needed to convince the Mayor and
Council to vote down the annexation. There are so many more factors that are considered to determine
each council members vote and how that would affect the collective vote. However, there is a defined
process in Maryland annexation law that creates the opportunity for citizens or the governing body of
the County to bring the annexation decision to a referendum (vote of town residents and voters in the
annexed area). Within 45 days after enactment of the annexation resolution by the Town, at least 20%
of the qualified voters in the Town or 20% of the registered voters in the area to be annexed may
petition the Mayor for a referendum on the annexation resolution. By a two thirds majority vote, the
governing body of the County may also petition the Mayor of the Town for a referendum on the
annexation resolution. There are specific requirements in Maryland’s Local Government Article in the
Annotated Code about advertising and conducting a referendum. A majority of the votes must be in
favor of the annexation for it to be enacted. The annexation resolution becomes void unless a majority
of the votes are in favor. If County government petitions for a referendum, eligible voters would be the
residents/property owners in the annexed area. Since the developer is the sole property owner of the
area to be annexed a County initiated request for referendum may not be an effective method to
resolve the question. This may need further legal evaluation (Local Government Article of the Maryland
Annotated Code, Subtitle 4-400).
What is County’s vision for Smithsburg area? - On a micro scale, the zoning on a property, applied by
the Town or the County, defines the uses that the Town or the County determines are appropriate (or
not appropriate) for that location. The zoning will implement the jurisdictions plan for the overall
arrangement of land uses.
Most of the property has a County zoning designation of Residential Transition (RT) which means the
County would allow and desires to have one and two family residential development and a few other
compatible uses (day care, schools, churches and civic uses). A little over an acre has County Business
Local (BL) zoning which allows local or small scale businesses and services, neighborhood shopping
centers, funeral establishments and several senior care alternatives. If the annexation occurred
according to the application, the Town of Smithsburg would apply its Town Residential (TR) zoning to
approximately 40 acres of the site. The Town Residential zoning would allow a similar mixture of single
and two family dwellings but the density (permitted # of units per acre) would be greater. TR also
allows elementary and middle schools and cemeteries but churches are a special exception.
Approximately 25 acres would receive the Town’s General Commercial (GC) zoning district which allows
many of the same commercial uses allowed in the County designation but also allows additional uses of
a more intense commercial nature (for example indoor recreation facilities, building material sales,
hotels and motels or a shopping mall).
On a greater scale, Washington County and the Town of Smithsburg have worked cooperatively since
the early 1980’s to establish and maintain a Town Growth Area, a major component of the County’s
growth management plan. It is an effective and often used strategy of defining an area where
development supporting infrastructure is available or can be efficiently extended and adopting
regulation or policy to further encourage most new development to locate in that area. Within the
growth area, land use laws (most often zoning and water and sewer availability) are designed to
encourage most new development to locate in the growth area and additional design guidelines to
produce a desirable living environment. More recently, municipalities have been required by State laws
to incorporate future annexation boundaries in their Comprehensive Plans to better plan for providing
utility extensions in relation to capacities. When the County is the decision maker on land use matters,
the vision or intention is to permit or encourage development that will make the most efficient and safe
use of available infrastructure and provide design guidelines that produce a desirable residential,
commercial or employment product appropriate for the location in the Smithsburg community.
Channeling development to locations where it can be supported by existing infrastructure takes
development pressure off rural areas where the intent is to preserve and protect resources. The Town
of Smithsburg (or any other town that is the focus of a growth area) plays a major role in the
development that occurs in its growth area by participating in the process of setting the growth area
boundary and County zoning within that area, coordinating its annexation boundary and its policies for
annexation and providing services inside and outside of its corporate boundaries. In other words, the
Town and County act as partners in a citizen inclusive process to make future land use decisions to
create an environment that reflects citizen needs and benefits and consistency for the Town.
What is plan for safety (unclear if its crime, traffic, etc)? - Safety is built into most decisions in the
development approval process. The annexation process is supposed to include consideration for the
Towns ability to provide protective services for the annexed area or a plan to improve services in the
future to meet that need. The Town is also considering if it can provide all of the other services needed
by future Town residents and their development review processes all have safety components (Will the
road be safe and convey traffic in an efficient and safe manner? Will the water be safe to drink and will
the distribution system operate in a way that it will not present risks to users? Will it provide sufficient
water pressure for fire protection? Will stormwater be managed safely so that it doesn’t present unsafe
conditions? Will structures in the development be arranged in such a manner that unsafe conditions are
not created? etc., etc.). Another example is the requirement for traffic impact studies and
consideration discussed below.
We should have a say in what happens - Any party that wishes to participate in the process whether it’s
the initial annexation or multiple development reviews has an opportunity to participate if they desire.
However, participants should not expect that if they are opposed development that it will be denied on
citizen input alone. Approvals are also a matter of meeting regulation and guidelines and overall effects
on the general health, safety and welfare of entire community. Annexation law has provisions for
citizens opposed to petition for a referendum. Other development review processes also have appeal
options.
Will this happen for sure? - Developers do not request annexation or prepare development plans
without serious consideration and investment for a successful outcome. However, there isn’t a
guarantee because some factors are unpredictable such as the economy, market demand for a
particular product or regulatory requirements that were not planned for. Odds are that the property
will be developed soon or in the future regardless of annexation.
Previously voted down, what has changed? - Can’t answer the question of what was in the minds of
Smithsburg officials that caused them to vote the annexation proposal down in the past. The
annexation process that the Town of Smithsburg is conducting now is a required response to a formal
application. The results are unknown at this time. Ultimately the annexation request could be rejected
again or approved.
What will it do to my property values? - This is impossible to answer definitively. If an annexation
allowed an undesirable use (slaughterhouse for example) next to a single family subdivision, then it
would be fairly certain that property values could be negatively affected. However, it could easily work
in the opposite direction. If the annexation resulted in the construction of million dollar homes next to
that same single family subdivision or created permanently protected park land or a school, it could
raise the property values in the entire area. Neither the proposed Town zoning nor current County
zoning allows a slaughterhouse on the property. Zoning can only limit dwellings by type but not by cost
or value.
Even with an approved development plan for the site, property values are determined most often by
what a willing buyer will pay and what a willing seller will accept. These values, called comparable sales,
are most often what determine property value.
GENERALIZED ISSUES
Effects on schools, Teacher/student ratio – As noted briefly during the meeting, the development
proposal will be reviewed by school authorities on multiple occasions with an opportunity to
communicate to the Town the effects of the additional students on schools. The Town has an Adequate
Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) and has the ability to deny the development proposal for over
capacity issues. There is also the ability for the developer to negotiate contributions (monetary, land or
other) to mitigate over capacity issues and gain approval. Development approvals can be phased to
spread out the number of new students over time to lessen the effects, the BOE could redistrict or
request use of additional tax revenue gained from additional property taxes that result from the new
dwelling units to schedule capital improvements for the affected school. If the development occurred in
the County which also has an APFO, all of the above options exist also. The County would also perform
an “adequacy test” and could require an Alternate Monetary Contribution (AMC) to gain approval if the
projected students cause an over capacity situation. The fees are earmarked for education
improvements. The public school system has all of the authority and many options to make decisions
and adjustments within its organization’s operations to address additional students from new
development.
Traffic concerns and specifically at school entrance – Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances also
address road adequacy and traffic concerns. Again, the development plan, in the Town or in the County,
will be evaluated by all agencies that have jurisdiction over road construction, maintenance and access
permits to determine the effects of the development. A detailed traffic impact study will be required. It
will project the amount of traffic based on the actual development proposal, define portions of the road
network that are likely to be affected, use sophisticated traffic analysis models to determine how the
network will be affected, where it will be adequate to support the additional traffic, where it won’t be
adequate and specify improvements (that the developer pays for) that will be needed to resolve the
inadequacies. The developer would have to agree to make those improvements or at least pay for them
before approval is granted. These contributions are most often included in Developer Agreements that
are binding legal documents and have back up provisions if developers default on the agreement.
Loss of small town character/feel - There may not be a way to address this concern if it comes from a
strong objection to any new development. However, the Town of Smithsburg should be considering the
effects of the annexation on its current citizens and will be assigning a Town zoning designation to the
property that should have compatibility with existing development in the Town. These zoning districts
are developed by the Town with Town citizen input and should reflect the design guidelines acceptable
to them. The Town officials can also place certain design requirements on the annexed property that
will improve the compatibility of the new development with existing development. Since the actual
development proposal including the number of units and design intentions have not been presented it
may be premature to assume that the character of the development will not enhance the existing Town
character.
Property tax break – The possibility of a tax break was addressed by the developer’s attorney during
the meeting. The developer requested a waiver of Town property taxes for 10 years. It would become
void if the period expires, the land is sold or the land is developed. The Town has the authority to
approve the tax waiver, shorten the time frame, alter the conditions, add its own conditions or reject it
completely. It is only a waiver of Town property taxes if approved, not County property taxes.
Town doesn’t need expansion - This is a very subjective opinion and can’t be addressed.
Need more information - This appears to have been addressed in three ways. The developer’s attorney
provided some explanations and verifications of truth, rumors and misinformation. Town officials
indicated that they were inclined to hold additional information meetings. The developer offered to
supply additional information as well. Any individual can view any of the information submitted with
the annexation application at the Town Hall.
Property values - See property values question above
Detracts from existing local business – Additional business entities of the same kind currently located in
and around the Town could experience competition from new businesses that may locate on the
annexed area. There will be substantially more commercial zoning on the property if it is annexed into
the Town than if it retains its current County zoning. However, new businesses could also serve to
generate additional customer traffic for existing business. Zoning law would not allow the Town to
restrict certain business if they are permitted by the zoning district.
Need reserve sewer capacity for other areas that will need to hook up in future to correct problem
(Holiday Acres, etc.) – Sewer treatment authorities indicated that capacity and hook ups are on a first
come first served basis upon payment. Since treatment plant operations are supported by user fees,
they are not in a financial position to not receive revenue while waiting for unknown future users.
Town needs additional revenues – Can’t verify or deny if the Town needs additional revenue or if that is
a factor in an annexation decision. A decision has not been made. Of course if Town services are to be
provided to an expanded area the Town will need additional revenue to support that.
Need to be able to participate – This seems to be addressed by the additional information concern
above and the better advertising of opportunity below.
Better advertising of opportunity to participate – This is a frequent concern by citizens that don’t follow
the notification methods required by annexation law or the additional methods chosen by the Town.
The Town may or may not change or add to its notification methods in the future as a result of this
concern. Many note their concern that they were not notified when they attend a meeting.
It is important to understand that the Town must initiate this annexation review process if an
annexation application is submitted. Annexation is not guaranteed. After the required process is
completed, the Town can certainly deny the application and not annex the property. Development on
the property is still a possibility under County guidelines if the annexation is not approved.
Next steps:
Washington County – determine if Express Approval will be granted
Town of Smithsburg – The Town has conducted the required public hearing. It must decide if
additional hearings are desired or needed. Then it must act on the application for annexation. If the
action is favorable, it will be accompanies by a resolution spelling out the terms and conditions of the
annexation such as the zoning to be assigned, property tax arrangements, etc.
k Washington County Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
• Agenda Report Form
Open Session Item
SUBJECT: Express Approval — Smithsburg Annexation of Cloverly Hill LLC
PRESENTATION DATE: September 26, 2017
PRESENTATION BY: Stephen T. Goodrich, Director
Department of Planning and Zoning
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to grant/not grant erpress approval to the Town of
Smithsburg to allow development on the annexed Cloverly Hill LLC property in conformance with the
Town Residential and General Commercial zoning district in the acreage amounts and densities proposed
which may be substantially different than the uses and densities that would be allowed under the current
County zoning districts of Residential Transition and Business Local.
REPORT -IN -BRIEF: Cloverly Hill, LLC has petitioned the Town of Smithsburg requesting
annexation of 3 parcels of land it owns, approximately 65.5 acres. The properties proposed for
annexation are located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of MD Rt. 64 and MD Rt. 77. The
Smithsburg Mayor and Council's Resolution to effect the annexation states that the Town will assign the
Town Residential (TR) and General Commercial (GC) zoning districts to the property upon annexation.
The property currently has County zoning designations of Residential Transition (RT) and Business Local
(BL). The permitted uses in Smithsburg's Town Residential district are virtually the same as the
County's Residential Transition district (single family, two family and semi-detached units) but the
permitted densities are between 11 and 50 % higher in the Town. There are 61+ acres of County
Residential Transition zoning while there would be 35+ acres of Town Residential zoning. The
difference in the number of units that could be built is between 11% and 34% less in the Town than in the
County because the acreage for residential development in the Town would be less.
The permitted uses in the County BL district are generally of a local retail sales and service nature or uses
that would be appropriate in neighborhoods. The Smithsburg General Commercial (GC) district also
allows those uses but is also more permissive and allows uses that would not be permitted in the County
BL district. If the annexation is approved by the Town of Smithsburg there would be 25.7 acres of
General Commercial zoning. There is currently only 1.05 acres of County Business Local zoning. The
substantial difference between development under Town zoning and County zoning comes from 24.65
more acres of Smithsburg General Commercial zoning that allows several uses that are not permitted in
the County Business Local district. Those 24.65 more acres of commercial zoning would be on land
where commercial development would not be permitted in the County. Maryland's Annotated Code,
Local Government Article, §4416 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. "
FISCAL IMPACT: No cost to Washington County
CONCURRENCES: N/A
ALTERNATIVES:
ATTACHMENTS: Location Map
Smithsburg Annexation Plan A2017-01, Cloverly Hill LLC and related
documents
Comparison charts of Town and County zoning
List of Smithsburg General Commercial zoning permitted uses
AUDIOVISUAL NEEDS: N/A
Fillll�•=11 i
LM °i
,or
Q7ry
i
m
Annexation Plan
Town of Smithsburg, Maryland
Annexation No.: A2017-01
Property Owner: Cloverly Hill LLC
Location:
S/E Corner of Smithsburg Pike (MD 64) and Wolfsville Road (MD 77)
Zoning Map/Parcel:
Map 40; Parcels 29, 120,262, portion of SHA R/W
Acres:
65.5 acres
Existing Zoning:
Business Local (BL)/Residential, Transition (RT)
Proposed Zoning:
General Commercial (GC)/ Town Residential (TR)
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.
Land Use Patterns of the Areas to be Annexed
The resolution submitted to the Town of Smithsburg consists of 3 parcels of land that total
approximately 65.5 acres of land located in the southeast corner of the intersection of Smithsburg Pike
(MD Route 64) and Wolfsville Road (MD Route 77).
The applicant has requested that the properties be zoned a mixture of GC (25.7 ac) and TR (39.8 ac).
The GC area is proposed to be split into two area; one located at the corner of MD 64 and MD 77
(approx. 6.5 ac.) and one further east (19.2 ac) near the intersection of MD 64 and MD 491 (Raven Rock
Road).
The proposed annexation area is located within a designated Growth Area boundary in both the County
and Town of Smithsburg Comprehensive Plans. Furthermore, the area is located within a designated
annexation area established in Municipal Growth Element of the Town of Smithsburg Comprehensive
Plan. Parcel 120 and a small portion of Parcel 29 are located within a designated Priority Funding Area.
Consistency with the County Zoning
The purpose of the General Commercial District is to "provide for commercial uses mainly for retail sales
and services, and related activities. The purpose of the Town Residential District is to "provide for
somewhat higher densities than the suburban residential development, where future development of
this type can safely proceed. The Town Residential District is intended to recognize existing Town
development and its logical extension; it accommodates a variety of residential uses, plus limited
`convenience' retail commercial uses desirable to serve only residential areas."
The General Commercial zoning district is generally consistent with the Business General District of the
County. Likewise, the Town Residential district is generally consistent with the Residential, Transition
zoning District of the County. While the purpose of the districts between the Town and the County are
similar, the location of the areas are not completely consistent. The non -conforming area is located
along the north eastern edge of the property near the intersection of MD 64 and MD 491. There is an
area of approximately 19.2 ac that the applicant is requesting GC zoning that is currently zoned RT in the
County. This will likely require a request to the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County
to grant "express approval' of this request.
Schedule and Method of Financing: the Extension of Each Municipal Service Currently Performed
within the Town of Smithsburg into the Area Proposed to be Annexed
Wastewater Services: The proposed annexation currently has no existing wastewater service.
According to the 2009 Water and Sewerage Plan a portion of the property is located within an S-5; Long
Term Planned Service area while the majority of the area is located within an S-7; No Planned Service
Area. While this appears to be inconsistent with the adopted Water and Sewerage Plan it should be
noted that the portion of the property located within the S-7 wastewater designation was included
within a recent amendment to the Washington County Comprehensive Plan. It is anticipated that during
the next update of the Water and Sewerage Plan this area will be re -designated. If development on this
parcel occurs prior to the Plan update then a Plan amendment will need to be initiated by the
developer.
At such time development would occur it would be the responsibility of the developer to extend the
necessary infrastructure to provide adequate service. The infrastructure will be turned over to the
Town of Smithsburg. Treatment of wastewater from this area would be handled by the Smithsburg
Wastewater Treatment Facility owned and maintained by Washington County. While there is currently
capacity available in the treatment plant for this property, allocation is provided on a first come, first
served basis and is not guaranteed. Should allocation not be available at the time of development then
growth will not occur until such time upgrades have been made at the treatment facility.
Water Services: A portion of the proposed annexation has existing water service provided by the Town
of Smithsburg. There is an existing water line along Cloverly Lane that services the existing homes in
that area. Another small portion of the annexation area is located within a W-5; Long Term Planned
Service Area. The remainder of the area is located within a W-7; No Planned Service Area. This
inconsistency is also results from the same Comprehensive Plan amendment process completed by the
County recently (see Wastewater Service).
At such time development would occur it would be the responsibility of the developer to extend the
necessary infrastructure to provide adequate service. The infrastructure will be turned over to the
Town of Smithsburg. The Town purchases its water from the City of Hagerstown. As growth occurs, the
Town has an agreement with the City to increase its allocation as needed therefore there will be
adequate capacity available for this property. The proposed annexation area is included in the Town of
Smithsburg Municipal Growth Element and is also included within the City of Hagerstown Water
Resources Element.
Schools: The proposed annexation area is located within the Smithsburg Elementary, Middle, and High
School attendance areas set by the Washington County Board of Education. The Town of Smithsburg
does have an adopted Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) that mimics that of the County. The
following table provides a simplistic snap shot of current school capacities. THIS CHART IS FOR
ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY AND NOT MEANT TO DEPICT ACTUAL MITIGATION NEEDS BY THE
DEVELOPER. As shown in the chart, there appears to be some capacity available at all levels of schools
in the system. The capacity of the school districts will be evaluated in more detail when definitive
development plans are submitted. In accordance with the APFO the developer will be responsible to
mitigate for capacity if there is a need determined.
State Rated
APFO Rated
Average
School
Enrollment over
Difference
Capacity
Capacity
last 4 quarters
Smithsburg
419
377
364
13
Elementary
Smithsburg
829
829
661
168
Middle
Smithsburg High
829
829
799
30
Source: These figures are based on May, 2017 figures provided by the Washington County Board of
Education and Washington County Department of Planning and Zoning.
Roads: The area proposed for annexation fronts on two State owned and maintained roads (MD 64 and
MD 77). Any internal roads constructed for access to the proposed annexation area will be required to
be built by the developer in accordance with standards set by the Town of Smithsburg. After
construction and performance periods the Town will take over ownership and maintenance of these
local roads.
Emergency Services and Police Protection: Fire and Rescue services would be provided to the proposed
annexation area by Smithsburg Emergency Medical Services Inc. (SEMS) and the Volunteer Fire
Company of Smithsburg. Police service would be provided by the Town of Smithsburg Police
Department. No significant impacts are expected on these services by the proposed annexation area.
Parks and Recreation: There are currently two parks located within the Town of Smithsburg; Veterans
Park and Lions Club Community Park. It is not anticipated that park and recreation facilities will need to
be expanded for the proposed annexation.
All future persons within the area proposed to be annexed shall obtain or be entitled to existing benefits
of the Town of Smithsburg. 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 Town of
Smithsburg, unless alternative arrangements are provided for the Annexation Resolution.
Availability of Land Needed for Public Facilities
As described in the previous section, many of the facilities are already existing with expansion needs to
be handled by the developer. School capacity impacts will be handled through designated mitigation
efforts in coordination with the County. Even if there are impacts it does not appear that area for a new
school site would be prudent. Water and wastewater facilities are already in existence and seem to be
adequate for the proposed annexation area. Emergency Services facilities are already existing and seem
to be adequate for the annexation area as well. While the facilities are currently adequate, the
Smithsburg Emergency Medical Services organization is seek area to expand. The developer has offered
to provide an area for said relocation. This is not a condition of the annexation because it is not
necessary but is a favorable asset to the proposed annexation area.
Alp 3
Cloverly Hill, LLC
L Daniel C. Cross, CCIM
l Clovery Cross & Company, LLC
�. CROSS & °ot*
5301 Buckeystown Pike OMPANY LLC
Frederick, MD 21704
301-682-9015 Investment Development Management
03 October 2016
Randy Dick, Planning & Zoning Administrator
Town of Smithsburg
21 West Water Street
Smithsburg, MD 21783
Via e-mail: rdicka_townofsmithsburg. org
Dear Randy:
I look forward to meeting with the Planning Commission on 12 October 2016. Because
Cloverly Hill, LLC is not now an actual applicant before the Town, I understand that this will be
an "informal appearance," representing an opportunity for me, joined by Jason Divelbiss and
Fred Frederick, to share our ideas and hear from the Commission what they, in turn, may wish.
To that end, I invite you to please share this letter with the Planning Commission members in
advance of the meeting.
I wish to create a new mixed -use neighborhood with a broad appeal across the
demographic spectrum that makes up the fabric of American society today:
Housing and whole -of -living experiences should be created for the young and the old,
for the single person and families, for those at the start of the economic ladder of
American opportunity and those who through hard work and success are comfortably in
the middle; with a sharp eye upon development and construction expenses. My hope is
not to be compelled into the creation of high -end homes.
I seek to create a neighborhood village, where fellow citizens interact with each other
directly from front porches, sidewalks, walking paths and community open space rather
than automobiles. (Please see author Ross Chapin's Pocket Neighborhoods). A
neighborhood village where young children attend day care and after -school programs
in their neighborhood, rather than in some distant commercial center. A neighborhood
village where the honored elderly of our society still participate and engage in the lives
of their children and grandchildren, but have housing options appropriate to their
mobility and health. (Please see author Charles Durett's Creating Cohousing and The
Senior Cohousing Handbook).
• I seek the opportunity to create houses, living spaces and at-home working spaces that
embrace the changes occurring in multi -generational family life and interconnected
employment. A "home" for working parents, their children (including "rebound" young
adult children in the midst of higher education or otherwise back at home), and
grandparents. A home for all under one roof, or cottage roofs in very close proximity.
But still a home where even the best of families don't have to have dinner for three
generations and multiple people every night out of the same kitchen. However, we
measure dwelling units and in turn houses today via the number of kitchens. This is a
societal issue that I as a developer seek to engage you as policy makers.
I seek to create open spaces that respect the topography of the ground and existing
specimen trees, but that still remain usable via walking trails and athletic fields. I
believe a child should walk to their afternoon soccer practice. I believe an adult should
run and walk outdoors (perhaps with their dog) on a nature trail or sidewalk amongst the
houses and green space of their neighborhood, rather than only at the health club.
I believe that certain activities, and the buildings in which they occur, which we may now
think of as a "commercial use", should instead take place intermingled with housing,
specifically the care of the elderly across the full transitions of older age, the care and
play of our youth, and those buildings that provide essential functions in our society but
that are not commercial by nature (i.e., a new purpose-built headquarters for the
Smithsburg Emergency Medical Service).
• 1 believe that other "commercial use" buildings should be part of this new community,
but in an adjacent commercial center within walking distance of the residential
neighborhood. A commercial center needs to be accessible from multiple entrances
from State Highways, have adequate intermingled parking, and be so situated as to be
competitive and attract consumer dollars. I am aware that there are strong "wishes"
about desirable stores; over the years I have been asked to please include a service
station and convenience store, a food service provider, a pharmacy, and retailers.
However, I have learned that only stores economically appropriate to the low traffic
counts on MD 64 & MD 77 and the demographics of Smithsburg will consider this
location. Costs will have to be sharply controlled in order to make this "wish" feasible.
The applicant intends to submit an Annexation Request to the Town of Smithsburg in
order to create this neighborhood village. It may be necessary to request the annexation of
different ground (and their associated Tax Map ID numbers) in stages in order to preserve the
economic viability of the proposed new community, including its residential and commercial
components. I look forward to working in cooperation with the Planning Commission and staff,
and the Town Council, to create a new community of both societal and economic value.
Best regards,
Daniel C. Cross, CCIM
Cloverly Hill, LLC
2
N,5
a% I
COUNT%/
Tmpsoi Aj% mexa h in
boon 4 rq
RT
.moon
ZON I NC7 EXHIBIT 2
IV q
�r•
�l
Future Land Use
c—ld at: N'aaNu6dn C.-lr. AIU PLnninF NDL lilt
ail.: Fub.-xni I
.UYwn:v U..,..r..nn.nNfikrWrY+MILtbIrYlJrr+sft•.Ya--.14M1n+ awNlM 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
n::l+'ar• v+•.4 11 l• n•. N yrrAJJrLFIMfw 1r11. /Ktr n J.M1uuIJ na nl;. JNu.NkJ dq Miles
w+.W:IPr.wl.\•rb • Lu IJI. r•/ reFwYlluuJ wll4«I I V . •pr.r p.u..lnn rA.n•J.114 /l•.+rF
NryMnFL Gk-fwln.rllM Jw r.nYlrrd Mn.n art ier • rinwr In41n rpnrku.Y'vi nJl Nr.rt
n.ww..r rI J,.d•ao.
W IR'I" 14LWn.11+Ju rlw.nr lb au/Lm Jlrw•J Arw FIJM:fFrd..rr.wlllf tirc kei nnn
t+LrJ.Yrr..lrwl. tl,nl•...I Mu..l. grin.nrX. r.11 rr Ylwr •nxJ Y.rpFr• nVrT.lf7 rr LN
..l.vN M1J tv.•N.rprn r«ny k r� Ird.l If. Jl.rll•nJ nY•nw.wl ,J,YY• rwNas.W r.••wa. w wl
rt Yulwi• f rlrw. W 0.•I.+wa roaurlrwa DnJklW w.vlal ee rq a1KWY avaYYJ. W wJ
I.IuIAIl Mwa1FF4.la1M6•la•J+.d 1•pWMe•lu•rJNMrgx•Ik.4
�
.. J
+•fr NNlrr..LIJ
P IfImJ AWwJlykrr(1wW Mall+•l Yln.r.K rd bruK NYrlr,.nl 1w
al)Jru)1n11 a rrtvrk a. rr�r\( bnruJ /YJ+a vJ.+J Ir(•.rnrtr•n•4.N.. r.nM1iJ. lIY
-
w l:.lr l.rJl DLI. ♦•J •rM r rrw.JLd NJuI ♦<s++4
Path: T:\Policy\Develup\8laithshurg\vloamps\smilhshurg_FUTURGIanduse —d
"
Legend
_Roads High Density Residential
0Smithsburg Town Growth Area -Medium Density Residential
.,County Growth Area , , Low Density Residential
-lown Boundary Rural Residential
i.ind Use Mixed Porest
®Agriculture Open Spaces/Parks/FP
Commercial Orchard
Institutional ,Water
EXHIBIT 4
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF SMITHSBURG,
MARYLAND TO ENLARGE THE CORPORATE BOUNDARIES AND THEREBY AMEND
THE CORPORATE BOUNDARIES AS CONTAINED IN THE APPENDIX OF THE
CHARTER OF THE TOWN OF SMITHSBURG AND TO ESTABLISH THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF THE AREA TO BE ANNEXED
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
SMITHSBURG, adopted pursuant to the authority of Article XI-E of the Constitution of
Maryland and MD Code, Local Government §4-401 to enlarge the corporate boundaries of the
TOWN OF SMITHSBURG, a municipal corporation existing under and by virtue of the Laws of
the State of Maryland, as defined by the CHARTER OF THE TOWN OF SMITHSBURG, and
pursuant to the provisions of Local Gov't §4-401, et seq., by adding or annexing to said
corporate boundaries the following areas immediately adjacent and adjoining the present
corporate botmdary:
METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT "A"
WHEREAS, the proposal to enlarge the corporate boundaries of the Town of Smithsburg
by adding or annexing thereto the above described areas which are immediately adjacent tclLd
adjoining the present corporate boundaries thereof, as contained in the Petition signed by the
requisite number of persons as prescribed and set forth in MD Code, Local Govt §4-404(a), as
residents, registered voters, and/or owners of the realty contained within the area to be annexed;
the same are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth herein and made a part hereof.
WHEREAS, the Mayor, who is the presiding officer of the legislative body, has caused
to be made a verification of the signatures on said Petition, and has ascertained that the
requirements of MD Code, Local Gov't. §4-401, et seq., as more Rilly appears from the
certificate of verification subscribed by Justine Keadle, Town Cleric, which certificates were
presented at this meeting, are attached hereto and incorporated herein as "Exhibit E" and made
part hereof, have been met.
WHEREAS, the Petition for Annexation meets all the requirements of the law, and
pursuant to §4-406 of the Local Government Article of the Annotate Code of Maryland, the
Annexation was referred to the appropriate State, Regional and County planning authorities.
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning of the area to be annexed to the corporate limits was
referred to the Planning Commission for the Town of Smithsburg, which said Commission 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 Town and County,
and the needs of the particular neighborhoods and vicinities of the areas, and have approved the
same and that the rezoning of said tract of land is proper and desirable under all of the
circumstances and should be accomplished at this time.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mayor and Council of the Town of
Smithsburg, that the boundaries of the Town, pursuant to the provisions of §4-400 MD Code,
Local Gov't. be and the same are hereby amended and enlarged so as to annex and include
4/1 %o
within said Town all that certain area of land together with the persons residing therein, if any
and their property, contiguous to the corporate limits of the Town and being more particularly
described in Exhibit A.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the annexation of the said area be made
subject to the tertrrs and conditions as set forth in the Petition for Annexation attached hereto as
Exhibit `B" and made a part hereof upon final agreement and passage.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mayor and Town Council, that the
subject property to be annexed shall have zoning classifications of CG (Commercial General)
and TR (Town Residential), as more particularly described on the schematic entitled "Zoning
Exhibit for Cloverly Hill, LLC," dated August 3, 2017, attached hereto and incorporated herein
as Exhibit "C" and said
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the above mentioned Petition for
Annexation and the Certificates of Verification hereinabove referred to, be filed and recorded
among the records with the Clerk of the Town of Smithsburg and to be filed with the records of
this meeting as part of this resolution by reference.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the description of the corporate boundaries
of the Town of Smithsburg as referred to and incorporated in the Charter of the Town of
Smithsburg, is hereby amended by eliminating from said existing description of the corporate
boundaries that part thereof and said new description to be filed in accordance with the
provisions of the Annotated Code of Maryland and the Charter of the Town of Smithsburg shall
read as follows:
[SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "D" FOR NEW METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION
OF TOWN]
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution shall become effective at
the end of forty-five (45) days following its final enactment, unless a proper petition for
referendum hereon shall be filed
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Engineer or Acting Engineer of the
TOWN OF SMITHSBURG be and he is authorized and directed to amend and change the
corporate boundaries of the Zoning Map of the TOWN OF SMITHSBURG as it now exists to
henceforth show classification of the aforesaid area described herein as set forth.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the aforesaid Resolution relative to zoning
shall take effect when and if the aforesaid Resolution regarding annexation shall become
effective as above set forth.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
/V//
WITNESS AND ATTEST
AS TO CORPORATE SEAL:
Justine Keadle
Town Cleric
Date Introduced:
Public Hearing:
Final Enactment:
Effective Date:
08/09/2017
BY ORDER OF THE MAYOR AND
THE TOWN OF SMITHSBURG,
MARYLAND
Lin
Mildred Myers
Mayor
PREPARED BY:
SALVATORE & MORTON, LLC
Town Attorneys
" / .z
PUBLIC NOTICE — ANNEXATION PETITION
Notice is hereby given that the Mayor and Council of the Town of Smithsburg, Maryland will hold a public
hearing on Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at the hour of 7:00 p.m. at Smithsburg Town Hall, Mayor and
Council meeting room, 21 West Water Street, Smithsburg, Maryland. The public hearing is for the purpose of
considering an annexation petition submitted by Cloverly Hill LLC. The petition is requesting annexation of
three parcels of record that total approximately 68.18 acres of land, located on the southeast corner of the
intersection of Smithsburg Pike (Maryland Route 64) and Wolfsville Road (Maryland Route 77). The
Petitioner, Cloverly Hill LLC, is requesting zoning on the parcels to be split between General Commercial
(GC) and Town Residential (TR).
All parties in interest and citizens, either in support of or in opposition to the annexation petition, shall have
the opportunity to be heard at said time and place.
A copy of the annexation petition and all information related to the official record is available for review at
Smithsburg Town Hall, 21 West Water Street, Smithsburg, Maryland.
Any person desiring a stenographic transcript shall be responsible for supplying a competent stenographer.
Authority, Town of Smithsburg, Maryland
INSTRUCTIONS
Publish in the Herald -Mail
Dates of Publication — August 21, 2017; August 28, 2017; September 4, 2017;
September 11, 2017
AP/3
SMITHSBURG ANNEXATION OF CLOVERLY HILL, LLC
ACREAGE AND ZONING COMPARISONS
(Some acreage figures are estimated)
Parcel #
Acreage
Acreage -Wash Co
current zoning
Acreage-Smithsburg
proposed zoning
Business Local
BL
Residential
Transition
RT
General
Commercial
GC
Town
Residential
TR
Parcel 29
13.37 ac
.50 ac
12.87 ac
5.95 ac
7.42 ac
Parcel 120
.55 ac
.55 ac
0.00 ac
55 ac
0.00 ac
Parcel 262
47.53 ac
0.00 ac
47.53 ac
19.20 ac
28.33 ac
TOTAL
61.45 ac
1.05 ac
60.40 ac
25.70 ac
35.75 ac
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPARISONS
(Some acreage is estimated)
(du = dwelling unit)
(sf = square feet)
Wash Co Residential
Transition
RT
Smithsburg
Town Residential
TR
Use
Acreage
Min lot
size
Max #
units
Density
du/acre
Acreage
Min lot
size
Max #
units
Density
Du/acre
Single
family
60.40
15,000
sf/d u
175
2.90
d u/ac
35.75
10,000
sf/d u
155
4.35
d u/ac
Two
family
(2 du/lot)
60.40
10,000
sf/d u
263
4.35
d u/ac
35.75
91000
sf/d u
173
4.84
d u/ac
Semi-
detached
(1 du/lot)
60.40
7,500
sf/du
350
5.80
du/ac
35.75
51000
sf/du
311
8.71
du/ac
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPARISONS
CHANGE IN MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DENSITY AND
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS
(Du/ac = dwelling units per acre)
Washington
Smithsburg
Change
County
Max #
Max
Max #
Max
%
%
units
density
units
density
change
change
# units
max density
Single
175
2.90
155
4.35
-11.4%
+50.0%
family
du/ac
du/ac
Two
263
4.35
173
4.84
-34.2 %
+11.3 %
family
du/ac
du/ac
Semi -
350
5.80
311
8.71
-11.1%
+50.2%
detached
du/ac
du/ac
62
Principal Permitted uses in Smithsburg General Commercial (GC) zoning district
Highlighted uses not listed as permitted in County Business Local (BL) district
Agriculture
Noncommercial parking garage or parking area intended to fulfill off-street
parking requirements
Parks designed or intended for passive recreation or open space
Swimming pool (or beach) conducted as a principal use
Private or membership clubs or lodges not operated commercially, nor
conducted primarily as a business enterprise
Golf driving or practice ranges, batting cages, racquet clubs/courts or
miniature golf courses and the like, conducted as a principal use
Indoor recreation facilities, including but not limited to bowling alleys,
theaters, movie theaters, skating rinks, tennis courts, health/recreation, billiard
or poolroom facilities and the like
Transient or temporary recreational activity, such as a carnival, circus, fair or
the like, provided each such activity does not exceed 14 days in a single year
Meeting or assembly halls for philanthropic, religious, fraternal, civic or other
nonprofit organizations/corporations; see setback requirements in § 405-27
Civic buildings, including community centers, museums, post offices,
libraries, fire and rescue stations, ambulance services and emergency medical
transport services, and halls and public office buildings erected or used by
federal, state, county or municipal governments or agencies thereof
Child-care centers, licensed, or drop -in centers as defined in Article II
Public or private trade or professional schools, or the like
Automobile car washes, motor vehicle repair garages, small engine and related
equipment repair and maintenance, to include lawn mowers.
Automobile, truck, farm equipment, trailer, motorcycle, recreational vehicle
and accessory equipment, snowmobile or mobile home display and sale or
rental, including repair and maintenance of such vehicles and equipment as an
accessory use, provided that
Automobile service stations, except highway service plazas as defined in
Article ll.
Shopping center or mall
Building materials and supplies, for sale, provided that outdoor storage areas
shall be effectively screened from view from public roads and adjoining
residences by a solid wall, screen or fence at least 6 feet high or by dense
evergreen plantings of equal height. All screening shall be continuously
maintained.
Veterinarians offices limited to small animal practice and provided that no
overnight boarding occurs for nonmedical reasons
Business, service
Professional offices
Medical and dental offices or clinics for outpatient treatment, including
accessory laboratory facilities.
Feed, grain and farm supply stores, including silos, elevators, warehouses and
similar enclosed storage
Funeral homes, mortuaries and the like.
Greenhouses and nurseries, including sales facilities
Hotels, motels and the like.
Printing, photographic processing, blueprinting, photocopying and similar
reproduction services, and facsimile transmission, except publishing
Parking lot or garage as a commercial or public enterprise, provided that such
parking lot shall be screened by a solid wall, screen or fence at least 3 feet
high or by dense evergreen plantings of equal height. All screening shall be
continuously maintained.
Business, personal service
Furniture, to include upholstery, repair, and refinishing
Restaurants and the like, except drive-in and drive -through restaurants as
defined in Article ll.
Drive-in and drive -through restaurants
Business, neighborhood retail
Convenience stores and centers
Specialty auto services, to include glass repair, lubrication, brake repair, and
upholstering or the like
Business, general retail
12
Temporary signs
Civic billboards
Taverns
Mini warehousing/storage
Essential utility equipment
Utility equipment — other
5
SUBJECT: Vacancies and Organization
PRESENTATION DATE: Tuesday, October 24, 2017
PRESENTATION BY: Robert Slocum, County Administrator, Stephanie Stone, Director of
Health and Human Services
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Motion to approve the reclassification and advertisement of
various vacant positions and move to eliminate a budgeted position, as explained below.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: Recently one deputy director position (Permits Department) was
eliminated. The surrounding staff was promoted to address their additional responsibility. A
cost savings has been observed. A strategy for competitive selection and succession of
responsibility was successfully employed. This report will share similar work in progress in
other divisions then make specific recommendations upon five positions. The theme of these
recommendations is to empower people to fill the County’s needs and their capabilities at the
highest level possible.
There are six vacant positions to be addressed across multiple departments. Staff has
contemplated the best use of each position to address customer service, efficiency, and
operations. First in this agenda is a brief summary on the status of two departments. These will
be presented separately and in further detail, by the appropriate Directors, later in October.
The Director of Information Systems will bring before the Board recommendations for a vacant
position and customer service enhancements in that department. The Director of Health and
Human Services will bring before the Board a proposal regarding recent legal recommendations.
The discussion below will make recommendations upon the remaining positions in greater detail:
o Vacant Project Liaison Grade 14 (position eliminated) – New Position - Business
Leader, Grade 15
o Budgeted Workforce Development & Partnership Manager, Grade 17 – Never filled - to
be eliminated
o Vacant Director of Engineering and Construction Management, Grade 20 – New Position
- Chief Operations Officer, Grade 19
o Vacant Assistant County Administrator, Grade 19 – New Position - Director of Public
Relations and Marketing, Grade 18
o Vacant Public Relations Coordinator, Grade 15 – to be advertised as is
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form
DISCUSSION: The vacant Project Liaison will be eliminated and a new position will added
to the Business Development Department named Business Leader at Grade 15; the existing Ag
Business Development Specialist will become Ag Business Specialist and upgraded from Grade
13 to Grade 14; the Business Development Specialist will become Business Specialist and
upgraded from Grade 13 to Grade 14 , the existing Business Support and Retention Specialist
will be renamed Business and Event Coordinator and upgraded from Grade 11 to Grade 12;
The Administrative Assistant will be upgraded to Office Manager, from Grade 9 to Grade 10.
The Office Manager will be responsible for the front desk of Business Development and Public
Relations and Marketing. The Business Development Director will report directly to the
County Administrator and be upgraded from Grade 17 to Grade 18. The Business Development
office, with other County offices, will be available in person and via telephone during all
business hours. The Director will develop a plan to proactively serve and recruit business. A
Workforce Development and Partnership Manager that had been budgeted yet not filled will be
eliminated.
The vacant Director of Engineering and Construction Management, Grade 20 will be changed to
Chief Operations Officer, Grade 19. This position will serve and report to the Administrator
and in the absence of the Administrator, the Board. The Position will handle special projects as
assigned, facilitate and coordinate with senior staff to execute County business in a timely and
effective manner. The position will serve various assignments independently with critical
thinking, priority, and problem solving skills. Communication and collaboration with a wide
variety of organizations and staff are essential to the success of the position.
The vacant Assistant County Administrator, Grade 19, will be eliminated and will become the
Director of Public Relations and Marketing at Grade 18 and advertised as such. The position
will report directly to the County Administrator. The recently vacated Public Relations and
Community Affairs Manager position will be advertised. With staff and the assistance of the
Office Manager above, the Public Relations office will also be available to customers during
business hours. The Director will expand communication with the Board, Staff, and media. The
Director will capitalize upon the successful branding to date to develop and execute the next
generation of County marketing via conventional media, social media, the web, and live events.
With no additional cost and no additional positions, the proposal will reinvigorate the County’s
investment in Business Development and Public Relations for future success.
FISCAL IMPACT: The proposal above will result in a savings of $87,154
CONCURRENCES: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: Staff has believes this proposal will most cost effectively
serve the Public and the Board.
ATTACHMENTS: Vacancies and Organization Fiscal Impact
AUDIO/VISUAL TO BE USED: N/A
Current
Project Liaison to Business Leader 54,380 69,760
Workforce Development & Partnership Manager (budgeted never filled) eliminated 66,190 -
Director of Engineering and Construction Management to Chief Of Operations 124,195 94,910
Assistant County Administrator to Director of Public Relations Marketing 105,230 87,860
Public Relations Coordinator to be filled as is (formerly PR & Community Affairs Man.)60,790 60,790
Ag Business [Development] Specialist 55,820 58,250
Business [Development] Specialist 61,880 64,580
Business Support & Retention Specialist to Business and Event Coordinator 53,060 55,380
Administrative Assistance to Office Manager 38,309 39,970
Director of Business Development to be upgraded 90,220 94,120
Total Savings 84,454
Vacancies and Organization Fiscal Impact
SUBJECT: Parks & Facilities Director
PRESENTATION DATE: Tuesday, October 24, 2017
PRESENTATION BY:Jim Sterling, Director of Public Works
Stephanie Stone, Dir., Health and Human Services
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Motion to approve the establishment of the Deputy Director
of Public Works, Parks & Facilities position as recommended below
REPORT-IN-BRIEF: When the current Director of Public Works was promoted from the
position of Parks & Facilities Director to Public Works Director on February 14, 2015, the
position left vacant was not approved to be filled. The budget was adjusted such that the position
no longer existed. This proposal is to properly establish the leadership role in Parks and
Facilities as the Deputy Director of Public Works, Parks and Facilities. The proposal is
consistent with the naming convention adopted many years ago for department and director
positions throughout the County. If approved, the current Deputy Director of Parks & Facilities,
under a legacy naming convention, will assume the position.
DISCUSSION: The essential workload and leadership required of the current Deputy Director
position has only increased since 2015. The current Deputy Director is a grade 15. The position
Deputy Director position was never addressed, despite the addition role and responsibilities since
February 14, 2015.
The other positions reporting to the Director of Public Works range from Grade 16 to Grade
18, with various roles and responsibilities. Upon review of the Division, staff recommends that
the proposed Deputy Director of Public Works, Parks and Facilities position is a Grade 17. To
his credit the current Deputy Director has handled the same or more workload that the former
Director of the Department handled, with no adjustment or change in position. Staff strongly
recommends that Mr. Pennesi be granted the proposed adjustment and position for the work he
has been performing and will continue to perform for the County.
FISCAL IMPACT: The proposal above will result in an increase to the Parks
and Facilities department of $6,640 (Current salary $74,740 (Grade 15, Step 9) to $81,370
(Grade 17, Step 7) as per policy.
CONCURRENCES: County Administrator
ALTERNATIVES: do nothing, or modify the proposal above
ATTACHMENTS: N/A
AUDIO/VISUAL TO BE USED: N/A
Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland
Agenda Report Form