HomeMy WebLinkAboutH_2013_AnnualReport
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING | LAND PRESERVATION | FOREST CONSERVATION | GIS
WWW.WASHCO-MD.NET
120 West Washington Street, 2nd Floor | Hagerstown, MD 21740 | P: 240.313.2430 | F: 240.313.2431 | TDD: 7-1-1
ANNUAL REPORT
REPORTING (Calendar) Year 2013
Contact: Stephen T. Goodrich, Director, Washington County Department of Planning and Zoning
120 W. Washington Street, 2nd floor, Hagerstown, MD 21740
240-313-2438
sgoodric@washco-md.net
Section I: Amendments and Growth Related Changes In Development Patterns
(IA) There were no comprehensive plan or plan elements adopted during Calendar Year 2013,
nor were there any growth related changes in development patterns (IB). (IC & ID)Amendments to the
zoning regulations, APFO and Excise Tax Ordinances included:
ORD-2013-03 / RZ-12-004 (text) – amended the language in sections 3,4, 5D, 8, 9, 10, and 28A of the
existing ordinance to allow barber and beauty shops in residences with no changes in
bulk requirements; defined Certified Adult Residential Homes; defined the bulk parking
requirements for mixed use developments; moved community centers and associated
swimming pools from Special Exceptions to Principal Permitted Uses; and deleted the
definition for Recycling Facility.
ORD-2013-04 / RZ-12-005 (map)- applied RM Zoning to the Carriage Hill Subdivision, resulting in a
Zoning Map change with no change in the development pattern. This staff initiated
change correcting an earlier error; the development was partially built out, located in an
Urban Growth Area and a PFA, and the RU Zoning was misapplied.
ORD-2013-10 / RZ-12-003 (map)- applied BL zoning to a multi-parcel area originally zoned RR resulting in
a Zoning Map change. This action was precipitated by a request from property owners
and proposed developer, and was granted based on the criteria that the neighborhood
had changed, the parcels are located in a PFA and the Smithsburg Town Growth Area.
ORD-2013-11 - repealed the existing Excise Tax Ordinance, and enacted a revision. The end result of
this process was a reduction in the tax rate applied to new construction and additions to
existing construction. This could contribute to a change in development patterns if new
construction or additions to existing construction had been postponed due to the
expense.
ORD-2013-13 / RZ12-002 - amended Sections 3.3,.1, 12.1, and Article 28A to add use designations for
farm wineries, farm breweries, commercial wineries, commercial breweries, banquet
and reception facilities and conference centers. It was the result of a demand for this
use, as evidenced by the increase in the number of wineries in Washington County and
promoting a diversified agricultural economy and providing options for the agricultural
community.
2
ORD-2013-21 / APF-13-001 -amended the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance definition of a Minor
Subdivision to include 7 (seven) or fewer lots. This action removed the requirement for
these subdivisions to comply with the APFO, and anticipates the Tier Map Adoption.
ORD-2013-22 / RZ-13-001 - amended Section 3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of amending
and clarifying the language related to the definition, location, and applicability of the
“Official Zoning Map” for Washington County Maryland. Specifically, the amendment
stated that the map be maintained in digital format, and maintained by the Department
of Planning and Zoning. It also detailed the process for authorizing changes to the
Zoning Map.
ORD-2013-25 / RZ-13-002 - amended Sections 18.2, 21.42 and 21.43 to correct errors relating to Solar
Energy Generating Systems (SEGS).
ORD-2013-29 / APF-13-002 - amended the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance by adding reference to a
fee formula as an alternate mitigation method for inadequate schools. It allows
development to proceed after fee payment if the school is over capacity, but does not
exceed 120% of capacity.
ORD-2013-24 / RZ-13-008 - amended the definition of “Sanitary Landfill” in Section 28A.
Section II(A,B &C): Mapping and GIS Shape Files
Section III: Consistency of Development Changes
The changes which occurred in 2013 were not related to each other, due to location, and the reasons for
the change; one was to correct an error, the other was due to a change in the neighborhood. Each was
consistent with the recommendations of the last annual report, the adopted Comprehensive Plan, and
3
those of adjoining jurisdictions and those jurisdictions which have responsibility for financing or
constructing the public improvements necessary to implement the local jurisdiction’s plan. Both zoning
changes were located in County designated growth areas and PFA’s.
Section IV: Plan implementation and the Development Process
A. The current Comprehensive Plan for Washington County was adopted in August, 2002. Since
then, development in the county has generally followed the trends predicted and intended in
the plan; with larger scale residential development occurring in the growth areas and PFAs
through the rapid appreciation years of the first decade of this century. In the ensuing years,
from approximately 2008 through 2012, residential development was occurring outside of the
PFAs at a higher rate as individual property owner and single lot developers built while the large
multi-lot residential developers inside PFA’s sat idle, waiting for the real estate slow down to
end.
The Comprehensive rezoning of the rural area was completed in 2005, and implemented a
major reduction in permitted rural development density and encouraged agricultural
preservation. Other changes to existing programs, zoning ordinances, and regulations would be
characterized as minor fine tuning changes to bring ordinance language up to date; and small
rezonings to cure errors in zoning applications or in the event of changes in the neighborhood.
In 2012 the comprehensive rezoning of the Urban Growth Area (UGA) was adopted which
implemented additional Comprehensive Plan recommendations that are complementary to the
rural rezoning of 2005. The UGA rezoning updated all urban zoning districts allowing greater
densities in residential districts, greater flexibility and still greater density in mixed use floating
zones and a wider array of uses and stricter design and environmental standards in industrial
districts. These were all intended to make the urban zoning districts more attractive and
functional. Corresponding zoning map amendments were also made but the UGA boundary was
not expanded.
The final implementation of the current Comprehensive Plan recommendations will be
accomplished when the Town Growth Area zoning amendments that are currently underway
are completed in 2015.
Since adoption in 2002 and in addition to the implementation noted above, the Washington
County Comprehensive Plan has been amended and updated on multiple occasions to address
additional policy requirements and needs. Updates include Priority Preservation Areas and the
Water Resources Element
Future land use challenges include the adoption of a Tier Map, limits on water and sewer
capacity, restrictions on septic systems in the rural area, and implementing state “Accounting
for Growth” regulations.
The Comprehensive Plan is currently being updated at the staff level with a series of public
hearings tentatively scheduled for late 2014 and over 2015.
4
B. During 2013, the Planning and Zoning Department continued their coordinated efforts with the
Plan Review and Permitting Department to improve the planning and development process as
begun with the department reorganization in 2012.
C. During 2013, Washington County continued practices adopted earlier to implement the 12
Planning Visions.
Section V: Measures and Indicators
Table 1: New Residential Permits Issued (Inside and Outside the PFA)
Residential PFA Non - PFA Total
# New Residential Permits Issued 83 64 147
Table 2A: Amount of Residential Growth (Inside and Outside the PFA)
Residential PFA Non - PFA Total
# Units Approved 79 16 95
# Units Constructed 83 64 147
# Minor Subdivisions Approved 5 16 21
# Major Subdivisions Approved 3 0 3
Total Approved Subdivision Area (Gross Acres) 58.32 102.77 161.09
# Lots Approved 57 16 73
Total Approved Lot Area (Net Acres) 58.32 102.77 161.09
# Units Demolished* 7 4 11
# Units Reconstructed/Replaced* 0 7 7
*Not required.
Table 2B: Amount of Commercial Growth (Inside and Outside the PFA)
Commercial PFA Non - PFA Total
# Permits Issued 4 0 4
# Lots Approved 5 0 5
Total Building Square Feet Approved (Gross) 55910 2480 58390
Total Square Feet Constructed (Gross) 55910 2480 58390
5
Table 3: Amount of Residential Growth (Inside and Outside the PFA)
Residential PFA Non - PFA Total
# Permits Issued 83 64 147
# Units Approved 79 16 95
# Units Constructed 83 64 147
Total Approved Subdivision Area (Gross Acres) 58.32 102.77 161.09
# Lots Approved 57 16 73
Table 4: Net Density of Residential Growth (Inside and Outside the PFA)
Residential PFA Non – PFA Total
# Units Approved 79 16 95
Total Approved Lot Size (Net Acres) 58.32 102.77 161.09
Table 5: Share of Residential Growth (Inside and Outside the PFA)
Residential PFA Non – PFA Total
# Units Approved 79 16 95
% of Total Units
(# Units/Total Units)
83% 17 100%
Table 6: Amount of Commercial Growth (Inside and Outside the PFA)
Commercial PFA Non - PFA Total
# Permits Issued 6 4 10
Total Building Square Feet Approved (Gross) 113018 3026 116044
# Lots Approved 5 0 5
Total Subdivision Area (Gross Acres) 24.36 24.36
Table 7: Net Density of Commercial Growth (Inside and Outside the PFA)
Commercial PFA Non – PFA Total
Total Building Square Feet (Gross) 113018 3026 116044
Total Lot Size (Net Acres) 4555.36 55.20 510.53
6
Table 8: Share of Commercial Growth (Inside and Outside the PFA)
Commercial PFA Non – PFA Total
Total Building Square Feet (Gross) 113018 3026 116044
% of Total Building Sq. Ft.
(Total Bldg. Sq. Ft./Total Sq. Ft.)
97 3 100%
Section VI: Locally Funded Agricultural Land Preservation
111.39 acres were preserved using local agricultural land preservation funding.
Section VII: Local Land Use Percentage Goal
In the 2002 Comprehensive Plan for Washington County (Page 234), the urban/rural land use goal was
set at 90% urban 10% rural development, which was intended to be met by the end of the plan. The
subsequent change to an emphasis on Priority Funding Areas by the state appears to support the
gradual achievement of the long term goal as is shown in Tables 5 and 8 above.
The resources necessary for infrastructure to support growth in the PFAs has been provided primarily
through the efforts of Washington County Government through access development in areas zoned for
growth. Land preservation outside the PFAs is supported through the county land transfer tax and state
and federal funding.
The provision of growth related infrastructure in appropriate growth area locations and on an
appropriate schedule is accomplished thru the County’s Capital Improvements Program and the
Planning Commission’s analysis of same to advise that growth promoting infrastructure is located in
growth areas.
Section VIII: Development Capacity Analysis (DCA)
An initial DCA was submitted by the Maryland Department of Planning; Washington County has not
submitted an updated Development Capacity Analysis. An analysis was performed during the
development of the Water Resources Element amended into the Comprehensive Plan in 2011. A
complete DCA is in process as part of the Comprehensive Plan update now in process and is delayed
until all zoning changes recommended by the Comprehensive Plan are complete.
Section XI: Adequate Public Facility Ordinance (APFO) Restrictions
The Washington County APFO has not resulted in a restriction within the Priority Funding Area.