HomeMy WebLinkAboutH_2016_AnnualReportAnnual Report Worksheet (Long Form – More than 50 new Residential Permits)
Reporting (Calendar) Year 2016
(§1-207, §1-208, and §1-704)
Page | 1 Washington County, Maryland
CY 2016 Annual Report
Jurisdiction Name: Washington County
Planning Contact Name: Stephen Goodrich
Planning Contact Phone Number: 240-313-2430
Planning Contact Email: SGoodric@washco-md.net
Section I: Amendments and Growth Related Changes In Development Patterns
(A) Were any new comprehensive plan or plan elements adopted? Y N
1. If no, go to (B).
2. If yes, briefly summarize what was adopted.
(B) Were there any growth related changes in development patterns? Y N
(Note: Growth related changes in development patterns are changes in land
use, zoning, transportation capacity improvements, new subdivisions, new
schools or school additions, or changes to water and sewer service areas.)
1. If no, go to (C).
2. If yes, briefly summarize each growth related change(s).
• Transportation Capacity Improvements
o Yale Drive Extended
Construction of new connective route between institutional anchors
Hagerstown Community College and the Medical Campus
o Sharpsburg Pike/MD 65 – I-70 to Poffenberger Road
Construction of traffic signal at the intersection of MD 65 & Poffenberger
Road/Arnett Drive to address increased traffic volumes from recent residential
development in the vicinity as well as to prepare for the imminent opening of
retail development in the area.
Widening and turning lane improvements along MD 65 from Poffenberger
Road/Arnett Drive to Interstate 70 to accommodate recent residential and
commercial development in the area.
Intersection and turn movement improvements at the intersection of Henry K.
Douglas Drive and MD 65 to accommodate new residential development in the
area.
Intersection and turn movement improvements at the Intersection of Interstate
70 and MD 65 to accommodate new residential and commercial development in
the corridor.
Annual Report Worksheet (Long Form – More than 50 new Residential Permits)
Reporting (Calendar) Year 2016
(§1-207, §1-208, and §1-704)
Page | 2 Washington County, Maryland
CY 2016 Annual Report
• New Schools or School Additions
o Jonathan Hager Elementary School
Completion of new 471 student capacity Pre-K through 5th Grade elementary
school in Northwest Hagerstown. The school serves the expanding Hager’s
Crossing subdivision and captures students reassigned with the concurrent
closure of Winter Street and Conococheague Elementary Schools. The school
site has been sized to accommodate future expansion.
(C) Were any amendments made to the zoning regulations? Y N
1. If no, go to (D).
2. If yes, briefly summarize each amendment(s) that resulted in
changes in development patterns.
• RZ-13-003 – Town Growth Area Comprehensive Rezoning
o The 2002 County Comprehensive Plan recommendations included a Comprehensive
Rezoning of the County. These recommendations were implemented first through the
Rural Area Rezoning in 2005 and the Urban Growth Area Rezoning in 2012. The Town
Growth Area Rezoning, completed in 2016, is the final step in completing these
recommendations. These efforts cumulatively represent the County’s first
comprehensive rezoning since 1973.
o TGA’s surrounded the Towns of Boonsboro; Clear Spring, Hancock and Smithsburg. The
comprehensive rezoning comprised approximately 1,200 parcels and 8,100 acres of
land. They reflect the achievement of growth management objectives that seek to
provide for increased diversity, density, and intensity of uses as proximity increases
toward the urbanized cores of the County.
o Modifications to the County’s Zoning Map, Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Map in 2016 generally eliminated the final remnants of obsolete zoning
districts and replaced them with updated districts approved as a part of the UGA
rezoning.
(D) Were any amendments made to the zoning map? Y N
1. If no, go to Section II: Mapping and GIS Shapefiles.
2. If yes, briefly summarize each amendment(s).
Rezonings
• RZ-13-003/CP-13-001
o As part of the 2002 County Comprehensive Plan recommendations included a
Comprehensive Rezoning of the County. These recommendations were implemented
Annual Report Worksheet (Long Form – More than 50 new Residential Permits)
Reporting (Calendar) Year 2016
(§1-207, §1-208, and §1-704)
Page | 3 Washington County, Maryland
CY 2016 Annual Report
first through the Rural Area Rezoning in 2005 and the Urban Growth Area Rezoning in
2012. The Town Growth Area Rezoning, completed in 2016, is the final step in
completing these recommendations. These efforts cumulatively represent the County’s
first comprehensive rezoning since 1973.
o Modifications to the County’s Zoning Map, Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Map in 2016 generally eliminated the final remnants of obsolete zoning
districts and replaced them with updated districts approved as a part of the UGA
rezoning.
o Minor refinements to growth area boundaries were made in limited cases to correct
split parcel designations and to accommodate specific request from property owners.
• RZ-15-002
o Split reclassification of an approximately 90 acre property into 29 acres of Business Local
and 61 acres of Planned Industrial. The Washington County Board of County
Commissioners concluded that material facts in evidence at the time of the 2012 Urban
Growth Area rezoning weren’t considered when maintaining the previous Residential
Transition zoning during the Comprehensive Rezoning, causing a mistake in the zoning
classification. (See map for location)
• RZ-15-004
o Application of Rural Business (RB) floating zone to 1 acre parcel currently used for both
residential and accessory uses in assistance with the operation of a 31 acre day camp
located immediately adjacent. The RB floating zone was previously applied to the camp,
which has been owned and operated by the applicant since 1977. (See map for location)
• RZ-16-002
o Application of Rural Business (RB) floating zone to 1.3 of 2.74 acre parcel for Auto Sales
and Services business (sale of small inventory of pre-owned vehicles) to serve the
surrounding rural community. (See map for location)
Section II: Mapping and GIS Shapefiles
(A) Does your jurisdiction utilize GIS to prepare planning related maps? Y N
1. If no, please include an address, parcel identification number or other
means to identify the type and location of all new growth related
changes or zoning map amendments listed in Sections I(B) and I(D).
Provide a paper map(s) that indexes the general location(s) of the
growth related changes or zoning map amendment(s). Contact
Planning for mapping assistance.
2. If yes, include a map(s) of the location(s) of the amendment(s) and
submit applicable GIS shapefiles for all new growth related changes
and zoning map amendments listed in Sections I(B) and I(D). GIS
shapefiles may be submitted via email or cd/dvd disc.
Annual Report Worksheet (Long Form – More than 50 new Residential Permits)
Reporting (Calendar) Year 2016
(§1-207, §1-208, and §1-704)
Page | 4 Washington County, Maryland
CY 2016 Annual Report
(B) Were there any growth related changes identified in Sections I(B) ? Y N
1. If no, go to (C).
2. If yes, then include GIS shapefiles and map(s), that identify the
location of each growth related change identified in Section I(B). If
your jurisdiction does not utilize GIS then clearly identify the growth
related changes on a map(s).
(C) Were there any zoning map amendments identified in Section I(D). Y N
1. If no to (A) and (B), skip to Section III: Consistency of Development
Changes.
2. If yes, then include GIS shapefiles and map(s), that identify the
location of each zoning map amendment identified in Section I(D). If
your jurisdiction does not utilize GIS then clearly identify the growth
related changes on a map(s). Contact Planning for mapping
assistance.
Section III: Consistency of Development Changes
(A) Were there any growth related changes identified in Sections I(B) through (D)? Y N
1. If no, skip to Section IV: Planning and Development Process.
2. If yes, go to (B).
(B) For each growth related change listed in in Sections I(B) through (D), please state how the
development changes were determined by the Planning Commission to be consistent with:
1. Each other;
The growth related changes, noted in 1B-1D, largely follow long held County planning principles of
concentrating growth inside of planned growth areas where infrastructure currently exists to serve
development while simultaneously steering development away from valuable agricultural land and
sensitive rural resource areas.
Additionally, rezoning related map amendments generally recognized the needs of rural communities to
have access to particular services that serve a localized rural population. Thus, the application of the
Rural Business overlay zone (RB) to such parcels was applied to parcels where such services would fill a
logical need for the local community and was given precedent by application of the RB zone to other
properties in the immediate vicinity.
Annual Report Worksheet (Long Form – More than 50 new Residential Permits)
Reporting (Calendar) Year 2016
(§1-207, §1-208, and §1-704)
Page | 5 Washington County, Maryland
CY 2016 Annual Report
2. Any recommendations of the last annual report;
There were no new recommendations for improvement within the last annual report.
3. The adopted plans of the local jurisdiction;
The larger goals of the many adopted plans for Washington County are largely contained within the
stated goals of the County’s 2002 Comprehensive Plan. Without restating these goals verbatim, their
intent is to:
• Manage growth by directing development to planned growth areas where infrastructure
currently exists to serve its needs
• Locate and time growth so that it doesn’t exceed the capacity of vital public infrastructure
and services such as water and sewer capacity, school capacity, emergency services, etc.
• Encourage stewardship of the environmental and cultural resources in a manner that
maintains the unique character of the County’s land and history
• Ensure the economic health of the County through a diversified economy
• Support existing pillars of the local economy such as agriculture through land preservation
activities in tandem with other growth management policies
• Providing a high quality of life to local residents through housing choice, recreational
opportunities and transportation choice
These goals reflect the guiding principles of many County regulatory documents which inform the
growth related changes noted throughout the prior sections of this report.
4. The adopted plans of all adjoining jurisdictions;
Adjoining and more distant jurisdictions within the state of Maryland are each informed by the myriad
of individual pieces of Smart Growth legislation that have been passed since 1992. Accordingly, the land
use goals and policies of Washington County and other jurisdictions tend to reflect the larger statewide,
Smart Growth-informed, vision for land use throughout Maryland. Thus, policies like managing the
location, rate and type of development; the protection of sensitive area resources; the encouragement
of infill development and the support of existing base economic industries unique to each locality tend
to be common among all land use plans for jurisdictions throughout Maryland. A greater focus on
support of the agricultural industry is something more common among largely rural counties like
Washington County, compared to more urban counties, in highlighting broader similarities and
differences in growth related choices between these two differing parts of the State.
5. Any adopted plans of the State and local jurisdictions that have
responsibility for financing or constructing improvements necessary to
implement the jurisdiction’s plan.
Annual Report Worksheet (Long Form – More than 50 new Residential Permits)
Reporting (Calendar) Year 2016
(§1-207, §1-208, and §1-704)
Page | 6 Washington County, Maryland
CY 2016 Annual Report
In terms of transportation capacity enhancements, State grants or funding contributed to Capital
Improvement Projects such as upgrading existing streetscapes (pavement markings, signs, sidewalks,
signals) to meet ADA requirements and new connective routes such as Yale Blvd and Professional Blvd
which serve to connect and support institutional anchors located within the County’s Urban Growth
Area. The intersection improvements made by the County on Sharpsburg Pike coincide with a State
Highway Administration study of potential improvements to the I-70/MD 65 interchange.
Maryland also committed nearly $5 million in grant funding to the construction of Jonathan Hager
Elementary School, allowing replacement of two aged elementary schools that no longer adequately
met student’s needs.
State grant funding also contributed $1.7 million towards ENR upgrades to the Conococheague
Wastewater Treatment Plant, the County’s primary treatment facility, in 2016.
Section IV: Plan Implementation and Development Process
(5-Year Mid-Cycle Review/5-Year Report)
(A) Has your jurisdiction completed a 5-Year Mid-Cycle comprehensive plan implementation
review and submitted to Planning a 5-Year Report, as required under §1-207(c)(6) of the
Land Use Article? Y N
1. If yes, skip to (B). Please identify 5 Year Mid-Cycle Report month and year:
2. If no, please include a summary of the following, which will be considered the
submission of your jurisdiction’s 5-Year Report:
(i). Development trends contained in the previous annual reports filed during
the period covered by the narrative;
Development within Washington County has unfolded largely according to the vision of the 2002
Comprehensive Plan. Growth has been directed towards planned Urban and Town Growth Areas, and
mostly steered away from Rural Areas. The County’s active participation in a variety of land
preservation programs has been significant in achievement of the Urban Growth/Rural Protection model
of development.
(ii). The status of comprehensive plan implementation tools such as
comprehensive rezoning to carry out the provisions of the comprehensive
plan;
Comprehensive Rezonings of the Rural, Urban and Town Growth Areas took place in 2005, 2012, and
2016, respectively. (See Section 1C & 1D above)
Annual Report Worksheet (Long Form – More than 50 new Residential Permits)
Reporting (Calendar) Year 2016
(§1-207, §1-208, and §1-704)
Page | 7 Washington County, Maryland
CY 2016 Annual Report
(iii). Identification of any significant changes to existing programs, zoning
ordinances, regulations, financing programs, or State requirements
necessary to achieve the visions and goals of the comprehensive plan
during the remaining planning timeframe;
No specific changes have been identified at this time; however, it is anticipated that as the update to the
Comprehensive Plan continues, new issues will likely be discovered and policies and recommendations
will be developed to create innovative solutions.
(iv). Identification of any State or federal laws, regulations, or requirements
that have impeded local implementation of the comprehensive plan and
recommendations to remove any impediments;
More stringent State environmental regulations passed during the time of the existing Comprehensive
Plan have at times provided some hurdles to development. Specifically the implementation of the
Septic Tiers system has severely limited the ability of local implementation of zoning laws. It has also
lowered the demand and price of land preservation programs in the community.
(v). Future land use challenges and issues; and
Future land use challenges are anticipated to continue as they relate to infrastructure needs. Current
water and sewer capacity are presently forecasted to meet the needs of population growth projected to
occur within the County. However, the high cost of retrofits and technology upgrades continue to
hinder development in smaller municipalities who have little economic resources for said
improvements.
Continued low dispersements of Highway User Funds make road improvements and maintenance
difficult. The County has been dependent upon Federal and State grant programs to maintain a fair level
of bridge and road maintenance projects.
The County also continues to recover from the recessionary period in the early 2010s. Commercial retail
appears to have rebounded well and housing is starting to show better recovery.
Future challenges that will need to be addressed in the updated Comprehensive Plan will need to be
how the County will respond to new uses that conflict with our goals for rural harmony, specifically
challenges associated with renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. Affordable housing will be
another difficult topic to address as we continue to move toward recovery in our housing sector.
(vi). A summary of any potential updates to the comprehensive plan.
The Comprehensive Plan for Washington County was adopted in 2002 and is currently being updated. A
number of elements have been presented before the Planning Commission and are being finalized.
Other elements are in progress and their completion is contingent upon concurrently finalizing higher
Annual Report Worksheet (Long Form – More than 50 new Residential Permits)
Reporting (Calendar) Year 2016
(§1-207, §1-208, and §1-704)
Page | 8 Washington County, Maryland
CY 2016 Annual Report
level analyses (such as the development capacity analysis) or obtaining County Commissioner approval
(of the Septic Tiers Map, for example).
(B) In the current reporting year, did your jurisdiction identify any recommendations for
improving the planning and development process within the jurisdiction?
Y N
1. If no, go to (C).
3. If yes, what were those recommendations?
(C) In the current reporting year, did your jurisdiction adopt any ordinances or regulations needed
to implement the 12 planning visions under §1-201 of the Land Use Article?
Y N
1. If no, go to Section V: Measures and Indicators.
2. If yes, what were those changes?
Section V: Measures and Indicators
(Note: The Measures and Indicators Sections (D) – (G) are only required for jurisdictions issuing
more than 50 new residential building permits in the reporting year).
(A) In the Total column in Table 1, New Residential Permits Issued (Inside and Outside the PFA) in (C)
below, enter the total number of new residential building permits issued in calendar year
(2016).
(Note: For annual reporting purposes, tabulate the amount of new residential
building permits issued during the calendar year. It does not mean that the unit has
been constructed, will be constructed, or is occupied. If your local definition of
building permit varies, please indicate the definition used to tabulate new residential
building permits. Reconstruction or replacement permits should be included as new
residential permits. Additionally, tracking the amount of reconstruction,
replacement or demolition of residential units in Table 2A may be beneficial when
conducting the Development Capacity Analysis in Section VIII.)
(B) In the PFA column in Table 1, enter the total number of permits issued inside the Priority
Funding Area (PFA).
(C) In the Non-PFA column in Table 1, enter the total number of permits issued outside the PFA.
Table 1: New Residential Permits Issued (Inside and Outside the PFA)
Annual Report Worksheet (Long Form – More than 50 new Residential Permits)
Reporting (Calendar) Year 2016
(§1-207, §1-208, and §1-704)
Page | 9 Washington County, Maryland
CY 2016 Annual Report
Residential PFA Non - PFA Total
# New Residential Permits Issued 112 33 145
(Note: At a minimum, each jurisdiction should submit the information requested in
Table 1: New Residential Permits Issued (Inside and Outside the PFA) as part of their
Annual Report. If no residential permits were issued, then indicate 0 instead of
leaving blank.)
(D) Use Tables 2A and 2B to Identify the amount of residential and commercial development
approved, including number of minor and major subdivisions, subdivision area, lots approved
and lot sizes, total commercial square feet approved and constructed. The amount of
reconstruction, replacement or demolition of residential units rows listed in Table 2A, are not
required but it may be beneficial for a jurisdiction to track when the Planning Commission
completes its’ Development Capacity Analysis in Section VIII.
Table 2A: Amount of Residential Growth (Inside and Outside the PFA)
Residential PFA Non - PFA Total
# Units Approved 112 33 145
# Units Constructed 106 36 142
# Minor Subdivisions Approved 10 18 28
# Major Subdivisions Approved 2 0 2
Total Approved Subdivision Area (Gross Acres) 38.84 214.09 252.93
# Lots Approved 75 27 102
Total Approved Lot Area (Net Acres) 31.47 154.76 186.23
# Units Demolished* 3 0 3
# Units Reconstructed/Replaced* 1 3 4
*Not required.
Table 2B: Amount of Commercial Growth (Inside and Outside the PFA)
Commercial PFA Non - PFA Total
# Permits Issued 9 3 12
# Lots Approved 6 1 7
Total Building Square Feet Approved (Gross) 69,972 7,831 77,803
Annual Report Worksheet (Long Form – More than 50 new Residential Permits)
Reporting (Calendar) Year 2016
(§1-207, §1-208, and §1-704)
Page | 10 Washington County, Maryland
CY 2016 Annual Report
Total Square Feet Constructed (Gross) 69,536 0 69,536
(E) Were more than 50 new residential building permits issued in 2016? Y N
1. If no, then the remainder of this Section is optional. Skip to Section VI: Locally Funded
Agricultural Land Preservation.
2. If yes, then complete Tables 3 through 5 for Residential Growth and Tables 6 through 8
for Commercial Growth in (F) and (G) below.
(F) Amount, Net Density and Share of Residential Growth:
(Note: To calculate the amount, net density and share of residential growth,
jurisdictions must identify the total number of new residential building permits
issued; the total number of new residential units approved; the total number of new
residential lots approved; the total approved gross acreage of new residential
subdivisions; and net lot area. A number of values are repeated in Tables 1 through
5. Be sure to enter consistent values for each similar category used in these tables.)
Table 3: Amount of Residential Growth (Inside and Outside the PFA)
Residential PFA Non - PFA Total
# Permits Issued 112 33 145
# Units Approved 112 33 145
# Units Constructed 106 36 142
Total Approved Subdivision Area (Gross Acres) 38.84 214.09 252.93
# Lots Approved 75 27 102
Table 4: Net Density of Residential Growth (Inside and Outside the PFA)
Residential PFA Non – PFA Total
# Units Approved 75 27 102
Total Approved Lot Size (Net Acres) 31.47 154.76 186.23
Table 5: Share of Residential Growth (Inside and Outside the PFA)
Annual Report Worksheet (Long Form – More than 50 new Residential Permits)
Reporting (Calendar) Year 2016
(§1-207, §1-208, and §1-704)
Page | 11 Washington County, Maryland
CY 2016 Annual Report
Residential PFA Non – PFA Total
# Units Approved 75 27 102
% of Total Units
(# Units/Total Units)
74% 26% 100%
(G) Amount, Net Density and Share of Commercial Growth:
(Note: To calculate the amount, net density and share of commercial growth, jurisdictions must
identify the total number of new commercial permits issued; the total square footage of the
commercial building approved; the total number of new commercial lots approved; the total new
commercial subdivision area (gross acres); and the total approved subdivision net lot area, in
acres for all new commercial subdivisions. The total building square footage (gross) and total lot
size values (net acres) should be the same for Tables 6 through 8. For annual report purposes, all
approved square footage (gross) should be tabulated, with the understanding that not all
building square footage reported may be used for commercial or retail related activities.
Commercial growth should include retail, office, hotel, industrial uses and may include other
uses, such as, mixed-use, institutional and agricultural structures, if approved for commercial
use.)
Table 6: Amount of Commercial Growth (Inside and Outside the PFA)
Commercial PFA Non - PFA Total
# Permits Issued 9 3 12
Total Building Square Feet Approved (Gross) 69,972 7,831 77,803
# Lots Approved 6 1 7
Total Subdivision Area (Gross Acres) 42.22 1.89 44.11
Table 7: Net Density of Commercial Growth (Inside and Outside the PFA)
Commercial PFA Non – PFA Total
Total Building Square Feet Approved (Gross) 69,972 7,831 77,803
Total Lot Size (Net Acres) 42.22 1.89 44.11
Table 8: Share of Commercial Growth (Inside and Outside the PFA)
Annual Report Worksheet (Long Form – More than 50 new Residential Permits)
Reporting (Calendar) Year 2016
(§1-207, §1-208, and §1-704)
Page | 12 Washington County, Maryland
CY 2016 Annual Report
Commercial PFA Non – PFA Total
Total Building Square Feet Approved (Gross) 69,972 7,831 77,803
% of Total Building Sq. Ft.
(Total Bldg. Sq. Ft./Total Sq. Ft.)
90% 10% 100%
Section VI: (Locally) Funded Agricultural Land Preservation
(A) How many acres were preserved using local agricultural land preservation funding? Enter 0 if no
acres were preserved using local funds.
Washington County preserved a total of 774.4 acres in calendar year 2016. These
easements were achieved through use of Federal, State, and Local funds associated with
the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Program (MALPP), Conserveration
Resource Enhancement Program (CREP), Rural Legacy, Maryland Environmental Trust
(MET), and Installment Payment Program (IPP) funds.
Land preserved through use of only local funds (IPP) totaled 177.13 acres (or 22.9%) of
the total 774.4 acres preserved.
Section VII: Local Land Use Percentage Goal
(A) Is all land within the boundaries of the jurisdiction in the PFA? Y N
1. If yes, then the local land use percentage goal does not need to be
established. Skip to Section VIII: Development Capacity Analysis.
2. If no, then the jurisdiction must establish a local percentage goal to
achieve the statewide land use goal, under §1-208(2) of the Land Use
Article, to increase the current percentage of growth located inside the
PFAs and decrease the percentage of growth (new lots and new
residential units) located outside the PFAs. Go to (B).
(B) What is the jurisdiction’s established local land use percentage goal?
A percentage goal has not yet been established, however the Comprehensive Plan has long established a
land preservation goal of 50,000 acres.
(C) What is the timeframe for achieving the local land use percentage goal? Years.
The requirement for establishing a local land use percentage goal was instituted after the
current Comprehensive Plan. Since the Plan is in the update process, a local land use
percentage will be included as part of that process.
Annual Report Worksheet (Long Form – More than 50 new Residential Permits)
Reporting (Calendar) Year 2016
(§1-207, §1-208, and §1-704)
Page | 13 Washington County, Maryland
CY 2016 Annual Report
(D) What progress has the jurisdiction made in achieving the local land use percentage goal?
Washington County is developing a goal for local land use percentage as a part of its Comprehensive
Plan update. Generally speaking, the County has sought to funnel as much growth as possible to
planned growth areas, particularly to Priority Funding Area which covers the majority of the County’s
Urban Growth Area. Growth has been directed away from Rural Areas through land preservation
activities, Comprehensive Rezoning of Urban and Rural Areas, restrictions on major subdivisions outside
Growth Areas, the discouragement of extending community facilities beyond growth area boundaries
and other growth management policies. Altogether, cooperative efforts by local jurisdictions
throughout the County have succeeded in channeling growth away from valuable resource lands to
places already impacted by development. The County has consistently achieved an approximate 75%
urban/25% rural mix.
(E) What resources are necessary for infrastructure upgrades inside the PFAs?
The County’s APFO, in place since 1990, has served its purpose in getting development to offset the
fiscal burdens that it places upon local government by contributing to the construction of new public
infrastructure or through the provision of land for community facilities. The County has used this tool to
mitigate the impact of major subdivisions on the systemic capacity of its schools. In a slowed-down
economic climate, APFO requirements may not be triggered as often by smaller, piecemeal
development that builds cumulatively over time in locations attractive to growth. Thus matching funds,
long range planning assistance and other administrative support activities from State-level agencies are
necessary to support the work of the Washington County Board of Education in forecasting for long-
term capacity needs in a murky climate of sporadic growth.
Another key resource needed to upgrade our transportation network is Highway User Funds. Continued
low dispersements from the State have severely limited the County and other municipalities ability to
adequately maintain our transportation network.
Access to additional outside capital is also essential in spurring the redevelopment opportunities. The
closure of Fort Richie in 1998 eventually released a large parcel of land back to local control.
Subsequent attempts at its redevelopment have proved more challenging however, due in part to
needed infrastructural upgrades that would make the site more attractive to a mixed-use type of
development. Tax incentives could play a useful role in the success of redevelopment projects such as
this which require a prospective tenant to be able to meet the unique opportunities and constraints
presented by the site.
(F) What resources are necessary for land preservation outside the PFAs?
Annual Report Worksheet (Long Form – More than 50 new Residential Permits)
Reporting (Calendar) Year 2016
(§1-207, §1-208, and §1-704)
Page | 14 Washington County, Maryland
CY 2016 Annual Report
Matching funds and streamlined regulation are critical to furthering land preservation at the County
level. Interest far outpaces available funding for parties interested in obtaining agricultural land
preservation easements, which has stymied progress towards the County achieving its goals of
permanently preserving at least 50,000 acres for agricultural land and open space. This has been
particularly true as less Real Estate Transfer Tax is passed on to Counties following the Recession.
County-led land use preservation programs, such as its Installment Payment Program also tend to reach
settlement with contracted parties much more quickly than those administered by the State, due to
their more streamlined nature. Thus, both fluctuating funding and regulatory hurdles contribute to less
land being preserved.
Section VIII: Development Capacity Analysis (DCA)
(A) Has an updated DCA been submitted with your Annual Report or to Planning within the last
three years?
Y N
(Note: A DCA is required at least once every 3-years and whenever there is a significant
change in zoning or land use pattern. See §1-208(c)(iii) of the Land Use Article. A DCA
may be submitted independently from the Annual Report, such as, part of a
comprehensive plan update. Please contact your Regional Planner if you require
assistance.)
The County is completing its inaugural Development Capacity Analysis in tandem with its update
of the Comprehensive Plan.
1. If no, explain why an updated DCA has not been submitted, such as, no
substantial growth changes, etc.
2. If yes, then skip to Section IX: Adequate Public Facility Ordinance (APFO)
Restrictions.
(Note: MDP provides technical assistance to local governments in completing
development capacity analyses. Please contact your regional planner at Planning for
more information.)
(B) If your DCA is not submitted this year, when was the last DCA submitted?
Identify Month and Year:
(C) If your DCA is submitted this year, then provide the following data on capacity inside and
outside the PFA in Table 9, Residential Development Capacity (Inside and Outside the PFA):
Annual Report Worksheet (Long Form – More than 50 new Residential Permits)
Reporting (Calendar) Year 2016
(§1-207, §1-208, and §1-704)
Page | 15 Washington County, Maryland
CY 2016 Annual Report
Table 9: Residential Development Capacity (Inside and Outside the PFA)
Parcels & Lots w/ Residential Capacity PFA Non – PFA Total
Residentially Zoned Acres w/ Capacity
Residential Parcel & Lots w/Capacity
Residential Capacity (Units)
Section IX: Adequate Public Facility Ordinance (APFO) Restrictions
(Section IX is only required by jurisdictions with adopted APFOs)
(A) Does your jurisdiction have any adopted APFOs? Y N
1. If no, skip to Section X.
2. If yes, go to (B).
(B) Has your jurisdiction submitted a Bi-Annual APFO Report under §7-104 of the Land Use
Article? Y N
1. If yes, skip to Section X.
2. If no, then please complete (C) through (I) below for each restriction.
(Note: Jurisdictions with adopted APFOs must submit a biennial APFO report when a
restriction within the PFA occurs within the reporting period. The APFO report is due by
July 1 of each even year and covers the reporting period for the previous two calendar
years. The last cycle included years 2014 and 2015 and the APFO report was due by July
1, 2016. APFO reports for 2016 and 2017 are due July 1, 2018.)
There were no APFO restrictions within the PFA during the reporting period.
(C) What is the type of infrastructure affected? (List each for Schools, Roads, Water, Sewer,
Stormwater, Health Care, Fire, Police or Solid Waste.)
(D) Where is each restriction located? (Identify on a map if possible).
(E) Describe the nature of what is causing each restriction.
Annual Report Worksheet (Long Form – More than 50 new Residential Permits)
Reporting (Calendar) Year 2016
(§1-207, §1-208, and §1-704)
Page | 16 Washington County, Maryland
CY 2016 Annual Report
(F) What is the proposed resolution of each restriction (if available)?
(G) What is the estimated date for the resolution of each restriction (if available)?
(H) What is the resolution that lifted each restriction (if applicable)?
(I) When was each restriction lifted (if applicable)?
Annual Report Worksheet (Long Form – More than 50 new Residential Permits)
Reporting (Calendar) Year 2016
(§1-207, §1-208, and §1-704)
Page | 17 Washington County, Maryland
CY 2016 Annual Report
Section X: Submitting Annual Reports and Technical Assistance
(A) Annual Reports may be submitted via email to david.dahlstrom@maryland.gov or one copy may
be mailed to:
Office of the Secretary
Maryland Department of Planning
301 W. Preston Street, Suite 1101
Baltimore, Maryland 21201-2305
Attn: David Dahlstrom, AICP
(B) Annual Reports should include a cover letter indicating that the Planning Commission has
approved the Annual Report and acknowledging that a copy of the Annual Report has been
filed with the local legislative body. The cover letter should also indicate a point of contact(s) if
there are technical questions about your Annual Report. Before emailing the Annual Report
please ensure the following:
1. Was this Annual Report approved by the planning commission/board? Y N
2. Was this Annual Report filed with the local legislative body? Y N
3. Does the cover letter:
a. Acknowledge that the planning commission/board has
approved the Annual Report. Y N
b. Acknowledge that the Annual Report has been filed
with the local legislative body? Y N
c. Answer if all members of the Planning Commission/Board and Board of
Appeals have completed an educational training course
as required under under §1-206(a)(2) of the Land Use Article? Y N
(See Planning.Maryland.gov/YourPart/MPCA/PCBZACompletedEd.shtml for a list
having completed the course.)
d. Indicate a point of contact(s)? Y N
(C) You may wish to send an additional copy of your Annual Report directly to your Maryland
Department of Planning Regional Office via email or hardcopy.
(D) If you need any technical assistance in preparing or submitting your reports, our Regional
Planners are available to assist you at: Planning.Maryland.gov/OurWork/local-planning-
staff.shtml
(E) Copies of this Annual Report worksheet and links to legislation creating these Annual Report
requirements can be found on the Maryland Department of Planning website:
Planning.Maryland.gov/YourPart/SGGAnnualReport.shtml
Annual Report Worksheet (Long Form – More than 50 new Residential Permits)
Reporting (Calendar) Year 2016
(§1-207, §1-208, and §1-704)
Page | 18 Washington County, Maryland
CY 2016 Annual Report
(F) If you have any suggestions to improve this worksheet or any of the annual report materials,
please list or contact David Dahlstrom at david.dahlstrom@maryland.gov.
US-3 40 MD-67M D -34MD-67MD-65MD-68MD-
6
3M D-632US
ALT-
4
0
US-40
I-70
MD-66I -70
I-70
I-81U S -11MD-66M
D-77
M D -491MD-64MD - 64
M D -6 0 MD-4 1 8
I-81US-11I-81M
D
-
58
I -70
MD-68
US-40 MD-63MD-494
MD-57MD -5 6
I-70 U S -40
I -6 8
MD-144 I-70I-68!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
"
"
"
"
"
G
#
HancockHancock
Clear SpringClear Spring
Williamspor tWilliamsport
HagerstownHagerstown
FunkstownFunkstown
SmithsburgSmithsburg
BoonsboroBoonsboro
KeedysvilleKeedysville
SharpsburgSharpsburg
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Miles
¹
LegendLegend
#Industrial Development (1)
G Institutional Development (1)
"Commercial Developm ent (5)Resid ential LotsLots
!(1 - 2 (24)
!(3 - 6 (4)
!(7 - 20 (1)
!(21+ (1)
Roads
Planning Sector
Priority Funding Areas
Municipal Boundaries
Growth Areas
County Boundary
Document Path: U:\Views\MRH\Main\Projects\Annual Reports\2016\Subdivisions.mxd
W a s h i n g t o n C o u n t yWashington C o u n t yMarylandMaryland20162016
S u b d i v i s i o n D e v e l o p m e n tSubdivision D e v e l o p m e n tMapMap
Created by theWashington CountyPlanning DepartmentGISJune 2017
Pennsylvania
Allegany County, MDFrederick County, MDWest Virginia
WestVirginia
Virginia
PlanningPlanningSectorSector66
PlanningPlanningSectorSector55
PlanningPlanningSectorSector11
PlanningPlanningSectorSector44
PlanningPlanningSectorSector22
PlanningPlanningSectorSector33
US-3 40 MD-67M D -34MD-67MD-65MD-68MD-
6
3M D-632US
ALT-
4
0
US-40
I-70
MD-66I -70
I-70
I-81U S -11MD-66M
D-77
M D -491MD-64MD - 64
M D -6 0 MD-4 1 8
I-81US-11I-81M
D
-
58
I -70
MD-68
US-40 MD-63MD-494
MD-57MD -5 6
I-70 U S -40
I -6 8
MD-144 I-70I-68!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
HancockHancock Clear SpringClear Spring
Williamspor tWilliamsport
HagerstownHagerstown
FunkstownFunkstown
SmithsburgSmithsburg
BoonsboroBoonsboro
KeedysvilleKeedysville
SharpsburgSharpsburg
32
1 4 1
1
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Miles
¹
LegendLegend
Roads
Priority Funding Areas
Municipal Boundaries
Growth Areas
County Boundary
Document Path: U:\Views\MRH\Main\Projects\Annual Reports\2016\Rezoning.mxd
W a s h i n g t o n C o u n t yWashington C o u n t yMarylandMaryland20162016
Z o n i n g M a p C h a n g e sZoning M a p C h a n g e s
Created by theWashington CountyPlanning DepartmentGISJune 2017
Pennsylvania
Allegany County, MDFrederick County, MDWest Virginia
WestVirginia
Virginia
Map Key Case Change Acres1RZ-13-003 TGA Comp r ehensive Rezoning ~33002RZ-15-002 RT to BL & PI 90.503RZ-15-005 RT-PUD to RT-PUD 11 .32RZ-16-002 A(R) to RB-N 2.74
US-340 MD-67M D -34MD-67MD-65MD-68MD-
6
3M D-632US
ALT-
4
0
US-40
I-
70
MD-66I -70
I-70
I-81U S -11MD-66M
D-77
M D -491MD-64MD - 64
M D -6 0 MD-4 1 8
I-81US-11I-81M
D
-
58
I -70
MD-68
US-40 MD-63MD-494
MD-57MD -5 6
I-70 U S -40
I -6 8
MD-144 I-70I-68!!!
!
!
HancockHancock
Clear SpringClear Spring
Williamspor tWilliamsport
HagerstownHagerstown
FunkstownFunkstown
SmithsburgSmithsburg
BoonsboroBoonsboro
KeedysvilleKeedysville
SharpsburgSharpsburg
1
2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Miles
¹
LegendLegend
!Traffic Improvements
!New - Jonathan Hager Elementary School
!Closed Elementary Schools
Roads
Priority Funding Areas
Planning Sector
Municipal Boundaries
Growth Areas
County Boundary
Document Path: U:\Views\MRH\Main\Projects\Annual Reports\2016\InfrastructureImprovements.mxd
W a s h i n g t o n C o u n t yWashington C o u n t yMarylandMaryland20162016
I n f r a s t r u c t u r eInfrastructureImprovements M a pImprovements M a p
Created by theWashington CountyPlanning DepartmentGISJune 2017
Pennsylvania
Allegany County, MDFrederick County, MDWest Virginia
WestVirginia
Virginia
PlanningPlanningSectorSector66
PlanningPlanningSectorSector55
PlanningPlanningSectorSector11
PlanningPlanningSectorSector44
PlanningPlanningSectorSector22
PlanningPlanningSectorSector33
Map Key Description
1 Yale Drive – Capacity enhancement of new 2 lane road with center left turn between Medical Campus and Hagerstown Community College - Open to traffic2I-70/MD-65 Intersection Enhancements