Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutH_1997_AnnualReportWASHINGTON COUNTY % PLANNING COMMISSION County Administration Building 100 West Washington Street, Room 320 Hagerstown, Maryland 21740-4727 Telephone: 301--791-3085 TTY/Hearing Impaired: 301-791-3070 FAX: 301-791-3017 Board of County Commissioners for Washington County, Maryland 100 West Washington Street Hagerstown, MD 21740 Dear Commissioners: This report submitted pursuant to the provisions of Article 66B of the Annotated Code, summarized the activities ofthe Commission from July 1, 1996 through June 30, 1997. In addition to the routine review and approval of subdivisions and site plans, the Commission continued to implement the Comprehensive Plan that was adopted in 1981. The various elements of the Plan worked on by the Commission in Fiscal Year 1997 are described in this report along with the numerous other tasks undertaken during this fiscal year. As in the past, the new Work Program that has been formally adopted by the Planning Commission lists all those tasks the Commission plans to address. BLI/dsk Sincerely, 4 Beand L. Iseminger, Chairman asington County Planning Commission R RECYCLED PAPER TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE PIanning Organizational Chart .................................................... i Agency Inter-Relationships..................................................... ii The Comprehensive Plan ......................................... ............... I Planning Commission Work Program .............................................. 3 Agricultural Land Preservation Program ............................................ 4 Metropolitan Planning Organization ............................................... 7 Town Planner Assistance Program ................................................ 8 Forest Conservation Program ................................................... 10 Water and Sewerage Plan ...................................................... 14 Highway Interchange Study.....................................................15 Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance ............................................. 16 ParkPlanning................................................................17 Historic District Commission ................................................... 18 Community Development ...................................................... 21 Housing Repair Loan Programs ............................................ 21 Elderly Rental Housing Development ....................................... 22 Community Development Block Grant Program .............................. 23 Technical Assistance....................................................23 Project Management....................................................23 Development Activity......................................................... 24 Rezoning Cases..............................................................25 Board of Zoning Appeals Statistics ............................................... 27 Agriculturally Significant Land Converted to Development ............................ 28 Agricultural Preservation Districts ............................................... 29 FY 1996 Subdivision Summary .................................................. 31 FY 1996 Subdivision Detail .................................................... 32 Subdivision Trends...........................................................34 Planning Sector Map.................................................... Appendix FY 1997 Development Map ................................................ Appendix FY 1997 Rezoning Map.................................................. Appendix Agricultural Preservation District Map...................................... Appendix Washington County Planning Commission 1997 Annual Report Board of County Commissioners Gregory 1. Snook, President John S. Shank, Vice -President Ronald L. Bowers R. Lee Downey James R. Wade Planning Commission Bertrand L. Iseminger, Chairman Bernard L. Moser, Vice -Chairman James R. Wade, Ex -Officio Robert E. Ernst, II Paula Lampton Don Ardinger R. Ben Clopper Published, June 3)0, 1998 Washington County Planning Commission 100 West Washington Street Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 Ln 9x "m Ln Lia 1.4 z Q H E 1 1 1 E F I 1 1 3 E L9 �4 � y 0 RE i�3 pa F � h� r-1 A W R'i U H M—W N Uo N A F Q w C W W U Ln MLn U Muw W x L4 H N �0 N m N04 W W �0 04 P4Ln HH F rg i.7 .4UC�3t7 H O L4 Yz1 H� t 7 H 44 9X x L7r1� W W xf-4AFM A x wA ct4 v�q HN N o U pqZ �q G4 H W'a� xa+ �x W W H o WU0 C0�4�4W�4 u x LO 00P4 0494 NmtuWx9w a Oto x x P4 F Lr) 4 PA LncU)PWN �q Ln Ln A + Ga g F" W A U WHO PIA L9 u UA En H(n 0 Mtn I-4 P4 "x 04 R: W 4od +� 0 H04 H 04 L17 R {g UH 17 E* U C± a!Pig OwF'E x Lr)H F En ox U H Ln �q O FA O W t9 tnLn A NL 14 P4 U Sq C7 W O A H UL Lr1 W U m tn 0 [-+ 64 A � cn p U U wa A L3 H O C� W 114 �q----------w i s� 0 rp Iv rr q p k A �► of. D r i ` a 4 .? Oho p4141, r d� �p y6 IPPto o Ae IL c � 'Pao IV r � A arm c ,;cam Q6 41 Op °ra �� A 4,�y' 101, '4 �l�3 �� 11014. ! �r1 D4 r Q) �irr ®d 16 Q] TCNktSY A DEPiRT1k NT -Co [�A7 .r e CO 96 U) JAL ppox N t R ve�hy e Si Ee�R o``voa 4 < s r4 y� a a 4 s js` ,�`���`' � : of ,i�� �► 40 r -ell aTe iry ZCob P C r dy1 �ti7 x 22dc 19 'ate oAw u A.- 0 edIL v ii THE COMPREHENSIEVE PLAN Implementation of policies with the Comprehensive Plan continued through FY 1997. Many items which are outlined in greater detail in other sections of this report are directly related or reflect some aspects of the implementation of the policy and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. During FY 1997 the Planning Commission worked to implement the policies of the Comprehensive Plan through adoption of amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and completion of the rezoning process for Group III and Group V of the Highway Interchange Comprehensive Rezoning. Several amendments to the Comprehensive Plan were adopted in FY 1997 in order to obtain compliance with the Planning Act of 1992. These include: the "7 Visions", adoption of a Sensitive Area Element and adoption of a Regulatory Streamlining Element. In addition, an amendment to designate Fort Ritchie as a Special Planning .Area for Economic development was also adopted. This action was an outgrowth of the need to develop a reuse plan for the military base as a result of the decision to close the military facility. Work progressed on the completion of the Transportation Element during the fiscal year with anticipated option in FY 1998. Since the Comprehensive Plan adoption in 1981, the Planning Commission and the Planning Staff have worked continuously to implement its strategies for growth management and improvement of the quality of life in Washington County. The attached work program for FY 1998 is designed to continue that effort along with meeting the planning requirements of the "Smart 1 Growth" adopted by the State. One item of particular emphasis will be the start of the updating of the Comprehensive Plan with the first step being the completion of a fiscal analysis study of the cost of new development as it pertains to County Services. PA 0 0 x a a 0 m a, m li W 14 a W 5 0 H W W U P4 z W DaW d H N H W z W W W F 3 W y W W ar a s H °x0z 0ZHHZ W A r0-1 H 11 a H a zH HM P4 iW-, z too 7 W W w> 0 O naw°WAa az Www P: O a L4 t7 W ,7. $ H 'vi H H W W a a a H d U 0 W {4 EJ F,H H z 0 U F d' H O .l H W W P U O a 0 m a KG 94 O F H W H 'z U U H a' W 6' (� z H a H W P Z0 0 CWS Maw 0 0 w SL' W W [a z N a w¢ U w z a a W O > H H 0 w PS G] U E4 a 14 M El Er H a a W p0, N z�z papd� rF/] CO7 W W G U F4 p [7 F O C7 H N $4 O .4 O 0: O W 3 W y W W ar a s H °x0z 0ZHHZ W B 4F4 04 r0-1 H 11 a H a zH HM iW-, z too 7 W W W N a 0 w> "z naw°WAa az Www P: O a L4 t7 W ,7. $ H 'vi H H W W a a a H d U 0 W {4 EJ F,H H z 0 U F d' H O .l H W W P U O a 0 m a m W F 94 O F H W H 'z U U H a' W 6' (� z H a H W P Z0 0 CWS Maw 0 0 w SL' W W [a z N a w¢ U w z AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION PROGRAM Washington County's efforts to preserve valuable farmland via the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Program (MALPP) began in April 1978 and has continued to date. The Program was established and is regulated by Agricultural Article, Sections 2-501 through 2-515 of the Annotated Code of Maryland. It is administered through a Planning Commission staff member, by the Washington County Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Board, the County Commissioners, and the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation (MALPF) of the Maryland Department of Agriculture. The program encourages landowners to voluntarily enter into an Agricultural Land Preservation District in which it is agreed that the land will not be developed for a period of at least five years (to receive County tax credits, the landowner is required to commit his property to agricultural use only, for a period of ten years). In return for the restriction, the landowner receives protection from nuisance complaints and becomes eligible to sell a Development Rights Easement. A landowner may exercise the option of selling a Development Rights Easement to the Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation provided that his offer to sell is recommended by the County's Advisory Board and the County Commissioners. At the local level, the Agricultural Advisory Board reviews and ranks easement applications, assigning point value to such items as farm size, soil quality and development pressure indicators on its easement checklist. During FY 1997 the Board of County Commissioners again limited the number of applicants sent to Annapolis for easement sale since funds are still in short supply. If purchased by the State of Maryland, the easement will remain effective in perpetuity. 4 During FY 1997, total acreage in the program increased to 23,971 acres with a total of 175 agricultural districts. Under the MALPP easement purchase program, contracts were issued during FY 1997 for 3 additional farms, bringing total easement properties in the program to 23, equaling 5,012 acres. In addition, Federal, State, and private conservation easements around Antietam Battlefield effectively preserve an additional 4,600 acres of agricultural land in perpetuity. A potentially significant source of funding for farmland preservation is the Rural Legacy Program (RLP). Washington County is currently developing a joint application with Frederick and Montgomery counties to receive funding. Even though preserved properties will include environmental and cultural/historic parameters in addition to prime soils, blocks of farmland will be permanently preserved, adding to the above mentioned efforts near Antietam Battlefield. Washington County continues to monitor agriculturally significant land lost compared with farmland permanently preserved. During FY 1997, 422 acres were preserved. As the enclosed figures show, we lost 177 acres of agriculturally significant land during the same period. 5 AGRICULTURAL SIGNIFICANT LAND CONVERTED TO DEVELOPMENT 1980 TO MUNE 30,1997 Total Developed ACREAGE LOTS Total Converted ACREAGE LOTS .,CONVERTED 1980 1,359.6 365 487.8 95 36.0 1981 1,137.1 332 251.3 59 22.0 1982 964.9 150 194.4 33 20.1 1983 895.3 220 305.6 127 34.1 1984 1,092.3 235 409.6 68 37.5 1985 1,144.6 231 439.8 65 38.4 1986 946.9 250 138.8 60 14.6 1987* 2,254.6 995 363.1 94 16.1 1989 1,714.8 770 301.3 86 17.5 1990 1,769.1 820 318.6 102 18.0 1991 1,115.4 339 321.6 104 28.8 1992 1,246.9 565 203.5 46 16.3 1993 793.5 1,005 156.8 45 19.8 1994 833.2 312 121.0 42 14.5 1995 598.6 342 208.6 76 34.8 1996 995.9 506 191.8 37 19.3 1997 760.8 224 174.0 39 22.9 TOTAL 19,623.5 7,661 4,587.6 1,178 23.4 23.4% of the land developed between 1980 and June 30, 1996 has been converted from agriculturally significant land. *Reporting period of 18 months was used to change the Planning Commission's Annual Report from a calendar year to a fiscal year. 2 METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION During FY 1997 the Hagerstown/Eastern Panhandle Metropolitan Planning Organization officially came into being. This organization is composed of representatives from Washington County, Maryland; Berkeley County, West Virginia; Jefferson County, West Virginia; and Franklin County, Pennsylvania. Within this time frame work continued on development of the Long Range Transportation Plan for the region as well as reorganization of the MPO. The first combined Unified Planning Work Program for the HEPMPO was prepared and a combined TIP for FY 1998 - 2000 was developed. This included the identification of four special study projects across the region: impact analysis of new I-70 & MD 632 Interchange on city intersections, identification of a formal preliminary alignment for the Funkstown Bypass, development of an alignment for a bicycle trail from Charles Town to Harper's Ferry in West Virginia and identification of historical routes within the region with particular emphasis on routes which were traversed by Civil War armies. The completion and adoption of the revised Transportation Element for the Comprehensive Plan should follow closely the completion of the Long Range Transportation Plan. It is anticipated that the Long Range Plan will be adopted in FY 1998. 7 TOWN PLANNER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM The Assistance Program is nearing its sixth year of service and assistance to municipal governments in Washington County. The Town of Boonsboro continues to be the most active participant in the program. The town has found the program to be a viable option to employing a Rill -time staff person. The Town Planner organizes the monthly agenda, analyzes and coordinates the review of development proposals and assists in long term or comprehensive planning goals of the Town. In late FY 1997, the Mayor and Council and Boonsboro Planning Commission conducted public information meetings and a public hearing on the Town's new Comprehensive Plan. The Plan was adopted and became effective June 23, 1997. Staff was responsible for the preparation of the document, coordination of the governmental and public review process and all legal notification requirements. The Commission anticipates minor amendments to the Zoning Ordinance in FY 1998-1999 as a result of the Comprehensive Plan update (mandated by the Planning Act of 1992). The complete rewrite of the Subdivision Ordinance is scheduled for FY 1998. The most significant residential development approved by the Commission during the fiscal year was the preliminary and final plat approval of Graystone Hills Section E. Section E is a 23 lot single family development which represents the final phase of Graystone Hills. The final section (86 lots) of the Crestview Subdivision remains on hold until the completion of a water filtration plant. The Town Planner also assists the Utilities Commission on water and wastewater planning issues and presents quarterly updates to the Commission on capacities and utilization of the systems. 0 The Town Planner continues to provide assistance to the Mayor and Council and Town Manager on various projects. The Town of Smithsburg also participated in the Town Planner Assistance Program for the third year. The focus of the Smithsburg Planning Commission's efforts this year has been to start a complete rewrite the Town's Zoning Ordinance. The Commission reviewed and granted preliminary approval to a 32 semi-detached single family development known as Mountain Shadows II. The Smithsburg Mayor and Council conducted a public hearing and adopted several Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance amendments which specified certain financial responsibilities of developers during the development review and construction phase of a subdivision or site. The proposed amendments were drafted by the Town Planner at the request of the Mayor and Council. These new amendments are being administered for the first time by the Town's Development Coordinator during the subdivision review and public infrastructure improvement process of the Mountain Shadow II development project. K FOREST CONSERVATION PROGRAM Washington County continues to implement the local version of Maryland's Forest Conservation law. Through the inventory of existing forest on development sites and the calculation of minimum forest cover based on existing forest and proposed development, the law is designed to slow the loss of valuable forest land in the State of Maryland. Several options for meeting obligations under the Ordinance are available. The first preference is to prevent forest disturbance and the retention of existing forest or planting of new forest on the development site. Planting new forest and placing easements on existing forest off site are also available. Payment of a fee in lieu of planting or retention is also allowable. In the past fiscal year the Washington County PIanning Department processed 242 subdivision and site plan applications covering 3,629.74 acres of land. 195 or 81% of those applications, an increase from the previous year's 78%, were exempt from the requirements of the Forest Conservation Ordinance (FCO). The chart below indicates the number and type of exemptions granted in the past fiscal year. A. < 40,000 SQUARE FOOT PARCEL 4 B. SIMPLIFIED PLAT 54 C. APPLICATION BEFORE EFFECTIVE DATE 5 D. OWNER/IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER DWELLING 32 E. EXISTING LOT OF RECORD 19 F. PUD BEFORE EFFECTIVE DATE 3 10 G. AGRICULTURAL, ACTIVITY 0 H. REAL ESTATE TRANSFER 20 I. REPLATS 58 TOTAL SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW EXEMPTIONS 195 47 plans remain that must comply with the Ordinance in some other manner. Payment of the fee in lieu of planting is chosen most often. Of the 47 plans not exempt, 17 used the fee in lieu of planting choice. The payments generated an additional $ 240,625.42 for the Forest Conservation Fund. The Staples Distribution Center made the largest single payment in the history of the law, $ 205,167.60, which accounts for the unusually large balance for the year. The past year's accumulation of the fee in lieu of is payment for the equivalent of 55.24 acres of forest that was not required to be planted on the development sites. Since adoption of the Forest Conservation Ordinance in February 1993 the fee in lieu of option has generated a total of $ 351,742.15 for the Forest Conservation Fund. {Fund balances reported in the FY 96 Annual Report were incorrect. Collections for that year totaled $ 46,455.18 and the cumulative total was $ 111,116.73.) A portion of the Forest Conservation Fund is earmarked for reforestation of the West Woods at Antietam National Battlefield, an arrangement that was approved by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners in November 1994. $ 2,167.01 was disbursed to the Battlefield during the fiscal year, bringing the total expenditure to date to $ 24,394.85. The reforested area is now 12 acres in size which equates to a cost of 11 approximately $2,032.00 per acre. The total amount spent is equivalent to the fee in lieu of planting 5.6 acres. The labor was volunteered. In cooperation with the Soil Conservation District, Washington County is developing a formal, long term program to expend fee in lieu of funds to create new forest or permanently protect existing forest on private properties. Use of the fund is restricted by Maryland law to these efforts. The program proposal was tested on two small pilot sites to aid in fully evaluating the concept and identifying any adjustments before formal adoption of program. guidelines. The pilot program cost a total $25,968.00, a fee in lieu of planting 5.96 acres and resulted in the planting of 6.79 acres of new forest in priority areas. 20 plans, a slight reduction from the previous year, required no fees or planting because there was sufficient forest on the site to allow some clearing with no mitigation or no clearing was proposed or necessary. Deferral of obligations to a point in the future was permitted by the Planning Commission for 2 site plans, both for lots in industrial parks. Comprehensive forest conservation plans are under development for this area, known as Newgate, and will accommodate forest conservation requirements for the entire park including the two lots already approved. The arrangement is permitted because it will produce forest planting or retention of a size and in an area more consistent with the intent of the Forest Conservation Ordinance than trying to meet obligations on individual lots in the park. The remaining 8 plans met forest conservation obligations in a previous phase of the development or plan review already included in the tabulations above or in a previous fiscal year. New planting, a final method of compliance was not used at all in the past fiscal year. 12 All methods of compliance generate a plan review fee. There is no fee when a plan is exempt. The Planning Department collected $ 4,824.85 in Forest Conservation Plan review fees during the past fiscal year. An additional 13 exemptions from the Forest Conservation Ordinance were granted for timber harvest activities which are not considered development activities. 13 WATER AND SEWERAGE PLAN The Planning Department reviewed one application to amend the Water and Sewerage Plan during FY 1997. WS -96-01 was submitted by Victor Peeke, the developer of a proposed residential subdivision on property located partially within the Town of Keedysville. The application was to expand the existing Rural Village water and sewer service area to include approximately 65.3 acres and to change the service priority designation from No Planned Service (W-7, S-7) to Planned Service (W-5, S-5). This application was found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and was approved by the County Commissioners on February 11, 1997. The approval was conditioned upon the applicant presenting legally sufficient evidence of permission to proceed with construction by the appropriate service providing agencies. In late FY 1997, the Planning Department Staff began preliminary work on the State mandated update of the Water and Sewerage Plan. This work will continue into FY 1998 with a public hearing and adoption anticipated by mid 1998. 14 HIGHWAY INTERCHANGE STUDY During FY 1997 a public hearing was held on Group III and Group V of the Highway Interchange Comprehensive Rezoning. This hearing occurred in October, 1996 at Clear Spring High School. Testimony was provided both for and against the Comprehensive Rezoning as proposed. The Planning Commission went on record in April as recommending adoption of the proposed comprehensive rezoning plans for all the interchanges except for I-81/N4D 58 Interchange at Salem Avenue. The Planning Commission's recommendation was to make substantial revisions as requested by the residents and to then take the interchange back to another public hearing since the revisions were substantial in nature. At the time of completion of the fiscal year no action had been taken by the Board of Commissioners on the recommendation of the Planning Commission. 15 ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE During FY 1997, the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) was assessed by the Planning Commission for need and recommended for continuance. The Planning Commission also recommended that the Board of Commissioners revisit the issue of impact fees. No substantive amendments were approved during the fiscal year. However, a consultant Tischler & Associates was retained to provide input on developing an RFP for a Fiscal Analysis Study which would also look at impact fees and special taxing districts. A $40,000 grant was obtained through the Maryland Office of Planning to help the Fiscal Analysis Study. It is anticipated that the Fiscal Analysis Study will be completed in FY 1999. 16 PARK AND ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING Park and environmental planning during FY1997 included a variety of projects and activities. Updating and revision of the 5 year Land Preservation and Recreation Plan for Washington County was begun. All municipalities as well as numerous leagues and sports associations were contacted by letter and invited to provide input on recreational needs and facilities. Revisions included noting consistency of the land preservation policies with the Visions of the 1992 Maryland Planning Act and converting all graphics to the GIS database. Park acreage numbers and population projections were updated as required. Public land inventory data was also provided on computer disks to the State Office of Planning. Public review meetings on the draft plan will be scheduled early in 1998, with adoption to follow a public hearing and comment period. County representation on the Hagerstown fairgrounds Committee was provided at several meetings during two months of development of the concept plan for the site. A landscape buffer plan was also prepared for the site. Assistance was given to the County Parks Department by providing a County GIS map showing federal, state, and County parks facilities as well as with an analysis and report of potential additional Conococheague Creek canoe access locations. Advice on planning of the new town park was provided to Smithsburg. The County Convention and Visitors Office was assisted by preparation of several themed "scenic byways" descriptions, along with route maps. These were submitted to the State Highway Administration for use in updating the statewide Scenic Routes highway road map. 17 HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION The Washington County Historic District Commission continues to pursue its responsibilities and concerns regarding historic preservation through a variety of permits, applications and assignments from individuals and agencies. The Commission and the County can influence and encourage preservation through several different levels of review and incentives. Property tax credits are available for restoration, preservation or improvements to structures located in the County's Historic Preservation zoning designation. Proposals must be designed according to adopted standards and approved by the Commission. Two tax credit applications were submitted by property owners. One was denied because it was determined to be routine maintenance, and therefore ineligible for credits. The second resulted in over $15,000.00 worth of restoration to a dwelling in an historic district and more than $1,500.00 worth of credit toward the owner's County property tax bill. The Commission reviewed several demolition applications and offered several different types of recommendations following County policy. The Commission took a stand in opposition to demolition of a stone structure, formerly a dwelling, dated 1818. The Commission paid for a newspaper advertisement offering a log structure to any interested party willing to move it to a new location to prevent its proposed demolition. For several other applications, the Commission recommended dismantling and reuse of the parts but did not oppose the demolition. Two design review applications for signs in the AO -2 area of the Antietam Overlay zoning district were approved. A building permit to rehabilitate a home in the AO -1 district that was heavily damaged by fire was also approved. 18 Among the many responsibilities accompanying Certified Local Government (CLG) status is participation in the National Register nomination process. The Hoffinan Farm , a 19th century farm complex with strong Civil War associations, was ultimately listed based, in part, on recommendations from the Commission with concurrence from the Board of County Commissioners. Other CLG activities included substantial completion, excluding final billing and reimbursement, of the FY 97 project funded jointly with CLG funds and. County appropriations. It was Phase I of the Rural Community Survey, a detailed historic sites survey and documentation of the Maugansville and Rohrersville communities. Additional phases for other rural communities are planned for the future. The Commission's participation in the development review process remained level over this past fiscal year. The Commission reviewed a number of Preliminary Consultations, subdivisions and site plans and occasionally made recommendations to protect existing structures listed in the Historic Sites Survey. It also made recommendations on a significant rezoning application, a request to rezone over 600 acres containing several survey listed farm complexes from Agricultural to Highway Interchange and Residential classifications. The Commission stressed retention of the complexes with sufficient acreage and adaptive reuse. An application to remove the HP designation from approximately 100 acres of farmland surrounding Rose Hill Manor, an early 19th century dwelling, was approved by the County Commissioners during this period also. The Commission continues to discuss the distinction between routine maintenance activities and preservation/rehabilitation/restoration. It is attempting to draw clear lines between the issues in order to make reliable and consistent decisions on tax credit applications. The entire Commission met it's training requirement this fiscal year by way of Renovator's 19 Roundtable , a pre-packaged, scripted, slide presentation and text developed by the Maryland Association of Historic District Commissions. Staff Fielded a multitude of requests for information and direction throughout the year. 20 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The Division of Community Development provides direct assistance to individuals, organizations and municipalities in providing housing opportunities for low and moderate income families, community infrastructure and facilities, and assists in the economic development of the County where federal and state funds are utilized. These programs and activities provide a general framework for combating neighborhood and community deterioration through sound redevelopment efforts. Housing Repair Loan Programs: Housing Preservation Grant Maryland Housing Rehabilitation Program Washington County Revolving Loan Program These loan programs have been effective tools for providing essential home repairs and stabilizing the housing stock in neighborhoods and small communities. Rehabilitation expands the community's tax base, extends the economic value of the housing stock and stimulates additional construction activities. Loans are both deferred and interest bearing, and repayment terms are flexible. Housing Preservation Grant: This program of the Rural Economic and Community Development Administration, provides assistance to low and very low income homeowners in the County. Funds are mostly reserved for use by the County's elderly population who do not have the income necessary to 21 support conventional loan terms. Loan proceeds are made available to help with property repairs which are primarily health and safety related issues. Maryland Housing Rehabilitation Program This program of Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development, offers funds for the rehabilitation of homes and rental properties that serve income eligible occupants. General repairs and major renovations are eligible activities. This program seeks to meet rehabilitation needs mainly by providing low-cost rehabilitation financing to owners. Revolving Loan Fund Utilizing the repayments from previous loans, the department can continue to assist eligible households with rehabilitation efforts. This program is more flexible in the use of its proceeds and can be used for residential, business, and public renovations. Elderly Rental Housing Development The department promotes the production of affordable rental housing for the elderly and non elderly disabled which may be unavailable through the private sector due to income limitations. Our developments provide coordinated supportive services to allow the elderly population to maintain their independence and avoid costly alternatives. The department is proactive in project oversight throughout the development process. 22 Community Development Block Grant Program This federal program provides grants and loans to counties and municipalities for the development or expansion of economic opportunities, public facilities and various housing activities. Local government can apply directly or undertake in joint projects on behalf of a larger application. The department can provide assistance with application preparation, project development, financial packaging and project management. Technical Assistance The department is available to assist public, private, not for profit groups and individuals who may be interested in gaining access or better understanding of the state and federal programs. Assistance is available to examine the feasibility of projects, funding avenues and regulatory requirements. Project Management The Department has assisted the Town of Hancock in acquiring state and federal funding for a pedestrian park along Main Street as part of a downtown revitalization effort. The project entails the purchase and demolition of a deteriorated building, design and architectural plans for the pedestrian park, coordination with Maryland State Highway Administration for new sidewalks, coordination with Maryland Department of Natural Resources on the construction of a Rails to Trails project, and the completion of new utilities service along Main Street. This project came together from a coordinated, successful partnership of town, county, state, federal and community groups working towards a committed and carefully structured plan. 23 DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY Development proposals were reviewed by the Planning Commission in both concept and final form. The Commission reviewed and approved 101 residential, commercial, industrial or institutional subdivision plats involving 224 lots representing 208 dwelling units on 760.8 acres. In addition, the Commission approved 28 site plans and held 15 preliminary consultations. Some of the conceptual forms have not resulted in a firm design while others have proceeded through final approval. There were several subdivisions or development plans of significance (final approval of twenty or more lots or units) granted during FY 97. They include: Kings Crest Section B - Phase 2; Sterling Oaks Phase 2; and Quail Run II. Site Plans representing significant private investment within the County were approved for: the Bowman Group, Citicorp -Child Care Center, Ted's Rent It, Talley Metals, Hub Labels and Save -A -Lot. A site plan reflecting public project investment was approved for the Lincolnshire Elementary School. 24 REZONING CASES AND ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Between July 1, 1996 and June 30, 1997, the Planning Commission acted on 13 applications. Joint hearings with the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners were held regularly on a quarterly cycle or special hearings were held as necessary to provide for efficiency in the hearing process. The Commission rendered recommendations on 6 map amendments and 1 text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, 4 text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and 2 map amendments to the Water and Sewer Plan. A listing of the Planning Commission's recommendations and the Board's actions for the cases heard in FY 1997 are as follows: CASE APPLICANT TYPE OF ACREAGE REQUEST COMMISSION BOARD AMENDMENT ACTION ACTION RZ-96-03 RZ-96-06 RZ-96-07 RZ-96-08 RZ-96-09 RZ-96-11 Ethel V. Small Jane Hershey Virginia Tritch Albert Sheets Planning Commission Larry Artz RZ-96-13 Bd of County Commissioners Map 11.5 acres A to HI -1 Map 100 acres HP to A Map 27,834 sq.ft. RU to BL Map 1 acre RU to BL Text Sensitive Areas Map 612 acres A to HI -1 and RR Text Art. 6, Sec. 6.1, 6.2,6.5; Art.7, Sec.7.2, 7.5; Art.8, Sec. 8.2, 8.5; Art.9, Sec.9.2 9.5; Art, 28, Sec 28.0059 25 Withdrawn App'd App'd App'd Denied App'd Denied App'd App'd Withdrawn Withdrawn CASE APPLICANT TYPE OF ACREAGE REQUEST COMMISSION BOARD AMENDMENT ACTION ACTION RZ-97-01 Mack Trucks Map RZ-97-02 Triad Properties Map RZ-97-03 Artz Property Map CP -95-01 Planning Commission CP -95-02 Planning Commission CP -97-02 Board of Commissioners CP -97-03 Planning Commission WS -96-1 Victor Peeke WS -97-1 W.C. Water and Sewer Dept. Text Text 8.68 acres RU & IG to BG App'd App'd 18 acres A to RS App'd App'd 611.8 acres A to RR (145 ac. )App' d App'd A to RR (26 ac.) App'd App'd A to HI -1 (276.8ac) App'd Denied A to HI -2 (64 acres) App'd App'd A to IR (100 acres) Denied Denied The 7 Visions App'd App'd Sensitive Areas Element App'd App'd Text Creation of Special Planning App'd App'd Area for the Fort Ritchie/Cascade Area Text Regulatory Streamlining App'd App'd Element Map Change from "No Planned App'd App'd Service" (W -7,S-7) to "Planned Service" (W -5,S-5) Map Change from "No Planned App'd App'd Service" (W-7) to "Planned Service" 26 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STATISTICS FISCAL YEAR 1996197 GRANTED DENIED WITHDRAWN TOTAL VARIANCES 127 7 2 136 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 42 4 1 47 EXPANSION OF NON -CONFORMING USE 3 0 0 3 CHANGE OF NON -CONFORMING USE 4 1 1 6 ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR 2 2 0 4 APPEAL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION 0 0 0 0 APPEAL FROM ADEQUATE 0 0 0 0 PUBLIC FACILITIES APPEAL FOR FLOOD PLAIN 1 0 0 _l TOTAL 179 14 4 197 FISCAL YEAR 1995-1996 174 14 3 191 27 WASHINGTON COUNTY MD AGRICULTURALLY SIGNIFICANT LAND CONVERTED TO DEVELOPMENT 4.1 FOR PERIOD 07/01/96 THRU 06/30/97 PLANNING ELECTION AGRICULTURAL 13.8 NEW USE SECTOR DISTRICT ACREAGE LOST LOTS (TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT) 1 19 13.0 6 9 9.0 5 SF 10 1.1 1 SF 13 72.2 1 LL 13 4.7 3 SF 18 2.7 1 SF TOTAL 89.7 11 1, 3 5 C 1 4.1 4 SF 12 13.8 4 SF 16 31.9 8 SF 19 13.0 6 SF TOTAL 62.8 22 8 6.3 2 SF TOTAL 6.3 2 4 3.4 2 SF TOTAL 3.4 2 5 10.5 1 LL 5 1.3 1 SF TOTAL 11.8 2 GRAND TOTAL 174.0 39 28 29 WASHINGTON COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICTS DISTRICT NO DISTRICT NAME FARM TYPE ACRES DATE TYPE EASEMENT ESTABLISHED AD -80-061- FORD— --CR=- -frM 07M7U0 T AD -80-002 CARR DAIRY 245.64 07/11/80 5 12/21/82 AD -80-004 ST JAMES SCHOOL INC CROP 279.14 04/21/80 5 AD -80-006 HARSHMAN CROP 232.44 08/07/80 10 04/16/96 AD -80-007 LOHMAN CROP 146.00 08/15/80 10 AD -81-002 MARTIN CROP 140.00 08/28181 5 05/15/84 AD -82-003 ANKENEY CROP 460.00 05/11/83 10 02/18/86 AD -83-002 WEISENBAUGH BEEF 314.00 06/28/83 5 12/19/86 AD -83-002 WEISENBAUGH BEEF 314.00 06/28/83 5 12/19/86 AD -83-003 HAYES BEEF 200.55 03/19/84 5 09/06/85 AD -84-002 ROBBINS BEEF 448.00 05/14/85 5 12/31/86 AD -85-001 WOLFINGER BEEF 149.63 04/07/86 10 AD -86-001 ROSENBERRY CROP 127.51 08/12/86 10 AD -88-001 MAIN CROP 142.26 06/16/88 5 06/30/89 AD -88-002 ROWLAND FOREST 700.04 03/09/89 5 03/07/91 AD -88-003 CORCORAN CROP 158.42 03/22/89 10 05/01/97 AD -88-004 RITCHIE DAIRY 237.99 04/12/89 5 09/24/90 AD -89-001 GOLDEN ORCHARD 457.67 06/20/89 5 AD -89-002 STRITE DAIRY 192.43 03/18/91 10 AD -89-003 BYERS DAIRY 164.61 09/13/89 5 02/15/91 AD -89-005 HERBST DAIRY 183.99 04/16/91 10 AD -89-005A HERBST DAIRY 172.12 04/16/91 10 07/26/95 AD -90-001 EMSWILER CROP 100.00 09/20/90 10 05/01/97 AD -90-002 CORCORAN CROP 150.14 09/20/90 10 06/30/93 AD -90-005 SCHOOLEY FOREST 101.05 03/20/91 10 AD -90-006 HARP CROP 124.70 09/20190 5 06/29/92 AD -90-007 HARP CROP 150.51 09/20190 5 06/30/92 AD -90-008 WILES CROP 190.88 03/20/91 10 AD -90-009 SCHOOLEY FOREST 21.60 03/20191 10 AD -90-010 ENGSTROM CROP 38.59 04/16/91 10 AD -90-011 BURTNER DAIRY 108.81 04/16/91 10 AD -90-012 DURBIN CROP 100.38 03/20/91 10 01/13/95 AD -90-013 WEAVER DAIRY 174.05 08/05/91 10 AD -90-014 WEAVER BEEF 82.34 11/20190 10 AD -90-015 CLINE CROP 145.25 08/05/91 10 AD -90-017 PRICE CROP 149.64 11/20/90 10 AD -90-018 LONG DAIRY 163.88 04/16/91 10 AD -90-019 STRITE DAIRY 140.04 11/20/90 5 AD -90-020 TRUMPOWER DAIRY 125.00 11/20/90 10 08/16/94 AD -90-021 SHIFLER CROP 157.00 05/29/91 10 AD -90-022 HEIMER CROP 67.00 08/05/91 10 AD -90-023 LITTON DAIRY 145.00 03/20/91 10 AD -90-024 HOWELL FOREST 146.81 03/20/91 10 AD -90-025 CHURCHEY CROP 186.32 05/29/91 10 05/01/96 AD -90-026 FLETCHER CROP 104.80 03/20/91 10 AD -90-027 NIEMYER CROP 75.38 03/20/91 10 AD -90-028 BAKER BEEF 17.06 03/20/91 10 AD -90-031 BARR ORCHARD 70.72 05129/91 10 AD -90-032 BARR ORCHARD 115.62 05/29/91 10 AD -90-033 STONE DAIRY 165.00 05/29/91 10 AD -90-034 SECREST CROP 117.42 05/29/91 10 AD -90-036 HENDERSHOT CROP 166.83 05/29/91 10 AD -90-037 HENDERSHOT CROP 116.00 08/02/91 10 AD -90-038 ROTH DAIRY 124.27 05/29/91 10 AD -90-039 STOCKSLAGER CROP 144.33 03/20/91 10 AD -90-041 MARTIN DAIRY 120.00 03/20/94 10 AD -90-042 FAITH BEEF 129.62 03120!91 10 AD -90-043 FAITH FOREST 132.63 03/20/91 10 AD -90-044 FAITH FOREST 17.00 03/20/91 10 AD -90-045 MANUEL CROP 63.63 03/20/91 10 AD -90-046 MANUEL CROP 41.20 03/20/91 10 AD -90-050 RITONDO FOREST 135.00 05/29/91 10 AD -90-051 STONE CROP 109.50 05/29/91 10 AD -90-052 STONE DAIRY 99.50 05/29/91 10 AD -90-053 STONE DAIRY 104.78 05/29191 10 AD -90-054 STONE CROP 93.15 05/29/91 10 AD -90-055 STONE CROP 129.13 05/29/91 10 AD -90-056 HULL FOREST 107.21 05/29/91 10 AD -90-057 HOSE CROP 26.00 07/02/91 10 AD -90-060 LOHMAN CROP 270.91 05/29/91 10 AD -90-062 LOUDENSLAGER CROP 145.04 05/29/91 10 AD -90-063 MARTIN DAIRY 100.61 05/29/91 10 AD -90-064 BOWERS CROP 118.90 08/05/91 10 AD -90-065 BOWERS DAIRY 141.31 08/05/91 10 AD -90-066 OSWALD DAIRY 75.75 08/05/91 10 AD -90-067 GROSS DAIRY 53.44 09/16/91 10 AD -90-069 GROVE CROP 185.00 10/11/91 10 AD -90-070 STIVERS BEEF 135.00 08/05/91 10 AD -90-073 SCHULTZ BEEF 189.55 08/05/91 10 AD -90-074 OSWALD DAIRY 58.90 08/05/91 10 AD -90-075 OSWALD DAIRY 34.65 08/05/91 10 AD -90-077 SNYDER DAIRY 100.00 08/05/91 10 AD -90-078 KRETZER DAIRY 171.65 08/05/91 10 AD -90-079 WINDERS BEEF 225.00 08/05/91 10 AD -90-084 BURGER CROP 301.00 08/05/91 10 AD -90-086 BURGER FOREST 182.42 08/05/91 10 29 DISTRICT NO DISTRICT NAME FARM TYPE ACRES DATE TYPE EASEMENT ESTABLISHED AD-90-087- SUR= -BEEF- X66 oi95791 LTi AD-91-001 PRICE CROP 274.00 09/16/91 10 AD-91-004 SHOCKEY CROP 72.21 08/05/91 10 AD-91-005 BRITNER CROP 193.20 09/16/91 10 AD-91-006 PRYOR DAIRY 108.51 09/16/91 10 AD-91-007 MARTIN DAIRY 156.84 09/16/91 10 AD-91-008 DEBAUGH DAIRY 122.22 09/16/91 10 AD-91-009 DEBAUGH DAIRY 48.25 09/16/91 10 AD-91-010 OATES CROP 62.98 09/16/91 10 AD-91-011 BUHRMAN HOG 180.46 05/05/92 10 AD-91-012 MCALLISTER BEEF 83.43 03/26/92 10 AD-91-013 WORTHINGTON DAIRY 108.92 09/16/91 10 AD-91-014 NEWCOMER DAIRY 113.28 10/11/91 10 AD-91-015 NEWCOMER CROP 21.94 10111/91 10 AD-91-016 NEWCOMER CROP 72.22 10/11/91 10 AD-91-016A NEWCOMER CROP 25.76 10/11/91 10 AD-91-017 NEWCOMER DAIRY 55.50 10/11/91 10 AD-91-019 POFFENBERGER CROP 78.00 10/11/91 10 AD-91-020 BELZ DAIRY 247.63 10111/91 10 AD-91-021 COHiLL CROP 78.68 10/31/91 10 AD-91-022 CUSHWA CROP 138.90 12/03/91 10 AD-91-023 TRITAPOE CROP 73.86 12/03/93 10 AD-91-024 TRITAPOE CROP 81.00 12/03/91 10 AD-91-026 CLINE BEEF 65.00 12/03/91 10 AD-91-027 DOWNS CROP 145.00 32/03/91 10 AD-91-028 DOWNS CROP 130.00 12/03/91 10 AD-91-029 DOWNS CROP 118.00 12/03/91 10 AD-91-030 FLOOK DAIRY 280.76 12/03/91 10 AD-91-031 FLOOK DAIRY 126.25 12/03/91 10 AD-91-032 WARNER CROP 79.30 12/16/91 10 AD-91-033 ERNST HOG 143.68 12/03/91 10 AD-91-034 HALLER CROP 23.00 01/08/92 10 AD-91-035 CONOCOCHEAGUE SPORTSMENS FOREST 126.54 02/03/92 10 AD-91-036 MORGAN CROP 134.17 12/16/91 10 AD-91-037 MORGAN FOREST 160.55 12/16/91 10 AD-91-038 MORGAN CROP 152.66 12/16/91 10 AD-91-039 SCOTT DAIRY 227.27 12/03/91 10 AD-91-040 MATHESON BEEF 163.95 01/08/92 10 AD-91-042 BELZ CROP 135.15 01/08/92 10 AD-91-044 BOWMAN DAIRY 175.25 02/28192 10 AD-91-046 SHANK BEEF 134.33 01/08/92 10 AD-91-047 MURPHY DAIRY 309.50 02/12/92 10 AD-91-048 GREEN CROP 145.10 07/07/92 10 AD-91-048A GREEN CROP 49.73 07/07/92 10 AD-91-0488 GREEN CROP 10.45 07/07/92 10 AD-91-049 CHARLES CROP 59.93 03/26/92 10 AD-91-050 WOLFORD DAIRY 119.59 04/06/92 10 AD-91-052 BARNHART CROP 166.77 02/21/92 10 AD-91-053 KEFAUVER DAIRY 167.52 03/26/92 10 AD-91-054 KEFAUVER CROP 114.00 03/26/92 10 AD-91-055 CAVANAUGH DAIRY 237.76 07/03/92 10 AD-91-056 HALL FOREST 30.29 11/16/92 10 AD-91-057 BOWMAN CROP 39.80 07/07/92 10 AD-92-001 LUDLUM FOREST 40.00 12/15/93 10 AD-92-002 WINTERS DAIRY 175.00 09/21/92 10 AD-92-003 WINTERS DAIRY 57.09 09/21/92 10 AD-92-004 SHANK DAIRY 165.00 09/21/92 10 AD-92-005 SHANK CROP 115.90 09/29/92 10 AD-92-006 SHANK CROP 32.10 09/21/92 10 AD-92-007 KENDLE CROP 85.00 12/01/92 10 AD-92-009 WILLIAMS DAIRY 100.75 06/29/93 10 AD-92-010 LEATHER CROP 178.91 03/03/93 10 AD-92-011 ROHRER DAIRY 123.80 06/22/93 10 AD-93-001 CASTLE CROP 56.21 07/12/94 10 AD-94-003 AUSHERMAN DAIRY 176.00 08/10/94 10 AD-94-004 BERGER FOREST 64.02 12/19/94 10 AD-94-005 EBY HOG 120.16 12/19194 10 AD-94-006 TAULTON DAIRY 130.00 12/19/94 10 AD-94-007 HORNBAKER CROP 107.09 12119/94 10 AD-94-008 RINEHART DAIRY 145.39 05/19195 10 AD-94-008A RINEHART DAIRY 96.51 06128/95 10 AD-94-009 RINEHART BEEF 120.41 05/19/95 10 AD-95-001 REEDER DAIRY 180.61 12/08/95 10 AD-95-006 CARBAUGH CROP 190.30 07/24/96 10 AD-95-007 CARBAUGH CROP 199.51 07/24/96 10 AD-96-002 HERSHEY CROP 100.95 03/06/97 10 AD-96-003 GARDENHOUR ORCHARD 153.20 01/07/97 10 AD-96-004 MYERS CROP 142.00 03/06/97 10 AD-96-005 YOUNG CROP 43.00 08/19/97 10 AD-96-006 FISHER CROP 57.00 08/19/97 10 AD-97-001 MORGAN FOREST 24.20 08/39/97 10 AD-97-002 MORGAN FOREST 6.04 08/19/97 10 AD-97-003 CLARK DAIRY 101.00 08/11/97 10 AD-97-004 ARENA CROP 130.20 08/11/97 10 AD-97-005 NORRIS CROP 48.31 08/11/97 10 Records printed: 171 05/15/98 TOTAL 23362.68 file: PAP0LJGY4AGRNAGPRE35PAT.DBF 30 SECTOR/ TYPE SECTOR 1 5 5 0 CM 0 DX 0 IN 1 LL 13 SF 0 TH SECTOR 2 25 2 23 LL 2 SF SECTOR 3 1 1 0 LL 4 SF SECTOR 4 1 0 1 IN 18 SF SECTOR 5 5 0 5 IN 1 LL 1 SF SECTOR 6 3 0 LL 21 SF SUBDIVISIONS BY PLANNING SECTOR FOR PERIOD 07/01/96 THRU 06/30/97 DEVELOPMENT PLATS PLATS TOTAL URBAN RURAL 5 5 0 2 2 0 4 4 0 1 0 1 23 10 13 1 1 0 2 0 2 25 2 23 2 0 2 3 0 3 1 1 0 5 1 4 1 1 0 1 0 1 18 0 18 2 0 2 5 0 5 LOTS TOTAL URBAN RURAL 8 8 0 3 3 0 7 7 0 1 0 1 103 83 20 12 12 0 2 0 2 40 4 36 3 0 3 4 0 4 3 3 0 5 1 4 1 1 0 3 0 3 21 0 21 2 0 2 6 0 6 ACREAGE TOTAL URBAN RURAL i 21.1 21.1 i 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 167.1 167.1 0.0 72.2 0.0 72.2 93.3 48.2 45.1 1.4 1.4 0.0 40.2 0.0 40.2 123.0 6.7 116.4 55.6 0.0 55.6 11.7 0.0 11.7 14.8 14.8 0.0 23.0 0.4 22.6 4.7 4.7 0.0 36.2 0.0 36.2 53.2 0.0 53.2 25.5 0.0 25.5 17.0 0.0 17.0 TOTALS 101 27 74 224 122 102 760.8 265.1 495.7 TYPE BREAKDOWN Cm DX IN LL SF TH TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT PLATS CM COMMERCIAL DX DUPLEX IN INDUSTRIAL LL LARGE LOT SF SINGLE FAMILY TH TOWNHOUSE 31 AVERAGE LOT SIZE URBAN RURAL 2.64 0.20 23.88 72.22 0.58 2.26 0.12 20.12 1.67 3.23 18.53 2.92 4.93 0.43 5.64 4.70 12.08 2.53 12.77 2.83 2.17 4.86 2.64 0.20 16.97 20.89 0.63 2.92 0.12 SUBDIVISION FILE BY PLANNING SECTOR FOR PERIOD 07/01/96 THRU 06/30/97 ELEC ZONE TYPE OF URBAN/ DWELL GROSS APPROVAL SUBDIVISION NAME DIST DIST DEVELOP RURAL LOTS UNITS ACRES DATE PLANNING SECTOR 1 ARTZ FARM LOT 3 10 A CM UG 1 0 5.0 05/12/97 ARTZ FARM LOTS 1 & 2 10 A SF UG 2 2 5.5 10/29/96 BLACK ROCK ESTATES SEC B BLOCK 3 18 A SF -UG 8 8 5.6 04/03/97 BRITNER OLIVER I & ROSE M LOT 1 2 A SF UG 1 1 1.2 10/15/96 BUHRMAN SAMUEL S 9 A SF RA 1 1 1.0 08/29/96 BUHRMAN SAMUEL S ET UX LOTS 20 9 A SF UG 2 2 3.1 10/09/96 BUHRMAN SAMUEL S LOT 4 & PAR A 9 A SF RA 1 1 2.7 12/30/96 BURGESSER SUBDIVISION LOTS 3,4&5 13 A SF RA 3 3 3.3 12/02/96 CORDERMAN LOUISE H LOT 1 18 A SF UG 1 1 2.9 08/16/96 COVENANT PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 18 RR SF UG 2 2 1.5 02/13/97 CREATIVE INVESTMENTSIHARTLE FARM 9 A SF RA 2 2 10.6 05/06/97 EBY KENNETH & FANNIE LOTS 1 & 2 13 A SF UG 1 1 1.8 11/07/96 EVERSOLE ROBERT B LOT 1 2 A SF RA 1 1 1.6 07/30/96 FORSYTH RONALD & BEVERLY 13 A SF RA 1 1 5.1 05/22/97 FORSYTH RONALD LOT 7 PAR. A 13 A SF RA 1 1 5.3 12/02/96 FORSYTH RONALD LOTS 5 & 6 13 A SF RA 2 2 3.1 09/13/96 GHATTAS ENTERPRISES 13 HI CM UG 1 1 2.0 12/12/96 GIANNARIS NICHOLAS A LOT 1 27 RR SF UG 1 1 4.9 09/30/96 HAYMES MARK D LOTS 1 & 2 10 RU DX UG 2 2 0.3 11/08/96 HUNT RIDGE BUSINESS PARK LOT 3 24 HI IN UG 1 1 5.6 09/25/96 HURD BARBARA & JEFF LOT 1 18 A SF RA 1 1 1.2 05/14/97 KEENER MARK F LOT 1 27 RS DX UG 1 2 0.3 06/23/97 KINGS CREST SEC B PHASE 2 18 RS -P SF UG 22 22 2.5 08/19/96 MARSH RUN FARM LOT 2 18 A SF RA 1 1 2.7 03/14/97 MAUGANSVILLE ELEVATOR & LUMBER 13 RR CM UG 2 0 1.5 02/03/97 MCCAULEY RAY LEWIS & DONNA KAY 13 A SF RA 4 4 5.9 11/04/96 MILLER EARL & KATHARINE LOT 1 13 A LL RA 1 1 72.2 06/18/97 NEWGATE IND PARK LOT 2 24 IG IN UG 1 0 30.0 07/30/96 RUST-OLEUM CORPORATION 2 PI IN UG 1 0 8.6 02/03/97 SOUTH POINTE PUD PHASE II BLK B2 10 PD TH UG 12 12 1.4 09/25/96 SOUTHSIDE DEVELOPMENT LOTS 1-2 18 BL CM UG 3 0 11.7 05/05/97 SPICHER CARL E LOT 1 & PAR A 13 A SF RA 1 1 1.5 08/09/96 STAPLES INC 2 HI -1 IN UG 4 0 123.0 07/01/96 STAUCH FAYE LOT 1 MARCUM ESTATE 10 A SF RA 1 1 1.1 12/18/96 STERLING OAKS - PHASE II 26 RR SF UG 43 43 19.3 06/17/97 VANCE JACK LOT 1 10 BG CM UG 1 0 1.0 02/03/97 36 TOTAL FOR PLANNING SECTOR 1 134 122 355.9 PLANNING SECTOR 2 BARR JACQUELINE LOT 1 16 C SF SP 1 1 3.1 04/09/97 BITTINGER CECIL LOT 1 16 C SF RA 1 1 3.5 10/03/96 BROWN DIANE K & ELLEN L GILBERT 6 A SF RA 1 1 1.0 05/14/97 BUTTS JENNIFER D LOT 1 1 A SF RA 1 1 1.9 12/27/96 DUNKIN CHARLES R & HAZEL M LOT 1 19 C 03 SF RA 1 1 2.0 10104/96 FULK DENNIS AND BELINDA 12 A SF RA 1 1 1.3 03/03/97 GLENN JAMES JR & SHARON D LOT 1 1 C SF RA 1 1 4.8 02/05/97 GOWER PEGGY EST. OF LT 7 & PAR B 12 A SF RA 1 1 2.8 08/22/96 GRIFFITH JOHN LOT 2 6 A SF RA 1 1 1.8 08/09/96 KIFER STANLEY L & ROBIN LOT 1 16 C SF RA 1 1 1.0 07/15/96 LUPPI HOBART LOT 1 - 3 16 A SF RA 3 3 27.6 11/04/96 MARTIN EARL T LOT 1 16 C SF RA 1 1 2.0 03/06/97 MOBLEY LEISTER E JR LOT 2 6 A LL RA 1 1 10.4 01/27/97 MYERS MARY LOTS 1 - 3 1 C SF RA 3 3 10.4 12/02/96 MYERS ROBERT N ET UX 20 C SF RA 1 1 4.8 07/25/96 PARRISH CHARLES P & MARY LOT 1 16 A LL RA 1 1 29.8 04/08/97 PERROT VIRGINIA ESTATE LOT 1 12 A SF RA 1 1 2.0 04/07/97 PRICE LEON LOTS 1 -4 1 A SF RA 4 4 4.1 10/07/96 PRYOR EDGAR LOTS 3,4 AND 5 16 A SF UG 3 3 3.6 05/22/97 ROBINSON BRIAN D ET UX LOT 1 12 A SF RA 1 1 6.0 07/22/96 32 33 ELEC ZONE TYPE OF URBAN/ DWELL GROSS APPROVAL SUBDIVISION NAME DIST DIST DEVELOP RURAL LOTS UNITS ACRES DATE SHAULL JAMES LOTS 2 & 3 12 A SF RA 2 2 4.6 01/21/97 SHIFLER JAMES LOT 1 6 A SF RA 1 1 1.2 05/09/97 SINGLE JOHN E LOT 2 6 C SF RA 1 1 3.1 05/23/97 STILES MIKE LOT 3 & PAR E&F 6 A SF RA 1 1 8.6 10/21/96 STONER JAMES R & LOIS O LOT 1 12 A SF RA 1 1 5.9 08/05196 TRAILS OF LITL ANTIETAM LTS 1-6 19 P/O SF RA 6 6 13.0 12/02/96 WASHINGTON FOUR LOT 10 20 A SF RA 1 1 3.0 02/14/97 27 TOTAL FOR PLANNING SECTOR 2 42 42 163.3 PLANNING SECTOR 3 HIGDON RUSSELL & PHYLLIS LOT 1 11 C SF RA 1 1 2.4 07/10/96 JO-DEMAR INC LOT 1 8 C LL RA 1 1 21.3 06/18/97 OAKLEY MARTIN LOTS 3 & 4 11 C LL RA 2 2 34.3 05/08/97 TAULTON ROBERT LOTS 1 & 2 8 C SF RA 2 2 6.3 10/18/96 WHITE OAKS - LOT 5 11 C SF RA 1 1 3.0 02/12/97 5 TOTAL FOR PLANNING SECTOR 3 7 7 67.3 PLANNING SECTOR 4 BUSCHER LOUISE LOT 1 14 C SF RA 1 1 5.0 08/21/96 HOVERMALE RICHARD & TRISHA 14 A SF RA 1 1 4.6 02/07/97 K.K.T.M_ CO INC LOTS 1-3 7 IR IN SM 3 0 14.8 06/02/97 KLINE SHIRLEY V LOT 1 & PARCELA 7 C SF RA 1 1 8.6 07/03/96 WILLIAMS MARTHA LOT 1 7 RR SF SM 1 1 0.4 09/23/96 WOOD THRUSH RIDGE LOT 1 14 C SF RA 1 1 4.4 09/05/96 6 TOTAL FOR PLANNING SECTOR 4 8 5 37.8 PLANNING SECTOR 5 ALBERT EUGENE & GWENDOLYN LOT 5A 4 A SF RA 1 1 1.5 12/20/96 ANDREWS JOHN LOT 3 23 A SF RA 1 1 1.2 02/27/97 BRAGUNIER FARMS SUB LOTS 1 & 2 4 HI SF RA 2 2 2.0 10/09/96 CHANEY PAUL A LOT 1 4 A SF RA 1 1 2.5 08/05/96 DIVELBLISS RICHARD LOTS 1 & 2 4 A SF RA 2 2 2.6 04/17/97 FAITH ADRIAN C LOT 2 4 A SF RA 1 1 1.7 01/31/97 FAITH ADRIAN C LOT 3 4 A SF RA 1 1 1.9 03/10/97 HUYETT BUSINESS PARK LOT 10 23 HI IN UG 1 0 4.7 04/07/97 MASON CAROL LOT 2A 15 C SF RA 1 1 4.1 04/21/97 MEADOWS AT ST.PAUL LOTS 24-26 4 A LL RA 3 3 36.2 01/06/97 MICHAEL ANDREW IV & CONNIE LOT 1 15 HI SF RA 1 1 1.2 10/23196 MICHAEL ANDREW J LOT 7 4 A SF RA 1 1 7.7 09/24/96 MICHAEL DEVELOP LOT 1 15 A SF RA 1 1 3.0 10110196 MULLINIX CHARLES GUY LOT 1 4 A SF RA 1 1 1.9 06/18/97 MYERS SUBDIVISION LOT 10 15 C SF RA 1 1 3.2 09/06/96 ROWE'S RETREAT LOT 1 SECT 1 23 A SF RA 1 1 5.9 02/20/97 ROWLAND ANNA LOUISE MRS 4 C SF RA 2 2 6.7 03/17/97 ROWLAND ANNA LOUISE PARCEL B 4 C SF RA 1 1 1.9 09/24/96 SCHNEBLY SETH K & GENEVIEVE G 23 A SF RA 1 1 1.4 08/12/96 WOLFORD JOSEPH T JR LOT 1 15 C SF RA 1 1 3.0 09/25/96 20 TOTAL FOR PLANNING SECTOR 5 25 24 94.1 PLANNING SECTOR. 6 BRADLEY RALPH C JR LOT 1 OD 5 A SF RA 1 1 2.3 01/20/97 FLOWERS DAVID SUBDIVISION 5 A SF RA 1 1 1.3 03/14/97 HENDERSHOT EVA M LOT 2 5 C LL RA 1 1 15.0 03/03/97 MANN BELVIN LOT 1 5 C SF RA 1 1 3.0 10/17196 MOUNTAIN VALE LOT 2 & 2A 5 A SF RA 2 2 7.1 11/19/96 SHIVES RONALD & RUTH ANN LOT 1 5 C LL RA 1 1 10.5 07/29/96 WELLER, GLADYS LOT 3 5 A SF RA 1 1 3.3 01/06/97 7 TOTAL FOR PLANNING SECTOR 6 8 8 42.5 101 GRAND TOTAL 224 208 760.8 33 34 rn li rn r � I a m L i� - O U) rn a� a E CO o r r � VJCD o � M Yw > cri CD c L EN � Q ' N CD r � U I L E E ' O 'U I s li 0 as rn CD _I I LO o ' o N r r S��Id 34 35 j I CM � I CM r ca CD d'y cn iN o_ rn rn r J � E T 1 7O � ca CD IW I 1� :C N 03 Y �U L E �U r rn rn r — i I I o rn i i rn r 0 CD 0 0 o a 0 oco r coo S}0l 35 36 ti i i i C N I� LO i 61 cu �- U Q rn ❑ �- CO 3 N f5 ,U i U I C CD � O i O O O O O N fn O 10 r saaoy 36 AINnoo ,w omw 4 t e � � 3 1 n� � I Ix ol Ilk z z_ LLI l 3 3 ICE� CD { CRY Ch CL C 0 LU o CD co o c-q a4' N CR HcoLLI `i z 40 OLLI v+PV 4-J a�Ac9� t0 C- CV M O O O O (� O O L7 O ca c3)¢M 41 r W ; m a tlo. Cs� M N t LLAiNnOO v n w rc a�� a o s a z 0 T 0 0 � 0 1 R 4 4 R 4 4 4 4 v� U AIN= ANVOTM EY b, •rim � '�' � 91 0 CD co Ma t(,D x CD —6 0 0 < � Z oio ol°IeEo€ "jofQ g! Z; !� ojm a!A �fm fl4 I I �� I ij i 1 I I E E i M I0I Fl � z= m a.,i , x �l Fi ij . .i al H� iE di a of a sic dj vj ;6 a I 'I WI wi I [ AA Lai �oja alajolajo oj"io oie oiioio elf dio a a!�I �m Ul llll� i Aa1 a 41 a3 a a3 a al .s� m C � � E C y CL opY� _0 a I Y�Q ci 13 �J `f •rim � '�' � 91 0 CD co Ma t(,D x CD —6 0 0 < � Z oio ol°IeEo€ "jofQ g! Z; !� ojm a!A �fm fl4 I I �� I ij i 1 I I E E i M I0I Fl � z= m a.,i , x �l Fi ij . .i al H� iE di a of a sic dj vj ;6 a I 'I WI wi I [ AA Lai �oja alajolajo oj"io oie oiioio elf dio a a!�I �m Ul llll� i Aa1 a 41 a3 a a3 a al .s�