[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6104054,"mediaKeyId","2792586-1d7c3fe66e7b518489f73550ba51a6ce","parentId",2792586,"title","Hagerstown holds public hearing on Dowd Farm PUD amid resident concerns about access and infrastructure","audioSeconds",705,"startMs",2535000,"endMs",3240000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2792586-1d7c3fe66e7b518489f73550ba51a6ce&start=2535&end=3240","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2792586-1d7c3fe66e7b518489f73550ba51a6ce/thumbnail_2535000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6104054/Hagerstown/Washington-County/Maryland/Hagerstown-holds-public-hearing-on-Dowd-Farm-PUD-amid-resident-concerns-about-access-and-infrastructure","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6104054-c2b22f00f1c654b3150f1d76c96b83c5/orig.mp4?Expires=1770826605&Signature=a3lW9hssrDm90SHGkTQ-yuwkGICnhhH3LR3onuHIHI1A5dvICJjEQclwgAESNzAc1TrxigdfZSsgd69fhK1miQux5h0WrZ7I3zJa4sKV4LEtTTXZdRR9P7SjavQCHQgLXdfMHbxe80kf5kHaFvlETpV7epTj-pT427eU3ee05vkygSY--bJYRIY0vm1EPyGtv6gn5QPGHtyH7sEGAsdpCVi0QKpmPZqUTGL0v-EIgwXUy1ivPcGY5QOb15pDsI2WZCkLZr32aVZE0IoA1TwQgXsTlN6GArtX2zKOPciRd5EXPBa4J~HfjDrRkGbsSPTycNJLiu1DxDsmpC7gkJWVYA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Hagerstown, MD","date","2025-03-26T02:36:30Z","article","The Hagerstown Mayor and City Council heard hours of testimony March 25 on a proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay for the Dowd Farm property, a roughly 12-acre site bordered by Landis Road and I‑70/US‑40. The Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the plan at its public review meeting; city staff kept the public comment record open for 10 days and scheduled a follow-up workshop on April 8.

The PUD application would rezone the annexed property from Commercial Regional to a PUDR overlay that the applicant says would allow a mix of single-family homes, townhomes, apartments, commercial pads and a small commercial‑industrial area, plus a central 2.2‑acre green. Zoning staff warned the mayor and council the decision must be discretionary and supported by findings of fact under the Land Management Code.

Planning staff summary and developer presentations explained the proposal and the key issues. Steven Bockbell, Hagerstown zoning administrator, said the PUD process is a zoning action that approves a general zoning exhibit and that detailed engineering, stormwater, forest conservation and traffic studies come later in subdivision and site‑plan review. Paul Flynn, attorney for the applicant, described the site as “an enormous opportunity” and said the development would be mixed‑use by value; Flynn said the applicant estimates about 53% of the project value will be in nonresidential pieces and argued that the commercial components must be sized to succeed.

Engineer Gordon Poffenberger told the council a traffic study prepared for the proposed layout was approved by the Maryland State Highway Administration on Nov. 26 and by county reviewers on Feb. 5; he said requests from reviewing agencies included turning‑lane storage and roadway widening on segments of Landis Road. Poffenberger said the city's pump station capacity has been sized to accommodate anticipated flows.

The Planning Commission recommended denial after a December public review meeting. The commission cited three principal concerns: (1) the commission concluded the plan did not appear to be predominantly nonresidential as required by Article 4, Section J1 of the Land Management Code; (2) uncertainty whether the planned connection from the site to Dual Highway (the southern access) would be built if much of the property developed as single‑family homes and townhomes; and (3) there was no practical compliance tool short of a large bond to guarantee the road would be built. Planning staff estimated the road connection's construction cost at more than $5,000,000.

Many nearby residents and community representatives told the council they oppose the plan as proposed. Concerns raised in public testimony included traffic volumes on Landis Road and potential peak‑hour congestion (one commenter cited Institute of Transportation Engineers figures and questioned a low 240‑vehicles‑per‑hour estimate), pedestrian safety where sidewalks are missing, emergency‑response access, school capacity and utility capacity. Residents also said the site’s current rural character and the density of the proposed plan were mismatched with the surrounding neighborhood. Several speakers asked that the new road to Dual Highway be constructed before or early in development rather than being deferred to later phases.

Developers and their consultants said the owners already hold adjacent parcels needed for the Dual Highway connection, and Flynn said the owners have spent millions acquiring the properties required for that linkage and are contractually proposing to dedicate the right‑of‑way and to build the road by year 10, and to require its construction before pulling commercial building permits. Flynn argued that phasing the development to allow early residential construction is necessary to generate revenue needed to complete infrastructure and that forcing the developer to build all infrastructure up front could cause projects to stall. Flynn said the applicant wants assurance the commercial portion will be economically viable and not “fail midstream.”

The council kept the record open for 10 calendar days for additional written submissions to planning staff and noted that any approval of a PUD overlay would need to be reconciled with the existing annexation agreement for the property; staff told the council the annexation agreement would have to be amended to reflect any new commitments before a final zoning approval could be adopted.

Mayor and council members said they would review the written record, the planning commission file and the traffic and utility analyses before the April 8 workshop where staff will present recommended next steps.

The council did not vote to approve or deny the PUD at the March 25 meeting; the public hearing record remains open for 10 days and the matter remains under review.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","March 25, 2025 | Mayor & Council Meeting: Regular Session","oneSentenceSummary","The Hagerstown Mayor and City Council heard hours of testimony March 25 on a proposed PUD overlay for the Dowd Farm property, a roughly 12‑acre site bordered by Landis Road and I‑70/US‑40.","taxTitle","Hagerstown, Washington County, Maryland","taxId",4678,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6104034,"Votes at a glance: Hagerstown council actions from the March 25 regular session",704,10611000,11315000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2792586-1d7c3fe66e7b518489f73550ba51a6ce&start=10611&end=11315","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2792586-1d7c3fe66e7b518489f73550ba51a6ce/thumbnail_10611000.jpg","/articles/6104034/Hagerstown/Washington-County/Maryland/Votes-at-a-glance-Hagerstown-council-actions-from-the-March-25-regular-session","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6104034-96c339131fc7d5a55615a310fe12315f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770826605&Signature=G5uK-npo7aJFILvwOUjE3138eATBpBI9-MydOKFw4UzMsDIdF7OOYwqFT~JLuc4T0BUF65WPdWinnJtc~DoDjLI9gkVDghH86Y3fQ15yMIt5bvj1NQ6XHwT8IO34oXkoxGLdlO8cubkDvMUDBR7jZ9Ht3LVKJyY-b5~YDd1RRwkeM7FqIrK80vQJO4zq55e8CQk1oPLiOC5AZkYbGnMzGY7S9QfsXFxvmxPxdHocfiIM-HR1UPwJX9jNAus4ax6kG-~GsYGDiJpQbCzyvIMmvIG1JshncImJd7Hpgu342oMoLglJq3iL9uA3jBnG~rGT7JCjkL0V1tXM8LXIfQpyZw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At its March 25 regular session the Hagerstown Mayor and City Council approved a slate of ordinances, resolutions and administrative actions. Below is a concise, verified list of items acted on at the meeting, with the outcome recorded at the time of the vote. Where the transcript did not record roll‑call totals by name the minutes show the motions were moved, seconded and the chair called for a voice vote; the clerk recorded each motion as passed when the council answered \"Aye.\"

Votes and outcomes recorded March 25 (motions approved unless noted):

- Reenact Land Management Code (version 3.12): approved. (Ordinance to repeal and reenact Chapter 140; staff described this as the 2024 annual revisions.)

- Amend Tax Sale Property Repurpose Program (Chapter 224): approved (amendments broaden nonprofit definition, clarify withholding properties from tax sale, codify end‑user selection, good‑standing and zoning nonconformity timelines while city owns property).

- Amend property maintenance standards (Chapter 64, Article 3): approved (adds definitions and authority for abatement related to unsafe/abandoned swimming pools).

- Quit‑claim portion of unimproved alley at rear of 528 East Franklin Street: approved (conveyance to adjoining property; staff recorded prior 1973 council action but no deed recorded then).

- Introduce and move forward Chapter 186 (nuisance abandoned vehicles): introduced; council approved introduction for consideration (adds process for city abatement and owner notification; ordinance introduced for later adoption).

- Quit‑claim a portion of Alley No. 135 (adjacent to Washington County Transit properties) for future facility expansion: approved (motion passed).

- Authorize perpetual and permanent easement(s) for water lines with Bowman/Spiellman developers (two related resolutions reflected in the minutes): approved (easements to construct/maintain water facilities near Spielman and Lapins roads in Williamsport area—recorded as two similar resolutions).

- Adopt special event parking rates for Hub City Garage and University District Parking Deck (pilot): approved (Hub City $10; University deck $5 when staff expects Hub City occupancy 75%+ for Meredith Park events).

- Accept a public pedestrian sidewalk easement from Habitat for Humanity for McCleary Hill / West Washington Street: approved.

- Authorize summer camp program contracts and funding allocations to operators (Boys & Girls Club, Girls Inc., Hagerstown YMCA, Robert W. Johnson Community Center): approved (funding amounts listed in staff memorandum).

- Approve fireworks schedule (ten scheduled flying boxcars fireworks shows; council exempted those dates from noise ordinance as requested): approved.

- Authorize submittal of two projects for FY26 Appalachian Regional Commission funding (Hager House Museum phase 2 and comprehensive plan update): authorized for submission to county.

- Approve extension of Invest Hagerstown City Center redevelopment grant for 25–31 West Church Street to April 1, 2026 (final extension): approved.

- Approve contract with Submittable Holdings, Inc. for an application management portal (three‑year contract ~ $54,947): approved.

- Approve sanitary sewer service deduction request (45 West Oak Ridge Drive) consistent with city code: approved.

- Approve FY26–28 pavement preservation street lists: approved.

Each of the above motions was moved, seconded and recorded as passed by voice vote in the meeting minutes. The transcript does not record roll‑call vote totals by council member name for most items; where a formal introduction (rather than final adoption) occurred the item was scheduled for further consideration as noted on the agenda.

For documents, ordinance text, adopted resolutions or staff memos related to any item above, the city clerk’s office and planning department retain the official files; interested parties may request the full minutes, ordinances, or staff reports referenced in the March 25 record.","The council adopted multiple ordinances and resolutions in a single meeting, including a reenacted Land Management Code, tax‑sale property program changes, property‑maintenance and abandoned‑vehicle measures, parking and fireworks approvals, summer camp contracts and various easements and administrative contracts.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6104040,"Downtown business owners urge flat parking rates for game nights; council adopts special‑event pricing for Hub City and University decks",9587,1444000,11031000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2792586-1d7c3fe66e7b518489f73550ba51a6ce&start=1444&end=11031","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2792586-1d7c3fe66e7b518489f73550ba51a6ce/thumbnail_1444000.jpg","/articles/6104040/Hagerstown/Washington-County/Maryland/Downtown-business-owners-urge-flat-parking-rates-for-game-nights-council-adopts-specialevent-pricing-for-Hub-City-and-University-decks","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6104040-c006911ce5970ad316db862e20dc7807/orig.mp4?Expires=1770826605&Signature=gmkNdms9G3oFLdK-TTKo8fKo4ghq3ik36FIaLHgNSbZ3DT3Htt7ULn-bcz-Rf1emvvOZ04HcBIQPqsnfQK93s0gidPZj9Y1Nyp0XJPMBep4rDqrUB9HN0VLZqcyOZtyuLj6vMh-3-VSIASvo1dffZIAh-7tx3EEIM8hw8MmFvTC3QkO0wrVjqWVUcffY6LGy7gSOzitYthxH2-ECL--qGi7mpojC7S1g7nt70rhnwQRmVVweCwQZoVP63rwVZnvNTahEGuTX6TNXF52lCsdGCSMTLTLgZqb96Q1Izki6hBOO3lGJTTAboVo5jrIGPShIZe-rgADPf1PaN1c14dvdog__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Business owners and the Chamber of Commerce urged the mayor and council March 25 to adopt flat parking rates for downtown event nights to keep visitors downtown longer and reduce turnover. The council later approved a special‑event parking resolution establishing higher flat rates for Hub City Garage and a lower flat rate for the University deck when staff anticipates event occupancy of 75 percent or more.

Local business owner who identified himself as Schmidt (address given; owns multiple downtown businesses) told the council he supports the flying boxcars flat rate but asked the council to consider raising the Hub City deck to $15 on event nights, move the A&E deck to $10 and keep the University deck at $5. He argued a flat event rate encourages visitors to stay longer and that game nights account for about 20 percent of parking days but that the city should also study weekend and evening flat‑rate programs to help the other 80 percent of downtown business days.

Paul Fry, representing the Chamber of Commerce and the business community, said the Chamber supports the council’s work on event flat rates and asked to be scheduled for a work session to review more data and metrics. Staff and the mayor acknowledged coordination with City Administrator Scott Niesmore’s team on next steps.

Later in the meeting the council adopted a resolution establishing special event parking rates for two downtown decks: $10 in the Hub City Garage (50 West Antietam St.) and $5 in the University District Parking Deck (25 North Potomac St.) when staff anticipates Meredith Park events will occupy 75 percent or more of Hub City Garage. The special event rate will override the decks’ usual posted rates for those events.

Councilmembers and staff said they would continue to gather data and invited the Chamber and downtown stakeholders to participate in a work session.","Business representatives asked the council for flat parking rates on game nights and for Wednesday–weekend flat rates; council approved a special‑event parking schedule that sets Hub City Garage at $10 and the University deck at $5 when staff expects 75%+ occupancy due to Meredith Park events.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6104044,"City hears proposal to loosen commercial performance standards in Professional Office‑Mixed zone to allow outdoor recreation",109,1725000,1834000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2792586-1d7c3fe66e7b518489f73550ba51a6ce&start=1725&end=1834","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2792586-1d7c3fe66e7b518489f73550ba51a6ce/thumbnail_1725000.jpg","/articles/6104044/Hagerstown/Washington-County/Maryland/City-hears-proposal-to-loosen-commercial-performance-standards-in-Professional-OfficeMixed-zone-to-allow-outdoor-recreation","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6104044-8726f0e264926eaea62a21afd4669c4e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770826605&Signature=SOBDRI1N8zIPdyrw84o~9iG-C9E08fhfW1Z9ZRnoqxQEaJ87JCeiSf7jGC-M9pU9zNXMlcXJzrkHkVeOEIHtzkywyKF0y2HBaXsgn58OMeVpo4X9AHkQlpYu9GTXE3DqbFpaubaUAAFnbMhFlF2uPcNAjLRCF~DMW4edELc91M9GLKuShdeDDbrGxljFmVZ93dHvR8pQKCodT7rvnbQh03-j6aGd-V8Cq9Dzp3KjDfMCUbZcKeOiedP5hHCkaZvYWsm99qMD5jv3vHddWQoAJ2F4qTJN4PkP8zJMXhGJkYTGjzdJ5ib5ZmN~ZG-1AagfQn1tBOHMs8w32xJc80vAgw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Planning staff presented a proposed text amendment (ZT2024‑04) March 25 to modify permitted commercial uses and outdoor recreation in the Professional Office‑Mixed (POM) zoning district. Joanna Wu, who introduced the case, said the changes respond to property‑owner interest in attracting prospects and specifically mentioned allowing pickleball courts as an outdoor recreation use.

Wu said the amendment would remove performance standards set out in Section F of the city zoning ordinance and update the use chart in Section Z, while keeping caps on restaurants and retail at the same levels required in the Commercial‑Local (CL) district to avoid high‑intensity uses in POM. The proposal would also distinguish fitness/recreational sports centers with outdoor courts and fields from those without: facilities with outdoor courts/fields in POM and IMU zoning would require a special exception from the Board of Zoning Appeals.

The Planning Commission held a public review meeting on Jan. 29 and recommended approval; Wu entered the certificate of advertisement for case BT2024‑04 into the record. The council left the record open for the standard 10‑day period for written comment and scheduled a follow‑up discussion on April 8.

No vote was taken on March 25; the council will consider written comments and staff analysis at the April 8 workshop.","A land‑use text amendment (ZT2024‑04) would remove certain performance standards in the Professional Office‑Mixed (POM) zone to allow more commercial uses, including outdoor recreation such as pickleball courts; the Planning Commission recommended approval and the council kept the public record open for 10 days.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6104049,"Hagerstown staff outlines proposed cannabis zoning changes, highlights state constraints",533,1877000,2410000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2792586-1d7c3fe66e7b518489f73550ba51a6ce&start=1877&end=2410","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2792586-1d7c3fe66e7b518489f73550ba51a6ce/thumbnail_1877000.jpg","/articles/6104049/Hagerstown/Washington-County/Maryland/Hagerstown-staff-outlines-proposed-cannabis-zoning-changes-highlights-state-constraints","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6104049-6b682163f373585d16f4fe39f20a9de9/orig.mp4?Expires=1770826605&Signature=aKw5t8ZftuV1yNkKG4~Fl8~roLJM6HTuJ4lLpgpJXeI8WlhnfoF9Yx0u1tdzSqj9JpEjX46vRDsyIEeerWIZ64y8rXTZBk3LXbaoXEIWiaX7cazsxmGkLqTcbEtNuo0evnlYTTcnsV-NfjW8XJu6CNO0REOeVNayIjK5NFSl92F0NeTpqy1RsjCgs69CfRDsJqYtXH3FECLgl5FnDi7WyfdX-TZeI-cZQz~2kQa6M6k3ffBpkAIOM3xReFk7ymSlw29rEozUA3hhQg4JalBE57-m2f8c~NssTyrVy5eIa~VtnARZVkOwM1l37er8zGkJ6NVW2wYDYw8RklgffbfqGQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Planning staff presented a package of proposed text amendments March 25 that would change how several cannabis‑related uses are treated under Hagerstown’s Land Management Code. The amendments were presented at a public hearing and will return for further discussion at a workshop on April 8; the public record remains open for 10 days.

Kathy Marr, the city’s planning director, summarized the proposed package. Major elements include defining cannabis “incubators” (state‑licensed facilities that can house micro growers, microprocessors and micro dispensaries), creating a separate CBD/hemp retail category, and revising where indoor plant‑cultivation and processing facilities may locate. The draft would remove indoor cultivation and processing from downtown zoning districts such as CCMU and POM because of odor concerns; those uses would remain permitted in more industrial or mixed‑use zones (IMU, IR, IG) or be allowed in a PUDR with specific design buffering.

Marr said the package aligns zoning rules with recent state law changes that both expand new licensed enterprise types (microenterprises and incubators) and constrain local authority in certain ways. Under state direction, local governments may not “unreasonably restrict” locations of licensed growers, processors and dispensaries. Marr told the council the draft uses a 500‑foot separation requirement between cannabis dispensaries (and similar retail categories including alcohol and tobacco stores) and a set of “protected community uses” such as schools, licensed day‑care providers, playgrounds, libraries, parks and religious sanctuaries. The 500‑foot distance matches the separation the Maryland Alcoholic Beverage Commission typically applies to alcohol license reviews; Marr noted state law caps any local separation at 2,640 feet and the city is using 500 feet.

Marr provided counts of existing enterprises in city zoning districts: three indoor cultivators/processing facilities (in IR/IG), two cannabis dispensaries (in CR), 18 alcohol beverage retail stores (15 on CG/CR), seven tobacco sales stores and two CBD/hemp stores. She said existing, nonconforming enterprises would remain legal unless they remain vacant for two years, consistent with city code.

A commenter asked whether local adoption conflicts with federal law. A resident identified as a commenter argued that because cannabis remains illegal under federal law, it presents a legal conflict with the oath public officials take to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Planning staff replied that state law and the city’s zoning authority control local land‑use regulation; the city’s proposed amendments are intended to align local rules with state statutory direction.

Staff entered the Planning Commission’s report and the certificate of advertisement into the record. The council did not vote on the amendments March 25; staff will accept written comments for 10 days and return with a workshop discussion April 8.","City staff presented a package of cannabis‑related text amendments that would define new uses (incubators, CBD/hemp stores), revise where indoor cultivation is allowed, and set 500‑foot separation rules aligned with state law. Planning staff scheduled a follow-up discussion April 8.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Hagerstown holds public hearing on Dowd Farm PUD amid resident concerns about access and infrastructure

Votes at a glance: Hagerstown council actions from the March 25 regular session

Downtown business owners urge flat parking rates for game nights; council adopts special‑event pricing for Hub City and University decks

City hears proposal to loosen commercial performance standards in Professional Office‑Mixed zone to allow outdoor recreation

Hagerstown staff outlines proposed cannabis zoning changes, highlights state constraints