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

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.