Planners approve Pangborn site plan

November 14, 2002|by SCOTT BUTKI

HAGERSTOWN - The Hagerstown Planning Commission Wednesday approved a site plan for a proposed development in which 60 triplex units would be built adjacent to Pangborn Park.

Part of the development, which would stretch on Pangborn Boulevard from the park to Security Road, would be built on top of an overgrown parking lot for the park.

The units would be subdivided for home ownership, according to the plan by developers Richard McCleary and David Lyles.

The commission also voted to recommend the Hagerstown City Council waive a requirement that the development include one acre of open space provided the developers give land to the city so it can build parking spaces for the park.


"This is a good compromise," Economic Development Coordinator Deborah Everhart told the commission.

Under the proposal, the city would get enough land to build 16 parking spaces in exchange for the city building a sidewalk along Pangborn Boulevard.

The project is a revision of an earlier proposal that was rejected by the council in May. The council turned down a request by McCleary and Lyles to grant a special zoning designation so they could build 28 townhouses and 48 apartment units in three apartment buildings.

The developers needed a special zoning designation called a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to build apartments and townhouses there. Without council approval of the PUD, construction is limited by the current residential zoning designation on the property.

The council vote to deny the request was 4-1, with Councilman N. Linn Hendershot in the minority. Hendershot said the park needs the 1.5 acres next to it that would have been given to the city under the developers' proposal. The property could have been used as a public parking lot.

Hendershot said Wednesday he was pleased to hear about the new proposal to address the parking problem. He was not at the planning commission meeting.

"It is great news," he said.

Lyles is on the Hagerstown Planning Commission, but did not participate in its discussion of the proposed development.

The Herald-Mail Articles