HAGERSTOWN – The Hagerstown mayor and council indicated during the Nov. 18 work session that they will proceed with approving a rezoning request for a large property on Day Road after determining that a mistake was made during the city’s last comprehensive zoning update.
The case involves approximately 93 acres at 19112 Day Road, a site currently split between two zoning categories: Neighborhood Mixed Use and Commercial General. The property owner’s applicant aims to rezone about 22 acres of the Commercial General area to Neighborhood Mixed Use so that the entire developable land has a consistent designation.
Deputy Director for Planning & Zoning Administration Stephen Brockmiller briefed the council during the work session, explaining the history, the applicant’s argument and the conditions associated with the request. According to Brockmiller, the rezoning is not meant to introduce a new zoning category to the site. Instead, it would simply expand the existing Neighborhood Mixed Use boundary across the area in question.
To approve a rezoning, the council must determine that the applicant has met one of two allowable criteria: a change in the neighborhood’s character or a mistake in the current zoning. During the briefing, Brockmiller noted that the applicant relied entirely on the second argument.
“They made no argument about the change in the character of the neighborhood,” Brockmiller said. “They relied entirely on mistakes.”
The applicant’s contract purchaser is seeking certainty about the zoning classification before finalizing the land transaction. The seller, identified as the Harrison estate, supports the rezoning but asked the city to delay implementation until after the sale is complete. According to staff, the estate does not want the rezoning to take effect if the contract fails to close.
Brockmiller explained that the request reflects a concern that the zoning line was drawn in the wrong place during the last comprehensive update, which is more recent than older zoning maps that could justify a change-in-character argument.
Councilmember Kristen Alshire said the case was challenging because the applicant’s argument focused specifically on a line placement rather than on broader land use patterns.
“It’s almost like they’re saying, ‘City, you shouldn’t have put the line here, you should have put the line there,’” Alshire said. He added that the concern was whether the city would be “spot zoning” based on a particular developer’s preferred plan rather than on citywide planning logic.
Brockmiller reiterated that the site has only two zoning classifications today and that the change would not introduce a new use but instead extend the existing pattern more consistently across the property.
Council members also discussed the alternative argument that the character of the dual highway area has changed substantially over the decades and that the applicant could have selected that route. Alshire noted that the corridor “is not the dual highway of 1978” and has changed significantly. However, Brockmiller confirmed that the applicant did not pursue the character-change argument, instead framing the request solely as a correction to a past mapping error.
After discussing the seller’s condition and the applicant’s rationale, council members agreed on the record that a zoning mistake had occurred. Brockmiller then asked for guidance on preparing the formal decision.
“Just so we’re clear for the record, what is good?” he asked. “You all are determining that a mistake was made. Therefore, we can draft up a decision order using that terminology.”
Council members agreed and instructed staff to prepare the decision and order for a future regular session vote. The rezoning would take effect only after the property officially transfers to the contract purchaser.
