Contested waiver for Maple Ridge Station triggers debate over historic-review process; transcript shows conflicting vote records

Planning commissioners on Thursday debated a developer’s request to waive a county rule meant to route certain projects near historic sites to the Historical Landmarks Commission and the State Historic Preservation Office.

Planning staff said the waiver application concerns Maple Ridge Station, a proposed commercial subdivision on roughly 58 acres that includes a planned 33,100-square-foot multi-bay vehicle and truck maintenance facility. Staff noted the site sits near a property at 1812 Hedgesville Road listed on the National Register of Historic Places but recommended approval with a condition that the applicant provide a 25-foot residential-to-commercial buffer and required screening at concept-plan submission.

The applicant and his representative, including an engineer from Fox & Associates, told the commission the project lies in the county’s designated growth area and that they had secured a letter of support from the owner of the historic property. The applicant, who identified himself as the owner of Martinsburg Service Center, said the January 2025 ordinance change that added Section 512 delayed his development and has caused financial harm. “I paid $2.1 million for this property and now they’re telling me I possibly can’t build anything on it,” he said, describing 15 months of delay and saying the project is needed to expand his business.

Members of the Historical Landmarks Commission, who said they had not received an application, urged that the local review proceed. “We haven’t received an application,” said Susan, a landmarks commissioner, when asked whether her commission had a recommendation.

Legal counsel told the commission he did not see a legal bar to granting a waiver but acknowledged the interpretation could be disputed. The exchange centered on whether the Planning Commission may grant a waiver before the landmarks commission or SHPO (State Historic Preservation Office) have reviewed the project.

Record votes in the transcript are inconsistent. The transcript records a 3–2 vote described as approving a motion to deny the waiver; shortly after, the minutes record a separate motion to approve that is also recorded as passing 3–2. The transcript contains procedural confusion and competing voice counts; the planning commission’s official minutes and any clarifying motion language should be consulted to resolve the discrepancy.

The Commission’s stated condition for approval — if the waiver were granted — was that the applicant provide required buffer and screening when concept and detailed plans for specific lots are submitted.

Next steps: the transcript shows the commission took recorded votes late in the Maple Ridge Station discussion; the meeting record is unclear about the final procedural posture. The applicant said he needs to proceed to develop his business and asked the board to consider the economic impact of delay. Planning staff said they would follow the ordinance process and noted that the project is consistent with the county’s growth-area mapping.